Causation and Correlation: confusion or simplification

 

     We often encounter statements in the media of the nature "X causes Y". "G is the cause of Q". "You need to stop H or Q will happen."

     Of course, the rejoinder often is "She did H and Q never happened." or "I have Xed all of my life and Y has never entered into the picture."

     This isn't to say that X, G, or H are not things that are detrimental to health, or the economy, or the environment, or whatever other category it may be applied to. It is just a matter that, as is true of many other situations applied to health, politics, religion, and so forth the use of the word "cause" is not accurate.

     Simplification is not, in itself, a bad thing. Simplification can help in describing something for a wide audience with widely different backgrounds and experiences. Simplification should be recognized as such and not be considered "the whole truth". As mentioned in a prior blog, the Body Mass Index (BMI) number is a good analysis of healthy weight for about 80% of the population. And, as long as the 20% is not penalized via use of the BMI, it is not a bad thing. Unfortunately, easily obtained numbers often get misused -- on purpose or out of lack of effort.

     As mentioned in the previous blog, if you take two large, truly random, groups of people then you can statistically compare the groups when one group has something done and the "control group" has not. This group had H. The control group did not have H. Five percent more of the group with H developed Q compared to the group. Is five percent a significant difference? It depends on group sizes and confidence in the comparability of the two groups. Beyond that, the actual number where it becomes "statistically significant" should be done by a statistician (which I am not).

     At this point, perhaps it is determined that it IS statistically significant. The media, in their desire to inform but strong tendency to oversimplify, will shout "H causes Q!" But what about all those other people in either group that did not develop Q?

     If I hit an unshielded thumb, placed on a concrete slab with no protections (note the careful listing of conditions) and hit it hard with a hammer, it will cause pain and it will cause an injury (of varying seriousness depending on additional factors). In this situation, since it will happen to anybody who is in this scenario, we can say "hitting an unprotected thumb on a concrete slab with a hammer causes pain and injury". No exceptions, if you do A it causes B.

     Note, there can always be something that is not specified that might make this not true. What if the thumb was part of a strong prosthetic hand? What if the concrete slab had not set yet and the hand and thumb went into the concrete when the hammer hit? But in the everyday world, you can say that hitting the thumb with a hammer causes pain and injury. You can say that the earth's rotation causes the appearance of the sun coming up over the horizon to the east. In each case, causing is (for all practical purposes) 100% true for the specified situation.

     In these situations it is also very important to be specific. For example, there is the statement that "burning fossil fuels causes an increase in carbon dioxide and other waste products in the atmosphere". Seems obviously true, doesn't it? But, what if the factory had a carbon dioxide "scrubber" on the stack and a reclamation chamber prior to release of particulates to the atmosphere? So, a much more accurate (and something that can be addressed in more ways) statement is "burning fossil fuels without adequate filtering and reclamation causes an increase in carbon dioxide and other waste products in the atmosphere". It isn't the burning of the fossil fuels that is the foundational problem -- it is the non-cleansed release of the  exhaust products. Possible solutions increase. We can change fuels or we can install filtration and reclamation remedies.

     In the situation where the group with H had Q develop 5% more often than the group without H, it is NOT true that "H causes Q" no matter how much the media, or others, want to simplify the situation. What we have here is a correlation. A correlation can be insignificant (below the threshold of what the statisticians consider to be significant), significant (at threshold), moderately significant, or strongly significant between H and Q developing. But it cannot accurately be said that "H causes Q".

     And, the inaccurate use of cause in saying "H causes Q" reduces credibility of the message.

Free market achievement: A lack of control variables

 

     Academic, laboratory, and commercial studies have a common difficulty. In order to obtain valid conclusions about the specific factor, or quality, that is the focus of the study all other relevant factors must be kept constant. These constants are called control variables. If there are unidentified variables which might affect measurements or there are relevant variables that cannot be sufficiently taken into account, the measurements of the target factor do not necessarily support any conclusion. The measurements might not be due to the factors under study.

     This is true for studies on disease (possible environmental aspects -- known or unknown, genetic background, emotional and mental attitudes), social mediation techniques (lead contamination or other physical harmful aspects, social networks, personal history, etc.), sports, business success, or any other area in which a specific outcome is to be measured and quantified.

     It is currently popular for some to indicate that a person's outcome (physical, economic, education, social, business, ...) is due solely to their ability and their efforts. So, in this case, there are variables -- ability and efforts -- and measured outcomes (in the physical arena, educational achievements, business success, etc.) The harder you work and the more able you are, the better will be your results. And that is very likely true -- though luck (occurrences that you have no direct, or indirect, control over) will always play a part in the results.

     Once again, an individual, depending on luck, will be able to do better if they have greater ability and work harder.

     That conclusion is not possible when you compare two different individuals. If one person is just as able and works just as hard as another then they should be able to do as well? This is faulty logic -- there are too many variables that are not under control.

     It is similar to comparing two racers -- one of which is one foot from the finish line and has no obstacles and the other is a mile from the finish line with hurdles, landmines, broken glass, and dangerous animals attacking them along the way.

     What types of variables are not under control?

• Family income -- can they afford training/help/schooling?
  
  
• Family interaction and encouragement -- do they have encouragement, "cheerleaders", role models?
  
  
• Peer values -- is the goal of value to friends and associates?
  
  
• Biases and prejudices -- does everyone around them give them equal opportunities to achieve the goal?
  
  
• Physical health and environment -- have they had sufficient, and proper, food growing up? Have there been any inescapable toxic substances in their environment?
  
  
• Neighborhood -- includes peer values but also is it safe around their neighborhood? Do they have the opportunities needed to prepare themselves to achieve the goal?
  
  
• Factors X, Y, and Z -- like any other study, there are possibly other factors that vary between two people that are important in the achievement of the goal.

     It is possible to have a statistical conclusion when you compare equally varied pools of people. If you have large enough pools, the control variables will tend to average out between the two groups. But not for two individuals.

     People have achieved, and continue to achieve, fantastic things no matter how much the deck has been dealt against them. Working hard is always a positive factor. Striving to do one's best and to continue to improve must help in the journey to the goal.

     But comparing the effort, and abilities, needed to achieve a goal between two people just isn't possible if you cannot keep those control variables constant.

Listening: A key to communication

 

     In the recent US election turmoil, one of the candidates indicated that they heard an opponent say something insulting about them. The other candidate denied that they had said it. I believe both of them. The reality is that what we hear is not always what the other person says. Especially during emotional moments, we tend to shift the words around based on our histories and expectations.

     There is a game called "telephone". Within this game, people gather in a circle (I suppose it could be done with only three people). One person whispers something in the ear of the first person, who then whispers it into the ear of the next person within the circle, and so on -- until it gets back to the person who originally said it. Depending on how many people are in the circle, the amount of distortion of the original message can be enormous. Within the context of the game, this is considered to be something for great laughter and enjoyment. Within the context of life, it can lead to all kinds of problems.

     Of course, heard/said still applies to other media. Email, voice telephone, gossip over the fence, ... With email and social media, it is possible to backtrack and find out what was originally said -- but not necessarily what was originally meant. Sometimes what is said is not clear -- it is sometimes "open to misinterpretation". Somewhat like the grammar joke of the difference between "Come in and eat, grandma" and "Come in and eat grandma".

     In real life, if you misinterpreted the above example, your response would likely be "WHAT?" And then the meaning would be clarified amidst smiles and chuckles (hopefully the second interpretation was not the correct one). But it is often the case that there is no feedback and no request for clarification. A good friend of the family says that "assume" just makes an "ass of u and me".

     Not listening well can cause a lot of problems.  A subset of listening is called "Active listening" and that is when you are listening in order to have a reasonable, constructive response. ("Passive listening" is when you are listening to music in the background or a prerecorded lecture -- though, in the latter case, listening better is likely to still be of great use.) Luckily, listening is a skill that can be learned (if desired to learn). The following areas of focus are oriented primarily towards active listening -- but can be useful in passive listening cases also.

• Face the speaker. Of course, this cannot be done in social media. In fact, many people posting within social media don't think of the post to which they are replying as coming from a person at all. But, if you can face the speaker, then it will help you to notice facial and body clues as well as give the speaker more confidence that you are listening.
  
  
• Picture what is being said. This is not daydreaming. This is being fully attuned to the speaker with all of your senses.
  
  
• Withhold judgement and don't interrupt. How can you form a reasonable response before you know what all has been said -- and have taken the steps (as listed below) to make certain that you have actually heard what has been said? Let the speaker (or writer) finish what they are saying before formulating a response. For a long initial message, taking notes may be needed to properly pose questions about areas that might be misunderstood. For a written, or prerecorded, message it may be useful to read it, or hear it, multiple times.
  
  
• Summarize and clarify. The speaker has finished. Now it is your job to make certain that you have heard what was meant to be said. One method is to reflect the conversation back. "I heard you say X, Y, and Z". Is that correct?" "When you said X, just what did you mean?"
  
  This is an iterative process which does not end until both of you are in agreement that each person knows what the other meant to say. This does NOT mean that you agree with each other. But you will at least know what areas are there for discussion if the person is open to discussion about the matter (or for just recognizing the other's right to have a different viewpoint or opinion).

Sometimes it is NOT a matter of listening well; you may understand what the other person is saying very well -- and disagree very strongly. You may understand what the other person is saying very well -- but it is not truthful.

     In the current era, listening well is a skill that has lost ground -- fewer make the attempt. Whether you end up agreeing or not, whether it is true or not, with active listening you are disagreeing with what they meant rather than what you think they said and meant. This allows the potential for discussion and resolution.

Apprentices, Journeypeople, and Masters: An old way renewed?

 

     Once upon a time (starting about 1088 AD), before job postings and corporate networks, there were guilds. According to good old Google, the first guild was that of a network of students in the area of Bologna in Italy, soon thereafter in Oxford in England, and Paris in France (though, in France, they called themselves masters rather than students). The very first guilds were more like clubs gathering people of related interests. If one considers it, a university is actually a situation where people wanting to learn, or to teach, are gathered. Over the next couple of hundred years, guilds grew in scope and division and split between merchant guilds and crafts guilds.

     [Note that I use the word "master" in this blog because that is the term that has been used throughout history. Usage has expanded meaning, and not always in positive ways, and people should substitute the alternative word of their choosing.]

     A merchant guild was a combination of an incorporation, a self-insuring entity, a network of contacts, and mutual security. As merchant classes grew, and changed, they became the representatives of the merchant class to the highest authorities (usually part of the royalty as allocated to the area) and ended up creating political offices and organizations needed for city services as well as support of merchants in-town and importing/exporting. They often interacted closely with the craft guilds (as follows).

     The other branch of guilds -- more directly relevant to this blog -- were the craft guilds. They were composed of people jointly working with, or around, a particular substance or product. Thus, there were guilds for those that worked with metal -- possibly refined to working with copper or some other specific metal. Weavers were an early guild as everyone in Europe needed clothing and fabric. And to clothe the feet -- leatherworking guilds and shoemaking guilds. There were guilds for jewelry, bakers, cabinetmakers, sculptors, armourers, and many other aspects of everyday life. Some guilds split and some aggregated depending on the differences in products and numbers of members.

     Guilds started small (even if split off from another guild). They could provide protection for the members -- both price and physical protection (during transport and from thievery). Quality could be monitored and enforced -- stabilizing prices and ensuring respectability and status. They often became effective monopolies with those inherent advantages and disadvantages (primarily to consumers).

     As they grew -- like most (but not all) organizations -- class lines stratified within the guilds and the purpose of the organization shifted to being primarily to maintain the organization and secondarily the product and craftspeople. Conflicts arose from the desire to split off from the original guild or desire to create new guilds working with associated, but not original, products. New positions became hereditary within families rather than allowing social movement and employment of interested people. Social restrictions were enforced -- facilitating discrimination against women and those not presently in favor. More aspects of guilds -- particularly in the Medieval times in Europe -- can be found here.

     When a new person wanted to learn a craft, they were brought in (sometimes "bought" in via contributions from a wealthy family with too many sons) at a beginning level as an "apprentice". As an apprentice, it was expected that a person would slowly learn the craft. At first, they were primarily used as janitors and gofers. As time proceeded, they would interact with the "master" (person under whom they were apprenticed) or an experienced journeyman (still under supervision of the master) to start working with the product. Finally, they would work directly under the guidance of the master on products. At this stage, they were considered journeypeople.

     The final jump between being a journeyperson and a master normally included a project, and examination, which was evaluated not only by their master but also a group of other masters within the guild. A person had to become a master in order to take on apprentices -- which allowed increased production (and profits). This can be directly related to current academic procedures of a student working on, and submitting, a Master's Thesis to obtain a master's degree.

     Once admitted into an apprenticeship (which might have required some fee if not family), the apprentice was under the care of the master. The master must provide proper housing (which might be some straw by the furnace or oven), food, and clothing. As they became journeypeople they might also be given some type of wages. Much of this was regulated by the guild as a whole.

     Within the United States, guilds never took hold much -- perhaps because many of the immigrants were seeking to leave older practices. Some of the service organizations (Rotary Club, USO, Lions Club International, Kiwanis, ...), professional organizations (Authors Guild, American Bar Association, National Association of Realtors, ...) and other loosely craft-oriented organizations (such as Freemasons, Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks, Knights of Columbus, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, ...) may have some correspondence to guilds -- with combinations of attributes of both merchant and craft guilds. In some areas of Europe, guilds still exist and have some strength.

     So now we leap into current times. Rather than apprentices, we have interns. Interns often have the same type of progression from apprentices (janitorial and gofer) to journeypeople (actually working on products). Duties depend strongly on the type of work. Interns who are immediately able to work are often paid -- this usually means that they are in the midst of some academic training. Some internships are not paid. These are often positions with a lot of competition to fill the positions -- few openings, many wanting them.

     Unpaid internships strongly favor those from financially strong supportive families which, thus, has considerable social impact -- helping to perpetuate income classes. Paid internships can do the reverse -- allowing those, from less financially strong families, to have a chance to show their abilities. The individual ("master") or corporation ("sponsor") no longer directly promises support of the intern/apprentice -- if they are paid, they can support themselves from that pay. If they are not paid, they must support themselves through savings or by support from others.

     There is a trend away from traditional academic certification as qualification for positions -- especially technical positions. It is recognized that there are many different routes to obtain knowledge and experience. Internships can be of assistance to verify ability before making a commitment to hire people. But, in order to access all of the available pools of abilities, it is necessary to eliminate those aspects that are NOT connected to job performance. This means that some type of support needs to be made during the internship whether that is a minimal salary or provision of food and shelter (assuming that the internship period is short enough to not need additional clothing).

     This shift in direction has some positive aspects -- but only if done the correct way. Our educational institutions are still relevant -- but they need to interconnect with our economy and businesses. Internships can be a good way to bring more people's abilities into the economy -- but it needs to be done in a way that focuses on ability rather than extraneous things.

Invisible Maladies: What you see is not necessarily what you get

 

     I have two children who are on the autistic spectrum -- high-functioning. At one time, they would have been said to have "Asperger's Syndrome" but the latest edition of the specification manual (DSM-5) no longer uses that term. They are great people, and I am proud of them, and it is only when they are actively interacting with others that one notices that they don't interact quite the same as others. The chances are excellent that I am also "on the spectrum" though I am undiagnosed and have succeeded in training myself so that I only occasionally get into communications difficulties.

     Some groups look at being on the autistic spectrum as a disease for which one can find a cure. For many other people, being on the autistic spectrum is not considered a "malady". It is a different configuration, and organization, of the brain and it has advantages as well as disadvantages. I have occasional thoughts as to whether this change of brain function might be part of a quantum "jump" in human behavior -- the next step in human evolution such as described by Greg Bear in his book Darwin's Radio. That would explain why the diagnosis is happening in greater numbers. 

     My sons are in good company with many others (for some historical figures, it is only a likely diagnosis based on behaviors) who are considered to have been on the autistic spectrum -- people like Dan Ackroyd, Charles Darwin, Emily Dickinson, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Barbara McClintock, Michelangelo, Andy Warhol, and Mozart -- just to name a few of many.

     One may notice that these folks have a couple of things obviously in common. They are very creative and they are capable of great focus. (For some individuals, these aspects are so strong that it renders them almost incapable of interacting with others -- this is why it is considered to be a "spectrum" of behavior.) They also had great difficulties in interacting with others (which can be overcome with work -- replacing "instinctual", or "innate",  responses with learned responses). And this difficulty interacting with others is the aspect that can be considered an "invisible malady".

     Unlike a Down's Syndrome person or a mobility challenged person or someone who has some other externally observable difference -- you cannot tell a person is on the autistic spectrum by just looking at them (with the caveat that you might interpret based on behaviors). There have been times I have wondered -- would it be better to have an "A" on the forehead as an advance indication or not? Would that carry with it extra preconceptions prior to even directly interacting with the person or would it reset the expectations of the "neurotypical" (non autistic-spectrum person)? In either case, the effect would still depend on the adequate education of the "neurotypical" person (which often still needs considerable improvement).

     I also have mild narcolepsy. My family has considered it quite hilarious to take photos of me nodding off at the circus, or the middle of a movie. I have also been known to fall asleep in the middle of a sentence while reading. It normally only lasts a few minutes. There are some medications that help with the condition but not everyone can deal with the side-effects. Midday naps can help as can regular nights of sleep. The primary time to be particularly careful is while driving. However, at work, this can also be an embarrassment to managers when they don't want to deal with medical conditions. Once again, it is an "invisible malady".

     There are many other "invisible maladies". Some are recognized by, and accepted by, others because of their prevalence. Migraines are one such -- enough people have migraines -- or directly know someone with migraines -- that people say "oh, yes, I understand". There are others -- kidney stones, hemorrhoids, ingrown nails, and so forth -- that are also known, and accepted, because of prevalence.

     It is those differences, and ailments, which are NOT prevalent that cause the greatest difficulty because it is harder for others to empathize and take behaviors into account. Many psychiatric conditions may fall into this category. Sometimes, the "malady" might be acceptable to others but it is too embarrassing for the person to tell others about it affecting them. In any case, the "invisible maladies" become acceptable by others only through experience and education.

Secondary effects: don't stop before the hows and whys

      When I am buying an oven, I look over the "self-cleaning" ovens. Why? It really isn't that much trouble to clean an oven (though my preference is to avoid the harsher chemicals which make it the easiest to do). Self-cleaning ovens do it by allowing very high (higher than most cooking is done at) temperatures to burn away drips and spills and leave only ash and easily cleaned residue. In order to do this, it is necessary that the oven walls be durable against both extreme heat and changes in temperature. It is also necessary to have good insulation around the oven so that the surrounding cabinetry does not catch fire or otherwise be damaged.

     So, I don't care that strongly about an oven being able to self-clean. But the characteristics of a self-cleaning oven -- the insulation and solidity of the oven walls -- provide energy saving side effects, and a more uniform internal heat, that I DO want.

     I am not a personal fan of cosmetics, preferring the unmodified beauty that exists in almost all people. But, since cosmetics are often applied in the same areas that also need protection from the sun, they can be modified to provide the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) that is useful to prevent aging, and damage, of the skin. Note that, in this case, the side effect is deliberate -- as normal cosmetics have rather low sun blocking capabilities.

     Back in 2017, Neil deGrasse Tyson, for whom I have great respect as a scientist and as an advocate of science, decided to put in his oar concerning the value and/or potential problems of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). His bottom line was simple -- we've been modifying the genetics of plants and animals for thousands of years -- there is no reason to be afraid of them now. The larger science associations agree with him -- American Association for the Advancement of Science as well as the National Academy of Sciences and the European Commission,

     While I have disagreements about modern GMO creations being in the same category as those in the older traditions of hybridization and selective breeding and other "natural" methods -- I will not claim to have the scientific knowledge or backing to argue against the general safety of GMOs. Note, I still say "general" -- I still think that proper testing should be done against all foods, medications, and other items that will come into either internal, or external, contact with our bodies.

     But, the investigation of Neil deGrasse Tyson stops too soon. To the best of my knowledge, he never went further into the "why" of GMOs and the potential dangers posed by that.

     There are many reasons why a zygote may be genetically modified. Perhaps the manipulator wants to make the food tastier, or more resistant to grasshoppers, or larger, or have a greater percentage of protein produced. All good reasons (though some other qualities may degrade when one quality is improved). But many food crops are presently being modified primarily for the purpose of being able to better survive applications of herbicides and pesticides. In that way, an herbicide can be applied (perhaps rather heavily) to a food crop and it will survive while the "weeds" (undesired thriving plants) cannot.

     So, on a first order, perhaps the GMO crops pose no danger to people eating them. But, on a second order, the modifications are often done to allow large amounts of pesticides and herbicides to be used -- which ARE, by definition, harmful to living organisms. In particular, glyphosate-based pesticides, considered to have quite bad effects on people, are banned in many parts of the world. Glyphosates have been found in (relatively) large amounts in human and other tissues.

     I am sure that you can think of other examples where one needs to go beyond the "what" to the "why". Or go beyond the "what" to the "how". We often think of side-effects as not predicted -- but sometimes the side-effects are the primary long-term effects of a process. This can apply to physical products, software, business, or social interactions.

Concert Syndrome: A shift of focus

 

     There are always times when a person is supposed to not be noticeable. This may be during a concert, a theater movie, a play, or some other place. In addition, at present time, extra noises may be a cause for concern as potential indicators of illness.

     So, I am in a concert. I haven't coughed, or sneezed, or had my nose itch all day. But when the lights go out, all of a sudden I start wanting to do all three -- maybe at the same time. Or perhaps I am at the blood center, giving blood, with tubes attached and my arms unable to move -- yes, that nose starts itching. The exciting, revealing line in a play is about to be given and here comes that desire to cough. I call this the "Concert Syndrome".

     This is similar to the period when you start becoming aware of something that is always present. Linus, in the cartoon Peanuts, has a period where he starts to become aware of his tongue.  You could also become aware of a stray eyelash or, perhaps, a minor injury that is healing. Itches are particularly susceptible to becoming hard to ignore.

     Every day, there are lots of sensations that are happening with us that we "tune out". Perhaps it is a lot of traffic noise or a neighbor's dog that barks a lot. That flashy billboard advertising a product that you go by every day on the way to work -- it disappears. This is an ability that is very important to our everyday lives in order to prevent sensory overload.

     It is not always benign -- you can start not hearing the conversation of someone who talks non-stop with a stream of consciousness kind of flow. They might be saying something important and, certainly, they deserve to have some attention. While driving, it is important that you constantly keep awareness of the surroundings as the unexpected is something that can easily occur.

      A lot of this seems to center on focus. Once the movie, or concert, is going (if it is interesting) then we focus on that and the extraneous coughs and itches disappear. If I am driving someplace that I normally don't have as my destination, I need to pay close attention or I will automatically take the exits and turns that are used for more frequent destinations.

     A shift in focus can be activated internally or externally. If a person starts a conversation with you, and prefaces the speech with your name, attention usually switches immediately to the person speaking. A tap on the shoulder can either get your attention or make you jump out of your chair -- depending, in part, on just how focused you are on other matters.

     Meditation can often be used for improving internal focus. It may seem that focusing requires rigid discipline but, in effect, it often makes use of relaxation much better (not quite to the point of sleeping). Time organization can be helpful to prioritize items in terms of what comes first but it does not, in itself, help to focus.

Unknown unknowns: All our crystal balls are cracked

 

     My wife and I read to each other almost every day. We take turns. I usually read something relatively light to her -- some fantasy or science fiction, perhaps a mystery. Events around me are too serious and I need some escape from them. On the other hand, she often chooses books that have much more serious themes (this is also true for movies that she chooses) and occasionally non-fiction. (Though we have just run across a quote that claims that fiction often contains more truth than non-fiction. That may be true, especially about interpersonal relationships.)

     At the moment, it is about "black swans". The book, The Black Swan: Second Edition: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb is a discussion of those things that really affect the final results. It is related to "Chaos Theory" but not really quite the same thing. The famous quote about Chaos Theory is that a butterfly flapping its wings on the other side of the world may determine whether or not a thunderstorm near you will happen.

     That of the "highly improbable" is more focused on the "unknown unknowns". A lot of the time, we try to bring into account -- plan for emergencies -- about unknown events in the future. Earthquakes, tornadoes, fire in the building, a key employee being hit by a bus on the way to work -- these are all known unknowns. We don't know that they will happen but we can envision them happening and attempt to make plans in case they do happen.

     Life is infinite and unpredictable. It is impossible to envision all the things that could happen. Even though a pandemic has been discussed as inevitable for at least the past 30 years (maybe earlier and I just was unaware), no one expected it to hit the world in 2020. It doesn't always have to be such a momentous occasion. I go to the barber shop and a siren blares right outside the door just as the barber is making a trim of my neck with shears. Ooops. All of a sudden, I have half of a Mohawk.

     I consider the stock market and the weather both in the category of being made up of a lot of unknown unknowns. Sure, for an individual company, there may be known factors that would/should influence the price. But how often do we read column after column of articles about why something happened the previous day -- and no articles the day before yesterday about those same factors and how they will affect the market that day? I appreciate the extensive models, training, and hard work of meteorologists but they are still trapped in the world of percentages. The following day, they can give you all kinds of reasons why the previous day's weather occurred.

     Most humans do not like to not know what is going to happen. They greatly desire the illusion of control. So we have a lot of prognosticators -- people to guess the future. And, they are all in the same situation as the weather forecaster (whether they realize it or not) -- they can do all kinds of things, use all kinds of tools, check all kinds of data -- and they can only give percentages. The closer in time, the better the odds. Part of the purpose of the Agile methodology, which was discussed in an earlier blog, is to keep allowing the focus, and priorities, to keep changing as new information comes in. It reduces the time to event and, therefore, increases the percentages. But those percentages never reach 100%.

     In my previous company, we underwent a periodic future product analysis to determine our priorities in development over the coming year. Part of that was to determine a theoretical Return On Investment (ROI). Perhaps some larger companies, with greater resources, achieve a better percentage of accuracy. Ours was not that good.

      If they ever say 100% you are entitled to have great doubts. Like a person tossing a coin into the air and guessing heads or tails -- and it lands on its edge or a bird grabs it mid-air -- there is always something (no matter how unlikely it may seem) that can arise.

The Elements of Success: How to move towards your goal

 

     There are a number of popular speakers who currently say that "anyone can be a success -- it is all up to them". Well, that is partially true. The way I divide it (others may have their own lists) it is about 1/3 true.

     I see five primary factors in obtaining a goal (which I will further use rather than "success" -- which is very subjective). These are:

• Opportunity. You have to have the possibility of moving the direction you want to move. Although one can think of technological workarounds, it is extraordinarily difficult for a blind person to paint a picture. Beethoven composed while becoming deaf -- but he was not born deaf. In the 1967 Boston Marathon, Kathrine Switzer met all of the requirements for running the race but was prevented from completing it by a judge who did not want women participating. I always wanted to be a moon or Mars colonist. At 62, I would say that opportunity is now very unlikely.
  
  
• Support. Occasionally, a rare individual will have sufficient self-motivation (and luck) to move towards their goal without any external help. All cheers to them. Generally, people need psychological and monetary support to make it towards their goals.
  
  A student with a family who values academics highly has a much easier road than one who, perhaps, has a single parent who works three jobs to support the family and -- although they have no dislike of the child doing well in school -- do not have the time, energy, or personal history to support the child. Sometimes, it is negative support -- "they never had it, did it, were able to do it -- why should the child have that possibility?" Sometimes you have that treasured teacher or friend or relative who provides enough positive energy to jump-start the process.
  
  Money is a resource that makes a difference. You can buy a cow. You can buy paints and canvas, You can afford the tuition and ability to attend the school of your choice. You can afford clothing that allows you to present the image that people consider to be of the right "class".
  
  
• Talent. All people, in my opinion, have equal value in their lives as people. That does not mean that all people are identical. Some people have perfect pitch. Others are tone deaf. Some people have the light bone structure and hips of a long-distance runner. Others may not even be able to walk. Some people do well on academic tests (we often call this "IQ") and some do not. Some people can easily interact with, and help people to trust and work with, other people (and other factors of "Emotional Intelligence"). Others find it difficult to speak to another person. Some can look at a piece of equipment and understand its workings immediately and be able to take it apart, repair it, and reassemble it. Others should be kept away from all breakable objects. Almost every person has a talent, even if that talent is not universally acknowledged and valued, but the person needs to have that specific talent (or talents) that will take them towards their personal goal.
  
  
• Effort. If you are allowed to do it, have support in doing it, and have adequate talent to do it -- you STILL have to DO it. Need to save money? Budget tightly and do such. Want to get that college degree with a high GPA? Forego other efforts and focus enough time and energy to get it done (assuming opportunity, support, and adequate intellectual talent). Want to complete a 4-minute mile in running? Assuming your body has the possibility, train, train, train. Want to have your own business? Put the plan together and strive towards it. Fail? Pick yourself up, learn from your mistakes, and keep trying. You have written the "great international novel"? The 40th literary agent just refused to promote it. Try the 41st, self-publish (along with immense self-advertising and promotion), convince a newspaper to publish it as a daily column (many of Dickens' books came about that way (called a "serial novel") - even some of Alexander McCall Smith's books in modern times).
  
  
• Luck. I define luck as the result of factors not even theoretically under your control. It can be good luck which enhances your efforts or bad luck which diminishes them. A traffic jam occurs on your way to an audition. The lead actor really does "break a leg" and you are able to perform as stand-in. The person that you meet in an elevator just happens to be an agent who is looking for a book on the very same subject of your book.

     Opportunity, support, talent, effort, and luck. So, when someone says "anyone can be a success -- it is all up to them" they are right -- in a narrowly defined way. Factors can make it very difficult or very easy to achieve that "success". Compare a person who is 3 feet from a finish line, on a smooth track, in a race while another person has to run 100 yards, jumping over hurdles, avoiding land mines and angry dogs to reach that same finish line. Can they do it? It is still possible but odds diminish rapidly.

     Those who have achieved a goal sometimes achieve it with unawareness, or forgetfulness, of all the factors that got them to that goal. (Some ARE aware and do their best to facilitate others to have an easier path.) They talk to others and say "I did it -- you can". That is true but it does not present the entire picture. Each person has their own path to reach their goal. Some paths are easy and some are horrendously difficult.

No pain no gain? -- challenge required for growth

 

     There is a recurring theme in books, movies, and life. A person is very comfortable and something happens to force them to do something very uncomfortable for them. In books and movies, the person usually rises to the challenge and there is an "everyone lived happily ever after". In life, that happens also -- but sometimes it doesn't happen.

     If you are forced, or successfully force yourself, into doing something you have never done then, by definition, you don't know whether or not you can do it. There can be probabilities -- I can almost definitely do it, I can probably do it, I might be able to do it, It's not likely but it could happen, and I just won't be able to do it.

     If you tell yourself the last message -- I just won't be able to do it -- then you are almost definitely correct. You have to attempt it. If you don't attempt it you will not succeed. If you don't ask, you cannot obtain an answer.

    As the little train says, "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can, I knew I could".

     Even if the desired result still happens, if you haven't put forth effort then YOU have not achieved it -- someone else, or something else, has done something to achieve the result you wanted. People call that "luck" and, honestly, luck can be involved. Sometimes things that are explicitly outside of your control happen -- these are often put under the umbrella word of "luck". It rains on a picnic. The pitcher's hand slips and he throws the ball into your sweet spot. The other candidate for a job gets lost on the way to the interview. A statistical unlikelihood occurs (the dice come up with a value of 7 four times in a row).

     So, what are the factors for you, yourself, to achieve something never before done (without relying on luck)? First, as discussed above, you have to try. If you don't try, you cannot succeed. Second, you need to determine what must be done in order to accomplish the goal. Third, you must arrange to do those steps -- note that you don't always have to do them personally but you still must make sure they happen.

     Final outcomes are not guaranteed. You can succeed in asking a person for a date and they can still say no. You can get a product developed exactly as you planned and the market changes such that you are no longer first or, worse, the product is no longer needed. You go through all the needed steps of location, facilities, people, and bureaucracy to open up a restaurant and a pandemic happens.

     Let's say that the hoped-for outcome does NOT happen. Is that a failure? I don't think so. If you are really pushing yourself to do something that you have never done before then you, by definition, have learned many new things. The second time to try will have more experience under your belt and, more importantly, you can avoid the errors that occurred the first time such that you make an entirely new set of mistakes. (And then the third time you have even more knowledge and experience and, eventually, you reach the desired outcome.) I certainly would not make the same mistakes in the next company I help to create.

     It may actually be more difficult if you do obtain the desired outcome. When you have climbed that mountain, you need to determine the next challenge. When you have written that great international novel, you start thinking of the next, even better, book. Sharks get a bad name but if they don't keep swimming, they die -- motion is needed to keep the water flowing over their gills so they can breathe. People can survive without setting goals but goals and challenges are necessary to thrive and continue to grow.

     "No pain, no gain" is often associated with physical training. In that case, it often is not true -- you can gain without pain by going more slowly and carefully. But, leaving a zone of comfort may not be easy. It may cause pain. Every time you "push your boundaries" and try something new, even a "failure" is a "success".

Retirement : A matter of choice

 

     Lots of people (especially in the higher paying segments of the work force) dream of retirement -- the earlier the better. But what is retirement, really? For many people, they are more active after that change-in-subject-title than before. For others, it can mean doing virtually nothing. So, retirement is not a matter of activity.

    For me, retirement is closely related to the division between work and play (which also relates back to a work life balance). Work is what you "have" to do. Play is what you "want" to do. For some people, work and play are the same thing as they enjoy what they are doing so much that, even after "work hours", that is the first thing that they would choose to do. For others, work and play are quite separate.

     So, what is the distinction between work and play? What marks the boundary between our work periods and retirement? Before retirement, it is required that you perform certain tasks in order to be able to live within our society -- that is called "work". You may get paid money or not -- but doing those tasks allow you (hopefully) to eat, sleep in comfort, be entertained, and continue to live and grow (though not everyone does that well).

     There are those who just have to exist -- which, to me, would be extraordinarily boring. Their ability to avoid ongoing "work" is established by the economic rules and/or their family/friends/relatives. The work that has been needed for them to survive is one (or two) steps removed. At some point in the chain which allows them not to work, there are multiple people working to support them. I went into the details of that in an earlier blog.

     So, I propose that the main distinction of play or retirement, is that a person no longer has to perform specific tasks to survive in society. Whether or not to do specific tasks are now a voluntary choice. (Yes, there are personal tasks still needed -- sleep, eating, and so forth.) Maybe you love what you have been doing -- you continue to do such (possibly now unpaid) but as a choice. Perhaps you have wanted to do something (and may, or may not, be good at it) but realized that the chances were good that it would not have been sufficient for society to allow you to live (that is, it wouldn't earn enough to pay the bills). (Sometimes people take the leap and it works -- they become that 1 in 10,000 person who makes a living at those tasks.)

     Some people, never reaching the situation where they do not have to continue working -- day to day -- to survive, will never retire. Some people believe that they have reached that point and circumstances change such that they have to return to the working side of the boundary. But, in all cases, a person will be able to recognize that they have achieved retirement if they now are choosing whether or not they will perform those non-personal tasks.