Multitasking: Can humans really do it?

 

     Let's get more done! Why aren't you multitasking? Have these words ever been said to you? Or have you said them to yourself or others? The idea of multitasking can be very attractive. If you're doing more than one thing at a time then surely you can accomplish more. Right?

     From a computer science point of view -- which is where the concept originated -- multitasking can be a function of the operating system (the software which allows the processor/computer to do different types of programs and activity). Not all operating systems support multitasking but most, in widespread use, do. The operating system is the primary task being run by the processor.

     With a single processor (the hardware which executes the instructions), only one task can be done at any time. Multitasking is the process of the operating system switching between tasks -- preferably at a point where a task can do no more useful work until some other event happens. The switching between tasks is called a "context switch" because the operating system will save/store all necessary information for the original task to continue (later) before starting another task (restoring the information which it stored when last suspended). The more tasks in the list, and the more often they are switched, the greater will be the percentage of overhead created by context switching. It is possible to get to a point where the processor/computer does almost no useful work if it has too many tasks and swaps too often -- this is called "thrashing".

     Humans can, of course, act as a "processor" but they are certainly not computers. Humans can attempt to multitask -- but they have the same limitations of computers -- and more.

     First, as is true for computers, humans can only do a single task at a time. Second, humans also have to do "context switching" to move from one task (which is not yet complete) to another -- but human context switching is much less efficient, and prone to error, than that for a computer. Third, a computer can move between many different tasks and still remain useful -- a human will likely start losing task contexts and forget tasks or not be able to continue them efficiently.

     Today, I was working on a task at the computer -- and I had some bread toasting in the toaster oven. I got absorbed in the task at the computer and, after a while, smelled something burning. Instead of doing two separate tasks properly, one of the tasks ended up with incinerated toast which had to be thrown out (and the windows opened and fan turned on).

     I could have set an alarm to go and check the toast (but I didn't). For an operating system, an alarm is an interrupt event. Alarms may be associated with an event, an outside input, time, or other measurable event. This can allow one task to continue (but not using the processor) unmonitored (like having a sprinkler within a watering system disperse water) while other tasks are done. The interrupt may be set according to a timer, telling the system to turn off the water after a period of time.

     Note that these comments are for a single processor. When there are multiple processors, then "parallel processing" can be done -- which is similar to having a team assigned to the problem and the pursuant needs to coordinate the work between team members. Each processor, or member, can attempt multitasking but humans in teams cannot do multitasking any better than individually.

     Multitasking makes sense for a computer but it does not work well for humans and the limit for the number of possible tasks for a human to switch between is reached very quickly.

The Economics of the Road Runner: Acme is the winner

 

     As a child (and as an adult), I watched a cartoon about the Coyote and the Road Runner. The "plot" in each cartoon is for the coyote to catch the road runner in order to eat it. In spite of the overt physical violence, no longterm harm is done to either of the characters (note, there are books, videos, and probably podcasts concerning the "Physics of Looney Tunes" which do NOT follow conventional laws of physics) and the creativity and persistence are amazing. I don't know how widely these US cartoons have been distributed. They were created for Looney Tunes (Warner Brothers) and are something that I can watch over and over.

     All of the traps and schemings appeal to the technical person in me. But, of late, I cannot get it out of my head about the economics of the Coyote and the Road Runner. We have a coyote wanting to eat a road runner. An average road runner (the one in the cartoons is quite a bit larger) is about ten ounces (about 283 grams). The edible portion of the road runner is probably no more than half of that -- 5 ounces (140 grams). Baluga caviar is about $500/ounce. So, if road runner meat is as expensive as the most expensive caviar, it would be about $2500. (Much more likely, it would be about the same as alligator meat -- $1.25 per ounce -- but we're giving an extreme example here.)

     In many of the cartoons, the coyote purchases massive amounts of tools, supplies, and equipment (from the Acme Manufacturing company). For an average episode, I would make a guesstimate of maybe $15,000 of merchandise. (Some episodes are all ingenuity or low-tech stuff -- but we're talking about an average episode.) So, here is the coyote -- who has access to delivery services and mail-order/online ordering -- paying $15,000 to catch $2500 worth of meat. (And he caught the road runner only once -- and then couldn't eat it.)

     So, besides being something to think about forever, what about it? Who cares? It's a cartoon.

     Ah, but businesses and individuals do this all of the time. For businesses and freelancing individuals (who can fruitfully use their time for other things) there is a cost to time and effort coming up with solutions. At Bell Labs, we were warned on a regular basis to not fall into the NIH (Not Invented Here) trap. If I have five people working two weeks on a problem that can be purchased from someone else, is it a bargain or do I have a set of coyotes trying to catch a road runner? Maybe yes, maybe no. Does your particular "road runner" do just what you want it to or will you need to adjust the product, or the infrastructure which would use it? If so, how much? Do you have something else productive for your cast of coyotes to do (if not, you have some other serious things to think about within your business)?

     Sometimes, in order to get just what you require (or, if usable multiple times, to provide longterm economy) it is worthwhile to do it yourself. But count your costs. Especially the costs that aren't obvious. If you pay money for things, that is obvious. If it takes you eight hours to do something, that cost isn't obvious. If it causes you great stress, that adds to the "cost". If you enjoy doing it, that lessens the "cost". The balance of costs versus value (as is true for many things in life) is not always easy to ascertain.

"Quiet quitting" versus work/life balance

 

     As best as I've been able to interpret, the newly popular term "quiet quitting" is a phrase used to indicate that a person has reached the border of how much time and energy they are willing to put into their paid work and where they feel they need to put the time and energy into keeping their families, and themselves, healthy and productive.

     Of course, that is NOT what the term "quiet quitting" calls to mind. I don't know WHO in the world comes up with these meme labels but whoever picked the term appears to be quite happy with the pre-pandemic US (and some other global cultures) status quo of putting in as much time and energy as work appears to "require". Such places the control over work/life boundaries firmly in the hands of management. From some points of view, that seems reasonable for a business.

     However, there have been MANY studies that indicate that this approach is counter-productive. Work efficiency declines, and the number of need-to-recover-from mistakes increases, as a person pushes themselves beyond what they can support. The current exploration of the 4-day work week is one approach to keeping employees productive. There are other methods.

     Within Europe, there are many limits placed on work environment/home boundaries. A strict number of hours that can be worked (few, if any, after hours calls and work assignments). A reasonable amount of vacation allocated per employee which they are required to take. Maternity/paternity leaves. Und so weiter (and so forth). These are methods of legislating work/life boundaries.

     The scary part, for some, of "quiet quitting" (and the reason it is not called "life balance maintenance") is that it moves the control over maintenance of work/life allocation to the hands of the employees. It is true that many employees are not used to this control. In many cases, it might have a similar effect as "unlimited PTO" does -- when people take almost NO paid time off -- not even as many days as they would have been allotted within a fixed vacation benefit. In others, they may not find themselves with adequate self-motivation to do the amount of work expected on their work assignments.

     I will stop using the term "q q" -- and move over to "life balance maintenance" (which I consider to be a better description). Achieving this IS a challenge for the employee and the company. It requires good communication conduits and awareness of each person's situation. There will be times when the business seriously needs an extra push of effort from its peoples -- but it should not become an expected way of life. If the communication lines are open and there is respect in all directions, then almost every employee (if at all possible within their circumstances) will put in extra effort. For most employees, it is harder for them to recognize that they are reaching diminishing returns than to accept another short night's sleep and missed ballgame.

Three Wishes: The Djinn out of the bottle

 

     I don't know how universal of a practice it may be but, when I was growing up, at some time or other the question would come up "if you had three wishes, what would you wish?" Answers would vary tremendously. Someone would point out how many stories have the granter of wishes (usually a Djinn, or Genie -- sometimes Lucifer, depending on whether it was a morality tale) finding the loopholes within a wish. Using that loophole, the granter could often make the wish be a terrible thing to obtain.

     Within US culture, one story that has been repeated in prose and video is that of "The Devil and Daniel Webster" (by Stephen Vincent Binet). A frustrated, desperate man makes a deal with the devil exchanging his soul for current worldly success. As life continues, he finds that that material success does not bring the joy he had expected and wants to leave life with his soul. Daniel Webster, a New England politician and statesperson known for his oratory was begged to plead his case before a jury consisting of others that the devil had once swindled.

     In the above example, a wish was made (in exchange for something) and it was found to not be a wise wish. There are other examples of wishes twisted by the granter. Midas' wish for "The Golden Touch" left him in a situation where he could no longer pick up food to eat as the food would become gold and inedible.

     In the story "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain, the emphasis is on the double-sided aspect of wishes. If I wish for success am I also wishing for failure for another? If I ask for rain for my crops, is this water being taken from someone else who may experience drought? A wise, careful, wish would come up with a win-win response -- but how many of us have that wisdom? Especially if the granter is deliberately trying to twist the wish?

     The recipient of the wish also may try to get around the limitation on wishes. Such as having "I wish for an infinite number of wishes" as the first wish. That's always disallowed. There may be other restrictions. Some are good restrictions. Can't wish for anyone's death, for example. Some may appear to be unreasonable restrictions. But, as is true of any granter of wishes and rewards, the rules are defined by the granter.

     Wishes are not the same as plans. A wish requires a granter. A plan may include the actions of others but it is moved forward by the efforts of the person who wants the results of the plan. If you "wish" something will happen, you are saying that it is up to someone, or something, else to make it come true. If you "wish upon a star" then, somehow, that star will bring about the result that you want.

     Through the years, I have contemplated on what my three wishes would be. Have you done something similar? About ten years ago, I decided upon a wish (first, or only) that might work. I doubt I'll ever get the opportunity to find out. Meanwhile, I can work on plans.

Polling: Problems and attractions

 

     I cannot claim that I have recent information but, about 30 years ago, when I was studying Japanese culture -- trying to decide to make the leap and start learning Japanese (one of my favorite Aunts was born in Japan and that has always attracted me to the country and its people) -- I came across an interesting tidbit. It seems that, at least at that time, minutely detailed polls were conducted with people. Things like "do you brush your upper teeth first or your lower teeth first?" or "Do you sleep on the left side of the bed or the right side of the bed?" Many readers would go to the poll results of previous polls before checking out the rest of the paper. It is not unlike enjoying the horoscopes first, or the crosswords, or the comic page of a newspaper (back when printed media held a primary position). The difference was the importance placed. It mattered to the readers as to what the answer was. Were they doing it "right"? In Japanese culture, the group comes first.

     Within the US, and many countries, polls are associated with political matters. Popularity, or unpopularity, of politicians. Popularity, or unpopularity of issues and possible approaches to those issues. It is not unusual for the polls to "say" one thing in an election and, following the election, have the results vary substantially from what the polls forecast.

     For political candidates, the questions on the poll are fairly direct and simple. Do you, or do you not, favor Politician X. In the case of issues, however, it is much like a general survey. How well are the questions phrased? Are there assumptions that lie behind the question. "Do you think that we are doing the correct response to situation A?" This question assumes that situation A is as stated. If situation A is different from that which is stated then the entire question becomes invalid. Given Situation Z do you prefer option G, H, J, or K? What happens if Situation Z is unlikely (or impossible)? What if you don't like G, H, J, OR K? Once again, any results from the poll question becomes unusable.

     Let's assume that the question is either simple and straight-forward OR it is formulated in such a manner such that the situation is true and the possible solutions cover the possibilities. What is the next problem in getting good results from a poll (or survey)? Audience. A survey, or poll, is supposed to be getting samples of answers from a small audience that can be applied to a much larger population.

     So, is the sample representative of the larger population? It doesn't have to be representative for ALL people. If the poll/survey concerns something related to college students, then it has to represent all college students. If it concerns only homemanagers, then it only has to represent all who do the multiple-job position of a homemanager. But the sample must be an accurate representation of the population. If you multiply the sample by a hundred, thousand, or a million then the sample should expand out into a close copy of the full population. What are possible problems:

• Getting in touch with a representative population. Once upon a time, this could be done via door-to-door polling or telephone polling. Not anymore. The population connects with the rest of the world via many different potential avenues. And, by leaving out all of the people who communicate only via SMS, you may no longer be representative. Or by leaving out all of the people who communicate only via a particular social app, or game chat conduit. Not only does this make it much harder to communicate with your representative group but it makes the poll/survey much more complicated, and expensive, to do correctly.
  
  
• Getting people to respond. Our landline rings 10 times a day. We only answer if we recognize the caller (and occasionally that is spoofed and the caller is someone unknown). Some days, we never answer the phone. A message can be left -- but usually they do not leave a message. The same situation exists in other types of connections. Even if you locate the appropriate people, they have to be willing to respond.
  
  
• Will they give a truthful answer? For some topics and questions, the respondent won't want to tell you what they really feel. They feel that it is the "incorrect" answer and may be bashful, or ashamed, to tell you. But, when they have anonymity, they will answer as they really feel. Closed, anonymous, survey answers can avoid this -- if they are trusted to remain anonymous -- but that makes the survey/poll more complicated, and expensive, once again.

     More than ever, polling is harder to do accurately. So, how much faith should be placed in a poll? Given the lack of an alternative, they may be better than nothing but don't expect them to be fully accurate. In addition, people like to be "part of the winning team" and, if they think an answer is more popular and acceptable, they may choose answers based on what they think is the "winner". Whether they will continue to support that opinion is unknown.

     Polls are meant to be an indication of the thoughts of a larger population. But improper use of polling methods can actually be used to influence the thoughts of the larger population. In a parallel sense with the group mindset of the polling of the Japanese population as mentioned at the beginning of this blog, the poll results can be used as indicators to the larger population as to what they "should" think. Thus, polling can work both directions. The sample can reflect the opinions of the larger population and the larger population may allow the smaller sample to indicate the opinions that they should have.

     Be careful with the interpretations of poll results and carefully examine the questions and answers.

A Place for Everything and Everything in its Place

 

     "A place for everything and everything in its place." An old homily that gives advice as to how to organize within one's life. But, do we often have a place for everything? And IS everything in its place?

     Let's suppose that we are wonderfully organized and we have a place for everything and everything is in its place. what are the benefits of that? Presumably, it will be easy and efficient to find things that we want to retrieve. It will also be easy to know just where something should be put after we have finished using it. Note that this is the ideal of this situation. Having a place for everything is of no use if people do not put things into those places. Around my household, we end up repurchasing things quite (much too) often because things are NOT put back into the place where they are expected to be found.

     And, on the other hand, if there IS a place for everything and the item is not where it should be -- then that organization is useless. "A place for everything and everything in its place" gives a structure that can help in organization, retrieval, and storage -- but the structure has to be actively used and maintained to be of use. Every six months, or so, I organize our pantry. I group canned vegetables together, canned fruits together, sauces, surplus "backup" supplies, and other stuff grouped together. I also examine "use by" dates and discard those items (usually not zero) that have expired and put older items towards the front to be used first. Obviously, we do not all make use of the structure consistently -- otherwise I would not be re-organizing every six months.

     So, the structure is helpful -- but only if consistently used. But what if we are unable to create this structure? "A place for everything." Having extra space should not hurt as long as it is not used in such a way that finding things becomes more difficult. But most of us do not have enough space for everything. There cannot be "a place for everything". The best we can do is "a pile for groups of related things" from which we must sort when we try to retrieve. This situation is improved by one of two methods: obtain more space or reduce the amount of stuff we have. In the US, obtaining more space ("upsizing") is the direction most often approached. Note that this sometimes means off-site storage facilities.

     Reducing stuff -- following a simplification, or minimalist, route -- is becoming more popular but fights against the general culture. There are people who are able to help with this. Since the stuff is not theirs, there is no emotional attachment and elimination of excess, unused, things is much easier. But the final decision as to what is to stay or go is still yours and you have to be willing to make such decisions.

     Once the goal of having the proper amount of space has been achieved, the next step is organization so that things can be placed, and retrieved, easily and quickly. Once again, there are people who are fantastic at organizing and can help you with this task.

     With a goal of downsizing into a smaller, single-level, retirement domicile in the near future, we are working to reduce, reduce, reduce. It is not easy. Over the course of a lifetime, memories become attached to things. Elimination of things is kind-of-easy. elimination of memories (or triggers of memories) is much more difficult.

Power and responsibility: they need to go hand in hand

 

     "With great power comes great responsibility". I suspect there aren't a lot of people (globally) who have not seen, or heard, that phrase. It did not originate with Spider-Man, of course, but the character has certainly made it much more widely known.

     So many plots in books, especially spy or science fiction genre books, seem to have the antagonist wanting to "take over the world". This makes sense to me only from a fragmented perspective. If you divide the power from the responsibility -- power without responsibility -- then I can see it as a goal of the evil villain. The world, and all its people and contents, as personal playthings to do whatever they want to do. The thought sends shivers up my spine. And there have been such people in history although they have never had the global power that they might have sought.

     But power WITH responsibility? It is not surprising to me that, upon looking at the photographs of most US Presidents before and after their time in office, there is a lot more grey hair, a lot more wrinkles, a lot more mileage.

     Power paired with responsibility varies a lot of course -- in depth and breadth. If I am in charge of taking care of a paraplegic then the great reliance grants power and, in turn, enormous responsibility. If I am in charge of the wellbeing of a thousand children at a school, I have less power per individual as they each continue to have a degree of power in themselves but the aggregate power and responsibility is considerable.

     That responsibility enforces its own requirements. When my business partner and I started our company, we sometimes had cash flow problems. As corporate leaders, when that happened, our paychecks disappeared so that we could continue to pay bills and send out paychecks to our people. I was lucky that, at the time, I was single and without others to depend upon me. Ramen noodles are easier to spread out over a month with one person than when there are others, used to a more nutritionally rounded meal, who depend upon you.

     But, it is a balancing act. We never reached the point where dire divisions of cash flow were required but we did have to look at the future and, at one point, had to layoff some of our very knowledgeable, experienced, staff. Otherwise, the projected future cash flow would have forced much more stringent needs upon us. If our savings had hit such a low that my business partner and I could no longer have survived without income, it would have been necessary to reduce everyone's paycheck such that we could have participated in that reduced income.

     The point is that we were responsible to, and for, all of the people within the company and choices always had to have their needs in mind at all times. Luckily, we never went public or we would also have had the needs of the stockholders in mind also.

     I spoke of breadth and depth. Superman (in one version within the DC mulitverse) had the power to destroy a planet. NOT destroying planets was one aspect of responsibility but there was no way to leverage that power to be able to take care of eight billion individuals. He had one aspect of depth of power but did not have the breadth of power for the needs of all of the living creatures.

     With great power should come great responsibility. When it doesn't, it is a severe problem. Power comes in many forms and many degrees but it should align with appropriate responsibilities.

Professional: A shifting definition for a shifting world

 

     I have heard the word "professional" many times in the course of my career. In general, if a person said that someone's (perhaps mine) something was "unprofessional" it meant that they did not approve. The root of disapproval was often based upon what they, in their turn, had been told as they had progressed within their career. It was "unprofessional" because they had been told it was "unprofessional".

     Within the past, this has covered a lot of areas. It was unprofessional for women to wear comfortable shoes or to wear pants. It was unprofessional for men to have facial hair or any hair styles that were not rooted in the 1920s. Visible tattoos were certainly "no-nos". It was unprofessional for people to have natural hair -- only certain styles were acceptable. Sometimes it extended past the work hours such as restrictions on the behavior of teachers or bank workers on weekends or in the evenings. Upon starting our company, my friend and colleague informed me that my stainless-steel tooth crown was "unprofessional" and insisted I replace it with a more natural looking porcelain crown.

     The word has been used very much like "Nyet kulturney" (uncultured) within Russian society.

     So, what is professional? In appearance, at least?

     First, of course, is clothing and behavior related to one's actual profession. A carpenter or plumber has their tool belt. A costumed vigilante (usually the non-superhero type) may need their utility belt. A tailor may have their pins and needles and measuring tapes poking out of pockets. Peculiarly (at least, to me) the word professional is often least used within the context of true professional needs.

     A second, more universal, usage is that of establishing a customer-supplier relationship. Related to "dress for success", the clothing is meant to show a financial stability, a steadfastness, a reliability to the customer. This often works well within a social structure or income band. It does not work as well between income bands as the same difference in appearance that indicates stability in one environment may indicate a power relationship, not to be trusted, in another.

     The third area is use as a uniform. The dress, or appearance, has nothing directly to do with the profession. However, it is used as a symbol of recognition. Such as the white coat or scrub clothes for a doctor. Or the pants, clothes, and badge of a person enforcing regulations and laws. A firefighter may have special clothing appropriate for their firefighting needs -- AND a uniform that is worn during periods they are not actively performing their duties. Popular media often make use of this to indicate how easily a person can "appear" to be of a group by donning the apparel.

     Internal cultural acceptance is the final region. This is the most varied. To be a "member of the group" is usually quite valued. This varies a lot and is shifting a lot with hybrid/remote work. The strong need to express individual circumstances and desires coexists with the desire to be part of the group.

     The word "professional" can also be applied to behavior. This is even more difficult to define precisely. It includes a lot of attributes -- clean, reliable, trustworthy, "good" behavior, attitude, competence, courteous, putting customers' needs/desires first, accountability, hardworking, and others. Most such attributes are very subjective and if a specific attribute is considered to be of importance in evaluation, I would suggest using such directly rather than enclose it within the umbrella of "professional".

     

How's it going? Social interaction levels

 

     You walk along the street and you see someone you know to a certain extent. Enough to recognize their face and name and, perhaps, a couple of things about them. You say "how's it going?" but proceed along the street before listening to any reply, if any. Or, perhaps, being a bit more socially aware, you say "hello". They respond -- not expecting a reply either -- and you have created the first level of social interactions. You have acknowledged the existence of the other.

     This is an important aspect of society. When there is no acknowledgement of another, it is the equivalent of the punishment of "shunning".  Some see shunning as a "social death sentence". You don't exist, you are not part of the rest of the world. You might as well not be present. There is sometimes an imbalance where one person is considered "more important" than another -- for whatever reason, income, social class, caste, outward body shape/size/color/height. But, as long as acknowledgement happens, all are still connected as part of the society.

     A danger sign exists when a person does not recognize another at all. It might be a "more important" person ignoring a "less important" person but lack of acknowledgement breaks societal links. That person should never be allocated more influence over others as they have indicated lack of social ability.

     Breaking the social acknowledgement links can be done on purpose -- beyond the social penalty of "shunning". It is done during wartime. It is done during periods of xenophobia when the group becomes fearful of others. If a person is not acknowledged, they are no longer a person and anything can be done with, or to, them without remorse.

     A middle level of social interaction works within the societal system that exists. As such, it will vary from culture to culture around the world. It centers on expectations and responsibilities. Often it is associated with social levels -- whether from lineage, income, or subgroup. Along with acknowledgement comes, often implicitly, expectations of how interactions will take place and how the process goes. Sometimes it is very formal and "codified" into the general society.

     A higher level of social interaction involves full acknowledgement of the existence and worth of the other. A "namaste" between two. The acknowledgement is the base, the desire for understanding is much higher. In this case, "how are you?' expects, and receives, an answer and potentially a discussion.

     Acknowledgement, interaction, understanding. A path forward.

Gender equality: A built-in bias

 

     Within the U.S. and in many countries of the world, women make less money than men for the same work, have less mobility, and less chance of advancement. At the same time, they often have to work harder and do a better job in order to be perceived as doing as well as men. Many, probably most, agree that this situation is not a fair one nor is it a productive one. Yet, except for a couple of valiant countries which have made the situation a top issue, little progress is made from year to year.

     I believe that this is all part of traditional, and expected, gender roles. It is generally understood that most families can no longer financially support themselves on one paycheck -- yet the woman's paycheck, and career, is often the one sacrificed for children, family, and emergency needs. Managers expect that, within a couple, the woman will be the one who will have to push aside work in order to take care of children or handle other family requirements. Currently, although often true, it is not always the case. Yet, the expectation continues to exist. This carries over to evaluations. If I have the expectation that one person is not going to be always accessible and always able to perform their work duties and I have the expectation that another person IS going to be always accessible and able to perform -- then who will get the most visible assignments? Who will be considered for promotions first?

     Note that this perception is often not true (but IS true more often than might be desired) -- but the bias remains and affects evaluation, mobility, and treatment. So, even before possible work disruption actually happen, the perception is already working against the woman.

     Changes to society take a while and perception changes even more slowly than statistics. But a good approach to reducing, and someday eliminating, the perceptional bias is to take up the reins for full support of the family.

     Current medicine leaves no choice but for a child to be borne by a woman. But, beyond that, there are many things that can be done to even the responsibilities and perceived responsibilities. Parental care -- to be able to be taken by women AND men -- is an important item. Safe, affordable, affirming childcare needs to be generally available. Flexible hours, and necessary sick and emergency time, needs to be available for all.

     Changing the laws and benefits are not sufficient, of course. If parental leave is available for both parents and only women use it -- it will NOT improve perception (in fact, it validates it). If flexible hours and necessary sick and emergency time is available to all but only the women use it, or use it much more often than men, it will NOT improve perception.

     In order to reduce gender bias, laws and benefits must be in place for all employees. With that as a foundation, society then must make active use of such so that all can be perceived with the same needs and reliabilities. The existence of the support must be present and then women AND men must make use of them in order for biases and assumptions to slowly disappear.

Work Ethic versus Burnout

 

     I grew up in a matriarchal household with my mother having lived her childhood through the Great Depression. Under such conditions, all was used until it was dust, all food disappeared from plates, you got something new only if there was nothing that could be reused or improvised, and you continued to work until there was no more work to do. When under economic depression conditions (personal or societal), it was a very reasonable, rational, approach to life. They did not want my generation to have to go through it -- and I don't want my children to have to go through it. But, it was an overwhelming factor within the environment of my childhood.

     We did not leave the table until our plates were clean. But we did not choose our portion sizes. Sometimes, at our two or three times a year restaurant visits, my mother didn't want to finish her meal -- so I was expected to finish hers in addition to mine. Unsurprisingly, I had weight issues and continue to fight the feeling that I MUST clean the plate. I have a slogan I have devised -- "waste or waist". If one chooses their portion size (or are willing to have leftovers/"doggy bags") then requiring a clean plate can be reasonable. If the portion size is not personally chosen and it is not feasible to take it away (such as on trips) then the clean plate mentality can be quite detrimental to health. This completion mentality also applied to daily work.

     My mother was always working. If she was on a paid job, she worked from the time she clocked in until she clocked out -- only taking legally required breaks. As the years passed (and her health declined, in addition) she could allow herself to rest at home -- but only after all other work items were done (dusting, vacuuming, polishing, washing, straightening, putting away, ...) But, during my childhood, she was always doing. If she finished one set of required duties, she would start something else. It effected a considerable aversion to home canning for me -- it's great if you need it or like doing it but if it is a matter of keeping busy then, perhaps, it isn't quite as wonderful.

     Like a leaf in a storm, I was part of my mother's continuous travail. In general, that was good for me as I learned to search for what needed to be done -- and to do it. (Though, if you look at a previous blog, you will see this has some tiresome side-effects). Luckily, studying and reading were considered to be working and, thus, I did very well in school as well as helped clean the house and yard daily.

    My mother did not suffer from burnout as far as I know. I doubt that she had ever heard of the word. Nor had her parents or grandparents. But she had little energy left to do anything with my brother or myself. She had little time, or energy, to pursue any interests she might have had for herself. She tried to get her GED three times and, each time, was diverted away from her goal.

     When you are cleaning a house or doing a specific physical task, there is an end (unless you are totally unable to accept less than perfection). When you are doing many non-physical tasks for yourself, or a company, there is no ending. It is always possible to contact one more potential customer, work on one more program function, connect up with one more person, (write one more blog).

     So, we end up with ways to approach work ethics and burnout (which, as you probably already noticed, applies to other activities such as eating). I would suggest that a work ethic is doing the work that needs to be done. But burnout happens when no limit is set -- no ending. Physical activities often have a built-in limit. Non-physical activities rarely do. If you hit a burnout, there is no energy left for anything else and, eventually, no energy left to do that "core" set of activities you consider most important. Even more, there is no energy left to prepare oneself for the future -- and that hurts everyone.

     In work, in eating, and, in many other aspects of our lives, limits are healthy and necessary.