Energy Transfer: Fuel for Climate Change

 

     The global sea temperatures keep rising. So? Of course, there are problems associated directly with the extra heat of the water -- melting icebergs in particular and endangerment of animals in vulnerable ecosystems such as polar bears. Then there are the secondary effects of that extra water being put into the oceans from the melting of the icebergs -- islands going under water and coasts receding.

     The largest, most immediate, effects are from the actual temperature rise. Heat is energy. For food energy, that is measured in Calories (or kilocalories) [see my blogs on Science and Nutrition]. In the area of physics, the units are Joules (or kilojoules -- 1 Calorie == 4.18 kilojoules). Calories are measured directly in accordance with the heat of water. The definition of a Calorie (1 "large" Calorie is equal to 1000 "little" calories -- we normally talk about Calories) is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 liter of water 1 degree Celsius.

     So, every degree (Celsius) of heat increased in each liter of water is an extra Calorie (or 4.18 kilojoules) of energy stored as heat. Estimates vary a lot, but there are about 14,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters of water in the Earth's oceans. So, by raising the temperature of the world's oceans by one degree Celsius, we are storing an extra 14,000,000,000,000,000,000 Calories -- or around 58,500,000,000,000,000,000 kilojoules. That is a LOT of energy in storage.

     OK. With each degree rise of temperature of the oceans, we store a lot of energy. What happens with that energy? Ah, that is where climate comes into play. Climate is concerned with the ongoing effects on the environment around us over a period of time. Patterns of rain, drought, snow, tornados, tropical storms, hurricanes, hail storms, cyclones, cold waves, heat waves are all affected by the energy within the water on the planet or within the atmosphere of the planet. More energy, more "energetic" weather. The energy is stored as heat but can be used as an intensifier for many types of weather patterns -- not just those associated with heat.

     Intensified weather means just that. Colder cold spells, longer and dryer draughts, more frequent and stronger tornados and hurricanes, air streams moved from "traditional" paths. All this means that "averages", including 50-year events or 100-year events are all up for grabs. They are in the process of change -- climate change.

Tech scalpers: attacks and defenses

 

     Once upon a time, scalpers were just folks who went to a ticket agency, possibly having waited in line (or paid someone else to wait for them), got as many tickets to the event (sports, concert, ...) as possible and then stood outside the event location trying to sell them for as much as the market would bear. An event that was not sold out would probably only get back the ticket price (or less). But an event that was sold out and very popular -- who knows the price that one could get. It was usually considered to be illegal but very difficult to enforce.

     In current days, although "old-style" scalpers still exist, the tech scalpers have largely taken their place. Online purchases/access means online scalpers. Events for scalping exist in the same venue as brick-and-board. Tickets or products become available for sale at a specific, predetermined, time and place. OR tickets or products will become available at an unspecified time -- "hit and miss".

     For the tech scalper, these events are met by automation -- or "bots". A bot will "hang around" for the appropriate time, or will do frequent snapshots of web pages to compare in order to find out when something is now available, and pounce. A human at a keyboard can do the same thing (or can make use of some of the same apps that tech scalpers use) but not nearly as promptly. And a human must be around when the event occurs -- the bots can be set up to do everything without further intervention by humans.

     In attempts to make purchases, and access, fair -- limits are often imposed. "Only ten tickets per purchaser." Or, "only four widgets per session". For a human, that is successful. For a tech scalper, that just means that they need to clone and multiply. Limits per session? Have massive numbers of multiple sessions. Limits per purchaser? Have multiple accounts.

     The purchaser, or tech scalper, has noticed the event and gotten in-line. The goal now is to determine the item to be purchased and check out as quickly as possible.

     We have reached the point where different types of events have different requirements. In order to purchase a ticket, a choice of seat/ticket must be done. For speed, the "best seat available" option is usually open but not always. For a scarce item now available, there is usually only one choice.

     The amount of time between noticing something is available and choosing it is the first critical amount of time and the tech scalper has the advantage. After choosing the item, there are two ways the seller can handle it. They can take the item out of inventory or they can just keep allowing items to be chosen as long as there are still items available that have not been purchased.

     If the seller takes something out of inventory upon choosing, they run the risk of having it "tied up" and not available for sale to anyone else -- and the first person may choose to not do the final purchase. For sellers who choose this option, there is usually a specific time counter for the purchaser to complete the purchase before the item is released back to inventory. The time limit is not always explicit.

     For sellers who leave it in inventory, the seller has the advantage that it is likely that, for popular items, all the items will be sold. The buyers, however, are in the situation where 500 items may be chosen 5000 times and the first 500 to finish the task of purchasing are the winners.

     In this situation, the tech scalpers are the ultimate winners. Although a few of the humans might get a ticket or item, most of the purchases by the tech scalpers will succeed. Humans have possible opportunities only when there are more items than scalping "units" (number of active scalping programs times number of purchases possible per program). Without automation, humans cannot beat the tech scalpers if the scalping units exceed the number of items available except with the very best of luck.

     Humans can improve their odds by being as ready as possible when the item becomes available by having to ONLY choose and buy. Even there, the human is at a disadvantage because of bandwidth limitations in which the tech scalper is likely to have a high-speed connection.

     In my opinion, for scarce items, sellers should always do the time-out method and pull it out of inventory when chosen. Any other choice gives the "game" to the tech scalpers.

Structures: Scaffolds for growth

 

     For many startups, the total rule is "lean, green, mean". Do what you most need to do, as fast as you can, with as little excess, or non-mandatory, work as possible. When I was co-founder of our company, it was not unusual to be working 80-hour weeks. We knew what we had to produce and we had a few methods to try to get it into the hands of people who would pay us for them. (We soon needed to expand that "marketing and sales" aspect of the business.)

     That is the basics of trade in a nutshell -- produce what is of value to others who will give back things of value to you.

     That works in a barter economy as well as in an industrialized, capitalistic, economy. It is also true within other viable economic systems. As the business, or economy, or government, grows it can often end up "abstracted" where it is difficult to say exactly what things of value are being exchanged.

     Leap ahead and start imagining a business that has thousands of people working to provide tens of thousands of things of value and having to keep track of a hundred thousand purchases and transactions. If it all works smoothly then it could be done in the same manner as when the trade was just between you and someone else -- that simple, basic, barter agreement.

     But this is reality. There are few one-to-one relationships between any person and any proceeding from start to finish. Person A does one part to process C and Person B does something different to process G which directly influences process C but A has no direct visibility to process G.

     Confusing? Absolutely. And this is still only a very simple situation. There needs to be some type of documentation -- method of communication -- between Person B and Person A that provides insight into relevant aspects of Process G without inundating Person A with all of the other knowledge and systems that Person B is handling.

     So, simple transactions have need of simple processes. High numbers of interrelated transactions, people, and processes have need of much better access to, and keeping track of, relevant information. How do you succeed in growing the business from simple to complex?

     The base answer is "structures" which can be loosely defined as ways to organize information about what is being done, (who/what/when/where/why) by the people who originate the information, to have it accessible to those who need to know that information. The other leg is "processes" -- which is involved with how that information is processed, saved, distributed, and otherwise not lost in the cascading effects of a successful large business.

     Processes can (and do) make use of various apps and programs. But without structures, the processes cannot do much of anything because they don't have the data with which to use those processes. Also, processes differ with every aspect of the business. A process for generating ideas. A process for estimating, and keeping track of, work. A process for manufacturing inventory and supply control chains. And so forth. But all of the processes rely on structures.

     The primary importance of determining just what information is needed for the business is that it remains approximately the same no matter how large the company gets. (Yes, as a business reaches certain growth points, new regulations may come into play.) This facilitates growth. The information has to be there but, when the company is small, it can be retained within various people's memories. Just like it seems to be true to a teenager, all employees of a startup are deemed to be immortal and those valuable data are always available.

     Absurd? Certainly. But it is so very easy to eliminate those items, that seem to not immediately affect the bottom line, when you are small, focused, and overworked. Resist. The data can be written on a large notepad or, for transitory data, on a white board. But get it written down. As the company grows, you are going to run out of room on those notepads or they will become too many to search through easily. So, you develop (or obtain) new processes and applications that help you to manage that data. But you already are used to getting, and documenting, that data. You are prepared for growth.

     

Substitution: A spotlight on biases and prejudices

 

     There is a difference between direct, active biases and prejudices and indirect, passive biases and prejudices. The difference is largely one of being conscious of the situation. If you are aware that you have biases and prejudices and you take no action to eliminate, or reduce, them then you are actively encouraging them. Certainly, there are people and groups in this category.

     But there are many more situations of passive bias and prejudices. Being passive and indirect, and part of everyday life, these types of biases and prejudices become part of the general environment. It is necessary to recognize these situations and bring them to the conscious level in order to struggle against, and eliminate, them.

     How can this be done? One method that I suggest is that of substitution. This is another way of saying "walk in their shoes" but it is more of a general exercise than a specific example. No matter how much it might be desired, it is truly impossible to be part of the society, the history, and the world,  of another person. There is no way to live another's life.

     The best that we can do is to recognize that we treat others differently. In the case of substitution, we take a situation and "substitute" various factors to determine whether it changes the way we think about it.

     Changing the use of the word "mailman" to "postal carrier" was ridiculed. But, in the years since that change was made, we now have a large number of female postal carriers in addition to male postal carriers. The change of word did not matter but the change in thought did. Language directly affects the way we think.

     In other areas, if a person uses a pronoun for a position or job category, what happens if you substitute a different pronoun? If you are used to saying "he did a good job", how does it change the way you think about it if it is now "she did a good job"? Does the change in pronoun make you uncomfortable? Do you find it hard to visualize someone different in that role? Once upon a time, in the U.S., nurses were mostly men. Then they became female. Then we started to consciously make it a position for men and women. The same is true for secretaries (now, often, administrative assistants).

     Doctors, CEOs, department heads, directors, business owners -- substitute the pronoun used and see if you look at the position differently. Note that changing the title to a non-genderized form is not sufficient. CEO is not a gender specific word, but people do not sufficiently use "she" or "her" with the title. Since, in English, pronouns are what specifies gender, use of alternating genders is needed to retrain expectations. In other languages, the gender is often directly part of the title but not always.

     Substitution methods do not stop at pronouns, language, and gender. You see a group of young people doing something in a store or on a street. Change their skin color, or external religious symbolism, or the way they are clothed within your mind. If you make that change, do you react, or think about them, differently? If you find yourself reacting differently, you can notice it. Once consciously aware, it is a situation you can now address.

     This is not just a mind game. Studies have been performed showing photos of people in various normal activities and situations. The photos have people in the driver's seat of a car, shopping, walking in a high-priced neighborhood (or low-end neighborhood), talking with a teacher, and so forth. When the researchers kept all other factors the same and just changed one in the photos (it might be the way they are dressed or their skin color or external religious indication or whatever), there were significant differences in the way people described the people in the photos.

     Recently, the same tests were performed with police officers of several cities. In spite of being aware of the general subject of the tests, the description of the people in the photos differed dependent on skin color, gender, and other aspects.

     When job applications are stripped of identification markers, the pool of acceptable candidates change. Things such as names, addresses, specific affiliations are removed or substituted with generic items. The person reading the application cannot determine gender or ethnic or religious heritage. And it makes a difference.

     Photos, of course, make a considerable difference. Since face to face interaction is a large part of being able to perform most jobs, it is difficult to know just how this factor can be made generic within in-person job interviews. It is necessary to know how they speak, how they listen, their body language, and general conduct.

     Perhaps the best we can do, at present, is to keep the first levels of applications, which are not in person,  generic. Any suggestions?

The Path to Success: Why is failure so valuable?

 

     We have all encountered advice to "don't worry about failure ... that is just one step towards success". I'm certainly not going to write to contradict this advice. In my opinion, it is very good advice. However, most of the time, when this is relayed, there is no context as to WHY failure is so valuable. There are many different ways to fail and I am guessing that few people would commend people on the ability to keep failing the same way over and over. It is very important to learn from the failure. Keep making new mistakes.

     Success ... Failure. You are the one that defines those terms. It can apply to the business world, the interpersonal world, family, raising children, or anything else. Still, however you define 'failure', there is a good chance that you will have one or more episodes of failure before you approach what you define as success. What lessons can you pull out of 'failure'?

• What you did right. First thing, recognize that you didn't 'fail' at everything you did. Hopefully you did more things right than on a previous attempt. Recognize yourself for what you did right. Make a list. Analyze them. What did you change from previous attempts to make the outcome better? Give yourself kudos for what you did right. Allow those positive aspects to inspire yourself to work on the next iteration.
  
  
• What you did wrong. Where did the weaknesses show up? Did you try to address them as soon as you recognized them? Did a sequence of negative things occur and you only recognized it once it was too far along the wrong path? Were the things that happened universally 'wrong' or would they have been appropriate in other circumstances?
  
  Sometimes 'failures' occur because of others' actions. So, 'you' did not do anything wrong. But, it does no good to blame others even if they did things that led to 'failure'. You are in charge of yourself. You are in charge of your journey. How would you recognize those problems in the future? How could you compensate for those problems? Often, you have to rely on others to achieve your goals. Monitor, analyze, compensate, mentor -- but don't waste the energy on blaming. Rather, understand how to avoid it in the future.
  
  
• Would a change in process help? Sometimes it isn't something you did 'wrong' -- it's that you did something at the wrong time in the process. You 'rushed' something or you delayed and missed an opportunity. Generally you want to think/plan, prepare, implement, review, revise but there may be sub-processes involved that must be in their own proper order.
  
  
• Did you have the right skills to be applied (your own or others)? Certain skills are needed at different times in the process. In the example of starting a business, there are different skills needed when you are putting the business together than once the company is moving along steadily. Actually, perhaps not DIFFERENT skills but a different balance of skills. If you have a great idea and a great business plan then you might get seed money and be able to launch but you need to be able to network and investigate competition and keep track of trends to continue to be viable. "A shark that stops moving cannot live."
  
  
• At what point could you recognize you had little chance to succeed? This is a skill that is often a criterion for leadership. Entrepreneurs make mistakes. Leaders make mistakes. People make mistakes. Sometimes you can recover from a mistake. Once you recognize there is no chance to reach your goal, salvage what you can in as good of a way as possible so that you have resources with which to start your next attempt. A long, painful, death may appear to be a good thing because it gives you more time but it may also drain resources that could be better used in other ways.
  
  
• Did you wind up the scenario in such a way that you could try again? This is associated with the previous bullet but more a matter of burning bridges. Be honest. Be up front. If you are not succeeding, you will not make people, who have hoped you would succeed, happy by telling them everything is OK when it is not. You will lose trust. Trust and reputation are valuable aspects that are hard to build and easy to lose. Stay honorable and well-regarded.
  

     We are each on our own special journeys. The roads are not always smooth. Keep a spare, have tools to repair, be able to call for help, recognize when to abandon the vehicle and start walking.

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.