Learn not churn @learnnotchurn-blog - Tumblr Blog

Love as a function of numbers

Bernard Salt, social editor of The Australian and partner at KPMG, wrote an interesting - albeit mildly depressing - column recently, arguing that love and lust is a function of numbers.

Based on his book, Man Drought, Salt's central thesis initially was that whenever there is an oversupply of men, women have the upper hand because they can pick and choose.

This is precisely what happens in the 'prime partnering' phase of the lifecycle, between 18-34.

There is a natural oversupply of boys relative to girls at birth leaving an excess male population that lasts through the teens, 20s and 30s.

So, at age 25, there are 165, 000 women and 173, 000 men in Australia. If they all paired up, 5 per cent of men would miss out.

It's a period that Salt is characteristic of a 'shocking sheila shortage'.

(Unsurprisingly, the numbers are reversed at the age of 50 when there are 159, 000 women and 155, 000 men, resulting in 3 per cent of women missing out. )

The inherent flaw in this argument is that women typically do not choose a partner within their age cohort - rather, women still choose a partner roughly 2 years older i.e., the average age of first marriage is 27 for women and 29 for men.

This means, Salt argues, that the 'equation that really matters is the supply of women relative to the supply of men two years older'.

By the time women get to 27, there are 168, 000 women looking for a partner among 164, 000 men aged 29. Meaning, if they all paired up, 4,000 women would miss out.

The 'shrinkage' of men means that by their late 20s, men are more likely than women to travel, work and live overseas, thereby removing themselves from the Australian partnering market.

Moreover, there is a 'quality' shift - 'educated, entrepreneurial, self-confident alpha men are more likely to work overseas, leaving a shallow pool of second-tier beta boys for local women to choose from'.

Fabulous.

So what can women do to circumvent this trend?

a) Partner with men their own age or younger

b) Remain overseas after backpacking: after all, 'why come back to the beta boys?'.

c) Let go of their preconceived ideas of their partner's age (men need to do this too)

d) Hope that Australians no longer see value in living and working overseas for extended periods

Given the unrealistic prospect of d) and moreover faced with the realistic option of younger beta boys, perhaps it's time to pack my bags!

Hate speech vs freedom of speech

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it" (Voltaire)

A functioning liberal democracy advocates freedom of speech, and by extension a free press.

But what of hate speech?

Where does one draw the line between what is deemed free speech and what is hate speech?

These were the questions bandied about at the pub tonight, and one that I have continued to grapple with.

Interestingly, I found out in my post-pub research, that the US is the only western country to allow hate speech under its First Amendment. The only exception is if the hate speech is deemed to incite the likelihood of deliberate violence i.e., to produce lawlessness or violence right away.

As an example from The NY Times:

"A fiery speech urging an angry racist mob immediately to assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article - or any publication - aimed at stirring up racial hatred surely does not."

The US government also bans 'fighting words' and 'threats'.

One argument in favour of allowing hate speech suggests that the world didn't suffer because too many people had read Hitler's Mein Kampf - and it would have been good if Hitler had gone on a speaking tour.

Katharine Gelbert argues that instead of restricting free speech, victims are hate speech should be institutionally empowered i.e., through a public policy of 'speaking back' such as via newsletters or the development of anti-racism programs.

I know I would hate to live in a world where hate speech was rife. But I can't reconcile that fact with the rational argument for allowing free speech. Where do you draw the line between what is deemed offensive and what is hate speech? I don't believe you can. Ergo, I advocate free speech across the entire spectrum...perhaps with a 1st Amendment caveat...?

A third to a half of the population are introverts.

Introversion isn't about being shy or being socially awkward as this SMH article seems to imply.

It's about how you respond to social stimulation. Introverts feel most alive when they're in their quieter, more low-key environments.

And yet, there is an inherent bias in our society against introverts. A bias, which can be traced back to our cultural history.

We evolved from an argricultural society to the world of big business, where people suddenly had to prove themselves in a crowd of strangers instead of working alongside family and friends.

And so our social institutions e.g., schools and workplaces are designed for extroverts. Think open plan offices and pods of desks, where people who prefer to work alone are often seen as outliers or even problematic.

These are the arguments made by Susan Cain, who argues solitude matters. That creativity and leadership styles can in fact benefit from the contribution of introverts, "There's zero correlation between being the best talker and having the best ideas."

My favourite points from Cain's manifesto for introverts are:

1. There’s a word for “people who are in their heads too much”: thinkers.

2. Solitude is a catalyst for innovation.

3. Sometimes it helps to be a pretend-extrovert. There’s always time to be quiet later.

4. But in the long run, staying true to your temperament is the key to finding work you love and work that matters.

5. “Quiet leadership” is not an oxymoron.

This deeply offends me. More on this to come.

Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything.

Plato

Feminine and Feminist Sensibilities

Having had recently offended (and failed to defend) feminine (and feminist) sensibilities, I found this article by Josephine Tovey particularly apt (especially since I happened to read it the day I was accosted in the street).

Tovey writes in response to Bettina Arndt's recent Sun Herald musings, Booby Trapped, where the premise of Arndt's argument is that 'liberated women are confusing the hell out of men'.

What the hell does that mean?

1. Women are stepping out dressing provocatively but bristling if the 'wrong' type of man enjoys the display.

2. There are three types of men who respond to such dressing behaviour and as such, three categories of men:

- Cocky alpha males who 'boldly eye off the assets of women they fancy'

- Sensitive men who are wary and don't know where to look

- Angry men who know the 'goodies on display aren't for them' and resent it, and thus behave badly

3. Dressing provocatively is therefore is an 'UP YOU' gesture 'of the most provocative kind'. Arndt quotes online writer Giovannia Dannato who says women exposing themselves without intending to reciprocate amounts to 'an act of aggression in which they use the power of their sex as a weapon'.

There may be some grain of truth in Arndt's argument. I think women - and indeed men - will dress in a certain way to be treated in a certain way. As Tovey argues, "to some extent, we all try to exert some power over how we are treated...to try and receive more or less sexual attention, to look younger, older or more professional."

However, I am strongly against any 'short-skirt' type arguments: that women deserve any sexual harrassment or other unfavourable sexual treatment they receive on the basis of the way they dress.

I think Tovey sums it up best when she says, "there is looking and there is leering. Language that sexualises mundane moments such as walking home from school or chatting with a colleague, or which debases and intimidates should never be excused...

Being ogled, leered at or catcalled is not really a reflection on what you happen to be wearing or doing. It is a reflection on the person providing this attention."

Recommended by one of my Canadian friends - Tan Le's Tedx Women's talk about her family's journey to Australia and the bonds of women:

"If there is a sinew in our family, it runs through the women...now I would like to have my own children and I wonder about the boat. Who could ever wish it on their own? Yet I am afraid of privilege, of ease, of entitlement. Can I give them a bow in their lives dipping bravely into each wave, the unperturbed and steady beat of the engine, the vast horizon that guarantees nothing. I don't know. But if I could give it, and still see them safely through, I would."

The Tedx talk is one of a number of things I've been watching lately about immigration and resettlement - including SBS' Once Upon A Time in Cabramatta and The Quiet Brother at the Belvoir Street Theatre (about anti-Chinese lambing flat riots during the Gold Rush) - and I find myself thinking time and time again how truly fortunate I am not to have faced any of that hardship. Time and time again though I have come to wonder whether my 'cushy' upbringing has made me complacent, too easily satisfied with the good life, and frighteningly intolerant and impatient with others who haven't had similar opportunities. I hope not.

The Smart Principle

SMART: Specific, Measurable, Authentic, Realistic, Time

A framework to keep in mind for future (and present!) goal-setting:

Specific

What is your specific goal?

'Earning more money’ is a wish list, whereas 'earning an extra $30,000 in the next 12 months' is specific.

Measurable

How will you measure the success of the goal?

How often are you going to review?

Who is going to make you accountable?

Make this area as explicit as possible as leaving it grey allows you to opt out along the way.

Authentic

How important is this goal and is it meaningful to you?

In years gone by the 'A' stood for Accountable but some of the newer information on goal setting has upgraded this to authentic, which aligns with your core values.

Realistic

How realistic is it that you're going to achieve this goal?

Is there enough complexity and difficulty to ensure you're motivated to achieve it?

We disengage with goals if they are either too easy or too hard – it's all about getting that right balance of complexity.

Time

What time frame will you set to achieve the goal?

What feedback measures will you put in place to let you know how you're tracking along the way?

I was listening to Daniel Goldstein's* TedX talk on the train after yet another morning of missing yoga and a big fat dinner. His story of Odysseus, commitment devices and the ongoing battle between the present and future selves struck a chord:

1. What is a commitment device?

"A commitment device is a decision that you make with a cool head to bind yourself so that you don't do something regrettable when you have a hot head."

2. Why do we need commitment devices?

"Well resisting temptation is hard, as the 19th century English economist Nassau William Senior said, "To abstain from the enjoyment which is in our power,or to seek distant rather than immediate results, are among the most painful exertions of the human will."

If you set goals for yourself and you're like a lot of other people, you probably realize it's not that your goals are physically impossible that's keeping you from achieving them, it's that you lack the self-discipline to stick to them.

The other reason that it's difficult to resist temptation is because it's an unequal battle between the present self and the future self. I mean, let's face it, the present self is present. It's in control. It's in power right now. It has these strong, heroic armsthat can lift doughnuts into your mouth. And the future self is not even around. It's off in the future. It's weak. It doesn't even have a lawyer present.There's nobody to stick up for the future self. And so the present self can trounce all over its dreams. So there's this battle between the two selves that's being fought, and we need commitment devices to level the playing field between the two."

3. What's the problem with commitment devices?

"...When you've got one of these devices going, such as this contract to write everyday or pay, it's just a constant reminder that you have no self-control. You're just telling yourself, "Without you, commitment device, I am nothing, I have no self-discipline." ...I think self-discipline is something, it's like a muscle. The more you exercise it, the stronger it gets.

The other problem with commitment devices is that you can always weasel your way out of them...So in effect, you are like Odysseus and the first mate in one person. You're putting yourself, you're binding yourself, and you're weaseling your way out of it, and then you're beating yourself up afterwards."

4. Beyond commitment devices - The Behavioural Time Machine

Goldstein talks about his 'Behavioural Time Machine', which focuses on ways to change people's relationship to the future self without using commitment devices, by showing people the 'face' of their future selves.

"There's a philosopher, Derek Parfit, who said some words that were inspiring to my coauthors and I. He said that, "We might neglect our future selves because of some failure of belief or imagination." That is to say,we somehow might not believe that we're going to get old, or we might not be able to imagine that we're going to get old some day. On the one hand, it sounds ridiculous. Of course, we know that we're going to get old. But aren't there things that we believe and don't believe at the same time?....And what it is is an exploration into virtual reality...."

* Daniel Goldstein studies decision-making -- especially how humans make economic and social decisions over the course of our lives, and how we can give ourselves the right incentives, reminders, and rules of thumb to make long-term smart choices rather than short-term fun choices. He runs the blog Decision Science News. He's a Principal Research Scientist at Yahoo! Research, on leave from a post at the London Business School.

"Goldstein is part of a really fascinating band of psychologists interested in heuristics -- that is, mental shortcuts that have the effect of helping us better navigate the world." (Malcolm Gladwell)

Dynamos vs Cruisers

I think this post can be summed by in one sentence: Aim to work smart, not harder...

From David H. Maister's, True Professionalism (part of my suggested work reading list):

Dynamos are always working to learn something new, and are continually adding to their skills and knowledge. They are vigorous in finding ways to get out of the flow of repetitive work, even if they are superb at it.

Cruisers are competent successful professionals who work hard, do good work and take care of their clients. They make the 'sausages'. They do well for the time being by living off their existing skills. They are not working to expand their abilities. They have a job, not a career.

Determine if you are cruising by examining the economics of your practice:

Profit/You = Profit/Fees x Fees/Hours x Hours/People x People/You

= Margin x Rate x Utilisation x Leverage

You can improve your profits by choosing Cruising OR Dynamo strategies:

1. Increasing your utilisation i.e., working harder (a donkey strategy) OR raising your rate i.e., through some combination of ability, client service, specialisation, innovation or bringing in work that commanded a higher rate

2. Increasing your margin OR increasing your leverage i.e., deliver your services to the same quality level with less of your time

The difference between Dynamos and Cruisers is one of attitude not ability. The dominant competitive advantage consists of passion and persistence i.e., act 'as if' you care - show an interest in your clients, train your juniors, manage your projects properly and invest in learning new things.

This requires discipline. And to be disciplined, you need passion. If you are actually interested e.g., in reading your clients' magazines, then it will be less of a chore and more likely to become a regular (and not unpleasant) habit. You will then be likely to reap the rewards of your self-imposed discipline.

Leaders must be intolerant of cruising, and demand (and help create) true achievement.

Achieving professional satisfaction

From David H. Maister's, True Professionalism and a chapter entitled, "No Regrets."

Maister says we should ask ourselves the following questions to evaluate our professional satisfaction:

1. The recent past

When did I have the most fun?

On which assignments, with which clients, did you most enjoy yourself?

When did you feel most fulfilled?

When did you impress yourself, or otherwise feel most proud of yourself?

2. With whom do I want to deal?

Whom do I want to impress? Whose approval do I want to win?

3. What are my evil secrets?

What are the things I don't like to admit? e.g., being the centre of attention, wanting to be rich.

Play to your evil secrets. Don't suppress them.

4. Don't sell: Buy!

You can either buy yourself a career, or be bought by one.

Nothing is more impressive (and hence marketable) than someone who clearly knows what he or she loves, and why.

Someone without a passionate commitment to a practice will indeed have to take whatever is available.

The McKinsey Way

Some simple but not simplistic points from The McKinsey Way by Ethan Rasiel

MECE - Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive.

The cornerstone of McKinsey's approach to problem solving and forming an initial hypothesis.

1. Is every issue a separate and distinct issue? ie mutually exclusive?

2. Does every aspect of the problem come under one (and only one) of these issues? ie collectively exhaustive?

The 80/20 problem-solving rule of thumb

"The 80/20 rule is one of the great truths of management consulting and, by extension, of business. You will see it wherever you look...80 per cent of sales come from 20 per cent of brokers, 80 per cent of orders come from 20 per cent of customers, 80 percent of trading profit comes from 20 per cent of traders"

In practice: "80/20 is all about data.. See the patterns, the clumps that stand out. They may mean problems but they may also mean opportunities..."

Make a chart every day - an important reminder

"It is very easy for the facts to blend into one another like pools of different coloured inks on a sheet of blotting paper. Even if you take good notes at your interviews and have the minutes of your team meetings, important points could get get lost..."

In practice: "You can avoid this by sitting down for half an hour at the end of the day and asking yourself, "What are the three most important things I learned today?" Put them in a chart of two...(or) write them down as bullet points."

The art of interviewing

1. "When you've asked all your questions, or you're running out of time, put away your guide and ask the interviewee if there's anything else he'd like to tell you or any question you forgot to ask. As often as not, the interviewee will say no, but every once in a while, you'll strike paydirt."

2. "If you watched TV in the 1970s, you may remember Peter Falk's trenchcoat wearing detective, Lieutenant Columbo. After he finished quizzing a murder suspect...and was about to leave, he would turn around...,and say, "Excuse me, ma'am, but there's something I forgot to ask." This question invariably gave Columbo the answer he needed to figure out who did it...You might also want to try the 'super-Columbo' tactic....wait a day or two...then drop by the interviewee's office. You were just passing by and remembered a question you forgot to ask. Again this makes you much less threatening, and makes it more likely that you will get the information you need."

The Square Law of Computation

For every component of a system - for every additional equation in a problem - the amount of computation required to solve the system increases at least as fast as the square of the number of equations.

In other words, the complexity to solve a problem grows at least as fast as the square of the number of things you are trying to solve. (Gerald Weinberg, An Introduction to General Systems Thinking, 1975).

So if I try to solve 4 things at once - as opposed to solving each of those 4 things individually, the relative complexity is 4x4=16 versus 4.

In practice: If the complexity of your problem doubles, the time it takes to solve it quadruples - unless you make some simplifications. Many factors affect your business. Focus on the most important ones - the key drivers.

For example, our solar system contains millions of objections, all having gravitational effects on one another. When analysing planetary motion, astronomers start by ignoring most of these objects. (Ethan M. Rasiel, The McKinsey Way, 1999)

#squarelawofcomputation #themckinseyway #managementconsulting #geraldweinberg #generalsystemsthinking #ethanrasiel

Michael Kirby on vegetarianism

I love meat. I love the smell of it, the taste of it and the sense of satisfaction that comes from devouring a steak.

As a result, I have kept my eyes firmly shut to any hint of moral objection that might come with being an omnivore.

There are a couple of things that have prompted my thoughts on vegetarianism more recently, forcing me to question my meat consumption..or at the very least to consider reducing its blind intake.

Former High Court judge, Justice Michael Kirby, is a late converter to vegetarianism and discussed his recent journey away from meat at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

His rationale for becoming vegetarian - like most vegetarians I would imagine - is based on the premise that animals are sentient yet voiceless beings, who suffer greatly in the corporatised global trade of animal farming, transport, slaughter, marketing and eating:

"...I was distressed at my earlier indifference and indirect participation in a huge industry of corporatised killing of sentient creatures. ...Yet we have come, as a society, from large-scale legal indifference to animal welfare to an expanding concern, especially from mammals and the higher forms of animal life.

Animal welfare law has been introduced in a journey that commenced with protection for companion animals; spread to a prohibition on senseless cruelty in sporting, circus and entertainment animals, and more recently has extended to the treatment of farm, exported and wild animals, and those in corporations and laboratories subjected to testing for human protection." ("Sense and sensibility about our fellow sentient creatures", Michael Kirby, SMH, August 2010)

"...If the human brain historically expanded because humans became carnivores, consuming cooked meat around the village camp fire that encouraged social life among our forebears, why should we turn our backs on these existential developments of our species that made us who and what we are?

The answer to that perfectly reasonable question is this. The ingestion of so much protein and the expansion of our human brain has produced a creature with a heightened capacity of moral reasoning.

In my lifetime, that moral reasoning has helped us to express and uphold the standards of universal human rights." ("Animals deserve our protection", Michael Kirby, The Australian, October 2011).

By no means a convert yet. But I do believe in sustainable produce and living. How I feel about animal cruelty requires more discussion and research into the actual slaughtering process. Maybe I'll start with Meatless Mondays for now.

Food for thought.

#meatlessmondays #michaelkirby #sustainableproduce #vegetarianism #festivalofdangerousideas

Loving poetry slams right now...

If I should have a daughter, Sarah Kay

"And when they finally hand you heartache, when they slip war and hatred under your door and offer you handouts on street-corners of cynicism and defeat, you tell them that they really ought to meet your mother."

#ifishouldhaveadaughter #poetryslam #sarahkay #tedx #quote

When I was 14 , Dawn Saylor

"I traded integrity for security and called it love"

#dawnsaylor #poetryslam #wheniwas14 #quote

My Generation, Omar Musa "...We made love between oil spills and massacres, tangoed between the headlines of history, flitting between hush love making and murder, draughts of cool wine and hellish salt pans wimpling with dancing mirages that brought brief joy to our desiccated hearts. My generation never stopped being children. We grew wearier, but not wiser, we grew older, but not up, and our only possessions were our winged imaginations, sitting on the brim of the ocean, waiting for the tide to bring something in."

#mygeneration #omarmusa #poetryslam #quote

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Learn not churn