Archive for the ‘Behaviour’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Can Obama do anything other than make pretty speeches?

July 20, 2014

I was listening to Barack Obama after the shooting down of MH17. It was just another pretty speech.

Barack Obama’s place in history is assured.

He will be remembered as the first black President of the US.

The history books may have little more positive to say than that. They may mention that he did win a second term. They may well wonder why? They may mention his dithering and some of his pretty speeches. They may have many more negative things to remember. Of being a US President who despite a Democratic majority in the Senate managed to accomplish very little. In both international affairs and on the domestic front some of his failures could be catastrophic enough to earn a place in the history books.

Iraq and Syria are overrun with terrorists. Violence is flaring in Ukraine and on Israel’s borders. A humanitarian crisis is developing on our own southern border, but immigration legislation, like most all legislation, is moribund. Probes of the veterans’ health-care system, the IRS and Benghazi are sucking up attention and the administration’s time.

Now fully one third of the US thinks Obama was/has been the worst US President since the Second World War! Worse than Jimmy Carter, worse than George Bush Jr., even worse than Richard Nixon., and I can remember the loathing that Tricky Dicky engendered – both in the US and internationally.

Obama’s reputation internationally is one of pretty speeches and no substance, of a President who is so risk averse that he is virtually paralysed in any situation demanding courage and of a President who has abdicated control over his security services. The NSA spying revelations, the expulsion of the CIA head in Germany and the failure of intelligence in Libya and Syria and Ukraine, despite unprecedented levels of information gathering, give the impression of a security service completely devoid of oversight or direction. Obama’s security apparatus is going rogue but he has not the wherewithal to control or direct it.

Even domestically his healthcare flagship is less than convincing. He may have bigger failures to come both internationally and domestically, but there is little expectation of any future successes. His over-analysis and dithering on virtually every issue suggests he could possibly have been of some use in a think-tank advising a President. But they are characteristics which have not served him well as President.

But Obamacare’s “free” benefit mandates, and overregulation, has only resulted in sharply increasing health insurance costs, more than doubling premiums in many cases, another President Obama failure by his own words and standards.

But the worst President Obama failure can still be yet to come.  Obama told us that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran’s terrorist government would be “unacceptable” and he would stop it by any means necessary, with all options now on the table.  But the flower child Obama/Kerry nuclear negotiations now actually seem resigned to only trying to contain what Reagan defense expert Frank Gaffney now is calling the Iranian “Obamabomb,” to echo the Obamacare failure.

His pretty speeches have fooled a lot of people and have built up hopes and expectations. But it is not just that hopes and expectations will have been dashed. He will leave the world a more turbulent and dangerous place when he leaves the presidency than when he started. Eight wasted years.

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Can Obama do anything other than make pretty speeches?

Which idiot organisation declared MH17’s flight path as “safe”?

July 18, 2014

It now looks like it was a surface-to-air missile (of Russian make) which downed MH17 and killed 298 (not 295) people. The missile was probably launched by a pro-Russian, Cossack, separatist group in eastern Ukraine though this claim is made by the Ukrainian Security service – for whatever that is worth. It was certainly not a hand-held missile which cannot reach such altitudes.

The questions I have are:

  1. Which idiot organisation in such a war-zone, where unknown and unaccountable separatists were known to be in possession of missiles, declared the air space as “unrestricted” and therefore safe? “Malaysia Airlines said on Friday the flight route taken by the MH17 airliner that came down in Ukraine had been declared safe by the UN aviation arm, the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It also said the International Air Transportation Association “had stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions”.
  2. Why was MH17 flying south of its filed route and closer to the “war-zone” than planned?, and
  3. What were the Russians doing in allowing the separatists access to such missiles? Like giving a loaded gun to a chimpanzee.
MH17 Ukraine flight path Guardian - Flight Radar 24

MH17 Ukraine flight path Guardian – Flight Radar 24

Ukrainian air space was emptied out very quickly yesterday after the shooting down of MH17.

 

ukraine airspace

Ukrainian airspace after MH17 was shot down image Newsweek

Tags:
Posted in Aviation, Behaviour | 3 Comments »

Tattooed ladies on Drottninggatan

July 16, 2014

So we were in Stockholm with some guests from the UK and engaging in typical tourist activities. The sun was shining with a light wind and the program was to walk down Drottninggatan to Gamla Stan and wander around the Old Town and the Royal Palace for a few hours. But my knees were playing up and it was decided that my services as a tour guide were not really either necessary or useful. I would be better employed – we concluded – in watching the tourists rather than being a tourist.

I took up station at an outdoor cafe sometime before noon. I chose my table carefully to maximise my time in the sun. I was well armed with a large coffee and a small Danish. And the world went by. (I have no doubt that every one who visits Stockholm does – at some time – walk down Drottninggatan and past my observation post).

image: http://www.hufvudstaden.se

The analogy was of watching water flowing in a river – but in both directions simultaneously. The passers-by moved in little waves, in ripples, in eddies swirling about and in large waves. Sometimes they trickled by, at times they surged past and sometimes they surged and receded and surged past again. Some determined individuals strode by with clear direction and objectives, others merely loafed by with a general sense of direction of flow but with no great urgency. Some weaved from one shop window on one side to the next on the other – but still generally forward. Some few clumps moved first in one direction, then reversed course and moved back as they caught sight of something they fancied. Kids milled around, lost sight of their parents and then found them again. Large waves of tour groups (one Chinese, one Japanese and one which sounded Russian) flooded past. But there were no collisions.

It was time for some anthropology.

Two individuals, one male and one female, went past – separately – fishing out aluminium cans from every rubbish bin. The female – by dress presumably Roma – was equipped with a trolley for her collection, wore plastic gloves  and left the rubbish bins pretty much as she found them. No fuss, no muss. The man used plastic carrier bags but left a trail of candy wrappings behind him. No fuss but much mess till the street sweeper also came by.

Inevitably one sat and watched the girls go by. Some were dressed for a Caribbean beach. Others for an Arctic winter. Nineteen out of 225 had visible tattoos (the count ended at 225 since I needed to refill my coffee). Maybe not universally representative but just under 10% of those surveyed had visible tattoos. Tattoos on arms and legs were the most common. Tattoos on ankles, a few on the face and on the back of the neck were also apparent and no special efforts were necessary to make them visible. Some were on shoulders and thighs and stomachs and chests. Here clothes – or more accurately a lack of clothing – had been chosen to make the tattoos clearly visible. Of course the number of tattooed ladies with hidden tattoos cannot be commented upon. Generally the tattoos were in shades of black but some use of reds and greens and yellows was also evident. It was a lovely day but fairly breezy and not quite warm enough for the level of undress on display. It seemed that every lady silly enough to walk bare-shouldered or bare-stomached or in a bikini top, had chosen to do so because she had a tattoo to display.

(I just note in passing that those men I observed who had  bare shoulders or chests also inevitably had some tattoo to display and triceps or abs struggling to be admired).

But the tattoos were all – every single one – ugly and disfiguring to my eyes. Not one added to the attractiveness of the subject. The already pretty girls sought to enhance their attractiveness – and failed. Attention was diverted from their inherent attractiveness to their ugly tattoos. The not so pretty ones seemed to be using exhibitionism to attract attention (as an alternative to being seen as attractive) – and also failed. The eye was drawn to the ugly tattoo and only reinforced the shortfall of “attractiveness”.

Why do people get tattoos? My less than scientific study leads me to the following “conclusions”. Like jewelry or piercings or articles of fashion or hair-styling,  it can only be to attract the attention of those around. Attracting attention itself can only be for the purpose of being “admired” or of being seen as “different” or “unique” or as a “badge”. It cannot – usually – be for the purpose of attracting contempt (though it could be for being seen as a “rebel” where some contempt is then accepted as collateral damage). Fundamentally it is for the narcissism in us, for satisfying the “Look at Me” syndrome or for the “I am Special” syndrome.

After 3 cups of coffee I needed some beer and so I had to move. But some things were clear. Tattoos are a disfigurement and are all ugly. And whatever the narcissistic aims of the tattooed ladies, they were counter-productive.

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Trivia | Comments Off on Tattooed ladies on Drottninggatan

ADHD or just bad parenting?

July 11, 2014

We are on a trip and staying at a hotel known for being very “child-friendly”.

I have forgotten how boisterous our kids were when they were 8-10 years old. But the disruption caused by a few kids at breakfast today got me wondering where the line between “letting children be children” and the responsibility of parents lies. It does seem to me that claiming that a child has ADHD is too often used as an excuse for bad parenting.

If ADHD is a “disease” – and I am not convinced that it is – then it is either due to genetics or it is inculcated after birth by the quality of nurture provided or by both. Whether nature or nurture it is caused by the parents. If ADHD is not a disease but merely “learned” behaviour – or more likely “untaught” behaviour- then it is the quality  of parenting which comes into question.  It is only if it is a purely genetic disease, where nurture plays no part, and parents can no longer have any influence that it makes sense to try and medicate the condition away.

Maybe I am just too suspicious about the pharmaceutical industry. But I remain convinced that many “diseases” are invented to find a use for compounds created by the industry. And these compounds are often the result of failed research which was seeking other solutions. Marketing strategy 101 is all about finding the question for which you have an available answer.

But for the two rowdy, noisy, clumsy, messy kids at breakfast today, It was just simple bad parenting which was letting their kids down!!

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour | 1 Comment »

Design the change — better still, invent it, but don’t forget to manage it

July 10, 2014

(Extracts from a recent lecture on change management).

Without change even time does not exist.

Without change life itself is impossible. Elementary particles could be here or may be there. Schrodinger’s cat may be alive or maybe not. Atoms vibrate. Chemistry happens. Molecules are built. Some reproduce. Life emerges. The earth rotates. The Sun radiates. Energy is transformed. Species appear. Species disappear.  Evolution results. Continents drift. Climate changes. Energy is transformed. Radiation dissipates. Entropy increases. The Universe expands.

Before the Big Bang and the existence of time, all was stasis and maybe there will be stasis again. One day the Sun will die.

But till then we live – and die – with change. “Change Management”  appeared as a new discipline in the 1980’s to try and manage our behaviour during such change. Mergers and acquisitions across borders and cultures has given impetus to the field.

Change makes us uncomfortable but some deny it, some run away from it and some embrace it, but we all have to cope with it. The key lies in how pro-active we can be. We can classify increasing levels of being pro-active:

  1. Deny the change
  2. Observe the change
  3. React to the change
  4. Manage the change
  5. Design the change
  6. Invent the change

In the commercial world I would claim that the greatest benefit lies in being as high up among these levels as possible. I suspect that this applies to all fields of human endeavour and not just to commercial enterprises.

Denying that change has happened generally leads to isolation and eventually to extinction. That applies as well to a species as to a commercial enterprise or to an individual. Change can be gradual along existing trends or it could be a change in the trend or it can be a discontinuity and the start of a new paradigm. Observing and forecasting the changes to come is where change management begins. But there has to be a caveat here. Denying or failing to observe a change is very dangerous but so is assuming that a change is happening when it isn’t. Merely reacting to change is the norm and this passive approach means that the level of control is generally low. What will be will be. If change has happened, passive reaction must be replaced by active decisions. Even a “do nothing” option should be an active choice.

Predicting market trends is the stuff of life for market analysts and commercial enterprises. It is an attempt to observe change before it happens and to try and manage it. Even a defensive strategy should be an active decision. Establishing new products or penetrating new markets are attempts to design and manage a change. While designing a change gives a very strong position, it is no guarantee of success. Subsequent management of the change created will not happen automatically. Inventing change is the most powerful way of handling change but carries inordinate risks. A new paradigm – if created – may be quite unpredictable.

Sony invented Betamax but didn’t properly foresee the changing market they helped create.  But when they created the Walkman they shifted a paradigm. Nokia helped design the mobile telephony market but missed the switch to smart phones. Facebook and Myspace invented something new and a new paradigm of social connections ensued. But Myspace has not managed the subsequent change very well. The US invented the new Iraq but forgot to foresee or manage the change that they set in motion. The Indian electorate has invented Modi and it remains to be seen if he can manage the change and reinvent the country.

My message for all commercial enterprises becomes:

  1. Observe the changes around you (and try to forecast what they will be)
  2. Never forget to react to change
  3. Actively manage the changes which have already happened
  4. Aim to design or invent future changes but don’t forget to manage the change you create.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Business, Management | Comments Off on Design the change — better still, invent it, but don’t forget to manage it

Why so much fuss that Facebook “manipulated” emotions?

July 8, 2014

There has been a lot of fuss lately about an internal Facebook study which managed to be published in a scientific journal as I noted in passing about 3 weeks ago.

Emotional contagion by Facebook could be a new disease. A case of the medium creating the new disease! Heightened emotions can apparently be transmitted by Facebook. The researchers find that“emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness”. And emotional contagion is what turns a crowd into a mob. And as this work from MIT shows, “Good people can do bad things. Belonging to a group makes people more likely to harm others outside the group.”

The research consisted of manipulating Facebook feeds and seeing what happened. The paper, the journal, Facebook and Cornell University have been heavily criticised for their “lack of ethics” and many are back-tracking in CYA exercises. Retraction Watch writes:

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is subjecting a much-criticized study involving Facebook that it published just two weeks ago to an Expression of Concern. …. Critics — and there were many online — said the study violated ethical norms because it did not alert participants that they were taking part.

…… Here’s the Expression of Concern, signed by editor-in-chief Inder Verma:

……. When the authors prepared their paper for publication in PNAS, they stated that: “Because this experiment was conducted by Facebook, Inc. for internal purposes, the Cornell University IRB [Institutional Review Board] determined that the project did not fall under Cornell’s Human Research Protection Program.” This statement has since been confirmed by Cornell University. ……

But I find all the fuss a little hypocritical. Manipulation of the behaviour of others is the norm and the bed-rock for all human social intercourse.

Politicians manipulate – or try to – their voters. Demagogues manipulate individuals to create a mob. Artists and authors try to arouse emotions. Scientists try to influence their grant panels. We manipulate our friends and our family members. A leader manipulates his followers. Followers try to influence their leaders. All human cooperation is built on manipulation of behaviour. We try to manipulate our enemies. When we call it “manipulation” we disapprove but when we call it “motivation” it is to be admired. Obama tries to motivate Netanyahu but Bibi usually manages to manipulate Barack. Manipulation of behaviour by persuasion is fine but manipulation by coercion is frowned upon. Any advertisement – by definition – plays with the emotions of its target audience and tries to manipulate their behaviour.

So what is wrong then when a Facebook or a Google or a Twitter  – whose business model depends on placing advertisements accurately and effectively – tries to employ “emotional contagion” to maximise their revenues? I closed my Facebook and Twitter accounts some time ago partly because I did not like their intrusive nature. But that was because I felt that my personal space was being encroached on – and beyond the level I felt comfortable with. But I certainly did not feel they were doing anything unethical. In this case I find the criticism confused and a little inane. Was it unethical for Facebook to have conducted an “internal” study. I don’t think so. Was it unethical for PNAS to have published the paper? Not really.

If it is unethical for internet sites or social media to target advertisements then it is unethical for any advertisement to be targeted towards anyone.

The onus I think lies with the individual.

 

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Media | Comments Off on Why so much fuss that Facebook “manipulated” emotions?

UK is not necessary for the Fourth Reich of the United States of Europe

June 28, 2014

My somewhat jaundiced and cynical view of what Juncker’s selection as President of the European Commission and Cameron’s defeat means. Cameron failed in his attempt to block the appointment of Juncker, but the EU failed in achieving a consensus.

In fact the French and the Germans have made it clear that the UK is not necessary in their definition of a European consensus.

The ultimate aim of the European Project is the creation of a United States of Europe where Brussels maps to Washington. This will require each member state to finally give up any semblance of sovereignty to the bureaucracy in Brussels and to the European parliament. A United States of Europe will favour the population-rich central part of Europe. That Germany and France endorse this goal is all too clear because they believe it will effectively be the start of the Fourth Reich of a Holy Franco-German Empire. The southern Europe states go along because they see greater economic benefit for themselves in being vassals and being supported by their masters in the richer north. The far northern states of Europe are small and just do not have the population and market size for their own home markets to be self-sufficient or to allow them much growth. They need the large markets of central and southern Europe to fuel their own growth. So they go along with the Project and dig their little heels in where they can.

The UK is the odd man out. While the UK has some clout due to its population, the Project is well aware that the UK – as it is – values its own sovereignty so high that its continued membership is entirely inconsistent with the aim of creating a United States of Europe. Better for a UK – if it stays united – to leave the EU than that it subverts the whole concept by remaining a member. The French and Germans would love to see the Balkanisation of the UK and an independent Scotland (perhaps followed by an independent Northern Ireland and an independent Wales). That would allow the fractured bits of the UK to stay within the EU but without the strength to jeopardise the Project. For an independent Scotland or Wales, ceding all power to Brussels rather than to London would not be all that bad. Moreover the markets of the fractured UK countries would then remain available to the EU but each of the new countries would have to accept the inevitability of the Fourth Reich.

It should be fairly obvious that while I would like the EU to remain as a free trade and free movement of labour area, any political union must come in a natural way and cannot be forced as Brussels and the Franco-German alliance are trying to do. If true economic union is achieved then political union across country boundaries becomes almost inevitable and a non-issue. Economic pressures have to be addressed first. Opening the political valve across an economic boundary is best done when pressures have equalised.

And yet the member states of the EU have already ceded many of their powers to the bloated Brussels bureaucrats. And inevitably their practices reduce to the lowest common behaviour. Rather than promoting best practices the EU enshrines the worst common practices. The EU parliament is about the most undemocratic institution there is where the members are not accountable to their constituencies, follow party guidelines and ultimately represent only themselves.

Just imagine the Canadians or the Mexicans having to follow bureaucratic diktats from Washington.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Europe, European Union | 1 Comment »

Midnight sun and Ramadan splits Muslim theologians

June 27, 2014

This year the holy month of Ramadan, the ninth month of the Islamic calendar,  is expected to begin on June 28th and will finish on July 27th. It is supposed to represent the month during which the Koran was revealed and the main – and characteristic – practice for Muslims globally is fasting from dawn to sunset. No food, no drink, no cigarettes, no sex while the sun is up.

In Kiruna in northern Sweden in the Arctic circle, there is no night from the end of May till the middle of July.

Muslim theologians and interpreters of the holy scriptures have found various ways to avoid following the Koran and fasting for a whole month in the land of the midnight sun. There is no consensus though, between Sunnis and Shias or within the various sects as to the correct practice to be followed. But they generally agree (except for the Saudi mullahs of course) that the Koran need not be followed literally in the Arctic circle. Mullahs consulted in the Middle East find themselves well outside their areas of competence but that does not stop them exhibiting their ignorance or from issuing their fatwas. (Common sense of course is not something of much value to any theologian).

  1. Some scholars have suggested that fasting could wait till the autumn – but this is considered a cop-out by other, stricter, holier eminences.
  2. Egyptian scholars –  a pragmatic lot – allow that if the length of day is longer than 18 hours then the time in Mecca or Medina may be followed.
  3. “The Azhar Fatwa Committee in Egypt has issued a fatwa permitting Muslims in Scandinavia and Northern countries to fast according to Mecca time”.
  4. Iranian mullahs have decreed that long days do not provide an excuse for not fasting but leave it to the individual as to what time should be followed or if Muslims should just move to a more suitable location for the holy month.
  5. Saudi mullahs – may they live forever – insist that the local time must be followed and mere death should not be allowed to intervene.

Mullahs do not even entertain the heretical possibility that perhaps Islam is not a religion intended for the Arctic or the Antarctic.

As a compromise, some Kiruna muslims are following the times of sunset and sunrise in Stockholm – which still gives them a very long day and a very short night.

Mohammed was not an Inuit.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Religion | Comments Off on Midnight sun and Ramadan splits Muslim theologians

Biter bit: Suarez banned for 4 months including 9 international matches

June 26, 2014

Luis Alberto Suárez Díaz, the serial biter / footballer has played his last match at this World Cup.

BBC: 

Uruguay striker Luis Suarez has been suspended from all football-related activity for four months for biting Italy defender Giorgio Chiellini.

Fifa’s independent disciplinary committee imposed the ban after finding the 27-year-old guilty of misconduct.

Suarez has also been banned for nine international matches, ruling him out of the rest of the World Cup.

Reuters: Suarez was also suspended from any football-related activity for four months and fined 100,000 Swiss francs ($111,000).

“Such behaviour cannot be tolerated on any football pitch, and in particular not at a FIFA World Cup when the eyes of millions of people are on the stars on the field,” Claudio Sulser, chairman of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, said in a statement.

“The Disciplinary Committee took into account all the factors of the case and the degree of Mr Suarez’s guilt in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code. The decision comes into force as soon it is communicated.”

Nothing is reported (yet) as to whether he

  1. will be required to wear a muzzle whenever he plays
  2. will have to take an AIDS test before every match
  3. will have his “wisdom” teeth extracted
  4. will have to provide a written guarantee to all opposing players before every match
  5. will have to provide his club Liverpool with a personal indemnity for his future actions
  6. will have to attend psychiatric counselling
  7. will be prosecuted for assault

Liverpool will not get very much for him when they do finally get rid for him.

Best to write his financial value off.

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Football, World Cup | Comments Off on Biter bit: Suarez banned for 4 months including 9 international matches

Was Suarez paid to bite an opponent?

June 25, 2014

I just saw this article on Swedish Radio’s website:

Betting site Betsafe offered odds of 175-1 that Suarez would bite an opponent during the World Cup. Over 100 people won.

Jonathan Brack from Stockholm was one of them. ……. 

The Swede won over 14 000 kronor after the game and is now planning a trip to Manchester to see his favorite team Machester United play.

This was just in Sweden. And when there is big money or big odds at stake I tend to suspect that some kind of fixing could have taken place. If the bookies have paid out then it can no longer be in doubt for FIFA that he did the deed.

Luis Suarez’ action was so stupid and so outrageous – considering that he has done this twice before – that I cannot help suspecting that he could have been paid to do what he did.

The numbers are compelling. Just suppose he had placed – through a friend of course – $100,000 with someone offering 175:1. With $17.5 million, being suspended for just 2 years would be no big deal! Or suppose that 1,000 punters worldwide each bet $1,000. That would have provided a pot of $175 million to be shared with Suarez if he ensured that they would win!!

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Football, World Cup | Comments Off on Was Suarez paid to bite an opponent?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »