Grammar: i.e & e.g.

There's a scene in the move Get Shorty where Chili Palmer is being threatened by Ray "Bones" Barboni and his bodyguard. They get into a discussion about whether Ray has correctly used the term "e.g.", Chili correctly suggesting that "i.e." is correct.

Both of these terms come from Latin. "i.e." from id est, which means "that is"; "e.g." from exempli gratia, "for the sake of example". "e.g." is used whenever you are providing an example: "States that grow a lot of corn e.g. Nebraska, tend to be rather flat". "i.e." is used as a clarification: "States that grow a lot of corn tend to have little variation in elevation, i.e. they're flat.".

One thing that is true of both of these abbreviations is that you don't say "i.e." or "e.g.", you say "that is" or "for example" while writing "i.e." or "e.g.".

Prayer...Again

1. Do I care if you pray? - No
2. Do I care if you pray for me? - No, although it depends somewhat on what you are praying to happen to me
3. Do I think anything bad will happen because you are praying - No
4. Do I think prayer is effective - Also NO

And I'm defining prayer specifically as someone asking the deity of their choice to perform some action on their behalf. I realize that there are other definitions of prayer, but I am not addressing those in this post. I also realize that some people maintain that prayer for something is not "true" prayer. Okay, you're welcome to hold that opinion, but millions believe that it is. 

I'm also defining "effective" for the purpose of this post, as "getting the results that were asked for in all particulars". Notice that I am not using the term "answered prayer", since so many people, when confronted with not getting the results that they asked for, trot out "the prayer was answered, the answer was no", which I believe is a cop-out. I'm also including "in all particulars". Because if you're dealing with an omnipotent entity, why would you get the job that you prayed for but not the pay rate that you needed? 

The reason that I do not believe that prayer (as defined above) is effective is that, when observed objectively, the positive results do not appear any more often than one would expect without prayer. True, anyone can point to specific incidents where the result equaled the prayer, perhaps even as I specified, in all particulars, but how often does this happen? What percentage? How often is the result disastrously different than what was prayed for? No one really knows, because people who believe in the effectiveness of prayer don't keep track, while those who don't, don't pray! As a skeptic however, I can come up with numerous examples of people who I know prayed for certain outcomes and unequivocally did not receive what they prayed for, or received part of what they prayed for. It's not effective if it doesn't work all the time, so even a handful of negative examples should indicate its non-effectiveness. 

Confirmation bias is something that we all are subject to. It's the tendency to remember, or even simply notice, the things that confirm our preconceived beliefs, while ignoring or explaining away those things that are at odds with those beliefs. We see this in politics all the time, we give credence to the news stories that bolster our position; everything else is fake news. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in religious beliefs. People pray for years for certain outcomes and come up empty, yet they still believe. 

In the beginning of this post I listed a few things about prayer that I didn't have a problem with, however there are a few things where do have a problem. One is the self-righteous crowing from certain quarters when they survive a natural disaster, a plane crash, a terrorist attack, or even a medical condition. It's kind of humble-bragging, look at me, I survived because my deity loves me so much, as if everyone else in town who died in the floods, or lost their homes in the tornado, or died a gruesome and painful death was unloved or somehow skipped praying. Either praying is ineffective or your deity is an asshole. 

The other issue I have is when people pray for me to change some part of my life, such as my religion (or lack of it). My beliefs are as valid as yours and as worthy of respect, don't pray for me to change into what you think will get me into Heaven or deliver me from Hell, doing so shows an utter lack of respect for who I am. Stop it!

So other than that last thing, pray away, I won't be offended, I won't judge you, and unless you ask me what I think about it, I won't even talk to you about it. In fact, if you didn't want to hear my thoughts you probably wouldn't have gotten this far, or even clicked on the link!

Can You Verify...?

You're at the bank, or calling the cell phone provider to make some changes, the person on the other end says "Can you verify your ID number?" (or SSN, or any other piece of identifying information) - I have taken to responding with "Yes I can", then pausing. Sometimes adding, "Go ahead, tell me what you have there so I can verify it". Of course this confuses them. What is really happening is that they are verifying that you are who you say you are. They should probably say something like, please give me your ID number so that I can verify your identity. I am not verifying anything. I am giving out identifying information so that they can verify me!

The last time I posted something like this on Facebook I received a lot of responses purporting to educate me as to why a bank or online service company would need to verify who I am. Yes, thank you,  I know why they need this information, I am glad that banks don't freely give out my account information to just anyone. But that is not the point that I am making. (I am freshly amazed almost every day at how people answer questions other than the one that you asked, or respond to scenarios other than the one that you described). The point that I am making is that the request is inaccurately stated, not that the request for information is illicit!

I doubt that anyone will change their ways due to my irritation at the question, but for the time being I will be feigning ignorance at what I am being asked.

Fate

What is fate? One definition is

the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power.

This definition, the acceptance of which is called "fatalism" suggests that we are on a path from which we cannot deviate. "Destiny" is a similar concept. This concept exists in tension with freewill. Freewill is the belief that we decide and are fully responsible for everything in our lives. There is considerable overlap in what people believe about these concepts - someone who believes in freewill might say that meeting their spouse was "destiny", a religious person might say that it was "God's Will". An agnostic might say everything is a result of choices that we made; some people claim that everything, good or bad, is a result of our mindset. It is my observation that it's not really one or the other, but a combination.

Most people believe in freewill, but aren't our decisions constrained, hemmed in by previous choices? For example, my employment options were limited by my decision, in 1980, to not continue my college education but to participate in a "missionary" program for a year. At the end of that year I chose to get married to a woman with two small children, a choice that would make going back to college financially difficult. Any broad horizons that may have been open to me when I was 19 became straitened by those decisions. This phenomena can be compared to a funnel, broad at the entry, narrowing as the choices pile up. As life goes on the exit end of the funnel becomes increasingly narrow and the meaningful choices that can be made decreases in this scenario.

This would be bad enough if we all started off equal, as the Declaration of Independence suggests. But we don't. People who have wealthy parents start off with a much bigger funnel than someone born to poor parents, or to drug addicts, or criminals. Whites start off with bigger funnels than blacks; men start off with bigger funnels than women. Even with those relative differences, the size of the funnel can vary. Did that poor, black single mother sacrifice everything to send her daughter to medical school? Did the rich man, who could have given his son every opportunity, instead allow him to squander his advantages. The funnels go back generations.

But once we start on our own funnel, and start making our own choices, are we doomed to a pre-ordained end? This is where the funnel analogy breaks down. A different analogy might be that of a car on a highway. You might have decided early on that you were going to drive from Atlanta to Boston, but early in your trip you headed West instead of North, in fact, now your in Mexico. It would have been a lot easier to turn around when you were in Huntsville Alabama and head North. The car didn't have so many miles on it, but now you're in Baja California and you decide that you're going to turn it all around and get yourself up to Boston. It's not going to be easy - the car needs new tires and an oil change - and it's going to take a long time to get up to Boston - but it's possible.

Of course life is more complicated than a funnel or a car trip. There are very real obstacles if you have made enough counterproductive choices, if you started life without any advantages, if your bad choices resulted in incarceration of damage to your body or mind. Often other people's choices impact your own options.

Sometimes life is more like the funnel than the car trip, even if you've got a good map.

To me fate is the limits that the combination of your initial circumstances, your own choices and just plain random occurrences, have placed on your options. But very seldom are there zero options, very seldom is there no way forward. You, due to a variety of variables, are in a world of shit; what are you going to do about it? The solution may not be simple, the solution may be time-consuming, the solution may be painful, but it's another choice. 

There's no divine or supernatural force pushing you to a predetermined destination.  That's an excuse to accept the unacceptable. Find the solution.

Managers Part XVIII - "Good Managers"

What makes a "good" manager? That's where we started this series almost a year and a half ago. I don't think that I'd be going out on a limb to say that what makes a good manager and what makes a good person are two sets that don't completely overlap. Granted, someone who is a bully, a thief, lazy, abusive, etc...things that might describe a "bad" person, would probably also describe a "bad" manager. But the traits that make someone a good spouse or a good buddy don't necessarily translate into the traits of a good manager. A manager must inspire trust in her subordinates in order to fully leverage the abilities of her staff. One might think that being a buddy to subordinates or rolling up the managerial sleeves and pitching in, stepping back and "letting people do theirs jobs" or passing out rewards like no-questions-asked time off or ignoring the dress code makes one a good manager. This type of manager might be a popular manager, but in all likelihood for every employee who thinks Goodtime Charlie is the greatest, there will be one or two who resent the lack of support, the chaos and favoritism that go along with the alleged positive traits. Other employees, seeing Charlie's willingness to do their work with them, will soon be expecting the manager to do their work for them.

A good manager is the fulcrum, balancing the needs of the company, along with upper management, with the needs of the employees. This means that the manager is responsible for maximizing the output of his employees, not by working them to death or by cutting staffing to unsustainable levels, but by training subordinates to function as independently as possible. This means retaining the best people, not by holding them down in positions where they are unhappy or they are paid less than what they need to be, but by giving them the support and resources to advance in the company...and sometimes even outside the company. As I've said before in this series, the job of a manager is not to do things, but to get things done.

If you try to do everything yourself, you can only do the work of one person. Lets say that you have 40 units of work to do and you are scheduled for 40 hours. What happens if the workload increases to 50 units? You'll probably have to work 50 hours. How about 65 units? Settle in for 65-hour week. Your business is pretty much capped at 65 units. But what if you have trained two assistants to take on 20 units each. They'll be slower than you are, being trainees, but they can do 20 units each. So now you have freed up 40 hours. You can drop back to 40 hours: 25 hours to do 25 units of work and 15 hours to train your assistants. Once they are fully trained, their ability to take care of 40 units each also allows your business to expand to 80 units, with you spending 40 hours on managerial tasks. You can add additional assistants as business grows, or promote your assistants to supervisors and staff another level. Of course all of these people need to be fully trained and able to work independently or you'll be spending your 40 hours fixing substandard work or giving out assignments rather than delegating responsibility.

Management is a skill set separate from the actual work of a given industry. Just because you're a good widget-maker doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be a good widget-maker's manager. In most businesses the only way for an employee to make more money is to become a manager, and in most businesses, managers are not chosen for their management ability, but for how well they performed as a subordinate. 

Do you want to be a manager? If so, be passionate about the art of management; if you want to be effective as a manager, you have to be in it for more than the money. Think about it: would you apply for a job as a mechanic if you had no experience, even if it paid double what you were making now? Would you apply for any position that you had no aptitude for, just because it paid well? Of course not! If you had a goal of becoming a mechanic you'd go to school, or become an apprentice, or even go to YouTube for instructional videos. Why then, do so many people apply for management jobs when they have no experience or skill in management? Because our culture doesn't view management as a profession, but as an extension of the underlying profession.

Do you want to be a manager? Find out what it involves and educate yourself!