It looks as if the temporary contract gig I mentioned is coming through, so on 11 August I will be starting a minimum six month gig with Microsoft. The division is perfect for me: They need somebody with experience in hardware development, software development, engineering management, program management, test development, and QA. If you read my resume, that's me. So, I'll be giving this a try, and we will see where it leads. Sounds exciting, much like Apple back in the early Mac days when I was working on the original Portable.
In any case, I have a hole in my life for the next week, so on a lark I decided to book a trip to Munich. As much as I love London, I wanted to try something different, and this will give me a chance to dust off the German from my high school days. More later, but for now I need to start packing....
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Note to self: Tequila etiquette
Lick hand between thumb and forefinger
Pour on salt
Forget about blood pressure and lick salt
Chug tequila
Chomp lime
Repeat ad infinitum
Pour on salt
Forget about blood pressure and lick salt
Chug tequila
Chomp lime
Repeat ad infinitum
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Realtors and Presidents
Recently I put my home up for sale, and I noticed that the agent I had chosen was a Realtor rather than a real estate agent. I vaguely remembered that a Realtor was a little different than a real estate agent, and when I went to check the difference, I found that the online references insisted that "Realtor" be capitalized. Additionally, when I wrote about it in Gmail, Google carped at me as well, insisting that the word start with the proverbial "big R." I'm still not sure why this is so, but suffice it to say that the world seems intent on requiring me to capitalize "Realtor," lest I spend the rest of my online life seeing squiggly little red lines under the word every time I type it. I'm far from a perfectionist, but I have been conditioned to believe that squiggly little red lines are bad and to be avoided, so I will acquiesce and choose to fight the larger battles instead. I will, without fail, capitalize "Realtor."
What strikes me as odd is that years ago as a child, I was taught that the word "President," as in the leader of a country, was to be capitalized, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Today, no source I can find capitalizes the word, lest, of course, it is the first word of a sentence. I doubt that I need to point out the irony: A special form of real estate agent commands the same respect we offer to the Almighty, yet the man who could potentially send the entire world back to the Stone Age rates no special respect.
It seems that in the period of time from when I was a child to when I became a "definitely middle-aged" man, the esteem, the respect, for the Office of the Presidency has been gutted. Understandably, given many of the presidential fiascoes which have occurred in that time, I can see why people have become jaded.
There is a rather well-known phrase "Only Nixon could go to China," and it acknowledged that Richard Nixon was one of the few in the world who had the hard line background, combined with the worldly pragmatism, to allow him to open the door between the US and China. Imagine how different the world would be today if Nixon had not started the normalization of Sino-American relations. We take it as a given that the 2008 Olympics will open in Beijing in but a few weeks, yet barely 30 years ago such a thought would have been unheard of. In spite of this tremendous accomplishment, however, Richard Nixon will never go down in history as the one who opened the door between the US and China, but instead he will be remembered as the leader of a bungled break-in, a paranoid man whose best remembered quote will be "I am not a crook."
To balance the example above, think of Bill Clinton and the Middle East. There were few situations in the twentieth century more thorny, more provocative, more explosive, than the Middle East quandary. The United States, more than any other single country in the world, was clearly caught in the middle of a no-win situation, not wishing to offend Israel as an ally, nor wishing to lose important military and intelligence opportunities in Arab lands, opportunites which could be used against the other superpower of the time. No president was able to bridge that gap, no president could have brokered a peace between the two sides, but I would argue that Bill Clinton was on the verge of achieving that very accomplishment. Clinton understood the Middle East, he was trusted by both sides, and IMHO he may well have changed that portion of the world forever, had a slight distraction in the form of his zipper not gotten in the way. As the world was on the verge of seeing the Middle East situation change forever---presumably for the better---Bill Clinton was vocalizing the quote for which he would be most remembered: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." The Middle East peace which appeared so close suddenly was derailed, not by missiles or jets or suicide bombers, but by a blue dress.
The true shame of all this is that we no longer respect the office of the president. Both sides, left and right, sneer at the occupant if he is of the other party. Truth, what is best for the nation, what is best for the world, does not matter; what truly is important is playing the party line and smearing with the party's official paint, be it red or blue.
I'll go on the record as saying I support Barack Obama for the presidency, in large part because I feel he may be the first individual who can truly unite the color divide which separates our country. I believe that it is entirely possible that Mr. Obama could bridge the gap between blacks and whites, the gap which began with slavery, which continued through separate but equal, which included the Watts riots and the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I believe in my heart Mr. Obama could help end this divide, but here is the downheartening thought: Even if he were elected to the presidency and even if he could accomplish this miracle, odds are his legacy will be obscured and he will be remembered for some other, as of yet uncommitted, relatively meaningless gaffe. If Mr. Obama does indeed become the US President in 2009, I would live to revisit this question four or eight years later.
I'm not saying we should overlook the foibles of our presidents, but perhaps we should start recognizing the accomplishments of the office. What do we as a society view to be more important: Sino-American relationships and Middle East peace, or bungled burglaries and oral sex? Perhaps we should respect the institution and what it accomplishes, even if we do find failings in the individual who sits in the chair in the Oval Office.
What strikes me as odd is that years ago as a child, I was taught that the word "President," as in the leader of a country, was to be capitalized, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Today, no source I can find capitalizes the word, lest, of course, it is the first word of a sentence. I doubt that I need to point out the irony: A special form of real estate agent commands the same respect we offer to the Almighty, yet the man who could potentially send the entire world back to the Stone Age rates no special respect.
It seems that in the period of time from when I was a child to when I became a "definitely middle-aged" man, the esteem, the respect, for the Office of the Presidency has been gutted. Understandably, given many of the presidential fiascoes which have occurred in that time, I can see why people have become jaded.
There is a rather well-known phrase "Only Nixon could go to China," and it acknowledged that Richard Nixon was one of the few in the world who had the hard line background, combined with the worldly pragmatism, to allow him to open the door between the US and China. Imagine how different the world would be today if Nixon had not started the normalization of Sino-American relations. We take it as a given that the 2008 Olympics will open in Beijing in but a few weeks, yet barely 30 years ago such a thought would have been unheard of. In spite of this tremendous accomplishment, however, Richard Nixon will never go down in history as the one who opened the door between the US and China, but instead he will be remembered as the leader of a bungled break-in, a paranoid man whose best remembered quote will be "I am not a crook."
To balance the example above, think of Bill Clinton and the Middle East. There were few situations in the twentieth century more thorny, more provocative, more explosive, than the Middle East quandary. The United States, more than any other single country in the world, was clearly caught in the middle of a no-win situation, not wishing to offend Israel as an ally, nor wishing to lose important military and intelligence opportunities in Arab lands, opportunites which could be used against the other superpower of the time. No president was able to bridge that gap, no president could have brokered a peace between the two sides, but I would argue that Bill Clinton was on the verge of achieving that very accomplishment. Clinton understood the Middle East, he was trusted by both sides, and IMHO he may well have changed that portion of the world forever, had a slight distraction in the form of his zipper not gotten in the way. As the world was on the verge of seeing the Middle East situation change forever---presumably for the better---Bill Clinton was vocalizing the quote for which he would be most remembered: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." The Middle East peace which appeared so close suddenly was derailed, not by missiles or jets or suicide bombers, but by a blue dress.
The true shame of all this is that we no longer respect the office of the president. Both sides, left and right, sneer at the occupant if he is of the other party. Truth, what is best for the nation, what is best for the world, does not matter; what truly is important is playing the party line and smearing with the party's official paint, be it red or blue.
I'll go on the record as saying I support Barack Obama for the presidency, in large part because I feel he may be the first individual who can truly unite the color divide which separates our country. I believe that it is entirely possible that Mr. Obama could bridge the gap between blacks and whites, the gap which began with slavery, which continued through separate but equal, which included the Watts riots and the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I believe in my heart Mr. Obama could help end this divide, but here is the downheartening thought: Even if he were elected to the presidency and even if he could accomplish this miracle, odds are his legacy will be obscured and he will be remembered for some other, as of yet uncommitted, relatively meaningless gaffe. If Mr. Obama does indeed become the US President in 2009, I would live to revisit this question four or eight years later.
I'm not saying we should overlook the foibles of our presidents, but perhaps we should start recognizing the accomplishments of the office. What do we as a society view to be more important: Sino-American relationships and Middle East peace, or bungled burglaries and oral sex? Perhaps we should respect the institution and what it accomplishes, even if we do find failings in the individual who sits in the chair in the Oval Office.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
No Tie
I decided not to wear the tie, and that was definitely the right choice...it would have been way too stuffy if I had done so, and I would have been tearing it off two minutes into the first interview.
The job is an interesting opportunity. It has a good potential within the company, but we all acknowledged I was far more senior than the position required. It's funny, I could definitely understand all of the laments (i.e., growing pains) they are going through---I've lived through all of them, and I do know what they need to do to move forward. We're going to think about it on all sides, maybe it would be a good "foot in the door" opportunity with a chance to move into a more appropriate position later. Then again, I'm not sure that I want to wait for things...one of my strengths is that I am patient, but one of my greatest weaknesses is that I am too patient.
The job is an interesting opportunity. It has a good potential within the company, but we all acknowledged I was far more senior than the position required. It's funny, I could definitely understand all of the laments (i.e., growing pains) they are going through---I've lived through all of them, and I do know what they need to do to move forward. We're going to think about it on all sides, maybe it would be a good "foot in the door" opportunity with a chance to move into a more appropriate position later. Then again, I'm not sure that I want to wait for things...one of my strengths is that I am patient, but one of my greatest weaknesses is that I am too patient.
Friday, July 25, 2008
To Tie or Not to Tie
No, I'm not talking S&M or bondage. (But, check back next week, who knows...) The question in front of me right now is a simple one: Do I put on a tie or not?
As you may or may not know, I'm at a crossroads in my life, quite literally trying to figure out which way to go with the rest of my time on planet Earth. The small biz thing just wasn't me...Too much hassle for too little return. I'll go into details some other time, but suffice it to say that small biz is boring at best, stressful for the wrong reasons most of the time, and there are much better opportunities out there. If I'm going to pour my heart and soul into something, I want it to be worthy of the effort.
At this time, I'm debating if I want to get back into high-tech or to take some time off or to go into something entirely different. In the short-term, as a kind of "hedging my bets" thing, I decided it would be best to at least test the waters with some of the local (Seattle) high-tech firms, to see if I might stumble across something that truly excites me. To that end, I have an upcoming interview with a local high-tech company, and I really cannot decide if it is appropriate to wear a tie or not. In the days of old (like when I was starting out in my career!) that really wasn't much of a dilemma: Guys wore ties for interviews. Simple. Easy. Over the years, however, that has changed, especially in leading-edge high-tech firms. Obviously, not wearing a tie is a risk if the company thinks you don't care enough to get dressed up for the first date. On the other hand, a candidate wearing a tie might be viewed as too "stuffy" or too traditional for the opening, especially in high-tech. Silicon Valley led the casual charge, and it has quickly spread to most of the rest of the country. So, it really is a quandary: If a man interviews for a senior management role in a high-tech company, should he or should he not wear a tie? Let's face it: The choice does send a message, and without knowing the people who will be interviewing you, it's pretty much a coin-flip. Arghhh...I'll let you know tomorrow which way I decided to go. (And for those of you who have seen the Halloween picture, no, I will not solve the tie question by dressing in drag ...though I have to admit, I was pretty damn hot!)
At least in this area, women candidates really do have an advantage over us poor guys. While I debate the ominous question above, my fate potentially hanging by a cloth around my neck (how symbolic!), our women candidates can't go wrong: Wear a dress, a skirt, slacks, pants-suit, anything other than cutoffs, and you're perfectly fine. We've all been drilled to avoid reading too much into what a woman wears, but for a guy, the tie is a statement, one way or the other. Oh, the pain of this dilemma!!!
I honestly don't mind wearing a tie. While most guys complain that they are uncomfortable, I've never found that to be the case at all. I think the real problem most men have is not with wearing a tie per se, but rather the unchanging nature of dress shirts, combined with that getting older and putting on weight thing. Let's face it: Women's styles change every year or two, but for us guys, the standard dress shirt is really no different today than it was 20, 30, or more years ago. Sure, occasionally an off-beat color comes out that might be indicative of the era, but short of that dress shirts just don't change. A guy can buy a dress shirt to interview for his first job out of college, put it in the closet, pull it out every few years when he interviews someplace else, and more than likely go his entire life that way. One small catch: Though the shirt hanging in the closet doesn't age, we do. We guys put on the years, and we put on the pounds. While most of us look at the mid-section and see the pounds there, we also put some on in the neck. So, that perfectly good shirt that fit comfortably when we were in our 20's gets quite a bit tighter in the 30's, 40's and beyond. Get a clue guys: The tie isn't uncomfortable. You need to buy a new dress shirt.
Another pet-peeve of mine when it comes to job hunting, this one not related to ties: I'm a senior high-tech leader. I've been a director of engineering (or its equivalent) in many companies. I have a proven track record as a leader, one who can form teams, resurrect dysfunctional teams, work with other company leaders, all in all a very seasoned professional if I do say so myself. So why is it, given what I have done and what I am looking for in terms of a career, do so many companies suggest that on top of being the director of a group, I should also write some code myself? Don't get me wrong: I love hands-on dev work, whether it be coding, circuit work, debug or anything of that nature. It's fun, and though I am a bit stale, I have no trouble picking it up and joining in the fun when necessary. When I do write code, and have it reviewed by one of my team members, I usually always rate a "pretty good" or better. But, that's not my role at this point in my career. Managing a group (at least on that has double digit members) is a job unto itself. In most departments that is understood and accepted, but for some reason when you are a high-tech leader, the thought is that you should also be a hands-on individual contributor in your spare time. I've actually gotten rather flippant when asked about my willingness to code during interviews: I'm not afraid to ask in return if their CFO processes expense reports. When I pose this question, I get the funny look, and the "Of course not" answer, then after a few seconds of silence they usually get my point. To be honest, if a company broaches that with me, I figure they are not a good match for me, so I really don't mind if my question irritates them. Think about it folks: You want people working on what they do best, and frankly you're better off letting the people who write code on a daily basis do so.
For the geeks out there, one of my proudest coding accomplishments was in my first job out of college. We were doing stress analyses and reliability predictions by hand, and I computerized the entire process. I worked on an IBM 360 mainframe, used Xedit to generate an input template, parsed that with REXX, then input the data into either a Pascal program I had written (based on MIL-HDBK-217) or into a FORTRAN program I inherited for hybrid microcircuits. All in all, it really was an incredible piece of work, even more-so given that I did it in my spare time. Alas, however, I worked for a defense contractor, and I didn't understand one very basic principle: For a company which charges hours back to the government, the last thing on earth they want is to be able to take 40 hours of work and shrink it down to 4 hours! So, my baby was shunted off to the corner, but it did get me to realize that I needed to go someplace else where passion and enthusiasm would be welcomed if not demanded. That led me to Apple Computer...more later.
As you may or may not know, I'm at a crossroads in my life, quite literally trying to figure out which way to go with the rest of my time on planet Earth. The small biz thing just wasn't me...Too much hassle for too little return. I'll go into details some other time, but suffice it to say that small biz is boring at best, stressful for the wrong reasons most of the time, and there are much better opportunities out there. If I'm going to pour my heart and soul into something, I want it to be worthy of the effort.
At this time, I'm debating if I want to get back into high-tech or to take some time off or to go into something entirely different. In the short-term, as a kind of "hedging my bets" thing, I decided it would be best to at least test the waters with some of the local (Seattle) high-tech firms, to see if I might stumble across something that truly excites me. To that end, I have an upcoming interview with a local high-tech company, and I really cannot decide if it is appropriate to wear a tie or not. In the days of old (like when I was starting out in my career!) that really wasn't much of a dilemma: Guys wore ties for interviews. Simple. Easy. Over the years, however, that has changed, especially in leading-edge high-tech firms. Obviously, not wearing a tie is a risk if the company thinks you don't care enough to get dressed up for the first date. On the other hand, a candidate wearing a tie might be viewed as too "stuffy" or too traditional for the opening, especially in high-tech. Silicon Valley led the casual charge, and it has quickly spread to most of the rest of the country. So, it really is a quandary: If a man interviews for a senior management role in a high-tech company, should he or should he not wear a tie? Let's face it: The choice does send a message, and without knowing the people who will be interviewing you, it's pretty much a coin-flip. Arghhh...I'll let you know tomorrow which way I decided to go. (And for those of you who have seen the Halloween picture, no, I will not solve the tie question by dressing in drag ...though I have to admit, I was pretty damn hot!)
At least in this area, women candidates really do have an advantage over us poor guys. While I debate the ominous question above, my fate potentially hanging by a cloth around my neck (how symbolic!), our women candidates can't go wrong: Wear a dress, a skirt, slacks, pants-suit, anything other than cutoffs, and you're perfectly fine. We've all been drilled to avoid reading too much into what a woman wears, but for a guy, the tie is a statement, one way or the other. Oh, the pain of this dilemma!!!
I honestly don't mind wearing a tie. While most guys complain that they are uncomfortable, I've never found that to be the case at all. I think the real problem most men have is not with wearing a tie per se, but rather the unchanging nature of dress shirts, combined with that getting older and putting on weight thing. Let's face it: Women's styles change every year or two, but for us guys, the standard dress shirt is really no different today than it was 20, 30, or more years ago. Sure, occasionally an off-beat color comes out that might be indicative of the era, but short of that dress shirts just don't change. A guy can buy a dress shirt to interview for his first job out of college, put it in the closet, pull it out every few years when he interviews someplace else, and more than likely go his entire life that way. One small catch: Though the shirt hanging in the closet doesn't age, we do. We guys put on the years, and we put on the pounds. While most of us look at the mid-section and see the pounds there, we also put some on in the neck. So, that perfectly good shirt that fit comfortably when we were in our 20's gets quite a bit tighter in the 30's, 40's and beyond. Get a clue guys: The tie isn't uncomfortable. You need to buy a new dress shirt.
Another pet-peeve of mine when it comes to job hunting, this one not related to ties: I'm a senior high-tech leader. I've been a director of engineering (or its equivalent) in many companies. I have a proven track record as a leader, one who can form teams, resurrect dysfunctional teams, work with other company leaders, all in all a very seasoned professional if I do say so myself. So why is it, given what I have done and what I am looking for in terms of a career, do so many companies suggest that on top of being the director of a group, I should also write some code myself? Don't get me wrong: I love hands-on dev work, whether it be coding, circuit work, debug or anything of that nature. It's fun, and though I am a bit stale, I have no trouble picking it up and joining in the fun when necessary. When I do write code, and have it reviewed by one of my team members, I usually always rate a "pretty good" or better. But, that's not my role at this point in my career. Managing a group (at least on that has double digit members) is a job unto itself. In most departments that is understood and accepted, but for some reason when you are a high-tech leader, the thought is that you should also be a hands-on individual contributor in your spare time. I've actually gotten rather flippant when asked about my willingness to code during interviews: I'm not afraid to ask in return if their CFO processes expense reports. When I pose this question, I get the funny look, and the "Of course not" answer, then after a few seconds of silence they usually get my point. To be honest, if a company broaches that with me, I figure they are not a good match for me, so I really don't mind if my question irritates them. Think about it folks: You want people working on what they do best, and frankly you're better off letting the people who write code on a daily basis do so.
For the geeks out there, one of my proudest coding accomplishments was in my first job out of college. We were doing stress analyses and reliability predictions by hand, and I computerized the entire process. I worked on an IBM 360 mainframe, used Xedit to generate an input template, parsed that with REXX, then input the data into either a Pascal program I had written (based on MIL-HDBK-217) or into a FORTRAN program I inherited for hybrid microcircuits. All in all, it really was an incredible piece of work, even more-so given that I did it in my spare time. Alas, however, I worked for a defense contractor, and I didn't understand one very basic principle: For a company which charges hours back to the government, the last thing on earth they want is to be able to take 40 hours of work and shrink it down to 4 hours! So, my baby was shunted off to the corner, but it did get me to realize that I needed to go someplace else where passion and enthusiasm would be welcomed if not demanded. That led me to Apple Computer...more later.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Therapists and Other Pros
I'll warn you up front that what I will say in this blog will irritate, in fact downright piss off, some people. If you want conventional wisdom and happy thoughts, you'll probably want to forgo this entry and try something different.
Awhile back, I tried talking with therapists for help with, among other things, stress. I don't mind admitting this. I was, for quite a long time, under enough stress that my blood pressure had risen to the point I was bursting blood vessels in the back of my eye....you don't need to be a medical professional to realize that's pretty dang bad, and that you need help (as in drugs) to get the BP down immediately, along with longer term care to reduce or eliminate the stress factor(s) in your life. I did both. The drugs were great---they quickly got the BP down to the point that my optometrist is now a happy camper when she checks my eyes. In the longer term, I also tried working with a couple of healthcare professionals to reduce my stress. Unfortunately, the success I had with the BP drugs did not carry over to therapy.
In talking with one therapist, I felt she was sincere, I felt comfortable with her, and after a year I confessed something to her that was very honest, albeit a bit awkward: As much as a therapist may claim to care about a client, the job is, at the end of the day, a professional relationship and as such does not convey the same meaning as does a friend who is listening to you. I did not mean to insult her, and to her credit she did seem to take it that way: She understood and even agreed that therapists are listening to and attempting to help you in exchange for money. I don't begrudge them a living, but it is important for any client to keep this distinction in mind: Therapists are paid caregivers, not friends. For that matter, a professional relationship with any healthcare provider is just that: Professional. All the glowing words and advertisements aside, it's a job, and they are doing it to earn a living.
In talking over similar problems with a naturopath, I was a bit more flippant as she and I had (I thought) a more casual relationship. I explained that the emotional venting I was doing with her as a healthcare professional was somewhat like the physical relief a man seeks while using a prostitute: In both cases, the client was paying for something that was lacking elsewhere in his life. This sounds extreme, and I certainly am not labelling therapists or counselors or healthcare professionals as prostitutes, but the analogy does, in all honesty, have quite a bit of validity. A man who does not have a sexual outlet (or for whatever reason is not happy with his sexual options) often chooses to solicit a prostitute as a surrogate for his physical needs. Similarly, I would maintain, a person who does not have an emotional release for his problems will likewise often solicit another type of professional as a surrogate for his emotional needs. Nothing tawdry, but I do believe it to be a valid comparison.
I felt somewhat guilty harboring this analogy, until I was talking with a friend recently, and she voiced a similar sentiment. Her words were not as salacious as mine, but her basic belief was indeed the same: If you must pay a professional (therapist, counselor, doctor, whoever) to listen to and care for you, it is simply not as meaningful as somebody who does it gratis, somebody who cares for you as a person without a financial gain to be had. A cup of coffee while listening to a friend's problems carries more weight than does 50 minutes in a therapist's office.
Again, I stress, I'm not begrudging these professionals their living, but if you take away Dr. Joe Gannon's paycheck, even he'd most likely stop his compassionate ways and move on to a different gig. And, just as people are all cut from different cloth, so too are our healthcare professionals: Some are more dedicated to helping for humanistic reasons than are others. Some are more caring and giving than are others.
Rather than an attempt to bash the professionals of the world, I have two different thoughts, one for the "laymen" of the world and the other for the healthcare professionals:
For the laymen out there, look at this as something positive you can offer to the rest of the world. Keep in mind the importance you can have and the difference you can make in a person's life just by being there, by listening, by caring. Degrees, diplomas, pieces of paper on the wall, don't carry as much weight in the grand scheme of things as does giving a damn about another human being. Listen, care, be there, and you would be amazed at the positive influence you can have in a friend's---or even a stranger's---life. (In a later blog, I'll tell you about Roscoe.)
For the healthcare professionals out there, only offer what you can deliver. Don't try to be a caring, supportive anchor, don't profess to be Joe Gannon, if you are going to grow tired of it and let your clients down when they need you the most. Be upfront, be truthful, with your clients. If you offer to go the extra mile for a client, make sure you are willing to go the extra mile, not simply a couple hundred yards. Don't offer support then renege; to do so will violate the trust you have established with your clients.
Awhile back, I tried talking with therapists for help with, among other things, stress. I don't mind admitting this. I was, for quite a long time, under enough stress that my blood pressure had risen to the point I was bursting blood vessels in the back of my eye....you don't need to be a medical professional to realize that's pretty dang bad, and that you need help (as in drugs) to get the BP down immediately, along with longer term care to reduce or eliminate the stress factor(s) in your life. I did both. The drugs were great---they quickly got the BP down to the point that my optometrist is now a happy camper when she checks my eyes. In the longer term, I also tried working with a couple of healthcare professionals to reduce my stress. Unfortunately, the success I had with the BP drugs did not carry over to therapy.
In talking with one therapist, I felt she was sincere, I felt comfortable with her, and after a year I confessed something to her that was very honest, albeit a bit awkward: As much as a therapist may claim to care about a client, the job is, at the end of the day, a professional relationship and as such does not convey the same meaning as does a friend who is listening to you. I did not mean to insult her, and to her credit she did seem to take it that way: She understood and even agreed that therapists are listening to and attempting to help you in exchange for money. I don't begrudge them a living, but it is important for any client to keep this distinction in mind: Therapists are paid caregivers, not friends. For that matter, a professional relationship with any healthcare provider is just that: Professional. All the glowing words and advertisements aside, it's a job, and they are doing it to earn a living.
In talking over similar problems with a naturopath, I was a bit more flippant as she and I had (I thought) a more casual relationship. I explained that the emotional venting I was doing with her as a healthcare professional was somewhat like the physical relief a man seeks while using a prostitute: In both cases, the client was paying for something that was lacking elsewhere in his life. This sounds extreme, and I certainly am not labelling therapists or counselors or healthcare professionals as prostitutes, but the analogy does, in all honesty, have quite a bit of validity. A man who does not have a sexual outlet (or for whatever reason is not happy with his sexual options) often chooses to solicit a prostitute as a surrogate for his physical needs. Similarly, I would maintain, a person who does not have an emotional release for his problems will likewise often solicit another type of professional as a surrogate for his emotional needs. Nothing tawdry, but I do believe it to be a valid comparison.
I felt somewhat guilty harboring this analogy, until I was talking with a friend recently, and she voiced a similar sentiment. Her words were not as salacious as mine, but her basic belief was indeed the same: If you must pay a professional (therapist, counselor, doctor, whoever) to listen to and care for you, it is simply not as meaningful as somebody who does it gratis, somebody who cares for you as a person without a financial gain to be had. A cup of coffee while listening to a friend's problems carries more weight than does 50 minutes in a therapist's office.
Again, I stress, I'm not begrudging these professionals their living, but if you take away Dr. Joe Gannon's paycheck, even he'd most likely stop his compassionate ways and move on to a different gig. And, just as people are all cut from different cloth, so too are our healthcare professionals: Some are more dedicated to helping for humanistic reasons than are others. Some are more caring and giving than are others.
Rather than an attempt to bash the professionals of the world, I have two different thoughts, one for the "laymen" of the world and the other for the healthcare professionals:
For the laymen out there, look at this as something positive you can offer to the rest of the world. Keep in mind the importance you can have and the difference you can make in a person's life just by being there, by listening, by caring. Degrees, diplomas, pieces of paper on the wall, don't carry as much weight in the grand scheme of things as does giving a damn about another human being. Listen, care, be there, and you would be amazed at the positive influence you can have in a friend's---or even a stranger's---life. (In a later blog, I'll tell you about Roscoe.)
For the healthcare professionals out there, only offer what you can deliver. Don't try to be a caring, supportive anchor, don't profess to be Joe Gannon, if you are going to grow tired of it and let your clients down when they need you the most. Be upfront, be truthful, with your clients. If you offer to go the extra mile for a client, make sure you are willing to go the extra mile, not simply a couple hundred yards. Don't offer support then renege; to do so will violate the trust you have established with your clients.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Disposable Friendships, Part 2
A friend sent me an email asking about the previous disposable friendship blog, and it got me to thinking a bit more, so I'll post the reply below. Keep in mind that this was written largely due to a disappointment in a professional friendship, and as such my thoughts might be a bit biased. My basic point, and perhaps I am obscuring this with too many words, is simply this:
If you have a disagreement with somebody, friend or lover, try to talk through it with that person. Give them a chance to work out the misunderstanding with you, and at all costs avoid the temptation to discuss the disagreement with others behind your friend's back.
I am very loyal to my friends, in fact I often think of myself as behaving the way dogs do. I am quick to want to befriend somebody, only once in a rare moon electing to avoid somebody when that sixth sense kicks in. More often than not, I will gladly attempt to make a new connection, even if it is just a brief conversation with a stranger you meet fleetingly and will never see again. Life is about experiences and making new connections, and to shirk that opportunity is a tragedy.
I am fiercely loyal to my friends. I realize people are complex, we all have good moments and bad, so I don't expect perfection, and I am very understanding of mistakes. I make plenty of mistakes myself, I have more than my share of frailties, and I would hate to think that somebody would cast me aside as soon as I demonstrate a human weakness, as soon as I err. Just like in a marriage, you work through the rough times.
I can disagree with a friend, and as long as the disagreement is in good faith, I will not let that change my feelings for that person. I realize we all have different life experiences which color how we think and feel, and I am respectful of the fact that what my life may have led me to feel or believe is entirely different than what another person may perceive. In fact, in true Bay area style, I actually enjoy an intelligent debate, provided it is done respectfully, based on a reasonable set of beliefs and intellectual arguments. Indeed, in some of those cases, I've even found my original position to be changed as I discussed it with others.
As you meet a person and get to know him better, it is natural for your basic trust of one another to move forward and to increase. You may start sharing thoughts that you would not have shared before. You may discuss fears you would admit to only a handful of people in this world. You may find yourself owning up to your own shortcomings. In all of these cases, you are bridging with that person, being open and vulnerable. If the friendship is strong, then this actually strengthens it even further.
I'll expand the word "friendship" to include some selected professional relationships. By definition, professional relationships are, of course, different than purely personal ones, in large part because they are formed and continue to exist based on a financial need. Take away the paycheck or the financial incentive, and there's a good chance the friendship will cease as you no longer interact with that person. Still, even though it is not a friendship in the pure sense of the word, many of the characteristics are the same, and it is still a connection with another person. At the heart of it is that same basic question of trust. A good, solid professional friendship has at its heart a matter of mutual trust and respect, just as a personal friendship does.
Where I draw the line, where I find a friendship permanently damaged, is when the basic trust behind the friendship is violated. Unfortunately, and this is what happened to me twice so far this year, that trust was violated. In both cases, it involved backchannel discussions. In both cases, the person had a concern, but rather than discussing with me first she instead chose to go to others and discuss the matter, without letting me know she was doing so. That skewed her beliefs, changed what she thought and felt, without allowing me the opportunity to explain what I thought or felt. As I have said before, I'm perfectly comfortable with differing opinions, with airing them so that you can put them behind you. Backchannels, however, do just the opposite: They take the trust you have spent time nurturing and trash it in a heartbeat. There is, unfortunately, no way in my mind to continue a relationship, personal or professional, once that basis of trust has been violated. Trust in a friendship can only move forwards, not backwards. You cannot reach a certain level of trust, betray it, then continue at a reduced level.
I once coined a slightly risque phrase, "Trust is like virginity, you only get to lose it once." Though a little bit saucy, I think that is a reasonably accurate sentiment. We spend time developing and nurturing trust with another person, and to betray that trust is to betray that friendship.
If you have a disagreement with somebody, friend or lover, try to talk through it with that person. Give them a chance to work out the misunderstanding with you, and at all costs avoid the temptation to discuss the disagreement with others behind your friend's back.
I am very loyal to my friends, in fact I often think of myself as behaving the way dogs do. I am quick to want to befriend somebody, only once in a rare moon electing to avoid somebody when that sixth sense kicks in. More often than not, I will gladly attempt to make a new connection, even if it is just a brief conversation with a stranger you meet fleetingly and will never see again. Life is about experiences and making new connections, and to shirk that opportunity is a tragedy.
I am fiercely loyal to my friends. I realize people are complex, we all have good moments and bad, so I don't expect perfection, and I am very understanding of mistakes. I make plenty of mistakes myself, I have more than my share of frailties, and I would hate to think that somebody would cast me aside as soon as I demonstrate a human weakness, as soon as I err. Just like in a marriage, you work through the rough times.
I can disagree with a friend, and as long as the disagreement is in good faith, I will not let that change my feelings for that person. I realize we all have different life experiences which color how we think and feel, and I am respectful of the fact that what my life may have led me to feel or believe is entirely different than what another person may perceive. In fact, in true Bay area style, I actually enjoy an intelligent debate, provided it is done respectfully, based on a reasonable set of beliefs and intellectual arguments. Indeed, in some of those cases, I've even found my original position to be changed as I discussed it with others.
As you meet a person and get to know him better, it is natural for your basic trust of one another to move forward and to increase. You may start sharing thoughts that you would not have shared before. You may discuss fears you would admit to only a handful of people in this world. You may find yourself owning up to your own shortcomings. In all of these cases, you are bridging with that person, being open and vulnerable. If the friendship is strong, then this actually strengthens it even further.
I'll expand the word "friendship" to include some selected professional relationships. By definition, professional relationships are, of course, different than purely personal ones, in large part because they are formed and continue to exist based on a financial need. Take away the paycheck or the financial incentive, and there's a good chance the friendship will cease as you no longer interact with that person. Still, even though it is not a friendship in the pure sense of the word, many of the characteristics are the same, and it is still a connection with another person. At the heart of it is that same basic question of trust. A good, solid professional friendship has at its heart a matter of mutual trust and respect, just as a personal friendship does.
Where I draw the line, where I find a friendship permanently damaged, is when the basic trust behind the friendship is violated. Unfortunately, and this is what happened to me twice so far this year, that trust was violated. In both cases, it involved backchannel discussions. In both cases, the person had a concern, but rather than discussing with me first she instead chose to go to others and discuss the matter, without letting me know she was doing so. That skewed her beliefs, changed what she thought and felt, without allowing me the opportunity to explain what I thought or felt. As I have said before, I'm perfectly comfortable with differing opinions, with airing them so that you can put them behind you. Backchannels, however, do just the opposite: They take the trust you have spent time nurturing and trash it in a heartbeat. There is, unfortunately, no way in my mind to continue a relationship, personal or professional, once that basis of trust has been violated. Trust in a friendship can only move forwards, not backwards. You cannot reach a certain level of trust, betray it, then continue at a reduced level.
I once coined a slightly risque phrase, "Trust is like virginity, you only get to lose it once." Though a little bit saucy, I think that is a reasonably accurate sentiment. We spend time developing and nurturing trust with another person, and to betray that trust is to betray that friendship.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Smoke Detector
Even though I was about half my current age, I remember my early married years very, very clearly, in some regards more vividly than things which happened just last month. It was a time of undeniable change, bittersweet in many regards. Kerry and I had wed just after I left the Air Force and as I was returning to college. Like many young, married couples, we had very little money, and watching pennies was a part of our daily routine. We lived not in a real home, but rather in a mobile home, a 10' wide by 55' long trailer, with the wheels pulled off and stored underneath, styrofoam skirting running around the perimeter. This was an old style mobile home, the trailer hitch didn't disconnect off the front like those "fancy" new ones, so we had a small garden planted up front to obscure the eyesore. We lived there with three cats, and an old Buick Skylark I had purchased for $800. We got by, barely. We looked nervously to the future, hopeful but also scared that any small financial hiccup could derail our plans. Excitement for and fear of the future were our constant emotional extremes.
One Saturday evening just prior to the beginning of the fall quarter, we were trying to celebrate with a home cooked dinner of steak and wine. When I say steak, I don't mean a juicy rib eye or T-bone, but rather the cheapest piece of meat that Albertsons had: No marbling, and discounted substantially since it was beyond the "Sell by" date stamped on the package. The wine was from a green bottle with a generic "Chablis" yellow label on it. Vineyard, year, grape type?---Mysteries all. We also had baked potatoes as they were cheap. Beyond that, I don't recall anything else being on the menu. (I'm sure there was a dessert, Kerry loved to bake, but I can't remember what it was.)
In spite of the austerity, it was a special dinner for us, and we were going to enjoy it. Kerry had John Denver playing on the stereo, and I stood at the stove, frying the meat as best I could, when suddenly the shrill sound of the smoke detector went off in the background. Not surprisingly: With 550 square feet of total living space, it took very little to set the thing off.
I've never been fond of noises (especially shrill sounding devices or people), so the alarm grated on me instantly. I ran to the smoke detector, fanning it with all my might to try to silence it. I remember cursing, frustrated with all of it: The small home, lousy food, uncertainty about the future, a car which by all normal standards deserved to be in the junk yard, and now a smoke detector belching at me. I was fuming, frustrated thinking about how hard we had both worked and yet how little we had compared to the "silver spoon" crowd. We lived, after all, in a home which was worth less than the cars many of my fellow classmates drove. That damn smoke detector had really set me off, pushing me away from a pleasant evening into an abyss.
For some reason, and I will never know what triggered this, but as I furiously fanned at the smoke detector, my entire outlook changed, flipping radically from the abyss to one of happiness and contentment-----
Yes, it was small home, but we did have a roof over our head, it didn't even leak, and the heater did a great job keeping us warm. The dinner wasn't much, but we did have food for our stomachs, and we even had cheap wine. We had each other, two friends who trusted one another and who could talk about anything. The future was uncertain, but we were resuming college, and there was a small hope that in a couple of years graduation would propel us forward. The car was old, but it had never let us down. (BTW, I wound up keeping it for 20 more years, but that's a different story unto itself.)
I never have figured out what transpired in my mind and what caused me to instantly change my view of the situation, but in the blink of an eye, my negativity had suddenly changed to a completely different perspective, one of optimism and contentment. Either set of interpretations was accurate---I could look at things negatively or positively with equal ease. The "poor us" observations were accurate, but then again the "we are blessed" thoughts were also valid. Both views were "right," but for some reason I had suddenly chosen the much more positive viewpoint. My attitude and outlook changed in a flash, and the ensuing evening could not have been better. I wish I could say it had been a turning point in my life, but at least for that evening it was a very valuable eye-opener, showing me the strength and importance of my thoughts.
What I didn't realize at the time was that I had stumbled across something known as Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, by Albert Ellis. The gist of the theory is that actions do not directly lead to emotions, but rather actions plus our belief systems lead to emotions. What happens in this world is filtered by what we think and how we view it. Those views determine our perception of reality. For example, imagine a race: Second place might be considered a great accomplishment, or the more jaded may choose to label it "the first loser." Either view is correct, and it's our interpretation, how we choose to experience it, that determines how it is perceived. In the more modern sense, the REBT theory has been euphemistically rephrased as the "attitude is everything" concept. How we view things determines how we feel about them and how we thus act or react.
So, one moral of the smoke detector story is that attitude truly is everything...life is determined by our attitude, how we view things, and the belief filters we put in place. Everything else follows from our mental interpretation. There's undoubtedly truth to that, I've lived and felt it myself many a time, and we all need to work on remembering the idea. You can, truly, take a marginal or even negative situation, mentally recast it, and feel quite differently about the whole matter in just a few minutes. When it works, it is a valuable tool, and an exercise I try to remember as often as I possibly can. It's deceptively easy and powerful when used appropriately.
I would contend, however, that attitude, while critical, is not everything per se: Reality matters as well. Yes, opinions and thoughts can be changed by adopting a healthier view over an unhealthy one, but our view of a situation (which can be mitigated) is also be tempered by facts. To paraphrase Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's pretty damned hard to self-actualize when your basic human needs aren't being met. The reason I belabor this point is that we need to keep both perspectives in mind when trying to "cheer up" others. If we can mitigate our own pain with positive thoughts, that is fantastic, but don't allow the same thought or advice on another's plight to come across as indifference to his or her pain. Some pain in this world is very real, and to be human is to acknowledge the hardships others may face.
Put differently, Pollyannaish thinking can't obscure all the facts, especially when we need to look at the pains of another. We can apply our own belief filters to a given situation, we can suggest them to somebody else, but don't force those beliefs on another who may be living a completely different reality than the one you enjoy.
For example, it's very easy for most of us to say that hunger is not a problem in this world; few of us ever miss meals (save for the occasional diet) so indeed, for the average American, hunger is at most a fleeting inconvenience. Try telling a starving, homeless person, however, that hunger is not a problem. Try explaining to somebody who does not know where his next meal is coming from that his pain of being hungry isn't real. No amount of emotional recasting will take away that very basic, very real human need. Physiological needs are at the very bottom of Maslow's triangle.
Most people would say loneliness is not an issue; in fact, many of my friends lament they wish they had more alone time and even admit to occasional envy of those without spouses or children. Wouldn't it be fun, after all, to go back to those carefree bachelor/bachelorette days, when all you had to worry about was your own happiness, your own feelings? Try telling somebody who truly is alone in this world, however, that loneliness is not a problem. Tell them that another birthday, another Christmas alone is preferable to being with somebody or with a family. You'll get the same pained look that you did off that homeless person. Social needs are but a bit higher in Maslow's triangle than are physiological needs.
Remember both examples as you sit down to dinner with your family. There are too many lonely people out there, too many people who won't have dinner tonight. At a minimum, acknowledge their pain, their loss, before dismissing it as an attitude problem.
"Anyone who attempts to make an emergency picture into a typical one, and who will measure all of man's goals and desires by his behavior during extreme physiological deprivation, is certainly blind to many things. It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread." Abraham Maslow
One Saturday evening just prior to the beginning of the fall quarter, we were trying to celebrate with a home cooked dinner of steak and wine. When I say steak, I don't mean a juicy rib eye or T-bone, but rather the cheapest piece of meat that Albertsons had: No marbling, and discounted substantially since it was beyond the "Sell by" date stamped on the package. The wine was from a green bottle with a generic "Chablis" yellow label on it. Vineyard, year, grape type?---Mysteries all. We also had baked potatoes as they were cheap. Beyond that, I don't recall anything else being on the menu. (I'm sure there was a dessert, Kerry loved to bake, but I can't remember what it was.)
In spite of the austerity, it was a special dinner for us, and we were going to enjoy it. Kerry had John Denver playing on the stereo, and I stood at the stove, frying the meat as best I could, when suddenly the shrill sound of the smoke detector went off in the background. Not surprisingly: With 550 square feet of total living space, it took very little to set the thing off.
I've never been fond of noises (especially shrill sounding devices or people), so the alarm grated on me instantly. I ran to the smoke detector, fanning it with all my might to try to silence it. I remember cursing, frustrated with all of it: The small home, lousy food, uncertainty about the future, a car which by all normal standards deserved to be in the junk yard, and now a smoke detector belching at me. I was fuming, frustrated thinking about how hard we had both worked and yet how little we had compared to the "silver spoon" crowd. We lived, after all, in a home which was worth less than the cars many of my fellow classmates drove. That damn smoke detector had really set me off, pushing me away from a pleasant evening into an abyss.
For some reason, and I will never know what triggered this, but as I furiously fanned at the smoke detector, my entire outlook changed, flipping radically from the abyss to one of happiness and contentment-----
Yes, it was small home, but we did have a roof over our head, it didn't even leak, and the heater did a great job keeping us warm. The dinner wasn't much, but we did have food for our stomachs, and we even had cheap wine. We had each other, two friends who trusted one another and who could talk about anything. The future was uncertain, but we were resuming college, and there was a small hope that in a couple of years graduation would propel us forward. The car was old, but it had never let us down. (BTW, I wound up keeping it for 20 more years, but that's a different story unto itself.)
I never have figured out what transpired in my mind and what caused me to instantly change my view of the situation, but in the blink of an eye, my negativity had suddenly changed to a completely different perspective, one of optimism and contentment. Either set of interpretations was accurate---I could look at things negatively or positively with equal ease. The "poor us" observations were accurate, but then again the "we are blessed" thoughts were also valid. Both views were "right," but for some reason I had suddenly chosen the much more positive viewpoint. My attitude and outlook changed in a flash, and the ensuing evening could not have been better. I wish I could say it had been a turning point in my life, but at least for that evening it was a very valuable eye-opener, showing me the strength and importance of my thoughts.
What I didn't realize at the time was that I had stumbled across something known as Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, by Albert Ellis. The gist of the theory is that actions do not directly lead to emotions, but rather actions plus our belief systems lead to emotions. What happens in this world is filtered by what we think and how we view it. Those views determine our perception of reality. For example, imagine a race: Second place might be considered a great accomplishment, or the more jaded may choose to label it "the first loser." Either view is correct, and it's our interpretation, how we choose to experience it, that determines how it is perceived. In the more modern sense, the REBT theory has been euphemistically rephrased as the "attitude is everything" concept. How we view things determines how we feel about them and how we thus act or react.
So, one moral of the smoke detector story is that attitude truly is everything...life is determined by our attitude, how we view things, and the belief filters we put in place. Everything else follows from our mental interpretation. There's undoubtedly truth to that, I've lived and felt it myself many a time, and we all need to work on remembering the idea. You can, truly, take a marginal or even negative situation, mentally recast it, and feel quite differently about the whole matter in just a few minutes. When it works, it is a valuable tool, and an exercise I try to remember as often as I possibly can. It's deceptively easy and powerful when used appropriately.
I would contend, however, that attitude, while critical, is not everything per se: Reality matters as well. Yes, opinions and thoughts can be changed by adopting a healthier view over an unhealthy one, but our view of a situation (which can be mitigated) is also be tempered by facts. To paraphrase Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's pretty damned hard to self-actualize when your basic human needs aren't being met. The reason I belabor this point is that we need to keep both perspectives in mind when trying to "cheer up" others. If we can mitigate our own pain with positive thoughts, that is fantastic, but don't allow the same thought or advice on another's plight to come across as indifference to his or her pain. Some pain in this world is very real, and to be human is to acknowledge the hardships others may face.
Put differently, Pollyannaish thinking can't obscure all the facts, especially when we need to look at the pains of another. We can apply our own belief filters to a given situation, we can suggest them to somebody else, but don't force those beliefs on another who may be living a completely different reality than the one you enjoy.
For example, it's very easy for most of us to say that hunger is not a problem in this world; few of us ever miss meals (save for the occasional diet) so indeed, for the average American, hunger is at most a fleeting inconvenience. Try telling a starving, homeless person, however, that hunger is not a problem. Try explaining to somebody who does not know where his next meal is coming from that his pain of being hungry isn't real. No amount of emotional recasting will take away that very basic, very real human need. Physiological needs are at the very bottom of Maslow's triangle.
Most people would say loneliness is not an issue; in fact, many of my friends lament they wish they had more alone time and even admit to occasional envy of those without spouses or children. Wouldn't it be fun, after all, to go back to those carefree bachelor/bachelorette days, when all you had to worry about was your own happiness, your own feelings? Try telling somebody who truly is alone in this world, however, that loneliness is not a problem. Tell them that another birthday, another Christmas alone is preferable to being with somebody or with a family. You'll get the same pained look that you did off that homeless person. Social needs are but a bit higher in Maslow's triangle than are physiological needs.
Remember both examples as you sit down to dinner with your family. There are too many lonely people out there, too many people who won't have dinner tonight. At a minimum, acknowledge their pain, their loss, before dismissing it as an attitude problem.
"Anyone who attempts to make an emergency picture into a typical one, and who will measure all of man's goals and desires by his behavior during extreme physiological deprivation, is certainly blind to many things. It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread." Abraham Maslow
Thursday, July 10, 2008
If Only...Then
Every student who has taken a high school math class is well aware of the truth table. There are many different flavors of truth tables, but one of the most basic is the implication or "if...then" table. This one is widely used because it so often mirrors real world actions of the form "If (condition) then (result)." For example, think of a child who promises his mother "If it rains this afternoon, then I will clean my room." There are four different possible scenarios, four different possible combinations of the above:
1) It rains in the afternoon and the child cleans his room.
2) It rains in the afternoon and the child does NOT clean his room.
3) It does not rain in the afternoon and the child clean his room.
4) It does not rain in the afternoon and the child does not clean his room.
From the logical perspective, only number 2 above is false. All three other combinations are true. Without going into detail, think of it simply as a promise: The child has agreed to do something if a certain condition is met, and he keeps his promise in three of the four cases. Only when the condition is met and he fails to keep his promise is the statement considered false.
We see this all this time in the real world. A family member, coworker, business or somebody else promises something in exchange for something else. At McDonalds, if you give the cashier money, then he will give you food. A parent promises a child an allowance in exchange for doing chores. A presidential candidate promises nirvana if you vote for him. Even though "truth table" sounds ominous, we live by them all the time and understand the most basic ones intuitively.
Go back roughly three decades to when I was a young teenager sitting in my high school sociology class. This, of course, is in the 70's, long before the days of the Internet, when computers were huge mainframes which the average person never saw. Driving about in a Ford Pinto while listening to an 8-track and looking for a payphone was commonplace. At that time, jobs were posted in the newspaper, job seekers had to read the classifieds to find job postings, then type out a resume and cover letter, and mail them in to the company. There were a few shortcuts here and there, such as photocopying the resume rather than typing it each time, but the basic idea is that the job hunting process was a very manual one. In reading that sociology text, one of the laments was how difficult it was to match job seekers up with the correct job. The author painstakingly explained how good people failed to find good jobs, simply due to the lack of a national job database. Like other sociologists, he blamed this squarely on the government for failing to throw money at the problem. "If only we had a national job database, then unemployment would be a thing of the past" was his basic lament. Fast forward thirty years: We now not only have a national job database, we have an international one, and we have immediate, interactive access to it. Any person sitting in front of a computer can find a job posting, read about it, and apply to it without even leaving the comfort of his chair. Not only has the sociologist's lament been met, but it has been exceeded. Yet, in spite of this, what is our unemployment picture? As of this week, we are at 5.5%, and even that claim is trumpeted with the headline "US Jobless Claims Fall Sharply." The sociologist's promise that a national job database would make unemployment a thing of the past was false.
Some years later my ex-wife and I bought our first home. It wasn't much of a home, it was a mobile home. Single-wide in fact. Still, as small and tacky as it was, we were pleased to have it, and we felt some remorse when we had to put it up for sale. We signed up a real estate agent who initially promised us that she could easily sell it inside of six months, but as the first few weeks passed, we had not had so much as a nibble, and it was becoming somewhat obvious to us that a sale was a long ways off. The agent, saving face, used the sales person excuse: I'm doing my job, there's just something that is out of my control. In this case, the mobile home was in an adult only park, and the salewoman latched on to that, lamenting that she could sell the home in a hertbeat if only it were in an adult park. (Never mind that she knew taht fact when she first took on the listing....). My ex-wife and I started to second-guess ourselves, questioning why we had not had the foresight to buy in a family park. Unexpectedly for all of us, however, at about the three month point, California's HUD ruled that adult only parks (with few exceptions) were discriminatory, and effective immediately all such parks were now family parks.
You can most likely guess the next two stages: My ex-wife and I were elated in the short-term, knowing that the lament had been removed. And yes, three months later, the mobile home sat unsold. I forget what excuse the salewoman used this time for not being able to sell the property, though I do remember that at the end of the six month listing she had the audacity/stupidity to aks if we wanted to relist.
I remember these broken promises as clearly as if they happened yesterday, the broken trust I placed in the author and the saleswoman still vivid in my mind. Be careful with the "If...then..." promises. They may sound safe to hide behind, but it's amazing how often they are ripped wide open, and it's amazing how long the memory of that broken promise can last.
1) It rains in the afternoon and the child cleans his room.
2) It rains in the afternoon and the child does NOT clean his room.
3) It does not rain in the afternoon and the child clean his room.
4) It does not rain in the afternoon and the child does not clean his room.
From the logical perspective, only number 2 above is false. All three other combinations are true. Without going into detail, think of it simply as a promise: The child has agreed to do something if a certain condition is met, and he keeps his promise in three of the four cases. Only when the condition is met and he fails to keep his promise is the statement considered false.
We see this all this time in the real world. A family member, coworker, business or somebody else promises something in exchange for something else. At McDonalds, if you give the cashier money, then he will give you food. A parent promises a child an allowance in exchange for doing chores. A presidential candidate promises nirvana if you vote for him. Even though "truth table" sounds ominous, we live by them all the time and understand the most basic ones intuitively.
Go back roughly three decades to when I was a young teenager sitting in my high school sociology class. This, of course, is in the 70's, long before the days of the Internet, when computers were huge mainframes which the average person never saw. Driving about in a Ford Pinto while listening to an 8-track and looking for a payphone was commonplace. At that time, jobs were posted in the newspaper, job seekers had to read the classifieds to find job postings, then type out a resume and cover letter, and mail them in to the company. There were a few shortcuts here and there, such as photocopying the resume rather than typing it each time, but the basic idea is that the job hunting process was a very manual one. In reading that sociology text, one of the laments was how difficult it was to match job seekers up with the correct job. The author painstakingly explained how good people failed to find good jobs, simply due to the lack of a national job database. Like other sociologists, he blamed this squarely on the government for failing to throw money at the problem. "If only we had a national job database, then unemployment would be a thing of the past" was his basic lament. Fast forward thirty years: We now not only have a national job database, we have an international one, and we have immediate, interactive access to it. Any person sitting in front of a computer can find a job posting, read about it, and apply to it without even leaving the comfort of his chair. Not only has the sociologist's lament been met, but it has been exceeded. Yet, in spite of this, what is our unemployment picture? As of this week, we are at 5.5%, and even that claim is trumpeted with the headline "US Jobless Claims Fall Sharply." The sociologist's promise that a national job database would make unemployment a thing of the past was false.
Some years later my ex-wife and I bought our first home. It wasn't much of a home, it was a mobile home. Single-wide in fact. Still, as small and tacky as it was, we were pleased to have it, and we felt some remorse when we had to put it up for sale. We signed up a real estate agent who initially promised us that she could easily sell it inside of six months, but as the first few weeks passed, we had not had so much as a nibble, and it was becoming somewhat obvious to us that a sale was a long ways off. The agent, saving face, used the sales person excuse: I'm doing my job, there's just something that is out of my control. In this case, the mobile home was in an adult only park, and the salewoman latched on to that, lamenting that she could sell the home in a hertbeat if only it were in an adult park. (Never mind that she knew taht fact when she first took on the listing....). My ex-wife and I started to second-guess ourselves, questioning why we had not had the foresight to buy in a family park. Unexpectedly for all of us, however, at about the three month point, California's HUD ruled that adult only parks (with few exceptions) were discriminatory, and effective immediately all such parks were now family parks.
You can most likely guess the next two stages: My ex-wife and I were elated in the short-term, knowing that the lament had been removed. And yes, three months later, the mobile home sat unsold. I forget what excuse the salewoman used this time for not being able to sell the property, though I do remember that at the end of the six month listing she had the audacity/stupidity to aks if we wanted to relist.
I remember these broken promises as clearly as if they happened yesterday, the broken trust I placed in the author and the saleswoman still vivid in my mind. Be careful with the "If...then..." promises. They may sound safe to hide behind, but it's amazing how often they are ripped wide open, and it's amazing how long the memory of that broken promise can last.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
The Chain of Command vs. Disposable Friendships
We're all used to the notion of a chain of command, thinking of it in its military meaning. High ranking soldier passes a command to the person beneath him, he passes it along to the next lower ranking person, etc. Once the command has been completed, that fact is passed up from the lowliest soldier back up through intermediaries until it reaches the originator.
Most of us will implicitly sneer at this, just for the dogmatic and unyielding simplicity if nothing else. I'll assert, however, that there is more to the chain of command than most people understand, and its benefits are far more important than we accept.
One critical side benefit of a chain of command is that problems are resolved at the lowest level possible. In other words, if a soldier (sailor, airman, marine) has an issue, he goes to his supervisor to try to solve it. If it can be solved at that level, it is considered resolved. If not, it is passed up one more level, where the "if...then...else" is repeated. Think about the novelty and the beauty of this: Problems are solved in a logical, predictable manner rather than in a helter-skelter barrage of who can make the noisiest wheel. Military people are trained to work and think this way, but how often does it work that way in civilian land? Have a problem at work but don't want to wait for your supervisor to have a try at fixing it? Go straight to the CEO. Don't like something your kid's teacher did? Go to the principal...no wait, let's make it the superintendent. Got a beef with the way a government employee handled something? Not gonna talk with the next public servant up the foodchain, oh no, let's call the state capital or Washington DC.
The problem with this hopscotch chain of command is that it slows down solving problems. If you have experienced something unfair or something you didn't like, isn't your goal to have the issue resolved? If so, that can be done most quickly and most easily at the lowest possible level. If the goal is simply to make noise, to be a squeaky wheel, then yes, bypass all the intermediaries and go straight to the top. Granted, since everybody else is doing the same thing and going straight to the top, the head of the foodchain won't do anything other than roll it back down, but it sure felt good, didn't it.
That's not to say there are not times that an issue needs to be escalated, that the next level will not be able to solve a problem, but the idea is to give them a chance to do so. If they can't and you have to escalate, that's perfectly fine, and you've made a good-faith effort along the way.
Moral of the story: Solve your problems at the lowest possible level.
But.....that's not the end of the blog. I'll go so far as to suggest that this concept of solving problems at the lowest possible level applies not just in your professional life, not just in the consumer world, but in your personal life as well. Wouldn't we all be more harmonious if we worked with that friend or loved one to clear up a misunderstanding rather than blowing it out of proportion? Wouldn't we be better off if the next time we had a disagreement with a loved one if we tried to talk and work it out rather than going behind that lover's back? How about friendships? Can you truly have a friendship that doesn't occasionally hit a bump, and in those cases do you draw your friend aside and try to discuss it, or do you "vent" to a third party. Do you really make an effort to talk with a friend, lover, relative when something disappointing happens, or do you skirt around them? Do you give a friend who made a mistake a chance to understand what happens, maybe even apologize and make things right, or do you run to a third party to gossip about it?
Most of us, candidly, fail pretty miserably in this area. A friend disappoints us, and we treat the friendship as disposable, casting it aside (temporarily if not permanently) while we let the disappointment fester. We'll gossip to a third party, until, of course, he/she does something wrong, when we move on to another disposable friend.
Try, just try, to think of this as a chain of command experience. Your friend says or does something you disapprove of. Just now and then, rather than tossing in the towel on that person, try resolving it at the lowest possible level----talk with that person directly. Explain what happened, why you think what you do. Give the friend a chance to explain, to make amends, to do the right thing. Avoid the temptation to "vent" to somebody else, which far too often is nothing more than seeking somebody out who will validate your desire to abandon that person. If the friendship is truly irreparable, then abandon it only after trying to mend it directly with your friend.
Most of us will implicitly sneer at this, just for the dogmatic and unyielding simplicity if nothing else. I'll assert, however, that there is more to the chain of command than most people understand, and its benefits are far more important than we accept.
One critical side benefit of a chain of command is that problems are resolved at the lowest level possible. In other words, if a soldier (sailor, airman, marine) has an issue, he goes to his supervisor to try to solve it. If it can be solved at that level, it is considered resolved. If not, it is passed up one more level, where the "if...then...else" is repeated. Think about the novelty and the beauty of this: Problems are solved in a logical, predictable manner rather than in a helter-skelter barrage of who can make the noisiest wheel. Military people are trained to work and think this way, but how often does it work that way in civilian land? Have a problem at work but don't want to wait for your supervisor to have a try at fixing it? Go straight to the CEO. Don't like something your kid's teacher did? Go to the principal...no wait, let's make it the superintendent. Got a beef with the way a government employee handled something? Not gonna talk with the next public servant up the foodchain, oh no, let's call the state capital or Washington DC.
The problem with this hopscotch chain of command is that it slows down solving problems. If you have experienced something unfair or something you didn't like, isn't your goal to have the issue resolved? If so, that can be done most quickly and most easily at the lowest possible level. If the goal is simply to make noise, to be a squeaky wheel, then yes, bypass all the intermediaries and go straight to the top. Granted, since everybody else is doing the same thing and going straight to the top, the head of the foodchain won't do anything other than roll it back down, but it sure felt good, didn't it.
That's not to say there are not times that an issue needs to be escalated, that the next level will not be able to solve a problem, but the idea is to give them a chance to do so. If they can't and you have to escalate, that's perfectly fine, and you've made a good-faith effort along the way.
Moral of the story: Solve your problems at the lowest possible level.
But.....that's not the end of the blog. I'll go so far as to suggest that this concept of solving problems at the lowest possible level applies not just in your professional life, not just in the consumer world, but in your personal life as well. Wouldn't we all be more harmonious if we worked with that friend or loved one to clear up a misunderstanding rather than blowing it out of proportion? Wouldn't we be better off if the next time we had a disagreement with a loved one if we tried to talk and work it out rather than going behind that lover's back? How about friendships? Can you truly have a friendship that doesn't occasionally hit a bump, and in those cases do you draw your friend aside and try to discuss it, or do you "vent" to a third party. Do you really make an effort to talk with a friend, lover, relative when something disappointing happens, or do you skirt around them? Do you give a friend who made a mistake a chance to understand what happens, maybe even apologize and make things right, or do you run to a third party to gossip about it?
Most of us, candidly, fail pretty miserably in this area. A friend disappoints us, and we treat the friendship as disposable, casting it aside (temporarily if not permanently) while we let the disappointment fester. We'll gossip to a third party, until, of course, he/she does something wrong, when we move on to another disposable friend.
Try, just try, to think of this as a chain of command experience. Your friend says or does something you disapprove of. Just now and then, rather than tossing in the towel on that person, try resolving it at the lowest possible level----talk with that person directly. Explain what happened, why you think what you do. Give the friend a chance to explain, to make amends, to do the right thing. Avoid the temptation to "vent" to somebody else, which far too often is nothing more than seeking somebody out who will validate your desire to abandon that person. If the friendship is truly irreparable, then abandon it only after trying to mend it directly with your friend.
Cell Phones
Washington state, like so many others across the country, has just added yet another crime to our list of state no-nos, this one being a ban on using cell phones while driving. Well, not exactly that: We have banned holding a cell phone and conversing while driving, though hands-free options (bluetooth, speakerphone) are still AOK. I won't go off on the fact that virtually all data indicates it is the conversation, not the act of holding a phone, which is the real distraction. Never, ever let facts and data get in the way of a legislator saying he did his bit. Too bad we can't find these guys jobs at the local pizzeria, where "go to the freezer and get the box" could be their community value add. (N.B.: Special prize for anybody who can cite the commercial which made that phrase famous.)
Why is it that people have such a hatred for cell phones? Is it truly the noise they represent, the loud talk in what would be an otherwise quiet and cozy restaurant? That may be part of it, but in my heart I think there is really a different reason, one which views cell phones as a snub. Don't get me wrong: I love cell phones. I had one back in the 1990 timeframe, when the cell phone (car mounted) cost me about $1200, and the car I was driving was worth less than $800. I think they are amazing inventions, and I never leave home without mine. (Although, in the sense of full disclosure, I should say that I use texting and email on my Treo about as much as I actually use the phone.) So back to the basic question: If they are so ubiquitous, why do we hate them so? My hypothesis is really one of social isolation: In the years prior to cell phones, being out in public meant that you were, indeed, in public. Like it or not, you were a possible target of a stranger's hello, casual conversation, and participation with another human being. Cell phones, especially when pasted to the ear, prevent that. In a way, we're telling those around us in public "You just don't count. I'd rather be blabbing meaningless chit chat with somebody on the end of this electronic tether than to waste my time talking with you." Get to know a stranger? Never! Why take a chance talking to a real person, maybe even making a connection, when you have the cell to tell the rest of the world to leave you alone.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not going to give up my cell, but I do try to use it judiciously. If I'm in a place where I might be able to talk to a live person face-to-face, I'm going to let the cell go to voicemail rather than give up the chance to have a once in a lifetime conversation with somebody I've never met before and may never meet again. Serendipity still counts in this world, so take advantage of it when and where you can.
Why is it that people have such a hatred for cell phones? Is it truly the noise they represent, the loud talk in what would be an otherwise quiet and cozy restaurant? That may be part of it, but in my heart I think there is really a different reason, one which views cell phones as a snub. Don't get me wrong: I love cell phones. I had one back in the 1990 timeframe, when the cell phone (car mounted) cost me about $1200, and the car I was driving was worth less than $800. I think they are amazing inventions, and I never leave home without mine. (Although, in the sense of full disclosure, I should say that I use texting and email on my Treo about as much as I actually use the phone.) So back to the basic question: If they are so ubiquitous, why do we hate them so? My hypothesis is really one of social isolation: In the years prior to cell phones, being out in public meant that you were, indeed, in public. Like it or not, you were a possible target of a stranger's hello, casual conversation, and participation with another human being. Cell phones, especially when pasted to the ear, prevent that. In a way, we're telling those around us in public "You just don't count. I'd rather be blabbing meaningless chit chat with somebody on the end of this electronic tether than to waste my time talking with you." Get to know a stranger? Never! Why take a chance talking to a real person, maybe even making a connection, when you have the cell to tell the rest of the world to leave you alone.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not going to give up my cell, but I do try to use it judiciously. If I'm in a place where I might be able to talk to a live person face-to-face, I'm going to let the cell go to voicemail rather than give up the chance to have a once in a lifetime conversation with somebody I've never met before and may never meet again. Serendipity still counts in this world, so take advantage of it when and where you can.
Disappointment
People disappoint.
Let there be no doubt, every person on this globe makes mistakes, each and every one of us will periodically do things to let others down. Some make mistakes a habit, others make them the exception, but we are all subject to the same pitfall of being human and disappointing one another from time to time.
We are also a nation that believes in shortcuts: Reader's Digest and Cliff Notes survive to reduce our reading time, instant coffee is there because that brewing thing just takes too dang long, cement can never dry fast enough so make sure to get the quick drying kind, and the American fast food industry is a financial behemoth larger than the gross national product of many other countries. We're a society that loves shortcuts, we can't get the answer fast enough, and we can't get there fast enough.
Unfortunately, with this sort of mentality, it's obvious that we would take shortcuts in realms that are not justified, and one area in which we often tend to make this mistake is in judging others. We label, we judge by stereotypes, we believe our prejudices even when we know better. We tell gender-based jokes that we say are simply meant in jest, yet in our hearts many of those jingoistic beliefs are held as credible (especially when we are talking among our same sex). As much as we know we should not do these things, we all fall prey to the quick answer syndrome, even when it is something as critical as getting to know another person.
I've managed more people than I can count over the years. Honestly, in twenty years of high tech, I've had well over 100 direct reports, and I would not be surprised if the total number (first, second and third level) runs close to 1000. I remember some very well, I've forgotten others. What this means is that over the years I've seen more than my share of mistakes and disappointments due to the shortcomings of others. (Yes, I've contributed my own share as well!) Of all these disappointments, however, there is one class which seems more sorry, more regrettable, than any other: The inability to look at others fairly, to judge each person based on his or her own merits. While I have more than my own share of weaknesses, I'm very pleased to believe that one thing I have done relatively well over all these years is to consider each individual as an individual. I seldom take shortcuts getting to know another. It takes time for me to assess others, and while it may be obvious to most that "That guy's a jerk," for better or for worse I tend to take a little longer to reach that same conclusion. It's not that I enjoy being slow, but the beauty is that every once in a long while, one of those universally-accepted-as-jerk types actually turns out to be a pretty decent person, if you take a little extra time to understand him, to figure out what he is about and why he is the way he is.
My point: Fight the bias. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Speak of him as he is..." Each individual is unique, each is complex, each is a mix of good and bad, some traits coming from nature, other from nurture. One of our goals, our challenges, in this world of shortcuts and instant answers it to take the time to consider each person as unique, to get to know him/her as a real person, to weigh the individual as an individual, not as a middle-aged heterosexual male who thus obviously believes a, b, and c.
The irony of this is twofold: We all know what I have outlined above to be true, yet we really just can't quite take the time to get to know another person, so we'll just fall back on our hunches a bit here and there. Worse yet, let's not even take the time to develop our own hunches, but instead let's have somebody else to do the thinking for us and tell us what to think; let's take that shortcut so we get there quickly. No need to waste the time and braincells trying to understand another person, let's just flip to the back of the book and let somebody else tell us the answer.
What has prompted this diatribe is an event which happened to me recently. A person I consider very bright, very intelligent, very much an individual, in fact somebody I could almost have labeled a friend, threw her ability to value another person out the window, deferring instead to the "wisdom" somebody else had. In this case, rather than trusting what she had believed to be true, what she had seen and felt for months, she instead decided to let an expert (oh yes, a psychiatrist) demean and degrade her view of another. The psychiatrist, of course, is the universal king omniscient, knowledgeable in all ways of judging other people, even if the shrink doesn't know the person. Yes, that is the beauty of psychiatry; you see, the shrink has the magic ability to hear but a few words about a person, and magically, thanks to an epiphany straight from heaven above, he can tell you all about that person's psyche, thought process, and worthiness as a human being. After all, with a piece of paper hanging on the wall proclaiming one to be a psychiatrist, he has the license from God Almighty to be His proxy, to pass judgment on the rest of us, good or evil. The rest of us need not think, for the Almighty has done so for us (the Almighty in this case not being God, but of course the shrink).
When a racist or bigot passes judgment on a black, we have no trouble seeing through the fallacy in the blink of an eye, rejecting the bias as something we know to be absurd. When a trained psychiatrist, however, exercises that same bigotry, we fall to it, accepting it to be true and correct since it was deemed so by a psychiatrist...err, I guess that should be capitalized, Psychiatrist.
Why am I so animated about this? I've seen this too many times over the years, having heard too many news reports, too many expert testimonies, too many proclamations by the psychiatrist, too many which are taken to be true, without debate, simply because it has been deemed so. I know all too well how psychiatry was used to the benefit of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, the heinous crimes committed in the name of psychiatry. Most recently, my former "friend" fell to this same prejudice, casting out what she had believed for months in favor of what a shrink said about another person, in this case a person the shrink had never met. (Remember, the shrink is all knowing, so actually meeting a person is not necessary for him to pass judgment.) When this happens, some part of our world shivers and dies away, to forever be a slightly less joyful and happy place. Truth and individuality have been replaced by bias and jingoism, in the form of a sheepskin hanging on a wall.
Laurie, I'll never understand why a person of your character could not see through this, but the world truly is a slightly worse place because you elected to trust a shrink to think for you instead of believing yourself and what you knew to be true. You caved. You sold your mind, your spirit, and the spirit of another in trusting your shrink friend to think for you. The world will go on, of course, but sincerely, a tiny corner of it has been ruined forever since you elected not to fight for what you knew to be true.
For the rest of you, fight the bias. Think for yourself, get to know that person and to judge him, warts and all, for the person he is rather than who you are told he is.
Let there be no doubt, every person on this globe makes mistakes, each and every one of us will periodically do things to let others down. Some make mistakes a habit, others make them the exception, but we are all subject to the same pitfall of being human and disappointing one another from time to time.
We are also a nation that believes in shortcuts: Reader's Digest and Cliff Notes survive to reduce our reading time, instant coffee is there because that brewing thing just takes too dang long, cement can never dry fast enough so make sure to get the quick drying kind, and the American fast food industry is a financial behemoth larger than the gross national product of many other countries. We're a society that loves shortcuts, we can't get the answer fast enough, and we can't get there fast enough.
Unfortunately, with this sort of mentality, it's obvious that we would take shortcuts in realms that are not justified, and one area in which we often tend to make this mistake is in judging others. We label, we judge by stereotypes, we believe our prejudices even when we know better. We tell gender-based jokes that we say are simply meant in jest, yet in our hearts many of those jingoistic beliefs are held as credible (especially when we are talking among our same sex). As much as we know we should not do these things, we all fall prey to the quick answer syndrome, even when it is something as critical as getting to know another person.
I've managed more people than I can count over the years. Honestly, in twenty years of high tech, I've had well over 100 direct reports, and I would not be surprised if the total number (first, second and third level) runs close to 1000. I remember some very well, I've forgotten others. What this means is that over the years I've seen more than my share of mistakes and disappointments due to the shortcomings of others. (Yes, I've contributed my own share as well!) Of all these disappointments, however, there is one class which seems more sorry, more regrettable, than any other: The inability to look at others fairly, to judge each person based on his or her own merits. While I have more than my own share of weaknesses, I'm very pleased to believe that one thing I have done relatively well over all these years is to consider each individual as an individual. I seldom take shortcuts getting to know another. It takes time for me to assess others, and while it may be obvious to most that "That guy's a jerk," for better or for worse I tend to take a little longer to reach that same conclusion. It's not that I enjoy being slow, but the beauty is that every once in a long while, one of those universally-accepted-as-jerk types actually turns out to be a pretty decent person, if you take a little extra time to understand him, to figure out what he is about and why he is the way he is.
My point: Fight the bias. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Speak of him as he is..." Each individual is unique, each is complex, each is a mix of good and bad, some traits coming from nature, other from nurture. One of our goals, our challenges, in this world of shortcuts and instant answers it to take the time to consider each person as unique, to get to know him/her as a real person, to weigh the individual as an individual, not as a middle-aged heterosexual male who thus obviously believes a, b, and c.
The irony of this is twofold: We all know what I have outlined above to be true, yet we really just can't quite take the time to get to know another person, so we'll just fall back on our hunches a bit here and there. Worse yet, let's not even take the time to develop our own hunches, but instead let's have somebody else to do the thinking for us and tell us what to think; let's take that shortcut so we get there quickly. No need to waste the time and braincells trying to understand another person, let's just flip to the back of the book and let somebody else tell us the answer.
What has prompted this diatribe is an event which happened to me recently. A person I consider very bright, very intelligent, very much an individual, in fact somebody I could almost have labeled a friend, threw her ability to value another person out the window, deferring instead to the "wisdom" somebody else had. In this case, rather than trusting what she had believed to be true, what she had seen and felt for months, she instead decided to let an expert (oh yes, a psychiatrist) demean and degrade her view of another. The psychiatrist, of course, is the universal king omniscient, knowledgeable in all ways of judging other people, even if the shrink doesn't know the person. Yes, that is the beauty of psychiatry; you see, the shrink has the magic ability to hear but a few words about a person, and magically, thanks to an epiphany straight from heaven above, he can tell you all about that person's psyche, thought process, and worthiness as a human being. After all, with a piece of paper hanging on the wall proclaiming one to be a psychiatrist, he has the license from God Almighty to be His proxy, to pass judgment on the rest of us, good or evil. The rest of us need not think, for the Almighty has done so for us (the Almighty in this case not being God, but of course the shrink).
When a racist or bigot passes judgment on a black, we have no trouble seeing through the fallacy in the blink of an eye, rejecting the bias as something we know to be absurd. When a trained psychiatrist, however, exercises that same bigotry, we fall to it, accepting it to be true and correct since it was deemed so by a psychiatrist...err, I guess that should be capitalized, Psychiatrist.
Why am I so animated about this? I've seen this too many times over the years, having heard too many news reports, too many expert testimonies, too many proclamations by the psychiatrist, too many which are taken to be true, without debate, simply because it has been deemed so. I know all too well how psychiatry was used to the benefit of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, the heinous crimes committed in the name of psychiatry. Most recently, my former "friend" fell to this same prejudice, casting out what she had believed for months in favor of what a shrink said about another person, in this case a person the shrink had never met. (Remember, the shrink is all knowing, so actually meeting a person is not necessary for him to pass judgment.) When this happens, some part of our world shivers and dies away, to forever be a slightly less joyful and happy place. Truth and individuality have been replaced by bias and jingoism, in the form of a sheepskin hanging on a wall.
Laurie, I'll never understand why a person of your character could not see through this, but the world truly is a slightly worse place because you elected to trust a shrink to think for you instead of believing yourself and what you knew to be true. You caved. You sold your mind, your spirit, and the spirit of another in trusting your shrink friend to think for you. The world will go on, of course, but sincerely, a tiny corner of it has been ruined forever since you elected not to fight for what you knew to be true.
For the rest of you, fight the bias. Think for yourself, get to know that person and to judge him, warts and all, for the person he is rather than who you are told he is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
