Yesterday, I talked about why socialism isn't the best thing for the US because of the cultural diversity we have here. Today I will bring my second point, being that we are just HUGE.
Size
The US has over 300,000,000 people. If Norway were a state its population of 5,000,000 people would be ranked 23rd, right after Colorado and before Alabama.
Anyone who has worked for large and small organizations will know that the dollar for dollar efficiency drops the bigger an organization gets. The bigger a system the harder it is to get it to run well. It's just a fact. It gets harder to manage things. It becomes more complex.
So for the US to do anything on a national scale, it is going to be SOOOO much more complicated than it would be for Norway to implement it. Even if it were a linear function based on size it would be more than 60 times more complicated.
Conclusion
All that being said, socialism isn't inherently evil. But practically, you can't equate a small, culturally homogeneous country like Norway and the massive, culturally spastic hulk that is the US. Some programs can work as long as they are limited in scope and simple in execution, but state run candy distribution is a definite no.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Socialism's Problem - Part 1
The idea of socialism is for the state to provide some goods and or services as a function of government. The people pay taxes and some of that money is used to provide some set of centralized services. The number and extent of the services are dependent on the degree of socialism in place. If you move the socialism slider to 100% it becomes communism. If you move it to 0% you probably have some form of capitalism.
Communism has a pretty bad track record over the past century or so. It might sound nice in theory, but after trying it in multiple places and it resulting in over 100 million deaths I think it is safe to say (or not safe) that it doesn't work well.
Socialism shouldn't get lumped into the exact same pile as communism, but it has it's downsides as well. I have wanted to talk about this since Mr. Sanders made such a run of it for the Democratic nomination. As an avowed socialist he drew a lot of crowds with his pitch for increasing the level of socialism in the United States. I say increase because Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and other various programs are socialistic.
Mr. Sanders on many occasions held up the Scandinavian countries as examples of democratic socialism working. That is another topic, but for the sake of this post I'm not going to argue it.
So since socialism seems to be working fine in Norway why shouldn't we have more of it here? There are two simple reasons. Diversity and size.
Diversity
Norway is 87% ethnically Norwegian. That is after a recent flood of immigration brought on by the overall increase in immigration into the EU. So until recently Norway was, and even still is, almost completely ethnically, and therefore culturally homogeneous.
That means that the values, biases, and backgrounds of the Norwegian people are all very similar. At least similar compared to the US where "ethnically American" means nothing. We are called the melting pot for a reason.
That homogeneity means that when everyone got together to come up with the kind of socialistic mix they wanted there was a lot of agreement. Also, regardless of your opinion of it or it's rightness, people tend mind giving people like themselves stuff more than people who are different. It's a thing.
All that together it means that Norway was able to find a level of socialism that worked for them because they all largely agreed on what was important.
To make the topic a little more accessible let's use a silly example on how that would play out here in the US compared to Norway.
Let's say that we here in the US and Norway decided that our governments should provide everyone with candy. Private candy selling was no longer a thing and you could only get it from the government.
In Norway they reached a consensus that skittles were the best, and so everyone got a bag of skittles every week. Simple. Some people of course didn't like it, but the vast majority did so it became the law. Administration was a breeze and since they were buying bulk in just one kind of candy they got a really good discount. So even though not everyone liked it, the fact that they got candy and taxes didn't go up much made tolerable.
Here in the US we decided to try it too. However, a big chunk of people really hated blue skittles. Enough that a factory had to be built to open a bunch of bags, pick out the blue ones, and then repackage them. A whole other group were culturally offended by skittles at all and demanded Kit Kats instead. But they insisted on being able to choose which flavor they got on a week to week basis. Because of these exceptions and variables their had to be a cabinet level department created to manage the administration of the candy distribution. Not simple. Not easy. Not cheap.
We have no consistent cultural norms. None. Zero. There isn't a single topic in existence that you won't be able to find sizable groups who disagree. In an open capitalistic society that is fine. Capitalism doesn't force anyone to do anything. It is why the US has been able to manage such a diverse population.
Socialism forces values onto people who don't want them. It is a reason why there is increasing unrest and discontentment with the government.
Tomorrow we talk about size.
Communism has a pretty bad track record over the past century or so. It might sound nice in theory, but after trying it in multiple places and it resulting in over 100 million deaths I think it is safe to say (or not safe) that it doesn't work well.
Socialism shouldn't get lumped into the exact same pile as communism, but it has it's downsides as well. I have wanted to talk about this since Mr. Sanders made such a run of it for the Democratic nomination. As an avowed socialist he drew a lot of crowds with his pitch for increasing the level of socialism in the United States. I say increase because Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and other various programs are socialistic.
Mr. Sanders on many occasions held up the Scandinavian countries as examples of democratic socialism working. That is another topic, but for the sake of this post I'm not going to argue it.
So since socialism seems to be working fine in Norway why shouldn't we have more of it here? There are two simple reasons. Diversity and size.
Diversity
Norway is 87% ethnically Norwegian. That is after a recent flood of immigration brought on by the overall increase in immigration into the EU. So until recently Norway was, and even still is, almost completely ethnically, and therefore culturally homogeneous.
That means that the values, biases, and backgrounds of the Norwegian people are all very similar. At least similar compared to the US where "ethnically American" means nothing. We are called the melting pot for a reason.
That homogeneity means that when everyone got together to come up with the kind of socialistic mix they wanted there was a lot of agreement. Also, regardless of your opinion of it or it's rightness, people tend mind giving people like themselves stuff more than people who are different. It's a thing.
All that together it means that Norway was able to find a level of socialism that worked for them because they all largely agreed on what was important.
To make the topic a little more accessible let's use a silly example on how that would play out here in the US compared to Norway.
Let's say that we here in the US and Norway decided that our governments should provide everyone with candy. Private candy selling was no longer a thing and you could only get it from the government.
In Norway they reached a consensus that skittles were the best, and so everyone got a bag of skittles every week. Simple. Some people of course didn't like it, but the vast majority did so it became the law. Administration was a breeze and since they were buying bulk in just one kind of candy they got a really good discount. So even though not everyone liked it, the fact that they got candy and taxes didn't go up much made tolerable.
Here in the US we decided to try it too. However, a big chunk of people really hated blue skittles. Enough that a factory had to be built to open a bunch of bags, pick out the blue ones, and then repackage them. A whole other group were culturally offended by skittles at all and demanded Kit Kats instead. But they insisted on being able to choose which flavor they got on a week to week basis. Because of these exceptions and variables their had to be a cabinet level department created to manage the administration of the candy distribution. Not simple. Not easy. Not cheap.
We have no consistent cultural norms. None. Zero. There isn't a single topic in existence that you won't be able to find sizable groups who disagree. In an open capitalistic society that is fine. Capitalism doesn't force anyone to do anything. It is why the US has been able to manage such a diverse population.
Socialism forces values onto people who don't want them. It is a reason why there is increasing unrest and discontentment with the government.
Tomorrow we talk about size.
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Is the Sky Falling? (or melting) - Part 4
I had a few detours, but I am back on the trail to determine if global warming is in fact a thing. Last time I finished up linking to this skepticalscience.com
article by GPWayne. It seemed like a logically laid out argument for why global warming was not just happening, but why and explained why it can be linked to us humans.
Here is the summery quoted from the article:
Summing UpLike a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
The first point about more energy remaining in the atmosphere seems to be true. We already answered that one. The earth is warmer than it was. Not a lot, but it is warmer.
The second point is also true. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It does absorb solar radiation. I haven't heard anybody argue against that one.
The CO2 levels are a good bit higher than they were 150 years ago and we are to blame for that one pretty clearly. Again, I don't think anybody is arguing with this. I haven't found any compelling evidence to the contrary.
This next and final part is a bit less of a slam dunk though... It is correlated sure. Both the temperature and the CO2 levels have gone up at the same time. However, we do not know, and I don't think we can know for sure that the warming is exclusively caused by increased CO2.
I realize that my skepticism is coming through here, but it is a meaningful point. Correlation does not prove causation. It is not an unreasonable parallel to draw. However, before I am willing to declare it all our fault, to use his murder analogy, beyond reasonable doubt, I need to feel a little more compelled. It is a well laid out argument though and I commend GPWayne for it. There are not enough people making reasonable arguments on the topic.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Down Time
The more I have been learning about successful people the more it has struck me how they use their time. Obviously they use their work time efficiently, but I have been learning that the people I admire the most are intentional about their down time too.
When they have down time they use it for maximum affect. They might veg out in front of the TV occasionally, but more often then not, when they are resting, they are actively resting. Down time isn't just not working time. They seek to remove external stimuli (especially raw entertainment) and rest.
There is purpose to their time both in work and in rest. By doing that they avoid that muddy middle where it isn't very restful, but it isn't productive either. By being purposeful about spending their time they get a lot more work and rest.
I believe how you spend your down time really says a lot about you as a person. I know it does about me. Unfortunately it often isn't very flattering. But part of being intentional is being honest about who and where you are so that you can take meaningful action to get better.
How do you spend your time when you aren't working? What do you think that says about your priorities and the kind of person you are?
When they have down time they use it for maximum affect. They might veg out in front of the TV occasionally, but more often then not, when they are resting, they are actively resting. Down time isn't just not working time. They seek to remove external stimuli (especially raw entertainment) and rest.
There is purpose to their time both in work and in rest. By doing that they avoid that muddy middle where it isn't very restful, but it isn't productive either. By being purposeful about spending their time they get a lot more work and rest.
I believe how you spend your down time really says a lot about you as a person. I know it does about me. Unfortunately it often isn't very flattering. But part of being intentional is being honest about who and where you are so that you can take meaningful action to get better.
How do you spend your time when you aren't working? What do you think that says about your priorities and the kind of person you are?
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Mom
My mom has not been doing well. She had a stroke a few years ago. She slowly improved for about two years. Over the past few months though she has pretty rapidly gotten worse. She is suffering from dementia that seems related to her stroke. It is getting to the point that it is likely she won't be able to stay home anymore. It is just more than my dad can handle.
It is a puzzling situation. Quite frustrating emotionally. In a lot of ways she is just gone. It's like she is dead. Her mental capacity is severely degraded and her difficulties communicating make it even worse. She is very much not reflecting the person that I know her as. But, she is still around. So there is this emotional conflict of dealing with losing her in most of the ways you lose someone when they die, but without the finality or closure that comes.
It is compounded by the fact that I really don't know what is going on internally for her. Does she know what is happening? What level of understanding does she have of the situation? It is really difficult to know. It is one of the most emotionally frustrating periods of my life.
It is a puzzling situation. Quite frustrating emotionally. In a lot of ways she is just gone. It's like she is dead. Her mental capacity is severely degraded and her difficulties communicating make it even worse. She is very much not reflecting the person that I know her as. But, she is still around. So there is this emotional conflict of dealing with losing her in most of the ways you lose someone when they die, but without the finality or closure that comes.
It is compounded by the fact that I really don't know what is going on internally for her. Does she know what is happening? What level of understanding does she have of the situation? It is really difficult to know. It is one of the most emotionally frustrating periods of my life.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Getting Old
Getting old is great. I mean, there are obvious downsides like your body not working quite like it used to, but overall I think it's great. Each year that passes is another year of growth and a new pile of experiences under my belt.
My life has been very difficult in a lot of ways the past few years. So while I could respond to that by feeling sorry for myself or trying to avoid thinking about it I view it differently. It has been an opportunity to mature a lot in a relatively short amount of time. I am, experience wise, a lot older than my chronological age and I am going to keep that trend up as much as I can.
I certainly hope that the next few years aren't as hard as the last few, but either way I'm gonna milk them for all their worth. Maturity doesn't inherently come with age, but if it doesn't you are doing it wrong.
My life has been very difficult in a lot of ways the past few years. So while I could respond to that by feeling sorry for myself or trying to avoid thinking about it I view it differently. It has been an opportunity to mature a lot in a relatively short amount of time. I am, experience wise, a lot older than my chronological age and I am going to keep that trend up as much as I can.
I certainly hope that the next few years aren't as hard as the last few, but either way I'm gonna milk them for all their worth. Maturity doesn't inherently come with age, but if it doesn't you are doing it wrong.
Friday, June 24, 2016
Frustration
The other day I was helping a friend build a computer. We were putting the fans in the box and we could not reach the corner of one to attach it to the frame. We could get our fingers around to feel the screw, but we then needed them to bend sideways to actually secure it. It just didn't work. It was sooo frustrating. We knew exactly what needed to be done. We knew "how" to do it. We just were not able to. We didn't have the capability to do the thing.
We were powerless to secure the fan.
That is one of the most frustrating things for me is to know what and even how to fix a problem and simply not be able to. No matter how simple it is to pick something up, if you can't reach the shelf it just doesn't matter. Now some things, like the fan (we took the case apart and were able to secure the fan), or not being able to reach the shelf, do have potential solutions. However, some things in life just don't.
Your mom gets cancer and you want to just reach in and pull the cancer out. Your kid has food allergies and you just want to tell their body to stop being stupid. Your bank account runs dry before your calendar does and you sit their staring at your bank statement willing the number to not be $0.22.
Knowing the exact answer and not being able to deliver. at. all.
These are precious times. They are times where you, and your abilities are completely stripped out of a situation and it is easy to turn to G-d. In fact I suspect that is a lot of the reason why He allows us to get there. Take advantage of them. Embrace the simplicity and the clarity of the moment.
The reality is that we are almost always in that position, we just don't always see it.
We were powerless to secure the fan.
That is one of the most frustrating things for me is to know what and even how to fix a problem and simply not be able to. No matter how simple it is to pick something up, if you can't reach the shelf it just doesn't matter. Now some things, like the fan (we took the case apart and were able to secure the fan), or not being able to reach the shelf, do have potential solutions. However, some things in life just don't.
Your mom gets cancer and you want to just reach in and pull the cancer out. Your kid has food allergies and you just want to tell their body to stop being stupid. Your bank account runs dry before your calendar does and you sit their staring at your bank statement willing the number to not be $0.22.
Knowing the exact answer and not being able to deliver. at. all.
These are precious times. They are times where you, and your abilities are completely stripped out of a situation and it is easy to turn to G-d. In fact I suspect that is a lot of the reason why He allows us to get there. Take advantage of them. Embrace the simplicity and the clarity of the moment.
The reality is that we are almost always in that position, we just don't always see it.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Globalization and a Borderless World
The Brexit topic is an interesting one. If you aren't familiar Brexit is the term used to refer to the vote today in the United Kingdom on whether to stay in the European Union or not.
The vote has polarized the UK. From what I have read the biggest arguments are between the economic benefits, but the loss of sovereignty and self governance if they stay. There are many specific sub-arguments, but those are the fundamental principles.
I have never even visited the UK so I don't have a strong opinion on the topic. However, it reminded me of something John Kerry the US Secretary of State said a couple months ago. He was speaking to graduates at Northeastern University in Boston. He said "You're about to graduate into a complex and borderless world".
We live in a smaller world then ever before. The internet brings ideas and concepts from every corner of our planet. So in a sense Secretary Kerry is correct. Things that borders used to meaningfully limit, like information, are no longer limited. Transportation advances mean people are able to move around unlike any other time in history.
Mr. Kerry seems to think that the idea of borders is an old and idealized view of a world gone by. While there are benefits to globalization, and I think there are things of value that can be learned from every culture it is not exclusively a good thing. There are people who do not like us and who want to hurt us. There are cultures that are fundamentally at odds with our culture of freedom, democracy, and the value of human life.
While I do not believe we should cut ourselves off from any and all interaction with the world, or even those cultures that don't share our values, there have to be limits.
That is what borders are for. Borders, both physically and conceptually work as a filter to protect us from people who are not good for us. The book Boundries by Dr. John Townsend outlines the concept for interpersonal relationships. While there may be limited crossover the idea holds true for countries too. We need to be able to set boundaries. Not just to protect us from bad guys, but with good boundaries comes a secure place to interact with the world. Good fences make good neighbors as the saying goes.
Not everyone is the same. Not everyone values the same things. That is ok, and it is even beautiful. We live in a diverse world and I would never want that to be different. Allowing each nation to set up their own rules and values allows them to express their uniqueness in a way that they would not be able to do if they had to comply with the values and rules of others.
Borders do not squelch diversity. They enable it.
So I commend my UK friends on their conversation about their place in the EU. This is a pivotal decision for them and really will be a reflection of their values. Do they value their national identity and autonomy or economy more? I don't think there is a wrong answer here. At least not from my external perspective. I hope they choose whichever truly reflects their convictions.
The vote has polarized the UK. From what I have read the biggest arguments are between the economic benefits, but the loss of sovereignty and self governance if they stay. There are many specific sub-arguments, but those are the fundamental principles.
I have never even visited the UK so I don't have a strong opinion on the topic. However, it reminded me of something John Kerry the US Secretary of State said a couple months ago. He was speaking to graduates at Northeastern University in Boston. He said "You're about to graduate into a complex and borderless world".
We live in a smaller world then ever before. The internet brings ideas and concepts from every corner of our planet. So in a sense Secretary Kerry is correct. Things that borders used to meaningfully limit, like information, are no longer limited. Transportation advances mean people are able to move around unlike any other time in history.
Mr. Kerry seems to think that the idea of borders is an old and idealized view of a world gone by. While there are benefits to globalization, and I think there are things of value that can be learned from every culture it is not exclusively a good thing. There are people who do not like us and who want to hurt us. There are cultures that are fundamentally at odds with our culture of freedom, democracy, and the value of human life.
While I do not believe we should cut ourselves off from any and all interaction with the world, or even those cultures that don't share our values, there have to be limits.
That is what borders are for. Borders, both physically and conceptually work as a filter to protect us from people who are not good for us. The book Boundries by Dr. John Townsend outlines the concept for interpersonal relationships. While there may be limited crossover the idea holds true for countries too. We need to be able to set boundaries. Not just to protect us from bad guys, but with good boundaries comes a secure place to interact with the world. Good fences make good neighbors as the saying goes.
Not everyone is the same. Not everyone values the same things. That is ok, and it is even beautiful. We live in a diverse world and I would never want that to be different. Allowing each nation to set up their own rules and values allows them to express their uniqueness in a way that they would not be able to do if they had to comply with the values and rules of others.
Borders do not squelch diversity. They enable it.
So I commend my UK friends on their conversation about their place in the EU. This is a pivotal decision for them and really will be a reflection of their values. Do they value their national identity and autonomy or economy more? I don't think there is a wrong answer here. At least not from my external perspective. I hope they choose whichever truly reflects their convictions.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Is the Sky Falling? (or melting) - Part 3
For now, pending me looking at how they calculate the data, I am assuming the earth has warmed about one degree Celsius over the past 130 years. This brings into play the second group of questions that I developed.
Because I like taking things out of order I will answer the last two first.
What is the timeline?
From the official temperature data we have been in a warming trend for a little over 100 years. Over that time we have seen the average temperature increase, as I said, about one degree Celsius. If that were to continue based on a linear interpolation we could expect to see it go up another degree over the next 100ish years.
I am not the expert here so I am going to bring in good old NASA. NASA says that according to models we can expect 2-6 additional degrees (C) of warming in the next century. Now, that is a big range, and I can tell you from personal experience in making models that accuracy is... limited. It is reasonable that it doesn't match my linear estimate though
Here is a graph from NASA on a longer term historical temperature history.
Now if you look at that timeline, we are on the tippy top of the far right peak. According to the linked article we are experiencing much more rapid warming than we have seen in previous warm period and they say that is worrisome. I haven't had a chance to really go through all the data, but just looking at that graph it doesn't look any steeper. In fact the warm period just to the left, about 100,000 years ago looks steeper than this period, and certainly hotter. Additionally, the timing of this warming period looks relatively periodic with the last three or four warm spells. I have to get my hands on this data to get a better feel for it. Because just from this and the graph from yesterday it really really looks periodic and normal. I realize there is a certain level of confirmation bias here, but I am not seeing anything that strongly shakes my previous leanings.
What is causing it? and how do we know?
Well the somewhat obvious proposed short answer is greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gases are gases that absorb solar radiation and therefore contribute to the heat capacity of our atmosphere. The argument goes that the more of these gases we put into our atmosphere the warmer it gets.
The all knowing Wikipedia says that the top four greenhouse gases are (in order of importance):
1. Water vapor and clouds
2. Carbon dioxide
3. Methane
4. Ozone
The how do we know part of the question is a bit of a hang up for me. GPWayne of skepticalscience.com has a very nicely articulated article outlining why global warming is in fact man made. To be fair to everyone involved I am going to devote a whole post to it because it is late and I can't process it in just a couple paragraphs. So if you are on the edge of your seat you can read ahead.
- What is causing it, and how do we know?
- What is the timeline of the warming trend? (past/future)
- How fast is it warming now?
Because I like taking things out of order I will answer the last two first.
What is the timeline?
From the official temperature data we have been in a warming trend for a little over 100 years. Over that time we have seen the average temperature increase, as I said, about one degree Celsius. If that were to continue based on a linear interpolation we could expect to see it go up another degree over the next 100ish years.
I am not the expert here so I am going to bring in good old NASA. NASA says that according to models we can expect 2-6 additional degrees (C) of warming in the next century. Now, that is a big range, and I can tell you from personal experience in making models that accuracy is... limited. It is reasonable that it doesn't match my linear estimate though
Here is a graph from NASA on a longer term historical temperature history.
Now if you look at that timeline, we are on the tippy top of the far right peak. According to the linked article we are experiencing much more rapid warming than we have seen in previous warm period and they say that is worrisome. I haven't had a chance to really go through all the data, but just looking at that graph it doesn't look any steeper. In fact the warm period just to the left, about 100,000 years ago looks steeper than this period, and certainly hotter. Additionally, the timing of this warming period looks relatively periodic with the last three or four warm spells. I have to get my hands on this data to get a better feel for it. Because just from this and the graph from yesterday it really really looks periodic and normal. I realize there is a certain level of confirmation bias here, but I am not seeing anything that strongly shakes my previous leanings.
What is causing it? and how do we know?
Well the somewhat obvious proposed short answer is greenhouse gasses. Greenhouse gases are gases that absorb solar radiation and therefore contribute to the heat capacity of our atmosphere. The argument goes that the more of these gases we put into our atmosphere the warmer it gets.
The all knowing Wikipedia says that the top four greenhouse gases are (in order of importance):
1. Water vapor and clouds
2. Carbon dioxide
3. Methane
4. Ozone
The how do we know part of the question is a bit of a hang up for me. GPWayne of skepticalscience.com has a very nicely articulated article outlining why global warming is in fact man made. To be fair to everyone involved I am going to devote a whole post to it because it is late and I can't process it in just a couple paragraphs. So if you are on the edge of your seat you can read ahead.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
The Sky is Falling? (or melting) - Part 2
I will first see what I can find about the raw data that is collected to answer the question is the earth warming? I'll go through the first block of questions from yesterday.
Who collects/processes/interprets the data?
There are four data sets that are widely used to study earth's temperature.
1. HadCRUT4 is produced jointly by the UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
2. GISTEMP is collected by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS).
3. MLOST is compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
4. The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) creates one too, but I don't know what it is called.
They do the collection and most of the processing. They of course do a lot of interpreting too, but a lot of other people use their data.
How do we measure global temperatures and where does the data come from?Temperatures are measured through a combination of ground stations, buoys (for water temperature) and satellite data. I don't know exactly why water temperatures are included, but they are. That gives us a temperature map of earth.
However, the way they come to the graph below is through a process of determining anomalies and averaging them to produce the graph below which comes from NASA and is a integration of all four data sets mentioned above. This process is not trivially simple and I don't understand it yet. I will see if I can get my hands on the actual data and reproduce their numbers.
What the data say? Is the earth warming?
Well, according to the graph of the data NASA provided above it is. Over the past 130 years the global temperature has increased a little short of one degree Celsius. There you have it folks! Global warming is a thing. Well, maybe.
I like data analysis so I am going to try to find the raw temperature data and learn more about how the come up with the numbers. Not that I doubt them, it is NASA after all, but I was expecting something a little more straight forward and I don't understand the anomaly method they use.
Since that will probably take longer than a day I am going to move on for now and take the easy (and probably legitimate) way out and just say they are correct for purposes of the next round of questions.
My Conclusion
The data seems to show warming. Not nearly as much as I expected given the size of a deal everyone seems to be making out of it. So that is surprising. Let's say the average temperature is 50F. That means that the change shown above is about a 0.3% variation in absolute temperature (K). Now, there are a lot of questions I still need to ask, but that seems like a really small variation given normal yearly temperature fluctuations exceed 80 K which translates to over 25% temperature fluctuation.
So does that 0.3% pose an existential threat? Maybe it does, but my engineering brain says that if the system that is our planet was so unstable as to risk collapse over a couple percentage points we would never have been around in the first place.
I don't want to be too skeptical though. Admittedly I do not understand this topic well so I truly cannot make any final judgements at this point.
- Is the earth warming?
- How do we measure it?
- What does the data say?
- Where does the data come from?
- How is the data processed?
- Who collects/processes/interprets the data?
Who collects/processes/interprets the data?
There are four data sets that are widely used to study earth's temperature.
1. HadCRUT4 is produced jointly by the UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
2. GISTEMP is collected by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS).
3. MLOST is compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
4. The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) creates one too, but I don't know what it is called.
They do the collection and most of the processing. They of course do a lot of interpreting too, but a lot of other people use their data.
How do we measure global temperatures and where does the data come from?Temperatures are measured through a combination of ground stations, buoys (for water temperature) and satellite data. I don't know exactly why water temperatures are included, but they are. That gives us a temperature map of earth.
However, the way they come to the graph below is through a process of determining anomalies and averaging them to produce the graph below which comes from NASA and is a integration of all four data sets mentioned above. This process is not trivially simple and I don't understand it yet. I will see if I can get my hands on the actual data and reproduce their numbers.
What the data say? Is the earth warming?
Well, according to the graph of the data NASA provided above it is. Over the past 130 years the global temperature has increased a little short of one degree Celsius. There you have it folks! Global warming is a thing. Well, maybe.
I like data analysis so I am going to try to find the raw temperature data and learn more about how the come up with the numbers. Not that I doubt them, it is NASA after all, but I was expecting something a little more straight forward and I don't understand the anomaly method they use.
Since that will probably take longer than a day I am going to move on for now and take the easy (and probably legitimate) way out and just say they are correct for purposes of the next round of questions.
My Conclusion
The data seems to show warming. Not nearly as much as I expected given the size of a deal everyone seems to be making out of it. So that is surprising. Let's say the average temperature is 50F. That means that the change shown above is about a 0.3% variation in absolute temperature (K). Now, there are a lot of questions I still need to ask, but that seems like a really small variation given normal yearly temperature fluctuations exceed 80 K which translates to over 25% temperature fluctuation.
So does that 0.3% pose an existential threat? Maybe it does, but my engineering brain says that if the system that is our planet was so unstable as to risk collapse over a couple percentage points we would never have been around in the first place.
I don't want to be too skeptical though. Admittedly I do not understand this topic well so I truly cannot make any final judgements at this point.
Monday, June 20, 2016
The Sky is Falling? (or melting) - Part 1
The topic that I'm sure is on everyone's mind right now is of course global warming. Or as the powers that be seem to prefer to refer to it now, climate change. Or maybe not, but it is what I am going to write about today, and probably for a few days.
The issue, is I don't know much about it. I mean, I know all the bumper sticker wisdom and that the world is ending according to "99%" of scientists and all, but my house isn't on the verge of being flooded, and my pet polar bear is quite healthy, so it hasn't been a major day-to-day concern for me like it has for all of you.
The US government as well as many other national governments and the EU/UN crowd seem to think it is important though so I am going to investigate until I feel comfortable enough to have a strong opinion on the topic and I'm going to make you all watch. This ties in to this post about being intentional and consistent in my opinions. Right now I am certainly inconsistent, and it is possible I am incorrect. It is why I do not express a strong opinion on the topic. At the end of this I want to be able to be very opinionated about the topic. :P
Now, you can probably tell from the title and my general tone that I am not starting from a perfectly unbiased position. I have lived in the mid-west most of my life and the general attitude in that area is that global warming is a complete crock and weather is weather and is always changing so get over it already.
So, I am not starting from the ideal place of complete intellectual impartiality. However, I am wanting to give both sides a genuine shot at convincing me they are correct. Despite the levity of my tone, if global warming is in fact a real concern and the consequences are as bad as is suggested I do need to take it seriously and do what I can to help prevent it.
However, if it is not a concern there are a whole pile of other issues that present themselves.
To get the whole thing started I have made a list of questions to help guide my search for truth and to hopefully reign in my bias's so that I can do a better job evaluating the actual questions and not on rabbit trails.
I will add questions to the list if/when I think of new ones.
The issue, is I don't know much about it. I mean, I know all the bumper sticker wisdom and that the world is ending according to "99%" of scientists and all, but my house isn't on the verge of being flooded, and my pet polar bear is quite healthy, so it hasn't been a major day-to-day concern for me like it has for all of you.
The US government as well as many other national governments and the EU/UN crowd seem to think it is important though so I am going to investigate until I feel comfortable enough to have a strong opinion on the topic and I'm going to make you all watch. This ties in to this post about being intentional and consistent in my opinions. Right now I am certainly inconsistent, and it is possible I am incorrect. It is why I do not express a strong opinion on the topic. At the end of this I want to be able to be very opinionated about the topic. :P
Now, you can probably tell from the title and my general tone that I am not starting from a perfectly unbiased position. I have lived in the mid-west most of my life and the general attitude in that area is that global warming is a complete crock and weather is weather and is always changing so get over it already.
So, I am not starting from the ideal place of complete intellectual impartiality. However, I am wanting to give both sides a genuine shot at convincing me they are correct. Despite the levity of my tone, if global warming is in fact a real concern and the consequences are as bad as is suggested I do need to take it seriously and do what I can to help prevent it.
However, if it is not a concern there are a whole pile of other issues that present themselves.
To get the whole thing started I have made a list of questions to help guide my search for truth and to hopefully reign in my bias's so that I can do a better job evaluating the actual questions and not on rabbit trails.
I will add questions to the list if/when I think of new ones.
- Is the earth warming?
- How do we measure it?
- What does the data say?
- Where does the data come from?
- How is the data processed?
- Who collects/processes/interprets the data?
- If the earth is warming:
- What is causing it, and how do we know?
- What is the timeline of the warming trend? (past/future)
- How fast is it warming now?
- Is it a bad thing?
- What is the ideal temperature?
- What are the affects?
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Father's Day
I'm twelve dads old. I get that by calculating the number of Father's Days I have had for each kid. It is a highly scientific measurement of my level of dad experience. It is an exciting Father's day, more so than most, because the youngest is 90% potty trained and I can smell... the end of diapers.
I got hand made cards from all my kids today. It was so sweet. The youngest gave me a piece of paper with swirlys all over it. The oldest gave me one with "I luv you" that he made all by himself. It was so nice. The middle one gave me about a dozen cards. Half of them were just hearts and the other half were pictures of me or her or us together. She is very thorough.
I certainly have not enjoyed everything about these twelve dads. The lack of sleep, the disruption of anything resembling personal or couple time, the giant sucking sound I know reflexively associate with my bank account.
But there are plenty of times that more than make up for it. Like today when the kids, all on their own, emptied out all the craft stuff all over the table and made me the cards. It warms my heart like not much else can.
Being a dad is great, but I don't ever want to repeat the last seven years.
I got hand made cards from all my kids today. It was so sweet. The youngest gave me a piece of paper with swirlys all over it. The oldest gave me one with "I luv you" that he made all by himself. It was so nice. The middle one gave me about a dozen cards. Half of them were just hearts and the other half were pictures of me or her or us together. She is very thorough.
I certainly have not enjoyed everything about these twelve dads. The lack of sleep, the disruption of anything resembling personal or couple time, the giant sucking sound I know reflexively associate with my bank account.
But there are plenty of times that more than make up for it. Like today when the kids, all on their own, emptied out all the craft stuff all over the table and made me the cards. It warms my heart like not much else can.
Being a dad is great, but I don't ever want to repeat the last seven years.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Belonging
We spent the evening sitting around a campfire on the beach with a bunch of our friends. The kids (of various ages 3-30) played in the water and we roasted hotdogs and smores over the fire. There was fun conversation and laughter all around. It was a great evening. We finally pulled up stakes well after the sun went down and the moon rose up over the water making shimmer like a sea of diamonds.
It was beautiful.
As we were driving home I was thinking about the evening and how much I enjoyed it. A realization hit me. More than any other place that I have lived as an adult I feel like I belong here. We are connected to a network of people who seem to actually like us and want to include us in their lives.
I know this isn't new, talking about actually having friends and the value of that, but the connections seem to be infecting our overall perspective of this area and I think I can say confidently now that we want to stay here. It has been a long time since I felt that way about a place. It's nice.
No deep thoughts for today I guess, except beach parties are fun.
It was beautiful.
As we were driving home I was thinking about the evening and how much I enjoyed it. A realization hit me. More than any other place that I have lived as an adult I feel like I belong here. We are connected to a network of people who seem to actually like us and want to include us in their lives.
I know this isn't new, talking about actually having friends and the value of that, but the connections seem to be infecting our overall perspective of this area and I think I can say confidently now that we want to stay here. It has been a long time since I felt that way about a place. It's nice.
No deep thoughts for today I guess, except beach parties are fun.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Cruise Ship vs Battleship
Many Christians, and churches for that matter, view the purpose of the church to be like a cruise ship. We should go to church to have not only our needs met, but our wants met as well. Comfy beds, meals of choice foods, plenty of pool time, and of course mints on their pillow. The captain's (pastor's) job as well as the rest of the staff is to make sure that each person on the cruise ship is comfortable and happy and that nothing unpleasant or painful happens to them.
While this sounds nice, this is not the local church's purpose. The proper function of the church is that of a battleship. Sure the battleship has a gally where you can get good food. It has recreational areas where you can relax and enjoy yourself. However, the purpose of the battleship is to haul around really big guns and fight (in this case spiritual) enemies.
As we go about our mission to fight the good fight we pick up castaways and nurse them to health so they can serve in this spiritual battle effectively. We do not do them any favors if we let them sit in sick bay even after they are well. There is no for passengers. When the ship is inevitably attacked if there are too many people relaxing and not engaging the work of running the ship we will be at the mercy of the enemy.
The cruise ship churches will get blindsided when they are attacked. The battleship churches won't get away unscathed, but they will be prepared and able to respond.
It isn't fun to prepare for war. It isn't fun to sacrifice comfort and pleasure. But the war for men's hearts is here whether we like it or not so we can choose to fight or ignore it at our own peril.
While this sounds nice, this is not the local church's purpose. The proper function of the church is that of a battleship. Sure the battleship has a gally where you can get good food. It has recreational areas where you can relax and enjoy yourself. However, the purpose of the battleship is to haul around really big guns and fight (in this case spiritual) enemies.
As we go about our mission to fight the good fight we pick up castaways and nurse them to health so they can serve in this spiritual battle effectively. We do not do them any favors if we let them sit in sick bay even after they are well. There is no for passengers. When the ship is inevitably attacked if there are too many people relaxing and not engaging the work of running the ship we will be at the mercy of the enemy.
The cruise ship churches will get blindsided when they are attacked. The battleship churches won't get away unscathed, but they will be prepared and able to respond.
It isn't fun to prepare for war. It isn't fun to sacrifice comfort and pleasure. But the war for men's hearts is here whether we like it or not so we can choose to fight or ignore it at our own peril.
Friends Update
It has been quite a while since I talked about operation stay in touch or whatever it was I called it. If you missed it I created a spreadsheet (Yeah I'm a nerd) to keep track of my friends and family and remind me to talk to them. Maybe your average person knows how to do that without making a spreadsheet, but I guess I didn't.
Well, it has been almost six months since I started and I have to say it has been awesome. I occasionally to frequently felt lonely before I started it. I had friends, and we hung out, but the sustained level of human interaction using the tool has been amazing.
There aren't many days that I don't talk to someone on my list. Admittedly a good deal of communication is initiated on my end, but that's ok. I haven't had a single person get upset about being contacted.
Overall it has made my life better, fuller and more meaningful. I am almost never lonely anymore.
Well, it has been almost six months since I started and I have to say it has been awesome. I occasionally to frequently felt lonely before I started it. I had friends, and we hung out, but the sustained level of human interaction using the tool has been amazing.
There aren't many days that I don't talk to someone on my list. Admittedly a good deal of communication is initiated on my end, but that's ok. I haven't had a single person get upset about being contacted.
Overall it has made my life better, fuller and more meaningful. I am almost never lonely anymore.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
A Life of Homework
When I was in college I looked forward to the end of each semester with great expectation. It meant that the break wouldn't include homework and I would be free of the eternal cloud of a deadline.
When I graduated the euphoria of not having anymore homework EVER almost outshone the excitement of completing my degree. I begrudgingly took the mantle back upon myself when I got my masters degree, but I swore I was done with college and a doctorate was not in the cards.
It struck me today that despite the cathartic relief of not having homework anymore I had a developed a bad attitude regarding homework. There are a lot of areas that I need to do homework in in my life. Most of it isn't "assigned" by anyone, but is needed to succeed in what I am doing.
In any area you can think of spending time learning and practicing will make you better at it. Parenting, marriage, work, hobbies, and the list goes on.
I think my relationship with homework needs to change. I need to diligently assign and complete homework for all the classes of life. That is the only way I am going to continue to pass.
When I graduated the euphoria of not having anymore homework EVER almost outshone the excitement of completing my degree. I begrudgingly took the mantle back upon myself when I got my masters degree, but I swore I was done with college and a doctorate was not in the cards.
It struck me today that despite the cathartic relief of not having homework anymore I had a developed a bad attitude regarding homework. There are a lot of areas that I need to do homework in in my life. Most of it isn't "assigned" by anyone, but is needed to succeed in what I am doing.
In any area you can think of spending time learning and practicing will make you better at it. Parenting, marriage, work, hobbies, and the list goes on.
I think my relationship with homework needs to change. I need to diligently assign and complete homework for all the classes of life. That is the only way I am going to continue to pass.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Your Weakest Link
I want to be continuously striving to improve myself and my life. However, sometimes that energy seems to be getting invested and invested with little to nothing to show for it. Let's look at a real world example.
You reorganize your closet and dresser so that they are the smoothest operating closet and dresser that ever existed. They are a work of art. But then you realize that you are still really frustrated every morning when you get dressed. So you make your dresser and closet even better. Now you almost faint with euphoric joy just looking at them. When friends come over you show them and they are moved to tears. But your morning routine still fall flat. Finally, G-d Himself kindly comes down and molds your clothing storage into the most refined and perfect form that is possible. Beyond your wildest imagination. But... your clothes still frustrate you in the morning.
After all that you take a step back and realize that you only have one pair of pants that fits and half the time it's in the wash. And your favorite shirt doesn't even match it. Then you realize that your wardrobe is a little light on certain things and that just might have been the issue all along.
So you buy a few pairs of pants, including some that go with your favorite shirt, and voila! Your morning routine flows like melted butter on a bald mans head.
All this to say, find your bottlenecks. Figure out the part of your day, or your life, or your clothing cycle, that is causing the most pain and work on that. Then after a little work reevaluate. You don't have to perfect something to turn it from being the biggest issue to a side issue. And if you stay focused on it too long you can end up spending a lot of time and energy wasted on something that... really isn't necessary.
You reorganize your closet and dresser so that they are the smoothest operating closet and dresser that ever existed. They are a work of art. But then you realize that you are still really frustrated every morning when you get dressed. So you make your dresser and closet even better. Now you almost faint with euphoric joy just looking at them. When friends come over you show them and they are moved to tears. But your morning routine still fall flat. Finally, G-d Himself kindly comes down and molds your clothing storage into the most refined and perfect form that is possible. Beyond your wildest imagination. But... your clothes still frustrate you in the morning.
After all that you take a step back and realize that you only have one pair of pants that fits and half the time it's in the wash. And your favorite shirt doesn't even match it. Then you realize that your wardrobe is a little light on certain things and that just might have been the issue all along.
So you buy a few pairs of pants, including some that go with your favorite shirt, and voila! Your morning routine flows like melted butter on a bald mans head.
All this to say, find your bottlenecks. Figure out the part of your day, or your life, or your clothing cycle, that is causing the most pain and work on that. Then after a little work reevaluate. You don't have to perfect something to turn it from being the biggest issue to a side issue. And if you stay focused on it too long you can end up spending a lot of time and energy wasted on something that... really isn't necessary.
Monday, June 13, 2016
Security and Gun Control - Part 9
I was planning on being done with the whole gun control bit, but the attack in Orlando kind of brought the topic back up. A terrorist attacked a club, killing or injuring over 100 people. It is a tragic event that will be talked about extensively I'm sure.
As I read about it two things jumped out at me. The first was that the shooting began three hours before the police stormed the building and killed the cowardly Islamist. I call him cowardly because of the second point. Being that he attacked a bunch of unarmed civilians in a gun free zone.
I am not going to second guess the police's decision to wait three hours to storm the building. I don't know enough to question their actions. However, given that it was three hours before the cavalry arrived the people in the club were on their own. If they wanted to be protected from what was the largest gun massacre in modern US history they would have had to have been armed themselves. For whatever reasons the police were not willing or able to protect the people in the club.
Because the people there we good law abiding citizens, at least with respect to gun laws, they were all unarmed and unable to protect themselves from the weak coward that attacked them. They died because of the dangerous gun laws of the state of Florida.
Gun free zones get people killed. Get guns into the hands of trained law abiding citizens and let them take them anywhere. Then you will get stories less like the Orlando tragedy and more like this story.
As I read about it two things jumped out at me. The first was that the shooting began three hours before the police stormed the building and killed the cowardly Islamist. I call him cowardly because of the second point. Being that he attacked a bunch of unarmed civilians in a gun free zone.
I am not going to second guess the police's decision to wait three hours to storm the building. I don't know enough to question their actions. However, given that it was three hours before the cavalry arrived the people in the club were on their own. If they wanted to be protected from what was the largest gun massacre in modern US history they would have had to have been armed themselves. For whatever reasons the police were not willing or able to protect the people in the club.
Because the people there we good law abiding citizens, at least with respect to gun laws, they were all unarmed and unable to protect themselves from the weak coward that attacked them. They died because of the dangerous gun laws of the state of Florida.
Gun free zones get people killed. Get guns into the hands of trained law abiding citizens and let them take them anywhere. Then you will get stories less like the Orlando tragedy and more like this story.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Facts vs Emotions
Facts are great. They are very usefully in a lot of situations. They ground us to reality and when we work off of them we avoid looking foolish (most of the time). We rely on them heavily our jobs, mine especially as an engineer. Also, when we want to formulate opinions and gain confidence in our positions facts come in really handy.
However, they really don't work well for one little thing. Convincing people of just about anything. Think about it. Despite most people's professed dedication to reason and logic what methods are used in marketing? Businesses use what works to sell their products. If they don't they don't stay in business. So good marketing, whatever the form, is going to be the pinnacle of effective persuasion.
So, what do marketers do? Do we see commercials outlining the differences between how long the flavor lasts in bazooka bubble gum verses store brand? Do we have apartment complexes putting up billboards explaining the affordability differences between them and purchasing a house? No. The commercials tell you to buy detergent because the commercial family looks beautiful and perfect. We have deodorant commercials showing you will be tackled by swarms of sexy women the moment you don their product. We have presidential candidates telling us they will build the best border wall you've ever seen.
If logic and facts ruled that would not be the case. When it comes down to it, we make decisions based on emotion. In fact quite often the facts we use, if any, are used post decision to give us more confidence.
So, use facts. Use as many as possible. So good facts, the best facts! But realize that you aren't going to convince many people of anything based on them. Use emotion. Speak to the identity of your audience. What are their aspirations? How do they see themselves? That is what creates a compelling argument.
However, they really don't work well for one little thing. Convincing people of just about anything. Think about it. Despite most people's professed dedication to reason and logic what methods are used in marketing? Businesses use what works to sell their products. If they don't they don't stay in business. So good marketing, whatever the form, is going to be the pinnacle of effective persuasion.
So, what do marketers do? Do we see commercials outlining the differences between how long the flavor lasts in bazooka bubble gum verses store brand? Do we have apartment complexes putting up billboards explaining the affordability differences between them and purchasing a house? No. The commercials tell you to buy detergent because the commercial family looks beautiful and perfect. We have deodorant commercials showing you will be tackled by swarms of sexy women the moment you don their product. We have presidential candidates telling us they will build the best border wall you've ever seen.
If logic and facts ruled that would not be the case. When it comes down to it, we make decisions based on emotion. In fact quite often the facts we use, if any, are used post decision to give us more confidence.
So, use facts. Use as many as possible. So good facts, the best facts! But realize that you aren't going to convince many people of anything based on them. Use emotion. Speak to the identity of your audience. What are their aspirations? How do they see themselves? That is what creates a compelling argument.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Beyond Marginal
When you are on the ropes you take what you can get. You buy the last snow shovel in the store as the blizzard roles in even though it's expensive and lousy. You take the first job offer you get because you are unemployed despite it being a lousy job that pays to little. You buy a blender for $30 because that's all you had the money for, but you need one tonight.
Sometimes that is just the way it is. Life doesn't always deal us good hands. However, if you plan ahead and push for it it is possible to begin developing some flex room.
Then you get the deluxe snow shovel on sale. You get a sweet job for great pay because you didn't need it and could be patient and negotiate. You get the awesome $300 blender because you saved up and got it on sale.
Planning ahead makes a huge different. It doesn't always work, but when it does life gets better. It is so satisfying when it plays out well.
Here's to thinking ahead and not settling because you have to.
Sometimes that is just the way it is. Life doesn't always deal us good hands. However, if you plan ahead and push for it it is possible to begin developing some flex room.
Then you get the deluxe snow shovel on sale. You get a sweet job for great pay because you didn't need it and could be patient and negotiate. You get the awesome $300 blender because you saved up and got it on sale.
Planning ahead makes a huge different. It doesn't always work, but when it does life gets better. It is so satisfying when it plays out well.
Here's to thinking ahead and not settling because you have to.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Security and Gun Control - Part 8
The final component of this topic is the ultimate agenda or desired end of the players in the discussion. This is probably the most enigmatic of the topics because it is generally difficult to know exactly what someone's agenda is. Particularly when they are in politics where, based on their political affiliation, there there is a "right" answer.
The agenda's I came up with are as follows (I added some):
Agendas:
1. Desire to just be safe.
2. Desire to get rid of all guns.
3. Desire to be be able to own any and all weapons as desired.
4. Desire to protect individual's rights.
5. Desire the government to protect everyone from people with guns.
The stated fear of the political right is that the left wants to take all the guns away. While I do think that some on the left want this, I suspect the majority do not. Most liberals, based on what they say and what makes sense, primarily want to be safe, and want the government to protect everyone from people with guns.
The stated fear of the political left is that the right want anyone including criminals and conservative extremists to be able to get machine guns that they generally don't care that people are dying. Some on the right might be those conservative extremists or uncaring, but I suspect that most are not. They probably want to be safe and want to protect individual rights.
The reality of political discourse is that on both the left and right there are minorities of ideologically astute people who understand the philosophical underpinnings of their political views and the logical implementation of them. The majority of both sides however are more practical in their political views and while they do have an ideological basis for their opinions are a little less... hardcore.
Therefore I am optimistic that a majority of the citizens of the United States could come to agreement on reasonable gun control standards that balance public safety with individual rights.
However, I am very pessimistic that such an agreement could be agreed upon due to the institutionalization of the gun control debate. Both the Democrats and Republicans have politicized the subject to the point that neither party can readily negotiate compromises like I have proposed without serious internal uprisings.
However, if level heads prevail and make a lot of noise, maybe a pragmatic solution can be obtained.
The agenda's I came up with are as follows (I added some):
Agendas:
1. Desire to just be safe.
2. Desire to get rid of all guns.
3. Desire to be be able to own any and all weapons as desired.
4. Desire to protect individual's rights.
5. Desire the government to protect everyone from people with guns.
The stated fear of the political right is that the left wants to take all the guns away. While I do think that some on the left want this, I suspect the majority do not. Most liberals, based on what they say and what makes sense, primarily want to be safe, and want the government to protect everyone from people with guns.
The stated fear of the political left is that the right want anyone including criminals and conservative extremists to be able to get machine guns that they generally don't care that people are dying. Some on the right might be those conservative extremists or uncaring, but I suspect that most are not. They probably want to be safe and want to protect individual rights.
The reality of political discourse is that on both the left and right there are minorities of ideologically astute people who understand the philosophical underpinnings of their political views and the logical implementation of them. The majority of both sides however are more practical in their political views and while they do have an ideological basis for their opinions are a little less... hardcore.
Therefore I am optimistic that a majority of the citizens of the United States could come to agreement on reasonable gun control standards that balance public safety with individual rights.
However, I am very pessimistic that such an agreement could be agreed upon due to the institutionalization of the gun control debate. Both the Democrats and Republicans have politicized the subject to the point that neither party can readily negotiate compromises like I have proposed without serious internal uprisings.
However, if level heads prevail and make a lot of noise, maybe a pragmatic solution can be obtained.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Misplaced Pragmatism
I decided to take a quick break from guns and talk about something else for a moment.
I have talked about pragmatism here a bit. It is a value that I consider important. Something I have been puzzling over lately is the pragmatic natures of many of our elected leaders. Many of them seem to present a pragmatic front. Not an idealistic naivete. However, the policies they present and the actions they take seem, to be polite, dumb. Not idealistic, just dumb.
How can pragmatic and politically adept operators push policies that are ideologically inconsistent and more generally haphazard?
It hit me finally what is going on. These leaders, like I noticed, are not idealists. They are pragmatists. However, their pragmatism in not directed towards the policies they are proposing, or more generally the governance of our nation. Their pragmatism is directed, that is misplaced, towards keeping their party and themselves in power. They pragmatically take whatever path they feel is necessary to keep their spots in congress, in the senate, in their high level roles.
That leads to a wilful neglect of any professed ideology. They step away from principal the moment it looks like it could cost them prestige.
We need pragmatists leading our country. However, we need to be more specific when we choose them. We need to choose principled policy pragmatists who will do what works even if it costs them their jobs.
That unfortunately seems like a rare breed, and I don't know if we have enough to fill all three branches. Here's to hoping both parties can find a few.
I have talked about pragmatism here a bit. It is a value that I consider important. Something I have been puzzling over lately is the pragmatic natures of many of our elected leaders. Many of them seem to present a pragmatic front. Not an idealistic naivete. However, the policies they present and the actions they take seem, to be polite, dumb. Not idealistic, just dumb.
How can pragmatic and politically adept operators push policies that are ideologically inconsistent and more generally haphazard?
It hit me finally what is going on. These leaders, like I noticed, are not idealists. They are pragmatists. However, their pragmatism in not directed towards the policies they are proposing, or more generally the governance of our nation. Their pragmatism is directed, that is misplaced, towards keeping their party and themselves in power. They pragmatically take whatever path they feel is necessary to keep their spots in congress, in the senate, in their high level roles.
That leads to a wilful neglect of any professed ideology. They step away from principal the moment it looks like it could cost them prestige.
We need pragmatists leading our country. However, we need to be more specific when we choose them. We need to choose principled policy pragmatists who will do what works even if it costs them their jobs.
That unfortunately seems like a rare breed, and I don't know if we have enough to fill all three branches. Here's to hoping both parties can find a few.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Security and Gun Control - Part 7
Yesterday got us to the point where I argued that police and paid security could not provide full security for everyone. That for bad guys to be effectively countered some subset of the population needed to be armed.
Let's talk about that subset. This is where our personal biases really start to play. To jog your memory here is the list from my previous post.
Biases:
1. Come from a big city instead of the country.
2. Come from foreign countries where guns are viewed differently for many reasons.
3. Never were around guns growing up (vs familiar with guns).
4. Military background instead of civilian.
5. Rich vs poor
6. How guns were used around them (primarily associated with crime or hunting or war, etc.)
These experiences and backgrounds will inform your thought process. Unlike the assumptions section, there is nothing right or wrong, better or worse about any of these. They simply are. This is the part where we need to be particularly sensitive of each other.
If we agree that some group of nonprofessional civilians is required to augment professional security forces to ensure widespread safety and security the only question now is how to regulate who is in that group, what they can carry, and where.
Let me start out by saying that I do not believe a one size fits all solution will work for everyone everywhere in the country. Each state and region needs the flexibility to find a set of rules that works for them. I am going to break each of these sections up into city and rural because they are different environments that require different rules.
City
In the city there are, by definition, a lot of people. This means that for any given space you need proportionally fewer armed people to provide some security because there are lots of people there. In a store with fifty people in it a 5% carry rate would mean there are 2-3 armed individuals to respond to a threat.
Additionally, there is generally more risk. There are more people around, more opportunities for collateral damage. More risk. As such I think it is more important for those individuals who do carry weapons to have a higher level of training.
The key is that there not be "gun free zones" anywhere. To provide solid protection from dobadders there has to be a meaningful risk of getting into a firefight anywhere they may want to attack. For anyone who has played paintball, air-soft, or been in a real shooting war you know it takes about 0.5 seconds to be dead. It's not a fun thing when it is a life or death situation.
My proposal is something along these lines: Any non-felon can carry a concealed handgun with a concealed carry license anywhere in that jurisdiction. The only locations that can prevent lawful carry of arms MUST provide adequate armed security (not one cop in an entire high school). This includes government buildings, schools, churches or any other location.
To obtain and maintain that license each individual must take an initial training course that includes enclosed space tactical training and real marksmanship standards. They must also complete yearly tactical and accuracy proficiency training and testing.
This ensures that anyone who is carrying a gun around knows how to use it and it reduces the risk of collateral damage. I think this provides a good balance of safety for everyone.
Rural
In the country and less developed areas the rules do not need to be as strict. Also, there are going to be fewer people around so the percentage of armed individuals needs to be higher to ensure criminals feel threatened. This necessitates that the regulations be more lax to increase the carry rate.
Therefore, I would require a similar though possibly less strict initial training course, and not require follow-up proficiency checks.
Both
I would strive to keep the licensing process as inexpensive as possible to prevent it from disproportionately preventing members of poorer communities from carrying. To the point of providing need based scholarships for the initial and subsequent training.
On the topic of open carry, I think that is a choice of the local jurisdiction based on cultural standards and what they feel works best for their community.
We can never be completely safe. The best we can do is ensure that there is significant risk to anyone who wants to do take the lives of those around them.
Let's talk about that subset. This is where our personal biases really start to play. To jog your memory here is the list from my previous post.
Biases:
1. Come from a big city instead of the country.
2. Come from foreign countries where guns are viewed differently for many reasons.
3. Never were around guns growing up (vs familiar with guns).
4. Military background instead of civilian.
5. Rich vs poor
6. How guns were used around them (primarily associated with crime or hunting or war, etc.)
These experiences and backgrounds will inform your thought process. Unlike the assumptions section, there is nothing right or wrong, better or worse about any of these. They simply are. This is the part where we need to be particularly sensitive of each other.
If we agree that some group of nonprofessional civilians is required to augment professional security forces to ensure widespread safety and security the only question now is how to regulate who is in that group, what they can carry, and where.
Let me start out by saying that I do not believe a one size fits all solution will work for everyone everywhere in the country. Each state and region needs the flexibility to find a set of rules that works for them. I am going to break each of these sections up into city and rural because they are different environments that require different rules.
City
In the city there are, by definition, a lot of people. This means that for any given space you need proportionally fewer armed people to provide some security because there are lots of people there. In a store with fifty people in it a 5% carry rate would mean there are 2-3 armed individuals to respond to a threat.
Additionally, there is generally more risk. There are more people around, more opportunities for collateral damage. More risk. As such I think it is more important for those individuals who do carry weapons to have a higher level of training.
The key is that there not be "gun free zones" anywhere. To provide solid protection from dobadders there has to be a meaningful risk of getting into a firefight anywhere they may want to attack. For anyone who has played paintball, air-soft, or been in a real shooting war you know it takes about 0.5 seconds to be dead. It's not a fun thing when it is a life or death situation.
My proposal is something along these lines: Any non-felon can carry a concealed handgun with a concealed carry license anywhere in that jurisdiction. The only locations that can prevent lawful carry of arms MUST provide adequate armed security (not one cop in an entire high school). This includes government buildings, schools, churches or any other location.
To obtain and maintain that license each individual must take an initial training course that includes enclosed space tactical training and real marksmanship standards. They must also complete yearly tactical and accuracy proficiency training and testing.
This ensures that anyone who is carrying a gun around knows how to use it and it reduces the risk of collateral damage. I think this provides a good balance of safety for everyone.
Rural
In the country and less developed areas the rules do not need to be as strict. Also, there are going to be fewer people around so the percentage of armed individuals needs to be higher to ensure criminals feel threatened. This necessitates that the regulations be more lax to increase the carry rate.
Therefore, I would require a similar though possibly less strict initial training course, and not require follow-up proficiency checks.
Both
I would strive to keep the licensing process as inexpensive as possible to prevent it from disproportionately preventing members of poorer communities from carrying. To the point of providing need based scholarships for the initial and subsequent training.
On the topic of open carry, I think that is a choice of the local jurisdiction based on cultural standards and what they feel works best for their community.
We can never be completely safe. The best we can do is ensure that there is significant risk to anyone who wants to do take the lives of those around them.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Security and Gun Control - Part 6
Based on my discussion yesterday about the direct
personal risk of terrorism, I want to continue today and discuss the
the wider societal risk. In addition to the direct risk of you or your
friends or family being killed by terrorists
or criminals there is a wider toll that is paid across our country.
There is a psychological weight caused by the risk
of death that influences almost every aspect of our lives, no matter how
far removed from murder we are. Because of the real risks of terrorism
and violent crime we feel deeply compelled
to do something. To take decisive action in order to minimize that
risk. Our ability to function as individuals and as a society is
dependent upon how well we feel we are doing to address the risk of
violence.
That brings us to assumptions 4 and 6 which represents the role of the government and police to keep us safe.
Assumption 4: The police's job is to protect us.
Assumption 6: The government can be trusted to protect us.
It is clearly intended in the constitution that
the government, both state and federal is tasked with protecting us from
foreign enemies as well as from crime and violence. I believe the
government must play a significant role in this.
Without getting into a lot of detail, because this
is another set of large topics, the government needs to keep foreign bad
guys out of the country, and keep bad guys inside the country
appropriately away from everyone else. We have border
security and a judicial and prison system that are supposed to do those
things.
However, there are certain types of violence that
the government and the police as the governments agents cannot protect
us against. The government can try to foil terrorist and criminal plots
and they seem to be doing a decent job of it
overall. However, most murders and terrorist attacks do not have the
scale or scope such that law enforcement can very easily detect and stop
them before the attack takes place.
For these kinds of "small" violence that involves
only a handful of people at most on-site security is the only way to
prevent serious damage. When a guy with a gun walks into a movie theater
to shoot people there needs to be a guy with
a gun to stop him. It's that simple.
Up to this point I suspect there is almost
universal agreement. The next part is where it gets messy. Who is the
guy with the gun?
A natural answer that goes back to the first
assumption above is the police. They are trained and armed and already
tasked with protecting the community. A major problem with this though
is that there are WAAAYYY more potential targets
than police. We as a society can't afford enough police to protect
every school, theater, grocery store, bank, etc. that could very well be
a target. Even more broadly a lot of crime and violence happens outside
of those places. Homes, streets, parks. There's
the old saying, "when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away."
That isn't a criticism of the police, it is a statement of practical
fact.
Private security are another option. They are
expensive though and therefore are primarily going to be used in high
value locations leaving most places unguarded.
There is one type of guy though that is everywhere.
That is your everyday person. People, by definition, are where people
are. So if a person wants to increase their security they can have a
gun. Then no matter where they go that gun is
there to protect them.
This is the not brand new concept of personal
carry. As I said before, this is the messy bit. Who is the guy with the
gun? Who do we let carry a gun around in public? Where can they carry
it? What kind of gun can they carry?
These are all important questions that really make or break our ability as a society to deal with violence.
And I'll talk about them next time. :D
Monday, June 6, 2016
Security and Gun Control - Part 5
Today's topic shifts from philosophical to a bit more practical.
The assumption is: Terrorism is far away and won't affect me.
Let's look at the statistics of terrorist attacks
in the US. All totaled there have been 3724 deaths due to 571 terrorist
attacks in the past twenty [Ref 1, Ref 2]. The current US population is
308.7 million people. Therefore based on that historical data there is a 0.0012%
chance that you will be killed in a terrorist attack.
That isn't a very high chance. That's about as likely as being killed by being struck by lightning.
However, we have been attacked. We are at risk.
Additionally the rise of ISIS has shown that ideological contamination
can occur through the internet resulting in attacks. The San Bernardino
shooting is a clear and tragic example of that.
So the idea that it is far away is false. Terrorism can happen
anywhere.
If you take a deeper look at my numbers you will
realize that I included mass shootings in my list of terrorist attacks.
The reason for this is while the perpetrators of these shootings may not
have been affiliated with a larger organization
the end result of their actions is no different. We meet the same
challenges trying to combat the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon as we do the
San Bernardino shooting. The motivations are different, personal
victimhood vs Islamism, but the underlying lack of respect
for human life and decency results in the same end. Mass murder.
Mass shootings have increased in frequency and body
count. Terrorist attacks have been sporadic, but with terrorism going
social the frequency of these attacks can reasonably be expected to
increase.
It is clear something needs to be done to address
this risk. Hoping that it won't happen to or near us is naive optimism.
Not because it is likely, from above the probability is low, but the
consequences are so dire.
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Security and Gun Control - Part 4
I was going to do all of the assumptions category yesterday, but... as you can see that one got a bit longer than I was anticipating. Looking at the list again I will probably only be able to cover one or two at most.
Today's assumption: People are fundamentally good, but messed up systems make them act poorly.
On the face of it this stance seems generous and accommodating. We all want to at least try to think the best of others and the idea of evil is uncomfortable. Rejecting the concept of evil and saying that "bad" people are just victims of previous offense and/or misunderstood allows us to avoid other unpleasant questions. Like, where does it come from, do I have evil in me, etc.
However, this argument is a rejection of personal responsibility and is in and of itself one of the most evil and insidiously dangerous concepts that exists. It strips away the very foundation of our humanity, our free will.
Either we have free will or we do not. There is no middle ground. If we do not, which is an argument some make, then everything we do is simply the result of a complex series of inputs from our environment. In this scenario ALL morality, ethics, or any other form of behavioral norms mean nothing. I am absolved of all responsibility for my actions. There is no basis for truth or any sort of higher calling.
If there is no free will the only thing of value is what I want now. That undermines the very fabric of decency, morality, law and order, and civilization itself. The propagation of this philosophy in any form is the epitome of chaos and evil.
Phew... I think I made my point rather clear.
Going back to the original statement, even if most bad behavior was a result of poor systems humanity has never succeeded in creating a good one so hoping that we will stumble upon the perfect recipe for utopia seems like a bad bet.
Today's assumption: People are fundamentally good, but messed up systems make them act poorly.
On the face of it this stance seems generous and accommodating. We all want to at least try to think the best of others and the idea of evil is uncomfortable. Rejecting the concept of evil and saying that "bad" people are just victims of previous offense and/or misunderstood allows us to avoid other unpleasant questions. Like, where does it come from, do I have evil in me, etc.
However, this argument is a rejection of personal responsibility and is in and of itself one of the most evil and insidiously dangerous concepts that exists. It strips away the very foundation of our humanity, our free will.
Either we have free will or we do not. There is no middle ground. If we do not, which is an argument some make, then everything we do is simply the result of a complex series of inputs from our environment. In this scenario ALL morality, ethics, or any other form of behavioral norms mean nothing. I am absolved of all responsibility for my actions. There is no basis for truth or any sort of higher calling.
If there is no free will the only thing of value is what I want now. That undermines the very fabric of decency, morality, law and order, and civilization itself. The propagation of this philosophy in any form is the epitome of chaos and evil.
Phew... I think I made my point rather clear.
Going back to the original statement, even if most bad behavior was a result of poor systems humanity has never succeeded in creating a good one so hoping that we will stumble upon the perfect recipe for utopia seems like a bad bet.
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Security and Gun Control - Part 3
My goal here is to present my opinions on gun control in a logical way that takes into account others' perspective. Today I will go through my the first item on my list of assumptions from yesterday and reflect on it.
1. Guns lead to violence. Some people draw a very close association between violence and guns and conclude that the one is at least in part caused by the other.
There are certainly places where there is a lot of gun violence, and in those places it is not surprising that association could be drawn. I looked through a bunch of articles and this is inconclusive. There might be increased gun violence where there are more guns, but I couldn't find anything conclusive about overall violent crime in relation to gun ownership. There is this article which shows that overall violent crime has dropped in the past decades while gun ownership has significantly increased. That is an overall national statistic and there are a lot of other potential factors.
A further problem here is there is not any differentiation between legal and illegal gun ownership that I can tell. While it is logical that there could be more illegal guns the more legal guns there are that further muddies the topic.
An interesting statistic though, is that about 7% of non-fatal violent crimes involve a gun. Fatal gun incidents (murder) account for 2/3 of all murders though according to the FBI. That is a lot, but logically, if you are wanting to kill someone you will use the best tool available, which is generally a gun. Further murder accounts for only 1.2% of violent crimes. So gun involvement overall is very low.
In conclusion, I think this points to the fact that people are generally mean to each other and happen to use guns sometimes. Given 1 in 12 Americans have a felony and 18% of felonies are for violent offenses that works out to 1.5% of Americans are violent criminals. Given that small number and the overall small percentage of gun violence in proportion to all violence, increasing the legal possession and carry of guns should increase overall safety. I certainly do not get the impression that guns directly produce meaningfully more violence.
1. Guns lead to violence. Some people draw a very close association between violence and guns and conclude that the one is at least in part caused by the other.
There are certainly places where there is a lot of gun violence, and in those places it is not surprising that association could be drawn. I looked through a bunch of articles and this is inconclusive. There might be increased gun violence where there are more guns, but I couldn't find anything conclusive about overall violent crime in relation to gun ownership. There is this article which shows that overall violent crime has dropped in the past decades while gun ownership has significantly increased. That is an overall national statistic and there are a lot of other potential factors.
A further problem here is there is not any differentiation between legal and illegal gun ownership that I can tell. While it is logical that there could be more illegal guns the more legal guns there are that further muddies the topic.
An interesting statistic though, is that about 7% of non-fatal violent crimes involve a gun. Fatal gun incidents (murder) account for 2/3 of all murders though according to the FBI. That is a lot, but logically, if you are wanting to kill someone you will use the best tool available, which is generally a gun. Further murder accounts for only 1.2% of violent crimes. So gun involvement overall is very low.
In conclusion, I think this points to the fact that people are generally mean to each other and happen to use guns sometimes. Given 1 in 12 Americans have a felony and 18% of felonies are for violent offenses that works out to 1.5% of Americans are violent criminals. Given that small number and the overall small percentage of gun violence in proportion to all violence, increasing the legal possession and carry of guns should increase overall safety. I certainly do not get the impression that guns directly produce meaningfully more violence.
Friday, June 3, 2016
Security and Gun Control - Part 2
Previously I outlined my assumptions, biases and agendas in regards to this discussion about gun control. I want to outline the perspectives that I have seen and interacted with or at least my perception of what those perspectives are. This will not be a complete list, but it will be a good start to help inform further discussion about guns.
These are lists of things I have seen, and do not necessarily relate to each other at all.
Assumptions:
1. Guns lead to violence. Some people draw a very close association between violence and guns and conclude that the one is at least in part caused by the other.
2. People are fundamentally good, but messed up systems make them act poorly.
3. Terrorism is far away and won't affect me.
4. The police's job is to protect us.
5. We live in a law abiding and stable society.
6. The government can be trusted to protect us.
Biases:
1. Come from a big city instead of the country.
2. Come from foreign countries where guns are viewed differently for many reasons.
3. Never were around guns growing up.
4. Military background instead of civilian.
5. Rich vs poor
6. How guns were used around them (primarily associated with crime or hunting or war, etc.)
Agendas:
1. Desire to just be safe.
2. Desire to get rid of all guns.
3. Desire to be be able to own any and all weapons as desired.
As you can see reading these, a person's past as well as their fundamental beliefs and ethics can go a long way in shaping their perspective on this. Despite having such wide spread starting points though, I think given the opportunity for honest and open discussion a lot of clarity can be brought to the discussion. There are sides in the gun debate that will never be brought together, but I suspect they are not the sides that are normally presented.
I will update this list as I think of more.
These are lists of things I have seen, and do not necessarily relate to each other at all.
Assumptions:
1. Guns lead to violence. Some people draw a very close association between violence and guns and conclude that the one is at least in part caused by the other.
2. People are fundamentally good, but messed up systems make them act poorly.
3. Terrorism is far away and won't affect me.
4. The police's job is to protect us.
5. We live in a law abiding and stable society.
6. The government can be trusted to protect us.
Biases:
1. Come from a big city instead of the country.
2. Come from foreign countries where guns are viewed differently for many reasons.
3. Never were around guns growing up.
4. Military background instead of civilian.
5. Rich vs poor
6. How guns were used around them (primarily associated with crime or hunting or war, etc.)
Agendas:
1. Desire to just be safe.
2. Desire to get rid of all guns.
3. Desire to be be able to own any and all weapons as desired.
As you can see reading these, a person's past as well as their fundamental beliefs and ethics can go a long way in shaping their perspective on this. Despite having such wide spread starting points though, I think given the opportunity for honest and open discussion a lot of clarity can be brought to the discussion. There are sides in the gun debate that will never be brought together, but I suspect they are not the sides that are normally presented.
I will update this list as I think of more.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Security and Gun Control - Part 1
Most discussions of national political issues are
complex. The discussion of gun control is not an exception. I want to
explore it in a bit of a more organized fashion to try to step over some
of the emotional roadblocks that keep people
on all sides from reaching as much agreement as they could and that I
think is possible.
I feel like presenting arguments in any direction
while ignoring the perspectives of the people who disagree with you is a
recipe for lack of real communication. Echoing "your side's" talking
points and echo chamber crafted arguments will
do little to speak to someone from a significantly different
upbringing.
Most arguments are logically posed from the
perspective of the person making the argument. They have their
perspective and share their take on the topic. They hold certain
agendas, biases, and core assumptions though that are often not
revealed. That does not mean they are not being transparent or that
they are trying to manipulate people. It just means that isn't part of
the discussion. How often do you even think about why you react a
certain way to something? Sometimes I'm sure, but it
is probably rare.
Therefore I want to go through some of the
assumptions, biases, and agendas that I am aware of. I know I will miss
some (or a lot). I want to start with those though so I can use that as a
starting point of this exploration.
My motivation for all of this is with the recent
mass shootings, police shootings, terrorist attacks, and overall
increased awareness of gun violence I feel like having a solid and
thought out stance on gun laws is quite important.
To start I will give a brief outline of my own
biases so that I can better gauge my analysis in comparison to other's
biases which I will go over next time.
My assumptions:
1. I believe that we humans have a fallen (evil) nature that cannot be tamed exclusively through our environment.
My biases:
1. I grew up in the rural mid-west. Hunting and gun ownership in general were commonplace to the point of being presupposed.
2. My family did not have guns nor did we hunt.
3. I own guns.
4. I am highly educated with a BS and MS in engineering.
5. I am married with children.
My agenda:
1. I am strong supporter of the 2nd amendment for a
number of reasons, many of which I will get into here, and want to see
it protected.
2. I want to see the US become a safer and more prosperous place for everyone.3. I want to see the discussion surrounding gun control to lose the emotional/political mess and actually become a discussion.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
The All Important Debrief
When military pilots go on a mission they aren't
done until they hold a post mission debrief. It is just as important as
any other part of the mission. It may seem a bit odd to put such
emphasis on a meeting to discuss what happened on
the flight. Especially since everyone there was involved with it and
already knows what happened.
It is critically important though. Not for the
mission that was just completed, but for future missions and the pilot
and crew's development. It holds valuable concepts that we can apply in
our own lives.
1. The debrief solidifies what happened on the
mission. The past is only as real as the narrative that we have built in
in our minds. Talking about what happened allows other people’s
perspectives to be folded into our own and gives us
a fuller picture. Also, describing it out loud helps strengthen the
memory.
2. The debrief presents a forum for disagreements
to be resolved. Not everyone has the same perspective and sometimes that
translates to conflicting views. Just because you think something went
swimmingly doesn't mean someone else saw problems.
Dealing with those issues right away prevents future miscommunication
and unmet expectations.
3. The debrief fosters a focus on lessons learned.
When something doesn't go as planned having a sit down discussion on
what happened and how to fix it allows everyone involved to get better.
It helps prevent avoidable mistakes and issues
in the future.
If we made a habit of having debriefs after fights
or other meaningful events, maybe even in the evening every day it could
make a significant difference in how we deal with things over time.
You can't make meaningful change if you don't see
the effects of your actions. Are they working? Should they be changed?
Even if the things you are doing to improve your life are working, if
you don't take stock of where you are vs where
you were it is easy to get discouraged.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)