Archives for category: Psychology

Something nagged me back to school some five or six years ago so I took up sociology at the Bucharest University.
When faced with the hard decision ‘you need to write a thesis as part of your final exam, what will it be about?’ I had no problem in coming up with ‘the fate of a system is shaped by the way pertinent information is passed between the successive generations of decision makers relevant for that system’ (unfortunately this version is in Romanian but I’m currently working on a revamped one in English).

It seems that I was up to something.
Ghost Whisperer, a television drama about how unfinished businesses between successive generations might influence the destinies of the survivors.
Merlin season 5,  episode 3, “The Death Song of Uther Pendragon” a passionate exchange about what ‘preserving the legacy’ means.
The roiling discussion about home schooling and about what higher education means today.
The renewed interest in ‘values’ that need to be passed over to the next generation.

And so on.

I can’t make up my mind.
Should I be proud that I belong to a species that is able to produce such technological marvels? And I don’t mean just the trucks themselves. High speed miniature cameras, the Internet, etc., etc….
Should I be sad because we go to such (unnecessary?) great lengths just to prove our prowess?

Why am I so confused about all this? Just because there is a woman involved in this stunt?

PS. Please notice that guy’s credentials: “Precision driver”.

“Most of us want to believe that automation frees us to spend our time on higher pursuits but doesn’t otherwise alter the way we behave or think. That view is a fallacy—an expression of what scholars of automation call the “substitution myth.” A labor-saving device doesn’t just provide a substitute for some isolated component of a job or other activity. It alters the character of the entire task, including the roles, attitudes, and skills of the people taking part. As Parasuraman and a colleague explained in a 2010 journal article, “Automation does not simply supplant human activity but rather changes it, often in ways unintended and unanticipated by the designers of automation.”

and

“Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. “The project is datafication. Like those other infrastructural advances, it will bring about fundamental changes to society.”

Some of the changes are well known, and already upon us. Algorithms that predict stock-price movements have transformed Wall Street. Algorithms that chomp through our Web histories have transformed marketing. Until quite recently, however, few people seemed to believe this data-driven approach might apply broadly to the labor market.

But it now does. According to John Hausknecht, a professor at Cornell’s school of industrial and labor relations, in recent years the economy has witnessed a “huge surge in demand for workforce-analytics roles.” Hausknecht’s own program is rapidly revising its curriculum to keep pace. You can now find dedicated analytics teams in the human-resources departments of not only huge corporations such as Google, HP, Intel, General Motors, and Procter & Gamble, to name just a few, but also companies like McKee Foods, the Tennessee-based maker of Little Debbie snack cakes. Even Billy Beane is getting into the game. Last year he appeared at a large conference for corporate HR executives in Austin, Texas, where he reportedly stole the show with a talk titled “The Moneyball Approach to Talent Management.” Ever since, that headline, with minor modifications, has been plastered all over the HR trade press.

Google says it has a diameter 12 756.2 kilometers but this is not what I have in mind.

Size is always relative. You can either comprehend it – and then it matters to you – or not. And this is why you ignore it.

When we were monkeys – at least my forefathers were – ‘size’ didn’t have much meaning for us. We ate when hungry, soiled the earth when we felt like it – specially when we lived up in the trees – and when a specific place became too dirty, devoid of food or both we moved forward.

Then something happened. As we morphed from monkeys into apes our bodies grew so we could afford a bigger brain which enabled us to process an increased quantity of information – a big competitive advantage, until now at least. But it also meant we could not venture anymore on the topmost branches of the trees because they couldn’t support our increased weight. Suddenly our survival became linked with our ability to gauge the thickness of branches. Evaluating distances  – between trees before a jump for instance – was important since the day we first climbed into a tree but at those times we did it ‘instinctively’; now, being helped by our now bigger brain, we started to become aware of the whole process.
Something else happened at about the same time. Because our body frame had become bigger we started to spend more and more time on the flat surface of the Earth – it was more efficient energy-wise and we could afford it because our increased mass meant better defenses.  This way we started to perceive the world in a completely different way than we did when hanging from a limb.
Let me suggest you a small experiment. Climb into a swing and look around. As long as you remain still there is no difference but as soon as you start moving , in a way that comprises vertical and horizontal displacement, things look completely different. Before, when you stood still or moved horizontally, it was like the world stood still and it was you that moved inside it. You sense the motion with your internal ear but you evaluate the movements mostly by visually checking on ‘landmarks’, the things that surround you. When being caught up in more complex movements, like in a swing, the inner ear takes precedence over your eyes and you feel the movement more with ‘the seats of your pants’ than with your brain. (Btw, this is why sea sickness appears, your eyes tell you that you are standing still – if you are reading or something like that – while your inner ear tells you you are moving. Get on the deck and look at the horizon or at the waves, this way your eyes will confirm to your brain that ‘yes, we are moving’.)
And all this has immense consequences. When we were moving from a branch to another we sort of lived in a bubble we carried around with us while when moving on a surface we feel ‘naked’ and, as a consequence, we pay a lot more attention to what is happening around us. That includes becoming aware of the dimensions of the things that surround us. This way we found out that falling from the top of a tree is completely different than jumping from the lowest branch and that if we cross that creek in search of ripe figs our chances to encounter that rival troop of baboons increase dramatically. So we became aware not only of dimensions but also of boundaries and consequences.

We were one step away from becoming conscious. That happened when we felt, instinctively at first, that being sheltered from the elements is better than weathering them. So we came back to the shelter, night after night. Until the place became unusable because we had soiled it ourselves with our excrements. And this is how we had the first inkling about being responsible for the consequences of our own actions.

Unfortunately our understanding of this is still incomplete. First of all because our cognitive capacity is inherently limited, secondly because most of the time we rationalize instead of behaving rationally and thirdly because, until now at least, we could get away with it. The world was big enough.

At first we moved from place to place, as hunter-gatherers and later as nomadic pastoralists.
When we invented agriculture there were enough forests to burn down if we needed more land.
When things became ‘hot’ in Europe we started to conquer the other continents. Even now the misfits, the adventurous and the malcontents move around the face of the Earth even if confronted with great personal risks.

But how long will we be able to continue like this? Pollution,  scattering of natural resources, soil erosion due to agribusiness, deforestation, overfishing… will be considered jokes by the next generations if we continue on the current track.

In fact our main problem is the way we treat our ‘neighbor’. Not only that we haven’t fully understood yet that by throwing ‘garbage’ indiscriminately around us we are polluting our very front yard and the stench is already creeping into our bedrooms but we also hadn’t understood yet that by constantly alienating the ‘guy next door’ we’ll end up living in a world too close  to a SF/dystopian prison-planet for our comfort.

I’m speaking here about corruption in it’s many forms: political, economical, moral…

So what do we have here?

Image

135 000, and growing, people gathered to convince a government to take action against an individual who isn’t breaking any law!

Does this seem right to you?
To me it doesn’t!

Let me explain myself. First of all I don’t think that hunting for sport makes any sense. One could stalk wild animals armed with a camera instead of a gun. But this is my opinion and just as I don’t like others to impose their opinions on me I don’t try to impose my opinions on others. So as long as the hunted animals do not belong to any of the endangered species and the hunt is organised legally…
And if my argument seems lame to you what if I start a petition against eating flesh? Or against vegan-ism? Why? Just because I have this notion that eating flesh (or not eating any) is bad for you….and that I have a responsibility to bring you back on the right track!

“Femeile mai sunt batute si din vina lor”

Cu asta sunt si eu de acord.
Da, cei care isi bat partenerii de viata – sunt si barbati batuti sau batjocoriti de femeile cu care traiesc – nu au nici un fel de scuza pentru comportamentul lor.
Dar asta nu inseamna ca cei ‘batuti’ nu au si ei partea lor de vina!

De ce ‘stau’? De ce accepta sa fie tratati in halul acesta?

Si mai ales de ce accepta sa transmita copiiilor lor mesajul subliminal ca e acceptabil ca unul dintre membrii unei familii sa fie terorizat de celalalt?

Cititi articolul din Adevarul.ro.
Cati ani o fi rabdat femeia aia? Cati copii si nepoti or fi crescut crezand ca asa ceva e daca nu normal atunci macar acceptabil?

Cand eram mic am citit povestea asta sub o alta forma.
Astazi am gasit-o in mail.
Sa fie oare o coincidenta cu ce se intampla acum?

“De aici s-au inspirat românii !

Targovetul cu mere.

Într-o dimineaţă, stăpânitorul unei cetăţi fu trezit de nişte strigăte care se auzeau din piaţă:

“Hai la mere! Mere dulci cum n-aţi mai gustat!”.

Ridicându-se indispus din pat şi privind pe fereastră văzu un târgoveţ ce vindea într-adevăr mere, înconjurat de o mulţime de muşterii.

“Trebuie să fie tare bune merele alea” , îşi spuse mai-marele cetăţii şi, făcându-i-se poftă, îl chemă pe primul său sfetnic şi îi porunci:

“Ia cinci galbeni şi mergi în piaţă să cumperi mere de la târgoveţul acela”.

Primul sfetnic îl chemă pe paharnic şi îi spuse:

“Uite patru galbeni , du-te şi cumpără mere”.

Paharnicul se adresă , la rândul său , stolnicului:

“Poftim trei galbeni , de care să cumperi mere de la târgoveţul acela”.

Stolnicul îl chemă pe primul străjer îi dădu doi galbeni şi îl trimise în piaţă.

Acesta dădu un galben unui străjer din subordine, iar acela se duse la târgoveţ şi îi luă la rost:

“Hei, ce tot strigi aşa? Ai tulburat somnul mai-marelui cetăţii, iar drept pedeapsă mi-a poruncit să-ţi confisc căruţa asta cu mere”.

Zis şi făcut.

Întors la şeful său , străjerul se lăudă:

“Am făcut un târg nemaipomenit. Cu un galben am cumpărat o jumătate din căruţa cu mere a tărgoveţului”.

Primul străjer merse la stolnic:

“M-am târguit şi , cu cei doi galbeni pe care mi i-ai dat am reuşit să cumpăr un sac cu mere!”.

Stolnicul – repede la paharnic:

“Cu trei galbeni am luat o tolbă întreagă cu mere”.

Paharnicul dosi jumătate din cantitate şi apoi merse la primul sfetnic:

“Iată , cei patru galbeni mi-au ajuns doar pentru o jumătate de tolbă cu mere”.

Iar primul sfetnic se înfăţişă dinaintea stăpînitorului cetăţii şi glăsui:

“Măria ta , iată , am îndeplinit porunca. Numai că de acei cinci galbeni n-am reuşit să târguiesc decât cinci mere”.

Mai-marele cetăţii , muşcă dintr-un măr şi cugetă:

“Hmmm. Cinci mere pentru cinci galbeni. scump, foarte scump!

Şi, cu toate acestea, târgoveţul acela avea o mulţime de cumpărători.

Înseamnă că lumea o duce bine, are bani.

Ia să măresc eu birurile!”

Some of you will say that yes, it is real because ‘look around you, He made all this’ while others will wonder ‘what happened, I knew you were a cool-headed guy?’.

Well, first of all, I didn’t ask ‘Who created the world?’!
Just to set things straight, I don’t need a god to be at ease with how we came into existence.
On the other hand, I don’t know everything so I cannot rule out the possibility that somewhere, somehow, somebody started the whole process that had set the things in motion nor can I be absolutely certain that there is no ‘higher force/authority’ that operates the ‘control room’.  I do not see a plausible role for such a ‘higher instance’ but I cannot rule out its very existence.
(The main reason for why I don’t think it exists is that the moment I accept its existence a question pops up: “how did this ‘higher instance’ came into existence, what made it possible?” and this would bring me back to square one. But I repeat myself, I cannot rule out such a possibility, especially so if I consider the ‘chicken and egg’ conundrum: ‘What if the creator god and its very creation evolved simultaneously and symbiotically?’)

Enough with this metaphysical speculation and back to our more mundane question: ‘is God, as we know it, real or not?’

We kid ourselves for being rational beings. What would a rational person do when confronted with a problem? Try to ‘measure’ itself out of the whole situation, right? What else being rational means if not trying to discover the relations between things?
This way it would be relatively simple to determine if a particular thing exists or not: ‘Does it have any consequences?’.
If the answer is ‘yes’, then it is certain that that particular thing exists. If ‘not’ then we cannot give a definitive answer. (Please don’t fall for ‘if it doesn’t have any consequence it doesn’t exist’. This is a trap. Us not being aware of something doesn’t mean that that something doesn’t exist. ‘The absence of proof is not proof of absence!’)

So does God have any consequences?

‘This guy is nuts! First he tells us that he doesn’t believe God created us all and now he asks if God has any consequences. His discourse doesn’t have the least shred of consistency!’

Well… not so fast!

Why did the Ancient Egyptians build the pyramids?
Because the were convinced that that was the only way of preserving their pharaohs for the afterlife?
Why did the Ancient Greeks build and used their magnificent temples? Because they believed that was the proper thing to do?

Now can you tell me if AmonRa and Zeus existed or not? Only in the Ancient Egyptians’ and Ancient Greeks’ imaginations, respectively? Are you sure? The Pyramids and the Parthenon seem pretty real to me, even if I haven’t seen any of them ‘face to face’! So AmonRa and Zeus were, and in fact still are, real. At least in the sense that they both had, and still have, palpable consequences.

Same thing with ‘God’! Any of them. Monotheistic, polytheistic … it doesn’t matter. If somebody believes in any of them strongly enough to act upon that belief then each of those Gods suddenly springs into life. And sometimes there is belief even in absence of a God. What God do Buddhists believe in? Yet they are at least as steadfast in their beliefs as the rest of the religious people.

It seems that ‘belief’ is the actual connection between ‘God’ and reality. Human belief that is.

So please take care what you believe in and how you transpose your beliefs into the real world. The one in which we are going to spend the rest of our natural lives and the only one our children are going to inherit.

Reverse engineering e o chestie care poate fi facuta si in industria comunicarii, nu doar in manufacturing.

Acu’ vreo cateva zile nevasta-mea m-a intrebat:
‘Mai tii minte reclama aia de la FNI, ‘Dormi linistit’?’
‘Cea care m-a facut sa cred ca aia ne luau de prosti si care m-a convins sa scot banii de acolo? Da, o tin minte. Da’ ce ti-a venit?’
‘Pai tu n-ai vazut ce reclame se fac acum la Credit de nevoi personale? Sau alea in care e vorba despre Amanarea inevitabilului ? BNR-ul a redus dobanda la 4% pe an si astia vor sa vanda credite cu DAE de 14.9%? Adica cu un ‘spread’/’adaos comercial’ de 10.9 %? Ce parere au astia despre clientii lor? Sau se adreseaza doar ‘zapacitilor’?
‘Depinde cum vrei s-o iei…Creditul ala despre care vorbeai tu, cel cu DAE de 14.9% vad ca se adreseaza direct unora care au nevoie de refinantare.  Daca au folosit prea des cardul de credit … 14.9% e mult mai bine decat 22.8%, dobanda de pe un card de credit de la aceiasi banca…’
‘Bine, intr-un fel ai dreptate…Numai ca exista tot felul de carduri de cumparaturi cu 6 sau 12 rate fara dobanda… si atunci de ce sa te bagi la un credit, indiferent de dobanda?…0% e mult mai bine decat 14.9% care e intr-adevar mai bun decat 22.8% dar de ce sa platesti dobanda daca se poate si fara… Am revenit de unde am plecat, astia incearca sa momeasca fraierii…’
‘Poti sa o iei si asa… Pe de alta parte nu era regula aia ca inainte de a da un credit bancherul trebuie sa se asigure ca creditatul este in stare sa inapoieze banii? Pai daca te apuci sa cauti fraieri ca sa le dai cu tot-din-adinsul bani cu imprumut …si la o dobanda atat de mare incat pare de pe alta lume… pana la urma asta inseamna ca strategia ta de business este cel putin dubioasa…’

Din momentul acela al discutiei am inceput sa ma gandesc la reverse engineering.

Daca analizezi un mesaj poti afla multe lucruri.
Ce vrea celalalt sa comunice, la primul nivel.
Care este publicul tinta si cam care este parerea comunicatorului despre publicul sau tinta – din modul in care este formulat mesajul si din strategia de difuzare a acestuia. Asta ar fi al doilea nivel.
Care este parerea acelui public tinta despre el insusi! Sa nu uitam ca inainte de difuzare mesajele se verifica, in focus grupuri de pilda. Iar daca ajung sa fie difuzate inseamna ca respectivele mesaje au trecut de faza focus grupurilor. Mai mult, pe masura ce sunt difuzate li se masoara impactul si eficienta. Iar faptul ca unele sunt difuzate mai multa vreme inseamna ca acele mesajel e sunt receptate bine, cel putin de publicurile lor tinta. “Mici de la McDonald’s” e atat de popular incat face cariera pe internet. Nu ma credeti? Faceti o cautare pe Google si vedeti cata reclama este ‘vanduta’ cu ajutorul acestui clip publicitar postat pe o gramada de site-uri. Iar asta nu inseamna nimic altceva decat ca printre noi sunt suficient de multi oameni care se recunosc cu mandrie …”Ia da ma sa vedem exact…Zici ca sunt la varu-miu  in curte…Bine patrunsi, mustar cat trebuie… Fii atent, gustul il face pe mic ma!… Ce e bah, ne grabim?” Asta ar fi al treilea nivel.
Cat de disperat/nepasator este cel care comunica! La un moment dat ar trebui ca cel care initiaza o campanie de comunicare sa se intrebe cam ce efect are campania lui la un nivel mai general, nu doar la nivelul publicului tinta al acelei campanii. De exemplu McDonald, care la nivel mondial a inceput sa isi modifice usor usor imaginea, ar trebui sa se intrebe cam ce parere are intreg poporul roman despre faptul ca este personificat printr-un sofer obraznic care ii fura sandvisul ajutorului sau dar care nu e in stare sa-si friga proprii sai mici, ii evoca cu mare placere pe cei ai ‘varului’… UniCredit Tiriac ar trebui sa-si faca un serios examen de constiinta referitor la cum adica sa-i dai cuiva bani cu credit daca acea persoana se gandea serios sa amane nasterea sau bacalaureatul copilului sau… Oare cata vreme vor mai accepta clientii Bancii Transilvania sa fie leganati de ‘zanul din poveste’?… Sau poate ca aici vorbim deja despre deontologia caselor de publicitate care ar trebui sa atraga atentia clientilor lor asupra acestor ‘amanunte’? Or fi si ‘publicitarii’ atat de disperati dupa comenzi incat nu le mai pasa nici lor de nimic?

Sa fie oare o explicatie mult, mult mai simpla? ‘Ei’ ne iau pe noi de prosti iar noua nu ne pasa pentru ca si noi ii luam pe ‘ei’ tot de prosti? Iar acesti ‘ei’ suntem de fapt tot ‘noi’? In functie de partea oglinzii pe care ne aflam la un moment dat?

“capacitatea de intervenţie în economie, pe partea de investiţii a Guvernului României, dar şi stimularea absorbţiei fondurilor europene prin prefinanţări o să scadă faţă de acest an. Aceste efecte se vor vedea clar într-o contracţie în sectorul economic privat, din cauza lipsei de lucrări”, explică vicepreşedintele Cartel Alfa.”

In primul rand as vrea sa fac o precizare ‘metodologica’: nu exista ‘Guvernul Romaniei’ dupa cum nu exista nici ‘stat’. Acestea sunt niste fictiuni. In realitate exista oameni, mai mult sau mai putin priceputi, aflati temporar in pozitii de extrema responsabilitate – membrii guvernului – sau ocupand pozitii in structura administrativa numita ‘stat’.

60 de poporul asta a gemut sub oprimarea comunista. La un moment dat comunismul s-a prabusit. Nu l-am dat noi jos, s-a prabusit el singur.
Daca l-am fi dat noi jos ar fi insemnat ca am priceput ceva si atunci citatul de mai sus nu ar mai fi fost rostit de o persoana importanta si mai ales nu ar mai fi fost preluat de o semnificativa institutie media.

Sa ma explic. Caracteristica comunismului, ca si a tuturor celorlalte autoritarisme, este “centralismul”. Faptul ca toate deciziile importante sunt luate de catre un numar redus de persoane. Nu stiu daca mai tineti minte ca lumea spunea despre Ceasca ca el n-ar fi fost om rau dar ca era influentat de sinistra sa sotie. Sau ca ar fi fost mintit/prost informat de catre cei din jurul lui.
Genul asta de atitudine accepta in mod tacit ca ar putea exista o persoana/numar redus de persoane care, daca am avea noroc si ar fi bine intentionate iar cei din jurul lor si-ar indeplini destul de bine rolurile, ar putea fi in stare sa gestioneze un lucru atat de complicat  precum o tara.

Ori istoria ne invata ca acest lucru nu s-a intamplat niciodata. Toate imperiile s-au prabusit mai devreme sau mai tarziu, inclusiv cel condus de una dintre cele mai sclipitoare minti ale lumii: Napoleon Bonaparte. Statele si economiile care functioneaza cat de cat bine sunt fondate pe idea de libertate si de autonomie a actorilor politici si economici.

In sensul asta avem nenumarate invataturi de natura religioasa, pilde in literatura si lucrari stiintifice: Cel mai mare pacat din Biblie este aroganta, Goethe ne-a avertizat ce pateste ucenicul vrajitor, Herbert Simon, printre altii, a demonstrat stiintific limitele aparatului birocratic iar Daniel Kahneman, tot printre altii, a aratat care sunt limitele rationalitatii indivizilor umani.

Si cu toate astea noi inca ne mai uitam in sus, la ‘Guvernul Romaniei’, cu speranta ca acesta sa ne rezolve problemele. Prin intermediul bugetului!!!

Statele si Guvernele au rolurile lor, care nu trebuie minimalizate.
Numai ca treaba lor este sa arbitreze si nicidecum sa ne spuna ce sa facem.
Ori daca noi credem in continuare ca ‘sectorul privat se contracta pentru ca nu are lucrari de la stat’, daca ne intoarcem tot catre Guvern si ii cerem sa ‘creasca capacitatea statului de a interveni in economie’ inseamna ca inca nu am inteles nimic.