Tag Archives: ideas

When reading resonates…

The PolyBlog
June 1 2021

I am part of what I call the PolyWogg Reading Challenge, a year-long “book club” with low intensity, lots of variety, and monthly themes. It’s nothing big, a small group of friends/family and myself, with me acting as ringleader. Part of the goal was to encourage me to read more and to have small discussions with others without being overwhelmed by the firehose approach of sites like GoodReads.

Most of the time, I read for simple pleasure. Many of my choices are murder mysteries — detectives, lawyers, detectives and lawyers, amateur sleuths, coroners, consulting detectives, etc. Way back in the ’90s, I followed an online discussion group and they had a list of rules for participation, one of which said that members were not allowed to discuss Anne Perry’s backstory. I didn’t even know who Anne Perry was, but she was the only author whose “history” was essentially verboten. I learned from others that she wrote historical fiction, and I didn’t know much about what that entailed. The closest I came was Sherlock Holmes, Murder in the Rue Morgue or Agatha Christie. Not “historical” in any sense other than it was previously contemporary fiction but written at the dawn of mystery writing.

I sought out some Anne Perry books to try one, and I tried a series with Charlotte and Thomas Pitt. Basic premise is 1860s England, Charlotte is not the typical society woman / lady, will never get married because no man is likely to take her opinionated self, etc. Thomas is a detective who befriends her. Joint sleuthing leads to affection to love to marriage, etc. I enjoyed the series and some of the sense of time and place. I bought a few in the series, but didn’t advance too far just by time and interest. In case you are wondering, the reason the author’s backstory was banned from discussion was that as a teen, her and her friend committed a murder, knocked down to manslaughter, and both were found guilty. Soooo, lots of people have views about reading a murder mystery written by someone who killed someone in real life. Most of the time you see current concerns more like cancel culture; this was way before that and discussions erupted with strong reaction on both sides until the moderators finally said, “Knock it off, no more discussion of her life, we’re here to discuss books.” Personally, it meant little to me, I just liked the books.

What did I say about resonance?

One of our past months had the theme of “history” and the goal was to read a book that was set or written before 1965. I included Anne Perry as one of the formal “challenge” authors, and I dusted off some of the old copies. One of the other series is a character named William Monk and most sites list the books as the “Monk” series. There’s something ironic about the fact that the other series lists both the husband and wife as the series name, but this series is marketed as the William Monk series yet has two other characters, Hester Latterly (a former Crimean nurse) and Oliver Rathbone (a solicitor & barrister). Hester figures prominently in the series, as does Oliver in many of them, and deals extensively with the role of women as a plot device, yet ironically it is the “Monk” character that gets sole billing as the protagonist.

In the first book, one of the most interesting aspects of William Monk was that he had had an accident and is suffering from some degree of amnesia. He didn’t remember his name, nor remember any part of his past, yet he was still functionally able to converse, talk, understand, etc. None of his functional abilities are impaired in any way, he just didn’t know who he was.

A police captain comes to see him, he finds out his own name, and he is scared that if someone finds out he is an amnesiac, he’ll be fired. And have no money on which to live. So he fakes it until he makes it.

I remember when I first read it, I was intrigued by the idea of nature vs. nurture. As Monk detects, he also starts to see how others react to him and he gets a picture of himself as a relatively harsh person. Regularly cutting, frequently ruthless in his dealings with others if he feels they don’t measure up to his professional standards, intolerant, aggressive, abrasive, and virtually no friends. He lived for the job, and while he was well respected by everyone for his abilities, it seems like no one likes him very much. He’s an ass regularly, just brilliant at his job. But it rubs him raw. His “new” self doesn’t much like his “old” self.

In short, without all the layers of nurture/experience from his life, he has been reset to a bunch of core values of duty and honour, and even justice above both of those. The inherent “nature”, perhaps. In the novels, much of the mystery of his past is contrived. For example, he remembers he has a sister who lives in the country and he goes to see her. She’s warm to his arrival, but it’s clear he hasn’t stayed in touch much, nor reciprocated her feelings. There’s no animosity, they’re just not very close. He has a thousand questions, and he tells her nothing. Rather than simply say, “So a funny thing happened when I got knocked on the head, I don’t remember any of you or mom+dad, do you think you could fill in the blanks?”, he remains silent. It may work as a primary plot device in a lot of TV shows, but as a literary device, it’s a bit shallow. At least in a TV show, you wouldn’t be privy to all his thoughts at the time. And in many situations, he prides himself on showing courage and just asking something, facing his fear, but when it is his sister and the safest space he knows, he says nothing. Yawn.

But some of the books have been fascinating to see different aspects crop up. In one book, he remembers a woman that he cared about deeply, but not the context. He investigates, narrows it down to three possible cases, and goes to visit them. In all three, the people involved in the old case react to his arrival in both shock and awe, more signs of his ruthlessness and brilliance. But when he finally meets the woman, she reacts very harshly to his arrival. It’s a bit convoluted, but essentially they did both love each other, but she decided he was too much of a drama queen with the lows of feeling injustice for others and the highs of success in thwarting them; she preferred a more even keel, and chose a nice, quiet, safe life over being around his potential ruthlessness and passions, even if not directed at her. When they parted, they agreed that he would never return, yet here he is, so she ain’t happy. He’s devastated by the truth of the memory and also that he allowed himself to misjudge her. He’s not as upset about her, as he is about himself.

It’s a tough nuance, but that idea resonates with me. Revisiting old behaviour, reinterpreting how that behaviour played out, even your own motives for why you behaved that way. I find the idea compelling. Not to judge OTHERS or reinterpret their behaviour and ascribe motives that weren’t present at the time, but in analysing my own motives to find any hidden truths. While I didn’t get conked on the head, I have spent a lot of time in my life looking back at previous behaviour, analysing it, examining my motives, and not always liking what I found. There’s also an element in there of the “road not taken”, not in the sense of wondering “what if”, but more of the idea that a thousand little decisions affect the way your life unfolds. Simple decisions like choosing to sit in the second row of a lecture hall and meeting someone who if you had sat in the third row, you wouldn’t have. And perhaps they introduced you to someone else who introduced you to someone else who introduced you to your spouse. A domino effect that started simply because you sat in one row rather than another. In Monk’s case, he comes face to face with the one who got away and while he gets closure, it comes at a heavy price.

Sustainable employment income

Because the books take place in the 1850s/60s in England, of course there is very little evidence of a welfare state. The difference between classes is almost a sub-character of its own in both series, and one overwhelming theme is “what money will I live on?”. For Hester, the nurse, she does not want to rely on her brother to look after her, so she works as a nurse in various homes for those in higher society (i.e. those with money to pay her). It puts her a bit above servant, but not much. Yet she has to work because she needs money to live on. The books don’t dwell too much on whether she has any savings or if she’s literally living one paycheque away from disaster, but it’s not a soft cushion, if she has one. In that regard, it is something commented upon for most of the female characters.

They can’t own property, they cannot inherit anything, most of them cannot work without losing societal status, and many of the stories revolve around women and whether all of them married for money or occasionally love. It could sound almost cliché, and at times, it is.

But Monk himself is not too far off that point. He is terrified in the first book that he will lose his job, have no income after 2 weeks, and might end up in a workhouse which almost nobody ever leaves. I went to university, even law school for awhile, and I’ve worked for the government in a good job for the last 28 years. Yet I can remember wondering when I was in high school what would become of me.

Would I find something I liked? I sucked at pretty much anything manual, but had no real idea of what other types of jobs were out there. I never really saw any jobs where I thought, “I could do that. I could make a living at THAT.” When I was in university and working at the library, I loved it. Some of that was the nature of the job, and I’ve blogged about some of that previously, but some of it was straight cause and effect — I worked and I got paid. And they liked my work enough to keep hiring me. I was GOOD at something. So, for awhile, I thought, “Hmm…I like books, I like working in the library, maybe I could become a librarian.” Or one of the back office staff.

I *saw* jobs that would generate income and that I could foreseeably do. I had, in short, options. But I remember all too well when I didn’t think I had any options. I didn’t know if I could/would go to college or university. It seemed so expensive to me, it was not a “guaranteed” option for me. But I got a summer job at the library. I earned real money for a change, not the previous temp stuff I had done for pocket change. I started at a minimum wage of about $8.50 an hour or so, but within a few years, I was above $12, and I thought I was amazing.

More importantly, I was starting to see other jobs I could possibly do. A step above my station, as it were. It wasn’t until I went to work for the Ministry of Education in B.C. for a co-op that I saw what government really was like and saw TONS of jobs I could do. A myriad of options.

Yet when I look back, and partly because of the nature of my job now that focuses heavily on the labour force and what “skills” people need to have for various sectors, I wonder if there are students like me who are in high school with no pathway in front of them that they can see. Not because they have no pathway, or that their options are too limited, just that no one has said, “Hey, do you see this path over here? Or over here? Or over here?”. For some people, that was what guidance counsellors were for, except most guidance counsellors had no real training or special information about jobs. The internet has helped with finding information, but if you don’t know what to look for in the first place, how do you know where to start looking?

For many people, they’ll do a career quiz. If I pretend I’m a high-school student, and looking at potential careers, there are a lot of career quizzes out there. Many ask you questions you have no idea what the answer is…would you rather be an auditor or a politician? Umm, neither? Both? As a high school student, you may have no clue what a production manager does, or if it says “salesperson”, do they mean a telemarketer, a retailer, or someone who works for a company selling company products to other businesses?

For fun, I did one quiz, and I tried to answer as if it was me 35+ years ago. It came back with 30 suggestions…financial played heavily with accountant, auditor, actuary, bookkeeper, financial aid officer, financial analyst, foreign exchange trader, business valuator, and financial planner. That’s not a bad list, to be honest, although trader wouldn’t be anything I would like. But 18yo me wouldn’t have known that. It would have given me a starting point, I suppose. But I was already taking accounting in high school, and liked it enough to win a small local accounting contest, so that was already on the possible list. Court reporter showed up, as did a corporate lawyer but not a general lawyer (partly as I said I didn’t want to convince people in adversarial arguments, probably).

Weirdly, some health care stuff shows up…Health care administrator, hospital administrator, research tech? Sure. But dental lab technician or geneticist? Huh?

Other odd ones include surveyor (?), economist (yes, but back then I would have had no idea what that meant), food service manager (okay, a little specific), office manager (generic), IT manager (okay), systems administrator (hmmm), systems analyst (okay, but would have no idea what that was), venture capitalist (umm, I think I would need some capital first), small business owner (never), quality assurance engineer (maybe), and consultant (pretty generic).

The weirdest two go to opposite ends of the spectrum. The REALLY weird “hard pass” was sommelier. That is just plain laughable. Not only do I not like or appreciate wine, I have no discerning palate or nose for it either.

But the one that struck me as really odd, a hard yes of sorts, was not something that showed up ANYWHERE in the questions…astronomer. Unless the quiz pulled my browser history, that seems like a really weird coincidence.

Yet the problem with all of it is that nowhere in that list is “government employee”. Economist, perhaps, although when you click their link to see what they mean, they generally mean at a large banking institution. It’s just natural, most HR advice out there is geared towards the private sector, not based on an equally detailed knowledge of the public sector.

But I digress

As I read the books, and the various options available to women, it seems generally like it would collapse down to a much smaller list:

  • Get married
  • Servant or servant+ (professional nurse, not a general nurse)
  • Shopkeepers, general rabble
  • Prostitute
  • Corpse

Sure, I know it’s historical fiction, not a documentary, but I find some resonance in wondering “What do I do?”. We of course have a safety net, but it doesn’t stop people from asking themselves a fundamental question…not “What do I do or even want to do?”, but the simpler question, “what CAN I do?”

Some of that despair permeates through, and combined with the question of “Who are we if we are not surrounded by our decisions, if we were to break free and start fresh tomorrow?”, I find some of the thoughts consuming.

It’s strange to me that those ideas should resonate with me so much.

Articles I Like: The Pandemic Is Resetting Casual Friendships – The Atlantic

The PolyBlog
February 9 2021

A friend shared an article this week from the Atlantic written by Amanda Mull (The Pandemic Is Resetting Casual Friendships – The Atlantic) about the impact of the pandemic on social ties. The content isn’t revolutionary, cutting-edge, or original, but I really like the way she explains the breakdown. In essence, she uses the standard sociological explanations of people having different types of friendships, acquaintances, etc. radiating out from your “self” and talks about the tier 3 and beyond links that have been severed due to the isolation.

Tier 1 is your immediate social network and would normally include your family and best friends. In short, the ones that you likely included in your “bubble” or “pod”.

Tier 2 is your expanded network of friends, family and all your immediate coworkers. Some people put coworkers in Tier 1 since you see them every day, but one thing the pandemic has made clear is how those coworkers are different from people who are in your pod.

While Tier 1 is still restrictive, it mostly remains “in-person”. People you still see and interact with in-person, albeit in different ways. Tier 2, by contrast, has almost entirely gone digital with Zoom calls. Everyone knows about the impacts on those groups, it’s very clear, no big surprises left there.

Tier 3, by contrast, is the “extended” friends who might not even be considered “friends” in some cases, merely people who are regular acquaintances with whom you are friendly (the “weak ties” of social interactions in your normal in-person day to day life). Mull uses the example of a social group she used to see regularly at a bar to watch football games with, but lots of people have these groups. Trivia friends. Hobby or association friends. Another example from the article is the barista who knows your favorite drink and has it ready for you when you get to the counter. The little added touch that someone a bit distant socially says, “I see you”.

While Mull calls them “casual friends”, I often think of them as almost transactional friendships. For me, some of my best examples coalesce around food service.

When I was away at university out West, and living in residence, we had a small crew who regularly ate together. As we would go through the dining line, we would occasionally chat with the cashiers. We didn’t know them well, but if we were about to line up, we would often move to the line up of the one we knew, if she was working. For me, it was a bit of comfort too. The sense of familiarity. Our conversations never even progressed to names. We just said “hello”, or maybe if the line wasn’t too rushed, maybe we’d talk about the weather, or plans for the weekend. Idle chatter.

Later when I was living out of residence during the summer, and working full-time while most of my school friends had moved back home, I found dinner time a bit lonely. I didn’t want to go home, I wanted a bit of social interaction, and I would frequently go to a local family restaurant where there were about 30 tables, and a small set of waitresses, five or six regulars. While I liked all of them, I would frequently choose to sit in a specific section of one of the waitresses. Sometimes I would even ask to sit in Kat’s section. I didn’t know her well, it was just that we would normally chat for 2-3 minutes while I was ordering. Sometimes it was about law school — her father taught at the university, and she was thinking about trying for it, but she wasn’t sure if it was what she wanted to do. Sometimes it was about books, as I usually had one with me for reading. Or the weather, whatever. I suspect too that her coworkers likely teased her about me, because I would request her section. They likely assumed, incorrectly, that I had a romantic interest in her. I didn’t, I just liked interacting with her. I found her refreshingly lively when I was feeling a bit lonely. One night, our conversation seemed to have a different edge to it, almost like she was leading it somewhere. Since I’m generally dense about women, any thoughts I had at the time were likely to have been erroneous but there seemed to be a different feel to the conversation, including four or five directed comments that seemed to lead to her telling me what time she got off work. I suspected, but had no way of knowing, if she was hinting I should ask her out, which I did not do. Ironically, I would have been happy to have gone for a drink or something as a friend, just to get to know her better, but I wasn’t in a mental place to be dating anyone, if even that was what she was suggesting, if she was suggesting anything at all. I also know the limitations of friendships that start the way they did.

Amanda Mull’s article, though, suggested she does go deeper with her interactions:

Of the dozens of fellow fans and bar employees I’d greet with a hug on a normal fall Saturday, I follow only a handful of them on social media; for most of the others, I know only their first name, if that. But many comforted me through mutual, bone-deep disappointment, or sprayed champagne at me in exhilaration.

I did not, of course, ever greet the serving staff with a hug. Nor was I greeted by the regulars in the bar with a round of “Norm!” when I entered Cheers. And yet, I have had a similar “Cheers” experience of sorts, of being the regular barfly.

When I was still in the office, I would frequently stop by the restaurant downstairs multiple times a week for lunch. Some of that is laziness in that I don’t like heating up leftovers at work, but I do like hot lunches, and some of it is that I like the comfort of people being around without having to interact with them very much.

For work, I would go in, sit at the small bar with about 8 other rotating regulars, and eat my lunch. Usually I was also reading something, news or a book, or working on something from my website sometimes. The “buzz” around me was soothing, like being part of something without being part of something. It’s the same experience most people get in going to a coffee shop. There are people around but you don’t have to interact with them if you don’t want to do so. And if you do, well, most of them will quickly move away from you. 🙂

Anyway, back to work. For my regular visits, I would see 2-3 regulars fairly often, enough that I got to know their names and generally where they work. One is an IT guy named Chris, another was a lawyer. There were others, but they never said much. I’ve had regular conversations with Chris over, say, a five year period. I don’t know his last name, and outside of knowing he’s into Star Trek, most of our conversations were mostly superficial. If he died, I wouldn’t go to his funeral, I didn’t know him that well, but it would make me sad, and I would miss him.

For the workers, there were 2-3 who always had a friendly smile, a warm welcome, maybe an extra dose of fries when something in the kitchen was taking too long. They’d refill my drink faster, they’d stop by to chat, they check in on me. Friendly, sure, and attentive.

But, again, there are two giant factors in those interactions.

First and foremost, and going back to the example out west of the waitress who may or may not of been suggesting I ask her out, the entire relationship is, well, fake. She (and it is often a she) is literally paid to be nice to customers. Is she nicer to me than someone else? Maybe, or maybe she likes bigger tips, or it’s just because I’m low maintenance as a customer. I don’t make inappropriate comments, I don’t freak out if she forgets my drink, I’m not pissed if the kitchen is taking longer than normal. I don’t go for drama, and I don’t create drama. In, eat, get out. I want the noise and buzz around me, not a problem.

Second, and perhaps equally important, there is nothing invested in the relationship. Its nature, aside from being transactional, is also superficial. Who is going to get angsty about a passing comment about the weather? Like most people in casual situations, you don’t openly start conversations with strangers about income, politics or religion. And if there’s a drunk sitting next to you at the bar, they tend to shut up if you ignore them enough. So they are “problem-free” friendships because, generally-speaking, you don’t interact deeply enough for anyone to HAVE a problem.

And yet…

Even if I discount commerce-based friendships as real friendships, I miss them. I stopped in to work back in June to pick some gear up, and top of my list for the visit was to swing by the restaurant to see what was going on. I remember back in March, just as we were debating what was going to happen, the one waitress was asking what we thought would happen. And I said quite openly that I thought we were going to get sent home, and likely for an extended period.

Which of course was devastating news for her. She worked in a restaurant that mainly served people who worked in the building. If the building closed down, she would have no customers; no customers, no work; no work, no hours; no hours, no pay. The restaurant was still open in June, but there were no serving staff, they were let go long before then. It was the owner and a cook, that was it. And I wonder how she’s doing.

When I visited Victoria a couple of years after I was in Ottawa, just back for a visit, I made a special point of going back to the restaurant just to see who was still there. I knew nobody who was working, and it made me sad. More than a lack of connection at the university, more than the loss of friends who had all moved away, I was saddened by the thought that these “fake” commerce-based friends were gone. The sense of comfort of eating there was also gone. It was just food.

While I wish the article delineated between different types of those friendships, I feel the burn of the rest of the losses.

I miss a few coworkers from around work, not ones who are in the same team, but who are part of the broader work environment. Most of them were of the type where if we ran into each other in the hallway, we would stop, step off to the side for a few minutes and just chew the fat for a few minutes. Nothing deep, just catching up on each other’s lives. People who I don’t feel that I know well enough to follow on Facebook unless we were both accidentally on the same friend’s comments list. That would be a step too far, too regular of contact, too personal. True work-only friends. The ones who I will no longer see when I retire, unless I bump into them in a department store.

And I say this even though I’m an analytical introvert. I miss that social connection, however casual it might have been. I don’t necessarily need it at work, it could be through a community group, or a restaurant, or a coffee shop. Maybe an outing for breakfast with other retired people from work (a group I would like to join one day).

But I feel it. And felt it. I would regularly wander around the floor, just going for a walk to stretch my legs and get out of my cubicle. Experts would call it networking, but it wasn’t really intended that way. I would just wander. A DG or two that I knew, I would stop by and say hi. Maybe chat for 5m, just catch up. A director or four or five that I know, one in particular that I’m thinking of who I used to see once a month or so in his office at the end of a day. Just quickly catching up, nothing big. He retired last fall, and I don’t really have a connection to keep interacting with him. Facebook or a Zoom call would be “too personal”, too intrusive. We were drop-by friends, like chatting with a neighbour while walking to the mailbox. Okay, maybe a little more than that, but still, a somewhat contextual or transactional friendship.

And the article is right. We can’t replace those Tier 3 connections with simple digital options. We’ve boosted the FB connections, we have found some communities online, but generally speaking, we haven’t replaced those moments of personal connectivity that was part of our day. Sure, maybe you COULD phone them, but it would be weird to do so, for both of you. It’s why many people lament the loss of church — that WAS their community of Tier 2 and 3 connections, separate from the spiritual component.

I also think sometimes it is the biggest threat to people following isolation protocols and rules. When Tier 1 and 2 are insufficient, people crave Tier 3. Or without Tier 3, they need more Tier 1 and 2 to compensate, and suddenly you have large family get-togethers. Not because they’re disrespecting the rules, but because they feel the need and it helps them rationalize their choices.

Either way, I like the way the article explains it and how it made me think about more things today.

Articles I Like: The Ultimate Guide for Reinventing Yourself

The PolyBlog
January 14 2020

I like the idea of ongoing change, and no better book exists in my view than Change: What Really Leads to Lasting Personal Transformation by Jeffrey A. Kottler (BR00118). I blogged about it extensively, but that doesn’t mean shorter pieces out there don’t catch my interest. Like this one from GetPocket although the original was Inc. This one takes the premise of “planning” your reinvention rather than settling for reacting to something and creating a spontaneous reinvention. It outlines some reactive ones (like a change in the market changing your business life), shifting businesses to a more sustainable model (although no reason that can’t apply to your personal life too), or a change in lifestyle (similar focus). However, the one I liked was the one the author called the “big Aha! moment” as a catalyst.

Many people waste years looking for a magic bullet and wallowing in their misery, I guess I wasn’t meant to do that. I remember as though it were yesterday, waking up one morning with absolute certainty that I would tender my resignation, change careers (although I had no idea to what), become a better person, grow spiritually, and become the best single parent possible. It was an evolution that took place over three years, and the journey continues, but I can say that I found happiness very quickly once I made the decision to change. 

The mere act of committing to change is the single biggest step you can take.

The Ultimate Guide for Reinventing Yourself | GetPocket

I like the categories, although I felt most of them were “reactive” even though he pitched them as “planning” for them. Not a bad list though.

Articles I Like: Hindsight 2070

The PolyBlog
April 8 2019

Vox.com asked 15 experts in their fields to predict in 2070, i.e. 50 years from now, what will we look back at that we are doing today and think, “WTF were we thinking?”. They use as an example, the idea of smoking from back in 1964, and the dramatic falls in smoking rates. Jim Crow-segregation laws. Or drinking and driving. As we learn, as we evolve in our thinking if not in our society, what will we drop by the wayside? The full article can be found at: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18226563/50-years-wrong-side-of-history-future-prediction

I went through the list, and here is my reaction:

  1. Eliminating youth tackle football. Generally, I agree, although like the article points out, the issue is more about head trauma and collisions. So it won’t likely be just tackle football, but heading soccer balls, contact hockey, etc. We’re pretty close to it now, I don’t think it will take 50 years. On the flip side, we are also putting kids in a bubble and I think that will decrease — we’ll balance out where the REAL dangers lie, and it won’t be in banning lawn darts or making them wear a helmet to go on a trampoline. We’ll figure it out, and the big dangers will get eliminated, and some of the smaller ones will be shown to have been overkill reactions with no real reduction in risk.
  2. Eliminating bosses and wage labor. Well, we started off strong, and then we went into the utopian toilet. The argument, such as it is, is that we will be able to self-govern, elect our own managers and pay a tax for the use of the space, rather than being exploited by a boss or company overlord. Uh-huh. Sure, and the proof is that cooperatives are so much more productive (albeit on small scales) and we have universal social services. Really? We do? Around the world? Everywhere? I don’t think so, Sparky. I suspect that we’ll have the ability to put our consciousness in robot bodies before we eliminate capitalism and wage labor. It might look different, but the format won’t change much.
  3. Eliminating eating meat. The expert’s argument is that it is unethical, but offers absolutely no path that would lead to the enlightenment they suggest will happen. It is merely their wish, based on their own views of the current practices. They even note the size of the industry, but with nothing to offer to counteract it. The one sole fact offered that might lead to an awakening is the contribution of animal agriculture to climate change. By extrapolation, if climate change becomes a clear and present danger, and animal agriculture is seen as a major contributor, it would therefore be ripe for reduction. I tend to agree, but for totally different reasons. Labs are synthesizing things at record rates, including 3D printing organs. While I don’t think we’ll be at the Star Trek “replicator” stage in 50 years, it seems unlikely we’ll be doing anything like today rather than simply replicating it in a lab. And with price differentials, people will switch to save money (or because it eventually becomes the only thing available). Fresh veggies will be hard to replicate, but something that tastes like chicken or beef? They’re already there in trials.
  4. Eliminating conspicuous consumption. The theory is that people won’t spend their money on “things” in ways that stand out, and I tend to agree. But more from a “falling prices due to technology” rationale that certain things will not be terribly different from a quality perspective…you’ll be able to get the same tech in your cheap phone as in your expensive phone, for instance. The same building materials in your housing construction. However, I think there will still be two conspicuous differences — travel and services. For those who can afford it, they’ll either be able to travel large distances rapidly (think being able to live in the mountains but work in a city when needed, with only a 20 minute commute) or they’ll be able to afford to live in relative proximity to where they work (i.e. e-commute, if that’s even a term or they’ll just work anywhere). That isn’t likely to change from what exists now, it will just expand as technology expands. Secondly, I think people will pay for expensive services like high-speed travel to vacation destinations for a two-day holiday in the Caribbean, like going to a cottage. Or trips to a lunar base. Everybody may be able to do it, but the rich will do it faster and in more luxury.
  5. Eliminating the drug war. This one is pretty confusing, but if I understand the weak argument, it is that drug regulation works but prohibition doesn’t. So fifty years from now, we’ll see that prohibition of anything is silly and therefore we should just regulate it and focus our enforcement efforts when it is diverted from the legal supply chain. The part that is confusing is the argument that the opioid epidemic argues somehow in favour of this. Except that is what we have now. Regulations of opioids, not outright prohibition. You can’t get them legally for recreational use, no, but even regulating them for medical use has failed. So the solution is to follow alcohol, tobacco and weed into the regulatory world so anyone can legally buy heroin. WTF? Umm, how about not too freaking likely? Far MORE likely is the development of alternative drugs that produce similar highs but without the addictive side effects, or that can be counteracted easily. Personally, I suspect there is more to be accomplished in this regard with light and sound, and maybe touch, than with pharmaceuticals, or some combination of the four.
  6. Eliminating how we currently treat dying people. I suspect the person is on to something here, which is no great extrapolation from what we already see. People talk more and more about dying with dignity. And as modern health care and preventative medicine put the 100 year life within reach more easily, I suspect there is more likelihood of bodies outliving the functional mind. In the end, no pun intended, I suspect we’ll still see a spectrum of options…doing everything medically possible to prolong life, transitioning to a mix of intervention and palliative support, and a proactive palliative approach that allows people to choose their timing and manner of death.
  7. Eliminating bans on sex work. I’m on the fence on this one, mainly because there is little policy evidence either way. Most of the argument is based on short-term studies or anecdotes that suggest regulation will provide more protection and end exploitation. And I might be willing to buy that argument if the sex industry was more gender-neutral in its numbers. But it would still be a predominantly female industry servicing male needs, kind of hard to see that as anything other than discriminatory and exploitative. I simply don’t know, and I don’t think any of the so-called experts do either. They have theory and belief, but not enough past that yet.
  8. Eliminating voluntary self-funded retirement funds. Technically the argument isn’t that they should be eliminated entirely but rather that they shouldn’t have been allowed to replace mandatory savings for retirement. In the US, they have 401(K)s, in Canada more RRSPs. And they’re not wrong about the inadequacy of the measures. Even in Canada, the classic assumption that you would pay for your retirement through three means — 33% federal retirement support (i.e. CPP), 33% personal retirement investments, and 33% savings — is not that credible any more. The savings portion of course includes things like real estate holdings, and the federal pension is present, but people are not reaching sufficiently high-enough levels in personal retirement savings to cover that aspect for their final days. And when the final days stretch from age 65 now to 85, 90, 95, 100 or more, that money needs to stretch farther and farther. Most Canadians and Americans are not reaching the savings levels needed to get there. The proposal in the article is to eliminate the 401(K)s and RRSP-like tools, and instead focus attention on boosting the universal pension. The cost of doing so is enormous, and might work for those who are age 25 now and would dip in at age 65. But the top ups to cover those who are already nearing the end of their earning years? Unbelievable levels to cover current and future enrollees. 50 years to convert? Maybe to start on it, but not “fix”. And they’ll still exist as an alternate source.
  9. Eliminating voluntary military service. So there’s a double-negative in the article that is hard to write around, but basically the argument is that we’ll think we should have never abandoned the draft. Umm…okaaaay. The argument is that we have replaced a “connected to the public” military with a disconnected volunteer army, and that this has led to a disintegration of understanding of foreign policy, institutions, etc. And as a result, we’ll see that in 50 years, we’ll wish we had a more engaged public that is knowledgeable about military matters and international relations. That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever seen. And the article even acknowledges it, that the existing system works. But laments the other costs. That apparently only the author sees tied to military service. Because compulsory service works so well elsewhere to ensure international engagement? The argument only works, and then only somewhat, if you see the primary focus of international relations to be military-based. Which most countries don’t. Not in physical form anymore, it’s all trade and cyber wars.
  10. Eliminating trust of Facebook and Google. Again, the argument is hard to understand, mostly because it is written by someone who makes money by hating Facebook. Basically it argues that FB and Google are getting away with stuff that 50 years from now we’ll think was ludicrous. My reaction is, “So what?”. We think the same thing of companies from fifty years ago. And people then thought the same of companies 50 years before that. But guess what? We’re sheep. The argument is that these platforms did nothing to protect users over the last few years, they’ve been misused by people for elections, hate speech, etc. Yep. It’s called democracy, bucko. They don’t police it, the people do. And people are STILL driving to the platforms in droves. The Russians used FB to subvert an election? Did the American people stop using FB? Nope, they went on FB and shared articles about how FB was being used to subvert democracy. If you follow the chain of logic of a bunch of other strands of arguments about life 50 years from now, I think sure everyone will wonder what was going on, but as much about the companies as the sheep we are handing over vast quantities of data about ourselves in exchange for a free online platform. That’s the crux…if you want better, you have to pay somehow. If you get it for free, you suck it up buttercup.
  11. Eliminating abortion. Why the hell would the article include an “expert” who seems to actually know little about the topic (or at least shows wilful blindness to causes for trends) and writes from a clearly biased perspective of a right-to-lifer? A pro-rights expert could have written the exact counter argument with only a few sentences changed and a couple of adjectives. It ain’t going away because the writer is against it. There’s a reason why it trumps legislation. However, idiocy aside, I was disappointed that the article didn’t cast a much wider net to talk about some of the counter-factuals that go in all directions — improved technology for contraception for both sexes, faster testing to know even earlier in clearly non-viable stages, improved technology that pushes viability from 22w down to 18w or even creates options to transition earlier to some form of artificial womb environment, changes in economic and social supports to reduce stigma and increase social viability, and potentially for a continued decreased role for religion vs. science. In essence, I guess I would have liked to see more consideration of the factors that drive simple birthing choices today, and the views toward all-natural home births vs. medically-assisted deliveries. I might not have agreed with the author, but at least it wouldn’t be because they were arguing personal values.
  12. Eliminating driverless cars. So again, the double-negative is at work here. Basically, the argument is that we will be upset that we eliminated drivers and embraced driverless cars, or, conversely, that we wasted so much time on driverless technology. She’s a bit in both camps. Generally, I disagree on the technology front. And when she talks about the social side, I disagreed in part with that too. I think driverless vehicles, on small scales, have a potential to improve social contact. People talking in the car together. Yet she makes two good points. First, not explicitly, anonymous rides on shared transit aren’t exactly social utopias. Will cars be like that too? Second, really interesting, she wonders if driverless buses and cars, which also increase a sense of anonymity and faceless oversight will lead to decreased protection for women. Whereas a driver on a bus is “in charge” and therefore has to watch for the safety of the passengers, even if only as a witness or to call for assistance, driverless vehicles for mass transit could lead to ugly Darwinian outcomes. And there have been some pretty bad examples from subways that have few personnel in them to regulate behaviour. While incredibly interesting, and innovative, I am not sure it counteracts the likely drastic increase in surveillance by the state and the companies that have the contracts. Or the possibility of in-vehicle security measures. At that point, I suspect we’ll be looking at pretty robust monitoring systems just to ensure nobody is messing with the vehicle, let alone the passengers. Doesn’t mean they’ll feel safe though. Hmm…
  13. Eliminating false assumptions about rationality. The article takes “behavioural economics” and behavioural psychology to the extreme and says “hey, we’re thinkers and feelers, and you can’t separate the two”, and from there argues that eventually we will wonder why we ever thought we could. In essence, that we will have much more understanding of the way we work in the future and thus be able to redesign economies and social structures that work for our messed up personas that don’t act rationally. I agree with the insight, I don’t agree with the outcome. Basically because it is the same argument that has sustained philosophy and psychology for hundreds of years…the goal to better understand the self. And while we occasionally have insights, we rely on our rational brain to find them. Or our personal bias. We can’t turn it off to be the analyst we need. And I don’t see the great understanding of the human condition arriving in the next 50 years, or the next 1000 if we remain planet-bound. Not until we can exit our solar system can we even begin to understand the totality of our lives, literally from outside the bounds we know. Trips to other planets will help, but home will still seem like Earth.
  14. Eliminating moves toward private education. The argument is that education is a universal good, and privatization messes that up. I don’t disagree. But there is NOTHING in the article that suggests that privatization will go away, just that we might decide that the quality offered by the state as a great equalizer of opportunity (a social contract element) has to be sufficient to make a difference within a generation. Yet the inequality is not going to go away, not completely. There’s always going to be something else that a rich person can buy that a poor person can’t. A trip to an exotic locale that the poor person can only see in pictures; an experience that one can have that the other can only read about. The more provided by the state, the more the rich can spend their money on other inequities that complement education.
  15. Eliminating the idea that there is a “right or wrong” side of history. Of all the pieces, I like this one the best. Time doesn’t reveal truths, it reveals opportunities for growth or descent. It can be used, as MLK is quoted, for constructive or destructive purposes. I like it so much, I might just go buy the author’s book.

It was an amazing thought experiment, and I loved the article. But it has got me thinking. What do *I* think will be viewed as ridiculous 50 years from now?

The most obvious one is the current belief that climate change is about the environment. Climate change will change every aspect of our lives…economics, social structures, psychology, and even our fundamental understanding of who we are as a species. It will drive changes in technology for work, life, travel, medicine, food production, recreation. And the debate about technology vs. nature will be viewed as laughable…we’re not going back to an agrarian society, we can’t, and the only way forward to survival is finding a way for technology to be used to protect our habitat. To be forced into being compatible and life-enhancing. Fifty years from now, we’ll wonder how people could think of climate change in such narrow terms.

I also think people will think the idea of physically going to school or work is weird, like using a rotary phone is to us. The future is virtual, and while social functions will still happen IRL, much of the rest of our pursuits likely won’t. Why would anyone need to commute to an office rather than “jack in” in the sci-fi parlance? Similarly for schools. Commuting daily will be atypical. But our concept of distance and time will shift too. With rapid transit options, perhaps the ability to go from Montreal to Toronto in 30 minutes or less, people congregating will able to be done without people having to live right next to each other.

Lots of sociology theorists posit a change in family make-ups, but I don’t really see that. Our expansion of understanding for different genders will increase, the exact mixing and matching of “combinations” so to speak will increase from historical assumptions of four combinations (male / male, male / female, female / female, single) to vastly greater variations, sure, but I don’t think it will drastically change the idea of two people forming a bond and growing a family unit in some form. I think that is more basic psychology of the self wanting its own tribal unit, and I doubt it will change much.

I don’t think we’ll have flying cars, although I do think we’ll have new options for rapid transit and certainly more autonomous means than a large bus, train, or plane. Maybe that’s a form of mini-pod that you ride in that merges with other transit systems and accelerates you at high speeds. I doubt we’ll have transporters either. No Star Trek world. But I do think that in ten years we’ll have some form of lunar base, and within fifteen it will be permanently manned. I also think we’ll have our first human born somewhere other than Earth in about 25-30 years, likely on the moon. We’ll reach Mars in about 20 years, but it will be at least 40 until we can get there quick enough to leave anybody behind for any length of time. And fifty years? I think we have a shot at visiting Jupiter too.

We will not have found a way to transfer consciousness to a computerized robot, but we might find a way to transfer knowledge in some form. We will however have smart-houses out the wazoo, likely eliminating the need for previous versions of robot butlers. I expect there will be some form of germ sanitizer that creates almost a self-cleaning environment, but primarily focuses on sanitizing us without the use of water. I’m going to miss long showers.

The weird one? I think we’re also going to think the idea of cemeteries is ridiculous. The unprecedented level of death due to demographics that is coming will overwhelm our ability to give someone a piece of land for eternity, and people are already finding reasons to move cemeteries now to make room for progress. After we get through the changes for how people die, I think we’re going to have changes for what we do with their bodies afterwards. I feel an almost shudder passing through me as I say it.

Alas, I doubt I will see it. I would like in some ways to believe that I will live to see the year 2070, or even 2068 at the age of 100. I somehow doubt it, given my current body condition or mental faculties. But I feel a sense of peace knowing that Jacob will see it, and probably in the company of his mother.

What do you see happening in the next 50 years that will look different from now?

Articles I Like: 5 Ways Tipping Hurts Restaurant Servers and Customers

The PolyBlog
March 5 2018

Before I get to the article I like, I’ll talk a little about the context of why I like it.

Economics and psychology together, i.e. behavioural economics, has long known that post-facto “rewards” for behaviour is usually only effective if the person knows in advance what the reward is going to be. So, if you set a goal, and the person values it, they will engage in the behaviour required to “win” or “earn” the reward. Gamification only works if the person knows the rules and has some say in the reward, i.e. it isn’t random chance.

Yet around the world, “tipping” doesn’t follow that pattern. It is an unknown reward provided after the transaction (i.e. the meal, for the restaurant world), and is supposed to reflect the customer’s view of how well they were served. Better service, better tip. Poorer service, poorer (or no) tip. Yet people rarely deviate from the norms — they often will pay 10% or 15% or 20% all of the time, by their personal comfort levels, for the wide “middle” ground for the level of service. And in some cases, they do it not because they think it is the “approximate” value of the service, but simply because it is the recommended norm for “good” (often average) service.

So some people balk. They get poor service, they stiff the server. Maybe the food was cold, maybe it was late, maybe it was the wrong order. Interestingly, speaking to experienced servers, one of those events (late) isn’t even their fault (if it is cold, it’s because it was sitting somewhere waiting to come out; if it is wrong, it is because the server didn’t check the order before bringing it out, according to those experienced in the industry). They also don’t control staffing levels…so if it is normally a 6:1 ratio for tables: servers, and because two servers are away or they haven’t been able to staff the spots, and suddenly it is 9 or 10:1, that’s not really the server’s fault either. Yet it is their tips that will suffer. A variable reward, random chance in some cases, having little to do with their performance. Most people don’t have any idea if their server was good, they just know if the overall experience was satisfying. Maybe they were sitting next to a cold window or a fan, maybe they’re sensitive to bright lights, maybe they’re fighting with their spouse, and it affects their view of the meal. Or they wanted more veggie options than the restaurant has on the menu.

I have some problems with tipping as a norm, I confess, for four reasons.

First, in Canada at least, with the automated payment machines, when you type in your amount of say “15%” for it to calculate for you, it does so on top of the tax. Why would I pay a server “extra” for the restaurant collecting tax? That makes no sense. Is it a big amount? No, of course not. But if the harmonized tax rate is 15%, and you assume no alcohol to keep it simple, then your 15% tax adds 2.25% to the tip. So they get 17.25% instead of 15.

Second, I don’t like flat-rate commissions with no top end. I don’t really like it with real estate, I don’t like it with any commissioned sales, really. If I go out for dinner with my wife and son, and we go to a simple restaurant, and the bill for dinner is $60, then the “standard” of 15% is $9. If it is a nicer restaurant, the bill might be $100, and the standard tip would be $15. Did the server who served me the more expensive food do any more work than the server who served me cheaper food? Why am I paying him/her 2/3 more in tip? Perhaps their costs are higher (better clothes and shoes, etc.), but a 2/3 increase in tip? People object on the same basis for paying commissions on house transactions — is there more work involved if the house is $700,000 than $200,000? Should the agent get an extra $12,500 for helping with a more expensive home? Taxes might be proportional, but why are the commissions, separate from the perverse incentives that are created?

Third, the hourly wage for the server varies dramatically across a shift, and generally for no real reason other than the equivalent of “piece work”. When they’re busy, their tips are high, and their hourly wage soars; when it’s dead, they make nothing, even though they’re still at work. Piece-work in factories is generally viewed as highly exploitative, particularly when the “pieces” are not all made by one person i.e. an attribution problem. Similar to the comments above, the server doesn’t buy, prepare, or cook the food, nor clean up afterwards. Yet they are the “face” of the service, so they get tipped accordingly (good food, good tip; bad food, bad tip). But let’s ignore base wages for a second and look at a restaurant shift from 5 to 10 p.m. at night. From 5-6, the server might have 3 tables. From 6-7, perhaps that goes up to 6 tables, 7-8 goes back to 4, 8-9 is 3, 9-10 is 1. If we assume all the tables were tables of four with bills of $80, and they all tipped 15%, then the server would get:

  • 5-6, 3 tables, $36 in tips;
  • 6-7, 6 tables, $72 in tips;
  • 7-8, 4 tables, $48 in tips;
  • 8-9, 3 tables, $36 in tips;
  • 9-10, 1 table, $12 in tips.

Yes, I’m exaggerating slightly, but some servers have been known to be able to handle 6, 8, 10 tables of 4 in a restaurant with a relatively static menu. In the busiest hour, the wage is $72 / hour. Really? We’re paying someone $70 per HOUR to deliver food to a table? For the night, though, they’re clearing only $204. Which, while not chickenfeed, reduces down to $40 per hour. Before tax, or any tip-sharing that goes on. Most servers I know have said even without tip sharing, they always gave some money to the bus people to incentivize them to clear their tables quickly and get the next group in. Their wage per hour though drops as low as $12 and goes as high as $72, totally based on foot-traffic, not their performance. It is exploitative, stressful, and chaotic for steady income. In the bars that serve food and a lot of drinks, the transaction totals are smaller, but the servers frequently make more. Partly because the “business” is steadier than the pure food totals.

Finally, though, we come to the article. I’ve often felt that I would prefer simply for the tip not so much to be “included” as just that the servers were paid a decent hourly wage. No tipping, or if still done, limited to something like 5%. A token amount to maintain some incentive I suppose. But the article belies all that, because it goes through a bunch of existing US statistics from the Department of Labor to show the reality of the service industry:

Tipping, while practiced around the world, assumes a unique role in America, one to which most diners are obliged, because the United States is one of the only countries that allows businesses to offload the burden of paying workers a fair wage to their customers. And though construed as a fair way to encourage hospitality and reward good service, tipping’s roots are in racialized exploitation, while recent data shows that it continues to be, at its core, racist, sexist, and degrading.

5 Ways Tipping Hurts Restaurant Servers and Customers

It is exploitative as it creates power plays between employers who control the opportunities without paying a living wage and the employees who earn the tips, but who are left vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse for back wages and pooled tipping managed by employers; it reflects and amplifies racial inequality and profiling (white servers are tipped more, whites get better service than blacks); and it fails to prevent and thus supports sexual harassment from customers, as the server is financially penalized if they push back.

I guess, in some ways, I just like the article as it unpacks the reality that it sucks for everyone, except maybe the employer.