Watching the apprentice

It is interesting from a business point of view to watch Lord Sugar and his candidates in action. This current series has changed the format somewhat being a fight to have Lord Sugar as a business partner. The cynic in me is of the opinion that this suggests that either the previous candidates have been unsuccessful as employees of the Sugar empire, or that the enobled Alan is in a more precarious position from a business sense and is struggling to find vacancies. Either position amuses me somewhat, but is merely an interesting aside to the main event. Lord Sugar is offering 250000 to the winner in cash and support, although the proportions of each have yet to be clearly defined, and the usual cotterie of business high fliers have been replaced by a group of young entrepreneurs.

Now, I know from my time in corporate business that the way things are done, and the way people appear to act is radically different to real life, but even for me this year is beyond amusing. The level of infighting between the contestants, the level of bullying and vitriol, the sheer visciousness of the backstabbing is a sight to see. Perhaps leading the visciousness stakes is the young lady with a background in youth work, apparently at UN level. If she truly is a youth leader, her performance could easily be seen as leading them in completely the wrong direction. The sales star, an irish chat who may have kissed the blarney stone once too often is more double glazing salesman than businessman. Then we have the poor old inventor. A lovely, slightly disorganised chap who has been on the losing team 9 times out of 9 and still manages to stay in the process, one can only suspect for the lols as he is consistently completely out of his depth with no sales or management ability. Then we have the only one I'm prepared to namecheck, the wonderfully sweet and innocent and slightly bemused Suzie, the baby of the group and the butt of most of the bullying, and yet she keeps smiling, and actually occasionally comes up with some real gems. You can probably tell that I quite like Suzie.

The real standout performance however is the first contestant to win every single challenge to date, both as team player and project manager. A refined saleswoman, and a serious corporate animal she is the only contestant to have managed to get this far with almost no bitching, backstabbing or overt cynicism, but of course, if you are winning all the time that does rather make life easier. Question is, is she making it all look at bit easy and not showing Lord Sugar how she copes with set-backs? It will be interesting to see what happens should she fail to win one. She has yet to experience the boardroom and it could still all come apart for her, but we will have to see.

As an insight into the corporate world, the apprentice does its job admirably, revealing the stress and pressure of operating at this level, but in terms of demonstrating the finer aspects of humanity, it is a complete and utter failure. Car crash tv at its very best....

How social networking works…..part 1

You are you, I’m me, were we to meet in real life we might communicate, we might slowly establish that we understand each other, that we have some shared interests, that we are able to communicate reasonably well. Our interactions over time may lead to us developing from a nodding acquaintance, through “someone I like to talk to”, then “Someone who I understand and value” and over time this interaction may even develop into friendship, a much misunderstood relationship that is built on mutual trust and understanding, a strong bond that last through difficult times as well as happy times. Most people, at some point in their lives, usually early on, have heard, perhaps from a parent or grandparent, that they can expect to have perhaps five “real” friends through their life, but that these friends are the people who will support you no matter what, who will be there to celebrate your triumphs, and to pick you up when you fall.

It takes time to build a friendship. It takes times to establish trust in another person, and there is a reason that it takes time, in my opinion. As a species, humans are social creatures, we naturally communicate, even overcoming the barriers of language relatively easily. We like companionship, and interaction, and often use those interactions to define our roles. We are not psychologically designed for isolation, and indeed in most societies isolation and denial of interaction are synonymous with the harshest of punishments. This perceived need for social interaction is almost certainly build in at a genetic level. We are not, on an individual level very good at surviving, and certainly not very good at hunting large game so in order to survive we band together, firstly in family groups, then later into larger communities bonded together for mutual advantage. It has even been suggested by Richard Dawkins that altruism in a genetically coded evolutionary survival trait, in part for this reason.

It is because we seem to be coded for friendship that I have an issue with social networking sites such as facebook, myspace and twitter. It is a fairly simple issue, and one that may seem petty, but for me context is everything, which is why I discussed my views on friendship first. I dislike the ease with which one can establish “friends” on these sites. I think my problem is in the use of the word. We understand what a friend is in real life, we have the experiences necessary to make judgments of what is and isn’t appropriate with friends, we know how to behave because we have established these friendships over a number of years. On social networking sites this isn’t the case, the majority of our online friends are complete strangers who we know next to nothing about, yet time and again I see people who barely know each other sharing the most intimate details of their lives, and perhaps even more problematically, offering advice on other peoples problems from a position of almost complete ignorance.

I am sure many people don’t see this as an issue at all, and many would consider anything that promotes greater interaction between disparate peoples as a good think, encouraging dialogue, but for me there are issues in, as I see it, the misuse of the word friend in this manner…..

Thoughts on human evolution

Evolution is pretty much accepted as the means by which species develop over time to function more effectively in their environment. The idea of evolution was being discussed before Charles Darwin, indeed his own grandfather Erasmus Darwin was familiar with the concept. Darwin formalised the idea in his book "On the origin of species" but even with this work Darwin was forced to publish to avoid being beaten to it by another thinker. Darwins theory was complete for it's time, but has since been superceeded as science has advanced, particularly in discoveries of the mechanism of evolution, and in genetics. We now know that in some key areas at least, Darwin was wrong, but the principles remain sound, species change over time in response to environmental factors, developing specific competitive advantages through a process of mutation.

This is accepted, but it does rather beg a question. As a species, humanity has now developed to a point whereby we are able to control, at least at a basic level, our environment. In the main we no longer have to hunt for food, we no longer have to devote so much time and effort to basic survival, in the main we no longer need to fight for everything that we get, and this causes a potential issue when thinking about evolution. Are we, as a species, moving to a point whereby the pressures that drive evolution are being negated? Perhaps more importantly, are we moving away from the biological drives which allow evolution to function naturally? This is more of a leap in terms of possibility, but bear with me....

....If we consider that evolution can be thought of as "survival of the fittest" a phrase which Darwin avoided but which has been associated, we see that one of the drivers of evolution and species development is the selection of a suitable mate. Here we are defining suitable as being fit for purpose, a mate who offers a competitive advantage to the potential offspring, a mate who is most likely to ensure successful transmission of genetic material onwards in time. Fitness in this context is not necessarily synonymous with strength, speed, power, looks, health or anything so concrete, but simply having the best ability to survive and thrive in a given environment. Since we, as a species, no longer have to be so concerned with survival per se, I would suggest that the possibility exists that we are no longer making decisions in terms of a reproductive mate in accord with evolutionary drivers, but are being influenced by other factors. Perhaps this is simply another form of evolution, but perhaps it is something that should be of concern. I guess only time will tell....

The joy of laughter

A sense of humour is essential in life and in business. The ability to laugh at oneself and situations can be what keeps us sane in an increasingly difficuly World. People say that laughter is the best medicine, and indeed there has been a lot of research into the health benefits of laughter, and even a form of therapy that uses laughter as a means of combating depression. Laughter can be an icebreaker in awkward situations, it can be an emotional release in times of great distress and can change the mood in an office completely. There is good scientific evidence for the neurological effects of laughter from the release of dopamine and ceretonin and for physiological benefits in terms of increased blood flow and oxygenation. Laughter makes the World go around, and makes us feel better.

And yet, there are some people who don't seem to get it, who have decided for reasons best known to themselves that laughter is inappropriate. This is particularly the case in a work environment where there are a great many managers and bosses who seem not to understand that work is stressful, tiring and at times pretty depressing, and sometimes people just need to have a little giggle and release that tension. Sure, there are times when have a laugh can be questionable, but having been to a few funerals, the best ones, the ones that are the most cathartic in terms of the mourners releasing their emotions, are the ones at which laughter is encouraged by the words of those who knew the deceased and can tell funny stories about them.

So, to those who would limit laughter, to those who think cartoons at work are frivolous, to those who just don't get the joke, I'll say just one thing.......Ha Ha Ha Hee Hee Hee, I'm the laughing gnome and you can't catch me.......

(From the David Bowie classic "The laughing gnome")

These guys get it.......

My first UFO sighting....and why it wasn't....

So, I was out in the garden late last night, watching the clouds moving across the sky, mid-level cumulus clouds at a base of about 3000ft, and as I watched I saw something unusual. There was a luminosity, circular in shape that appeared to be coming from behind the clouds some distance away to the North of my position. It looked as though there was something above the clouds that was causing them to be illuminated, and it was moving. I'm on a flight path, and periodically the planes will come in with their collision lights on and in the right atmospheric conditions this can illuminate the clouds but in a totaly different way. The perceived movement didn't match either. It was a clearly defined reverse L shape moving first North to South and then East to West at the bottom of the vertical stroke from my position.

I watched it for perhaps 15 minutes before it suddenly disappeared. I considered what possibilities existed to cause such an effect, and had an opportunity to utilise Occhams razor. There were four possibilities that immediately sprang to mind. The aforementioned plane with collision lights on was quickly discounted as failing to match the perceived effect. The possibility that it was a police helicopter using a searchlight was similarly discounted as although it is a fairly regular occurance in my area it again failed to match the perceived effect. There was no evidence of a physical source for the luminosity, since it disappeared when it moved through a break in the cloud, and it was this that gave me my biggest clue. Although it appeared to be illuminating the cloud from above, this had to be an optical illusion since it would have been more visible through a cloud break, rather than disappearing. The implication of this was that it was something shining onto the base of the clouds from the ground.

having established that this was the most likely source, the analysis became much more straightforward. So, waht was this mystery light? The most likely cause, taking into account the principle of selecting the solution with the least number of dependant assumptions was.....

........well, I think that I will let you, dear readers decide that, and hearty congratulations to the first person with the correct answer, and yes, I confirmed my assessment and was proved correct! 

Thoughts on thought experiments

There is a long tradition within philosophy and science of making use of thought experiments to explore ideas that are impossible or ethical or otherwise are difficult to explore in reality. There have been arguments that the age of the thought experiment is over and that it is only by experimenting in the real World that trye progress can be made, but is this the case? Let us look at the two main areas of thought experiment seperately. In the world of science there are theories within physics that are not currently possible to test in the real world. I am thinking in of the details of particle physics where the Higgs Boson has been hypothesised by mathematical calculation but has yet to be discovered as a consequence of the enormous forces required to generate sub-atomic particles, and the difficulties in observing those particles whose lifetimes are almost infinitesimally small. Similarly the thought experiments of Erwin Schroedinger regarding chaos theory and inherent uncertainty and the influence of the observer would be impractical to replicate in the real World and would certainly raise animal welfare issues.

Looking now at the philosophical area we generally see thought experiments used where to cary out the experiment in real life would compromise ethical and moral mores. Examples of this type of thought experiment would be those based around thoughts on sacrifice for the great good, so perhaps the runaway tram experiment where there is a choice between killing one person and killing a tram full of passengers. This leads directly on to one of the counter arguments. It is generally considered to be extraordinarily difficult to place oneself as the subject of an experiment of this type into the mindset of someone actually in that situation, and consequently the results are suspect at best. We see evidence for this in research carried out by the American Army during the Second Wotld War and later during the Vietnam War where it was found that even after intense physical and psychological training it was very difficult for soldiers to actually kill the enemy except in the most extreme situations. There have been suggestions that the CIA attempted to counter this by the use of hallucinogenic drugs, particularly LSD, and this technique in itself has been used historically across Europe with psilocybin mushrooms and in Africa using a refined variant of THC the active component in cannabis.

A similar argument is put forward within science thought experiments in that they do not necessarily replicate real world conditions and are therefore subject to error. Additionally, by taking out real world influences, thought experiments can be seen as been more prone to the initial concepts of the experimenter being more subjective than would otherwise be the case. Personally I believe that there is still a place for these creative exercises, but in terms of stimulating intellectual and creative thought rather than with producing results in and of themselves. Whether this is the case or not, the concept of thought experiments is an interesting one, and certain deserves consideration….

Do we still need spiritual nourishment?

Across the Western World there has been, over the last 50 years or so, a decline in perceived spirituality. Church congregations are generally falling, people who describe themselves as spiritual are generally older, with a shift away from faith by the younger generations. This is not a global phenomenon. The Catholic church is seeing global adherants rising, as is Islam, but despite repeated efforts from the mainstream religions, the decline is ongoing. There can be little dounbt that the Uk can now be considered a secular society, as can areas of America and Europe. However there is a note which must be added to this. Whilst mainstream religions seem to be on the wane there is a growing undercurrent of non-mainstream faith paths based losely around the "new-age" pseudo-philosophies that came out of the 1960's and '70's and the revival of Western mystery faiths grouped together under paganism.

There have been numerous proposals for both the decline in religion and the upsurge in alternative faiths, from a greater understanding of science, through the work of academics such as Richard Dawkins, through to the failure of the mainstream faiths to address relevant issues in a changing World, but there are flaws with all of these arguments. As is so often the case the real reasons will almost certainly be a conflation of a number of different reasons, each given different importance by each individual affected. The complexity of the interactions between conflicting though processes and the way those processes and causal positions are interpreted by individual minds is beyond our current capabilities to map in any but the most surface level.

What is interesting is that even as we approach an understanding of our World and its' processes, we still feel draw to something beyond, something more, something beyond the scope and remit of science. It seems to be built in, coded into our very DNA, fundamental to who we are as a species. I wonder why?