Category Archives: thoughts

ramblings, thoughts

Wrong!

Crumbs it’s a busy week again, which is why there’s been no blogging. Hopefully I might catch up a bit over the weekend, because next week looks like being busy too.

Meanwhile earlier in the week I came across the best advice I’ve seen in a long time about recovering from mistakes written by Matt Shipman over at SciLogs. It is very simple, though not always easy. It goes like this …

Assuming you are a human, you are going to make mistakes. But [for many of us] those mistakes can be public. And embarrassing. So how do you recover gracefully, or at least with as little damage as possible to your reputation?

Here’s the short answer: admit your mistake as early as possible; never make excuses; and do not make the same mistake again.

The rest of the article is worth a read too.

We’re human. We make mistakes. That’s what we do here; it’s called “life”!

So yes, three golden rules:

  1. Admit you made a mistake — and that includes saying “Sorry!”
  2. Never make an excuse — they cut no ice; it was a genuine error and these things happen.
  3. Log the mistake in your brain so you can guard against it next time.

We all make the best decisions we can, at the time, with the information we have available. That information includes the state of your aberrant brain. Unless we’re mental, we none of us deliberately make mistakes. So yes, we are going to get things wrong sometimes.

When I was at work I expected to make errors, but I knew I could hold my hands up to them and often correct them. I also expected to get a bollocking for it occasionally. And I was fine with my guys as long as they admitted they got things wrong. There’s only a problem when someone keeps making errors — usually the same silly errors — and not learning from them.

Keep calm, admit you got it wrong, and learn from it.

personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 2 #3

Time to cudgel the brain with an answer the the third of the five questions (series 2) I posed a few weeks back. So …

Question 3. If you could offer a newborn child only one piece of advice, what would it be?

That ought to be easy. But is it? Well, I guess it probably is actually, at least for me.

I would immediately narrow down the options to one of the personal mottoes by which I try to live. (Yes, I know! I usually fail!)

Nude when possible, clothed when necessary

If it harm none, do as you will

Sex and nudity are normal

Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself

Say what you mean and do what you say

Don’t worry about things you can’t change

Of those which are the most important? Well I guess that without too much mental contortion several can be combined.

Nude when possible, clothed when necessary and Sex and nudity are normal are really only aspects of If it harm none, do as you will. So too is Don’t worry about things you can’t change if doing harm to no-one includes oneself, as it should.

And I would suggest Say what you mean and do what you say is really only an aspect of Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.


Which leave us a choice of two:

If it harm none, do as you will

Treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself

But is not the latter encapsulated within the former? I think it arguable that it is. By treating others as we would wish to be treated is surely doing harm to no-one. Isn’t it?

So we are reduced to giving our hypothetical newborn the basic tenet of Gardnerian Wicca:

If it harm none, do as you will
And if we extend none/no-one to include the environment (Mother Nature if you prefer) that’s a pretty good rule to work to, nurturing both people and planet. What’s not to like?

Hmmm … interesting. I wonder how Gerald Gardner came by the idea?

personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 2 #2

So what shall we do on an extra hot September Sunday afternoon when I’ve got a large part of a sinus infection? And when nothing from the neck up is working properly? (No change there then!)

Oh, I know, I’ll tax my brain with answering Question 2 from my Five Questions, Series 2. So …

Question 2. If you had to diagnosis yourself with any mental illness which would it be?

Well that should be easy: all of them! But maybe we should look at the options.

Depression. Yep, definitely got that one.
Intelligence. Yep, got that as well.
Schizophrenia. Nope, not even by the farthest stretch of the imagination.
Autism. Nope, though I’m sure many of my former colleagues thought I had.
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Nope, no more than anyone else.
Stupidity. Yep, very definitely have that.
Optimism. No; dunno what this is.
Quadrophenia. I guess this must be where each of your schizophrenic personalities is itself schizophrenic. Aarrrgggghhhhh!!!!! So no, don’t have that. Anyway The Who never were my favourite band, I didn’t like the album, and I wasn’t a mod.
Realism. Sadly yes, all to much of it.
Drug Dependency. Yeah, got lots of those. Can’t get off the anti-depressants without withdrawal symptoms (must try again!); like a moderate drink (like every day); and of course there’s always food.
Honesty. Yep, got that one; definitely out of order in today’s world!
Bipolar Disorder. Nope, I’m never manic enough. More like I have Monopolar Disorder.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. No, thanks.
Eating Disorders. Yep, I eat too much, which may be an addiction.
Münchhausen syndrome. I have no clue how you fly a triplane — Oh, sorry; wrong German … See, my life isn’t nearly colourful enough!

Which I think means I just suffer from an extra giant dose of totally insane stupidity!

history, ramblings, sexuality, thoughts

If Scotchmen can wear kilts …

Well indeed! If Scotsmen (and Irishmen) can wear kilts, and females of all ages can wear trousers, why in blazes can’t boys wear frocks?

It makes no sense. Except as a means of perpetuating the male dominant status quo.

There was an interesting, and rather worrying, article a few weeks back in the New York Times about the angst that parents go through when their son wants to wear what they think of as “girl clothes”. Of course, being America, whole families are in analysis rather than just getting on with life.

And do you know what? Most of these kids are no more than four or six years old. But they’re still seen as deviant, or worse. The article even acknowledges that few of them continue to want to dress as girls beyond the age of about 10.

And so what if they do? Why on earth does it matter?


Read this for another scary example of sexist reaction
to a 15-year-old boy in a dress.
Doesn’t the lad look rather good?
It is really only in the western world that we’ve become wedded to the idea than men have to wear trousers, and to do anything else is either deviant or at best a huge joke. See most people’s reaction to the aforesaid Scotsmen in kilts, or actors in drag.

Until about 100 years ago effectively all small boys, regardless of class, would have been routinely dressed in frocks until they were at least five years old. In Arabia and northern Africa men and women still wear loose robes. In Japan men traditionally wore kimono the same as women. Not to mention the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians … or monks.

OK, it’s easy for me. I’m not a parent and I haven’t had to cope with it. But I would hope that if I had I might have been a bit more level-headed. And yes, I do concede that it must be hard — especially for the young kids — when most of society doesn’t understand and people are so spiteful. So they need strong and sympathetic parents, not analysis!

But FFS why do parents have to worry when the kids are only six, or in one case in the article as young as three!? Kids of both genders, especially young kids, like to dress up. Whether that’s in mum’s high heels, as Davey Crocket, or Spiderman, or My Little Pony. And some kids are more comfortable in some clothes than others; some (heaven help us!) are most comfortable in no clothes. Where’s the problem?

When I was young we didn’t have much choice in clothes. There were no t-shirts, sweatshirts, football strip, trainers, batman outfits, jeans, … Today kids can have a whole range of choice, so no wonder a few will pick something a section of “society at large” thinks unsuitable. Most of them grow out of it, just as they grow out of collecting Pokemon, plastic pigs or used tea bags.

Even if they don’t grow out of wanting to wear dresses, WTF does it matter?

Society is able to accept many things that were formerly seen as deviant or unacceptable — men with earrings, homosexuality, bikinis, tattoos … So why can’t we be more comfortable with boys wearing dresses?

thoughts

Five Questions, Series 2 #1

So as promised let’s get this show on the road and try to answer the first of the questions in Series 2.

Question 1. What happened at the beginning of the universe?

Oh good God, that’s an impossible question. And I’m not sure my brain’s up to it today. But let’s try.

The first question we have to ask in trying to answer this is: was there a beginning?

Well logically of course there was a beginning. But for there to be a beginning there had to be something before it. Even if one assumes that a universe could pop up out of nowhere — and physics does allow matter to be created from “the vacuum”, at least in terms of sub-atomic particles — then one has to ask (a) is the generation of an entire (embryonic?) universe allowed and (b) where did the vacuum come from?

In our understanding stuff cannot magically appear out of nothing. As I understand it Quantum Physics even says that the vacuum of space isn’t actually a vacuum but is at least pervaded by some form of energy field and it is that which occasionally spawns particles. And presumably the quantum fluctuations inherent therein could, incredibly rarely, spawn something particulate which could become a universe. Now that energy field has to come from somewhere. But where? And how? Basically we have no real clue other than it is a property of the universe.

So for the energy field to exist there has to be a universe, and probably vice versa.

Hence it is at this point that many people get stuck and find that in some form or another they have to invoke a God to do the dirty work. But … where does God come from? Because according to our logic he cannot create himself from nothing, because if he did, the it wouldn’t be nothing (and hence all we do is push the question further back into the distance) … or he wouldn’t be there to do it.

Duh! <bangs head on wall>

So at this point our logic systems break down. It matters not what sort of logic system we’re using: theological logic, drug induced logic, scientific logic all break down.

Yes, even our most advanced and sophisticated cosmological theories all break down at this boundary. What’s even harder is that in my opinion they always will. Now that may be a failing in my logic or my understanding, but I don’t think it is.

Basically it means that we not only don’t know what happened “before” the universe, or what caused it to spring into being, or how this happened … but that we can never know.

We can never know simply because it is a question that is just not amenable to an answer.

Either that or we have to postulate that there just was no “before”. And that opens up all sorts of other even harder questions about things like time.

I think I need cake!

thoughts

Follow My Leader

Here are a few more thoughts on the ways of people …

Basically there are two types of people: leaders and followers.

In this world most people are followers. And that’s fine because there are only so many “L for Leader” t-shirts to go round.

But what is it that differentiates leaders and followers? There is some fundamental difference between them; a difference in the way they think or how they look at the world. What is it?

Reading a recent article by Emily over at The Dirty Normal, she proposes, and I think she is right, that the difference is vision.

Look at the people around you. Lots of those people are angry, annoyed, upset, pissed off with something; generally moaning, or worse. They are in this state pretty much permanently. And they never move beyond it. They meander around grumbling but never really doing a lot about it.

But leaders are different. So now look at the real leaders you know, or have come across. Whether you like(d) them or not, or agree(d) with them or not, think about people like Winston Churchill, Richard Branson, Freddie Laker, the Dalai Lama, Field-Marshal Montgomery. They have/had a vision of how things should be. They can move through their anger to think through what the vision means and are then pulled towards it, taking people with them.

Sure they may sometimes get annoyed by something, but they move through and beyond it. They can do this because they have that vision of how things should be different and they’re going to try to get there. They don’t get stuck in the anger.

As Emily says being angry means you’re paying attention. That’s good and necessary. But too many people let it burn them out and are never able to move on.

[C]onsider letting your fires burn quietly […] and rather than pushing against the pressures that want to constrain you … figure out what you want to move toward, and pull the world toward that vision. Imagine the world you want, and move toward it […] leaders are motivated by a vision, not by rage.

That vision is something beyond a self-interest and personal gain. It is a bigger and more holistic thing. Something which affects a wider audience.

Leaders don’t always succeed in achieving their vision. And different leaders have different ways of getting there — some quietly, others much more blatantly. But without that vision they aren’t leaders and they never start on the journey. Without visions there are no leaders.

And there probably aren’t any working thinkers either. Leaders and working thinkers are not identical, but it seems to me they do tend to feed off each other.

personal, thoughts

Five Questions, Series 2

Following up on my earlier thread where I posed five quite difficult questions, I’ve found some more in a similar vein.

As before they are five apparently simple looking questions but which turn out to be quite hard when you actually have to answer them. That’s because they aren’t designed just so you get to know a bit more about me. They’re intended to make us think — yes that’s you and me — about who we are and what we believe. So I’m hoping some of you will join in and answer them too. Either in the comments here or on your own blog — in the latter case just leave a link in the comments so I can read yours too.

OK so here are the Five Questions, Series 2:

  1. What happened at the beginning of the universe?
  2. If you had to diagnosis yourself with any mental illness which would it be?
  3. If you could offer a newborn child only one piece of advice, what would it be?
  4. What are your top 5 personal values?
  5. What places would you have pierced on your body and which parts would you never have pierced?

Again, like series one, I think they’re going to be deceptively tricky. I certainly don’t know in advance how I’m going to answer them all, though I have a few clues.

Anyway I’ll answer them one at a time over the coming weeks. The first in a couple of days.

Oh, and if anyone has any more good questions, then please send them to me, I’d like to do this two or three times a year. Just to keep us all on our mental toes.

Watch this space!

ramblings, science, thoughts

On Atheism and Science

Yesterday I came across two blog posts about atheism, both of which deal with science in different ways. And they got me thinking — or at least starting to think — about the relationship between religion (or lack of it) and science.

Before I go into my thoughts let’s have a look at what, for me, were some of the salient points from the two articles, both of which are worth reading in their entirety.

The first is a post is Atheism Evolves by Maggie Mayhem (yes, the sex positive activist and sex educator):

[I]t’s ridiculous to believe that all life on earth exists to serve humans. I am appalled when I hear this by both the religious and the irreligious.
[…]
The bible does not teach me how my hand works. It doesn’t teach me about how the human hand came to be. It doesn’t teach me why a human hand is physically advantageous for certain tasks nor does it tell me anything about how a human hand was selected for over time.
[…]
Many preachers have been great philosophers, social revolutionaries, and leaders. However … activism and education does not have to include a literal belief in the supernatural to be effective and empowering.
[…]
There is no one to save us from ourselves but ourselves … No one has the divine right to exploit their fellow humans.
[…]
However, atheism and skepticism are movements that have been primarily driven by people with immense privilege because it has taken that much privilege not to be destroyed by others for saying something so counter to what we’ve been taught for as long as we’ve been humans.
[…]
A silly belief does not displace my own. Laws, exclusionary practices, and violent retaliation does displace people.
[…]
Tokenism only serves the privileged, it does not broaden the viewpoints and perspectives. It does not help us better understand ourselves and our world when white men get to decide which marginalized people get to speak. Nothing is accomplished with tokenism.
[…]
Ideas are not physical spaces: you cannot run out of room. One of the greatest things about them is the way they intermingle and breed and create unimaginable combinations.

(Emphasis in the original)

Before we go on, just think for a moment about those comments on privilege and on ideas.

… … …

Powerful aren’t they?!

OK, so now for the second article, Why Science Can’t Replace Religion by Keith Kloor on the scientific Discover Blogs.

[O]ur brains and bodies contain an awful lot of spiritual wiring … you can’t simply dismiss the psychological and cultural importance of religion. For much of our history, religion has deeply influenced all aspects of life, from how we cope with death and random disaster to what moral codes we abide by. That science should (or could) eliminate all this with a rationalist cleansing of civilization, as a vocal group of orthodox atheists have suggested, is highly improbable.
[…]
[S]ome people, no matter their background, are prone to experience a more spiritual, as opposed to rational, connection to the universe … certain needs unique to the human condition cannot be satisfied by science alone. Scientists who prefer a strictly rationalist lens have a hard time accepting this.
[…]
Absolutism is one of the uglier traits of religion that still pervades too many corners of the Earth today, breeding intolerance and normalizing abhorrent actions. But a response that indicts all religion as a stain on humanity is equally absolutist.

More rather powerful arguments, which strident atheists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers would do well to heed.

And it was reading this second article hot on the heels of the first which got me thinking. Actually thinking about this muddled interface between science and religion and the way the two so often seem to be unable to coexist.

What I realised was that there seem to be two strands to all religious belief, and these do seem to be to encompass all religions, not just Christianity. The two strands of belief are:
(a) how and why the world (universe) came into being, and
(b) the importance and imposition of a moral code.
Some believers seem to me to need to embrace one or other strand; some, although I surmise down at the deepest level a minority, clearly need both.

And it is in these two strands that the conflict with science arises because in fact these two strands have different roots, viz.
(a) has a root in science (of some form), whereas
(b) has its root in thought and intellect (philosophy, if you prefer).

Now I need religion for neither strand: science does indeed satisfy (to the extent satisfaction is possible by any means) the first and I have the intellect to be able to handle the latter myself.

The problem is that many people conflate and muddle the two strands and hence become completely, though unknowingly, confused. For science — whatever it’s underlying belief: creationist or evolutionist — cannot ipso facto produce morals; it is merely explanatory. And equally philosophy alone cannot produce technical explanations; observation and experiment (ie. science) are also required.

Consequently it is not unreasonable that some scientists need a spiritual dimension/belief to give them a moral/cultural grounding. Equally it is reasonable that (some) theologians and philosophers need science to help them make sense of the universe.

Lucky is the man who can derive both strands from a single belief system, whether that is a religion or science. OK, I happen to believe that the religious viewpoint is erroneous, but then I am lucky enough to be able to derive both strands without religion. Not everyone is so lucky, and perhaps we should be more sympathetic to that. Is it moral of us to deny a “crippled man” a crutch, whether physical or mental?

Now I’m conscious that this is likely not a fully enough developed train of thought, being as it was scribbled down in five minutes at 11pm last night. But the fact that there are these two, seemingly unrecognised, strands does (at least for me) explain some of the confusion about how some scientists can need religion (spirituality if you prefer) and how the religious/spiritual may need science.

Anyone want to expand on this?

current affairs, thoughts

Reforming the NHS

1 Comment

Now that’s better! These are the sort of initiatives that the NHS needs to become efficient and save money.

I maintain that the NHS already has shed-loads of money to do everything it needs to, and which we, the patients, need it to. But it also has shed-loads of waste — and in that I include a superfluity of managers and bean-counters — plus far too much political interference.

Initiatives like those in the linked article are sorely needed, and are in my opinion (one part of) the way forward. But they should not have to be coming from above or from the National Audit Office. They should be coming from the “workers” (for want of a better word to cover clinicians, nurses, admin staff, cleaners, etc.) at the grass-roots level, who need to be empowered to do things; to make decisions; and make changes like this without fear.

However empowerment like this needs some radical paradigm shifts, and it is a two way process. The managers have to allow the workers to be empowered; inded the managers have to encourage it by trusting people! Equally the workers need to embrace that empowerment and make it work while also trusting the management. And the barriers around all the vested interests and private hegemonies (in which I include the trade unions) have to be broken down.

There also has to be a paradigm shift in attitudes. I see too many NHS staff (mostly on the admin side) who appear not to give a toss about either their jobs or the people they serve: they are inefficient, unhelpful, rude and lackadaisical; too many appear, frankly, not to be up to the job but there because the Job Centre has told them to be. Others are interested in doing the bare minimum to survive the week and draw their pay, and bugger anyone else.

Certainly not all NHS staff are like this — it would be hugely unfair of me to suggest they are. Very many are excellent, dedicated and caring, but so often hamstrung by the rest.

These poor attitudes have to change or they will sink the organisation even further. And the waste is something we now cannot afford, if we ever could. This change can be done; I’ve seen it done in a multi-national company where the company’s very survival was on the line; we changed or we got out. It wasn’t easy, or comfortable, and it will take a bit of time. But a determined CEO with a vision and some balls can do it.

It has to start at the top with a vision clearly explained and ruthlessly chased down. But it has to be embraced by everyone from the top to the bottom. And those who don’t want (or can’t) change have to be moved aside and if necessary replaced by people who can and will change: either by retraining those whose jobs are no longer needed or by some very selective hiring. (This is not an exercise in job/people cutting unless absolutely necessary.)

It will also need some very long, hard and critical looks at expenditure, waste and job requirements. Everyone has to take responsibility for reducing waste and being flexible; “we’ve always done it that way” is no good any more. Management have to set clear, workable, cross-organisation policies and enforce them.

There will have to be properly specified and managed IT efficiency projects. They will be big projects, needing a range of top class IT industry professionals who have to be listened to and trusted. They have to be properly funded, and the money will have to be released by the efficiency savings they generate along the way.

Do all this and it can be made to work. It will take time: probably at least 5 years and maybe 10. But you will end up with an efficient and effective organisation which fulfils all it needs to, at a reduced cost.

Yes, it will be uncomfortable and difficult for many, if not most. I know; I’ve been through it; I didn’t think I could change, but I did. So yes, it does work and people will change. If you want proof, ask anyone who worked for IBM throughout the 1990s. Ask Lou Gerstner, the CEO who made it happen and saved the IBM Corporation from self-immolation.

Yes, that means the NHS needs a top flight CEO. One with a vision and a lot of balls. One who will not be bullied or cowed by the politicians, the unions or the vested interests within. One who will run the organisation as a company; a company where every employee is a shareholder whose job and whose end-of-year dividend is on the line. And a company where every patient is treated as a valued customer who can (and will) take their business elsewhere.

Can it happen? Yes, it can, but it will need something else too: politicians with the vision to allow it to happen and who can invest in some long-term thinking, rather than short-term expediency. But isn’t that what we pay our politicians for?

medical, science, thoughts

Sleeping with Your Partner

Just a quick follow up to my post of the other day about the keys to a robust relationship and especially the one about sharing a bed.

Quite serendipitously the same day I happened across a reference to an article in The Wall Street Journal reporting on research which shows that there really are benefits to sharing a bed. For instance:

While the science is in the early stages, one hypothesis suggests that by promoting feelings of safety and security, shared sleep in healthy relationships may lower levels of cortisol, a stress hormone. Sharing a bed may also reduce cytokines, involved in inflammation, and boost oxytocin, the so-called love hormone that is known to ease anxiety and is produced in the same part of the brain responsible for the sleep-wake cycle. So even though sharing a bed may make people move more, “the psychological benefits we get having closeness at night trump the objective costs of sleeping with a partner”.

It’s nice to have some scientific support for my thoughts. ☺