Jack Johnson

Oh, but everybody thinks
That everybody knows
About everybody else
Nobody knows anything about themselves
'Cause they're all worried about everybody else
Yea, mmhmm, aw

Opticon

The unit of information that causes imbalance within a relationship, through one partner consciously delaying the release of information until a favorable time in the future.

Cyncism

Cynicism (Greek: Kυνισμός) was originally the philosophy of a group of ancient Greeks called the Cynics, founded by Antisthenes.^{[citation needed]} The Cynics rejected all conventions, whether of religion, manners, housing, dress, or decency, advocating the pursuit of virtue in a simple and unmaterialistic lifestyle.^{[citation needed]}

Currently, the word 'cynicism' generally describes the opinions of those who maintain that self-interest is the primary motive of human behaviour, and are disinclined to rely upon sincerity, human virtue, or altruism as motivations

The Rise of the Meritocracy - Michael Young

With an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority, and its seal of disapproval on the many who fail to shine from the time they are relegated to the bottom streams at the age of seven or before.

The Guardian, 29th June 2001.

As energy flows through society, the young will exert themselves, be rewarded then seek to build ivory towers...so they can nurture their young.

Education systems need:

1. To control access to information (CAM, OED etc)
   
2. To define the metrics of success (examination, review)
   

Office politics

Here's a list of rule for dealing with office politics:

1. Keep it professional at all times.
2. Play the game being played, not the one you want or think should be played.
3. Don't make enemies. Don't burn bridges.
4. Don't whine and complain.
5. Don't intimidate superiors. Try to avoid going over your superior's head.
6. Don't make others look bad.
7. Don't criticize employees or bosses.
8. Couch criticism in terms of employer's interests, not personal.
9. Help others get what they want.
10. Establish affiliations of mutual advantage with important people.
11. Find common ground with others.
12. Don't discuss personal problems.
13. Selectively self-disclose.
14. Don't assume anything will stay secret.
15. Create win/win solutions.
16. Keep employer's perspective in mind.
17. Cultivate a positive, simple, accurate image.
18. Force yourself to do difficult, uncomfortable or scary things.
19. Be pleasant. Laugh and smile.
20. Be assertive and tough when required, not aggressive.
21. Don't oversell. Be natural. Develop your own style.

And my thoughts on each:

1. Bit vague, surely professional people would never play politics
2. But this is a self perpetuating rule, one that can only lead to social decline
3. Yes, I agree here in principle but this should be a long term view, it might be necessary to make short-term enemies
4. Never, totally agree
5. Hmmm, you have to believe in social hierarchies, which I can do if the hierarchy grew through strict compliance with reason e.g. within a meritocracy
6. So if you work hard and create something great, and this makes a comparison with a colleagues work look poor, this is a fault?
7. Constructive criticism is important. But I think the author is thinking of a link to point 4.
8. Yes, be constructive
9. If it relates to what I want from my work. Selflessness is not a currency in a commercial world. Sad but true.
   
10. Yes, just said this in different words.
11. Again, work within SIGs...
    
12. Okay okay
13. Yes, big difference between friend and colleague.
14. Yes
15. Yep. But counteract this with knowing rights, should be judged on your work
    
16. This is a good one, thinking strategically is very important.
17. But what about the employer doesn't seem to know what direction it is going
18. Positive, that's fallen off, perhaps why I am writing this blog
19. Totally agree, this is very important
20. See 18
21. Yes, never show anger
22. Understated is a good brand.

While sensible, this is a list for creeps. This list smacks of faking human relationships...is there anything worse that a false laugh.

There should be only one rule for dealing with office politics, rise above them, focus on what you are creating, and do what you judge to be best. Be optimistic for relationships, don't write anyone off. (As opposed to views held by Yeung:

claims colleagues can be divided into four types — bigwigs, rising stars, no-hopers and has-beens — depending on their level of influence and seniority in an organisation. He suggests the ambitious should cultivate relationships with influential bigwigs and rising stars, but waste no time on no-hopers and has-beens.") - Times online, A Faker's Guide to Office Politics, 15th October 2005.

In the long term this gamesmanship will catch up on everyone: see the U. S. of A's.

Betrand Russell

'..is in fact to be sought in its very uncertainty...While diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be.'

Dom Anthony Sutch

'..we seem to believe you can fatten a pig just by weighing it'

The Blank Slate - Steven Pinker

It is certainly reassuring that there are authors out there with razor-sharp intellects ready and willing to rip to pieces the scientific charlatans, the people that weasel their way into our affections only to transplant false ideas of identity through exploiting the science brand to ill effect.

We see this exploitation of science a lot these days. I think science is suffering from its own success. We're at a juncture now, as science overtakes religion as the route to and root of truth, then the layman gets increasingly impatient where answers are not forthcoming. I am ashamed to admit that I did not continue with genetics for precisely this reason: a page in a University-level biology textbook is typically the result of several people's life work. I was in too much of a rush to understand that in terms of achievement, this is immense. Science is slow, and our lust for knowledge corrupts this process and allows scientific charlatans to make claims that put them in the lime light, and probably in the money too.

Having said this I do have some doubts about Pinker's argument. He's basically arguing for a sensible position on the nurture-nature debate, one where genes and the environment shape our evolution, both personal and historical. Nothing controversial here you might think, but Pinker's shows how many scientists have got it wrong, skewing 'reason' to align with their own political beliefs. So for instance, if you're 'right wing' then you'll believe in the determinism of the genes so the need to expunge those with bad inheritance. If you're 'left wing' you'll believe that the mind and culture are separate from biology so we just have to organise our environment in the most civilised way (- oh dear, perhaps this is a good sign that I find it hard to describe the link between politics and science).

When I studied genetics however it was the way that statistics was used that bothered me. The debate hinges on studies of twins. We are told that twins have remarkable similarities even when they are separated at birth and grow in different environments. What's more, when adopted children are treated exactly the same, they invariably turn out very different. This is evidence to the idea that there is a strong causal link between our genetic makeup and behavior. My suspicions rise because of three main points:

1. There are not many identical twins in the world and fewer that have been raised in very different environments
2. The way that similarities and differences are characterised - I am just very skeptical about putting objective properties on something as abstract as human behavior
   
3. The studies tend to be short and cross sectional (as far as I know) and people do not react in the same way to an environment each time. Humans are not like chemicals in a test tube, we can very easily play with the minds of the scientists making the observations.

Of course biologists use other techniques aside from twin studies. In general they will look up and down the stack in terms of genes, proteins, cells, organs, tissues, ecosystem to try to explain observations at many levels, and describe causal links between the stack of biological units.

Even writing these down makes me suspect my own suspicions. Perhaps these doubts stem from having seen so much flaky psychology, and not having met many identical twins. But more worryingly, perhaps I hold a mental model of human nature that is not well informed. Despite having a degree in genetics my mind holds out to to a set of values that wants to believe that genes play little part in shaping our lives.

Its funny, writing this down feels ridiculous. Of course our genes play an enormous role in shaping our lives. I think my pigheadedness stems from a belief that once we understand a system, then we can control it, so re-gain free will.

Perhaps in the future we will go to school, put our genetic map into a computer, some software will then tell us how we are likely to live our lives, and we can then formulate the necessary learning schedule to mitigate against an unhappy life.

But, having said this we're faced with the question, how deep does the rabbit hole go. Also we have no idea how much we should use our ability to solve problems as opposed to just going with the flow e.g. does vaccination solve problems, or store them up for future generations? Will genetic manipulation give grief to civilisation in 5 years. I suppose you have to have faith in 'progress' and man's ingenuity.

The Machine Stops - E.M. Forster

She had never known silence, and the coming of it nearly killed her - it did kill many thousands of people outright. Ever since her birth she had been surrounded by the steady hum. It was to the ear what artificial air was to the lungs, and agonizing pains shot across her head. And scarcely knowing what she did, she stumbled forward and pressed the unfamiliar button, the one that opened the door of her cell. E.M. Forster, first published in 1909