Author: jaylazzo

Research Ethics: Moral vs Legal vs Ethical

| jaylazzo

Legal, ethical and moral are similar but not equivalent

Most of the time, when we say ethical we also mean moral and legal. But, these terms are not the same. Here are some of their distinguishing features.

Moral

Moral refers to what is right or wrong according to a set of moral principles. Morality is often based on religious, cultural, or personal beliefs, and may differ between individuals or groups. Moral considerations may be based on personal beliefs that might not be shared by others.

Morality only applies to voluntary acts. A spontaneous reaction of anger has no moral value. But violence committed in anger may, as a given person implicitly chooses violence and its effects, with knowledge from previous experience.

Choice implies that good acts are reasonable and bad ones aren’t, because choice is a product of reason. A reasonable action is congruent with the nature of things (e.g., an object is treated or used according to its nature), with the duty of the actor (e.g., fulfilling one’s duty is good, omitting it is bad), with harmony (e.g., rebellion and sedition are morally bad), and with positive consequences (e.g., free is good, jailed is bad). Good actions may be said to make one “happy”.

The judge of the moral value of an action is conscience, a person’s internal sense of right and wrong. Conscience is the person’s reasoning power evaluating an action aligns with the person’s values and beliefs. Conscience condemns a “bad” action for causing damage, e.g., in human relations, because people are hurt, or one becomes addicted. That damage may be slight or heavy implies that moral value has degrees. Reason makes this judgment considering the interplay of three determinants: the nature of the act, the intention of the actor, and the circumstances.

  1. Nature. The act itself is damaging, e.g., stealing causes the loss of property.
  2. Intention. Intent aggravates or attenuates the ethical value of the act, and can change the nature of the act. For example, the intent to feed a starving family makes a theft less grave. The intent to protect one’s life makes lethal self defense a species of homicide that is not criminal in contrast to another species of homicide that is, murder.
  3. Circumstances. The circumstances under which the action is committed aggravate or attenuate the ethical value of the act, making the agent more or less culpable. For example, theft committed with violence is worse than theft committed with no violence.

Conscience is often shaped by a person’s upbringing, cultural background, religious or spiritual beliefs, and life experiences. It can be influenced by external factors such as societal norms, laws, and moral codes, as well as by internal factors such as emotions. These imply that conscience can become more or less effective in keeping persons from harm. A case where conscience fails is seen through addiction.

What is addiction from a physical perspective?

Addiction is a disorder that affects the brain in various ways. One way addiction can lead to impaired thinking is through changes in the neurological processes that underlie decision-making and impulse control. We underline three processes: the reward pathway, executive control in the prefrontal cortex of the brain, and the stress response.

1. Reward Pathway: The brain’s reward pathway, which is primarily controlled by the neurotransmitter dopamine, is central to addiction. When a person engages in an addictive behavior, such as using drugs or alcohol, the brain releases dopamine, which creates feelings of pleasure and reinforces the behavior. Repeated exposure to the addictive behavior can in time lead to changes in the reward pathway, making the brain less sensitive to dopamine and requiring more of the addictive substance or behavior to produce the same pleasurable effect. This can lead to impulsive decision-making and a lack of control over one’s behavior.

2. Executive control in the prefrontal cortex: The PFC is involved in decision-making, planning, and impulse control — executive control. Addiction can lead to changes in the prefrontal cortex, making it more difficult for individuals to make good decisions, plan ahead, and control their impulses. As a result, individuals with addiction may be more likely to engage in risky or impulsive behaviors, even if they know the consequences may be harmful.

3. Stress Response: Addiction can also affect the brain’s stress response system, which is involved in regulating the body’s response to anxiety. Addiction can make individuals more sensitive to stress and anxiety. This can lead to negative thinking, which can further impair decision-making and lead to a spiral of addiction and negative thoughts.

These processes affect decision making on moral matters. In time, a person with a conscience thus compromised will find it easier to commit unethical acts.

A man condemned by his conscience suffers attacks of conscience, manifested as shame or guilt. The experience of shame or guilt is thought to involve a complex interplay of brain regions and neural pathways, including the ACC, PFC, amygdala, and ventral striatum. These regions process emotional and cognitive information, regulate behavior, and guide moral decision-making. Advances in neuroscience research are shedding new light on the neurological basis of this complex emotion, which appear as anxiety, worry, depression, and their associated physical effects, all of which move the agent to “make amends”.

In a moral controversy, we have recourse to an external arbiter. In Judeo-Christian cultures this is God. In other cultures it may be the King or the State.

Morality has no boundaries because a person carries her conscience wherever she goes.

Legal

Law is classically defined as a set of rules and principles promulgated by one in authority to regulate behavior and maintain social order. Legal refers to what is established by law, or what is permitted or prohibited by the legal system. What is legal is not necessarily ethical or moral, as laws may be created for a variety of reasons, including economic, political, or social considerations.

A legal system known as common law is based on judicial decisions and precedents, rather than on written laws or statutes. In this system, judges have the power to interpret and apply the law based on previous court decisions, rather than being strictly bound by legislative or statutory codes. Common law is an important legal system in countries like the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia.

The Philippines does not have a common law legal system. The Philippine legal system is a civil law system based on the Spanish legal tradition. The civil law system is characterized by a comprehensive legal code, which sets out a wide range of legal rules and principles in a systematic and comprehensive manner. The primary source of law is the Constitution, which outlines the fundamental principles and framework of the legal system. Other sources of law include statutes, administrative regulations, and court decisions.

While the Philippine legal system is not based on the common law, it has some features of common law systems. For example, courts in the Philippines have the power to interpret and apply the law, and their decisions can be used as precedents in future cases. However, unlike in common law systems, Philippine courts are generally not bound by previous court decisions and are free to depart from them in order to achieve a just and equitable result in a particular case.

Laws are bounded by space, time, and persons — jurisdiction. Special laws known as contracts regulate the behavior of the contracting properties who may have recourse to courts for the enforcement of these contracts.

Ethical

In this course we distinguish “ethical” from “moral” by defining as ethical what is behavior expected of individuals in organizations. We allow that these behaviors may be guided by moral or legal principles or values. Still, what is ethical is not necessarily legal or moral, as ethical considerations may be based on personal or professional standards that are not enforceable by law.

The scientific community defines what is ethical and unethical behavior based on principles such as honesty, objectivity and respect for dignity as stated above. These principles are also the moral principles of truth and respect for human dignity and freedom. Privacy is a moral principle based on dignity, and a legal principle enforced by law.

Ethical controversies are adjudicated by representatives of the scientific community, such as the head of a lab, university officials, and bodies designated by funding agencies.

Ethical standards may differ across disciplines. E.g., many mathematics journals list authors in alphabetical order, a practice that most biologists do not adhere to.

Ethical practices may also be viewed as behaviors that have been effective in solving problems in the past or preventing them in the future. These practices are open to change, since problem solving is affected by technological progress, which also creates new ethical challenges.

In the next section, we will look at why people commit unethical acts, and what are the costs of such acts.

Research Ethics: Introduction

| jaylazzo

Welcome to MBB 194, Research Ethics. In this case-based course we will learn how to evaluate the ethical nature of activities in the light of commonly held values in the science field.

Scientific research is a complex activity guided by a number of ethical values that help ensure the integrity and reliability of research results. The most important values in scientific research include:

  1. Honesty and Integrity: Researchers must be truthful about their findings, methods, and potential conflicts of interest, and must not manipulate or fabricate data. They must also be transparent in their reporting and sharing of results.
  2. Objectivity and Impartiality: Researchers should not be influenced by personal biases, beliefs, or interests. They should strive to approach their research with an open mind and be willing to revise their hypotheses or conclusions in light of new evidence.
  3. Respect for Human Dignity and Autonomy: Researchers must respect the dignity and autonomy of human subjects, including their right to privacy, informed consent, and protection from harm. Researchers must take steps to ensure that participants are fully informed about the risks and benefits of participating in research and that their rights and welfare are protected.
  4. Confidentiality and Privacy: Researchers must take steps to ensure that personal information is kept confidential and that participants’ privacy is respected.
  5. Responsible Conduct of Research: Researchers must comply with laws and regulations governing research, and adhere to ethical standards and guidelines practiced in their field. They must conduct research in a safe and ethical manner, and that any potential risks to human subjects or the environment are minimized.
  6. Academic freedom. Researchers value the to choose the problems they want to investigate and the approaches of study. Academic freedom, like any right, is not absolute: some methods accepted in the past are not considered ethical today, such as human experimentation without prior informed consent. The tenure system is a way to recognize one’s ability to choose research problems that do not impinge, and instead promote, the research of others.

Adhering to these values wins the trust of the public and trust among members of the research community, which help bring the benefits of science to society.

In the next section we describe the scope of ethics beginning with the three concepts that are often used interchangeably but in fact have distinct meanings: legal, ethical, and moral.

Technical Writing: The lead Sheet and the Dialectic

| jaylazzo

Techniques for the Day: The Lead Sheet and the Dialectic.

Project for the Day: A Letter to the Editor

Why am I writing this?

Why should my reader read this?

Always ask yourself these two questions. The first refers to your personal reason. For example, Why am I writing this? I’m writing this because:

  1. I discovered a truth and I want to tell others about it.
  2. I feel I have to get this off my chest.
  3. I want to make people laugh.
  4. I want to convince the reader to do something or to think in a certain way.

The second question refers to the reader’s reason. For example, Why should my reader read this? She should read this because:

  1. She will find this truth useful to her work.
  2. She will develop empathy for another human being.
  3. She will be entertained.
  4. She will swing into action and get this done.

If both questions are clear, you have effective message: transmitted, received, and acted upon.

The message determines what content and construction goes in the text. It also determines what content goes out:

  1. Irrelevant, inaccurate information.
  2. Boring, insincere feelings.
  3. Lame jokes, cliched witticisms.
  4. Unconvincing, unsupported arguments.

It also determines what construction goes out.

  1. Words foreign to the reader, like jargon.
  2. Unnecessary adverbs, adjectives you can’t hear, taste, feel, smell, and see.
  3. Phrases that slow down the pace unnecessarily.
  4. Bad grammar.

Writing is mostly about putting in, editing mostly about throwing out. The problem for many writers is that they throw out too early. This slows down the work, and it also allows many insights to escape into the wind. In your first draft focus on putting in, and to hell with grammar and style.

The first draft is NEVER pretty. Want to get used to not pretty? Set your font color to WHITE (on a white page) and type like crazy. Want to get used to crazy? Try The Most Dangerous Writing App (https://www.squibler.io/dangerous-writing-prompt-app). Set a time, say 10 minutes, and type and type and type. If you pause, the text starts to fade. Pause for 5 sec before 10 min is over and everything you typed disappears, forever.

Our assignment for today is to write a Letter to the Editor of a scientific journal. Why do we write Letters?

We write to add or correct information. Perhaps you spotted an incomplete experiment. Or, you want to point out the author was not bold enough with his conclusions.

Some people have made it their business to alert editors to fraud. As of writing, 290 published articles on Covid-19 research have been retracted from around the world thanks to the sleuthing work at Retraction Watch.

Our ambitions are simpler, and they go like this.

Read a short article on a science or engineering subject.

Next, break it up. Such as “argument 1”, “argument 2”, “conclusion”, “evidence”. Or, “issue #1”, “issue #2”. Two is a good number to start with. You can further subdivide from here.

After identifying the parts, identify your values and your aims; these will 1) rank the parts to comment on; and 2) determine your point of view. Are you a stickler for statistical rigor or image quality, and aim to clarify them? Do you have a strong ethical or philosophical opinion against one of the issues, and aim to argue your point? Do you belong to the grammar police, and aim to correct the author’s style? Since you are writing from your point of view, no one is assuming you have the final word.

Then, gather some information to support your text.

But before writing your letter, summarize your project in ONE SHORT SENTENCE. For example: “This article is unfair because it only considers the views of one group of people.”

Technique: The Lead Sheet

That summary is the lead sheet. A lead sheet is a synopsis, a reference to keep you on track. The one above is one sentence long. If you were writing a research article or a novel, the lead sheet will never exceed 1 page. And it can take many forms: mind map, flow chart, bullet points. It could take the form of a storyboard, a favorite technique of scriptwriters. Or, it’s written out on the palm of your hand, or stored as an image in your head.

The lead sheet is not written in stone. Allow yourself to change direction when thus inspired.

Technique: The Dialectic structure of arguing

Armed with a lead sheet, write your Letter. Follow this common structured called the dialectic. It consists of three parts: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Assignment: Letter to the Editor

Lead sheet: “This article is unfair because it only considers the views of one group of people.”

Letter:

  1. Thesis. Dear Editor, in your most recent edition, Dr. Eastwest argued that the mass lay-offs we are seeing in the tech industry anticipate the replacement of these jobs by artificial intelligence. He presented evidence in the form of various recent apps, enumerates which jobs each app will replace, and extrapolates app evolution and job loss using a time series model. He concludes from that evidence and his model that half of all jobs will be replaced in 25 years.
  2. Antithesis. However, I do not agree with his analysis because he only considers the problem from the point of view of one group of people, his own, AI experts, and their assumptions. Had he considered the views of corporate stakeholders he would not have blamed AI so much. As shown by Dr. Northsouth, in the Journal of Corporate Governance, the layoffs are the result of companies dealing with decreased revenues from the inflation, and increased cost from the servicing of massive debts incurred in 2021-22. Besides, most of the “dangerous” AI described by Dr. Eastwest were only released recently and fail to account for the fact that layoffs began early in 2022. Besides, his model does not account for the possibility of AI actually creating new kinds of careers, such as promt engineering.
  3. Synthesis. Perhaps companies would not have laid off so many people had there been no viable replacements for them. In other words, it’s plausible that had ChatGPT come out later we wouldn’t see 120,000 tech jobs downsized in the 3 months. Nonetheless, I think we should look at direct causes because they are more likely solvable by direct solutions. Limiting the analysis to contributory causes that are not direct, and arguing from models that could very well be wrong, prevents us from reaching good solutions. Most respectfully, XXX.

In the next module, we will take up Storytelling techniques.

Technical writing: Introduction

| jaylazzo

(This comes from a manual I’m writing for my technical writing class.)

Welcome to Scientific Writing, MBB 100.

You are here because you want to improve your ability to write. Scientific writing is, indeed, a critical skill for researchers and professionals in various fields, allowing them to effectively communicate complex information to diverse audiences. In this course, we will cover the principles of scientific writing, including audience analysis, organization, clarity, conciseness, and style, as well as practical techniques for drafting, revising, and editing scientific documents, such as research papers, technical reports, and grant proposals, to effectively convey scientific information to readers.

Why do we need to communicate well?

It’s our professional mandate. It’s a role we scientists have been carrying out dating back to the earliest scientific publications which allowed researchers to disseminate their findings, ideas, and discoveries to a global audience in a clear, concise, and credible manner, while also fostering the development of new knowledge and advancing scientific inquiry. We share our work so that others can build on them, that’s how scientific knowledge and understanding advances. We also write to receive feedback on our work and establish our expertise in a particular field. We write to secure funding or other support for further research.

We write in order to advance in our careers. Our production in terms of papers in scientific journals and grant proposals are measures of productivity, impact, and contributions to our field. Personal letters and notes are not often published or evaluated, but they are part of the exchanges that lead to publications.

What will we learn in this course?

We will learn a number of standards and techniques. The standards of scientific writing facilitate understanding within the community. These standards include:

  1. Audience: Consider who your audience is and tailor your writing to their level of expertise and understanding.
  2. Clarity: Use clear, concise language and avoid jargon or overly technical terms that may be confusing to readers.
  3. Structure: Organize your paper in a logical and coherent manner with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion.
  4. Citations: Make sure to properly cite all sources used in your paper and follow the appropriate citation style guidelines.
  5. Accuracy: Ensure that your paper is factually accurate and supported by evidence from reliable sources.
  6. Formatting: Follow any specific formatting guidelines provided by the journal or publication you are submitting your paper to.
  7. Revision: Edit and revise your paper to ensure it is free of errors and effectively communicates your research findings and ideas.

These standards also comprise techniques that ensure those standards are met. For instance, logical techniques for structuring an argument in a biology paper include deduction, inference, and story-telling. Furthermore, some logical standards have a long tradition, such as the IMRaD format, while stylistic standards in the area of language and style continue to evolve, such as the use of the active voice of verbs.

Of the techniques, I would like to emphasize Revision. I would like to do this to calm a common fear, especially with young writers: the fear that you won’t write well enough.

Let’s settle that right now: I don’t want you to write well. I want you to edit well. I do not expect pretty first drafts, not even perfect fifth drafts. I would like to make it clear that the art of writing is editing.

Let’s take a look at editing first; we will do some writing later. As we look into editing, let me address the elephant in the room, namely, ChatGPT. Good or bad? It’s a tool. The first time I tried it, ChatGPT gave me a short essay in less than 30 sec which I found lame; I edited it over the next 20 minutes.

Let’s do that now. I gave ChatGPT this promt: “Write an essay about the art of writing.” This is what it gave me:

Writing is a form of artistic expression that has the power to captivate, inspire, and enlighten its readers. Whether it takes the form of literature, journalism, or even business communication, the art of writing is essential to the way we communicate with each other.

At its core, the art of writing is about finding a voice and using it to convey meaning. This means being able to communicate complex ideas in a clear and concise way, while also imbuing one’s writing with personality and style. It requires both creativity and discipline, as well as an ability to balance structure and spontaneity.

One of the key elements of effective writing is a deep understanding of the audience. Writers must be able to anticipate the needs, interests, and perspectives of their readers in order to create content that resonates. This requires research, empathy, and an ability to connect with people on a fundamental level.

Another important aspect of the art of writing is the ability to edit and revise. Good writing is rarely the result of a first draft; instead, it often requires multiple rounds of revisions and refinements. This involves not just correcting grammar and spelling, but also refining the tone, structure, and flow of the piece.

The art of writing is also closely tied to the art of storytelling. Whether it takes the form of a novel, a memoir, or a news article, effective writing often relies on the power of narrative to engage and captivate readers. This means creating characters, setting a scene, and building tension and suspense, all while remaining true to the underlying message or theme.

Finally, the art of writing is a craft that requires constant practice and refinement. It is not something that can be mastered overnight, but rather something that requires a lifelong commitment to learning and growth. Whether through taking writing classes, attending workshops, or simply continuing to write on a regular basis, the best writers are always striving to improve their skills and expand their horizons.


In conclusion, the art of writing is a powerful form of artistic expression that has the ability to change minds, provoke thought, and inspire action. Whether through novels, journalism, or other forms of communication, writers have the ability to use words to shape the world around them. By honing their craft, understanding their audience, and telling compelling stories, they can become true masters of the art of writing.

Not bad; but it’s not me. It’s important for your writing to “be you”; I’ll tell you more about that after we edit this.

Here are my comments, underlined inside [braces]. The edited version is in boldface. Do not consider these the best suggestions:

One of the [key elements, generic word, element ] of effective writing is a deep understanding of the audience. Writers must be able to anticipate the needs, interests, and perspectives of their readers [in order, not necessary] to create content that resonates. This requires research, empathy, and an ability to [connect with people on a fundamental level., fundamental is too long]


A good writer must know his or her audience. The writer must be able to anticipate the needs, interests, and perspectives of his or her reader to create content that resonates. This requires research, empathy and an ability to connect with people on a deep level.


Another important aspect of the art of writing is the [ability to edit and revise., ability to is too long] Good writing is [rarely, really?] the result of a first draft; [instead, it often requires multiple rounds of revisions and refinements., too long] This involves not just correcting grammar and spelling, but also refining the tone, structure, and flow of the piece.


The true art of writing is editing. Good writing is never the result of a first draft. It comes from rounds of revision and refinement made on points of grammar, spelling, tone, structure, and flow of the piece.


The art of writing is also [closely, adverbs are often excessive] tied to the art of storytelling. [Whether it takes the form of a novel, a memoir, or a news article, jumping then returning], effective writing often relies on the power of narrative to engage and captivate readers. [This means, not necessary] creating characters, setting a scene, and building tension and suspense, all while remaining true to the underlying message or theme.

Good writers also know how to tell a story. Stories engage and captivate readers, whether they take the form of a novel, a memoir, or a news article.

Finally, the art of writing [is a craft, too long] that requires constant practice and refinement. It is not [something, generic] that can be mastered overnight, but rather [something, generic] that requires a lifelong commitment to learning and growth. [Whether through taking writing classes, attending workshops, or simply continuing to write on a regular basis, jumping then returning] the best writers are always striving to improve their skills and expand their horizons.

Finally, the craft of writing requires constant practice. It requires a lifelong commitment to learning and growth, and it cannot be mastered overnight. The best writers are always striving to improve their skills, whether through taking classes, attending workshops, or simply writing on a regular basis.

In conclusion, [the art of, not necessary] writing is a powerful form of artistic expression that [has the ability, can] to change minds, provoke thought, and inspire action. [Whether through novels, journalism, or other forms of communication, repetition], writers have the ability to use words to shape the world around them. By honing their craft, understanding their audience, and telling compelling stories, they can become true masters of the art of writing.

In conclusion, writing is a powerful form of expression that can change minds, provoke thought, and inspire action. Writers shape the world around them. One can become a true master of the art by honing one’s craft, especially the skill of telling stories.

YOUR writing is evidence YOU passed through this earth. You can’t really hide your originality. Your writing has “signatures” such that we can say “here, he makes an insight”, “here, he faced a dilemma”. These little things make writing human. A technique that helps you to write in your personal style is to write in the first person. I recommend you do this for all your drafts; just edit later according to prescribed standards.

So for the exercise. Answers the question: If I could spend my WHOLE LIFE answering just ONE question, what would that question be? Why is that question so important to me? Write a paragraph in the first person.

Let me leave you with advice: write at every chance.

I carry a notebook. Whenever I have a bit of time, like waiting for Grab, I write. No concern with grammar or style or completeness. What do I write about? I have a pipeline of topics, and it keeps growing. I type up some of my essays in files designed for publication as a book or blog, and of course, research articles.

To motivate myself, I try to make writing a sensory experience. I like the feel of a fountain pen on paper (I use a LAMY with a special flat tip) and thick paper. I think a mechanical keyboard is pretty cool, with customizable lights and sounds. A friend of mine who is now writing her 14th published book, does all her writing on her iPhone, in cafes, museums, or any public space.

Writing helps you think better by slowing down your emotions, giving you space for careful thought. If you feel like sending a nastygram, and you want to do it by email, type it out, but wait at least half an hour before pressing SEND. Better yet, rant in longhand. Then burn it.

In the next meeting, we will talk about the Letter to the Editor. I will talk to you about the technique of writing Lead Sheet. I’ll also introduce you to another software I use, JDarkroom.

(Q.C., 230214)

The Art of Nonchalance

| jaylazzo

Baldassare (Balthazar) Castiglione (1478-1529) was an Italian Renaissance writer, diplomat, and courtier. He served as a diplomat for the Duke of Mantua and later for the Duke of Urbino. Castiglione was also a patron of the arts and a friend of many famous Renaissance artists, including Raphael and Michelangelo.

Baldassare Castiglione (1478-1529). Downloaded from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Baldassare_Castiglione%2C_by_Raffaello_Sanzio%2C_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg/800px-Baldassare_Castiglione%2C_by_Raffaello_Sanzio%2C_from_C2RMF_retouched.jpg
Downloaded from: https://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/7173812-L.jpg

Castiglione is best known for his book The Book of the Courtier (1528) which became a popular guidebook for courtly behavior during the Renaissance. In it he describes the ideal courtier, emphasizing the importance of moral character, intellectual ability, and physical prowess.

Castiglione wrote about sprezzatura, an attitude he describes as an important way to get ahead in life. Sprezzatura involves a certain degree of indifference or nonchalance in one’s demeanor, meant to convey a sense of ease and confidence, while avoiding any appearance of effort or artifice. In other words, looking good without trying.

My fave example:

Al Pacino as Michael Corleone, The Godfather (1974). Downloaded from: https://wallpaperset.com/w/full/3/c/9/181444.jpg

I can’t look as good as Michael Corleone even at his worst. But, anyone can live a sprezzatura lifestyle. Focus on being more relaxed and easy-going in your interactions with others, while still maintaining a sense of professionalism and purpose. For example, you might approach a high-stress negotiation with a calm and collected demeanor, while still advocating strongly for your interests.

As a student, you might approach a challenging exam with a sense of detachment, recognizing that your success or failure on that particular test does not define your overall intelligence or worth as a person.

Overall, the key to using sprezzatura to be more successful in life is to strike a balance between caring deeply about one’s goals and priorities, while also maintaining a sense of perspective and emotional resilience in the face of setbacks and challenges.

Other examples of how to use sprezzatura to be successful in life include:

  1. Focus on your own goals and objectives, instead of getting distracted by other people’s opinions;
  2. Let go of negative emotions; don’t get too attached to outcomes;
  3. Stay determined and resilient in the face of adversity;
  4. Do not engage in gossip and drama;
  5. Surround yourself with positive people and influences;
  6. Take risks and learn from mistakes.
  7. And — at least try — look the part.
Sprezzatura style. Downloaded: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5f21b3c0862b9f38f883a002/1599064776272-LNACG049LZZHAKSA5L6H/Stylish+man+wearing+linen+shirt.jpg

Castiglione died in Toledo, Spain in 1529.

Michael Corleone lives forever.

(Q.C. 230212)

LBN’s Three Rules for Corporate Success

| jaylazzo

These are good times. New proposals to write, new classes to prepare for. But it is when things get exciting that I recall Warren Buffet’s advice: “Be careful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are careful.”

Investment advice, to be sure. But, regardless, aren’t we always investing energies?

And so, the time for being “fearful” is a time to ask: Are we keeping our eyes on the road after having spent a lot of that time contemplating the sunset? Are we paying attention to the basic practices of our business?

And so I also recall a set of counsels that I call LBN’s 3 Rules for Corporate Success. These are:

  1. Whatever you say, if you don’t make money, you’re wrong.
  2. You work for your boss, not your company.
  3. Take care of your people.

LBN is the president of one of the biggest corporations in the Philippines. He also happens to be my uncle. More than 30 years ago, still a junior executive, he used to pick me up from school. Once he told me about the top things he learned as a protege being groomed for a top position at San Miguel Corporation.

Downloaded from: https://confidentchangemanagement.com/ccm/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/TheFourDisciplinesOfExecution.jpg
Keep a Compelling Scoreboard, Downloaded from https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*XpLiLwgeIs-jhiry.webp

He said, “I learned, first, whatever you say, if you don’t make money, you’re wrong.”

Badass words one picks up on the rat race through the corporate jungle? In fact, he was referring to a basic principle of EXECUTION.

Planning is just a little more difficult than daydreaming, and just as useless if not followed through with what McChesney, Juling and Covey in The Four Disciplines of Execution refer to as the most neglected of skills. They wrote “People want to win. They want to make a contribution that matters.” Hence, part of the skill of execution is to Keep a Compelling Scoreboard. Money, what more compelling score is there?

Now if that score is not moving, one HAS to question what one has been doing or NOT doing. Many of the arguments I hear thrown across a meeting table have to do with plans, values, goals. Outright, we could say that a goal that we can’t measure with a score is a bad one. People will also argue that plans and values are difficult to measure, especially values. But in the end, only the score proves — directly or indirectly — whose plans, values and goals were “right”.

“Right” here does not have to mean the opposite of moral evil, but doing the morally right thing usually means doing the “reasonable” thing, which means it is likely to work and to leave lasting results. You can resign from an evil corporation, and become poorer, but in the long run reason will hopefully be proved right: you won’t be named as defendant in an expensive lawsuit.

“Second,” he continued, “You work for your boss, not your company.” He told a story about how one of the executives got into an argument with the boss. The executive argued that what they were planning to do was not in line with company policy. The boss had him transferred.

The company will never be as much in contact with the ground as your boss. For this reason if you and your boss fail it is NOT the company that goes to jail. So why should I give more loyalty to my company than to my boss?

Furthermore, if you’re surrounded by a large number of goals, many of them from some corporate bureaucrat in HQ, how are you supposed to tell which are the “wildly” important ones? The company looks at the lag goals such as profits and market share over which you and your team have little direct control. Instead, you and your team look at the lead goals, the goals that are immediately under your control, such number of sales calls made per week, which lead to the lag goals.

Besides, who will get your a** if you don’t deliver?

Your boss.

But what if the boss tells you to do something unethical? Let me tell you a story.

A friend of mine, then a medical resident, was a victim of sexual harassment. When she was thinking about filing a case with the administration, her direct supervisor advised her to “let it go”. This not only meant “accept it”, but also meant “we in our team have more important problems than stupidities from some immature man-boys, and even if this were unethical the events that will unfold would not be worth the aggravation it would cause me as your boss and you as the filer of the case.” My friend filed the case. And won. Then she had to leave the hospital: working conditions for her had become unsupportive.

Dynamics and politics matter; face the effin fact. Except where substantial losses are foreseen to devastate many people (see Rule #1) it is best to keep your dirty laundry away from corporate.

“And third,” LBN continued, “Value your people.” This is the easiest to understand; after all “There is no ‘I’ in ‘TEAM'”. Even if the boss receives an award, he should know it would not be possible without the team, without the janitor, the security guard, the lady who mans the xerox machine. A good boss makes work PERSONALLY fulfilling for everyone involved.

Personally fulfilling means, most of all, that people know how to make the right choices. They can set goals important to them, choose the actions that lead to those goals, and also make the team’s goals their own. If we should praise then we should also punish, for the right reasons. Reasons that they learn and that they will apply to police themselves. A cycle of accountability that involves both reward and punishment, goal setting and goal discarding, decision analysis, situation analysis should be in place with this one aim: to make people free, empowered, and responsible.

I gave the title LBN’s Three Rules for Corporate Success because that’s where the Rules came from. More than 30 years later I find myself in academe, yet the Rules still serve as a frank reminder to look away from the captivating landscape from time to time and to stay rooted on the road.

(Q.C., 230211)

Shift gears to survive

| jaylazzo

Richard A. Swenson, in A Minute of Margin, writes that toughness isn’t all about Rise and Grind: the idea that tough people never quit, no matter what. Rather, it is about being able to choose strategies, whether to focus or to broaden the mind, to notice the trees or the forest, to exert great effort or to go into flow.

He likens these strategies to the gear shift in an automatic. The strategies are:

  1. PARK. The state of rest and relaxation, of sleep and meditation.
  2. LOW. The state of enjoying time with family and friends.
  3. DRIVE. The state at which we work normally everyday.
  4. OVERDRIVE. The state of urgency and emergency.
From: https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1186909210/vector/car-shift-stick-vector-glyph-icon.jpg?s=612×612&w=0&k=20&c=-H4NKTA8BIqxe8eIqUsqJGa354c6IbZcqWHGgzHrvh8=

A truly tough person knows how to apply a GEAR that is optimal for the situation. In an athletic match for example, the runner might “relax”, that is, DRIVE for most of the race, just keeping pace with the guy in front, even go into LOW “flow”, and then shift to OVERDRIVE in the last few seconds before the finish line.

The problem with society is that it idolizes OVERDRIVE. Hence, the epidemic of stress and breakdown we see even in schools.

I would like, however, to add a fifth gear: REVERSE. Steve Magness, in Do Hard Things, refers to this as the strategy of changing goals.

To illustrate, of all climbers of Mt. Everest who had crossed the death zone of 8,000 meters and died, 10% died on the way up, but 73% died on the way down. It would seem that many of those who lost their lives had given all their resources to reach the top, and had none left to return home. This is foolishness. Instead, a tough person who realized he had no more resources would make the tough decision to change his goals.

That is REVERSE.

Quitting a boss’ job is not usually viewed favorably. One of my friends was appointed as head of his department for a term of 4 years. He was a capable person, a team player, very skilled, and knew how to handle people. But, he told me that he hated much of what he termed “administrivia”. He wasn’t complaining that his job was trivial; he was lamenting that he spent most of his days on matters in which he felt ill at ease: meetings, negotiations, fighting fires at human resources.

I recall the Peter Principle: “People tend to be promoted to their level of incompetence”. My friend, indeed, may be described as an incompetent boss where he found himself, but it may also be that the work was a bad fit for his values and character. Some bosses are simply good in this situation, some relish conflict, long meetings, and even enjoying death threats for breakfast. Had he in fact been one of those with this rare gift, then quitting would have been a waste of talent.

But his talent was not wasted. Those were miserable years. Now he seems happier, more relaxed, healthier, able to channel his talents more productively than ever before. He claims his hemorrhoids have disappeared.

If you were really tough, you would quit if this was the price of survival. Back at the foot of the mountain you WILL hear people talk; those people will not even try to whisper. Some will look at you with disdain for the rest of your life: “What a quitter”. “What an incompetent.” “It would have been better for him to be a martyr to all mountain climbers. A legend.”

A dead legend.

(Q.C. 230210)

Slow down you move to fast

| jaylazzo

For about 6 years between 2011 and 2017 I commuted to work on a motorcycle. I bought a Suzuki 125 cc Thunder. Tall and sporting a 12-L gas tank, it looked like a big bike. I loved that machine.

That’s NOT me on the Suzuki Thunder 125. Downloaded from: https://www.motorcyclephilippines.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/4.jpg

I loved the freedom, the fact that I could be punctual for appointments even across cities as I could weave through traffic or go up on sidewalks if necessary. I loved it accelerated than cars. It could not top the speed of a car, though, but in the city this was not a big issue.

The biggest issue was safety. I was discouraged by some of my friends, who only thought of the dangers. “Even if you’re careful,” they kept saying, “other drivers could still kill you.” I determined that the benefits outweighed the risks, while accepting the lethal possibilities. Next time they saw me, I had the Thing.

Then I had a close call soon after.

The near accident happened on my ride to Pasig City from Quezon City. I got a little annoyed with a car and I, stupidly, raced it. I made a move to overtake and cut right on the bend where Temple Drive turns left towards Greenmeadows Avenue. I was traveling at around 50 kph.

But it was too fast. If I braked too suddenly on a turn, that would be certain disaster. If I didn’t bank steeply enough I would crash into the side of that fast moving car. I risked it and banked while putting a soft touch on the brakes. I felt my tire making brief contact with the side of the car. He (probably) didn’t notice. I was terrified.

Since then, I mentally replaced the numbers on the speedometer with “Risk of Death”.

Laser focus from driving fast is no problem on a racetrack, but dangerous in city streets for their many “obstacles”, like drivers who don’t know how to drive, people, cats. Speed is exhilirating. Speed is addictive.

Traffic lights and traffic slow you down.

Steve Magness, in Do Hard Things, writes about the benefits of alternating between fast and slow. He also writes of alternating between seeing the trees and seeing the forest. Too much focus on the trees will keep you from seeing creative possibilities; too much focus on the forest will keep you from getting much done.

The Pomodoro, an egg timer shaped like a tomato, is a well known productivity tool built on rhythm. How does it work? Say you want to study. The book is in front of you, a notebook, a pen as well. You set the timer for 25 min. Then you work with absolute concentration. When the timer rings, stop. Do something else, like watch a Youtube video or look at the kids playing outside, for about 5 min. Then, set the timer for another 25 min, and so on. Cal Newport, the author of Deep Work, writes that most people should be able to manage about 2 hours of concentrated work a day, and some can go higher than that with training.

Larger time rhythms include Sundays in a week, and holidays in a year.

One can have micro-rhythms. I read a book in this manner: after every page I stop to summarize the page. I take notes. I try to recall ideas I read elsewhere. I think of stories and people who illustrate the idea.

Thought also marked by rhythms.

Jean Guitton, author of The New Art of Thinking, writes about three kinds of thinking that we alternate. Synthesis is about seeing the point of a picture, the one sentence that summarizes a chapter, the essence of an object; this corresponds to “seeing the forest”. Analysis is about breaking, classifying, seeing the parts of a motorcycle or the steps in making a cake; this corresponds to “seeing the trees”. Contradiction or debate is about arguing against one’s belief to increase its strength; it requires looking at the essential conclusion, and at its many evidences, questioning and refuting at every stage until all strong objections are answered.

A parallel of Guitton’s tripartite that we apply in meetings would be to alternate talking about schedules (Tactics), resources (Logistics), and the big picture (Strategy).

We can also speak of rhythms in space, and rhythm in means (fast car now, slow bus tomorrow). I used to walk about 5 min to have lunch on certain days, and 20 min one-way on other days. Forty minutes away from any computer is a lot of time to come up with creative ideas. Same thing on a long trip.

In another article I will write about what is probably going to be the most mysterious rhythm, that of emotion: the cycle between comedy and horror that makes the movie M3GAN so popular, or the alternation between affection and indifference that pick-up artists use so well to make a catch.

I’m done with writing. It’s time to hit the sack.

(Q.C. 230208)

Build your networks

| jaylazzo

The idea of friendship as building pipelines speaks straight to the heart.

Some pipelines, like the one you built with your salesman, are only used occasionally and for one purpose: you give him the cash, he gives you the laptop. The pipeline between you and your best friend might be used every 25 years but deep and meaningful stories go both ways over one dinner. In both cases, trust holds up the pipeline.

Some pipelines involve a large investment by one party and a much smaller one by the other. So for example, a doctor invests only this much in a patient: he diagnoses and he prescribes. But the patient invests much more, he sees the doctor, he follows his advice (sometimes at great sacrifice), and pays him the professional fee. In a mentoring relationship, the mentor invests by giving advice, monitoring, finding contacts. The mentee? He listens to the mentor and then does his work and meets those contacts.

In true friendships both parties invest a lot of time and effort, sometimes continuously, sometimes with serious accidents. But you know two people are friends when the pipelines last and can transport a huge amount of goodwill. Friends, it is said, are one soul in two bodies.

In a relationship called “association”, the pipeline is used for purposes related only to work, to common interests, and to common schedules. Most of our colleagues are associates, NOT friends, even if you see them everyday, or have lunch with them everyday.

Do not treat your associates as friends, not yet. It’s like forcing bunker oil through a pipeline made for jet fuel; you could burst the line permanently. And do not expect them to treat you like more than an associate either, even a very good one.

I’ve lived in multicultural settings, and I have seen people in different cultures handle friendships and associations differently. Some associates can be so friendly-sounding, but you should not take that as an invitation to friendship. They may even talk to you about topics that in your culture are only shared among intimates: politics, family, and education. I made a mistake once of opening up a matter of religion with one of these, and I received an immediate “I do not want to talk about these things.” I appreciate that he made the boundary clear.

Some associates will become friends only after a long time.

However, sometimes it happens quickly. I met someone who I have interacted with less than 10 times in 6 years. On our second meeting I knew we would become friends, but that really happened on our 5th. I cannot say it will be the same for everyone, except in one thing: both must invest equally. I think one reason friendship develops fast in some cases is that there is clear proof of equal investment by both sides.

Pipelines operate on trust. A big investment is to open oneself to criticism or rejection — this is called displaying vulnerability. Fearing the response will manifest as a certain discomfort and one comes across as not being himself. This behavior betrays a lack of trust.

But the fact that you don’t have a lot of trust in another, nor that they don’t trust you as a friend, isn’t something to be ashamed of. It’s not a character defect. Most of the time lack of trust is not even a deal breaker if we just adjust the expectations to fit the level of trust.

But two behavior are potentially deal breakers for most pipelines involving associates and friends: 1) revealing secrets, and 2) dissing others bigtime, talking trash behind peoples’ backs. My logic is this: if they can smear others, they will smear you. But even calumniating common acquaintances, the worst of behaviors, can be repaired if both parties want it.

I am not here speaking of a panelist on a hiring committee whose job is to evaluate defects. If he were a pro, he would not talk about the dossiers to people who do not need to know. I do not speak of voters discussing the strengths and weaknesses of candidates.

I have seen that, in some cultures, revealing secrets and talking about the defects of others in casual conversations is common. In the Philippines we call this chismis, or Maritess. In small matters, like this guy has a funny accent, I agree, that’s entertaining. But I draw the line where a secret of office is betrayed.

For example, I HEARD in a confidential chat with P.P. that he heard from a relative that A.Y. had cancer. I told J.L., A.Y.’s boss and one who may have a need to know. “I heard A.Y. is sick.”

“Well, he has been having a flu, something like that,” said J.L.

“I heard it to be more than that. But I think it should come from the horse’s mouth. I’m telling you, this is hearsay, so I can’t say what,” I told J.L.

Even though I know A.Y. would receive a lot of sympathy and support if others knew, it would also mean that I was party to the revealing of what I assume was told in confidence.

Pipelines — whether friendships, associations, or any other relationship — need us to get out of our way to make them. Like real pipelines, they are enormously profitable.

Six Degrees of Separation. Downloaded from: https://blog-c7ff.kxcdn.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/blog_image-01-2.jpg

Because we are all connected by them. All the lines connecting people form an enormously complex network, one that could put you in contact with any other person through as little as 5 to 6 intermediaries.

So keep building them.

(Q.C. 230207)