Headline Marketing for Twits

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Have you noticed a big media push for Twitter, over the last few months? Articles, stories, opinions... For and against the use of Twitter but mostly emphasising that Twitter is the hot choice of your favourite celebrities.

Why would we use Twitter? To keep up with the latest, just-breaking news, apparently. (This despite its origins as a social networking -- gossip amongst friends -- communication tool.) Each article includes an example or two of how quickly news has been spread by Twitter.

DJ signed off on Twitter

There, doesn't that headline give you the feeling that some person -- the "DJ" in question -- used Twitter to make an important announcement? Wrong! Okay, it's just the Gossip pages of The West (31 August 2009) but still... that is a very misleading headline!

"DJ signed off on Twitter". The DJ -- disk jockey -- in question was found dead. Did he make a pre-death announcement via Twitter? Well, no... How did he sign off on Twitter? Well... his "last know remarks on ... Twitter" were three days before his body was found. Were those last remarks relevant to his death, to his signing off? Not as far as we are told. Why is Twitter mentioned in the headline?!

As soon as the man was found dead, his "celebrity friends" rushed to Twitter, to gain quick publicity for themselves, as quickly as possible. A kind interpretation would say that this explains how he was "signed off on Twitter".

A less kind interpretation would say that the headline invented the significance of Twitter in the death. Free marketing for Twitter? Or just a lazy use of the software fad du jour? Who knows.

And -- if I hadn't been so annoyed that I posted this blog -- I would have added, Who cares!

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Poor Literacy a Hazard

"Poor literacy among workers has become a serious productivity and safety issue," according to Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group (The West, 31 August 2009). It seems that some workers can't read the instruction manuals, so they use machinery "inefficiently".

I have to guess, that Ridout is a highly literate non-"worker" who has never tried to read and follow an instruction manual. Here's a better thought:

Write better manuals

Sure, "workers" have relatively poor literacy levels. They are employed to do things, not to read War and Peace. A bit of training would not go astray -- if the employer cared to "waste" that valuable time.

But the worst problem is with badly written instruction manuals. They are thick, to cover every possible use of whatever it is being used. It used to be said that IBM manuals were written to tell you how to use the IBM software. Then re-written by IBM lawyers so that nothing was actually promised. (It's easier with Microsoft manuals. The information you need is spread across several dozen separate sources. But that's no worry because it's all out-of-date as soon as it's written.)

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Also, manuals are written by people who are experts. So obvious problems are not explained -- the experts did not even realise that such problems could exist.

What this means: Instruction manuals are too thick to read and understand. They cover everything (or, sometimes, nothing) so it is very hard to find instructions for just what you want to do today. The instructions do not relate to "real life", that is, the stuff that you are expected to do here, now, for this particular employer.

Quite a few instruction manuals are designed for use in an office. Even if they are for machinery to be used in a workshop.

I once spent a few weeks instructing fitters -- people who work with large spanners, hammers, grease, heavy cutting tools -- in use of a computer system. Instructions on ordinary paper would soon disappear: ripped, torn, lost or covered in the normal muck of an engineering workshop. It's hard to turn pages while wearing heavy, protective gloves. It's hard to even see instructions when you wear safety glasses rather than reading glasses.

So I created instruction sheets which suited the intended use. Laminated, to last. One A4 sheet per standard task, so no need to turn pages. Large font, to be read without reading glasses. A series of steps -- with no options -- to get the job done.

Sure, every employee should be able to read. Simple warning signs, for example, must be understood. But you did not hire your fitters to read War and Peace.

Write instruction manuals which are suited to their intended use. Who will use them? Where will they use them? How will they use them? Then back up the instruction manuals with suitable training and support.

And now, just for fun, let's have a look at a typical set of instructions...

Washing machine: operating instructions

The cover page says, "Read these instructions before switching on the washing machine! Also follow the separate installation instructions. Follow the safety instructions on page 11!" So I need to read these twelve pages. Plus the separate and missing installation instructions. And the best place to start appears to be on page 11.

So I start with the safety instructions on page 11...

Most of it seems fairly standard: Some pointers on safe use of an electrical appliance; warning of the risk of posioning (sic) from detergents; an instruction to not climb on the washing machine. I'm a bit worried by the warning, "Caution when draining hot detergent solution." I use cold and dry powder. Where is this dangerous "hot detergent solution"?!

I skip back to page 9: Detergent-solution pump. This tells me how to drain a "Detergent-solution pump". What?! What is a "Detergent-solution pump"? When would I drain it? Why would I drain it... whatever it is?! Whatever it is, it does seem to introduce a "Risk of scalding!" -- which is a new risk, not mentioned in the Safety instructions of page 11.

Oh well, back to page 11. "Risk of explosion"... Perhaps I should avoid using this machine. It seems to be very dangerous. Specially since I have not been properly trained in its use.

Ah... forget it... Let's just follow the instructions for use...

Page 2: Your washing machine

"Congratulations..." Okay, I made a good choice. Must have, the instructions tell me so.

"Environmental disposal: Dispose of packaging in an environmentally friendly manner" -- with a picture of a wheelie bin -- with a big X through it. What? Do not put the packaging in the bin? What am I supposed to do, dump it on a vacant block?

Okay, ignore that, too. Let's see how to wash clothes with this washing machine...

"Programmes". This looks good. It's a list of all the pre-set combinations of wash/soak/rinse/spin cycles. Yes, a list... with instructions to "see Page 7" for a detailed overview. (By the way, this short list of programmes is split across pages 1 and 2. Just for your reading inconvenience.) So, I turn to page 7.

The first line of page 7 says, "See also page 6".

Page 6 is "Important information". Including -- the second section -- "Before washing for the first time".

Enough!

I close the instruction manual. Shove in some dirty clothes. Click the selector knob to "Mixed load". Put laundry detergent into one of the three possible spaces (hoping that I picked the right one) and press go... (Actually, it's worse than that because the "go" button is touch sensitive. Sometimes it ignores the touch. Sometimes it flicks on and off several times, if it's feeling really sensitive. But that's another issue.)

Then I walk away and hope for the best. And start to read War And Peace, because it's much clearer than the instruction manual, and makes a lot more sense.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Art of War

Long periods of extreme boredom interspersed by short bursts of extreme violence. That's the way that war has been described. Now it's art.

Okay, I've only read the review. Not seen the movie. Never will, I hope.

The movie reviewer in The West just loved Quentin Tarantino's latest gore fest, Inglourious Basterds. A slow but tantalising start to the movie... nothing happens and you begin to wonder what it's all about, I guess. Lots of pop culture references... the movie title, for example... probably quite humorous, if you happen to be a fan of 1970s Italian war movies. Three long hours of talking heads.

Interspersed with sudden bursts of extreme violence.

Tarantino's warmest and funniest movie yet, apparently. What, was it even funnier than the Hogan's Heroes Auschwitz special?

Three hours of extreme boredom interspersed by short bursts of extreme violence. War as humour, art as war. I can hardly wait to see it.

Oh. Yes I can.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Lawyers are Crooks, say Anti-War Activists

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Anti-war activists in LA have demanded that a law professor be "dismissed, disbarred and prosecuted for war crimes". What was his crime? He gave a legal opinion. (See The West, Law professor in hot water over torture, 19 Aug 09.)

Professor John Yoo, it seems, "went to Washington and created the ideological, political and legal basis for the torture of innocent people." That's the words of civil rights lawyer Dan Siegel. In less strident terms, Yoo defined a legal position within which "harsh interrogation techniques" were legally acceptable.

So, what does a lawyer usually do for a client?

A lawyer is employed -- in many cases -- to use existing law to defend the past actions of the client. To search existing law for justifications, possibly for loopholes, which -- in hindsight -- show that past actions were perfectly legal. You punched someone and they died? Not murder but an unforeseeable accident. You physically attacked a policeman? Perfectly legal, it was "self" defence of your poor, aged and infirm father.

That's what lawyers do. They interpret the law. Lawyers interpret the law on behalf of the person who is paying the lawyer.

If John Yoo found legal justification for torture then that is because the law appears to allow torture. The final decision requires a court judgement. (Followed by as many appeals as the protagonists can afford.) If John Yoo found legal justification for torture then he did exactly what he was paid for (I guess).

Dan Siegel has his own legal opinion. As a lawyer -- a "civil rights" lawyer -- that is Dan Siegel's job. It is what he is paid for. Has Siegel had his legal opinion tested in court?

All lawyers are crooks

Okay, a lot of people believe that heading... Nevertheless...

According to Siegel, "There is little doubt that John Yoo is a war criminal." Yoo is a war criminal for presenting a legal opinion. For acting on behalf of his clients.

By Siegel's illogic, every lawyer is a criminal.

Lawyer A presents the opinion that action A is legal. Lawyer B presents the opinion that action A in not legal. One is right, one is wrong (possibly). By Siegel's illogic, the "wrong" lawyer is, in fact, a criminal.

No wonder we respect lawyers just a little bit less than we respect politicians.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Just when You Thought it was Safe...

Just when you thought it was safe to send your children back to school, we have a new "national education expert".

"Drop A to E grades for the sake of the kids" says today's halfwit (The West, 15 Aug 09, page 7). Geoff Masters is said to be the chief executive for the Australian Council for Educational Research. Chief drongo could be more apt.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

WA has been suffering -- is still suffering -- from outcomes based learning. Every student is evaluated according to their potential. If you're really, really stupid then you can get an A for effort. Meaning, you're doing as well as could be expected, for such a stupid student.

What is the purpose of a school? Is it to provide some sort of education? Or is it to make students feel good about themselves. I'd like to think that education is somehow related to a school's objectives.

Let's just pretend that a school provides an education. How do we measure a student's success at gaining a school education? Let's measure how much they have learnt!

Here's the real problem

People like Geoff Masters have a serious problem. They believe that what you know is the only measure of success: if you do not learn then you are a failure. They compensate for this in-built bias. "How can I tell this student that they have failed to learn? That they are an absolute failure because they are unable to learn! How can I tell this student that -- in my opinion -- they are a useless burden on society because they cannot memorise facts as well as I can?"

Geoff Masters is a softie. He believes that his ability to learn makes him a better person than the people who are too stupid to learn. But he won't tell them that... He would rather lie. "I'm not going to tell you how stupid you are," he says. "That way, you can go through life believing that you are really just as good as me. But somehow you missed out on the overpaid sinecure that I have gained through my own... well... ability to learn..."

Geoff Masters -- and his fellow "education experts" -- appear to believe that the ability to learn is the only measure of success. Anyone who cannot learn is a failure. And they don't want to upset these failures by pointing out what to them -- the self-proclaimed experts -- is obvious.

There is more to life than passing exams

Isn't it great, that some people are able to pass exams?! Look at me: I have several university degrees. Does that make me better than you? I doubt it!

There are great sports players with less brain than brawn. (And some with more.) There are plumbers who do work that I would not even attempt. There are electricians who do work that I could not comprehend. There are teachers -- with less university qualifications than me -- who are willing to teach in schools... enough said.

Being a great human being is more than being able to learn at school. Sure, education is valuable. Essential, even... according to me. But lack of education does not make a lesser human being.

Persistent low grades may make a student lose learning motivation. So what! Perhaps they are not suited to learning. Perhaps there is something better that they can do!

I do believe that education is worthwhile. But people have different capacities for learning. If we refuse to accept this -- we refuse to tell the student whether they are learning or not -- then we are downgrading their other potential.

We pretend that all students are equally capable. This reinforces the idea that a school education is the only measure of success. With our worry that academic inability is bad, we reinforce the view that academic ability is the only measure of success.

Educational "experts" -- wake up! Allow students to know how they are doing at school. And allow them to feel good about whatever other abilities they may have.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Recycled University Thinking Fails to Lead

UWA, the University of Western Australia, is a training ground for the leading thinkers of tomorrow... Or, is it just a factory for recycling of yesterday's fads?

Actually, that may be a bit unfair. It was the University Student Guild which recently demonstrated its lack of thought leadership. It did it in such an uninspiring way that it was only Inside Cover which found anything newsworthy in the latest Guild activity.

Look, said Inside Cover, A poorly worded caption on a photo! Ah! the excitement!

The photo was from a politician's newsletter. The photo accompanied a story about UWA Guild placing recycling bins around the campus food facility. It would seem that the student guild has finally realised that rubbish can and should be recycled.

It's a bit late, though!

The last year has clearly demonstrated that recycling does not work. Sure, we struggled to recycle a percentage of paper, plastic, glass, metal... Then we were hit by a financial crisis and recycled scrap failed to sell. So now we are gaining mountains of scrap. Sure, it's nicely separated by type of material. But no-one wants it. So our carefully recycled scrap is piled up -- on the premises of recycling companies -- and is no longer being re-used.

"Recycle" sounds good. "Re-use" is what is really worthwhile.

So the UWA Student Guild has implemented on-campus separation of scrap. So what? Recycling was the flavour of the month several years ago. It struggled and then it died, as soon as the recycling money ran out.

New ideas from UWA? You have to be joking!

Reduce the need for recycling

Every time that we recycle, we put off the inevitable. By just a little bit... There's a limit to the number of times that material can be recycled and re-used.

Use your brains, UWA: reduce the use of resources!

Does the Student Guild sell chips in plastic packets? Drinks in plastic bottles? Sandwiches in several layers of plastic? Perhaps it sells batteries for calculators and cameras, wrapped in plastic, backed by cardboard, held together with a metal staple or two? All of these are a waste of our non-renewable resources.

Be brave, Student Guild! Avoid the popular and pointless follow-me fads. Become a thought leader for conservation! Reduce what you waste!

No matter how well we recycle, every use of a resource will lose some of that resource. No matter how well we recycle, we are using up a little bit more of an irreplaceable resource. The best way to reduce waste is to not use it at all.

Make a stand. Be clever... be brave.

Garbage in... garbage out

Reduce the garbage in: less packaging, less use of wrapping. That will reduce the garbage out. Less garbage out, less resources lost.

And then -- because it's better to be late to the bandwagon that not get on at all -- you can still recycle the reduced volumes of garbage out.

Mining "Approvals" Hit Wrong Note

On the front page of Western Australian Business news for August 6-12, 2009: "Junior miners are upbeat but still frustrated by perennial bugbears such as slow approvals..."

What is wrong with that statement?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

What is the role of our Environmental Protection Agency? Is it to give approval for new mining activity? Is its role, to give approval for major, destructive, possibly permanent damage to our environment? If the role of our EPA is to give approval to environmental destruction -- then the EPA is a waste of time and money.

The true role of the EPA should be to protect the environment. Environmental Protection Agency... get it?! If a new mine would destroy irreplaceable environment, if a new mine would wipe out an endangered species -- then perhaps that new mine should not go ahead.

If we refer to the "approvals" process of the EPA then we are denying the true role of the EPA. The EPA is there to assess and then to approve or to not approve. If we talk only of "approvals" then the EPA is a hurdle to be overcome. If we talk about "assessment" then the EPA gets a valid role.

The EPA exists to protect our environment. If a new mine would destroy valuable evironment then that new mine should not be approved... not by the Environmental Protection Agency. By referring to the "approvals" process, we deny the right of the EPA to refuse approvals. Which makes a paper tiger of our Environmental Protection Agency.

A better option

The EPA exists to protect the environment. Yet its employees are accused of deliberately acting against new proposals. Surely that anti-environmental-destruction activity should be an essential role of the EPA? Denial of that role emphasises the current true role of the EPA: to support development -- or not -- as dictated by government policy.

EPA should be be an independent body for environmental protection. It should not be a decision-maker.

Pass the decision-making to a group for project evaluation. EPA will put in a submission. The mining company will put in a submission. Economic and financial agencies can submit opinions. The government of the day will provide its policy of the day.

Within current government policy (preference to environment, money, climate, kudos, whatever...) the decision-making group will make its decision. If today's policy supports environment then the EPA submission will gain weight. If today's government policy supports profit then EPA issues may be downplayed.

EPA as it exists now is an environmental protection agency with no power for environmental protection. It can say, "Stop!" but that can be bypassed or overridden. When the government supports "profit" then EPA is only an obstacle to be overcome.

Pass actual decision-making to an unbiassed group. Clearly state current government policy and priorities. Let the EPA do its best to protect the environment.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Problem with the World Today...

There it is, on page 22 of The West today, the reason that the world is in such a parlous state...

Okay, I don't really believe that. But the letter headed "Antisocial move" is a definite indicator of one major source of problems.

Gavin Mooney, co-convener, WA Social Justice Network, writes that, "We all want this to be a State where we have a Government which looks after our kids." Where's the problem with that? you ask... Try, "a Government which looks after our kids."

What I would really like, is a state where the families look after their kids. Better yet, a community where the parents look after their own kids.

Parents have children. Parents should look after children. Sure, some parents have problems. So "the State" can give them help. Perhaps even support. Maybe "the State" could even take over looking after the children of problem parents. But first responsibility for children is -- and always should be -- with the parents.

Please think again, Mr Mooney.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com