I thought this was a funny saying that my friend told me.
I’d agree with you but then we’d both be wrong!
He said that he actually liked it so much that he got a sign with it and put it in his office.
As they say, “Two wrongs don’t make right.”
If you think something is wrong, hold your ground–otherwise no one will be right. 😉
(Source Graphic: Andy Blumenthal)
I took this photo to show something “paper thin.”
Did this after my daughter told me a quote she thought was pretty smart and which I immediately liked as well:
“No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides.”
– Jewish Philosopher, Baruch Spinoza
I think of the two sides in terms of peoples opinions.
And it’s true, no matter how thin you cut the differences, there will always be at least two views about it–usually more!
It doesn’t make it easy to get to consensus, but I guess we all have to give a little. 😉
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal, excuse the glare)
Maybe the jury is still out on whether Humpty Dumpty fell, jumped, or was pushed.
Of course, it’s very easy to say affirmatively any one of these, but that doesn’t necessarily make it true (even when there is a children’s rhyme or bumper sticker that goes with it).
I think the point is that this is what investigations, witnesses, evidence, and a trial is for…to figure out the truth.
He says, she says…or as Judge Judy says, “It’s a lot of who shot John!”
It’s good not to jump to conclusions, especially when opinions may be subjective, biased, or have hidden agendas.
Heck, even if Humpty Dumpty was pushed, they still couldn’t put him back together again, but at least someone should pay for the bad yoke. 😉
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
What do you really care about?
Your family (and close friends)–health and wellbeing, your finances, your job, your soul…
If you’re a little more social and aware, perhaps you care about the environment, the dangers of WMD, human rights, our national debt, and more.
Yet as Rebecca Greenfield points out in The Atlantic (5 Sept 2013) “the dumbest topics [on the Internet] get the most attention.” She uses the example of all the chatter about Yahoo’s new logo, which mind you, looks awfully a lot like their old logo.
The reason she says people focus on so much b.s. on the web–or derivatively at work or in social gatherings–is that it’s sort of the lowest common denominator that people can get their minds around that get talked about.
Like in the “old country,” when gossipers and talebearers where scorned, but also widely listened to, there has always been an issue with people making noise about silly, mindless, and mind-your-own-business topics.
Remember the Jerry Springer show–and so many other daytime TV talk shows–and now the reality shows like the Kardashians, where who is sleeping with whom, how often, and what their latest emotional and mental problems are with themselves and each other make for great interest, fanfare, and discussion.
Greenfield points out Parkinsons’s Law of Triviality (I actually take offense at the name given that Parkinson’s is also a very serious and horrible disease and it makes it sounds as if the disease is trivial), but this principle is that “the amount of discussion is inversely proportional to the complexity of a topic.” (Source: Producing Open Source Software, p. 91)
Hence, even in technical fields like software development, “soft topics” where everyone has an opinion, can invoke almost endless discussion and debate, while more technical topics can be more readily resolved by the limited number of subject matter experts.
This principle of triviality is also called a bikeshed event, which I had heard of before, but honestly didn’t really know what it was. Apparently, it’s another way of saying that people get wrapped around the pole with trivialities like what color to paint a bikeshed, but often can’t hold more meaningful debates about how to solve the national debt or get rid of Al Qaeda.
We may care about ourselves and significant others first, but most of us do also care about the bigger picture problems.
Not everyone may feel they can solve them, but usually I find they at least have an opinion.
The question is how we focus attention and progress people’s discussion from the selfish and lame to the greater good and potentially earth-shattering.
I recently had a conversation with my wife about some social media sites where the discussion posts seem to have hit new rock bottom, but people still seem to go on there to either have their say or get some attention.
I say elevate the discussion or change sites, we can’t afford to worry about Yahoo’s logo and the Kardashians’ every coming and going–except as a social diversion, to get a good laugh, or for some needed downtime dealing with all the heavy stuff. 😉
(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
The Wall Street Journal (16 May 2011) had a interesting portrayal this week of the various types of people that tend to spoil meetings.
From low to high on nuisance level, these were as follows:
1) Jokesters–“cracks jokes, appropriate or not.”
2) Ramblers–goes on and on and often off topic.
3) Dominators–dictates to others with their opinions.
4) Naysayers–derails progress with negativity.
5) Plotters–passive-aggressive undermines decisions.
From my experience, I would add a few others (in no particular order):
6) Politicians–focuses on coming away looking good instead of on resolving issues.
7) Positioners–vies for a bigger piece of the pie, whatever flavor it is.
8) Honorees–comes to take all the credit, and politely thank everyone for their support.
9) Bystanders–shows up, but can’t or won’t contribute anything of value.
10) Bewildered–unsure even why they are here, but were told to just show up.
11) Malcontents–they are unhappy and they show it, so who cares anymore.
12) Socializers–shares personal tidbits and whispers about where they want to go lunch or for happy hour afterwards.
For all the meeting attendees out there, life is not a box of cherries, but you don’t have to make it the pits! 😉
(Source Photo: here with attribution to Voka – Kamer van Koophandel Limburg)
andyblumenthal 