News and commentary on science

So, this is mostly a life update thing but I'm going to add some philosophical and stuff at the end for those interested enough to read all the way through.

I passed losing 100 pounds last week which puts me well over halfway to my goal. Going slower than I like, but, still, as long as I'm still moving in the right direction, it's all good. By the way, for the dieters out there, Kroger's "Slow Churned" [Light] Death By Chocolate ice cream could be the eighth deadly sin and, at only 140 calories a scoop, it's a happy indulgence. And no one's paying me to say it. It's just that damn good.

Had to replace one of my AC units, the one that we've been babying since I moved in in 2004 that goes out repeatedly and takes care of upstairs which is not only much hotter than downstairs but it's where we all are most of the time. Well it died, but at least it happened now, when we had a nice cool week and not in July. I'm hoping the much higher efficiency unit (w/ten years parts AND labor warranty) will also help with cooling bills this summer.

I was taken aback when changing my W-4 from married to single (but otherwise identical) resulted in more than an extra $120 coming out of my paycheck every week (which is why I paid into the IRS last year for the first time in decades). Ouch. Sucks to be a single parent. My hats off to any of you out there doing it on far less than I'm making. I literally have no idea how you manage it. 

Was discussing the topic of gay marriage on Gather.com (I rarely go there any more, but I have a bud who knows how to write articles that get discussions going to a frightening degree). Not going to discuss it here because I already have and, really, I didn't have many people arguing with me, not even Relax Max.

But several folks there were up in arms at the notion and after some extended hair rending and teeth gnashing over the increased moral turpitude that's crept into our society now that we can't beat blacks and our wives any more with impunity (ah, the good old days, when children had a 50% chance of living to adulthood and hygiene meant a monthly soak in a metal basin), one of them got into a long drawn-out rant against science, the kind I see once in a while among the creationist or global climate change naysayers. As I am myself, I noted that there was a level of irony in someone dissing science while using it to communicate, in this case, on the internet.

Here is his carefully quoted response to that [Note that the previous was paraphrased with almost undoubtedly some bias on my part]:

So, now science means anything that involved any sort of scientific or technological discovery to make? I am "using science" if I drive a car? Turn on a light? Flick my bic? 

 I still can't think about it without wiping tears of laughter from my eyes.

Uh, duh? Did he think that stuff grew on trees? Spontaneously fell from the sky like manna?

Now, I'm not equating religious folks with this kind of thinking - most religious people I know personally are perfectly rational reasonable thoughtful people who use religion as a guide to be better people. Can't fault that. But some of the crazies that pop up on talk radio and the internet are freaky out there.

This same guy, later on, said, "Science itself as we know it, was begun by "religious people" . . ." [guffaw, chortle]. While it was true that Christianity, at one point, was "in charge" of science, they were (a) largely basing it on Aristotle (who was not Christian but might have been a very devout pagan for all I know) and (b) did so up through the time called the Dark Ages, largely because science was stagnant in their hands. The name "Dark Ages" was not coincidental. And, while a number of scientists have been and are now devout in their respective religions, I don't think I'm really speaking out of turn when I say several of the organized religions have been basically obstructing science since the Dark Ages.

Note also, that that's just Western science. I know that, in many early civilizations like the Mayans and Babylonians, science, particularly astronomy, was closely linked with their religion. I haven't looked at the link between science and religion in the Far East Asian cultures, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar. (And for those who might thing Western culture dominated science in ancient times, I beg to differ).

But I have seriously digressed.

My point is that people can be awfully harsh with scientists and those implementers of science, engineers, and tend to focus on the evils that have resulted. I don't want to dismiss those, of course. We're not absolved of guilt for our part in that, for what our work facilitated. But I also think that just as religion today shouldn't really be held responsible for some of the more heinous things done in the past in the name of religion (and there are ample examples), scientists might be given a little slack on the less than savory results of our work done in generations past. Not that ills done in the name of religion and murderous/unhealthy science don't go on now as well. They do.

Similarly, just as religion deserves credit for good things that are done, including a significant portion of the relief efforts in some of the more tortured parts of the globe, science deserves note for those activities on the plus side of the scale. And I think that that is often taken for granted.

Some of it is, obviously, medical, things that have transformed the health of humankind in ways that would have amazed people a couple of centuries ago (though it should be noted, again, that various cultures already appreciated some aspects of that, like hygiene, again in certain Asian cultures): vaccines (much maligned but a huge factor in reducing infant mortality and child survival rates), antibiotics, hygiene and pasteurization, analgesics, safe and sterile surgical techniques (now with anesthesia!), clean water supplies and plumbing (which doesn't get enough credit for making changes in our world). When my grandfather was a child, half his siblings didn't make it to adulthood. That wasn't unusual in his day. I can't even imagine it. Two centuries and more back, childbirth was one of the biggest killers of women; now it's far less so (in countries where women can get pre and post natal care).  Thank you, biology and medicine.

Manufacturing break-throughs, assembly lines, automation, irrigation and farm machinery have allowed drops in prices and increased affordability in a number of things that used to be in short supply and/or only available for the very rich, like clothing and various (even rare) foods, vehicles and electronics and computers. Thank you engineering.

Material sciences and organic chemistry (particularly plastics) have meant huge breakthroughs in alloys and semiconductors  and ceramics/composites and plastics from cookware to bullet-proof vests to surgical implants and fiber optics to nano technology and, again, electronics. They've enabled solar panels and computer supersystems as well as computers that fit neatly on a wrist. Are you glad you can listen to music without having to go the concern hall every time? Thank you material sciences and chemistry.

Like riding in a car rather than horse and buggy? Like having electric lights rather than relying strictly on candles? Like flying in planes? Air conditioning and central heating? Like having access to instant information (cell and internet), weather information, location information? Much of the latter relies on a huge phalanx of satellites made possible by the space programs of many different nations. Thank you, physics and, yes, rocket science and combustive chemistry.

I'm just scratching the surface here, but I don't think it would go amiss, when we start thinking nostalgically about how simple life used to be, we might want to also remember how dangerous it was, how inconvenient, how dirty (even the wealthy), how exhaustive it was for most people, how little time and money was available for luxuries of any kind.

Science and scientists are certainly not free from fault, but there's a sizable debt we all owe to their efforts. Perhaps it wouldn't be amiss to remember it once in a while.

Read more...

Random Soapbox: Apparently I'm Anti-Anti

/Steps on soapbox

I know it's midweek and I've mostly given up rantings. Every once in a while, though, something just gets my goat. The irony is that what I'm hating is the overwhelming need many seem to have to hate on things that do them (and everyone else) no harm.

Now, before you toss the hypocrisy card, hear me out. I'm fine with hating things you can't fix: DMV lines, corrupt politicians (of any flavor), colonoscopies, and bad drivers. Rant away until it's fixed. Keep talking. I won't stop you (even if I disagree).

Be as angry and vocal repeatedly on issues that hurt you or others, like global warming, female circumcision, white (or any other kind of slavery), intolerance, forgoing vaccines, war, terrorism, unemployment, what-have-you. Nothing wrong with standing up for anything while people are suffering. There are certainly plenty of issues like that to keep us busy.

But there's another class of things that people rant about. that they jump in on over and over again. Opinions. Now don't get me wrong. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, about a particular celebrity or person or book or movie or song or process or set of beliefs. By all means have them. Tell your friends, answer with the truth when asked, put it on your blog. Defend your opinion if challenged if you want to.

But then, for mercy's sake, let it go if it's not hurting anyone, especially you. I was reading a bulletin on an upcoming Twilight movie (beint split into two, rather than one - which, as I've read the book, makes perfect sense), and every single comment was bemoaning the fact there'd be two and screaming out against the torture, etc. Folks, what possible impact do the number of Twilight movies remaining have on people who don't like them? Don't like it. Don't go.

I'm not saying you can't hate it. My husband hates them and doesn't pretend otherwise. But he isn't obsessed with it. He doesn't follow announcements and blast fans. He doesn't burn the books when I'm not looking. If he doesn't like the book, he doesn't read it. He doesn't like the movie, he doesn't watch it.

There are people who hate certain celebrities with a passion verging on mania. Not because they committed a crime or strangled kittens in their spare time but because they're dating/married to the wrong person or are too fat/successful/ugly/who knows what. OJ doesn't get the hate mail these celebrities get. So much vitriol.

I didn't get into Harry Potter. I'm not a fan of the Star Wars franchise (in general). I couldn't care less about horror movies like Saw and whatever. I can't stand watching Adam Sandler or Will Ferrell in a movie. There are a number of very successful authors whose books leave me cold.

So. I don't go to the movies I know I won't like. I don't read books by authors I don't care for.

As far as I'm concerns, those authors can write as many books as they can sell. It does me no harm. There are plenty of other books being published. If there aren't any good movies out one weekend, I have a DVD player. If people go see a movie I disliked a dozen times, what harm does that do me? Why should I be upset over this? Why lose my mind over something that has no real effect on me?

What is wrong with people? Why do they get rabid over stuff they don't like? Why are people spun up about what religion people are, who they go home with, what party they're with, what celebrities they admire?

I have to ask why anyone's life is so empty they have to go out of their way, track down people getting enjoyment from something harmless and try to take it away from them.

Please, folks, if you want to promote the things you like, watch it/read it/buy it. Extol it's virtues. Sing it's praises. Enjoy it over and over. And remember, if someone's enjoying something you don't like, why sweat it?

Maybe, if we stopped worrying about what other people were enjoying (that we didn't like), maybe we'd find our own lives tasted a little better than we thought.

/Steps off soapbox

Just my opinion

Read more...

Teamwork – What Does Work

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

Yesterday, I wrote up some things I’d observed over a couple of decades with regards to teamwork and what doesn’t work. You may not believe it, but I’ve also seen some very effective teams (they get less press) and I thought I’d add a list of things I’ve observed do seem to work. Bear in mind, (a) this is my opinion based on my observations, and (b) no guarantees this always works.

What things work to make a successful team?

A single definitive leader/decider. Consensus is a great goal, but attaining it is often challenging (if not impossible). The buck has to stop with someone and a good leader can make it happen, hear all the back and forth and take a stand. Taking a stand/making an actual decision is the key to efficiency of a team, but it also means that the answers coming out are less likely to be mushy or ambiguous. Which means a leader needs to be able to stand up to the rest of the team – if it’s called for. A good leader can dole out assignments effectively, streamline communication and prod the slower folks to make sure things happen on time. A good leader can also help keep meetings from digressing into nonsense or traipsing off onto inconsequent tangents. There are, of course, some things a leader should not do, like micromanage teammates or ignore the inputs of his teammates.

Have a plan. Know your goals, your requirements, your deliverables and your schedule. Put ‘em in writing and get the ones tasking your team to buy into them. Anything that’s fuzzy on this list is going to be time wasted doing the wrong things, following the wrong path, getting corrected. Know what you’re there to do and choose a path to get there as early in the flow as you can. Sometimes things just fall into place. Usually, however, they don’t.

The right people. An effective team has the right players: experts, integrators, users, operators, safety, all the players necessary to ensure each step of the development is addressed, and, preferably, at least a couple of folks with a big picture perspective to make sure it all works together. Each person should be able to contribute something or they are dead wood. And, if you have to go outside the team repeatedly for this or that data or expertise, your team isn’t complete.

Egos in check. This applies to everyone. If someone is incapable of checking her ego at the door, she is going to be a relatively useless, if not counterproductive, member of the team. Each teammate should be a contributor and all must be willing to challenge conclusions or inputs in order to weed out the weak or ill-supported ideas. And that means being able to take that challenging without getting steamed. Leaders must also take care. It’s important to have the self-confidence to stand up for the group’s work, but it’s a poor leader who thinks no one can do anything worthwhile but himself.

Ability to work independently. If you’re idea of teamwork means all the work is done in meetings, you aren’t much help. Meetings are, in my experience, some of the least productive hours in anyone’s day. The time between meetings is the time to put stories together, gather data, analyze information, reach conclusions. Then, you’re making the most of that meeting time by using it effectively to polish and question those stories instead of trying to right them by committee. And being able to work independently shouldn’t mean trotting to the leader every fifteen minutes for clarification. Get your assignment, understand it, then do it.

Know your history. It’s too easy to make assumptions right off in a new project about what to do and what is best. Take a few minutes and look at what’s been done before, mistakes made, missteps, what’s worked. No sense making a mistake others have already made. Go on, be original. Make your own mistakes. Often the starting point to a difficult project can fall right out when you look at the past. And assumptions you thought were a done deal, um, weren’t. You may even know why.

Honesty. A team that decides the conclusion before starting is inherently dishonest. A team that finds something startling (even dismaying) and doesn’t come clean is also dishonest. A dishonest team’s findings and work are useless. They don’t mean anything if not built on an honest foundation. Not only will your product be flawed, but the entire team will be tainted by the dishonesty. People forgive mistakes – we all make them – but dishonesty can follow you the rest of your life.

A documentation trail. Sounds stupid, but it’s pretty important. Put actions, assignments, decisions on paper, and add why. Keep drafts of documents so you know where you’ve been. This is less important on a short term project, but, for something that might last months, it can be the key to not doing tasks because you forgot why you did them, forgot what results you obtained, forgot why you didn’t do them, or even forgot you did them. When the story comes together, you better know how you got where you got and a documentation trail can be difference between success and failure. Rationales, conclusions, data and sources, all should be documented as you find them and then they’re never lost. (Note, there’s often someone tasked to keep up with all this – this job can be as important as the leader and it’s often a key position when it comes to putting it all together, too. Be nice to this person.)

Communication/writing skills. Here’s the sad part. No matter how good your research, your data, your conclusions, your logic, your design, your plan, if you can’t sell it effectively, it doesn’t mean anything. That means being able to express it in terms that any potential audience can understand without insulting their intelligences (which is harder than it sounds). That means knowing how to present it so that it has the most impact, instills the least boredom, sounds the most convincing. If there’s no one on the team capable of pulling this together effectively, the caliber of the team is almost moot.

Read more...

Teamwork - What Doesn't Work

I talked about collaboration yesterday, specifically the odd one my husband and I have regarding writing (which is different than the strange collaborations we have for everything else).

Teamwork is somewhat related to the topic of partnerships, only the dynamics tend to be much more complex. Now, I'm not going to tell you the right teams or what is always good or always bad. However, I can tell you some of my experiences and what I think helps (and doesn't help) make a good team. For those of you who do a lot of interactive and team work, I expect I won't be telling you anything new.

One thing about working for the government, I have seen a lot of the features that DON'T make for a good team - though they are not restricted to government and contractor organizations (and, yes, I have seen teams that work here, too):

Too many chiefs, not enough Indians. There are many organizations out there where the management structure dwarfs the working segment. It's a recipe for waste, inertia, and making poor decisions.

• In such an environment, decisions are often amorphous and preliminary much longer than they should be because it's under constant review - middle management has nothing else to do so they do meetings, reviews, reevaluations.
• Poor decisions stay in place far longer than they should because no one can reach concensus on the alternatives or, because those "making the decisions" don't really understand it so they're afraid to change it.
• Decisions are made more on the slickness of the presentation rather than because it makes sense because someone who isn't knowledgable is most influenced by good advertising.
• Meanwhile, while the management isn't accomplishing even what they are supposed to be providing (meaningful direction), they are sucking away resources (salaries), leaving the small cadre of real workers not only overworked, but often performing more work than necessary because they have to keep redoing things to try to get a reasonable product. That, of course, also reduces feedback so that management doesn't find out what's wrong until far too late.

No chiefs at all. While one can make an argument that there are teams that can be successful using pure consensus, but my experience says that this is almost always (a) a very small team, (b) a loosely integrated final product, and (c) usually has someone tacitly if not overtly leading it. However, I feel that, under most circumstances, leaderlessness leads to inefficiency. Independent work tends to be limited. Nothing can be accomplished except in the meeting because consensus is always required. (And we all know how productive meetings are without leadership). But, more than that, it's often hard to get a group to reach a definitive answer, use their time effectively. Or, equally challenging, the need for total agreement can dissuade dissension as people don't want to be the one holding everyone back - and decisions get made on what people think everyone else wants to do rather than what they ought to do.

Not enough experts. Too many folks with not enough actual expertise makes a meeting an exercise in action items with everyone going to "find out." If people don't have the understanding and knowledge to resolve the situation when decisions are to be made, decisions won't be made. If a team requires expertise outside (and doesn't have it IN the team), the team is poorly designed.

Too many experts. Expertise is great and definitely something to include in a team, but if everyone's an expert (particularly if you have experts in the same field), there is a definite risk of egos getting in the way of solutions. Experts can compete (and torpedo each other), can get distracted by by inconsequential trivialities instead of addressing the whole problem. Experts are important, but an effective team usually needs people to (a) provide a fresh perspective and (b) to put the story all together find the "answer".

Not enough (or ineffective) communication. Teams cannot work effectively in isolation. Anything that blocks communication, blocks progress, leads to misunderstandings, tasks or considerations falling through the cracks, doing work more than once, or pieces that work fine independently but not together. And that anything can be distance, poor communication skills, unnecessary bureaucracy, language, unit systems, personality, technology, whatever.

Too much communication. If everyone's statusing, meeting, discussing, brainstorming, caucusing, reviewing, reporting, etc., no one's doing anything. If it takes longer to explain what you did than to do it (to everyone you need to explain it to), you're not exactly working efficiently.

Tomorrow, the kind of things I think make a team effective...

Read more...