I discovered, thanks to Wikipedia, that the word factum (where fact comes from) originally meant “a thing done or performed.” That meaning is no longer used today.I also learned that facts in math, science, philosophy, law, and rhetoric all take on different meanings given different applications. For example “facts” in jurisprudence have different meanings and standards compared to “facts” in science which are often the result of objective and verifiable observations. And political rhetoric is its own beast. Methods for checking facts vary. In court that’s a jury, in some places it could be experimentation, using reason/logic, or even the fact that an authority argues the fact to be true. I argue that a fact is nothing more than: a thing done that, for it to have full short or long run utility, must be subject to and survive cross examination. I believe that bridges hard and social science, politics, arts, and even our judgments of every day life.Feel free to be the finder of fact in that regard.

Ligaya Mishan’s piece The Life-Affirming Properties of Sichuan Pepper (NYT) , offers us hope for the TLDR world.The Sichuan pepper and that famous ma la experience is becoming popular in the USA. I love the experience of ma and I enjoy the spice. Is this globalization? Are we becoming more open? Perhaps the demand rise could be explained in an idea that people are becoming more culinarily curious about their world! I believe that the best way to experience a people is through their food preparation traditions. The ma la experience is one of those experiences that’s worth the cost. And what’s more, the experience is immersive. Perhaps my ideas of a TLDR world are numbing on the plate?

In a world where people want to know the big idea and call it quits what is the opportunity cost calculation to prefer the TLDR? It’s no different than seeing the forest for the trees. Why settle for the gist of an idea when you could appreciate the depth and breadth of someone’s carefully crafted work?I think we go back to that idea of seduction. Some desire the game, the tease, the dance with an idea but they don’t derive utility form that idea once it’s had. That’s a mistake because they give up the opportunity for long-run returns to engagement. I may be criticized for being overly analytical or “makulit” (google it) about wanting to engage in an idea. I won’t apologize for it. While others find value in chasing the next most seductive idea, I find value fully committing myself to a relationship with an idea. Thanks for not being lazy.

Are we becoming conditioned to not go deeper?

This is the last post about the cookies, I swear! What is the marginal value of a Mega Stuffed Oreo cookie? If the value in the experience is the ability to taste the cookie, the marginal value of an additional cookie may not return much more utility than trying the first Mega Stuffed Oreo cookie. If I, and the team, see diminishing returns after the first cookie, how much waste have I produced bringing a big package of cookies? I would be better bringing little pieces which can be consumed per person. I then thought, well does the marginal value of the cookie go up if accompanied by conversation and fellowship. Perhaps! Then again, referring to yesterday’s post, why would I want people to sugar crash on me? This, my last post on the Mega Stuffed Oreo cookie saga. You got random musings on economics, marketing, psychology, scarcity principle, some management theory and my ultimate resignation to buy Mega Stuffed Oreo cookies because the opportunity cost of not buying is suffering at the hands of my team’s cookie craze.

I’m not done with Oreos yet.The theory of rising expectation as described by Richard Farson in “Management of the Absurd” states: Discontent rises as situations and circumstances become better.Farson offers us three levels of discontent:Low-level: complaining about working conditions.High-order: altruistic complaints. Metagrumbles: under utilization of talents. Acquiring Mega Stuffed Oreos will only improve conditions which correlates to rising discontent. I thought deeper though, wouldn’t I want the Mega Stuffed Oreos to not only be a short term gain but also a way to show my engagement with the team. I threw that idea quickly because if I was seeking more engagement, then why would I induce a sugar crash?

I’m heading to the Philippines soon for work. Members of my team asked me to bring them Mega Stuffed Oreo cookies. The product isn’t available in the Philippines, and they swear the taste is different.I wonder:How do we know this is not a placebo effect?How might regulations about food production influence the taste of our oreo cookies? Is that “better” taste actually “better”? Could “better” be “worse”? (I’m not a nutritionist nor am I food scientist — discount my ideas 100%)Is it that something is rare or unavailable that heightens our perception and sensation of that thing?I’ll pick a side — seduction. There’s a strong desire to want what we can’t have; and when the thing we want is teased in front of us, that desire grows. Marketers, songwriters, entertainment professionals, potential relationship partners, job seekers, and employers all know that — and clearly Oreo knows that too. It’s my experience with humans that the desire for something often increases the perception of the potential satisfaction of having a thing. And once that thing is had, 50% of its value is lost the second after it’s possessed. Like a car.And, possibly, like Mega Stuffed Oreos.

I think a large chunk of my life has been about “cracking” culture. Learning how people do things, why they do things, and how to fit in those people — all of it. By cracking culture I get a unique advantage over my peers — I can create valuable outputs with and through many kinds of people. The first step to cracking the culture code is to immerse yourself in a culture. Put yourself in uncomfortable situations, observe, and be curious — but don’t judge. Yours is not to reason why, yours is to do. An easy way to pick a sub culture of your community you’d like to understand more. Go to a part of town where the sub culture thrives, and immerse yourself. If you are interested in Mexican food, go to Mexican communities in your area and shop at the markets. Actually, go a step further and learn how to order what you want in Spanish AND THEN go to the market. No no no, go even further… watch a video on line, a receta, of someone cooking Mexican food and reciting the recipe in Spanish. Imagine the taste and the smell. Imagine you’re there cooking with the person. Listen over and over again — hear the rhythm of the language. Learn what ingredients you need - the Spanish name of the ingredient. Go to your Mexican market and get it. Go home and cook.This form of culture cracking, the observer method, almost requires you to become the object of your study. And doing that, you’ll come to know many a people. You’ll also come to know that many of us are just like you.

“The present is just past the future.” - John Brady (dad)

My dad said this to me and my sister today. For me, it’s profound because of the implications for how time is perceived.

I’m not a philosopher — but my forming understanding is that there are many philosophies on time.

1. Presentism: the present is all that exists. Very Stoic — with a capital S.
2. Eternalism: past, present, and future all equally exist. Time is an illusion.
3. Process Philosophy: the present is a series of interconnected events rather than a static entity.

The hard sciences - math and physics - also boast a boat load of theories on time.

Happiness isn’t always a good metric to deliver against. Why? Because happiness can be manipulative. Extreme example:I have an employee who scores high on the employee engagement survey. They show up as “super happy.” When I meet this person, they’re happy. When others talk of this person, they say “oh my gosh, they’re sooo happy.” At the end of month the employee’s outputs are negative or nominal at best. Wait I thought they were happy?Analysis: happiness lied! If anything, we learned this person might have been happy doing nothing!Another example:Someone wants you to do something for them. They signal that if you do the action they will become happy. The incentive for you to do the action is to generate happiness in the other person. You are a people pleaser, and you do the thing for the other person. You spend the money, you invest the time, you buy the things, you break your back, and you do all you can to please that person. The problem is — the person is never pleased. Analysis: happiness lied! Happiness served as the means to an end, a red herring. To my knowledge, you - faithful reader, do not have the ability to control the feelings of others. You can do things that cause someone to experience the world a certain way which causes a reaction. But can you make a feeling happen? To my knowledge, no. And if that’s true, why deliver against happiness? A more useful metric would be to deliver against commitments, or better yet — against spec. Now the weight is on the person who benefits (the employee or the requestor) to describe their need in detail and for you (the manager or the do’er) to decide if delivering on that spec is your work that matters.Parting thought: don’t discount happiness all together. Enjoy it for what it is — a byproduct of a job well done.