Tales from Easement Acres
I’m home from school I brought home a Book called Experiments.
It is 3:40 PM (centrill time) and now I will call J.T.
— — — —
I called, no one was there, so I left a message on their answering maching: “Hi, J.T. This is Simon. I’m asking if you can come over.”
It’s a beautiful day outside. The temperature is in the 70s.
Perfect day,
I’m going out to play!
— — — —
It’s now 6:43 and I am going to Boyscouts. Craig is over our house. I don’t have much time so By!
–Simon
A small rectangular patch of earth resides against the front porch. And because the plot is small, receives direct sunlight, and sits under the eave, it is dry and barren. Yet its location by the front door necessitates that it be considered for landscaping purposes. But what to do?
Liz made a number of attempts, including columbines and bleeding hearts, but to our surprise, it was the impatiens that claimed the niche. And I, generally opposed to pesticides, have no reservations about using synthetic fertilizers. Thus was a season of promoting these plants’ over-indulgence.
The nutritional needs of an ornamental plant is so much simpler than a child’s.
–Simon
Working for a large company, I often find myself in the scenario of needing information. I therefore seek to resolve this knowledge deficit by sending a simple email to an individual who holds said knowledge. Yet all too often my queries go ignored. Why is that? What deep underlying motivations have possessed this individual to turn a deaf ear to the needs of others? What cruel, sociopathic inclinations govern this person’s actions?
I debated at length these social dynamics, but the answer wasn’t nearly so disturbing as my overly-dramatic introduction might have implied. Rather, I conclude there are a few and very simple factors: Does the person feel they have time (an extension of job title and pay grade), does the person feel the inquirer is worthy of their time (also an extension of job title and pay grade), can the person benefit from the inquirer, has the inquirer committed some social slight against them, and does the person like the inquirer?
To distill this even further, from the contactee’s perspective:
Yet all reasons are not created equal, so based upon entirely subjective reasoning, I have developed a formula to weight them properly:
As for probability, I’ve determined from experience that I will always get a response from a peer if every positive category is satisfied. I will generally always get a response from someone lower with almost all of these conditions satisfied. And I will usually get a response from someone higher with every condition satisfied. However, if any negative conditions are satisfied, then the response rate very quickly drops. As I stated, it’s weighted, and formerly positive relationships are always easy to sabotage since the human mind tends to remember the bad and not the good. Here’s the formula for reference:
=IF(Their pay grade>Your pay grade,100*((1/(0.5*(Their pay grade-Your pay grade))/4)+(Do you know them?+Do you work with this person currently?+Is person within your department?+Do you have a positive working relationship?+Do they like you?)/25)+(Have you done good work for them before?+Can you get this person a job/opportunity?)/10)-(Have you done bad work for them before?+Have you beat that person out for job/opportunity?)/5)),IF(Your pay grade>Their pay grade,70+(100*(Do you know them?+Do you work with this person currently?+Is person within your department?+Do you have a positive working relationship?+Do they like you?)/25)+(Have you done good work for them before?+Can you get this person a job/opportunity?)*10)),60+(100*(Do you know them?+Do you work with this person currently?+Is person within your department?+Do you have a positive working relationship?+Do they like you?)/25)+(Have you done good work for them before?+Can you get this person a job/opportunity?)*10)-(Have you done bad work for them before?+Have you beat that person out for job/opportunity?)*10))))
Of course, that nightmarish formula is more readily understood in its natural format: a spreadsheet, so naturally I’ve provided it along with instructions:
https://moorheadfamily.net/data/Query%20Quotient.xlsx
Out of curiosity, I tested it with a recent scenario involving someone from our Legal department. The calculator suggested a 33% chance of receiving a response, and seeing as it took 3 weeks to get any answer, this figure seems pretty accurate. Hopefully this tool will allow you to adjust your project timelines accordingly.
–Simon
When the word burns in thermonuclear fire, I’m going to miss these. Behold, a pleasant Autumn rainbow–something we don’t get very often:
–Simon
As a species, we’re obsessed with the metaphysical–a concept that has long predated the scientific method and its analysis of the empirical…and of course the two have always been at odds. The latter offers explanations based on irrefutable perception, while the former is more supposition. Perhaps it’s because the scientific method has and always will probably fail to answer every question that could ever be conceived by the powers of runaway brain growth and abstract cognition.
But historically, the greater unease has been the possibility that a mortal might tap into the metaphysical to produce very physical consequences. It’s easy to be understanding of a deity, who presumably has the knowledge and intellect to manipulate the metaphysical in a responsible manner, but were a human to dabble in the occult and gain unearthly power over the physical, well then the conclusion could only be that this power will corrupt and the practitioner would become evil.
That’s one guess anyway, although I think the greatest influence on changing the public perception has been Christianity. Alchemists and shamen became witches and heretics. Then again, so too were prominent scientists in their day. Maybe the greatest fear then was threatening the status quo and the balance of power.
Despite the lengthy introduction, this is not a post aimed to tackle these questions. No, this is a post of inquisition, though not in the scary torture type of religious context.
I went out to split some firewood, and saw these:
Naturally curious at what appeared to be a magic circle, potion, and wand; I asked my daughter for an explanation. Her simple answer: “It’s a spell.” Unlike what some of her more distant relatives might have, I did not start splashing her in holy water and waving a rosary. Rather, I was curious where she had learned about these things. The color of the markings even resembled woad. Interesting. I wondered what she was conjuring. Maybe she was trying to cure herself of the virus that had been plaguing her respiratory system for the last two weeks.
But upon further questioning, it was apparent that I had misheard. A child’s soft palate had lended a lisp to her words. It was not a spell. It was a stove. She had drawn a range and was cooking stew. It was no attempt to bridge the material and metaphysical, no, it was a simple emulation of the culinary arts.
I admit, I was a little disappointed. Then again, learning to cook is probably a more valuable life skill than making love potions.
–Simon