Clean, Big and Obvious: Six Billion People Aren't Going Away
I left the last blog hanging on a follow up (which is coming). But it's a holiday and vacation coming up, when I traditionally "go academic" in the blog.
Dirty Little Secret : Clean Big Obvious
The weak link is between "Secret" and "Obvious". The first question you have to ask is "Obvious to Whom?" "Secret to Whom?" Or does a secret only matter to one billion "big and clean" people?
Whom is being Surveyed? This is a question I grew up with, as the oldest kid whose dad was getting a Ph.D. in Journalism at Columbia Missouri - then considered the top J-School and still a giant. I sat as a kid and absorbed dinner conversation between my dad, his Faculty Advisor Will Stephenson, and my great Grandfather, William Freeland. And I was told to finish my peas, and not spread them about the plate, because children were starving in China...
I've written about my genetic heroes - my grandpa Fisher and great-Grandparents, William and Minnie Freeland. I discovered them kind of late. "Oh yeah, Faulkner, Twain, Churchill, Faust -- and my family -- told me about that." Dr. Will Stephenson, my Dad's Mentor (and his advisor Maurice Votah, and his sister Bridah) were giants at the dinner table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stephenson_(psychologist)
William Stephenson was a professor at the University of Missouri / Columbia Journalism school, who vectored the Q-Sort, or Q-analysis. Crudely redux: Once you have the consensus or opinion balance, next look for commonalities, sort the people who answered the survey. As deeply as possible, the longer the interview with each respondent, the better.
It turns out, that "group think" is real, neither mumbo nor jumbo. Sample 100 white people, shown a photo of two men (white and black) with a knife in the photo, and then interview them a few minutes later about what they saw on the photo. Then show 100 black people the same photo, and interview them. All eyewitnesses to the photo.
The vote, the opinion, the consensus, varies according to commonality of the people surveyed.
This is the bane of both R2 and the E-Stewards. Neither group has a single African buyer represented. Nor the Asian. Or Latino. If there were enough Native Americans together in a city with 6,900,000 households watching TV, you can bet on two things. TVs would be in the city landfill, and no transboundary movement would invoke Basel or Interpol. Would the world be less "moved" by photos of Navajo children burning wire at a dump? No.
Would it blow your mind to find that R2 and E-Stewards were BOTH big whitie clubs, competing which is the correct consensus opinion to protect brownie, blackie, and yellow guy?
Dirty Little Secret? Ha.
This "e-waste" debate will be a laughingstock in ten years. It is an example of why "chicken little" and "emporers new clothes" stories continue to this day, surviving many centuries.
E-Stewards has admitted to lying and making up the basic 80% Statistic that the entire export debate is founded on. Consensus among people who set up their businesses during the 10 year HOAX is defining current standards. There is currently NO STATISTIC to support the "watchdogs" who bit my kids. They are mad-dogs, not watchdogs. They are mad that the Nestle Infant Formula Boycott is over (as of 1984).
Bad things are happening, but Africans and Asians and Latinos are patiently waiting to have more people to bargain with and buy from, when the Boycott ends, and they can stop buying E-scrap from back alley recycling clinics.
Do you really need a Ph.d to realize that dividing the world into quadrangles works fine for the people in the the upper left an upper right, lower left and lower right, extreme corners?
Do you export this? YES - NO
Do you import this? YES - NO
If there is a "sometimes", its sooo inconvenient, isn't it, E-Steward, or Perry Johnson Registrars? Trying to decide whether it was a good faith export or import makes you pull your pants legs up a little higher. It's a cost to you to wade into my everyday world of saying "yes" or "no" to human beings in different languages and cultures, who are just trying to make a living.
Worthy of Q-Analysis.
William Stephenson, I invoke you.
 |
| "Uncle Will" Stephenson |
Dirty Little Secret : Clean Big Obvious
The weak link is between "Secret" and "Obvious". The first question you have to ask is "Obvious to Whom?" "Secret to Whom?" Or does a secret only matter to one billion "big and clean" people?
Whom is being Surveyed? This is a question I grew up with, as the oldest kid whose dad was getting a Ph.D. in Journalism at Columbia Missouri - then considered the top J-School and still a giant. I sat as a kid and absorbed dinner conversation between my dad, his Faculty Advisor Will Stephenson, and my great Grandfather, William Freeland. And I was told to finish my peas, and not spread them about the plate, because children were starving in China...
I've written about my genetic heroes - my grandpa Fisher and great-Grandparents, William and Minnie Freeland. I discovered them kind of late. "Oh yeah, Faulkner, Twain, Churchill, Faust -- and my family -- told me about that." Dr. Will Stephenson, my Dad's Mentor (and his advisor Maurice Votah, and his sister Bridah) were giants at the dinner table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stephenson_(psychologist)
William Stephenson was a professor at the University of Missouri / Columbia Journalism school, who vectored the Q-Sort, or Q-analysis. Crudely redux: Once you have the consensus or opinion balance, next look for commonalities, sort the people who answered the survey. As deeply as possible, the longer the interview with each respondent, the better.
It turns out, that "group think" is real, neither mumbo nor jumbo. Sample 100 white people, shown a photo of two men (white and black) with a knife in the photo, and then interview them a few minutes later about what they saw on the photo. Then show 100 black people the same photo, and interview them. All eyewitnesses to the photo.
The vote, the opinion, the consensus, varies according to commonality of the people surveyed.
This is the bane of both R2 and the E-Stewards. Neither group has a single African buyer represented. Nor the Asian. Or Latino. If there were enough Native Americans together in a city with 6,900,000 households watching TV, you can bet on two things. TVs would be in the city landfill, and no transboundary movement would invoke Basel or Interpol. Would the world be less "moved" by photos of Navajo children burning wire at a dump? No.
Would it blow your mind to find that R2 and E-Stewards were BOTH big whitie clubs, competing which is the correct consensus opinion to protect brownie, blackie, and yellow guy?
Dirty Little Secret? Ha.
This "e-waste" debate will be a laughingstock in ten years. It is an example of why "chicken little" and "emporers new clothes" stories continue to this day, surviving many centuries.
E-Stewards has admitted to lying and making up the basic 80% Statistic that the entire export debate is founded on. Consensus among people who set up their businesses during the 10 year HOAX is defining current standards. There is currently NO STATISTIC to support the "watchdogs" who bit my kids. They are mad-dogs, not watchdogs. They are mad that the Nestle Infant Formula Boycott is over (as of 1984).
Bad things are happening, but Africans and Asians and Latinos are patiently waiting to have more people to bargain with and buy from, when the Boycott ends, and they can stop buying E-scrap from back alley recycling clinics.
Do you really need a Ph.d to realize that dividing the world into quadrangles works fine for the people in the the upper left an upper right, lower left and lower right, extreme corners?
Do you export this? YES - NO
Do you import this? YES - NO
If there is a "sometimes", its sooo inconvenient, isn't it, E-Steward, or Perry Johnson Registrars? Trying to decide whether it was a good faith export or import makes you pull your pants legs up a little higher. It's a cost to you to wade into my everyday world of saying "yes" or "no" to human beings in different languages and cultures, who are just trying to make a living.
Worthy of Q-Analysis.
William Stephenson, I invoke you.
No comments:
Post a Comment