THE TOP STONE AND THE FOOT STONE

I made up this story and told this to my daughter and my nephew and niece the other day. The story goes like this: One day, the Pharaoh decided to build a pyramid and not just an ordinary pyramid. The Pharaoh wanted to build the biggest, the tallest and the most beautiful pyramid ever and with that, the Pharaoh called in the Master Mason and ordered him to build him the biggest, the tallest and the most beautiful pyramid ever and to finish it as soon as humanly possible. And so, the Master Mason wasted no time and started to design and build the pyramid. During the building of the pyramid, the Master Mason set out and discovered a huge sturdy boulder and he brought it to his workshop beside the rising pyramid and he broke the giant boulder into two halves and left it there for the night. The two halves of the boulder “speak” to each other that night.

The first half asked the second half: “Hey brother, you know what they’re going to do to us?”

The second one replied: “I heard that they are going to make a pyramid and fashion one of us into the TOP STONE while the remaining one will be the FOOT STONE.”

“I see, what you want to be, brother?” asked the first one.

“The Top Stone of course! What else should I be?” replied the first.

“But why?” came the quick question.

“Why, without the Top Stone, there will be no pyramid!”

“How come?”

“How come?! When people look up at the pyramid and shouted to others, look! It’s the pyramid. They all be pointing their fingers at the top of the pyramid where the Top Stone lay, nobody would be pointing at the base of the pyramid and say, there’s the pyramid!” “The Top Stone is the crowning glory of the pyramid and without the triangular top, there will be no pyramid at all!” “Besides, there can only be one Top Stone and hence, that stone would be unique of all the stones that made up the pyramid and that is why, I wanted to be the Top Stone.”

The first went silent for a while and said: “Well, I just wanted to be something useful and to do great things, Top Stone or not. It doesn’t matter.”

“Really? It doesn’t matter?”

“Well, yeah, though the Top Stone is important and glamorous, without the Foot Stone to support it at the top. The Top Stone will fall. Though there are many of us Foot Stones that made up the pyramid, miss one Foot Stone and the whole pyramid would collapse.”

“Yeah sure, to each their dream.” Said the second stone.

The next day, the Master Mason came and fashion the second half of the boulder into the Top Stone that it desired to be while made a Foot Stone out of the first.

Both stones lay at the work site for many years waiting for their appointed time to become part of what is shaping up to be a grand edifice. Then suddenly, the Pharaoh abandoned the project all together and both stone lay in the dessert almost forgotten. Then one day, a new Pharaoh came to the throne and decided to build a bridge over a raging river and called the by now aging Master Mason to do the task. The Master Mason went to his old workshop and found both the Top Stone and the Foot Stone on the ground. The Master Mason found that the Top Stone not suitable for the project at hand because of its triangular shape and picked the Foot Stone instead and placed the latter as the foundation stone at the bottom of the river holding up the bridge and for countless years thereafter, the Foot Stone silently toiled, holding up the bridge and allowing many to cross the river safely. The Foot Stone realizes his dream of being something useful and do great things but nobody knew nor cared whereas the Top Stone was lost somewhere in the dessert buried in sand….

I told the kids that someday when they grow up, they should decide whether they would wanted to be the Top Stone or the Foot Stone and it is their choice to make… Be a Top Stone, lavished with praise with all the glamor that being on top but they had succeed in their endeavor against all odds and fierce competition lest they will be forgotten (the unfinished pyramid) or be the Foot Stone, doing important things but largely unknown, unsung, unheard of.

But guess what? They don’t understand what I’m saying. Not yet.

50 Books Challenge: Book #7: Psychology of Revolution by Gustave Le Bon

I’m already 3 months behind!

The book is quite unique and interesting in that it employs psychoanalysis in the study of a particular historical event specifically, the author uses crowd psychology in analyzing Revolutions in general and The French Revolution in particular. To date, there is no other history book that utilizes such methodology in its investigation of an event in the past. The book was published in 1896 and during that time, both the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution are becoming to take its course, which is probably one of the impetus for the author to write on such a subject matter. To the modern reader, the book and by extension, the author sounded condescending, patronizing, elitist, a royalist sympathizer, an ardent Napoleonic admirer/ apologist, a sham humanitarian, and a bigot. However, this is no fault of the author but rather this is a reflection of his era or generation and the book do represent the ideas prevalent of his generation. Nevertheless, these “attributes” should not detract from the rather excellent observations of author regarding the French Revolution for such observations are universally true and applicable to any Revolution generations before and those of yet to happen. However, care should be taken to discern between the authors observations and those of his rather seemingly logical deduction which tends to be biased and speculative and is not borne out of empirical observation. A careful reading of the book would also expose some strands of thought akin to Sigmund Freud’s logic as expounded in his seminal work, “Civilization and it’s Discontent” which beautifully link the human psyche and the forces that creates the mosaic that we all know as “history”. The last two chapters of the book is rather an oddity in the sense that there seems to be no connection with the subject matter at hand but rather it looks more like the author’s political rants and opinion of the political issues of his days which is surprisingly or rather strangely sounded pretty much like the present political discourse.

50 Books Challenge: Book #6: The Myth of the Strong Leader, Political Leadership in the Modern Age by Archie Brown

The 50 books Challenge is an internet challenge whereby I should read 50 books in a year or roughly 1 book per week and right now I’m on my 11^th week but I just finished my 6^th book! I’m way behind…..

I bought this book when both presidents, Duterte and Trump were both elected to office. The title of the book piqued my curiosity but somehow I’m not convinced by the author’s conclusion. Anyway, first of all, the book is epic! Aside from the fact that it is voluminous, some 400 pages, the book is well researched with something like 20 or more political leaders examined or discussed. The author poured through biographies of late 20^th century political leaders such as Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, Clement Atlee, Tony Blair, Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorvachev to name a few. Where biographies are absent, the author relies on historical narrative to examine the leadership styles of political leaders in the likes of Deng Xiao Ping, Mao Ze Dong, Josef Stalin. Furthermore, the author didn’t limit his studies to western leaders but also include those from the rest of the world like Nelson Madela (however, there is a preponderance of western leaders in his examination). The author also studies leaders both in democracies and in authoritarian/ totalitarian regimes. The sheer magnitude of his examination is truly epic. The author writing style is easy to read, no mumble jumble hard to understand jargon. These however are the positive things that can be said of the book. Personally, I felt that the author tend to muddle through with his examination, with a lot of digressing. He seemed to be more interested in telling a story than analyzing (hence my term examination instead of analysis). It is not boring to read per se but it is difficult to grasp what the author is trying to imply much less convey (to be fair though, with the first chapter, the author stays true to his purpose). In the latter end of the book, the book became a sort of political tirade of Tony Blair which further muddle the intent of the author in writing the book in the first place not unless the author really meant to diss Tony Blair! Furthermore, the author seemed to have a penchant of giving sweeping conclusions. For example, the author concluded that revolutions invariably give way to authoritarian regimes giving the examples of the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolutions, etc. But while the observations are true, it is equally true that not all revolutions end up being authoritarian, the foremost example being the American Revolution (to the author, peaceful revolutions like the ones sweeping the Eastern Block during the twilight of the Cold War and decline of the Soviet Union are not revolutions per se). Aside from that, I felt the author is looking at things through a tainted spectacle, i.e., the author’s view are ideologically skewed. I suspect that his political sympathy belong to that of the left wing of the British Labor Party (hence his disapproval of Tony Blair) or more aptly, the author is a Liberal Social Democrat in political persuasion. His conclusions are skewed towards his persuasion and hardly objective in assessment although he tried to present objectivity in his writings. Also, I have serious question as to the author’s definition of a “strong leader”. To the author, a “strong leader” is a leader who dominates over his colleagues in government and tend to concentrate power in his own hands. This definition tends to equate “strong leader” with “strongman”, which is pretty much a stretch. Furthermore, the author seemed to equate influence with power which are two totally different things. It could be that the author is defining the “strong leader” from the standpoint of political science but for the “masses” whether they get or able to vote or not in an election if there is one to begin with, a “strong leader” is someone who get things done, who stood up for his belief, and defend the dignity of the state he or she represents to put it mildly.  Another point to make is that every leader whether strong or weak, democratically elected or in an authoritarian/ totalitarian regime tend to maneuver themselves to a position of dominance in order to “push” their agendas. Hence, to use the accrual of power or gaining dominance over rivals and colleagues in government as a yardstick in defining a “strong leader” is inaccurate. Lastly, the author in conclusion favors a collegial decision making with consensual leadership being the best as against “strong leaders”. Yet, the author in his examination of “transformative leadership” and “redefining leadership” didn’t specifically emphasize the consensual nature of leadership but is quite adamant in later chapters in relationship to democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian leaders pointing to the failures of specific “strong leaders” due to them “going alone” or surrounded by “yes man”. There is a flaw here in his argument for one, no man is an island and that includes leaders too. A leader however strong cannot literally go it alone. The leader is just one man and as the author succinctly pointed out, his reach is only arms – length. No matter how autocratic a leader is, some form of a policy debate occur and some form of consensus is reached even if the word consensus barely applies to such an agreement. Surrounding a leader with yes man maybe true but so as the reality of myopia wherein the ruling clique is populated with people having the same ideological persuasion or same cultural view. Aside from that, navigating a fractious group with varied interests and agendas and trying to get a consensus to a final decision can cause deadlock and paralysis and is hardly a ringing endorsement of collegial decision making. Just look at Brexit. As a conclusion, if the author’s criteria were to be used in evaluating both Trump and Duterte, one can easily conclude that both are “redefining leaders”. To agree or not in the assessment is another issue.

50 Books Challenge: Book #5: Management Stripped Bare by Jo Owen

The 50 Books Challenge is an internet challenge. The challenge simply put is to finish reading 50 books in a year or roughly 1 book per week and so far, I’m lagging behind….

The book should have been called “Management, the Reality Show” for it’s candid depiction of real life management. In fact, it’s not even written or read like a book but more like an advice column. It has that undeniable British witticism written into it and the tone is also unmistakably cynical especially towards management theories and top management. The book definitely belongs to the Behavioral School of Management (see Mintzberg 10 schools of management) and eschew towards office /organizational politics. Nevertheless, the author does offer valuable insights into management and on occasion provided some pretty interesting theories and frameworks (such as Chaos Pricing Theory). All of this make this book a must read for management practitioner. Highly recommended. One downside of the book if one can call it a downside is that the book is structured like a dictionary with each topic arranged in alphabetical order with the longest topic span like 3 pages and 5 or 6 paragraphs while the shortest topic has only something like 10 words maybe less. The problem with this kind of structure is that the topics changed abruptly and there is an absence of a smooth flow of thinking precisely because of the sudden changes. However, the upside of this structure is that one can easily look up the topic just like an encyclopedia or a dictionary.

50 Books Challenge: Book # 4: Practical Production Control, a Survival Guide for Planners and Schedulers by Kenneth Mckay and Vincent Wiers

The 50 books challenge is an internet challenge that I adopted which is simply finish reading 50 books in a year or roughly 1 book per week. However, I’m lagging behind….

The operative word here is Practical and indeed the book is a candid structured lecture or more like a pep talk of do’s and don’ts of Production Control. For the clueless, Production Control is akin to Sales in it’s relationship to Marketing, i.e., Sales being the tactical, executive arm of the policy making Marketing. Production Control’s relationship to Operations Management is similar but don’t mistake Production Control to be the totality of Operations Management though. The book is absent on analytical Frameworks save for one in the second to the last chapter. Also, it hardly mentioned any production control techniques, i.e., no formulas, no models, the stuffs. Instead, the book is replete with common sense experiences of the authors, something you pay good money to listen in talks/ in consultancy but nothing deep though. As for the writing style of the author, it’s straight forward, with a generous serving of humor which is something rare in a technical book. Technical at times with its jargons but not that difficult to understand. Overall, I felt disappointed with the book in that you’ll not get something useful out of it save of course if you’re into implementing APS (Advance Production Scheduling) and MRP, in which case, you’ll might get some noteworthy tips (practically more than half of the book is devoted to that aspect). If you’re aim is to learn to control production from this book, better be disappointed.

50 Books Challenge: Book#3: Tomorrow’s World, A Look at the Demographic and Socio – economic Structure of the World in 2032 by Dr. Clint Laurent

I bought this book in 2014 but came to read it 2 weeks ago (and finish just now). Anyway, the book is about the demographic and economic projection of the world in 2032 based on 2012 data (it was published in 2013). Although the book is entitled “Tomorrow’s World” but the coverage of the “World” is just 74 countries which excludes mostly small countries like Pacific Islands, Nepal, Bhutan, the Vatican, etc. and mostly African countries whose demographic and economic data is unreliable according to the author. The book is surprisingly easy to read and not loaded with technical jargon that would alienate a non – mathematically inclined reader. It is also not loaded with numbers and mathematically formulations save for a quick explanation on the derivation of the processed information, which is surprising for a statistics book. The writing style of the author is pretty clear and straight forward and “cold” in that he treats human beings (birth and deaths and all) as numbers (you would be forgiven if you think that the author is a Vulcan)! The way the author structures the chapters show a deductive step by step logical thinking process. It is as if the chapters serve as an introduction to the next chapter and yet each chapter can stand alone as in it could be read as a separate article altogether. The insights offered by the author are both unique and useful. His analysis incisive. The first half of the book is mostly demographics and it is irreputable since the 20 – year time frame that the book analyzes, the projected future adult population are already alive as of this writing, i.e. one could determine the size of the workforce in the future as well as the number of newborns based on the present population of young people. The second half of the book is about economics or about the market size of each population segment and regions/ country and this is where it is contentious (like all other economic projections). I personally find the authors projections conservative particularly in relation to China, India, and Developing Asia and rather optimistic for Western Europe and North America (and come to think that the author’s day job is in Hong Kong and a China expert so to speak!). The basis for his economic projection is the size of the future labor force based on demographics, the trending employment rate, and the projected labor productivity based on the educational level of the workforce (the higher the educational attainment, the more productive is the labor force because of its capacity to utilize technology to improve productivity). In short, the author is basing on the full potential of an economy to do its projection which is the way to go but his assumptions of employment rates particularly in relation to Europe, and North America seemed optimistic while his assumption on the productivity of China in particular seemed conservative. Another thing that I find questionable is the numbers on the propensity to save and to spend. Note that the data is based on 2012 and it’s just some 4 years after the Great Recession back then. People got burned in that economic episode and therefore their propensity to save or to spend is anomalous to the norm if the author’s data is based on that year of survey (to be fair, the author didn’t mention the time frame of the data on propensity to save and to spend used in the book, it is just inferred). Lastly, the elephant in the room or shall I say in the book is China and India by virtue of their huge population of more than a billion. Though the projections are conservative but I find the authors insights pretty much stand out, unique. I mean you won’t hear such informative and unique insights from other statisticians or marketers. It’s just unique.

Since the publication of the book, a lot of things have changed. China abandoned the one child policy, its now a two – child policy and there are rumors of totally abandoning that as well although the author imply that such change in policy wouldn’t have any meaningful impact to the future demographics of China but it remains to be seen since there are anecdotes of willful violations of the one child policy during its heyday. Furthermore, there is an avalanche or tsunamis of immigrants into Europe due to the Syrian Civil War and into the US due to “Dreamers” and the consequent backlash against immigration. This immigration wave and its curtailment would radically alter the age profile of the population and would drastically affect future demographics with huge implications on the purchasing power of the households in Western Europe and North America. Then there is also technological advances with the rise of AI and robotics which could drastically change the nature of jobs in the future, making some skills obsolete while a precious few skills precious. Again, this would impact future labor productivity, employment rate, and thence, purchasing power (to be fair, the author did mention such possibility in the last chapter of his book but for just a brief mention in relation to India). Lastly, the booming stock market in the US, the ongoing Trade War, and the rise of Inflation after a decade of slumber would hugely impact future economic growth potentials of regions which again affects future income and buying power.

This book is written for marketers in mind and it is useful indeed. I highly recommend it however, use with caution as some projections may no longer be valid.

50 Books Challenge: Book # 2: Civilization and it’s Discontent by Sigmund Freud

            I had this book for quite some time, 7 or 8 years perhaps. Never got to read it until last week. I bought this book because of my interest in history and I wanted to find out how civilization per se and the history that it wrought is influenced by the “mind”. Well, I should say that I got my answer but I still have question at the back of my head that I can’t discern for the moment and I have a lot to digest. Anyway, here is what I think about the book. First of all, Freud is a German Jew and doesn’t write or speak English and so this book is a translation only and something might be lost in translation. By how much, I don’t really know. Second, the words chosen in the writing though not strictly technical nor flowery but is of such formality, depth, and smoothness that one would “get lost” from reading and end up not understanding a single word. Reading a second time would definitely help. Furthermore, the sentences, the paragraphs are so intertwined, so connected to each other that one cannot leave the reading in the middle and pick it up later on because one would get lost in the chain of thought as expounded in the writings. You can only take a pause literally on every chapter which is like 10 – 20 pages per chapter. Thirdly, most authors would embark writing a book especially a work of fiction with a skeletal outline in mind along with an ending. They “stuffed the meat” while writing along the way. Reading Freud’s work, one get sense that he is making things up as he goes as in literally, you are “riding along” in his thought process which is why putting down the book in mid – sentence poses such peril in understanding the genius’ work. One could discern this by the several hanging analysis, thought dead ends littered throughout in his book. It’s like reading a psychoanalytical monologue of Freud by Freud. Fourthly, I find Freud overtly concern about sexuality and eroticism to be questionable. Freud’s obsession is expected given his advocacy that sexual tension is the undercurrent of the individual’s psychosis. However, I do have doubts about it. I mean Oedipus Complex, Anal Eroticism, Obsession of the Breast all those stuff though could explain the functioning of civilization itself but is there more to it? I can’t tell after all I’m not a psychiatrist. Lastly, Freud is a Jew and yet he is overtly critical about Christianity (Abrahamic religion) in particular, and religion in general. However, I find in his writings, a whiff of influence of Christianity. His theoretical development of the Super – ego or in layman’s term, the guilty conscience as one of the fundamental structure in human psychosis smacked of a Christian influence. In other belief systems, the idea of “judgement” doesn’t exist. If Freud were not born into a “western” value oriented society, would he develop the idea of the Super – ego?

            Freud’s work is remarkable in the sense that he is trying to connect individual psychosis with that of civilization’s behavior. His work is akin to the Grand Unified Theory in Physics, which is still elusive as of now.  In physics, there is a set of laws that could best describe that of the Quantum universe or the universe of the Atom and another set to understand the Cosmos or the visible universe of the planets, stars, wormholes, black holes, and dark matter and the these two sets of laws are not interchangeable, i.e., one cannot apply the Quantum theory to the Cosmos and vice versa. Hence, Physicists are trying to come up with a theoretical framework, the Grand Unified Theory that could reconcile the two and for the moment, it is still elusive. Freud’s book on the other hand, manages to connect psychology (for the individual) and sociology (for society or civilization). In Freud’s theory, Man is happiest when his freedom is at its maximum when he encounters no opposition, no challenge, no limitation, i.e., when he is alone however, no man can live alone because Man is susceptible to the vicissitudes of Nature, to the frailties and gradual decay of his flesh, and for his need to love and be love. Henceforth, Man has to cohabitate with other Man in order to increase his safety and answer is longing to be with someone and in the process, this cohabitation creates Civilization. However, rules and compromises have to be made in order for cohabitation to work and in the end, Man has to voluntarily give up some of his freedom and restrict his liberty. However, subsuming Man’s freedom undermines his happiness and as a result, individuals with psychosis are born and thence, civilization’s discontents. But the story doesn’t stop there, civilization reinforces this “order” and imposes ideas like rules, tradition, culture, and religion and the individual integrates this ideas in his development creating the “conscience” that would be its unseen master for the rest of his existence which in turn makes individuals unhappy and produces more “psychotics” and discontents. This reminded me a passage of Jacques Rosseau (or was it Voltaire, can’t recall) in one of his writings, “Man is born free but is everywhere in chains.” How true, how true.