Colonial Drunk Texting.

If you’re going to abuse one virtue, can you couch it successful usabe of another? In reading through Franklin’s letters tonight, I found a rather funny letter send to William Strahan in 1784.

Strahan was friend to Franklin. He attended parliament and published summaries of debates and laws passing. These summaries made their way to the colonies where Franklin would republish them as was typical to spread news in the day.

In the late 1700s, England is turmoil. The revolutionary war and abolishment of slavery had English citizens demonstrating for further rights, better representation in parliament. Strahan wrote letters to Franklin complaining and decrying the tumult.

Franklin, ever the caring friend, wrote back poking fun at England as they moved further away from Monarchy which America had just done.

I suspect that Franklin grew pretty sour over it as Strahan became an anti-revolutionary over time.

In a response to Strahan, a Franklin pulls no punches,

In my humble Opinion the Root of the Evil lies, not so much in too long or too unequally chosen Parliaments, as in the enormous Salaries, Emoluments, and Patronage of your Great Offices; and that you will never be at rest till they are all abolish’d, and every Place of Honour made, at the same time, in stead of a Place of Profit…

We have some Remains of Affection for you, and shall always be ready to receive and take care of you in case of Distress. So, if you have not Sense and Virtue enough left to govern yourselves, e’en dissolve your present old crazy Constitution, and send Members to Congress. (emphasis his)

Pretty forward, no? Though this may be a good exercise in Sincerity, it’s hardly a good show on Moderation or Tranquility. And, he ends with this,

You will say my Advice smells of Madeira. You are right. This foolish Letter is mere Chit-chat between ourselves, over the second Bottle: If therefore you show it to any body (except our indulgent Friends Dagge and Lady Strahan) I will positively Solless you.

Yours ever most affectionately,

B F

Oh yes. Temperance be damned, it’s always a good idea to drunk write your friends. I wonder if he mailed it immediately or woke the next day still thinking sending this was a good idea.

Cleanliness

“Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.”

Benjamin Franklin was probably a pretty stinky, grimy man. If you’ve ever worked with a printing press, they are very physical and tactile machines. You load the paper a sheaf at a time. You spread the ink on the plates and probably yourself. You crank the wheels to run the machine. Repeat, all day, until you’ve printed your quota. A little laborious, though keeping the machine moving helps.

The primary means of hygiene was a basin of water and damp cloth. Though bath houses existed in European. they were not as popular in the colonies as Puritans believed bathing in public houses lead to sinful behavior and, thus, only sinful people bathed regularly (1). Franklin was more a fan of less orthodoxy methods for cleanliness,

“You know the cold bath has long been in vogue here as a tonic; but the shock of the cold water has always appeared to me, generally speaking, as too violent: and I have found it much more agreeable to my constitution, to bathe in another element, I mean cold air. With this view I rise early almost every morning, and sit in my chamber, without any clothes whatever, half an hour or an hour, according to the season, either reading or writing.” - Franklin in a letter to Jacques Barbeu-Dubourg in 1768 (2).

Otherwise, it was believed that changing one’s shirt would keep your body clean. Most people in Europe and America (3) had a series of thin undergarments, similar to today’s undershirts, that were worn as a wicking materials for perspiration and dirt. At the time, people believed that these shirts would remove all the unclean things and simply swapping then out regularly would keep you clean (4).

Germ theory ultimate wins out in the ever evolving standards of hygiene. And I don’t think I’ll be embracing Franklin’s cold air baths for this week though I am intending to be more aware of my general cleanliness. I have a tendency not to shave as regularly as my beard needs to avoid bushiness. I also, especially when sleeping poorly, occasionally forget to brush my teeth in the morning.

And, when rushed, can forgo a shower now and again.

Perish the thought.

For this week, and on going: 1. Wash every morning. 2. Tend to facial hair, including your ridiculously Irish eyebrows.

And though we typically align cleanliness of with hygiene, Franklin included cleanliness of his home to this virtue and I shall do the same (5). I am a generally tidy person but will leave dishes in the sink for way too many nights. I can be better about generally tidying up each day. 3. Take time each day to tidy up the house.

This will be things like putting books away. Sweeping or mopping or what have you.

1. From the book “Water, Christianity, and the Rise of Capitalism”. Partly, this belief stemmed from the belief that hot water allowed evil things in which in turn caused sickness which started in the late 17th century because people bathing in dirty water sometimes got the Plague.↩︎

2. He called it a “tonic bath.” Read the letter here.↩︎

3. Who could afford fine linen.↩︎

4. This was also the rise of laundries and laundry jobs for women. It was considered low work, not because cleanliness was undesirable, but because you were leaning intimate garments. These are not the sorts of things one should share but the efficiency gained by cleaning in batches won out over the decency concerns.↩︎

5. I included this as part of Order a few weeks back but I believe, now, it fits better here. Order is more about keeping affairs together - keeping dates, business arrangements, schedules.↩︎

Applied moderation

Hot cognition is Psychological concept regarding reasoning where a person’s thinking is influenced by their emotional state (1). Hot cognition is cognition colored by emotional arousal and suggests that any emotional involvement prevents a person from being completely rational.

The obvious manifestation of a hot cognition is in the initial reaction to a stimulus. It’s that gut reaction we have. A recent example in my own life: Alyska and I were at Barriques last night after work enjoying an impromptu tasting event. As we were settling in, a baby started screaming. My initial response was to cringe and question the person in my head). “Oh look. You brought a baby. To a bar…. (2)” I was filled with outrage at such a selfish choice - why would you take a baby out to a place like this‽

This is angry and extreme. I set down my pen and focused on my breathing. The baby is not out to get me nor is it unreasonable for a parent to want to get out of the house occasionally. And you can argue taking a baby to a coffee shop is hardly a crime against humanity, let alone a personal slight.

1. Avoid excess in thought and deed.
2. Do not hold grudges or belief of malign intent.

This is the essence of my edicts for the week, and though I think Franklin was implying political moderation in his definition of moderation, this sort of reactionary close-mindedness is antithetical to living in accord with other human beings.

So… that’s a black mark for the day even if hot cognition is difficult to avoid - we react as we react with all the force of emotion we can muster some times. But the key is recognizing it and finding center and expressing these virtues outward.

As my views on these virtues evolve, it’s interesting to see how their interpretation changes or solidifies for me. In previous weeks, I didn’t really grok (3) moderation as anything but “avoiding excess” but I’m taking a shine to the interactive qualities of it. It, like Sincerity, Justice, and Humility, are virtues in external application, in interaction with a world of other human beings.

I mean, they don’t need to exist in an unpopulated space. You, stranded on an island, don’t need to be sincere or just. These ideas don’t really matter where as virtues like Temperance, Silence, Industry, Tranquility, can all better the person herself irrespective of external effects(4).

When I started the project, I assumed that these virtues were to be directed inward, that any external effects would be secondary or incidental, but I’m starting to understand more of the craftiness that Franklin built into it. Which I should have figured because he was a crafty bastard. Though he was certainly concerned with being an inherently good, moral person, he was also desirous of a high regard and status in society. Franklin believed that these things come from being a person of high character, one who contributed to the world, and treated people with respect.

There is personal virtue in being virtuous to others.

Or: it isn’t not about you. It’s about other people too.

1. It’s foil - cold cognition - is emotionless thinking. Logic, critical analysis, analytical thinking are generally consider cold cognitive tasks where the outcome is driven by facts rather than emotion. As with most human capability, these ideas processes fall on a spectrum and even the most inconsequential task can include emotional resonance, increasing the “heat” of the decision making process.↩︎
   
   
2. This is reference to Sweet Home Alabama which is a delightful Reese Witherspoon movie. ↩︎
   
   
3. Term coined by Robert Heinlein in A Stranger in a Strange Land which is a marvelous book despite Heinlein being a misogynistic turd. It means “To understand something fully, usually by consuming its essence and adding it to your own. Funny thing - the term had usage before Heinlein in 1860. See Google’s Ngram viewer; I wonder if that’s just an OCR glitch.↩︎
   
   
4. I think there’s more to this - intrinsic versus extrinsic virtues - but I can’t put my finger on it just yet…↩︎

Moderation

Avoid extreams; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

Franklin’s moderation is more inclusive than what we consider it to be today. Today, we tend to apply moderation to pleasurable actions. One shouldn’t drink to much, shouldn’t sleep too much, shouldn’t do any one thing to the exclusion of another. Franklin thought more broadly.

In a time of political tumult, Franklin would call for moderation in political extremes. In numerous letters between friends and political allies over the course of his life, Franklin calls for “moderation” in political influence. To Samuel Cooper (1) in 1770:

…Perhaps by this means some of that Influence with Governors might be retained, which induces them to treat the People with Equity and Moderation. But if our People will, by consuming such Commodities, purchase and pay for their Fetters, who that sees them so shackled will think they deserve either Redress or Pity?

Here, moderation is both a reduction in excess - a culling of power to avoid generating ill political will- and an approaching to governance. Moderation in state affairs can help maintain power, influence, and happiness. Similar mentions of moderation as a political stance appear in correspondence from Franklin to various US governing bodies regarding Britain’s excessive taxation leading up to the revolution. In a letter to the Massachusetts House of Representatives (2) regarding the US’s relationship with Britain, Franklin calls for moderation in asserting the rights of both parties,

By the Exercise of prudent Moderation on her part, mix’d with a little Kindness; and by a decent Behaviour on ours, excusing where we can excuse from a Consideration of Circumstances, and bearing a little, with the Infirmities of her Government as we would with those of an aged Parent, tho’ firmly asserting our Privileges, and declaring that we mean at a proper time to vindicate them, this advantageous Union may still be long continued.

This letter in particular is interesting because it outlines numerous grievances that both the US and Britain having in their dealings with each other. Many of them involve an excess of power in any of the proposed settlements between them. If either maintains too extreme a position, it becomes so much less likely any sort of accord may be reached which then ruins any mutual benefit otherwise available. This is especially the case where holding on to a grudge can forestall reconciliation.

In essence any extreme affect, be it in political beliefs to holding grudges to personal passions (3), leads to less worthy outcomes for an individual. It is only in setting aside the strength of our beliefs that we can come to mutual understanding and beneficial arrangements.

So, with that in mind, I think the following edicts make sense for the week:

1. Avoid excess in thought and deed (4).
2. Do not hold grudges or belief of malign intent.

Moderation is a soft open-mindedness. Do not assume others are ill intended and compromise. The truth in a matter, and the most beneficial circumstance, lies between extremes in belief. Holding no inviolable beliefs helps us find the best compromise.

1. I’m not sure who this Samuel Cooper was but it is not the Cooper who served in the Civil war. The letter in question was sent on December 30th, 1770.↩︎

2. Sent on July 7th, 1773. During this period, Franklin is acting as political ambassador for the colonies as they attempt to negotiate further rights from Britain, including the right to vote on proposed taxation from Britain.↩︎

3. Arguably, Franklin’s entire Moral Perfection project is about moderating extremes in thought and deed. Many of his virtues take a restrictive bent designed to keep one working and engaged in more directly beneficial actions.↩︎

4. I believe Franklin meant this but I like the clarity.↩︎

Box of Justice

My primary view of justice this week was through my lens as a manager. I’ve been a manager at work for nearly 9 years now and only now are some pieces starting to click.

When people talk about compensation - salary, heath insurance, time off - they use the word “fair” an awful lot. But I don’t think that’s what most people mean. What they mean is “equal.” They want equal pay (1). If I’ve been working at a company in a role the same as someone else, I should be paid the same. After all, we’re doing the same thing.

No; no you shouldn’t, not necessarily.

Every person comes to a job with different backgrounds, different skills, and different interests. These two people will apply themselves in different ways, make different gains, contribute to their job function, their division, and the company in different ways. One person may be extraordinary in one facet of a job where another is well above average in sever key responsibilities.

These two people will not accomplish the same things even if their core job responsibilities are the same.

In my division, we expect people to meet core testing capabilities. You have to be able to dig in and understand features we add to the software, to write a coherent test plan that others could understand, expand testing beyond the “correct” workflows to find adverse effects outside of the features immediate workspace, and you must be able to own that feature of the software and make it better.

No person can maintain a job in our division if they cannot do these things. This is bread and butter for Quality Assurance.

Now, there are other things that we can and should do in our jobs. Often, we add large features that affect multiple areas in the software. There are two approaches to testing the overlap (2):

1. Email test plans or maps around to other application testers and have them test overlap independently.
2. Get a room, plan a co-testing afternoon to hammer on the feature with everyone in the room.

1 here is a base expectation. Informing other testers is key. An excellent tester, though, will coordinate that integrated room and get everyone on the same page. It is efficient even though the organizer loses more time up front. But it has traditionally led to better outcomes for that integration point.

Ability to coordinate is not a base expectation for the role. And if t takes away from core testing time, why is it a good thing? If Tester A takes 3 hours to coordinate an integrated testing session and Tester B uses that same 3 hours to completely finish testing the integrated area herself, who is the better tester? Who should be compensated more?

If you look solely at the base role expectations, A wasted that three hours. B contributed more to their job overall. My job, as a manager, is to understand how those differing contributions matter, and guide my people to places where they can do what they do best more of the time. It is, then, my job to take my understanding of what they do best and translate that back to my bosses and show how it matters and why it matters differently.

When you understand the broader impact of a person outside of what they “should do every day” it’s much easier to qualify a person’s contributions. B may be a good tester on their own and finds dozens of bugs, but if A got all the experts in the room and found some crazy complicated code bugs, these differing outcomes indicate different qualities of contribution. You cannot say that, just because these two people put the same time into a thing they should be compensated the same.

Outcomes matter. Depth matters. Method matters. Skills and efforts outside the primary role matter.

That is justice in the workplace. If I am not categorizing, understanding, and encouraging the best features in my team, I am wasting everyone’s time and money. Similarly, if I am forcing a person into the QA box and looking only at the core QA needs, that is a potentially more destructive waste of time and effort.

That is unjust. Core job requirements matter. But good people leave if that’s the only measure you’re using.

1. Note that I am not talking about gender and race pay equality. There’s some good, recent statistics at the American Associateion of University Women showing things getting better but not very quickly. This disparity is clearly unjust. ↩︎

2. This is, admittedly, a simplified example ghat I’m not exactly defining all required variables. ↩︎

Simplicity in Marriage

Yesterday was a frigid day to get married. I can understand the desire to have remote weddings when you live here. California, Hawaii, Tahiti all do not threaten to claim a toe if your vows take too long.

  <img src="_img.jpg" alt=" Custom made rings because that's how we roll. ">

We did not seek to make it a large affair, it was really more a deal that we personally preferred but there is a certain amount of ceremony required by law when you get married otherwise it isn’t official.

In Madison, you can contact any justice on the court to request they perform your ceremony. We chose Justice Kloppenberg (1), who I appreciate for running a clean, and civil campaign against Justice Prosser when she ran for the Supreme Court in 2012. She seemed a good person which was verified yesterday when she read our vows (2).

So we gathered yesterday, Alyska and I and two of our closest friends, on the zebra striped throw (3) rug facing lake Monona and pledged to love each other especially when the cats being reticent with their own affection.

A few tears, a good few chuckles, and a sneaky surprise (4), and it was done.

Short and sweet. Minimal. I wish the ceremony and legal pieces if marriage were entirely separate and, to save you from a tirade on religious vestiges in modern law, I’ll just reiterate that simple is what we wanted as we enter into Today which only feels as if it should be surreal rather than actually being surreal.

We intend to observe our relationship on the date it started - in June over tea in when talked about what dating would mean for us in our lives in 2011 (6). So, we will hold a celebration this summer when the warmth that we feel for each other, and that we know all of you hold for us, will be better reflected in the atmosphere.

1. Her wikipedia page.↩︎
   
   
2. We wrote our own vows and ceremony. I had a small interjection about the cats that nearly made the Justice laugh while she read it.↩︎
   
   
   
3. Alyska noted today that Justice Kloppenberg was also wearing animal print sandals. Judges robes and animal print sandals! So awesome.
   
   
4. We ordered custom rings off Etsy becaues we both like hand made work and really dislike the wedding ring complex. The one I ordered did not arrive after numerous emails ignored from the shop owner. So, in a fit of crafty genius, Alyska and Jen made the one I am wearing above in an afternoon (5) that is very close in style to the one I purchased.↩︎
   
   
5. Look, I chose good, folks. What can I say?↩︎
   
   
6. Us both being nonmonogamous and she in a toxic triad at the time, it was more complicated than your typical polyamorous dealings. OK, so maybe we’re not exatly simple in all things….↩︎