Podcast appearances and mentions of michael sandel

Show Notes: Bo Rutledge, a professor and dean at the University of Georgia Law School, opens the conversation by talking about his parents, who made sacrifices to support their children's education, and how he felt called to serve and worked for the governor in California where he met many inspiring civil servants.   A Graduate Degree and Long-Distance Relationship In Scotland, he obtained a graduate degree and met his wife Birgit, who is Austrian. They had a wonderful year together overseas and then spent three years in a long-distance relationship while Bo attended law school and Brigit studied to become a teacher. After graduating, Bo clerked for two years, and briefly practiced law in Europe. After the birth of their first child, Bo and Birgit decided to become teachers, Bo as a law professor and Brigit as a foreign language teacher. They have both been teaching for nearly 22 years. Inspiring Students as a Professor and Dean Bo's parents instilled in him an appreciation for education and the power of education. As a professor and dean, he has worked to inspire students about the power of education and the ability to realize their full potential without letting debt hinder them in their careers. In the ten years he has served as Dean, his efforts have led to a significant reduction in student debt and the creation of a generation of people who feel the freedom Bo experienced thanks to his parents. A Law School Crisis Bo faced a crisis in 2014-15 due to a decline in law school applications. Legal education had experienced a 40% drop in national and 50% drop in local applications. To overcome this, Bo focused on the institution's values. Inspired by the belief that “public higher education is the greatest engine of upward socio-economic mobility in our society”, he acknowledged that tuition increases contributed to the student debt crisis and decided not to increase tuition for the students at the University of Georgia Law School. Building Support for Students In conjunction with a freeze on tuition fees, the school also communicated with the school's supportive alumni cohort, who provided financial support, job opportunities, and counsel. They had a team of 125 people, including faculty and staff, who cared about the impact they could have on students' lives who helped support measures taken to accommodate the low intake of students. They cut 7.5% of their operating budget in the first 18 months, and invested in revenue-generating opportunities and fundraisers. As Dean, Bo measured success ruthlessly, using values rather than spending per student. They focused on student success, job creation, and debt reduction. This approach helped the university navigate the crisis and refine its message. Bo talks about how the recession caused a decline in public investment in public institutions, and how he helped drive support for students and inspire students. One Student Success Story Bo shares the reason why one student decided to go to law school, and how the relationship with alumni presented a strong support group for this student. This story has galvanized Bo's resolve to focus on helping students over the years. Bo mentions that one focus of the school is to support first-generation graduates. He emphasizes that higher education is truly special in a world where most people in prior generations and societies couldn't afford or attend college, and it offers the opportunity to connect with a mentor.   The Higher Education Affordability Crisis Bo believes that the affordability crisis in higher education is fixable and has written published articles on this topic. He believes that the student loan industry is a mixed blessing. It allows people access to institutions they otherwise couldn't afford, but it also makes it easier for institutions to raise tuition. He also highlights the lack of clear ownership lines or a clear line of accountability to boards and shareholders in most higher education institutions. He learned that, as a dean, one must figure out their accountability mechanisms and constituencies in a world without a simplified structure. In summary, Bo's experience as dean has taught him about the economics of institutions, the difficulty of shaping the culture, and the importance of accountability in higher education institutions. Travel Personally and Professionally Bo has traveled extensively for nearly 40 years. He spent his first couple of years in Vienna, Austria, practicing law at an international law firm. Two places that stuck with him were Budapest, Hungary, and Ostrova, Czech Republic. He shares stories of the people he met and how their experience gave him insight into living under communist rule. He has also traveled to countries like Poland and India, where their university traditions are both historically rich and still very nascent, and how they are inspired by the education system in the U.S. Bo has had the privilege of meeting people from different backgrounds and this has allowed him to understand the challenges and opportunities faced by students in different countries, and to bring these experiences back to the university. Influential Harvard Professors and Courses Bo mentions professors Michael Sandel, Dennis Thompson, and Stanley Hoffmann. He cites Sandel's justice class as an inspiration for a course he teaches to undergrads on moral dilemmas, which, in addition to the course topics, focuses on teaching the ability to discuss and debate socially divisive topics. He mentions Dennis Thompson's teachings on Political Ethics and Public Policy, Stanley Hoffman's teachings on Ethics and International relations, and Paul Pierson and Mark Peterson. Pierson taught Bo how to have faith in his ideas, while Peterson taught him how to write. He believes that Harvard is both intellectually intimidating and liberating, as it allows students to confront ethically nettlesome issues. Timestamps: 03:26: Early Career and Mentorship  05:02: Service and Educational Reform 16:33: Inspiring Students and Overcoming Challenges  23:55: Lessons Learned as Dean  28:53: Influential Books and Personal Growth  34:05: Travel and Professional Experiences  41:27: Influential Professors and Courses  Link:   Email: borut@uga.edu   Featured Non-profit:  The featured non-profit of this episode of The 92 Report is recommended by Bill Ashmankas who reports: “Hi. I'm Bill Ashmanskas, class of 1992. The featured nonprofit of this episode of the 92 report is the Delaware Valley golden retriever rescue since 1993 DVGRR has successfully placed 1000s of golden retrievers and other DVGRR dogs into new homes throughout eastern Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and beyond. DVGRR has been recognized for its innovative work in rescuing and rehabilitating puppy mill breeder dogs. Allison and I adopted our first DVGRR dog in 2015 and our current dog in 2021 both retired breeder dogs, and we've been regular donors since 2015 you can learn more about their work at D, V, G, R, R.org, and now here is Will Bachman with this week's episode.”  To learn more about their work, visit: www. DVGRR.org.  

Michael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard University. His writings – on justice, ethics, democracy, and markets – have been translated into more than 30 languages. His course ‘Justice' is the first Harvard course to be made freely available online and on television, being viewed by tens of millions worldwide. Michael has served on the President's Council on Bioethics and is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Michael's books relate enduring themes of political philosophy to the most vexing moral and civic questions of our time. His most recent works are ‘The Tyranny of Merit: Can We Find the Common Good?' and ‘Democracy's Discontent: A New Edition for Our Perilous Times'. In this podcast we discuss Sandel's intellectual journey, post-Cold War disillusionment, critique of meritocracy, and much more.    Follow us here for more amazing insights: https://macrohive.com/home-prime/ https://twitter.com/Macro_Hive https://www.linkedin.com/company/macro-hive

This week, Michael Sandel, professor of political philosophy at Harvard University and author of “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?” addresses the myth of meritocracy - the idea that, if all chances in life were made equal, then people would advance based on merit and succeed as far as their talent and effort would take them. Less acknowledged, Sandel says, is the role of luck; family, teachers, neighbors, time and place in success. Shifting from a merit-based perspective and appreciating the contingency in life, fosters a much deeper understanding and humility towards those who are less fortunate. 

Was kann man gegen wachsende soziale Ungleichheit tun? Diese Frage erörtern der französische Ökonom Thomas Piketty und der amerikanische Philosoph Michel Sandel in dem Buch „Die Kämpfe der Zukunft. Gleichheit und Gerechtigkeit im 21. Jahrhundert.“ Rezension von Jochen Rack 

Selective admissions have long defined access to elite universities but a number of scholars are challenging this model, arguing that it reinforces privilege and entrenches inequality. In this episode, Dhruva and Utkarsh examine the case for replacing selective admissions with a lottery among qualified applicants. The discussion draws on John Rawls's concept of the veil of ignorance, and Michael Sandel's critique of meritocracy, which highlights how systems of selection often obscure privilege and foster a corrosive hubris among so-called “winners,” who come to believe their success is entirely self-made.Advocates of the lottery system argue that it could democratize access, reduce stress and competition, and promote a more just distribution of opportunity. Critics counter that such a shift risks undermining academic standards, devaluing individual achievement, and replacing one set of biases with another.This conversation goes beyond admissions policy and raises deeper questions about fairness, equity, and justice.

Vandaag bespreken we het boek Gelijkheid van Thomas Piketty en Michael Sandel. Ondertitel: Wat het is en waarom het er toe doet Klein boek - 150 pagina's - twee experts op het gebied van gelijkheid in de maatschappij, een met Europese visie ander met Amerikaanse visie. Eerder bespraken we De tirannie van verdienste van Sandel. https://decideforimpact.com/tirannie-van-verdienste-boekencast-afl-77/  Voorwoord Tom ‘S Jongers - Armoede uitgelegd aan mensen met geld https://decideforimpact.com/armoede-uitgelegd-aan-mensen-met-geld-boekencast-afl-105/  Het is een fijn boek, de transcriptie van een gesprek tussen Piketty en Sandel op 20 mei 2024 aan de Paris School of Economics - waar Piketty professor is. Het leest fijn en gaf mij veel inzichten in korte tijd. Ik ben een groot fan van dit boek omdat het gelijkheid aan veel meer mensen kan uitleggen in begrijpelijke taal, al is er nog ruimte voor verbetering. Zoals ik zelf voor sociale én ecologische gelijkheid ga. Het gesprek lijkt zich te concentreren op gelijkheid in de Westerse omgeving, waarbij de kapitalistische economie een belangrijke rol blijft spelen. Het boek heeft negen hoofdstukken Voorwoord Tim ‘s Jongers 1 Waarom moeten we ons zorgen maken over gelijkheid? 2 Zou geld minder belangrijk moeten zijn? 3 De morele grenzen van markten 4 Globalisering en populisme 5 Meritocratie 6 Lotingen: zouden ze een rol moeten spelen bij de toelating tot universiteiten en de selectie van parlementaire vertegenwoordigers? 7 Belastingheffing, solidariteit en gemeenschap 8 Grenzen, migratie en klimaatverandering 9 De toekomst van links: identiteit en economie Nawoord Voorwoord Tim ‘s Jongers Tim onderschrijft uiteraard de visie van Sandel en Piketty, sterker nog hij ziet ze als gidsen op het pad van de radicale wending. OF het wachten op de hooivorken. Tim noemt alvast twee ideeën voor deze radicale wending, limitarisme (boek van Robeyns) en belastingen op erfenissen. 1 Waarom moeten we ons zorgen maken over gelijkheid? In Europa rijkste 10 procent bezit meer dan 50% van totale vermogen. Al is de lange langetermijntrend richting meer gelijkheid. Drie redenen waarom ongelijkheid een probleem is: universele toegang tot basisvoorzieningen, politieke gelijkheid (inspraak, invloed, macht en participatie) en waardigheid. Liberté, égalité et fraternité ofwel Vrijheid, gelijkheid en broederschap. Als je als rijkere tijd van anderen kunt kopen, dan schept dat sociale afstand. Piketty benoemt de Noord-Zuid-dimensie - de welvaart in het Noorden heeft kunnen groeien door de exploitatie van natuurlijk en menselijke hulpbronnen uit het Zuiden. 2 Zou geld minder belangrijk moeten zijn? Sandel drie aspecten om ongelijkheid tegen te gaan: progressievere belastingheffing, een uitbreiding van de welvaartsstaat en successiebelasting (erfenis voor iedereen). Als burgers hun krachten bundelen kunnen ze voor verandering zorgen. Participatief en democratisch socialisme. Decommodificatie om inkomens en vermogensongelijkheid irrelevant te maken (99 procent). Het monetaire component van het inkomen is 1 procent van het nationaal inkomen. Een sociale staat (ipv welvaartsstaat) mogelijk gemaakt door opkomst van vakbonden, socialezekerheidsfondsen, en sociale bijdragen. De salaris en inkomenskloof drastisch verminderen. 3 De morele grenzen van markten 4 Globalisering en populisme 5 Meritocratie Het is niet ‘jouw' geld. 6 Lotingen: zouden ze een rol moeten spelen bij de toelating tot universiteiten en de selectie van parlementaire vertegenwoordigers? 7 Belastingheffing, solidariteit en gemeenschap publieke dienstverlening met publieke middelen verbeteren 8 Grenzen, migratie en klimaatverandering 9 De toekomst van links: identiteit en economie Immigratie een kwestie die ons dwingt om te kijken naar het morele belang van nationale grenzen, en het morele belang van landen.

This is an episode we think you'd enjoy of Stay Tuned with Preet.  Michael Sandel is a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University. He's also the author of several publications, including his latest, Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters. Sandel joins Preet to discuss what human nature can tell us about our government, how higher education can foster free expression, and dealing with moral disagreements in our politics. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. You can listen to more of this podcast by searching for Stay Tuned with Preet in your podcast app.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Have a comment? Send us a text! (We read all of them but can't reply). Email us: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.comHow should the church engage with the world without becoming entangled in political partisanship? In this episode, we sit down with Dr. Steven Felix-Jäger to discuss his book The Problem and Promise of Freedom: A Public Theology for the Church. As an artist, scholar, and minister, Dr. Felix-Jäger explores how the church can cultivate a faithful public witness through generosity, hospitality, and a biblically grounded understanding of freedom—without falling into the traps of culture wars and power-seeking.We discuss the dangers of politicized theology, the role of the church in societal issues like immigration and justice, and how Christians can balance civic engagement with their ultimate allegiance to God's kingdom. Dr. Felix-Jäger also shares insights on consumerism in the church, the importance of discernment in modern political discourse, and how the church can embody the radical love of Jesus in a deeply polarized world.Guest Bio:Dr. Steven Felix-Jäger is an artist, scholar, minister, and educator whose work explores the intersection of faith and culture. He is an Associate Professor of Theology and Worship, Chair of the Worship and Media Department, and Director of Academic Research at Life Pacific University in San Dimas, California. He holds a PhD in Theology from the University of Wales, an MFA in Visual Art from Azusa Pacific University, and an MA in Ministerial Leadership from Southeastern University. His latest book, The Problem and Promise of Freedom: A Public Theology for the Church, examines how the church can faithfully engage in public life without becoming captive to political ideologies.Resources & Links:

Join us on "About Sustainability," a podcast by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). In this episode, we explore what the just transition means, tracing its roots back to labour movements of the 1970s and its evolution into international debates and sustainable frameworks. Our guests share innovative case studies that showcase how just transition principles are being implemented locally across the world, with a special focus on Asia. The conversation also explores the ongoing challenges and successes in implementing these principles in various contexts.SpeakersDr. So-Young LEE is a Research Manager at the Integrated Sustainability Center at IGES. Her work focuses on governance in sustainability transitions and climate social co-benefits for the underprivileged.Dwayne Appleby is a Programme Manager in the Sustainable Consumption and Production team at IGES. His work focuses on issues of sustainable consumption and production at the local, national, regional, and global levels.References & Further Reading:Lee, So-Young. “Net-Zero Transitions for All? Considering Applications in Asia”. (2023). Ashish Kothari, Ariel Salleh, Arturo Escobar, Federico Demaria, and Alberto Acosta. Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary (2019), which explores diverse local sustainability practices.Michael Sandel's course on Justice at Harvard, a freely available course on Youtube which investigates the philosophical underpinnings of justiceGarrido, Leonardo and Kate Hughes. “Policy Options for Just Transitions in Asia.” (2023). A report identifying impacts associated with low carbon development in Asia, and policies for just transitions.Wang and Lo. “Just transition: A conceptual review” (2021). A review summarising the pre-pandemic positions on the Just Transition.Newell and Mulvaney. "The Political Economy of the 'Just Transition'" (2013). Discusses political trade-offs in policy design for just transitions. Henry, Brazilian, and Markuson “Just transitions: Histories and futures in a post-COVID world” (2020). This paper delves into the significance of "the pace of change, and the extent to which communities have a say in what comes next", as well as outlining how "the socio-economic aspects of the energy transition remain both emergent and essential to an equitable transition"."About Sustainability..." is a podcast brought to you by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), an environmental policy think-tank based in Hayama, Japan. IGES experts are concerned with environmental and sustainability challenges. Everything shared on the podcast will be off-the-cuff discussion, and any viewpoints expressed are those held by the speaker at the time of recording. They are not necessarily official IGES positions.

Tschechne, Martin www.deutschlandfunk.de, Büchermarkt

Tschechne, Martin www.deutschlandfunk.de, Andruck - Das Magazin für Politische Literatur

Michael Sandel is a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University. He's also the author of several publications, including his latest, Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters. Sandel joins Preet to discuss what human nature can tell us about our government, how higher education can foster free expression, and dealing with moral disagreements in our politics. You can now watch this episode! Head to CAFE's Youtube channel and subscribe.  Show notes and a transcript of the episode are available on our website.  Have a question for Preet? Ask @PreetBharara on Threads, or Twitter with the hashtag #AskPreet. Email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Big Shot, we're thrilled to welcome the legendary marketing visionary Lynda Resnick. As the co-owner of The Wonderful Company, Lynda has shaped iconic brands like POM Wonderful, Wonderful Pistachios, and FIJI Water into household names. With her husband, Stewart, Lynda also turned The Franklin Mint into a cultural sensation and brought fresh ideas to the floral industry with Teleflora's innovative, long-lasting gifts. Join us as Lynda takes us on a journey through her extraordinary life—from her early days as a child actor to her recent retirement and her hands-on efforts to make communities healthier and stronger through impactful philanthropic initiatives. • How Lynda built a successful business at the age of 19 • Turning The Franklin Mint into a cultural icon and making millions with a deluxe Monopoly game • The incredible story of branding POM Wonderful and FIJI Water • How she sold $150 million worth of Monopoly  • Lynda's commitment to quality  • Why she's never raised any outside capital  • The childhood experience that shaped Lynda's decision to always self-fund her philanthropy • A life-changing epiphany inspired by philosopher Michael Sandel • Lynda's philanthropic work building healthier, safer communities for her workers • The role Judaism plays in her life, her marriage, and advice for young people • And more! — In This Episode We Cover: (00:00) Intro (02:35) Lynda's early years in Pennsylvania (05:14) Lynda Limited, the company Lynda founded at the age of 19 (08:37) Lynda's activism and her involvement with the Pentagon Papers (13:06) Thinking inside the box (15:35) How Lynda reinvented the floral business with Teleflora (19:00) Taking The Franklin Mint beyond coins  (24:00) The story of buying Jackie O's pearls and making reproductions (25:30) Why Lynda and her husband Stewart bought land in the Joaquin Valley (28:58) How Lynda discovered the benefits of pomegranate  (30:20) Building the Pom Wonderful brand, including the packaging (32:18) Early obstacles Pom Wonderful faced, including the court battle  (34:00) Why Lynda insisted on 100% pure pomegranate juice (35:25) How Lynda was able to build brands around commodities (39:11) The story about acquiring Fiji  (43:27) Lynda's philanthropic philosophy  (45:10) Lynda's epiphany inspired by Michael Sandel (49:10) Lynda's philanthropic work building better communities for her workers  (52:50) Lynda's experiences with antisemitism, including rejection from The Campfire Girls (54:43) The role Jewish culture plays in Lynda's life  (56:07) Lynda's time as a child actor—and an early lesson on always being prepared (58:23) Lynda's advice on staying true to your values (59:10) How Lynda and Stewart have maintained their strong marriage and partnership (1:02:40) Lynda's thoughts on building lasting brands (1:03:55) AI's answer to what Lynda's superpower is (1:06:00) How “America's Favorite Mom” got overshadowed by a golf game (1:09:04) Why Lynda doesn't have regrets — Where To Find Lynda Resnick: • Website: https://www.wonderful.com/ • LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lynda-resnick-04103a101/ — Where To Find Big Shot:  • Website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.bigshot.show/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@bigshotpodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   • TikTok: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@bigshotshow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/bigshotshow/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   • Harley Finkelstein: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/harleyf⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  • David Segal: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/tea_maverick⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • Production and Marketing: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://penname.co⁠

Why did Trump win? Did the Democrats lean too heavily on identity politics?Are people being driven by economic frustrations? Or cultural and social issues? Have we entered a new political era? Is this the end of an approach to economics that began with Reagan and Thatcher? The questions are endless for trying to understand this political moment and for diagnosing our current political condition. Harvard's Michael Sandel offers answers on all these and more. He explains to Steve Paikin why he thinks the left lost its way, how Bill Clinton paved the way for Trump, and how the left needs to reclaim a new type of identity politics and restore a sense of dignity to all of those that feel forgotten after three decades of hyper globalization. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The changing direction in US foreign policy is becoming abundantly clear, even with Donald Trump months away from taking office. Kori Schake has served at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council. She joins the show from DC to discuss.  Also on today's show: Dr. Sanjay Gupta on the controversial selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Services; political philosophy professor Michael Sandel on his new book, “Democracy's Discontent”  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Show Notes: Jack Levy spent a year before college studying Judaic Studies and Talmudic studies in the Old City of Jerusalem. During his time in Harvard, he became particularly interested in Israel, as he had grown up with a strong Jewish background. He received a Raoul Wallenberg fellowship, funded by Fred Schwartz, to go to Hebrew University for a year after college during which he interned for Knesset member Naomi Hazan and worked for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. From Columbia Law School to Venture Capital After Israel, Jack went to Columbia Law School. He worked one summer as a human rights lawyer and later worked for Wall Street firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher to pay off his debt. He chose that law firm based on their Israeli clients and had a great experience with a mentor named Peter Jakes. During his time at law school, Jack met his wife, Dahlia. They settled in New York for a while before moving to Israel. Jack worked at Willkie before transitioning to Register.com, an internet company. In 1999, the internet was booming. Jack spent four years as General Counsel of Register during the the .com boom. In 2003, they moved to Ra'anana, Israel, a suburb of Tel Aviv, and have raised their three children there. Jack practiced law briefly in Israel before becoming a venture capitalist in 2006. He was the first to raise the banner of cleantech or climate tech in Israel in 2006 and 2007, thanks to Harvard classmate Sanjay Wagle. The Israeli Experience after October 7 Life changed for all Israelis and Palestinians in the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. All of the Jack's children serve in the military, and the community has experienced losses. The country came under attack by Hamas, led by Yahia Sinuar, and immediately followed by Hezbolla in the north. The October 7 attack resulted in horrific violence, crimes, destruction, rape, murder, and burning of people in the Southern Communities. Like many religiously observant Israelis, Jack and his family were in synagogue during the attack, when the rumors started to spread. Jack mentions that in the week prior to the attack he'd been on holiday in Jordan. Early in the morning of October 8, their best friends called to tell them that their 27-year-old son, Major Aryeh Ziering, had been killed by Hamas command naval commandos who had infiltrated Israel. Arey was an excellent fighter from the canine unit who had captured terrorists alongside some of the most elite forces during his service. He had gone to the United States to help train Navy SEALs with canine warfare. He was killed by 1pm that day.The next day, other friends found out that their son Hirsch had been kidnapped into Gaza, which ended with tragedy about a month ago when he was killed by Hamas. By the end of the first day, they had one friend whose son had been killed as a fighter, one friend who had been captured from the Nova festival and held prisoner by Hamas, and another business partner who lost his cousin's child fighting that day as well. As the war continued in the coming months, their network of friends who experienced loss widened to include – one who lost their nephew in December fighting in Gaza, one whose daughter's boyfriend was killed pursuing a terrorist in the West Bank, and others who lost their lives in the conflict. The story of the heroism of those who fought for their lives and the lives of others is one that will be told for generations. As a 54-year-old Israeli father, Jack has three children who have been fighting in the war, Jack explains the extremely high cost to Israeli families who have children in the army. Jack states that the present generation is remarkable, and he wrote a piece in the Times of Israel about the little league team he had coached going to war. He still plays softball with his boys and realized that by December, every child he coached was fighting in the war. How Heroism Drives Soldiers Jack shares the lessons he learned about conflict and military training. He talks about the importance of respecting American military families. He reflects on the recent tragic death of a soldier who recorded a video of himself before going into Lebanon, expressing love for the person behind him. He believes that Americans of his generation don't understand the importance of military families and the sacrifices made by soldiers. He grew up during the reckoning with the Vietnam War through Oliver Stone movies, and grew up thinking war was primarily unjust or wrong. Jack explains that the men and women fighting are often the best, motivated, kind, and loving people. He identifies with pacifism but lives only because there are people willing to defend him. Civilian War Rooms in Action The state apparatus of defense along the Israeli border failed on October 7, allowing hordes to burst through the borders and kidnap hundreds. However, people jumped into action. People established civilian war rooms, where they could be proactive in helping house, shelter, build and support in multiple ways. After October 7, many communities accepted refugees from the north and south - similar to the Second Lebanon War – and many in Jack's community helped families who had moved into hotels in the Dead Sea area. A friend of Jack, who lost her nephew, set up a school in the Dead Sea area within four days. The community extended to raising money to buy better helmets and equipment for reservists. This community-building effort was remarkable and comforting. Gazan Civilians under Hamas Jack, a former human rights attorney, discusses the situation with civilians in Gaza and the ethical considerations surrounding the response. He believes that the destruction to Gaza is horrific and tragic, with 40,000 people killed, but the problem is that it is not 40,000 civilians. Recent reports state that 30,000 of those were Hamas fighters or their family members. Jack blames Hamas for the destruction, but also emphasizes the morality and the need not to damage one's own cause. He shares first-hand testimony from his son, who describes his experience as a surveillance unit officer in Khan Yunis. He encourages people from outside Israel to focus on being “pro peace” rather than being “pro Israel” or “pro Palestine”. The Tech Industry in Israel Jack, an investor and startup expert, discusses the impact of travel restrictions on the tech industry in Israel as the travel restrictions due to missile attacks from Hamas,  Hezbollah and Iran have been problematic for Israeli companies. Despite the obstacles, he notes that Israeli companies have been able to function during this period.  In addition, it is common with Israeli technology companies for the CEOs to relocate to New York, Silicon Valley, Boston, or Austin, while the tech teams remain in Israel. Jack believes that the war is not good for the Israeli economy and that it is clearly awful for the lives of Palestinians, South Lebanon residents, and even people in Tehran. He believes that the US needs to take a more muscular reaction to the situation and help the parties find a way to end the war. Influential Harvard Professors and Courses Jack discusses his experiences at Harvard, including courses taught by Stanley Hoffman, Michael Sandel, Louise Richardson, and others. He mentions his appreciation for Professor Stanley Hoffman's course Ethics and International Relations.  Jack was in touch recently with Professor Emeritus Michael Walzer of Princeton whose book he studied in that course and who had defended Israel's war against Hamas and Hezbollah but was critical of the alleged Israeli involvement in the Pager attack. Jack also mentions his love for Professor Michael Sandel, and Dame Louise Richardson, who was his junior faculty seminar professor when he was 21 and became his thesis advisor. She was a young professor who wrote a great book called What Terrorists Want, which became one of the most popular courses at Harvard after September 11. Timestamps: 02:52: Transition to Venture Capitalism and Personal Life  08:17: Impact of the 2023 Conflict on Jack's Family  17:27: Community Response and Personal Reflections  25:48: Professional Challenges and the Future of Israeli Tech  26:00: Reflections on Harvard and Influential Professors  Links: Email: jack@morevc.com LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/jack-levy-2a8137 Featured Non-profit: This week's featured non-profit of this episode is KIPP public schools, recommended by Grace Voorhis who reports: “I'm Grace Voorhis, class of 1992 the featured nonprofit of this episode of The 92 report is KIPP public schools. Maybe not everyone knows that charter schools are public schools just exempt from many of the rules set by local school districts. KIPP schools are established in underserved districts. A third party study reported in The Wall Street Journal noted that KIPP students were 19 percentage points more likely to graduate from a four year college than non KIPP students. They noted an effect of this size, extrapolated nationwide, would be large enough to nearly close the degree completion gap for Hispanic students, or entirely close the gap for black students. I'm proud to have served on the KIPP Northern California Board for over two decades, most recently as board chair. I keep coming back to KIPP because of the results they achieve. You can learn more about their work @kipp.org k, i, p, p, and KIPP Northern California, at KIPP norcal.org and now here is Will Bachmann with this week's episode.” To learn more about their work visit: https://www.kipp.org/

We'd love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. Take the survey here or at wbur.org/survey. As the Democratic National Convention kicks off, political philosopher Michael Sandel talks about how Democrats can win back the trust of working Americans who have been hurt by decades of trade and economic policies that both parties have pursued. Then, a protest march against Israel's war in Gaza is taking place in Chicago on the first day of the DNC. Here & Now's Chris Bentley is in Chicago's Union Park, where the protesters are gathering. And, archaeologists recently discovered a 3,500-year-old clay tablet in Turkey that appears to be a shopping list. Ancient Assyria expert Jacob Lauinger joins us to discuss his work interpreting the tablet and the many questions it raises.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Today we talk about the dark side of meritocracy, the effects it has on the way people see each other, the dialectic of pride and humility, education reform, and a rethinking of the way we see government officials. Hope you enjoy it. :) Sponsors: Nord VPN: https://www.NordVPN.com/philothis Better Help: https://www.BetterHelp.com/PHILTHIS Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.  Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis  Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow

Today we talk about some of the benefits of being a practitioner of philosophy. Michael Sandel's view of the three main approaches to justice throughout the history of philosophy. The strengths and weaknesses of all three. The consequences of replacing social norms with market norms. And the importance of the common good as a piece of a just society that is able to endure. Hope you enjoy it! :) Sponsors: Rocket Money: http://www.RocketMoney.com/PT Nord VPN: https://www.NordVPN.com/philothis Better Help: https://www.BetterHelp.com/PHILTHIS Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.  Website: https://www.philosophizethis.org/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/philosophizethis  Social: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/philosophizethispodcast X: https://twitter.com/iamstephenwest Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philosophizethisshow

Rundown propuesto ¿Qué estoy estamos leyendo? "La Tiranía de la Meritocracia" En su último libro, titulado "La Tiranía de la Meritocracia", el profesor de derecho, Michael Sandel, analiza en profundidad este concepto. https://search.app/nhYj1LaHijGFve4D6 “De ese modo, y a pesar de tener mucho dinero, Donald Trump expresaba el sentimiento de agravio contra las élites meritocráticas, porque él mismo a lo largo de su carrera empresarial siempre se ha sentido despreciado por las élites financieras, las élites profesionales y las élites intelectuales de Nueva York.” “¿Y a dónde se han ido esos votantes? Esos votantes comenzaron a apoyar a políticos y a partidos populistas autoritarios, apoyaron a Donald Trump en Estados Unidos, el Brexit en Gran Bretaña y a partidos populistas autoritarios en Francia, en España y en otros países.” “LA POLÍTICA NO ADMITE ARITMÉTICAS SIMPLONAS”. ENTREVISTA SOBRE LA ALIANZA, CRISIS Y LA DIÁSPORA https://vitalpolitik.com/la-politica-no-admite-aritmeticas-simplonas/ Esta es la entrevista íntegra que le hiciera el periodista Antonio Mejías al sociólogo César J. Pérez Lizasuain (CJPL). Parte de esta entrevista fue publicada en el medio Palabra bajo el título “Can U.S. Boricuas Shape PR’s Future?“. César J. Pérez Lizasuain, doctor en socilolgía del derecho 1. ¿Dónde están las izquierdas? 2. ¿Cómo se incide sobre la llamada “Alianza”? 3. ¿Será Proyecto Diginidad un ejemplo de este proceso?

¡Si Aliança Catalana entra en el parlamento catalán lo verá con gusto! Le es tan cómico que hablen de racismo ahora. ¿Y ERC, con aquel Heribert Barrera y aquel Carod Rovira? ¿O Junts, con su Torra y su Puigdemont? Por no hablar de Pujol y el andaluz «poco hecho». Con Silvia Orriols solamente se completa el círculo, y queda diáfano que Cataluña es el más fértil paraje racista. Donde no se desprecia a los hombres por lo que hacen sino por lo que son.   Gustándole los toros como le gustan, está de acuerdo con el ministro Urtasun en suprimir el Premio Nacional de Tauromaquia. El Estado no tiene por qué financiar los vicios privados con dinero público y, por otra, parte, cada partido político tiene todo el derecho a exhibir su concepción del mundo.   Nada, en fin, pudo opacar la felicidad del triunfo del Real Madrid y de estar, como corresponde a un líder de opinión, en el palco del Bernabéu.   Celebró que las chicas de Bumble se rindan a la naturaleza inexorable, algo a lo que se resisten tantos otros. Arrogancia, dice ese Michael Sandel que es pretender alargar la vida humana. Así lo increpó: ¡eres un bobo!   Y fue así que Espada yiró.   Bibliografía: -       Enric Vila, Què pensa Heribert Barrera. -       Jordi Pujol, La inmigración, problema y esperanza de Cataluña. -       Quim Torra, Les hores greus. Dietari de Canonges. -       Carles Puigdemont, Els dies clau. M'explico | La lluita a l'exili. -       «Women on Bumble No Longer Have to Make the First Move», en The New York Times. -       «Michael J. Sandel: “Me resisto a la tendencia de ver la tecnología como una fuerza autónoma que no podemos controlar”», en El País.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you ever wonder what binds our society together in the pursuit of something greater than ourselves? Elijah Emery joins me on an intellectual expedition to dissect the layers of political philosophy, scrutinizing the enigmatic notion of the common good through the critical lens of Michael J. Sandel. Together, we venture into the historical intricacies of democracy, expertise, and the challenges that arise when professional politicians and a growing bureaucracy claim to represent our collective interests. We confront the conservative and reactionary stances on the 'good' and delve into the prevailing currents of legal originalism and leftist hermeneutics, all while tracing the conundrums of meritocracy and the evolving identities within the American political landscape.As we navigate the societal upheavals of our time, from the redefinition of traditional marriages to the rise of ideological incels, we illuminate the critical shifts in community dynamics and the therapeutic roles that have emerged to fill the voids of modern life. The conversation turns to the replication crisis in psychology, the tangled web of gentrification and political allegiances, and the undercurrents of dissatisfaction that course through the veins of meritocratic institutions. Witness how our discussion cuts through the complexity of these social issues, shining a light on the intertwined strands of class, identity, and ideology that shape the fabric of contemporary America.Our journey culminates in a provocative examination of the paradox that lies at the heart of democratic governance: how do we reconcile the necessity of expertise with the foundational principles of democracy? We grapple with the role of randomness in societal sorting, consider the shifting perceptions of the military's place in our society, and reflect on the role of political dynasties in shaping our nation's narrative. Join us for this compelling foray into the labyrinth of governance, meritocracy, and the relentless quest for a fair and just society, as we lay bare the paradoxes and possibilities that define our collective search for a common good. Support the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnAudio Producer: Paul Channel Strip ( @aufhebenkultur )Intro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @skepoetYou can find the additional streams on Youtube

Prepare to have your views on meritocracy and society's fairness fundamentally challenged as Elijah Emery and I dissect Michael Sandel's "The Tyranny of Merit." We don't just skim the surface; we penetrate deep into the cultural and political implications of a system that rewards credentials over genuine talent. Our discourse ranges from the cultural weaving of meritocracy in different societies to the pointed issues of elite education and nepotism. By questioning the foundations of opportunity and success, this conversation promises a fresh perspective on the ideals we've long held as self-evident.As the world grapples with the realities of globalization and its effects on local and international politics, our episode takes a sharp turn, scrutinizing how American cultural trends leave indelible marks on global elite institutions and immigration policies. The dialogue unfolds to reveal the intricate dance of minority voting patterns in the U.S., shaped by historical shifts post-1965 immigration reform. These insights are paralleled by a critique of current labor laws and unionization, painting a sobering picture of stagnation and the need for change.Closing with a hard-hitting critique of political philosophy, we question whether nationalism can adequately address the daunting global issues we face, such as climate change and economic development. Elijah's expertise shines as we navigate through the complexities of power dynamics and the role of elite institutions in shaping societal outcomes. This episode is an intellectual feast, providing listeners with a comprehensive exploration of the challenges and myths surrounding meritocracy, power, and representation in today's society. Support the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnAudio Producer: Paul Channel Strip ( @aufhebenkultur )Intro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @skepoetYou can find the additional streams on Youtube

What happens if you transform HOW you think? In this episode, Bill Bellows and host Andrew Stotz discuss the problem of thinking in one dimension at a time (as we were taught in school) and its impact on our ability to solve problems. BONUS: Book recommendations to broaden your understanding of Deming and more. TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, well, episode 19, Transforming How we Think. Bill, take it away.   0:00:29.9 Bill Bellows: And good evening, Andrew.   0:00:35.8 AS: Good evening.   0:00:36.2 BB: And, but just as a point of clarity, I view it as transforming how we think about our thinking. And that's what I've been focusing on for the, since the mid, the early '90s is not how we think, but what is our awareness of our thinking, and I think that ties in well with SoPK. So first in late breaking news, I am seeing with new eyes, Andrew. Literally, I've got new monofocal lenses in both eyes. The left eye three weeks ago, the right eye, a week ago. I was told about five years ago, eventually I'll have to have cataract surgery. And I spoke with a few friends who had it done, and they said, oh, it's easy. And what was so amazing was it was easier than they said. It was.   0:01:41.0 BB: But one neighbor who's had it done, and kind of a sad note is he claims, and I've not double checked this, he's a sharp guy. He claims 80% of the world's population would benefit from cataract surgery that they don't have access to and eventually go blind. And I don't know, I can believe, and he is in fact he's quoted me twice on that. But I am literally seeing with new eyes. The grays are now, shades of gray, are now shades of blue. When I look at the sky. My depth perception's a whole lot better. And so it ties in well with all this vision therapy stuff. So.   0:02:36.8 AS: Aren't you glad that those machines are high quality and the operations that they do are high quality?   0:02:41.6 BB: Oh, yeah.   0:02:42.4 AS: Just one little mistake on that one. And, that's...   0:02:46.2 BB: Well, and I'm signing the documents and there's a little bit of a flutter when I'm signing, in terms of the liability. And one friend's mom had a bad cataract procedure, so it doesn't always go. And I shared this with Kevin. Kevin's had the same, as likewise had the procedure done. And we shared the anxieties and then it worked out well. But yeah when I signed that form that there was in the event, and I thought, whoa, that'd be, anyway, it worked. All right, so where I want to pick up in episode 19 is where we left off with episode 18. And there near the end, I referenced from Dr. Deming. He says Dr. Deming says in chapter three of The New Economics, and he says, "we saw in the last chapter that we're living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management. Most people imagine this style has always existed. It is a fixture. Actually," he said, "it's a modern invention, a trap that has led us into decline. Transformation..."   0:04:03.0 BB: You remember that word from last time? Okay. "Transformation is required. Education and government, along with industry are also in need of transformation. The System of Profound Knowledge will be introduced in the next chapter. To be introduced in the next chapter is a theory for transformation." So I've got some bullet points and I want to get into the additional chapters and references from The New Economics on Dr. Deming's use of the term transformation. 'Cause I think what he's talking about... SoPK is a theory for transformation. So I think it's just not enough to talk about SoPK without understanding how does that fit in with what Dr. Deming's talking about?   0:04:49.0 AS: And for the listeners who come out of the blue here, SoPK stands for the System of Profound Knowledge.   0:04:56.1 BB: Yes. And system then gets into elements and the four elements that Dr. Deming proposed in The New Economics, going back to the late '80s when he started to put these thoughts together. We need to think about the elements of Profound Knowledge are looking at things as a system and understanding of variation and appreciation of psychology. That's the people aspect. And then theory of knowledge, which gets into what he would explain as how do we know that what we know is so. So the one thing I wanted to bring up on the System of Profound Knowledge is conversations with Dick Steele. And a neat way of looking at the System of Profound Knowledge is to say, well, what if we were to look at some data points, one element, we look at variation, and we see some data the output of a process.   0:06:00.0 BB: We see it go up and down. Well, if that's the only element we have, then we can't ask what caused that, 'cause that's the upstream system. Well, that's the system piece. We cannot talk about what does this variation do downstream? That's the system piece. We cannot talk about how might we change that. That might get into the theory of knowledge or would get into the aspect of the theory of knowledge and some theories as to how we can go about changing the average, changing the amount of variation. And then what that leads us immediately to is, where do those ideas come from but people.   0:06:44.7 BB: So it's kind of, I think it's interesting. So Dr. Deming says the elements, but it's as connected to each other. So what I explain to the students in my courses is, in the beginning, and I remember when I'm looking at this, I'm looking at the elements. I'm thinking, okay, that variation, that's the Control Chart stuff. Common causes, special causes, well, it also includes variation in people. Oh, now we're talking about the people stuff. And then, so I find it interesting is it is easy to look at them as separate, but then in time they meld together really well. So it's not to say that we shouldn't start out looking at things as the elements 'cause I think that's what our education system does. In fact, there's a great documentary I watched a few years ago with Gregory Bateson, who was born in 1900 or so, passed away in the 1980s.   0:07:52.6 BB: And when I ask people have you ever heard of Gregory Bateson? They say, no. I say, well, have you heard of Margaret Mead? Yeah. Well, they were married once upon a time. That was her, he was her first husband. And so Bateson gives a lecture in this documentary that his daughter produced. And he says, and he is at a podium. You don't see the audience. You just see he's at a lectern. And he says, you may think that there's such a thing as psychology, which is separate from anthropology, which is separate from English, which is separate from... And he goes on to imply that they really aren't separate. But then he says, "Well, think what you want."   0:08:38.1 AS: Think what you want.   0:08:39.7 AS: And I thought that's what the education system does. It has us believe that these things are all separate. And so that's what's kind of neat. Yeah. And, but again, I think when you go to school, you're learning about history, then you learn about math. But one thing I noticed later on, many years later was the history people never talked about, if they talked about the philosopher who was well known in mathematics, we didn't hear that mathematics piece, nor in the math class did we hear about this person as a historical figure. We just learned about... And so the education system kind of blocks all that out. And then years later when we're outta school, we can read and see how all this stuff comes together and it does come together. So the one big thing I wanna say is that, is I think it's neat to look at something with just one of those elements and then say, how far does it go before you need the others to really start to do something?   0:09:47.0 BB: And that gets into the interactions. And by interactions, I mean that when you're talking about variation and you're thinking about people are different, how they feel is different, how they respond is different. Now you're talking about the interaction between psychology, at least that's one explanation of the interaction between people amd psychology. I wanna share next an anecdote. I was at a UCLA presentation. A friend of mine turned me on to these maybe once a month kind of deal to be an invited speaker. 70 people in the room. And these were typically professors from other universities, authors, and there is one story I wanna share is a woman who had written a book on why really smart kids don't test well in secondary schools. And there were a good number of people there.   0:10:45.6 BB: And I'm listening to all this through my Deming lens, and she's talking about how kids do on the exams. That goes back to an earlier podcast. How did you do on the exam? And so I'm listening to all this and she's drawing conclusions that these students are really smart, but they freak out. And then how might they individually perform better? As if the greatest cause by them all by themselves. And so afterwards, I went up and stood in line and I had a question for her that I deliberately did not want to ask in front of the entire room. 'Cause I wanted her undivided attention, and I really wanted to see where she'd come with this. 'Cause perhaps it could lead to an ongoing discussion. So I went up and introduced myself and I think I said something like, are you familiar with W. Edwards Deming? And I believe she said she was. I think she was a psychologist by background. And then I moved into the... Essentially the essence of what if the grades are caused by the system and not the student taken separately, which she acknowledged. She's like, yeah, that makes sense. And I remember saying to her, "Well then how might that change your conclusions?"   0:12:11.2 BB: And so I throw that as an example of... Deming's saying you could be an expert in, you know, you just look at something. Actually, when that comes to mind is Deming is saying something like shouldn't a psychologist know something about variation? Well, shouldn't a psychologist know something about systems? And I didn't maintain a relationship with her, but it was just other things to do. Next I wanna share a story. And I wrote this up in an article. Then when this is posted...   0:12:49.0 BB: Typically these are posted on LinkedIn. Then I'll put a link into the article. And it's a classic story that Russ Ackoff was very fond of saying, and I heard the story told quite a few times before I started to think about it a little bit differently. So the story is he was working for General Electric back in the 1960s. He is in a very high level meeting. And in the room is this, the then CEO of GE, Reginald Jones and all of the senior VPs of General Electric are in the room. And Russ... I'm guessing he was doing, I know Russ did a lot of work with Anheuser-Busch, and he did a lot of work with GE. So Russ says he is in the room. There's maybe a dozen of these senior VPs of plastics of all the different GE divisions.   0:13:41.2 BB: And there's, Russ said there's one of them that was relatively new in a senior VP position, now over plastics or over lighting or whatever it was. And at one point he gets up. And one by one he raises a question with each of his peers. Something like, "Andrew, I noticed last year you installed a new software system." And you would say, "yeah, yep, yep." And I said, "I noticed you went with..." Let's say Apple, "you went with Apple Software", and you're like, "yeah," "that's what I thought. Yeah, you went with Apple." And then you might say something like, "why do you ask?" And he says, "well, the rest of us use Microsoft products. And it just seems kind of odd that you would go off and buy something different."   0:14:41.0 BB: And the point, and Russ didn't get into these details, the essence was every single one of them he'd figured out over the last year had made a decision, pretty high level decision that that senior VP felt was good for that division, but not good for General Electric. And Russ said what got his attention was, he wasn't sitting in that room hearing those conversations and he hears one decision then another, now he's got a whole list. So Russ says, he goes around the room and calls out every single one of his peers. So, and Russ shared this in one phone call, the Ongoing Discussions that I've mentioned. And people said, Russ, do you have that documented? And he is like, well, I don't think I have that any anymore. But somebody else asking.   0:15:35.3 BB: And then no sooner was the call over I had some friends call me up, said, "Bill, can you ask Russ if you have that, if he can get a copy of that? It's probably on his shelf. You're in his office". I said to one friend. I said, "so you'd be surprised that a member of Parliament does what's best for his district and not what's best for the United Kingdom. You think, you'd be surprised that a congressman from Los Angeles is gonna do what's best for Los Angeles, not what's best for the country.   0:16:07.2 BB: So you're telling me you're surprised by that?" Well, "no, no, no." I said, "well then why do you have to have the documentation?" So that's one aspect of it. So I heard that story again and again. And so finally it, I said, wait a minute, wait a minute. So I said, "Russ, on that story, you being in the room with GE?" He says, yeah. He says, I know you don't have the documentation, I said, "but what happened after this guy called them all out? How did that go down?" He says, "one of the peers looks at this guy and says, so what's your point?"   0:16:42.3 BB: And the meeting moved on. And I wrote that for an article for the Lean Management Journal called, "You Laugh, It Happens". And when I look at that through the lens of the System of Profound Knowledge, is that surprising that that goes on? No, not at all. I wanna reference a couple books that I don't think I've mentioned at all. And I share these because for the Deming enthusiasts, these books have some brilliant examples of in different arenas that I think you absolutely love and you can use in your classes, use in your education, whatever. All fairly recent. The first one is "The Tyranny of Metrics" written by a historian. He is an American University historian, Jerry Mueller, and he has, I mean, Dr. Deming would just love this. Oh, bingo! Bingo! Bingo! Thank you.   0:17:48.4 AS: Yep. There it is. "The Tyranny of Metrics".   0:17:50.1 BB: Right?   0:17:50.7 AS: Yep.   0:17:51.3 BB: Right. Is that a great one?   0:17:53.2 AS: That's a great book. And you can follow him on Twitter also. He does do a lot of posts there.   0:18:00.4 BB: Now I reached out to him 'cause I relished the book 'cause the stories were just, you just can't make up all those stories. I mean the story that I shared with Russ is nothing in comparison to what Muller has in the book. I just don't believe that Muller has a solution that can... I don't think, I think the only thing missing from the book is if he had an understanding of the System of Profound Knowledge, he'd have a far better proposal as to what to do.   0:18:31.8 AS: Yeah. I read that and I felt similar that there was something that was missing there. It was, it was great stories as you say, but how do we connect that? How do we apply that? And what's the root cause here? And how do we, this, there was just... That was missing from it. And maybe that should be his next book.   0:18:53.9 BB: Oh, enormously. But it's worth reading regardless.   0:18:57.3 AS: Yeah. Agreed.   0:19:00.1 BB: But I was, I was, I wasn't surprised. I'd say this. He honestly tried to offer a proposal, but I just looked at it and said, Professor Muller, you would just love it. In fact, I believe I reached out to him. I don't know that I heard from him. Alright, that's one book.   0:19:17.1 AS: That reminds me of what Dr. Deming said. "How would they know?"   0:19:21.3 BB: Exactly. Exactly.   0:19:22.4 AS: So if he hadn't been exposed to the System of Profound Knowledge...   0:19:25.3 BB: Oh, no. No, no, no.   0:19:25.7 AS: Then it would be hard to pull it all together. Yep. Okay.   0:19:28.8 BB: Yeah. So the next book, which is somewhere behind you in your bookshelf, is "The End of Average" by Todd...   0:19:36.8 AS: Actually, I don't think I have that one.   0:19:39.4 BB: By Todd Rose, who's a research fellow at Harvard. It's a riveting book. Oh, Andrew, you would absolutely love it. Just, he goes back ages. I mean, hundreds of hundreds of years and looks at how lost we became... How lost civilizations were dealing with trying to make, deal with averages. And the book opens with the most riveting story. And I started reading this and immediately I started thinking, "Okay, okay, okay, okay." And I figured it out. So in the opening paragraph, he says, In one day in 1949, there were 17 military planes crashed. In one day. 17 military planes crashed in one day. And this was... It would have been after the Air Force separated from the Army Air Corps. And so I started thinking, okay, late '40s, planes are going faster. The US industry has German technology, and... Because the Germans had jet engines in the late '40s. So I'm thinking it's about speed. It's about something about speed, something about speed. And there's more and more planes flying.   0:21:06.6 BB: So they grounded the fleet. They had a major investigation, brought in this young guy as a data researcher. And he passed away a few years ago, I did some research with him recently. And what he found was the cockpits were designed, you're writing, Andrew, for the average size pilots. Everything in the cockpit was fixed for the average arm length, the average hand length, the average finger length, the average height, the... Everything about... All these measurements on the torso, the cockpit had, everything was fixed. And that's exactly what I thought was going on. As the planes are going faster and faster, reaction times need to be faster and faster. And they're not. So his research was, they went off and measured thousands of pilots and found out that there was no pilot met the average.   0:22:11.2 AS: Oh, God.   0:22:11.3 BB: And the conclusion was... And again, until the plane started flying faster, that was not an issue. And that's what I was thinking with all my training in problem solving, decision making, what is going on there? What is going on there? And that's what changes the... I mean, the speed was accelerating, but compounded by the fixed geometry. So the solution by the government Pentagon, to the contractors was, add flexibility to the cockpit, allow the seat to move up and down, and then the auto industry picked up on that evidently. And so this is one example of how a fixation on average and a number of other stories outside of engineering it's just fascinating.   0:23:01.4 AS: Let me just summarize. The End of Average by Todd Rose. And it was published in about 2016. It's got a 4.5 out of 5 review on Amazon with 1,000 ratings and has a very high for Goodreads review of about 4.1. So I'm definitely getting that one. I don't have it and I'm buying it.   0:23:22.1 BB: Yeah. And it's again, he, I believe in there he offers what we should do instead, which again, I think would be, benefit from an understanding of SoPK. And so, again, for the Deming enthusiast, there is stuff in those two books, which you'll just love. And the third book came out at, I think, 2020 during the pandemic, The Tyranny of Merit, that tyranny word again, by Michael Sandel from Harvard. And I believe we've spoken about him before. And it's the tyranny of meritocracy, which is the belief that I achieved my success all by myself. I earned the grade all by myself. Everything I've done, I've done all by myself. There is no greater system. And I've written... In fact I sent an email to Michael Sandel complimenting him for the book and trying to point out that everything he's talking about fits in very well with Deming's work and that the issues are bigger than that.   0:24:34.4 BB: And I have not yet heard back, but he's a busy guy. But those three books are I would say, must reads. Then I go on to say that, because I used earlier that Dr. Deming talked about we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management. So then I looked. I wanted to, so what exactly is this tyranny stuff? I mean, I'm so used to the word, so I wanted to go back and get a definition. "Tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression." And I said, that's... Yeah. Yeah. Oh, absolutely. All right.   0:25:26.4 BB: So, next, I wanna talk about... In previous podcasts I talked about work at Rocketdyne, what we called an... In the beginning it was called A Thinking Roadmap. And then as we got turned on to thinking about thinking, we changed that to An InThinking Roadmap. And that constituted roughly 220 hours of training over a dozen or so courses. So we had a one day class in Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats, a one day class in his, in other, actually two days in some of his other. So anyways, we had a number of courses on de Bono's work. I had a 40-hour intro course to Taguchi methods and a 40-hour advanced class in Dr. Taguchi's work. We had a 9-hour session called Understanding Variation. We had a things we were trained in that were developed by others, and then things we designed ourselves.   0:26:36.6 BB: And in the courses are tools and techniques. So tools are a cell phone, a slide rule, a computer. And the technique is how do we use it? And they provide what Ackoff would call efficiency, but also a number of these courses were inspired by Dr. Deming and Russ Ackoff were about improving effectiveness. And I got into concepts and strategies. And then what I wanted to mention that I don't think I've mentioned before is the whole concept of an InThinking Roadmap, and in this thinking about our thinking, which is a big part of the theme for tonight is, as that was inspired by, in the early '90s, Rockwell, Rocketdyne was then part of Rockwell, every division of Rockwell had a technology roadmap. And that had to be presented to higher and higher levels.   0:27:33.3 BB: What technologies are developing? What's the roadmap? And so more and more and more I heard this tech roadmap, tech roadmap. And then with colleagues, we started thinking about thinking, we thought, we need to have a thinking roadmap to combine with the technology roadmap. So the technology roadmap is gonna be helping us enormously in terms of efficiency, but not effectiveness. And I thought to integrate those two is quite powerful, which is, again another reminder of why Dr. Deming's work is a brilliant foundation for the use of technology. Otherwise, what you end up doing in a non-Deming company is with a cell phone you can increase the speed of blame.   0:28:21.4 BB: All right. So then I went back since last time I did some more research into transformation and came up with some great thoughts from Russ Ackoff. Again, our dear friend Russ Ackoff. And this is from an article that Russ wrote on transformations. And he says, "transformation is not only require recognition of the difference between what is practiced and what is preached. He says a transformation called four years ago by Donald Schön in his book Beyond the Stable State," and this is a 1991 book, he said, "it requires a transformation in the way we think.”  “Einstein," Russ says "put it powerfully and succinctly." He says, "without changing our patterns of thought, we'll not be able to solve the problems we created with our current pattern of thought."   0:29:08.2 BB: Russ continues. "I believe the pattern of thought that is required is systemic. It is difficult if at all possible to reduce the meaning of systemic thinking to a brief definition. Nevertheless, I try. Systemic thinking," again from Russ, "is holistic versus reductionist, synthetic versus analytic. Reductionist and analytic thinking derived properties from the whole, from the parts, from the properties of their parts. Holistic and synthetic thinking derived properties of parts, from the property of the whole that contains them." So I thought it was neat to go back and look at that. And then I want, more from Russ. "A problem never exists in isolation. It's surrounded by other problems in space and time. The more of a context of a problem that a scientist can comprehend, the greater are his chances of truly finding an adequate solution."   0:30:11.4 BB: And then, and so when I was going through this over the last few days, thinking, boy, I wish Dr. Deming defined transformation, it would've been, if he had an operational definition. But I thought, but wait a minute. 'Cause part of what I'm finding is, in my research, an article I came across years ago, Leading Change in the Harvard Business Review, a very popular article, 1995, by John Kotter, Why Transformations Fail. So Kotter uses that word and the title is Leading Change: Why Transformations Fail. And he is got establishing... Eight steps of transformation. "Establishing a sense of urgency, forming a powerful guiding coalition, creating a vision, communicating the vision, empowering others to act on the vision, planning for, and creating short-term wins." And under that step, Andrew, he's got a couple of steps, I'd like to get your thoughts on. One is "recognizing and rewarding employees involved in the improvements." So I thought, but of course this is transformation in the realm of the prevailing system of management. And so what that got me... Tossed around on it. I thought, well, wait a minute. There's a bunch of words that Dr. Deming uses that others use, but we know they mean something different. So Dr. Deming...   0:31:56.6 AS: Like I'm thinking, improvement is what he may be talking about.   0:32:02.4 BB: Well, but Dr. Deming talks about teamwork and the need to work together. Everybody talks about that.   0:32:08.1 AS: Yep.   0:32:09.2 BB: But just that we know, in a non-Deming environment, it's about managing actions, completing those tasks in isolation. I can meet requirements minimally, hand off to you, and that in a non-Deming environment, we call teamwork. So what I was thinking is, well, it's not that we need a new, 'cause I was even thinking, maybe we need a new word. Maybe in the Deming community, we should stop using the word transformation and come up with another word. Well, the trouble is, there's a whole bunch of other words that we use from teamwork to work together, to leader, quality. We talk about performance. We talk about root cause versus root causes. We talk about system. And so it's not that we need a new word, we need a new foundation. And that goes back to this notion as you read The New Economics or Out of the Crisis, you're hearing words that Dr. Deming uses that others use like John Kotter, but they're not used in the same context.   0:33:26.2 AS: How would you wrap up the main points you want people to take away from this discussion about transformation?   0:33:38.1 BB: Big thing is, we are talking about transformation. We are talking about seeing with new eyes, hearing with new ears. So the seeing, we talked about last time, is it's not just the systems. We're seeing systems differently. We're seeing variation differently. We're thinking differently about people and what motivates them and inspires them. The psychology piece, the theory of knowledge piece, we're challenging what we know. And then we have to think about all those interactions between two of them, between three of them, between four of them. And so I'd say that it's, the essence is transformation is essential. It is about rethinking our thinking. And I just wanna leave with two quotes. One fairly recent, one a little older. And the first quote, the more recent one from Tom Johnson, "How the world we perceive works depends upon how we think. The world we perceive," Andrew "is a world we bring forth through our thinking."   0:34:44.9 BB: That's H. Thomas Johnson, a dear friend in his 1999 book, Profit Beyond Measure. And my advice to people in reading that book is, do not attempt to read it laying down in bed. It's just, now you can read those other books we talked earlier. I think you can read those lying in bed. But Tom is very pithy. You wanna be wide awake. The last quote I wanna leave is from William James, born in 1842, died in 1910. He was an American philosopher, psychologist, and the first educator to offer a psychology course in the US. He is considered to be a leading thinker of the late 19th century, the father of American psychology, one of the elements of Profound Knowledge. And his quote that I wanna leave you with, Andrew is, "The greatest discovery of my generation is that human beings can alter their lives by altering their attitudes of mind."   0:35:45.2 AS: Whoa. Well, Bill, what an ending. On behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for the discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And if you want to keep in touch with Bill, just find him on LinkedIn. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'll leave you with my favorite quote from Dr. Deming. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

In this episode, I explore the complex relationship between meritocracy, credentialism, and the rise of Trumpism in the United States. Using Alicia Keys' Super Bowl halftime performance and the elites' reaction to it as a starting point, I delve into how the ideals of perfectionism and meritocracy have created a cultural divide that fuels resentment and disillusionment among a large portion of the American population.I examine the historical and philosophical roots of these issues, tracing the origins of the modern meritocratic worldview back to the Protestant Reformation and the rise of capitalism. I discuss how this shift in thinking has led to a society that places immense value on individual achievement and success, often at the expense of acknowledging the role of luck, privilege, and systemic factors.I argue that this meritocratic ethos, combined with the concept of credentialism, has left many Americans feeling left behind and resentful of the elites who seem to benefit from this system. I suggest that this resentment has created a fertile ground for the rise of Trumpism, which offers a voice to those who feel disenfranchised and ignored by the dominant narrative of meritocracy.Throughout the video, I draw on the works of various scholars and thinkers, including Michael Sandel, Max Weber, Jackson Lears, and Wendell Berry, to support my analysis and provide a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.Here is a link to my article on Medium, where I explore these ideas in greater depth.

Join us for an enlightening conversation with one of the world's foremost public intellectuals, Michael Sandel. Renowned for his exploration of pressing moral dilemmas, Sandel's influential books, including "The Tyranny of Merit" and "What Money Can't Buy," offer profound insights into contemporary issues through the lens of history. Sandel will be in conversation with Anant Goenka and Aakash Joshi of the Indian Express. They talk about the concepts of Secularism and Nationalism in today's time and how they have changed over the years, the limits to Free Speech in different societies and they play a game of 'What's the right thing to do'.

Do you really deserve the credit for your accomplishments? Should college admissions be determined by lottery? And how did Mike's contribution to a charity auction change his life?  SOURCES:Warren Buffett, investor and philanthropist.James Flynn, political philosopher at the University of Otago.Robert Frank, professor emeritus of management at Cornell SC Johnson College of Business.Rogé Karma, staff writer at The Atlantic.Nicholas Lemann, professor of journalism and dean emeritus at Columbia Journalism School.Daniel Markovits, professor of law at Yale Law School.Charles Munger, investor and philanthropist.John Rawls, 20th-century legal and political philosopher.Guy Raz, creator and host of How I Built This and Wisdom from the Top; founder and C.E.O. of Built-It Productions.Michael Sandel, professor of government at Harvard University.Martin Seligman, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.Ryan Smith, founder and executive chairman of Qualtrics; owner of the Utah Jazz. RESOURCES:The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael Sandel (2020).The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite, by Daniel Markovits (2019)."'The Meritocracy Trap,' Explained," by Rogé Karma (Vox, 2019)."Reflections About Intelligence Over 40 Years," by James Flynn (Intelligence, 2018)."Here's Why Warren Buffett Says That He and Charlie Munger Are Successful," by Emmie Martin (CNBC, 2018).Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, by Robert Frank (2016).The Lottery, film by Madeleine Sackler (2010).The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, by Nicholas Lemann (1999).“The Psychology of Human Misjudgment,” speech by Charles Munger (1995). EXTRAS:"What's the Point of I.Q. Testing?" by No Stupid Questions (2023)."What's So Bad About Nepotism?" by No Stupid Questions (2022).

Themen: Demokratie in der Krise, Rechtspopulismus weltweit

Rachel Berg Belin  shares the journey of her career which has been inspired Inspired by the recognition that young people are underestimated in the value they can offer to communities and politics. Rachel has focused on creating spaces for young people to play a more meaningful role in schools and public life. Rachel's journey with youth and politics began with her involvement with the radio at the Institute of Politics and Phillips Brooks House, and producing a radio show called Kid Company. She has also worked with youth journalism venture Cultural Express in Massachusetts. She trained young people in the Boston area to be reporters on serious issues, interviewing people from all walks of life, including Supreme Court justices, the President of the U.S., local activists, and marginalized individuals. Rachel also moved around and led a media literacy nonprofit called Youth Voice Collaborative.  She moved to Rochester, New York, where she got her master's in teaching and curriculum. She was teaching high school but felt frustrated in the classroom which felt mostly like an autocracy and wanted to do something outside of the classroom that was more in the vein of guerilla social studies. She worked with a program called Prichard Committee, which aimed to mobilize citizens to improve public education. She believed young people were a missing piece of this puzzle. Rachel's journey has been a rebellion against underestimation of the capacity of young people to contribute to our communities and affirmation of what is possible when we support young people to co-design our communities and do democracy with us. She believes that young people can be empowered and have a voice in democratic life when supported by adults and young people and established The Student Voice Team in Kentucky where young people are involved in shaping and forming education in schools, creating  more just and democratic schools.    Youth Leading and Designing Education Research The Student Voice Team has conducted over 16 original education studies over the last 11 years. They have conducted qualitative and quantitative studies of the extent to which their schools are safe, inclusive, and engaging, with the support of students, teachers, and families. The team has surveyed and interviewed thousands of students in diverse schools across the state, using data to write opinion pieces and columns that lift student voice on issues such as student mental health, safety, and policy. Two statewide studies have been conducted, each generating over 11,000 student responses from nearly every Kentucky County. These studies have had a significant impact on raising student voice on serious issues, such as the impacts of COVID on learning from home and the ineffectiveness of online learning for the vast majority of students. Another study focused on classroom conversations about race and racism in Kentucky during the height of the Critical Race Theory (CRT) debates. Over 11,000 students responded from nearly every Kentucky County, and the majority of students felt that their schools were not doing nearly enough to confront racism. The team presented their findings and recommendations to the State Board of Education and held a pop-up press conference on the Capitol steps to share their data and serve as a counter narrative to what older people were saying they needed in their schools. In conclusion, the Student Voice Team's strategies for creating more justice in democratic Kentucky schools involve young people leading and designing education research, policy, and storytelling.   Navigating Intergenerational Dynamics The research is a youth-led, intergenerationally sustained organization that focuses on navigating intergenerational dynamics and creating space for young people to participate in decision-making processes. The organization is a reflection organization, allowing young people to contribute to the research process and guiding them in the analysis of data and messaging to the public. Adult partners, such as University of Kentucky researchers, are also involved in the research process. The organization's mission is to target an intergenerational audience and ensure equity in its ranks. They conduct research, influence policy, inform decision-makers, and develop storytelling skills. Students participate in media events, press conferences, testifying before legislatures, and writing their own pieces. They also train students in journalism to cover Kentucky Education news and provide commentary, and they have an independent news platform, The New Edu where students report on Kentucky education news, provide commentary, and produce.    Funding of the Organization  The organization has raised funding from various sources, including the Walton Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg and Bezos Foundation, and smaller funders in Kentucky. This has allowed the organization to pay young people fairly for their work and support those with greater economic needs. The fundraising and development process is unique because there is no gatekeeper for the work, and young people are often involved in developing proposals, and building relationships with funders, and reporting on successes and identifying metrics used to measure successes. The organization has a team of about 25 students from all over the state participating in their journalism training track. A young author and journalist, Rainsford Stouffer, leads some of the training and teaching of storytelling and journalism foundations. The goal is to fill the vacuum in Kentucky's education journalism by supporting young people to analyze and follow education news and report it to an intergenerational audience.    Youth Empowerment and Agency Rachel discusses her recent learnings and thoughts on young people's empowerment and agency. She believes that democracy is more than ever a faith, and as an older person, she has to model faith rather than cynicism in democracy. She believes that young people have tools and self-awareness that we need to value as a broader intergenerational community. Rachel also mentions the Future Coalition, which is a group of young people leading the way around education justice.    Influential Harvard Professors and Courses Rachel shares her experiences at Harvard, particularly the core classes and professors who had a significant impact on her career. She loved the core courses like Justice, Evolutionary Biology, and 17th-century Dutch art experience. She mentions professors Michael Sandel, Simon Schama, and Stephen Jay Gould. In conclusion, Rachel emphasizes the importance of empowering young people and fostering a broader intergenerational community. She encourages listeners to connect with other students and organizations interested in this work.   Timestamps: 05:55 Education reform and student voice in Kentucky 12:37 Student-led research on mental health, race, and education in Kentucky 20:20 Youth involvement in nonprofit organization's fundraising and decision-making 25:02 Empowering young people in journalism and civic engagement 31:44 Education justice, Harvard experiences, and thesis on Massachusetts liberals during the bus crisis.    Links: Kentucky Student Voice Team website: ksvt.org KSVT's Independent Education Journalism Platform: thenewedu.org KSVT's Youth-Led Education Research: https://www.ksvt.org/research Rachel Belin on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rachel-belin-18b1211/

World renowned philosopher Michael Sandel talks with Lori Walsh ahead of his Augustana University event. They discuss freedom, self-reliance and the art of listening.

In this wide-ranging conversation with one of our favorite authors, philosopher Michael Sandel explains how the concept of meritocracy has helped to create such a massive divide in American politics and culture.  Michael Sandel is a world-renowned philosopher who teaches political philosophy at Harvard University. His course “Justice” is the first Harvard course to be made freely available online and has been viewed by tens of millions of people around the world. Sandel's books relate enduring themes of political philosophy to the most vexing moral and civic questions of our time. They include The Tyranny of Merit (2020), Democracy's Discontent (2022), and more. The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374289980/thetyrannyofmerit Democracy's Discontent: A New Edition for Our Perilous Times https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674270718  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/160-academic-words-reference-from-michael-sandel-the-lost-art-of-democratic-debate-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/fmITnwaJMmg (All Words) https://youtu.be/ADmawWGi7KM (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/b0lOcBQONoo (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

Jorge Fontevecchia en entrevista con el filósofo político y profesor estadounidense

O #RodaViva entrevista o escritor americano Michael Sandel. Sandel é professor de filosofia política em Harvard, e acaba de lançar no Brasil o livro "O Descontentamento da Democracia", com questões como acirramento da polarização na sociedade e a entrada em massa das pessoas na esfera pública com o uso da tecnologia.  Os temas de seu último título, além de importantes assuntos da vida, serão debatidos por Sandel, que é professor em Harvard desde 1980 e ficou mundialmente conhecido com o curso "Justiça", com discussões sobre temas como igualdade e cidadania. Michael também é autor de diversos outros livros. Com apresentação da jornalista Vera Magalhães, participam da bancada de entrevistadores Gabriela Prioli, mestre em Direito Penal pela USP e apresentadora do programa Saia Justa, da GNT; Thiago Amparo, professor na Faculdade de Direito da FGV-SP e colunista da Folha de S.Paulo; Paula Miraglia, doutora em Antropologia e diretora-geral do Nexo Jornal e da Revista Gama; Juliana Wallauer, roteirista, apresentadora e co-fundadora da plataforma Mamilos de Diálogo; e Joel Pinheiro, filósofo, economista e colunista da Folha de S.Paulo. #TVCultura #Literatura #MichaelSandel

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_why_we_shouldn_t_trust_markets_with_our_civic_life ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/97-academic-words-reference-from-michael-sandel-why-we-shouldnt-trust-markets-with-our-civic-life-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/8_9onIFvxAw (All Words) https://youtu.be/4g41nWhFZ90 (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/zc-mgeZqU_w (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

If something is "good" is that good enough? Who decides? In this episode, Bill and Andrew discuss how people define "good," what interchangeability has to do with morale, and the problem with a "merit-based" culture. Bonus: Learn how Americans became the first to use the French idea of interchangeable parts in manufacturing. Note: this episode was previously published as Part 5 in the Awaken Your Inner Deming series.  TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, Deming Distinctions: Beyond Looking Good. Bill, take it away. 0:00:30.4 Bill Bellows: Funny you mentioned that. You remind me that I've been at this for over 30 years, and coming up in July, I'll be celebrating 40 years of marriage. Like 30 years, 40, where do these numbers come from? 0:00:44.5 AS: Okay. Yeah. Who defines quality in a marriage, Bill? 0:00:47.0 BB: Alright. 0:00:50.8 AS: Okay, we won't go there. Take us, take it away. 0:00:52.2 BB: We won't go there. So we are gonna talk about who defines quality, and to get into "beyond looking good." As I shared with you, I've listened to each of the podcasts a few times. And before we get into who defines quality, I just wanna provide clarification on some of the things that came up in the first five episodes. And so, one, and I think these are kind of in order, but if they're not in order, okay, well, I made reference to black-and-white thinking versus shades-of-gray thinking. And I called black-and-white thinking - black and white data - category data, and the word I was searching for that just wasn't coming out was attribute data. So for those who are keeping score, attribute data is probably the most relevant statistician term in that regard. 0:01:44.9 BB: Attribute data versus variable data. And what I've made reference to, and we'll talk more in a future session, is looking at things in terms of categories. And categories are black and white, or it could be red, yellow, green, that's three categories, or looking at things on a continuum. So I'm still excited by the difference that comes about by understanding when we're in the black-and-white mode or the category mode or the attribute data mode versus the variable mode, and still have a belief that we can't have continuous improvement or continual improvement if we're stuck in an attribute mode. 0:02:22.9 BB: And more on that later, that's one. I talked about Thomas Jefferson meeting Honoré Blanc and getting excited about the concept of interchangeable parts. And I had the date wrong, that was 1785, if anyone's keeping score there. He was ambassador to France from 1785 to 1789, but it was in 1792 that he wrote a letter to John Jay, who was a...I think he was a Commerce Secretary. Anyway, he was in the administration of Washington and shared the idea. I was doing some research earlier and found out that even with the headstart that Blanc had in France, 'cause back in 1785, Jefferson was invited to this pretty high level meeting in Paris where Blanc took a, I guess, like the trigger mechanism of 50 different rifles. Not the entire rifle, but just the...let's just call it the trigger mechanism with springs and whatnot. And he took the 50 apart and he put all the springs in one box, all the other pieces in their respective boxes and then shook the boxes up and showed that he could just randomly pull a given spring, a given part, and put 'em all together. And that got Jefferson excited. And the...what it meant for Jefferson and the French was not just that you can repair rifles in the battlefield quickly. 0:03:56.9 BB: Now, what it meant for jobs in France was a really big deal, because what the French were liking was all the time it took to repair those guns with craftsmanship, and Blanc alienated a whole bunch of gunsmiths as a result of that. And it turns out, Blanc's effort didn't really go anywhere because there was such a pushback from the gunsmiths, the practicing craftsmanship that jobs would be taken away. But it did come to the States. And then in the early 1800s, it became known as the American System of Production. But credit goes back to Blanc. I also made reference to absolute versus relative interchangeability. And I wanna provide a little bit more clarification there, and I just wanna throw out three numbers, and ideally people can write the numbers down, I'll repeat 'em a few times. The first number is 5.001, second number is 5.999, and the third number is 6.001. So it's 5.001, 5.999, 6.001. And some of what I'm gonna explain will come up again later, but...so this will tie in pretty well. So, what I've been doing is I'll write those three words on the whiteboard or throw them on a screen, and I'll call... 0:05:28.9 AS: Those three numbers. 0:05:31.4 BB: A, B, and C. And I'll say, which two of the three are closest to being the same? And sure enough people will say the 5.999 and the 6.001, which is like B and C. And I say that's the most popular answer, but it's not the only answer. People are like, "well, what other answer are there?" Well, it could be A and C, 5.001 and 6.001, both end in 001. Or it could be the first two, A and B, 5.001 and 5.999. So what I like to point out is, if somebody answers 5.999 and 6.001, then when I say to them, "what is your definition of same?" 0:06:14.9 BB: 'Cause the question is, which two of the three are close to being the same? And it turns out there's three explanations of "same." There's same: they begin with five, there's same: they end in 001. And there's same in terms of proximity to each other. So I just wanna throw that out. Well, then a very common definition of "quality" is to say, does something meet requirements? And that's the black-and-white thinking. I've also explained in the past that requirements are not set in absolute terms. The meeting must start at exactly 1:00, or the thickness must be exactly one inch. What I've explained is that the one inch will have a plus or minus on it. And so let's say the plus and minus gives us two requirements, a minimum of five and a maximum of six. Well, then that means the 5.001 meets requirements and the 5.999 meets requirements. 0:07:15.4 BB: And so in terms of defining quality, in terms of meeting requirements, A and B are both good. And then what about the 5.999 and the 6.001? Well, those numbers are on opposite sides of the upper requirement of six. One's just a little bit to the left and one's a little bit to the right. Then I would ask people, and for some of you, this'll ring - I think you'll be smiling - and I would say to people, "what happens in manufacturing if, Andrew, if I come up with a measurement and it's 6.001?" Okay, relative to defining quality as "meeting requirements," 6.001 does not meet requirements. So what I'll ask people is, "what would a non-Deming company do with a 6.001?" And people will say, "we're gonna take a file out, we're gonna work on it, we're gonna hit it with a hammer." And I say, "no, too much work." And they say, "well, what's the answer?" "We're gonna measure it again." 0:08:25.7 AS: Until we get it right. 0:08:27.7 BB: We will measure it until we get it right. We will change the room temperature. We will take the easiest path. So then I said, get people to realize, they're like, yeah, that's what we do. We measure the 6.001 again. Well, then I say, "well Andrew, why don't we measure the 5.001 again?" And what's the answer to that, Andrew? [laughter] 0:08:51.5 AS: 4.999. [laughter] 0:08:54.7 BB: But what's interesting is, we'll measure the 6.001 again. But we won't measure the 5.001 again. We won't measure the 5.999 again. And so to me, this reinforces that when we define quality as "meeting requirements," that what we're essentially saying in terms of absolute interchangeability, what we're pretending is that there's no difference between the 5.001 and the 5.999. At opposite ends, we're saying that Blanc would find them to be interchangeable, and putting all the things together. I don't think so. 0:09:36.7 BB: I think there's a greater chance that he'd find negligible difference between the 5.999 and the 6.001. And that's what I mean by relative interchangeability, that the difference between B and C is nothing, that's relative interchangeability. The closer they are together, the more alike they are in terms of how they're integrated into the gun, into the rifle, into the downstream product. And I just throw out that what defining quality as "requirements" is saying is that the first two are...the person downstream can't tell the difference. Then I challenge, I think there's...in terms of not telling the difference, I think between 5.999 and 6.001, that difference is minuscule cause they are relatively interchangeable. The other two are implied to be absolutely interchangeable. And that I challenge, that's why I just want to throw that out. All right, another thing I want...go ahead, Andrew. 0:10:38.3 AS: One of the things I just highlight is, I remember from my political science classes at Long Beach State where I studied was The Communist Manifesto came out in 1848. And Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were talking about the alienation of the worker. And what you're talking about is the kind of, the crushing of the craftsmen through interchangeable parts that was a lot like AI coming along and destroying something. And after 50 or 60 or 70 years of interchangeable parts, along comes The Communist Manifesto with the idea that when a person is just dealing with interchangeable parts, basically they're just a cog in the wheel and they have no connection to the aim of what's going on. They don't have any connection, and all of a sudden you lose the craftsmanship or the care for work. And I think that the reason why this is interesting is because that's, I think, a huge part of what Dr. Deming was trying to bring was bring back...it may not be craftsmanship for creating a shoe if you were a shoemaker, but it would be craftsmanship for producing the best you could for the part that you're playing in an ultimate aim of the system. 0:12:02.6 BB: Yes. And yes, and we'll talk more about that. That's brilliant. What you said also reminds me, and I don't think you and I spoke about it, you'll remind me. But have I shared with you the work of a Harvard philosopher by the name of Michael Sandel? 0:12:24.3 AS: I don't recall. 0:12:27.0 BB: He may be, yeah, from a distance, one of the most famous Harvard professors alive today. He's got a course on justice, which is I think 15 two- or three-hour lectures, which were recorded by public television in Boston. Anyway, he wrote a book at the beginning of the pandemic. It came out, it's called The Tyranny of Merit. 0:12:54.0 BB: And "merit" is this belief that "I did it all by myself." That "I deserve what I have because I made it happen. I had no help from you, Andrew. I had no help from the government. I didn't need the education system, the transportation system. I didn't need NASA research. I made it happen all by myself." And he said, what that belief does is it allows those who are successful to claim that they did it by themselves. It allows them to say those who didn't have only themselves to blame. And he sees that as a major destructive force in society, that belief. And I see it tied very well to Deming. Let me give you one anecdote. Dr. Deming was interviewed by Priscilla Petty for The Deming of America documentary, which was absolutely brilliant. 0:13:49.8 BB: And she's at his home, and he's sharing with her the medal he got from the Emperor of Japan, and he's holding it carefully, and I think he gives it to her, and she's looking at it, and she says to him something like, so what did it mean to you to receive that? And he said, "I was lucky. I made a contribution." He didn't say I did it all by myself. He was acknowledging that he was in the right place at the right time to make a contribution. And that's where Sandel is also heavily on, is don't deny the role of being born at the right time in the right situation, which is a greater system in which we are. Well, for one of the college courses, I was watching an interview between Sandel and one of his former students. 0:14:48.1 BB: And the point Sandel made that I wanted to bring up based on what you just said, he says, "what we really need to do is get people dignity in work." And that's what you're talking about, is allowing them to have pride in work, dignity in work instead of as they're making interchangeable parts, having them feel like an interchangeable part. And I'm really glad you brought that up because when we talk later about letter grades, I would bring back one of the reasons I find Deming's work astounding, is that he takes into account psychology in a way that I hope our listeners will really take heart to in a deeper way. 0:15:30.2 AS: And so for the listeners out there, just to reinforce, the book is called The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good. Published in 2020 by Michael Sandel. And the ratings on Amazon is 4.5 out of five with about 2,446 ratings. So it's a pretty well-rated book I'd say. And looks interesting. Now you got me wanting to read that one. 0:15:57.0 BB: Oh what I'll do is I'll send you a... Well, what I encourage our listeners to do is find the interview... Harvard Bookstore did an interview in 2020, 2021, with Michael Sandel being interviewed by his former student by the name of Preet Bharara. [laughter] Who used to be the... 0:16:24.3 AS: SEC... 0:16:24.4 BB: Head of these...no, well, he prosecuted a number of people for SEC crimes, but he headed the Justice Department's long oldest district, which is known as SDNY or the Southern District of New York. And so he was a...in one of the first classes his freshman year at Harvard, Preet Bharara's freshman year at Havard was one of Sandel's first years. And so they had an incredible conversation. So I would encourage the listeners to... 0:16:51.8 AS: Yeah, it's titled: Michael J Sandel with Preet Bharara at Harvard. And the channel is called Harvard Bookstore. 0:16:58.6 BB: Yes, absolutely. All right. So another topic I want to get to in terms of clarification and key points, last time we talked about tools and techniques and what I'm not sure I made much about.... First of all, I just wanna really reinforce that tools and techniques are not concepts and strategies. Tools are like a garden tool I use to dig a hole. Technique is how I go about using it, cleaning it, and whatnot. Not to be confused from a concept...and what is concept? We talked about last time is a concept is an abstract idea and a strategy is how do we apply it? So tools and techniques within Six Sigma quality could be control charts, could be design of experiments. And all, by the way, you're gonna find those tools and techniques within the Deming community. So it's not to say the tools and techniques are the differentiator. 0:17:50.8 BB: I think the concepts and strategies are the differentiators, but I don't wanna downplay tools. Lean has tools in terms of value streams, and you won't find value streams per se in Dr. Deming's work. Dr. Deming looks in terms of production viewed as a system. In a later session, I want to talk about value streams versus Deming's work. But I just wanna point out that I find it...it's easy to get lost in the weeds with all we find within Lean, Six Sigma, Deming and whatnot. And this is why last time I wanted to focus on tools and techniques as separate from concepts and strategies. And what I think we did speak about last time, again, for just as a reminder, is what's unique that we both enjoy with Dr. Deming's work is that KPIs are not caused by individual departments, assigned to individual departments. 0:18:46.0 BB: KPIs are viewed as measures of the overall system. And if you assign the KPIs across the organization and give every different function their own KPI, what you're likely to find - not likely - what you WILL find is that those assigned KPIs are interfering with others' abilities to get their KPIs met. And in the Deming philosophy, you don't have that problem because you understand that things are interdependent, not independent. And so I just wanna close by saying what I find in Deming's work to be most enlightening is this sense of "what does it mean to look at something as a system?" And it means everything is connected to everything else. When you define quality in terms of saying "this is good because it meets requirements," what you've just said is, "this is good in isolation." Whether it's the pass from the quarterback to the wide receiver, saying the pass met requirements. 0:19:52.0 BB: What I think Dr. Deming would ask is, "is the ball catchable?" [laughter] And yet, what I've seen in my aerospace experience is parts being measured for airplanes in Australia that they meet requirements because the measurements are taken early in the morning before the sun has had a chance to heat the part up. And we get the 6.001 is now 5.999. You know what that means, Andrew? It's - we can now ship it. [laughter] 0:20:23.9 BB: And send it off to America for some airplane factory. 0:20:26.2 AS: When we shipped it, that's what it was. 0:20:28.9 BB: Exactly. And so, again, interdependence is everything. Go ahead, Andrew. 0:20:34.6 AS: I wanted to point on, there's a company in Thailand that really has gotten on the KPI bandwagon, and I was talking with some people that work there, and they were just talking about how they've been rolling out the KPIs for the last couple of years and down to the number of seconds that you're on the phone and everything that you do is tracked now. And then I just witnessed that company basically use that KPI as a way to basically knock out a whole group of people that they were trying to get rid of by coming in with tight KPIs and then saying, "you're not keeping up with 'em and therefore you're out." And I just thought...and the manager that was involved I was talking to, you could just see, he saw how KPI can just be weaponized for the purposes of the senior management when you're doing KPIs of individuals. And the thing that I was thinking about is, imagine the CEO of that company in a couple of years, in a couple of months, they happen to listen to this podcast, or they pick up a book of Dr. Deming and they think, "Oh my God, what did I just do over the last five years implementing KPIs down to the individual level?" [laughter] 0:21:48.5 BB: Oh, yeah. And that's what we talked about last time is...as I told you, I had a friend of a friend who's worked for Xerox, and he said there wasn't a KPI that was flowed down that they couldn't find a way to beat. And that's what happens, and you end up getting things done, but what's missing is: at whose expense? All right. So we talked about...now, let's get into beyond looking good, Deming distinctions. Who defines quality? Well, from Philip Crosby's perspective, quality's defined by the...it could be the designer. The designer puts a set of requirements on the component, whatever it is. The unit, the requirements have latitude we talked about. They're not exact. There's a minimum of six, a maximum of...or a minimum of five, maximum of six. 0:22:48.8 BB: There's a range you have to meet, is the traditional view of quality. And in my 30 years of experience, I've not seen quality defined any other way than that. It has to be in between these two values. Sometimes it has to be five or below or six or above, but there's a range. But also what we talked about last time is Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." But what I found profound about that definition, it is not me defining quality and saying, "Andrew, the parts met requirements when I threw it. Now, it's your job to catch it." It's me saying, "I've thrown the ball and you tell me, how did I do? You tell me how did I do?" And if you said, "Bill, if you throw it just a little bit higher, a little bit further out, a little bit faster," that's about synchronicity. Now, I'm realizing that my ability to throw the ball doesn't really matter if you can't catch it. So if I practice in the off season, throwing it faster and faster, but don't clue you in, until the first game, how's that helping? So I've got a KPI to throw it really, really hard. And you're thinking, "how's that helping?" So that's... 0:24:19.9 AS: And can you just go back to that for a second? Quality is on a product or service, you were saying that how Dr. Deming defined that, it helps someone... 0:24:26.7 BB: Yeah. Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." And so my interpretation of that is two things. One is, it's not me delivering a report and saying the report met requirements. It's saying, "I get the report to you, and I ask Andrew, how did I do?" And then you say to me, "I had some problem with this section, I had some problem...." But the important thing is that you become the judge of the quality of the report, not me. And it could be information I provide you with in a lecture. It's you letting me know as a student that you had a hard time with the examples. And I'm thinking, "well, I did a great job." So it's not what I think as the producer handing off to you. It's you giving me the feedback. So quality is not a one-way...in fact, first of all, quality's not defined by the producer. It's defined by the recipients saying, "I love this or not." And so that's one thing I wanna say, and does it enjoy a sustainable market? What I talked about in the past is my interpretation of that is, if I'm bending over backwards to provide incredible quality at an incredible price, and I'm going outta business, then it may be great for you, but it may not be great for me. So it has to be mutually beneficial. I just wanna... Go ahead, Andrew. 0:26:03.1 AS: You referenced the word synchronicity, which the meaning of that according to the dictionary is that "simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related, but had no discernible causal connection." What were you meaning when you were saying synchronicity? Is it this that now you're communicating with the part of the process ahead of you, and they're communicating back to you and all of a sudden you're starting to really work together? Is that what you mean by that? 0:26:33.1 BB: Yeah. When I think of synchronicity, I'm thinking of the fluidity of watching a basketball game where I'm throwing blind passes to the left and to the right and to the observer in the stands are thinking: holy cow. That's what I'm talking about, is the ability that we're sharing information just like those passes in a basketball game where you're...I mean I cannot do that without being incredibly mindful of where you are, what information you need. That's what I meant. That's what I mean. As opposed to - I wait until the number is less than...I'm out there in the hot sun. I get the measurement, 6.001, no, no, no, wait. Now it's five. Where's the synchronicity in that? Am I concerned about how this is helping you, or am I concerned about how do I get this off my plate onto the next person? And I'd also say... 0:27:32.6 AS: Yep. And another word I was thinking about is coordination, the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together efficiently. You could also say that the state of flow or something like that? 0:27:48.7 BB: I'm glad you brought up the word "together." The big deal is: am I defining quality in a vacuum, or am I doing it with some sense of how this is being used? Which is also something we got into, I think in the, one of the very first podcasts, and you asked me what could our audience...give me an example of how the audience could use this. And I said you're delivering a report to the person down the street, around the corner. Go find out how they use it. I use the example of providing data for my consulting company to my CPA, and I called 'em up one day and I said, "how do you use this information? Maybe I can get it to you in an easier form." That's together. I mean relationships, we talked earlier about marriage, relationships are based on the concept of together, not separate, together. Saying something is good, without understanding how it's used is not about "together." It's about "separate." 0:28:54.1 BB: And so what I find is, in Lean, we look at: how can we get rid of the non-value-added tasks? Who defines value? Or I could say, and Lean folks will talk about the...they'll say this: "eliminate things that don't add value." My response to them is, if you tell me that this activity does not provide value in this room for the next hour, I'm okay with that. If you tell me this activity doesn't add value in this building for the next year, I'm okay with that. But if you don't define the size of the system when you tell me it doesn't add value, then you're implying that it doesn't add value, period. 0:29:43.4 BB: And I say, how do you know that? But this is the thinking, this is what baffles me on the thinking behind Lean and these concepts of non-value-added, value-added activities. I think all activities add value. The only question is where does a value show up? And likewise in Six Sigma quality, which is heavily based on conformist requirements and driving defects to zero, that's defining quality of the parts in isolation. What does that mean, Andrew? Separate. It means separate. Nothing about synchronicity. And so I'm glad you brought that point up because what I...this idea of "together" is throughout the Deming philosophy, a sense of together, defining quality in terms of a relationship. 0:30:31.1 AS: And I remember when I was young, I was working at Pepsi, and they sent me to learn with Dr. Deming. And then I came back, and what I was kind of looking for was tools, thinking that I would...and I came back of course, with something very different, with a new way of thinking. And then I realized that Dr. Deming is so far beyond tools. He's trying to think about how do we optimize this whole system? And once I started learning that about Dr. Deming, I could see the difference. Whereas, you may decide - let's say that you wanna learn about Lean and get a certification in Lean or something like that. 0:31:15.5 AS: Ultimately, you may go down a rabbit hole of a particular tool and become a master in that tool. Nothing wrong with that. But the point is, what is the objective? Who defines the quality? And Dr. Deming clearly stated in the seminars that I was in, and from readings that I've read, that the objective of quality isn't just to improve something in...you could improve something, the quality of something and go out of business. And so there's the bigger objective of it is: how does this serve the needs of our clients? So anyways, that's just some of my memories of those days. 0:31:52.4 BB: Yeah. But you're absolutely right. And the point I'm hoping to bring out in our sessions is: I'm not against tools and techniques. Tools and techniques are incredible. They're time savers, money savers, but let's use them with a sense of connections and relationships. And I agree with you, I've done plenty of seminars where people are coming in - they're all about tools and techniques. Tools and techniques is part of the reason I like to differentiate is to say....and again, I think people are hungrier for tools and techniques. Why? Because I don't think they've come to grips with what concepts and strategies are about. And I'm hoping our listeners can help us...can appreciate that they go together. Tools and techniques are about efficiency, doing things faster, doing things cheaper. Concepts and strategies are about doing the right thing. Ackoff would say "doing the right thing right." And short of that, we end up using tools to make things worse. And that's what I'm hoping people can avoid through the insights we can share from Dr. Deming. 0:33:05.4 AS: And I would say that, would it be the case that applying tools, and tools and techniques is kind of easy? You learn how they work, you practice with them, you measure, you give feedback, but actually going to figure out how we optimize this overall system is just so much harder. It's a complex situation, and I can imagine that there's some people that would retreat to tools and techniques and I saw it in the factory at Pepsi when people would basically just say, "well, I'm just doing my thing." That's it, 'cause it's too much trouble to go out and try to negotiate all of this with everybody. 0:33:50.7 BB: I think in part, I think as long as they're managing parts in isolation, which is the prevailing system of management, then, I agree with you. Becoming aware of interdependencies in the greater system, and I'll also point out is whatever system you're looking at is part of a bigger system, and then again, bigger system, then again, bigger system. What you define is the whole, is part of a bigger system. No matter how you define it, it's part of a bigger system because time goes to infinity. So your 10-year plan, well, why not a 20-year plan? Why not a 30-year plan? So no matter how big a system you look at, there is a bigger system. So let's not get overwhelmed. Let's take a system, which Ackoff would say, take a system which is not too big that you can't manage it, not too small, that you're not really giving it the good effort, but don't lose sight of whatever system you're looking at - you'll begin to realize it is actually bigger than that. Again, what Dr. Deming would say, the bigger the system, the more complicated, which is where you're coming from, but it also offers more opportunities. I think we're so used to tools and techniques. 0:35:14.3 BB: I don't think people have really given thought to the concepts and strategies of Deming's work as opposed to Lean and Six Sigma as being different, which is why I wanted to bring it up with our listeners, because I don't think people are defaulting on the tools. I just don't think they appreciate that concepts and strategies are different than tools and techniques. And I like to have them become aware of that difference and then understand where black-and-white thinking works, where continuum thinking has advantages. There's times to look at things as connected, and then there's times to just move on and make a decision, which is a lot easier because the implications aren't as important. But at least now we get back to choice, be conscious of the choice you're making, and then move on. All right, so also on the list we had, who defines quality? 0:36:09.0 BB: We talked about that. What is meant by good: the requirements are met. Who defines good? Again, if you're looking at Phil Crosby, who defines good? Someone has to set, here are the requirements for being "good." I could be giving a term paper and me saying to the students, this is what "good" means. Next thing I wanted to look at is, "why stop at good?" And, I'm pretty sure we've talked about this. A question I like to ask people is how much time they spend every day in meetings, discussing parts, components, things that are good and going well. And what I find is people don't spend a whole lot of time discussing things that are good and going well. So why do they stop? Why not? Because they're stopping at "good." 0:36:57.1 BB: And that goes back to the black-and-white thinking. They're saying things are "bad" or they're "good." We focus on the bad to make it good, and then we stop at good. Why do we stop at good? Because there's no sense of "better." All right. And what does that mean? So again, we have why stop at good? Why go beyond good? And this is...'cause I think we're talking about really smart people that stop at "good." And I think to better understand what that means, what I like to do is ask people, what's the letter grade required for a company to ship their products to the customer? What letter grade does NASA expect from all their suppliers? And I asked a very senior NASA executive this question years ago. He was the highest ranking NASA executive in the quality field. 0:37:50.5 BB: And I said, "what letter grade do you expect from your contractors?" And he said, A+. A+. And I said, actually, it's not A+. And he is like, "What do you mean?" I said, "actually the letter grade, your requirement is actually D-." And he pushed back at me and I said, what...he says, "well, what do you mean?" I said, "how do you define quality?" And he said, "We define quality as requirements are met. That's what we require." I said, "so you think A+ is the only thing that meets requirements?" He's like, "well, where are you coming from?" I said a pass-fail system, now we get back to category thinking, if it's good or bad, what is good? Good is passing. What is passing? What I explained to him: passing is anything from an A+ down to a D-. 0:38:38.9 BB: And he got a little antsy with me. I said, "well, the alternative is an F, you don't want an F, right?" I said, "well, what you're saying is that you'll take anything but an F and that means your requirements are actually D-." And then when I pushed back and I said, "is a D- the same as an A+?" And he said, "no." I said, "well, that's what I meant earlier" in the conversation with him. And I told him that they weren't interchangeable. So when you begin to realize that black and white quality, Phil Crosby-quality, allows for D minuses to be shipped to customers. Again, in this one way I define quality, I hand it off to you. 'Cause in that world, Andrew, I make the measurement, it's 5.999, it meets requirements, I ship it to you, your only response when you receive it is to say, "thank you." [laughter] 0:39:33.2 BB: For a D minus, right? Well, when you begin to understand relationship quality, then you begin to understand that to improve the relationship, what's behind improving the relationship, Andrew, is shifting from the D- to the A. And what does that mean? What that means is, when I pay attention to your ability to receive what I give you, whether it's the pass or the information, the more synchronously I can provide that, the letter grade is going up, [laughter] and it continues to go up. Now, again, what I'm hoping is that the effort I'm taking to provide you with the A is worthwhile. But that's how you can have continuous improvement, is stop...not stopping at the D minus. 0:40:17.6 BB: Again, there may be situations where D minus is all you really need, but I, that's not me delivering to you a D minus blindly. That's you saying to me, "Hey, I don't need an A+ over here. All I really need is a D minus." That's teamwork, Andrew. So on the one hand, and what I think is, our listeners may not appreciate it, is who defines the letter grade? So in your organization, I would say to people, you give everyone a set of requirements to go meet, what letter grade does each of them has to meet to hand off to a coworker, to another coworker, to a customer? Every single one of those people, all they have to do if they're feeling disenfranchised, as you mentioned earlier, they're feeling like an interchangeable part, well, under those circumstances, Andrew, I don't have to call you up, I just deliver a D minus. And you can't complain because I've met the requirements. 0:41:14.2 BB: So what I think it could be a little scary is to realize, what if everybody in the company comes to work tomorrow feeling no dignity in work and decides to hand off the minimum on every requirement, how does that help? And what I find exciting by Deming's work is that Dr. Deming understood that how people are treated affects their willingness to look up, pay attention to the person they're receiving and deliver to them the appropriate letter grade. So I'm hoping that helps our audience understand that if it's a black and white system, then we're saying that it's good or it's bad. What that misses is, keyword Andrew, variation in good. So the opportunities to improve when we realize that there's a range, that "good" has variation. Another point I wanna make is, what allows the Deming philosophy to go beyond looking good? 0:42:16.2 BB: Well, if you look at the last chapter 10, I think, yeah, chapter 10 of the New Economics is...like the last six pages of the New Economics is all about Dr. Taguchi's work, and it's what Dr. Deming learned from Dr. Taguchi about this very thought of looking at quality in terms of relationships, not just in isolation, Phil Crosby-style meeting requirements. And the last thing I wanna throw out is I was listening to a interview with Russ Ackoff earlier today, and he gave the three steps to being creative. This is a lecture he gave at Rocketdyne years ago. And he said, the first thing is you have to discover self-limiting constraints. Second, you have to remove the constraint. And third, you have to exploit that removal. And what I want to close on is what Deming is talking about is the self-limiting constraint is when we stop at good. [laughter] 0:43:20.7 BB: And I'm hoping that this episode provides more insights as to the self-imposed constraint within our organizations to stop at "good." What happens when we go beyond that? And how do you go beyond that? By looking at how others receive your work and then expand that others and expand that others and expand that others. And then what I find exciting is, and the work I do with students and with clients is, how can we exploit every day that idea of synchronicity of quality, and not looking at quality from a category perspective? Again, unless that's all that's needed in that situation. So I don't want to throw out category thinking, use category thinking where it makes sense, use continuum thinking where it makes sense. So that's what I wanted to close with. 0:44:12.1 AS: Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it's very appropriate for the discussion that we've had today. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comDeneen is a writer and academic. Based at the University of Notre Dame, he is Professor of Political Science and holds the David Potenziani Memorial College Chair of Constitutional Studies. His books include The Odyssey of Political Theory and Why Liberalism Failed, and his new one is Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future.For two clips of our convo — on his book using Marxist analysis in defense of conservatism, and whether the government should give you money to stay home with kids — pop over to our YouTube page. Other topics: Patrick's Irish-Catholic upbringing in the oldest town in CT — “an idyllic New England town” that became a “shell of itself”; his unexpected route to academia; working-class Rutgers vs elite Princeton; how society needs meritocracy — but it's irrelevant when it comes to morality; Disraeli and noblesse oblige in the UK; migration and Brexit; “woke capitalism's patina of social commitment”; the tribal wars of the Reformation; the Hobbes/Lockean settlement; how Locke shifted property from inheritance to a set of skills; the cruelty of the growth economy; usury; the absence of any common good in Succession; the donor class of both major parties; the geographic and class sorting of Americans into separate bubbles; Michael Sandel and “thickness”; Uganda's anti-gay laws; and whether we should bring back Sabbath laws.Browse the Dishcast archive for another conversation you might enjoy (the first 102 episodes are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Tabia Lee on her firing as a DEI director, David Grann on an 18th-century mutiny that's a “parable for our own turbulent time,” and Matt Lewis on ruling-class elites. Please send your guest recs and pod dissent to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

If something is "good" is that good enough? Who decides? In this episode, Bill and Andrew discuss how people define "good," what interchangeability has to do with morale, and the problem with a "merit-based" culture. Bonus: Bill gives us a short history lesson on how Americans became the first to manufacture using interchangeable parts even though the originator was a Frenchman. 0:00:02.3 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we continue our journey into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Bellows, who has spent 30 years helping people apply Dr. Deming's ideas to become aware of how their thinking is holding them back from their biggest opportunities. The topic for today is, Deming Distinctions: Beyond Looking Good. Bill, take it away.   0:00:30.4 Bill Bellows: Funny you mentioned that. You remind me that I've been at this for over 30 years, and coming up in July, I'll be celebrating 40 years of marriage. Like 30 years, 40, where do these numbers come from?   0:00:44.5 AS: Okay. Yeah. Who defines quality in a marriage, Bill?   0:00:47.0 BB: Alright.   0:00:50.8 AS: Okay, we won't go there. Take us, take it away.   0:00:52.2 BB: We won't go there. So we are gonna talk about who defines quality, and to get into "beyond looking good." As I shared with you, I've listened to each of the podcasts a few times. And before we get into who defines quality, I just wanna provide clarification on some of the things that came up in the first five episodes. And so, one, and I think these are kind of in order, but if they're not in order, okay, well, I made reference to black-and-white thinking versus shades-of-gray thinking. And I called black-and-white thinking - black and white data - category data, and the word I was searching for that just wasn't coming out was attribute data. So for those who are keeping score, attribute data is probably the most relevant statistician term in that regard.   0:01:44.9 BB: Attribute data versus variable data. And what I've made reference to, and we'll talk more in a future session, is looking at things in terms of categories. And categories are black and white, or it could be red, yellow, green, that's three categories, or looking at things on a continuum. So I'm still excited by the difference that comes about by understanding when we're in the black-and-white mode or the category mode or the attribute data mode versus the variable mode, and still have a belief that we can't have continuous improvement or continual improvement if we're stuck in an attribute mode.   0:02:22.9 BB: And more on that later, that's one. I talked about Thomas Jefferson meeting Honoré Blanc and getting excited about the concept of interchangeable parts. And I had the date wrong, that was 1785, if anyone's keeping score there. He was ambassador to France from 1785 to 1789, but it was in 1792 that he wrote a letter to John Jay, who was a...I think he was a Commerce Secretary. Anyway, he was in the administration of Washington and shared the idea. I was doing some research earlier and found out that even with the headstart that Blanc had in France, 'cause back in 1785, Jefferson was invited to this pretty high level meeting in Paris where Blanc took a, I guess, like the trigger mechanism of 50 different rifles. Not the entire rifle, but just the...let's just call it the trigger mechanism with springs and whatnot. And he took the 50 apart and he put all the springs in one box, all the other pieces in their respective boxes and then shook the boxes up and showed that he could just randomly pull a given spring, a given part, and put 'em all together. And that got Jefferson excited. And the...what it meant for Jefferson and the French was not just that you can repair rifles in the battlefield quickly.   0:03:56.9 BB: Now, what it meant for jobs in France was a really big deal, because what the French were liking was all the time it took to repair those guns with craftsmanship, and Blanc alienated a whole bunch of gunsmiths as a result of that. And it turns out, Blanc's effort didn't really go anywhere because there was such a pushback from the gunsmiths, the practicing craftsmanship that jobs would be taken away. But it did come to the States. And then in the early 1800s, it became known as the American System of Production. But credit goes back to Blanc. I also made reference to absolute versus relative interchangeability. And I wanna provide a little bit more clarification there, and I just wanna throw out three numbers, and ideally people can write the numbers down, I'll repeat 'em a few times. The first number is 5.001, second number is 5.999, and the third number is 6.001. So it's 5.001, 5.999, 6.001. And some of what I'm gonna explain will come up again later, but...so this will tie in pretty well. So, what I've been doing is I'll write those three words on the whiteboard or throw them on a screen, and I'll call...   0:05:28.9 AS: Those three numbers.   0:05:31.4 BB: A, B, and C. And I'll say, which two of the three are closest to being the same? And sure enough people will say the 5.999 and the 6.001, which is like B and C. And I say that's the most popular answer, but it's not the only answer. People are like, "well, what other answer are there?" Well, it could be A and C, 5.001 and 6.001, both end in 001. Or it could be the first two, A and B, 5.001 and 5.999. So what I like to point out is, if somebody answers 5.999 and 6.001, then when I say to them, "what is your definition of same?"   0:06:14.9 BB: 'Cause the question is, which two of the three are close to being the same? And it turns out there's three explanations of "same." There's same: they begin with five, there's same: they end in 001. And there's same in terms of proximity to each other. So I just wanna throw that out. Well, then a very common definition of "quality" is to say, does something meet requirements? And that's the black-and-white thinking. I've also explained in the past that requirements are not set in absolute terms. The meeting must start at exactly 1:00, or the thickness must be exactly one inch. What I've explained is that the one inch will have a plus or minus on it. And so let's say the plus and minus gives us two requirements, a minimum of five and a maximum of six. Well, then that means the 5.001 meets requirements and the 5.999 meets requirements.   0:07:15.4 BB: And so in terms of defining quality, in terms of meeting requirements, A and B are both good. And then what about the 5.999 and the 6.001? Well, those numbers are on opposite sides of the upper requirement of six. One's just a little bit to the left and one's a little bit to the right. Then I would ask people, and for some of you, this'll ring - I think you'll be smiling - and I would say to people, "What happens in manufacturing if, Andrew, if I come up with a measurement and it's 6.001?" Okay, relative to defining quality as "meeting requirements," 6.001 does not meet requirements. So what I'll ask people is, "what would a non-Deming company do with a 6.001?" And people will say, "We're gonna take a file out, we're gonna work on it, we're gonna hit it with a hammer." And I say, "No, too much work." And they say, "Well, what's the answer?" "We're gonna measure it again."   0:08:25.7 AS: Until we get it right.   0:08:27.7 BB: We will measure it until we get it right. We will change the room temperature. We will take the easiest path. So then I said, get people to realize, they're like, yeah, that's what we do. We measure the 6.001 again. Well, then I say, "Well Andrew, why don't we measure the 5.001 again?" And what's the answer to that, Andrew? [laughter]   0:08:51.5 AS: 4.999. [laughter]   0:08:54.7 BB: But what's interesting is, we'll measure the 6.001 again. But we won't measure the 5.001 again. We won't measure the 5.999 again. And so to me, this reinforces that when we define quality as "meeting requirements," that what we're essentially saying in terms of absolute interchangeability, what we're pretending is that there's no difference between the 5.001 and the 5.999. At opposite ends, we're saying that Blanc would find them to be interchangeable, and putting all the things together. I don't think so.   0:09:36.7 BB: I think there's a greater chance that he'd find negligible difference between the 5.999 and the 6.001. And that's what I mean by relative interchangeability, that the difference between B and C is nothing, that's relative interchangeability. The closer they are together, the more alike they are in terms of how they're integrated into the gun, into the rifle, into the downstream product. And I just throw out that what defining quality as "requirements" is saying is that the first two are...the person downstream can't tell the difference. Then I challenge, I think there's...in terms of not telling the difference, I think between 5.999 and 6.001, that difference is minuscule cause they are relatively interchangeable. The other two are implied to be absolutely interchangeable. And that I challenge, that's why I just want to throw that out. All right, another thing I want...go ahead, Andrew.   0:10:38.3 AS: One of the things I just highlight is, I remember from my political science classes at Long Beach State where I studied was The Communist Manifesto came out in 1848. And Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were talking about the alienation of the worker. And what you're talking about is the kind of, the crushing of the craftsmen through interchangeable parts that was a lot like AI coming along and destroying something. And after 50 or 60 or 70 years of interchangeable parts, along comes The Communist Manifesto with the idea that when a person is just dealing with interchangeable parts, basically they're just a cog in the wheel and they have no connection to the aim of what's going on. They don't have any connection, and all of a sudden you lose the craftsmanship or the care for work. And I think that the reason why this is interesting is because that's, I think, a huge part of what Dr. Deming was trying to bring was bring back...it may not be craftsmanship for creating a shoe if you were a shoemaker, but it would be craftsmanship for producing the best you could for the part that you're playing in an ultimate aim of the system.   0:12:02.6 BB: Yes. And yes, and we'll talk more about that. That's brilliant. What you said also reminds me, and I don't think you and I spoke about it, you'll remind me. But have I shared with you the work of a Harvard philosopher by the name of Michael Sandel?   0:12:24.3 AS: I don't recall.   0:12:27.0 BB: He may be, yeah, from a distance, one of the most famous Harvard professors alive today. He's got a course on justice, which is I think 15 two- or three-hour lectures, which were recorded by public television in Boston. Anyway, he wrote a book at the beginning of the pandemic. It came out, it's called The Tyranny of Merit.   0:12:54.0 BB: And "merit" is this belief that "I did it all by myself." That "I deserve what I have because I made it happen. I had no help from you, Andrew. I had no help from the government. I didn't need the education system, the transportation system. I didn't need NASA research. I made it happen all by myself." And he said, what that belief does is it allows those who are successful to claim that they did it by themselves. It allows them to say those who didn't have only themselves to blame. And he sees that as a major destructive force in society, that belief. And I see it tied very well to Deming. Let me give you one anecdote. Dr. Deming was interviewed by Priscilla Petty for The Deming of America documentary, which was absolutely brilliant.   0:13:49.8 BB: And she's at his home, and he's sharing with her the medal he got from the Emperor of Japan, and he's holding it carefully, and I think he gives it to her, and she's looking at it, and she says to him something like, so what did it mean to you to receive that? And he said, "I was lucky. I made a contribution." He didn't say I did it all by myself. He was acknowledging that he was in the right place at the right time to make a contribution. And that's where Sandel is also heavily on, is don't deny the role of being born at the right time in the right situation, which is a greater system in which we are. Well, for one of the college courses, I was watching an interview between Sandel and one of his former students.   0:14:48.1 BB: And the point Sandel made that I wanted to bring up based on what you just said, he says, "what we really need to do is get people dignity in work." And that's what you're talking about, is allowing them to have pride in work, dignity in work instead of as they're making interchangeable parts, having them feel like an interchangeable part. And I'm really glad you brought that up because when we talk later about letter grades, I would bring back one of the reasons I find Deming's work astounding, is that he takes into account psychology in a way that I hope our listeners will really take heart to in a deeper way.   0:15:30.2 AS: And so for the listeners out there, just to reinforce, the book is called The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good. Published in 2020 by Michael Sandel. And the ratings on Amazon is 4.5 out of five with about 2,446 ratings. So it's a pretty well-rated book I'd say. And looks interesting. Now you got me wanting to read that one.   0:15:57.0 BB: Oh what I'll do is I'll send you a... Well, what I encourage our listeners to do is find the interview... Harvard Bookstore did an interview in 2020, 2021, with Michael Sandel being interviewed by his former student by the name of Preet Bharara. [laughter] Who used to be the...   0:16:24.3 AS: SEC...   0:16:24.4 BB: Head of these...no, well, he prosecuted a number of people for SEC crimes, but he headed the Justice Department's long oldest district, which is known as SDNY or the Southern District of New York. And so he was a...in one of the first classes his freshman year at Harvard, Preet Bharara's freshman year at Havard was one of Sandel's first years. And so they had an incredible conversation. So I would encourage the listeners to...   0:16:51.8 AS: Yeah, it's titled: Michael J Sandel with Preet Bharara at Harvard. And the channel is called Harvard Bookstore.   0:16:58.6 BB: Yes, absolutely. All right. So another topic I want to get to in terms of clarification and key points, last time we talked about tools and techniques and what I'm not sure I made much about.... First of all, I just wanna really reinforce that tools and techniques are not concepts and strategies. Tools are like a garden tool I use to dig a hole. Technique is how I go about using it, cleaning it, and whatnot. Not to be confused from a concept...and what is concept? We talked about last time is a concept is an abstract idea and a strategy is how do we apply it? So tools and techniques within Six Sigma quality could be control charts, could be design of experiments. And all, by the way, you're gonna find those tools and techniques within the Deming community. So it's not to say the tools and techniques are the differentiator.   0:17:50.8 BB: I think the concepts and strategies are the differentiators, but I don't wanna downplay tools. Lean has tools in terms of value streams, and you won't find value streams per se in Dr. Deming's work. Dr. Deming looks in terms of production viewed as a system. In a later session, I want to talk about value streams versus Deming's work. But I just wanna point out that I find it...it's easy to get lost in the weeds with all we find within Lean, Six Sigma, Deming and whatnot. And this is why last time I wanted to focus on tools and techniques as separate from concepts and strategies. And what I think we did speak about last time, again, for just as a reminder, is what's unique that we both enjoy with Dr. Deming's work is that KPIs are not caused by individual departments, assigned to individual departments.   0:18:46.0 BB: KPIs are viewed as measures of the overall system. And if you assign the KPIs across the organization and give every different function their own KPI, what you're likely to find - not likely - what you WILL find is that those assigned KPIs are interfering with others' abilities to get their KPIs met. And in the Deming philosophy, you don't have that problem because you understand that things are interdependent, not independent. And so I just wanna close by saying what I find in Deming's work to be most enlightening is this sense of "what does it mean to look at something as a system?" And it means everything is connected to everything else. When you define quality in terms of saying "this is good because it meets requirements," what you've just said is, "this is good in isolation." Whether it's the pass from the quarterback to the wide receiver, saying the pass met requirements.   0:19:52.0 BB: What I think Dr. Deming would ask is, "is the ball catchable?" [laughter] And yet, what I've seen in my aerospace experience is parts being measured for airplanes in Australia that they meet requirements because the measurements are taken early in the morning before the sun has had a chance to heat the part up. And we get the 6.001 is now 5.999. You know what that means, Andrew? It's - we can now ship it.   [laughter]   0:20:23.9 BB: And send it off to America for some airplane factory.   0:20:26.2 AS: When we shipped it, that's what it was.   0:20:28.9 BB: Exactly. And so, again, interdependence is everything. Go ahead, Andrew.   0:20:34.6 AS: I wanted to point on, there's a company in Thailand that really has gotten on the KPI bandwagon, and I was talking with some people that work there, and they were just talking about how they've been rolling out the KPIs for the last couple of years and down to the number of seconds that you're on the phone and everything that you do is tracked now. And then I just witnessed that company basically use that KPI as a way to basically knock out a whole group of people that they were trying to get rid of by coming in with tight KPIs and then saying, "you're not keeping up with 'em and therefore you're out." And I just thought...and the manager that was involved I was talking to, you could just see, he saw how KPI can just be weaponized for the purposes of the senior management when you're doing KPIs of individuals. And the thing that I was thinking about is, imagine the CEO of that company in a couple of years, in a couple of months, they happen to listen to this podcast, or they pick up a book of Dr. Deming and they think, "Oh my God, what did I just do over the last five years implementing KPIs down to the individual level?" [laughter]   0:21:48.5 BB: Oh, yeah. And that's what we talked about last time is...as I told you, I had a friend of a friend who's worked for Xerox, and he said there wasn't a KPI that was flowed down that they couldn't find a way to beat. And that's what happens, and you end up getting things done, but what's missing is: at whose expense? All right. So we talked about...now, let's get into beyond looking good, Deming distinctions. Who defines quality? Well, from Philip Crosby's perspective, quality's defined by the...it could be the designer. The designer puts a set of requirements on the component, whatever it is. The unit, the requirements have latitude we talked about. They're not exact. There's a minimum of six, a maximum of...or a minimum of five, maximum of six.   0:22:48.8 BB: There's a range you have to meet, is the traditional view of quality. And in my 30 years of experience, I've not seen quality defined any other way than that. It has to be in between these two values. Sometimes it has to be five or below or six or above, but there's a range. But also what we talked about last time is Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." But what I found profound about that definition, it is not me defining quality and saying, "Andrew, the parts met requirements when I threw it. Now, it's your job to catch it." It's me saying, "I've thrown the ball and you tell me, how did I do? You tell me how did I do?" And if you said, "Bill, if you throw it just a little bit higher, a little bit further out, a little bit faster," that's about synchronicity. Now, I'm realizing that my ability to throw the ball doesn't really matter if you can't catch it. So if I practice in the off season, throwing it faster and faster, but don't clue you in, until the first game, how's that helping? So I've got a KPI to throw it really, really hard. And you're thinking, "how's that helping?" So that's...   0:24:19.9 AS: And can you just go back to that for a second? Quality is on a product or service, you were saying that how Dr. Deming defined that, it helps someone...   0:24:26.7 BB: Yeah. Dr. Deming said "a product or service possesses quality if it helps someone and enjoys a sustainable market." And so my interpretation of that is two things. One is, it's not me delivering a report and saying the report met requirements. It's saying, "I get the report to you, and I ask Andrew, how did I do?" And then you say to me, "I had some problem with this section, I had some problem...." But the important thing is that you become the judge of the quality of the report, not me. And it could be information I provide you with in a lecture. It's you letting me know as a student that you had a hard time with the examples. And I'm thinking, "well, I did a great job." So it's not what I think as the producer handing off to you. It's you giving me the feedback. So quality is not a one-way...in fact, first of all, quality's not defined by the producer. It's defined by the recipients saying, "I love this or not." And so that's one thing I wanna say, and does it enjoy a sustainable market? What I talked about in the past is my interpretation of that is, if I'm bending over backwards to provide incredible quality at an incredible price, and I'm going outta business, then it may be great for you, but it may not be great for me. So it has to be mutually beneficial. I just wanna... Go ahead, Andrew.   0:26:03.1 AS: You referenced the word synchronicity, which the meaning of that according to the dictionary is that "simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related, but had no discernible causal connection." What were you meaning when you were saying synchronicity? Is it this that now you're communicating with the part of the process ahead of you, and they're communicating back to you and all of a sudden you're starting to really work together? Is that what you mean by that?   0:26:33.1 BB: Yeah. When I think of synchronicity, I'm thinking of the fluidity of watching a basketball game where I'm throwing blind passes to the left and to the right and to the observer in the stands are thinking: holy cow. That's what I'm talking about, is the ability that we're sharing information just like those passes in a basketball game where you're...I mean I cannot do that without being incredibly mindful of where you are, what information you need. That's what I meant. That's what I mean. As opposed to - I wait until the number is less than...I'm out there in the hot sun. I get the measurement, 6.001, no, no, no, wait. Now it's five. Where's the synchronicity in that? Am I concerned about how this is helping you, or am I concerned about how do I get this off my plate onto the next person? And I'd also say...   0:27:32.6 AS: Yep. And another word I was thinking about is coordination, the organization of the different elements of a complex body or activity so as to enable them to work together efficiently. You could also say that the state of flow or something like that?   0:27:48.7 BB: I'm glad you brought up the word "together." The big deal is: am I defining quality in a vacuum, or am I doing it with some sense of how this is being used? Which is also something we got into, I think in the, one of the very first podcasts, and you asked me what could our audience...give me an example of how the audience could use this. And I said you're delivering a report to the person down the street, around the corner. Go find out how they use it. I use the example of providing data for my consulting company to my CPA, and I called 'em up one day and I said, "how do you use this information? Maybe I can get it to you in an easier form." That's together. I mean relationships, we talked earlier about marriage, relationships are based on the concept of together, not separate, together. Saying something is good, without understanding how it's used is not about "together." It's about "separate."   0:28:54.1 BB: And so what I find is, in Lean, we look at: how can we get rid of the non-value-added tasks? Who defines value? Or I could say, and Lean folks will talk about the...they'll say this: "eliminate things that don't add value." My response to them is, if you tell me that this activity does not provide value in this room for the next hour, I'm okay with that. If you tell me this activity doesn't add value in this building for the next year, I'm okay with that. But if you don't define the size of the system when you tell me it doesn't add value, then you're implying that it doesn't add value, period.   0:29:43.4 BB: And I say, how do you know that? But this is the thinking, this is what baffles me on the thinking behind Lean and these concepts of non-value-added, value-added activities. I think all activities add value. The only question is where does a value show up? And likewise in Six Sigma quality, which is heavily based on conformist requirements and driving defects to zero, that's defining quality of the parts in isolation. What does that mean, Andrew? Separate. It means separate. Nothing about synchronicity. And so I'm glad you brought that point up because what I...this idea of "together" is throughout the Deming philosophy, a sense of together, defining quality in terms of a relationship.   0:30:31.1 AS: And I remember when I was young, I was working at Pepsi, and they sent me to learn with Dr. Deming. And then I came back, and what I was kind of looking for was tools, thinking that I would...and I came back of course, with something very different, with a new way of thinking. And then I realized that Dr. Deming is so far beyond tools. He's trying to think about how do we optimize this whole system? And once I started learning that about Dr. Deming, I could see the difference. Whereas, you may decide - let's say that you wanna learn about Lean and get a certification in Lean or something like that.   0:31:15.5 AS: Ultimately, you may go down a rabbit hole of a particular tool and become a master in that tool. Nothing wrong with that. But the point is, what is the objective? Who defines the quality? And Dr. Deming clearly stated in the seminars that I was in, and from readings that I've read, that the objective of quality isn't just to improve something in...you could improve something, the quality of something and go out of business. And so there's the bigger objective of it is: how does this serve the needs of our clients? So anyways, that's just some of my memories of those days.   0:31:52.4 BB: Yeah. But you're absolutely right. And the point I'm hoping to bring out in our sessions is: I'm not against tools and techniques. Tools and techniques are incredible. They're time savers, money savers, but let's use them with a sense of connections and relationships. And I agree with you, I've done plenty of seminars where people are coming in - they're all about tools and techniques. Tools and techniques is part of the reason I like to differentiate is to say....and again, I think people are hungrier for tools and techniques. Why? Because I don't think they've come to grips with what concepts and strategies are about. And I'm hoping our listeners can help us...can appreciate that they go together. Tools and techniques are about efficiency, doing things faster, doing things cheaper. Concepts and strategies are about doing the right thing. Ackoff would say "doing the right thing right." And short of that, we end up using tools to make things worse. And that's what I'm hoping people can avoid through the insights we can share from Dr. Deming.   0:33:05.4 AS: And I would say that, would it be the case that applying tools, and tools and techniques is kind of easy? You learn how they work, you practice with them, you measure, you give feedback, but actually going to figure out how we optimize this overall system is just so much harder. It's a complex situation, and I can imagine that there's some people that would retreat to tools and techniques and I saw it in the factory at Pepsi when people would basically just say, "well, I'm just doing my thing." That's it, 'cause it's too much trouble to go out and try to negotiate all of this with everybody.   0:33:50.7 BB: I think in part, I think as long as they're managing parts in isolation, which is the prevailing system of management, then, I agree with you. Becoming aware of interdependencies in the greater system, and I'll also point out is whatever system you're looking at is part of a bigger system, and then again, bigger system, then again, bigger system. What you define is the whole, is part of a bigger system. No matter how you define it, it's part of a bigger system because time goes to infinity. So your 10-year plan, well, why not a 20-year plan? Why not a 30-year plan? So no matter how big a system you look at, there is a bigger system. So let's not get overwhelmed. Let's take a system, which Ackoff would say, take a system which is not too big that you can't manage it, not too small, that you're not really giving it the good effort, but don't lose sight of whatever system you're looking at - you'll begin to realize it is actually bigger than that. Again, what Dr. Deming would say, the bigger the system, the more complicated, which is where you're coming from, but it also offers more opportunities. I think we're so used to tools and techniques.   0:35:14.3 BB: I don't think people have really given thought to the concepts and strategies of Deming's work as opposed to Lean and Six Sigma as being different, which is why I wanted to bring it up with our listeners, because I don't think people are defaulting on the tools. I just don't think they appreciate that concepts and strategies are different than tools and techniques. And I like to have them become aware of that difference and then understand where black-and-white thinking works, where continuum thinking has advantages. There's times to look at things as connected, and then there's times to just move on and make a decision, which is a lot easier because the implications aren't as important. But at least now we get back to choice, be conscious of the choice you're making, and then move on. All right, so also on the list we had, who defines quality?   0:36:09.0 BB: We talked about that. What is meant by good: the requirements are met. Who defines good? Again, if you're looking at Phil Crosby, who defines good? Someone has to set, here are the requirements for being "good." I could be giving a term paper and me saying to the students, this is what "good" means. Next thing I wanted to look at is, "why stop at good?" And, I'm pretty sure we've talked about this. A question I like to ask people is how much time they spend every day in meetings, discussing parts, components, things that are good and going well. And what I find is people don't spend a whole lot of time discussing things that are good and going well. So why do they stop? Why not? Because they're stopping at "good."   0:36:57.1 BB: And that goes back to the black-and-white thinking. They're saying things are "bad" or they're "good." We focus on the bad to make it good, and then we stop at good. Why do we stop at good? Because there's no sense of "better." All right. And what does that mean? So again, we have why stop at good? Why go beyond good? And this is...'cause I think we're talking about really smart people that stop at "good." And I think to better understand what that means, what I like to do is ask people, what's the letter grade required for a company to ship their products to the customer? What letter grade does NASA expect from all their suppliers? And I asked a very senior NASA executive this question years ago. He was the highest ranking NASA executive in the quality field.   0:37:50.5 BB: And I said, "what letter grade do you expect from your contractors?" And he said, A+. A+. And I said, actually, it's not A+. And he is like, "What do you mean?" I said, "actually the letter grade, your requirement is actually D-." And he pushed back at me and I said, what...he says, "well, what do you mean?" I said, "how do you define quality?" And he said, "We define quality as requirements are met. That's what we require." I said, "so you think A+ is the only thing that meets requirements?" He's like, "well, where are you coming from?" I said a pass-fail system, now we get back to category thinking, if it's good or bad, what is good? Good is passing. What is passing? What I explained to him: passing is anything from an A+ down to a D-.   0:38:38.9 BB: And he got a little antsy with me. I said, "well, the alternative is an F, you don't want an F, right?" I said, "well, what you're saying is that you'll take anything but an F and that means your requirements are actually D-." And then when I pushed back and I said, "is a D- the same as an A+?" And he said, "no." I said, "well, that's what I meant earlier" in the conversation with him. And I told him that they weren't interchangeable. So when you begin to realize that black and white quality, Phil Crosby-quality, allows for D minuses to be shipped to customers. Again, in this one way I define quality, I hand it off to you. 'Cause in that world, Andrew, I make the measurement, it's 5.999, it meets requirements, I ship it to you, your only response when you receive it is to say, "thank you."   [laughter]   0:39:33.2 BB: For a D minus, right? Well, when you begin to understand relationship quality, then you begin to understand that to improve the relationship, what's behind improving the relationship, Andrew, is shifting from the D- to the A. And what does that mean? What that means is, when I pay attention to your ability to receive what I give you, whether it's the pass or the information, the more synchronously I can provide that, the letter grade is going up, [laughter] and it continues to go up. Now, again, what I'm hoping is that the effort I'm taking to provide you with the A is worthwhile. But that's how you can have continuous improvement, is stop...not stopping at the D minus.   0:40:17.6 BB: Again, there may be situations where D minus is all you really need, but I, that's not me delivering to you a D minus blindly. That's you saying to me, "Hey, I don't need an A+ over here. All I really need is a D minus." That's teamwork, Andrew. So on the one hand, and what I think is, our listeners may not appreciate it, is who defines the letter grade? So in your organization, I would say to people, you give everyone a set of requirements to go meet, what letter grade does each of them has to meet to hand off to a coworker, to another coworker, to a customer? Every single one of those people, all they have to do if they're feeling disenfranchised, as you mentioned earlier, they're feeling like an interchangeable part, well, under those circumstances, Andrew, I don't have to call you up, I just deliver a D minus. And you can't complain because I've met the requirements.   0:41:14.2 BB: So what I think it could be a little scary is to realize, what if everybody in the company comes to work tomorrow feeling no dignity in work and decides to hand off the minimum on every requirement, how does that help? And what I find exciting by Deming's work is that Dr. Deming understood that how people are treated affects their willingness to look up, pay attention to the person they're receiving and deliver to them the appropriate letter grade. So I'm hoping that helps our audience understand that if it's a black and white system, then we're saying that it's good or it's bad. What that misses is, keyword Andrew, variation in good. So the opportunities to improve when we realize that there's a range, that "good" has variation. Another point I wanna make is, what allows the Deming philosophy to go beyond looking good?   0:42:16.2 BB: Well, if you look at the last chapter 10, I think, yeah, chapter 10 of the New Economics is...like the last six pages of the New Economics is all about Dr. Taguchi's work, and it's what Dr. Deming learned from Dr. Taguchi about this very thought of looking at quality in terms of relationships, not just in isolation, Phil Crosby-style meeting requirements. And the last thing I wanna throw out is I was listening to a interview with Russ Ackoff earlier today, and he gave the three steps to being creative. This is a lecture he gave at Rocketdyne years ago. And he said, the first thing is you have to discover self-limiting constraints. Second, you have to remove the constraint. And third, you have to exploit that removal. And what I want to close on is what Deming is talking about is the self-limiting constraint is when we stop at good.   [laughter]   0:43:20.7 BB: And I'm hoping that this episode provides more insights as to the self-imposed constraint within our organizations to stop at "good." What happens when we go beyond that? And how do you go beyond that? By looking at how others receive your work and then expand that others and expand that others and expand that others. And then what I find exciting is, and the work I do with students and with clients is, how can we exploit every day that idea of synchronicity of quality, and not looking at quality from a category perspective? Again, unless that's all that's needed in that situation. So I don't want to throw out category thinking, use category thinking where it makes sense, use continuum thinking where it makes sense. So that's what I wanted to close with.   0:44:12.1 AS: Bill, on behalf of everyone at The Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. For listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. This is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming, and it's very appropriate for the discussion that we've had today. "People are entitled to joy in work."  

Show Notes: Elaine Lum MacDonald and Will Bachman have a conversation about Elaine's journey since graduating from Harvard in 1992. Elaine started off her career in management consulting at the Monitor Company in Cambridge. After gaining experience in the field, after that she moved to Asia. She was based in Hong Kong, Indonesia, India, Taiwan, and China for four years, gaining meaningful and memorable experiences. After this, she went to Harvard Business School and graduated in 1998. She then spent a decade working in technology roles with Microsoft and Amazon before launching her own company, the Knowledge Impact Network. This organization focuses on helping leaders and organizations build trust and increase their impact. Elaine also works as a consultant for other organizations that are looking to make a difference in the world. Working in Indonesia and California  Elaine shares her experiences working in Indonesia and Hong Kong in the 1990s. She describes how she had to take taxis to get around in rural communities and how the retail landscape was changing rapidly. She also shares some of the daunting and scary scenarios she encountered, such as being mistaken for a call girl or not knowing who to trust when taking a taxi. Despite the challenges, she found the experience interesting and eye-opening. She also enjoyed the experience of proving people wrong by breaking stereotypes of a young Asian woman. Elaine wanted to experience deeper operational management and decided to move to California in the late 1990s to work for Clorox doing brand management. There was a great exodus of people from the East Coast to Silicon Valley during this time, as it was a land of opportunity with startups. She met her husband and decided to stay in California where she currently lives with her family. Working as a Strategic Marketing Consultant  Elaine worked part time while her children were young, she and her colleague shared a job and a joint identity where they were known as Elady. Elaine left Clorox to become a strategic marketing consultant, allowing her more flexibility with her time and to do more volunteer work.  Elaine shares her story of finding her passion for volunteer consulting while studying at Harvard Business School. Through the Harvard Business School Community Partners program, she was able to provide pro bono volunteer consulting to local nonprofits. She enjoyed the experience of being able to think through challenges and help organizations, and eventually she took on the role of recruiting organizations and alumni to donate their time. For the following seven years, she worked at HBS Community Partners in Northern California with the goal of inspiring and empowering alumni to use their skills for social good. She found her niche in being a connector and bridge, finding people with bright minds and big hearts and matching them with organizations that could really use their help. Founder of the Knowledge Impact Network Elaine became the founder of the Knowledge Impact Network (KIN). KIN is an organization that connects alumni of Harvard Business School (HBS) to nonprofits who need assistance in a variety of areas. Elaine first got the idea for KIN from her experience of helping Bay Area nonprofits while she was working with the Harvard Alumni Association. After the pandemic hit, she noticed the need for more help from alumni and decided to create KIN to allow alumni to provide support to nonprofits virtually. KIN provides a bridge between alumni and nonprofits, allowing the alumni to help with a variety of issues, such as food supply chains, by connecting them to the right experts. Elaine hopes to continue to expand KIN and provide more assistance to nonprofits. KIN focuses on three areas of impact: core human needs (food, water, health, shelter); educating for workforce readiness; and protecting our planet. Elaine explains how she and the founders of KIN, who are YPO distinguished leaders, hit it off when they discussed how they could bring the power of CEO networks to share their knowledge with positive causes and accelerate impact. KIN is open to social impact organizations, social ventures, and experts from anywhere in the world. Organizations can apply through the KIN website, and experts can sign up to share their knowledge of a specific area. KIN then connects the organizations and experts and facilitates a 90-minute catalyst session to help the organization solve an issue. The Social Ventures Network Elaine then expanded the network with the Social Ventures Network, an organization which connects professionals with causes and social ventures they can get involved with. Elaine talks about how easy it is for professionals to leverage their skills for good and how the Social Ventures Network takes away the friction of getting involved. Elaine explains how the Network works with family offices who want to support a specific cause, as well as companies and individuals. The Network helps people figure out how to get involved with social ventures and learn about them, while also advancing a cause they feel passionate about.  Elaine talks about Impact circles and explains that they are a way to bring together a community of social innovators who want to take action in a certain area. An example of an Impact circle was formed when a knowledge partner met a renowned climatologist at UC Santa Barbara's Climate Hazard Center who spoke about the data available to help farmers adjust their crops and improve yields in the face of changing weather. The Impact circle brings together experts, companies, government, and academics to help figure out how to get this data to rural smallholder farmers in places like Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Meteorological Services Department agreed that this data would be extremely helpful. The team is now in the process of developing a site with the right type of data to get it into the hands of the farmers. Influential Professors and Courses at Harvard Elaine recounts her experience as a Harvard student, mentioning Nancy Kane, Marty Feldstein, and Michael Sandel as two of her most memorable and inspiring professors. Elaine was a history and science major, which was unusual at the time, and enjoyed the challenge and creativity of connecting the dots between different disciplines. Her current project is a great example of how people from different parts of the world can come together to make something happen. Timestamps: 05:17 Experiences Working in Indonesia and Hong Kong in the 1990s  10:26 From Consulting to Brand Management  13:23 Joint Identity and Strategic Marketing Consulting  17:54 Harvard Alumni Connecting Nonprofits with Expertise During the Pandemic  21:43 Exploring the Knowledge Impact Network: Leveraging Knowledge for Social Impact 26:35 Catalyzed Sessions for Social Ventures  30:05 Leveraging Skills for Social Good  34:00 Harvard Education and Global Development Projects  Links: Website: https://www.knowledgeimpactnetwork.org/ CONTACT INFO: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elainelmacdonald/  

In this episode, we dive into some of the profound changes occurring in American society. Back in the day, social scientist Robert Putnam observed a concerning trend—he called it "bowling alone"—where Americans were becoming increasingly disconnected from community bonds and support systems. Fast forward to the present, and we see not only a retreat from these vital sources of communal life but also a rise in loneliness, anxiety, depression, and overall mental and physical distress. Marriage and parenthood are also being delayed or foregone altogether. These developments have far-reaching implications for both American politics and civil life, as well as for the individual's well-being and fulfillment.Taking us back to the roots of democratic thought, we turn to Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." Tocqueville recognized the unique nature of the democratic social state and the need for a "new political science" to navigate its strengths and weaknesses. He explored how the principles of democratic equality would transform our intellect, sentiments, and social norms, painting vivid images of democracy and the dangers of soft despotism that still resonate today.While Tocqueville's masterpiece provides a comprehensive view of American democracy, there are areas he did not directly address. One such topic is friendship—a central element in Tocqueville's own life. Although seemingly absent from his work, we can draw upon Tocqueville's theories, as well as insights from Aristotle and C.S. Lewis, to ask: How does democratic equality transform friendship, a fundamental association crucial to human flourishing? Today, Dan Churchwell, Director of Program & Education, talks with Sarah Gustafson, as they exploring how democratic equality opens up new possibilities for meaningful connections while also introducing habits and trends that can erode genuine companionship and push individuals into the "solitude of their own hearts."Sarah H. Gustafson is a PhD Candidate in Government (Political Theory) at Harvard University where she is completing her dissertation on the thought of Alexis de Tocqueville. She graduated from Davidson College, and earned a MA in the History of Political Thought at Queen Mary University of London, where she won the Quentin Skinner Prize for Excellence in the History of Political Thought. In her years at Harvard, she has had the opportunity to work closely with Professors Harvey Mansfield, Michael Sandel, Richard Tuck, and Eric Nelson, among others, and is a Fellow at the Abigail Adams Institute. In her free time, she has authored reviews for publications such as Law and Liberty and The University Bookman.Subscribe to our podcastsAristocrats in a Democratic Age | Law & Liberty Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nếu bạn phải chọn giữa (1) giết một người để cứu mạng 5 người và (2) không làm gì hết và hậu quả là 5 người phải chết, bạn sẽ làm gì? Đâu là lựa chọn hợp lý và có đạo đức hơn? Qua một thời gian dài làm các nội dung về triết học một cách gián tiếp, đây sẽ là lần đầu tiên mình giới thiệu triết học đến với các bạn một cách trực tiếp thông qua khóa học Philosophy của Harvard. Trong tập đầu tiên này của series Philosophy 101 (Triết học 101), chúng ta sẽ đi qua hai chủ nghĩa lý luận chính của triết học đạo đức là consequential (hệ quả luận) và categorical (bản chất luận), với utilitarianism (thuyết vị lợi) là một nhánh của consequential. Trái lại với việc nói lý luận, series này sẽ dựa hoàn toàn trên ví dụ, giống như cách giáo sư Michael Sandel giảng dạy, để giúp đưa triết học tới số đông các bạn trẻ một cách dễ tiêu hóa và thú vị nhất. Contact với mình tại: YouTube | Facebook | Instagram | Website | Email Để đầu tư tốt hơn cho thiết bị và chi phí hosting, mình rất vui nếu bạn có thể ủng hộ/donate mình thông qua MoMo hoặc chuyển khoản ngân hàng: 222 6868 111 - NGUYEN DUY THANH - MB (NH Quân Đội). Cảm ơn các bạn rất nhiều!

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_tyranny_of_merit ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/110-academic-words-reference-from-michael-sandel-the-tyranny-of-merit--ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/0YKyBy7chVU (All Words) https://youtu.be/5Udfd8aYHPw (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/6M6WupJiwDA (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

It's a special 4/20 EmMajority Report Thursday! Emma hosts Michael Sandel, professor of Government Theory at Harvard University, to discuss his book Democracy's Discontent: A New Edition for Our Perilous Times. Michael Sandel then dives right into why he decided to update his 1996 work “Democracy's Discontent,” looking back at that period as simultaneously the apex of faith in the neoliberal Washington consensus and one that saw the first tricklings of unraveling community infrastructure, the diminishment of citizens' representation, and general feelings of insecurity which were all affirmed with the 2008 financial crisis. Picking up in the wake of the crisis, Professor Sandel explores how the elite decided to put the system back together again, rather than actually rethinking the role of finance in the economy, sparking bipartisan anger that birthed two movements: a new socialist movement on the left, and the tea party movement on the right. Parsing deeper through this anger. Sandel and Emma discuss the explicit rejection of elites' credentialism and meritocratic hubris, tackling what these concepts entail, how they birthed the populist nominations of Bernie Sanders and Donald J. Trump, and why they so contributed to growing feelings of alienation during the first two decades of the 21st Century. Next, Michael walks through a distinction between two conceptions of freedom, one grounded in consumerism and the other in civic ideals, exploring how the emphasis on the former has bolstered democracy's discontent, while the latter offers us a route out of it, before they wrap up the interview by exploring what a reorganizing of our economy towards civic ideals would entail, and why universal service programs might (MIGHT) be an answer. And in the Fun Half: Emma is joined by Brandon Sutton and Matt Binder as they tackle Elon Musk's natalism perfectly coalescing with Tucker Carlson's direct white supremacy, Nick from Pittsburg dives into the horrors of SpaceX's failed experiment, and the MR Crew covers Elon's crackdown on free speech, capitalizing on the same rules that pushed the Hunter Biden coverup. They also discuss a CEO's “pity city” speech to those she's exploiting, Elly from South Carolina dives into Nancy Mace's abortion switch-up, and Charlie Kirk fears WokeGPT. Kevin from Philly reflects on the Pity City speech, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Michael's book here: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674270718 Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Seder's Seeds!: Sam tried to grow some cannabis last year, didn't know what he was doing, but now has some great cannabis seeds! Use code "420" and you'll get a free pack of "Trainwreck" seeds (enter Trainwreck manually in your cart)! Go to http://www.sedersseeds.com and MajorityReporters will get an automatic 15% off. Enter coupon code "SEEDS" for free shipping! Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

It is a truth universally acknowledged that anyone possessed of an obsession will run into the forces of inertia. Jahnavi Phalkey joins Amit Varma in episode 319 of The Seen and the Unseen to discuss her history of nuclear physics in India, the men who brought a cyclotron to Chandigarh to study the world -- and her own quest to make common people love science. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out: 1. Jahnavi Phalkey on Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn. 2. Atomic State: Big Science in Twentieth-Century India -- Jahnavi Phalkey. 3. Cyclotron -- Jahnavi Phalkey (Password: cyclotron_2020). 4. Science Gallery Bengaluru. 5. Re:Collect India. 6. CV Raman, Meghnad Saha and Homi Jehangir Bhabha. 7. Because the Night -- Patti Smith. 8. CBGB. 9. Venus -- Television. 10. Just Kids -- Patti Smith. 11. Patti Smith's Instagram post on Tom Verlaine. 12. Ward Morehouse on Wikipedia and UMass Amherst. 13. Rahul Sankrityayan on Wikipedia and Amazon. 14. A House for Mr Biswas -- VS Naipaul. 15. Satyajit Ray's Oscar acceptance speech. 16. ‘Let Me Interrupt Your Expertise With My Confidence' — New Yorker cartoon by Jason Adam Katzenstein. 17. The Memoirs of Dr Haimabati Sen — Haimabati Sen (translated by Tapan Raychoudhuri). 18. Lady Doctors: The Untold Stories of India's First Women in Medicine — Kavitha Rao. 19. Kavitha Rao and Our Lady Doctors — Episode 235 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Kavitha Rao). 20. Scum Manifesto -- Valerie Solanas. 21. The History Boys — Alan Bennett. 22. Children are Topple. 23. Yuganta — Irawati Karve. 24. Mungerilal Ke Haseen Sapne (on Wikipedia and YouTube). 25. The Life and Times of Jerry Pinto — Episode 314 of The Seen and the Unseen. 26. Arshia Sattar and the Complex Search for Dharma -- Episode 315 of The Seen and the Unseen. 27. Rohini Nilekani Pays It Forward — Episode 317 of The Seen and the Unseen. 28. The Law of Truly Large Numbers. 29. Ursula Le Guin, Mary Oliver, Mark Strand and Tom Waits. 30. The Sopranos and The Wire. 31. Binaca Geetmala. 32. Tumhe Ho Na Ho -- Runa Laila. 33. Diva -- Annie Lennox. 34. Dire Straits, Bob Dylan, David Bowie and Patti Smith on Spotify. 35. Kishori Amonkar and Bhimsen Joshi on Spotify. 36. Tosca — Giacomo Puccini — performed at Arena di Verona. 37. Vissi d'arte -- From Tosca by Puccini, performed by Maria Callas. (And the lyrics.) 38. Gloria -- Patti Smith. (And the Van Morrison/Them original.) 39. Horses -- Patti Smith. 40. A Meditation on Form — Amit Varma. 41. Leviathan and the Air-Pump -- Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer. 42. The Moomin books by Tove Jansson. 43. Lawrence and His Laboratory -- JL Heilbron and Robert W Seidel. 44. A Farewell to Gabo and Mercedes -- Rodrigo Garcia. 45. Ironic -- Alanis Morisette. 46. The Argumentative Indian -- Amartya Sen. 47. Behave — Robert Sapolsky. 48. Robert Sapolsky's biology lectures on YouTube. 49. $800,000 to Zero – The FASCINATING History of DaVinci Resolve — Alex Jordan of Learn Color Grading. 50. Justice with Michael Sandel. 51. The Case Against Sugar — Gary Taubes. 52. The Big Fat Surprise: why butter, meat, and cheese belong in a healthy diet — Nina Teicholz. 53. Population Is Not a Problem, but Our Greatest Strength — Amit Varma. 54. Falsifiability. 55. The Logic of Scientific Discovery -- Karl Popper. 56. Merchants of Doubt -- Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway. 57. Priyanka Pulla on Twitter and LinkedIn. 58. The Ultimate Pocket Camera: Insta360 X3! -- Marques Brownlee. 59. Listen, The Internet Has SPACE -- Amit Varma. 60. Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: Volumes 1 to 98. 61. The Collected Writings and Speeches of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. 62. Abby Philips Fights for Science and Medicine -- Episode 310 of The Seen and the Unseen. 63. Hortus Malabaricus. 64. Beware of Quacks. Alternative Medicine is Injurious to Health — Amit Varma. 65. A Godless Congregation — Amit Varma. 66. In a Silent Way -- Episode 316 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Gaurav Chintamani). 67. Raymond Carver on Amazon. 68. Cathedral -- Raymond Carver. 69. Joseph Epstein on Amazon and Wikipedia. 70. Wisława Szymborska on Poetry Foundation, Amazon and Wikipedia. 71. The Foundation Series -- Isaac Asimov. 72. Abbey Road -- The Beatles. 73. The Man Who Sold the World -- David Bowie. 74. Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro — Kundan Shah. 75. The 400 Blows — Francois Truffaut. 76. Delicatessen --  Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Marc Caro. 77. La Haine -- Mathieu Kassovitz. 78. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Srinath Raghavan:1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 79. Episodes of The Seen and the Unseen with Ramachandra Guha: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. This episode is sponsored by CTQ Compounds. Check out The Daily Reader and FutureStack. Use the code UNSEEN for Rs 2500 off. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘The Void Stares Back' by Simahina.

Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel fears that we've turned from a market economy into a market society, where just about everything is for sale. His book, What Money Can't Buy, was a big success 10 years ago. He joins Astra Taylor and Michael Ignatieff to discuss why his book is even more relevant today.

Some of Michael's key works … Meritocratic ideals and meritocratic fantasies … The animus against elites … Shouldn't innovators reap their rewards? … Does more profit create more value? … Renewing the dignity of work … The uses of punishment … Our responsibility to national and global communities … Michael: Diversity has “monopolized” discussion of […]

Some of Michael's key works ... Meritocratic ideals and meritocratic fantasies ... The animus against elites ... Shouldn't innovators reap their rewards? ... Does more profit create more value? ... Renewing the dignity of work ... The uses of punishment ... Our responsibility to national and global communities ... Michael: Diversity has “monopolized” discussion of affirmative action ... China's reception of Michael's critique of meritocracy ...

Some of Michael's key works ... Meritocratic ideals and meritocratic fantasies ... The animus against elites ... Shouldn't innovators reap their rewards? ... Does more profit create more value? ... Renewing the dignity of work ... The uses of punishment ... Our responsibility to national and global communities ... Michael: Diversity has “monopolized” discussion of affirmative action ... China's reception of Michael's critique of meritocracy ...

For the beginning of the year, we are revisiting two previous yet timely conversations, with Adrian Wooldridge (author of "The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World") and Michael Sandel (author of "The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good").With them, Bethany and Luigi discuss whether meritocracy creates a better world for everyone, or if it creates massive inequality. Wooldridge makes the nuanced case that while meritocracy is generally beneficial, we as a society need to recapture the notion of merit from the elites. Sandel, on the other hand, argues in a nuanced way that essentially the problem with meritocracy is not the failure to live up to the ideal, but the idea itself.Capitalisn't will be back in your feeds with a brand new episode on January 19. Don't forget to rate and review our podcast if you haven't already, and leave us a voicemail at https://www.speakpipe.com/Capitalisnt.

“Un hombre solo tiene derecho a mirar a otro hacia abajo, cuando ha de ayudarle a levantarse”, decía Gabriel García Márquez. La ONU señala que la desigualdad es uno de los mayores desafíos de nuestra era. Desigualdades que golpean con fuerza a los más vulnerables: niños y jóvenes. La emprendedora social Bisila Bokoko, acompañada de un grupo de jóvenes, asume el desafío de responder por qué existen tantas desigualdades, de dónde provienen y cómo podemos lograr una sociedad mucho más justa e igualitaria.   Con las intervenciones del historiador y escritor Yuval Noah Harari; del filósofo Michael Sandel; de la maratoniana Kathrine Switzer; del economista Oded Galor; y de la filósofa y pensadora Adela Cortina.