Choices

Beware of leaping to conclusions without first looking for alternative explanations!

There can be many explanations for events and results that we notice. Assuming that the first one we find is the ONLY one can be wrong… and can sometimes make us look a little foolish.

Here’s a glaring example I recently noticed.

As a writer, I am always eager to learn how to write better, and particularly so for the internet. Recently I clicked on an article on sources of ideas for writing great (i.e. popular) social media content.

The writer recommended that his readers should study posts that were labelled as “successful” because they had been re-posted many times. Note should also be take of those that failed – i.e. had been re-posted less often. By comparing the two, he explained, one could learn what is likely to succeed and what would probably fail.

As examples he referred to items published on four specific  dates; two for which social sharing of his selected (but unnamed) items was extremely high, and two on which it was very much low lower. He wrote that first two obviously included “excellent” content, and that content on the second two days, must not have been “engaging or effective” because there were far fewer re-posts.

In other words, he took the quality of the content as the ONLY reason for changes in the number of shares.

However… (yes, you knew that would be a however, didn’t you?) the writer seemed not to have noticed that the two days with the highest share numbers were both on Mondays. The two days with the very low numbers were Saturdays. As we know, Monday is the day when many people return to their “work” computers and spend their time on social media until the boss arrives – and maybe at other times during the day. Conversely, on Saturdays many of us have other activities on our mind than social sharing.

In fact, then, we do not actually know whether content on those first-mentioned days was indeed “excellent” or if that from the second two was truly neither “engaging” nor “effective.” To get a clear idea about that would call for comparing content that was or was not highly shared on the same day of the week. And, probably, at the same time of day.

I am guessing that there may be many other unnoticed variables leading to other conclusions, but I think this makes the point without more detail.

The data may be accurate, but just because one conclusion comes to your mind, do not assume that it is the only explanation. Let your creativity look for other possible causes. In this case, the writer was so focused on quality of content that the weekday of publishing apparently did not occur to him.

Many years ago I taught adult ed courses about ESP and similar topics. I would start each course by saying, “When you feel a cool breeze on the back of your neck, and you remember that today is the anniversary of Aunt Maud’s death, do not immediately say ‘Oh, Aunt Maud’s spirit is visiting.’ Before you come to that conclusion, check to see if you are standing in front of an open window.”

I would continue, “In this course I will teach you how to look for the open window.” Of course, the “true believers” did not return for the second lesson because they did not want to look for alternative explanations such as that the breeze might – or might not – come from an open window. And that was okay.

Check around for alternative explanations before coming to conclusions. Don’t stop looking just because you find one that fits with what you currently believe. A thorough search may help you to avoid landing on a conclusion that is based on quicksand, a potentially dangerous result.

I’m laughing. Some people think that I’m overly picky about correct grammar. Overly picky?  Does the outcome of a several million dollar law suit based on the absence of one simple comma sound picky to you?

In the State of Maine there is a in a law requiring payment of at least time-and-a-half for overtime. However, it excludes certain worker activities, and part of this “exclusion” section clarifies which ones.
“The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:” which is followed by a list of the types of perishable foods covered.

I am a fan of what is known as the “Oxford,” or “serial” comma. That is the comma that may or may not separate the last item in a list from its predecessor. You can see that there is no Oxford comma after “shipment” in the italicized phrase. If there had been, then there would be no argument. Because there is not, the issue arises of whether “packing” is for shipment AND distribution, or for shipment only. The latter would mean that distribution is a separate activity and that those who do it are excluded from the overtime law. They would be paid their regular hourly rate no matter how many hours they worked – which is what had been happening in the past.

In a nutshell, it is clear that the people doing the packing for shipment are excluded from getting time-and-a-half when working overtime. What the argument is about is whether the people doing the distribution, i.e. truck drivers, are also excluded. On the basis of the lack of the Oxford comma, they were suing for that extra “half” for all their overtime over the past four years.

The Decision

Okay, end of story – after two court cases were decided in favor of the employer, the Appeals court overturned that decision. It held that the drivers are entitled to overtime pay, and the employer must pay them what is owed from back pay. The New York Times estimates that total payment to be around ten million dollars – because an Oxford comma was missing.

My point, of course, is that variations around grammatical correctness and sentence structure can have very real consequences.

When I was young, and argued about the importance of some minor detail my mother would reply with a long story. It began with, “For want of a nail, a horseshoe was lost, for want of a horseshoe a horse was lost….” And so on until a battle, a war, and then a country had been lost, all because of that one missing horseshoe nail. In this case, for want of an Oxford comma, a dairy company in Maine stands to have to pay an estimated ten million dollars in back wages to its drivers. Unless, of course, a subsequent court case overturns it.

Fortunately, such situations are rare. Unfortunately, grammatical glitches that can change the meaning of a sentence are fairly common. That is why, addition to being my Life Strategy Coaching, I am in process of becoming a Grammatical Consultant for website owners.

I will let you know when the new website launches. No need to worry, this one will not disappear.

If, for whatever reason, you want to browse the New York Times account of this case, go to.

And if you actually enjoy legalistic nit-picking, or just want something that might help you get to sleep, here is the link to the actual court decision – all 29 pages of it.

How many of us tend to avoid telling others what we want? Invent reasons for doing – or not doing – something? What is wrong with saying “Because I want to?” Are we afraid of appearing selfish? Irresponsible? Do we expect that others will start psychoanalyzing us? Do we… do we suspect that we are not entitled to do something that we want unless we have another, more “practical” reason?
I busted myself on this a while back, and it reminded me of all the times I have heard other people do the same thing so that those around them get a false impression.

Mine was a fairly minor issue, but it meant that I had to face a lot of misunderstanding.

Some readers may remember that not long ago I went on what some people considered a rather foolhardy or arduous trip. I chose to drive from Rochester, New York out to Tucson, Arizona on my own, and to return by a different (and longer) route so as to see a different landscape. The foundation reason was that I love driving alone, and I wanted to challenge myself, to see countryside I had not seen before… AND I wanted to see my family. There was also the fact that, having just downsized, I had some family items for which I no longer had room, some of which were too fragile to risk shipping and too large to be carry-on. I wanted to take them to my offspring, Three reasons. Which one do you think I gave to everyone who asked why I was heading out on my own? The last one. The one that dealt with things, things outside of myself. The truth is, I could have put those things in storage and told the offspring they could pick them up at their leisure. But no. I used that not as one of my reasons, but as THE reason.

Result? I was beset by well-meaning people who tried to figure out a way for me to achieve my so-called objective without “having to” do the long drive. Why? Because I had not been honest about all of my reasons. They thought that the objective was the transfer of the family items. Yes, that was part of it. But the challenge and interest of seeing the country on the ground – as opposed to flying – and doing it completely independently – was every bit as important – no, it was more important – to me than the transfer of a few bits and pieces.

Apparently I was not able – or willing – to simply say, “Because I want to.”

This tendency to give reasons that are outside of ourselves is a giving away of our own power. It can also lead to more serious misunderstanding than those I encountered from well-meaning people who wanted only to help.

I have seen it in people in recovery from addiction. They may be determined not to return to their substance of choice, but when it is offered they say “Because the program won’t let me.” “Because I’m on parole.” Both give the well-meaning friends (who may not understand the horrors of addiction) the impression that the person would like to use, but that some outside force is preventing them. In recovery, the development of a strong INTERIOR force is crucial to continued abstinence, and, as with any muscle or habit, it can only be strengthened by use. Putting the blame on the external does not do that. The friends think the friendly thing to do is to encourage the substance use, because the impression has been given that that is what the addicted person wants. Friends are willing to challenge the power of the outside forces that forbid. They want to support what they believe is what their friend “really” wants. Just as my friends’ attempted problem-solving did not help me, nor does theirs – in fact it can be harmful. How much clearer it would be to say, simply, “I don’t want to,” and leave it at that.

Apart from the misleading of those around us, the hesitation to simply say “because I want to” or, more politely, “This is something I would really like to do,” denies some of us the right to claim our power, the power to decide, to choose to do something and then to do it.

I’m not talking about abandoning responsibilities. (I had that handled.) I am not saying that this tendency occurs in everyone. Most of us know some people who do what they want to do regardless. I am writing to people who feel, perhaps, as I did, that it might sound a little silly for (in my case) a no longer young female to head off alone just because she wanted to. Do you sometimes find an external cover-up for what you really want, instead of being real? If you do, I urge you to work on getting honest with yourself and those around you. You do not need an external prop to justify something that matters to you.

And if someone near you demands that you find one… is it because they are trying to be helpful, or because they want to deny you the right to do it “just because” you want to? Do they have that right?

It is okay to know what we want to do. Yes, perhaps we have to deal with external responsibilities, but so long as it is not harmful to others, we do not have to invent reasons for doing what we want to do.

If you are able to do it, and it harms none, it is enough that you want to.