marginally subversive

Fitting equations...

I am fairly sure that if one tries hard enough, one can describe a set of seemingly random data points using an equation or a set of equations.

What I am not sure of is if one can explain WHY such an equation or systems of equations hold or should be true.

random thoughts: on giving advice and help

my mom used to say "never give advice nor help to anyone who doesn't want it - you only waste your time".

in the course of my career, i have found this advice to be timeless.  

i am, by nature, opinionated.  (my mom, by the way, is a very opinionated woman - and so was my grandmom, her mom.)  when i have an opinion, i let others know of it.  sometimes it helps, sometimes it falls on deaf ears.

other times, it becomes a source of discord and 'issues' and 'territorial disputes'.

it's sad.  not because i have 'gems' of opinions or of advice - sometimes, my opinions are probably pointless or not helpful.  

it's sad because it is an indication of a closed mind - one that has congealed and refuses to admit that "there are still things unknown out there that are worth knowing about".

i think no amount of education can ever replace the value of curiosity.

that willingness to consider something so different from the status quo.

that willingness to consider that "i could be wrong".

that willingness to say "i don't really know - what do you think?"

that willingness to be challenged.

38 ways to win an argument according to Schopenhauer...

I picked this one up from my other blog, which I got from this blog.

Presumably, this is from Schopenhauer, a German Philosopher, who is quite well-known for his clarity of thinking.  Though I never read his works in the university, I have heard of him and his influence on Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and the psychologist, Carl Gustav Jung.

These stratagems to win any argument were lifted from one of his books, The Art of Controversy, which as you will find out is quite controversial indeed.  In this book, he enumerated how one can win any argument.

Well, it doesn't necessarily mean that one ought to follow them - one needs to be aware of them in order to deflect any attempts of others in using them to win an argument.

Will I recommend someone using these?  I am not sure.  Going through the list, I think these do increase the chance of winning an argument - but they do not necessarily facilitate truth nor are they conducive to real, clear communication lines.

I will recommend reading through them in order to know and be aware.

1) Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.
The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow your propositions remain, the easier they are defend.

2) Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his or her argument.

3) Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing.
Rather, understand it and state it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.

4) Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitious route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal.

5) Use your opponent's beliefs against him.
If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.

6) Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.

7) State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions.
By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent's admissions.

8) Make your opponent angry.
An angry person is less capable of using judegment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

9) Use your opponet's answers to your question to reach different or even opposite conclusions.

10) If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises.
This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek them to concede.

11) If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion.
Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.

12) If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable in your proposition.

13) To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him or her an opposite, counter-proposition as well.
If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.

14) Try to bluff your opponent.
If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shyr or stupid,and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.

15) If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment. Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true poposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it.
Should the opponent reject it because he or she suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject a true proposition.
Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your own for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition or maintain that your original proposition is proved by what the opponent accepted. For this, an extreme degree of impudence is required.

16) When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action.

17) If your opponent presses you with a counter proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction.  
Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.

18) If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

19) Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his or her argument, and you have nothing much to say, try to make the argument less specific.

20) If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion.
Rather draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.

21) When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial and you see its falsehood, you can refute it by setting forth its superficiality.
But it is better to counter with an argument that is just as superficial.
Your concern is victory - NOT truth.

22) If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.

23) Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating their statements.
By contradicting your opponent, you may drive him or her into extending the statement beyond its natural limit.
When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the orginal statement your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefine your statement's limits.

24) Make a false syllogism.
Your opponent makes a proposition; force from the proposition other propositions that are unintended and are absurd through false inference and distortion.

25) If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary.
Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the oppoent's proposition.

26) A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against him or herself.

27) Should your opponent surprise you be becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal.
Not only will this make the opponent angry, it may be presumed that you put your finger on the weak side of his or her case, and that the opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.

28) You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience.
This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs.
If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.

29) If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion -  i.e., you can suddenly begin to talk  of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter.
This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.

30) Make an appeal to authority rather than reason.
If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponet fails to understand are those which he or she generally admires thae most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have invented entirely yourself.

31) If you know that you have no reply to an argument that your opponet advances, you may by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.

32) A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious, detestable category.

33) Admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.

34) When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without you knowing it.
You must, therefore, pursue the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.

35) Instead of working on an opponent's intellect, work on his or her motive.
If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem dinstinclty to his or her own interes, the opponenentwill drop it like a hot potato.

36) You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere pomposity or use of highfalutin words.
If the opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he or she has no idea what you are talking about, you can easily impose upon him or her some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.

37) Should your opponent be in the right but with a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position.
This is the way which bad advocates lose a good case.

38) A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.

via experimentalist.posterous.com and http://melsantos.blogspot.com/2005/06/schopenhauers-38-stratagems-or-38-ways.html. For the complete list in German and in English, see http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/

the new laziness...

... is all about inertia brought on by fear.

Fear of the unknown.
Fear of what the big bosses will say.
Fear for one's career.
Fear for one's future.
Fear of consumers' response.
Fear of failure.
Fear of success...

The new laziness is all about the paralysis brought by fear of what could be.

From Seth Godin:

... the new laziness has nothing to do with physical labor and everything to do with fear. If you're not going to make those sales calls or invent that innovation or push that insight, you're not avoiding it because you need physical rest.

 

causality is one complex business…

… that this blog post is NOT going to do the topic justice. but i will trudge on nonetheless.

just because two things are moving together doesn’t mean they are causing each other

 

 

you can’t conclude that something causes something unless you have (1) thoroughly reviewed previously written research, (2) looked at alternative reasons why the two may be – and may not be causal, and (3) checked with common-sense.  a high “r-coefficient” or a high “r-squared” doesn’t mean anything.

 

 

if you don’t have an explanation why would A cause B – and why not something else (say, another variable C), and why not the other way around – i.e., B causes A – chances are the “causal relationship” is spurious.

 

***

once again, there’d be remarks that this is too academic. 

but it isn’t.

it’s simple, common-sense.

who is afraid of the big bad wolf called complexity?

i am quite surprised by people who always want and demand "simple solutions".

i get it:  there are merits to the elevator pitch.  that we all are time-poor.  that we don't have time to read reams and tons of documents.  that "simple is beautiful".

but sometimes, simple is just simply not enough.

we live in a complex world.  to deny that is to deny what is real.

the truth is - to get to a SIMPLE SOLUTION we will have to go through a myriad - perhaps infinite number - of potential solutions.

but no: we want quick-fix solutions to problems:

sales are going down - let's do a promotion.
awareness is nil - let's spend money.
people are not clicking through our ads - let's bombard them even more.
products aren't flying off the shelves - let's fire the ad people, the promo people, the graphic designer.
people are not talking about us online - let's pay bloggers.
people are bashing our brands - delete their comments.
people think our products are expensive - let's cut prices.
stock prices have been stagnant for 4 weeks - let's fire the ceo.
we're the market leader - let's kill the smaller players.

we want simple solutions to problems that are very complex.

 

well.

life is not simple.

business is not simple.

marketing is not simple.

people are not simple.

how we think isn't simple.

how we choose isn't simple.

why then should we expect that the solutions ought to be simple?

 

complex problems, complex scenarios, complex decision-points require due diligence, rigor, structure.  to look for shortcuts for the sake of "simplicity" is simply laziness. sure, communicate the solution the simplest way possible - BUT never sacrifice the process that goes on underneath the search for that solution.

 

===============================

 

thanks to michael.heiss at Flickr.com for the photo above.

Rereading Socrates: Pretensions, Slander, and Insecurities

I have been rereading Socrates' Apologia - a required reading back when I was in the university.  The Apologia (or the Apology) is written by Plato in behalf of Socrates.  It covers Socrates' defense of himself before he was sentenced to death by drinking hemlock, a kind of poison.

From Wikipedia:

The Apology of Socrates is Plato's version of the speech given by Socrates as he defends himself against the charges of "corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel" (24b). "Apology" here has its earlier meaning (now usually expressed by the word "apologia") of speaking in defense of a cause or of one's beliefs or actions (from the Greek απολογία).

Rereading it with new perspectives - older, perhaps a little (just a wee bit) wiser from that 17year-old me - has given me new thoughts:  The reason why Socrates was sentenced to death is because others around him could not accept the fact that they are not as wise as they thought themselves to be.

They were a pretentious lot who have stopped asking questions.  They believe that they have all the answers - and that everything that needed to be learned, they knew.

This belief - call it self-confidence, "kabibohan", self-belief - was the ultimate in their lives: it is the pillar on which their whole concept of their own self is built. 

And Socrates came and debunked the very pillar of their lives.

And he came with proof: through questions and answers, he uncovered the very weakness of the people's assumptions about themselves on how wise, good, intelligent they are.

He didn't necessarily show them they were useless - he just showed them that what they have is not everything there is to have.

But I guess, that too simply was too deep and profound for his accusers.

=========

Once in a while, someone comes into our lives to tell us that the things we know are not enough.  That there is more to learn.  And that there is more to consider than just the formulaic, textbook considerations of the past.

It is disruptive.  It truly is.

But it also opens up opportunities to improve.

That is, if one accepts it and does not rebel against the realization that there is more.

But sometimes, that person is seen too much of a distraction, a divisive factor, a gadfly, a subversive, a hard-headed arse who needs to be eliminated by all costs...

All because that person simply showed - and proved - that what one knows now is not enough and that there is more to learn if only one would listen.

How we react to that person who shows us our inadequacies is a measure of our own openness to learning more, of wanting to be more.

=========

What I found in my 15 years of working is that the people who are most unwilling to admit their inadequacies and be open to new things are the ones who are most insecure.

They are the ones who would slander other people and defame them to get what they want, create an "aura" and "facade" of supposed kindness, and feign innocence. 

They sow seeds of distrust within a team, create a "reputation" that they are the glue that holds the team together, and name others as "divisive" and "unprofessional".

One could only pity them.

In the same way that Socrates may have felt pity towards his accusers.

=========

The jury will vote. 
Someone will drink the hemlock.
Someone will take the blame.
Someone will walk away with the labels "divisive", "subversive", "hardheaded", "inconsiderate", and "ineffective" attached to his name. 
All because the jury had been fooled by facades and pretensions of one accuser who believes herself to be "enough", "mature enough", "wise enough", and "good enough".

What a pitiful state for a human being.
Not for the accused - but for the accuser.

One could only hope that she be given a long, interesting life.

=========

learning how to fall

Why is it that we are so enamored by 'learning how to fall'?

At least that's the impression I got from some of the things that I have been observing.

When one learns surfing, the first thing they teach is "how to fall off the board safely".

In judo, it's also the same thing: how to fall and break it so you won't break a bone.

In whitewater rafting, the first lesson is: how to get back onto the boat when it turns over.

In volleyball: how to fall on that special mat, roll, and get out of the other players' way.

Then this thing on "golden parachutes" that CEOs get before they take on the role.

It's as if we're so obsessed with failing - that we have to prepare for it from day one. 

Why not teach "the beauty of the waves - and being underneath them"?

Or the beauty of using another's anger and force to one's own advantage?

Or the beauty of jumping high, doing a spike, or blocking an opponent's deadly smash?

Or the beauty of leading a team of people - who are not bound by blood but (hopefully) by vision - to create the best organizations.

Surely, these are far better motivators than failure.

Or are they?

I have never learned how to fall.

Though I wouldn't call myself risk-averse, I also wouldn't call myself riskophilic.

I just never had learned how to fall.

And that is why sometimes, when I fall, I fall hard.

Is it because I see the beauty of the possibilities that tend to overshadow the possibilities of failure?

Is it because I see the "good" in people more than the possibility of them being "bad"?

I have had my shares of failures.  And of 'bad' people.

And still.  I have never learned how to fall.

And right now, I am not sure if I want to learn that.

Midnight thoughts: Of Parallel Universes and Quantum Schizophrenia

I really am amused by Philippine politics. Sometimes, I do wonder what could have been my life be if I decided to jump in. The family is not too far from politics. I guess it wouldn't be that hard.

Watching 'The West Wing' and 'Commander-in-Chief' on TV also seemed to suggest that life in politics would be interesting.

Then again...

Nah.

It really is not my calling.

I wanted to be a doctor though. A neurosurgeon, an epidemiologist, a virologist, or an internist.

But I guess, being a doctor wasn't really what I wanted to do.

Instead, I am now in advertising and media and churning numbers and poring over spreadsheets and equations.

As if, if I didn't, the whole world would plunge into a very deep darkness that would further the suffering of children in Africa.

Quantum physicists suggest - at least, I think they do - that there are parallel universes.

I hope - sincerely hope - that in one (or more) of those universes, I was a doctor. A virologist. An epidemiologist. A neurosurgeon. Or simply some doctor saving lives in the middle of the night in the middle of somewhere. Doing good. Doing something real good for someone else.

I also hope that in one of those universes, I were a politician - who is in it not for the cash bit for the power to make changes and create opportunities accessible who want to and can make use of them. Doing good. Doing great work.

And if indeed there was a singularity where all these universes meet, I hope to meet these other me's.

And ask them, "So were you really great in your work in your universe? Did you do real good?"

For now, I - in this universe - have yet to fully answer that question with confidence and certitude.

Perhaps, I should start working on it.

PTiongson, Version 1995

I have a new team.  And on the day I met them, they seemed to be one hell of a great team. 

They all are younger than me - perhaps in their early to mid 20s. 

They probably were still in their diapers when I was already marching towards the stage to get my high school diploma.

And before they hear it from other sources - ex-colleagues, ex-bosses, former business partners - let me clarify now a few things that was me back then in 1995 when I was a freshie in the world of media planning and buying.

1. I was fashion-challenged back then.

I once showed up in a presentation (my first presentation) to a client, McDonald's, in a blue long-sleeved barong.  The boss demanded that I come in 'corporate attire' - and the big boss back then, was always in barong.  So I guess, I should don a barong to the meeting.

Of course, I had a beating from my bosses back then.  Barongs - specifically, blue barons - were the de facto uniforms of male bank tellers and executives - and eventually, it evolved to be the de facto uniform of bodyguards and security guards.

These days, I might still be fashion-challenged. 

I really don't know.

2. On my first day at work, I didn't know how to work the fax machines, the photocopier, and the phones.

I had to ask my bosses how to send through a stack of broadcast orders to the leading TV stations and get them to show me how to do it.  Back then, we had to dial the number, wait for someone to pick up, and say "fax tone, please" - before pressing the green button.  And we had to wait for the confirmation slip and call the recipient to make sure that it's been received.

I also didn't know how to use the photocopying machine.  My excuse was, well, in the library of the Ateneo, there were the "Xerox-girls" who would gladly "Xerox" copies of notes of missed classes and lectures and of chapters of Chemistry, Psychology, and Anatomy books that I refused to take home.

I also had to learn the hard way that in order to call IDD - say, the office in Singapore - I had to go through the operator, who was back then this nice lady but always very busy.  (Imagine, she's doing this for everyone in the office!)

3. I was a Quattro-kid.

I was an Excel and Win32 kid in the university.  I also wrote SPSS scripts and ran SPSS without a glitch in college for my thesis.  But in the office of the ad company called Basic Advertising, we used Quattro.  So I had to dump all the things I knew about Excel and Win32 to learn Quattro (which used "@" instead of "=" to start a formula).

And oh, we had "hard copies" of broadcast, telecast, and print orders.  And we had dot-matrix printers.  In order for us to create readable copies of these orders, we had to follow strict templates on Quattro to make sure that the things that we want aired are legibly printed on the printed templates.  We had to be really careful with feeding in the order-forms.

These days, though, I can write Excel VBA subs and functions.  I can also write simple C++ programs and use cryptic programs on CRAN-R, a stat program.

4. There were two systems in the Philippines for monitoring TV ads and for monitoring ratings.  And we had to manually reconcile the two for our post-buys.  I hated it.  To the max.  But it taught me patience.

To determine the actual rating of a TVC as it was aired, we had to run PMS - the Philippine Monitoring Service - and print the spots all out using, yes, the dot-matrix printer on computer paper.  Sometimes, it takes overnight to print those - so I'd set the PC to do the runs then let it print out overnight.  The worst case scenario - and it always happened back then - was paper-jams.  We'd curse and curse - but then we'd do it all over again.

We then took those printout neatly folded - and entered each spot (its actual airing time, its channel, its program...) one by one into another system called Telescope so we could run the actual performance of those spots.

5. I traded, begged, fought for "hot properties" with others in the office.

Since I was handling a relatively big account, we had "hot properties" - that is, we had priority over smaller accounts on key programs on primetime TV.  We got these hot properties by jumping in early - say, two weeks post the New Year - and start running our campaigns on these hot properties.

It was an unspoken rule to maintain your presence in those hot properties throughout the year - otherwise, another brand might just get my 'slot'.

So to maintain my "hot properties", I traded it with other teams.  I would holler "I have a spot on <Home Along Da Riles> - anybody wants it?" or "I am on a two week hiatus - I need fillers of my hot properties".  Because these were hot programs with high-ratings (and low CPRPs), I always had someone to fill them in.

Once in a while, though, some planners would conveniently 'forget' that I was lending them only 2 slots but would plan for 4 spots.  That's when quarrels break out.  I sometimes would give in - but since my responsibility is to the client, I would stand my ground.

My account also didn't have all the 'hot properties' covered.  There were some that we passed on early in the year.  But during launches, when we needed more GRPs or needed to do multiple spots in one break, I would beg, cajole, grovel for hot properties so I would meet my goals.

6. Whenever I had a full-color/centerspread booking on Manila Bulletin or Philippine Daily Inquirer, I didn't sleep well.

These press units were the most expensive press real estate.  With my meager salary, it would have taken me 24 months to pay for just one misprinted or misimplemented full-colour centerspread.

So whenever I had a booking for a full-color centerspread, I would stay up late in the office, hanging out by the print-prod people, and sometimes, would trudge down to the newspaper printers myself to deliver the films and see for myself an initial run of the papers.  My bosses never knew this - but my peers did.  Because we all did the same.

7. I had lots of sabits (mishaps) because I was the epitome of order - or the absence thereof.

My table could only be described as Chaos.  Not even organized chaos.  Just plain Chaos. With a capital C.

And that's why I'd lose some media plans or booking orders.

I have since learned to develop a system - I learned it all in Vietnam with the help of my boss (who was doubly more chaotic than me) and the client services director (who was super neat and organized).

8. I have a weird accent.

My ex-bosses think it's the Ateneo ("Arrneoe") accent.  I think it was because I was a promdi.

I still have a weird accent - which a linguist friend thinks is an amalgam of Filipino, American, and Singaporean-British accents.  Which is weird.

My nieces and my nephews still laugh at my Tagalog - and my mom still thinks I should avoid by all means necessary speaking Ilocano.

I blame it all on my penchant for learning a little bit of different languages - but never mastering them.  In college, it was Chinese Mandarin (required course, you see), French, and Italian.  In Vietnam, Vietnamese (which I failed miserably).  In Singapore, Chinese and Spanish.

I still do have a weird accent.

And it's definitely fake - in that it's not my 'real' accent.  But unintentionally fake.

9. I love my clients' brands.
(Or at least, I try my best to learn to love my brands.)

When I was handling McDonald's, I only ate at McDonald's.  When I was managing Star City, I didn't want to go to Star City - until I was reprimanded by the boss.  When I was managing Pepsi, no Coke for me.  When I was handling MasterCard, just pure, plain MasterCard for me and nothing else.  When I was asked to fill in for Pond's for a bit, I switched to Pond's.

(I kinda drew the line for sanitary napkins for obvious reasons.)

Why?  Because I was working my a** off on these brands.  And if I didn't believed in them, all my work would have been in vain.  Using a competitor's was - and is - to me anathema and heretical.

10. I love numbers - but I love more the stories that are hidden by these numbers.

I tried my first regression analysis on my first year in media planning for my first client.  I was mentored and egged on by a professor at the AIM to pursue it.  My bosses thought it was 'splitting hairs' and perhaps unnecessary since "sales cannot be explained solely by advertising efforts" - but appreciated it (I think).

In Ogilvy's Network, I tried to 'numerate' (quantify?) the 'quality' of programs that we were buying through several metrics - time-spent, standard deviation of minute-by-minute ratings, composition/overrepresentation of the targets....  And presented it to the client as an alternative to "GRP/OTS-based" buying.

In Vietnam, that was when I started to create more sophisticated models in predicting ratings - and understanding why Korean dramas were a hit in comparison to Japanese - and why certain Korean dramas were better than others.  (The answer: How cute the couples were and how convoluted the stories were had significant impacts.)

In Singapore, that's when things became a little crazier - econometrics came into the picture, time series modeling, stochastic variables and risk-based analysis and budgeting...

11. Whilst numbers are good, I still believe that there are phenomena that cannot be ensnared by numbers.

My Philosophy 101/102 professor - Fr. Ferriols - taught me about the power of numbers and of science.  And their limitations.

12. I write long emails.

I write long emails.  My emails have been called novels, essays, diatribes... And I am still learning how to write shorter emails.

My presentations, however, are getting shorter and shorter.   Anything beyond 30 slides makes me nervous.  Anything beyond 60 makes me want to cry.  Anything under 15 makes me want to jump for joy.

13. I have made at least one media vendor-partner cry, have had at least one shouting match with an outdoor vendor on the phone, have cried at least once in a meeting, and have been told by two different clients (from two different accounts), "Philip, read my lips".

Let's not get into the details. :D