I gotta hand it to the eminent Dean Jorge Bocobo. In one really succinct comment he makes on his rather classy recent blog post Jakol ng Bayan, he effectively illustrates certain collective character traits of Philippine political commentary (what a coincidence! Mr. Dean’s website is in fact named “Philippine commentary”! :D ) that goes quite some way towards explaining why the national “debate” is the way it is:
Ahem.Actually Manolo did that just to get rid of his blog’s main heckler. A clever salve to get rid of a bad skin rash. And guess who the “Publisher” of the book is? What bookstore carries it? It’s downloadable for free. So no one has bought it. Anybody can put together a PDF file full of b.s. cut n pasted form B.S. Without a real publisher this is not a real book but a mere computer file. Even pink gurl n boy bloggers could make a book like this.
Critically acclaimed? He needs to have his head examined, which is critically inflamed.
GabbyD,
Ahem.Actually Manolo did that just to get rid of his blog’s main heckler. A clever salve to get rid of a bad skin rash. And guess who the “Publisher” of the book is? What bookstore carries it? It’s downloadable for free. So no one has bought it. Anybody can put together a PDF file full of b.s. cut n pasted form B.S. Without a real publisher this is not a real book but a mere computer file. Even pink gurl n boy bloggers could make a book like this.Critically acclaimed? He needs to have his head examined, which is critically inflamed.
He was of course referring to my book, Get Real Philippines Book 1, which I wrote back in 2006 and which attracted a blog post from no less than The Noted Blogger himself — a book which I doubt most bloggers of note other than The Noted One has read.
So to answer GabbyD’s question, nobody aside from The Noted One has praised the book, publicly.
But getting back to a certain blogger noted for other things, let us deconstruct and analyse his rather “insightful” comment by categorising sections of it using some well-known behaviours and approaches now all-too-often observed in some noted participants in our so-called national “debate”:
SPECULATION
Actually Manolo did that just to get rid of his blog’s main heckler. A clever salve to get rid of a bad skin rash.
Sure he did, Dean. :D
OXYMORONISM
And guess who the “Publisher” of the book is? What bookstore carries it? It’s downloadable for free. So no one has bought it.
It’s a reality of the market, Dean. Usually when you offer something for free, it does not get “bought”. It gets taken. :D
LACK OF SUBSTANCE
Anybody can put together a PDF file full of b.s. cut n pasted form B.S. Without a real publisher this is not a real book but a mere computer file. Even pink gurl n boy bloggers could make a book like this.
You’re right, Dean. Any kid can create a PDF “computer file” and even call it a “book”. But not every kid can fill this PDF file with content that is meaningful. And to be able to evaluate said content and meaning, you need to first read and comprehend.
Sounds disturbingly like Da Pinoy’s approach to voting, doesn’t it? :D
MUD-SLINGING
Critically acclaimed? He needs to have his head examined, which is critically inflamed.
Reminds me of my schoolyard back when I was in first grade. :D
Classy indeed. This and all of the above coming from no less than Dean Jorge Bocobo — blogger and political commentator extraordinaire.
My simple question remains, Dean:
Have you read the book?
It’s quite scary that those to whom the least educated of our lot look to for guidance in the proper approach to regarding and evaluating stuff, themselves fail to apply what are really simple principles around making intelligent assessments.
==========
Lessons to be learned from all this:
Sometimes we have so entrenched ourselves into a certain approach to thinking that we fail to realise that we have become imprisoned by our own mind, and worse, our own education.
============
Join us on Facebook!
Popularity: 4% [?]
what are your plans with this book? you are not planning to publish it? you don’t want to promote it?
you never include your real name. thats fine i guess, but pen names are so pre-20th century. no modern writer hides behind a pen name. my advice: if you want to be taken more seriously, tell people who you really are.
also, you don’t want to collect positive blurbs from readers? just one blurb is not enough. Advice #2: ask some of your readers for their thoughts and put them on the book. get people who are successful to write these blurbs. it will convince others that you have something interesting to say.
what i found funny is this:
” But not every kid can fill this PDF file with content that is meaningful. ” — implying that your book is meaningful. Maybe. but this is something other people must say about you. you can’t say this about yourself. convincing other people is a reality we all have to face. i’m sure you know that. But it seems from that paragraph you don’t.
good luck in trying to convince people to take your ideas seriously. i’ve been commenting on your posts for more than a year now. i don’t agree with most of what you’ve written. “leaps of logic” aside (from MLQ3′s blog post), you do write pretty well.
Thanks GabbyD. I don’t really expect agreement from my readers. Only that they disagree in a proper and intelligent way (which in itself I find quite a tall order for a lot of people). ;)
That book was written in 2006. It’s been almost 3 years since. So obviously I have no further plans for it.
And as a tip of the hat to to MLQ3, his (and another noted blogger’s) public critique alone pretty much suffice.
Did mlq3′ really say these words about benign0′s “Get Real” book?
It’s interesting that the most provocative works in the past twenty years were produced by one American (James Fallows), and two Filipino expatriates (Benign0 and David C. Martinez).
————
You mean, this benign0-guy actually took the time from his weeknights and weekends to put together that pdf file? Now, that one —- to methodically take time from weeknights and weekends for a distinct purpose — not everyone can do.
Mlq3 called it a book about tough love.
Oh well, going back to the debating style of Benign0.
If I may ask why bother blogging about a comment or comments by bloggers instead of engaging them pronto.
Are you gathering spectators, are you selling tickets?
Before when you were just a commenter before evolving into a blogger, you dissect comments and everything that you don’t agree with becomes a “typical” disease of the pinoy and what follows the usual It’s simple really mantra.
Is that what you recommend as a good debating tool?
When you deal with the “Ca_t”. You release long hidden weapons and all ghosts of your past encounters.
Would you recommend that, as well?
Or would you recommend of hiding behind the benign0 concept and let people who actually met you like moi, forget that it is actually you and just forget that you were or rather you are a nice guy and believe that you are what you write which someone called assholery.(That guy even asked you not to change your style as a new years dedication in the smokeroom.)
I once said, that when you write about the pinoy,you include yourself for you are a pinoy after all.
Lately, you kept on saying na buti hindi ako ganon, so I take it back.
Come on, I know a lot of people already know who you are in the online world, just looking at your friends list in facebook.(some are bloggers)
Do you like to go on like this play contra bida and act as the guy with the attitude, a guy people would love to hate.
So benign0 is a concept and not a person called Benedict Ignacio.
After thenashman spilled it out, I tried to put the concept and the person in separate compartments.Mahirap eh.
Ahh the proverbial swine who can’t figure out the use for jewelry. :D
Hay naku eto ang mas magandang basahin Gabby D,
Manny Pacquiao in Time Magazine 100 most influential people in 2000.
And I agree Manny can be a good president for the country once he reach the qualifying age and gain more global recognition
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894410_1894289_1894356,00.html
By Lennox Lewis
Article ToolsPrintEmailSphereAddThisRSSYahoo! Buzz
Pound for pound, Manny Pacquiao is the best boxer in the world. But even more important than holding that distinction, Manny has connected with the people of his home country, the Philippines, to the point where he’s almost like a god. The people have rallied behind him and feel like they’re a part of him, because they can see his talent, his dedication, his grace and his class. The grip he holds over the Philippines is similar to Nelson Mandela’s influence in South Africa. I can surely see Manny becoming the Philippine President one day.
In fact, he already ran for Congress in the Philippines but lost, in part because voters thought he could do more for the country as an inspirational champion boxer. I agree with the Filipino people. Manny, 30, already has a true global reach, and his influence will only expand as he gets better. Manny is from the Muhammad Ali school. He’s a boxer, a puncher and a mover — a champion in four weight divisions. He doesn’t stand there and take shots. He throws that wicked jab and is so quick to dodge trouble.
Boxing needs a guy like Manny. Too often, when something positive develops, the sport takes two steps backward; you never know where the black eye is going to come from. With Manny, you don’t have to worry about that. He just loves the sport and knows he’s carrying the hopes of his country in the ring.
Lewis, the former world heavyweight champion, is a boxing commentator for HBO Sports
Fast Fact: Pacquiao is the first athlete the Philippine Postal Corp. has honored with his own stamp
Rego:
In a presidential race between Manny and YOU, rego.
I will rather vote for YOU than Manny Pacquaio.
thank you bongV, but between me and Manny I believe will Manny will be a better president.
Seriously, I believe that what the Filipino people realy need is a leader that inspire them like Ninoy and Ramon Magsaysay. and we cannot get that from the current crop of politicians.
Come to think of it. Many is just 30 years old. If he is really sincere of becoming the president of teh country he can start his training ngayon pa lang.
I hope that the people they are not inpsire by Mannys money only but rather by the dedication, hardwork and discipline to earn that money
Rego:
That is your opinion – and I respect your opinion.
I still am of the opinion that you, rego, make more sense than manny. You have a better understanding of the issues than manny. you are more articulate than manny. Except for the financial aspect – YOU, rego, no all key areas relevant to governance – are far superior than Manny Pacquiao.
Any book that interest you is worth reading. The author does not
matter. Ideas comes from any good person with a brain. It may be
a good idea, a bad idea, or just plain nonsense. It is up to the reader to judge. That is why we have brains for thinking. Eyes for
reading…
I totally agree.
And BongV kung matuto kang iwasan ang mga pahaging ni DJB, you know just ignore it and just cconcentrate on his good side you will be a better president than manny.
Sa totoo lang it find it really childish yung girian nyo ni DJB. At nag hihinayang ako that you waste your time on those things.
You are one of the writer here that I agree most of the time. And I have great respect to you and your opinion. I liek your writing style too!
Good things good while it lasts. Afterwhich it goes…pfffffffftttt.
“It is up to the reader to judge.”
read on…
Pinoy society is an intellectual prison!!
The Internet will break all walls of ignorance. It is up to you, if
you use your computer to learn, or just to play games.
reading internet entries is one thing, understanding them is another thing. you can’t learn if you cannot understand what you are reading.
‘just cconcentrate on his good side you will be a better president than manny.’
If this isn’t a real gem of cluelessness, I don’t know what is.
Perfect Non Sequitur. Priceless.
my good friend DJB really has to wean himself from the habit of psychoanalyzing me.
Be vague, mlq3…You see them…they dont see you is the game.
No return, no exchange, eh? hehe.
But I am just a literary critic, Manolo. When we “read between the lines” we are trying to read the author’s mind. It’s quite unavoidable, because psychoanalysis is in fact what bloggers do all the time–when you analyze GMA and her political allies for example, or to expose the Coconut Racist Bloggers we have here. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Our tools can be used on us.
When we “read between the lines” we are trying to read the author’s mind.
There’s too much reading between the lines, and people miss the lines.. whooooosh.
Benigno,
I decided to read further into your so called brilliant book.
Aside from issues I previously raised, I add the following:
-If anyone is to believe your issue on the elite and the english language; the elite have so far fallen. The call center industry is filled with them even before the start of the recent world financial crisis.
-Even Rumsfeld had to get his hands dirty while he supervised the emergency effort during 911.
Even Generals do similar things from time to time. Some even try to subsist on the same fare as their lowliest soldiers so they can gauge what his army can still do.
-Regarding those Mom and Pop Stores, many of the Filipino Chinese who own such are actually physically manning their own stores.
So again, your so called brilliant book is not as brilliant as you tout it to be!
So let me get this straight, justice league. Your “proof” that the “elite have so far fallen” is based on an observation that their kids all work for call centres, that Rumsfeld did emergency work during 911, and because Filipino Chinese man their own mom-and-pop stores?
You’ll have to do a bit better than that, dude lest you continue subtracting from the already dismal collective intellect of Pinoy society with every “comment” you make. :D
Benigno,
It’s only been 3 years since the release of your so called brilliant book; so what kids of the elite are you implying about?
So simply, it refers to the elite themselves.
The Rumsfeld example was not about the elite and the english language anymore but regarding your forklift manager example already. And the Mom and Pop store was not about the elite anymore also but from another issue in your so called brilliant book. If you knew your own book like you were supposed to; you’d knew where my ideas were based on which just means you don’t!
Too bad you’re not very adept at formulating your questions, Mr. justice league. Asking the right questions and formulating them clearly is the foundation of all insightful discussion, dude.
And again, you make quite a conclusion that I “don’t know my own book”, an assertion apparently based on a succinct response I make to a rather uninsightfully constructed set of questions.
Tough luck. :D
JL,
A coconut racist is like a snake under a rock, which actually hates and loathes itself. Their compleat shamelessness at self-aggrandizement are actually a disguise for a pitiable self-loathing, probably because they had no friends as kids and have run off to another part of the world from which they hurl rocks and vituperation at their rejected countrymen. They usually hide in complete anonymity like all dishonorable scoundrels and professional trolls do.
Best to leave them be. It is actually their parents and grandparents they hate and harbour umbrage at for some imagined failure or irresponsibility in their childhood. Theirs is a complex psychiatric condition about which we can do little but grin in charitable and bemused chagrin.
DJB,
I appreciate the advise.
But I think Benigno wants a few more rounds on this.
I think I can spare him a few more moments.
but not when they agree with you, right djb?
DrPsychoTic have yourself checked for Denial :D
http://www.minddisorders.com/Del-Fi/Denial.html
Denial
Definition
Denial is the refusal to acknowledge the existence or severity of unpleasant external realities or internal thoughts and feelings.
Theory of denial
In psychology, denial is a concept originating with the psychodynamic theories of Sigmund Freud. According to Freud, three mental dynamics, or motivating forces, influence human behavior: the id, ego, and superego.
The id consists of basic survival instincts and what Freud believed to be the two dominant human drives: sex and aggression. If the id were the only influence on behavior, humans would exclusively seek to increase pleasure, decrease pain, and achieve immediate gratification of desires.
The ego consists of logical and rational thinking. It enables humans to analyze the realistic risks and benefits of a situation, to tolerate some pain for future profit, and to consider alternatives to the impulse-driven behavior of the id.
The superego consists of moralistic standards and forms the basis of the conscience. Although the superego is essential to a sense of right and wrong, it can also include extreme, unrealistic ideas about what one should and should not do.
These three forces all have different goals (id, pleasure; ego, reality; superego, morality) and continually strive for dominance, resulting in internal conflict. This conflict produces anxiety.
The ego, which functions as a mediator between the two extremes of the id and the superego, attempts to reduce this anxiety by using defense mechanisms.
Defense mechanisms are indirect ways of dealing or coping with anxiety, such as explaining problems away or blaming others for problems.
Denial is one of many defense mechanisms. It entails ignoring or refusing to believe an unpleasant reality.
Defense mechanisms protect one’s psychological wellbeing in traumatic situations, or in any situation that produces anxiety or conflict.
However, they do not resolve the anxiety-producing situation and, if overused, can lead to psychological disorders.
Although Freud’s model of the id, ego, and superego is not emphasized by most psychologists today, defense mechanisms are still regarded as potentially maladaptive behavioral patterns that may lead to psychological disorders.
Examples of denial
Death is a common occasion for denial. When someone learns of the sudden, unexpected death of a loved one, at first he or she may not be able to accept the reality of this loss. The initial denial protects that person from the emotional shock and intense grief that often accompanies news of death. Chronic or terminal illnesses also encourage denial. People with such illnesses may think, “It’s not so bad; I’ll get over it,” and refuse to make any lifestyle changes.
Denial can also apply to internal thoughts and feelings. For instance, some children are taught that anger is wrong in any situation. As adults, if these individuals experience feelings of anger, they are likely to deny their feelings to others. Cultural standards and expectations can encourage denial of subjective experience. Men who belong to cultures with extreme notions of masculinity may view fear as a sign of weakness and deny internal feelings of fear. The Chinese culture is thought to discourage the acknowledgment of mental illness, resulting in individuals denying their psychological symptoms and often developing physical symptoms instead.
Certain personality disorders tend to be characterized by denial more than others. For example, those with narcissistic personality disorder deny information that suggests they are not perfect. Antisocial behavior is characterized by denial of the harm done to others (such as with sexual offenders or substance abusers).
Denial can also be exhibited on a large scale— among groups, cultures, or even nations. Lucy Bregman gives an example of national denial of imminent mortality in the 1950s: school children participated in drills in which they hid under desks in preparation for atomic attacks. Another example of large-scale denial is the recent assertion by some that the World War II Holocaust never occurred.
Treatment of denial
Denial is treated differently in different types of therapy.
In psychoanalytic therapy, denial is regarded as an obstacle to progress that must eventually be confronted and interpreted. Timing is important, however.
Psychoanalytic therapists wait until clients appear emotionally ready or have some degree of insight into their problems before confronting them.
In the humanistic and existential therapies, denial is considered the framework by which clients understand their world. Not directly confronting denial, therapists assist clients in exploring their world view and considering alternative ways of being.
In cognitive-behavioral therapies, denial is not regarded as an important phenomenon.
Rather, denial would suggest that an individual has not learned the appropriate behaviors to cope with a stressful situation. Therapists assist individuals in examining their current thoughts and behaviors and devising strategic ways to make changes.
Traditional treatment programs for substance abuse and other addictions view denial as a central theme.
Such programs teach that in order to overcome addiction, one must admit to being an alcoholic or addict.
Those who are unable to accept such labels are informed they are in denial. Even when the labels are accepted, individuals are still considered to be in denial if they do not acknowledge the severity of their addictions.
From this perspective, progress cannot be made until individuals recognize the extent of their denial and work toward acceptance. However, there is much controversy in the field of addictions regarding the role of denial and how it should be addressed.
Traditional programs stress direct confrontation. Other professionals do not insist on the acceptance of labels. They believe that denial should be worked through more subtly, empathically focusing on the personal reasons surrounding denial and seeking to strengthen the desire to change.
This subtle form of addressing denial is known as motivational enhancement therapy, and can be used with other types of disorders as well.
See also Grief; Psychoanalysis; Psychodynamic psychotherapy; Substance abuse and related disorders
hahay..
is it really ‘that’ hard to have an open mind?
DJB, wish ko lang naman. Yes, I can’t stop you, once it’s out there, readers can opine as they see fit.
mlq3,
there are some things much bigger than us. we may think the dangers are past. but they lurk always in forgetfulness of lessons we thought we already learned. I do not personally know Maligno, yet the memes that control his persona are most familiar to me, from life’s experiences both here and in America.
But I have never refused you anything, Manolo. Nor will I now. If that is your request I shall leave you out of it. As long as we know this is NOT about me, or you or anything else but about the perils of ancient and viral notions that are not original to any of us.
Just because we support freedom of opinon and expression does not mean anything goes and that every opinion is equally worthy to be left alone.
I say to all that it is not. I hope we do not have to learn that the hard way as those we ought to be focussing our energies upon grow ever more desperate…
no, that would be too much of a favor to ask, DJB. Just my way of saying I dispute your interpretations of why or what i write :)
Benigno,
I am adept enough in formulating and asking them.
What you should be concerned about is whether you are adept enough in answering them.
Well you wanted to be set straight. So I will set you straight!
I was never referring to the kids of the elite as my proof of anything. In fact, I never referred to any kids of anything.
It was you who was insinuating that I was referring to the kids of the elite when I was simply referring to the Philippine elite itself.
In pages 5 and 6 of your so called brilliant book you wrote:
In page 42; you acknowledged the call center industry.
You claimed that superior command of the English language was a monopoly of the Philippine Elite. Then who are the people who work in these call center industries? Aren’t they the elite?
If so, how much of an elite are they?
Yes. You don’t know your own book.
Because if you did; you’d have realized that my example on Rumsfeld, the general , the Filipino Chinese, and the Mom and Pop stores are not presented as proof of how the “elite have so far fallen”.
Yet you lumped them up together with the call center industry as supposedly my proof of how the “elite have so far fallen” in your post at 7:24 AM.
They are not and never were presented as such!
The Rumsfeld and the General who eats what his lowliest soldier eats is directed at your issue on the warehouse manager who on occasion gets on a forklift and helps with the grunt work on pages 25-26.
He is not on the forklift all the time, is he? He could have easily wanted a feel on what his people were exposed to as well as the limitations and capabilities of his men yet you made it as if he was on the forklift and doing grunt work all the time. I think it is even an advantage that he specifically knows what his men have to do to get the job done, and that his men knows that he knows it.
Didn’t you recognize from what issue of your so called brilliant book my example of Rumsfeld and the General were pointing to?
If you did, then why did you claim that it was presented as proof of how the “elite have so far fallen”? Do you really know your own book?
On page 15 you stated :
On page 40 you wrote:
But don’t the Filipino Chinese do business by physically manning them? I see it practically all the time. In the drugstore in our street, I see at least 1 Fil-Chinese owner all the time even though they have about 2 employees. And many times even the couple together. Whether they are there to prevent themselves from getting ripped off is besides the point. The point is that they are physically there in contrast to what you claim above. And that is but just 1 personal example.
Didn’t you recognize from what issue of your so called brilliant book my example of Filipino Chinese and the Mom and Pop stores were directed at?
If you did, then why did you claim that it was presented as proof of how the “elite have so far fallen”? Do you really know your own book?
Obviously on yourself.
JL, questions:
why do you think that the elite has fallen based on work at call centers? what does ‘fallen’ mean? lower average wages? lower employment?
re the pinoy chinese. what is the point of raising the fact that entrepreneurs work in their own businesses?
GabbyD
I believe that sometime in 2003; Benigno had a different criteria for what he considered as the elite.
With regards to being present in their own business; he paints Filipinos doing such in a bad light. Yet I personally know that the Fil-Chinese do it.
JL,
Have you not learned some lessons from your previous encounters with benign0 over at mlq3′s?
The guy is a recidivist self-promoter, or maybe a serial egoist? I say let’s just enjoy the entertainment! :)
Phil Manila,
Cheers.
Yes they are the elite, Mr. justice league. What percent of Filipinos can be considered to be proficient in the command of the English language? Answer: A small minority. A small minority that among others are advantaged in scarce employment opportunities (whether they be call centre jobs or jobs in Makati or any other major business district in the country). What does that make them? What else but the elite.
Yes I do. Check out your original comment where you posted the original question — badly formulated dude. Deal with it. Of course now you clarify it. But then that does not undo the original formulation of your question which is the one I originally responded to.
Tsk tsk.
You can do better than your quaint elementary school tricks dude. If you go by the name “justice league”, that’s too bad for Pinoys, because you don’t do justice to their imagined collective intellect.
Tough luck.
And I’m sure there is an apples-to-oranges flaw in the comparison you make between your average Chinese mom-and-pop store in Binondo (a municipality that commands premium property prices) and the average Malay-Pinoy sari-sari store that proliferate in value-crushing numbers all over the land wherever there are tambay-sa-kantos wanting to sample our country’s excellent local spirits for the rest of the hot afternoon (rather than seek gainful employment).
Maybe, a Fil-Chi somewhere out there might have the balls to explain it to you.
But until then, maybe frame your question a bit more intelligently on this Chinese theory of yours and maybe we can progress with it.
- :D
Benigno,
Seems to be quite a change from a criteria of “citizens that disproportionately control a society’s economic wealth, political power, and philosophical influence” about 3 years before the release of your so called brilliant book in 2006.
Well at least Orion DumDum considers people who are looked up to as part of the elite.
Can you claim to look up to them as what Orion Dumdum suggested? But given the way you regard the service industry they belong to; I don’t think you will.
Btw, what happened to the issue of “kids of the elite” that suddenly surfaced in your 5-12-09 7:24 AM post?
What about the original question that I posed?
All of a sudden there was an issue about “kids of the elite” working in call centers. Your book came out in 2006. Unless you will reason out that 3 year old kids work in call centers, no issue on kids of whatever came from me!
It surfaced on your post so I’m asking what are you implying about?
With regards to the 3 issues I raised originally, I deliberately separated them. I even used bullet form by placing a dash before each issue.
So why did you further ask if my “proof” that the “elite have so far fallen” is based on an observation that Rumsfeld did emergency work during 911 and because Filipino Chinese man their own mom-and-pop stores?
Didn’t you recognize the issues alluded to the first time?
Whatever you are supposedly sure of is irrelevant as far as the issue of being physically present in the business as a hindrance to having a vision to invest in time to sit back, create or acquire ideas to improve business performance, and execute these ideas. That is enough to prove that your claim there is false.
Btw, what happened to the warehouse manager issue?
re chinese filipinos:
JL, r u saying that successful chinese filipino tycoons involve themselves in the daily operation of their businesses much deeper than: 1) less successful chinese filipinos, 2) other less successful entrepreneurs in general?
GabbyD,
“Much deeper”, you ask?
I don’t think anyone is going to answer that in the affirmative.
But to save you a return trip, what I’m saying is that being physically present in the business is not a hindrance to having a vision to invest in time to sit back, create or acquire ideas to improve business performance, and execute those ideas.
The “warehouse manager” issue stands as it is, Mr. justice league, and Orion referred to ‘elites’ as people that the masses take their cue from (not necessarily looked up to but that is also possible as one would do with movie stars). There is no ‘change in criteria’ there, dude; only a change in perspective. The concept is the same. You just need to approach it with a mind that is not as one-dimensional as yours. :D
Kids of the elite surfaced, again as I said, from my own interpretation of your flawed original question. They are as I assert kids of the elite as they had access to a quality of education not accessible to most Pinoys – the kind of education that enabled them to acquire superior command over the English language.
Any schmoe can put bullets on points, justice league. But only truly insightful minds can form mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive sets of lists. Unfortunately for you, your list does not fit that criteria.
Tough luck again, but you can always keep on trying, dude. :D
what is the practical difference between “take their cue from” and “look up to”?
i don’t think there is a practical difference; the only difference, perhaps, is sentiment.
GabbyD, maybe try reading Orion’s piece on elite’s first, which you can find here. Perhaps you’ll find a more comprehensive and deeper range of answers to your queries there.
yeah, exactly. if take their cue from means “he source of widespread change in society, good or bad.”, then this is practically speaking, the SAME as “look up to” which implies one copies the other to emulate that person…
Benigno,
From pages 25-26 of your so called brilliant book:
Your math amounts to nothing!
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5289.html
Why Your Employees Are Losing Motivation-
The guy that you once knew obviously knows his job better than you.
Orion said “They may not always be “rich” or materially well-off, but because other people look up to them, they are, by default, élites.” which is found in part 1.
“Take their cues” is found in part 2.
But nowhere in Orion’s part 1 and 2 is your “not necessarily looked up to but that is also possible as one would do with movie stars”.
And Orion’s criteria are not the one in question. It’s the criteria that says “the citizens that disproportionately control a society’s economic wealth, political power, and philosophical influence.”
Whether that be true or not, your statements are irrelevant.
What is relevant is your apparent inability to answer why you further asked if my “proof” that the “elite have so far fallen” is based on an observation that Rumsfeld did emergency work during 911 and because Filipino Chinese man their own mom-and-pop stores?
My first post here was on May 12, 4:44 AM. I asked no questions in that post.
The first instance of an issue about kids of the elite appeared on your post on May 12, 7:24 AM with the specific phrase being ‘Your “proof” that the “elite have so far fallen” is based on an observation that their kids all work for call centres,’ .
Since you claim that the kids of the elite issue surfaced because of your interpretation of my supposedly flawed original question; I DARE YOU TO SHOW AT WHAT DATE AND TIME I ASKED MY SUPPOSEDLY FLAWED ORIGINAL QUESTION!
7 or 8. Hmmmmmm….
Mr. justice league, you can find the comment where you made your flawed question here.
As for the warehouse manager thing, the assertion I make is financial and meant to be an illustration of a bigger economic principle surrounding return on capital employed (ROCE). Your argument is about motivation. Valid of course with regard to the subjective aspect of people management. But, again, apples-to-oranges. Too bad.
As for the Elites, this is not all about what Orion said, but a synthesis of what he said and I think. Quote him word-for-word all you want. But do a bit of synthesis on your part instead of stomping around like a televangelist.
Tough luck. :D
Benigno,
It is plain to everyone with common sense that no question was employed in that post of mine. That you “misinterpreted” a “question” there is ultimately your fault. Be a man and own up to it!
As for the warehouse manager, any assertion on anything financial and the ROCE would be flawed because you cheated! Any one with common sense can see that you based it on the premise that your warehouse manager is always on the forklift and doing grunt work which even you know is not true when you used the word “occasionally” in the first sentence.
With regards to the elites; it is more about what you said, not Orion’s.
Unless you have anything substantial to offer, I’ll be moving on now.
Awww. Giving up already, Mr. justice league? And just when I was starting to get the feeling that you were starting to like me. :D
It’s not my fault that I “misinterpreted” your question there, dude. I merely respond to your assertions there at face value. It merely highlights that people need to be clear with what they write and make sure that what they assert or query is well thought out.
In the words of inspiration to Japanese manufacturing engineers:
Do it right the first time.
That way you avoid what supplychain professionals term as “downstream error accumulation”.
Contrast that to Da Pinoy way:
Pwede na yan.
Kind of makes it a bit clearer now why Pinoy society is the way it is, doesn’t it? It’s because of things that are flawed at conception.
And as to what you say here:
Moi? Cheated? Come now, Mr. justice league, don’t blame me if you failed to read my brilliant work carefully. For that matter I doubt that it could be reasonable to expect people who glibly formulate flawed questions and assertions to exercise a bit of thoroughness when it comes to evaluating the material they presume to “critique”.
Tough luck!
Whatever you say, dude. Whatever you say.
- :D
Pinoy nga naman talaga;
Parang aso.
Matangkad lang kapag naka-upo
[Read the rest of this brilliant specimen of poetry here.]
Benigno,
You want a dog biscuit or a walk outside?
If you could pinpoint what question you are referring to; you would have done it by now. The fact that you haven’t shows that there is in fact no question to be misinterpreted.
What is there to give up? What I initially typed was just supposed to be additional to what I already stated in Manolo’s blog regarding your so called brilliant book.
I don’t remember everything I wrote in Manolo’s blog regarding your so called brilliant book but whatever I remember, I will include in a list below. Whether you will believe that list comes from an insightful mind or not will be irrelevant.
You like to claim that your book is brilliant yet:
- It’s as if it was created to satisfy some sort of deviation of yours. Your introduction itself notes that the book was a labour of love and that it draws on the vast pool of frustration Filipinos everywhere know well.
-you claimed starting in page 9 (and you reiterated it several times) that there was no Tagalog word for efficiency. When I entered a repository of knowledge; it took me less than 5 minutes to discover that your claim was false. About 30 years before your so called brilliant book came out; a certain Fr. Leo James English (wow, what a name) already published a Tagalog-English English-Tagalog Dictionary. Noted there was that “kahusayan” was the translation of “efficiency”. His dictionary is still available on amazon.com last time I checked. You failed to do proper research.
-you claimed starting in page 7 that “democracy is a discipline and not merely a freedom to enjoy wantonly.” You mention a “backstage where all the hard work happens and all the discipline is practiced”. You mention that “What we seek to understand is just the tip of the iceberg of philosophies, principles, and approaches to thinking, that underlies democracy and other ideas of the West. Yet a few breaths later you extol “nineteenth century Japan (as it) hunkered down and quietly built a society”; for us to subscribe to so as to acquire the virtue of humility to acknowledge that we aspire to achieve and succeed in a world defined by
Western Civilisation. Nineteeth century Japan was not a democracy!
A few breaths later you extol China. China is not even a democracy now.
And you want us to follow their lead to the practice of democracy. A failure of history and current events.
-You castigate a management style which turns out to be validated by an independent party. Faced by contradiction from a reputable source (Ok, maybe they’re just too fixated with Covey in alluding to be 7 what was supposed to be 8 ), you lamely argue that your example was just an illustration of a bigger economic principle surrounding return on capital employed (ROCE). Yet you show no other basis for this but your own.
This is not a plain request for your credentials (which I don’t think you have anyway); but the fact is, is that your assertion has been contradicted by an independent reputable source yet your rebuttal is sourced only from your own mouth.
You even pointed to MacDonald’s and Jollibee in another issue, well guess what, a manager in one of those that keeps to him/herself during brisk hours is likely not to last as manager.
- You implied that physical presence of the owner in the business is a hindrance to having a vision to invest in time to sit back, create or acquire ideas to improve business performance, and execute those ideas.
You also glorify the Fil-Chinese as a whole for their achievements. But they practice the same management style that you denigrated. Your assertions are not validated by the reality on the ground and your assertions even contradict each other.
Based on all of that; I think everyone deserves to know why anyone should believe you when you claim that your book is brilliant or even believe it at all.
Someone in Manolo’s blog once stated that you were full of something, all you have shown thus far is that you are still full of it!
Btw, what you are full of has already been defined in Manolo’s blog.
Then too bad for you that you didn’t practice what you preach.
And that appropriately describes your so called brilliant book.
Teka muna, Mr. justice league, since you decided to stick around instead of “move on” as you mentioned earlier, what happened to this thing about the “warehouse manager” issue?
Mahirap naman to move on to the other points you bring up in your above tirade without first telling me what you think of my response regarding it here. The only reference you have to it in that last “comment” above is what you said here:
May I ask what is so “lame” about my argument? Cite specific points please.
- :D
Benigno,
I decide not to move on yet because of your statement “Giving up already, Mr. justice league? And just when I was starting to get the feeling that you were starting to like me.”
Since what I initially typed was just supposed to be additional to our previous discussions in Manolo’s ; I felt your statement was substantial enough to face.
If you had not said that, the all likelihood is that I would be gone.
Very well.
I’m setting aside the fact that you computed your new operating cost on the premise that the warehouse manager is on a forklift and doing grunt work ALL the time and devotes NO time doing what he was paid to do – managing and thinking.
According to the Harvard Business School (HBS), what the manager does is actually good for business.
According to you (and up to this point, you alone), what the manager does is not good for business due to this so called bigger economic principle surrounding return on capital employed (ROCE).
According to the HBS, not only is the manager allowed to do it but they in fact encourage it.
According to you (and up to this point, you alone), the manager should not do it due to this so called bigger economic principle surrounding return on capital employed (ROCE).
I know that the recommendation of the HBS is followed by fast foods not only here but abroad as well.
Does McDonalds in Australia follow your recommendations due to this so called bigger economic principle surrounding return on capital employed (ROCE)? Does McDonalds in Australia even follow your recommendations at all?
What businesses follow your recommendations due to this so called bigger economic principle surrounding return on capital employed (ROCE)?
Even in banks, managers gladly take over even if partly their employees jobs when it comes to big depositors.
Your recommendation is contradicted by the HBS and disproved by businesses that you yourself admit is worldwide in character. Yet you have shown nothing of the like in support of your recommendation except from you and you alone. Your rebuttal is lame.
There can be no middle ground on this. No compromise. How can there be when according to you the manager should not do it even occasionally?
The 2 management styles directly contradict each other. The 2 management styles cannot coexist in the same business.
So between the 2, a business will/can choose only 1 management style. The one recommended by Harvard Business School and already used by businesses worldwide, or the one recommended by you due to this so called bigger economic principle surrounding return on capital employed (ROCE).
I reiterate that this is not a request for your credentials. But I think everyone deserves to know why your business management style should be followed instead of the one recommended by Harvard Business School and already used by businesses worldwide.
HBS is not the end-all and be-all of management style.
After all, Bill Gates dropped out of HBS.
Not to mention that the HBS finance guys in wall street are right smack in the heart of the global meltdown.
Another Ivy league Yale U professor slammed a student’s paper on expedited air freight. Frederick W. Smith wrote a term paper at Yale University in 1965 about economically inadequate passenger route systems used by most airfreight shippers. He wrote about the need for shippers to develop a system designed specifically for time-sensitive airfreight, a system he would later develop into FedEx.
If there’s anything that can be said about management style – the focus evolves and changes. In the early years – focus was on operations management, shifted to finance, human resources, marketing – and the latest corporate buzzword – supply chain total landed cost.
A manger can provide motivation and improve customer service without having to micromanage, it boils down to judicious delegation and use of resources.
BongV,
No company is perfect. But if you have your own independent reputable source that directly validates Benigno’s assertion; then I’m willing to peruse it.
Everyday brings a nugget of wisdom. I might just learn a lot from your source.
And this is not about “without having to or having to”, it’s about still having the option to do it or not.
justice league:
check out this article from HBS blogs – http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/hmu/2008/02/micromanage-at-your-peril.php
BongV,
“But tread this path too often” is still different from “occasionally”.
And it’s still about having the option to do it or not.
Thanks for your source again.
Btw, regarding your post below regarding “who are genuinely passionate about what they do”, I think that’s going to be some sort of a challenge for stacking re-stacking a warehouse.
JL –
Stacking restacking a warehouse can be demanding, too.
People who do the stacking need to take good care of the materials they handle – or damages to the material being handled can happen.
Consistent damage to merchandise upon handling can make customers decide to get the services of another warehouse.
Thus, warehouse personnel responsible for stocking have much to pay attention to – safety procedures, material handling, order fulfillment, and loading.
To be able to perform and pay great attention to details so that the warehouse will operate without causing any damage to merchandise and personnel – that requires a bit of passion don’t you think?
BongV,
Yes, but the operative word or phrase is “bit” of passion against genuinely passionate.
Actually the exact words you used to describe what you thought of that warehouse thing is this: “Your math amounts to nothing!”
A warehouse boss paid, say, 10x the warehousemen he supervises shouldn’t be doing work that can be done by people paid one thenth of his salaey.
That’s the math, dude.
Trouble is, you go into the subjective aspect of people management. That’s an argument outside of the math behind the simple example I cite above — that an asset worth X is employed for an activity that does not yield a commensurate return on said asset’s employment (the yield will be more justified if the asset employed was worth, say one tenth of X).
We evaluate this math within the period that said warehouse boss performed said activity — i.e., within the domain where this approach to evaluation is applicable. Obviously if you extend this domain to include ALL his time, then the maths change — it becomes broader than the simple math I used as you will need to include other criteria to include the subjective elements you arbitrarily introduce into the discussion without first re-defining its domain to take it into account.
Apples to oranges, dude. Keep going down that same argumentation path and you will always end up with an orange in your mouth. :D
Benigno,
No problem with that. I like oranges.
And your math still amounts to nothing!
This simple example was totally your creation. If you built for yourself a disadvantage in this example; then that is entirely your fault.
If the manager devoted all his time doing what you think he should be doing, very few will argue with that.
But I would have accepted a balance for what the manager wanted to do though definitely greatly in favor of doing what you think he should be doing.
But obviously that would still be unacceptable to you.
During the time that he was performing this; I have categorical proof with 10 witnesses to boot that the manager was doing something good for the company.
Given a same period of time that he wasn’t doing this and should definitely be doing what you think he should be doing, where is your proof that he is actually doing it?
Now use that on your math and come back when you’re done!
justice league:
i think there might be some equivocation on the use of the term “manager” oftentimes companies give the title of “manager” when functions/operations-wise they are actually supervisors.
In the case of Mickey Dees, I am of the view that the “manager” is a glorified supervisor. The title “manager” is attached to provide a psychic income without having to shell out any finances. So, we have “Sanitation Manager” for Janitor, and all its variants.
The actual “managing” – policy setting, policy formulation, policy implementation, balancing resources, planning, sales/demand forecasting is handled by the franchise owner, and subsequently delegated for implementation by the rank and file.
The 10 witnesses – may have been motivated OR they may have been demotivated. We don’t know because we don’t know who these witnesses are. I am quite aware of the motivational aspect of being a “hands-on” manager when used judiciously.
However, sometimes unknown to the manager, he might actually be creating resentment and therefore reducing morale. Where he thinks he is a “hands-on manager”, his employees think he is “micromanaging”.
A sample entry found after Googling “pitfalls of micromanagement” is
shown below. As copied and pasted from http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/douglas-paul/dig-deeper-reach-higher-be-great/pitfalls-micromanaging
Having your hand in every little thing actually hurts your team on many fronts.
1. It creates a stifling work environment that works against the natural creativity that’s needed to get the job done. When a person feels like their every move is being watched, they are less likely to take a chance and think outside the box on a project. You want a creative and vibrant team? Then give them a little space to work their magic.
2. When people feel like they are not trusted it creates resentment. As a professional, you always want to feel like the people who hired you are confident that you have what it takes to get the job done. Micromanaging undermines that by actually making the person feel like they need to have their hand held. You hired smart, capable people, so trust them to be just that.
3. It lowers accountability on your team by the simple fact that you are involved in everything and therefore you’re partly to blame when a project falls apart or a deadline is missed. Part of handing out responsibilities and duties is the clear understanding that you are making that person accountable. If you are too involved then you can’t really hold a person accountable without also fingering yourself.
4. Last but not least, it’s just bad use of your time as a manager. As a manager, there are more important things to do then involving yourself in every little detail of a project. As a project manager, you need to maintain an overview of the project so that you can keep it on track, make any needed changes to its direction and etc. You can’t do that efficiently or with great result if you are micromanaging.
In the end, it’s just best to make sure that you hire skilled people who are genuinely passionate about what they do, have an innate desire to excel and are excited about the vision, product and/or service of your company. That way you can just let them do what they do without hovering over them and be confident that the end result will be great.
BongV,
In the same HBS recommendation is the following:
And regards an operative word or phrase; your “Having your hand in every little thing” is way way different from Benigno’s “occasionally”.
Thanks for your source.
Na-ah, justice lague. The math is sound.
Within the period that said warehouse manager was driving a forklift, he was adding negative value to the operation by doing an activity the value of the outcome of which does not justify the the cost he incurs for the organisation within said period.
Trouble with you is that you introduce an argument outside of the domain of the argument you framed by your statement “Your math amounts to nothing!”.
As such, it is pointless to speculate on what said manager would be doing within that period if he were not consorting with his subordinates driving around a forklift. The fact of the math is, he was not returning commensurate economic value driving around a forklift considering what he is paid in relation to his warehouse men.
It’s simple, really™ (though not for the small-minded).
If you make the argument about the math, than be prepared to argue within the domain within which the math applies.
If you want to argue about overall management science, then the argument will encompass the math to include the arts and humanities aspect of the fine field of management.
As I said earlier, be careful with the way you formulate, and in this case frame your question, so that you don’t come across like a little chump next time.
- :D
Benigno,
You mean sound asleep the way you compute it.
Going back to your example; you stated “The whole point of this effort, I believe, was to promote this whole “let’s roll up our sleeves and all work together to tackle this” ethic in the team.
You said it was to promote an ethic.
Your manager can gather ALL 10 employees in his office to “promote this ethic in the team” or do it outside while ALSO doing gruntwork. Do the math on how much gruntwork is accomplished while promoting this ethic in the team in both cases.
Btw, when I noticed your “labour of love and that it draws on the vast pool of frustration Filipinos everywhere know well.”, I initially thought you might have 1 kind of deviation. http://filipinovoices.com/encapsulating-the-philippine-national-debate/comment-page-1#comment-58961
But you keep coming back for more of what you’re getting. It’s as if you enjoy getting it.
So it’s not just 1 but a combination and that would explain a lot.
I am careful but all this time you’ve not been following your own advise.
This seems to encapsulate the crux of your flawed argument:
That’s because it promotes the ethic which unfortunately results in an unfavourable economic outcome as the math shows. The ethic therefore does not justify the math when the problem being evaluated is framed within said math.
Simple, dude. :D
Benigno,
Not surprising that your math is flawed given the combo deviation you have.
Promoting the ethic is part of his managerial duties.
That he is able to perform that managerial duty while doing gruntwork at the same time can still have an unfavourable economic outcome in your mind is explainable by the illness you suffer from.
Well, too bad you don’t get it, dude.
Tough luck. :D
Benigno,
Tough luck is on you.
You are the one who doesn’t get it, but then that’s understandable given the ailment you suffer from.
And if you remember saying “Mahirap naman to move on to the other points you bring up in your above tirade without first telling me what you think of my response regarding it here.” in your May 14, 2009 7:37 pm post; your request has already been granted several times so it should be easy now for you to move on to the other issues enunciated in http://filipinovoices.com/encapsulating-the-philippine-national-debate/comment-page-1#comment-58961
But then if you want it the “Mahirap” way instead of the easy way, your combo deviation explains that too.
Btw, I noticed someone said that “You release long hidden weapons and all ghosts of your past encounters.” . That is quite interesting!
Benigno,
Don’t bother spinning anything about the “Mahirap” and the easy way. That is based solely on your disease.
And what is this “ailment” you think I suffer from, Mr. justice league?
If you can elaborate more on this ‘ailment’, maybe we can understand what the source of your confusion is with regard to my straightforward assertions.
- :D
Phil Manila,
You’re right about the entertainment. It’s hilarious!