This Week At The Gym: Week 7

I may have so far failed to mention that I joined a gym recently. It's called The Third Space, it's right in the heart of Soho and a ten-minute walk from where I work, it's equipped to within an inch of its life, is up to its chin in classes and good fitness trainers, and has a very pleasant clientele - I'm guessing a lot of old/new media, design and some hedge-fund types, as well as a few ordinary office workers. No Sloaney girls or boys, no steroid monsters, no poseurs and no cruising. It's not cheap and it's a year's membership.

It took me a while to decide to join. I'd visited the place about four weeks before and decided, no, I didn't want to. And that remained my judgement right up to the moment I went back and signed up for the year. On 22nd November 2010, in fact. Which makes this the end of Week Seven. I didn't do much in the very first week except a swim on the Tuesday morning because I woke up early and couldn't get back to sleep again.

I've done the gym before, mostly weights and some half-hearted running. After ten or so years, it stopped being fun and I got bored, so I stopped. That was almost four years ago. So when I went for that swim, it was the first attempt at exercise I had had for about forty-four or so months. This time round I'm doing classes: Spin, Boxing and Pilates. Plus a swim and some running.

The big thing about my first Spin class was that I didn't fall off the bike with dizziness, though I did get cramp. I made it through to the end, looking very uncool and sweating a lot. Now, you are going to say that I should "work up to it", not dive right in at the deep end with a 45-minute Spin class. And I will retort that if you do that, you will never work as hard as you need to. You stop if you are actually hurting or feel nauseous, of course you do. But you don't stop just because you raise a serious sweat and have to breathe a deal more heavily than you've been used to. Spin is hard work, but it's rewarding and it doesn't take long before you stop looking like a prat.

Which is not true about boxing. After my first class, I felt humiliated. Not by the trainer or the other people there, who were supportive or quite properly not bothered with me at all. I couldn't stand properly. I did a right jab when it should have been a left. I couldn't move my feet at all. I had problems with the simplest combinations. As for being able to do ten press-ups or twenty squat-thrusts? No. Maybe, well, not many at all. The difference between me and the trainer wasn't just a matter of stamina and twenty-five years, as it was for Spin, it was the difference between a child and a grown-up. I realised that in a serious sense, I actually have no idea where my various limbs are and what they are doing at any given time.

On the commute home that Thursday, I realised that I could hide behind being never-you-mind-how-old and a tad overweight and get my ass kicked symbolically speaking, or I could proceed with serious intent, no self-pity and an understanding that I need to take a little more care than a thirty year-old not to show off and hurt something. I'm not the oldest guy there: there aren't many older, but there are some.

I tried climbing on their artificial rock face. I didn't disgrace myself, but climbing is for people with a slimmer, lighter physique than me. The two girls in the class must have weighed no more than eight stone (fifty kilos) and the guys probably didn't exceed ten stone. And that "where's my left leg" thing hit me again. As did the fact that if I tried putting my right leg there and my left leg there, I got a nasty stop-doing-that twinge in my butt. I may come back to it, but it's not for me now.

And though I know Pilates is good for you, I get nasty reflux half-way through - not acid, as I take Lanzoprosole. I have to sit up and burp quietly. It's uncomfortable and distracting, and the key to Pilates is the ability to concentrate on your breathing and control of your abdominal region. Plus I have lordosis, which means I cannot do those slow sit-ups or lie-backs, let alone the cuddle-your-knees and roll back and forward. I just stop dead on the large flat spot created by the lordosis. I'm going to use a towel or two under my head to help with the reflux, and we'll see.

Week Seven is the week that any new exercise regime stops being Fun and Exciting And New. It's the week you have to Show Up and Grind It Out. As is Week Eight. And Nine. There's this hump you have to get over. A lot of people don't, which is why all the public swimming pools and gyms with three months' notice start emptying out towards the end of February. We serious gym folk call those people "New Years Resolutions" and know they are amateurs who lack the required mix of obsession, vanity, genuine appreciation of feeling good and sense of pushing oneself to improve that drives the dedicated gym member. (As opposed to gym rats and bunnies, who have other problems.)

There's a wide range of abilities and experience there, but the members who are good are very good, and the fitness trainers are freakin' awesome. Which means that new starters like me can't hide from ourselves just how far we have to go. It is, however, working. I'm not as ache-y the next day, I've started to lose a little body-fat and I can now manage two sets of ten push-ups. (Before you snort, I weight 93 kilos, or 14.6 stone, so you try it.) I've gone public with my objectives, and so I can't back down.

But just because I know it's Show Up and Grind It Out time, and It Does Get Better, doesn't mean it doesn't hurt and isn't emotional when I can't even get the leg moves for an uppercut at all.

City Media.vi - Had To Think Twice About This One

The other day, I got this...

(starts)
Hi,

I found your blog If I Thought You Were Listening, I'd Never Say A Word on Blogger and I may have an interesting proposal for you.
I work for the CityMedia foundation (citymediafoundation.org) and we are currently offering relevant bloggers from all over the world a chance to become the administrator of their city’s video site; this is why I’m contacting you.

We created the [City].vi network, making videos of world cities instinctively accessible with this address model: “city name” followed by “.vi”
For example: paris.vi, madrid.vi, chicago.vi, losangeles.vi, etc.
The address model works for 68,000 of the world’s most important cities. Think about a city and try...

The objective of the [City].vi network is to become the leading resource for local video content. Our strategy: working with relevant local bloggers.

We would be pleased you become the administrator of london.vi and offer internet surfers a comprehensive video selection about London.
By managing your city’s video site you earn all of the revenues made from the site: ads, professionals registrations, links...
Basically, running london.vi consists of making the site known by locals, for they post and watch videos.

Come on the site, you will find the proposal in detail and the advantages to work with us and take control of your city's video site.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl500NppDCY
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/city.vi
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/city_vi

Thank you for your attention.

Vicki Karlin
City.vi Manager
City.vi, a tool by CityMedia Fdt
citymediafoundation.org
(ends)

Go to their website and they have a nice line about how they were founded, how important this is, and how they think the Mayor's office of the cities should really run their sites, but if the Mayor won't, a local blogger (like me) will do. It's at this point my alarm bells go off. From the Mayor of London - one of the, what? top 100 political jobs on the planet? - to a blogger whose blog is intended not to be read is just a little bit of a come down. Anyway, bodies set up as a result of serious-sounding international conferences already have contacts into all the bureaucracies they need.

So let's look at that "Become this site's administrator". How do you do that? Why, by bidding for the position. In return you get all the ad revenue...

Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Scam alert!

It's a good one. Someone spent a while putting together those sites - they are generic, but the sourcing the video content must have been some work. Some of it comes from You Tube, the London stuff from a site called www.monumentaladventure.com. Even if it's an automated search, it must be a fairly nifty algorithm. You'd think they must have better ways of making a living. In the end, the sites have an early-oughties feel to the design and that's a clue on it's own. So is the fact that Gmail's spam filter thought it was spam.

New Year's Resolutions

"January First. I gotta get in shape. Too much sitting has ruined my body. Too much abuse has gone on for too long. From now on there will be 50 pushups each morning, 50 pullups. There will be no more chocolate, no more bad food, no more destroyers of my body. From now on will be total organization. Every muscle must be tight." (Paul Schrader, Taxi Driver)

Okay. I'm not going to go all Travis Bickle on London, but in 2011 I will...

1. go to the gym every weekday - unless I'm going to a movie or the theatre
1a. reduce my weight to 87 kgs
1b. keep my body-fat below 26%
1c. do 29 - 38 pushups in one test event
1d. do 38 - 47 situps in one test event
1e. run 2 miles (3.2 k) between 17:12 and 18:30 in one test event
2. not eat chocolate late in the evening
3. take two week-long holidays abroad and at least two city breaks in Europe
4. read all the books I've bought and haven't read yet
5. not go home on the Chav Express more than twice a week
6. progress project Coriander (you're not supposed to know what that means yet)
7. continue to decorate my house
8. take some photographs with my new medium-format Lomo (!)
9. stop thinking I'm getting old and should withdraw from living
10. err.... that's it

These are, of course, all things I haven't done this year because I

1. didn't belong to a gym...
1a. got terrible constipation the when I weighed 89 kgs eighteen months ago
1b. have a body fat of 26% now - which means I'm going to have to lose muscle as well as fat
1c - e: didn't realise that doing these would score me between 70 and 80 in the US Army fitness standard for my age
2. have poor self-control and kept getting Emotions - which need chocolate therapy
3. didn't feel like going abroad on my own at huge expense when I could be on my own here on the cheap
4. kept buying more books
5. suffer from the timing of the trains
6. didn't have the focus or probably the courage
7. couldn't find the energy, creativity and organisation at the weekend
8. didn't have a Lomo
9. was obsessed with being over fifty-five and invisible
10. ....

Therefore I may need to...

1. get some "professional" guidance and support
2a. try to make my diet tasty
2b. not stay up too late, which is when I start craving chocolate
2c. nah, I have no idea what to do about having Emotions
3. think positive thoughts about holidays
6. feel the fear and do it anyway
9. work out what I want from "social life" and then go find it
10. err....

I know, the usual stuff. But this time I mean it. Really. Honestly.

How Adults Make Moral Decisions: Part Four

In the last three posts in this series, I've suggested that the way adults make moral decisions is by asking if they can live with the foreseeable consequences of the actions, and if not, then what changes to the actions might make the goal of those actions achievable in a way they can live with. What adults don't do is look for principles from which to deduce an answer. Their concern is with their conscience, not with what God and Her Angels might think is the right thing to do. This might be how adults make a moral decision, but we can always ask: is it the way they should make it? The answer to this depends on your view of what a person is and how that affects their responsibility and accountability.

You can believe that a person is only able to live a purposeful life through membership in some reasonably-ordered community and as such has a prudential interest in following its rules. (If the society falls apart, so does their life.) Hence their moral obligations and duties arise from the rules of the society: they are accountable for following the rules, and doing so is their defence in the event that, having done so, something really nasty happened as a result.

You can believe that, modulo the interests themselves, everyone has a common conception of what is in their interests and what is not. No matter what you want to achieve in life, being murdered or having a limb chopped off won't help. Nor will loss by theft, arson or negligence of your property, work-in-progress and reputation. Any action which leads to one of these harms can be condemned for that reason, and so made a crime, tort or regulatory breach, depending on how the society wants to handle the administration. Thus actions, decisions and even rules and laws can be judged by their consequences. The prime moral obligation is not foreseeably to cause one of these harms, and the prime defence is that the harm was either not reasonably foreseeable or did not result from the action.

No matter what your views on these subjects, you can independently believe that there are limits to a person's accountability: that there are legitimate excuses for the harm you caused or your breach of the rules. Insanity has long been one, and ignorance of the law has long not been one. You can also decide that there are times when responsibility does not always imply punishment or censure: the light punishments, often judicial warnings, given to "first offenders"" are an example of this. All this gives you, if you want it, what many feel to be a necessary flexibility in the administration of justice and the conduct of social censure and reward.

So far, so flexible. However, if a society says that its citizens must follow the rules and do not need to think about the consequences, and if a defence of following the correct procedures is always effective, then that society has effectively removed the responsibility for decision-making from its citizens and given it to its legislators. It has infantalised its citizenry, who merely need to follow the rules and need not make independent judgements.

Making independent judgements, no matter the rules and expectations of society, is one characteristic of adults and a necessary condition of rational conduct. Adults cannot allow themselves the luxury of "following procedures" but must make up their own minds, and to do this, they must look at consequences as well as rules in order to strike a balance or reach a solution that they can live with.

But if you're someone who wants rules, and duties, and obligations and rights clearly stated, you won't like this. You will prefer people to have to deduce the correct thing to do from your general principles as you interpret them. Plato thought like this, it's the implicit position of deontologists, and many cultures have a strong legalistic streak in them. Of course, Plato wanted to be King, and legalistic cultures are often run by an elite of law-interpreters who don't really trust their people to make decisions. Adults don't much go for being subjects of anyone, whether Kings, priests or bureaucrats. And that, ultimately, is why they reserve the right to make up their own damn minds.

How Adults Solve Moral Problems: Part Three

The two examples of someone making moral decisions were both about someone deciding if they could live with something they were going to do. I hold this is the prototype of a moral decision. A moral decision differs from a legal, tactical, logistical, business, medical, artistic or any other kind not because of its content, but because we remain responsible for its foreseeable consequences no matter what reasons we had for making it. Nothing and nobody can remove this responsibility, neither God, nor the High Command nor the Categorical Imperative, the teachings of our prophet nor the advice of our lawyers. Moral decisions are taken by ourselves alone. We cannot lay off our responsibility on our culture, God or principles, because it is for us to decide to act according to those principles, that culture or God. It is our decision how we decide how to decide.

And this is the relevant characteristic of an adult: someone who accepts their responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their decisions, their responsibility for choosing how to decide, and for the decision itself. (Deciding how to decide how to decide is equivalent to deciding how to decide, so the regress stops at two paces.) The question "what should I do" invites an answer from an authority, from Emily Post to Halsbury Laws of England, or perhaps guidance from a guru, from Aristotle to L Ron Hubbard, but while the authority can rule, and the guru can suggest, neither removes the responsibility from you. The question "can I live with this?" puts the responsibility where it lies - though it is worth noting that the answer "I can live with it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to do it" is perfectly consistent.

If we accept that morality is about what we should do, we set off in the wrong direction from the first step. It has us arguing about the merits of one authority over another, and the tenability and interpretation of general principles: arguments that have been going nowhere since the Egyptians built the Pyramids. Given two people of equal sincerity, intelligence and good intentions, if they hold inconsistent principles (or inconsistent interpretations of the same principle) then agreement is out of reach. If we accept that morality is about what we can live with, what we can do in good conscience, then we recognise that the discussion is there to persuade, influence, inform, and maybe even convince, the us, the decision-maker. In most circumstances, to call an argument "ad hominem" is dismissive, but part of what makes morality special is that its arguments are properly ad hominem. They are properly directed at the concerns, interests, beliefs, situation and interests of the decision-maker.

Two quick technicalities. First, moral responsibility is not legal responsibility. It's up to the legislature, influenced by whatever theories of the mind they may hear, to decide when a person should not be held to account for the foreseeable consequences of their actions - the scope and limits of legal irresponsibility is itself a moral decision. Moral responsibility applies to anyone capable of acting, because even if we do not use the law to punish someone for an action, we may still decide to exclude them from our daily lives, and that is moral censure as much as it may be prudential good sense.

Second, foreseeable consequences are those that a reasonable person would predict. I know no tax law, but my decision not to pay my dues taxes is unreasonable because I lacked the information I needed (the size of the fine for non-payment) to make it. Being late for a meeting because the train was cancelled is not foreseeable (at least if the weather is clement) because we cannot reasonably work in a world where we can't assume that railway companies might arbitrarily cancel trains. However, my powers of reasonable prediction end when another person has to decide how to respond. The actions of other people in response to our actions are not foreseeable. If I throw a punch in your direction, the blood from your nose is foreseeable, but your reaction is not. You might do many things as a result of many different calculations and reactions. One day you might fight back, and another not. However, some of your responses will be entirely reasonable and in common speech I "shouldn't be surprised" or I "can't complain" if you do them: others will be unreasonable. I can't complain if you take a swing back at me, but I can if you pull out a knife. Such actions are considered possible responses by a reasonable person, but which if any will happen is not reasonably predictable.

Adults make moral decisions by asking what they can live with. How do we best influence them? Treat the problem as a practical one. What would change their minds? What facts would make a decision easy? What are the pulls-and pushes in their decision, what are the trade-offs? Are there any principles they really won't compromise? (For me, it doesn't matter what you threaten me with, I'm going to take an alcoholic drink.) What are their concerns? What actions might mitigate those concerns? Is there a way of doing whatever it is that is acceptable, and are there unacceptable ways? Can they live with it if amends are made for the harms and losses the action might cause? Or is it simply a question of steeling themselves to do it, of overcoming some squeamishness and of accepting the full scope of the responsibility their role places on them? And if so, how do we help them do so? (What we do not do is preach, harangue, threaten, insult, charm, bribe, distract, sweet-talk, promise, or use tricks like reflective listening. Because that's not how you treat equals and colleagues. It's how you treat children. And if you want an adult to punish you for your insult and presumption, treat them as a child. You will deserve everything you get.)

In the next post I will look at the consequences of this position for traditional moral philosophy.

Seasonal Fatuous Advice For All

I thought I would bring you this piece of silliness, to add to all the other silliness of the season, from those people who brought you Lending Money to Irish Property Companies. Posted on The Bank's intranet recently was this, to keep you from slitting your wrists at the thought of a whole Christmas weekend with the in-laws...

"Ten Tips for your Emotional Wellbeing. ABC Corp, one of our Employee Assistance Providers, has these top 10 tips for your Emotional Wellbeing:

1. Get Active! There is no better way to lift low mood than exercise. Any moderate to vigorous activity can enhance general well-being. Try dancing, walking, cycling. Don't forget to eat well and drink lots of water too!

2. Sing Your Heart Out! Recent research has shown that singing a favourite upbeat song increases positive states of mind.

3. Get The Balance Right. It has been proven many times that people with a reasonable work/life balance tend to be happier and healthier.

4. Let Go! People who 'live in the moment' not in the past are mentally more alert and relaxed. Try yoga or Tai Chi.

5. Volunteer. Get the 'feel good factor' – give to others – get involved in charitable causes.

6. Play It Forward. Positive anticipation has been proven to stimulate the brain to expect the best – this then translates into intentionally seeking the best for ourselves. Result – more pleasure, less stress.

7. Accentuate The Good Stuff. Psychological research suggests that reflecting on our achievements – no matter how small- can boost our mood.

8. Feel the fear – Do it anyway! Stepping outside our 'comfort zone' taking a risk every now and again is good for our wellbeing. A sense of achievement, fun and challenge boosts endorphins (our feel good hormones).

9. Find Your Passion. Throwing yourself into an activity, hobby or special interest has a very beneficial effect upon our mental health. Being totally absorbed in any activity reduces the stress hormones.

10. Nurture Your Social Network. Numerous studies have shown that people who spend fun time with family and friends are generally happier and healthier and live longer."

So there you are. Easy as that. What could be holding you back?

Happy Christmas.

(And in a post to follow in the New Year, I'll explain exactly what is silly about this...)

How Adults Solve Moral Problems: Part Two

The next problem has a similar structure as the last one. A large corporation is going to close the factory which provides the living of a small and up until now thriving community in what is really a company town a long way from the nearest big city and industrial park. Two thousand jobs are going, after a couple of years of re-organisations, cost-savings and productivity agreements, and some quite remarkable co-perations from the workforce and Unions, who understood how important it is to keep the jobs in the town. They know what happens to company towns which lose the company: permanent high unemployment passed down the generations and problems with drugs, depression, health and petty crime. The CEO knows this as well, and in a moment of night doubt, the CEO asks if she can, in all conscience, do this thing. She's not asking if she has a legal defence, because, assuming that her HR department are following the rules about consultation, there is no crime anywhere in sight. She's wondering if she can live with herself for causing the misery and degradation that is going to follow.

The following morning, she's just fine with it. First, neither she not the corporation are responsible for the lack of other economic opportunities in or near the town; second, it's not her fault if the locals take to heroin and skunk, that's their decision; third, the local council should be working to attract new employers into the area, and the local MP should be trying to get some Government subsidies to help that process; fourth, there is no rule that says the people have to stay in the town, let them move to where the work is; fifth, it's not her job to look after communities, it's her job to look after the company, and that's what she's doing. They can't go on with that loss-making factory, and they tried hard enough to make it profitable. Maybe, she thinks, they could do more than provide the usual outplacement advice, but what? Well, that's what she has an HR specialist for. Sixth, the only reason they are having to close the factory is the lower costs that competitors are getting by manufacturing in China. If you want a villain, blame the Chinese.

These look very similar to the reasons I gave in the first example. Except I don't like corporations who create employment ghost towns and I want them on the hook.

First, I can argue that the corporation is responsible for the lack of other employment opportunities: the world is covered by company towns and one-industry counties. Multi-employer areas are the exception, not the rule: London has two industries - The City and Whitehall - that all the rest rely on; Washington is a company town; New York falls apart without Wall Street and media. Actually, it's quite hard to think of robustly multi-industry towns. The CEO's company created the town, and now it is destroying it. Third, neither the local council nor the local MP have the skills to find another employer: this is like the NHS closing the hospitals and shutting down the GP's surgeries and saying that the local council should find its own health service. Fourth, everyone can't pack up and go, because how are they going to pay rent when they get to wherever it is they're going? This is England, not Kenya, they can't just build some more shacks in Kibera. I'm agreeing with her on points two and five. Point six is a real cheek: if she and her fellow CEO's hadn't started outsourcing to China in the first place, they wouldn't have let the Chinese create the industrial base in the first place. That's a devil of their own creation.

Now I've got her back on the hook, how does she get off? I'm not going to expect her to keep the factory open. I am going to ask she uses her corporation's vast networks to see if they can find another employer for the town, maybe as a joint venture with investment from both the exiting and the entering companies. I'm going to ask that her company sets up a scholarship program so that the children can see there is a point to doing well at school: they will be able to get out via university. I'm going to ask that the company make zero-interest loans available to help people re-locate if they do find jobs elsewhere, and set up a fund for paying interview expenses to be administered by its own finance department. Any more ideas along those lines, add them to the list. (In a similar vein, the pilot of our first example could ask that the army make some attempt to provide medical services to the children in the school if there are injuries. Of course, that would be a lot harder to do in practice than what we're asking the corporation to do, which is spend a bit of money.)

Notice how I'm not discussing right and wrong. That would get me nowhere. Nor am I appealing to general principles, which for different reasons, would also get me nowhere. I'm keeping the discussion about practicalities, and appealing implicitly, to a sense of fairness or common interest or general decency and thoughtfulness. This isn't what moralists do, but it is what politicians, businessmen and, I rather suspect, priests and other elders do.

In the third part, we will see why the moralists are on the wrong track entirely.