Maybe it's not just in IT that we are failing to learn from past mistakes

I've been thinking about my post on 21st June, and I've come to the conclusion that there are many fields other than IT where we, mankind, are failing to take note of our past errors. The consequences of this are all around us: things are more difficult than they should be, as customers we don't get the service we should, our health is worse than it should be, and sometimes our leaders look really, really stupid.

One contact I had in my scientific days - that is, the 1980s - reckoned that mankind had reached its technological zenith around 1970 - the moon landings, supersonic flight, and IT systems were all developed during the sixties. By the mid-eighties we hadn't really moved on. And we still haven't: we may have satellite TV, and mobile phones that fit in your pocket and have (lots) more computing power than an IBM 360/158 (which filled  a room), but we haven't really advanced technologically. This has continued for the last forty or so years. Why? 

My contact had a theory. Generations that grew up in the fifties and sixties realised that there forefathers had made great advances - nuclear power, air and space travel, cinema radio, TV: since the industrial revolution there had been a steady roll out of new tech that was handed on to the next generation. Youngsters admired their elders' knowledge and skill and, later in life, sought to build on what had been developed before. 

That all came to a bit of a halt in the seventies, and, around the same time, attitudes changed. Older generations' attitudes and experience were no longer considered worthy of respect; the youngsters, perhaps inspired by new teaching methods, decided they knew better than their elders.

So, the progress made by humanity comes to a halt as successive generations go over the same ground as their forefathers, learning, in effect, what has already been learnt. 

The way businesses used to work

Fifty years ago a trip to the dentist would end with a (face-to-face) chat with the receptionist to arrange a follow-up appointment. She (well, in my experience, the receptionist was always female) would have a large, perhaps loose-leaf, diary in which she would record appointments with technology no more advanced than a ball point pen or perhaps, in some cases, a pencil. 

This technology worked for years, but, in the last couple of decades, even the smallest business has moved appointment management onto a computer. There may be advantages - perhaps clients can see and manage their appointments online - but do modern businesses provide the same level of service that they might have done half a century ago?

Five weeks ago I saw an audiologist. She said I needed to go back, so she looked up her diary online and arranged an appointment for me at 10am on 28th June. 

I arranged my time accordingly and, at 8 o'clock on the morning of 28th I was settling down to breakfast when my phone double-pinged. A text message had arrived.

Our cleaner was due later that day and often texts to say she's delayed or something, so I paused my interaction with the bowl of bran flakes in front of me and picked up my phone, then read the message.

I was staggered to read: 

'We?re very sorry that your Hearingcare appointment cannot go ahead. We will call you to rearrange or you can reply to this message. Thank you.'

I replied - politely - to the effect that I was very disappointed and had been waiting for this appointment for five weeks. They offered to look for the next available appointment, but I can't manage appointments by text message. I needed to speak to someone, and, having other business to attend to near the audiologists, we decided to pop in and see what could be done face-to-face.

That we did, but to no effect. 

'You'll have to phone this number', the receptionist told us. 'I can't arrange appointments.'

I went home, looked up another audiologist, and made an appointment with them. 

'The modern generation doesn't seem to understand that, if you piss off your customers, they go elsewhere,' I remarked to Viv. 'It's like the modern generation don't understand the lessons of British Leyland, who made rubbish cars no-one wanted.' 

My audiology appointment wasn't the only one we had a problem with. Viv needed an eye test, and we had much the same response from the receptionist at the opticians - they couldn't arrange an appointment there and then. 

Down the pub

A local publican has also not learned this lesson. 

The government has said that everyone must wear masks in enclosed public spaces, with some exemptions. The landlord probably thinks he is doing as he should by putting up such a sign: gov.uk says that premises owners must take 'reasonable steps' to enforce the rules. Personally, I'm inclined to question whether a sign worded as this one is can be classed as reasonable.

The problem is that those who are exempt are not required to show exemption cards by law. Gov.uk says:

'If you have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering:
- you do not routinely need to show any written evidence of this

- you do not need show an exemption card.'

The publican could arguably be held to be in breach of equality legislation. 

If I liked the pub, I might discuss this matter with them; however, I have been a customer there twice in the eight years I've lived in the town. On the first occasion I was ignored for five minutes while the barmaid chatted to regulars, on the second a different barmaid was rude about us going in with shopping (the pub is in our local High Street - what do they expect?). Even after those experiences,  if their entrance was a little more welcoming I might be tempted to try them one day, and possibly others might too.

It doesn't market itself well at all, for the town name is mis-spelled on one of its boards. However you'd think they'd up their act the way things must be business-wise at the moment. As it is I shan't miss it when it inevitably closes.

Parking and litter

On the Saturday of the weekend before last Viv and I were in our local town centre. Pavement parking was, as usual, rife, with drivers waiting for each other to clear illegal spaces outside shops rather than use one of the council car parks a few minutes' walk away. We've become accustomed to this; I've complained to the council, but, for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to think it is important to enforce the laws regarding parking.

In the past, not only did we have parking wardens but they also enforced litter regulations. It may be a coincidence, but two people threw down half smoked cigarettes right in front of me, as if littering was an entitlement. One was outside a barber's, asking about a haircut, and threw down his fag as he went through the door. Before the proprietor follwed him inside; I asked if he was happy that his customers littered the street outside his shop. 

'He's nothing to do with me', came the reply.

Perhaps one day soon the entrance to his shop will be blocked with discarded takeaway cartons, maybe he'll face rats or other vermin coming in to his premises. WIll customers want to visit then? Shouldn't he take responsibility for the rubbish left by his customers? Shouldn't the council enforce the laws that prohibit the dropping of litter in the streets? 

Our council tax went up by 5% earlier this year, yet the council seems unable, or unwilling, to enforce parking and littering rules.

Turning a blind eye to unacceptable, and indeed illegal, behaviour has had unpleasant consequences in the past - the 1930s treatment of Germany, for instance. It may seem a strange comparison, but to ignore rule breaking now will only store up trouble in the future. 

The postal service

Years ago one used to get paper sleeves that you could use to post newspapers and magazines to family and friends through the Royal Mail. My mum used to send me 'Railway Modeller' every month during my early years at boarding school. I think there used to be a special rate for 'printed papers', perhaps the idea was that it was good for the populace to read.

You can't get those sleeves any more; two weeks ago I had a couple of copies of 'Le Monde' (the French national daily newspaper) and wanted to send them to my mum, who, even in her eighties, is still interested in all things both French and in french. I duly bought a jiffy bag from the post office, addressed it, put in the two newspapers and the crossword page from the Daily Telegraph, sealed it and handed it to the cashier at the local Post Office.

'What's in it?', she asked.

'Two copies of a french newspaper and a crossword', I replied. The cashier typed something into her computer, offered me the choice of first or second class - I selected the latter, then relieved me of one pound something and gave me a receipt.  

A few days later my mum phoned. 'Thank you for your jiffy bag', she said. 'What was supposed to be in it? All there was was a Daily Telegraph crossword. It looked as if it had been cut open at the end opposite where it was sealed.'

Flabbergasted, I apologised and said we'd sent her a couple of french newspapers. I couldn't believe that a jiffy bag, sold by the Post Office, would have burst, and if that sort of thing happens the postmen are supposed to put the items in a clear bag. 

I made some enquiries with the Royal Mail, and my flabber was even more gasted. French newspapers are prohibited items. 

I could probably send bomb-making manuals through the post, or porn, or books extolling the viewpoint of the Chinese Communist Party. But not, it seems, Le Monde.  

Quite why the cashier hadn't told me of this rule I don't know, next time I'll have to say I'm sending my mum a couple of copies of Global Times. 

But wasn't there a bit of trouble in the 30s and 40s with a few chaps in Germany, Italy and elsewhere who wouldn't let people read foreign language newspapers? And, why Le Monde? What has the postal service got against the French?

Is it any surprise the British people don't understand their continental neighbours? 

After WWII there were many programmes aimed at improving understanding between the nations of Europe; it was obvious, to all of humanity, that we needed to understand each other. 

Now, clearly, it isn't obvious.

Failing our children

A story in the news today mentioned that one and a half million children were suffering with speech issues because of lockdowns, face masks and school closures. Two school years have missed proper exams. Our children are being forced to make sacrifices  and the consequences will far greatly outweigh the inconvenience to society caused by 'the virus'.  

It's only a couple of years since a former master at the boarding school I attended was convicted of abusing boys during the time I was there. One was quoted, anonymously, as saying that the experience had ruined his life. The media, the great and the good seemed to agree, and I pictured them all nodding, as if they were fully aware that bad experiences in childhood will damage children for life.

In a way, I can go along with that; I have written before about how the awkwardness and social discomfort I exhibited in my teens and twenties had roots in my parents' break-up and the way I had been treated by supposed 'helpful' adults. 

A week or so ago 640,000 children were, apparently, excluded from school because someone in their class has tested positive for coronavirus. Why the bloody hell are we shutting children out of education, away from their friends, away from an environment where they can learn and achieve something every day, and get the buzz that you get when you schieve something? Do the 'experts' not realise that we are grooming a generation of anti-social, rebellious youth that may turn out to be a challenge to handle?

We may be lucky. That rebellious element may help them to see through the lies, fear and falsehoods that have been perpetrated over them, they may sweep away the wickedness of self-interested 'experts'. On the otherhand, that same rebellious streak may turn them into grooming targets for the CCP.

Complicated, but basic, economics

Milton Friedman, I believe, explained monetary inflation: if your money supply outstrips the real value of your output, the value of your currency will depreciate and costs of things go up in monetary terms. To control inflation you have to restrict money supply to the growth of output; you cannot do it by any other means.

This was well understood in the early '80s, and the likes of Thatcher and Reagan got their economies in better shape than they had been for decades as a result.

During the pandemic, governments worldwide have been increasing the money supply with little concern for the long term consequences. In the US, inflation is already around 4% after the M2 money supply measure increased 26% in the year to Feb 2021; in Europe, the central bank has changed its inflation rules from keeping inflation 'below 2%' to 'around 2%', and in the UK, money supply may have been around 10%, propped up with low interest rates. Inflation in the UK has topped 2% yet base rates remain at 0.1%, and experts see them only rising to 0.13% in 2022. Some experts say that keeping rates low will store up problems for the future: house prices are forecast to fall by 10% in the US in 2022 as base rates rise there. 

It's worth noting that even those who were junior clerks in the Bank of England in the 1980s may well be retired by now: decision makers seem to be of the opinion that inflation is a thing of the past. They, obviously, haven't tried buying building materials lately, or engaging the services of bar staff. 

We all make mistakes

Another rule that seems to have been forgotten is the one about 'if you do something you shouldn't, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time: eventually, you will be found out.'

A classic example of this recently was the one-time Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. For fifteen months he'd been responsible for a dystopian system of lockdowns, masks and social distancing. Ordinary people were, at various times, banned from meeting, standing closer than two metres from each other, and from hugging. Workers were hence meant to keep a two metre distance from each other unless they were part of a bubble.

Mr Hancock forgot to cover the cctv camera in his office in London SW1, and the pictures of him - er, embracing - one of his advisors found their way to The Sun. God Bless that esteemed publication for printing them on their front page, and showing up the hypocrite for what he was. There is now a different mood about, the public have realised their masters were following different rules to the ones they were supposed to follow, and Hancock has been banished.

But he is an Oxford graduate, for God's sake. If he can be this stupid it doesn't give much hope for those with degrees from lesser establishments ... what has happened to the education system? 

Education, education, education

The education system may indeed be where we need to look. A book review I read recently in The Critic suggested something that, in the UK at least, seems to suggest this. 'Identity, Ignorance and Innovation' by Matthew D'ancona was the subject, and I'm going to order a copy. 

I don't expect to agree with all of its conclusions, but the key point - that the education system has let down successive generations because students are taught to learn facts, rather than how to interpret and challenge information - seems to tie in with what my scientist friend suggested all those years ago: perhaps half of current working age adults in the UK, including a goodly number of MPs, senior civil servants and captains of industry, have never really been taught to question anything. Young people read less and know less than their forefathers (and digital media is making things worse). Doesn't this sound rather like the hapless Mr. Hancock, and his apparent failure to challenge his scientific advisors (and to check for cameras when with his other advisors...)?

So, one way or another, as long as we have a crap education system, and a culture encouraging reliance upon apparent facts, and devices to produce them, we are stuck with having crap decisions being made that affect our lives. In fact, because it takes decades for changes in education to take effect in the way we all think, it will take until maybe thirty years after things are sorted. 

That lines us up for a fun time over the next few years, no matter what our leaders do.