no way to store culture except in the medium it exists

A few notes from reading Edward T Hall‘s Beyond Culture:

Culture information and techniques are passed from members of one generation to the next. The next generation takes this accumulation, adds its own discoveries and refinements, and passes the total on to the next.

It seems to me however that that transference of cultural information to the younger generation requires two things. Physically being together and sufficient time for the transference to occur.

Perhaps this explains why companies will not hire remote workers, but occasionally extend work-from-home options to long time employees. Maybe it is that enough time has passed for cultural transference so the part-time remote worker can successfully interact if they are past this threshold of transference (whatever that length of time is)? I really don’t know, just thinking.

And there is no ability to “store” culture except in the medium in which it exists. You can’t describe it in a book in a way that it could be recreated, nor store it in a DNA double helix. It must be experienced and participated in.

If you can’t store something, you can’t time-shift it or carry it to someone in a different location for them to learn.

That last one really gets me. There is absolutely no way to store culture except in the medium it exists. #heavy

reduced sarbox – it’s a good thing (SOX 404(b) changes)

Financial reform bill signed into law, eliminating SOX 404(b) internal control audit requirement for smaller reporting companies.

Short version: Companies under 75M don’t have to spend 1M on reporting because Enron screwed everything up for all of us.

Long version: here.

A surprisingly pro-business bill in modern politics. It will create jobs. A good thing.

I Feel Better

Javier “Chicharito” Hernandez

This photo of Javier “Chicharito” Hernandez was taken at Manchester United vs MLS All Stars at Reliant Park which ManU won 5-2. It is Creative Commons Attribution. Yes you can use it with “photo by Ed Schipul” credits. And you can get the large version from Flickr by clicking the image above.

Religion is the overwhelmingly dominant factor in predicting generosity

Some stats from the book Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks:

1. Religion is the overwhelmingly dominant factor in predicting generosity —religious liberals and religious conservatives are identical.
   1. “Religious” is defined by Brooks as individuals who attend worship service at least once a week (30% of the population) and;
   2. “Secular” is defined by Brooks as people either don’t believe in a deity, or attend a place of worship one or less times per year.
2. Religious people are 25% more likely to donate money than secular people
3. Religious people are 23% more likely to volunteer, and even within the population of people who volunteer, religious people devote twice as much time.
4. Conservative people give more money. Possibly a correlation as religious people are conservative.
5. Political Affiliation (e.g. Democrat vs Republican) itself isn’t the predictor.

I believe it is worth pointing out that the definitions of “Religious” and “Secular” are polarized on opposite ends of the spectrum. There are many who perhaps attend a religious service once a month who would not fit either category as defined by Brooks.

All data from Who Really Cares – Compassionate Conservatism on Amazon.