Tag Archives: Essays

Climate Change: Evisceration the Third




As I observed in both of my prior essays, Climate Change: Why I No Longer Believe. . . and Revisiting “Climate Change”, no matter what information comes to light that threatens key assumptions, the conclusion that CO2 is the prime driver of everything being seen – whether hotter, colder, wetter, drier, stormier, or calmer – never wavers from its North Star. For example, things are often – even if only implicitly – presented as though, prior to industrialization, nothing ever changed. Yet the Anasazi were driven out of their homes by a 75-year drought. Absent rising CO2 levels, what caused that? After all, it’s not like there’s been any fluctuations in global temperature before industrialization, or even mankind’s emergence onto the planet (oh, wait…):
Let’s not forget that the below has happened without any industrialization and its CO2 emissions (bolding added):

There is general agreement that the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age. Temperature proxies may be hard to defend for portraying past temperatures, but there is secondary evidence. The Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago, was probably warmer than now, contrary to Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick graph. They were growing non-hybridized wine grapes in northern England at that time. And the Vikings had three thriving settlements on the southwest coast of Greenland with perhaps three thousand inhabitants as detailed in Icelandic history. They had grazing animals and grew cool-weather crops. That is not possible today. The last Vikings were gone from Greenland by about 1300 A.D. because of the sudden onset of the Little Ice Age. There are clearly natural climate changes that still have not been fully elucidated. The science is not settled.

And what to make of this news about the Antarctic ice and vulcanism (not CO2)? Oops, NASA Finds Mantle Plume Melting Antarctica From Below, not ‘global warming’:

Researchers at NASA have discovered a huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land, which lies between the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea, is creating vast lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. The presence of a huge mantle plume could explain why the region is so unstable today, and why it collapsed so quickly at the end of the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago.

Or this prediction of New York City underwater:

NASA’s top climate expert, James Hansen, predicted that by 2018 the Arctic would be ice-free, and Lower Manhattan would be underwater. Democrats call him a “climate prophet.”

Not to mention an ice-free arctic (same article as link, just above):




Why, it’s so ice-free Russia is building three nuclear-powered icebreakers to clear paths through the northern sea ice that doesn’t exist. Like I said, if it’s warmer, it’s climate change. If it’s colder, or there’s more snow in Alaska, it’s climate change. Remember, warming planets also cause record cold:

These experts just make things up as they go. Did any of them predict this? I don’t believe so, therefore they just change their predictions. The computer models haven’t predicted any climate or weather events with accuracy, so they just adjust the data.

The record cold is caused by global warming in the same way that droughts are caused by too much rain and the record snow in Erie, Pennsylvania is caused by warm weather. The ten-year gap between major storms and the almost twenty-year pause in warming are irrelevant, because the agenda must go on.

Speaking of contradictory predictions, planet earth is facing, simultaneously, desertification as well as floods. How’s this work again?

And a new peer-reviewed paper shows that cosmic rays, as modulated by solar activity, could have far larger effects than first thought. Yet despite this news the Holy Writ never varies, despite news like this:

Speaking to Daily Star Online, climate and weather experts predict one cold spell a week until the end of winter in the UK, warning “you have been cool and it will get colder”.

In the coming years, David Dilley, CEO of Global Weather Oscillations, believes winters will only become “more intense” in the UK due to a combination of “dangerous” climate factors.

His research shows that by 2019, Earth will enter a natural 120-year cooling cycle that happens roughly every 230 years, bucking the warming trend.

Predictions of low solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 are also predicted to send thermometers plummeting, according to his research.

Interestingly, there are Warmists criticizing this study with their own references. Which is the way it should be. Yet when skeptics do the same to Warmists, the response is the same: SHUT UP. It’s free speech and back-and-forth discussions for me, not for thee. Here’s a person trying to get funding to create a film and – in their own words – “think critically and independently” about climate change:

We applied to more than 45 film festivals worldwide and planned our release in Berlin in February 2017. The people who saw the film during rough viewings were enthusiastic and full of expectations on the impact the film would have on viewers. We sent out over hundreds of press releases, towards the bigger media channels and waited. However, it remained silent, very silent.

After calling journalists for reviews they simply refused. The story – according to them – was too confusing to the public during a time when ‘climate change was under pressure’ and populism was on the rise. They called it their ‘journalistic responsibility’ not to give it any positive attention (?!) Not only the journalists but almost all the bigger film festivals rejected the film as well for the same reason.



We are constantly assured that the “science is settled”; we are lectured that those studying climate have PhDs and thus – apparently – have risen above the earthly corruption of mere mortals and thus, as “scientists”, we are to back off and just trust them. Until we learn about fraud like the Great Glitter Scare (link in original):

Nature has just reported that the two Swedish scientists whose publication has been the basis of the microplastics scare have been found guilty of “misconduct in research” in a paper that they published in Science, which has since been retracted.

Note the part about how the data on the laptop was not backed up due to a “technical glitch” (uh huh) and then the laptop was stolen so the original data couldn’t be examined. How… convenient. So when it’s glitter, the – shall we agree suspicious? – lack of data for result reproduction causes the paper to be retracted.  Meanwhile, back on the climate ranch, they’re continually tweaking the data with no consequence (bolding added):

In my report of the Pause in November 2017 at WattsUpWithThat, I predicted that the RSS dataset would swiftly be tampered with to try to eradicate the Pause. Just weeks later, Dr Carl Mears, the keeper of that dataset, who is prone to describe skeptics as “deniers”, announced that there would indeed be a revision, which, when it arrived, airbrushed the Pause away.

What is interesting is that the airbrushing – i.e., the alteration of data ex post facto to suit the Party Line – has continued. The dataset as it stood a few months back swept away the embarrassing zero trend over the 18 years 9 months of the Pause and replaced it with a trend equivalent to 0.77 C°/century.

Every revision to the data seems to amplify the warming trend: If The Data Doesn’t Match The Theory – Change The Data:




The 1999 NASA US temperature graph showed the US cooling since the 1930’s, but by 2015, the 1930-1998 cooling was turned into warming.





And if you can’t convince the proles with altered data, just make sh*t up (bolding added):

If station data is missing in a particular month, NOAA fabricates data for that month. In 1960, about 10% of the data was fabricated, but now about 42% of the data is fabricated.




When people make up 42% of the data, they can get any shaped curve they want. This sort of fraud appears shocking, but is standard operating procedure for government climate scientists.

Understand that even as the IPCC is claiming 95% certainly in their climate change claims:

The latest climate document claimed that despite more than 16 years of essentially no increase in global temperatures in defiance of UN theories and predictions, politically selected IPCC experts were more certain than ever that humans were to blame for global warming — 95 percent sure, to be precise.

The actual data differ:




An excellent point from NASA’s Rubber Ruler: An Update (bolding added):

How does one validate a climate model using temperature observations, if those “observations” were themselves adjusted using models? Real science means using the scientific method, which means using physical measurements to test a hypothesis.

The simple explanation is that NASA is reversing that method. It apparently uses the global warming hypothesis to adjust physical measurements. That is not science. It is the opposite of science.

And while digging for a particular piece of information about the 97% consensus that I remembered reading recently, I found this article with this great graph:




But more importantly, this quote (bolding added):

The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt (sic) or another, a fraud is being committed – either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.

Remember what I said in my first article on this subject? That the lack of ability to reproduce so much of the Warmist stuff, let alone the cloak-and-dagger concealment of data and methods, was the defining factor in my changing positions? Think about it: both the University of Chicago study and the work by John Cook in Australia claiming the “97% consensus” number cannot be replicated, but this research debunking it can.  Doesn’t that tell you something about what’s reliable vs. what’s not?



Refer back to just above: “Given that trillions of dollars are at stake…” Of course climate researchers want more money and junket trips, e.g., Clean Energy Researchers Recommend More Research Money (bolding added):

The science is settled. If we want to save the world from climate change, we need to give clean energy researchers lots of money and not press too hard for results or ask too many questions about how they intend to spend it – especially the international collaboration component of their proposal, which I suspect will require regular expenses paid mass attendance by researchers at important scientific conferences around the world in places like Paris, Rio, Bonn and Cancun.

Aside: I remember a flier for an injection molding conference when I worked for a plastic molding facility… in the Grand Cayman Islands. In February. Can we spell J-U-N-K-E-T? Plant management said “Nobody’s going”. But that was private industry money; here, it’s just the taxpayers who pay for this. </sarcasm>

And another it’s-about-the-money article (bolding added):

The only thing that can stop it is forking over an ever-increasing sum of your hard-earned dollars to a big inefficient institution like the government. They’ll oversee the ongoing redistribution of US wealth to whomever the UN says deserve it, and provide taxpayer-backed “loans” to connected green-energy corporatists. 

And so the circle is complete. Researchers’ results justify massive taxes and fees and payouts for “green energy” and more research, which then get recycled to campaign coffers (let alone private pockets) to re-elect politicians who continue the advocacy for more taxes and regulations further research, which then justify more green energy subsidies… because we’re talking trillions of dollars… that’s an awfully big carrot for fraud (bolding added):

Sandor estimates that climate trading could be “a $10 trillion dollar market.” It could very well be, if cap-and-trade measures like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer are signed into law, making energy prices skyrocket, and as companies buy and sell permits to emit those six “greenhouse” gases.



Don’t forget this circle is also used to justify the centralization of power by tyrant-wanna-be Socialists – The Never Ending Climate Hustle (bolding added):

As long as leading, celebrated climatistas talk about it as a reason to smash capitalism without any rebuke from the media, from Democratic politicians, or the climate science community, there is every reason for conservatives to reject the whole racket as a hustle for political power.

They openly admit their desire for utopia-on-Earth (bolding added, link in the original):

Included among these is a new documentary “inspired” by Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.” If the title isn’t enough to give away Klein’s motives for attacking the climate “crisis,” then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

“So here’s the big question,” says Klein. “What if global warming isn’t only a crisis? What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

Klein says she “spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there.” Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It’s just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health.

Klein’s statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists’ goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism.

Of course, to do that people must be perfected.  And additionally, to save the planet, the economic pie must shrink:

[I]n order to reach the 10% reduction in emissions output, we have to plunge our economies into a recession 10 times worse than any we’ve ever experienced before. We hope Bows-Larkin doesn’t expect developed nations to eagerly support this idea.

No wonder I see articles praising micro-apartments and micro-houses. We’re being propagandized to accept less. And in general, understand the nature of these people and their Frankfurt School progenitors:



Pay particular attention to the quote at 11:23:

So just so we know what kind of people we’re dealing with here. Here are people who are fleeing [Nazi Germany] for their lives with their entire families. They come into a country that gives them asylum, puts no restriction on their political activity, doesn’t say a word about what they can say or not say, and the first thing they do when they get here is look around and say “How can we destroy this? How can we bring this down?”

Fans of this philosophy, the one that has killed over 100 million people in the 20th century (not soldiers – civilians), are prime drivers of the climate change agenda. Just don’t think that Socialism has ever resulted in anything other than:


socialism 4 panel


You really think they are going to sacrifice for the planet? That’s your job, rubes. Because they don’t really believe it: Obamas Planning To Buy Martha’s Vineyard Home: Report.


mencken urge to rule



Do you seriously believe people are going to give up massive research budgets, lavish trips, and the lucrative lecture circuit plus fawning adoration by the media… let alone the carbon offset business profits? Do you really think that politicians and ideologues screaming for more governmental authority and implementation of Socialism are likely to relinquish power voluntarily? So do an Einsteinian thought experiment:

Assume, for a moment, that my skepticism is correct. Assume that CO2 is not a significant factor in the earth’s climate, and that any variations in the earth’s climate are due to natural – i.e., outside humanity’s control – causes. What happens when this becomes widely known?

  • Topical research grants go away, laying waste to entire academic fiefdoms across the world
  • The lucrative lecture circuit dries up
  • The researchers get sued until their noses bleed, as do Al Gore and others, for fraud – and risk imprisonment to boot
  • “Green energy” business subsidies likely disappear
  • The research-green business-campaign coffer-feathered nest taxpayer milking machine gets shut down
  • The media, which has hyped this endlessly, also loses their coin-of-the-realm: their credibility
  • The oh-so-sophisticated people who virtue signaled about their greenness have ostrich-caliber egg on their faces
  • Politicians hopes for more power get dashed
  • Socialist hopes for their utopia-on-earth are likewise dashed

Like the Wizard of Oz, they can never permit people to look behind the curtain.  Instead, the agitprop will get dialed to 11.  And then 12.  And then ever-higher.

But, given the above, shouldn’t thinking people adjust their faith in the Holy Writ of CO2 accordingly?

© 2018, David Hunt PE

A Quote from Jurassic Park: Life Imitates Art

Many years ago, in graduate school, I was an op-ed columnist for the school newspaper. I wrote about things totally-unrelated to the school, such as war, welfare, Israel, abortion, gun control, religion, and other topics – and I weighed in, once, on the potential for genetic engineering of humanity. (In going through these essays as a part of cleaning, it was entertaining to reread them; in some instances my views have not changed, while in others my views have altered significantly since that time – in some cases becoming diametrically opposite to what I used to believe.)

But I had been searching for one particular essay: Laws Must Lead, Not Lag, Technology. In it I hypothesized about gene editing technology and potential implications, and had been looking for it in light of many recent developments in gene sequencing and genetic engineering. So what did I predict in that 1993 essay? Here:

Genetic engineering portends even greater dilemmas. In the next 20 years, I can easily foresee the ability to “fix” fertilized human eggs. Imagine that a couple goes into the clinic where an egg is fertilized in vitro. The genes are then examined, and the defective ones (such as those for sickle-cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, Tay-Sachs syndrome, diabetes, a propensity for cancer, etc.) are fixed so that the child is flawless. This perfectly engineered egg is then implanted in the woman’s uterus.

And now we have news like this (link in original):

In the experiment, outlined in a paper in the journal Nature published Wednesday (Aug. 2), scientists essentially snipped a mutant gene known to cause a heart condition that can lead to sudden death.

The work is controversial because it showed that scientists could manipulate life in its earliest stages and that those changes would then be inherited by future generations, if the embryo were allowed to grow into a baby. (The embryo in question was destroyed.)

It also raised the tantalizing promise that the baby would be disease-free and would not transmit the disease to his or her descendants.

Did I call it, or what?



But there’s more in my (IMHO) prescient essay:

Suppose, 50 years down the road, we have learned enough to increase human strength, improve intelligence, and maybe even redesign some of the faulty or flawed systems in the human body.

And while some of this is still beyond our reach, I may have been pessimistic about 50 years; to wit this story China unveils gene technology to create SUPERHUMANS with hyper-muscular test-tube dogs:

The dogs, which are test tube bred in a lab, have twice the muscle mass of their natural counterparts and are considerably stronger and faster.

The canine genome has been especially difficult to engineer and replicate – but its close similarity to the human genome means it has long been the prize of geneticists.

Now the Chinese success has led to fears the same technology could be used to create weaponised super-humans – typifed in Marvel Comics by Captain America and his foes.

And from later in the article, the quote being from David King, director of Human Genetics Alert:

“That does set us on the road to eugenics. I am very concerned with what I’m seeing.”

An army of super-humans has been a staple of science fiction and superhero comics for decades – but the super-dog technology brings it closer to reality.

Genetically-engineered “supermen” have been a staple theme in sci-fi for years. For example, the “Augments” from Star Trek (bolding added):

The Augments were designed to be remarkably agile, five times as strong and twice as intelligent as a normal Human, resistant to sickness and with enhanced senses, possessing heart muscles twice as strong and lung efficiency fifty percent better. Their blood contained platelets capable of regenerating from any disease or toxin, which could be used to cure or revive medical subjects via transfusion. They also had twice the average lifespan.

They were joined in the next Star Trek series, The Next Generation, by another attempt to re-engineer humans and played a central role in several episodes of Enterprise. Or consider the “Sauron Supermen” from Jerry Pournelle’s Co-Dominion universe (bolding added):

Among the Empire’s many worlds is Sauron, where the culture has grown militaristic and adheres to a literal interpretation of the philosophy of Nietzsche, namely that “man is something to be surpassed.” In service of this aim, they engage in extensive genetic modification and eugenic breeding programs to turn themselves into supersoldiers known in the galaxy at large as the Sauron Supermen. Bristling under Imperial hegemony, in the 27th century they lead several worlds into open revolt.



But there are implications beyond mere supermen. Once more, from my essay (bolding added):

[C]onsider the implications of such changes. Those who were engineered might not be able to interbreed with us “old style” humans. This is, biologically, a test for a new species. These “upgrades” would, quite literally, be a superior race. One might even say a Master Race.

Those persons who were “Homo Novii” could out-compete us “old styles” physically and mentally. Nations that progressed quickly in this process, perhaps mandating that all children born as citizens must be so engineered, would prosper far above those countries that did not do so. Would each nation have differing genetic goals, thus leading to the splintering of the human race?

Do we really understand just how dissimilar a DNA sequence has to be to qualify for species-hood? Consider that humans and chimpanzees share somewhere around 98% of DNA; factor in that “junk DNA” and other genetic mysteries are still – to my knowledge – not understood, that’s a line whose position is still uncertain. What would “fixing” genes en masse do? Like all limits, we truly won’t know we’ve crossed it… until we cross it. And, as I pointed out in my essay, different nations and cultures could pursue emphasizing different things – and even the same things, like increased strength, could be pursued by different gene sequences. Differentiated species are also seen in science fiction; consider The Moties, introduced in one of the best sci-fi books I’ve ever read, The Mote in God’s Eye. The Moties are a caste-system species, with differences so large most of these castes are different species.  And some of those variations in the book are sterile like mules; could mass-engineering of the human genome not only produce a new species, but sterilize it unintentionally?

These are unknown unknowns.



In the name of eugenics, white “progressives” in America sterilized women who were guilty of nothing more than being considered of inferior stock – i.e., not white. Whole genetic lines were extinguished in the name of “improving humanity”. The Shoah (Holocaust) was the first mechanized, industrial genocide; it was not the first such attempt to “improve” the race by genetics (e.g., the eugenics movement mentioned just before), and it was not the last. And we humans did this even though, scientifically, we are all the same species.

Just what would a truly superior – at least, by every stretch of what’s being improved – species do? Would it be a simple “old styles / inferiors” will not be permitted to breed and shunted to the edges of society like in the movie GATTACA, or would it be worse? Given that human nature is what it is, my bet would be the latter. Especially in light of…



So in two separate science fiction venues, Star Trek and the Co-Dominion universe, we find that superior abilities breeds superior ambitions (and doubtless other fiction-based examples exist). But we need not venture into science fiction to see this potential dangers of superiority, even if just a perceived superiority. One only need look at human history – history within living memory – for an example of those who desired to create a Master Race (bolding added):

Nazism was “applied biology,” stated Hitler deputy Rudolf Hess. During the Third Reich, a politically extreme, antisemitic variation of eugenics determined the course of state policy. Hitler’s regime touted the “Nordic race” as its eugenic ideal and attempted to mold Germany into a cohesive national community that excluded anyone deemed hereditarily “less valuable” or “racially foreign.” Public health measures to control reproduction and marriage aimed at strengthening the “national body” by eliminating biologically threatening genes from the population. Many German physicians and scientists who had supported racial hygiene ideas before 1933 embraced the new regime’s emphasis on biology and heredity, the new career opportunities, and the additional funding for research.

Atrocities happened, not only to Jews and gypsies and many others, but the manifest destiny belief of the Nazis – a belief that their destiny must, by definition on this finite planet, come at the expense of others – led to World War II. And referencing my above comment about Progressives in America, it’s time to recognize that the Nazis took many cues from them, and vice versa.



All around, on multiple levels, we are mucking with nature. To cite an example, Why Millennial Women Are Rejecting The Pill, apparently birth control pill use is linked to depression (bolding added):

Last year, the results of a study conducted by the University of Copenhagen of more than one million women over the course of 13 years confirmed a significant link between hormonal contraceptives and depression. Women taking combined oral contraceptives were 23 per cent more likely to be treated for it; those on the progestogen-only pill (known as the mini-pill) were 34 per cent more likely. Teens taking the combined pill were discovered to be at greatest risk, with an 80 per cent increased likelihood of being prescribed antidepressants.




The pill has also been linked to other side effects (links in original article, bolding added):

In addition, before taking my classes, my female students were never told that the Pill scrambles the sensory messages that they subconsciously detect with their sense of smell: The hormones in the Pill make them more attracted to men with immune systems similar to their own. Those scrambled signals mean falling in love with a man while taking the Pill is risky. If the couple marries and tries to have children, the woman will have somewhat higher odds of repeated miscarriages and perhaps of having more-vulnerable offspring.

The pill may also have multi-generational effects.  According to this one article, Birth Control and Homosexuality: Unintended Consequences, the author discusses a possible – and with all fairness, unproven to my standards – link between women who took the pill and increased homosexual tendencies in grandchildren. Now, this essay is not about homosexuality as that topic is not germane to this discussion. But let’s posit for the sake of argument that the link described actually exists (I await independent verification), in addition to the more-rigorously-determined results, further up. This would mean that nature has cycles within cycles within cycles which should come as a surprise to nobody, and that even hormonal treatments – child’s play next to genetic engineering – could have remarkable and long-time-downstream consequences that are either unforeseen or, as the article claims, are swept under the carpet as “inconvenient”.

So let’s turn to genetic engineering., and ponder this one data point, New GMO Wheat May ‘Silence’ Vital Human Genes:

  • Research conducted on a new type of GM wheat showed with “no doubt” that molecules created in the wheat, which are intended to silence wheat genes to change its carbohydrate content, may match human genes and potentially silence them.

  • Experts warned that eating the wheat could lead to significant changes in the way glucose and carbohydrates are stored in the human body, which could be potentially deadly for children and lead to serious illness in adults.

  • Long-term studies are needed before the wheat is released into the environment and the human food chain – but a new review states that the risks are still not being adequately assessed.

While I would label this site on the “alarmist” side, I remember when this news first came out – it definitely was a topic of conversation on far-more-mainstream sites.



One of the hallmarks of sexual reproduction is the variation created by the different combinations and variations of chromosomes and genes. Even with the same parents one can get differences; an extreme example is the famous twins whose mixed-race parents produced twin girls of wildly different genetic expressions:




Across humanity there are countless variations of genes for superficial characteristics like hair, eye, and skin color; height, weight, and I have no doubts that even significant and functional things like muscle makeup, nerves, etc., have subtle differences between individuals and across demographic groups. But supposing that, thanks to such engineering, an entire population of a country and perhaps the world will have that variation in multiple genes brought to literally zero by deliberate engineering. What if there is a disease that happens to find that particular variation appealing? Just look at the natural variation that creates Sickle Cell anemia; the distorted red blood cells it creates are definitely a handicap, but strangely serve as an advantage in malaria-ridden countries as the mosquitoes carrying the disease shun carriers of that gene.

To just what pandemics are we opening ourselves after we have eliminated the natural variation that protects a breeding population as a whole? The same dangers lie in the hyper-optimized crops we now grow, leading to efforts like I read about many years ago to gather all the different natural-variation types of potatoes  to have the genetic variation stored just in case something happened to the primary crop potato stock.

Nearly 4,000 different varieties of potato can be found in the Andes, and scientists, economists, and historians are racing to record and preserve the genetic diversity to ensure it does not disappear as suddenly as did the Inca Empire.

The same effort is being made with other important staple crops, per memory of articles read over the years. The Wikipedia article on Crop diversity mentions potatoes again, specifically the Irish potato famine – but the threat applies to all monoculture plants and doubtless extends to animals in general.

Crop diversity loss threatens global food security, as the world’s human population depends on a diminishing number of varieties of a diminishing number of crop species. Crops are increasingly grown in monoculture, meaning that if, as in the historic Irish Potato Famine, a single disease overcomes a variety’s resistance, it may destroy an entire harvest, or as in the case of the ‘Gros Michel’ banana, may cause the commercial extinction of an entire variety. With the help of seed banks, international organizations are working to preserve crop diversity.

Note the comment about the extinction of an entire variety of bananas. And this threat would be doubly-so against humans who, unlike even “pure breed” plants and animals, would literally have the same genetic sequences in multiple places in their DNA rather than even the low-but-still-present natural variation of pure-breed, “optimized” organisms. And I remember, some years ago, reading an article – IIRC in National Geographic – about a species of fish that can reproduce both sexually and by cloning; it was pointed out that clones can colonize a territory far faster than by sexual reproduction, but specifically mentioned the risks I discuss: a population-wide potential susceptibility to a disease targeting a particular aspect of the identical-across-the-population clone genetics.

Given the adaptability of bacteria to antibiotics, which is an emerging threat to human health, and the adaptability of viruses (e.g., the HIV virus), would an entire human species of clones fall to a germ that “decoded” a vulnerability in the superhuman genetics? Discussing HIV specifically, consider that there are some people whose genetics give them heightened resistance, People with natural immunity to HIV may serve as basis for new vaccine (bolding added):

(Medical Xpress)—Despite urgent need and tremendous scientific effort, researchers have yet to discover a vaccine for HIV that adequately protects humans from infection. But some people don’t need one. For reasons not completely understood, there are individuals who have developed a natural immunity to the virus without any medical intervention.

The average person’s immune system will attempt to fight HIV, but normally the virus simply mutates and deflects the attack until it is able to replicate and spread unimpeded.

Faced with a population whose immune systems are quite literally identical thanks to the genetic enhancements, a disease that mutates with every reproduction will likely outstrip not only the immune systems, but the research to stop it. So imagine a scenario with an immensely communicable virus that has “learned” to exploit the population-wide vulnerabilities due to that population having a uniform same immune system response. Further, nature is an inexhaustible source of new-to-humanity viruses: Virus Crisis | National Geographic. We’ve been very lucky but, just playing the odds, you can only spin the cylinder so many times before landing on the full chamber. The non-fiction book The Hot Zone was a very disturbing read… and as I put the finishing touches on this essay, the airborne form of Yersinia Pestis (the Black Death) is ringing the alarm bell. Just imagine someone in the early stages of this infection getting on a plane and getting to New York; one patient is not a sure bet for a problem, but given the airborne nature of this variant, it’s enough to keep me up at night. Marburg, too,  is raising its head again, causing more alarms to sound. And that’s with natural variation in the population.

Black Death killed millions last time.  With crowded cities and within-hours intercontinental travel, is it time for it – or another nasty – to make a “world tour”? And how would cloned immune systems exacerbate that?




When I wrote that essay I was all gung-ho to proceed with engineering humans, and even desirous to be on the redesign team. On that score, I have flipped 180 degrees, and think this would be calamitous for multiple reasons outlined above. In a large part I attribute that switch not only to a broader awareness of information that a curious mind gathers plus having more mileage under my belt, but also – having had my religious beliefs return and my faith in G-d rise like the phoenix – I am much more appreciative of the subtleties of His work.

But more relevant to the subject at hand, what I predicted over two decades ago is just about upon us, so… now what?



About that quote I alluded to. No, it’s not this line by actor Jeff Goldblum, “Boy do I hate being right all the time” though it was an ego-driven contender. No, it’s this one, said earlier in the film:

The lack of humility before nature that’s being displayed here staggers me… genetic power is the most awesome force the planet’s ever seen but you wield it like a kid that’s found his dad’s gun… your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn’t stop to think if they should.

Mankind has, from early days, tinkered with genes. Animals ranging from cows to dogs to horses now bear the mark of man’s alterations; plants grown for food and other purposes also do. But all of the changes made have been with the tools of selective breeding – i.e., survival of the fittest, with the “fitness” gradient determined by our needs – so the genetic shifts were made entirely with the tools that already existed in nature. We, rather than nature, provided that gradient, but we worked within the system. And even with that meddling, variation remains. Now, with genetic engineering, we are on the threshold of stepping outside that natural gradient system to alter the mechanisms of life itself.

As we sweep into possessing the ability to engineer humanity’s genetic code and realizing we could, and also ignore the implications and unintended consequences of whether we should, will our arrogance in playing with the very stuff of life itself again prove the wisdom of the ancient Greeks: Nemesis follows hubris. Will the quest to fulfill Nietzsche’s admonition and attain a biological advantage over other nations/groups become the epitaph of the human species, whether from ambition and the resulting warfare between the different variations of Homo Novii as well as against us old-fashioned Homo Sapiens, germs seizing the opportunity in a “target rich” environment of identically-responding hosts, or a simple inability to breed generation after generation?




© 2017, David Hunt PE

© 2017, David Hunt PE

Ask 6: Still more questions to ask in interviews

This is the sixth in a series of thoughts I’ve had for unique and penetrating questions to ask during an interview. These days, the expectation is that you will ask questions and there are many articles out there on “stock” questions to ask. I submit these – as an on-going series – in an effort to provide questions that will be revealing in that they’re not going to be the same-old, same-old questions interviewers hear all the time – thus, not only gaining you useful information, but differentiating you in their eyes. The prior ones in the series are Ask, Ask 2, Ask 3, Ask 4, and Ask 5.

Tell me about the last time you went head-to-head in a disagreement with a subordinate. What was it about and how was it resolved? (This can also be reworded to be asked to potential co-workers.)

Hey, if employers can ask behavioral questions, so can you. The positive of this question is that, assuming they answer the question, you will gain insight into how they handle disagreements in the group. The negative, obviously, is the implicit (even if incorrect) message that you are a troublemaker who wants to know how they’ll handle when you don’t toe the line. But, in and of itself, that too would be a useful piece of information about what it would be like to work there. And asking a reworded version to co-workers can reveal if the boss is a “My way or the highway” person, or is open to alternatives and constructive disagreements from the team.


Am I the first candidate you’ve interviewed for this position?

Best to ask this early on, and casually. But this can be a critical datum point. Very often in the interview process interviewers learn from their conversations with candidates details and tidbits of what they want that they hadn’t realized they wanted – and those get added to their mental lists. Thus, you don’t want to be first. Then again, they may have already decided by the time you get there and are just going through the motions. Now, there’s nothing you can really do about it, but… consider a follow-on question if they say they’ve spoken to several other people:

I’m curious: Have you refined what you want in a candidate based on those prior conversations?

This should indicate to a hiring manager that you’re really interested in what their needs are. In my experience, there is always something that they’ve identified from talking with the first candidate or two. See if you can get it out of them, and then address those points. Those newly-discovered, but undocumented, wants and needs can make or break you.

Have you seen a lot of resumes for this position?

This is especially pertinent for companies that use ATS portals, and is probably best asked of HR. It’s an imperfect metric, but the number of resumes the HR person has seen can be an indication of how much competition there is, how fine their ATS screen is, and – if they’ve not seen many and you’re talking with them – this is an excuse to then chime in sympathetically about how hard it is to find qualified people and that you’re glad you’ve met the bar to be them in person. Thus, this can be a psychological trick to get them to put you on the short list since they’ve seen so few resumes come through.

What is the last book or magazine you’ve read?

This is a reversal – hey, they can ask, why not you? – of the third question from here. Just as the person who asks this wants to understand your intellectual base, I think it’s fair to understand the hiring manager’s intellectual base too.

When’s the last time you changed your mind about something “big”, what was it, and what changed your mind?

How open-minded is your potential boss? Are they ossified in their cognitive template, or can they assimilate new information even if it disrupts their world view? Note that this has a danger in that it can tread upon peoples’ deep-held beliefs, and threatens to open up the Three Dread Topics: Sex, Religion, and Politics. So I’d recommend this one only if you are having a good, friendly conversation where there seems to be a good rapport.

Who is the last person who left the group, and do you know why?

This is best aimed at potential co-workers, and can be phrased any number of ways to investigate a little. What are you hoping to find? That people leave the group because they are promoted. If people leave because they’re shown the door, or spew bile about the place as they walk out the door, that’s not a good sign. A related question to ask, if someone left to go elsewhere, is:

How did the boss take it when so-and-so left the company?

When someone finds a better career move, it’s sad for the company they’re leaving but good for them. I read about one company – don’t recall which – that as a person exits on their last day, people line up to applaud and congratulate them. (WOW!) If a boss doesn’t even spring for a goodbye lunch, that can be an indicator of vindictiveness. And a parallel question to ask HR:

What would you say the turnover rate at this company is like?

First, HR better know it. If they hem and haw, it means it’s high. And a high turnover rate can mean several things: 1) that they fire lots of people, 2) that lots of people leave, which can indicate lots of problems, whether low pay, high stress, abusive managers, etc. (In parallel, if you have time and access to industry groups in the area related to the company’s business, see if you can dig a little into what the company’s “ people churn rate” is.)

© 2015, David Hunt PE

Ask 5: Some more penetrating questions to ask at interviews

This is the fifth in a series of questions I’ve come up with for candidates to ask in job interviews. The prior ones are Ask, Ask 2, Ask 3, and Ask 4.

Based on our conversation thus far, what do you think I will like most about this job?

This is inspired by a question I saw from Lavie Margolin. It’s a test of how well the hiring manager has “read” you. And by using the word will it’s also a subtle way to prompt the hiring manager to envision you in the position. An optional flip of this is:

And what do you think I will like least about this job?

No job is 100% fantastic all the time, and this is a good way to probe how the boss – and possibly co-workers – views the lesser aspects of the job, in particular in light of their understanding of you. Forewarned is forearmed. The advantage to this question is the opportunity to glean a clue about how they see you and the job, and the possible mismatches in their vision of how you might fit. The danger in asking this is that it brings dislike and your candidacy to mind in the same time frame, something to avoid and which I discussed here (thanks to Neil Patrick of 40pluscareerguru for republishing that essay).

In one sentence, can you tell me the top thing you’d want me to accomplish in the first six months?

This is a different take on the standard question “What would you expect me to accomplish in six months?”. It requires the hiring manager to focus on and articulate what is truly important to them. If you can squeeze this into the conversation early on, it will tell you how to target your conversation focus in a SPARTACUS approach (again, thanks Neil).

What were the characteristics of the best hire you’ve ever made?

Another way to “get inside” the head of the hiring manager to understand what they value in a person. If asked early in a conversation, you can use this to subtly highlight things that will draw an analogy between you and that “best hire”. Note, however, you should not ask the reverse one – once you bring negative traits to mind in the context of hiring, you run a strong risk of the hiring manager starting to try to pin those on you (even just unconsciously).

What do you like most about managing this group? (And the obvious reverse, what do you like least about managing this group?)

This can give some good insights into the group’s dynamics, and how the boss views their role as supervisor, coordinator, and leader.

What’s the most fun you’ve had at work in the last month?

This is for both hiring managers and co-workers. Work is not always fun – that’s why it’s called work. But if a person has to really, really stop and think about the last time they enjoyed their job, that’s a warning sign. And if the hiring manager also has to really scrape through their memory for the last time they enjoyed their job, that’s a huge red flag that they’re not happy – and you know what rolls downhill.

© 2015, David Hunt, PE

Resume Ruminations

Since I’ve seen a couple of columns about resumes lately I thought I’d chime in with some general thoughts about resumes – having discussed resume bullet points specifically earlier. A lot of online articles focus on formatting, key words, trying to beat the ATS portal, etc., I’d like to proffer a few thoughts outside those lines. But in my first point let me reiterate what others have said.

Keep It Updated

Whenever something noteworthy happens and would make a good resume achievement, add it. Don’t go crazy, but anything that you’d want a potential new employer to know about your background should be added. Did you score a record-breaking sale? Save megabucks in a new purchasing agreement as compared to the old one? Launch a material that saved hundreds of thousands of dollars annually? Take a seminar or two about something relevant to your career, or get a certification, or have an expertise-related article published, etc.? In they go. And so on.

(Side note: Not having an updated resume is a huge part of why a friend of mine missed out on a fantastic opportunity to escape the likely-dead-in-five-years factory where we met, and move to a place with better stability and much closer to his, and his wife’s, families. He never pursued it in large part because he was so daunted by having to add the better part of two decades worth of career history and accomplishments.)

Start Afresh

Do not update the same file over and over. As your career progresses you do not want to lose track of old achievements simply because they fall off newer versions. Instead, whenever you update – and this assumes you’re doing so once every few months – use “Save As” to create a new file for the newer version. Thus, if you need to refer back to an older resume for some “choice nugget” accomplishment from earlier in your career, you have it available. (And to avoid folder clutter, create an archival sub-folder that older resume versions get dumped into.)

I have been told that the history of your Word file is stored in the last character of the file, thus a skilled IT person can unlock it to see your revision history. I recommend opening a fresh Word file every few updates, and cut-and-paste everything but the last word into it to create the next version. You might have reformatting work though. Supporting this claim is the fact that the last time I did this, my resume file size decreased by almost 20K.

I’ve actually gotten into the habit of sending PDF-format resumes rather than Word files.

Keep a Separate Journal

A resume bullet-point is a distillation of a lot of information into something succinct and easy to digest – as such items are meant to catch attention and serve as a conversation starter in an interview. Keep a journal with as much information as you can (subject to confidentiality restrictions, of course), so that you can refresh your memory about each and every accomplishment. With the need to customize each resume for a specific position, you will likely be mixing-and-matching accomplishments, and you never know that one not-often-used bullet point might be perfect to attract an employer. And if it’s on your resume, you’d better be able to discuss it if they ask in an interview! (So keep copies of your performance reviews!)

Keep It Dated

At the bottom of your resume (in the footer) you should have: on the left, your name as it appears at the top, a page number in the center (I recommend “Page X of Y” in case they print it out and misplace a page), and “Last Revised: month-year” on the right. This is particularly important when sending a resume to agencies / outside recruiters who will keep your resume on file. This helps them decide if they can go with your current resume, or if they need to contact you to get a fresh version.

Name It Well

Opinions differ, but my recommendation is name it first_lastname_yourtitle_month-year. So, for example, my design-oriented resume’s file name is davidhunt_mech-eng_nov-2014. It gives them a clue as to your overall capability (i.e., you’re an engineer, not an accountant), and how up-to-date your resume is just by looking at the file name. And make sure the date in the filename matches the date in your footer!  (Been burned on that before…)

CV vs. Resume

A CV is an all-encompassing document covering soup-to-nuts of your career, with every job, accomplishment, publication, etc., all in one place. A resume is, in contrast, a marketing document aimed at a specific industry, company, or job; typically 1-2 pages, it is meant to be a succinct summary of only relevant points to catch attention and get you the interview. One thought is to start from a CV, and hack-and-slash trim to get to a custom resume each time. This isn’t a trivial amount of work, but it does have take advantage of the human factors rule that it’s easier to take something out when you see it than bring it to mind and add it if it’s not there.

Highlight Achievements

Consider a section at the top, right below your Summary, entitled “Key Achievements” as a way to catch a reader’s attention in those crucial first few seconds. Place 3-5 bullet points there that show incredible results from your career. The goal is to get someone to say “Wow!”, and then slow down to read, not skim, your resume.

Other Thoughts

1. Stay current on formatting. For example, phone numbers are now using periods; e.g., AAA.AAA.AAAA. Using (AAA) AAA-AAAA or AAA-AAA-AAAA can paint you as out of touch with how things are today. A good way to do this is to contact local college career centers (or your alma mater) and ask questions about “modern” formatting. If you go to networking meeting with new graduates, see if you can get a copy of their resume – you might be able to help them, but you can get ideas about the latest formats too. I’ve also read, albeit in one place only, that Times Roman font is considered passé.

2. On the topic of formatting: do you use two spaces after periods? I do. It dates from when I learned to type on a real typewriter, and has been used by scanning programs to filter you as an “old fart”. I personally think that’s a pretty sleazy practice, but don’t give them an excuse to screen you out a priori. And it’s hard to not do when you’ve done it for so long… but I’m not going back to edit all my essays, so I’m stuck with it on my blog at least! (Watch your cover letters too.)

3. Related to ageism: I’m dubious about hiding dates that show you are over 40. The moment you walk in the door, they’ll know (this happened numerous times to someone I know; people would be excited at his background, but the moment he walked in they’d see his grey hair and he knew he’d been ruled out before he’d open his mouth). Balance that with the need to get in the door in the first place. Just don’t think you’re really fooling anyone as dropped dates are an “age alert” to a savvy reader.

4. If you have a social media presence related to your career, e.g., LinkedIn and Twitter, embed links to these sites in your resume IF APPROPRIATE. And you need to have a social media presence related to your career. Of course, you need to be careful what you post there; some propose the “New Puritanism” while I think that’s an excessive amount of caution (and, seriously, do you want to work for a company that’s afraid of a picture of you holding a beer at a party on your personal Twitter feed?). Don’t share your Facebook link though; make them work for it unless you have a Facebook account specifically for your job search.

And a note about pictures: apparently google+ now had an algorithm where someone can take one picture, e.g., your LinkedIn profile picture, and search for pictures that are a close match on face features… so your perfectly-fine LinkedIn picture could potentially lead someone to your picture in, shall we say, less than savory situations on other websites. In other words, segregation of pictures on different sites is no longer a safe barrier. Another “sneaky” technique is to find pictures of you, then search for other people in those pictures, especially if they’re pictures you posted of you in social events. It’s yet another way to vet you through the people with whom you associate – and IMHO quite stalkerish.

5. Since many others have said it, but don’t have a cutesy or otherwise out-there email address for work-related purposes. Use firstname-middleinitial-lastname or something like that. Consider your domain name too. AOL paints you as a dinosaur, and is often trapped in spam filters. I am not endorsing Comcast’s email specifically, but I have been told it has some of the strongest protections against being trapped in spam filters. I hear gmail is pretty good though, but it’s not foolproof: once, when I was emailing my resume to a friend on the inside, my attempt through gmail got stopped but my Comcast email got through.

And a third email thought: it might be tempting to include your functional title in your email; e.g., david.o.hunt-mech.eng. First, this is a pain given its length, and second, what if you undergo a career change and – to pick an example at random – start building a business of handcrafted artisanal soaps? A changeover will be time-consuming and potentially confusing to all the contacts you’ve developed, especially if this is a late-stage career reboot.

A last email tidbit: consider a remailer service through your alumni association. If you change email addresses, your contact information on your resume doesn’t get dated.

6. Opinions differ, but I’ve seen resumes for people that don’t have a physical address. In this day and age, giving your town should be enough since most communication will be electronic. Once you get to the application or offer stages, with your information being under better control (theoretically), then you can give detailed information on your precise address.

7. Check your metadata. Early in my career I did not have a computer at home, and so used Word at work to create my resume. I was mortified to be told, in response to my submission to a recruiter, that it did not look good that my resume’s metadata had information pertaining to my employer and their ownership of the software.

Any other thoughts? Put them in the comments for a possible follow-up column, or email me. I will give you credit if I write again about this.


© 2015, David Hunt, PE

Tarnished Endorsements

LinkedIn has an interesting feature, and has for years.  People with whom you are connected can write a recommendation of your work at a particular position.  I have a number of recommendations from connections of mine, both for work as well as my networking efforts.  I like these.  They represent someone having to give thought to what they say, and base those thoughts on some experience with my presentation, my work, my networking efforts, etc.  I’m glad I have them on my profile.

Fairly recently LinkedIn has put up a new feature – “endorsements”.  Unlike their recommendations feature, these require no thought, just a button click.  LinkedIn not only keys off of skills you have entered on your own, it uses an algorithm to try and present other topics for people to endorse.

People, for the most part, are well-intentioned.  I’ve gotten lots of endorsements in all sorts of things – and I know it’s done to help me especially in my quest to find a new job.  Here’s the first problem: most people who have clicked a button cannot possibly have had experience with my work practices justifying their endorsement.

Again, I understand that people want to help others, and it’s a great thing that justifies my belief that most people are fundamentally good.  I hate to say it, though, that the people who – no matter their admirable intentions – click through to endorse me when they cannot possibly have knowledge of my actual abilities in that topic are cheapening the endorsement process.  And what’s worse, anyone with any experience on LinkedIn knows it.  Which, IMHO, makes it useless.

If you want to help me, write a recommendation for me.  If we haven’t worked together, write a recommendation for me about my networking, advocate for me on a personal basis, or how well I’ve helped others.  That’d be fine and dandy.  But please, if we haven’t worked together, don’t endorse me for a work-related skill.

The second thing is that, as mentioned above, LinkedIn clearly gleans patterns from endorsements to create new possibilities for people to click.  I’ve been endorsed for things I absolutely, positively am not comfortable being endorsed on.

For example, I have not used Pro-Engineer for nigh-unto 20 years.  That hasn’t stopped people from endorsing me for my ability in this CAD program.  I have actually posted in my Update to please not endorse me for it.  The same for medical devices; thought I’ve worked in medical devices for a few months at a couple of different medical device companies, it’s not enough to justify my wanting such an endorsement.  Now it’s popping with endorsements – which I reject – for my ability in start-up companies.

So I am hereby declaring war on endorsements.

I declare:

  1. I will not endorse anyone for anything unless I am confident I have had enough experience with them to be honest in my endorsement.  I will not just push a button because it’s there.
  2. I formally ask that anyone considering endorsing me for anything truly consider if they know me well enough in that field to honestly do so.
  3. If you are not sure about such an endorsement… ask me first.

Thomas Paine, famous in the American Revolution, once wrote “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”

Endorsements are too easily given – given with no real thought or reflection, but just a cursor move and key click – and thus they have destroyed their own value.


© 2013, David Hunt, PE

Ask 2 (More Penetrating Questions)

In my essay Ask, I proposed some “penetrating questions” to ask interviewers, in particular the hiring manager.  Many of these questions had hidden layers of insight that could come out during the answer, whether by the words or by the physical reaction / body language of the person when hit with the question.

I’ve come up with some more.

What three people you admire most; and why are these persons the ones?

Companies these days are desperate to add dimensions to the evaluation process, in order to build a more three-dimensional picture of candidates.  They are trolling through social contacts to see who you know; it’s a fair application of the adage Birds of a feather, flock together.  (The one caveat that I’d add is that this should not consider people, e.g., twitter followers, over whom I don’t think you have any control – can you actually force someone to unfollow you?)  And this is a legitimate, albeit somewhat “stalker-like”, tactic.  But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and I’ll add another layer: Tell me who you admire and why, and I understand who you are.

What are the challenges the company will face in the next few years?

I have seen this in other venues, so it’s not truly original, but the hidden benefits come from asking people in different levels in the hierarchy.  This gives you insights into the degree of perspective people at different levels have.  It also hints at the communication between levels, how important news is disseminated downward, and how the “lower ranks” understand the strategic direction.

How would you move Mount Fuji?

This is, of course, a commonly-discussed question – from google IIRC.  Turn it around.  Ask them, with a great big smile on your face.  Incidentally, I do have an answer which I used the one time I was asked; I’ve never seen my answer listed as one of the answers reportedly given.  (And no, I’m not telling.)

What’s the last disagreement you had with the boss?  What was it about, and how was it resolved?

This is best asked of a potential co-worker.  It can indicate all sorts of insight about how the boss handles disagreements, the dynamics of the group, etc.  And how did he handle a subordinate contradicting him, especially if the subordinate was right?

Aside from the mercenary aspect of a paycheck, what gets you up in the morning to come here?

What motivates people here?  Is there a gestalt mission that’s understood?  Or is this a collection of people there for the paycheck – of course, nobody’s going to admit that, but by asking several people this same question you can get a statistical sampling of the evasions and diversions given to reverse engineer what attitudes really are.

When was the last layoff?  Did the RIF make sense to you?

This gives some indications of the stability / security of the company.  But who got let go, if they are known to the respondent – ask a potential colleague, nobody higher – can indicate how much merit there was to layoffs vs. how political the targeting was.  Ask this towards the end of the time period after, hopefully, you’ve established a rapport… which can lead to their being comfortable venting a little.

Why should I want to work here?

This is a turn-the-tables question based on “Why do you want to work here?”  It has two results.  The first is, obviously, they get put outside their comfort zones, which can open them up to revealing more about themselves and the organization than they intend.  But the second is that it makes them have to justify why they’re good enough for you.  An interview should be a two-way street, not endless groveling by supplicants pleading for mercy from those who have power.  Make them work for the product of your mind.

How long have you worked here?  How has the company changed over that time?

The first is a not-uncommon question to ask.  It’s nice to know that people stay.  But if you get someone who has been there over ten years, ask the second.  A lot can come out unintentionally, especially if they don’t like the changes.

© 2013, David Hunt, PE

Whacking the Nerve Again

… companies are enacting policies that unnecessarily limit the number of high-quality candidates. 

Recently I went deep sea fishing on a charter (out of Plum Island, Massachusetts; Captain’s Fishing Parties).  Having been unable to participate for the prior two years, to the point where I started to fear the “Hunt Curse” where something always seemed to prevent me from going, I was excited as the stars aligned to permit me to go this time.  And I came home happy; I have more fish chowder in the freezer than I know what to do with, and frozen fillets waiting for when I’m in the mood for a beer-batter fish fry.  Plus, of course, memories of a gorgeous, sunny day on the ocean with people I like. (Side note: I am not a “sport fishing” person; if I catch it and can keep it, I eat it – nothing made me sadder that day than traumatizing small fish that I had to let go.)

We cruised out to the first fishing site.  Nothing.  Everyone was catching small fish, nothing of “keeper” status.  There was a shortage of keepers.  What did we do?  We moved to somewhere else.  We went where the fish were.

In my column Where the Money Is, I discussed corporate despair over the so-called shortage of skilled-and-qualified candidates, and suggested companies consider groups of job seekers as a rich mother lode of people.  In that spirit, to quote a comic book villain, Arcade, from memory: “Since I’ve struck a nerve, let me whack it again!”

When faced with a shortage of fish that could be kept, we changed where we fished.  But like that definition of insanity that is often cited – being defined as doing the same thing again and again expecting different results – it appears that companies keep looking for candidates in the same locations as before, hoping for different candidates.

Networking groups across the country, and specifically Massachusetts ones like Acton Networkers         and WIND, to name just a few, plus virtual groups like New England Networking, are brimming with people looking for work.  I’ve met many, many members.  They’re skilled, educated, knowledgeable, motivated, experienced, and thoughtful… a rich source of people just waiting for someone to break the cycle of insanity of only looking for employed persons to hire.  At worst they might need a class or two for some specific piece of knowledge, but so what?  Isn’t getting someone with ability in, and getting things done as they ramp up, better than wasting the better part of a year pursuing that “perfect fit” while tasks remain totally undone?  (Side note: One position, for which I interviewed in January at an organization that made a huge deal of “running lean”, is still listed.  What tasks have fallen behind, what stresses are present employees experiencing*, and what customers are dissatisfied?)

Another thought chain from my fishing trip experiences occurred to me as I wrote this.  My father’s side of the family has been here since before the American Revolution.  Last year I joined the Sons of the American Revolution, documenting my lineage to Benjamin Pearson who fought in that war (I have a sworn affidavit from another ancestor in the Hunt line about his Revolutionary War experience, but I haven’t documented my ties to him officially-and-provably yet).  My late father once dropped a tantalizing hint years ago that I could, if desired, join the Mayflower Society as well.  Being a native Yankee, born and bred in New England with roots here way, way back, the fish “cod” has a special significance for me as it was a staple local food and a principle export since colonial times.  So I always want to catch cod, but I’m not fussy.  I caught a cod on this trip, yes, but also two pollock; my first year I caught a cusk.  All perfectly good and all tasty.  They fulfilled the functional goal of the trip: fresh fish in my kitchen.  Were I to limit myself to just cod, I’d be foolish.

I recently sent my resume to a company for a senior-level engineering position.  Despite the connotations of “senior level” – i.e., there being significant experience after the completion of a degree – the company in question specified only graduates of Ivy League schools, plus a few other top-flight schools like Carnegie Mellon University (where I got my first Masters), need apply.  Seriously?

I understand that for a recent graduate, the reputation of the school may reasonably be factored in, as should GPA.  But a decade or more after graduation, it’s what you’ve done after receiving the sheepskin that’s critical.  Yet this is not the only company I’ve spoken with that artificially limits itself by school and by GPA, even for experienced professionals.

And that’s the rub of this second point.  Whether pollock, haddock, cusk, or cod, all fulfill my goal: chowder, fried fish, etc.  Just as competent, capable people with quantifiable accomplishments over years and years are capable of doing the job, regardless of what school they attended or whether they cracked a 3.0.

I can only conclude that companies are enacting policies that unnecessarily limit the number of high-quality candidates, and then complaining about a “shortage” (it’s like the classic definition of chutzpah: the boy who kills his own parents and then pleas for mercy because he’s an orphan).  How many fish would I have if I had insisted I only keep cod that I had caught in the one, first-choice fishing spot?  None.

A local radio station’s morning show has a saying that comes up in the lead-in to the morning examination of the prior day’s Patriots football game: “You can learn a lot from a skillfully played game of football.”  I agree.  And you can extract usable lessons about a complex task, e.g., finding and hiring people, from the simple activity of fishing.


© 2013, David Hunt, PE

* The web is starting to see multiple articles warning companies of employees looking for new jobs, ready to jump.  I suspect this overloaded-for-so-long situation has a lot to do with it. 


“Since before your sun burned hot in space… I have awaited a question.”  – The Guardian of Forever, Star Trek episode City on the Edge of Forever.

Questions are the lifeblood of an interview.  The interviewer asks the candidate questions.  Too often, though, candidates do not ask questions in reply.  This should be a conversation, not a one-way interrogation.  Reading the online literature from job search coaches, they all discuss the need to ask questions as a part of the interviewee’s presentation.  Questions show interest, motivation, and they give the interviewee information to judge the employer, not to mention their potential boss, in turn.

Multiple sites and columns exist with scores upon hundreds of questions for candidates to consider asking in an interview.  If you search with google or bing the phrase “questions to ask on/during an interview” you will find more questions than you can possibly imagine – many are good, and when interviewing I try to ask them if I can get a word in edgewise.  But I’d like to discuss a few of my favorites which I’ve not seen elsewhere.

Who will introduce me to the people outside the department with whom I will need to interact to get my job done?

Not “Will I be introduced”, not even “how”, but “who”.  This puts a spotlight onto both the company’s and hiring manager’s onboarding process, and the role of HR.  It also highlights their commitment to you as a new person to help you get up to speed.  A lack of this basic action as a standard part of the process implies weakness in other aspects of your coming on board – the “Here’s your anvil, now go swimming” mentality is not going to be conducive to your success.  Body language can speak volumes here, especially if they have no such process.  I’ve seen people literally squirm and shift uncomfortably when I ask this.

How are decisions made here?

This is actually a double-whammy question.  The first is that it gives insight into how the group functions.  Are big decisions done by committee, by one person, etc.?  But it’s also an insight into the perspective of the manager… because decisions are not made by teams, but by a person.  Teams can recommend courses of action, they can agree on a consensus or majority path to choose, but ultimately the decision to do X and not Y has to be made by a person, even if that person decides to accept the recommendation of a group.

How long have you worked here, and what is your story of how you ended up here?  How has it measured against your expectations?

This is a chance to learn more about the career history of your potential manager.  This is also a chance to see how the company’s marketing to potential employees, and their self-serving spin (and they all do self-serving spin, just as candidates do), matches the reality.  In particular watch their body language as they describe the correlation between their own expectations vs. reality.

If you could change one thing here, what would it be?  And is that a local phenomenon, or is it global to the whole company (if a large company)?

This is another chance to see what a potential sore point your manager might have about the place.  It’s also a great question to ask a potential colleague who also reports to them.  Ideally, do both.  First, you get to see how peoples’ perceptions of organizational weaknesses align with the different perspectives of position.  It’s also a good segue to learn more about your possible new boss from their subordinate, without specifically asking.

How long ago did you move from being an individual contributor to a manager?  What induced you to make that switch, and do you have any regrets?

Again, this is a chance to learn more about your potential boss’ history and motivation.  But there’s more.  If they’re new to their level of responsibility, they might be nervous about someone gunning for their chair, and scared they’re not up to their new responsibilities.  And if they have regrets, that’s a warning sign they might micromanage and possibly meddle in your day-to-day activities, because they want to keep their hands in the business of their subordinates, as opposed to managing it.

What happened the last time a big project went awry?  What did you learn, and how do you keep these issues from happening again?

A number of things can come from these questions – so ask several people.  The first is that there is no organization that is so fine-tuned that projects don’t go off the rails to some degree.  A company that says it’s never happened either has a really poor collective memory, or people are hiding reality.  The second thing is that it gives an indication of how flexible and adaptable the organization is.  It’s also an opening for one of the people to descend into finger-pointing, which can teach you a lot about how the company handles people who make mistakes.  And last, informal companies fight fires but are unable to prevent them from happening again.  Good companies document and disseminate such information formally.  Where are you interviewing?

Describe the best, most successful project that you’ve seen done here.

The answers to this question can reveal if the company does projects well, if things going right is considered normal or not, and what’s involved in a successful project.

I’m curious; what are the top three things about my background that interested you?

This forces the hiring manager to bring to mind specific things they liked about your background (as opposed to the question about any shortcomings or objections, which forces them to think of negative things).  It also gives you insight about what the company values in general, which can help you color your answers to emphasize the traits that led to the accomplishments they cite.  Lastly, if you know you are an “imperfect fit” for the position, it can indicate what they value enough to bring you in anyway despite those things that are lacking.

Have you ever abandoned a significant project (or cut loose a client, or whatever is suitable to your profession)?  What went into that decision?

Not everything in a business works out.  If they’ve never done this, they’ve either been blessed with extraordinary success, or are so desperate for revenue or cost savings that they don’t dare give up anything, or are too stubborn to cut their losses on something… among many possible reasons.  Regardless of the root cause, this is useful to know.

Stock questions have their uses, and many are good and worth asking.  But just as good candidates have created stock answers to stock questions – and there are a million “best answers to top interview questions” articles and books – so too have veteran interviewers created stock answers to the canned questions from candidates.  Just as interviewers try to ferret out information from candidates, candidates must do the same.

In the sci-fi masterwork novel Dune, which I’ve praised before (don’t bother with the movie IMHO; I suffered through it so that I could recommend you avoid it – instead read it, and then immediately start reading it again), arch-villain Baron Harkonnen is gloating to his nephew Rabban about having suborned his enemy Duke Leto Atreides’ trusted employee, Doctor Huey.  The doctor, a graduate of the Suk medical school (famous in that novel’s universe for the loyalty of their students to their employers), has conditioning and training that supposedly precludes exactly this type of betrayal.  Rabban asks “Does the Emperor know you’ve suborned a Suk doctor?”

The Baron was surprised and paused, thinking “That was a penetrating question.”

Surprise your interviewers.  Ask penetrating questions.

© 2013, David Hunt, PE