Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Radical Candor (Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity)
Author: Kim Scott
Narrated By: Kim Scott
Kim Scott (Author, former executive at Apple and Google, coach for tech companies like Dropbox and Twitter)
The agricultural revolution dates back to 10,000 BCE, 1760 marks the beginning of the industrial revolution, the 1950s evolves into an age of expertise and work knowledge with computerization, in the 1990s connectivity and automation begins the information age. Today, Kim Scott addresses the 2020s along with the advent of artificial intelligence. Beginning when the industrial revolution takes hold, organization management evolves into a social science. In the industrial age training changes from demonstrating how to make things to managing people’s work in making things. Jumping to the Information Age managers of people become ringmasters for employee’s creativity.
Despite many changes in purpose for organizations a common thread is managerial skill which entails political and personal skills. Managers pursue understanding, influence, ability, and sincerity of purpose to elicit and manage human creativity.
Scott outlines management skills in “Radical Candor”. Her book is a useful tool for aspiring managers. Even reaching back to the agricultural age, there is relevance in Scott’s belief in “Radical Candor”. She defines radical candor as “Caring personally while challenging (organization employees) directly.” By personally caring, Scott explains good managers must gain the trust of people who report to them. My personal experience as a former manager in different careers shows that no manager knows everything about the company or organization they manage. The one thing a good manager must know is how to develop trust with people who report to her or him. Without trust between managers and workers, organizations are likely to fail.
Trust between managers and employees is even more true today because worker’ creativity drives technological invention and utility.
Being vulnerable by understanding you know nothing about people you manage is the starting point of your role as a manager. Scott explains the first thing a new manager must do is personally meet with each direct report to hear what they do for the organization, what they like and dislike about what they do, and what obstacles get in their way that impede accomplishment. The two-fold purpose of these meetings is first to listen, not judge or criticize what is being reported. The second is to build trust.
(I believe A.I. will always be a technological tool, not a controller, of society, contrary to those who believe human existence will be erased by machines. As a technological tool of humanity, the creativity of human minds is at the frontier of management change.)
Scott explains how important it is to let employees know their manager is interested in an employee’s goals and growth in an organization.
A manager must be both physically and emotionally present when building trust with an employee. There is a need for a manager to explain one’s own vulnerability and responsibility in managing others. Scott’s point is that gaining trust of an employee requires more than knowing their birthday. A good manager will ask for feedback about what an employee is doing and what support a manager can offer to improve their performance. A manager should be curious, not furious when things are not going well. It is important that a sense of respect be given for an employee’s effort to get their job done. With development of respect, it becomes possible to use radical candor to constructively criticize or complement an employees’ performance.
Scott notes there are many reasons for an employee’s failure to perform beyond expectations.
Those reasons include incompetence but also the failure of management to have a clear understanding of an employees’ strengths and weaknesses. Through development of trust between manager and employee, a different job may be in order. With reassignment and a performance plan, a manager may be able to tap a human resource that has been wasted. The performance plan is instituted with “Radical Candor” and offers either opportunity or, if performance improvement fails, dismissal.
Every organization has distinctive operational idiosyncrasies that a manager may not precisely understand.
This has always been true. It is even more true in the tech age because project uniqueness and employee creativity is more difficult to measure and manage. Kim Scott has worked with the most iconic tech companies of modern times, e.g. Apple, Google, Twitter. There are a number of anecdotes about famous tech giants and officers of Facebook, Apple, and Google, like Sandberg, Cook, and Page. Kim has also started her own businesses, some of which failed, and others that prospered. Her experience offers credibility to her arguments.
From personal experience as a manager of others, no manager ever knows all there is to know.
As Scott notes, this is not to say that geniuses like Steve Jobs did not know more than his Apple employees, but the iPhone idea came from a group of employees before approaching Jobs with a clunky mock-up of the idea. Jobs had a reputation for being a tough audience for people with creative ideas. This is the reason Kim Scott explains trust must be created between manager and employee so that candor about needs and expectations can be usefully employed to improve probability of personal and organizational success.
One takes Kim Scott’s counsel on “Radical Candor” with some reservation because misused “Radical Candor” about a creative idea can discourage employee creativity. Scott’s counsel on building trust is her magic potion, but potions can kill as well as heal.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 
All the many variables of Xtianity, simply amount to theological word salads that leave a shit taste in the mouth.
Arminianism
Curtis Narimatsu
AI —
Lutheran seminary students denounce Arminian theology primarily because it undermines the foundational Reformation principle of sola gratia, or “grace alone”. While both traditions believe salvation is a gift from God, they disagree fundamentally on the nature of human free will and its role in accepting that gift.
Core Lutheran objections to Arminianism
The bondage of the will: Following Martin Luther’s treatise On the Bondage of the Will, Lutherans teach that the human will is “in bondage” to sin and is spiritually dead, utterly incapable of initiating a “decision for Christ” on its own. Arminianism, in contrast, teaches that God’s grace enables a person to either accept or reject the gospel through their own free will. For Lutherans, this suggests that the sinner contributes to their own salvation, which conflicts with their view that salvation is entirely God’s work.
The nature of faith: In Lutheran theology, faith is not a human decision but a gift created in a person’s heart by the Holy Spirit through the gospel and baptism. This perspective views faith as an “empty hand” that receives God’s saving grace, not a meritorious act of human cooperation. Lutherans reject the Arminian view, which can be interpreted as making faith a condition or a human contribution to justification.
Unconditional election: Lutherans confess the doctrine of unconditional election, agreeing with Calvinists that God’s choice to save believers is based entirely on His grace and the merits of Christ, not on any foreseen faith or action by the individual. They diverge from Arminianism, which teaches that election is conditional upon God’s foreknowledge of a person’s future faith. For Lutherans, the Arminian view subtly reintroduces human merit into salvation.
Distinction between law and gospel: Denouncing Arminius allows Lutheran seminarians to preserve the sharp distinction between law and gospel.
The law tells humanity that it is sinful and unable to save itself.
The gospel proclaims that salvation is a free and unearned gift from God.
By teaching that a person plays a role in their own salvation, Lutherans argue that Arminianism conflates the law and the gospel, obscuring the radical freeness of God’s grace.
A point of agreement, but with different reasoning
Interestingly, Lutherans and Arminians often agree that a true Christian can fall away from the faith. However, the reasons for this belief are different and highlight their core theological differences:
Arminianism: Views falling away as the reverse side of one’s initial choice for Christ, since salvation depends on the individual’s free will.
Lutheranism: Views falling away as the result of human rejection of God’s grace, which is always resistible. They reject the notion that a person has the “ability” to reject Christ, instead viewing it as a spiritual act of drowning for someone already spiritually dead.
Incompatibility at a foundational level
While some might mistakenly view Lutheranism as a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, Lutheranism is fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of Arminian theology. In the Lutheran view, the Arminian focus on human freedom in salvation is seen as a move away from the centrality of God as the sole actor in a person’s salvation.
Understanding the nuances of these theological positions is essential. To go a bit deeper, would you like to explore the difference in how Lutherans and Calvinists view predestination and election, or learn more about the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace?
A Lutheran Response to Arminianism by Rick Ritchie June 29, 2007, in Modern Reformation
Since the seventeenth century, Calvinism has been identified with its five-point reply to the Arminian party at the Synod of Dort. Calvinists often complain that this summary of their theology, though accurate in expressing the Calvinists’ disagreement with their Arminian opponents, presents a truncated view of what Calvinism really is. Where in the five points do we hear of the covenant or of union with Christ? To properly understand a theology, we must not only know what it says to its opponents, but we need to know how it is to be presented on its own terms.
If a five-point summary is an awkward way to present Calvinism, it is downright foreign to Lutheranism. This is not because Lutheranism lacks a defined doctrine of election. (It certainly has one.) God’s gracious election of certain individuals to salvation was affirmed in Article X of the Formula of Concord, the last of the Lutheran confessions. The darker side of predestination has also been considered. As the great Lutheran theologian Hermann Sasse wrote,
Lutheran theology knows about the God of Predestination: This God who makes us responsible for demands which we cannot fulfill, who asks us questions which we cannot answer, who created us for good and yet leaves us no other choice than to do evil-this is the Deus absconditus. This is the God of absolute Predestination. This is the God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart, who hated Esau even before he was born, the Potter who fashions pots and before whom one shrinks-and who, nevertheless, thunders in pitiless sovereignty at these unhappy creatures, ‘Tua culpa!’ Thine is the guilt! (1) ….
______________________
______________________
The relationship between Lutheranism and the Nazis, especially during the Holocaust (Shoah), is a disgrace exposing the bankruptcy of its dead theology. Lutheran leaders and institutions in Germany during the Nazi era either supported or remained silent about the regime’s actions, especially concerning the Jewish Nazi abomination.
The debate over Arminian theology and the principle of sola gratia (grace alone) highlights internal theological disagreements, but it can also be seen as a distraction from addressing the more pressing moral failures of the tradition during critical historical moments. This too exposes the bankruptcy of religious rhetoric. Grace, the translation of חנון in Hebrew, means the commitment to dedicate Oral Torah middot to shape and determine how a person socially behaves and interacts with his/her people in the future! This sola gratia gobbledygook religion rhetoric – simply pie in the sky narishkeit nonsense.
The Reformation, which emphasized grace and faith, remembered for the barbaric 30 Year War! The actions of the Lutheran church during the Shoah have confirmed “by their fruits you shall know them” … the Apple does not fall far from the tree – condemnation. The church, in all its many variable denominations, utterly bankrupt. Never has any Xtian country had a public courtroom hold the church accountable for war-crimes. Never has any State Court ever condemned the church for the 3 Century ghetto gulags of western European Jewry!
LikeLike
Orthodox Judaism: Off the דרך.
madlik·madlik.com
Intentional and Unintentional Holiness
Are there times were we should strive not to be present or in the moment? As we enter the month of Elul and approach the High Holidays, many of us instinctively tighten our grip on spiritual practices. We double down …
__________________________
__________________________
Pie in the Sky religious rhetoric narishkeit. Why do Yidden open up the Torah to public vision and call out repeatedly the 13 middot when Jews NEVER question: “What הבדלה separates one Oral Torah middah from another? Its these Oral Torah middot which define the k’vanna of all time-oriented commandments such as kre’a shma דאורייתא and tefillah דרבנן. Both this or that require tohor middot as the k’vanna of all mitzvot from the Torah and Talmud, to elevate these unto tohor time-oriented commandments from the Torah according to the B’HaG.
LikeLike
Humorous 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
These are depressing thoughts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oral Torah as revealed to Moshe at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf, openly rejects ancient Greek theories of syllogism deductive reasoning. The kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic format, especially as explained by Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot of logical interpretation strategies – together they define the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev as an inductive reasoning logic format.
The T’NaCH functions as a common law system, where the texts establish precedents through case and rule comparisons. This suggests a structured legal framework that informs Jewish law and practice. The Gemarah’s commentary on the Mishna is highlighted as a method of interpreting Jewish law through inductive reasoning, which provides a dynamic – as oppose and contrasted by Greek deductive static reasoning – multi-dimensional understanding of legal principles.
The common law of the T’NaCH prioritizes Prophetic mussar whereas the Gemara focuses upon ritual halacha as precedents. The authors of the New Testament misunderstood the nature of the T’NaCH, particularly in their claim that Jesus “fulfilled” the prophecies. This is framed as a misinterpretation of the role of Torah prophets, who were enforcers of law rather than predictors of the future.
The distinction between the roles of prophets and legal authorities in the T’NaCH is a central theme, suggesting that the prophetic function is often misrepresented by later NT framers. The consequences of this basic fundamental error: the Xtian framers intended to establish a religious belief system whereas the Framers of the T’NaCH envisioned establishment of Sanhedrin courts common law. The complexity of this latter objective, difficult for Goyim to grasp, primarily because they lack the Talmud as a point of reference – how to understand the language of the T’NaCH as the Primary Sources of Jewish law. Lacking the Aggadic narrative provided by the Talmud, Goyim simply fail to understand that the purpose of the Aggadic stories – they explore the language of Prophetic mussar to provide the “k’vanna” which defines the purpose and meaning of all Talmudic Aggadic stories.
The Talmud compares to a loom with its warp & weft threads. Weaving interpreted prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of halachic ritualism – this defines not only how to make an aliyah\elevation of rabbinic ritual mitzvot observances unto Torah commandments, but this same wisdom equally applies to elevate lower positive and negative Torah commandments to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments! Goyim have never grasped the depth & scope of Torah commandments within the Torah. They never conceived nor grasped that Moshe as the Framer of the Torah organized these 5 Books to function as the Constitution of the Republic of 12 Tribes. Torah as a Constitutional Basic Law of the Chosen Cohen Peoples’ Republic — a far different vision from the Pauline ‘Original Sin’ addiction of Man for some imaginary mythical Harry Potter God/messiah to save Humanity from their sins.
Prophetic Mussar vs. Ritual Halacha: T’NaCH interprets prophetic mussar; Gemarah interprets ritual law as the culture and customs observed by the nation of the chosen Cohen People. Avoda zarah interpreted as such to mean: 1. The Cohen people have a negative commandment NOT to follow, much more so embrace, the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim civilizations which do not accept the opening First TWO Sinai commandments.
This profound understanding of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai starkly contrasts with the Rambam’s pathetic perversion of Aggadah up-rooted totally out of context from mesechta Sanhedrin concerning the 7 mitzvot applicable to Gere Toshavim who temporarily dwell within the lands of Judea; as opposed to the despised Goyim refugee populations, who likewise temporarily reside within the borders of Judea. Mesechta Baba Kama instructs that the latter dhimmi refugee populations enjoyed no legal protections. If a Jew damaged their persons or property – these “illegal aliens” possessed no legal “Torah Constitutional” right to sue the damager Israel in any Jewish Court of Law within the borders of Judea. As a point of reference: Jews, as despised refugees in Europe and Muslim countries for 2000+ years – political exiles, dhimmi refugee populations – no Goy Court in Xtian or Muslim lands ever once held criminal war-crimes committed by the Church or Mosque priests or sheiks accountable. G’lut/exiled Jews had no legal rights to sue – NOT either Church or Mosque in any Goyim courts of law for 2000+ years of g’lut/exile.
Viewed from this basic historical context, the Talmud of mesechta Baba Kama makes complete and total sense. Hence mesechta Sanhedrin addresses the legal rights of Gere Toshav strangers to sue Jewish damagers in Jewish courts of law; whereas mesechta Baba Kama excludes dhimmi foreign alien “wet-backs” from the ”privilege” of legal judicial rights to requests from a Jewish Court to enforce fair compensation of damages they suffered from an Israel. During the Dark and Middle Ages, a similar custom practiced upon dhimmi exiled Jews; writs of privileges issued to Jews by princes and church officials. These writs of privileges directly compare to mesechta Sanhedrin’s 7 mitzvot “bnai Noach”.
The fundamental error of basic Talmudic common law scholarship made by Rambam’s decision to “convert” the Talmud into Roman statute law; this absolute error stands upon the copied-assimilated Av tumah avoda zara wherein this rabbi embraced the error followed by the Samaritans, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Reform & Conservative Judaism today. This Av tumah avoda zara generated a domino effect upon all down-stream generations of Jewry. The Talmud refers to this type of disaster as ירידות הדורות-descending generations.
Later down stream rabbinic Judaism made a error and interpreted this Talmudic concept as the inability of later generations to challenge the opinions made by earlier generations; something comparable and akin to the Catholic idea of the infallibility of the Pope — utter and total narishkeit stupidity. Pope Pius XII stands as proof witness of this absolutely worthless טיפש פשט-bird brained idea. Rashi’s commentary to the Chumash challenged the opinion made by Targum Onkelos as erroneous. How could Rashi argue against a contemporary of Rabbi Yechuda – the author of the Mishna? Answer: In matters of logic, no generation has a lock monopoly by which it can dictate its logic over later generations.
Genesis 1:1, Rashi discusses the creation narrative and contrasts his interpretation with that of Targum Onkelos. This Rashi opinion nails the Arab rejection of political Zionism’s quest to achieve Jewish self-determination within a restored Jewish State in the lands of Judea. Rashi believed that later generations could offer valid interpretations that might differ from earlier authorities, including Targum Onkelos. He emphasized that logic and understanding of the text naturally develop and evolve.
Rashi’s commentary on בראשית א:ב — והארץ היתה תהו ובהו. Targum Onkelos translates as: איר אתכללו – “it was desolate”. Rashi argues that Targum Onkelos’ interpretation does not capture the full meaning of the Hebrew terms. He explains that “תֹהוּ” refers to a state of emptiness or chaos, while “בֹהוּ” refers to a state of void or nothingness. Rashi emphasizes that the two terms convey distinct concepts that are not adequately represented in Onkelos’ translation.
Exodus 12:6: Rashi comments on the phrase regarding the timing of the Passover sacrifice. Targum Onkelos translates it in a way that Rashi finds problematic. Rashi argues that the translation does not align with the intent of the Hebrew text, suggesting that Onkelos’ interpretation – not accurate in this context. This example illustrates Rashi’s approach to engaging with earlier interpretations, including those of Targum Onkelos, and his belief that later scholars can offer valid critiques based on their logical insights. Based upon the premise that no one generation owns a lock and key monopoly of logic.
“עד יום עשותו – עד יום שיבואו ישראל לידי עשייתו, ולא עד יום שיבואו לידי אכילתו, כמו שתרגם אונקלוס: ‘עד יום שיבואו ישראל לידי אכילתו’.”
In his commentary, Rashi points out that Targum Onkelos interprets the verse as referring to the day of eating the Passover sacrifice, while Rashi understood this verse as the day of its preparation or offering. This illustrates Rashi’s critical engagement with Onkelos’ translation.
In בראשית א:ב, the phrase “והארץ היתה תהו ובהו” is translated as “איר אתכללו,” meaning “it was desolate.” This translation captures the essence of the Hebrew term “תהו ובהו,” which conveys a sense of emptiness and chaos.
In contrast, in דברים לג:ב, the phrase “מן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” translates to “from the mountain of Seir.” Here, “אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” is derived from a different root and refers to a geographical location rather than a state of being. The context of this verse is about God’s revelation from Sinai, and the term is used to indicate a specific place, rather than a descriptive state. Rashi states that Onkelos’ translation is incorrect because it implies that the verse is referring to a physical location rather than the spiritual significance of HaShem’s revelation. Rashi emphasizes that the term “מִסֵּעִיר” should be understood in a different context, focusing on the divine aspect rather than a geographical one.
בראשית א:ב — והארץ היתה תהו ובה Targum Onkelos translates as: איר אתכללו – “it was desolate”. Whereas דברים לג:ב: ויאמר ה’ מסיני בא ושרח מסעיר למו — Targum Onkelos translates this as “מִן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” (from the mountain of Seir)? In בראשית א:ב, the phrase “והארץ היתה תהו ובהו” is translated as “איר אתכללו,” meaning “it was desolate.” This translation captures the essence of the Hebrew term “תהו ובהו,” which conveys a sense of emptiness and chaos.
In contrast, in דברים לג:ב, the phrase “מן אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” translates to “from the mountain of Seir.” Here, “אִתְּכַּלְּלוּ” is derived from a different root and refers to a geographical location rather than a state of being. The context of this verse is about God’s revelation from Sinai, and the term is used to indicate a specific place rather than a descriptive state. Thus, the variations in translation reflect the different contexts and meanings of the words used in each verse. The שרש\root – כ-ל-ל conveys meanings related to completeness or inclusion. In this context, it refers to a geographical location, specifically indicating a place from which something originates or emerges.
This contrasts with the root of “תֹהוּ” and “בֹהוּ” in Genesis 1:2, which conveys a sense of chaos and emptiness, highlighting the different contexts and meanings in Rashi’s commentary and the translations provided by Targum Onkelos. This example of Rashi’s dispute with a Tanna illistrates the classic error assimilated to ancient Greek cultures and customs the Rambam erred when he interpreted the word ONE in kre’a shma means “monotheism”. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Furthermore, mesechta Avoda Zarah opens with the understanding that prior to the generation of Noach that the Goyim had utterly rejected the oath brit alliance.
The Torah of בראשית opens with the Name אלהים (the substitute word translation of the Divine Presence Spirit word of both the שם השם עצמו as well as the Orev 13 Oral Torah middot wherein Jews to this day during the month of Elul. For example: tefillah a matter of the heart … and to make a blessing requires שם ומלכות. The Mitzva of blowing the Shofar on ר”ה make a מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה which separates and distinguishes between air blown from the lungs from tohor spirits blown from the Yatzir Ha’Tov from within the heart. דכתיב: גכל לבבך.
On Elul Jews likewise separate t’shuva from repentance. Similar words on superficial appearance, like brit and covenant. T’shuva “remembers” the Sin of the Golden Calf, like Amalek which plagues Jews in all generations with its hateful antisemitism. We remember that HaShem – measure for measure – threatened to make a substitute theology idolatry and replace the oath sworn Cohen seed of the Avot with the seed of Moshe Rabbeinu “eye for an eye” for the Israel ערב רב replacement theology with substituted אלהים “word” for the שם השם לשמה Divine Presence Spirit which quickens the Yatzir HaTov within the heart, through the dedication of tohor Oral Torah middot.
Hence a blessing requires מלכות – the dedication of korbanot middot לשמה. Herein explains why the Book of בראשית opens with the word name אלהים rather than the Spirit Name שם השם לשמה as commanded in the first commandment of the Sinai revelation; the בראשית story opens prior to the oath brit which creates continually the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot through tohor Av time-oriented commandments which require the מלכות dedication of Oral Torah spirit middot through the Yatzir Ha’Tov.
Goyim, both Xtians and Allah repentance by contrast only refers to personal regret. This interpretation goes well with the Xtian guilt trip theology of “He died for you”. In like manner, ברית refers to an oath alliance which function as the יסוד of the Republic of the 12 Tribes; wheras covenant implies some vague connection, which if “shattered” some foreign alien other God could substitute Goyim as the “New Israel” or Universal monotheistic God. The Rambam avoda zarah assimilated and embraced the Muslim idea of a universal monotheistic God. He rejected mesechta Avoda Zarah which understands the God of Sinai as a local Tribal God based upon the conclusion that the Goyim never accepted the revelation, meaning first two opening commandments of Sinai as John 1:1 proves, of the the Torah at Sinai.
LikeLike
Is the origin of a holy Book based on human belief or a God’s infallibility?
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
LikeLike
“Holy Book” – a Human belief system.
LikeLike
Confirms our mutual disbelief in a Supreme Being. It is amazing to me that you are so deeply committed to the Jewish faith. I am not saying this as a negative thing but an observation. The extent of my strength of belief is in the equality of humanity regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs. Thanks for sharing.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
LikeLiked by 1 person