OU blog

Personal Blogs

Stylised image of a figure dancing

Horses for Courses

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Martin Cadwell, Thursday 10 September 2026 at 07:33

All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551

or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser. There is a space between my name and the minus sign and NO space before 'caldwell' to eliminate the name 'caldwell' in the Google listings

I am not on YouTube or social media

Cadwell NOT Caldwell

Horses for Courses

[ 5 minute read ]

Opinion 

Different Strokes for Different Folks

I started a couple of business in a bid to trick myself into feeling free from constraints imposed by other people. I know I was foolish to consider that one can do that. Studying marketing, even in a peripheral sense, has told me that the customer is a stakeholder in business decisions. I allude to this when I sneak up behind shop staff stacking shelves and get in their way when they turn for another tray of something.

        'It would be a good job, if it wasn't for the customers, eh?'

Hardly any of the staff get it. Why would they? I suppose it is an insider joke and I am much closer to Jean-Paul Sartre 'Hell is other people.' than they are. If I don't like something I have tended to put some effort into trying to understand it, so I studied Customer Service, primarily because it has always been me who has had to deal with customers, but also because I am nearly always dissatisfied with other businesses customer service responses, right from the outset.

I still have an A3 sheet of paper with 'CARES' on it Blu-Tacked to my office wall (my office is also the library and my living room). Sometimes, I take all the furniture and books out, strip the walls of all the pithy quotes and bits of useful but almost redundant information and place a dining table in the office/library/living room, and I eat breakfast in there. I don't do that; I am simply good at ignoring my environment. In that I am not much different to many people who skip the prep work when they decorate their homes. You might only need to visit my garden to see how my attention is layered. If a video of me in the garden was played backwards you would see me removing stuff as I should have done in living life forwards. Any long living creature in my garden watching me notices that I only ever add to the disorder, if it ignores the bonfire I had last year, but the ashes are still in heap and not scattered on the hastily dug soil. I don't even 'double-dig', I half-dig.

CARES

Communication - Clearly communicate the process and set expectations

Accountability - Take responsibility for fixing the problem or getting an answer

Responsiveness - Don't make the customer wait for your communication or a solution

Empathy - Acknowledge the impact the situation has on the customer

Solution - At the end 0f the day make sure to solve the issue or answer the question

Of course, if someone is working from that list while talking to a customer something has gone horribly wrong. In all the years of being self-employed and a business owner I have only had three dissatisfied customers:

An actor woman pretended that one of her pictures was damaged by the protective glass being broken. Anything that resembled a picture or painting always received the utmost care when we handled it. My business frequently took art pieces to the Tate and other galleries in SE1. Insured or otherwise no-one was about to mis-handle the actor's picture, so when she cried. 'Oh!' and bit her bottom lip I knew why she no longer worked in London as an actor. She was not convincing. I mean actors are supposed to be able to suspend belief, right? 

A man was horrified that his glass table was smashed before it was placed into one of my vans. I was the person on that job. 

       'You have insurance, don't you?'

       'Of course, but they won't pay out because I told you that I needed two of my team to fetch the table for you and you insisted that you wanted to save money and the security guard at your business property would help to lift the table. He failed to do it correctly and the table broke. The fault lies squarely with your decision and the security guard's inability to understand the circumstances.'

They may well have paid out if I lied, but who wants to lie to have their policy cost more?

The third was an employee issue. He turned up forty-five late but not before the customer phoned me to make sure someone was coming. That employee cost me over five hundred pounds. I waived the whole cost for the customer because she was both Chinese and a graduate moving from halls of residence. Word of mouth is sometimes crucial for generating more bookings and I had experience of just how polite and honourable the Mandarin-speaking Chinese can be, and of course, a good lot of her university friends were aware of who she had booked. The die was cast and my business never got another booking from any university staff in the UK or any graduates at the UEA (University of East Anglia) in Norwich. 

The moral to this last story is 'Never do your brother a favour by giving him some employment.'

You can set up cast-iron processes to avoid future problems but some fool will hit them with a big hammer and the brittle mould will shatter. Circumventing standard operating procedures will, in my experience ultimately bring about failure. Well, I say that but the reality is, I suggest, if we are led by a ring in our nose along a path that is considered to be appropriate for all occasions and circumstances we are no better than a wayward pig driven from one place to another or, I suppose an ox with a ring in its nose. It is the farmer who has a purpose in mind and the animal has no choice. The farmer wants to corral the animals and the animals are wanting new experiences. 

       'Right! Job done! We have got them from being stupid piglets over there to big pigs over there. Now they have a value and are marketable!'

I read a post on a English Literature forum that said. 'I am looking forward to start reading the set books. I suppose I shall have to change my reading list once the module starts in October.'

I was tempted to write a reply. 'The module started the day you were accepted and were enrolled on the module.' However, there seems to be no right way to learn and I am foolish to think that anyone will fail because they follow a set calendar of study. However, I can't help thinking of the Archaeology graduate I met in London who negated everything I repeated from a conversation I had with a PhD graduate, the day before, who focused on Romano-Britain. He had explained stuff to me which the graduate simply did not comprehend or accept and all I could hear was the graduate's lecturers carefully and patiently explaining stuff that everyone else had independently arrived at. There was, of course, a good deal of prejudice involved. 

       'Woo hoo! I have finished my degree. I have joined an elite group. This ragged man is not in my group. What does he know?'

Horses for courses and different strokes for different folks, I suppose. You do it your way and I will do it my way and let us all hope that no-one calls us out as being charlatans.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Stylised image of a figure dancing

Charlatan

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Martin Cadwell, Monday 11 May 2026 at 07:15

All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551

or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.

I am not on YouTube or social media

silhouette of a female face in profile 

I am better at cheating than you are!

I have no identity

[ 7 minute read ]

A few years ago, I contributed to a forum which required at least some substantiation from other sources. I am fairly lazy in that I probably spend only about an hour researching each point, or premise for any argument, I make. On this occasion, I was crass and found only a single reference and ran with that; I agreed with it (confirmation bias). It was a reference to a Wikipedia listing. When Wikipedia started up, anyone quoting its content was viewed with the same amount of skepticism that was also applied to the Wikipedia site and its contributors. 'Yeah, anyone can make stuff up and call themselves a contributor!' was the default cry of contempt, though this was also somewhat suppressed. These days, I have come across academics who have lightly referenced Wikipedia; perhaps they know the contributor in those instances. When I referenced Wikipedia a few years ago, there was a responding comment from a scornful and defensive person on the same forum. I say defensive because the commentator had contributed on the same forum without providing any references at all. I suspect that they were using a phone to make their forum contributions and it is, I presume, much more difficult to spend hours searching online for suitable content; copying and pasting it; and comparing numerous saved documents for common areas. This is how I fact-check, anyway. Of course, direct similarities mean that any obvious plagiarism must negate the documents as invalid. Defensive came across as an accusatory attacking approach, 'You used Wikipedia!' I did. I did because I already knew the subject and just needed to anchor it.

It is disappointing that, as an Open University student I have to ignore everything I know on a subject; that I learnt at school; that I learnt from books; that I learnt from exploring with my parents and grandparents; because I cannot include our knowledge in essays without referencing it. I had tutor feedback that included a statement that I should have cited and referenced the author of one of the chapters in an Open University book, because I included deductive reasoning and then induced a supposition from that. It was the same as the chapter writer's opinion; someone with a doctorate in their field. It must have seemed to my tutor that only someone with a doctorate would be able to come up with an opinion that I had independently formed without first reading any Open University content. I have been assured that while I didn't lose any marks for not citing and referencing appropriately, I also failed to gain any credit or credence for my perspicacity.

I am fortunate to be able to control my own work schedule and that means I can spent a great deal of time online. I watch quite a lot of YouTube videos; not the conspiracy theory types, or gain-saying opinion videos. I avoid them. 

I watched King Charles' speech at Congress this morning. I found it fascinating that the Congress-people kept giving him standing ovations throughout his speech every three or four minutes. In Britain, and I think, all across the world, we listen to what is being said, store it and compare it to what is subsequently said. We induce and deduce and extrapolate and test our understanding against further declarative statements, and then, and only when the speaker has finished and we are sure we have understood the message(s) we applaud and give standing ovation. If the speech was eloquent we applaud that. If the speech was penetrative, we applaud that. We spontaneously laugh at jokes and quickly calm down to allow the speaker to go on. We are all aware that speakers have timed their speeches.

After the King's speech at Congress, I drifted to clicking on one or two of the suggestions, as is my wont. I suggest that viewing a single video creates no structure for the forming of an opinion. Soon, there was a video suggested by  YouTube that was about how Britain has helped Ukraine. There were subtitles; I sometimes leave them on to check for A.I. generative software. Sure enough, the number 1,300 was speech synthesised to be 'one three hundred'. The comma in 1,300, trips up weak A.I. systems. Instant turn-off in my book; next video. Supposedly, this was Bill Clinton commenting on how Trump was infuriated by King Charles' speech at Congress; a still picture of Bill Clinton and a voice similar to what a impressionist might use to simulate Bill Clinton's voice. That one got only three seconds before I stopped it and moved on. YouTube, by the way, regards any video that plays for at least 30 seconds as a view of that video. The algorithm also punishes videos that are started and then left within those thirty seconds; the probability of being suggested is reduced.

It has long been an irritation to me that I recently read an oblique question on an Open University Forum on whether the use of A.I. generative software was allowed at any point before submitting an assignment. I know that the Open University has notices that say, 'No!' What really troubles me is that someone, more than one person, wants to get some kind of accreditation without being worthy of it. That is most definitely cheating. If, for example, I pass a Maths test and cannot even do addition, I must have cheated, right? My concern went on; and this really gets my goat, or gets my gander up, or gets on my wick, or just irks me until I am so miffed that I am spitting feathers; there were responses to the oblique question on using A.I. generative software. One of them said something like, 'Oh no! I have been using A.I. generative text for years at work.' I was gobsmacked for two reasons. First, the commentator is inadequate for the task they are employed to do; and second, that this person, by openly admitting to using A.I. generative software had no inkling that they are a fraud. Cheating is entirely normal for them.

I don't know anyone who uses Grammarly. If I did, I would instantly 'un-know' them. How dare people pretend to be something they are not? Charlatan! Fraud! Cheat! Away with you, ponce!

I suppose it is because I have spent tens, or hundreds, of thousands of hours learning my language that I am insulted when averaging software tells me I am wrong. There is something about homogeneity that makes my blood boil over and burn on the flames of rage. These days, any average person is indistinguishable from any other average person. In fact, people's IQ and EQ (emotional quotient) are now obsolete as evaluation metrics in, I suggest, most fields of existence. Even though I could have used dictionaries and thesauruses this morning I have had no need to. It saddens me that I am only as good as the person who cheats (There is no shame in using dictionaries and thesauruses to learn. The shame is in never looking in them.) It disappoints me that cheating is wholly and firmly positioned in the current hegemony as being not only normal and acceptable, but immeasurably desirable as a character attribute. 

The whole thing, to me, denigrates people with disabilities (which A.I. should, of course, be assisting). It is walking up wheel-chair ramps because we are too lazy to use steps; it is parking in disabled parking spots because we are too lazy to walk across a supermarket carpark; it is never bothering to pay attention in school because there is the internet and A.I. to instantly gives answers that do not make anyone understand anything. It is acting as though we are dyslexic. It is acting as though we are blind and using speech synthesis to read pages on the internet.

A long time ago, I used to get stoned. I didn't like it and stopped doing it and lost all my childhood friends by saying, 'No.' At that time, like many stoned people, stray ponderings would emerge. One of my former friends said, 'One day we will evolve so we only have to think about where we want to be and we will be there.' I immediately responded with, 'We are already there. Everything about a human serves the human brain. If we want to be somewhere we make our bodies take us there, it just takes a while to get there.' No-one responded. Today, the question of intelligence would never arise. Today, we are concerned about how we can cheat more effectively than we cheated yesterday and how we can show how more effectively we cheated today than we could demonstrate yesterday.

Permalink Add your comment
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 827253