Grombles

Huge agonising about how and why he won, but very little mention of the influence his name might have played. There can be little doubt that perceptions are formed on hearing a name before meeting the person. A Rupert in the UK is an upper class twit. I know a few Ruperts and none of them are either upper class or twits, but when you're going to meet a Rupert, you prepare for cravats, limp handshakes and a lack of chin. Likewise Sharons are loose blondes from Essex. Not very bright, but a vodka and orange can end up a cheap and energetic date - if not one you'd want to repeat. But every Sharon I know is charming and, as far as I can tell, far from loose. I'm sure every Rupert and every Sharon in the UK suffers from jokes about the stereotypes their names suggest. I don't know why we form impressions about people because of their names (other than clues about nationality, age and gender perhaps), but we do. And I suspect it has a far greater effect than we a...

Never thought I'd be writing anything positive about a man I've called a moron, with apologies to all morons, a lying, ignorant, arrogant, misogynistic bully. But having slept on yet another massive defeat for electoral common sense within just 6 months of our own Brexit shock, I'm starting to come to terms with what just happened. And I think I can begin to see this in a positive or at least hopeful light. I'm still not happy about the nuclear thing, racism or climate change, but I think I might on reflection start to feel reasonably positive nonetheless. Has Grombler finally gone mad? Read on... My first difficulty was trying to understand why so many millions of ordinary people could possibly believe that a man with no admirable character traits could possibly lead a country. Amazingly the stats show many of his voters are women, and even more oddly perhaps, many are immigrants. I was also surprised at how many EU citizens living in the UK supported Brexit. Turkeys...

"They loved it. It's in the bag." (Business buyers are usually polite and often complementary even if they have no intention to buy) "It's getting loads of 'likes' on Facebook. This is a winner." (People are often keen to demonstrate to others how they feel about things. But this is different from deciding to buy where many other considerations need to be satisfied) "The majority of people we asked said they'd buy one." (But would they when you ask them to pay?) It's so easy to confuse 'like' with 'need'. People and businesses rarely spend money on things they just like. What they are far more likely to spend money on are things they need, especially things they can't do without. Businesses need to measure propensities to buy their products far more carefully than superficial reactions might indicate. They also need to consider WHY their products might be purchased, as well as WHEN and HOW, not just IF. ...

Here we go again. The polls unanimously predicted a victory for Clinton, and we all know what happened. The polls also unanimously predicted that Britain would remain in the EU, but they were wrong there too. Only months earlier the UK polls predicted every sort of party combination to form a government, except for the one that won. Why do polls get it completely wrong, especially when they're unanimously predicting a close result? Perhaps it's because of the Observer Effect (sometimes confused with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Simply put, it states that by measuring something, you can affect it. In the case of opinion polls, this is what happens: The polls all predict a close result If the person or party you like is losing , you become more likely to vote because you can make difference If the person or party you like is winning , you become less likely to vote because you don't need to There's a sweet spot for this effect. If the polls are predicti...