If you are interested in blogging or want to promote your book, please contact E. B. Davis at writerswhokill@gmail.com.


Our reason for creating WWK originated as an outlet for our love of reading and writing mystery fiction. We hope you love it, too, and will enjoy our holiday gifts to our readers with original short stories to celebrate the season. Starting on 11/16 stories by Warren Bull, Margaret S. Hamilton, Paula Gail Benson, Linda Rodriguez, KM Rockwood, Gloria Alden, and E. B. Davis will appear every Thursday into the New Year.


Our November Author Interviews: 11/8--Ellen Byron, and 11/15--Sujata Massey. Please join us in welcoming these authors to WWK.


November Saturday Bloggers: 11/4 Margaret S. Hamilton and 11/11 Cheryl Hollon.


Congratulations to our writers for the following publications:

Shari Randall's "Pets" will be included in Chesapeake Crimes: Fur, Feathers, and Felonies anthology, which will be published in 2018. In the same anthology "Rasputin," KM Rockwood's short story, will also be published. Her short story "Goldie" will be published in the Busted anthology, which will be released by Level Best Books on April 25th.


In addition, our prolific KM will have the following shorts published as well: "Making Tracks" in Passport to Murder, Bouchercon anthology, October 2017 and "Turkey Underfoot," just published, will appear in the anthology The Killer Wore Cranberry: a Fifth Course of Chaos.


James M. Jackson's 4th book in the Seamus McCree series, Doubtful Relations, is now available. His novella "Low Tide at Tybee" appears February 7 as part of Lowcountry Crimes: Four Novellas, which is available for order.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, May 22, 2015

An Odd Meeting

                                                 

                                                         An Odd Meeting

I recently attended a meeting where I got the impression that roughly 90% of the

people did not understand the point of the meeting.  There was one item on the

agenda for discussion.  I could see that the decision we made about that item would

directly affect the long-term identity and purpose of the group. 

It seemed to me that people were discussing the item as if a simple yea or nay would

settle the matter.  It was a “but we’ve always done it this way,” moment. 

It reminded me of times I saw a family in therapy when there was a specific event a

child/adolescent wanted to go to and the arguments pro and con were in nearly

perfect balance.  As a therapist, I was much less interested in deciding about the

single event than in developing way to resolve such question that would apply to the

event and be useful for other resolving other issues when they came up.  Often in

those circumstances some family members thought that deciding whether or not the

child should go was the only goal.

I also remember once trying to help my son with his math problems.  He wanted

only to get answers for the homework problems.  He wanted them done as quickly

as possible.  One of his strategies was to guess several numbers in a row.  He was not

happy that I did not simply tell him the answer.  My goal was to teach him a method

of solving the problems that could be useful with similar problems.  Our opposing

goals frustrated both of us. 

I will share my observations with the group because I care about what happens to it.

Wish me luck.


Have you ever had a similar experience?

5 comments:

James Montgomery Jackson said...

The main advantage of having been a math major in college is that it taught me how to think about problems: It was necessary to understand the underlying assumptions and only after that did it make sense to determine if the logic (calculations, etc.) followed correctly.

If you assume you are on a flat earth, you have to worry about falling off. It is important to have formulae to assure that you do not get too near the edge so you are accidentally sucked off. The calculations may be perfectly determined, but given we are on an ovoid planet, they are meaningless.

Similarly, knowing the fact that the cube root of 125 is 5 does not provide much help when one is asked to determine the cube root of 216.

You can give someone a fish and they will be happy until their stomach again rumbles. You can give someone a fishing pole, line, hooks, sinkers and knowledge and they can feed themselves as needed (unless there is no water or it's polluted, but that's a different issue).

~ Jim

Gloria Alden said...

Math was something that never grabbed me. Words are like magic to me - numbers not. Of course, I know my basic math and do okay with it. As for meetings, I don't like meetings because they seem to ramble on forever with one or two people who never seem to know when to shut up or stop asking inane questions. The same topics seem to be repeated or gone over and over until I can't wait until the whole thing is over. I'm glad I have very few meetings to attend anymore.

Shari Randall said...

I do wish you luck, Warren. You'll have to let us know what happens with that meeting. I hope they listen to you.
A few years ago in a management class I took, we were told that one of the most valuable people in the organization was the one who would disagree with the group consensus. Sounds like you may be that person - I hope the others in your organization will appreciate your viewpoint.

Linda Rodriguez said...

Warren, I think that's a common problem. Back when I was an administrator in higher ed, I attended many meetings like that one you describe. Most people seem reluctant to examine the framework they're using to make decisions or to consider possible other methods. Best of luck!

Kara Cerise said...

When I worked in the legal field, I went to many meetings like the one you attended. Eventually, I voiced my concerns during a meeting and became instantly unpopular. I hope you have better luck.