Promising Improvements is a Customer Service Error

Well now, unless you're Japanese or otherwise come from a culture of performative apologetics, I do recommend dispensing with promises to improve. All promises accomplish is to massage the egos of high-cost customers. If you care to improve your service, simply do it.

That being said, if you are in court, the gravity of a promise is considerably different. But most customers do not carry the force of the law, and it is pompous disservice to higher institutions if customers are led to believe that they do.

The "Profit Centre" is a Regrettable Error

Traditionally, it has become the case that,

- "cost centres" refer to supporting operations, and

- "profit centres" refer to core value-chain operations ...

... furthermore often we encounter the entirely ridiculous practice where,

- "profit centres" refer to sales operations.

This is ridiculous because profits are composed of sales and costs, and this equation is completely obfuscated if sales are otherwise equated with profits.

In fact, "profit centres" don't exist within individual businesses units. In a map of business units, each business unit can be a profit centre or a loss centre. Within each business unit, profits result from a VALUE-CHAIN.

-

What more can we do to clean up this corruption of language?

The context for this language often arises in the activity of analysing profitability. In a map of business units, we can encapsulate value-chains within business units, and so this is relatively easy. Within each business unit, an analysis of profitability must take into consideration the OPPORTUNITY COST of alloting the HIRED TIME of each INDIVIDUAL TALENT, to this or that activity. From this observation we should proceed to understand that even staff in a sales function should not be judged primarily on sales, but on contributions to profitability based on such a model.

This is where the fun begins.

Conversing with the Waters

I'm been thinking about girls that say, "is this real?" or "this is real," or "you're not even sure if that was real" ... in the context of the script of Gaslit where the character says "it" is not "real" when her boyfriend doesn't look her in the eye during sex.

I think it boils down to a certain type of person who isn't comfortable with detailed verbalisation of their internal cognition. Because this type can't recognise the use of semantics to a satisfactory degree, they infer based on intuitive trust (that is, at their convenience, without systematic empirical observation), that certain counterparts at certain points in time do share their own state of mind.

This is generally dangerous for people who project their own desire for intimacy upon others who do not share their state of mind. It is also awkward for other parties when the projectors discuss the realness of their mutual relationships, because their counterparts may generally guess about what is being spoken out of general politeness.

Reality is an interesting subject - more so when one or more conversants has doubts about their fundamental experiences.

I am not sure if it is better for me to swear off relationships with cognitively insecure people, or if I should devote more time to nursing their minds.