Hi everyone,

I thought I would write a brief post regarding my thoughts on the philosophy and logic of respect in the workplace.

Here is an informally phrased, English-language rule that I think is a good one regarding what the appropriate respect policy in professional relationships should be:

When an professional person is engaged in a stressful and competitive interactive activity designed to help a customer achieve a goal, such as educating the customer (you might think of a K-12 teacher instructing a class), the customer should strive to be respectful to the interactive professional, provided that the professional isn't doing anything illegal, unethical, unprofessional, or deliberately hurtful to the customer or anyone else.

This idea was inspired by a student boxing instructor who worked with me in college and said, "Don't give me lip," when I tried to argue with him about something. (I am reasonable--I complied!)

The exceptions to the principle indicated above, which I argue works in part because as long as the professional is serious about doing work properly to help the customer, the customer should show willingness and readiness to make this task easy, include when the professional is abusing the idea of customer service.

Here is a formalization of the idea--I like formalizing things--which I'll discuss more in a moment:

R1(x,y) -- person x is a professional trying to help customer y in an interactive and somewhat stressful way
R2(x,y) -- person x adheres to sufficient standards of respect for customer y
R3(x) -- person x is not doing anything unethical, illegal, abusive, hurtful, or unprofessional on the job

The statement, which I'll term "C" as in "Customer compliance," can be formalized as:

C(x) <--> for all y: ((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y)) or !R3(x))

The point is that any customer's obligations when being served by professionals to whom such customers pay money are satisfied precisely when C is satisfied.

I would refer to a professional who can exceed this standard--treating non-C compliant customers with respect anyway--as an "A+ professional," and I strive to be one. (No, that designation has nothing to do with any sort of IT certification, coming from me.)

I think it is clear that some folks just don't understand this, not fully appreciating that employment is competitive and driven by the economy, not just democratic. Some professionals who have heard the phrase, "The customer is always right," and reject this phrase believe that customers should have limitless patience with badly behaved professionals who may even abuse customers' trust in the organizations that hire such professionals, offering deliberately bad service as "bait" to provoke legitimate angry reactions from customers, typically leading to what I assert is justly deserved corporate-goal failure and eventual career ruination for such "bad workers," as enforced by the forces of economics.

If I'm hired into the computer programming industry, I'll be sure to adhere to the highest standards of customer service. As a very logical thinker, I do understand the frustrations of customers seeking support with their goals, including computer programming goals, and know how to address difficulties in customer-professional relationships at a world-class level.

If your firm is looking for an employee who really understands right, wrong, the nature of virtue, and "the rules of the road" when it comes to pleasing customers and customer service, I am a wonderful choice in this regard, and many others.

If you're a computer programming firm looking for an excellent candidate to hire for your firm, I encourage you to write to me today! I assert that very few aspiring professionals understand how to interact with customers and respect their valuable time and emotional well-being, treating all established customers with unyielding respect, like I do! I do know that there is no defense for failure to please a customer when it was possible to succeed.

Thanks for reading!

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:09:41 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I thought I would write a brief post regarding my thoughts on the philosophy and logic of respect in the workplace.
>
> Here is an informally phrased, English-language rule that I think is a good one regarding what the appropriate respect policy in professional relationships should be:
>
> When an professional person is engaged in a stressful and competitive interactive activity designed to help a customer achieve a goal, such as educating the customer (you might think of a K-12 teacher instructing a class), the customer should strive to be respectful to the interactive professional, provided that the professional isn't doing anything illegal, unethical, unprofessional, or deliberately hurtful to the customer or anyone else.
>
> This idea was inspired by a student boxing instructor who worked with me in college and said, "Don't give me lip," when I tried to argue with him about something. (I am reasonable--I complied!)
>
> The exceptions to the principle indicated above, which I argue works in part because as long as the professional is serious about doing work properly to help the customer, the customer should show willingness and readiness to make this task easy, include when the professional is abusing the idea of customer service.
>
> Here is a formalization of the idea--I like formalizing things--which I'll discuss more in a moment:
>
> R1(x,y) -- person x is a professional trying to help customer y in an interactive and somewhat stressful way
> R2(x,y) -- person x adheres to sufficient standards of respect for customer y
> R3(x) -- person x is not doing anything unethical, illegal, abusive, hurtful, or unprofessional on the job
>
> The statement, which I'll term "C" as in "Customer compliance," can be formalized as:
>
> C(x) <--> for all y: ((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y)) or !R3(x))
>
> The point is that any customer's obligations when being served by professionals to whom such customers pay money are satisfied precisely when C is satisfied.
>
> I would refer to a professional who can exceed this standard--treating non-C compliant customers with respect anyway--as an "A+ professional," and I strive to be one. (No, that designation has nothing to do with any sort of IT certification, coming from me.)
>
> I think it is clear that some folks just don't understand this, not fully appreciating that employment is competitive and driven by the economy, not just democratic. Some professionals who have heard the phrase, "The customer is always right," and reject this phrase believe that customers should have limitless patience with badly behaved professionals who may even abuse customers' trust in the organizations that hire such professionals, offering deliberately bad service as "bait" to provoke legitimate angry reactions from customers, typically leading to what I assert is justly deserved corporate-goal failure and eventual career ruination for such "bad workers," as enforced by the forces of economics.
>
> If I'm hired into the computer programming industry, I'll be sure to adhere to the highest standards of customer service. As a very logical thinker, I do understand the frustrations of customers seeking support with their goals, including computer programming goals, and know how to address difficulties in customer-professional relationships at a world-class level.
>
> If your firm is looking for an employee who really understands right, wrong, the nature of virtue, and "the rules of the road" when it comes to pleasing customers and customer service, I am a wonderful choice in this regard, and many others.
>
> If you're a computer programming firm looking for an excellent candidate to hire for your firm, I encourage you to write to me today! I assert that very few aspiring professionals understand how to interact with customers and respect their valuable time and emotional well-being, treating all established customers with unyielding respect, like I do! I do know that there is no defense for failure to please a customer when it was possible to succeed.
>
> Thanks for reading!
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

By mistake, I accidentally made a slight error in writing the proposition "C" in the post above:
R1(x,y) -- person x is a professional trying to help customer y in an interactive and somewhat stressful way
R2(x,y) -- person x adheres to sufficient standards of respect for customer y
R3(x) -- person x is not doing anything unethical, illegal, abusive, hurtful, or unprofessional on the job
R4(y,x) -- customer y treats working professional x with respect

C(x,y) <--> ((((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y)) or !R3(x))) --> R4(y,x))

What I wrote above is the correct version of C. Again, C <--> "customer y is treating professional x with good enough respect."

-Philip

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:19:58 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:09:41 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I thought I would write a brief post regarding my thoughts on the philosophy and logic of respect in the workplace.
> >
> > Here is an informally phrased, English-language rule that I think is a good one regarding what the appropriate respect policy in professional relationships should be:
> >
> > When an professional person is engaged in a stressful and competitive interactive activity designed to help a customer achieve a goal, such as educating the customer (you might think of a K-12 teacher instructing a class), the customer should strive to be respectful to the interactive professional, provided that the professional isn't doing anything illegal, unethical, unprofessional, or deliberately hurtful to the customer or anyone else.
> >
> > This idea was inspired by a student boxing instructor who worked with me in college and said, "Don't give me lip," when I tried to argue with him about something. (I am reasonable--I complied!)
> >
> > The exceptions to the principle indicated above, which I argue works in part because as long as the professional is serious about doing work properly to help the customer, the customer should show willingness and readiness to make this task easy, include when the professional is abusing the idea of customer service.
> >
> > Here is a formalization of the idea--I like formalizing things--which I'll discuss more in a moment:
> >
> > R1(x,y) -- person x is a professional trying to help customer y in an interactive and somewhat stressful way
> > R2(x,y) -- person x adheres to sufficient standards of respect for customer y
> > R3(x) -- person x is not doing anything unethical, illegal, abusive, hurtful, or unprofessional on the job
> >
> > The statement, which I'll term "C" as in "Customer compliance," can be formalized as:
> >
> > C(x) <--> for all y: ((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y)) or !R3(x))
> >
> > The point is that any customer's obligations when being served by professionals to whom such customers pay money are satisfied precisely when C is satisfied.
> >
> > I would refer to a professional who can exceed this standard--treating non-C compliant customers with respect anyway--as an "A+ professional," and I strive to be one. (No, that designation has nothing to do with any sort of IT certification, coming from me.)
> >
> > I think it is clear that some folks just don't understand this, not fully appreciating that employment is competitive and driven by the economy, not just democratic. Some professionals who have heard the phrase, "The customer is always right," and reject this phrase believe that customers should have limitless patience with badly behaved professionals who may even abuse customers' trust in the organizations that hire such professionals, offering deliberately bad service as "bait" to provoke legitimate angry reactions from customers, typically leading to what I assert is justly deserved corporate-goal failure and eventual career ruination for such "bad workers," as enforced by the forces of economics.
> >
> > If I'm hired into the computer programming industry, I'll be sure to adhere to the highest standards of customer service. As a very logical thinker, I do understand the frustrations of customers seeking support with their goals, including computer programming goals, and know how to address difficulties in customer-professional relationships at a world-class level.
> >
> > If your firm is looking for an employee who really understands right, wrong, the nature of virtue, and "the rules of the road" when it comes to pleasing customers and customer service, I am a wonderful choice in this regard, and many others.
> >
> > If you're a computer programming firm looking for an excellent candidate to hire for your firm, I encourage you to write to me today! I assert that very few aspiring professionals understand how to interact with customers and respect their valuable time and emotional well-being, treating all established customers with unyielding respect, like I do! I do know that there is no defense for failure to please a customer when it was possible to succeed.
> >
> > Thanks for reading!
> >
> > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> By mistake, I accidentally made a slight error in writing the proposition "C" in the post above:
> R1(x,y) -- person x is a professional trying to help customer y in an interactive and somewhat stressful way
> R2(x,y) -- person x adheres to sufficient standards of respect for customer y
> R3(x) -- person x is not doing anything unethical, illegal, abusive, hurtful, or unprofessional on the job
> R4(y,x) -- customer y treats working professional x with respect
>
> C(x,y) <--> ((((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y)) or !R3(x))) --> R4(y,x))
>
> What I wrote above is the correct version of C. Again, C <--> "customer y is treating professional x with good enough respect."
>
> -Philip

I wrote it wrong again! My mistake!

C(x,y) <--> ((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y) and R3(x)) --> R4(y,x))

That should be correct this time.

-Philip

On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:24:07 UTC+8, B.H. wrote:
> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:19:58 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:09:41 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I thought I would write a brief post regarding my thoughts on the philosophy and logic of respect in the workplace.
> > >
> > > Here is an informally phrased, English-language rule that I think is a good one regarding what the appropriate respect policy in professional relationships should be:
> > >
> > > When an professional person is engaged in a stressful and competitive interactive activity designed to help a customer achieve a goal, such as educating the customer (you might think of a K-12 teacher instructing a class), the customer should strive to be respectful to the interactive professional, provided that the professional isn't doing anything illegal, unethical, unprofessional, or deliberately hurtful to the customer or anyone else.
> > >
> > > This idea was inspired by a student boxing instructor who worked with me in college and said, "Don't give me lip," when I tried to argue with him about something. (I am reasonable--I complied!)
> > >
> > > The exceptions to the principle indicated above, which I argue works in part because as long as the professional is serious about doing work properly to help the customer, the customer should show willingness and readiness to make this task easy, include when the professional is abusing the idea of customer service.
> > >
> > > Here is a formalization of the idea--I like formalizing things--which I'll discuss more in a moment:
> > >
> > > R1(x,y) -- person x is a professional trying to help customer y in an interactive and somewhat stressful way
> > > R2(x,y) -- person x adheres to sufficient standards of respect for customer y
> > > R3(x) -- person x is not doing anything unethical, illegal, abusive, hurtful, or unprofessional on the job
> > >
> > > The statement, which I'll term "C" as in "Customer compliance," can be formalized as:
> > >
> > > C(x) <--> for all y: ((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y)) or !R3(x))
> > >
> > > The point is that any customer's obligations when being served by professionals to whom such customers pay money are satisfied precisely when C is satisfied.
> > >
> > > I would refer to a professional who can exceed this standard--treating non-C compliant customers with respect anyway--as an "A+ professional," and I strive to be one. (No, that designation has nothing to do with any sort of IT certification, coming from me.)
> > >
> > > I think it is clear that some folks just don't understand this, not fully appreciating that employment is competitive and driven by the economy, not just democratic. Some professionals who have heard the phrase, "The customer is always right," and reject this phrase believe that customers should have limitless patience with badly behaved professionals who may even abuse customers' trust in the organizations that hire such professionals, offering deliberately bad service as "bait" to provoke legitimate angry reactions from customers, typically leading to what I assert is justly deserved corporate-goal failure and eventual career ruination for such "bad workers," as enforced by the forces of economics.
> > >
> > > If I'm hired into the computer programming industry, I'll be sure to adhere to the highest standards of customer service. As a very logical thinker, I do understand the frustrations of customers seeking support with their goals, including computer programming goals, and know how to address difficulties in customer-professional relationships at a world-class level.
> > >
> > > If your firm is looking for an employee who really understands right, wrong, the nature of virtue, and "the rules of the road" when it comes to pleasing customers and customer service, I am a wonderful choice in this regard, and many others.
> > >
> > > If you're a computer programming firm looking for an excellent candidate to hire for your firm, I encourage you to write to me today! I assert that very few aspiring professionals understand how to interact with customers and respect their valuable time and emotional well-being, treating all established customers with unyielding respect, like I do! I do know that there is no defense for failure to please a customer when it was possible to succeed.
> > >
> > > Thanks for reading!
> > >
> > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > By mistake, I accidentally made a slight error in writing the proposition "C" in the post above:
> > R1(x,y) -- person x is a professional trying to help customer y in an interactive and somewhat stressful way
> > R2(x,y) -- person x adheres to sufficient standards of respect for customer y
> > R3(x) -- person x is not doing anything unethical, illegal, abusive, hurtful, or unprofessional on the job
> > R4(y,x) -- customer y treats working professional x with respect
> >
> > C(x,y) <--> ((((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y)) or !R3(x))) --> R4(y,x))
> >
> > What I wrote above is the correct version of C. Again, C <--> "customer y is treating professional x with good enough respect."
> >
> > -Philip
> I wrote it wrong again! My mistake!
>
> C(x,y) <--> ((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y) and R3(x)) --> R4(y,x))
>
> That should be correct this time.
>
> -Philip

What you have achieved is a formal expression, nothing more.
What is 'correct' about?

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:40:04 AM UTC-5, wij wrote:
> On Friday, 3 December 2021 at 10:24:07 UTC+8, B.H. wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:19:58 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:09:41 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > >
> > > > I thought I would write a brief post regarding my thoughts on the philosophy and logic of respect in the workplace.
> > > >
> > > > Here is an informally phrased, English-language rule that I think is a good one regarding what the appropriate respect policy in professional relationships should be:
> > > >
> > > > When an professional person is engaged in a stressful and competitive interactive activity designed to help a customer achieve a goal, such as educating the customer (you might think of a K-12 teacher instructing a class), the customer should strive to be respectful to the interactive professional, provided that the professional isn't doing anything illegal, unethical, unprofessional, or deliberately hurtful to the customer or anyone else..
> > > >
> > > > This idea was inspired by a student boxing instructor who worked with me in college and said, "Don't give me lip," when I tried to argue with him about something. (I am reasonable--I complied!)
> > > >
> > > > The exceptions to the principle indicated above, which I argue works in part because as long as the professional is serious about doing work properly to help the customer, the customer should show willingness and readiness to make this task easy, include when the professional is abusing the idea of customer service.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a formalization of the idea--I like formalizing things--which I'll discuss more in a moment:
> > > >
> > > > R1(x,y) -- person x is a professional trying to help customer y in an interactive and somewhat stressful way
> > > > R2(x,y) -- person x adheres to sufficient standards of respect for customer y
> > > > R3(x) -- person x is not doing anything unethical, illegal, abusive, hurtful, or unprofessional on the job
> > > >
> > > > The statement, which I'll term "C" as in "Customer compliance," can be formalized as:
> > > >
> > > > C(x) <--> for all y: ((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y)) or !R3(x))
> > > >
> > > > The point is that any customer's obligations when being served by professionals to whom such customers pay money are satisfied precisely when C is satisfied.
> > > >
> > > > I would refer to a professional who can exceed this standard--treating non-C compliant customers with respect anyway--as an "A+ professional," and I strive to be one. (No, that designation has nothing to do with any sort of IT certification, coming from me.)
> > > >
> > > > I think it is clear that some folks just don't understand this, not fully appreciating that employment is competitive and driven by the economy, not just democratic. Some professionals who have heard the phrase, "The customer is always right," and reject this phrase believe that customers should have limitless patience with badly behaved professionals who may even abuse customers' trust in the organizations that hire such professionals, offering deliberately bad service as "bait" to provoke legitimate angry reactions from customers, typically leading to what I assert is justly deserved corporate-goal failure and eventual career ruination for such "bad workers," as enforced by the forces of economics.
> > > >
> > > > If I'm hired into the computer programming industry, I'll be sure to adhere to the highest standards of customer service. As a very logical thinker, I do understand the frustrations of customers seeking support with their goals, including computer programming goals, and know how to address difficulties in customer-professional relationships at a world-class level.
> > > >
> > > > If your firm is looking for an employee who really understands right, wrong, the nature of virtue, and "the rules of the road" when it comes to pleasing customers and customer service, I am a wonderful choice in this regard, and many others.
> > > >
> > > > If you're a computer programming firm looking for an excellent candidate to hire for your firm, I encourage you to write to me today! I assert that very few aspiring professionals understand how to interact with customers and respect their valuable time and emotional well-being, treating all established customers with unyielding respect, like I do! I do know that there is no defense for failure to please a customer when it was possible to succeed.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for reading!
> > > >
> > > > -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)
> > > By mistake, I accidentally made a slight error in writing the proposition "C" in the post above:
> > > R1(x,y) -- person x is a professional trying to help customer y in an interactive and somewhat stressful way
> > > R2(x,y) -- person x adheres to sufficient standards of respect for customer y
> > > R3(x) -- person x is not doing anything unethical, illegal, abusive, hurtful, or unprofessional on the job
> > > R4(y,x) -- customer y treats working professional x with respect
> > >
> > > C(x,y) <--> ((((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y)) or !R3(x))) --> R4(y,x))
> > >
> > > What I wrote above is the correct version of C. Again, C <--> "customer y is treating professional x with good enough respect."
> > >
> > > -Philip
> > I wrote it wrong again! My mistake!
> >
> > C(x,y) <--> ((R1(x,y) and R2(x,y) and R3(x)) --> R4(y,x))
> >
> > That should be correct this time.
> >
> > -Philip
> What you have achieved is a formal expression, nothing more.
> What is 'correct' about?

Hi internet poster,

For more information about mathematical logic, check out this helpful textbook on Amazon.com:

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Mathematical-Discrete-Mathematics-Applications/dp/1584888768/

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)