You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Wednesday, October 29, 2014

MARY BURKE: OTHERS COMMENT ON HER COMPETENCE

Long
article. Read the commentsbelow first that
expose additional character traits worth thinking about as you read the complete article - scroll
down.

Comment about Mary Burke:
Imagine electing a person for governor who couldn't even
handle the pressure of being a manager in a family business for a couple
years...before needing 2 year hiatus.... As governor she we melt down in 6
months!

Look at Walker he has stood up to more pressure than anyone
could imagine and still gets the job done.

So you don't need to believe this article, because the
alternate story the left likes is just as good a reason not to elect this empty
head.

Comment about Mary Burke:

"Burke has never married and has no children." -
Wikipedia

55 years old with no record of friends or
relationships.

There's no indication Mary Burke ever earned anything. She's
got family money and bought her way onto the Madison School Board. Titles
without substance. Too many indications of hidden failure. No real indication of
thinking for herself, of innovation, of creativity. What has she really
accomplished without her own money?

Mary Burke exists outside the cultural mainstream. The lack
of any personal background is kinda weird.

Put Scott Walker aside for the moment - why would we want
this woman to be governor?Mary Burke is scary.

Comment
about Mary Burke: According to Wikipedia, she has never been married, has no
children and even though she has an impressive education (Georgetown Undergrad,
Harvard MBA, London School of Economics) She has never held a job outside of the
family business. A business where she has held nebulous positions with lofty
names but little verifiable accomplishment.

There isn't even a mention anywhere of a former boyfriend,
or girlfriend for that matter.

She seems strangely devoid of a personal life or personal
accomplishment.

MADISON, Wis. — In attempting to explain her two-year work hiatus in
the early to mid-1990s, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary
Burke has said she was just burned out after an intense period of leading
European operations for Trek Bicycle Corp.,
her family’s Waterloo-based global manufacturer.

In fact, Burke apparently was fired by her own family following steep
overseas financial losses and plummeting morale among Burke’s European sales
staff, multiple former Trek executives and employees told Wisconsin
Reporter.

The sales team threatened to quit if Burke was not removed from her position
as director of European Operations, according to Gary Ellerman, who served as
Trek’s human resources director for 12 years. His account was confirmed by three
other former employees.

“She was not performing. She was (in) so far over her head. She didn’t
understand the bike business,” said Ellerman, who started with Trek in 1992, at
the tail end of Burke’s first stint as a manager at Trek.

Ellerman said Richard Burke, Mary Burke’s father and founder of the family
business, asked Tom Albers, Trek president and chief financial officer at the
time, to fly to Amsterdam to evaluate Mary’s performance.

It wasn’t a pretty picture. The European operations were in disarray,
Ellerman said.

A former employee with the company told Wisconsin
Reporter that John Burke, Mary’s brother and current Trek
president, had to let his sister go.

The former employee, who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisal from
the Burke family, said Mary Burke was made to return to Wisconsin and apologize
to a group of about 35 Trek executives for her treatment of employees and for
the plummeting European bottom line.

Managers in Europe used to call Burke “pit bull on crack” or “Attila the
Hun,” one source said.
“She never made money in Europe when she was there
… Germany was gushing blood and it would take profitability from
everywhere else,” the former employee said.

“There is a dark side to Mary that the people at Trek have seen
… She can explode on people. She can be the most cruel person you
ever met,” said Ellerman, who started a consulting business after he was “asked
to leave” Trek in 2004 over a difference in hiring philosophy.

As HR director, he said he heard plenty of complaints about Mary Burke, but
he said she was “hands off and everyone knew it. She was absolutely bulletproof.
She could do anything she wanted.”
To a point, apparently.

In her campaign against Republican incumbent Gov. Scott
Walker, Mary Burke has bragged that European sales climbed to $50 million on her watch. She originally said the increase was
closer to $60 million in a 2004 resume to officials in Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration,
the Democrat who in 2005 tapped Burke to be his secretary of the now-defunct
state Commerce Department.

Ellerman and the other employees tell Wisconsin
Reporter that Burke’s sales boasts are lies, that the European
division did significantly lower numbers — at least $10 million lower — during
her tenure as director. Most of the sales increases, they said, were in Trek’s
United Kingdom market, which was well established before Burke arrived, and in
the Japan operations, which Burke had nothing to do with. Any growth in sales
was well offset by the losses sustained in Germany and other European countries,
according to the former executives.

Trek is a privately held company and
does not disclose its sales or earnings figures. Mary Burke, too, has refused to
provide documentation of the numbers.

When asked to apologize to staff before her departure from the company in
1993, Mary Burke struggled and stammered through the apology much as she appears
to do in a video clip
of the gubernatorial candidate trying to define the word “plagiarism,” according
to one former Trek employee. The Democrat has been dogged throughout her
campaign by revelations she lifted
large sections of her policy plans from other sources.

“She had a list of excuses, but the fact is she made fatal errors. She
thought she knew everything,” the former employee said.

John Burke, who at the time was vice president of sales and marketing, was
forced to “unravel” the mess his sister Mary made of the European operations,”
the former Trek employee said.
The former employees’ recollection of Burke would seem to jibe with Burke’s
predecessor at the Commerce Department.

“She’s a disaster,” Cory Nettles, secretary of Commerce under Doyle from 2003
to 2005 told one of Doyle’s top aides in a 2006 email, according to a Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel story published earlier this month.

Nettles told the newspaper he didn’t remember sending the email, which the
Journal Sentinel obtained in an open records request.

Regardless, he said he does not feel that way anymore.

The Burke family, publicly at least, has had nothing but smiles and accolades
for Mary Burke, praising her business acumen.

John Burke’s book about his father,
published in 2012, refers to Mary as “the brains in the family.” In the book,
“One Last Great Thing: The Story of a Father and a Son, a Story of a Life and a
Legacy,” John applauded his sister’s performance in Europe.

“I hired my sister Mary, the brains of the
family, to move to Europe and run the business. Mary and her team opened
Austria, Spain, the Benelux, and France the following year. Trek’s business in
Europe took off,” John Burke wrote.

That’s revisionist company history, sources insist.

Following her forced apology, they say, Mary Burke left her family company in
a huff in 1993, taking off for the snowy mountains of Colorado and Argentina
— her “snowboarding sabbatical,” as some of the candidate’s critics have
derisively put Burke’s personal work stoppage.

While Burke told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last month that she wanted to
“resolve any inconsistencies” about her time away, the details and the timing
remain foggy.

Burke told a Doyle administration official in 2005 that she was burned out
from her European Trek stint.

“This had been a very demanding job, and as a result I decided I needed some
time off,” Burke wrote, as quoted in the newspaper story. “I joined some Spanish
friends of mine and moved to Argentina to snowboard for three months.”

Not true, according one former Trek executive.

“She made the statement that she was burned out. She wasn’t burned out. She
was fired. (The firing) was definitely over performance issues and there were
major people problems over there,” said the
executive
who also asked not to be identified because the source believes
the extraordinarily wealthy Burke family will “destroy any individual” who
brings such information public.

She did some other things during her two-year break from Trek, but full-time
employment during that period wasn’t Burke’s scene.

Burke’s resume notes that she returned to Trek in 1995 as director of
forecasting and strategic planning.

Not quite true, according to Ellerman and other sources.

“I remember (Richard “Dick” Burke) talked to (John Burke). I was there. Dick
said we need to bring her on, so they put her in a marketing role and she worked
for the marketing director for a while,” Ellerman said. It didn’t last. “She was
creating dissatisfaction in the marketing world so John came to me and asked me,
‘What can I do?’ I said, ‘I can’t touch this.’”

Then, Ellerman said, Burke’s father and brother created the strategic
planning role.
Another employee who worked with Burke confirmed Ellerman’s account.
Neither the Burke campaign nor Trek officials returned several calls and
emails from Wisconsin Reporter seeking comment.

Ellerman claims that throughout Burke’s tenure with Trek, she showed that she
was not a person who could bring people together.

“She is very divisive, very opinionated, but she’s not smart enough to have
the right opinion,” Ellerman said. “But she’s a Burke, and she got to do
whatever the hell she wanted.”