... We are hosting Jen's dad for his holiday visit. In preparation for his visit, we showed Jacob some home movies of when he played trains with his grandfather during the last visit. We talked up the idea of trains and insisted that grandpa's arrival would lead to immense amounts of train play.
As a result, Jacob literally could not wait for Jen's dad to arrive and, once he did, Jacob absolutely pounced. He has referred to grandpa as "my best friend" and gets upset when he goes downstairs to take a break from the train onslaught.
... I learned not to try to explain death to a three year old. I hadn't reviewed that part of the manual. Now, whenever we mention "mommy's daddy" he turns to me and says "your dad is dead." Fun.
... Jacob caused an uproar when he and his cousins were baking with grandpa on Monday. Jacob doesn't like to miss anything with his cousins. So, he brought his training potty (which had been relegated for late-night necessity) into the kitchen and proceeded to do his business in the presence of all parties. The training potty is now hidden.
... Although I'm done with my year's allotment of books, I am still trying to get one more finished before 2010. Malcolm Gladwell literally teaches me about life. What a writer / reporter / journalist. I love his books. They just make you think.
... Gladwell touched on a topic I have taken a keen interest in lately: dancing dialogue. He discusses how people communicate through posture and movements. I always take note of how people compose their bodies, countenances, etc. while interacting. I am trying to utilize those traits for (you guessed it) my ever-in-the-works short story / book. I worked on that a little the other day, and it's moving slowly, but I feel like I know where its going.
... Health care reform is coming. I am glad it is almost here. The misleading information has been exposed, the problems with the bill as a result of compromise are apparent, and its time to start the process. If opponents of any reform at all win, nothing gets solved. It's time to provide options. And, yes, passing health care reform will be a monumental political feather in Obama's cap.
... I am off from work until January 4, 2010 and I plan on enjoying the time off.
... I want to wish everyone a happy holiday season.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
End of the Year Book Report
This month ends year two of my "Book challenge" with, well, Book. As always, the goal is 24 per year, but this year we each received two "assignment" reads from the other. I assigned Richard Kluger's "Simple Justice" and Barrack Obama's "Faith of my Fathers" to Book.
I figured this would be a good time to give a rundown of the books I read this year and my thoughts on them. I will try to pick a top five and make notations on most memorable.
** Denotes a top 5 for the year.
THE STAT PADDERS
These books were easy reads, light reads, or whatever you want to use as a euphemism for "short." Hey, I have a job and a family, so I can't read ALL long books.
-- Ernie Davis: The Elmira Express, by Robert Gallagher. The true story of Ernie Davis and a really fun read. It was short if only because Davis' life was short. The most interesting information was from Davis' short pro career and his fight against cancer. There were also great stories about what it was like for the first African American Heisman winner to play games in the deep South. I never cease to be amazed at how relatively recently segregation gripped this nation.
-- Born Standing Up, by Steve Martin. This book included a lot of the behind-the-scenes stories of Martin's rise to fame. I had no idea how long or how diligently he worked to master the craft of comedy. The man worked hard to become funny. He also did drugs. Shocking, I know.
-- Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs, by Chuck Klosterman. An essay book that was great fun to read. Although the essays are not all winners, the vast majority are, and he even managed to reel me into topics I would otherwise never explore. He is a very clever and intelligent writer, and very funny at times. Plus, he picked the right Star Wars movie as the best ever.
-- Me of Little Faith, by Lewis Black. Comedy book. Pretty disappointing on the whole. I should have read a different one by him. Mixing religion and comedy rarely works, and never works for a whole book.
-- Winston Churchill, by John Keegan. I must confess, I really wanted to read a thorough, long and detailed biography of Sir Winston Churchill, but none were available on Kindle, and I've become a Kindle snob, so I will hold out for a Kindle-worthy title. In the meantime, this very short book from the Penguin "biography" series provided me with a working knowledge of a true hero of WWII. Interesting, but more of a long (200 page) book report than a detailed account. Interesting, and informative. It did the job.
JUST A JOY TO READ
These books all contributed to my greater good mood. Each of these were fun to read and hard to put down.
-- Have a Nice Day, a tale of blood and sweat socks, by Mick Foley. Some of the most interesting stories I have ever read. This book kicked off a mini-fascination with pro wrestling for me. It's like watching a train wreck. I got my fill and moved on, but this book was memorable.
-- The Watchmen, by Alan Moore. Loved the movie. Loved the graphic novel. Really smart story and it even satisfied my need for politics.
** -- The Book of Basketball, by Bill Simmons. I love the NBA. I love somewhat off-color humor. I loved this book. One of the top five of the year. I may even read this one again because it has already sparked a number of NBA discussions among the guys. Never hurts that we now have stories to tell from the book signing.
-- Bowls, polls and tattered souls, by Stewart Mandel. I enjoy Mandel's writing. The book was interesting and pretty entertaining. This filled the void since neither Charlottesville, VA, nor Boulder, CO fielded anything close to college football teams in 2009. Seriously, this book WAS my college football season. Well, that and watching my boss get dragged through the mud by Notre Dame.
-- Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown. Much better than Angels and Demons (which I read last year). I loved the ending and enjoyed the story. Considering I'm usually not a fan of fiction, the fact I liked this book says something.
-- Boys Will Be Boys, by Jeff Pearlman. I've never liked the Dallas Cowboys, but their 90s teams were full of some colorful characters (and that puts it lightly). Just a lot of funny stories, debauchery, and more genital waving that I expected (Seriously, Charles Haley was a Loony Toon... who liked to show everyone his junk).
ULTIMATELY FORGETTABLE
I read less forgettable books this year than last, which is a good thing. Still, they can't all be winners.
-- How to Rig an Election, by Allan Raymond. Very disappointing. There was not much depth to this "inside" story of political espionage. More like one guy who went too far one time and got smacked for it.
-- As They See 'Em, by Bruce Webber. Impulse Kindle purchase. Somewhat interesting look at how umpires are trained. There were some interesting stories from former umps, but the umpire school parts were just ok.
-- The Lost Symbol, by Dan Brown. I have referred to this as "Angels and Da Vinci Lose a Symbol." This was at times compelling, but ultimately disappointing. Dan Brown found a formula and he refuses to deviate from it. Too predictable, too much of the same thing. Not much to the end. Ultimately, it was just one step too far into the conspiracy world. Reached a Tipping Point I think.
LIFE LESSONS
-- Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. See below.
**-- Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. See below.
-- The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell. These three titles by Gladwell were all spectacular handbooks to life. Outliers supported my belief that you can't just pull yourself up by your bootstraps because we don't control much of what allows success. The Tipping Point can be used to illustrate how most things in life really turn the corner. Blink taught me much about perceptions and how our inherent biases work without our knowledge or control. All three were just spectacular. Outliers gets into the top five because its lessons are the most applicable to everyday life.
**-- Brothers Karamozov, by Fyodore Dostoevsky. This is considered by many to be the greatest novel ever written. It was less a novel than a psychological study of various types of people. This book was very helpful in my slow and deliberate development of characters in my own story. The depth of this book cannot be adequately described. This is truly one of the greatest works ever written.
**-- Crime and Punishment, by Fyodore Dostoevsky. Another masterpiece by Dostoevsky. I LOVED the ending and its simplicity. The main character was completely fascinating and this book explored every inch of him. It also made his crime seem almost understandable considering his circumstances. The mind games he endured while trying to avoid capture were absorbing. Only Dostoevsky could create a character so completely. You will love him, hate him, sympathize with him and condemn him. And, in the end, you will understand him.
**-- Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. One of the greatest books I have ever read. This wins the award if only because of my preference for nonfiction and for my obsession with politics. Abraham Lincoln was the greatest solver of problems I have ever read about. His deeds, demeanor, methods and overall genuine kindness are shown to the reader. There is less description than illustration. By the end, you will almost find yourself in tears at his assassination. You will also literally watch him save our nation.
THE REST
-- Seabiscuit, by Laura Hillenbrand. This book was assigned by Book, and it was good. He told me I would be rooting for a horse, and, although it didn't go that far for me, it was a well-told story. I enjoyed this book much more than I expected to. The people in the story were fascinating and complemented each other well. That's probably why they were so successful.
-- The Breaks of the Game, by David Halberstam. Simmons calls this the greatest basketball book ever written. It was a fascinating account. I love the idea of a book about a team that did not win a title. Those stories interest me more and there are not many written. I would love to read more books about teams that would be forgettable without a book having been written. It makes the story feel like a snapshot of what "teams" are like. It also included a lot of background information about how the league became what it is today.
-- American Lion, by Jon Meacham. This book won a Pulitzer. I learned a lot about Andrew Jackson and his presidency. I was most surprised about just how much drama soaked his White House. I was not as impressed as I expected to be, but it was a good work based on previously un-published personal writings. At times, the drama gets very soap-opera-ish.
-- Southern Storm, by Noah Andre Trudeau. "The Devil Born to Earth," as a friend once called Gen. Sherman, basically destroyed Georgia. This is a detailed account of his March to the Sea. It was interesting and read surprisingly quickly.
HOME STRETCH
I am finishing my final book and will be reading an extra one or two before the end of the year.
-- Eating the Dinosaur, by Chuck Klosterman. I am almost done with this one, and it is better than "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs." So far his very best work, and I would include it in the Joy section.
-- The Football Fan's Manifesto, by Michael Tunison. This will go into the forgettable section. I have been "close" to finishing this for quite a while. Just predictable and recycled football humor. I am only finishing it because I started it.
TOP 5
5. Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell.
4. The Book of Basketball, by Bill Simmons.
3. Brothers Karamozov, by Fyodore Dostoevsky.
2. Crime and Punishment, by Fyodore Dostoevsky.
1. Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
It's been another great year of reading. I am already getting the Kindle tuned up for 2010. As always, suggestions are welcome (and will most likely be followed if its available on Kindle).
I figured this would be a good time to give a rundown of the books I read this year and my thoughts on them. I will try to pick a top five and make notations on most memorable.
** Denotes a top 5 for the year.
THE STAT PADDERS
These books were easy reads, light reads, or whatever you want to use as a euphemism for "short." Hey, I have a job and a family, so I can't read ALL long books.
-- Ernie Davis: The Elmira Express, by Robert Gallagher. The true story of Ernie Davis and a really fun read. It was short if only because Davis' life was short. The most interesting information was from Davis' short pro career and his fight against cancer. There were also great stories about what it was like for the first African American Heisman winner to play games in the deep South. I never cease to be amazed at how relatively recently segregation gripped this nation.
-- Born Standing Up, by Steve Martin. This book included a lot of the behind-the-scenes stories of Martin's rise to fame. I had no idea how long or how diligently he worked to master the craft of comedy. The man worked hard to become funny. He also did drugs. Shocking, I know.
-- Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs, by Chuck Klosterman. An essay book that was great fun to read. Although the essays are not all winners, the vast majority are, and he even managed to reel me into topics I would otherwise never explore. He is a very clever and intelligent writer, and very funny at times. Plus, he picked the right Star Wars movie as the best ever.
-- Me of Little Faith, by Lewis Black. Comedy book. Pretty disappointing on the whole. I should have read a different one by him. Mixing religion and comedy rarely works, and never works for a whole book.
-- Winston Churchill, by John Keegan. I must confess, I really wanted to read a thorough, long and detailed biography of Sir Winston Churchill, but none were available on Kindle, and I've become a Kindle snob, so I will hold out for a Kindle-worthy title. In the meantime, this very short book from the Penguin "biography" series provided me with a working knowledge of a true hero of WWII. Interesting, but more of a long (200 page) book report than a detailed account. Interesting, and informative. It did the job.
JUST A JOY TO READ
These books all contributed to my greater good mood. Each of these were fun to read and hard to put down.
-- Have a Nice Day, a tale of blood and sweat socks, by Mick Foley. Some of the most interesting stories I have ever read. This book kicked off a mini-fascination with pro wrestling for me. It's like watching a train wreck. I got my fill and moved on, but this book was memorable.
-- The Watchmen, by Alan Moore. Loved the movie. Loved the graphic novel. Really smart story and it even satisfied my need for politics.
** -- The Book of Basketball, by Bill Simmons. I love the NBA. I love somewhat off-color humor. I loved this book. One of the top five of the year. I may even read this one again because it has already sparked a number of NBA discussions among the guys. Never hurts that we now have stories to tell from the book signing.
-- Bowls, polls and tattered souls, by Stewart Mandel. I enjoy Mandel's writing. The book was interesting and pretty entertaining. This filled the void since neither Charlottesville, VA, nor Boulder, CO fielded anything close to college football teams in 2009. Seriously, this book WAS my college football season. Well, that and watching my boss get dragged through the mud by Notre Dame.
-- Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown. Much better than Angels and Demons (which I read last year). I loved the ending and enjoyed the story. Considering I'm usually not a fan of fiction, the fact I liked this book says something.
-- Boys Will Be Boys, by Jeff Pearlman. I've never liked the Dallas Cowboys, but their 90s teams were full of some colorful characters (and that puts it lightly). Just a lot of funny stories, debauchery, and more genital waving that I expected (Seriously, Charles Haley was a Loony Toon... who liked to show everyone his junk).
ULTIMATELY FORGETTABLE
I read less forgettable books this year than last, which is a good thing. Still, they can't all be winners.
-- How to Rig an Election, by Allan Raymond. Very disappointing. There was not much depth to this "inside" story of political espionage. More like one guy who went too far one time and got smacked for it.
-- As They See 'Em, by Bruce Webber. Impulse Kindle purchase. Somewhat interesting look at how umpires are trained. There were some interesting stories from former umps, but the umpire school parts were just ok.
-- The Lost Symbol, by Dan Brown. I have referred to this as "Angels and Da Vinci Lose a Symbol." This was at times compelling, but ultimately disappointing. Dan Brown found a formula and he refuses to deviate from it. Too predictable, too much of the same thing. Not much to the end. Ultimately, it was just one step too far into the conspiracy world. Reached a Tipping Point I think.
LIFE LESSONS
-- Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. See below.
**-- Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell. See below.
-- The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell. These three titles by Gladwell were all spectacular handbooks to life. Outliers supported my belief that you can't just pull yourself up by your bootstraps because we don't control much of what allows success. The Tipping Point can be used to illustrate how most things in life really turn the corner. Blink taught me much about perceptions and how our inherent biases work without our knowledge or control. All three were just spectacular. Outliers gets into the top five because its lessons are the most applicable to everyday life.
**-- Brothers Karamozov, by Fyodore Dostoevsky. This is considered by many to be the greatest novel ever written. It was less a novel than a psychological study of various types of people. This book was very helpful in my slow and deliberate development of characters in my own story. The depth of this book cannot be adequately described. This is truly one of the greatest works ever written.
**-- Crime and Punishment, by Fyodore Dostoevsky. Another masterpiece by Dostoevsky. I LOVED the ending and its simplicity. The main character was completely fascinating and this book explored every inch of him. It also made his crime seem almost understandable considering his circumstances. The mind games he endured while trying to avoid capture were absorbing. Only Dostoevsky could create a character so completely. You will love him, hate him, sympathize with him and condemn him. And, in the end, you will understand him.
**-- Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. One of the greatest books I have ever read. This wins the award if only because of my preference for nonfiction and for my obsession with politics. Abraham Lincoln was the greatest solver of problems I have ever read about. His deeds, demeanor, methods and overall genuine kindness are shown to the reader. There is less description than illustration. By the end, you will almost find yourself in tears at his assassination. You will also literally watch him save our nation.
THE REST
-- Seabiscuit, by Laura Hillenbrand. This book was assigned by Book, and it was good. He told me I would be rooting for a horse, and, although it didn't go that far for me, it was a well-told story. I enjoyed this book much more than I expected to. The people in the story were fascinating and complemented each other well. That's probably why they were so successful.
-- The Breaks of the Game, by David Halberstam. Simmons calls this the greatest basketball book ever written. It was a fascinating account. I love the idea of a book about a team that did not win a title. Those stories interest me more and there are not many written. I would love to read more books about teams that would be forgettable without a book having been written. It makes the story feel like a snapshot of what "teams" are like. It also included a lot of background information about how the league became what it is today.
-- American Lion, by Jon Meacham. This book won a Pulitzer. I learned a lot about Andrew Jackson and his presidency. I was most surprised about just how much drama soaked his White House. I was not as impressed as I expected to be, but it was a good work based on previously un-published personal writings. At times, the drama gets very soap-opera-ish.
-- Southern Storm, by Noah Andre Trudeau. "The Devil Born to Earth," as a friend once called Gen. Sherman, basically destroyed Georgia. This is a detailed account of his March to the Sea. It was interesting and read surprisingly quickly.
HOME STRETCH
I am finishing my final book and will be reading an extra one or two before the end of the year.
-- Eating the Dinosaur, by Chuck Klosterman. I am almost done with this one, and it is better than "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs." So far his very best work, and I would include it in the Joy section.
-- The Football Fan's Manifesto, by Michael Tunison. This will go into the forgettable section. I have been "close" to finishing this for quite a while. Just predictable and recycled football humor. I am only finishing it because I started it.
TOP 5
5. Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell.
4. The Book of Basketball, by Bill Simmons.
3. Brothers Karamozov, by Fyodore Dostoevsky.
2. Crime and Punishment, by Fyodore Dostoevsky.
1. Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
It's been another great year of reading. I am already getting the Kindle tuned up for 2010. As always, suggestions are welcome (and will most likely be followed if its available on Kindle).
Monday, November 23, 2009
One Full Weekend
My weekend was awesome.
It started with a book signing in Denver, included my attendance at a dominating performance by the Nuggets at Pepsi Center, and ended with a unique opportunity for me to speak about health care reform with my representative for the U.S. House.
FRIDAY: The Sports Guy Meets Chuck
On Friday, Book, Tom and I all went down to Denver for a book signing by our favorite sports columnist, Bill Simmons. His new book, The Book of Basketball, is informative and hilarious. I have already read the book and it is a great read if you are an NBA fan.
His only egregious error was not including Carmelo Anthony in his list of greatest players. Still, the book was awesome and we were excited to meet Mr. Simmons.
Book and I brought our copies of the book, but Tom brought the best item of all. Simmons ranks Alex English the 65th best basketball player of all time. Simmons references the 1980s movie Amazing Grace and Chuck, featuring Nugget great Alex English, and calls it "hauntingly bad."
Well, Tom brought a VHS video of Amazing Grace and Chuck for Simmons to sign and we were all excited about this (we're dorks, I know). Dave then coined the phrase "everything is 70% more awesome when Tom is involved." And it stuck.
We arrived two hours early - OK, this is my fault because I am extremely anal about being early to things. We browsed for awhile and then got in line. We were among the first 20 in line, but had to get through the "bouncer" who we all agreed to be a jerk.
This very large, effeminate man with an Elvis hairdo was not happy we brought books purchased from elsewhere before coming to the signing. He proceeded to tell us how much work it was to put the event together and how "next time you should really consider buying a book here for these events." We live an hour away, the book came out last month and Simmons' website said outside purchases were fine. Big dumb Elvis didn't get the memo.
We discussed the Nuggets, made fun of androgynous Elvis and waited for the event to start. Simmons started by doing a short monologue about Denver sports, set some ground rules and started signing.
He signed "Bring back the Rainbow Jerseys" in my book as I requested. Book asked him to sign "I hate the Lakers too," in a tip-of-the-hat to our Laker-loving buddy Mike. Instead Simmons wrote "Don't worry, we all hate the Lakers." Then Tom asked him to sign his copy of Amazing Grace and Chuck as "Best NBA movie ever." Simmons obliged and then asked Tom "You don't really think that, do you? You know, I killed this movie in my book." Tom replied, "yeah, I know, that's why I asked you to sign it."
Like we all agreed, 70% more awesome. Thanks Tom.
SATURDAY: Melo Goes Hunting
Book and I went to see the Denver Nuggets play the Chicago Bulls at Pepsi Center on Saturday night. The highlight was watching Carmelo Anthony destroy Luol Deng.
I remember watching John Elway play as a Denver Bronco and feeling privileged to enjoy his unique talents. I've been going to a handful of Nugget games a year since Melo came aboard in 2004. Watching his progression has been amazing.
Against Chicago on Saturday, Melo showed a Michael Jordan-like fire. Luol Deng of Chicago dunked on Melo off a rebound. It wasn't exactly a facial, but Melo took it as such.
Melo then proceeded to destroy Luol Deng.
Melo searched him out. Melo about blew a gasket trying to deny Deng the ball on defense (and nearly took Joachim Noah's arm off in response to a pick attempt). He called for isolation on offense. Deng looked terrified and seemed to implore his teammates to help. I remember Deng parked in the corner waiting for a kick-out three and Melo playing off of him, but barking incessantly in Deng's direction.
It got to the point where switching didn't work because Melo would find him. So, with the game slipping away from Chicago, but still winnable, Deng was pulled. Really, it was the right call. Melo was absolutely ravaging him and the Bulls were better off taking Melo's target from him.
The result? Melo went for 30-11-7. Almost a triple-double. More important, he put his stamp on the NBA as one of its alpha dogs.
Melo has a beautiful jumper, can drive with the best of them, rebounds, and even plays inspired D when motivated. Best of all, he can now impose his will. Deng tore the Nuggets apart early, but was a battered, beaten heap by the end of the game. Melo had destroyed his confidence.
The Nuggets won in a romp and the house was rocking.
SUNDAY: Representin'
A week or two ago, I griped to the right ears about the health care reform vote registered by my congressional representative for CD4, Betsy Markey. She voted no, which upset me in a new way because I actually knocked on doors to get her elected. Somehow, that made her vote personal even though the bill passed (by a mere 5 votes). I voted for change, not another cradle-death for health care reform.
So, by an accident of fortuitous griping, I was afforded the opportunity to go to an event last week where she attempted to explain her vote. There were too many people there with too many soapboxes to get my specific questions answered, so I lamented the missed opportunity. I was not satisfied by the answer even though the reasons given were fair. I think I am just tired of kicking the can down the street.
I know that legislation is never perfect out of the box, but I believe that it must get out of the box if any real change is to happen. Legislation can also be fixed along the way.
My inside source, who was kind enough to inform me of the meeting, seemed to care that I get a better explanation. So, he had Ms. Markey call my office personally and invite me to another event scheduled for this Sunday.
I was caught off guard by the call, but I accepted the invite. I lamented missing another opportunity to get my questions answered, but was determined to have my say on Sunday.
Ms. Markey spoke to the crowd and then mingled. I nosed my way to the front and engaged her for a few minutes on the topic. She was very gracious, engaging and attentive. I was sure to let her know that I still supported her so that she would not be alarmed and then asked two very brief and fair questions. She was straight-forward in her response and answered my questions thoughtfully.
We won't always agree with how our representatives vote, but I believe Ms. Markey gives careful deliberation and she convinced me she is looking for real solutions.
I believe we will have the framework in place for long-term healthcare reform. I appreciate that my representative has been so diligent about hearing from her constituents.
It was one heck of a weekend.
It started with a book signing in Denver, included my attendance at a dominating performance by the Nuggets at Pepsi Center, and ended with a unique opportunity for me to speak about health care reform with my representative for the U.S. House.
FRIDAY: The Sports Guy Meets Chuck
On Friday, Book, Tom and I all went down to Denver for a book signing by our favorite sports columnist, Bill Simmons. His new book, The Book of Basketball, is informative and hilarious. I have already read the book and it is a great read if you are an NBA fan.
His only egregious error was not including Carmelo Anthony in his list of greatest players. Still, the book was awesome and we were excited to meet Mr. Simmons.
Book and I brought our copies of the book, but Tom brought the best item of all. Simmons ranks Alex English the 65th best basketball player of all time. Simmons references the 1980s movie Amazing Grace and Chuck, featuring Nugget great Alex English, and calls it "hauntingly bad."
Well, Tom brought a VHS video of Amazing Grace and Chuck for Simmons to sign and we were all excited about this (we're dorks, I know). Dave then coined the phrase "everything is 70% more awesome when Tom is involved." And it stuck.
We arrived two hours early - OK, this is my fault because I am extremely anal about being early to things. We browsed for awhile and then got in line. We were among the first 20 in line, but had to get through the "bouncer" who we all agreed to be a jerk.
This very large, effeminate man with an Elvis hairdo was not happy we brought books purchased from elsewhere before coming to the signing. He proceeded to tell us how much work it was to put the event together and how "next time you should really consider buying a book here for these events." We live an hour away, the book came out last month and Simmons' website said outside purchases were fine. Big dumb Elvis didn't get the memo.
We discussed the Nuggets, made fun of androgynous Elvis and waited for the event to start. Simmons started by doing a short monologue about Denver sports, set some ground rules and started signing.
He signed "Bring back the Rainbow Jerseys" in my book as I requested. Book asked him to sign "I hate the Lakers too," in a tip-of-the-hat to our Laker-loving buddy Mike. Instead Simmons wrote "Don't worry, we all hate the Lakers." Then Tom asked him to sign his copy of Amazing Grace and Chuck as "Best NBA movie ever." Simmons obliged and then asked Tom "You don't really think that, do you? You know, I killed this movie in my book." Tom replied, "yeah, I know, that's why I asked you to sign it."
Like we all agreed, 70% more awesome. Thanks Tom.
SATURDAY: Melo Goes Hunting
Book and I went to see the Denver Nuggets play the Chicago Bulls at Pepsi Center on Saturday night. The highlight was watching Carmelo Anthony destroy Luol Deng.
I remember watching John Elway play as a Denver Bronco and feeling privileged to enjoy his unique talents. I've been going to a handful of Nugget games a year since Melo came aboard in 2004. Watching his progression has been amazing.
Against Chicago on Saturday, Melo showed a Michael Jordan-like fire. Luol Deng of Chicago dunked on Melo off a rebound. It wasn't exactly a facial, but Melo took it as such.
Melo then proceeded to destroy Luol Deng.
Melo searched him out. Melo about blew a gasket trying to deny Deng the ball on defense (and nearly took Joachim Noah's arm off in response to a pick attempt). He called for isolation on offense. Deng looked terrified and seemed to implore his teammates to help. I remember Deng parked in the corner waiting for a kick-out three and Melo playing off of him, but barking incessantly in Deng's direction.
It got to the point where switching didn't work because Melo would find him. So, with the game slipping away from Chicago, but still winnable, Deng was pulled. Really, it was the right call. Melo was absolutely ravaging him and the Bulls were better off taking Melo's target from him.
The result? Melo went for 30-11-7. Almost a triple-double. More important, he put his stamp on the NBA as one of its alpha dogs.
Melo has a beautiful jumper, can drive with the best of them, rebounds, and even plays inspired D when motivated. Best of all, he can now impose his will. Deng tore the Nuggets apart early, but was a battered, beaten heap by the end of the game. Melo had destroyed his confidence.
The Nuggets won in a romp and the house was rocking.
SUNDAY: Representin'
A week or two ago, I griped to the right ears about the health care reform vote registered by my congressional representative for CD4, Betsy Markey. She voted no, which upset me in a new way because I actually knocked on doors to get her elected. Somehow, that made her vote personal even though the bill passed (by a mere 5 votes). I voted for change, not another cradle-death for health care reform.
So, by an accident of fortuitous griping, I was afforded the opportunity to go to an event last week where she attempted to explain her vote. There were too many people there with too many soapboxes to get my specific questions answered, so I lamented the missed opportunity. I was not satisfied by the answer even though the reasons given were fair. I think I am just tired of kicking the can down the street.
I know that legislation is never perfect out of the box, but I believe that it must get out of the box if any real change is to happen. Legislation can also be fixed along the way.
My inside source, who was kind enough to inform me of the meeting, seemed to care that I get a better explanation. So, he had Ms. Markey call my office personally and invite me to another event scheduled for this Sunday.
I was caught off guard by the call, but I accepted the invite. I lamented missing another opportunity to get my questions answered, but was determined to have my say on Sunday.
Ms. Markey spoke to the crowd and then mingled. I nosed my way to the front and engaged her for a few minutes on the topic. She was very gracious, engaging and attentive. I was sure to let her know that I still supported her so that she would not be alarmed and then asked two very brief and fair questions. She was straight-forward in her response and answered my questions thoughtfully.
We won't always agree with how our representatives vote, but I believe Ms. Markey gives careful deliberation and she convinced me she is looking for real solutions.
I believe we will have the framework in place for long-term healthcare reform. I appreciate that my representative has been so diligent about hearing from her constituents.
It was one heck of a weekend.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Update
... Basketball season is here. The Nuggets are looking good early and I'm gearing up for the NBA season. I just finished reading The Book of Basketball by Bill Simmons to get me all pumped for the season. I enjoyed the book thoroughly. Book and I are going to go to Denver on November 20 to have our books signed by Simmons. It should be fun. The book was very funny and interesting to boot.
... I had the unique opportunity to hear from my representative from congress about her health care vote. The experience just illustrated to me unmistakably that pulling Democrats together is like herding cats. The gathering was fairly small, but I know many people who were disillusioned by the no vote she cast in the recent House vote for health care reform. I could go deep into this topic, but I'll save it for another time. Apparently Democrats require 90% of seats in any legislative body to comfortably pass anything. To say I am frustrated would be an understatement.
... Jacob went trick-or-treating as Handy Manny. We did not like the "insta-costume" available from Disney. It was really bad. So, we just constructed our own concoction to make him into Handy Manny. Construction hat, tool belt, jeans, tools, brown shoes, green shirt, yellow gloves and he was Handy Manny. See pictures below:
... I had the unique opportunity to hear from my representative from congress about her health care vote. The experience just illustrated to me unmistakably that pulling Democrats together is like herding cats. The gathering was fairly small, but I know many people who were disillusioned by the no vote she cast in the recent House vote for health care reform. I could go deep into this topic, but I'll save it for another time. Apparently Democrats require 90% of seats in any legislative body to comfortably pass anything. To say I am frustrated would be an understatement.
... Jacob went trick-or-treating as Handy Manny. We did not like the "insta-costume" available from Disney. It was really bad. So, we just constructed our own concoction to make him into Handy Manny. Construction hat, tool belt, jeans, tools, brown shoes, green shirt, yellow gloves and he was Handy Manny. See pictures below:
Thursday, October 22, 2009
My Take on the Government Question
Break every political argument down in our nation's history and it boils down to one question: What is the proper role of government?
Rarely does one need six degrees of separation to reach this central issue.
Our citizens have argued incessantly about government's role from the beginning via the Federalist Papers, fought a Civil War over the question, and continue to spew ugly rhetoric (again with the socialism label?) over just this one basic issue.
(You care about gay marriage? Well, let me interest you in a vigorous "Defense of Marriage Act" vs. "Full Faith and Credit Clause" debate, which, you guessed it, brings us right back to GO.)
I offer one person's reasoned take on this, our nation's perpetual pebble in the shoe. My short answer is that the people as a whole (although they are loath to admit it) have about the size of government with which they are comfortable. After all, it came from representatives government.
My goals: First, to explain how I see the differences between government and private enterprise. Although they are different, neither is inherently evil, but they both have a vital role to play. Second, to give my take on "the proper role of government."
THE PLAYERS
Both sides boast Nobel winners and celebrated thinkers who advocate each side. Free Marketers point to Milton Friedman as the final voice. New Dealers sing the praises of John Maynard Keynes. Laisse faire vs. New Deal. Roosevelt vs. Reagan. O'Reilly vs. Olbermann. Private business vs. Government regulation. There are plenty of statistics to fuel each side, thus insuring that neither can ever "win" the debate in a measurable sense.
An over-simplification of the two sides can be heard when listening to campaign talk or talk-radio -- that there are those who think government solves all and those who think it solves nothing. I am not sure where the majority stands, but I meet very few who feel government is the exact size it should be. That could be from a love to complain.
Although both sides hold to fallacies that I aim to debunk, only one side (the anti-government types) have chosen to take a no-compromise stance. I consider the strategy to be a feeble attempt to take us back to a time in which we no longer live. It also solves nothing.
THE DIFFERENCE AS I SEE IT
Each part brings its own obstacles, efficiencies and strengths. The difference is in the moral imperative.
Many of the most vocal of a very agitated minority believe in the inherent incompetence of meddling government. National defense excluded, this school of thought essentially demands that government not interfere in anything (or at least a bare minimum). Although I feel safe saying none of them would advocate six-year-old workers in coal mines, their tolerance for government does not raise much further.
There is a feeling that government grew too large over the years and that only blatant attempts to destroy it as an institution will mitigate its further expansion. This assumes also that none of that expansion was necessary to accommodate the many changes inherent in technological advancements, population increase and any other change over the past two centuries.
(I would go into the Commerce Clause, its overuse and the resulting backlash against it, but I want a few people to finish reading this post).
The fallacy is that private enterprise is always preferable. Absolutist arguments really amount to casuistry, so I won't dwell on it.
My take is that the market is amoral. It is not immoral. It is also not moral. It is profit-driven, and, as a result, has allowed our economy to soar. The market is also absolutely not the hand of God - especially considering that the invisible hand likes to dunk us in the mud if left unchecked (see 1929-1938). The fact it can be mitigated at all undermines arguments of divine tampering.
But, although the drive for profit leads to some efficiency advantages and wonderful economic prosperity, the market is less capable of taking morality-driven initiatives and is prone to booms and busts.
This is why the health care debate has been labeled as a moral imperative by supporters of reform. Incentive for profit has absolutely led to higher rates of denials and searches for pre-existing conditions by insurance carriers.
As usual, when there is a hole unfilled by private business that leads to moral outrage, the government attempts to fill the gap without profit. The government acts for the betterment of customers deemed "unprofitable." We do not do this to make a profit, but because it is moral. It must be done with fiscal responsibilty, but it must be done. And, sometimes, that means a tax increase.
Allow me to reiterate that I do not believe private industry has no role to play or that it is anything less than crucial to our system. But it would be foolish to expect the market to account for morality. Government agencies foot the bill to save victims of hurricanes because no money can be made to offer that service privately. (Excuse me sir, but we just saved your family and helicopters aren't cheap... so where do I send the bill?). Still, tea-bag loving folks burn FEMA in effigy. (I am unsure how many of them live in hurricane hot-spots).
The fact that many will point to FEMA's failures as a hole in the argument simply drives home the point that agency heads must believe their departments are important and believe in the role that agency plays. Katrina was, in my view, an example of what happens when people who do not believe in the legitimacy of government or believe it to be inherently meddlesome RUN a government or agency. (Brownie, you did a hell of a job).
SIZE DOES MATTER
Perceived government inefficiency, and that of large private industry, can be attributed to size. Government is further hampered by legislative restrictions simply because moral imperatives come with strings and compromises. I get that. And, in some areas, government is less efficient. That is absolutely true.
Inefficiency is also a product of size. Ideological free marketers too often omit that very large private industries (insurance companies, for example) are every bit as inefficient as a government agency. Anyone who has had to contest a denied claim can attest to that. The idea that "government paperwork" will gum up the works is laughable in light of all the various forms currently needed. At lease government forms will be uniform.
The reason for inefficiency in government and large companies? People run both. The only way to run a big operation is by layering, bureaucracy, committees, etc. That will happen to any very large entity regardless of its status as private or public.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The debate is not helped by anyone who feels the government can never be a part of a solution. The debate is not helped by anyone who feels only complete government takeover will solve either. However, there is ample support for a public "option," which is a compromise. Democrats have pushed a rational solution to preserve private enterprise in health insurance while plugging the holes it has created. The opposition only offers an argument that nothing tainted with government stink can ever work.
So, what is the proper role of government? It's whatever needs to be done to make a profitable system honest and compassionate within the tolerance of the population. In the case of health care, government intervention is long overdue. And the argument that "government is not good at anything" is short on substance.
I know I will never convince the "ideologically certain" who may read this. However, it makes sense to me. I am inherently suspicious of "absolutist" arguments and that is what the tea-baggers bring.
In the meantime, real solutions with all options on the table are being considered. And that makes me happy.
Rarely does one need six degrees of separation to reach this central issue.
Our citizens have argued incessantly about government's role from the beginning via the Federalist Papers, fought a Civil War over the question, and continue to spew ugly rhetoric (again with the socialism label?) over just this one basic issue.
(You care about gay marriage? Well, let me interest you in a vigorous "Defense of Marriage Act" vs. "Full Faith and Credit Clause" debate, which, you guessed it, brings us right back to GO.)
I offer one person's reasoned take on this, our nation's perpetual pebble in the shoe. My short answer is that the people as a whole (although they are loath to admit it) have about the size of government with which they are comfortable. After all, it came from representatives government.
My goals: First, to explain how I see the differences between government and private enterprise. Although they are different, neither is inherently evil, but they both have a vital role to play. Second, to give my take on "the proper role of government."
THE PLAYERS
Both sides boast Nobel winners and celebrated thinkers who advocate each side. Free Marketers point to Milton Friedman as the final voice. New Dealers sing the praises of John Maynard Keynes. Laisse faire vs. New Deal. Roosevelt vs. Reagan. O'Reilly vs. Olbermann. Private business vs. Government regulation. There are plenty of statistics to fuel each side, thus insuring that neither can ever "win" the debate in a measurable sense.
An over-simplification of the two sides can be heard when listening to campaign talk or talk-radio -- that there are those who think government solves all and those who think it solves nothing. I am not sure where the majority stands, but I meet very few who feel government is the exact size it should be. That could be from a love to complain.
Although both sides hold to fallacies that I aim to debunk, only one side (the anti-government types) have chosen to take a no-compromise stance. I consider the strategy to be a feeble attempt to take us back to a time in which we no longer live. It also solves nothing.
THE DIFFERENCE AS I SEE IT
Each part brings its own obstacles, efficiencies and strengths. The difference is in the moral imperative.
Many of the most vocal of a very agitated minority believe in the inherent incompetence of meddling government. National defense excluded, this school of thought essentially demands that government not interfere in anything (or at least a bare minimum). Although I feel safe saying none of them would advocate six-year-old workers in coal mines, their tolerance for government does not raise much further.
There is a feeling that government grew too large over the years and that only blatant attempts to destroy it as an institution will mitigate its further expansion. This assumes also that none of that expansion was necessary to accommodate the many changes inherent in technological advancements, population increase and any other change over the past two centuries.
(I would go into the Commerce Clause, its overuse and the resulting backlash against it, but I want a few people to finish reading this post).
The fallacy is that private enterprise is always preferable. Absolutist arguments really amount to casuistry, so I won't dwell on it.
My take is that the market is amoral. It is not immoral. It is also not moral. It is profit-driven, and, as a result, has allowed our economy to soar. The market is also absolutely not the hand of God - especially considering that the invisible hand likes to dunk us in the mud if left unchecked (see 1929-1938). The fact it can be mitigated at all undermines arguments of divine tampering.
But, although the drive for profit leads to some efficiency advantages and wonderful economic prosperity, the market is less capable of taking morality-driven initiatives and is prone to booms and busts.
This is why the health care debate has been labeled as a moral imperative by supporters of reform. Incentive for profit has absolutely led to higher rates of denials and searches for pre-existing conditions by insurance carriers.
As usual, when there is a hole unfilled by private business that leads to moral outrage, the government attempts to fill the gap without profit. The government acts for the betterment of customers deemed "unprofitable." We do not do this to make a profit, but because it is moral. It must be done with fiscal responsibilty, but it must be done. And, sometimes, that means a tax increase.
Allow me to reiterate that I do not believe private industry has no role to play or that it is anything less than crucial to our system. But it would be foolish to expect the market to account for morality. Government agencies foot the bill to save victims of hurricanes because no money can be made to offer that service privately. (Excuse me sir, but we just saved your family and helicopters aren't cheap... so where do I send the bill?). Still, tea-bag loving folks burn FEMA in effigy. (I am unsure how many of them live in hurricane hot-spots).
The fact that many will point to FEMA's failures as a hole in the argument simply drives home the point that agency heads must believe their departments are important and believe in the role that agency plays. Katrina was, in my view, an example of what happens when people who do not believe in the legitimacy of government or believe it to be inherently meddlesome RUN a government or agency. (Brownie, you did a hell of a job).
SIZE DOES MATTER
Perceived government inefficiency, and that of large private industry, can be attributed to size. Government is further hampered by legislative restrictions simply because moral imperatives come with strings and compromises. I get that. And, in some areas, government is less efficient. That is absolutely true.
Inefficiency is also a product of size. Ideological free marketers too often omit that very large private industries (insurance companies, for example) are every bit as inefficient as a government agency. Anyone who has had to contest a denied claim can attest to that. The idea that "government paperwork" will gum up the works is laughable in light of all the various forms currently needed. At lease government forms will be uniform.
The reason for inefficiency in government and large companies? People run both. The only way to run a big operation is by layering, bureaucracy, committees, etc. That will happen to any very large entity regardless of its status as private or public.
FINAL THOUGHTS
The debate is not helped by anyone who feels the government can never be a part of a solution. The debate is not helped by anyone who feels only complete government takeover will solve either. However, there is ample support for a public "option," which is a compromise. Democrats have pushed a rational solution to preserve private enterprise in health insurance while plugging the holes it has created. The opposition only offers an argument that nothing tainted with government stink can ever work.
So, what is the proper role of government? It's whatever needs to be done to make a profitable system honest and compassionate within the tolerance of the population. In the case of health care, government intervention is long overdue. And the argument that "government is not good at anything" is short on substance.
I know I will never convince the "ideologically certain" who may read this. However, it makes sense to me. I am inherently suspicious of "absolutist" arguments and that is what the tea-baggers bring.
In the meantime, real solutions with all options on the table are being considered. And that makes me happy.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Cognitive Biases
INTRO
A few posts ago I referenced cognitive biases. I have been very interested in this area of study lately, and I can't get enough of it. Specifically, I am interested in how cognitive biases influence how we all see the world.
One of the most important life lesson I ever had was from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. That book showed me that we have control of our enlightenment and the elasticity of our growth depends upon our willingness to confront our biases and be willing to change.
I understand paradigms to be the maps with which we view the world. That map changes all the time as our experiences within the world change. Our biases function as limitations to that map of the world. A bias against a particular idea creates resistance against any lesson or experience that may lead to a new or adjusted "life map" that would tolerate that idea. Thus, the map retains that limitation and remains narrow.
Every single person has biases of various forms. My goal for diving into this subject is twofold: 1) I want to learn about bias in an effort to overcome as many biases as possible to create as open and diverse a "life paradigm" as I can; and 2) I want to use natural biases within characters to create a story (eventually book?) that makes the reader truly and deeply understand the paradigm of each character.
BASIC IDEA
Cognitive biases are deviations of judgment that lead to rationalization, and may or may not be illogical. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling of holding two contradictory ideas, and it leads to rationalization. In short, we are confronted with an inconsistency, which makes us uncomfortable, and we rationalize to create harmony. Our biases can sometimes blind us to the irrationality of a justification. At least that's my understanding.
The pattern I notice in my daily life has left me with the impression that cognitive biases drive much of our interactions with each other. The story I hear usually proceeds as follows: Person X is evil, manipulative, a liar, and is attempting to get away with unspeakable wrongs.
My experience is that, although no intentional lies are being told, those harsh judgments are almost never correct. Why? One bias or another creates a block to perception (the life map isn't moving as to that topic). The classic case is in the area of inheritance. Siblings are quick to accuse each other of robbing parents blind or not caring for that parent's well-being. Almost always, the answer is that both parties misjudged the intentions of the other. Why? Cognitive biases seem to explain most scenarios.
Most cognitive biases are more subtle and simply guide our perception of everyday interactions. And, not all biases are things to necessarily eliminate.
SPECIFIC BIASES
The specific cognitive biases that jumped out at me most are the following:
Anchoring: Disproportionate weight given to the first piece of information received. ("Bob missed one opportunity to help mom, and no amount of generosity or kindness can make up for it.")
Outcome Bias: The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of by the soundness of the decision at the time it was made.
Semmelweis Reflex: The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm. (Politics, anyone?)
Irrational escalation: The tendency to make irrational decision based upon rational decisions of the past (even if inapplicable) or to justify actions already taken.
Confirmation bias: Tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms preconceptions. (Again... politics).
Bandwagon Effect: The tendency to allow group consensus to influence personal decisions.
I am sure every single one of these sounds familiar to anyone reading this. That's because we all have biases.
FRANKLIN
The difference (and this I take from Franklin) is how we deal with biases. Some cement those biases into place and never move them, question them or second-guess. For anyone willing to take hold of those biases, however, those biases can be mitigated. (Mitigated, not eliminated).
Franklin distinguished between biases and pillars of morality, and I want to be clear that attempts to mitigate biases does not mean anyone should alter morals necessarily. Morality questions should always be examined, but pillars such as honesty and integrity are parts of our life map that remain unmoved during "paradigm updates."
Often, biases are most visible from outside when a person is faced with defending a possible mistake. All of that person's cognitive function will focus on justification for the sake of defense. It's natural and inevitable. We will leave out the bad and emphasize the good. It happens. It just does.
In my story, I plan to create a character who who used a specific logic to success many times in the past. That same decision-process will then be utilized to failure at a crucial moment. The subsequent rationalization will ignore the inapplicability of the logic that led to past success.
NOBEL-WORTHY EXAMPLE
Perhaps the most blatant surrender to bias comes in politics. Take, for example, the recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama. Tell me if any of these arguments sound familiar:
1) This award is bogus because he hasn't done anything to deserve it! Euros are liberal and they prop up other liberals like Al Gore.
2) This is just sour-grapes by the far-right and a baseless slap at the President. It was well deserved and to argue otherwise is just politics.
3) He just got it for not being George W. Bush. (not as partisan, but seems to me to be equally biased... possibly toward scepticism. This option is also just funny.)
Number one shows an inability to give credit and seems to freely and loosely embrace a convenient world-wide conspiracy when much more rational and believable arguments can be made. It also shows no willingness to ever be happy for any success of the Obama administration. Number two dismisses the legitimate questions NOT raised by number one. Number two conveniently leaves out the genuine confusion many people felt at the outcome... especially since Mr. Obama is currently making a decision regarding troop levels. Number three, as explained earlier, makes me laugh because I have a deep-seeded bias against W and take pleasure in occasionally indulging in it. I have a bias, sue me.
In all seriousness, politics provide such stark examples because it is an exercise in outrage and exaggeration. My bias would be to defend President Obama, but when I force myself to even it out (as best I can), I came up with this mitigated version of my bias:
This award did seem out of the blue. I think it is a very good thing that the world considers our leader to be a force for peace, whether earned or not. I think this could prove to be a booster to the "cult of Obama" argument. I do think President Obama has changed our tone to the world in favor of cooperation. I also do not think he has accomplished anything specific that led to an actual cessation of violence or a measurable increase in peace.
I was tempted to say that both sides failed to consider that the other side's beliefs are genuinely felt. However, upon consideration of biases, they may just be stubbornly held.
IN THE END
As I stated in my 2007 post, "Examined Life," efforts to improve matter. But, I now think equal effort should be made to understand each other. That's what I've been trying to do lately. That, and to write a good story.
A few posts ago I referenced cognitive biases. I have been very interested in this area of study lately, and I can't get enough of it. Specifically, I am interested in how cognitive biases influence how we all see the world.
One of the most important life lesson I ever had was from Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. That book showed me that we have control of our enlightenment and the elasticity of our growth depends upon our willingness to confront our biases and be willing to change.
I understand paradigms to be the maps with which we view the world. That map changes all the time as our experiences within the world change. Our biases function as limitations to that map of the world. A bias against a particular idea creates resistance against any lesson or experience that may lead to a new or adjusted "life map" that would tolerate that idea. Thus, the map retains that limitation and remains narrow.
Every single person has biases of various forms. My goal for diving into this subject is twofold: 1) I want to learn about bias in an effort to overcome as many biases as possible to create as open and diverse a "life paradigm" as I can; and 2) I want to use natural biases within characters to create a story (eventually book?) that makes the reader truly and deeply understand the paradigm of each character.
BASIC IDEA
Cognitive biases are deviations of judgment that lead to rationalization, and may or may not be illogical. Cognitive dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling of holding two contradictory ideas, and it leads to rationalization. In short, we are confronted with an inconsistency, which makes us uncomfortable, and we rationalize to create harmony. Our biases can sometimes blind us to the irrationality of a justification. At least that's my understanding.
The pattern I notice in my daily life has left me with the impression that cognitive biases drive much of our interactions with each other. The story I hear usually proceeds as follows: Person X is evil, manipulative, a liar, and is attempting to get away with unspeakable wrongs.
My experience is that, although no intentional lies are being told, those harsh judgments are almost never correct. Why? One bias or another creates a block to perception (the life map isn't moving as to that topic). The classic case is in the area of inheritance. Siblings are quick to accuse each other of robbing parents blind or not caring for that parent's well-being. Almost always, the answer is that both parties misjudged the intentions of the other. Why? Cognitive biases seem to explain most scenarios.
Most cognitive biases are more subtle and simply guide our perception of everyday interactions. And, not all biases are things to necessarily eliminate.
SPECIFIC BIASES
The specific cognitive biases that jumped out at me most are the following:
Anchoring: Disproportionate weight given to the first piece of information received. ("Bob missed one opportunity to help mom, and no amount of generosity or kindness can make up for it.")
Outcome Bias: The tendency to judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of by the soundness of the decision at the time it was made.
Semmelweis Reflex: The tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm. (Politics, anyone?)
Irrational escalation: The tendency to make irrational decision based upon rational decisions of the past (even if inapplicable) or to justify actions already taken.
Confirmation bias: Tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms preconceptions. (Again... politics).
Bandwagon Effect: The tendency to allow group consensus to influence personal decisions.
I am sure every single one of these sounds familiar to anyone reading this. That's because we all have biases.
FRANKLIN
The difference (and this I take from Franklin) is how we deal with biases. Some cement those biases into place and never move them, question them or second-guess. For anyone willing to take hold of those biases, however, those biases can be mitigated. (Mitigated, not eliminated).
Franklin distinguished between biases and pillars of morality, and I want to be clear that attempts to mitigate biases does not mean anyone should alter morals necessarily. Morality questions should always be examined, but pillars such as honesty and integrity are parts of our life map that remain unmoved during "paradigm updates."
Often, biases are most visible from outside when a person is faced with defending a possible mistake. All of that person's cognitive function will focus on justification for the sake of defense. It's natural and inevitable. We will leave out the bad and emphasize the good. It happens. It just does.
In my story, I plan to create a character who who used a specific logic to success many times in the past. That same decision-process will then be utilized to failure at a crucial moment. The subsequent rationalization will ignore the inapplicability of the logic that led to past success.
NOBEL-WORTHY EXAMPLE
Perhaps the most blatant surrender to bias comes in politics. Take, for example, the recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama. Tell me if any of these arguments sound familiar:
1) This award is bogus because he hasn't done anything to deserve it! Euros are liberal and they prop up other liberals like Al Gore.
2) This is just sour-grapes by the far-right and a baseless slap at the President. It was well deserved and to argue otherwise is just politics.
3) He just got it for not being George W. Bush. (not as partisan, but seems to me to be equally biased... possibly toward scepticism. This option is also just funny.)
Number one shows an inability to give credit and seems to freely and loosely embrace a convenient world-wide conspiracy when much more rational and believable arguments can be made. It also shows no willingness to ever be happy for any success of the Obama administration. Number two dismisses the legitimate questions NOT raised by number one. Number two conveniently leaves out the genuine confusion many people felt at the outcome... especially since Mr. Obama is currently making a decision regarding troop levels. Number three, as explained earlier, makes me laugh because I have a deep-seeded bias against W and take pleasure in occasionally indulging in it. I have a bias, sue me.
In all seriousness, politics provide such stark examples because it is an exercise in outrage and exaggeration. My bias would be to defend President Obama, but when I force myself to even it out (as best I can), I came up with this mitigated version of my bias:
This award did seem out of the blue. I think it is a very good thing that the world considers our leader to be a force for peace, whether earned or not. I think this could prove to be a booster to the "cult of Obama" argument. I do think President Obama has changed our tone to the world in favor of cooperation. I also do not think he has accomplished anything specific that led to an actual cessation of violence or a measurable increase in peace.
I was tempted to say that both sides failed to consider that the other side's beliefs are genuinely felt. However, upon consideration of biases, they may just be stubbornly held.
IN THE END
As I stated in my 2007 post, "Examined Life," efforts to improve matter. But, I now think equal effort should be made to understand each other. That's what I've been trying to do lately. That, and to write a good story.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Random thoughts
... I recently finished Fyodore Dostoevsky's classic novel Crime and Punishment. It's a great read and I recommend it to anyone. Unlike most authors today, Dostoevsky really dives deep into the psyche of his characters. It has been a real education for my current short story project.
Although I enjoyed reading the book, older styles (and translated works especially) can make for some difficult reads. I probably spent five times as long reading this book as any others this year.
Still, the story was brilliant, the ending simple but meaningful and the characters were deeply thought-out.
I will be reading Brothers Karamosov before the end of the year. Some have called that book the greatest novel ever written. It's sub chapter titled "The Great Inquisitor" is famous, although I only know that it involves the Spanish Inquisition and Jesus.
I am most interested in how the book deals with the different paradigms of five characters who experience the same event. Dostoevsky's writing can be an acquired taste, but his characters are brilliant for their depth. I plan on taking some time to learn from the master while preparing my own story.
... I am currently reading The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown, or as I've come to call it "Angels and Da Vinci Lose a Symbol." I enjoy the book because it's like watching a movie, it's fast-paced and it is interesting, but it's really the same formula without much change from his previous books. I guess the ending will tell for sure, but right now, I've seen this movie before. Most important, this book was a must-read after slogging through Crime and Punishment.
... The Denver Broncos are 4-0 and, God help me, I don't know if they are any good or not. The offense is horrible, but the D is really good. They are trying to reel me in, but I remain sceptical until I'm sure they aren't just setting me up for a stomach punch.
... It's too bad college football was cancelled this year. It would have been nice to watch CU and UVA try to make runs at the Big 12 and ACC. (THE WHOLE SEASON WAS CANCELLED!!!! I'M ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE!!! WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT?)
... I've been listening to a lot of the Beatles lately. I can't say why... I just do this from time to time. I've been watching a lot of youtube clips. Fun stuff. I think it started when I read a Rolling Stone article of why they broke up and that spiraled into fascination with the older days when they were on top of the pop world.
In fact, here's a great old clip from their last live performance as a group.
Although I enjoyed reading the book, older styles (and translated works especially) can make for some difficult reads. I probably spent five times as long reading this book as any others this year.
Still, the story was brilliant, the ending simple but meaningful and the characters were deeply thought-out.
I will be reading Brothers Karamosov before the end of the year. Some have called that book the greatest novel ever written. It's sub chapter titled "The Great Inquisitor" is famous, although I only know that it involves the Spanish Inquisition and Jesus.
I am most interested in how the book deals with the different paradigms of five characters who experience the same event. Dostoevsky's writing can be an acquired taste, but his characters are brilliant for their depth. I plan on taking some time to learn from the master while preparing my own story.
... I am currently reading The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown, or as I've come to call it "Angels and Da Vinci Lose a Symbol." I enjoy the book because it's like watching a movie, it's fast-paced and it is interesting, but it's really the same formula without much change from his previous books. I guess the ending will tell for sure, but right now, I've seen this movie before. Most important, this book was a must-read after slogging through Crime and Punishment.
... The Denver Broncos are 4-0 and, God help me, I don't know if they are any good or not. The offense is horrible, but the D is really good. They are trying to reel me in, but I remain sceptical until I'm sure they aren't just setting me up for a stomach punch.
... It's too bad college football was cancelled this year. It would have been nice to watch CU and UVA try to make runs at the Big 12 and ACC. (THE WHOLE SEASON WAS CANCELLED!!!! I'M ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE!!! WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT?)
... I've been listening to a lot of the Beatles lately. I can't say why... I just do this from time to time. I've been watching a lot of youtube clips. Fun stuff. I think it started when I read a Rolling Stone article of why they broke up and that spiraled into fascination with the older days when they were on top of the pop world.
In fact, here's a great old clip from their last live performance as a group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)