Ten rules about the sports center top ten. In no order.
1. A walk off home run does not automatically qualify a play for the top ten
2. There should never be more than 5 diving baseball catches
3. Random sports and ostrich races do not qualify as a top ten play
4. Don't ever show mascots racing and one of them getting knocked off their feet. we've see it 100 times already
5. A hockey goal does not qualify as a top play unless the shot is different or causes amazement
6. Cannot include a horse race unless one horse actually jumps another horse in order to win.
7. Should not be made up entirely of the sporting events that were broadcast on espn the night before.
8. Should never ever ever include an awkward world series of poker celebration.
9. NASCAR should never break the top 5.
10. Use high school and amateur sports at least twice a week.
Change any of these? Add anything we missed?
A Clayton and John Veazey cooperation.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Power of Acquaintance
So remember those connectors I was talking about? Those people who do an amazing job of networking with tons of people. The trick is not that these people have some special gift to have 1,000 best friends that they know and love. Connectors remember names and characteristics about people. They really do care for and want to know these people, but they don’t know them like best friends. It is impossible to know so many people as best friends
The interesting point made in the book was that it is these “acquaintances” and not good friends that give you power. It is having a large network of acquaintances in good standing that will get you a job. He even presented research to prove his point. In surveys it was amazing to me to see how most people get their job, not through submitting a resume cold, but through a personal contact. Even on top of that the percentages showed in astounding fashion that those personal contacts usually did not come from good friends but from acquaintances. This makes some statistical sense. You have many many more acquaintances that would consider mentioning your name during an interview and hiring process and only a few “good friends”. However that doesn’t change the fact that having many acquaintances can be beneficial.
Malcolm says that the close you are to the connector, the more acquaintances you have, and so the more power you have to do things and make things happen.
So if you can't just be friends with a member of the opposite sex at least with this information having them as an acquaintance does have its advantages. They might get you a job.
The interesting point made in the book was that it is these “acquaintances” and not good friends that give you power. It is having a large network of acquaintances in good standing that will get you a job. He even presented research to prove his point. In surveys it was amazing to me to see how most people get their job, not through submitting a resume cold, but through a personal contact. Even on top of that the percentages showed in astounding fashion that those personal contacts usually did not come from good friends but from acquaintances. This makes some statistical sense. You have many many more acquaintances that would consider mentioning your name during an interview and hiring process and only a few “good friends”. However that doesn’t change the fact that having many acquaintances can be beneficial.
Malcolm says that the close you are to the connector, the more acquaintances you have, and so the more power you have to do things and make things happen.
So if you can't just be friends with a member of the opposite sex at least with this information having them as an acquaintance does have its advantages. They might get you a job.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Twitter Immunity
To follow up the Tipping Point blog I will highlight another part of the book I found very interesting. Remember the posts a while back about electronic communication and how it is the devil? Here comes more.
Beware of Immunity of Communication.
Communication is always changing. New and better ways to deliver messages are always appearing. First think of the fax machine. That is a great invention. The author points out that unlike commodities, when a means of communication becomes more prevalent the value of that items increases with the prevalence. Think about it. The more fax machines there are, the more value your fax machine has because it becomes more useful. That is the opposite of commodities where more of an item usually decreases the cost… more wheat, cheep wheat. That first fax machine was worth nothing because it couldn’t fax anything. The second fax machine made the first one worth much more, and so on and on.
The same with the phone.
When people plan how to get their product or information out in the world they carefully think of the most effective, inexpensive way to market. The phone became a beautiful connector for all things. And so we have the telemarketer. In the beginning this worked like taking candy from a baby. Can you imagine the first telemarketer that called and tried to sale you knives. “Well these knives have to be great because they cared enough to call my house to tell me about them!!!” But now look at what has happen. No call lists. Call weighting. And of course endless jokes about how to “stick it to” the caller.
Telemarketer: Hello, is this Mr. Greene?
Me: Yes
Telemarkter: lksd;flkaj dlkjf ;aslkj lakjsd ;flkja sf insurance a;slkdjf aks best deal ever a;lksdj f;lkjas f bye now.
Me: I’m in the middle of dinner can you give me your number so I can call you at home later tonight?
Or my favorite.
Telemarketer: Hello, Is Mr. Greene there?
Me: No, he is in the shower
Telemarketer: Is Mrs. Greene there?
Me: No, she is too. (hahahahaha)
Telemarketer: Ok, just leave them a message that their accountant needs to speak with them.
Me: Crap, I’m sorry.
What has happened is we have developed immunity to communication and receiving information on the phone. And the same thing will happen to twitter. It is so great right now to be able to know everyones thoughts all the time… but at a critical point it will become too much. We will turn from our 150 word updates and again rely on what we know and love the most. Personal, face to face, human interaction.
I think the same thing happened with this blog. Too many bloggers, not enough time, “I quit”.
I’ll take your silence as agreement.
Beware of Immunity of Communication.
Communication is always changing. New and better ways to deliver messages are always appearing. First think of the fax machine. That is a great invention. The author points out that unlike commodities, when a means of communication becomes more prevalent the value of that items increases with the prevalence. Think about it. The more fax machines there are, the more value your fax machine has because it becomes more useful. That is the opposite of commodities where more of an item usually decreases the cost… more wheat, cheep wheat. That first fax machine was worth nothing because it couldn’t fax anything. The second fax machine made the first one worth much more, and so on and on.
The same with the phone.
When people plan how to get their product or information out in the world they carefully think of the most effective, inexpensive way to market. The phone became a beautiful connector for all things. And so we have the telemarketer. In the beginning this worked like taking candy from a baby. Can you imagine the first telemarketer that called and tried to sale you knives. “Well these knives have to be great because they cared enough to call my house to tell me about them!!!” But now look at what has happen. No call lists. Call weighting. And of course endless jokes about how to “stick it to” the caller.
Telemarketer: Hello, is this Mr. Greene?
Me: Yes
Telemarkter: lksd;flkaj dlkjf ;aslkj lakjsd ;flkja sf insurance a;slkdjf aks best deal ever a;lksdj f;lkjas f bye now.
Me: I’m in the middle of dinner can you give me your number so I can call you at home later tonight?
Or my favorite.
Telemarketer: Hello, Is Mr. Greene there?
Me: No, he is in the shower
Telemarketer: Is Mrs. Greene there?
Me: No, she is too. (hahahahaha)
Telemarketer: Ok, just leave them a message that their accountant needs to speak with them.
Me: Crap, I’m sorry.
What has happened is we have developed immunity to communication and receiving information on the phone. And the same thing will happen to twitter. It is so great right now to be able to know everyones thoughts all the time… but at a critical point it will become too much. We will turn from our 150 word updates and again rely on what we know and love the most. Personal, face to face, human interaction.
I think the same thing happened with this blog. Too many bloggers, not enough time, “I quit”.
I’ll take your silence as agreement.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Tipping Point
So my most recent book read was The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. It says #1 National Bestseller so it must be good. I picked up this book because it seemed to have a Discourse and Jargon feel to it. It is a theory about how little things can make a big difference. The theory discusses how trends, fashions, ideas, disease, and behavior usually gradually change wax and wane but in certain situations they reach a tipping point where the trend or idea becomes an epidemic and swings into exponential change. See the D and J? A theory that applies to many different areas of life… candy bars, and people.
The basic layout of the book is his discussion and proof of the inner workings of the 3 things that play a role in causing an epidemic. The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and The Power of Context.
The Law of the Few points out 3 categories on individuals that can be instrumental in creating an epidemic.
1. The Connector is a person that has a large network of people at his disposal. These people are fascinatingly proficient at developing acquaintances and so know many people. They also have the gift of connecting these people together. This person often is someone who has his feet in many circles and so can create a network that includes more than one “circle” of people. At a university this person may be in many different organizations, in the “real world” this person may have had a few different careers or multiple careers at one time. It is this person that allows word of mouth communication to explode. Malcolm’s theory is that word of mouth epidemics don’t occur from you telling 4 people and each of those 4 people telling 4 more themselves. This does develop growth, and rapid growth at that but he points out that if you tell 4 people that those 4 people will have more difficulty finding others to share the new information with. Especially at the next level the number of people in your “circle” that don’t have the information is declining and the information must make the leap from one “circle” to the next. A connector, with his characteristic involvement in many circles allows this explosion of information travel by involving many of his circles at one time. In order to create an epidemic you might need a connector or something that serves as one.
2. The Maven is another person that is needed to create an epidemic according to the author. “The word Maven comes from the Yiddish, and it means one who accumulates knowledge”. This is the second of the individuals Malcolm mentions. I think it should be the first. It is less exciting but maybe more instrumental in the beginning stages of a word of mouth epidemic. A Maven is a wealth of knowledge and an amazing teacher. A Maven is an information specialists ready and willing to share his knowledge with anyone who will listen. An epidemic needs this person to weed out the bad new products. An epidemic needs this person to qualify if the product is indeed what it is being hyped up to be. This is the person who knows movies, sees movies early, and wants to help you avoid wasting your money on a bad one. He also will eagerly take you to the best theater and help you find the best seat in that theater (because he knows this much about theaters) to watch the movie because he is that passionate about it. He also is usually correct. This person is essential to ensuring that only good information, good products, and good trends make it into word of mouth information that is going to be shared by connectors. Without mavens connectors and the rest of us would go around yelling wildly about anything and everything we heard. With mavens we are able to appropriately sift through and find the products and ideas that are worth their weight/wait.
3. The Salesman is the last of these crucial individuals that are mentioned. These are the people that can convince you that they have found something even better than sliced bread when all they have to show you is sliced bread. I don’t know if that makes since. This is the most main stream of the individuals to explain. You know those people who make everything sound like the best thing ever!!! They are often outspoken, friendly, personable, and sometimes lawyers.
The second section of the book lost a little steam for me. I was loving all this stuff about people and the characteristics and what made them essential to creating epidemics with information. The Stickiness Factor pretty much means the product actually has to be good. If a Maven tells you its good and you rightly believe him, and Connector tells all his friends, and an amazing Salesman convinces you to visit a restaurant and you go. The food and service still has to be good in order to secure your second visit. Your personal experience with a trend, product, or any information makes the final call. If the Law of the Few fall into line and the product doesn’t “stick” the tipping point will not be reached. Here he spends a looong time discussing the process by which Sesame Street and Blues Clues developed their programs in a way that would “stick”. The children would pay attention, the children would learn, and their parents would let them watch.
The final law of epidemics as described by Malcolm Gladwell is the Power of Context. The environment has to be right to reach a tipping point. The people have to be ready for a green restaurant in order for a green restaurant to work. The spread of STDs in northern urban areas in slower and more controlled during the winter because people don’t go out. The interesting issue here is that the author takes this another step. He suggest that action is a result of environment more that of personal character. Not sure I am completely in agreement with that but he does make a good point that environmental context does change how messages are shared and what effect they have.
The second half of the Power of Context discusses how the power of groups of people can be used to encourage the spread of an idea. In groups people are more passionate, they are able to make good decisions and then develop many positive conversations about the topic which turns them into focused and determined people. Look at third camp. In a small group of people ideas are taken form one person to a trusting group and very quickly turned into a passionate idea that those group members use in their lives and share with others. Taking a message, idea, or trend to the next level sometimes involves taking that idea to small groups of people and allowing the idea to percolate and emerge stronger than ever.
That is a short concise summary of the book. The fascinating things of the book came from the additional research, stories, and theories he used to highlight each of these main points and therefore his tipping point theory overall. That is what kept me reading. Hopefully that makes you interested in future posts as well.
The basic layout of the book is his discussion and proof of the inner workings of the 3 things that play a role in causing an epidemic. The Law of the Few, The Stickiness Factor, and The Power of Context.
The Law of the Few points out 3 categories on individuals that can be instrumental in creating an epidemic.
1. The Connector is a person that has a large network of people at his disposal. These people are fascinatingly proficient at developing acquaintances and so know many people. They also have the gift of connecting these people together. This person often is someone who has his feet in many circles and so can create a network that includes more than one “circle” of people. At a university this person may be in many different organizations, in the “real world” this person may have had a few different careers or multiple careers at one time. It is this person that allows word of mouth communication to explode. Malcolm’s theory is that word of mouth epidemics don’t occur from you telling 4 people and each of those 4 people telling 4 more themselves. This does develop growth, and rapid growth at that but he points out that if you tell 4 people that those 4 people will have more difficulty finding others to share the new information with. Especially at the next level the number of people in your “circle” that don’t have the information is declining and the information must make the leap from one “circle” to the next. A connector, with his characteristic involvement in many circles allows this explosion of information travel by involving many of his circles at one time. In order to create an epidemic you might need a connector or something that serves as one.
2. The Maven is another person that is needed to create an epidemic according to the author. “The word Maven comes from the Yiddish, and it means one who accumulates knowledge”. This is the second of the individuals Malcolm mentions. I think it should be the first. It is less exciting but maybe more instrumental in the beginning stages of a word of mouth epidemic. A Maven is a wealth of knowledge and an amazing teacher. A Maven is an information specialists ready and willing to share his knowledge with anyone who will listen. An epidemic needs this person to weed out the bad new products. An epidemic needs this person to qualify if the product is indeed what it is being hyped up to be. This is the person who knows movies, sees movies early, and wants to help you avoid wasting your money on a bad one. He also will eagerly take you to the best theater and help you find the best seat in that theater (because he knows this much about theaters) to watch the movie because he is that passionate about it. He also is usually correct. This person is essential to ensuring that only good information, good products, and good trends make it into word of mouth information that is going to be shared by connectors. Without mavens connectors and the rest of us would go around yelling wildly about anything and everything we heard. With mavens we are able to appropriately sift through and find the products and ideas that are worth their weight/wait.
3. The Salesman is the last of these crucial individuals that are mentioned. These are the people that can convince you that they have found something even better than sliced bread when all they have to show you is sliced bread. I don’t know if that makes since. This is the most main stream of the individuals to explain. You know those people who make everything sound like the best thing ever!!! They are often outspoken, friendly, personable, and sometimes lawyers.
The second section of the book lost a little steam for me. I was loving all this stuff about people and the characteristics and what made them essential to creating epidemics with information. The Stickiness Factor pretty much means the product actually has to be good. If a Maven tells you its good and you rightly believe him, and Connector tells all his friends, and an amazing Salesman convinces you to visit a restaurant and you go. The food and service still has to be good in order to secure your second visit. Your personal experience with a trend, product, or any information makes the final call. If the Law of the Few fall into line and the product doesn’t “stick” the tipping point will not be reached. Here he spends a looong time discussing the process by which Sesame Street and Blues Clues developed their programs in a way that would “stick”. The children would pay attention, the children would learn, and their parents would let them watch.
The final law of epidemics as described by Malcolm Gladwell is the Power of Context. The environment has to be right to reach a tipping point. The people have to be ready for a green restaurant in order for a green restaurant to work. The spread of STDs in northern urban areas in slower and more controlled during the winter because people don’t go out. The interesting issue here is that the author takes this another step. He suggest that action is a result of environment more that of personal character. Not sure I am completely in agreement with that but he does make a good point that environmental context does change how messages are shared and what effect they have.
The second half of the Power of Context discusses how the power of groups of people can be used to encourage the spread of an idea. In groups people are more passionate, they are able to make good decisions and then develop many positive conversations about the topic which turns them into focused and determined people. Look at third camp. In a small group of people ideas are taken form one person to a trusting group and very quickly turned into a passionate idea that those group members use in their lives and share with others. Taking a message, idea, or trend to the next level sometimes involves taking that idea to small groups of people and allowing the idea to percolate and emerge stronger than ever.
That is a short concise summary of the book. The fascinating things of the book came from the additional research, stories, and theories he used to highlight each of these main points and therefore his tipping point theory overall. That is what kept me reading. Hopefully that makes you interested in future posts as well.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Cherry Limeade Theory
Jesus drinks Sonic cherry limeade in heaven during his chats with God. I am absolutely convinced of this.
There are three drinks that I could survive on for the rest of my life: water (necessary for existence), Dunkin' Donuts iced coffee (necessary for caffeine-infused functionality), and cherry limeade (necessary for happiness).
I literally plan my week at work around my Friday afternoon trip to Sonic just for cherry limeade. It is a little bit of a drive to get there so I have to eschew long lunches other days so that I will be able to indulge in my weekly Friday ritual. Some people look forward to the week for the chance to rest, relax, and recharge. I look forward to cherry limeade Friday. I encourage you all to do the same. I try to hit Happy Hour between 2-4PM to get it for 99 cents but I would gladly pay just about any amount for the heavenly goodness.
Still, there is a reason I only go to Sonic once per week. That is because I don't want to make it become pedestrian and normal. It's important to me that I look forward to the weekly cherry limeade. It is my sacred ritual and I enjoy even the anticipation of it. It really is the small pleasures in life that make the difference. I guess I just don't buy the phrase "there is no such thing as too much of a good thing." I am more of a "absence makes the heart grow fonder guy myself."
Maybe this is weird. I don't know and I don't care. Nothing will come between me and my cherry limeade. But only once a week. I won't dare overindulge for fear that cherry limeade would lose its luster and my Fridays would no longer worth having. As Fuel once taught us, "All that shimmers in this world is sure to fade." But not cherry limeade, not on my watch.
My questions are:
1) What are the things in your life that you treat like cherry limeade? What are the things that you like so much that you have to limit your exposure to it?
2) Does this theory like the other food theories apply to people? I tend to think that we don't follow this with people. In fact, we tend to do the opposite. If we really like hanging out with a friend, we tend to spend nearly all our time with them until we get utterly sick of the person and have to take a weeklong break or have a huge falling out ruining the friendship. If we really like hanging out with a person of the opposite sex, we end up marrying them and spend the rest of our lives with that person. So if we don't apply this theory to people why don't we?
There are three drinks that I could survive on for the rest of my life: water (necessary for existence), Dunkin' Donuts iced coffee (necessary for caffeine-infused functionality), and cherry limeade (necessary for happiness).
I literally plan my week at work around my Friday afternoon trip to Sonic just for cherry limeade. It is a little bit of a drive to get there so I have to eschew long lunches other days so that I will be able to indulge in my weekly Friday ritual. Some people look forward to the week for the chance to rest, relax, and recharge. I look forward to cherry limeade Friday. I encourage you all to do the same. I try to hit Happy Hour between 2-4PM to get it for 99 cents but I would gladly pay just about any amount for the heavenly goodness.
Still, there is a reason I only go to Sonic once per week. That is because I don't want to make it become pedestrian and normal. It's important to me that I look forward to the weekly cherry limeade. It is my sacred ritual and I enjoy even the anticipation of it. It really is the small pleasures in life that make the difference. I guess I just don't buy the phrase "there is no such thing as too much of a good thing." I am more of a "absence makes the heart grow fonder guy myself."
Maybe this is weird. I don't know and I don't care. Nothing will come between me and my cherry limeade. But only once a week. I won't dare overindulge for fear that cherry limeade would lose its luster and my Fridays would no longer worth having. As Fuel once taught us, "All that shimmers in this world is sure to fade." But not cherry limeade, not on my watch.
My questions are:
1) What are the things in your life that you treat like cherry limeade? What are the things that you like so much that you have to limit your exposure to it?
2) Does this theory like the other food theories apply to people? I tend to think that we don't follow this with people. In fact, we tend to do the opposite. If we really like hanging out with a friend, we tend to spend nearly all our time with them until we get utterly sick of the person and have to take a weeklong break or have a huge falling out ruining the friendship. If we really like hanging out with a person of the opposite sex, we end up marrying them and spend the rest of our lives with that person. So if we don't apply this theory to people why don't we?
Friday, August 7, 2009
Vacation/Travel
The Greene Extravaganza has begun. Kristen and I are on a stop over between DC and NYC. She took a test this morning for being a lawyer.
I will be returning to blog Sunday Aug. 16th.
For those of you who have access feel free to post a theory while I am gone. For everyone else who is obviously reading the blog still, the comments section will remain open.
I will be returning to blog Sunday Aug. 16th.
For those of you who have access feel free to post a theory while I am gone. For everyone else who is obviously reading the blog still, the comments section will remain open.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Open Door Obligation
The basis for this theory is a story.
Background: Going into the back of the med school there are two doors that are always closed but never locked. They are the doors between the med school and the dental school. I park my bike near there.
One day when walking into the school I was clipping my bike helmet onto my back pack and noticed someone walking close behind me. When I reached the first door I pulled the door open I stepped to the side, held the door, and allowed the person to walk through. 7 feet ahead he did the same thing for me.
Throughout the next few weeks I noticed this happening many times. Most buildings around the med school have a foyer where you open one door only to be in a small room in front of another door. This room is to control the temperature in the main building but it creates this amazing social situation.
When one person opens a door for you, most people feel the obligation to open the next door.
Negative Spin: People don't like the feeling of owing something to you for your gesture. Because of their sense of debt they use the opportunity to repay you immediately and level the playing field. Why don't people just accept the free gift of uninterrupted walking.
Positive Spin: Your gracious gift encourages their selfless act as well.
Disclaimer: This all changes if one of the two involved door openers has full hands and clearly is at a disadvantage for opening the door. I am speaking of those times when the two people have equal ability and access to opening the door.
Which is it?
Background: Going into the back of the med school there are two doors that are always closed but never locked. They are the doors between the med school and the dental school. I park my bike near there.
One day when walking into the school I was clipping my bike helmet onto my back pack and noticed someone walking close behind me. When I reached the first door I pulled the door open I stepped to the side, held the door, and allowed the person to walk through. 7 feet ahead he did the same thing for me.
Throughout the next few weeks I noticed this happening many times. Most buildings around the med school have a foyer where you open one door only to be in a small room in front of another door. This room is to control the temperature in the main building but it creates this amazing social situation.
When one person opens a door for you, most people feel the obligation to open the next door.
Negative Spin: People don't like the feeling of owing something to you for your gesture. Because of their sense of debt they use the opportunity to repay you immediately and level the playing field. Why don't people just accept the free gift of uninterrupted walking.
Positive Spin: Your gracious gift encourages their selfless act as well.
Disclaimer: This all changes if one of the two involved door openers has full hands and clearly is at a disadvantage for opening the door. I am speaking of those times when the two people have equal ability and access to opening the door.
Which is it?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Peanut Butter and Chocolate
Some people you love to see, visit, and spend quality time with. They are great people. But after too much direct time with them without interruption they become crazy annoying.
Ratio is key.
Is everyone a Reese's?
Ratio is key.
Is everyone a Reese's?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Size does really matter, proportionally
It is not how much of something you have. It is mostly about the ratio of that item to the other items in your life.
Reese's: The original reese's are fantastic. Perfect selection of chocolate and peanut butter. The flavors mix and your taste buds receive perfect excitation. But then every year around Easter Hershey's gives many more options for how to enjoy the combination of peanut butter and chocolate. The little eggs with much more chocolate compared to peanut butter. There there is the BIG egg that has half a cup of peanut butter with not enough chocolate to go around. This egg always feels more like a peanut butter energy bar rather than the delicacy which is reese's. You see people? It is all about the ratio.
Anything where the size is the only key component? How about other items where ratio is the key?
Can I get a few comments? If we do, I promise to deliver a controversial post mid-week about how the reese's theory applies to people and we all remember what happens when candy bars and people mix... see Twix Theory Post.
Reese's: The original reese's are fantastic. Perfect selection of chocolate and peanut butter. The flavors mix and your taste buds receive perfect excitation. But then every year around Easter Hershey's gives many more options for how to enjoy the combination of peanut butter and chocolate. The little eggs with much more chocolate compared to peanut butter. There there is the BIG egg that has half a cup of peanut butter with not enough chocolate to go around. This egg always feels more like a peanut butter energy bar rather than the delicacy which is reese's. You see people? It is all about the ratio.
Anything where the size is the only key component? How about other items where ratio is the key?
Can I get a few comments? If we do, I promise to deliver a controversial post mid-week about how the reese's theory applies to people and we all remember what happens when candy bars and people mix... see Twix Theory Post.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
A Grey Area
There is no way, no how I could explain or dictate this thought in a short blog that would encourage comments. It would create mass confusion and do nothing productive. I will try another approach that hopefully with provoke internal thinking and external dialogue with others. Please comment to stimulate further thoughts and discussions. Just think.
Grey Area does not exist.
Okay, in areas of personal preference in subjective matters such as food flavors there can be grey because this is not a do it or don't do it, yes or no kind of arena.
But in discussions about most other matters there is no grey area. To say there is a grey area is in many ways a pass on really attempting to discover the black or white in a situation. From your point of view something could be "grey". But that does not mean that the black and white don't exist. That means you just don't know enough details or are not close enough to the situation to be able to see the clear line between black and white.
We were created in a world that exist in a balance. Things run and behave naturally. Our interactions with each other also exist in this world. There is a right and a wrong and black and a white. Truth is there. Your perception might not be able to discover the black or white easily but that does not mean that the black and white don't exist.
Grey Area does not exist.
Okay, in areas of personal preference in subjective matters such as food flavors there can be grey because this is not a do it or don't do it, yes or no kind of arena.
But in discussions about most other matters there is no grey area. To say there is a grey area is in many ways a pass on really attempting to discover the black or white in a situation. From your point of view something could be "grey". But that does not mean that the black and white don't exist. That means you just don't know enough details or are not close enough to the situation to be able to see the clear line between black and white.
We were created in a world that exist in a balance. Things run and behave naturally. Our interactions with each other also exist in this world. There is a right and a wrong and black and a white. Truth is there. Your perception might not be able to discover the black or white easily but that does not mean that the black and white don't exist.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Poppers, Sparklers, and the Roman Candle.
I love fire!!! Mostly controlled fireworks.
There are some things and life that are so sweet!!!! Some things in life are so much fun that you cannot help but participate if the opportunity presents itself. This idea crossed my mind as we were celebrating the fourth.
Trial 1:
Step 1: Open box of poppers. (those white sacs of gunpowder that make a flash of light and a popping sound when they break on a hard object.)
Step 2: Place in the open hand of an adult.
Step 3: Wait.
Step 4: POP!!!
See, I told you. Poppers are clearly marketed towards children. When a pack of popper are purchased it is always for the kids. They love them and go crazy over the lights and sounds of celebration. But, if given enough time with poppers in their hands a person of any age will simply loft one out onto the brick walkway and watch the magic being. On the outside they might show their excitement but most likely they will remain calm and collected as they throw popper after popper towards the ground. We all know that on the inside they are having a humongous fantastic fire party. “I control sound and fire and all of existence!!!! WEEEEEEE!!!!!”
Trial 2:
Step 1: Open sparkler packages
Step 2: Unwrap that silly clear plastics around the 5 or 6 sparklers.
Step 3: Light sparklers and hand sparkler to 87 y.o. grandmother.
Step 4: Cue dancing, swinging of arm, and writing of name.
Again. Something so exciting that even an adult businessperson with a suit and tie or straight-laced farmer will wildly swing their arm to make pretty designs and swirls in the sky. “C…L…A…Y…T…O…N… look everyone I spelled my name in the air!!!!”
So what is it about these activities that make us participate and let down our professional/straight-laced guard? What are other activities that fall into this category.
P.S. Fourth of July = National litter and don’t care day. All those poppers, fireworks, and sparklers have to land somewhere. Good luck picking up all that trash Aaron Thomas.
There are some things and life that are so sweet!!!! Some things in life are so much fun that you cannot help but participate if the opportunity presents itself. This idea crossed my mind as we were celebrating the fourth.
Trial 1:
Step 1: Open box of poppers. (those white sacs of gunpowder that make a flash of light and a popping sound when they break on a hard object.)
Step 2: Place in the open hand of an adult.
Step 3: Wait.
Step 4: POP!!!
See, I told you. Poppers are clearly marketed towards children. When a pack of popper are purchased it is always for the kids. They love them and go crazy over the lights and sounds of celebration. But, if given enough time with poppers in their hands a person of any age will simply loft one out onto the brick walkway and watch the magic being. On the outside they might show their excitement but most likely they will remain calm and collected as they throw popper after popper towards the ground. We all know that on the inside they are having a humongous fantastic fire party. “I control sound and fire and all of existence!!!! WEEEEEEE!!!!!”
Trial 2:
Step 1: Open sparkler packages
Step 2: Unwrap that silly clear plastics around the 5 or 6 sparklers.
Step 3: Light sparklers and hand sparkler to 87 y.o. grandmother.
Step 4: Cue dancing, swinging of arm, and writing of name.
Again. Something so exciting that even an adult businessperson with a suit and tie or straight-laced farmer will wildly swing their arm to make pretty designs and swirls in the sky. “C…L…A…Y…T…O…N… look everyone I spelled my name in the air!!!!”
So what is it about these activities that make us participate and let down our professional/straight-laced guard? What are other activities that fall into this category.
P.S. Fourth of July = National litter and don’t care day. All those poppers, fireworks, and sparklers have to land somewhere. Good luck picking up all that trash Aaron Thomas.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Chewing Gum Communism
So I am back in the classroom on campus. I always need chewing gum to keep my breath fresh and it always keeps me awake. Chewing gum is almost a necessity. AND, most people love it.
There is an interesting occurrence with gum. When you take it out of your bag, your pocket, or your purse you are granting all those around you access to gum as well. Most people will ask for a piece; a request you can never deny. It is also often a situation where a courteous offer of gum is expected. However, gum does cost money. But everyone treats it like chewing gum is a community item. So, what about a 12 pack of soft drinks? Are those community items too?
There is an interesting occurrence with gum. When you take it out of your bag, your pocket, or your purse you are granting all those around you access to gum as well. Most people will ask for a piece; a request you can never deny. It is also often a situation where a courteous offer of gum is expected. However, gum does cost money. But everyone treats it like chewing gum is a community item. So, what about a 12 pack of soft drinks? Are those community items too?
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Ignorange is Bliss
Hello friends, let me say it is a pleasure to make my debut on the “D & J” blog. For those wondering, my name is Chad and I live in Los Angeles. Shameless Plug: My debut album is dropping in a few weeks. Buy it. Ok, onto the good stuff...
This post will deal with when it is responsible or necessary to tell someone they are wrong. Let me begin with an example...
There is a guy named Joe who plays some cover songs on his guitar. He plays the song wrong, but thinks that he is playing them correctly. Furthermore, most people know that he is playing them wrong. But Joe gets great pleasure out of playing them the way he is. What does the bystander do? Fight for truth and tell the old man he is wrong? Or bite his tongue and let classics like “If You Could Only See” by Tonic be destroyed by Joe?
This is obviously a silly example, but what about with heavier subject matter? I remember discussing this question in a class at school in a case study about an elderly man who went in to the hospital with stomach pains. After exploratory surgery, they discovered the man had an infection in his ovaries – yes you read that correctly. They dug up a bit of his history and found out that he was born with both testicles and ovaries. His family decided to raise his as a boy and never told him the truth. Now years later, the doctor is forced to decide between telling the truth – telling this man that he was possibly a girl for his whole life and potentially creating some emotional and mental baggage – or ignoring the fact and releasing the man from the hospital with a false diagnosis.
I have searched on-line for this case study and could not find it, so sorry about that. Perhaps there are other cases of gender identity and confusion that this argument might apply to. But regardless of the truth of the story, the point is still valid – Is it always the responsible thing to tell the truth when ignorance might possibly be bliss? Let the discussion begin.
This post will deal with when it is responsible or necessary to tell someone they are wrong. Let me begin with an example...
There is a guy named Joe who plays some cover songs on his guitar. He plays the song wrong, but thinks that he is playing them correctly. Furthermore, most people know that he is playing them wrong. But Joe gets great pleasure out of playing them the way he is. What does the bystander do? Fight for truth and tell the old man he is wrong? Or bite his tongue and let classics like “If You Could Only See” by Tonic be destroyed by Joe?
This is obviously a silly example, but what about with heavier subject matter? I remember discussing this question in a class at school in a case study about an elderly man who went in to the hospital with stomach pains. After exploratory surgery, they discovered the man had an infection in his ovaries – yes you read that correctly. They dug up a bit of his history and found out that he was born with both testicles and ovaries. His family decided to raise his as a boy and never told him the truth. Now years later, the doctor is forced to decide between telling the truth – telling this man that he was possibly a girl for his whole life and potentially creating some emotional and mental baggage – or ignoring the fact and releasing the man from the hospital with a false diagnosis.
I have searched on-line for this case study and could not find it, so sorry about that. Perhaps there are other cases of gender identity and confusion that this argument might apply to. But regardless of the truth of the story, the point is still valid – Is it always the responsible thing to tell the truth when ignorance might possibly be bliss? Let the discussion begin.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Absence
Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
Meaning: The lack of something increases the desire for it.
Is this true? I'm taking a planned week off. I shall return next Monday early in the day. Please comment on the above question.
Meaning: The lack of something increases the desire for it.
Is this true? I'm taking a planned week off. I shall return next Monday early in the day. Please comment on the above question.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The Two Quarterback Theory
So let me interrupt this symphony of crickets to insert a bit of knowledge. I doubt that this post will be quite as controversial as my last, but then again, what could be?
Also, this one in comparison is short and sweet.
The two quarterback theory goes like this and I will try to explain it in such a way that you will only need an elementary knowledge of football in order to understand it.
On a football team, the starting quarterback is seen as a leader of the team by virtue of his position. Sometimes, a football team will have two players of similar talents both competing for the one starting job. The coach cannot decide which player gives his team the best chance at success and so he waffles back and forth starting one player in the first game and starting the other in the second. This causes all kinds of problems with the team because the players don't know who to look to as the true leader. It also causes problems for the quarterbacks becasue it shatters their confidence each time they fail and are pulled out of the lineup to make room for the other to steal the job. Mostly, it causes problems for the coach who looks indecisive, is kept up late at night suffering anxiety from the situation, always feels like if the team loses the other quarterback might have been the better choice, and likely ends up losing his job over the whole thing.
(For a football example, just look at UNC football last year. Both T.J. Yates and Cam Sexton are very good quarterbacks capable of leading our team to wins. However, the team was consistently better when it was clear who the quarterback was. When Yates was playing well and holding down the starting job, the team won. When Yates was hurt and Sexton came in to start, the team won. When we had a controversy after Yates returned but was not back to form, the team lost and the season was ultimately lost.)
How does this theory apply to life?
You can't have two things at once. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
You just can't.
The most obvious example of the theory finding an application in my view is in dating choices. If I am simulatenously interested in two girls and can't decide which to pursue, then it is better for me to pursue neither than to try to pursue both. Inevitably, I will compare one to the other, feel like when I am spending time with the one I might really like the other better and vice versa. Ultimately, I will end up being unfair to one or both. I'll be mean. I'll be insensitive. I'll screw it up with both. And everyone will have been better off if I had just not tried anything at all. So don't pursue two girls at the same time, particularly if they are roommates. (Note to self. Don't do that anymore.)
I'm sure there are many other areas of life where this theory plays itself out. (i.e. when comparing two potential job opportunities, or two possible homes to buy, or two churches to get involved with.) Forget one. Two is the loneliest number. Or maybe, counting you, three's a crowd. Either way, bad idea.
OK. So there you have it. Disagree. Find situations in which the theory doesn't apply. Go.
Hold on.
One other thing. Just so you know, Jesus is on my side.
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Jesus (Matthew 6:24)
Alright. Now go.
Also, this one in comparison is short and sweet.
The two quarterback theory goes like this and I will try to explain it in such a way that you will only need an elementary knowledge of football in order to understand it.
On a football team, the starting quarterback is seen as a leader of the team by virtue of his position. Sometimes, a football team will have two players of similar talents both competing for the one starting job. The coach cannot decide which player gives his team the best chance at success and so he waffles back and forth starting one player in the first game and starting the other in the second. This causes all kinds of problems with the team because the players don't know who to look to as the true leader. It also causes problems for the quarterbacks becasue it shatters their confidence each time they fail and are pulled out of the lineup to make room for the other to steal the job. Mostly, it causes problems for the coach who looks indecisive, is kept up late at night suffering anxiety from the situation, always feels like if the team loses the other quarterback might have been the better choice, and likely ends up losing his job over the whole thing.
(For a football example, just look at UNC football last year. Both T.J. Yates and Cam Sexton are very good quarterbacks capable of leading our team to wins. However, the team was consistently better when it was clear who the quarterback was. When Yates was playing well and holding down the starting job, the team won. When Yates was hurt and Sexton came in to start, the team won. When we had a controversy after Yates returned but was not back to form, the team lost and the season was ultimately lost.)
How does this theory apply to life?
You can't have two things at once. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
You just can't.
The most obvious example of the theory finding an application in my view is in dating choices. If I am simulatenously interested in two girls and can't decide which to pursue, then it is better for me to pursue neither than to try to pursue both. Inevitably, I will compare one to the other, feel like when I am spending time with the one I might really like the other better and vice versa. Ultimately, I will end up being unfair to one or both. I'll be mean. I'll be insensitive. I'll screw it up with both. And everyone will have been better off if I had just not tried anything at all. So don't pursue two girls at the same time, particularly if they are roommates. (Note to self. Don't do that anymore.)
I'm sure there are many other areas of life where this theory plays itself out. (i.e. when comparing two potential job opportunities, or two possible homes to buy, or two churches to get involved with.) Forget one. Two is the loneliest number. Or maybe, counting you, three's a crowd. Either way, bad idea.
OK. So there you have it. Disagree. Find situations in which the theory doesn't apply. Go.
Hold on.
One other thing. Just so you know, Jesus is on my side.
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Jesus (Matthew 6:24)
Alright. Now go.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
On a bike... In an ambulance.
I think Andrew and VZ helped make a case for why people are able to coorperate in ambulance situations. But Aaron provides an example that has all the components mentioned with the Ambulance Theory in a situation where the same understanding is not realized. What is the difference?
Suggestions:
Peer pressure in the Ambulance model. Everyone around is getting over; so even if some people would not respond appropriately they are pressured into cooperation... Kind of like recycling cans. Some people do it becuase they believe it is the right thing to do. Others do it becuase they feel they have too when they are in a group of people who believe that way. But when that person is alone he will not recycle. The car driver passing a biker has no peer pressure to act appropirately. He is alone and so he doesn't behave well.
Another idea is that sometimes people don't get over and the Ambulance is held up for a minute. This comparison the Ambulance is slowed but no tragedy or serious immediate danger occurs. Of course speed is important but the stress and danger of being hit by a car while on a bike makes each and every uncooperative driver a more significant situation.
Thanks for the input. Give some more.
Please welcome back Brent Woodcox for his second post. I'm sure it will be a great one.
Suggestions:
Peer pressure in the Ambulance model. Everyone around is getting over; so even if some people would not respond appropriately they are pressured into cooperation... Kind of like recycling cans. Some people do it becuase they believe it is the right thing to do. Others do it becuase they feel they have too when they are in a group of people who believe that way. But when that person is alone he will not recycle. The car driver passing a biker has no peer pressure to act appropirately. He is alone and so he doesn't behave well.
Another idea is that sometimes people don't get over and the Ambulance is held up for a minute. This comparison the Ambulance is slowed but no tragedy or serious immediate danger occurs. Of course speed is important but the stress and danger of being hit by a car while on a bike makes each and every uncooperative driver a more significant situation.
Thanks for the input. Give some more.
Please welcome back Brent Woodcox for his second post. I'm sure it will be a great one.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Ambulance Theory
So the other day Kristen and I were in traffic. Normal, 54 into Chapel Hill in the afternoon traffic. I heard the siren first. Or maybe it was the flashing lights. Either way, I quickly understood there was an ambulance coming. I had to get out of the way. As I moved to the right lane and slowed to a crawl/stop the other cars on this three lane stretch of road did the same. All the cars! 100%. Quickly, with great cooperation.
You continually see be stubborn and uncooperative with each other. Congress, churches, classmates and people in general; working together for a common good is hard to find. Except when an ambulance is coming through. This led me to think, what is it about this situation that makes everyone immediately corporate.
What is the same/different between roadway Ambulance navigation and cooperation in other areas of our lives. And what can we learn from these ideal situations cooperation to use in the other areas of our lives.
You continually see be stubborn and uncooperative with each other. Congress, churches, classmates and people in general; working together for a common good is hard to find. Except when an ambulance is coming through. This led me to think, what is it about this situation that makes everyone immediately corporate.
What is the same/different between roadway Ambulance navigation and cooperation in other areas of our lives. And what can we learn from these ideal situations cooperation to use in the other areas of our lives.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Honorary Friend Degree
I appreciate the recent guest theorists. My hope is that as we continue to post on this blog all the readers will begin developing their own theories to share.
My list of possible theories to post is ever growing. This is how it happens… I watch and think carefully about why people do what they do. I see trends and try to discover the core beliefs that give forth our daily actions.
One of the recent trends I have noticed is what I call Honorary Friend Degree. I thought this was appropriate considering the weekend of graduations in which universities provided people who did no work with honorary education degrees which they didn’t earn, just because of who they are. That is what happens here: Pronunciation of authority and expertise to someone because of who they are (your relationship with them).
Example: My brother recently had a baby. I was in Boone for Christmas as they entered the hospital and my sister-in-law was induced. In the hospital, with doctors and nurses easily accessible my family insisted that I call and ask Lindsay Veazey how long this process usually lasts. Did you get that? Across the state, with certified medical professionals monitoring the baby’s heart beat and giving the mother medicine, my family thought that a (fantastic, lovely, intelligent) resident in Ashville, NC was the best person to ask. Why?
My list of possible theories to post is ever growing. This is how it happens… I watch and think carefully about why people do what they do. I see trends and try to discover the core beliefs that give forth our daily actions.
One of the recent trends I have noticed is what I call Honorary Friend Degree. I thought this was appropriate considering the weekend of graduations in which universities provided people who did no work with honorary education degrees which they didn’t earn, just because of who they are. That is what happens here: Pronunciation of authority and expertise to someone because of who they are (your relationship with them).
Example: My brother recently had a baby. I was in Boone for Christmas as they entered the hospital and my sister-in-law was induced. In the hospital, with doctors and nurses easily accessible my family insisted that I call and ask Lindsay Veazey how long this process usually lasts. Did you get that? Across the state, with certified medical professionals monitoring the baby’s heart beat and giving the mother medicine, my family thought that a (fantastic, lovely, intelligent) resident in Ashville, NC was the best person to ask. Why?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Electronic Community
The argument: In an age when commercial advertisements and social networking sites remind us daily of our need to be more connected to each other, I believe, and have for quite some time now, that electronic communication and social-networking sites are creating bad social habits and ruining our understanding of community (what we reveal and what we expect). I will divide this argument into two posts. In this post I will briefly address the use of cell phones, and I will discuss some negative side of social networking sites.
First, let me say this. I know firsthand that having my Blackberry (with its e-mail and internet) is convenient and helpful; I admit I mildly enjoy posting silly Facebook statuses (like AIM away messages) for people to see; and I know Gmail-chat/video and other “connecting” technological advances are excellent ways to stay in touch with one’s family and friends. In other words, I'm not Kathy Bates in "Waterboy" arguing that technology or electronic communication, like foosball or Benjamin Franklin, are the Devil. I simply think we have to question our use and abuse of electronic communication and social networking sites, that’s it.
What originally sparked the idea for this post was my disdain for Twitter (i.e. Satan). Five months ago you would’ve thought Twitter was a new dance, sort of like the Stanky Leg (YouTube it when you can), but it’s everywhere now, and it, along with Facebook, is continuously changing what people do with their time and how they interact with other people in a virtual world. But before I can even discuss social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, I’d like to briefly discuss a device we all use – the cell phone.
As stated a moment ago, I appreciate the convenience of cell phones. It makes my life easier, that’s for sure. The problem is not cell phones, though, but how we let them (and the features that come with them – text messaging, internet, e-mail, etc.) distort how we go about as embodied people, particularly how they take priority over the people who immediately surround us sometimes. I know I’m guilty of doing this, ignoring my friends for the sake of a text message or a CNN browse, and if you don’t share my guilt you’ve at least witnessed similar situations. We’ve all seen the group of friends “hanging together” but all on the phone with someone not with them. We’ve been behind the man or woman in the grocery line, so involved in a conversation or text message that he or she barely acknowledges the person bagging the groceries. Or we’ve watched a friend neglect the group conversation for minutes on end to peruse Facebook or Twitter on their Blackberries or iPhones, with us bodily but not present mentally. We treat cell phones like people, and we treat people like products. Brian alluded to this behavior in his discussion of high school teenagers, but the problem is not just a teenage issue, but one we adults need to address. While we embrace the new technological landscape and all the convenience it offers, it calls for a new etiquette – one that doesn't seem to be in place yet, one that makes people around us a greater priority than our need to be connected to our cell phones at all times.
Moving on.
Social networking sites are the Devil…
Well, not exactly, but there’s some odd stuff taking place.
You’ve experienced it before. You click on your friends’ status updates, scroll through a few funny ones – “Clayton Greene never filters” or “Brian Turney is not bathing this week” – only to come across one that says “I feel so lost, alone, and I want to die” or “Why did my girlfriend have to break my heart into little, bitty pieces.” If you know the person at all it might cross your mind to send them a message or write something encouraging, for lack of a better word, on their wall. Usually, though, you ignore it, and you keep scrolling down your friends list until you see another status to giggle at, perhaps one that says, “Billy Hoffman breaks hearts like Chuck Norris breaks knees.”
The main concern isn’t necessarily one’s reaction to people’s heart-wrenching status updates (though we will get to that), but what it says about a culture that makes it acceptable for one to express one’s emotional anguish to “friends” via the internet, people they may have met once or barely talk to anymore. In real life, I wouldn’t normally tell Joe who sits beside me in New Testament the pain I feel from my breakup. Hell, I barely know his last name. And I wouldn’t walk into a room of strangers and blurt out my fears, frustrations, and life concerns for all to hear. That’d be too much information – in real life. Somehow, though, because we feel a connection to our electronic social networks and have tons of “friends” on Facebook and Twitter, respectively, we think it appropriate to say whatever we want and whenever we want, with little regard to filtering or questioning our online confession tendencies. We let go of our inhibitions, those that usually tell us, “Hey, you should probably only tell this to your close friends who care,” and we let loose like a drunk frat boy at a tailgate party. But why would we restrain ourselves? After all, we get to vent publicly (proving how transparent we are, right?) and in turn we get an “I like this” on our Facebook walls. We let our electronic community know our business, though they may know very little about our life or our situation, and in the process we seek comfort in the internet before the people we see and talk to regularly. (Note: this may be a far-fetched idea for us, but I think it's true for lots of people, especially teenagers who've never known a world without cell phones, internet, etc.)
This isn't to say one can’t read a Facebook or Twitter status, have sympathy, and actually make a difference. A few weeks ago, for instance, Demi Moore helped stop a woman from killing herself, a woman who expressed her desire to commit suicide via a Twitter tweet. While I applaud Moore for taking the time to alert authorities, again, one wonders what sort of society we’ve created when someone feels more comfortable expressing suicidal thoughts to a Hollywood celebrity – in 140 characters or less – rather than one’s neighbor, coworker, or the mailman. A recent study by the University of Southern California, though, revealed that perhaps even Moore’s Twitter-compassion might eventually stop. According to the study, getting updates via Twitter (and Facebook) could numb our sense of morality and make us indifferent to human suffering. The findings show that the “streams of information provided by social networking sites are too fast for the brain’s ‘moral compass’ to process and could harm young people’s emotional development.” Researcher Mary Helen Yang said, “If things are happening too fast, you may not ever fully experiences emotions about other people’s psychological states and that would have implications for morality.” In other words, Twitter will eventually lead to cold, immoral, heartless people. Watch out.
Those are the main thoughts for now. I'm sure I've generalized and haven't added quite enough points, but if there are response we can work on it. In the next post I will discuss how Twitter and Facebook, like cell phones, create an environment that makes it difficult for us to ever be alone, and how we must always be in the know, even if it’s reading someone's one-line Twitter update.
First, let me say this. I know firsthand that having my Blackberry (with its e-mail and internet) is convenient and helpful; I admit I mildly enjoy posting silly Facebook statuses (like AIM away messages) for people to see; and I know Gmail-chat/video and other “connecting” technological advances are excellent ways to stay in touch with one’s family and friends. In other words, I'm not Kathy Bates in "Waterboy" arguing that technology or electronic communication, like foosball or Benjamin Franklin, are the Devil. I simply think we have to question our use and abuse of electronic communication and social networking sites, that’s it.
What originally sparked the idea for this post was my disdain for Twitter (i.e. Satan). Five months ago you would’ve thought Twitter was a new dance, sort of like the Stanky Leg (YouTube it when you can), but it’s everywhere now, and it, along with Facebook, is continuously changing what people do with their time and how they interact with other people in a virtual world. But before I can even discuss social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook, I’d like to briefly discuss a device we all use – the cell phone.
As stated a moment ago, I appreciate the convenience of cell phones. It makes my life easier, that’s for sure. The problem is not cell phones, though, but how we let them (and the features that come with them – text messaging, internet, e-mail, etc.) distort how we go about as embodied people, particularly how they take priority over the people who immediately surround us sometimes. I know I’m guilty of doing this, ignoring my friends for the sake of a text message or a CNN browse, and if you don’t share my guilt you’ve at least witnessed similar situations. We’ve all seen the group of friends “hanging together” but all on the phone with someone not with them. We’ve been behind the man or woman in the grocery line, so involved in a conversation or text message that he or she barely acknowledges the person bagging the groceries. Or we’ve watched a friend neglect the group conversation for minutes on end to peruse Facebook or Twitter on their Blackberries or iPhones, with us bodily but not present mentally. We treat cell phones like people, and we treat people like products. Brian alluded to this behavior in his discussion of high school teenagers, but the problem is not just a teenage issue, but one we adults need to address. While we embrace the new technological landscape and all the convenience it offers, it calls for a new etiquette – one that doesn't seem to be in place yet, one that makes people around us a greater priority than our need to be connected to our cell phones at all times.
Moving on.
Social networking sites are the Devil…
Well, not exactly, but there’s some odd stuff taking place.
You’ve experienced it before. You click on your friends’ status updates, scroll through a few funny ones – “Clayton Greene never filters” or “Brian Turney is not bathing this week” – only to come across one that says “I feel so lost, alone, and I want to die” or “Why did my girlfriend have to break my heart into little, bitty pieces.” If you know the person at all it might cross your mind to send them a message or write something encouraging, for lack of a better word, on their wall. Usually, though, you ignore it, and you keep scrolling down your friends list until you see another status to giggle at, perhaps one that says, “Billy Hoffman breaks hearts like Chuck Norris breaks knees.”
The main concern isn’t necessarily one’s reaction to people’s heart-wrenching status updates (though we will get to that), but what it says about a culture that makes it acceptable for one to express one’s emotional anguish to “friends” via the internet, people they may have met once or barely talk to anymore. In real life, I wouldn’t normally tell Joe who sits beside me in New Testament the pain I feel from my breakup. Hell, I barely know his last name. And I wouldn’t walk into a room of strangers and blurt out my fears, frustrations, and life concerns for all to hear. That’d be too much information – in real life. Somehow, though, because we feel a connection to our electronic social networks and have tons of “friends” on Facebook and Twitter, respectively, we think it appropriate to say whatever we want and whenever we want, with little regard to filtering or questioning our online confession tendencies. We let go of our inhibitions, those that usually tell us, “Hey, you should probably only tell this to your close friends who care,” and we let loose like a drunk frat boy at a tailgate party. But why would we restrain ourselves? After all, we get to vent publicly (proving how transparent we are, right?) and in turn we get an “I like this” on our Facebook walls. We let our electronic community know our business, though they may know very little about our life or our situation, and in the process we seek comfort in the internet before the people we see and talk to regularly. (Note: this may be a far-fetched idea for us, but I think it's true for lots of people, especially teenagers who've never known a world without cell phones, internet, etc.)
This isn't to say one can’t read a Facebook or Twitter status, have sympathy, and actually make a difference. A few weeks ago, for instance, Demi Moore helped stop a woman from killing herself, a woman who expressed her desire to commit suicide via a Twitter tweet. While I applaud Moore for taking the time to alert authorities, again, one wonders what sort of society we’ve created when someone feels more comfortable expressing suicidal thoughts to a Hollywood celebrity – in 140 characters or less – rather than one’s neighbor, coworker, or the mailman. A recent study by the University of Southern California, though, revealed that perhaps even Moore’s Twitter-compassion might eventually stop. According to the study, getting updates via Twitter (and Facebook) could numb our sense of morality and make us indifferent to human suffering. The findings show that the “streams of information provided by social networking sites are too fast for the brain’s ‘moral compass’ to process and could harm young people’s emotional development.” Researcher Mary Helen Yang said, “If things are happening too fast, you may not ever fully experiences emotions about other people’s psychological states and that would have implications for morality.” In other words, Twitter will eventually lead to cold, immoral, heartless people. Watch out.
Those are the main thoughts for now. I'm sure I've generalized and haven't added quite enough points, but if there are response we can work on it. In the next post I will discuss how Twitter and Facebook, like cell phones, create an environment that makes it difficult for us to ever be alone, and how we must always be in the know, even if it’s reading someone's one-line Twitter update.
Friday, May 1, 2009
De-Evolution: A Response
Thanks to those who commented on the de-evolution theory. If you haven't commented yet, I think you should offer your insight - there's good stuff we can gain from thinking about this idea.
I am not going to retract my original theory, but I would like to respond to the comments:
Amy: Good thoughts on creativity in toddlers. I had not thought about this yet, but it is true. Modern technologies are taking away from creativity in children, at least the kind of creativity we had when we were young. More on this below.
Aaron: Glad you brought God into this. I can say from my own personal experience that technology has definitely hindered my relationship with God. I can't blame technology in and of itself - its my choice - but the multitude of technologies available do seem to be distracting us from what is really important.
Chad: Good stuff. Best thought:
"However, those people who use these technologies and don't talk in real life are probably the counter parts of the recluses in yesteryear. So while techno-munication is rampant, it is used by those individuals who both succeed and fail at real life communication."
So perhaps we're not de-evolving - but the way our evolutionary tendencies express themselves are just shifting. I don't have a good way of summing this up. Best comment in my opinion.
Clayton: Your comment is totally confusing, and if you hadn't explained it to me, I wouldn't get it. Basically Clayton is saying that we're going to get to a point where we realize that all the stuff we're sacrificing - communication, relationships, health, etc. - we'll realize we need this stuff, and someone will come about and remind us that we need it. Our priorities will shift back to these things. Right now the priority is on new technologies - but eventually we'll come back around.
In response, Clayton - I'm not sure we'll ever go back. Take Amy's comment about creativity - its going to get to a point where what we know now about real relationships, etc. will be a thing of the past - no one will be around to remind us about them. History.
But then again, maybe thats just evolution.
Kris: Twitter is definitely from the devil.
And yes, I was a bit drastic in my theory. But its stuff to think about.
Sorry I can't respond in more detail. I'm at camp and don't have time to do a thorough wrap-up.
Thanks again for the thoughts.
I am not going to retract my original theory, but I would like to respond to the comments:
Amy: Good thoughts on creativity in toddlers. I had not thought about this yet, but it is true. Modern technologies are taking away from creativity in children, at least the kind of creativity we had when we were young. More on this below.
Aaron: Glad you brought God into this. I can say from my own personal experience that technology has definitely hindered my relationship with God. I can't blame technology in and of itself - its my choice - but the multitude of technologies available do seem to be distracting us from what is really important.
Chad: Good stuff. Best thought:
"However, those people who use these technologies and don't talk in real life are probably the counter parts of the recluses in yesteryear. So while techno-munication is rampant, it is used by those individuals who both succeed and fail at real life communication."
So perhaps we're not de-evolving - but the way our evolutionary tendencies express themselves are just shifting. I don't have a good way of summing this up. Best comment in my opinion.
Clayton: Your comment is totally confusing, and if you hadn't explained it to me, I wouldn't get it. Basically Clayton is saying that we're going to get to a point where we realize that all the stuff we're sacrificing - communication, relationships, health, etc. - we'll realize we need this stuff, and someone will come about and remind us that we need it. Our priorities will shift back to these things. Right now the priority is on new technologies - but eventually we'll come back around.
In response, Clayton - I'm not sure we'll ever go back. Take Amy's comment about creativity - its going to get to a point where what we know now about real relationships, etc. will be a thing of the past - no one will be around to remind us about them. History.
But then again, maybe thats just evolution.
Kris: Twitter is definitely from the devil.
And yes, I was a bit drastic in my theory. But its stuff to think about.
Sorry I can't respond in more detail. I'm at camp and don't have time to do a thorough wrap-up.
Thanks again for the thoughts.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The De-Evolution of Modern Man (& Woman)
The unfortunate part about climbing a mountain is that inevitably you are going to have to come back down. You reach the top, enjoy the view for a while, and then begin the trek downward. Sometimes the journey down is pleasant, the terrain is smooth and gradual, and you arrive at the bottom relaxed and ready for another adventure. Other times the journey down is steep, rocky, and your toes are continually jammed into the front of your boots, causing immense discomfort and a sworn declaration to never go hiking again.
In this “theory,” I will argue that modern man has reached the top of the mountain, and while we may be enjoying the view at the moment, soon we’ll be heading back down. The trek downward will be gradual and seemingly pleasant, but I am afraid we will find ourselves once again at the bottom, exhausted and perhaps even less prepared, or able, to attempt another hike.
End analogy.
THEORY: Modern man, through advances in technology, inter-personal communication, and thought, has reached the pinnacle of its being. Having reached the summit of the mountain, modern man is now beginning a “downward trek” (hereto referred to as “de-evolution”) into a less developed (less-evolved) state of mind and being. Ironically, the very advances that have brought us to the top are now bringing us back down.
First, a note on my terminology:
“De-evolution” – I just like this term. I know it’s not scientifically correct, but this is more of a social theory anyway. Just go with it.
To support my theory, I offer 5 areas of modern development in which our advances are beginning to produce negative effects, and thus cause us to de-evolve. Areas 1 & 2 provided the basis for this theory, and areas 3-5 are supplemental evidence.
#1 Inter-personal Communication
Facebook, AIM, Email, Gmail Chat, Texting, Blogging – what do these technologies have in common? We all use at least one of them (if not all), and they are all means of communication that do not involve actual person-to-person contact. These technologies were designed to easily connect us with those around us. And they do. But at what expense? From my observation and experience, our generation’s growing dependence on technology as a means for inter-personal communication is having a negative effect on our ability to communicate in the “real world” (i.e. in person). Examples:
1. For a sociology project during my freshmen year at college, I stopped using AIM for a month and a half. Aside from feeling withdrawn from the world (how would I know what people are up to if I can’t read their away messages?), I noticed that others felt withdrawn from me. On more than one occasion, someone asked “Where have you been lately?” The reality was that I had physically been around just as much as before, I just wasn’t online. I guess my online presence was more powerful than my physical presence. Interesting.
2. I lead a Bible Study for high schoolers. These kids are addicted to texting. I have had more than one occasion in which they would text me or another leader and have an ENTIRE CONVERSATION via texting, but as soon as you called them or tried to talk to them in person, they went silent. Texting had made them uncomfortable (and dare I say unable?) to communicate outside of technology.
3. I’ve had other experiences where people (usually high school girls) who talk their brains out on AIM won’t talk to you in person. It’s like they’re completely different people.
#2 Freedom of Thought
The ability to think freely, rationally, and independently is a hallmark of a modern, developed society. I don’t have solid evidence for this, but its just common sense (right Andrew?). Look at American society today. Open mindedness has come to be characteristic of those we see as intelligent, socially aware, advanced, etc. We like people who think for themselves and who can respect what others think. But there’s a point where being open minded becomes a problem. The biggest example of this I see is the loosening of what is deemed “right” and “wrong.” We live in an increasingly morally relativistic society in which right and wrong, good and bad, is slowly becoming a thing of the past. If you truly hold to a rigid system of right and wrong, then you are seen as close-minded, and thus looked down upon.
I would argue that a belief in right and wrong, good and bad, is what has helped move mankind onward. Without these systems in place, there would be no structure, no organization, and thus no society.
In the name of independence and freedom of thought, the very things that have made us into a modern and developed society will bring us back to a prehistoric mentality. We’ll all be cavemen again! I recognize that this is an extreme conclusion, but if you think about the logical conclusion of such free thinking and how it will affect our social structure, you may begin to see my point.
#3 Mobility
This falls under the broader category of technological advancement (as does interpersonal communication). Again, I have a couple examples of modern technologies that, while serving a beneficial purpose, also produce negative effects on mankind that will hurt us in the long run.
1. Elevators and escalators. We all use them. They’re an easy way to get to the 30th floor, or the 2nd if you’re that person that everyone on the elevator hates because you were too lazy to take the stairs. Or if you’ve been to an airport or amusement park with the moving walkways. Just get on, stand, and ride along – it’ll take you longer, but hey, its convenient! All of this is useful technology, but at what expense? Physical fitness. Yes, I know that walking up stairs is not the only means of physical activity in ones day, but its that much less than you would be getting. Think WALL-E. All those people floating around in their own personal hovercrafts. What happened to them? They’re all fat (not to mention they don’t know how to communicate with one another due to their dependence on computer screens as a primary form of communication).
2. Cars. Another great invention. Not knocking cars. But we’re getting less exercise. I drive to my gym, which is really only a 15 minute walk from my house. Why? Because I have the convenience and availability of a car.
Cars and elevators aren’t going to bring about the downfall of mankind, but in the long run, as we continue to have similar technological developments, they could end up doing more harm than good. Lets hope we don’t end up like the people in WALL-E.
#4 Dwelling
I live in a townhouse, literally attached to the people who live next to me. Everyone in my neighborhood is attached to someone else. But I’ve noticed something – no one seems to know one another! This is ironic, given that living closer would seem to increase the number of relationships you have with those around you. But on my street, at least, this doesn’t happen. (Or maybe it’s just me?) Could this be a trend in other close communities? Houses and neighborhoods are being built closer and closer to one another – but what about the person-to-person relationships? They seem to be weakening. See #1 above.
#5 Prescription Drugs
There are lots of amazing medical developments happening these days, not the least of which is the development of a drug for absolutely every condition that a human body can possibly develop. Do you breathe at night? There’s a drug to help you breathe better. Do you have pain in your joints? Drug for that. Do you have trouble keeping your legs still? Drug for that. Do you have snot in your nose? Drug for that. Does your CURRENT prescription medication not do enough? Well take another one.
There’s a drug for EVERYTHING, and what is disturbing is an apparent increase in the risk of serious side effects of these drugs. Listen to any prescription medication commercial. Side effects range from drowsiness, heart burn, digestive problems, erectile dysfunction, migraine, dry mouth, restlessness, difficulty breathing, joint pain and even death.
Is it worth it? The human body is already equipped to fight off disease and heal itself. With all the new drugs coming out, we’re not allowing the body to do its work. Yes, there’s a need for medication – but when do we stop and just our evolutionary heritage work for us? I’m afraid the advancements in medical technology and prescription drugs will certainly be adding years to our life, but given the negative effects of many other “developments” (medications included), I wonder what kind of life will be in these years.
I am well aware that I have not outlined the most thorough or convincing argument. I can see how it would be easy to get caught up in my examples and even some of the wording I used. My examples were not scientific and they were in large part from my own (subjective!) experience. I have drawn some extreme conclusions. Many correlations can be drawn, but the fact is that correlation does not imply causality, and there are many other factors that may contribute to some of the negative effects I have discussed.
But there is some truth to what I am saying.
The ability to effectively communicate with others, a system and belief in right and wrong, physical fitness, personal relationships, and good health, among other things – all of these are things that have brought mankind into modernity. I am afraid, however, that the very things that have allowed us to become who we are will eventually bring us back to a point at which we don’t want to be. I fear for the day when people no longer are able (or have a need) to communicate in real person-person contact, hold someone accountable for their actions, get around without their own personal hovercraft (I know, extreme), develop meaningful relationships, or live without the assistance of drugs and medical technologies. What kind of life would we be living?
So here are some questions to ponder:
- Do you believe there is a point where mankind can no longer advance?
- What other advancements in our modern world could potentially produce negative effects on mankind? At what point do the cons outweigh the pros?
- How can we counteract these negative effects, and thus still enjoy the convenience and usefulness of new developments in thought and technology?
- What other factors could be contributing to the negative examples I mentioned?
- When will Jesus come back and finally save us from our own self-destruction?
Discuss, disagree, counter-argue, complain, get angry, agree. Share your thoughts, before we’re unable to do so any more.
In this “theory,” I will argue that modern man has reached the top of the mountain, and while we may be enjoying the view at the moment, soon we’ll be heading back down. The trek downward will be gradual and seemingly pleasant, but I am afraid we will find ourselves once again at the bottom, exhausted and perhaps even less prepared, or able, to attempt another hike.
End analogy.
THEORY: Modern man, through advances in technology, inter-personal communication, and thought, has reached the pinnacle of its being. Having reached the summit of the mountain, modern man is now beginning a “downward trek” (hereto referred to as “de-evolution”) into a less developed (less-evolved) state of mind and being. Ironically, the very advances that have brought us to the top are now bringing us back down.
First, a note on my terminology:
“De-evolution” – I just like this term. I know it’s not scientifically correct, but this is more of a social theory anyway. Just go with it.
To support my theory, I offer 5 areas of modern development in which our advances are beginning to produce negative effects, and thus cause us to de-evolve. Areas 1 & 2 provided the basis for this theory, and areas 3-5 are supplemental evidence.
#1 Inter-personal Communication
Facebook, AIM, Email, Gmail Chat, Texting, Blogging – what do these technologies have in common? We all use at least one of them (if not all), and they are all means of communication that do not involve actual person-to-person contact. These technologies were designed to easily connect us with those around us. And they do. But at what expense? From my observation and experience, our generation’s growing dependence on technology as a means for inter-personal communication is having a negative effect on our ability to communicate in the “real world” (i.e. in person). Examples:
1. For a sociology project during my freshmen year at college, I stopped using AIM for a month and a half. Aside from feeling withdrawn from the world (how would I know what people are up to if I can’t read their away messages?), I noticed that others felt withdrawn from me. On more than one occasion, someone asked “Where have you been lately?” The reality was that I had physically been around just as much as before, I just wasn’t online. I guess my online presence was more powerful than my physical presence. Interesting.
2. I lead a Bible Study for high schoolers. These kids are addicted to texting. I have had more than one occasion in which they would text me or another leader and have an ENTIRE CONVERSATION via texting, but as soon as you called them or tried to talk to them in person, they went silent. Texting had made them uncomfortable (and dare I say unable?) to communicate outside of technology.
3. I’ve had other experiences where people (usually high school girls) who talk their brains out on AIM won’t talk to you in person. It’s like they’re completely different people.
#2 Freedom of Thought
The ability to think freely, rationally, and independently is a hallmark of a modern, developed society. I don’t have solid evidence for this, but its just common sense (right Andrew?). Look at American society today. Open mindedness has come to be characteristic of those we see as intelligent, socially aware, advanced, etc. We like people who think for themselves and who can respect what others think. But there’s a point where being open minded becomes a problem. The biggest example of this I see is the loosening of what is deemed “right” and “wrong.” We live in an increasingly morally relativistic society in which right and wrong, good and bad, is slowly becoming a thing of the past. If you truly hold to a rigid system of right and wrong, then you are seen as close-minded, and thus looked down upon.
I would argue that a belief in right and wrong, good and bad, is what has helped move mankind onward. Without these systems in place, there would be no structure, no organization, and thus no society.
In the name of independence and freedom of thought, the very things that have made us into a modern and developed society will bring us back to a prehistoric mentality. We’ll all be cavemen again! I recognize that this is an extreme conclusion, but if you think about the logical conclusion of such free thinking and how it will affect our social structure, you may begin to see my point.
#3 Mobility
This falls under the broader category of technological advancement (as does interpersonal communication). Again, I have a couple examples of modern technologies that, while serving a beneficial purpose, also produce negative effects on mankind that will hurt us in the long run.
1. Elevators and escalators. We all use them. They’re an easy way to get to the 30th floor, or the 2nd if you’re that person that everyone on the elevator hates because you were too lazy to take the stairs. Or if you’ve been to an airport or amusement park with the moving walkways. Just get on, stand, and ride along – it’ll take you longer, but hey, its convenient! All of this is useful technology, but at what expense? Physical fitness. Yes, I know that walking up stairs is not the only means of physical activity in ones day, but its that much less than you would be getting. Think WALL-E. All those people floating around in their own personal hovercrafts. What happened to them? They’re all fat (not to mention they don’t know how to communicate with one another due to their dependence on computer screens as a primary form of communication).
2. Cars. Another great invention. Not knocking cars. But we’re getting less exercise. I drive to my gym, which is really only a 15 minute walk from my house. Why? Because I have the convenience and availability of a car.
Cars and elevators aren’t going to bring about the downfall of mankind, but in the long run, as we continue to have similar technological developments, they could end up doing more harm than good. Lets hope we don’t end up like the people in WALL-E.
#4 Dwelling
I live in a townhouse, literally attached to the people who live next to me. Everyone in my neighborhood is attached to someone else. But I’ve noticed something – no one seems to know one another! This is ironic, given that living closer would seem to increase the number of relationships you have with those around you. But on my street, at least, this doesn’t happen. (Or maybe it’s just me?) Could this be a trend in other close communities? Houses and neighborhoods are being built closer and closer to one another – but what about the person-to-person relationships? They seem to be weakening. See #1 above.
#5 Prescription Drugs
There are lots of amazing medical developments happening these days, not the least of which is the development of a drug for absolutely every condition that a human body can possibly develop. Do you breathe at night? There’s a drug to help you breathe better. Do you have pain in your joints? Drug for that. Do you have trouble keeping your legs still? Drug for that. Do you have snot in your nose? Drug for that. Does your CURRENT prescription medication not do enough? Well take another one.
There’s a drug for EVERYTHING, and what is disturbing is an apparent increase in the risk of serious side effects of these drugs. Listen to any prescription medication commercial. Side effects range from drowsiness, heart burn, digestive problems, erectile dysfunction, migraine, dry mouth, restlessness, difficulty breathing, joint pain and even death.
Is it worth it? The human body is already equipped to fight off disease and heal itself. With all the new drugs coming out, we’re not allowing the body to do its work. Yes, there’s a need for medication – but when do we stop and just our evolutionary heritage work for us? I’m afraid the advancements in medical technology and prescription drugs will certainly be adding years to our life, but given the negative effects of many other “developments” (medications included), I wonder what kind of life will be in these years.
I am well aware that I have not outlined the most thorough or convincing argument. I can see how it would be easy to get caught up in my examples and even some of the wording I used. My examples were not scientific and they were in large part from my own (subjective!) experience. I have drawn some extreme conclusions. Many correlations can be drawn, but the fact is that correlation does not imply causality, and there are many other factors that may contribute to some of the negative effects I have discussed.
But there is some truth to what I am saying.
The ability to effectively communicate with others, a system and belief in right and wrong, physical fitness, personal relationships, and good health, among other things – all of these are things that have brought mankind into modernity. I am afraid, however, that the very things that have allowed us to become who we are will eventually bring us back to a point at which we don’t want to be. I fear for the day when people no longer are able (or have a need) to communicate in real person-person contact, hold someone accountable for their actions, get around without their own personal hovercraft (I know, extreme), develop meaningful relationships, or live without the assistance of drugs and medical technologies. What kind of life would we be living?
So here are some questions to ponder:
- Do you believe there is a point where mankind can no longer advance?
- What other advancements in our modern world could potentially produce negative effects on mankind? At what point do the cons outweigh the pros?
- How can we counteract these negative effects, and thus still enjoy the convenience and usefulness of new developments in thought and technology?
- What other factors could be contributing to the negative examples I mentioned?
- When will Jesus come back and finally save us from our own self-destruction?
Discuss, disagree, counter-argue, complain, get angry, agree. Share your thoughts, before we’re unable to do so any more.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Uncommon Sense about Common Sense
At one time or another, you have referred to some idea or behavior as common sense, most likely in reference to an instance in which you personally observed a breach of it. If you haven't done this, you have directly witnessed someone else doing it. Commons sense is a widely accepted and often applied concept to many of the ideas and behaviors we perform and encounter on a daily basis. But have you ever actually thought about the concept of common sense? Who decides what ideas or behaviors fit into this category and on what grounds? Most importantly, if common sense is as common as it claims to be, why are breaches of it so prolific? There are no good answers to these questions because common sense is a concept that is fatally flawed at its most basic level.
What is common sense? Dictionary.com suggests that common sense is a "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training or the like; normal native intelligence." This definition tells us two important things. 1) Common sense refers to knowledge or behavior that is native and normal. These ideas and behaviors seems to blatantly obvious that it is shocking to see someone act contrary to it. 2) Common sense refers to ideas and behaviors that are not taught, but instinctual. Due to this, the implication is that this set of knowledge and behaviors is obligatory upon any rational being. The universality and absolutivity with which common sense then applies to humanity becomes problematic when we consider how often we see people act contrary to common sense.
I think this problem arises from the fact that the modern understanding of common sense refers to things that are not truly instinctual, but rather to things that we think should be instinctual but actually must be learned. Take breathing for example. Knowing to breath is instinctual whereas knowing not to breath under water must be learned. Breathing does not constitute something that we would believe to be common sense. However, knowing you can't breath under water is placed in the common sense category. Why is this? It is because we create a category of ideas and behaviors based on observations of what ideas work best and what behaviors are the most appropriate reactions to specific stimuli (i.e. "sound practical judgement"). However, the fact that there are breaches of our prerceived common sense categories suggest that there are those who either haven't come to the same conclusion or haven't had the opportunity to react to those stimuli and thus develop a preferred/best response. Therefore, since common sense appears so subjective, can it actually claim true "commonness?"
Two other aspects of common sense further confirm the problematic nature of "common sense":
1 - It is practically impossible to measure how "common"various tenants of common sense actually are. People don't want to appear devoid of common sense themselves. Therefore, when they are questioned as to whether something is common sense, they will reply (both vocally and mentally) "of course it is" unless the matter at hand is so blatantly not common sensicle that they do not risk ridicule for disagreeing. Even thought they may have not previously considered a certain matter common sense, they will now amend their personal "common sense" category to include this matter in order to appear as being in compliance with widespread common sense.
2) Common sense is culturally and chronologically contextualized, suggesting it is more often based on subjective than objective substance. Take hand washing for example. In 21st century America, it is common sense to wash one's hands after using the restroom and before eating. 200 years ago, this was not necessarily the case. Today while it is common sense in America, it is not so in many disease plaugued areas of Africa and Asia. This, once again, begs the question of how "common" common sense actually is.
In conclusion, common sense is a fatally flawed concept because it is not true to what it claims to be. Both the name and the general understanding of common sense suggests that it pertains to ideas and behaviors that everyone should know. The fact that the ideas and behaviors that we classify as "common sense" must be learned demonstrates that they cannot tuely be considered "common." Rather, common sense entities are simply a set of ideas and behaviors that provide a disguised opportunity for condescension by those who are privileged to have learned about those entities against those who haven't. Common sense thrives on relativity and social contextualization and thus cannot claim to be common at all. In all honesty, the only things actually worthy to fit into a category claiming commonness go by another name - instinct.
What is common sense? Dictionary.com suggests that common sense is a "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training or the like; normal native intelligence." This definition tells us two important things. 1) Common sense refers to knowledge or behavior that is native and normal. These ideas and behaviors seems to blatantly obvious that it is shocking to see someone act contrary to it. 2) Common sense refers to ideas and behaviors that are not taught, but instinctual. Due to this, the implication is that this set of knowledge and behaviors is obligatory upon any rational being. The universality and absolutivity with which common sense then applies to humanity becomes problematic when we consider how often we see people act contrary to common sense.I think this problem arises from the fact that the modern understanding of common sense refers to things that are not truly instinctual, but rather to things that we think should be instinctual but actually must be learned. Take breathing for example. Knowing to breath is instinctual whereas knowing not to breath under water must be learned. Breathing does not constitute something that we would believe to be common sense. However, knowing you can't breath under water is placed in the common sense category. Why is this? It is because we create a category of ideas and behaviors based on observations of what ideas work best and what behaviors are the most appropriate reactions to specific stimuli (i.e. "sound practical judgement"). However, the fact that there are breaches of our prerceived common sense categories suggest that there are those who either haven't come to the same conclusion or haven't had the opportunity to react to those stimuli and thus develop a preferred/best response. Therefore, since common sense appears so subjective, can it actually claim true "commonness?"
Two other aspects of common sense further confirm the problematic nature of "common sense":
1 - It is practically impossible to measure how "common"various tenants of common sense actually are. People don't want to appear devoid of common sense themselves. Therefore, when they are questioned as to whether something is common sense, they will reply (both vocally and mentally) "of course it is" unless the matter at hand is so blatantly not common sensicle that they do not risk ridicule for disagreeing. Even thought they may have not previously considered a certain matter common sense, they will now amend their personal "common sense" category to include this matter in order to appear as being in compliance with widespread common sense.
2) Common sense is culturally and chronologically contextualized, suggesting it is more often based on subjective than objective substance. Take hand washing for example. In 21st century America, it is common sense to wash one's hands after using the restroom and before eating. 200 years ago, this was not necessarily the case. Today while it is common sense in America, it is not so in many disease plaugued areas of Africa and Asia. This, once again, begs the question of how "common" common sense actually is.
In conclusion, common sense is a fatally flawed concept because it is not true to what it claims to be. Both the name and the general understanding of common sense suggests that it pertains to ideas and behaviors that everyone should know. The fact that the ideas and behaviors that we classify as "common sense" must be learned demonstrates that they cannot tuely be considered "common." Rather, common sense entities are simply a set of ideas and behaviors that provide a disguised opportunity for condescension by those who are privileged to have learned about those entities against those who haven't. Common sense thrives on relativity and social contextualization and thus cannot claim to be common at all. In all honesty, the only things actually worthy to fit into a category claiming commonness go by another name - instinct.
Final Anecdote.
One final thought and then some conclusions.
I would like to take this moment to stress that personal experiences and anecdotal evidence have truth in them. Your life, and your stories actually occurred. That is as real as it comes and when handled appropriately that leads to discovery of truth.
Of course, an example. Yesterday I bought tomato plants to plant in the Patagonia garden. When making this purchase in Tabor City, Mr. Fonville explained to me what I was supposed to do with the fertilizer and vegetables I had purchased. He was telling me “how I do it in my garden is…”. From years of experience growing his own crops he knew just how to tend, prepare, protect, and yield a great crop. Truly he got most of his information from trial and error, which led to his claims of how this plants will grow the best. Certainly scientist have done research to support his suggestions but his confidence and success year after year is supported most heavily by the outcome of his garden and the flavors that are laid on his table. Just as in this farming situation, the outcomes and evidence of real life experience are the confirmation of scientific, logical reasoning previously termed “online processing”. What happens in real life is the final determiner as to what is true.
Unfortunately, as we saw earlier, our experiences can often be misunderstood which could lead to false assumptions and beliefs about our world.
In review.
1. Personal experiences (anecdotal evidence) weigh more heavily into our conclusions than we give credit for.
2. Life stories give evidence that has in it the power of confirmation of truth.
3. Our interpretation of this real life evidence can be applied incorrectly and lead us to inaccurate theories and beliefs.
So where does this leave us?
This changes how we treat those who have different beliefs than us.
If you set of ideas, beliefs, and theories are partially biased and based of what your personal experiences have taught you then everyone’s thoughts are skewed in the same way. With this understanding we become much more charitable to others in terms of their views and thoughts about the world. This means in order to understand each other, in order to find common ground we have to put effort into grasping the effect each persons anecdotal evidence is having on their conclusions.
However, if we all live in the same world and we are all humans their must be truth than transcends our personal stories, a truth that remains even in our individual context. If only there were some truth that fit this mold. A truth that was able to satisfy, answer, and fulfill all the theories, faiths, and questions we have about life and how we should live it.
Tim Keller in his book The Reason For God he suggest attempting to prove things in life using our anecdotal evidence/personal experiences with reality to measure our theories about life by. He says… “A theory is considered verified if it organizes the evidence and explains phenomena (experiences) better than any conceivable alternative theory. That is, if, through testing, it (a theory) leads us to expect with accuracy many and varied events better than any other rival account of the same data, then it is accepted…” In other words, if your theory explains your circumstances and experiences and no other theory can explain it with any more clarity then you should accept that theory.
Tim Keller shows how the Gospel of Jesus is this truth that transcends and fulfills each persons anecdotal evidence about what life is. The Gospel of Jesus does this and he explains it well as Contextualization of the Gospel.
What does this mean for anecdotal evidence. Weigh your experiences and humbly consider the alternative theories other people offer to explain what your personal stories reveal. Keep searching for truth.
Sorry for the confusing discourse this week. I look forward to the day when I can more clearly dictate my thoughts. I hope Andrew Brown can provide a theory that provokes greater discussion. Please help me welcome our 5th theorist, Andrew Brown.
I would like to take this moment to stress that personal experiences and anecdotal evidence have truth in them. Your life, and your stories actually occurred. That is as real as it comes and when handled appropriately that leads to discovery of truth.
Of course, an example. Yesterday I bought tomato plants to plant in the Patagonia garden. When making this purchase in Tabor City, Mr. Fonville explained to me what I was supposed to do with the fertilizer and vegetables I had purchased. He was telling me “how I do it in my garden is…”. From years of experience growing his own crops he knew just how to tend, prepare, protect, and yield a great crop. Truly he got most of his information from trial and error, which led to his claims of how this plants will grow the best. Certainly scientist have done research to support his suggestions but his confidence and success year after year is supported most heavily by the outcome of his garden and the flavors that are laid on his table. Just as in this farming situation, the outcomes and evidence of real life experience are the confirmation of scientific, logical reasoning previously termed “online processing”. What happens in real life is the final determiner as to what is true.
Unfortunately, as we saw earlier, our experiences can often be misunderstood which could lead to false assumptions and beliefs about our world.
In review.
1. Personal experiences (anecdotal evidence) weigh more heavily into our conclusions than we give credit for.
2. Life stories give evidence that has in it the power of confirmation of truth.
3. Our interpretation of this real life evidence can be applied incorrectly and lead us to inaccurate theories and beliefs.
So where does this leave us?
This changes how we treat those who have different beliefs than us.
If you set of ideas, beliefs, and theories are partially biased and based of what your personal experiences have taught you then everyone’s thoughts are skewed in the same way. With this understanding we become much more charitable to others in terms of their views and thoughts about the world. This means in order to understand each other, in order to find common ground we have to put effort into grasping the effect each persons anecdotal evidence is having on their conclusions.
However, if we all live in the same world and we are all humans their must be truth than transcends our personal stories, a truth that remains even in our individual context. If only there were some truth that fit this mold. A truth that was able to satisfy, answer, and fulfill all the theories, faiths, and questions we have about life and how we should live it.
Tim Keller in his book The Reason For God he suggest attempting to prove things in life using our anecdotal evidence/personal experiences with reality to measure our theories about life by. He says… “A theory is considered verified if it organizes the evidence and explains phenomena (experiences) better than any conceivable alternative theory. That is, if, through testing, it (a theory) leads us to expect with accuracy many and varied events better than any other rival account of the same data, then it is accepted…” In other words, if your theory explains your circumstances and experiences and no other theory can explain it with any more clarity then you should accept that theory.
Tim Keller shows how the Gospel of Jesus is this truth that transcends and fulfills each persons anecdotal evidence about what life is. The Gospel of Jesus does this and he explains it well as Contextualization of the Gospel.
What does this mean for anecdotal evidence. Weigh your experiences and humbly consider the alternative theories other people offer to explain what your personal stories reveal. Keep searching for truth.
Sorry for the confusing discourse this week. I look forward to the day when I can more clearly dictate my thoughts. I hope Andrew Brown can provide a theory that provokes greater discussion. Please help me welcome our 5th theorist, Andrew Brown.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
What You See Is What You Believe .
I'll address Jerry's thought first. I do think that both positive and negative experiences weigh in on our beliefs and thoughts. To give an example of how negative anecdotal evidence could effect a belief I will turn to the health care system.
Say your aunt gets some version of cancer. The doctors say she has a good chance of recovering. Maybe they even gave a percentage chance of recovering that was encouraging. They say 75% of people survive. But sadly your aunt was not fortunate to be part of that 75%. The next time you hear of someone you know who gets that particular version of cancer, will you believe the doctors prognosis? Even though the doctors are basing their expected outcomes on tons of research and countless databases with information regarding the outcomes of patients with this particular cancer, your mind set will remain pessimistic. Your mind can not be modified with other forms of evidence, your anecdotal evidence of your aunt’s experience is exerting its dominance on your belief. Again, I'm not trying to say that this is wrong, I'm just pointing out that our personal experiences weigh heavily onto what we believe whether they are positive or negative.
I loved Glenn's comment. That is what I needed to hear to test and challenge my thoughts in regards to this theory. I understand "online processing" as he explained it. To clarify, I didn't say that all decisions and beliefs were solely based on anecdotal evidence, I only wish to suggest that personal experiences weigh heavily, and much more heavily than we give credit for.
I see and support this idea of "online processing" being ONE means to determining truth but I think that critical thinking, reasoning, and logical analysis are easily pushed and pulled around by our experiences. Those experiences are the strong hold that anchors your thoughts. If you had a different set of personal experiences you would have a tendency/desire to confirm or reject the conclusions that your online processing brings. A tendency that is based on anecdotal evidence.
Let me allow C.S. Lewis eloquently speak on the idea that singularly, "online processing" doesn't become permanent in our minds in a way that can only be removed by another well placed cognitive argument.
On reasoning he used to depend on which he now sees is wrong he says…“I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so."...
“We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither this belief (Christian) nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed…”...
“As a matter of fact, if you examined a hundred people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have reasoned out of it by honest argument?
A final example is one familiar to many UNC grads (specifically those in religious circles)...Bart Ehrman.
Dr. Ehrman was formerly a devout Christian. In his class he explains his loss of the faith. He reports that in studying scripture the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Bible led him to question its validity and ultimately led him away from Christianity. (This is where I attempt to see deep into the heart of this man without ever meeting him) I have heard report from a few friends that although he credits his loss of faith to these things, his real issue and gut wrenched problem with Christianity seems to lie in his disapproval of its followers, not in his concerns with the text. He just seems to be the most passionately angry about Christians and how they live their lives. I'm not saying that his reasoning and textual arguments don't also substantiate his dismissal of Christianity but I do think his disenchanting personal experiences strongly persuade him to believe a certain way.
So maybe the better title would have been. What You See Is What You Want To Believe. I reiterate, I think personal experiences weigh heavily into determining what theories and conclusions we have.
The proposed question is... Where does this anecdotal evidence belong? and how should we consider it?
Say your aunt gets some version of cancer. The doctors say she has a good chance of recovering. Maybe they even gave a percentage chance of recovering that was encouraging. They say 75% of people survive. But sadly your aunt was not fortunate to be part of that 75%. The next time you hear of someone you know who gets that particular version of cancer, will you believe the doctors prognosis? Even though the doctors are basing their expected outcomes on tons of research and countless databases with information regarding the outcomes of patients with this particular cancer, your mind set will remain pessimistic. Your mind can not be modified with other forms of evidence, your anecdotal evidence of your aunt’s experience is exerting its dominance on your belief. Again, I'm not trying to say that this is wrong, I'm just pointing out that our personal experiences weigh heavily onto what we believe whether they are positive or negative.
I loved Glenn's comment. That is what I needed to hear to test and challenge my thoughts in regards to this theory. I understand "online processing" as he explained it. To clarify, I didn't say that all decisions and beliefs were solely based on anecdotal evidence, I only wish to suggest that personal experiences weigh heavily, and much more heavily than we give credit for.
I see and support this idea of "online processing" being ONE means to determining truth but I think that critical thinking, reasoning, and logical analysis are easily pushed and pulled around by our experiences. Those experiences are the strong hold that anchors your thoughts. If you had a different set of personal experiences you would have a tendency/desire to confirm or reject the conclusions that your online processing brings. A tendency that is based on anecdotal evidence.
Let me allow C.S. Lewis eloquently speak on the idea that singularly, "online processing" doesn't become permanent in our minds in a way that can only be removed by another well placed cognitive argument.
On reasoning he used to depend on which he now sees is wrong he says…“I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so."...
“We have to be continually reminded of what we believe. Neither this belief (Christian) nor any other will automatically remain alive in the mind. It must be fed…”...
“As a matter of fact, if you examined a hundred people who had lost their faith in Christianity, I wonder how many of them would turn out to have reasoned out of it by honest argument?
A final example is one familiar to many UNC grads (specifically those in religious circles)...Bart Ehrman.
Dr. Ehrman was formerly a devout Christian. In his class he explains his loss of the faith. He reports that in studying scripture the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Bible led him to question its validity and ultimately led him away from Christianity. (This is where I attempt to see deep into the heart of this man without ever meeting him) I have heard report from a few friends that although he credits his loss of faith to these things, his real issue and gut wrenched problem with Christianity seems to lie in his disapproval of its followers, not in his concerns with the text. He just seems to be the most passionately angry about Christians and how they live their lives. I'm not saying that his reasoning and textual arguments don't also substantiate his dismissal of Christianity but I do think his disenchanting personal experiences strongly persuade him to believe a certain way.
So maybe the better title would have been. What You See Is What You Want To Believe. I reiterate, I think personal experiences weigh heavily into determining what theories and conclusions we have.
The proposed question is... Where does this anecdotal evidence belong? and how should we consider it?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Feed Forward Cousin Predictors
In the past few weeks there has been mention of evidence and personal experience and where these two converge. I think that provides a very welcome podium for the presentation of this theory.
The idea here is… In the general population (non-experts) anecdotal evidence from a relatively close source is the strongest version of support for a theory. At this point in the week I don’t intend to address whether or not this is appropriate, I will let the conversation of the involved commenters mold and shape the outcome of that discussion.
Wikipedia says that anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings. When I mention anecdotal evidence I mean something like this.
""Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.""
In this situation and will most anecdotal evidence the situation may not be untrue, it probably did actually happen, but the conclusion is not always directly related or directly supported by the evidence. Often the “evidence” is applied without considering the other possible causative factors involved and so the anecdote is considered the only possible cause for the effect seen.
Again, using the great source for all things reliable, Wikipedia, they further shed light on what I consider the great confirmatory source of all things true, the anecdote.
""An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident….An anecdote is always based on real life, an incident involving actual persons, whether famous or not, in real places.""
Appropriately, the best way I see to expose this idea is with an example. The example I will use involves the many wives tales that surround the declaration of an unborn babies gender like the ones seen here.
My own anecdotal evidence involves my recently born niece. After 2 ultrasounds and no confirmation of the babies sex the speculation and predictions began. My cousin Shannon provided this anecdotal evidence. All we have to do is get Molly (her daughter) to come over and play with Shawna (sister-in-law/mother-to-be). If Molly wants to play with her then the baby will be a girl. If Molly is not interested in her then it will be a boy. Then confusion ensued.
...“Wait… is that right? No… if Molly goes to her that means it is a boy because that means she is attracted to the opposite sex. Wait… No… Okay, I remember. Molly loved Amber when she was pregnant and Amber had a girl. That must be it.
And so we solved the mystery. With anecdotal evidence. I didn’t mention that even before Amber got pregnant Molly already loved her? This made no sense to me. There is no evidence or support for why this would work and I refuse to believe it. But Shannon (a nurse) stands by her predictor.
How about this?
You have to lose a game late in the season in order to be able to win the national championship in college basketball. This may have some truth to it and a lot of people could explain WHY this is good, but the reason people believe is because this happened to their team. Prime example is UNC 2005. UNC lost to Georgia Tech in the ACC tournament and then went on to beat Illinois in the championship. How about this year? We lost in the ACC tournament and finished with the championship. Because it happened again this will reinforce the theory. This is the feedforward part. If your personal anecdote supports an idea, and then you see another anecdote that agrees with your original theory the confirmation is accelerated precisely because “anecdotal evidence from a relatively close source is the strongest version of support for a theory.” Even if a great basketball coach like Roy Williams himself says that losing a game does not help a team you will adamantly disagree because at this point the anecdotal evidence has gained control of your critical thinking and will override any expert opinion or reliable evidence. My point with this example is not whether or not this predictor is valid, the issue is that the strongest reason people believe theories is because they have their own personal anecdotal support.
So what does this mean?
Here on this blog we are trying to find themes, theories, and formulas to help us understand people and the lives they live. Where does anecdotal evidence weigh in? Is it welcomed like strong support or is it looked down on as subjective personal experience that lacks reasoning in order to sustain an argument?
I don’t know. Do you?
I also would encourage you to post other feedforward cousin predictors that I have not mentioned here.
The idea here is… In the general population (non-experts) anecdotal evidence from a relatively close source is the strongest version of support for a theory. At this point in the week I don’t intend to address whether or not this is appropriate, I will let the conversation of the involved commenters mold and shape the outcome of that discussion.
Wikipedia says that anecdotal evidence has two distinct meanings. When I mention anecdotal evidence I mean something like this.
""Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.""
In this situation and will most anecdotal evidence the situation may not be untrue, it probably did actually happen, but the conclusion is not always directly related or directly supported by the evidence. Often the “evidence” is applied without considering the other possible causative factors involved and so the anecdote is considered the only possible cause for the effect seen.
Again, using the great source for all things reliable, Wikipedia, they further shed light on what I consider the great confirmatory source of all things true, the anecdote.
""An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident….An anecdote is always based on real life, an incident involving actual persons, whether famous or not, in real places.""
Appropriately, the best way I see to expose this idea is with an example. The example I will use involves the many wives tales that surround the declaration of an unborn babies gender like the ones seen here.
My own anecdotal evidence involves my recently born niece. After 2 ultrasounds and no confirmation of the babies sex the speculation and predictions began. My cousin Shannon provided this anecdotal evidence. All we have to do is get Molly (her daughter) to come over and play with Shawna (sister-in-law/mother-to-be). If Molly wants to play with her then the baby will be a girl. If Molly is not interested in her then it will be a boy. Then confusion ensued.
...“Wait… is that right? No… if Molly goes to her that means it is a boy because that means she is attracted to the opposite sex. Wait… No… Okay, I remember. Molly loved Amber when she was pregnant and Amber had a girl. That must be it.
And so we solved the mystery. With anecdotal evidence. I didn’t mention that even before Amber got pregnant Molly already loved her? This made no sense to me. There is no evidence or support for why this would work and I refuse to believe it. But Shannon (a nurse) stands by her predictor.
How about this?
You have to lose a game late in the season in order to be able to win the national championship in college basketball. This may have some truth to it and a lot of people could explain WHY this is good, but the reason people believe is because this happened to their team. Prime example is UNC 2005. UNC lost to Georgia Tech in the ACC tournament and then went on to beat Illinois in the championship. How about this year? We lost in the ACC tournament and finished with the championship. Because it happened again this will reinforce the theory. This is the feedforward part. If your personal anecdote supports an idea, and then you see another anecdote that agrees with your original theory the confirmation is accelerated precisely because “anecdotal evidence from a relatively close source is the strongest version of support for a theory.” Even if a great basketball coach like Roy Williams himself says that losing a game does not help a team you will adamantly disagree because at this point the anecdotal evidence has gained control of your critical thinking and will override any expert opinion or reliable evidence. My point with this example is not whether or not this predictor is valid, the issue is that the strongest reason people believe theories is because they have their own personal anecdotal support.
So what does this mean?
Here on this blog we are trying to find themes, theories, and formulas to help us understand people and the lives they live. Where does anecdotal evidence weigh in? Is it welcomed like strong support or is it looked down on as subjective personal experience that lacks reasoning in order to sustain an argument?
I don’t know. Do you?
I also would encourage you to post other feedforward cousin predictors that I have not mentioned here.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Love it OR Hate it.
Great comments that I want to adapt and include in this revision.
Andrew mentions in order to be a Root Beer item you must…
“1) Give off such a strong first impression that people are so turned off as to not give it a chance to prove itself.
OR
2) Be so insignificant, that people don't care enough to give it a second chance.”
I never meant to say that the feelings about a root beer item could never change after the first encounter. I think this feeling arises from this line in the first post in regards to the characteristics of root beer. I said it… “doesn’t sit back and allow you the opportunity to take a few sips to decide if you like it”. In saying this I was attempting to stress the idea that the bold and distinct characteristics provide a “decide now” situation. This strong initial impression is usually an outcome of the bold and distinctiveness of an item. Particularly it’s boldness. The definitions that I come across say bold is “standing out prominently”. In other words, distinct qualities in combination with boldness, quickly exposes character that is uniquely identifying. This means the distinct character of an item is easily noticed because of its boldness.
However, although it does stand out initially that does not weigh into the ability of feelings and judgments to be altered as the distinct flavor is further revealed and experienced over time. An item can still be root beer if in the beginning it you hate it and after understanding and participating with it, you love it. You just can’t be indifferent about it.
To use the previous examples. I have heard a hundred times that you have to see Napoleon Dynamite twice to love it. Because the feeling could change after the second viewing does not put its qualification as a Root Beer Item into question, it only strengthens it. That movie doesn’t give you an option to be indifferent because it is so distinct in its character (humor/style/acting). Even the second time you watch it, in the end, you have a very polarized opinion about the movie.
The interesting next step for me, is to understand what leads you to love or hate a Root Beer Item. I would suggest that the determining factor is what that item does for you. This may sound like a John Madden comment (stating the obvious) but I think this allows us to understand people and their interactions with Root Beer like items.
1: Consider great athletes and the people they represent. I will use Tyler Hansbrough as an example. UNC fanatics love him! Many others in this world hate him! He is a great basketball player that played for the 2009 National Champions. For those who call themselves Tar Heels, Tyler is a gentleman and a scholar who never gets any calls to go his way. To those against UNC he is consider a flopper, who has no skill and only gets lucky because “the refs want UNC to win.”
Bold and Distinct: He is one of the best players for UNC; that alone makes him uniquely identifiable.
The reason UNC fans love him and embrace his bold distinct qualities is because his success betters their name as a Carolina fan. The reason others hate him and reject him as a Carolina player is because his characteristics and success make their team look worse.
2: Root Beer itself. People who love it have a desire for a dark rich flavor; A thirst that is quenched by the beverage. It gives their taste buds satisfaction. It fulfils something for the drinker.
3: Napoleon Dynamite. People who love it, think being able to quote the movie makes them funnier and that people will like them more.
4: Bully Jock / Prom Queen. These people are usually bold, distinctive and polarizing in their character. Agreed? If you are one of the chosen ones to be in the bully’s leather jacket wearing club you love that guy because he gives you social status and power. If you are one of the pretty skinny bitches that ride on the side of the Gucci bag hanging on the prom queen’s shoulder you are infatuated with her because she makes you one of the “it girls”. But all those other people who are pushed down and pushed around by those Root Beer type leaders talk about how they are so mean and about how they hate them.
Okay. See this. Root Beer items could move from love to hate in your life but which way you swing depends on what those items give you. These items just don’t give you the opportunity to be indifferent.
Andrew mentions in order to be a Root Beer item you must…
“1) Give off such a strong first impression that people are so turned off as to not give it a chance to prove itself.
OR
2) Be so insignificant, that people don't care enough to give it a second chance.”
I never meant to say that the feelings about a root beer item could never change after the first encounter. I think this feeling arises from this line in the first post in regards to the characteristics of root beer. I said it… “doesn’t sit back and allow you the opportunity to take a few sips to decide if you like it”. In saying this I was attempting to stress the idea that the bold and distinct characteristics provide a “decide now” situation. This strong initial impression is usually an outcome of the bold and distinctiveness of an item. Particularly it’s boldness. The definitions that I come across say bold is “standing out prominently”. In other words, distinct qualities in combination with boldness, quickly exposes character that is uniquely identifying. This means the distinct character of an item is easily noticed because of its boldness.
However, although it does stand out initially that does not weigh into the ability of feelings and judgments to be altered as the distinct flavor is further revealed and experienced over time. An item can still be root beer if in the beginning it you hate it and after understanding and participating with it, you love it. You just can’t be indifferent about it.
To use the previous examples. I have heard a hundred times that you have to see Napoleon Dynamite twice to love it. Because the feeling could change after the second viewing does not put its qualification as a Root Beer Item into question, it only strengthens it. That movie doesn’t give you an option to be indifferent because it is so distinct in its character (humor/style/acting). Even the second time you watch it, in the end, you have a very polarized opinion about the movie.
The interesting next step for me, is to understand what leads you to love or hate a Root Beer Item. I would suggest that the determining factor is what that item does for you. This may sound like a John Madden comment (stating the obvious) but I think this allows us to understand people and their interactions with Root Beer like items.
1: Consider great athletes and the people they represent. I will use Tyler Hansbrough as an example. UNC fanatics love him! Many others in this world hate him! He is a great basketball player that played for the 2009 National Champions. For those who call themselves Tar Heels, Tyler is a gentleman and a scholar who never gets any calls to go his way. To those against UNC he is consider a flopper, who has no skill and only gets lucky because “the refs want UNC to win.”
Bold and Distinct: He is one of the best players for UNC; that alone makes him uniquely identifiable.
The reason UNC fans love him and embrace his bold distinct qualities is because his success betters their name as a Carolina fan. The reason others hate him and reject him as a Carolina player is because his characteristics and success make their team look worse.
2: Root Beer itself. People who love it have a desire for a dark rich flavor; A thirst that is quenched by the beverage. It gives their taste buds satisfaction. It fulfils something for the drinker.
3: Napoleon Dynamite. People who love it, think being able to quote the movie makes them funnier and that people will like them more.
4: Bully Jock / Prom Queen. These people are usually bold, distinctive and polarizing in their character. Agreed? If you are one of the chosen ones to be in the bully’s leather jacket wearing club you love that guy because he gives you social status and power. If you are one of the pretty skinny bitches that ride on the side of the Gucci bag hanging on the prom queen’s shoulder you are infatuated with her because she makes you one of the “it girls”. But all those other people who are pushed down and pushed around by those Root Beer type leaders talk about how they are so mean and about how they hate them.
Okay. See this. Root Beer items could move from love to hate in your life but which way you swing depends on what those items give you. These items just don’t give you the opportunity to be indifferent.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The Root Beer Theory
I would consider this theory as the one that was born at the feet of the Twix Theory. I knew that if the Twix Theory was to live on that it would need partners, brothers at its side further reaching into the depths of human lives to reveal tendencies and patterns that exist like the tide of the ocean. This is that second theory.
Let’s face it. Root Beer is polarizing. You either love it or you hate. You will be hard pressed to find someone who is luke warm about this beverage. I suggest that you poll your friends and see if anyone feels anything but strong passion about Root Beer either positive or negative. In my time researching this theory I have found the answer to be surprisingly consistent. Almost 100% agree with this idea of Root Beer’s polarizing tendency in relation to their palette.
Why oh Why is Root Beer this way?
I think it has to do with the sharp, distinct, and bold flavor. Root Beer doesn’t sit back and allow you the opportunity to take a few sips to decide if you like it; it is out there, smacking you in the face with audacious levels of tongue sensation. It forces you to make a choice, and make a definite choice. No second chances.
Let’s start the fire where people were so passionate with regards to application of the Twix Theory. People. You hate them, or you think they are the best person ever. But there aren’t many people who are passive about them. I think this happens because these people are sharp, bold, and distinct in their personalities, and often don’t leave you much choice but to be for them or against them.
Let me suggest a movie. Napoleon Dynamite. Some people can quote the whole movie and love it like it is their first born child’s foot print art work. But others, like Kristen, claim they hate it so much that when they are on their death beds they are going to will themselves to live 2 more hours to make up for the lost time watching that mess of a movie. I challenge you to find me someone who would like to sit down and watch Napoleon Dynamite again just because “well there’s nothing else to do”. It’s either a must have, or a must not have.
Help me find other Root Beer items.
Am I correct in my reasoning that the qualities of bold and distinct make someone or something a Root Beer item?
I think there is more to this theory. Help me tease it out.
Let’s face it. Root Beer is polarizing. You either love it or you hate. You will be hard pressed to find someone who is luke warm about this beverage. I suggest that you poll your friends and see if anyone feels anything but strong passion about Root Beer either positive or negative. In my time researching this theory I have found the answer to be surprisingly consistent. Almost 100% agree with this idea of Root Beer’s polarizing tendency in relation to their palette.
Why oh Why is Root Beer this way?
I think it has to do with the sharp, distinct, and bold flavor. Root Beer doesn’t sit back and allow you the opportunity to take a few sips to decide if you like it; it is out there, smacking you in the face with audacious levels of tongue sensation. It forces you to make a choice, and make a definite choice. No second chances.
Let’s start the fire where people were so passionate with regards to application of the Twix Theory. People. You hate them, or you think they are the best person ever. But there aren’t many people who are passive about them. I think this happens because these people are sharp, bold, and distinct in their personalities, and often don’t leave you much choice but to be for them or against them.
Let me suggest a movie. Napoleon Dynamite. Some people can quote the whole movie and love it like it is their first born child’s foot print art work. But others, like Kristen, claim they hate it so much that when they are on their death beds they are going to will themselves to live 2 more hours to make up for the lost time watching that mess of a movie. I challenge you to find me someone who would like to sit down and watch Napoleon Dynamite again just because “well there’s nothing else to do”. It’s either a must have, or a must not have.
Help me find other Root Beer items.
Am I correct in my reasoning that the qualities of bold and distinct make someone or something a Root Beer item?
I think there is more to this theory. Help me tease it out.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Go Heels
With focus, determination, and a strong desire to win the UNC Tar Heels have reach the Championship Game. For this reason Discourse and Jargon will be delaying this week's theory until Tuesday afternoon. Look forward to a return to the roots where D&J started, food and its application to real life.
All day Monday I would love to see predictions, sentimental thoughts, and love poems about the Tar Heels in the comment section.
I'll start.
Wayne, oh Wayne your jumper is devine,
I love how your shot hits nothing but twine.
Once more shoot a Three to push the score higher,
Then we will paint the streets blue and set Chapel Hill on Fire!
All day Monday I would love to see predictions, sentimental thoughts, and love poems about the Tar Heels in the comment section.
I'll start.
Wayne, oh Wayne your jumper is devine,
I love how your shot hits nothing but twine.
Once more shoot a Three to push the score higher,
Then we will paint the streets blue and set Chapel Hill on Fire!
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Well I Guess We're all Just Friends
I was going to apologize that work got in the way of my midweek post, but I see I didn't miss much.
Clayton never responded to my questions.
To Brent, I can only this. I understood your theory. I never suggested that should rather that can was your theory. I instead suggested that the people agreeing with you were really agreeing because they believed that you shouldn't be friends with Opposites.
I had to come up with sometime because the can't theory was already refuted. As far as can't, I will again point to interfamily relationships as proof that you can be just friends with a member of the opposite sex if you have a reason to prevent romantic feelings from developing (ie they are your family member). The problem with the "can" aspect of relationships outside of family, is that many people don't think that being in a relationship with a significant other is a good enough reason to keep them from developing romantic feelings for another Opposite. That is the real problem that you theory addresses. People who are in relationships are by and large not strong enough to approach a friendship with another from a purely friend perspective. (Just like some family members aren't strong enough to do it.)
Brian my theory would be. 1) We can be friends with Opposites. Proven and reproven.
2) We should be friends with Opposites. The additional experiences and knowledge are not something we should lightly throw away. I am unwilling to accept that I can't control myself around Opposites and therefore should avoid friendships with them.
3) People in a committed romantic relationship should take precautions to avoid letting friendships with Opposites from becoming romantic. These precautions should usually be developed together by the two people in the relationship and can vary. There is no perfect way to do it.
4) If you have an occassional romantic thought about an Opposite, that is ok. But you cannot act on the thought if you are already in a romantic relationship and you need to take extra precautions with the Opposite that you have had a romantic thought about.
Clayton never responded to my questions.
To Brent, I can only this. I understood your theory. I never suggested that should rather that can was your theory. I instead suggested that the people agreeing with you were really agreeing because they believed that you shouldn't be friends with Opposites.
I had to come up with sometime because the can't theory was already refuted. As far as can't, I will again point to interfamily relationships as proof that you can be just friends with a member of the opposite sex if you have a reason to prevent romantic feelings from developing (ie they are your family member). The problem with the "can" aspect of relationships outside of family, is that many people don't think that being in a relationship with a significant other is a good enough reason to keep them from developing romantic feelings for another Opposite. That is the real problem that you theory addresses. People who are in relationships are by and large not strong enough to approach a friendship with another from a purely friend perspective. (Just like some family members aren't strong enough to do it.)
Brian my theory would be. 1) We can be friends with Opposites. Proven and reproven.
2) We should be friends with Opposites. The additional experiences and knowledge are not something we should lightly throw away. I am unwilling to accept that I can't control myself around Opposites and therefore should avoid friendships with them.
3) People in a committed romantic relationship should take precautions to avoid letting friendships with Opposites from becoming romantic. These precautions should usually be developed together by the two people in the relationship and can vary. There is no perfect way to do it.
4) If you have an occassional romantic thought about an Opposite, that is ok. But you cannot act on the thought if you are already in a romantic relationship and you need to take extra precautions with the Opposite that you have had a romantic thought about.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
I Love (I Mean Like) the Ladies
Brent’s original theory – Men and Women Can’t Be Friends has already been so completely refuted that I won’t even concern myself with that. I will simply reference Brent’s gravity analogy in his third post and say this: Brent you say your theory is like saying gravity exists and then argue it can’t be refuted by anecdotal evidence such as space travel. However, no one is arguing that “gravity” doesn’t exist. Everyone would agree that romantic feelings are very real and exist often. Your theory is that “gravity” cannot be defied, i.e. romantic feelings can never be avoided, and the anecdotal evidence clearly shows that friendships can occur b/w Opposites without romance. Blast on astronauts.
Here is my summary of how Brent’s theory is currently defined: If you are in the “romantic stage” of your life, you cannot become friends with an Opposite, without there either being some romantic impetus or some romantic feeling developing at some point in the relationship, unless you become friends through transference. With transference being defined as any other reason you would want to become friends with an Opposite (you work with them, they are friends with your significant other, they are friends with their other friends, you need someone to share emotional experiences with but are not or are incapable of being in a romantic relationship, etc, etc).
Although, I believe I could refute even this, in order to move on to what I consider more interesting discussions, I will agree with Brent, that if I have no other reason to be friends with an Opposite (no transference) and the Opposite has no other reason to be friends with me, we will not become friends without a romantic element.
So what?
That doesn’t mean men and women can’t be friends.
I had thought that Brent’s theory might have been, and to a certain extent it probably actually is, that there can never be a relationship between Opposites that doesn’t have a romantic element. That would have been a difficult theory to refute. But even if that is taken as the theory, the question is again, so what?
That doesn’t mean men and women can’t be friends.
Here are some of my main objections to Brent’s theories, and some of the comments.
The critique of anecdotal objections: really Brent’s whole theory is based on his own anecdotes. I am more than willing to accept that Brent has never had a friendship, as he defines it, with a girl that has not involved romantic issues. I can only also assume that for Brent any potential friendship with a girl that began because of romantic interest has been in some sense “tainted” or had the “slightest tinge of weirdness.” But that is just Brent’s own anecdotal evidence presented as empirical evidence. The only attempts at non-anecdotal analysis are really Laurie’s biological comment and Amy’s Biblical comment.
I think there is a lot of truth to Laurie’s biological argument for the subject group that Brent has limited his theory to, heterosexuals. To respond, I paraphrase some famous person, “the difference between humans and animals is that humans can control their biological desires.” For Laurie’s argument to be the end all, we would have be slaves to our biological tendencies and desires. We aren’t, or shouldn’t be. By Brent’s definition of friendship, I am friends with my mom. I probably run more important decisions and issues by her than any other person. I’m not romantically attracted to her. She’s my mom. But the same applies to my sister, or my sister-in-laws. If it was all biological, I would be male, they would be female, there would have to be romantic interest. Indeed according to Brent, his home state has many members of the same family who have given into these romantic desires. I believe that just as with Opposites within our family, we can discipline ourselves to not have romantic feelings for Opposites outside our families, or we can let our desires control us.
To summarize, I think it is pretty clear now that Opposites can be friends. I believe what is really happening is that those agreeing with Brent (and maybe Brent himself) think that you shouldn’t be friends with Opposites. They are taking his theory to another level: taking as true that Opposite friendships have or develop romantic elements, they conclude that those are always bad outside a romantic relationship, and therefore all Opposite friendships should be avoided.
To delve a little bit into Amy’s comment, I think Jesus was friends with women. The big difference between Jesus and us, is that Jesus had complete control over his desires. So he could be friends with a woman without having romantic incentives or developing romantic feelings. He proves that a friendship with an Opposite without any romantic dimension is possible. I think most people who have commented so far, believe humans aren’t capable of doing the same, and therefore need to avoid friendships with Opposites.
So what does one do?
Do you avoid building friendships with roughly half the population because you might be unable to control romantic desires that may develop?
Do you acknowledge the romantic and develop precautions to prevent acting on the romantic? What are appropriate, practical and effective precautions?
Once you are in a romantic relationship, is the only acceptable thing to never become friends with an Opposite? It seems you can’t say, well you can only becomes friends with Opposites through transference, because no matter how the relationship originates there is still the potential to develop romantic dimensions?
Is any friendship with romantic dimensions that doesn’t rise to the level of a romantic relationship, automatically inappropriate? Even if the romantic dimension is never acted on? (Let me provide a little context. Eddie is a slightly better athlete than me. Sometimes being his friend, I feel jealously that I am not as athletic as he is. Jealously is clearly not a healthy or appropriate emotion. Sometimes because I am jealous I yell at or get mad at Eddie. Because my friendship with Eddie has a inappropriate jealous dimension, should I not be Eddie’s friend?)
Should we just bury our heads in the sand and not discuss these difficult issues?
To close with a personal anecdote, I believe I have friends who are girls. There are girls other than Lindsay and my mom that I would go to talk about serious issues and who would be there to listen and provide advice. I have female friends who are better at giving advice on certain subjects, not necessarily because they are girls, but because of their individual personalities, knowledge and experiences. For example, if I had a difficult legal ethics question, I would most likely consult Kristen and she would be there to listen. I think we are friends. (Kristen, it won’t hurt my feelings if you comment that you don’t think we are friends.) And while I believe Kristen is beautiful inside and out and that Clayton will probably never fully realize how lucky he is, I am unaware of ever having a romantic feeling towards Kristen. Again, it’s irrelevant to me if I became friends with Kristen through transference, because Brent’s theory is that romance can either be the incentive or it can develop. So if Brent is right then Kristen and I must be in the Danger Zone. I don’t think we are.
I’m not saying that in Opposite friendships anything goes. I’m just saying it doesn’t have to be nothing goes.
P.S. – I’m in Atlanta with Kris-I’m-More-Athletic-Than-The -Average-Obese-American-18-Year-Old-Norris.
I walk in and notice the nerf goal on his door and say, “Cool, a nerf goal.” He says, “Nerf basketball is pretty much the sport I’m best at.” Me, “How does one play nerf basketball?” Him, “It’s just HORSE.”
Here is my summary of how Brent’s theory is currently defined: If you are in the “romantic stage” of your life, you cannot become friends with an Opposite, without there either being some romantic impetus or some romantic feeling developing at some point in the relationship, unless you become friends through transference. With transference being defined as any other reason you would want to become friends with an Opposite (you work with them, they are friends with your significant other, they are friends with their other friends, you need someone to share emotional experiences with but are not or are incapable of being in a romantic relationship, etc, etc).
Although, I believe I could refute even this, in order to move on to what I consider more interesting discussions, I will agree with Brent, that if I have no other reason to be friends with an Opposite (no transference) and the Opposite has no other reason to be friends with me, we will not become friends without a romantic element.
So what?
That doesn’t mean men and women can’t be friends.
I had thought that Brent’s theory might have been, and to a certain extent it probably actually is, that there can never be a relationship between Opposites that doesn’t have a romantic element. That would have been a difficult theory to refute. But even if that is taken as the theory, the question is again, so what?
That doesn’t mean men and women can’t be friends.
Here are some of my main objections to Brent’s theories, and some of the comments.
The critique of anecdotal objections: really Brent’s whole theory is based on his own anecdotes. I am more than willing to accept that Brent has never had a friendship, as he defines it, with a girl that has not involved romantic issues. I can only also assume that for Brent any potential friendship with a girl that began because of romantic interest has been in some sense “tainted” or had the “slightest tinge of weirdness.” But that is just Brent’s own anecdotal evidence presented as empirical evidence. The only attempts at non-anecdotal analysis are really Laurie’s biological comment and Amy’s Biblical comment.
I think there is a lot of truth to Laurie’s biological argument for the subject group that Brent has limited his theory to, heterosexuals. To respond, I paraphrase some famous person, “the difference between humans and animals is that humans can control their biological desires.” For Laurie’s argument to be the end all, we would have be slaves to our biological tendencies and desires. We aren’t, or shouldn’t be. By Brent’s definition of friendship, I am friends with my mom. I probably run more important decisions and issues by her than any other person. I’m not romantically attracted to her. She’s my mom. But the same applies to my sister, or my sister-in-laws. If it was all biological, I would be male, they would be female, there would have to be romantic interest. Indeed according to Brent, his home state has many members of the same family who have given into these romantic desires. I believe that just as with Opposites within our family, we can discipline ourselves to not have romantic feelings for Opposites outside our families, or we can let our desires control us.
To summarize, I think it is pretty clear now that Opposites can be friends. I believe what is really happening is that those agreeing with Brent (and maybe Brent himself) think that you shouldn’t be friends with Opposites. They are taking his theory to another level: taking as true that Opposite friendships have or develop romantic elements, they conclude that those are always bad outside a romantic relationship, and therefore all Opposite friendships should be avoided.
To delve a little bit into Amy’s comment, I think Jesus was friends with women. The big difference between Jesus and us, is that Jesus had complete control over his desires. So he could be friends with a woman without having romantic incentives or developing romantic feelings. He proves that a friendship with an Opposite without any romantic dimension is possible. I think most people who have commented so far, believe humans aren’t capable of doing the same, and therefore need to avoid friendships with Opposites.
So what does one do?
Do you avoid building friendships with roughly half the population because you might be unable to control romantic desires that may develop?
Do you acknowledge the romantic and develop precautions to prevent acting on the romantic? What are appropriate, practical and effective precautions?
Once you are in a romantic relationship, is the only acceptable thing to never become friends with an Opposite? It seems you can’t say, well you can only becomes friends with Opposites through transference, because no matter how the relationship originates there is still the potential to develop romantic dimensions?
Is any friendship with romantic dimensions that doesn’t rise to the level of a romantic relationship, automatically inappropriate? Even if the romantic dimension is never acted on? (Let me provide a little context. Eddie is a slightly better athlete than me. Sometimes being his friend, I feel jealously that I am not as athletic as he is. Jealously is clearly not a healthy or appropriate emotion. Sometimes because I am jealous I yell at or get mad at Eddie. Because my friendship with Eddie has a inappropriate jealous dimension, should I not be Eddie’s friend?)
Should we just bury our heads in the sand and not discuss these difficult issues?
To close with a personal anecdote, I believe I have friends who are girls. There are girls other than Lindsay and my mom that I would go to talk about serious issues and who would be there to listen and provide advice. I have female friends who are better at giving advice on certain subjects, not necessarily because they are girls, but because of their individual personalities, knowledge and experiences. For example, if I had a difficult legal ethics question, I would most likely consult Kristen and she would be there to listen. I think we are friends. (Kristen, it won’t hurt my feelings if you comment that you don’t think we are friends.) And while I believe Kristen is beautiful inside and out and that Clayton will probably never fully realize how lucky he is, I am unaware of ever having a romantic feeling towards Kristen. Again, it’s irrelevant to me if I became friends with Kristen through transference, because Brent’s theory is that romance can either be the incentive or it can develop. So if Brent is right then Kristen and I must be in the Danger Zone. I don’t think we are.
I’m not saying that in Opposite friendships anything goes. I’m just saying it doesn’t have to be nothing goes.
P.S. – I’m in Atlanta with Kris-I’m-More-Athletic-Than-The -Average-Obese-American-18-Year-Old-Norris.
I walk in and notice the nerf goal on his door and say, “Cool, a nerf goal.” He says, “Nerf basketball is pretty much the sport I’m best at.” Me, “How does one play nerf basketball?” Him, “It’s just HORSE.”
Saturday, March 28, 2009
To Be Continued...
As VZ eluded to in his comment, he will providing a counter-theory next week so the debate continues...
I feel like this has been a great week for my first post. Thanks for all your comments and insights. You really made me think about the theory in a new way.
Chad, I stand by your brilliance.
Laurie, thank you for fleshing out the biological component of the theory. That was a strong argument I had neglected. I have also heard that Jenna is in agreement with my theory so women are not universally opposed to it.
Brian, maybe we need to have a week debating the meaning of subjective. By your definition, if you own experience or perception comes into play at all then that means my theory is subjective. I don't think anything could be considered objective under that formula that involves the actions of human beings.
Let me also say this to all the guys who are trying to disprove my theory by one example from your whole lives. First, you are admitting my theory is correct in 97.8 percent of all cases then saying but I have one exception. That only proves the strength of my underlying argument.
Basically, all of you amount to astronauts telling me the theory of gravity doesn't apply to you because you went to space one time. The general trajectory of male-female relationships is to end up in romantic entanglements. If you have one example from your twenty-something year existence on this planet where that didn't happen, that doesn't disprove my theory. My theory is more accurate than the statement: "Men and women cannot fly." I've flown on airplanes more times than I have been friends with a woman. That doesn't mean I am going around telling people I can fly.
VZ, I hope you have more than anectodal evidence like one case you can come up with your past. As a fellow lawyer, you know that in rhetorical debate anectdotal evidence stands next to slippery slope arguments as the last bastion and hope of desperate men.
(BTW, transference has two aspects to its definition. The first applies to transference of people. The second applies to transference of emotions. Please do your assigned reading before coming to class.)
Finally, I will just see that I have taken great pains this week not to air anyone's dirty laundry or say anything that could lead to potential embarassment for the people who read this blog. However, I am quite certain that I could draw a web diagram of everyone on this blog and how they are connected by romantic entanglements. I'm still not going to do it.
Thanks for reading, folks. Good talk.
I feel like this has been a great week for my first post. Thanks for all your comments and insights. You really made me think about the theory in a new way.
Chad, I stand by your brilliance.
Laurie, thank you for fleshing out the biological component of the theory. That was a strong argument I had neglected. I have also heard that Jenna is in agreement with my theory so women are not universally opposed to it.
Brian, maybe we need to have a week debating the meaning of subjective. By your definition, if you own experience or perception comes into play at all then that means my theory is subjective. I don't think anything could be considered objective under that formula that involves the actions of human beings.
Let me also say this to all the guys who are trying to disprove my theory by one example from your whole lives. First, you are admitting my theory is correct in 97.8 percent of all cases then saying but I have one exception. That only proves the strength of my underlying argument.
Basically, all of you amount to astronauts telling me the theory of gravity doesn't apply to you because you went to space one time. The general trajectory of male-female relationships is to end up in romantic entanglements. If you have one example from your twenty-something year existence on this planet where that didn't happen, that doesn't disprove my theory. My theory is more accurate than the statement: "Men and women cannot fly." I've flown on airplanes more times than I have been friends with a woman. That doesn't mean I am going around telling people I can fly.
VZ, I hope you have more than anectodal evidence like one case you can come up with your past. As a fellow lawyer, you know that in rhetorical debate anectdotal evidence stands next to slippery slope arguments as the last bastion and hope of desperate men.
(BTW, transference has two aspects to its definition. The first applies to transference of people. The second applies to transference of emotions. Please do your assigned reading before coming to class.)
Finally, I will just see that I have taken great pains this week not to air anyone's dirty laundry or say anything that could lead to potential embarassment for the people who read this blog. However, I am quite certain that I could draw a web diagram of everyone on this blog and how they are connected by romantic entanglements. I'm still not going to do it.
Thanks for reading, folks. Good talk.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Additions, Subtractions, and Reformulations
Great comments. Fleshing out my theory in bloglike form has caused me to rethink its formulation a bit.
First, let utterly and absolutely reject this comment from Brian.
I brought up my personal upbringing for two reasons. One, I think every theory operates better when explained in its proper context. Two, that was going to be a really short blog post without some kind of introduction.
The theory applies universally although it may apply very differently to different people. I think Michael brings up some very good points about how his family life has shaped his relationships with women over time. To Amy, I will absolutely concede that the theory is definitely dominated by a decidedly male perspective because I am hypermasculine and possess little to no understanding of what you would call the "feminine mystique." In layman's terms, I have no idea what is going on in the heads of women as clearly evidenced by my life. Thanks. I wish more women would comment to let us know how they view the theory and its operation.
The basis of my theory is rooted in the development of a friendship. This development cannot occur without inevitable romantic entanglements. Thank you to Chad for pointing this out. You are a man of great insight and scholarship.
To Amy, don't bring Jesus into this. I just don't feel like fleshing out the theology of this theory. Breaking it down and testing its metaphysical significance seems to me to do nothing but ruin its simplistic elegance. (Although, I will say please see Jesus surrounding himself most closely in the gospels with twelve men. Also see the admonitions of Paul to men to treat younger women as "sisters" and not friends. Historical arguments, even from the basis of scripture, are inherently weak because men and women did not cultivate or develop friendships in that era because it was not seen as socially acceptable.)
To Billy's objection on the basis of his friendship with Kristen. This is a case of transference. You were friends with Kristen and then you transferred her over to Clayton. Billy was the transferor. Kristen was the transferee. Now, neither of you may have been friends for the sake of an eventual transfer but one happened none the less. This speaks to one of my underlying assumptions that prop up the overall theory. Romantic feelings always supercede friendly ones. That is why all men-women friendships will inevitably find themselves in romantic entanglements.
That last part also speaks to the post-romantic feelings friendship. Again, as Chad so astutely pointed out, by this point my theory has already been proven. Can you be friends after something not working out romantically? Possibly, but in my experience, that friendship has always had at least the slightest tinge of weirdness because of the botched romantic attempt aspect. It is better to keep these things seperate.
Let me also add one thing to the theory of transference. Another way to experience the theory of transference is to have one party or the other to a potential friendship transfer all of the traditional emotional and relationships aspects of a romantic relationship into the "friendship." If you are using a guy or girl as a boyfriend/girlfriend stand-in because you cannot exist within the confines of an actual romantic relationship, you are guilty of transference. This is a different kind of transference but still a transference. Instead of transferring people by means of your emotions, you are transferring your emotions by means of a person.
Finally, this theory does not currently apply to gays or lesbians. Although, the fact that you find people who are gay often find a disproportionate number of friends of the opposite sex may speak to the general role of gender identity when it comes to societal norms of establishing friendships. Also, the theory does not apply to "couples friends" because I have no earthly idea what that means.
Thanks for your comments. Please continue. This theory could definitely benefit from further development and particularly from a feminine perspective.
First, let utterly and absolutely reject this comment from Brian.
My first thought is that this is a very subjective theory, evidenced by your
need to clarify your upbringing before actually stating the theory.
I brought up my personal upbringing for two reasons. One, I think every theory operates better when explained in its proper context. Two, that was going to be a really short blog post without some kind of introduction.
The theory applies universally although it may apply very differently to different people. I think Michael brings up some very good points about how his family life has shaped his relationships with women over time. To Amy, I will absolutely concede that the theory is definitely dominated by a decidedly male perspective because I am hypermasculine and possess little to no understanding of what you would call the "feminine mystique." In layman's terms, I have no idea what is going on in the heads of women as clearly evidenced by my life. Thanks. I wish more women would comment to let us know how they view the theory and its operation.
The basis of my theory is rooted in the development of a friendship. This development cannot occur without inevitable romantic entanglements. Thank you to Chad for pointing this out. You are a man of great insight and scholarship.
To Amy, don't bring Jesus into this. I just don't feel like fleshing out the theology of this theory. Breaking it down and testing its metaphysical significance seems to me to do nothing but ruin its simplistic elegance. (Although, I will say please see Jesus surrounding himself most closely in the gospels with twelve men. Also see the admonitions of Paul to men to treat younger women as "sisters" and not friends. Historical arguments, even from the basis of scripture, are inherently weak because men and women did not cultivate or develop friendships in that era because it was not seen as socially acceptable.)
To Billy's objection on the basis of his friendship with Kristen. This is a case of transference. You were friends with Kristen and then you transferred her over to Clayton. Billy was the transferor. Kristen was the transferee. Now, neither of you may have been friends for the sake of an eventual transfer but one happened none the less. This speaks to one of my underlying assumptions that prop up the overall theory. Romantic feelings always supercede friendly ones. That is why all men-women friendships will inevitably find themselves in romantic entanglements.
That last part also speaks to the post-romantic feelings friendship. Again, as Chad so astutely pointed out, by this point my theory has already been proven. Can you be friends after something not working out romantically? Possibly, but in my experience, that friendship has always had at least the slightest tinge of weirdness because of the botched romantic attempt aspect. It is better to keep these things seperate.
Let me also add one thing to the theory of transference. Another way to experience the theory of transference is to have one party or the other to a potential friendship transfer all of the traditional emotional and relationships aspects of a romantic relationship into the "friendship." If you are using a guy or girl as a boyfriend/girlfriend stand-in because you cannot exist within the confines of an actual romantic relationship, you are guilty of transference. This is a different kind of transference but still a transference. Instead of transferring people by means of your emotions, you are transferring your emotions by means of a person.
Finally, this theory does not currently apply to gays or lesbians. Although, the fact that you find people who are gay often find a disproportionate number of friends of the opposite sex may speak to the general role of gender identity when it comes to societal norms of establishing friendships. Also, the theory does not apply to "couples friends" because I have no earthly idea what that means.
Thanks for your comments. Please continue. This theory could definitely benefit from further development and particularly from a feminine perspective.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Men and Women Cannot Be Friends
And after this post, none of the ones who read this blog will be mine.
So here's the deal. Last week's post did not exactly stimulate the conversation I think Clayton was looking for. Now we have to bring in the righty to clean up the mess that was left. (Note to theorists: Don't change your theory to make yourself more right. That just makes things boring.)
I'm going to be the resident bad guy on this blog. I'm going to have really unpopular theories and people are going to say I'm an idiot and get mad at me. That's OK. I mean I pretty much hawk unpopular opinions for a living so I'm used to it.
Alright, so men and women cannot be friends. Before I lay out the parameters of my argument, I should kind of explain why I think this in the first place. Where I grew up, boys and girls were not friends. Girls were for kissing. Guys were for playing baseball with. There really was no middle ground. There was a girl who grew up across the street from me. We were the same age, same grade, our families took trips together. We were never friends. It just wasn't done. I can't imagine how my friends would have made fun of me for playing house or dress up with girls. Never would have happened. I don't think we had any real interest in girls until we figured out we could date them. Then we went straight into trying to spit game. Once the game starts flowing, true friendships are not developed.
This was just how things worked. I never questioned it. Never knew it was normal to have friends who were girls. It wasn't until I got to college that I even thought of that kind of relationship as a possibility. Once I realized this was an option, I began to question myself. To think I may have somehow gained a warped perspective of male-female relationships, been scarred at an early age, and become a complete social misfit. (A quick survey of my relationship history may argue that this is indeed true.) I honestly thought I was weird. As if I had awoke to realize that all this time I had been sick or crazy or weird.
Then I realized that I was the only sane person in a world of insanity. I was right and everyone else was wrong.
Here's why.
A friend is someone that you would go to with a serious, personal issue to seek advice and counsel or just to have a listening ear. It is not an aquaintance that you had class with one time or someone who knew your roommate and came over to watch a basketball game at your apartment who then Facebooked you. I hate to break it to you but 95% of your Facebook "friends" are not your friends. They are acquaintances, but society tells us that it is mean to call people by that word. Just say this is "my friend." But doesn't that cheapen the basis for real friendships? The more and more people we try to be friends with, the less and less we can invest in each person.
So the first part of the theory deals with what actually constitutes a friend.
Men and women cannot develop this kind of relationship without developing romantic feelings for one another or in some way being motivated by romantic desires. The second part of the theory deals with what motivates us to develop this kind of relationship. Men and women are meant to procreate. It is how our species survives. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to a member of the opposite sex. It's just that the moment that attraction develops between two would-be friends, the friendly parts of the relationshp are totally obliterated. Romantic feelings always supercede friendly ones. (Incidentally, this is why phrases like "bros before hoes" are completely ridiculous. Does anyone know one guy who puts bros before hoes? Not if that guy wants to successfully obtain and maintain a girlfriend.) There is no fighting this, folks. It is pretty much natural selection in action. We cannot fight our basic natural instincts.
So guys and girls either become "friends" in the first place because one of them is attracted to the other one. Or, in the alternative, they will not be able to develop a true friendship without one of them falling for the other.
There is also the corollary theory of transference. This is when you try to be "friends" with a member of the opposite sex because you are attracted to one of that person's friends. This is also not at true frienship because it is based on your ulterior motives. This is the case even if your motives are benign. For example, as was brought up at lunch last week, Kristen asked me if we were friends. I explained it to her like this. I am friends with Clayton. If Clayton and Kristen had not been dating as long as I have known him, I might not even have the privilege of knowing Kristen. That doesn't mean I don't like Kristen. I think she is one of the coolest people I know. It just means that our relationship is based on me being friends with Clayton. The theory of transference applies to that situation.
Friends purely for the sake of friendship. It doesn't happen, can't happen, won't happen between men and women. That's the basis of the theory.
To put it in classical logical terms:
A friend is someone that you would go to with a serious, personal issue to seek advice and counsel or just to have a listening ear.
Men and women cannot develop this kind of relationship without developing romantic feelings for one another or in some way being motivated by romantic desires. (See also the theory of transference.)
Therefore,
Men and women cannot be friends.
That's it. That's the argument. Comment away. Disagree. Tell me you never liked me anyway. You won't likely talk me down but we can now begin the discussion.
So here's the deal. Last week's post did not exactly stimulate the conversation I think Clayton was looking for. Now we have to bring in the righty to clean up the mess that was left. (Note to theorists: Don't change your theory to make yourself more right. That just makes things boring.)
I'm going to be the resident bad guy on this blog. I'm going to have really unpopular theories and people are going to say I'm an idiot and get mad at me. That's OK. I mean I pretty much hawk unpopular opinions for a living so I'm used to it.
Alright, so men and women cannot be friends. Before I lay out the parameters of my argument, I should kind of explain why I think this in the first place. Where I grew up, boys and girls were not friends. Girls were for kissing. Guys were for playing baseball with. There really was no middle ground. There was a girl who grew up across the street from me. We were the same age, same grade, our families took trips together. We were never friends. It just wasn't done. I can't imagine how my friends would have made fun of me for playing house or dress up with girls. Never would have happened. I don't think we had any real interest in girls until we figured out we could date them. Then we went straight into trying to spit game. Once the game starts flowing, true friendships are not developed.
This was just how things worked. I never questioned it. Never knew it was normal to have friends who were girls. It wasn't until I got to college that I even thought of that kind of relationship as a possibility. Once I realized this was an option, I began to question myself. To think I may have somehow gained a warped perspective of male-female relationships, been scarred at an early age, and become a complete social misfit. (A quick survey of my relationship history may argue that this is indeed true.) I honestly thought I was weird. As if I had awoke to realize that all this time I had been sick or crazy or weird.
Then I realized that I was the only sane person in a world of insanity. I was right and everyone else was wrong.
Here's why.
A friend is someone that you would go to with a serious, personal issue to seek advice and counsel or just to have a listening ear. It is not an aquaintance that you had class with one time or someone who knew your roommate and came over to watch a basketball game at your apartment who then Facebooked you. I hate to break it to you but 95% of your Facebook "friends" are not your friends. They are acquaintances, but society tells us that it is mean to call people by that word. Just say this is "my friend." But doesn't that cheapen the basis for real friendships? The more and more people we try to be friends with, the less and less we can invest in each person.
So the first part of the theory deals with what actually constitutes a friend.
Men and women cannot develop this kind of relationship without developing romantic feelings for one another or in some way being motivated by romantic desires. The second part of the theory deals with what motivates us to develop this kind of relationship. Men and women are meant to procreate. It is how our species survives. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to a member of the opposite sex. It's just that the moment that attraction develops between two would-be friends, the friendly parts of the relationshp are totally obliterated. Romantic feelings always supercede friendly ones. (Incidentally, this is why phrases like "bros before hoes" are completely ridiculous. Does anyone know one guy who puts bros before hoes? Not if that guy wants to successfully obtain and maintain a girlfriend.) There is no fighting this, folks. It is pretty much natural selection in action. We cannot fight our basic natural instincts.
So guys and girls either become "friends" in the first place because one of them is attracted to the other one. Or, in the alternative, they will not be able to develop a true friendship without one of them falling for the other.
There is also the corollary theory of transference. This is when you try to be "friends" with a member of the opposite sex because you are attracted to one of that person's friends. This is also not at true frienship because it is based on your ulterior motives. This is the case even if your motives are benign. For example, as was brought up at lunch last week, Kristen asked me if we were friends. I explained it to her like this. I am friends with Clayton. If Clayton and Kristen had not been dating as long as I have known him, I might not even have the privilege of knowing Kristen. That doesn't mean I don't like Kristen. I think she is one of the coolest people I know. It just means that our relationship is based on me being friends with Clayton. The theory of transference applies to that situation.
Friends purely for the sake of friendship. It doesn't happen, can't happen, won't happen between men and women. That's the basis of the theory.
To put it in classical logical terms:
A friend is someone that you would go to with a serious, personal issue to seek advice and counsel or just to have a listening ear.
Men and women cannot develop this kind of relationship without developing romantic feelings for one another or in some way being motivated by romantic desires. (See also the theory of transference.)
Therefore,
Men and women cannot be friends.
That's it. That's the argument. Comment away. Disagree. Tell me you never liked me anyway. You won't likely talk me down but we can now begin the discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)