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.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)