I am currently working on my next theory. But i need some help.
Often when at work the questions is posed "how old do I look".
I am proposed that anyone from 16-41 would like to be called between 21-28.
Are there different formulas for certain age ranges? or could there be one consistent formula? Different formulas exist for sexes I am sure.
I think a young man's preferred appearance age is between 25-28 while a woman's preferred age of appearance is between 21-25
I would love to hear your thoughts. I hope to have this posted sometime next week. Please comment with even the smallest ideas. Anything helps!
Monday, March 21, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Trimutual Nakedness
This theory doesn't take much convincing. Most people agree with it quickly. But it is very funny and applies in MANY situations.
If you have the same relationship with two different people independently that does not mean that you can have the same style/quality of relationship with both people at the same time.
Additionally, that relationship you have is translated through your person so that the other two involved feel the same relationship between each other.
It is easier explained in the form of a story.
It is okay for me to experience certain bodily functions in the presence of my wife. (i.e. bathroom visits) It also has been a common occurrence for me to experience these things in the presence of my guy friends because when in public of course we share the same restroom. But it is not okay (at least in Kristen's mind) for me to experience this with both her and one of my guy friends present. She says it make her feel like she is using the bathroom in front of the guy. Not cool.
Another example comes in the form of conversation. I feel comfortable discussing sex with my wife (of course). I also have discussed this with wise men, and friends. I would never consider talking about this with both at the same time. It would make them feels like they were talking with each other about a issue in which they are not comfortable discussing with each other.
Ponder. Comment.
If you have the same relationship with two different people independently that does not mean that you can have the same style/quality of relationship with both people at the same time.
Additionally, that relationship you have is translated through your person so that the other two involved feel the same relationship between each other.
It is easier explained in the form of a story.
It is okay for me to experience certain bodily functions in the presence of my wife. (i.e. bathroom visits) It also has been a common occurrence for me to experience these things in the presence of my guy friends because when in public of course we share the same restroom. But it is not okay (at least in Kristen's mind) for me to experience this with both her and one of my guy friends present. She says it make her feel like she is using the bathroom in front of the guy. Not cool.
Another example comes in the form of conversation. I feel comfortable discussing sex with my wife (of course). I also have discussed this with wise men, and friends. I would never consider talking about this with both at the same time. It would make them feels like they were talking with each other about a issue in which they are not comfortable discussing with each other.
Ponder. Comment.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Candy Bars and First Impressions.
A lie or the best foot forward?
I recently had a kit-kat. They are delicious. Also, it came from my lovely wife as a gift for valentines day.
This is what got me thinking... I would take the first bit of the kit-kat and it was amazing. Half way through I would be satisfied and think that I could just eat one and be satisfied. Then when the last bit hit my lips I couldn't help but want one more. I started to develop this theory; the outside/edge of a candy bar is always the best.
So the next night I did some research. I ate a kit-kat. Ends first! That's right, I took my first bit and then flipped it around and took out the opposite end before finishing the middle. Amazing results. I ate just one.
This is what I think happened. The middle of the bar is good, but not too good. Not, addictive good. I have learned how to beat the system.
Another example. Resses. The best part is the outer edge that has a high ratio of chocolate to peanut butter. The edge is the best part. I know what you are thinking. Chocolate is better than peanut butter, it's not the edge it is what is on the edge. And to that I say exactly! These people know exactly what we want and they give it to us at the beginning and at the end.
This got me thinking. Is this putting the best foot forward or is it a lie? Why are they covering up who they really are or are they just trying to have people see what is great about them so they can enjoy. Either way it is good marketing for candy bars.
Lessons learned: First impressions count and the end has to be great as well.
What do you think?
I recently had a kit-kat. They are delicious. Also, it came from my lovely wife as a gift for valentines day.
This is what got me thinking... I would take the first bit of the kit-kat and it was amazing. Half way through I would be satisfied and think that I could just eat one and be satisfied. Then when the last bit hit my lips I couldn't help but want one more. I started to develop this theory; the outside/edge of a candy bar is always the best.
So the next night I did some research. I ate a kit-kat. Ends first! That's right, I took my first bit and then flipped it around and took out the opposite end before finishing the middle. Amazing results. I ate just one.
This is what I think happened. The middle of the bar is good, but not too good. Not, addictive good. I have learned how to beat the system.
Another example. Resses. The best part is the outer edge that has a high ratio of chocolate to peanut butter. The edge is the best part. I know what you are thinking. Chocolate is better than peanut butter, it's not the edge it is what is on the edge. And to that I say exactly! These people know exactly what we want and they give it to us at the beginning and at the end.
This got me thinking. Is this putting the best foot forward or is it a lie? Why are they covering up who they really are or are they just trying to have people see what is great about them so they can enjoy. Either way it is good marketing for candy bars.
Lessons learned: First impressions count and the end has to be great as well.
What do you think?
Monday, January 31, 2011
More of a Good Thing
If this is your first time around it might serve you well to review the first post of What, Why, When and Where and take a glance at the twix theory. Truly Discourse and Jargon at its finest.
Which is Better?
More of a Good Thing, or Less of a Bad thing.
Which would you prefer?
To have a little more of happy stuff, or not as much of a negative item?
The background story.
I work 4-10 hour days each week. I usually work Tuesday through Friday and one of my co-workers works Monday through Thursday. We do this so that there is a 10 hour worker there each day of the week. Sometimes we switch around and work the opposite schedule. During my 6 months at this job I have found that I greatly prefer the Tuesday through Friday schedule. Let me explain, then you can debate.
When you work Monday through Thursday the sensation in your mind is that you are getting OFF EARLY. You are cutting the week short. For means of this discussion you are getting less of a bad thing (the work week). In contrast when you work Tuesday through Friday the feeling is that you have extended your weekend. When Sunday night comes around I feel great because I get a longER weekend. Notice we both get Long weekends. But in my case (Tues.Fri) I get to feel a longER weekend. More of a good thing.
I'll give you another example to allow you to apply this to other situations. For your whole life, every wednesday, you have eaten brussels sprouts for dinner with 1 scoop of ice cream for dessert. (yes brussels has an s). I know this is a weird dinner but stay with me for the sake of conversation. One evening you get presented with an option.
1. you only have to eat 6 brussels sprouts tonight and you still get you same 1 scoop of ice-cream.
2. you have to eat the full 10 pieces of sprouts but you get 2 scoops rather than the normal 1 scoop of ice-cream.
Choice two is the clear winner. And I think would be the winner for most people because having more of a good thing is better than having less of a bad thing.
Now of course you can make this scenario go either way you want. If the choice was more ice-crease vs. less bullets in your arm I think you would choose less of a bad thing. But when considering relatively equal options of bad and good I think more of a good thing wins every time.
What do you think?
Which is Better?
More of a Good Thing, or Less of a Bad thing.
Which would you prefer?
To have a little more of happy stuff, or not as much of a negative item?
The background story.
I work 4-10 hour days each week. I usually work Tuesday through Friday and one of my co-workers works Monday through Thursday. We do this so that there is a 10 hour worker there each day of the week. Sometimes we switch around and work the opposite schedule. During my 6 months at this job I have found that I greatly prefer the Tuesday through Friday schedule. Let me explain, then you can debate.
When you work Monday through Thursday the sensation in your mind is that you are getting OFF EARLY. You are cutting the week short. For means of this discussion you are getting less of a bad thing (the work week). In contrast when you work Tuesday through Friday the feeling is that you have extended your weekend. When Sunday night comes around I feel great because I get a longER weekend. Notice we both get Long weekends. But in my case (Tues.Fri) I get to feel a longER weekend. More of a good thing.
I'll give you another example to allow you to apply this to other situations. For your whole life, every wednesday, you have eaten brussels sprouts for dinner with 1 scoop of ice cream for dessert. (yes brussels has an s). I know this is a weird dinner but stay with me for the sake of conversation. One evening you get presented with an option.
1. you only have to eat 6 brussels sprouts tonight and you still get you same 1 scoop of ice-cream.
2. you have to eat the full 10 pieces of sprouts but you get 2 scoops rather than the normal 1 scoop of ice-cream.
Choice two is the clear winner. And I think would be the winner for most people because having more of a good thing is better than having less of a bad thing.
Now of course you can make this scenario go either way you want. If the choice was more ice-crease vs. less bullets in your arm I think you would choose less of a bad thing. But when considering relatively equal options of bad and good I think more of a good thing wins every time.
What do you think?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)