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?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
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)