So . . . apparently smashing your head against someone else's repeatedly over a three-hour period is not good for your brain. So say researchers who are examining the long-term impact of playing football, and the head injuries that go along with it. In fact, the results are downright disturbing (see Malcolm Gladwell's article on the subject for a more in-depth look).
The NFL had been denying and ignoring the issue, and with good cause; if the league were to take on this topic seriously, it would necessitate such big changes to the game that the very survival of football as we know it would be at stake. But yesterday the league announced a wide-ranging, hands-on approach to dealing with the long-term effects of concussive and sub-concussive injuries. They created a poster.
Calm down, calm down. I know that this is a major policy move for commissioner Goodell. A whole poster (actually, 32 of them - one in each team's locker room) may seem like going overboard, but I think such bold action is necessary. And this poster does more than just hang on the wall. It also informs the players that getting hit in the head is bad for your long-term health. And to not play if you have a head injury.
Because sarcasm does not lend itself well to the written form, you may think I'm a bit nuts right now. Just re-read the previous paragraph in an overly dramatic and slightly sneering tone.
This poster is going to accomplish one thing and one thing only - to dress the windows. To half-assedly say that the league regards this issue seriously and will do something about it (they won't, unless forced). Because no highly-payed, over-juiced NFL player is going to read that poster and say, "Really? I never knew. I should give this up and go be an accountant." The poster has a greater probability of being used as toilet paper than affecting the thinking of a single player. These are men who have given their blood, sweat and tears to achieve one goal and one goal only - to get to the NFL. They are focused on winning, on battling, on doing what is asked of them. To admit that there is a risk they had not previously considered, and to capitulate in the face of that risk, is to deny the very essence of who they are.
If you truly want to stop the long-term effects of playing football, start early. Get them while they're kids and high-schoolers, and make plain the risks. Trot out an old, doddering former pro who has even more trouble putting together a coherent sentence than he did when he had all of his faculties. Scare 'em. And then despair when the kids choose to continue banging their heads.
Because ultimately, that's what's going to happen. Just like all of the corner boys who earn less than minimum wage slinging drugs, in the hope that they will be the survivor who gets to be boss. Just like in that episode of Sliders where you can take as much cash out of the ATM as you want, but each dollar is an entry into a lottery where the prize is death (damn right I watched Sliders, you know, on occasion, when nothing else was on). People constantly take risks to earn rewards, even when the rewards are unlikely to occur.
The bottom line is that people like watching football, there are more than enough people willing to play football despite the risks (and earn a lot more than accountants do), so who are we to stop them? And while we're at it, I saw that movie Gladiator, we should get back to doing that too.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
I Like My Movies Flat and Without Depth
So . . . I heard on the radio yesterday that the official policy of Hollywood (set at their last meeting, I guess) is that all big summer blockbusters now must be released in 3D. So all of next summer’s big films like Harry Potter, Transformers, and Pirates be 3D. Which sucks.
I have seen three movies so far that use this new 3-D technology: Journey to the Center of the Earth, Avatar, and Alice in Wonderland. Only the last was what I would consider to be a decent movie, and I found that the 3D took away from the experience. Avatar was really crappy, but looked really pretty, but it’s likely that it could have looked as great without the 3D; it was the lush backgrounds and imaginative creatures that provided its aesthetic appeal. Journey was just bad.
Haven’t we gone down the 3D path before? Several times, like in the fifties and seventies? Never caught on then. Hope it doesn’t catch on now. It’s distracting, fuzzy, and annoying. I don’t want to wear glasses to watch a movie – that’s why I got laser eye surgery 12 years ago.
Are movies so visually lacking that we need an ersatz third dimension? We’ve done pretty well over the past century in creating stimulating and inspiring images. I think the marginal gain on making a good movie into a 3D one is small – if you have a fun, summer blockbuster (e.g. Iron Man, Dark Knight), how much would it be improved by making it 3D? I see the upside being much smaller than the potential downside. And don’t even get me started on 3D TV.
The biggest issue with 3D, though, isn’t even its lack of true (or even clear) 3D visuals. It’s that 3D is now yet another excuse for making bad movies that people will flock to see. It used to be just special effects alone could draw people to the theatre, no matter how lousy the story, acting, or characters were (see: Twister, Independence Day, anything by Michael Bay). Then people started catching on a bit more, until we went in for digital effects (the main culprit, other than George Lucas’s ego, as to why the Star Wars prequels weren’t all they could have been). Now it’s 3D. So these new technologies are making filmmakers lazy and audiences apathetic.
But even that isn’t the primary motivation for why Hollywood is insisting on all of its major releases being 3D. It’s money. Tickets to 3D movies are more expensive, so only releasing 3D movies gives the distributors and exhibitors license to implement a de facto 50% ticket-price hike. And we, the dummies that we are, will go along with it.
So, if you have the choice, don’t go along with it. Pick the non-3D option and don’t pay the extra. Because the only way the message will get across is through the cash flow (or lack of it). I don’t actually think this will work (I’m not the type of person to take part in boycotts), but at least you won’t have to wear the glasses.
I have seen three movies so far that use this new 3-D technology: Journey to the Center of the Earth, Avatar, and Alice in Wonderland. Only the last was what I would consider to be a decent movie, and I found that the 3D took away from the experience. Avatar was really crappy, but looked really pretty, but it’s likely that it could have looked as great without the 3D; it was the lush backgrounds and imaginative creatures that provided its aesthetic appeal. Journey was just bad.
Haven’t we gone down the 3D path before? Several times, like in the fifties and seventies? Never caught on then. Hope it doesn’t catch on now. It’s distracting, fuzzy, and annoying. I don’t want to wear glasses to watch a movie – that’s why I got laser eye surgery 12 years ago.
Are movies so visually lacking that we need an ersatz third dimension? We’ve done pretty well over the past century in creating stimulating and inspiring images. I think the marginal gain on making a good movie into a 3D one is small – if you have a fun, summer blockbuster (e.g. Iron Man, Dark Knight), how much would it be improved by making it 3D? I see the upside being much smaller than the potential downside. And don’t even get me started on 3D TV.
The biggest issue with 3D, though, isn’t even its lack of true (or even clear) 3D visuals. It’s that 3D is now yet another excuse for making bad movies that people will flock to see. It used to be just special effects alone could draw people to the theatre, no matter how lousy the story, acting, or characters were (see: Twister, Independence Day, anything by Michael Bay). Then people started catching on a bit more, until we went in for digital effects (the main culprit, other than George Lucas’s ego, as to why the Star Wars prequels weren’t all they could have been). Now it’s 3D. So these new technologies are making filmmakers lazy and audiences apathetic.
But even that isn’t the primary motivation for why Hollywood is insisting on all of its major releases being 3D. It’s money. Tickets to 3D movies are more expensive, so only releasing 3D movies gives the distributors and exhibitors license to implement a de facto 50% ticket-price hike. And we, the dummies that we are, will go along with it.
So, if you have the choice, don’t go along with it. Pick the non-3D option and don’t pay the extra. Because the only way the message will get across is through the cash flow (or lack of it). I don’t actually think this will work (I’m not the type of person to take part in boycotts), but at least you won’t have to wear the glasses.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Hey, Where Have I Been?
So . . . you may have noticed there haven't been any blog posts over the past week or so. This is because I have busy with my major life event (as the insurance companies call it). That's right, I have a new baby girl.
So this is just a short note to say that the blog will be on hiatus for the next little while. I plan to do a few blog posts now and again as I have time, and then start back up full tilt in September.
So no, I haven't dropped off the face the earth, and I haven't just given up on the blog because, say, the posts hardly generate any comments. There will be more ramblings to come in the future for all of you who hate pandas and love pizza.
Check ya later!
So this is just a short note to say that the blog will be on hiatus for the next little while. I plan to do a few blog posts now and again as I have time, and then start back up full tilt in September.
So no, I haven't dropped off the face the earth, and I haven't just given up on the blog because, say, the posts hardly generate any comments. There will be more ramblings to come in the future for all of you who hate pandas and love pizza.
Check ya later!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Author of my Autobiography Tells it All Wrong
So . . . we are unreliable autobiographers. There are many reasons for this, such as memory (we actually re-code memories every time we access them, so our memories mutate over time), narrative fallacy (we like "good stories," so we remember and tell the facts that make the best story, not necessarily what actually happened), and perspective (we are not omniscient narrators). Today I'm going to discuss the last of these.
There is a scene in the movie "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (which I saw on an airplane to pass the time - poor choice, it made the trip longer) where something happens to a main character (no spoilers here!). The scene is set up by the narrator saying all of the seemingly inconsequential things that happened in order for this one important thing to occur - a lady forgets her keys, a driver isn't paying attention, etc. If only one of these things hadn't happened, the event wouldn't have happened. It is by far the most memorable scene in the movie for me (owing more to the drudgery of the rest of the film than the execution of the scene).
This is a better representation of how things happen. A common label for this phenomenon is the Butterfly Effect (another movie, didn't see this one, looks bad). An inconsequential act (a butterfly flapping its wings in Tibet) leads to a consequential one (Hurricane Katrina, for example). But even this is flawed, because it assumes we can trace the inconsequential acts, and as actors in our own lives, this is impossible. Millions of butterflies flap their wings, but there's no way of knowing which one will cause the devastation. A bunch of drunken hicks have babies, who grow up to voting age, and George W. Bush becomes president. That kind of devastation.
Think of the most important event in your own life. Now think of all of the decisions you had to make for this event to have occurred. Lots, right? Most of them didn't seem important at the time, and even if they did, they probably weren't undertaken with this end goal in mind (some might of been, but if you can only come up with those directional actions, you aren't thinking of everything). Now, to further complicate things, think of all of the actions that had to occur that were choices (or happenstance) of other people. And the tree branches out from there.
To use another movie scene, the opening of Adaptation (good movie) starts with the birth of the universe, because without that, there would be no story to tell. If you go far enough, everything that has ever happened in the universe would have had to have happened exactly as it did for this one event to happen to you. Does your brain hurt? Mine does.
This usually leads to a discussion of free will versus determinism. But neither is satisfactory on its own. The determinism argument requires the necessity for not only an omnipotent god, but also one that is continually controlling all aspects of everyone's life. Free will implies that we can make our choices and direct our own lives. I think that another view is more complete than the others (if less fulfilling to most), that of randomness. Things happen. No meaning, no story. We make our own choices, but those choices are provided and guided by the circumstances we find ourselves in. A man meets his wife only because they were both in the same place at the same time. That meeting was random. The choices they made since then were mostly their own, but only existed because of random occurrence. Therefore the very existence of their children (and by extension, all of us) is random.
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't it? Talk about meaning in the universe.
Before you hand over the rest of your life to randomness and spend your days watching The View and eating Cheetos, though, remember that we still can choose within our circumstances. We can't guarantee outcomes, but we can still buy our figurative lottery ticket. And when you tell the stories of your life, keep them in perspective, and don't forget to include random chance in the closing credits.
There is a scene in the movie "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (which I saw on an airplane to pass the time - poor choice, it made the trip longer) where something happens to a main character (no spoilers here!). The scene is set up by the narrator saying all of the seemingly inconsequential things that happened in order for this one important thing to occur - a lady forgets her keys, a driver isn't paying attention, etc. If only one of these things hadn't happened, the event wouldn't have happened. It is by far the most memorable scene in the movie for me (owing more to the drudgery of the rest of the film than the execution of the scene).
This is a better representation of how things happen. A common label for this phenomenon is the Butterfly Effect (another movie, didn't see this one, looks bad). An inconsequential act (a butterfly flapping its wings in Tibet) leads to a consequential one (Hurricane Katrina, for example). But even this is flawed, because it assumes we can trace the inconsequential acts, and as actors in our own lives, this is impossible. Millions of butterflies flap their wings, but there's no way of knowing which one will cause the devastation. A bunch of drunken hicks have babies, who grow up to voting age, and George W. Bush becomes president. That kind of devastation.
Think of the most important event in your own life. Now think of all of the decisions you had to make for this event to have occurred. Lots, right? Most of them didn't seem important at the time, and even if they did, they probably weren't undertaken with this end goal in mind (some might of been, but if you can only come up with those directional actions, you aren't thinking of everything). Now, to further complicate things, think of all of the actions that had to occur that were choices (or happenstance) of other people. And the tree branches out from there.
To use another movie scene, the opening of Adaptation (good movie) starts with the birth of the universe, because without that, there would be no story to tell. If you go far enough, everything that has ever happened in the universe would have had to have happened exactly as it did for this one event to happen to you. Does your brain hurt? Mine does.
This usually leads to a discussion of free will versus determinism. But neither is satisfactory on its own. The determinism argument requires the necessity for not only an omnipotent god, but also one that is continually controlling all aspects of everyone's life. Free will implies that we can make our choices and direct our own lives. I think that another view is more complete than the others (if less fulfilling to most), that of randomness. Things happen. No meaning, no story. We make our own choices, but those choices are provided and guided by the circumstances we find ourselves in. A man meets his wife only because they were both in the same place at the same time. That meeting was random. The choices they made since then were mostly their own, but only existed because of random occurrence. Therefore the very existence of their children (and by extension, all of us) is random.
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't it? Talk about meaning in the universe.
Before you hand over the rest of your life to randomness and spend your days watching The View and eating Cheetos, though, remember that we still can choose within our circumstances. We can't guarantee outcomes, but we can still buy our figurative lottery ticket. And when you tell the stories of your life, keep them in perspective, and don't forget to include random chance in the closing credits.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
High-Stakes Decision-Making
So . . . I'm going to give you a couple of business scenarios. Read them and think about whether you think the decisions made were good ones.
1) A company is convinced its CEO is going to jump ship and go to a rival corporation. This company's HR and recruitment departments are in shambles, and are incapable of finding another CEO at the same level of competence (at least not within a short amount of time). So if the CEO leaves, the company would have to promote from within, and the talent available is sub-par. If the current CEO leaves, the share price will probably fall precipitously. In the end, this company decides to overpay its CEO to stay; they may not get the full value of what they're paying for, but they consider it better than nothing.
2) A company has what is widely considered to be one of the best leaders in the industry. Its CEO is universally admired and has led this business to market dominance in the past. It has come to their attention that an equally-admired leader, the CEO of a rival company, is displeased with his company and is willing to a make a move. Furthermore, a third CEO is also interested in joining this company. The board of directors makes the decision to hire the other two leaders and put them in leading roles in the business as well. Though they are paying CEO salaries for all three, only one has the title (the other two are senior executives). The share price goes up a little, and this company is expected to dominate for years to come, but profits may be hurt by the high salaries they are paying their upper management.
What's your verdict? Did the companies do the right thing?
In my opinion, in this business context, company one did the right thing and company two did the wrong thing. Company one is overpaying one executive because they would be without a strong leader if they did not. They cannot replace the CEO, so they're throwing a little money at the problem to avoid a large loss.
Company two is also overspending, but probably not getting back what they're putting in. Adding only one of the CEOs would provide an increase to both share price and probability of dominance, but with each additional CEO they add (after the first one) that increase reduces - the company experiences diminishing returns. The probability of success, especially, is subject to dimishing returns, because there is only so much each additional leader can add. At some point you need specialists, subordinates, and "role players" to add value.
However, this post isn't really about business. It's about basketball (fooled ya! basketball again!). The first scenario is really the Atlanta Hawks' re-signing of Joe Johnson, and the second one is the Miami Heat signing Chris Bosh and Lebron James to play alongside Dwyane Wade. And in the context of basketball, most of the commentary has consisted of views opposite to the ones I gave in the business context.
NBA pundits are decrying Joe Johnson's maximum-dollar contract because they say he is not worth the money. What is being ignored is that because of the NBA's salary-cap rules, Atlanta couldn't sign a different free agent to replace him, but could re-sign him. So they took the only course available to them (other than getting nothing in return for his leaving) and overpaid him. And as a result they will sell tickets and have a chance at contending (at least in the short term, until two years from now when he can't hit shots anymore).
In Miami, everyone is looking at the Superfriends and thinking they will dominate, and what a coup for Miami. But even without Lebron James (typically viewed as the most talented of the three, especially by Lebron James) they would have contended for a title every year, and sold out the arena every night. What Lebron adds to Miami is much less than what he would add to an average team, yet Miami is paying him (nearly) as much. Diminishing returns.
So this is probably the last I'll write about basketball for a while (and a cheer went up across the land!). This has been a wild off-season with lots of changes, but some things never change - you will never win all of your games (even the Harlem Globetrotters lost once), you have to reconcile winning games with losing money, and as William Goldman said about movies, Nobody Knows Anything. Even me.
1) A company is convinced its CEO is going to jump ship and go to a rival corporation. This company's HR and recruitment departments are in shambles, and are incapable of finding another CEO at the same level of competence (at least not within a short amount of time). So if the CEO leaves, the company would have to promote from within, and the talent available is sub-par. If the current CEO leaves, the share price will probably fall precipitously. In the end, this company decides to overpay its CEO to stay; they may not get the full value of what they're paying for, but they consider it better than nothing.
2) A company has what is widely considered to be one of the best leaders in the industry. Its CEO is universally admired and has led this business to market dominance in the past. It has come to their attention that an equally-admired leader, the CEO of a rival company, is displeased with his company and is willing to a make a move. Furthermore, a third CEO is also interested in joining this company. The board of directors makes the decision to hire the other two leaders and put them in leading roles in the business as well. Though they are paying CEO salaries for all three, only one has the title (the other two are senior executives). The share price goes up a little, and this company is expected to dominate for years to come, but profits may be hurt by the high salaries they are paying their upper management.
What's your verdict? Did the companies do the right thing?
In my opinion, in this business context, company one did the right thing and company two did the wrong thing. Company one is overpaying one executive because they would be without a strong leader if they did not. They cannot replace the CEO, so they're throwing a little money at the problem to avoid a large loss.
Company two is also overspending, but probably not getting back what they're putting in. Adding only one of the CEOs would provide an increase to both share price and probability of dominance, but with each additional CEO they add (after the first one) that increase reduces - the company experiences diminishing returns. The probability of success, especially, is subject to dimishing returns, because there is only so much each additional leader can add. At some point you need specialists, subordinates, and "role players" to add value.
However, this post isn't really about business. It's about basketball (fooled ya! basketball again!). The first scenario is really the Atlanta Hawks' re-signing of Joe Johnson, and the second one is the Miami Heat signing Chris Bosh and Lebron James to play alongside Dwyane Wade. And in the context of basketball, most of the commentary has consisted of views opposite to the ones I gave in the business context.
NBA pundits are decrying Joe Johnson's maximum-dollar contract because they say he is not worth the money. What is being ignored is that because of the NBA's salary-cap rules, Atlanta couldn't sign a different free agent to replace him, but could re-sign him. So they took the only course available to them (other than getting nothing in return for his leaving) and overpaid him. And as a result they will sell tickets and have a chance at contending (at least in the short term, until two years from now when he can't hit shots anymore).
In Miami, everyone is looking at the Superfriends and thinking they will dominate, and what a coup for Miami. But even without Lebron James (typically viewed as the most talented of the three, especially by Lebron James) they would have contended for a title every year, and sold out the arena every night. What Lebron adds to Miami is much less than what he would add to an average team, yet Miami is paying him (nearly) as much. Diminishing returns.
So this is probably the last I'll write about basketball for a while (and a cheer went up across the land!). This has been a wild off-season with lots of changes, but some things never change - you will never win all of your games (even the Harlem Globetrotters lost once), you have to reconcile winning games with losing money, and as William Goldman said about movies, Nobody Knows Anything. Even me.
Monday, July 12, 2010
All New Coked Up
So . . . today is the twenty-fifth anniversary of Coca-Cola reversing their decision to switch to New Coke, and the return of Coca-Cola Classic to the shelves. This anecdote has been told to death in business classrooms over the past two and half decades, usually as an example of poor strategy, management preference being prioritized over common sense, or a company not really knowing their customers.
And these uses for the story are wrong.
Because, as it turns out, Coca-Cola did tons of research on New Coke, and tested the hell out of the new formula prior to launch. They didn't just introduce a new taste on the fly, but rather took a measured approach to the product and the launch. And the funny thing is, people loved New Coke. In blind taste tests, it was strongly preferred to the old Coke. So why did it fail, and what is the moral of the story?
The failure of New Coke came about because of a strong backlash from about ten percent of Coke's loyal customers. They were mad because of the change (note: not because of the product itself, but the fact that there was a change in the first place), madder than Mel Gibson at a Passover seder. They felt betrayed and abandoned. And their ire picked up steam, and suddenly New Coke was a joke.
New Coke didn't fail because it tasted bad; it failed because it was different. Coke's mistake was not keeping the old Coke around from the get-go (I think I'm using the word "Coke" too much in the post - I'm afraid Lindsay Lohan might find it while Googling). Customers were emotionally and personally invested in the product, and it was taken away from them.
The other mistake Coke made was relying on bling taste-testing. We've all seen the commercials where the underdog is picked in blind taste tests, but this is a trick. It doesn't matter what is preferred in these tests, because when we eat and drink, we don't do so blindly (other than the visually-impaired amongst us). We do so with knowledge of the brand and flavours we are consuming. This knowledge affects how things taste to us, so Coke in a blind taste test tastes different than Coke when we know it's Coke.
We like to think that taste, like our other basic senses, give us unbiased and clear information about the world around us. Research has shown this not to be the case, such as a test where people given a free bottle of wine "from North Dakota" liked it less, and ate less of their dinner, than people given a bottle of wine "from California" (both wines were actually the same wine with different labels). Or a study in which participants were given five glasses of wine and were asked to rate each one, and gave different ratings largely based on the order in which they they tasted them (again, all the wines were actually the same wine from the same bottle). Information separate from the basic taste of the product affects how we think things taste. So if you thought New Coke was going to suck, it would suck; if you thought you would like it, you probably would.
Try this little experiment at home: take a few flavored jelly beans (like Jelly Belly brand or whatever knock-off is available, as long as they actually have different flavours and not just colours). Pick out three or four without looking at them and eat them one at a time. Can you guess the flavour? I just did this, and got two out of three wrong (the one I got right was coffee-flavoured, which is fairly distinctive). Even if you got them right, take another three and this time look at them before eating them, and know the flavour is supposed to be before you put them in your mouth. The flavour is much more distinctive, and it takes less time to identify, right? Because your brain is telling you what flavour to expect, so the flavour is clear.
And even if you got nothing else from today's post, at least you got to eat jelly beans.
IMPORTANT NOTE: To all of my loyal readers (yes, both of you), it has recently come to my attention that people have tried to post comments on the blogs and then the comment doesn't appear. I don't know why this is going on. I have looked up how to fix it and am trying a new comments format, so hopefully that will help. I have never deleted any comments or moderated the comments at all, so please don't think I rejected yours if it didn't appear.
If you try to post a comment and it doesn't appear, just e-mail me (ericdolansky@hotmail.com) and I'll do my best to post it on your behalf.
And these uses for the story are wrong.
Because, as it turns out, Coca-Cola did tons of research on New Coke, and tested the hell out of the new formula prior to launch. They didn't just introduce a new taste on the fly, but rather took a measured approach to the product and the launch. And the funny thing is, people loved New Coke. In blind taste tests, it was strongly preferred to the old Coke. So why did it fail, and what is the moral of the story?
The failure of New Coke came about because of a strong backlash from about ten percent of Coke's loyal customers. They were mad because of the change (note: not because of the product itself, but the fact that there was a change in the first place), madder than Mel Gibson at a Passover seder. They felt betrayed and abandoned. And their ire picked up steam, and suddenly New Coke was a joke.
New Coke didn't fail because it tasted bad; it failed because it was different. Coke's mistake was not keeping the old Coke around from the get-go (I think I'm using the word "Coke" too much in the post - I'm afraid Lindsay Lohan might find it while Googling). Customers were emotionally and personally invested in the product, and it was taken away from them.
The other mistake Coke made was relying on bling taste-testing. We've all seen the commercials where the underdog is picked in blind taste tests, but this is a trick. It doesn't matter what is preferred in these tests, because when we eat and drink, we don't do so blindly (other than the visually-impaired amongst us). We do so with knowledge of the brand and flavours we are consuming. This knowledge affects how things taste to us, so Coke in a blind taste test tastes different than Coke when we know it's Coke.
We like to think that taste, like our other basic senses, give us unbiased and clear information about the world around us. Research has shown this not to be the case, such as a test where people given a free bottle of wine "from North Dakota" liked it less, and ate less of their dinner, than people given a bottle of wine "from California" (both wines were actually the same wine with different labels). Or a study in which participants were given five glasses of wine and were asked to rate each one, and gave different ratings largely based on the order in which they they tasted them (again, all the wines were actually the same wine from the same bottle). Information separate from the basic taste of the product affects how we think things taste. So if you thought New Coke was going to suck, it would suck; if you thought you would like it, you probably would.
Try this little experiment at home: take a few flavored jelly beans (like Jelly Belly brand or whatever knock-off is available, as long as they actually have different flavours and not just colours). Pick out three or four without looking at them and eat them one at a time. Can you guess the flavour? I just did this, and got two out of three wrong (the one I got right was coffee-flavoured, which is fairly distinctive). Even if you got them right, take another three and this time look at them before eating them, and know the flavour is supposed to be before you put them in your mouth. The flavour is much more distinctive, and it takes less time to identify, right? Because your brain is telling you what flavour to expect, so the flavour is clear.
And even if you got nothing else from today's post, at least you got to eat jelly beans.
IMPORTANT NOTE: To all of my loyal readers (yes, both of you), it has recently come to my attention that people have tried to post comments on the blogs and then the comment doesn't appear. I don't know why this is going on. I have looked up how to fix it and am trying a new comments format, so hopefully that will help. I have never deleted any comments or moderated the comments at all, so please don't think I rejected yours if it didn't appear.
If you try to post a comment and it doesn't appear, just e-mail me (ericdolansky@hotmail.com) and I'll do my best to post it on your behalf.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
To Be or Not To Be (A Pizza)
So . . . I like pizza. I know this does not exactly make me unique, but I thought it worth saying. I could eat pizza every week, several times a week if I thought I wouldn’t end up looking like I was from South Carolina (I know this is a generalization, but you know how they say that if you want to feel rich, go live in a poor country? Based on my experience driving through the Southeastern U.S., if you want to feel thin, go there).
But my beloved pizza (North American version - let the Italians do what they want with theirs) has been co-opted, and turned into something it never should have. You see, back in my day (which apparently is longer ago than I thought, based on recent experience) there was a finite set of toppings that were permissible for a pizza. Pepperoni, onions, olives, anchovies, mushrooms, tomatoes, peppers, sausage, and if you were feeling a little wild and crazy, pineapple (though this last one was never officially approved the committee, i.e. me). All pizzas had cheese, tomato sauce, and a crust. And life was good.
Then someone, somewhere, decided that pizza could have anything on it! Chicken, broccoli, spinach, tree bark, engine oil, whatever. And cheese? Who needs cheese? While we’re at it, let’s get rid of tomato sauce and replace it with olive oil or cream sauce. And the madness continued, and eventually pizza became something it was never intended to be.
Someone has to put a stop to this insanity. Are you comfortable with the idea that our children will grow up in a world where pizza has such a loose, vague definition? Who will have the courage to stand up and say: “Spinach, tuna, oil and a sprinkling of parmesan on a whole-wheat tortilla? That’s not a pizza!”
Look, I’m not saying that having different toppings on pizza tastes bad, or is unpalatable to all. I’m just saying that it’s not a pizza. Call it something else. Order yourself a ancho steak/lettuce/taco shell pozza, or pizzu, or something like that. Leave the pizza to be a pizza. When I was in China last year I saw (and had to eat due to lack of options) pizzas (from Pizza Hut, no less) that not only didn’t have traditional pizza toppings, but I wasn’t even sure what it was I was eating.
By now you’re probably thinking one of two things. Either you’re in the “Yes! Thank you, Eric, for illuminating this oft-overlooked issue important to society,” or “Wow, I’ve been reading the blog pretty steadily and had no idea he was this kind of crazy.” Either way, you’ve read to this point, so hopefully at least some of my insanity, er, ideas will sink in and provoke thoughts. And the next time you order pizza, skip the shrimp-bokchoy-hoisin option.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Triumph of Lebron over Brains
So . . . Lebron had his big announcement show last night and main thing that he announced is that he is a raging asshole.
(Aside: It is entirely possible that I would not be as upset by "The Decision" if the decision had been that he would come to my long-suffering Knicks. But I think that even his "chosen" fans can and should feel a little disappointed in the lack of character he displayed).
(Aside two: I will probably use a greater quantity of questionable language than I usually do, but I don't think there are kids reading this blog. If you are reading this blog and a kid, you are very precocious. Now stop reading.)
(Aside three: This turned out longer than I expected; I guess I have more to say about how shitty Lebron came off than I thought. Read on if you want.)
If I could build a time machine that would take me back 24 hours, and I could somehow gain access to Lebron prior to his announcement (which would be tougher? I really don't know.), here's the advice I would give him.
1. Don't do "The Decision" show. There is no way you will come off looking good. At best you will make the fans of one team (out of, say, five that thought they were contenders) happy - and even then, as I mentioned above, you could still emerge looking dickish. Plus, no one has ever done something like this before, in any sport. By doing this show (and apparently the idea emerged as long ago as February) you are implicitly saying you are the most important athlete ever. I know that sometimes actions can create attitudes, but if people don't think you are so important (or at least think you would be in contention for the honour), you just look like a douchebag. When Shaq changed teams, when MJ returned from retirement (twice), when Brett Favre retired and returned (3 times and counting), none of them made it a TV special. Just hold a press conference like a normal person.
However, if you are going to ignore advice point #1, then at least follow these:
2. Don't refer to yourself in the third person. Major prick move, especially when you say things like "Lebron James has got to do what's best for Lebron James." Someone saying this would look like a dick even if he wasn't Lebron James.
3. Tell the teams that you are rejecting prior to the broadcast. I know that you wanted to keep a lid on things, but you could have called the five or so teams that thought they might be getting you in the ten minutes before the show. What you did instead was the equivalent of breaking up with your girlfriend over the phone, only the phone call was being listened to by millions of people.
This point especially applies to your fans in Cleveland. I read one reporter, prior to the announcement, who claimed it must be Cleveland that Lebron would choose because it would be unprecedentedly arrogant for him to make a nationally-televised announcement saying he is leaving. Guess what: Lebron proved himself to be unprecedentedly arrogant.
4. Don't go to Miami. You claim that your decision was driven by wanting to win championships, and teaming with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh certainly increases the probability of this happening (but I would still argue that without at least another two pieces - a point guard who can reliably hit the 3 and a center who lives for blocking shots and grabbing boards - the greatest probability is that they will win one or zero championships in the next five years). But championship rings, methinks, are only a means to an end for Lebron. That end would be the legacy and brand he has spoken about so much in the past. And that brand took a hard hit last night. He mentioned that he hoped his fans would follow him to Miami. I know there are a lot of Lebron fans out there, but most of them started as Cleveland Cavalier fans, and he more or less flipped them the bird last night.
Consider also that the SuperFriends in Miami (coined last night, not by me) will probably not last, especially if success is not swift and unequivocal. History has shown that top-level teams don't stick together that long.
If you're going to ignore advice #4 . . .
5. Come up with a better explanation. Say that you have the chance to play with your best friends in the NBA, guys who came into the league at the same time as you and who you like spending time with. Explain that if a fan had the chance to go and work at a job that he loves with his best friends, how could he pass that up? Make it like you're a regular Joe who just likes to goof around (you know, like your image prior to the announcement). You may come off sounding like a character in a Nickleback song, but at least you'll seem human.
6. Seem human. Lebron on the court is energetic, fun, larger than life. On TV last night he was dour, serious, and hardly cracked a smile. I assume he was trying to portray the gravitas necessary for such a portentous occasion, and didn't want to seem like he was happy that he was pissing all over his fan base (related note: US Weekly reported yesterday, prior to the announcement, that Lebron had already planned a huge party in South Beach for this weekend). Don't try to pretend that you're forced into the choice you made.
Because that's what it comes down to - Lebron had more power in this situation than pretty much any athlete, ever. And that he chose to present his decision in such a assholish way shows how highly he regards himself and how lowly he regards the rest of us.
Now, if there was some way I could use my time machine to get him to choose the Knicks instead . . .
(Aside: It is entirely possible that I would not be as upset by "The Decision" if the decision had been that he would come to my long-suffering Knicks. But I think that even his "chosen" fans can and should feel a little disappointed in the lack of character he displayed).
(Aside two: I will probably use a greater quantity of questionable language than I usually do, but I don't think there are kids reading this blog. If you are reading this blog and a kid, you are very precocious. Now stop reading.)
(Aside three: This turned out longer than I expected; I guess I have more to say about how shitty Lebron came off than I thought. Read on if you want.)
If I could build a time machine that would take me back 24 hours, and I could somehow gain access to Lebron prior to his announcement (which would be tougher? I really don't know.), here's the advice I would give him.
1. Don't do "The Decision" show. There is no way you will come off looking good. At best you will make the fans of one team (out of, say, five that thought they were contenders) happy - and even then, as I mentioned above, you could still emerge looking dickish. Plus, no one has ever done something like this before, in any sport. By doing this show (and apparently the idea emerged as long ago as February) you are implicitly saying you are the most important athlete ever. I know that sometimes actions can create attitudes, but if people don't think you are so important (or at least think you would be in contention for the honour), you just look like a douchebag. When Shaq changed teams, when MJ returned from retirement (twice), when Brett Favre retired and returned (3 times and counting), none of them made it a TV special. Just hold a press conference like a normal person.
However, if you are going to ignore advice point #1, then at least follow these:
2. Don't refer to yourself in the third person. Major prick move, especially when you say things like "Lebron James has got to do what's best for Lebron James." Someone saying this would look like a dick even if he wasn't Lebron James.
3. Tell the teams that you are rejecting prior to the broadcast. I know that you wanted to keep a lid on things, but you could have called the five or so teams that thought they might be getting you in the ten minutes before the show. What you did instead was the equivalent of breaking up with your girlfriend over the phone, only the phone call was being listened to by millions of people.
This point especially applies to your fans in Cleveland. I read one reporter, prior to the announcement, who claimed it must be Cleveland that Lebron would choose because it would be unprecedentedly arrogant for him to make a nationally-televised announcement saying he is leaving. Guess what: Lebron proved himself to be unprecedentedly arrogant.
4. Don't go to Miami. You claim that your decision was driven by wanting to win championships, and teaming with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh certainly increases the probability of this happening (but I would still argue that without at least another two pieces - a point guard who can reliably hit the 3 and a center who lives for blocking shots and grabbing boards - the greatest probability is that they will win one or zero championships in the next five years). But championship rings, methinks, are only a means to an end for Lebron. That end would be the legacy and brand he has spoken about so much in the past. And that brand took a hard hit last night. He mentioned that he hoped his fans would follow him to Miami. I know there are a lot of Lebron fans out there, but most of them started as Cleveland Cavalier fans, and he more or less flipped them the bird last night.
Consider also that the SuperFriends in Miami (coined last night, not by me) will probably not last, especially if success is not swift and unequivocal. History has shown that top-level teams don't stick together that long.
If you're going to ignore advice #4 . . .
5. Come up with a better explanation. Say that you have the chance to play with your best friends in the NBA, guys who came into the league at the same time as you and who you like spending time with. Explain that if a fan had the chance to go and work at a job that he loves with his best friends, how could he pass that up? Make it like you're a regular Joe who just likes to goof around (you know, like your image prior to the announcement). You may come off sounding like a character in a Nickleback song, but at least you'll seem human.
6. Seem human. Lebron on the court is energetic, fun, larger than life. On TV last night he was dour, serious, and hardly cracked a smile. I assume he was trying to portray the gravitas necessary for such a portentous occasion, and didn't want to seem like he was happy that he was pissing all over his fan base (related note: US Weekly reported yesterday, prior to the announcement, that Lebron had already planned a huge party in South Beach for this weekend). Don't try to pretend that you're forced into the choice you made.
Because that's what it comes down to - Lebron had more power in this situation than pretty much any athlete, ever. And that he chose to present his decision in such a assholish way shows how highly he regards himself and how lowly he regards the rest of us.
Now, if there was some way I could use my time machine to get him to choose the Knicks instead . . .
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Scientific Agenda
So . . . the report has come in and it was found that the "climategate" researchers had not done anything too wrong. All of the hubbub about manipulated results and bad science proved to be not entirely warranted. I know that it's hard to believe that the newspapers would make something into a bigger deal than it was, but I guess we just have to consider that possibility.
But this issue does highlight an important point that is central to this debate. The report on the conduct of Phil Jones and his colleagues in East Anglia found that they did, in fact, act contrary to the spirit of scientific discovery. By supressing dissent and selectively presenting data, they made it clear that they were more interested in providing the perception that they were right than in providing hard evidence.
If the findings out of East Anglia were so convincing, why wouldn't the scientists there welcome dissenting opinion? Why the schadenfreude at the death of a climate-change skeptic (over e-mail, no less! I can picture it: "Dr. Skeptic died - LMAO"). The problem here wasn't (only) bad science, it was science with a political agenda. Just like how the science of evolution has been taken over by politics, reducing it to a with-us-or-against-us debate, climate change science has been made into a political hot button. And this makes it difficult to do good science.
This topic, whether you are a believer or a skeptic/heretic/unsure individual, has profound implications for the future. And I'm not talking about snow-less winters or summer heat waves (I could do with less shoveling in winter), but rather policy implications and money, tons of money, that will be devoted to this issue. Therefore the fact that it is oversimplified into a religious cause is troubling, because what we need is good data. Good data isn't always crystal clear, incontrovertible, and 100% right or wrong. No one cause determines an effect (at least not in a complex system like this).
So when data is cherry-picked to make the "hockey stick" graph of rising temperatures, I am concerned. When the review process for articles is hijacked such that contrary findings are supressed, I am concerned. I would rather know less about what is going on but be sure in my lack of knowledge than to supposedly know more but have serious doubts about the veracity of the claims. All good science is couched in debate. Scientific research was once defined to me as a conversation, where one researcher says "this is how I see things, and here is some support for my argument," and another says, "well, I see things this way, and here's my support." A one-sided conversation where the other person made mute does not create reliable findings.
So while the report has found that the East Anglia researchers may not have done bad scientists, their agenda makes them bad scientists.
But this issue does highlight an important point that is central to this debate. The report on the conduct of Phil Jones and his colleagues in East Anglia found that they did, in fact, act contrary to the spirit of scientific discovery. By supressing dissent and selectively presenting data, they made it clear that they were more interested in providing the perception that they were right than in providing hard evidence.
If the findings out of East Anglia were so convincing, why wouldn't the scientists there welcome dissenting opinion? Why the schadenfreude at the death of a climate-change skeptic (over e-mail, no less! I can picture it: "Dr. Skeptic died - LMAO"). The problem here wasn't (only) bad science, it was science with a political agenda. Just like how the science of evolution has been taken over by politics, reducing it to a with-us-or-against-us debate, climate change science has been made into a political hot button. And this makes it difficult to do good science.
This topic, whether you are a believer or a skeptic/heretic/unsure individual, has profound implications for the future. And I'm not talking about snow-less winters or summer heat waves (I could do with less shoveling in winter), but rather policy implications and money, tons of money, that will be devoted to this issue. Therefore the fact that it is oversimplified into a religious cause is troubling, because what we need is good data. Good data isn't always crystal clear, incontrovertible, and 100% right or wrong. No one cause determines an effect (at least not in a complex system like this).
So when data is cherry-picked to make the "hockey stick" graph of rising temperatures, I am concerned. When the review process for articles is hijacked such that contrary findings are supressed, I am concerned. I would rather know less about what is going on but be sure in my lack of knowledge than to supposedly know more but have serious doubts about the veracity of the claims. All good science is couched in debate. Scientific research was once defined to me as a conversation, where one researcher says "this is how I see things, and here is some support for my argument," and another says, "well, I see things this way, and here's my support." A one-sided conversation where the other person made mute does not create reliable findings.
So while the report has found that the East Anglia researchers may not have done bad scientists, their agenda makes them bad scientists.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
A Crotchety Old Man
So . . . apparently the title of this blog post refers to me. In the past year or so I have been the target of a seemingly-coordinated series of attacks designed to make me feel old (for the record, I’m not old – I’m 35). What bothers me most of all about this is that it bothers me.
You see, I’m generally not a vain person. Anyone who knows me personally can see that – I dress pretty sloppily, don’t often iron my clothes, wait a week too long to get a haircut and only shave when I have to (lest you get the wrong idea, I do shower and brush my teeth. I’m not a slob, just a little lazy in the self-presentation department). It’s probably because I feel that my natural handsomeness combined with my laissez-faire fashion sense gives me a devil-may-care charm that is ever so winning.
But for some reason it really gets under my skin (my wrinkled, sere old man skin, I guess) when I am mistaken for older than I am. Here are some recent examples of this happening:
- Some colleagues of mine were trying to figure out who was the youngest person in our department (slow week, I guess) and they asked my age. I answered with the question (that I have learned I should not ask) of how old they thought I was. The answer they gave? 40. When pressed for explanation after I revealed they overshot the mark, one of them said I looked “mature” and “seasoned.” I am not a bag of chips or a well-cooked steak; I don’t want to be seasoned.
- In class last semester I gave the students a group exercise for which they were to determine a promotional strategy. One group was discussing using Facebook to spread the word about their product. A group member brought up the point that the desired customers were older (about 40-50), and whether Facebook was the right medium; his exact words were “Do old people use Facebook?” A different group member said that she didn’t know, and then turned to me and asked if I used Facebook. Ouch (on an unrelated note, I have recently joined Facebook).
- This week I was in the cafeteria at the University (where I work – and an environment where you’re surrounded by 20-year-olds is not the best place to be if you don’t want to be made to feel old) and there was a larger than usual crowd, owing to one big group that was there. One of the guides for this group asked if I was with them, which I wasn’t. Once I got in line I asked a different guide what the group was. It turns out that every day a different group of incoming students (aged 17-18) came in with their parents for a tour. Which means that the first guide thought that either a) I was an incoming student (uh, unlikely hardly seems to sum that one up) or b) the parent of an incoming student. Now I know that it is possible that I could have an 18-year-old child, but it’s not exactly likely. Which means that he thought I looked older than I am. Dagnabit! These kids today.
I don’t think this situation is going to improve anytime soon. After all, I ain’t getting any younger. And while we’re on the subject of clichés related to age, I’d like to disagree with a classic: “You’re only as old as you feel”? Nope – I’m only as old as I’m made to feel.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Uruguay, Soccer, and Disproportionate Response
So . . . semi-final matches in the World Cup begin today, and there is a whole lotta controversy over Uruguay's path to this point. In the waning seconds of the Uruguay's quarterfinal match against Ghana with the score tied 1-1, Luis Suarez (of Uruguay, despite his typically Ghanaian name) used his hand to block a shot that was clearly headed into the net. This would have been fine, but Suarez is not the goalkeeper and therefore not allowed to use his hands. Ghana missed the penalty kick they were awarded, and then lost the game on free kicks. As for Suarez, he was immediately ejected from the game for his infraction plus banned from the next game (which is today's game).
(As an aside about today's game, given the back story to Uruguay's presence, there should be a good show of retrospective storytelling going on. If Uruguay loses, then the commentators will all say how it was bad karma and they reaped what they sowed. If Uruguay wins, then the stories will be about how they took that negative attention and channeled it into a win. What's interesting to me about this is that both of these explanations are antecedents to the outcome of the game, yet we don't know what led to the outcome until after. Which means that the explanations are worthless.)
The furor over this situation is that Ghana would have almost certainly won the game had Suarez not used his hands. Therefore there have been calls upon FIFA to mete out some greater punishment than they have, and to somehow right this wrong. Suarez has been called a cheater and a poor sportsman. He admits to having intentionally broken the rules to win the game (though his coach said that what he did was instinctual, not intentional - somehow, I think Suarez knows better in this case).
While what Suarez did defines poor sportsmanship, I hesitate to call him a cheater. To my mind, there are two parts to any rule - the rule itself, and the punishment for breaking it. If the punishment is an insufficient incentive to produce the desired behaviour, the rule or the consequence needs to be changed. If Suarez had not blocked the goal, Uruguay would have lost and their tournament would have been over. There is no incentive for him to let the goal go past. If he blocks it, the probability of them advancing is infinitely higher (given that it is zero if the goal counts), and all that is lost is he is ejected (from a game that is nearly over) and banned for one game (that they wouldn't be playing if he didn't break the rules). The benefits far outweigh the costs in this scenario. To set up rules like this is to make a law such that if you steal $100, you get to keep it but are fined $50.
For this reason, the consequences for rule-breaking have to far outweigh the costs. For example, in the NBA, if you flagrantly foul (attack the player and not the ball) a player who has a clear path to the basket (often done during the playoffs to prevent sure points), the player gets two free throws plus his team retains possession. So breaking the rule to prevent two certain points gives the opposing team the opportunity to score four points (though these will be uncertain) plus the possibility of further punishment (it may lead to the ejection and/or suspension for the fouling player, depending on circumstances). Continuing the above example, this would be equivalent to an uncertain fine of $0 to $300 for stealing $100 - might be worth the risk, but on the whole, probably unprofitable.
In the case of the World Cup, a suitable response (should FIFA actually want behaviours like this to stop), would be to create some sort of inevitability rule; if a ball was inevitably going to go in and a non-goalkeeper blocks it with his hands, the goal counts and there is a penalty kick. Now no one will do this (unless they think the official will not see the handball) because the costs far outweigh the benefits. Of course, this raises a host of other problems, such as placing judgment calls in the hands of (what have been proven to be) incompetent referees.
In my estimation, Uruguay didn't cheat, because they broke the rule fully intending to accept the punishment. If the rule itself is broken, fix it, but don't blame a player for taking advantage of the existing system. In fact, Suarez probably would have been vilified (at least by his fans) if he hadn't lent a hand to his team.
(As an aside about today's game, given the back story to Uruguay's presence, there should be a good show of retrospective storytelling going on. If Uruguay loses, then the commentators will all say how it was bad karma and they reaped what they sowed. If Uruguay wins, then the stories will be about how they took that negative attention and channeled it into a win. What's interesting to me about this is that both of these explanations are antecedents to the outcome of the game, yet we don't know what led to the outcome until after. Which means that the explanations are worthless.)
The furor over this situation is that Ghana would have almost certainly won the game had Suarez not used his hands. Therefore there have been calls upon FIFA to mete out some greater punishment than they have, and to somehow right this wrong. Suarez has been called a cheater and a poor sportsman. He admits to having intentionally broken the rules to win the game (though his coach said that what he did was instinctual, not intentional - somehow, I think Suarez knows better in this case).
While what Suarez did defines poor sportsmanship, I hesitate to call him a cheater. To my mind, there are two parts to any rule - the rule itself, and the punishment for breaking it. If the punishment is an insufficient incentive to produce the desired behaviour, the rule or the consequence needs to be changed. If Suarez had not blocked the goal, Uruguay would have lost and their tournament would have been over. There is no incentive for him to let the goal go past. If he blocks it, the probability of them advancing is infinitely higher (given that it is zero if the goal counts), and all that is lost is he is ejected (from a game that is nearly over) and banned for one game (that they wouldn't be playing if he didn't break the rules). The benefits far outweigh the costs in this scenario. To set up rules like this is to make a law such that if you steal $100, you get to keep it but are fined $50.
For this reason, the consequences for rule-breaking have to far outweigh the costs. For example, in the NBA, if you flagrantly foul (attack the player and not the ball) a player who has a clear path to the basket (often done during the playoffs to prevent sure points), the player gets two free throws plus his team retains possession. So breaking the rule to prevent two certain points gives the opposing team the opportunity to score four points (though these will be uncertain) plus the possibility of further punishment (it may lead to the ejection and/or suspension for the fouling player, depending on circumstances). Continuing the above example, this would be equivalent to an uncertain fine of $0 to $300 for stealing $100 - might be worth the risk, but on the whole, probably unprofitable.
In the case of the World Cup, a suitable response (should FIFA actually want behaviours like this to stop), would be to create some sort of inevitability rule; if a ball was inevitably going to go in and a non-goalkeeper blocks it with his hands, the goal counts and there is a penalty kick. Now no one will do this (unless they think the official will not see the handball) because the costs far outweigh the benefits. Of course, this raises a host of other problems, such as placing judgment calls in the hands of (what have been proven to be) incompetent referees.
In my estimation, Uruguay didn't cheat, because they broke the rule fully intending to accept the punishment. If the rule itself is broken, fix it, but don't blame a player for taking advantage of the existing system. In fact, Suarez probably would have been vilified (at least by his fans) if he hadn't lent a hand to his team.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Ten Thousand Hours
So . . . Malcolm Gladwell introduced to popular culture the idea of the outlier, the data point that lies outside the regular distribution, the exceptional. In his well-written and highly interesting book he puts forward the idea that there are identifiable reasons why the exceptional are, well, exceptional. One concept that has already made it into the zeitgeist (I saw it on The Good Wife) is that of ten thousand hours: in order be exceptional at something, you need to practice for ten thousand hours. The Beatles played for that long in a basement strip club in
(P.S. I seem to be having trouble with the font and spacing today. Sorry. I keep correcting it and it keeps coming back to this smaller font with no spaces between paragraphs. I'm tired of trying to fix it, hopefully things will be back to normal tomorrow).
I take exception with the ten thousand hours idea because it ignores a key consideration. The book Outliers makes it seem like if you log the hours, you will be successful. This is just untrue. There are way, way more musicians, athletes, and nerds who put in their time than are successful. The Beatles succeeded because they were lucky, they were discovered by a (also lucky) guy named Brian Epstein who put them in the right place at the right time. After all, if they were so polished and great, why did nearly every record label reject them? NBA players are lucky that they avoided injury, other mishaps, that they played for the right coaches and right teams and go the right attention. Bill Gates was only one of many aspiring tech entrepreneurs, and he happened to get the contract with IBM.
This is not to say that the ten thousand hours don’t help – of course they do. In fact, I would say they are nearly necessary to success (in order for them to be completely necessary, then every successful person must have put in their time, which is not the case). But they do not guarantee success. It’s like the lottery – if you own a ticket, it’s not a sure thing you will win; but if you don’t own a ticket, you definitely won’t win. The practice is your ticket.
I’m hoping to be an exceptional blogger. Over the past month I’ve been doing this, I have probably put in about 20 hours. Only 9,980 to go!
Saturday, July 3, 2010
You Look Great in Those Genes
So . . . researchers have identified a set of genes that appear to predict longevity, specifically that a person will live to 100 (with 77% accuracy). So some people, possibly as many as 15% of the population, have the genetics to lead a very long life. Apparently a test will be available to buy by late summer, so that you can check if you’re among the lucky ones.
Say I: big effin’ deal. So what? Guess what the leading cause of death isn’t? Old age. More people die of disease, injury, accident, homicide, suicide, etc. than live to their full potential life. So it really doesn’t matter if you can live longer, because to be blunt, chances are you won’t. It ultimately comes down to our friend luck, deciding where someone goes first – centenary or cemetery.
It’s great that we have science that can tell us what our genes are for, so that when we’re building our futuristic cyborg army we can make sure they only have the best genes. But in real terms, what will we know? That longevity is hereditary? We already know that. That very few (about one in six thousand) actually live to 100? We already know that. That people don’t live (or live up) to their full potential? Not news to me.
Back to this test that will be available – what would you do with the results? Let’s say you found out that you could possibly live to 100. Would you do anything differently? Maybe change your diet, exercise a little? My personal take on it is that I would rather do the things I enjoy (e.g. eating ice cream) and not make the triple-digits than doing things I don’t (e.g. eating soy cream) just so I could do the things I don’t enjoy a little longer. Plus (running theme of blog alert), seeing as we don’t really know what causes what in the first place, changing my behaviour is an exercise in random chance.
And if you found out that you weren’t going to live longer, what would you change? Don’t we already live more or less based on our own personal priorities? If you want to have the best life possible (however you happen to define that), you do the things that you think will make that happen.
Now, if they had a test for genes that meant that ice cream made me healthier, sign me up.
Say I: big effin’ deal. So what? Guess what the leading cause of death isn’t? Old age. More people die of disease, injury, accident, homicide, suicide, etc. than live to their full potential life. So it really doesn’t matter if you can live longer, because to be blunt, chances are you won’t. It ultimately comes down to our friend luck, deciding where someone goes first – centenary or cemetery.
It’s great that we have science that can tell us what our genes are for, so that when we’re building our futuristic cyborg army we can make sure they only have the best genes. But in real terms, what will we know? That longevity is hereditary? We already know that. That very few (about one in six thousand) actually live to 100? We already know that. That people don’t live (or live up) to their full potential? Not news to me.
Back to this test that will be available – what would you do with the results? Let’s say you found out that you could possibly live to 100. Would you do anything differently? Maybe change your diet, exercise a little? My personal take on it is that I would rather do the things I enjoy (e.g. eating ice cream) and not make the triple-digits than doing things I don’t (e.g. eating soy cream) just so I could do the things I don’t enjoy a little longer. Plus (running theme of blog alert), seeing as we don’t really know what causes what in the first place, changing my behaviour is an exercise in random chance.
And if you found out that you weren’t going to live longer, what would you change? Don’t we already live more or less based on our own personal priorities? If you want to have the best life possible (however you happen to define that), you do the things that you think will make that happen.
Now, if they had a test for genes that meant that ice cream made me healthier, sign me up.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Let the Pandas Die Off Already
So . . . I like panda bears, I think they’re cute and all. I have no personal vendetta against them and do not have a bad panda experience in my past. But I’d like to tell you a few facts about pandas that might make you feel differently about them.
Adult pandas eat about 20-30 pounds of bamboo shoots a day. They only eat the tender new-growth leaves, not the stalks (which are far more abundant than the leaves), because the leaves have higher protein content (though not a high protein content, which is why they eat so much). Pandas need a lot of protein, because they are naturally carnivores. Unlike most carnivores, however, they don’t eat a lot of meat.
When meat is available, they’ll eat it; but in general, they would rather forage for lots of bamboo leaves then hunt prey. In this way they are rather lazy and lackadaisical. Young pandas nurse for quite a while, robbing the mother of whatever protein stores she may have and making survival of the young difficult.
Furthermore, there aren’t that many young, because pandas don’t seem to enjoy mating.
So here you have a species that is highly inefficient with its resources and doesn’t readily reproduce. It’s no surprise that there are fewer than 3000 pandas left in the wild. Yet we seem to want to keep this species going for some reason.
This is not a species that has dwindled in number because it lost its habitat, or deforestation, or hunting; this is just a sucky species. It is not designed for long-term survival – in fact, pandas pretty much do everything wrong, survival-wise. Lots of species go extinct, and not all of them at the hands of humans. It is likely that even if homo erectus never came along, pandas would still go extinct. So lets stop trying to play god.
We like to think of ourselves as custodians of the earth and its creatures, but in reality we have no clue what we’re doing. We decry the negative effects of our actions, but we don’t really understand them – so why do we think we can understand the so-called positive actions? We’re all for species extinction when it comes to polio and smallpox, attempting to wipe them out of existence (or at least trying), but when nature tries to kill off a species, we fight it. I’m not saying we should load up the guns and go a-huntin’ panda, but let’s not force them to stay at the party, either.
So don’t save the panda. Go to a zoo and see one while they’re still around. Take pictures to show your grandkids when they ask what a panda was.
Adult pandas eat about 20-30 pounds of bamboo shoots a day. They only eat the tender new-growth leaves, not the stalks (which are far more abundant than the leaves), because the leaves have higher protein content (though not a high protein content, which is why they eat so much). Pandas need a lot of protein, because they are naturally carnivores. Unlike most carnivores, however, they don’t eat a lot of meat.
When meat is available, they’ll eat it; but in general, they would rather forage for lots of bamboo leaves then hunt prey. In this way they are rather lazy and lackadaisical. Young pandas nurse for quite a while, robbing the mother of whatever protein stores she may have and making survival of the young difficult.
Furthermore, there aren’t that many young, because pandas don’t seem to enjoy mating.
So here you have a species that is highly inefficient with its resources and doesn’t readily reproduce. It’s no surprise that there are fewer than 3000 pandas left in the wild. Yet we seem to want to keep this species going for some reason.
This is not a species that has dwindled in number because it lost its habitat, or deforestation, or hunting; this is just a sucky species. It is not designed for long-term survival – in fact, pandas pretty much do everything wrong, survival-wise. Lots of species go extinct, and not all of them at the hands of humans. It is likely that even if homo erectus never came along, pandas would still go extinct. So lets stop trying to play god.
We like to think of ourselves as custodians of the earth and its creatures, but in reality we have no clue what we’re doing. We decry the negative effects of our actions, but we don’t really understand them – so why do we think we can understand the so-called positive actions? We’re all for species extinction when it comes to polio and smallpox, attempting to wipe them out of existence (or at least trying), but when nature tries to kill off a species, we fight it. I’m not saying we should load up the guns and go a-huntin’ panda, but let’s not force them to stay at the party, either.
So don’t save the panda. Go to a zoo and see one while they’re still around. Take pictures to show your grandkids when they ask what a panda was.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Canada Day Prime Ministerial Factravaganza
So . . . it’s Canada Day today, the anniversary of when we (kind of) threw off the yoke of the empire and (sort of) established our independence from England (though the Queen is still technically our head of state). How very Canadian of us. In honour of Canada’s 143rd birthday (has it been that long? It seems like only yesterday Canada was 117) I have compiled some interesting and lesser-known facts about our 22 Prime Ministers.
John A. MacDonald: Big drunkard. Met his wife (and first cousin) on a trip to London paid for by winnings at a card game called “Loo.” He’s the guy on the $10 bill. Because of a physical resemblance, he was mistaken for Benjamin Disraeli’s ghost at the British P.M.’s funeral.
Alexander Mackenzie: A stonemason, and some of his buildings still stand today. Anti-drinking. Oversaw the building of the Parliament, and included an escape staircase so he could avoid constituents.
John Abbott: Great-grandfather of Christopher Plummer. Signed a manifesto calling for Canada to join the U.S. (before he was PM). Famous for saying “I hate politics.”
John Thompson: Not the same guy as the Georgetown basketball coach. Originally declined the post of Prime Minister because he was Catholic, and anti-Catholic prejudice was strong enough to make his ascendance unrealistic. 5’7”, 225 pounds.
Mackenzie Bowell: I always thought he should have had a movement named after him. Was undone by his own cabinet, members of which set up his political demise. He called them a “nest of traitors.”
Charles Tupper: Didn’t invent the ware. Oldest person to become PM, at 74, and only held the post for 68 days, shortest on record. Which is ironic, because he was the longest-lived PM (94 years).
Wilfrid Laurier: He’s the dude on the $5 bill who looks like Leonard Nimoy when you draw in a Spock hairdo. Once when in Saskatoon on official PM business, he tried to have a conversation with a young John Diefenbaker (later a PM himself, at that time a newsboy) and was dismissed by the kid, who said he had work to do.
Robert Borden: PM during WWI. Once ran on the campaign slogan “A White Canada” (yes, that’s what he meant). Almost managed to get Canada to take over administration of the West Indies and Belize.
Arthur Meighen: Somewhat responsible for the Governor General having no power (via the King-Byng affair). Practiced debate by giving speeches to empty rooms.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Crazy as a loon. Communed with spirits, such as his dead mother and several of his dead dogs (all named Pat, except the one named Bob), and asked them for political advice. His diaries hint that he enjoyed prostitutes. PM during WWII, he admired Hitler and initially thought he would win.
R.B. Bennett: A teetotaller, except when he secretly drank alcohol. An ardent anti-communist and free-market idealist, until he copied FDR’s New Deal. Despite being criticized for not caring about the poor, he gave away a lot of his personal fortune to the poor.
Louis St. Laurent: Nicknamed Uncle Louis during the 1949 election campaign. Was coerced into politics at the age of 60. First PM to live at the official residence at 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa.
John Diefenbaker: Crazy eyes. Hated JFK, who called him a boring son of a bitch. Sent home from the army after being hit in the head with a shovel, though it was suspected that the injury was psychosomatic. Tried to get elected to parliament for 16 years before succeeding in 1940.
Lester B. Pearson: Nobel Peace Prize winner who was held midair and threatened by LBJ after he metaphorically “pissed on his rug.” Semi-pro baseball player.
Pierre Trudeau: Wrote a dissertation on communism and Christianity. Decriminalized gay sex. Hung out with John and Yoko, and was friends with Castro. His wife slept around and hung out at Studio 54. Said “fuddle-duddle” when he meant something harsher that starts with F and ends with “off”.
Joe Clark: Failed out of law school. Had his luggage lost on an official state visit to the Middle East – on the same trip, he accidentally bumped into the wrong end of a bayonet. Youngest PM ever (40 at the time of swearing-in) but only lasted 9 months.
John Turner: Qualified for the 1948 Olympic team in the 100 meters. Saved the life of John Diefenbaker in Barbados.
Brian Mulroney: Most successful Conservative PM ever, but now widely hated. Big chin. Sang for tips in his early years. Possibly corrupt. Though conservative, he opposed capital punishment and was pro-choice, and also introduced new taxes.
Kim Campbell: Never presided over a sitting parliament, because of the timing of her leadership. Only PM to pose naked in a widely-circulated photo (to my knowledge).
Jean Chretien: Paralyzed at an early age by Bell’s palsy. Possibly corrupt. Shoved a protester.
Paul Martin: Shipbuilder and son of a politician. Mr. Dithers. Possibly corrupt.
Stephen Harper: Had a 95.7% high school grade average and was on Reach For the Top. Played the piano and sang a Beatles song in front of an audience. Is the first PM to employ a personal stylist. On a related note, he rocks the vest and hat.
Hope you enjoyed this and have a happy Canada Day!
John A. MacDonald: Big drunkard. Met his wife (and first cousin) on a trip to London paid for by winnings at a card game called “Loo.” He’s the guy on the $10 bill. Because of a physical resemblance, he was mistaken for Benjamin Disraeli’s ghost at the British P.M.’s funeral.
Alexander Mackenzie: A stonemason, and some of his buildings still stand today. Anti-drinking. Oversaw the building of the Parliament, and included an escape staircase so he could avoid constituents.
John Abbott: Great-grandfather of Christopher Plummer. Signed a manifesto calling for Canada to join the U.S. (before he was PM). Famous for saying “I hate politics.”
John Thompson: Not the same guy as the Georgetown basketball coach. Originally declined the post of Prime Minister because he was Catholic, and anti-Catholic prejudice was strong enough to make his ascendance unrealistic. 5’7”, 225 pounds.
Mackenzie Bowell: I always thought he should have had a movement named after him. Was undone by his own cabinet, members of which set up his political demise. He called them a “nest of traitors.”
Charles Tupper: Didn’t invent the ware. Oldest person to become PM, at 74, and only held the post for 68 days, shortest on record. Which is ironic, because he was the longest-lived PM (94 years).
Wilfrid Laurier: He’s the dude on the $5 bill who looks like Leonard Nimoy when you draw in a Spock hairdo. Once when in Saskatoon on official PM business, he tried to have a conversation with a young John Diefenbaker (later a PM himself, at that time a newsboy) and was dismissed by the kid, who said he had work to do.
Robert Borden: PM during WWI. Once ran on the campaign slogan “A White Canada” (yes, that’s what he meant). Almost managed to get Canada to take over administration of the West Indies and Belize.
Arthur Meighen: Somewhat responsible for the Governor General having no power (via the King-Byng affair). Practiced debate by giving speeches to empty rooms.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Crazy as a loon. Communed with spirits, such as his dead mother and several of his dead dogs (all named Pat, except the one named Bob), and asked them for political advice. His diaries hint that he enjoyed prostitutes. PM during WWII, he admired Hitler and initially thought he would win.
R.B. Bennett: A teetotaller, except when he secretly drank alcohol. An ardent anti-communist and free-market idealist, until he copied FDR’s New Deal. Despite being criticized for not caring about the poor, he gave away a lot of his personal fortune to the poor.
Louis St. Laurent: Nicknamed Uncle Louis during the 1949 election campaign. Was coerced into politics at the age of 60. First PM to live at the official residence at 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa.
John Diefenbaker: Crazy eyes. Hated JFK, who called him a boring son of a bitch. Sent home from the army after being hit in the head with a shovel, though it was suspected that the injury was psychosomatic. Tried to get elected to parliament for 16 years before succeeding in 1940.
Lester B. Pearson: Nobel Peace Prize winner who was held midair and threatened by LBJ after he metaphorically “pissed on his rug.” Semi-pro baseball player.
Pierre Trudeau: Wrote a dissertation on communism and Christianity. Decriminalized gay sex. Hung out with John and Yoko, and was friends with Castro. His wife slept around and hung out at Studio 54. Said “fuddle-duddle” when he meant something harsher that starts with F and ends with “off”.
Joe Clark: Failed out of law school. Had his luggage lost on an official state visit to the Middle East – on the same trip, he accidentally bumped into the wrong end of a bayonet. Youngest PM ever (40 at the time of swearing-in) but only lasted 9 months.
John Turner: Qualified for the 1948 Olympic team in the 100 meters. Saved the life of John Diefenbaker in Barbados.
Brian Mulroney: Most successful Conservative PM ever, but now widely hated. Big chin. Sang for tips in his early years. Possibly corrupt. Though conservative, he opposed capital punishment and was pro-choice, and also introduced new taxes.
Kim Campbell: Never presided over a sitting parliament, because of the timing of her leadership. Only PM to pose naked in a widely-circulated photo (to my knowledge).
Jean Chretien: Paralyzed at an early age by Bell’s palsy. Possibly corrupt. Shoved a protester.
Paul Martin: Shipbuilder and son of a politician. Mr. Dithers. Possibly corrupt.
Stephen Harper: Had a 95.7% high school grade average and was on Reach For the Top. Played the piano and sang a Beatles song in front of an audience. Is the first PM to employ a personal stylist. On a related note, he rocks the vest and hat.
Hope you enjoyed this and have a happy Canada Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)