Seasons Greetings

I find myself writing these posts too often for my own comfort, but, again, I apologize for my absence on this forum. New rhythms take time to settle into, and I know it's still no excuse for not writing more. So for those of still faithfully checking this blog in the hopes that I've begun to write again, I'd like to extend the warmest seasons greetings to you and your loved ones.  Merry Christmas everyone!

Knowing

I believe that in order to truly know something, one must be able to argue the opposite.  This idea achieves crystal clarity every election season - everyone's arguing, pointing fingers, and accusing the other side of...something.  Liberals like to raise taxes and take away our guns. Conservatives don't care about anyone except rich white people. Blah blah blah. It's always the same.  And don't get me wrong, this extends beyond well beyond politics and religion, and into every aspect of what we believe we know for certain.

The issue comes up whenever there is conversation more about being "right" than actually listening.  As a sophomore in my undergrad, my roommate and I were polar opposites, particularly on the divisive lines of politics and religion.  But we addressed this head-on.  In fact, we often would just sit and talk, sharing our perspectives and hearing what the other had to say.  We both knew that one, in all likelihood, wouldn't change the other's mind on anything, and with that in mind, we recognized that there was no point in trying.  Why yell and get irate? Why foster bad blood and unhealthy relationships?  Why not seize the opportunity to listen and learn things that you don't understand?

So can you argue, honestly and clearly, the opposite side without any sarcasm or irony? Do you understand the arguments that can and will be made against your stance? Are you able to articulate what the other side believes (and even take it a step further and explore why they believe it?)?  If not, I would argue that more research needs to be done.  I don't pretend to understand everything I believe, much less everything someone else may think, but I'm working on it.  Once we stop communicating and start clashing, when we start a discourse thinking we'll change their mind or our intent is just to convey how dumb they clearly are, we've already lost.  I'm not advocating against have strong, deeply ingrained beliefs.  Not at all. Just to consider arguing against them. Whether you believe it or not.

Whoa whoa whoa

Goodness gracious!  I can't believe it's been almost a month since my last post. I've had so many ideas swirling around my noodle and I can't seem to find a spare moment to sit down and put metaphorical pen to paper!  I'll be trying my best to keep new posts coming every week, and believe me, I've some doosies - purpose, identity, current affairs, knowledge and intelligence...

I recently began a new job, in a new city, new abode... It's been a summer of change and I'm finally starting to get my feet on the ground.  Hopefully I've gleaned a few interesting insights for your reading pleasure, and I look forward to sharing these, and more, with you.

Cheers, and have a happy and safe Halloween!

Back to Unionizing

FYI, this post is a follow-up to a post from quite some time ago.  If you haven't read it, or would like it fresh in your mind, here you go: Unionizing Student-Athletes

And back to it.

So was I in error?  Isn't this the epitome of unionizing?  To organize, unify, and fight for better conditions?  Of course, the contemporary college athletics politics, money, and so on aside, but if we were to boil it down, I suppose I could admit that these students are arguably doing the same as any labor movement.

Of course, let's also take a second to consider that comparison is indeed the thief of joy (Teddy Roosevelt), and what the public does know about the money the NCAA and each university makes from these athletes.  Needless to say, it's a lot.  Several decades ago, the business world attempted to curb the rising salaries of CEO's, thinking that making them public would induce a sort of shame that would drive down salaries and bring about more income equality.  What actually happened, of course, is that now that executives could see what everyone else made, it instead created a competition for a higher income, more perks, and greater benefits.

"Hey! Why is Joe So-And-So over at our competitor making $2 million and gets a jet while I only make $1.5 million?  It's not fair!" And so this guy gets a raise to exceed what the other guy makes, who then, in turn, sees it and demands more money himself.  And to date, the income inequality in the U.S. is greater (by several hundred percent) than it ever has been before, and the gap is growing.  Apparently we're okay with it though.

Anyway, the comparison here is that maybe, just maybe, because the NCAA, coaches, and so on are publicly paid insane amounts of money for the athletes effort, that it may be driving this movement to "get their fair share".  And that's just nature.  Even lab monkeys, when given a treat for pushing a button are excited.  But put two cages side by side (so they can see each other), and task them both to press a button but give them different treats (knowing that one treat is better than the other), the monkey receiving the "worse" treat will throw it away (from the work of Frans de Waal).  Because it's not fair - even though the monkey is getting a treat nonetheless, because the take-away for the same work isn't equal, the monkey refuses the reward.  

I feel it needs to be said that this obviously works both ways.  Executives keep getting more and more perks because they feel they're getting the raw end of the button-pushing deal, but since the rest of us lowly peons don't have the leverage, we unionize.  Hey, it's my job to give you the info.  What you do with it is up to you.

So perhaps if the NCAA wasn't getting the lion's share - if not more - or if they simply reduced the income for these people, this would be a non-issue.  So at the same time, I suppose I can empathize with the players.

And of course, don't bother making the argument because I'm already there - I am well aware that a significant chunk of money streaming into departments and programs at universities that funds education, research, scholarships, and many other things that make a university a university, come directly from athletic programs.  I understand.  So perhaps because players are bringing in money to the school they should be employees paid for their contributions who don't even need the pretense of class.

I mean, then we could give more scholarships to more "regular" students and then soon they can unionize too, after all, student research has been rumored to be plagiarized by faculty advisers and, really, all they want is compensation for their work and maybe a little recognition. 

Changing History

This story came across the news this morning:

http://time.com/3428238/denver-students-history-curriculum-respect-for-authority-jefferson-county-school-board/

The school board proposed editing history texts to only highlight the positive aspects of American history and eliminate "social strife".  Frankly I'm speechless.  Is it fair for me to say that one simply cannot pick and choose which pieces of history to teach?  How can we develop an understanding of how we got to where we are now (for better or worse) if we omit fundamental elements?  History is not a string of unrelated occurrences.  It is an interconnected web - things don't just happen.  And throughout history that social strife, civil disobedience, and outright aggression has, ultimately, affected the greatest changes.  I would also encourage you to check out the Twitter feed.  Some of those are hilarious.  

*I'm choosing to move past the clear connection to all the historical examples of the government trying to alter history.  It's certainly not a new phenomenon so hopefully we just won't have to teach that to kids and no one will be the wiser....

Apparently because I'm tall...

I deserve less consideration.  According to a (relatively) recent article in the New York Times regarding the airline-seat-reclining-fiasco not too long ago, tall people shouldn't be thought of as any different than short - excuse me: "vertically challenged" - people.  And I would never argue that point.  As a vertically gifted person (6'6"), I've long accepted that, contrary to the American Myth, I cannot do whatever I set my mind to.  I will never be an undercover espionage agent (I don't blend).  I will never be a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force nor an astronaut (height restrictions) nor a very good jockey (unless I'm on a Clydesdale taking a break from pulling the Budweiser wagon) .  I will always be asked "how's the weather up there?". I will never excel at hide-and-seek.  I will forever be self-conscious on the dance floor because I can say without a doubt that everyone will be keeping close tabs on the gargantuan flailing around for fear for their personal safety.  These are things I've learned to live with.  I know.  The trials and tribulations my people face.

But in the article, the author cites statistics that we shouldn't really complain.  After all, tall people earn more each year and have more sexual partners than our "average" brethren. Ergo, I mean, obviously, we don't deserve the same consideration; indeed, having some dude gain 3 inches of "comfort" compared to my suddenly feeling like I'm in a toy version of a Geo Metro is almost justified!  Who cares that I can't walk down the aisle of a plane without hitting my head on every damn thing around. Or have to walk sideways because my shoulders don't fit between the luggage racks.  Or not even be able to put my tray table down without it sitting on my knees regardless (always a good test of character when the guy in front of you reclines and sitting next to you is a socially-conscious individual who lets you use a corner of their table so you don't have to worry about gravity defeating your flimsy cup of ginger ale). But no, we have it coming.  I see that now.  It's karma for the life decision I made years ago to be tall.  Damn my short-shortsightedness!   

Don't worry though, the author does go on to point out that he wouldn't recline if he was paid to do so.  Quoting another author, he asks if his kind were such "monsters", why is no one willing to pay him to stop?  And, admittedly, even as a relatively intelligent individual, I find myself dumbfounded by this argument.  That someone could even dream of opening that door.  Because let's stop for a second and think about the vast array and extremes of applications for the logic that "if we don't want someone doing something, we should pay them not to".  I hope you're there by now. I mean, he might as well go on to consult our corrections programs.  Turns out we've had it wrong all along!

In essence, instead of bribing people to be decent, why not just be decent?  This is a very simplistic example, but let's see if he could follow it: if you know that people don't like the seat in front of them reclining, wouldn't it appropriate to either a.) not recline the stupid damn seat or b.) have the common decency to at least turn around and ask?  It's just a seat.  Don't be a jerk.  It's not hard.

Unless of course the person behind you has it coming.  Like if their tall.

Tri-Color Maze

Just a fun activity for the end of your week! Attempt to traverse the maze, beginning at either end and finishing at the other, without traveling on the same color twice in a row.

Love it

I do appreciate Weird Al's latest parody... I feel it resonates with so many of my gripes about the displayed intelligence of contemporary society.

Still Alive

Hey ya'll, my sincerest apologies for the incredible span of time between posts.  I understand everyone was waiting on baited breath for the next update to come down the pipeline, and as time went on, many of you undoubtedly became concerned for my well-being.  So I do appreciate that.  The story is that I've just been away for quite some time, off on the road for work - West Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, California, Utah...

In that span I have trained some 80 people, participated in two trainings myself (one at Petzl America...now THAT is a place to see!), inspected 7 courses, created an operational oversight report...  It's been a heck of a spring and summer so far!

But know that I am alive and well, and will be trying to get back into weekly posts as I try to return to normalcy.  So thank you for your patience, and check back soon!

Unionizing Athlete-Students

A topic in the news for a couple weeks is the ruling that athletes participating at Northwestern University have the legal right to unionize, and it's something I've been rolling around in my head for some time but haven't been able to form a coherent reaction just yet.  Almost as though I'm arguing with myself about how to feel... But I figure at the very least I could sit down and (figuratively) put pen to paper, so I apologize if this reads somewhat stream-of-consciousness-ly.

To begin, I can understand and empathize with where this athletes are coming from. It is true that the NCAA has made bank from their efforts - coaches and executives making millions atop millions season after season, often being paid more than any other person on campus, from professors to the president.  Only a few years ago, Barry Alvarez filled in for the recently-vacated head coaching position of the Wisconsin Badgers football program for the final game or two of the season, receiving a six figure bonus for coaching, and another five figures for going to the Rose Bowl, all on top of his seven figure salary as athletic director.  So I get it.  If I was working day in and day out, seeing none of the fruits of my labors, I would be frustrated as well.  Hell, I'd probably go work for Wall Street where the same thing happens but at least I'd get a paycheck.

That being said, I think this is a systemic issue within the NCAA that needs to be addressed, rather than continue to erode out higher education system.  The title of this post is no mistake. These people are more frequently referred to as "student-athletes", to stress that the "student" comes first, but that's not really the case, now is it?  One of the primary arguments for the team is that they spend upwards of 60 hours each week on football, therefore, it's a job.  But let's think for a second: if they're spending all this time at practice, when exactly are they going to class and/or doing homework/studying?  And going a step further, how, then, are they all pulling 4.0's?

I can't help but feel this movement undermines the entire history of unionizing.  We've all read Grapes of Wrath at some point (at least many of us, or at least know the premise), and I couldn't possibly imagine that this is the same thing.  Hell, even Boy Meets World tackled the issue when the 9th grade students "unionized" after reading the book in an attempt to protest their tests at the school.  Thank you 90's TV for portraying more than any show these days ever could hope to imagine.

But I digress.

The point is that I don't really think this is a positive portrayal of our current system - neither our educations system nor labor movements.  These people are brought to schools for one reason. And when they graduate, chances are they still read at a fifth grade level anyway (and to think that I'm worried about undermining our higher education).  If anyone needs more evidence, simply listen to any professional athlete be interviewed.

And chances are they majored in Communication.  Explain that one to me.

These athletes are receiving a free education, comped room and board, and an almost guaranteed graduation from any number of universities, while the rest of us flounder in student loans for the next two decades.  So could I make an argument that perhaps students themselves should organize?  The masses could fight for lower tuition or better dorms.  I mean, they spend more time at class, studying, and doing homework than many full time careers, so they really should be compensated for it, right?  Not to mention extra-curricular activities like student government, clubs, and the like.  Why are these different than athletics?  Because athletics brings in money?  So now we give more leeway and perks to athletic students while the smart ones drop out and start tech companies.  Go figure.

All in all, I think I would stick with the argument that the NCAA needs to heavily overhaul their entire system, and, at the same time, we need to remember that athletes should students FIRST.  Breakthroughs in human development - medicine, science, economics - rarely, if ever, come from the field or court.  They come from educated, progressive-thinking, insightful individuals.  Believe it or not, their is no Nobel prize for running the 40-yard dash (but those who can run it best call the prize money for winning the Nobel a slow night out.  So at least we have our priorities in the right place).

Perhaps this is yet another case of affluenza.  And the gap widens.  

"Invasion" of Privacy, or an Invitation?

I realize I'm a bit behind on this subject in terms of its publicity (and therefore much of its volatility), but I was just reminded of it twice already this week, as my phone told me that some applications are in need of updating and I purchased a new computer.  In the case of the phone, I've been informed that the Facebook app needs to access "additional permissions", including

• Your messages - "allows application to read SMS (text) messages"
• Take pictures - "allows application to take pictures and videos with the camera...at any time the camera is seeing
• Your personal information - "allows an application to...add, remove, change events (on your calendar)"; "allows an application to read all calendar events stored on your phone"; "allows an application to read all of the contact data stored on your phone"; "allows the application to read personal information stored on your device"

And these are only the new ones.

As for the computer, I had been happily running Windows XP for, well, the my entire life of owning a computer, but just upgraded to a Windows 8 operating system.  I must say, and I can't be the only one, I am astounded by how much information we're giving out about ourselves to the very instruments that already cause so much grief.  I realize I sound like a Luddite here, but the amount of personal information required is getting out of hand. I just learned that for new versions of Office, an email address is kept on file so that documents can now be saved to the "cloud".  Cool, alright, I get it. One can now access them from any device, at any time, and share them with whomever, however, they see fit. But doesn't it strike anyone else as odd that we rage against "the man" collecting our data when we post it online willy-nilly?

So why exactly are we so upset with this whole "invasion of privacy" thing?  I mean really.  I can't be the only person who's recognized that our "privacy" went out the window a long time ago.  The above examples are for one single application on my phone and a personal computer that may be getting a bit too personal. Consider the following additional examples (by no means an exhaustive list):

• Online banking
• Quickbooks
• Income tax software
• Credit cards
• GPS
• Email
• Facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Search engines
• On-Star
• LowJack

We've been willingly giving out our information - our names, our interests, our spending habits, our very location - for over a decade. Every site we visit, every search term, every call, every text, every email, every single post that makes us lol, hell, every book we check out from the library, someone, somewhere, is seeing it.  We don't seem to have an issue with our search engines shuffling through our information to better direct ads to our individual interests.  "Well," you argue,"that's not an actual person doing it, it's all automated!"  Of course it is!  So do you really think the NSA has enough operators to listen to every single phone call happening everywhere all the time?  Pretty sure our unemployment rate would drop to zero.  And if you really think your phone is being tapped and your calls are being listened to, either you have a very high opinion of yourself, or you're probably doing something you shouldn't.

The way I see it, the only reason we have lost all semblance of privacy is because we've chosen to.

Mo' Material Wealth, Mo' Problems

Winston Churchill is quoted with

"Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart.  Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

Taking a stab at what he was talking about, I would argue that it's not so much about politics (especially contemporary parties!) or beliefs, but rather about preservation.  I believe he was referring to the basic human reaction to gain: preserve it as best you can, using the same tactics used to get it.  Liberalism - progressivism - is a tool to be used to break the status quo.  It can be, and is, used to disrupt the current state.  Out with the old, in the new.  Young people for generations have served as the foundation (read: not the whole thing.  Please don't argue history with me. Same goes for my use of "liberalism" in the previous sentence.  We'rte talking about the base ideology, not political affiliation.) for ideological change.  "Old" people have, for all intents and purposes, served as the primary pushers and movers of maintaining that very status quo, integration to rock'n'roll.

They say each subsequent generation suffers and solves the problems of the previous one. But it's that preceding generation who still clings on, desperately  to their beliefs they undoubtedly fought tirelessly to institute.

What does this have to do with anything, you ask.  Well, I respond, a trend I've been noticing as I get older is that those peers I grew up with, as we all go about our lives establishing careers, buying houses, starting families, the same people I once recognized as progressives, are now beginning their journey into conservativism.  From this, I've been beginning to think that the more one gains, the more one has, sways their ideological (and inevitably political) persuasion toward the right.  It seems to me that, simply, the more one has, the more one wishes to keep it that way, even at the expense of others getting their's as well.  In case you're new to my blog, please take a second and shuffle through old posts to figure out exactly how I feel about personal entitlement.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

Back?  Good.  So I'm assuming you've learned that I tend to scoff when someone believes their "entitled" to something.  That I tend to smirk when someone tells me they "earned this! No one helped me!".  That I, frankly, find those things ludicrous.

Now, I haven't quite figured out what to make of my observations.  All I can say for certain is that, form what I've observed, the more people have, the more they tend to think they've earned it all by themselves.  And the more people think they've earned it on their own, the more they will begin to resist any and all change to the society that "allowed" them that profit.  It seems that while one can, on occasion, move from the lower to the middle class, they forget exactly what it's like to be that low on the totem pole.  And those born into wealth, they will never know.

Activity and Productivity

Activity and productivity: the former often confused for the latter.

Even just in my short career, the jobs I've held, the organizations with which I've worked, the positions I've held - all included meetings.  Short meetings, long meetings, phone meetings, all-day meetings...you see where I'm going.  And, I'm guessing that you've sat through your fair-share of meetings as well.  But now ask yourself: was the usual outcome of these meetings an action-oriented plan? Or when you left, did it more seem like a simple opportunity to talk?  Really think about it. Sure, perhaps not every meeting (I hope!) but at least one or two almost seemed more focused on just gathering everyone together than on actual, measurable outcomes.

I think too often this adds to our argument that "activity" means "productivity".  We think that because we're busy, we're accomplishing something.  We get people together, we do stuff, we talk about stuff, we work through lunch or skip it entirely because we're busy.  But what are we accomplishing?

I read a bit ago (Drive by Daniel Pink. Great book.) about results-only work environments.  In these places, sure they may have a weekly meeting to touch base or what have you, but the entire idea rests on "this is what you need to do and this is when it needs to be done".  Usually not a 9-5 gig, not even necessarily a need to show up to the office at all, much less for a requisite 40 hours each week.  Joys of salaried positions.  The entire concept is focused on the task at hand.  You can spend 30 minutes on it or 30 hours on it, but as long as it's done right and done well, your activity is second.  Whether or not you were productive becomes the real question.  Now, obviously, many industries may not be able to incorporate this principle in its entirety, but perhaps a concept here or there.  I feel very fortunate that in my current position I am provided the criteria to meet, the result I am aiming for by the end of the week, and, as long as I can accomplish my task within the guidelines and protocols, I have flexibility and freedom within the schedule to achieve these results as I see necessary - autonomy with accountability.  And I believe I thrive under such a framework.

So what about you?  What sort of rigidity do you require?  Complete? Some? None?  And really pay attention to whether you're just doing stuff, or if it's a necessity to achieve your outcomes.  Are you working toward something, or just working?

The Honest, Hardworking Man

I recently heard this poem used in a commercial (unfortunately for Busch Light...), and it struck me as very timely. We're entering into an era where the income gap in the world's richest nation is higher than it ever has been, and is still widening.  Somehow, in some way, we seem to accept the growing gap between the rich and everyone else; as executive salaries skyrocket while ours stagnate. We seem to be content allowing the fruits of our labor to line the coffers of billionaires rather than grace our own tables.  In that respect, I find this to be very appropriate:

The Honest Working Man
 Marie Joussaye

As through the world we take our way
How oftentimes we hear
The praises sung of wealthy men,
Of prince, and duke and peer.
The poets tell us of their fame,
They are lauded o'er the land,
But you very seldom hear them sing
Of the honest working man.
They praise the wealthy banker,
The purse-proud millionaire;
Their pockets have golden lining,
So they're praised from everywhere.
Let others sing the praises
Of those darlings of the land,
But mine shall be a nobler theme--
The honest working man.
Let monarchs prize their glittering crowns
And all their royal host,
Let lordlings brag of their blue blood--
They have nothing else to boast.
But what is all their rank, compared
To our hero, true and grand,
One of fair Nature's noblemen--
The honest working man.
His hands may be both rough and hard,
His clothes and speech be plain,
But you will find his manly heart
Without a spot or stain.
And there are some whose clothes are fine.
Whose hands are soft and white,
But the secret records of their lives
Could never bear the light.
May Heaven's choicest blessings fall
Upon that hero's head,
Who bravely toils throughout each day
To earn his loved ones bread.
You'll find no monarch who can show
A record half so grand.
God bless great labor's true-born knight--
The honest working man.
So now of Fortune's favored ones,
Henceforth let less be said,
And more be spoken of the man
Who toils for daily bread.
God bless each hardy son of toil
That labors in the land.
Let us give three cheers with right good will
For the honest working man.

I think I can, I think I can, I think I can...

As the relatively recent "psychological" movement of Positive Thinking would have you believe, positive thinking will bring one wealth, friends, and wealth.  That simply thinking happy thoughts will help you ace that job interview, land the perfect partner, win friends, sway any argument, and generally come out a winner.  Apparently, if I wake up every morning with a daily affirmation that "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, by golly, people like me!", I can land whatever I want!  If I repeatedly tell myself "I will get the job, I will get the job, I will get the job", and perhaps click my heels together three times, I, in fact, WILL get the job!

What a load of hooey.  Positive Thinking seems to be very based on the idea of getting more stuff.  A bigger house.  A better job.  More money.  More happiness.  All without reflecting on and being content with what you have.  Ambition isn't a four-letter word, but a continual battle to acquire more stuff eventually hits a roadblock, and that's where we get down on ourselves.  Coincidentally enough, such a movement really provides another opportunistic avenue to lay fault squarely on YOU for many systemic issues keeping people behind.  Now, I'm not saying that all bad things that happen to a person are outside of their control, or that people shouldn't take responsibility for the circumstances in which they may find themselves.  I'm simply of the mind that saying someone isn't wealthy because they didn't want it enough, or because they didn't believe in themselves.  Not happy?  Not successful?  It's YOUR fault.  All your fault.  You should be ashamed.

And, see, I don't buy it.  I am absolutely sure that people do have a say in their future, that each one of us has the ability to influence the outcomes of daily circumstances.  But I don't think that simply thinking happy thoughts will get you there as some would have you believe.  Rather, I believe that by closely monitoring our perspective of daily hurdles, we can essentially affect our attitude, which in turn may potentially lessen the burden.

The Paleo-Diet: Perhaps a Misnomer

So I've had a bit more time on my hands of late, and it's given me an opportunity to put a bit more energy toward the random, fleeting thoughts that far too often across my mind.  Of course, recently watching "The Last Samurai" and "Dances With Wolves" (and then thinking about "Pocahontas" and "Avatar") really contributed to this particular opinion...  

Here's what I'm thinking: the Paleo-Diet may very well be the latest incarnation of the "Noble Savage" myth (please don't yell at me for the use of the term. It was coined in 1971 in William Burch's Daydreams and Nightmares: A Sociological Essay on the American Environment so yell at him for not being more politically correct).  This myth, essentially, romanticizes the past, particularly the cultures of the indigenous people of any given area, and was originally used in the context of environmental sustainability. James Henslin goes into this are in more detail in Social Problems, 7th ed. (2006), but for the purpose of this argument, let's just focus on contemporary media portrayals and consider the parallels to the Paeo-Diet.

In all the aforementioned films, we encounter two groups of people: the indigenous population (or in the case of "The Last Samurai", a group of people trying to hold onto their culture) and the group trying to take something or simply eradicate them (often a bunch of white dudes). Eventually, one of the cruel invaders is taken in by the native group and sees their lifestyle; living off the land, a simple existence where the natural world is greatly respected, cultural values and morality run deep, and there is a profound sense that perhaps this group has it right after all. Especially when put in contrast with the modernized, fast-paced lifestyle of the clear-cutting, nature-hating, greedy, vengeful, warmongering invader. Quick tangent: notice that our protagonist takes this to heart and changes sides to help the native culture win in the end - a concept referred to "the great white hope" incidentally.

But I digress. Coming back to the matter at hand, I'm not saying one way or another if these representations are an exaggeration or, perhaps, if they're spot on. Not really the point.  Instead, what we see is that going back to simpler way of life is, in fact, the end all and be all of international bliss.  Now let's compare that to the Paleo-Diet. We're told that if we change our diet to exclusively home-grown produce, unprocessed meats, and lay off the dairy, grains, and legumes, we'll all become lithe, muscular physical Adonis's. Now I'm not arguing with the tenets of the diet, that laying off overly-processed foods, especially fast food and the like, and adding more fresh fruits and vegetables to our eating habits is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. I fully agree that far too many of us rely on the quick and dirty McDonald's run, Dominoes delivery, or frozen pizza and Hamburger Helper for dinner and really should take better care of what we eat.

No, what I would argue is that the fundamental principle of the Paleo-Diet, the concept that paleolithic people lived lives of health and wellness due to their diet, is an inappropriate concept.  Aside from the 30-year life expectancy, we're not taking into account the immense amount of physical activity required to sustain a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, as well as ignoring the sociological benefits of agriculture - settling down and creating the framework for modernization being the least of it.

Long story short, please feel free to be more mindful of what you eat, especially in terms of high fat and processed foods. But please don't make any argument that begins with "Well 50,000 years ago people were healthier..."  I would personally leave that argument to the paleoanthropologists...

TED Talk on Wealth

I found this fascinating.

"Influence" vs. "Manipulation"

I suppose, at the very least, if I can't talk about anything of use, I may as well point you in the direction of something, anything, interesting: something I have been reading up a bit more on in what precious little spare time I have is Neuro-Linguistic Programming.  A fast becoming favorite of mine of late, this entire field appears to be nothing more than not-so-thinly-veiled manipulation.  It's a funny to think about, coming up quite a bit in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, the subtle, possibly non-existent difference between "motivation", "influence", "manipulation", and "coercion".   Covey, for instance, often speaks of the positive effects of the "influence" the 7 Habits can have over you personally as well as the people around you, but often includes examples that run against a Habit, summing those up as "manipulation", as if the Light Side of the Force puts these into practice in one way while the Dark Side does the same thing, but since their hearts aren't pure, it brings a completely different connotation.  Just the entire concept of "coercion" is hilarious to me - teachers coerce students to do well, using stickers, candy, and positive and negative rewards (a positive reward is offering a good thing, a negative reward would be removing a bad thing - similarly a negative punishment is taking away a good thing and a positive punishment is introducing a bad thing...get it?), but we never call that "coercion".  We've all seen enough bully-prevention shticks to know that "power in numbers" can keep kids safer because bullies probably won't go against a crowd...but explain to me exactly how this is different than controlled peer pressure?  "Don't do it again or I'll call home!", "Watch it or you'll get sent to the principals office!" (alright, these may be a bit outdated but I'm not as hip to the exact lingo anymore) - are these nothing more than intimidation principles?

Now, this isn't by any means a condemnation of any of these things.  I think coercion, manipulation, intimidation, and deception are universal traits found throughout much of human interaction.  I think these are somewhat even necessary for functioning society.  Liminal or subliminal, overt or covert, conscious and intended or unconscious and unintended, these concepts exist all around us, we just have to be aware of how and when we use them and when they're being used on us.

Fixed Mindset vs. Growth Mindset

"The moment we believe that success is determined by an ingrained level of ability as opposed to resilience and hard work, we will be brittle in the face of adversity."
-Josh Waitzkin

This video (from TEDx Manhattan Beach) offers a great paradigm of learning and success.  Enjoy!