Critical Thinking Blog: All Opinions Are Not Equal

30 Rock is Over (DON'T WORRY - NO SPOILERS)

2013-02-01T06:03:00.000-06:00

The final episode of 30 Rock aired last night. Don't worry, no spoilers.

You see, I can't spoil the show. Because in its seven year history, 30 Rock never gave us a single story line TO spoil - nor one to root for.

In fact, 30 Rock was far and away the funniest show on television I didn't really care about watching.

Because intentionally a-sexual and disinterested Liz Lemon never gave us a coming of age or love story to root for. And her supporting cast of self-consumed exaggerations created big laughs, but no empathy either.

Perhaps this was an intentional attempt to recreate a single-serving, episode at a time Seinfeldian "show about nothing" - or a direct snub at more formulaic television - a "we don't need a Sam & Diane to make people laugh".

And they didn't. But they didn't make us care either.

Instead, they would serve up multiple jokes in a single episode that would make no sense to those not intimately familiar with the Food Network show, Barefoot Contessa.

They would alienate the 95% in order to make the 5% feel incredibly IN on something.

And they packed more smart and clever jokes in a 21-minute show than anyone else did - so chances were, no matter what 5% you were in, you'd at least have a handful of magical moments each episode.

But then you would forget about it.

Not Lying to Your Children About Santa: A Christmas Compromise

2012-12-21T09:57:00.001-06:00

My adamant refusal to let my daughter believe in Santa Claus is one of my least popular belief systems.

For the small minority of us whose childhood trauma resulted in parental resentment, it couldn't be simpler. We don't want our children to similarly resent us.

But for those who transitioned out of adolescence without spite, they fear my child will lose a sense of magic they remember so fondly of as a kid.

My rebuttal to date has been, "It's the presents that make it magical. Not who they're from."

They disagree. And I'm not entirely sure. So, what about this for a compromise?

What if I simply don't go out of my way to stop her belief, similarly to how I don't go out of my way to convince her the Transformers aren't real. "Now you know the Decepticons are just pretend, right sweetie?!? They're NOT real!"

I'm comfortable with the larger world of make believe we all learn to separate in our minds (some better than others).

But, I just can't lie to my daughter...about this at least.

A Post-Newton Pre-Shouting Primer on Gun Control

2012-12-20T10:23:00.002-06:00

The United States does indeed have the most gun violence and least restrictive gun laws out of any developed country.

However, individual states and cities in the United States with the most restrictive gun laws (see Washington D.C. and Chicago) tend to have the most gun violence. For instance, my home city of Chicago is on track to reach a haunting 3,000 shootings by year end.

But, are these really contradictions? Couldn't it be that Chicago instituted these harsh gun laws in an attempt to solve an existing problem? Absolutely. It would be absurd to suggest "no-gun" policies created the problem. But, as this year's data continues to sadly stream in, it would be equally absurd to claim these policies solved it.

Surprisingly, it turns out that those who act out in murderous rampages don't respect gun-free zones. In fact, gun-free zones such as malls and schools are where mass shootings most often occur.

It was sad to see last Friday turn into a "This proves my point about gun control!" shout-fest, well before the facts of the Newton case were in. Some might argue we needed to start talking about solutions while all eyes were on Newton - that this was just another example of a growing trend of mass gun violence in this country (it's actually not).

The problem with this is people think they can throw out your entire argument when the present situation didn't unfold like you originally thought.

Because initial arguments such as "How did someone with reported mental illness receive a gun permit?!?" could be later shot down with, "Ha! It wasn't his gun! It was his mom's!" While, of course, the crux of your argument was really his ease of access. But if you had waited, you could have better constructed your argument to compete against the gut feelings people tend to have regardless of statistics.

With all that nuance in mind, you may now resume shouting.

6 AM? What am I, a milkman?

2012-12-17T19:23:00.001-06:00

I'm still stuck on my recent discovery that while I no longer find the same jokes funny that I did at the age of 13, new 13-year olds do.

It makes me want to add comedy to my theory of transitional art. That one needs to get through slapstick comedy and yo mama jokes before thinking Russell Brand is funny (this is his audition from the film, Forgetting Sarah Marshall). Because Brand's comedy is a play off everything else. It's a new punchline to the same joke. (It also involves a rich vocabulary and a bit of pretention, which I can't help but admire.) But it only makes sense if you've already heard the joke.

For instance, if someone provides you with a set-up line referencing 6 in the morning...

"6 AM? What am I, a milkman?" is the correct and obvious answer. As a humorist, this should be your instinctual response. But more often, we're attempting to entertain an audience who has already heard that joke before. So, you need to go further. And this is what I argue Brand does better than just about anybody else right now. His humor fools you. His punchlines are unguessable.

Now, many comedians do this well. For instance, Tommy Johnagin, one of my favorite stand-ups from the last five years offered his take on that same punchline with, "I don't get up in single digits."

Same joke. New angle on the delivery. Made me laugh again.

Now, I haven't heard the Russell Brand take on this premise. But I assume it would be something like, "What sins are you attempting to hide from the sun?"

It's all the same joke. But the new slant prevents staleness.

Always be listening for set-up lines. But don't offer the easy punchline, unless there are 13-year olds present.

I Respect Your Beliefs, As Long as They're Especially Crazy

2012-12-10T06:05:00.001-06:00

People's diet choices, their political choices, we fight them on.

We question the nutrient density of a vegan lifestyle if we believe differently.

We question the long-term fiscal responsibility of a Keynesian agenda if we believe differently.

Yet, if they're Buddhist, we respect that without question. If they're Mormon, we respect that without question. Oh, you believe in an invisible god? That's cool. That's your religion.

Or, perhaps it verges on psychosis?

We respect people's right to their beliefs, as long as they're especially crazy.

Everything else, we fight them on.

I think it's time to put religion on the table with everything else.

Digital Hoarders: Choosing to Delete

2012-12-07T05:45:00.001-06:00

It won't make a good TV show. Because, it's much harder to see.

But, I'm afraid it's going to become a problem.

Saving everything, because we can.

Hoarding digital garbage.

It's not as visibly unsettling as your plastic milk top collection.

But, it's time to be free from both. Choose to delete.

Telling Old Jokes to 13-Year Old Boys for the First Time

2012-12-05T10:49:00.000-06:00

I overheard two teenage boys talking 'Family Guy'.

The scenes and jokes they recalled surprised me - particularly the things that drove them to hysterics.

It wasn't "new" humor. It wasn't a sophisticated evolutionary deviation from what we've all experienced the past 20 years.

But then I remembered, they haven't experienced our last 20 years. The only reason I keep evolving my humor is to keep myself and my wife interested and entertained.

But every year, there will be a new generation of 13-year olds on the precipice of understanding the beauty of foundation-level sarcasm.

You don't need to be original to make people laugh - as long as it's their first time.

Using Irrational Optimism to Successfully Gamble on NFL Football

2012-12-04T14:51:00.003-06:00

Every morning, I fill my coffee mug to the brim before carefully attempting to climb into my car.

About twice a week, I spill my coffee while doing so. While these spill sessions should teach me to fill my mug slightly lower the next time, my habits do not change. Because I don't want "less" coffee. I just won't spill it next time.

I am irrationally optimistic. And perhaps, so too, are we all. At least Dan Ariely seems to think so (my favorite TED talk ever.)

So, I think the question we're all left asking is how can we use this intrinsic knowledge of human irrationality to successfully gamble on professional football games?

NFL BETTING RULES
When betting on professional football games, you don't just pick the winner. You have to bet against the "spread". So, let's say the Patriots are playing at home against the Browns. You can't just bet the Patriots, because who would bet against you? That's what the "spread" is for. So, let's say the spread is (-8). Your betting options are to either bet that the Patriots will win by more than 8, or bet that the Browns will lose by less than 8. This spread fluctuates as bets come in, in order to try and keep even money on both sides of the bet. That way, no matter who wins, Vegas wins, since they take a commission cut from all winning bets.

So, is there an edge to be had in a game against really smart analysts who have a lot of money vested in this, who constantly look for advantages and instantly adjust to match the best information possible? Well, it's incredibly difficult. In fact, many "experts" are well under 50% for the year.

But are these "experts" immune to irrational optimism? I wondered. So, here was my theory, based on a noticed flaw in my own logic. By default, I had been picking the better team, even before I saw the spread. And only switched to the underdog if I saw a spread number that convinced me to change. But, like Ariely mentioned, it's always easier NOT to do something. So if even a slight majority were doing what I had been doing, there might be an irrationally high number on the 'better' team.

That's the theory I came up with 5 weeks ago. So to rectify this irrationality, for the last five weeks, I've been picking the worse team by default. Then, only switching my pick if the spread convinces me to do so. Since then, I'm first in my 20-team league.

Might I be confusing correlation for causation? Perhaps. I'm only 5 weeks in to the theory.

But, at least I'm not gambling anymore. I'm no longer trying to get lucky. I'm simply betting on human irrationality.

Venting Isn't Helpful

2012-11-29T17:13:00.002-06:00

Venting isn't helpful. It rationalizes your hatred.

You must separate the individual from their behavioral patterns you find to be difficult.

Venting rarely accomplishes this.

The Selfish Man Wasn't Always That

2012-11-28T16:17:00.003-06:00

The kid who grows up with a video camera perpetually attached to his hand isn't a materialistic sell out.
The kid who grows up wanting to be President isn't held hostage at the mercies of special interest groups. The kid who grows up watching episode after episode of Perry Mason isn't sucking the very essence of the medical profession dry with frivolous malpractice suits.

The truth is, our circumstances can indeed change our motivations over time. But, the politician isn't inherently corrupt. The lawyer isn't inherently crooked. The film director isn't inherently a sell-out.

Deep within them are still the children who desire to do beautiful things.

Finding Middle Ground with the Environmentalists

2012-11-27T17:04:00.002-06:00

He doesn't take environmentalists seriously, because he finds the value of a seal and a human to be intrinsically different.

He doesn't take global warming seriously, because he believes their $80/ton carbon tax solution to be an economic death sentence.

And so he retaliates. He lowers the value of a seal to nothing, which is less than he truly believes. He denies any and all consequences of living on a warmer planet, which is less than he truly believes.

Respect Must Always Be Earned

2012-11-26T09:40:00.000-06:00

The day will never come when you can walk into a room and command respect simply because of your title or position. Respect must always be earned.

Consider the President of the United States. Half the country disdains him. The other half thinks they could do some things better.

So what makes you think that getting a promotion - becoming a manager - also grants with it some sort of commanded respect? Now, those who report to you might provide you with some sort of reverent deference - but only because you possess firing privileges over them. We must not confuse that kind of quasi-fear with genuine respect.

To get that, you must earn it. Every time. And with every person.

Rethinking the Now Non-Threatening Romney

2012-11-12T16:15:00.001-06:00

Once someone's no longer a threat to be in charge of you - they instantly become a little harder to dislike. Consider the Republican quasi-admiration Bill Clinton has garnered post-Presidency. So, I started thinking about it last week - what a "CEO" President would have looked like.

I think the average person would have liked Romney as President.

Of course, not after beating "their guy". But in general. The guy's fairly middle of the road - in practice if not rhetoric. He's where a lot of people are. Perhaps only because he specifically caters to the masses. He governs, rather than legislates.

I think most people would have liked most of the decisions he would have made. Of course, I'm only saying that because I know it's no longer an option.

Moneyball Works For Everything

2012-11-09T05:27:00.003-06:00

This year, Nate Silver shocked the world by correctly predicting, to a remarkable degree, how each and every state would turn in the Presidential election - despite many Republican pollsters predicting a Republican edge...

But I wasn't shocked...because Silver was 49/50 in 2008.

This stuff works. Not just for baseball. Not just for politics. And it's not computers replacing people, either. But people USING computers, and in-depth and beautiful data analysis to make better decisions than ever before. Get on board folks.

(My league's fantasy football rankings as of this morning - want to guess who I am?)

The Republic Will Stand...

2012-11-07T15:08:00.003-06:00

FOR THE JOYOUS
Do not stop. Your desire to pursue the alleviation of the social injustices you see does not end at the voting booth. There are non-profits around the world doing amazing things. Join them. Help them. Do not wait until others are forced by legislative mandate to fund these next social programs you desire, but pick your priorities, and work toward them yourself, while persuading others to join your fight.

FOR THE DESPONDENT
Do not stop. A boring rich, white robot just about tied the coolest President we've ever had.

Why Hurricane Sandy Doesn't Really Matter and Why it Does

2012-11-06T15:51:00.005-06:00

Presence in the Age of Trivialities
by Quinton Peeples

It came as no surprise that as Hurricane Sandy brought devastation to the Eastern Seaboard, the internet lit up with arguments, tweets and Facebook posts about the Disney/Lucasfilm merger. We are what we practice and we practice trivialization on a daily, almost hourly, basis. We have second screen experiences, scrolling headlines, live “timelines”, niche markets, microbrews and on and on and on. While I enjoy having choices, what has happened along the way is an unintentional and devastating reality: we are unable to stop choosing. We have lost our ability to sit, to simply be present with something painful and discern its relative value. While I am not criticizing a serious discussion of entertainment conglomerates merging, I am concerned that in the current context, it is better suited for a later date. We are limited, finite beings, with limited and finite energies and resources. Our ability to choose, and choose wisely what we think about and engage reveals who we are and what we value. Averting my gaze from people in need to discuss rich people getting richer, says an awful lot about me. Things I might not want to consider. And why should I? Someone just “liked” my post on Pinterest.

The Subjectivity of Horror
by Eric Olsen

Quinton argues that Hurricane Sandy is one of those moments that deserves our full attention. Perhaps because of its cataclysmic nature (and powerful imagery), its financial destruction (~$30 billion), its human devastation (current death toll: 110), and likely also, its placement in beloved New York City. It is unquestionably a tragedy of epic proportions. And yet, like Quinton mentioned, we are limited, finite beings. And we are surrounded by tragedy. There is so much horror in the world that if we choose to focus on it all, we run the risk of being swallowed up altogether - we could mourn with those who mourn until we question whether there is indeed goodness left in the world at all.

So, often without choosing, we prioritize what we allow our heart to hurt for. And Chicago's record homicides this summer (we're on track for 500 for the year) hit me harder than Sandy. Now, I can actually argue that Chicago's tragedy is "worse" objectively. Acts of man, not mother nature. Acts of hatred. Pride. Jealousy. Evil. But, it's probably just because I live here. New York is a somewhat fictional Woody Allen backdrop in my mind - despite having been there. Chicago is real to me. And there will be always be subjectivity in what we find important - what we feel connected to - what we cry for. If my daughter were diagnosed with diabetes, I would likely devote my life to finding a cure. Many in that situation do. The circumstance they find themselves in instantly changes their empathy.

I don't want to live in the trivial world Quinton described. I don't want to ignore the true acts of horror that really exist - to hide in the beauty of the world, of which there is also enough to rejoice in forever. Yet, I don't want to fall in the pit altogether, despite the seeming nobility of lying in the ashes.

7 Debate Questions I Wish the Candidates Were Asked

2012-11-05T09:08:00.002-06:00

Don't get me wrong. I think saying as little as possible as aggressively as possible is brilliant debate strategy. I really do. But here are 7 questions I'd love to hear honest answers for, just for the sake of our greater understanding. Feel free to add your own questions, or answer those you'd like in a way that empathizes with the "gray" nature of the questions themselves.

What if any ethical concerns do you have with the use of drone strikes?
What do you see as the pros and cons of decriminalizing non-violent actions, such as drug use?
Under either a universal or single-payer healthcare system, does the government then have a fiscal responsibility to either incentivize people to make better health choices, or penalize individuals for preventable healthcare costs caused by their lifestyle choices?
Often, even the most well-intentioned legislation has unintended negative economic consequences. Should the sheer complexity of our economic markets slow down our belief that any legislative interventions we make can be moderate, predictable and wholly positive?
Does your foreign policy distinguish between acts of national defense and acts of national “offense”?
In late 2011, it was still illegal for openly gay men and women to serve in the U.S. military. Is it silly of us to assume the federal government can ever be a true leader in social progress, rather than a laggard follower of mass opinion?
Should our social service budgets (and all budgets for that matter) be prioritized on a good-per-dollar basis? Therefore, we stop doing quite as many “good” things in order to focus on the “great” things – the ones that produce the most economic good per dollar?

The Myth Behind the Chase vs. the Catch

2012-10-26T10:09:00.001-05:00

The misconception of comparing the chase with the catch is the incorrect belief that the "catch" is a finality.

Because 50% of people end up saying, "You no longer have me."

The chase never ends.

Where Can I Find Your Music Online?

2012-10-15T10:36:00.003-05:00

My friend asked me this question the other day. And I wasn't sure.

Then, I realized how crazy that was. How do I not know where my own music lives online?

Well, the reason is that I wanted to get paid for it. So, I paid $ to get my music listed on sites where I could make $ off it.

Shortly after, I discovered the $ it cost to get my music listed was > than the $ I made off the sales.

Therefore, my 'Why Every President Sucked' is only up in iTunes and Spotify for a little while longer. My Relevant Reverence stuff has all expired.

This is silliness. A simple database issue. I used other's databases in order to try and protect my music, and have ended up making it an impossibility for people to listen to that which I created for that specific purpose.

Minimalism Week: Feng Shui Your Psyche

2012-10-05T13:43:00.001-05:00

We're talking minimalism this week.

More than just materialistic minimalism, there's a whole other life minimalism strategy focused on mental heath, based on the concept that your brain is a fatiguable muscle.

Every notice that Steve Jobs wore the same outfit every day? Every notice Mark Zuckerberg does the same? I recently got some possible insight into this fact through author Michael Lewis' recent interview of President Obama for Vanity Fair.

"I'm trying to pare down decisions. I don't want to make decisions about what I'm eating or wearing. Because I have too many other decisions to make." He mentioned research that shows the simple act of making decisions degrades one's ability to make further decisions. It's why shopping is so exhausting. "You need to focus your decision-making energy. You need to routinize yourself. You can't be going through the day distracted by trivia."

Think about it. The days when you get home from work with big plans to get something done, and you just can't? You collapse on the couch. And it's not always as if you've spent the day conducting heart surgery in the E.R. Your mind is simply tired from the junk of the day.

So what if we try to automate the unimportant decisions in our life, so we can focus our full attention on the things worthy of it?

Minimalism Week: Clothing Simplicity is Easier for Dudes

2012-10-03T19:24:00.002-05:00

We're talking minimalism this week.

Minimalism Example #3:
Cut your wardrobe to 7 essential items, and wear only those for a month.

Jen Hatmaker's book called 7: An Experimental Mutiny Against Excess recounts a 7-month social experiment in her own life, in which for one month, she ate only 7 different foods. The next month, her wardrobe consisted of only 7 different items. You get the idea. Short-term (doable) attempts at rediscovering what's really necessary.

So, there's a big part of me that really likes the clothing minimalism concept - long-term.

1 - white dress shirt
1 - gray dress pants
1 - black dress shoes
1 - gym shoes
1 - light sweater
1 - jeans
1 - white t-shirt
(She gives you socks and underwear as freebies.)

Because I dress fairly "classic" as it is, and almost prefer the aesthetic of minimalism. (Think Uncle Jesse). But, there's two hold-ups here. One, I work in a creative field, and two, I work in an office setting. Would this repetitive nature of dress (making others think I'm homeless or simply have awful style) damage my career/reputation?

I also think this method has got to be a lot harder on girls than guys. You actually NEED 30 outfits, because your golden blouse is so memorable it'd be super awkward if you wore it 3 times a week. Then again, maybe you could just minimalize your color palette. Go the white/black/light method that I chose for my own fictitious wardrobe.

This one's interesting. Anyone see any other big downsides here?

Yes, I know the right answer is you shouldn't care what other people think of you.

Minimalism Week: Apple or PC

2012-10-02T16:54:00.000-05:00

We're talking minimalism this week.

Minimalism Example #2:
Do you buy an expensive laptop that lasts a while, or a cheap laptop you have to replace every 2 years?

Because buying a cheap $300 laptop was a no-brainer for us compared to buying a Macbook. But our first one barely last 2 years. Then, we bought another $300 replacement. And it's been awful, too. I can't imagine doing it again.

Similarly, we loved buying the Magic Bullet over the expensive Vitamix. But we're on our 4th.

At what point are we just being stupid through our attempts at being fiscally smart?

Give me answers, as well as new examples to talk about this week.

Yes, I know the right answer is "you don't need a laptop."

Minimalism Week: Home Decoration for Perpetual Thanksgiving

2012-10-01T16:54:00.003-05:00

A whole week on minimalism sounds a little much, no? ...get it?

But, as the concept of "life minimalism" has become more and more mainstream (perhaps due to financial necessity), and as my friends are getting more and more involved in evangelizing the movement itself, I've been thinking about it a lot lately, and want to talk this one through.

In general, I'm not sure many people disagree with the premise.

Spend less money. Care less about money. Spend less time on the non-important. Spend more time on the things you love most.

But, let's talk through some examples this week.

Minimalism Example #1:
Furnishing your house for special occassions or for everyday living?

We buy a dining room table that seats 10 so we're prepared to do so. Except not only do we only have 2.5 people living in our household (which would occupy only 1/4 of this table at mealtime), we don't even eat in that room at all.

The average American dining room is perefectly designed for Thanksgiving...once a year...if you host.

Our living room also comfortably seats 5. Twice what we need.

Now, I think being able to entertain is awesome. I think living in community is everything.

But theoretically, you could furnish your house for everyday living, and spend the savings to take your friends out for extravagant events throughout the year, right?

When I think about the furniture in my house I use daily, it makes me wonder if that should become the standard to which you decide to buy it?

Give me answers, as well as new examples to talk about this week.

Only Hire Artists

2012-09-27T16:13:00.003-05:00

Artists are unrealistic in their brainstorming. They are overly attached to their ideas. They are moody.

But they care deeply. They love beauty. And they are passionate about creating.

Why would you want to work with anyone else?

The Purpose of Art is to Communicate

2012-09-21T16:43:00.000-05:00

Art is a blessing to its creator, but how selfish to be only that.

The artist should spend half their time discovering something worth saying.

And the other half determining ways to say it most beautifully.