Why the Id Negates the Effect of Focus Groups

I haven't read the new biography on Steve Jobs, but it's pretty hard not to read about it with all the coverage it's been getting these lest several weeks. Say what you want about the guy, he understood his audience. Many excerpts from the book have been rehashed already but two in particular stand out to me. First, the quote "people don't know what they want until you show it to them," and the fact that he didn't believe in focus groups.

I haven't read enough to know why he felt that way, but I certainly agree with him. Marketing is really just trying to figure out what people like to buy, and then carving your product to fit that mold. To put it another way, it's the art of understanding and predicting consumer behavior. Which is exactly the problem I have with focus groups, no one in that group is a consumer. At least they aren't at the time that the focus group is being conducted.

As Dan Ariely frequently points out in his books and on his blog, people often behave irrationally. Consumers often make decisions based on emotion rather than reason. To put a psychology spin on it, I would say their decisions are more motivated by their subconsciousness that their consciousness. A focus group fails to emulate consumer behavior because it takes people out of the consumer mind frame by speaking to their consciousness. Their answers are honest, but they are the product of rational thought and not a true reflection of consumer behavior. It's like playing poker with fake money: the game looks exactly the same from the exterior but there is no element of risk. The players will behave more recklessly because they have no real money of their own to lose or win. (It's also incredibly boring. Look, I'm no advocate of gambling but try playing poker with no money and see how long you can last before you're suggesting Fish as a superior alternative.)

A poor marketing professional will make decisions based on what their audience says. A smart marketing professional will make decisions based on what their audience does.

Can Something Really "Change" Your Life?

"This book changed my life," is what I wanted to say. It's a very profound statement and emphasizes the impact the book (Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn) had on me. The only problem is the book did not change my life, my life is still the same as before I read it. Any changes that happened took place in spite of reading the book.

So I sat there with an open mouth, searching for the right words as my friend waited patiently. After a moment, I realized what I wanted to say. "This book changed the way I look at the world." It was less pretentious, more accurate, and spoke to its influence on me as evidenced by my friend asking to borrow the book.

It made me wonder how often to we say "(fill in the blank) changed my life," and not really mean it. If you were in a car accident and it made you a paraplegic, then yes, that event changed your life. But the way we think or feel about things is not really life-changing at all. The circumstances in our lives involve our environment and the people with whom we interact. When that changes, your life has changed. Your life does not exist inside your head.

Living Outside the Social Media Bubble

A funny thing happened at the Work Study job fair in the library last week. We put together our Marketing Office application and included a section to list computer skills, social media experience and a throwaway question "You're about to leave on a secret mission and have two minutes to pack; what five items do you bring with you?"

Students asked various questions about what we do and provided some entertaining responses to the secret agent question. But what really caught me off guard was how many students asked "what's social media?" When I gave them examples such as Facebook and Twitter they all replied something to the effect of "oh yeah, I know what that is."

It's not that they don't know what social media is. They've practically grown up with it. It's such a part of their daily lives that they never had to step back and label it. We were the ones that had to give it a name because we are outside the bubble. Let's face it, social media is a part of pop culture which is always driven by the youth.

That's why it's so hard to study social media and establish an effective marketing plan to young constituents. We're trying to put everything they do into a test tube and determine it's chemical make up. They don't see it that way. They are a part of a big youth culture with strong connections that only fragments as we get older. Meta thinking and reflection does not exist because they are reactive social animals. When we try to think like them, we are already thinking too hard. They are like a flock of birds, changing direction all at once without a leader. We can study the patterns of flight direction and try to determine when the flock will change direction or why. But the truth is that none of the individual birds knows, they just react.

I'm not saying that we should stop trying to study youth culture for marketing purposes. Just acknowledging that we are outside the bubble and therefore will always be a step behind.

Segregating the Message

We've been crafting a new message for our future publications; more of a focus on new buildings, programs, and renovations. Which is fine, but there was nothing wrong with the old message; our history, our distinction and uniqueness. My only question is: why not use both?

I'm not talking about overloading every printed and electronic communication we send out with every angle we can possibly spin (what's the old designer's adage? if you try to emphasize everything, nothing gets emphasized). I'm talking about crafting certain messages for certain audiences.

A high school student doesn't care that we just renovated the bathrooms in our oldest dormitory. They know little to nothing about us; everything is new to them. So we don't have to reinforce that message. What do they are about? The programs of study, the athletics program, campus ministries, campus aesthetics, and tuition (okay, maybe their parents really care about tuition).

Likewise, alumni do not care about the history of the school nor it's distinction. They already went there, they know what makes it special. They care about "what are you doing with my money." New buildings, new programs and reassurance that the college is moving forward.

Let's face it, a college, like any institution, means different things to different people. If you try to craft one message to your constituents, you are likely to leave a lot of people out. Instead, target your messages and predetermine your vision for each group.

What the Debt Ceiling Says About Our Ability to Compromise

The whole debt ceiling debate has been nothing short of a disappointing reflection of our government's ability to get things done. As I tweeted earlier, it's gotten more coverage than the killing of Osama Bin Laden - an indication that we value Jersey Shore-style bickering more than good news. If a deal is not reached by the deadline it will confirm my worst fears, that our government has been hijacked by idealogues who value sensationalism over pragmatism.

I often hear more sensible members of the media reflect back on the "good old days" when republicans and democrats worked together to accomplish similar goals and pass laws that made sense at the risk of slighting some of their more zealous constituents. We are now in a place where congressmen refuse to compromise even the slightest for fear of retribution from their voter base when campaign season comes around. And their fears are justified; there will always be over-the-top demagogues and underqualified politicians like Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin there to play the "I won't ever vote for tax increases, I'm on your side" card against any incumbent who didn't fit their respective party's archetype. The fact that Bachmann and Palin are GOP presidential front runners (rather than more sensible choices like Pawlenty or Romney) shows how our voters have lost sensibility.

But here's the dirty little secret about archetypes; they aren't real. Only shadows of actual people. And they never pan out in the world of politics because it is always a game of give and take to get anything done. Which brings us to our current situation: our government would rather default on our debt then compromise in any way.

I don't think this is the result of a recent batch of congressmen, I think this is simply what happens with overpopulation and an ever-expanding government. The two party system doesn't work because there are simply too many damn people being represented to fall into just two distinct parties. I think term limits is a good start (it would force congressmen to focus on getting bills passed rather than preparing for campaign season), but I don't think it is enough. I honestly think the only solution is to decentralize the government. The larger we grow as a country, the more fractured we become as a culture. In his book Blink, Malcolm Gladwell comments on how the successful company Gore-Tex has a rule that once a location reaches a certain number of employees, its splits off and starts a new one. We are a tribal culture, we cannot fit into two distinct categories. Our best hope is to provide more options.

Wonderful: The Way Jim Feels

My favorite band, My Morning Jacket, released their sixth studio album, Circuital, a few weeks ago. Even before that, the album leaked and the early messageboard chatter was not kind. People seemed to feel that it fell somewhere in between Z and Evil Urges, not very telling considering those are my most and least favorite albums of theirs, respectively. While I could appreciate what frontman Jim James was trying to do on Evil Urges, it simply was not my taste. The messageboard rumblings, however, seemed to suggest that their disappointment was not in Jim's new direction on Circuital, but that it simply seemed short on talent and creativity. The music seemed bland and the lyrics were dull and uninspiring. This was very disappointing to me. EU still showcased a brilliant and ambitious band willing to try new things. Was Circuital showcasing a band that had run out of ideas and passion?                     

So I bought the album with low expectations. I gave the entire CD several non-stop spins in my car, trying to be objective and listen to it out of context. This is what we do with our favorite bands; give them more chances than we would with anything else. Hey, they've given me a lot of great music so I feel they've earned it. Finally one day it dawned on me: I like it. I really like it.

The opening track, Victory Dance, is kind of weird and cool - two adjectives often associated with MMJ's work. A slow simple beat from the rhythm section that carries on as different elements fade in and out as Jim repeats "Hope to dance the victory dance in the evening's setting sun," at the song's nadir. The title track and Wonderful (the way I feel ) are MMJ at their best - a fun beat that builds and builds but gives Jim's hauntingly beautiful vocals enough space to howl. I particularly love the opening to Wonderful: "It matters to me/ Took a long time to get here/ If it had been easy/ I would not have cared."

Slow Slow Tune provides some space for Carl to shred some tasty licks, but Jim's voice sounds noticeably off on this track. And again, on Holdin' On to Black Metal, he reverts back to that falsetto he used on Evil Urges. This is something that I just don't get. When Jim was born, God grabbed is vocal chords with both hands and gave him the voice of an angel. Jim should never do anything that detracts from that voice. MMJ's earlier sound consisted of Jim's strumming and his soaring vocals, with the band colorfully filling in the empty gaps. Now, I wonder if the problem is that his band mates are too talented. Their sound has changed significantly since Carl and Bo came on for the Z sessions. Jim might feel that keeping them on the sidelines for too many songs is a disservice to their abilities.

As long as Jim's around, I still feel that there is a magic to this band. Like some of the early reviews, I agree that Jim's lyrics on this album have taken a big step back. However, I am comfortable with the fact that this band peaked at Z. I still appreciate what they do and am going to enjoy their slow slow ride into the sunset, dancing the victory dance.

What Are We Really Writing About

Since I have been writing feature stories over the past five years for my last two employers, I have developed my own workflow. First, I like to use a tape recorder; I don't want to miss anything. Additionally, I always have a pen and pad with some questions on it. I also like to write down extra questions during the interview because I don't want to interrupt the subject, break up their flow, and ruin a good potential quote. I transcribe the interview, print it out, grab my highlighter, and begin to start sorting everything out.

The next part is where the story really starts to take shape. In front of me, spread out on my desk, are all of my interviews printed out. Now, I could turn this into a boilerplate journalism story: simplify the crux of the story into a one-sentence lead, fill in with additional details and some quotes. But this is a feature story, it needs to illustrate a larger point of the magazine it is going to be in and say something significant about the organization.

So what am I doing when I'm highlighting all these interviews? I'm identifying patterns. It's the same way the human mind works. When we are confronted with an overload of information that is too much to take in, we look for patterns and ways to compartmentalize the facts. What's necessary and what can be excluded? What can be associated with an ideology I am already familiar with? What can I hone in on that makes sense to me? I'm just doing the work for the reader, relating the story to a larger theme with which they can identify.

Sometimes it's as easy as seeing a word repeated by the different subjects but it often requires a time for reflection. That's the other important step in my writing workflow: taking time away from the story. It helps give me perspective and the ability to identify these patterns.

It would seem to make more sense to develop this theme before I begin my interviews. But that's the thing about stories, you can't control them. You can try to shape your questions to get the answers you want but often times you end up changing your story when you realize what it is really about. Because as you're gathering all the facts, you're inside of the story. You're a part of the pattern. It's not until you can step outside it that you can see everything with fresh eyes and make sense of it all.

Availability Overkill

A recent Slate article got me to thinking (I'll be honest, I only read the first page). The internet has brought the immediacy of entertainment in the form of Netflix and iTunes, not to mention illegal avenues like torrents and file sharing. We have easy access to every song we would want to hear. It should be wonderful. I mean, this is what we wanted, right?

In a budget-cutting decision I made a few years back, I decided to limit myself to one CD a month. It wasn't a difficult adjustment to make and it changed my pursuit of music. I had two minor details that drove this so-called "pursuit". First, I buy cds, I only download mp3s when I must (I'll get to that). I like the cover art and it makes it easier to distinguish when I'm driving my car and looking for a particular album. Second, I buy used CDs. The price often comes down enough to make it equivalent to an iTunes album so it ends up being a wash.

It should be noted that not all CDs in a given store are used; most are not. CD stores, to begin with, are limited in the amount of CDs they can carry. I am intentionally limiting my supply which seems to go against all that is wonderful about the free market. But here's the caveat, the used CD market is dynamic; people are always bringing in their old CDs so that on any given day something different can be available.

When the first of the month came around and I couldn't find a used CD that I was interested in, I would come back throughout the month and browse the store. I usually found what I was looking for at some point and if not I would acquiesce to the iTunes Gods and download it. What I came to realize was that I enjoy looking for a used copy almost as much as listening to the damn thing.

I'm the same way with books. A colleague told me about a treasured, hard cover, first-edition book that he was lucky enough to have access to buy from a book store. I can't imagine shelling out cash for a first-edition book. I bought a beat up copy of Catch 22 from a used book store for $0.97 and I wear that like a badge. It's the same words on the inside as any first edition or signed copy!

After searching for any David Foster Wallace novels for years at used book stores, I gave up and requested Infinite Jest ($30 for a paperback) for my birthday. Several weeks later, in a used book store in Gloucester, I found it for $7 and I cannot help but feel jaded. Traveling and exploring used book stores in different areas has become a favorite past time of mine.

Having every song or book you could ever want kills the hunting game. It creates dissatisfaction and boredom. By limiting my options, I enjoy more of what I do have and always have something to look forward to.

The Dichotomy of Catholicism

Recently, on more than one occasion, I have heard people refer to the different viewpoints of the Catholic church of which I will refer to as the interior and the exterior (see: Ken Wilber; Integral Theory ). The first view is the one I am most familiar with as I grew up in the Catholic faith: going to church on Sunday morning or Saturday evening, catechism Saturday morning, Lent in the spring, praying to the rosaries, and generally feeling guilty about anything that felt good. This view represents the collective grassroots view of social justice, strengthening our communities, care for God's planet, and tenacious regard for the poor. More than anything, this view is guided by the seven key themes of Catholic social teaching. This is the interior view.

The other view is based on the hierarchical structure of the Catholic church: the pope, bishops, clergy, Vatican I, Vatican II, the Council of Trent, priestly pedophilia, and Dan Brown novels. This is the view I came to become aware of when I came to live among a myriad of Protestants. This is the exterior view. Of the many laughable misconceptions I heard about Catholics, the one overarching theme was the lack of dissension among parishioners. The prevailing assumption seems to be that if one disagrees with the pope on any one issue, they would simply abandon their religion for a more convenient one. Therefore, any Catholic they meet stands behind every decision of the Pope 100 percent.

Working in a Baptist organization and attending several Protestant worship services gave me the opportunity to have both interior and exterior views of this branch of Christianity. I observed that many Protestants will often change churches solely based on proximity, even switching to a different branch of Protestantism without batting an eye. In reality, there is often little difference between the services of many Protestant churches. I think this explains their reluctance to accept a dissenting Catholic willing to stick by their church when there are other options.

In actuality, I know very few Catholics who will stand behind every decision of the pope, and they're fine with that. They are more interested in applying the themes of social teaching into their daily lives or acting as an agent of change to the churches' positions with which they disagree.

As with most cases of conflict, both parties' unwillingness to subject themselves to both interior and exterior views creates a lack of understanding. One view is not complete without the other.

Cognitive Dissonance and the Principles of Non Violence.

My second post in a still-young blog and I am already mentioning cognitive dissonance again. But it's such a fascinating concept to me because I think it shapes so much of human behavior. Two recent events have caused me to look at it in a different light and they both deal with non violence. First, the Elms College commencement speaker will be Dr. John Paul Lederach, professor of international peacebuilding at Notre Dame. He developed a theory known as conflict transformation to find peaceful solutions in conflicted areas such as Northern Ireland, Nepal, and Colombia. I look forward to reading more about this theory. Second, I've been reading Viktor Frenkl's book Man's Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy.

Frenkl's book reflects on his time as a concentration camp prisoner. It made me think about what causes people to treat others so horribly. When it comes to Islamic terrorism, the case is often made that they are simply "uneducated" and that is why they go to such extremes in committing their hateful acts. When information was leaked that the 911 pilots were college graduates, this theory lost a lot of steam. This is where I propose that, once again, cognitive dissonance plays a major role in human behavior. The terrorists are convinced that western influence poses a major threat to their way of life. Just like any creature, when humans feel threatened they will go to extremes to defend themselves and their culture. To justify blowing themselves up, as well as taking the lives of innocent Muslim women and children, they have to really hate Americans -- and they do.

So what caused the Auschwitz prison guards to treat the Jews so inhumanely? I believe there are two natural reactions that the prisoners took that allowed for the guards to continue their brutish behavior. One is hostility. It makes it easier to beat and send a prisoner to his death if they are openly violent and insulting. It justifies the behavior, at least in the Nazi's mind. This person is mean to me so it's okay to hit them. The other is inhumanity. Frenkl describes the second phase that all prisoners seem to succumb to that made them feel like nothing more than moving masses of flesh clinging to a thin skeletal frame. They became devoid of hope and happiness, and their expressions revealed this black hole of emotion. This only reinforced to the Nazis that it was okay to treat them the way they did because they didn't even seem to be real people.

So back to Dr. Lederach. In reading about him I was reminded about one of the most profound courses I took in college, World Views taught by Dr. Barry Gan. As a pacifist, Gan used the class to talk about global non-violent social movements. Gandhi believed that there was a human spirit that could be reached in everyone and that spirit did not want to harm other humans. Gan used to say "It's not 'do what I say or I'm going to hurt you.' It's 'do what I say or I'm going to make you hurt me.'" But this human spirit can be guarded by cognitive dissonance. If a prisoner displays hostility or lifelessness, a person can rationalize their inhumane treatment of said prisoner. The prisoner's best bet to reach that human spirit was to show natural loving kindness in the face of hatred, holding a mirror to its ugly mug (World Views did briefly discuss several isolated instances of non-violent movements effectively working on Nazi prison guards who then allowed them to escape).

Even though we are all prone to cognitive dissonance, recognizing it can help dissolve its nasty effects. And maybe the principles of nonviolence are they key to cutting through dissonance and finding the human soul. The true self is no self.

Can the next generation of business leaders change the world?

One of my assignments at my new job is to help develop the language of our new M.B.A. program set to launch this fall. Since there are several M.B.A. programs in the college-rich pioneer valley of western Massachusetts, our distinguishing factor is our Catholic identity and commitment to social justice.

Therefore, one of our models is the famously Catholic Notre Dame and its M.B.A. program. In addition to being considered one of the top graduate business programs in the country, it uses language in its course descriptions that reflects its religious values. Phrases like "ethical issues" "societal concerns" and  "global impact" are disseminated throughout the text.

Browsing through Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business web site, I became convinced that they were committed to cultivating ethical-minded businesss students who would go out and change the world. Imagine a society of business leaders who thought about the well being and safety of their clients and the impact of each decision they made. I think about local coffee-house owners that only buy fair-trade beans. I think of massive philanthropists like Newman's Own or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Other times, I'm not so optimistic. Such an idealistic world requires all business owners to behave in the same manner; including ethical concerns into their cost-benefit analyses. All it takes is one business to cut corners and produce a smaller retail price that pushes the more ethical entrepreneurs out on the streets. Then, the fair-trade buyers of the world with a savvy marketing team are really the only ones that survive.

I think of a successful insurance business. What makes them successful? Is it creating low competitive rates? Is it providing broad coverage? No, these things only get people in the door. What leads to long-term success is limiting risk. The insurance salesman that can spot a potential client and determine "you are likely to have an accident that is going to be an expensive claim," and deny that person coverage, is going to be a succesful salesman.

Is that morally rightous? No. Does it lower the risk pool and the rates for all the other clients? Of course. The insurance salesman that takes on that client for eithical reasons is going to run out of business. How can they survive in this economy?

And yet the Mendoza's undergraduate program is still rated number one in the country. Either the country's brightest minds are attracted to the humane aspects of its program or the creaters of the program itself feel their moral values are of great importance and necessary in today's world.

I wonder if the next generation of business leaders will carry this commitment to the dignity of all human persons with them as they shape our country. I wonder if this buisness model can be a successful one. More importantly, I wonder if the patrons of our country will support it.

I believe that wealth is a finite source. To bring others out of poverty is going to cost us and I'm not sure how much we are willing to give up.

The Puzzle Pieces of Our Lives

I recently left a job of four years in Virginia to move back to Massachusetts where I lived for 17 years of my life. I left behind low-paying employment, benefits that left much to be desired, an inferior health care system and an absence of family. I also left behind a low-stress work environment, low cost of living, four beautiful seasons and, as I slowly came to realize my last week, many close friends.

Roanoke Virginia never felt like home and my wife and I had trouble making friends. Most people were either older than us, had kids or both. For the most part, my wife and I spent our weekends watching movies, drinking coffee at Barnes & Noble and mostly keeping to ourselves -- and that was fine.

Which is why it was so astonishing to watch how emotional people became as the days of my departure approached. A woman who worked on another floor presented me with a going-away gift that she had personally bought for me. Our interactions typically consisted of her asking if I had made any coffee that morning.

The office manager in my department, on three separate occasions, mentioned how much she was going to miss me, emphasizing the sadness of the Monday following my exodus. When picking up a purchase order from her office I would make small talk, but rarely did our communications go any further.

My supervisor's eyes became misty when the department treated me to lunch and he handed me a card with an almost-too-generous amount of cash. He had much more trouble reigning in his tears as he shook my hand on the last day. I borrowed his truck when moving a year ago but, for the most part, we never hung out when the work day ended.

Being a Navy brat, I was living in my fourth state by the time I was four years old. I left a close group of friends behind to travel seven hours to college in western New York. Four years later, I left my college friends, mostly from Buffalo and Rochester, upon graduation. Then, I left everyone when I got married and moved 600 miles away to Virginia. By the time I moved back to Massachusetts, I was quite comfortable with the concept of leaving people for an indefinite amount of time.

What I've come to realize is that, no matter how detached I feel, I am a significant part of other people's lives. When I voluntarily remove myself from their lives it is going to affect them (and I'm sure some people were happy to see me removed from theirs) in some way.

One of my criticisms of Ayn Rand's objectivism is her concept of autonomy. She believed that man should be completely free to pursue his own happiness. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is just one way of looking at reality.

It fails to put man into context and acknowledge the complex web of strings which attaches him to his community. The Buddist doctrine of dependent origination states that "phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect." We are all tied together by various degrees of separation, whether we like it or not.

I do agree with  Rand's assessment that man's ultimate goal is his own happiness. However, it doesn't take a sage to realize that that goal is often impeded by the happiness of those around us.

Why Can't They Just Be Crazy?

The title is Chris Rock's response to the media's questioning of what role music and film might have played in the Columbine shootings. I like Rock's whole bit, but it recalls a paradigm shift in our culture: modernism to postmodernism, the individual to the environment, nature to nurture.

According to Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, there are four ways of looking at reality. Without delving too much into verbose explanations, I will just say that any particular view only paints a fraction of the picture.

If you haven't figured out the inspiration for this blog post then the words "Arizona" "Loughner" and "Sarah Palin crosshairs" probably have no meaning to you. Yes, I am taking about the Arizona shootings and the left-right blame game that quickly followed.

In addition to Jon Stewart and David Brooks' more eloquent takes on the tragedy, I was really moved by this piece from Robin Wright. Make no mistake, Loughner was crazy and it is hard to find a tie between him and the Glenn Beck's of the world. He made a conscious decision to start that terrible tragedy. This is the modern/nature/personal responsibility side of the argument. But Wright makes an interesting point.

"But it doesn’t matter who Loughner got the idea from or whether you consider it left wing or right wing. The point is that Americans who wildly depict other Americans as dark conspirators, as the enemy, are in fact increasing the chances, however marginally, that those Americans will be attacked."

There is no evidence that Loughner ever watched Glenn Beck's show, or even Fox News for that matter. People are certainly free to watch what they want and believe what they want. That, however, does not absolve Beck from the influences of his actions (I also hold the Keith Olbermann's of the world in the same regard).

Wright Continues:

"My own view is that if you decide to go kill a bunch of innocent people, it’s a pretty safe bet that you’re not a picture of mental health. But that doesn’t sever the link between you and the people who inspired you, or insulate them from responsibility. Glenn Beck knows that there are lots of unbalanced people out there, and that his message reaches some of them.

This doesn’t make him morally culpable for the way these people react to things he says that are true. It doesn’t even make him responsible for the things he says that are false but that he sincerely believes are true. But it does make him responsible for things he says that are false and concocted to mislead gullible people."
A year or so ago the following video began circulating around the internet.

In it, we see a young, chipper, gregarious Glenn Beck. So what has changed between that guy and the teary-eyed, big-government-bogeyman, conspiracy-theory pundit we see now? Not much. Glenn Beck is doing what he has always done; utilizing a personality that sells. After seeing this video, I changed my opinion on Beck. I don't think he's crazy or stupid or believes even half of what comes out of his mouth. He's just become a master of demagoguery who knows how to tell a mass market what they want to hear.

When Beck has as strong an influence as he does, he has to be aware of the effect of his incendiary words. What people choose to expose themselves to paints a part of their environment. Not the entire picture but certainly enough to wield an influence. This is the postmodern/nurture view of reality.

So maybe political pundits had nothing to do with any of this and Loughner killed despite the knowledge of their words. Despite his apparent mental illness, however,Loughner got his conspiracy ideas from somewhere. But the question we should be asking is: do pundits give people the tools, metaphorically speaking, to commit violent acts? Is preying on the unreasonable fears and biases of a fringe political group worth the fanfare if it pushes them to hateful crimes.

So why can't he just be crazy? Because his crazy is partly due to his environment. Because we are his environment. Because to ignore our influence, is to distance ourselves from his sins. That would be the convenient thing to do, but rarely is the convenient thing the right thing.

I Used to Think I Knew What the Civil War Was Fought Over

The nonpartisan fact-checker PolitiFact has debunked the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans PR rep Ray McBerry for his claim "'You’ll find blacks in almost every regiment throughout the South who fought right alongside white Southerners [during the Civil War]."

I always find these assertions that the Civil War was about state's rights and not slavery to be one of my favorite examples of cognitive dissonance. Wikipedia states that "cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously." People justify, blame and deny to reduce this dissonance.

The people who argue the state's rights theory (mostly white southerners) are conflicted. They know slavery is wrong (or at least don't want to admit otherwise) yet don't want to lend any credence to the north, bigger government, or anything that tramples upon their concept of freedom. Therefore they seek to convince themselves that the war was fought for some reason other than slavery, even going as far as to seek "evidence" that slaves fought alongside their masters.

State's rights certainly was a prominent factor for the Civil War. After all, it was the southern colonies' attempts at secession that began the war. If you stop looking there, it makes sense. If you look at this New York Times' piece revealing the language in some of the states' declaration of causes, it makes it harder to ignore the impact of slavery.

In fact, slavery is a very conflicting issue in America. It is a major supplier of dissonance to the two documents that (mostly conservative) Americans hold dear to their hearts: the Constitution and the Bible. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is completely tolerant of slavery. If we, as a society, agree that slavery is wrong (and if not, feel free to stop reading this blog), then we must accept one of three options regarding the Bible:

1.) God is wrong about slavery
2.) We are wrong slavery
3.) Whoever wrote the Bible is wrong about slavery

I've never conducted a survey but I can imagine that I'd be in the majority of people who accept the third option. This means that we have to pick and choose that in which we believe.

This also means that to accept the words of the framers of the Constitution as gospel (a phrase that loses a little weight given my previous conclusion) is to accept the tolerance of slavery. However, if we can acknowledge that there were flaws in the morality of the framers and that the world is an infinitely more complex place now than in the 1700s, we can begin to accept that we will need to be more pragmatic thinkers as we make our decisions.

Our past is certainly not something to be ignored. The framers of the Constitution were some of the most brilliant minds our country has ever seen. The words of the Bible provided civility and peace to societies and the minds of individuals that may have fallen into chaos. However, if we cannot transcend the wisdom of our ancestors and make the world a better place, we do them no good.

We also shouldn't berate those who exhibit this type of cognitive dissonance. As humans, we are all prone to this type of behavior in some fashion. What we should do is become more aware of these mental obstacles so that we can transcend them as we search for truth. Or wait for Christopher Nolan to make a movie about it.

Spin . . . Spin . . . Stumble . . . Cut to Black?!?

Unless you have seen Christoper Nolan's brain scratcher, Inception, my title will make no sense to you. In fact, the movie did not make complete sense to most viewers anyway.

Aside from all the dream-within-a-dream, planting-ideas, extracting-ideas, why-is-Michael-Caine-in-all-of-Nolan's-movies? scenarios involved with the film, the most talked about element was whether or not the top falls at the end. I've read many interpretations but have my own. I will cover all possibilities first.

Scenario 1: the top falls. Everything plays out exactly as it appears and we have a happy ending. We start to see the top wobble just before everything cuts to black to suggest that it will soon fall. The only other times we see the top spinning in a dream (Cobb at the table with the old Saito and in limbo with Mal) the top never wobbles and spins with perfect balance into seeming perpetuity. Therefore, this wobbling top is either an outlier or it is on its way to falling.

Scenario 2: the top never falls. Cobb is still in a dream and we begin to question how much of the movie was even real to begin with. If Nolan intended for it to fall, he would have shown us before ending the film so abruptly.

Scenario 3 per Salon.com's interpretation: it doesn't matter. Cobb does not care because he is home with his kids and all that is all that matters to him now. This is why he walks away from the top, his kids mean more to him then questioning reality. This seems to fly in the face of the last conversation Cobb had with Mal. He turned down a lifetime in limbo with Mal and his kids because he knew they were not real, just projections of his mind. He would never know all her "perfections and imperfections". Therefore, Cobb obviously does care whether he is truly dreaming or not when he sees his kids.

(My) Scenario 4: intentional ambiguity. Even Christopher Nolan does not know if it falls. The fact that people are even talking about proves his point: we are never certain what is real.

I am a big fan of both of Nolan's Batman movies, and I quite enjoyed The Prestige as well, but Inception and Memento are his two biggest achievements because they deal with the two biggest questions in philosophy; what is real and what is truth? There seems to be a little bit more closure in Memento but the viewer is still not quite sure what happened, what are facts and what are lies. The point is to stir up conversation and consider possibilities you might not have considered before.

If knowing that Nolan's plan to guide you to a coffee house chat about philosophy turns you off, then focus on the intrinsic features of the film. The snow scene seemed to be right out of a James Bond movie. The hotel scene with Arthur can be viewed repeatedly and still seem mind blowing. Watching Ariadne roll back a city scape like a tidal wave was startlingly impressive. There's a lot to enjoy about this movie beyond the writer/director's intentions.

The Difference Between Hyperbole and Abuse of the English Language

From an NPR piece about today's youth culture's addiction to technology:

"I don't go anywhere without my iPhone. It's literally glued to my face."

No, it is not!

If your phone was literally glued to your face, it would be stuck on your cheek and you would be having a very awkward conversation with a room full of surgeons.

Meta Writing

One of my favorite bloggers, Katya Andressen, has pledged to blog everyday throughout the year.

"Blogging forces you into a state of mental depth and rigor, and we can all do with more of that. It’s one thing to have a thought. It’s quite another to think it through and post it publicly. You have to work your brain harder."

In that vein, I want to use this blog for meta writing; writing about writing. I want to improve my craft as it is the core of my job. I use writing as a persuasive element to build relationships and ultimately solicit support for my employer.

I also want to spend more time writing creatively, as that was my first passion in the arts when I was in high school. I had brief bouts of furious fiction spewing from my keyboard that now I mostly think of as amateur drivel. Only within the last few years have I begun writing fiction, or more broadly, creative writing, again.

Other than "for my own enjoyment", I often struggle with the question: what is the purpose of fiction? I read on a forum that I frequent that fiction should never be didactic. I wholeheartedly disagree even if I do not have an answer as to what fiction "should" be.

When speaking about writing, my English Professor issued the following quote:

"There are three points of view
from which a writer can be considered:
he may be considered as a story teller,
as a teacher,
and as an enchanter.

A major writer combines these three -
storyteller, teacher, enchanter -

but it is the enchanter in him
that predominates
and makes him
a major writer."

Vladimir Naboko

The story teller is fairly easy to identify. You've got a protagonist, some conflict and a resolution. Hollywood is very good at this but rarely goes any further. As an example of a teacher, my professor mentioned the works of Michael Crichton. The story telling is still there, but the reader is learning something new and often complex.

The last aspect was never defined in that class. I think it is because enchantment cannot be quantified; the reader will know it when he sees it. Since it is up to each one of us to define enchantment, here is my elucidation: when you wake up in the middle of the night or first thing in the morning and your mind is so entrenched in a thought that you can tell it was thinking about it in your sleep. If that thought has been derived from literature, that my friends, is enchantment.


Often times literary snobs (I'm not casting stones, I openly self-identify as both a beer and coffee snob) get hung up on prose. It is quite a talent to give long, beautiful, descriptive, original imagery in a novel. I imagine that all enchanters are quite good at this. However, I see good writing as a pyramid of story teller, teacher, and enchanter. Each is not separate, but builds upon the lower level, transcends and includes its foundation. Some writers have wonderful prose that few others can match but they lack the compelling story telling capabilities that can complete them.

For me, the teaching element is necessary. I have a curious mind and if I'm not learning something new, I'm not interested. It doesn't have to be Michael Crichton explaining to me the complexities of dinosaur DNA. It could be Kurt Vonnegut describing the bombing of Dresden and the concept of fatalism as seen through the eyes of an alien species (The Tralfamadorians, in my opinion, were the crux of the novel. Not the war). We all have unique experiences to tell about and they should be included in every story so that the reader always has something new to learn.

Others simply want to be entertained and they need the refined wordsmith to do so. This thinking about thinking has gotten me to thinking, or meta meta thinking, so I guess I've done my job. I will write more on this later.