The Eggers Effect

I don't always read the foreword of a book, but when I do, I usually forget it.

There is one exception to an appropriately exceptional novel: Infinite Jest. The foreword (at least in my edition) was written by Dave Eggers. I don't remember everything but I remember his general point was that David Foster Wallace proved you could write high-brow literature and still include low-brow jokes. For example, there is an entire chapter in IJ about a fart.

Eggers comments on this because it fits his style of writing. While it might not be as high-brow as Wallace's (then again, whose writing is?), Eggers' work is a good example of well done postmodern literature. You can see this style prevalent in much of the work published by McSweeney's. You can see it in his Best American Nonrequired Reading series, even though he supposedly works with high school students to select submissions.

The most recent place I see this is in Grantland, perhaps the best writing on the internet. My favorite writer is Jason Concepcion. Not just because he answers all my Game of Thrones questions in his Ask the Maester column. His prose is brilliant, funny, and intellectual. In a Game of Thrones column, he refers to Mance Rayder as Colonel Kurtz. How many people got the Heart of Darkness reference? Or even the Apoclypse Now reference? I don't know, but I loved it.

All of these examples tell me one thing: comedy is smart. Humor often gets frowned upon because it's seen as not serious. Many of the rules of grammar and proper usage of words I only know because I devoured George Carlin books as an adolescent.

Sure, there is cheap comedy, which relies on swearing and getting kicked in the crotch. But good, quality humor comes from intelligent minds. Even if the jokes are sophomoric, you can be erudite and still appreciate them.

As Louis C.K. once said of a fart joke, "You don't have to be smart to laugh at it. But you have to be dumb not to."

The Slave of the Passions

"Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions." -David Hume

From the time of the ancient Greeks, we have valued reason, thinking with a clear mind, not jumping to conclusions. Rational thought is at the heart of science, it keeps our own biases out of the equation. To make an emotional decision is to choose poorly.

Plato's concept of rhetoric deploys three concepts: emotion, logic, and credibility. Or pathos, logos, and ethos. As someone who works in non profit, pathos is my best tool for soliciting donations.

But what if I told you pathos was the best way to turn away a pesky salesman? The salesman's pitch is all about logic. Whatever reason you give for not buying what they're selling, they already have a logical answer for. It usually works because people have trouble saying no to logic when it's staring them in the face. 

And it takes logic to trump logic. Emotion always fails. Well, not always.

"Mr. Scanlon, are you satisfied with the windows we installed?"

"Yes."

"Would you consider us again?"

"Yes."

"We have a special, no-commitment deal right now. I have an open spot tomorrow at 2. It's a free estimate so there is no commitment but the deal expires tomorrow."

I can't say that I'm not interested or the price is too high or any other logical reason because I've already said I like the current windows they installed for me and I would buy them again. He follows that question with an opportunity to buy them again.

So I countered with emotion.

I said I have several items I am currently paying off and thinking about taking on more debt is only going to make me stressed. There is no comeback because he cannot tell me how I feel. Reason trumped by passion.

Vantage Point

However tragic, the recent deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown have given some insight to the way people interpret information.

In the Brown case, we have a young black male who committed larceny, was insubordinate to a police officer, then attacked the police officer. Or, we have a black man who was profiled by a white cop who shot the black man even though he was clearly unarmed.

With Garner, we have a man with a criminal record who resisted arrest and required extra force to subdue because of his size. The officer applied a legal "hold" and Garner died because of a pre-existing condition. Or we have a man who was being hassled by cops, passively resisted, and was strangled to death even though he was unarmed and non threatening.

Cherry Picking

The more intriguing aspect comes when people identify different stories to support their view. I saw a conservative friend on Facebook post a Washington Times story about a black cop who shot an unarmed white teen. Instead of mourning the tragedy, he complained that the liberal media wasn't covering this because it didn't "fit their agenda."

People will choose to pay attention to whichever details complete their narrative and assign no value to contradictory elements. They will never be persuaded. The world is one big choose-your-own-adventure story.

A Humane Approach

I read about a white man in Florida who shot and stabbed his mother. Then he went Norman Reedus and fired an arrow into her ahead, apparently in case she "turned." The man was armed with a knife and resisting arrest when the police arrived, yet they managed to subdue him by using a stun gun. Why can't we, as a society, be looking for ways to make this type of arrest the norm rather than gun shots and choke holds?

The weakest argument is the "he was asking for it" narrative. It's the same argument that shifts blame to the rape victim for being flirty and dressing too promiscuously. Certainly, if Garner and Brown had been compliant it is very likely they would both be alive now. But if we can agree that rape is categorically wrong, why can't we agree the killing an unarmed, non-threatening man is categorically wrong (I realize the term "non threatening" may or may not apply to Brown based on whose testimony you read. But the passive Garner was evident to anyone with a YouTube account)?

Effective Change

If we want change, the worst thing we can do is make this about race. We have effectively turned racism into a dirty word. It still exits, but at the subconscious level. Most people do not consider themselves racists, even if their actions say otherwise. So to accuse someone of racism puts them on the defensive, turning the ordeal into an argument that will never settle.

We're more likely to see change if we address issues like the police union protecting bad cops, who are a small minority of the entire force. Or fixing the legislative system that treats cops differently than the rest of us. There are good cops out there and it's not fair to lump them in with those who abuse power.

I once read about the folly of the term "black-on-black crime." It's just crime. Likewise, we need the conversation to be about the lives of the innocent. Were Garner and Brown guilty of misdemeanors? Yes, but did they deserve to die?

Ice Bucket Challenges and the Jackass Complex

At the end of every episode of Jackass, there was a message requesting viewers not "send us videos of you being jackasses." It was clearly a retroactive request, since the show prompted America's youth to find other clever ways to hurt and humiliate themselves on camera and somehow thought Johnny Knoxville wanted to see them. Jackass wanted none of the responsibility for the injuries and deaths that would ensue, so the disclaimer went up.

I think about this phenomenon of physical abuse going viral because that is what has made the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge so successful. Facebook is the perfect platform for sharing jackassery. A bucket of ice has nothing to do with Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. But it doesn't matter. If you tell someone to film themselves being a jackass, then dare their friends to match them, you have yourself a viral campaign.

When Murphy's Law is updated to the twenty-first century, it will include the maxim: when anything on the internet becomes too popular, too fast, it will receive harsh backlash. We've already seen the Huffington Post criticize those who participate without donating and even a satirical column about California fining residents for wasting water. Not to mention deaths linked to the challenge.

The fact that the connection between ice and ALS was almost non existent doesn't matter. The campaign worked. Not only with money but with awareness. Everyone with a Facebook account has at least heard of ALS. And it never seemed to get old watching a different friend dump freezing water on themselves so it never got too repetitive hearing about it.

The challenge is the ultimate humblebrag. It's both ostentatious (Look at me! I'm filming myself and helping a charity!) and self-deprecating (I'm humiliating myself by dumping ice-cold water all over me). But mostly it worked because it tapped into our frat boy/hazing nature and gave us a reason to act like jackasses.

Writing For Everyone

My creative writing professor used to say: "We don't write about ideas. We write at ideas."

It took me a while to really get what he meant. When you write at ideas, you never quite get there because the topics are ineffable. They transcend language. This is the challenge good writers take.

Although I love creative writing, I also worry that we're not doing enough to teach students hirable skills.

Doing a good job of writing at ideas earns the respect of other writers, editors and publishers. Doing a good job of writing about ideas earns you a paycheck. More people read Buzzfeed than McSweeney's. This is the sad truth.

Until recently, I thought the two styles were mutually exclusive.

I was reading ESPN the Magazine recently. Whenever I love the writing of a particular column, I flip back to see who wrote it. More often than not, it's Tim Keown. I love his writing. Not because his reporting unearths astounding facts or because he uses sabermeterics to explain the success of Mark Buerhle. He just has a great way of making me care about his subjects, which seems so rare in sports writing.

That's when I realized: Tim Keown writes about sports. He writes at humanity.

I think both are necessary even though I think most writers, even successful ones, choose only one. It should be about nourishing your mind and your soul.

Creative Tension and Jedi Mindtrickery

David Brooks wrote an interesting column about creative tension. He opens with an example of the tension between John Lennon and Paul McCartney and how it led to some of The Beatles' best work. This made my ego think: Does David Brooks read my blog. (Of course not. Right?)

Later in the column he mentions how we should strive to hold what Roger Martin calls "the opposable mind — the ability to hold two opposing ideas at the same time."

Everything I know about psychology tells me that the mind does not like this, it will actively work to reduce the dissonance. But I always think of it operating on the subconscious level, never at the conscious level where it will actually provide clarity. Interesting.

I was recently the victim of such dissonance when a salesman Jedi mind-tricked me. The gentleman was giving his pitch about why his windows are the greatest. Before he got to prices, he asked me to complete a brief survey just to evaluate his own performance.

I was asked to grade on a scale of one to five what I thought of the quality of the windows, what I thought of his presentation, and what I thought of him. With the exception of sociopaths, most people are generally nice to guests in their house. He spent a lot of time talking about his windows and I don't want to tell him they're not that great. (I actually still think they're great windows). I was genial and gave him good grades.

When we moved on to pricing, it was out of my range. "Do you think they're worth the money?" he asked. Subconsciously, of course I did. I had already given them a five out of five. I couldn't say I didn't want the windows and consider them great windows at the same time – those are two opposable ideas. Obi Wan Salesman had already set my mind in the path of wanting the windows without even talking about purchasing them.

I got him to come down on the price rather significantly but I still wonder what would have happened if the survey was never a part of his pitch. That one move planted the seed, predisposing me to wanting the windows before I had even made up my mind because I was unable to hold two opposable ideas at the same time: I want to be nice to you vs. I don't want to buy your high-end windows.

How to Reduce Rather than Avoid Mass Shootings

I can't make up my mind about guns. I can't even call the issue gun control or gun rights because whichever phrase you choose automatically places you in one camp.  My friend once said, "I would give up my right to own a firearm if it brought back just one of those kids from Newtown." I'll start there.

I do not own a firearm, but I am open to the possibility. Black bears have been spotted in suburban neighborhoods near my home recently. I have two dogs and a young child, I cannot think of a better way to protect my family than a firearm. I do not hunt, but my wife's family does. I will never understand how valuable hunting is to the culture of rural Pennsylvania, but I imagine that taking it away would remove a limb of their identity. There are good reasons for guns being legal. Here are some bad ones:

• The second amendment ensures my protection against a tyrannical government. (The government has bombs, flame throwers, and thousands of well-trained men and women. If they want to take your house, your assault rifle isn't going to stop them.)
• If you outlaw guns, people will just use knives. (You know what's a great defense against a knife? Two working legs. I can outrun a knife, I can't outrun a bullet. You don't hear about too many drive-by knivings. I understand the logic behind this, but if a few knivings replace lots of shootings, that's a win.)
• Outlawing guns won't stop bad people from using them. (As Jon Stewart once said, murder is illegal and people do it anyway. That doesn't mean we make murder legal.)

With any decision, we have to look through the cost/benefit analysis lens. There are serious costs to outlawing guns all together, so the benefits need to be worth it. If the benefit were a definitive "no more shootings," the cost is absolutely worth it. But I think even the most radical gun control advocate knows that isn't true. There have been so many guns disseminated in the country for so many years you could never track them down and destroy them. Comparing us to another country's gun control success is futile because we are so different. But that doesn't have to be the end of the conversation.

As one of my brother's friends pointed out on Facebook, after the Boston bombings, no one blamed the bomb. So why after shootings do we blame the gun? Is he right? What was so different about the bombing?

Bombings are rare because bombs are illegal and difficult to make for the average sufferer of mental health. The question we have to ask is: can we make shootings as rare as bombings?

John Kerry was once asked how to end terrorism. He responded that you can never really end terrorism, you try to contain it. There have been 74 shootings since Newtown. How many of those could have been prevented with some type of legislation: better mental health access, gun owner bracelets, banning assault rifles or the amount of gun/ammo a person can own? I know the answer is not all 74, because a percentage of that group is industrious enough to take the steps to ensure they take another's life.

Let's look at banning the assault rifle. The less ammo Adam Lanza had, the less shots he would have fired, the less children he would have hit. He'd still be a monstrous killer, but legislation would have reduced the number of dead children. We can't fix stupid, but can we contain it?

Lanza took his mother's weapons; he never had to buy any. So any gun legislation will take a while to impact the next generation of mass shootings, but the idea is to find ways to crowd out the on-the-fence killer. A certain percentage of those 74 shooters were always going to find a way; that's the world we live in. Maybe we should focus on what we can contain.