My mom says that "the only person you should worry about is yourself." We will explore the validity of this statement by examining the opinion piece by Elite Daily titled: The Only Person You Should Worry About it Yourself.
According to Elite Daily, "you have to be a little selfish," worrying about yourself, because in the end, "no one really cares about you except yourself." If you turn the stakes dial to 10 you will realize this is the logic that makes suicide okay. No one cares about you so you can just stop (as they say). The only reason people spend time with you is because they are insecure and trying to "keep in good graces with the people around them." I think there are other reasons - maybe they enjoy your company? Man. This article. My mom has never said no one really cares about you except yourself - just putting that out there.
Shockingly this is in the motivation section of Elite Daily. WTF?! It's not really motivating to learn that no one cares about you.
The article goes on to say that we spend our time and energy in people and reap no reward. No reward - Wow! What a misanthropic thing to say. They justify this idea by saying that worrying about others makes their problems our problems. So this is an important idea to think about though. I think you should be empathetic to the plight of others; but not so empathetic that you're carrying around their emotional baggage. How you balance that - I don't know.
"We constantly compare ourselves to other people - yet that only make us feel worse about ourselves and discourages us." Comparing ourselves to other people is competition - and competition is a good thing! Competition leads to better outcomes, not worse. iPhones wouldn't be here had the Palm Treo not sucked. We wouldn't have sent a man to the moon without Soviet competition. The 4-minute mile was impossible to break until competition allowed us to realize it could be broken. Competition fuels improvement and encourages us to do more. If we didn't compete with other people humanity would suck.
I think this leads to a tangential discussion about whether it's okay to compare people. I think you have to or there would be no standards. Think about what would happen if teaches stopped comparing the work of students. There would be no standards - all students would receive A's for their work - regardless of how shitty it was. You have to compare yourself to others to improve. And to go on a wider tangent, this is why I hate abstract art - it has no standards.
This philosophy makes little sense to me. This article made no sense.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Monday, March 20, 2017
Highway through the Danger Zone
Today we'll be musing about re-engineering sports to make them more enjoyable to watch. I stumbled upon this topic watching March Madness. I initially wondered about the origins of the three point shot. I asked my mom about it and she told me when she was in high school, in the late 1970's, the 3 point shot was still debated. After doing some research, I learned that the NBA only adopted the 3-point shot in 1979, after it was experimented with by the ABA (American Basketball Association). It wasn't until 1986 and '87 that the 3 point shot was universal in NCAA and high school basketball. Holy shit! That's pretty recent!
So, did the invention of the 3-point shot make the game better? Doing some more research, before the 3-point shot was implemented, players would always drive the ball to the hoop before taking a shot. This meant that size was always important in matchups. But once the 3-point shot was implemented, smaller teams had a better chance. It made the teams possible more varied. The game also became more of a "full-court" game. This is one example of a game that has been improved by re-engineering.
Before we talk about how to improve soccer, let's first nail down what factors make a sports game entertaining. The factors: strong competition, players indebted to winning, a sense of community between spectators and team, and perhaps the scoring frequency.
A sports game is entertaining when there is strong competition. Strong competition leads to amazing plays. When players are indebted to winning - when the competitors have their "skin-in-the-game." If the players don't care about winning - it's not fun to watch. When spectators have a strong sense of belonging with their team. When the game is played on the whole field leading to less downtime and more variability of games. And although this is more technical, I think the frequency of the scoring has something to do with it. If scoring is frequent, it becomes less exciting when it happens. If scoring is infrequent, there is more downtime which makes the game more boring.
So, now that we've identified some factors, or target specifications, let's see if we can improve a game like soccer, from the American perspective. I specify from the American perspective because I know that the enjoyment of sports is also cultural and my perspective is American.
Soccer:
The scoring is infrequent and most of the plays that create a score happens it happens near the goal. We can add a 2 point line, this would spread out the game-play and make distance skills more valuable. We can make the players more indebted to the game by creating a penalty when the other team scores. In all seriousness, the players can wear bracelets that deliver shocks when the other team scores like TASERS. This is negative feedback - its like training a dog. The player receives this stimulus and they try harder. Another way to eliminate the downtime and make scoring more frequent would be to move the goals closer together. The ball is now in the "danger-zone" more often. Hence the title.
So, did the invention of the 3-point shot make the game better? Doing some more research, before the 3-point shot was implemented, players would always drive the ball to the hoop before taking a shot. This meant that size was always important in matchups. But once the 3-point shot was implemented, smaller teams had a better chance. It made the teams possible more varied. The game also became more of a "full-court" game. This is one example of a game that has been improved by re-engineering.
Before we talk about how to improve soccer, let's first nail down what factors make a sports game entertaining. The factors: strong competition, players indebted to winning, a sense of community between spectators and team, and perhaps the scoring frequency.
A sports game is entertaining when there is strong competition. Strong competition leads to amazing plays. When players are indebted to winning - when the competitors have their "skin-in-the-game." If the players don't care about winning - it's not fun to watch. When spectators have a strong sense of belonging with their team. When the game is played on the whole field leading to less downtime and more variability of games. And although this is more technical, I think the frequency of the scoring has something to do with it. If scoring is frequent, it becomes less exciting when it happens. If scoring is infrequent, there is more downtime which makes the game more boring.
So, now that we've identified some factors, or target specifications, let's see if we can improve a game like soccer, from the American perspective. I specify from the American perspective because I know that the enjoyment of sports is also cultural and my perspective is American.
Soccer:
The scoring is infrequent and most of the plays that create a score happens it happens near the goal. We can add a 2 point line, this would spread out the game-play and make distance skills more valuable. We can make the players more indebted to the game by creating a penalty when the other team scores. In all seriousness, the players can wear bracelets that deliver shocks when the other team scores like TASERS. This is negative feedback - its like training a dog. The player receives this stimulus and they try harder. Another way to eliminate the downtime and make scoring more frequent would be to move the goals closer together. The ball is now in the "danger-zone" more often. Hence the title.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Social Security - Happiness Eroder?
The idea for this blog is to get a feeling for how Social
Security works, how much money people receive from Social Security, an analysis
of its effectiveness, figuring out if it ends up hurting or helping the US
citizens.
There
are two types of Social Security Insurance programs: “Old-age and Survivors
Insurance” and “Disability Insurance.” There are currently 10.8 million
Americans on “Disability Insurance,” or 3.3% of the U.S. population. There are
currently 49.8 million Americans on “Old-age and Survivors Insurance,” 15.3% of
the U.S. population.
What
is the purpose of Social Security Insurance?
The
basic purpose of SSI is to assure a minimum level of income to people who are
aged, blind, or disabled and who have limited income and resources (Social Security Administration)
The question I’ll be asking in this blog is whether having Social Security programs, specifically OAS leads to a populace unprepared for the financial implications of retirement. As such, for
this blog, I’ll focus on OAS because it is the major source of income for 90%
of individuals over 65.
One qualifies for Old-age and Survivors Insurance if:
- Insured for benefits
- Enough credits from earnings (1 credit for each $670 in earnings)
- It takes about 40 credits to qualify
- One can earn a maximum of 4 credits per year
NOTE: If you make money above a certain threshold, your benefits can be completely withheld.
There
are currently 49.8 million Americans on “Old-age and Survivors Insurance,” 15.3%
of the U.S. population. The average monthly payout from OASI is $1,348 per
month. This is around $16,000 per year. About 50% of individuals are married between ages 65 and death. This means the income strictly from OASI for half of the population over 65 is $16,000 and the other half is $32,000. For individuals and partners - these numbers are above the poverty line. I think this is qualifies as a "minimum level of income" - the SSA is meeting its purpose, despite its incredible vagueness. $1 could be a minimum income level.
The real question of this blog is whether having SS leads to a population unprepared for the financial implications of retirement. SS may create an illusion that retirement is easy and attainable without any preparations, the idea that SS is a safety net. From my research I have determined that this illusion has not yet been explored by qualified scholars.
My intuition would tell me that if the safety net of Social security, Americans would begin to make more financially sound decisions and become more responsible with their money. Perhaps people would begin investing and saving at a young age for the long term, rather than beginning to save and invest at the ripe age of 40. I would be interested in seeing if this intuition is correct or incorrect.
My intuition would tell me that if the safety net of Social security, Americans would begin to make more financially sound decisions and become more responsible with their money. Perhaps people would begin investing and saving at a young age for the long term, rather than beginning to save and invest at the ripe age of 40. I would be interested in seeing if this intuition is correct or incorrect.
Saturday, March 4, 2017
PC: What's the hubub?
Before the 90's the usage of the term politically correct was sparse. However, its usage increased after a speech by George H.W. Bush in 1991 for the University of Michigan commencement address. He began his address by talking about the strength of the United States coming from freedom. The freedom to do provided by free enterprise. It continued like this:
The first modern-use of the term came from the anthology published in 1970 by Tony Cade Bambara titled The Black Woman. This is a black feminist set of works. In The Black Woman she writes:
According to Nexis, a news organization, in 1990, there were 70 uses of political correct. However, in 1991 there were 1532 uses of political correct. And these uses have continued to increase since then.
What does it look like today?
Well institutions like Penn State have started campaigns to reduce the use of this non-PC language.
We are being discouraged by signs in residence halls of saying words like crazy, insane, ghetto because they could hurt someone's feelings.
Penn State has developed free speech zones, although they have existed for some time now. This is absurd. Every individual has freedom of expression through the first amendment of the U.S. constitution. There shouldn't be zones. Tt should be a free speech campus. The only speech that should be barred is speech that directly incites violence. Hate speech is allowed by law as long as it doesn't incite violence. You're allowed by law to hurt peoples' feelings - by law. Any institution that tries to control anyone's word-choice should be liable to be sued.
"But the power to create also rests on other freedoms, especially the freedom -- and I think about that right now -- to think and speak one's mind. [Applause] You see -- thank you. The freedom -- I had this written into the speech, and I didn't even know these guys were going to be here.
No, but seriously, the freedom to speak one's mind -- that may be the most fundamental and deeply revered of all our liberties. Americans, to debate, to say what we think -- because, you see, it separates good ideas from bad. It defines and cultivates the diversity upon which our national greatness rests. It tears off the blinders of ignorance and prejudice and lets us move on to greater things.
Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under assault throughout the United States, including on some college campuses. The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits."So where did this term come from? Let's get into to that:
The first modern-use of the term came from the anthology published in 1970 by Tony Cade Bambara titled The Black Woman. This is a black feminist set of works. In The Black Woman she writes:
". . . a man cannot be politically correct and a chauvinist too."Before this, the use of the term, it was used by socialists to argue against Communism. Politically correct was used at that time referring to the politically correct viewpoints the USSR gave to its citizens.
According to Nexis, a news organization, in 1990, there were 70 uses of political correct. However, in 1991 there were 1532 uses of political correct. And these uses have continued to increase since then.
What does it look like today?
Well institutions like Penn State have started campaigns to reduce the use of this non-PC language.
We are being discouraged by signs in residence halls of saying words like crazy, insane, ghetto because they could hurt someone's feelings.
Penn State has developed free speech zones, although they have existed for some time now. This is absurd. Every individual has freedom of expression through the first amendment of the U.S. constitution. There shouldn't be zones. Tt should be a free speech campus. The only speech that should be barred is speech that directly incites violence. Hate speech is allowed by law as long as it doesn't incite violence. You're allowed by law to hurt peoples' feelings - by law. Any institution that tries to control anyone's word-choice should be liable to be sued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)