You're Not Really That Exceptional

Sadly, neither am I. At least not in the aggregate.

Back when I was teaching college political science and psychology, one of the toughest concepts for my students to grasp was polling. I understood the struggle, because I, too, always thought, “Hey, they didn’t ask me! My views don’t fit neatly into those little check boxes, those or yes/no questions. No way whoever is running this show can really know what I think.”

That is, of course, true, but only in a narrow sense, because, as much as we hate to admit it, we actually all do fit into the big picture snapshot that polls and surveys are designed to reveal. And we fit into categories that are generally accurate. It’s why Facebook scored $6.4 billion in advertising – in the second quarter of 2016! (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/personal-data-points-that-facebook-uses-to-target-ads-to/article_749693b2-21a5-5f59-91e3-8f2b1a8a4842.html)

In other words, we’re not really that special, or unique. Not in the big picture.

We can (try to) deny it. If we’re honest with ourselves, we deny it every day. I don’t need that flu shot, I won’t get sick. My son won’t get a concussion playing football, only the other kids on the team. I don’t need to wear a seat belt, or helmet, or take any other safety precautions. I don’t have to not only plan for but work toward retirement; I’ll just keep working, because I won’t get old or sick. I won’t get laid off; my job is safe. I’m objective about politics, it’s the other guys who are biased.

Convenient fantasies, all of them. Of course generalizations (stereotypes, if you will) are just that and relying on them to make a judgment about any individual has less chance of success than picking red or black at the roulette wheel. But like it or not, there is truth in those generalizations and the best we can do is play the odds. Constantly hoping for long shots is a sucker’s game and keeps the odds-makers and most competent casino owners in business.

Instead, we continue to be delusional. Most of us think we are above average drivers, a statistical impossibility, which means that many of the rest of you are wrong about that belief (and also means I do not let Carolyn edit my pieces for accuracy). Big pharma counts on the prevailing belief that if a treatment is pricey people believe that they will get better results. Most people claim to be above average negotiators, which may help explain why Donald Trump overpaid for so much of his property in Atlantic City that he had to file bankruptcy (according to {allegedly} objective sources), and why so many of us also think we got a great deal on that car!

Can you be successful without degrees? Of course. We all know people. But the odds say that the better educated you are the more likely it is you will have economic stability. There’s a reason the average high school graduate earns more than dropouts, but less than community college graduates and even less than college graduates. And no matter how you define average, your odds improve with more education. I know better than most (or is that delusion, too?) that one can succeed without those pieces of paper, but defying the odds is cause for celebration, not a life strategy.

Can you ignore the warnings on tobacco products? Of course. My Uncle Orville smoked all his long life (just an example; I don’t have an Uncle Orville, although I did have an Uncle Ellard, but I don’t remember if he smoked or not). Will regular exercise combined with aware diet choices increase the chances of living longer? Of course, although you might be the exception; but I’d suggest you drop those pounds and limit your visits to Hardee’s (for numerous reasons, mostly their lascivious commercials). Long term success is about playing the odds and not thinking you’re somehow so exceptional that you can beat the long ones.

We may not like it, but those actuaries know what they’re talking about, which is why your teenage son pays higher car insurance premiums than your daughter and less than you or your adult children, why smokers die younger, why we work to keep drunks off the roads. It’s all about the odds. There is irony that many of those who did beat the odds in one way or another, who overcame whatever “handicapping conditions” of their childhood or education presented themselves, while seeing themselves as exceptional, are so often impatient with everyone else, the somehow less exceptional, who are unable to follow that same pathway to success.

Selective perception (seeing and hearing what we already believe, not the opposite) is only an attribute of others, not ourselves. It is why Karl Rove refused to believe the polls in 2012, even as results that continued to prove him wrong rolled in. There is no silent majority. If polls say your view is a minority one, then it almost certainly is, despite the fact that almost all your friends and people you know agree with you, and your posts get lots of “likes” on Facebook.

So you want to “blow up the system” or support some kind of revolution? Be careful what you wish for. There will be casualties, there will be collateral damage that results, and the odds are that the well-insulated (read, affluent) have a better chance than you of not being one of them. What makes you think that you will somehow have more power or status in the new order than the old? Before you vote to blow up the system, make sure you truly understand what stake you have in the old one, no matter how corrupt you want to think it is (or may even be). I’m guessing it’s at least a little and likely a lot more than you realize.

You’re not that special. Neither am I. 

DT vs. BC

A lot of people are trying to defend Donald Trump by comparing him to Bill Clinton. I would suggest that if the best defense you can muster is to claim that someone else is as bad or worse, that is a pretty hollow strategy. However, in that I wouldn’t want any woman I cared about near either one of them, they do share at least that commonality. I think they are (were? – can people change? And if you argue that Mr. Trump can change, can Mr. Clinton? Can criminals?) both sexual predators, but in very different, and important, ways. Thus, I would suggest there is a significant difference between the two. I admit that this is based on only partial evidence, the recent release of the hot-mic tape.

Some want to excuse Mr. Trump’s offensive language by suggesting that “all guys talk like this when they’re alone [occasionally implying, at least, if they’re real men].” I am not claiming “real man” status for myself (because, IMO, if you have to claim it, like being cool, there is already cause for doubt], but I know too many real men who don’t, would never, talk like that to or about women.

And while I did not serve in the military, I did live in a frat house at an all-male college. Of course I heard talk like this, but not from anything like all or even a majority of my reprobate fraternity brothers. In fact, that all-male atmosphere was one reason why that fine institution (named for Alexander Hamilton while he was still alive and before he was cool) was not a good fit for me.

You see, I like women. I enjoy their company. Many are my friends. My first thought is never, has never been, of them as potential sex objects. No, I, and many men like me, think of them as people first. I never referred to (or even thought about) women as p***y, or piece of ***, and have never used the c-word to refer to any woman. If you cannot make that same claim, then you might want to consider that you just might have at least some part of your brain that is sexist.

And I think that may be the difference between Clinton and Trump. (Now I have no inside information about how Clinton talked or talks around his buddies, but this is America, and like Matt Drudge I don’t need real facts to back up my opinions, on either candidates or hurricanes.) Mr. Trump revealed himself in that tape. I think Clinton fits more into the category explored in the Tom Petty song, “The Man Who Loves Women.”

It seems to me that Clinton probably had, and may still have, for all I know, the sexual loyalty of a dog in heat. Because he was more than happy to take advantage of and manipulate the women upon whom he cast his perpetually roving eye, he opened himself up to legitimate accusations. And he certainly knows how to manipulate language and the legal system, as well, if we are to give credence to old allegations of sexual assault. But I don’t think he sank to the level of Mr. Trump’s crudity. I don’t see him as sexist or misogynistic.

Am I seeing what I want? Maybe. Selective perception isn’t confined to any group or person. However, I would suggest that Secretary Clinton is not to blame for whatever transgressions he might have been guilty of, just because she wanted to believe what worked best for her and her family. That, perhaps more than anything else about her, makes her like most of the rest of us.

It's Time to Decide

What do you do when faced with a decision and you feel like there are no good choices, only some less than others.

It is a conundrum, and this year, more so than any in recent memory, is an even greater challenge. I have put off the decision for as long as possible, hoping a more palatable choice would emerge.

But decide I have. And I’m ready to announce my decision. I am also resisting peer pressure as I reveal my choice.

Some of you will perhaps cheer, others jeer. Some will even hate and deride my choice, perhaps post nasty or insulting memes of ridicule.

I’ve given this a fair amount of thought, although, I confess, I haven’t listened to the media comment or even watched any of the confrontations so far. I only ask that even if my choice isn’t yours, you’ll try to treat me with the same respect with which I will treat you, even if you are a Cubs fan.

Go Nationals!

What, you thought I was talking something as trivial as politics?

 

Annual Labor Day Post

Who will advocate for workers? The bigger the business, the less connected to the workers management becomes. And let’s recognize that the goal of a business is not to take care of workers but the investors (whether public or private); if that goal comes at the expense of workers, well, there are more workers out there, right? 

On my way out the door at Hancock, I was informed by the (then) superintendent, “I’ve got people who can do what you do.” I believe that was shortsighted and, in fact, inaccurate on more than one level. But then he didn’t really know what I brought to the party (honestly, it was a lot more than chips and dip, if I do say so myself) and building management only pretended to stand up for me while actually throwing me under the proverbial bus. But that seems the attitude of modern management in all fields.

(Note, as disappointing and hurtful as this was, it turns out they did me a favor, if perhaps not those students and teachers I might have benefitted by staying. But I landed in a great place to end (most of) my career, my four fantastic final years at Schechter/Mirowitz.)

So, in honor of Labor Day, I’m going to share a few paragraphs from previous articles on the topic:

From 2011:

• Child labor laws

• 40-hour work week

• Overtime

• Workmen's Compensation

• Non-discriminatory hiring practices

• Workplace safety laws

• Unemployment compensation

• Paid vacations

• Retirement pensions

This is just a partial list of gains for workers granted voluntarily through the generosity of businesses concerned for their employees. Oh, wait, no, these things that we now define as givens for a good job came as the result of decades of struggle by organized groups of workers known as unions.

From 2013:

I’ve previously written about the debt that most Americans, with the possible exception of those few whose families have always enjoyed prosperity, owe to labor unions. The growth of the middle class in the United States clearly parallels the growth of labor unions. The shrinking number of middle class households of the last couple decades follows that same trend of declining union households. While I understand the dangers of equating causation with correlation, I find the trend disturbing. I also find the charges of class warfare disingenuous, at best. I find it ironic that those concerns were nowhere to be found as the middle class shrank and income disparity grew, as unions were assaulted and vilified while CEOs saw their pay and prestige grow explosively.

I think our founding fathers were on the right track when they incorporated a system of checks and balances into our governance, trying to establish a system whereby no one person, group or branch was able to accumulate too much power. I further believe that checks and balances must also apply to our economic system, and that unions are a key check to the unbridled power of corporations (people though they may be). Government also has a role, both as a defender of the checkers (both unions and businesses) and as an enforcer/check itself.