A little of this … a little of that

Category: leadership

  • Visibility, connections, purpose, “happiness”

    Quick shout-out to the Merriam-Webster word of the day for August 1, 2021 – pulchritude.

    English has a large number of words – for any number of reasons that I won’t go on about here. “Pulchritude” comes into the language via the Latin adjective “pulcher” which means “beautiful.”

    The “ch” is pronounced as a “k”/”hard c” – so it was both a new word for me, and kind of a “harsh” sounding word for “beautiful”/comeliness

    Visibility … and beauty
    If we want to pick some nits – then “beauty” and/or “comeliness” don’t always equal “attraction” (especially “sexual attraction” in human beings)

    e.g. imagine a set of portraits/pictures of people of varying “beauty.” Then imagine that the pictures fall into three general categories – at one end are “extremely physically beautiful” people at the other end the “extremely physically ugly” – and in the middle something “in between” (whatever you want to call that group – “average”/”normal”/whatever).

    Then imagine we ask a sufficiently large group of people to arrange the pictures from one extreme to the other. There would be some variance within the categories, but IN GENERAL people would arrange the pictures into the same three general categories.

    Everyone (well, a theoretical “statistical everybody” – but not 100%) would agree that one group is “extremely good looking” that another group was “extremely bad looking” and then there is a group in between.

    SO there can be said to be an societally accepted objective perception of beauty (there is a classic Twilight Zone episode that illustrates what I’m on about).

    Obviously those standards tend to change over time – but it has tended to be mostly in the “body” that the perception of beauty has changed. e.g. a “pretty face” back in 1800 would still be considered a “pretty face” today, but the “beautiful body” in 1800 would probably be considered “plump” today.

    Same idea with modern cultural differences – with the “western world” having a different (thinner, more athletic) perception of “female body beauty” than the “eastern world” – but that isn’t the point I’m going for today.

    Visibility … and Attractiveness
    Ok, so we have our sorted group of pictures. Now we might ask participants which group they would place themselves. Which would (probably) give us a clue as to what that person finds “physically attractive.”

    BUT human beings are complex emotional beings – so asking our imaginary participants to arrange the groups according to “dating/relationship” potential becomes interesting.

    That is “interesting” as in “not predictable” – this is where individual life experience becomes a factor. To cut to the chase – “fidelity” becomes a lurking variable.

    Make eye contact, smile …
    I could comment further on the “fidelity” thing – but it is probably a “two drink” discussion 😉 – so we are moving on

    Imagine you walk into a “social gathering of people” and don’t recognize anyone. If you want to meet new people and/or “network” then try to make eye contact with folks, and then smile. If they smile back – then head in their direction.

    Of course if you don’t want to be there in the first place, and want to avoid meeting anyone, then avoid eye contact at all cost, and if you accidently make eye contact – frown and look away quickly.

    Oh, and if you make eye contact and smile – and the other person runs away screaming (and then they gather the townsfolk with pitchforks and torches and start yelling “kill the monster!”) – you might be at the wrong “social gathering” — c’est la vie

    Connections …
    The underlying “non verbal communication” with the “eye contact THEN smile” is simply that “eye contact” means they “see” you and the “smile” means they “accept you” in some form.

    Obviously the “smile” needs to be interpreted as well – i.e. a short smile, and quick head turn is also a “leave me alone” gesture (but not an outright “go away”).

    A larger smile and holding eye contact for a short time might be the equivalent of “Hi, we don’t know each other but come on ever and join the conversation.”

    A big smile, laugh, and a head-nod might equal “the party is over here – everyone is welcome.”

    Then you have that rom com/musical/mythical “Some Enchanted Evening” moment – where two people “find each other” – umm, which works best if the two happen to share the same value system, but moving on …

    All of these are examples of the basic human need/desire to be “truly visible” to some extent. i.e. the idea that “we ‘see’ each other and ‘approve’/’enjoy’/’appreciate’/value what we ‘see’”

    Note that this doesn’t have to be a “sexual”/romantic concept – imagine the feeling of relief when you are at that gathering (where you don’t recognize anyone) and you see an “old friend” who is happy to see you and eagerly greets you …

    Purpose …
    I am a long time “amateur photographer” – I get the urge to “go take pictures” every once in a while. I have noticed that as I’ve become “more experienced” that urge to “go take pics” comes less and less often. Which is probably normal with any “hobby”

    ANYWAY, in an online forum the question came up about the “need” to publicly post photographs. For me the answer is “it depends” on “why” you took the pics.

    Did you take the pics to share an experience? then posting them online is an easy way to accomplish that purpose.

    Maybe it is like asking a “chef” if they NEED someone to eat the meal they just prepared. At one level, it doesn’t matter to the “chef” one way or the other, but still there is a need to be “appreciated” (“visible”) and have a “productive purpose.”

    I imagine there is someone out there that might spend all day preparing a meal – and then throw the meal away, untasted, untouched, unappreciated – but I also imagine that person as being profoundly unhappy

    Back to the online photos – IF the photographer is proud of the work they have done, then publicly posting thee pics shouldn’t negatively impact the photographer.

    Maybe the concept I’m going for is in Kipling’s “If”

    If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;   
        If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;   
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
        And treat those two impostors just the same;   
    If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
        Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
        And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46473/if—

    i.e. “external approval” is always nice but never “necessary” to your “happiness”

    Those wacky Greeks
    To the “ancient Greeks” the ultimate “ironic punishment” probably included a sense of “pointlessness” – Sisyphus comes to mind, and I tend to agree – e.g. the Japanese proverb:


    “Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare”

    … but I could always be wrong

    I really need a signature block. Also need to take a “self portrait” this week —

    — Les Cameron
    contact me: les@clancameron.us

  • Measuring “greatness”

    Just what do you mean “great?”
    Random thought time: What makes something/someone “great”?

    Merriam-Webster offers us definitions for “great” as adjective, verb, and noun. The earliest form of the English word (as an adjective) boil down to “large” – so a “great person” in the 12th century would have just been “exceptionally large.”

    Of course saying something is “large” or “small” is always going to be a little subjective – i.e. “large” or “small” compared to what?

    Is it then in the act of comparison that we can find “greatness?” Even if we are objectively measuring something (like height or weight) we still need more data – first a time and/or place – e.g. “that is the largest/greatest watermelon ever grown in such and such location and place” – and then someone to actually perform/verify the measurement (in 2021 “Guinness World Records” still settle a lot of bets – btw HEAVIEST watermelon measured is 159 kilograms).

    Of all time …
    Of course, something like weight or height is measured easily enough – and can then be compared across spans of time with little argument.

    Calling something “great” implies “superiority” of some kind. e.g. “That one is GREATER/SUPERIOR than the others.”

    However, problems creep in when you try to compare “human performance” and/or “different eras” – i.e. we are no longer able to make “objective” arguments because we aren’t really comparing the same things.

    A little pretentious Latin …
    Allowances must also be made for individual tastes/preferences (De gustibus non est disputandum). e.g. Arguing over the “greatest ice cream flavor” is pointless – MY favorite flavor is simply my preference, and is completely subjective/personal.

    You might be able to find copious data about the volume of ice cream sold/consumed in specific geographic areas but that still isn’t a measure of “greatness/superiority.”

    The human drama of athletic competition …
    Full disclosure – I have watched a lot of televised sports in my lifetime. This becomes relevant simply because “watching sports” almost always means “listening to sports announcers.”

    A “good announcer” enhances the game – while a “not so good announcer” becomes an annoyance. This is another great example of not being able to argue about personal taste. No matter what an announcer does, they can’t please EVERYBODY – so I’ll just say that I sympathize with the announcers plight, and point out one of pet peeves …

    Hasty generalizations/bias/filling dead air
    The reality is that I don’t listen to “sports announcers” when I understand the sport in question.

    First: I don’t need someone to tell me what I am seeing. In this scenario the announcer becomes “irritating noise” rather than “useful information.”

    Second: There tends to be a lot of “fill time” in most broadcasts. The challenge (for the announcers) becomes finding something interesting to talk about – when nothing interesting is happening. Again, tastes differ – but I probably have the volume turned down, simply because I have a low tolerance for “inane chatter.”

    One of those forms of “inane chatter” is to talk endlessly about how great the athletes are performing, and/or how an athlete is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME (G.O.A.T.).

    Examples abound. I understand the announcers need to talk about SOMETHING – but simply telling us that “so and so” is the “greatest such and such” isn’t interesting/entertaining.

    Statistics
    Yes, we can compare statistics as well as wins and loses – but unless it is an individual sport, arguing that an athlete is the G.O.A.T. is probably just inane chatter (of course, that doesn’t mean that the athlete in question isn’t “great” – but constantly talking about how great they are is a little pointless).

    We also have to make room for significant rule changes within the sport in question. Consider “major league baseball” the lowest ERA ever recorded by a starting pitcher happened in 1968 – then in 1969 the pitching mound was lowered 5 inches.

    Just to be clear – the rule change in itself isn’t important. However comparing “historic” pitcher ERA’s becomes two data sets – “before the mound was lowered” and “after the mound was lowered.”

    Sports I watch every four years …
    The Olympics are in full swing at the moment. Women’s gymnastics is one of those sports I hear about (or pay attention to) when the Olympics roll around.

    I freely admit I am not an expert in “women’s gymnastics” so (if I had watched any of the event) I would have been compelled to listen to the announcers.

    I’m not looking to criticize anyone – athlete or announcer. HOWEVER the G.O.A.T. term keep popping up. Again, I am not an expert on Olympic gymnastics – but I’ll point out that there have been some significant rule changes that (probably) create “multiple datasets” for the sport.

    Nadia Comăneci was 14 years old when she became the first gymnast to score a “perfect 10” (1976). In 1981 the minimum age for gymnastics competitors was raised to 15 years old, then to 16 years old in 1993.

    The point is that in “women’s gymnastics” the “younger” girls (14-15 year olds) tend to have a competitive advantage over the “older” girls (18+) – just biology at work.

    Again, to be clear – the rule change in and of itself isn’t the issue. I’ve never heard anyone argue that the minimum age rule change was a bad idea (the linked article argues the limit should be raised to 18 – I don’t honestly have an opinion, but with the “other issues” facing the sport it makes perfect sense).

    The “greatness” question
    All together now: “Sports should not be the most important thing in an athlete’s life.”

    It may be apocryphal – but the story goes that Vince Lombardi used to tell his Green Bay Packer teams that he wanted them to put football “third.” First and second should be their religion and family, but after those top two priorities, Mr Lombardi wanted players to put “pro football” ahead of everything else.

    I mention this because “keeping things in perspective” tends to be a challenge for elite athletes. On one hand they have to be willing to “put in the work” just to BE an elite athlete, but then the very nature of “sports” means things will happen outside of their control.

    SO with that in mind “true greatness” is not just about “performance in the arena.”

    Perseverance
    True, all “elite athletes” have “endured the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” to some extent – just for fun I’ll argue that the “truly great” have also persevered.

    This becomes the difference between someone “having a great year” and “being a great competitor.” Then (again, thought experiment, just for fun) “being truly great” is when great physical ability/talent combines with endurance/perseverance and just enough good fortune (not a household name in 2021 – but Dan Jansen comes to mind.)

    ANYWAY
    Injuries happen, bad performances happen – good days/bad days happen – which is probably what makes “sports” fun to watch in the first place.

    The NFL used to claim that “any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday” – i.e. all of the teams competing consist of great athletes and coaches. Another way to say the same concept might be that the “margin for error” between the best and worst teams is extremely small.

    SO arguably in ANY “professional sport” there are never any true “upsets.” The true “Cinderella story” requires amateur athletes … but THAT is another post …

  • Honor, Eye for an Eye, Greed, Living Well …

    According to Yahoo! Finance – “Coursera, Inc. operates an online educational content platform that connects learners, educators, and institutions”

    Coursera
    With a lot of the “history” classes – the instructor/presenter is an expert of the subject, teaches at a prestigious university, and has probably written a book.

    SO the online coursera class becomes “marketing” for the university and professor. Which isn’t egregious – just pointing out that they aren’t engaged in 100% altruism.

    No, I don’t get anything for mentioning them (edX is good as well, and Hillsdale College offers a lot of fine/free online classes for history enthusiasts).

    The “Patrick Henry” class kept getting pushed aside for “other things.” I had actually forgotten about it, but when I logged in the other day – I received a gentle reminder that I hadn’t completed the course. SO after a “deadline reset” finishing the last week of the course was fun.

    Honor
    The “Patrick Henry” course was subtitled “forgotten founder.” “Spoiler alert” – the professor argues that Patrick Henry has been “forgotten” (as in “not held in as high regard as he deserves”) because Thomas Jefferson had a deep personal animosity towards Henry.

    That thesis is easy to accept – considering that Thomas Jefferson seemed to “have issues” with most of the other founders – i.e. he had a long personal “feud” with John Adams (which was resolved before they died). The early history of the U.S. is often described as a contest between “Hamiltonian” and “Jeffersonian” philosophies (saying Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were “rivals” is an understatement).

    What exactly Jefferson’s problem was with Patrick Henry is debatable – the Professor argues that Jefferson admired Henry early in his career (Henry was the “senior man” in Virginia politics). There was an investigation into Jefferson’s time as governor of Virginia – an investigation which Jefferson blamed on Henry –

    So, (again the Professor argues) Jefferson probably took the investigation as an attack on his “honor” – and if you are a “Virginia gentleman” attacks on your honor are simply not acceptable.

    My guess is that Henry was less concerned with Jefferson’s personal opinion than Jefferson was with Henry’s – but that isn’t my point today.

    What struck me was that “personal slights” can have far reaching implications. Or maybe, it is easier to “love your neighbor” when that “neighbor” is a theoretical construct and not someone that you perceive as having “insulted your honor.”

    I suppose we get thoughts like “normal is what people are, until you get to know them” and/or “you always hurt the ones you love” (not always intentionally – but that is probably another post) …

    eye for an eye
    I was ready to go on for a couple hundred words – but wikipedia summed up my thoughts ‘”An eye for an eye” is a commandment found in Exodus 21:23–27 expressing the principle of reciprocal justice measure for measure.’

    “reciprocal justice” implies “The intent behind the principle was to restrict compensation to the value of the loss.” (also wikipedia).

    Of course the key concept becomes “justice” as opposed to “vengeance” – which is really what gets glorified in the “modern world.”

    greed
    I’m fond of arguing that “greed” is always bad.

    Of course “doing what is in your best interest” isn’t “greed.” Greed implies that you are depriving others of something, while you have more than you need.

    SO seeking “justice” (as in fair compensation for injury) becomes “vengeance” when “greed” enters the equation.

    e.g. the classic “he stepped on my shoe, so I shot him” example comes to mind. Obviously shooting someone because they stepped on your shoe is overreacting – “greed” comes into play when you consider “honor” the currency in the altercation – but if your honor is all important, the reaction becomes “understandable” if not “acceptable.”

    Living well …
    Saying “living well is the best revenge” always sounds profound – but may still short of the ideal reaction.

    “living well” as a response falls short if it implies an indifferent/neutral response. e.g. in the “shoe stepping” incident – if the response boils down to “you are beneath my notice so I do not care what you do one way or the other” …

    Meanwhile the ideal response is “outgoing concern” for the other person (in some appropriate form) – e.g. “why” did they step on your shoe in the first place? did they trip? was it an accident? were they shoved? do they need assistance?

    Ok, obviously within reason and within your means – the story of the “good Samaritan” comes to mind …

    ANYWAY
    My guess is that Patrick Henry “lived well” overall – but I also get the impression that he PROBABLY could have “handled” Thomas Jefferson better.

    Of course those were different times and values – so I don’t really intend negative criticism of either Henry or Jefferson – just making observations …