How They Have Ruined Football

How They Have Ruined Football

“They” have ruined American football.  A combination of television, the NFL, and the owners and even fans have shaped today’s football in ways much less enjoyable to watch and, likely, rather more difficult for players.

Television as the major source of money for the game began years ago to tinker with the game to suit its needs.  Decades ago, tv began to use the time-out periods and slack times in the game to insert commercials.  Then, breaks were demanded to insert commercials, and a tv man was on the field ordering time-outs and other breaks for a more even distribution of commercials in time.  Soon, the “two minute warning” was introduced to get in tv commercials at the crucial time near the end of the half and the end of the game—times when viewers may have, previously, stopped watching the game for their own breaks when the action normally would stop.  The artificial two minute warning takes the ludicrous notion that coaches and players can not notice the game clock and must be “warned” of it.  Actually, this “warning” is an invention of tv to try to hold viewers over the long commercials insertion with the idea that they will stay viewing to see how the last two minutes will play out.  Some teams, notably Dallas (their “two minute drill”), invented special plays to use in the last two minutes.*

The other strong need from tv is to have the games’ scores close so that the drama of one touchdown can decide the game winner.   “One-sided” scoring games, at the half and the third quarter especially, can motivate viewers to change the channel.  Advertisers can not be happy to have spent millions to present their commercial in the latter part of a one-sided game when viewer numbers have dropped.  Networks showing the one-sided games have priced their advertising time based on numbers of viewers, so a drop in viewers costs money in all sectors of the tv business.

The nature of the football game has also included the breaks in the action while teams huddle up for the next play plan.  This huddle time was fixed by game rules, and commercials of the correct length are inserted then, too.

*Dallas for some years was known to be in a game where one touchdown would win for them.  Their “two minute drill” involved short passes to the sidelines so that only the Dallas receiver could reach it, and then he would step out of bounds to stop the clock.  Several of these plays took the team to a touchdown, often in the last minute or less of the game.  The drama of such a development kept fans of both sides glued to the tv to see this strategy.   The “two minute warning” set up the higher dramatic intensity, and the Dallas team and tv sales benefited.  Apparently, no one wondered that if Dallas could so frequently score with their “drill,” why they did not use it earlier in the game to seal a substantial lead over the other team?  Of course, a substantial lead would create a one-sided score and have viewers tuning away from that game before the end of the game.

The popularity of cable tv led to the offering of two or more games available at the same time slot, further endangering the holding of viewers to one game and the commercials sold on that game.  Of course, dedicated fans of one team would watch regardless of the score, but others could easily tune away.  Methods of counting (scientifically estimating) viewer numbers at various points in any one game impacted the cost of commercial time over the running time of the games.

Tv manipulation of the games has meant viewers are locked into seeing the commercials.  However, two innovations have impacted this situation:  the TiVo and the strategy of Peyton Manning.

TiVo was the early name for using a computer-type hard disk to record the video and audio of any television show.  Although expensive, the device allowed a step up on simple video tape recording because it allowed both the pausing live tv and restarting with no loss of program and also the usual ability for recording of future programming, unattended.  By recording a whole football game, the TiVo-type devices allowed fast forward upon playback to skip commercials (or see them only at high speed and silent).  Also, and most important, these devices allowed pausing live tv and then fast forwarding for the time duration of the pause.  Thus, as the break for the commercial began, pause is activated and left paused for the minute or more of the length of the commercial, and then fast forward through the commercial up to restart normal motion as the game resumed.  This device provided advances on video tape in these ways, and the systems gained popularity and now can be considered nearly standard equipment (and video taping devices are no longer used nor available).   This technology has not been superseded, but it did require frequent manual manipulation by the viewer.  (Automatic commercial defeating was not possible because the commercials occurred at odd intervals and lengths.)   Today, viewers can see the whole game virtually uninterrupted, using this technology, but the nuances of the play-by-play announcers, the rhythm of the game, and other minor action before and after the plays can be easily lost for purists of the game.

A recent and major challenge to tv’s manipulation of football games has come from quarterback Peyton Manning.  Over the last several and the current seasons, Manning has been able to manage his games with both “no huddle” rapid reassembly of his formations and the making changes in the intended play at the scrimmage line.  Manning’s revolutionary restructuring of the game has eliminated tv’s ability to run commercials in any dependable way because he leaves no pauses in the important action for many series of downs.  Also, by speeding on to the next scrimmage, he has grossly restricted a staple of tv coverage of football—the instant replay of the immediately preceding play.  The tv-provided instant replay is now so good that several angles of a play can be run by tv in real time, allowing the viewers to see fine nuances.  However, with Manning’s frequent, yet unpredictable, “no huddle” strategy, tv can not guess when to show a replay (unless there is a time-out or other definite interruption to play).  Further, because he often changes the intended play at the scrimmage line, sometimes twice, tv is more unsure of what to cover with cameras and needs many camera/recorder systems running at once in order for the tv director to have options of what part of the most important action to catch.  Manning has been so successful that other quarterbacks are attempting to emulate his technique, thus spreading this change for tv to other teams’ games.  Tv has not found any way to cope with this technique other than to simply let the game coverage run live.  Sometimes, a graphic is slapped on screen for a time too short to read it.  It remains to be seen if Manning’s technique can survive tv’s need for the old ways of doing things;  a rule change could be called for.

Even with these innovations, tv has changed the apprehending of the game via extensive use of head-sized close-ups and many graphics on screen.  Ever since Roone Arledge invented “up close and personal” tv coverage of sports, which revitalized ABC Sports in about 1970, tv has increased its video coverage of the faces of the players, as well as cutting to their bodies after the player’s remarkable mistake or good play.  Today, a close-up of a player’s face, even shrouded by his helmet and face mask (sometimes including a darkened eye shield) is mandatory both to dramatize the tension of the game and to provide an actual face on the otherwise heavily covered and padded players.  The tired standardized sequence is a scrimmage starting with a close-up of a player’s face, a cut to the action of the play (even then holding the framing as close as possible), and then a reaction shot of a player or, nearly always, a close-up of the head coach’s face.  Viewers can expect to see the two coaches’ faces over one hundred times (for the average 130 plays in the whole game) per game.  Many coaches display no facial emotion at all (pioneered by Dallas’ Coach Landry), making the close-ups painfully repetitive and uninformative.  This is a routine exhausted in its repetition.

Close-ups of injured players’ faces are becoming more common (where in earlier days, fallen players were not shown) along with the general trend of emphasizing the injuries and dangers of the play.  (The stress on injuries adds drama to the games.)

The use of worthless close-ups takes away from being able to see the scrimmage arrangement of both teams, a crucial picture to understand the game.  Likely, the increased use of close-ups is a response to the fantasy football “games” individual fans play on their own, formerly in small groups in-person and now via Internet networks of fantasy “coaches.”  In fantasy football, every players’ name and abilities and record should be known to the fantasy coaches in order to compete well.  Then, tv has responded increasingly to personalizing every player and to sponsoring some fantasy football networks with prizes. 

This “personalizing” of players includes extensive on-screen graphics to deliver esoteric statistics for players and games.  Announcers frequently read verbatim the on-screen graphics (why?) or otherwise express some possible statistic that applies to the moment in the game.  Statistics are gleaned from what must be enormous real-time data bases and are fed to the announcers and the graphics keypunch operator very rapidly.  Often the graphics include players’ faces and, of course, overlay part, or all, of the picture of the field of play.  Many of the statistics are calculations of facts trumped-up from very odd circumstances of the players’ or game’s history.  (“Joe is the first round draft pick of the third round of the second level of the ….”)  Perhaps the intrusive graphics are satisfying to fantasy football enthusiasts.

Then, tv has basically ruined the full apprehending of the game and made a new phenomena which is only a partly tangential relationship to the real game and to experts watching it.  Similar to tv’s coverage of baseball (MLB), not being able to see the whole field and the deployment of all of the players significantly reduces the enjoyment of the nuances of the game, as one example.

The National Football League, NFL, has also altered the game over the years based on pressures from tv, coaches and owners, fans and sportswriters, and law suits.  It is difficult to say that the games have been made more enjoyable. 

The NFL is currently under apparently strong pressure to make the game more safe for the players.  Reports of frequent concussions, broken bones, and injuries that take a player out for weeks or a whole season are often heard.  These reports do “pump up” the desired drama of the game but also put the NFL in the position of running a “blood sport” game of gladiators.   Tv emphasizes injuries and especially the danger of injury to quarterbacks.  Quarterbacks are portrayed as more delicate and vastly more important than other players.  The danger to the Quarterback looms over every play and is much discussed by the tv game announcers.  Complicated new rules attempt to limit quarterback injuries, including the parts of his body that can be hit, where he is located on the field, and if he has become a runner of the ball all determine how he can be tackled.  More strict rules on tackling pass receivers have been enacted, and helmet contact and leg tackles, and more, all have what are fair to call “rules of engagement” from military battlefield parlance.  The new rules increase the stops in the games for called penalties, some of which provide for commercial insertions.  Clearly, the NFL is in the double bind of reducing the fans’ love of violent physical play and the concern of lots of injuries to inflame public concern for the game.  Sadly, the day will come when an NFL player dies on the field;  that eventuality must dog NFL officials and owners every day of the season.  The double bind situation appears to have no easy solution.

There are currently so many rules that some infraction will occur on every play.  “Holding” is a major example along with face-mask and pass interference calls.  There is holding on every play, overt or covert, egregious or minor, which—along with the many other possible infractions—places the referees of the game as additional players, or at least in a very real position to alter the outcome of the games.  Skipping over the chance for referees being bribed to make game-changing calls (or players or coaches, for that matter), one must acknowledge that referees do stop the action for tv commercial insertion on purpose, and certainly can consciously or unconsciously (or inaptly) make “bad” calls at crucial moments which throw the game to one team, perhaps undeservedly, over the other team.  Instant replays on tv provide some scrutiny of the accuracy of calls, and the referees’ own replay system can add credibility.  Nevertheless, the very human judgment of the referees is more and more a major factor in the games as the number of rules increase.  The penalty infraction calls do slow the games.

The growth in importance of the field goal is another significant change in the game from the NFL.  One effect has been to shorten the field.  If the kick off puts team A on the 20 yard line, then team A need only move the just beyond the 50 yard line at which it is possible to kick a field goal.  This shortens the field team A needs to play to a little over 30 yards before it becomes highly likely that they can score three points.  In something under twelve plays, at most, team A can advance their score.  Certainly, seven points would be better, but a field goal has the effect of making the game a closer score.  That is, even a somewhat weaker team A can significantly challenge team B with field goals.  This situation increases in likelihood even nearer the goal line.  The field goals, then, can keep scores closer and audiences kept on the channel and the game—and the fees for commercial air time can be maintained.

The effect on the game from owners and fans are much less overtly evident.  Certainly, the owners want winning games and popular players in order to fill stadiums and tv contracts.  The amount of money needed to run a NFL franchise and the amount that can be made from a good season is enormous. 

Real fans exhibit lots of loyalty, often related to the team nearest where they live.  Teams are identified by their home towns as well as their team names to increase that loyalty and pump up possibility of intercity rivalries.  Season ticket sales for games yet to be played are like a no interest loan to the owners as are any up-front payments made with tv contracts.  Fans of all types do enjoy the violence of the game so the “blood sport” aspect of NFL football is very real.  Too, a winning season or extraordinarily popular quarterback can create loyal tv audiences and assist in higher tv time charges.

Overall, then, American football has evolved primarily under pressure from tv and the NFL’s desire to limit injuries.  These changes offer many double binds where the more intrusive tv techniques both inform and deny access to seeing the games.  The NFL double bind of wanting to emphasize the danger of the sport while down-playing the number of injuries provide an interesting dilemma.  Controlling injuries mean more referee interruptions and changes in the game due to infractions called.  However, the fan base is so strong, amplified now by fantasy football, that it will take many more significant changes to the game really to ruin it.  And, today there is no alternative game running at the same time, not MLB for example, so the institution of tv football appears here to stay, flaws and all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I HEAR SOUNDS WHEN I ROLL MY EYES

I HEAR SOUNDS WHEN I ROLL MY EYES

Yes, sometimes I hear sounds when I roll my eyes.  The sound is not consistently present but does happen.  What is that?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

What We Miss By Not Looking Further

One of my sad realizations is to know of all the truly fine musicians there are in the world who will never be heard beyond a small circle of friends.  Our world has lots of room for stock brokers, if seems, but the really useful people, like great musicians or artists, just do not have a slot so we can know and enjoy them.  For example, I was enamored of Carly Simon’s singing, and I wondered how such a talent could emerge as famous.  Then, I found out that Carly is daughter of the Simon of Simon and Schuster book publishers.  I guess all Dad had to do was send a demo tape of her to the right person who would definitely listen to it and she gets famous.

I wonder how many really talented people are hidden because their dad is not important.  On a group trip, the rather dumpy thirty year old woman sang for us one evening.  She had all the ranges we hear about and sounded perfect to me.  Likely she will marry, have some kids, and sing them to sleep, but never be heard from otherwise.  

I was very sad to think of all that talent in her and probably millions more just sitting there inside these people and never coming out like their talent deserves.  In fact, if you want to get a laugh today, just say “I am a musician” or “I am an artist.”  Hoots of laughter and then the inevitable question, “But how do you make a living?”  You answer, “I sell insurance.” Heads nod.

Wait, maybe that woman singing to her children is all the fame she needs.  Her children are blessed to hear their Mom.  I will have to think some more about this.

Posted in How to do things for yourself, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

What I Thought Of At Age Fifteen

I thought a whole lot as a teenager.  I read science fiction, the best kind, and I thought a lot about big ideas.  Around the age of fifteen, I decided a number of important things.

1.  The big bang theory is correct.  Back then, in the 1950s, people were still arguing about the “steady state” theory and the “big bang” theory.  I read about it and decided on the big bang.  I have been proved prescient and also correct.  That is very satisfying to me.

2.  I explained, back then, the origin of the universe and things like that by noting that there is a strain on nothing (see herein).  It is the nature of nothing to have this strain on it.  Take away the strain and you no longer have nothing.  This explains the origin of the universe.

3.  Back then, too, I decided that Albert Einstein was correct about a whole lot of things, but that he messed up by declaring that the speed of light is not only constant but that it can not be exceeded.  Wrong on both counts.  I don’t know how long I will have to wait to have these two ideas accepted, but I hope “they” hurry up because I am definitely not getting any younger.

I know you doubt that a little Kentucky farm boy could think these things and at such a young age, but it is the truth.  I think I still have my DATED notebook from that time of my life.  I do not lie.

I also think of how many smart people and smart ideas are thought up by people who you will never hear from.  It is likely there is a fellow somewhere who has already proved answers to lots of today’s big questions, but he doesn’t know about publishing an academic paper or whatever.  

Just like all the great musicians who will never get famous and be heard by millions, there is a lot of really good ideas languishing in the heads of very quiet people.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Strain on Nothing

Where does it all come from?  Ok, I like the big bang theory and subscribe to it (although they are raising their rates, maybe due to postage costs going up).  That theory says that at “some time” all of matter was squeezed into an infinitesimally small point, a “space” so small that it is difficult to say that it exists.  

There that tiny point is surrounded by nothing.  However, there is a strain on nothing to become something.  That is how nothing is made up;  it has this strain on it.  That is actually how you can truly spot nothing because, if you look for that strain, you can know you have nothing in your gun sights.  The strain is a part of nothing just like peanuts are in peanut butter;  take out the peanuts and you no longer have peanut butter.  Take out the strain and you no longer have nothing.

This is one way we define things.  We take away attributes until we get to the attribute that, if that one is removed, we no longer have the thing.  Take all the pedals off of a rose and poof no more rose.

So, on nothing is a strain to become something.  It is a powerful strain and we see the results everyday because here we are.  We are something and before there was nothing, so the strain worked.  See how proof of reasoning can work out?

Just don’t forget it !

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Chewing Gum

Chewing chewing gum.  Just do not do it.

Especially women;  it makes you look like a cow.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Letter from the Edge of the Expanding Universe

A Letter from the Edge of the Expanding Universe

Dec 2013

Hello, my name is Gee.  Allow me to introduce myself.  I am a sentient being, and I live on a planet at the far edge of the expanding universe.  I am on the first planet from our Sun in a four-planet solar system.  There are four moons around.  I can look clearly out into space, and if I look one direction, I see a mass of lights.  There are so many stars when I look that way that they are really almost a single big light.  Then, when I look the other way, away from all those stars, I see nothing.  Yes, nothing.  I live on the planet on the outer extension of the expanding universe.  That is, if you were traveling outward away from the center point of the big bang and wanted to see the outward edge of the universe and beyond, I recommend you stop at my planet for a fuel refill because we are the last chance.  We are like the gasoline station at the edge of your desert that advertises “last chance for gas.”

I have been in telepathic contact with many of you sentient beings for a while.  Some of you sensed me vaguely as someone unseen looking over your shoulder.  That was most likely me.  Don’t worry, I don’t care if I saw your naked in the shower or whatever;  I had only very short visions but longer snips of your world in the form of meaning.  That is why I can write English and send this letter from the edge of the expanding universe to you.

From my glimpses there of your world, I know some of you are postulating parallel universes, vast numbers of universes, and also have a guess about the more real nature of space and time and of space/time.  If I am bored, I may write my ideas of these things, but for now, let me write only of this one universe I feel I live in most, if not all, of the time.  Yes, my world, like yours, has a passage of change which most obviously appears as the aging of our bodies, and yes, we call that “time.”  My own time, the evaporation of Gee, is short, and thus I write to you somewhat in haste although I have been meaning to write to you for some time.  Time is a funny thing, and you can quote me on that.

Here in my world, we can see nothing, which is also a funny thing, if you can bear to think of it.  I can look at nothing all the time from my back porch you would call it.  So what does nothing look like?

I do not have an easy answer to that but call on you to think about your theory of the big bang and the expanding universe—your current science’s concept.  See, if the universe is expanding, there must be some place for it to expand into.  It has not hit a fence out here (yet?) with a sign on it, “End of Universe.”  So, the logical question is “Into what is the universe expanding?”  Well, I can tell you that, because my planet is being pushed (or pulled?) outward, my planet will always be on this front edge, kind of like the front bumper of a bus, but we do not feel any resistance to our outward movement.  We just expand in front of all of you.

So, friends (knowing you as I do, this is an appropriate word), we are expanding into nothing.  By our constant arrival into nothing, you see, my planet is creating space and space/time.  Fortunate for us, it seems to take no effort at all.  We make something of nothing.  We are the front edge of effecting the strain on nothing to become something.  We get no rewards, and frankly always looking into nothing is bothersome generally.  I like to look, however, because it is apparently not easy for you guys, back in the middle of things, to do that, and thus I can feel special.  I look at it often and ask, “Can nothing be something?”   I wish I could get some help with that question.

After writing, I see I started something I can’t finish.  Maybe, however, it can be a comfort to you folks to hear that we are out here doing our best.  We do, after all, get to see nothing become something, and that is not all bad in the great scheme of things.  Also, when the universe runs out of steam, my planet will be the last to be jammed into that infinitesimally small point as things collapse.  Behind us as the universe collapses will be that nothing I spoke about* and, I guess, that nothing will wait there until the next big bang starts to fill it again.  I wonder if nothing can be lonely.

Bye, Gee.

 

*P.S. I guess as we all collapse, we expand nothing, make it bigger.  But then, being nothing, it probably does not care one way or the other.

My apologies to this blog owner for using his outlet to pass on this letter, but from visiting his mind in snippets, I think he will not be disturbed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Enjoyment of Art, especially movies

Enjoyment of Art, especially movies

This is a “how to” guide to enjoying art.  It actually extends to enjoying life.

The history of Western thought about art is dominated by admiration for order, coherence, clarity, subtlety, and an expansion of meaning via symbolism and metaphor.  This line of thinking can admire a Gainsborough and a Picasso even though the immediate appearances are very different.  Western thought says that enjoyment of art comes from an ever deeper knowledge about it and appreciation of coherent complexity.  Scattered or simply manipulative meanings are considered less enjoyable (unless someone wants to enjoy seeing how incoherence exists).

The point of these ideas is that a true and deep enjoyment only comes with knowledge and the more the knowledge, the deeper the enjoyment.  This is why the superficial in popular culture is put aside as “fluff” of no enduring value.  This line of thought is opposite to immediate visceral responses that stop at that level and to the superficial in the art and in the person apprehending the art.  The idea is that depth yields the greatest enjoyment and that knowledge is a form of enjoyment.  Instead of rigid rules, this is the real seat of evaluating and enjoying art.

Movies can be art.  But, what about the movies that are a mere thrill ride, purposively manipulative, and basically incoherent?  Can there be enjoyment in nonsense (that does not exist for nonsense purposes)?   Monty Python’s purposeful nonsense exists to make coherent sense, a proof that silly can be insightful, and it is a silly with meaning that extends via symbolism beyond the incoherent.  But can the movie audience “just let the movie wash over them” with no thoughtful consideration of it?  I admit I do not know how a sober person can experience anything without trying to make meaning of it;  this seems to be a hard-wired fact of the human brain.   Thus, if a person tries to let the movie “wash over him,” he must somehow disconnect his built-in search for order instead of chaos.  I am not sure a sober person can do that.*

However, that sober person may be unschooled and unaware of methods of appreciating the depth of experiences, movies or whatever.  This is why learning about art, and movies, is important because otherwise the person, even sober, simply misses the more profound that can be there in the art.  Profundity is not currently popular, but it is there where real enjoyment comes.  Profundity comes from a respect of coherence and an ability to explore symbolism, and that comes from study.  Study is the opposite of “washing over,” but it is real and really satisfying.  Try it sometime.

*Maybe a person in deep and successful meditation can do something like this, but, even then, they emerge from meditation without being able to articulate their deeper experience and are left with a feeling.  It is true that feelings are a kind of knowing, but their very personal nature mostly keeps them inside one person.  Enjoyment of a “pure” feeling, if such exists, surely is possible, but it remains personal and hardly can be communicated to others.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Three Rs vs. Self Esteem

Three Rs vs. Self Esteem

Sometime in the decade of the sixties, American public schools got a new direction.  If it came from Harvard or just the atmosphere, it was a real and important change.  The change was away from teaching the Three Rs, that is stressing learning content, and toward supporting and building the egos of children, their self esteem.

The reasoning goes that schools create patterns of defeatism and even an underclass of people who become convinced, via failure in school, that they are rather worthless and destined to a stunted life.  This pattern was created, goes the reasoning, by schools stressing learning lots of facts and skills, taking demanding tests, and, gasp, actually failing a grade level or a subject.  It was not unusual for a child to be “held back” a year due to failure to show learning of the Three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic.   But, failure in school, the new story goes, damages little Pat’s ego and his feelings of self worth.

Then, a wide-spread movement was adopted by schools, and definitely in place by the late 1970s, to down-play learning subjects and getting grades and to do what can be done to support children’s egos.   Every child became “above average,” became special in his limits as well as strengths, and became convinced that his self-worth was an automatic grant that did not need real achievement to under-pin that feeling.   Teachers became “sensitized” to communicating the basic value of every person regardless of what that person failed at or achieved via hard work and learning.

A passing grade became standard foremost not because of overcrowding but to support the child feeling good about himself.   Parents caught the message and showed up at schools examining the teachers rather than their child’s learning.  A failing student simply had not been approached individually and correctly (due to either his limitations or his slacker attitudes) by teachers who seemed to want to hold on to a high standard for academic achievement.  That idea was soundly defeated as teachers’ new job was to protect and promote the child’s feeling of great self-worth.  Building self esteem became the goal.

America is now living with the results.  It has become a slacker nation filled with people feeling entitled to a good life (and their own attitudes) based on their learned high self worth.   It has become a deeply fractured society filled with millions of people feeling the value of their own personal opinions far above a sense of community, of compromise for the greater good, and of toleration for other people.  After all, the child learned well he had high self worth and then easily concluded that HIS self worth is worth more than all other people.  This triumph of individualism has fulfilled the great democratic ideal of all people being equal.  However, THIS individualism is really the tyranny of the single person feeling great and even superior to others. 

This ego valuing has given America the rock-hard divisions of unforgiving opinions about religion, politics, and personal behavior (mine is best and not only that, it is proven because it is mine).   Compromise is now a dirty word, and tolerance is condemned.  After all, to compromise or have tolerance for others who are different represents admission of possible flaws in the individual’s tightly held opinions;  that is not to be a part of the promoted ego.   If one thinks he is RIGHT, then to compromise is a violation of his basic being and his valuing his own beliefs and opinions.  

America is now a nation of people with powerful self esteem.  The schools “turned to” and did their job well.  Along with that self esteem, America is a nation of people who can not add and subtract without a calculator, can not spell without a spell checker, can not identify salient points in an argument and analyze it, can not do a balanced evaluation of differences in politics or religion, and who lack respect and tolerance for other people.  But, they do feel good about themselves.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

I.Q.: Knowing Almost Enough

I.Q. Knowing Almost Enough (Peeking over the fence)

I believe in the Intelligence Quotient, the I.Q supposedly a measure of basic intelligence.  I have had the same I.Q. my whole life, tested periodically, and it always comes up the same.  I believe in I.Q.

Ok, I score above average but not into the genius category.  My score indicates a lifetime of almosts.  At this score of mine, I can clearly see most facts about life, see most opportunities, and can analyze anything non-mathematical.  I am smart enough to be highly opinionated and to be able to marshal plenty of support for all of my opinions, those reasonable and those esoteric.  I am able to get some people to do some things under my direction.  I am a great teacher.  I believe in the importance of being ethical and even moral, and I believe in personality honesty.  I also know that no one knows anything for sure.

What I am not is a genius.  But, I am smart enough to see what genius is and what it can do.  I can peek over the fence into genius, but I can not enter.  My point here is that this is a very painful peeking fence. 

I have known a few geniuses and marveled at them.  I see them manipulate me and others as easily as turning a door knob.  I see them flash to conclusions of problems that later I can read what they thought and then mostly understand it.  But, I can not flash such brilliance, although I can certainly see it.

Down the I.Q. scale, I know many One Hundreds.  They are too limited to peek over the fence and so well adjusted not to care to try.   I will not go so far as to say that “ignorance is bliss” but this situation is rather close. 

Ten points downward yet are the people who are convinced they are smart and go through life in that firm belief.  If they encounter genius or even near genius, they see themselves as one of that group.  That is a mistake, of course.  That situation leaves those people always wondering why their obvious genius is not recognized.  That leaves those people thinking that they are smarter but just not lucky or something.  Often, that situation puts these people in the position of standing in the way of genius, most often by averring that they know better.  There is little in personal meetings for me with this level of person that is not painful because no one will ever be able to explain to them their unredeemable limitations.   They do not try to peek over the fence because they believe they are on the other side. 

I believe I am in the most painful position.  I can see what can be done with real brain power, but will never reach that level.  I can teach geniuses and then see them zoom on ahead of me.  I can sense the satisfaction of that power but not taste it.  I know my limitations.

Now, don’t think I am permanently angry about the cards dealt me.  I am very happy to have what I have, truly I am.  However, ever now and then I do peek over the fence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment