Author Archives: Jeremiah Stanghini

Jeremiah's primary aim is to provide readers with a new perspective. In the same vein as the "Blind Men and the Elephant," it can be difficult to know when one is looking at the big picture or if one is simply looking at a 'tusk' or a 'leg.' He writes on a variety of topics: psychology, business, science, entertainment, politics, history, etc.

How One Becomes a Shaman: A Brief Overview of Shamanism, Part 2

In yesterday’s post, we looked at the history of shamanism. We learned that shamanism goes back at least as far as 25,000 years ago in South Africa. We also looked at the varying definitions of shaman. In today’s post, we’ll look at how one becomes a shaman. Enjoy!

~

How One Becomes a Shaman

Given the seemingly differing opinions on the history of shamanism and the definition of a shaman, there seems to be substantially more agreement on the process by which one must undergo to become a shaman. According to Merchant (2006):

The ‘call of the spirits’ to the shamanic vocation is experienced as a serious and disturbing psychological phenomenon early in life (often at adolescence) and this initiatory illness is interpreted as a (mostly unsolicited) calling, which is not only experienced as a destiny/fate but is articulated in these cultures as an election by the spirits. A strenuous and difficult initiation follows, involving altered states of consciousness, dismemberment imagery and death/rebirth phenomena. (p. 133-4)

The candidate is not fully recognized by their cultural group as a shaman until they are able to demonstrate their abilities of mastery over the spirits and communicate with them to acquire information for the purposes of healing (Merchant, 2006). Metzner (1998), like Merchant (2006), referred to a process where the shaman-to-be has visions in which they see themselves being dismembered. According to Metzner (1998), “In some Australian aboriginal tribes, the would-be medicine man [or shaman] is “cut open” with stones; the abdominal organs are “removed” and replaced by crystals, which give him curing and clairvoyant power after he is put back together” (p. 101). Smoley and King (2006) also refer to the dismemberment of the shaman-to-be and reassembly: “The candidate ‘dies’ to his old identity and is reborn to a new one” (p. 160). Given the idea that the shaman has to die under his old identity before the shaman can become the new identity, the rite of passage where the shaman must undergo a process of dismemberment and reassembly is fitting. Merchant (2006) referred to ‘serious and disturbing psychological phenomena during adolescence’ and in the western world (the USA) can easily be mistaken for schizophrenia.

Given all that I have read about schizophrenia and shamanism, it is possible that people who are classified as schizophrenic in the western world are actually ‘hearing the call of the spirits,’ but because they were born into a society that does not appreciate this as a gift, but rather an illness, are treated distinctly different. I have not found any evidence to support this point of view, but it is worth mentioning. Rock, Abbot, Childargushi, and Kiehne (2008) conducted a study where they were attempting to determine the effect of a shamanic-like stimulus (a procedure that was very similar to shamanic journeying) on those who could be classified on the schizotypy continuum. The study included the appropriate control group(s) and had the following conclusion: “One’s score on the CP [cognitive-perceptual] factor of schizotypy appeared to influence one’s ability to experience alterations in phenomenology. Consequently, high CP factor individuals may be strong candidates for shamanic training” (p. 94). The results of this study are seemingly in congruence with the description that those in adolescence undergo psychological hardship offered by Merchant (2006).

There is an activity that I remember participating in during my ‘psychopathology and diagnosis’ class in the winter semester of this year at ITP. During this activity, the class was divided into 4 or 5 groups. The professor gave us a case study of a tribe of people in Africa who had been relocated from their original land and who had some people that were seemingly ‘ill.’ We were to pretend that we were a prospective business vying for the right to ‘cure’ these people. Many of the ‘symptoms’ that were present in the people would have made them categorically schizophrenic, if we were to use the DSM-IV [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders]. During the presentation portion of this class, we worked our way around the room as all the groups identified their possible ‘plan of action’ to cure the people. It was at this point that each of the groups made mention of the fact that the people who were ‘ill’ might not have been ‘ill’ by the standards of the tribe. However, the ‘illness’ was something that was observed by the people who were examining the tribe from the outside. After each of the groups shared, the professor praised all of us for recognizing this and made note that other classes he has taught at non-transpersonal schools would probably not have recognized this factor. While this example might just show the openness of the students who enroll at a transpersonal psychology school, my hope was that it might have shed light on the possibility that non-transpersonal schools rarely (if at all) take into account the norms of the tribe they might be diagnosing. My reason for sharing this story is that it seems to tie in with the shamanistic ‘rites of passage’ discussion. If the people who were shamans in tribes in other countries, instead, grew up in America, it is quite possible that they would be categorized as schizophrenic and placed in a hospital. This makes me wonder if the people that are categorized as schizophrenic in our society today are not necessarily people who need to be feared, but instead, people who need to be revered and taught to embrace their shamanic qualities.

In this section, we have examined the process one undergoes to become a shaman. We have learned that there is a great deal involved in becoming a shaman including the following: ‘schizophrenic’-like symptoms in adolescence, altered states of consciousness, dismemberment/reassembly of one’s body, and an ability to display one’s skills in communicating with the spirits to obtain information to heal people within their community. We have also explored the possibility that people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia in America are actually candidates for shamans. In the next section, we will take a closer look at some of the roles that shamans can play for their community.

~

Check back tomorrow for the next section: Roles of a Shaman.

Massive Miscalculation by GOP Chairman Reince Priebus: No Debates with CNN or NBC

Earlier today, I saw a series of tweets from the GOP Chairman, Reince Priebus:

At first blush, it seems like nothing more than some kind of a stunt to draw attention to the matter. It’s also a great way for the Chairman to do some interviews and bad-mouth CNN/NBC. As I thought about it a bit more, it seems like this can’t end well for the Chairman:

It wouldn’t surprise anyone that there are more Democrats who watch MSNBC and more Republicans who watch Fox News, but what about the people who watch CNN? Well, as it happens, this is home to the political Independents of the electorate. According to TiVo data (actually quite sophisticated):

CNN, which has branded itself as the cable news network without a partisan skew, has apparently made the sale among independent voters. The network’s biggest skew was among independents, 17 percent above the national average with that group.

So, the majority of Independents that watch TV get their news from CNN. Let’s play out this scenario for the GOP. Assume that CNN/NBC decide not to pull their “Hillary Programming,” then the GOP has two options:

1. They’re forced into reneging on their initial stance of no primary debates for CNN/NBC.

2. Or, Like they said, having no debates with those networks. I suppose there might be some unforeseen third option, but at this point, this is what it looks like.

If they pull they’re debates with CNN/NBC, they’ll be losing out on the largest concentration of Independents. For a party that’s currently not in power that wants to be in power, in what will be an “up for grabs” election with President Barack Obama joining the list of Presidents who’ve served two terms, it seems ludicrous that they’d want to remove “free media” of their candidates to Independents.

So, this would force them into reneging on their stance of not having any debates with CNN/NBC, right? Except that this may make them look weak with their base of voters, which usually wouldn’t matter. However, “Republicans like elected officials who stick to their positions.” From my vantage point, this ultimatum has backed the GOP into a corner for which there is no escape.

~

Revisiting that third option… it may just be that no one cares about any of this when the 2014 midterms roll around or the 2016 general election.

The Official Final Jeopardy Spelling Rules [UPDATED]

I noticed I was getting a bump in search engine traffic for people who were looking for the spelling rules to Final Jeopardy. jeopardy21_2013_floatingNo doubt, this is in part because there was a small bit about the incident on The Today Show this morning. When I wrote about some of the implications for whether they should have given the contestant the benefit of the doubt, I didn’t include the official final jeopardy spelling rules. At the time, I was merely reflecting in hypothetical, but with people searching for the official rules, it made me wonder just what they rules said about spelling in Final Jeopardy.

If you know me, you know that I’m really good at finding things on the Internet. After doing a couple of cursory google searches (Final Jeopardy Rules, Official Final Jeopardy Rules, Official Jeopardy Rules), I was surprised that I couldn’t find them. Sometimes, the site that hosts a document like this doesn’t do a good job of using keywords. So, I thought I’d poke around the official Jeopardy site — nothing.

After some more derivations of “Rules of Jeopardy,” I was beginning to think that maybe the rules aren’t online. I thought that maybe the contestants were handed a paper copy that they signed before going on the show and that document wasn’t online. Having never been a contestant on Jeopardy (though I’d like to be some time!) I couldn’t confirm whether this was true. However, given that it’s a game show, I’m sure they signed something before going on the show. Regardless, I didn’t have access to that document.

When I was poking around the Jeopardy site, I noticed there was a message board for Jeopardy. While not an official source, I thought that there might be some discussion of what had happened on the show last week (EmancipTation Proclamation) in the context of the rules. After reading through some of the messages on the thread talking about it, I realized that it could take a while. Before reading through that thread, I noticed a different thread that was directing everyone to the 22-page thread talking about what happened because it had “several clear explanations” as to why the judges had to rule the way that they did.

After reading the 22-page thread — the majority of which were people who registered for the forum simply to complain about the ruling — there were some interesting anecdotes. For instance, did you know that this misspelling incident has happened on Final Jeopardy in the past? In an episode that aired on June 6, 2007, there was a clue that was looking for the response: “Sargasso Sea.” The person in the lead (going into Final Jeopardy), however, misspelled his response. He wrote, “SarAgasso Sea.” As you can see in the video below, the judges ruled the same way they did for EmancipTation:

As this really didn’t answer my question about the “official rules,” I thought I’d do a Site Search of the message board to see if I could find the rules. I used some of those keywords from earlier and like before, didn’t find anything official. Although, this was an interesting entry [Emphasis Added]:

I have no official source for this, but from what I’ve heard from various people over the years, there is no official written set of rules that the judges are required to abide by. It has been mentioned that this could be done for liability purposes, because if the judges were to make a ruling that went against their written rules, a player could potentially sue them, or something like that. I believe that in the contestant paperwork, all players must sign something agreeing that all judges’ decisions are final. There may be some general guidelines for acceptable responses in this paperwork, but they probably don’t cover all possible scenarios, and the judges’ decision will always be final. While they do have appeal processes, and I presume that they work to the best of their ability to ensure that no contestant is treated unfairly, I’m sure there have been instances of players leaving the show feeling that they were in some way treated unfairly due to an unfortunate judges ruling either against them, or in favor of a competing player.

There are a lot of little rules of thumb that longtime viewers of the show have been able to piece together over the years, and most times the show’s rulings seem pretty consistent with past precedents. It is generally accepted that leading articles can be omitted and still be ruled correct, as in “Grapes of Wrath” or “Midsummer Night’s Dream”. However, incorrect or missing articles within a title will lead to an incorrect ruling, such as “One Flew Over a Cuckoo’s Nest” or “Gone With Wind”. Those may be poor examples, but I can’t really think of any good ones at the moment.

As to Veteran Affairs or Veterans Affairs, I think it is usually the case that when dealing with something that has an official title, the wording must be exact, and in many cases the inclusion or exclusion of something as small as an “s” could indeed lead to an incorrect ruling.

As to the consonant/vowel distinction, the general rule is that when giving a response verbally, you don’t have to pronounce it correctly, but you must at least give something that could be a possible phonetic pronunciation of the correct spelling. Generally this means that you could change vowel sounds, but you need to use the correct consonants, otherwise what you’ve said does not appear to be the same word as the intended correct response. Without examples in front of me this is hard to explain. It often comes up in cases of foreign words, or names of famous people that someone has seen in writing many times, but rarely has heard spoken aloud.

In Final Jeopardy, the rules are similar, but the opposite is true. While your spelling can be incorrect, what you have spelled should be possible to pronounce in the same way as the intended correct response. Normally if you change a consonant, something is not going to be pronounced the same way, while changing vowels could still lead to similar pronunciation. One recent exception to this rule was when Franz Liszt was the correct FJ response, and one contestant responded with “Who is Lizt”. While she was missing a vowel, the “s” and “z” sounds in Liszt sort of blend together, so the judges likely decided that “Lizt” or “Lizst” would be accepted. I don’t know if they would have accepted “List”. They may also have accepted something like “Lieszt” or “Leeszt”, as there is probably a lot of wiggle room in dealing with vowel sounds of foreign names like this.

While to my knowledge there is no list compiled on the web of all Jeopardy! ruling precedents, there are plenty of diehard fans of the show, and many seem to have near-photographic memories of these kinds of things, so you should always feel free to ask any ruling questions on this board or at the jboard. It has been my experience that Jeopardy! fans are always more than willing to help.

We can apply some of what this commenter said to the two examples. Adding the ‘T’ to Emancipation does change the pronunciation. Similarly, the ‘A’ in Sargasso does change the pronunciation. I know that this probably won’t satisfy many people who think that the contestant should have been given the benefit of the doubt, but I hope this will shed a little more light on the process (at least perceived) that judges use to make rulings on spelling in Final Jeopardy.

~

So, maybe what this commenter is saying is true — maybe there aren’t any official rules. If there are official rules, they’re not readily available on the Internet. I can imagine that with what’s happened over the last week, some journalist/reporter would have likely emailed the producers of Jeopardy to ask about the official rules and I haven’t seen any articles recently about official rules. For now, I suppose this comment from a message board will have to suffice.

UPDATE: Remember Ken Jennings? Probably the most prolific Jeopardy player — ever. I came across something that Jennings said about what happened last week with EmancipTation. As you’ll see, it seems to be in line with what I found earlier on the message board:

Jeopardy! record-maker and Parade columnist Ken Jennings agrees that the ruling, however frustrating, was fair. “I feel bad for Thomas, of course,” he told Parade.com. “But the unwritten rule on Jeopardy! has always been that your Final Jeopardy answer doesn’t have to be spelled right, but it has to be the same phonetically as the right answer. If he’d spelled it ‘Emansipation’ or even ‘Immancipation,’ he probably would have been okay,” Jennings explained. “I once spelled Grenada as ‘Granada’ and Alex let it slide. But add a new consonant sound, like Thomas did, and that’s ball game.”

The History of Shamanism: A Brief Overview of Shamanism, Part 1

Sometime during the past week, I was conversing with someone about shamanism. Throughout our conversation, I remember that I’d written a paper about shamanism when I was still at Sofia University. Since it’s been a couple of weeks since I last shared a paper, I thought that this synchronicity was a good opportunity to share it. This was a paper I wrote for a class called: “Proseminar in Social and Community Process: Culture & Consciousness.” In today’s post, we’ll look at the history of shamanism and the different definitions of shaman.

~

In this paper, I will explore the history of shamanism along with the origins of the word shaman. I will identify varying definitions of what it means to be a shaman and explain some of the different roles that a shaman may carry out. I will identify how some shamans have lost their roles through the development of political/social stratification. I will also examine how it is that one becomes a shaman and have a small dialogue with regard to schizophrenia. To begin, we will delve into some of the history of shamanism along with a derivation of the word ‘shaman.’

History of Shamanism

Shamanism has been part of history for quite some time, but that does not necessarily mean that there is agreement within the academic community as to when shamanism began. According to Walsh (1996), “Paleolithic art from Europe dated to over 17,000 [years] ago and from South Africa dated to 25,000 years ago appear to show shamanic practices” (p. 96). However, the earliest known archaeological record of a shaman excavation was from a burial site in Israel, which dates back 12,000 years (Grosman, Munro, & Belfer-Cohen, 2008). Another viewpoint states that shamanic traditions have been around for 30,000 years (Krippner, 2002). According to Rosano (2006), “Evidence from Upper Paleolithic (UP) cave paintings suggest that these ideas may extend back tens of thousands of years” (p. 347). The argument put forth by Rosano (2006) seems to be similar to the arguments put forth by Krippner (2002) and Walsh (1996). Given the similar nature of Rosano (2006) and Walsh’s (1996) argument, it seems that there is evidence that shamanism has existed for at least the last 20,000 years. This is by no means an extensive overview of the history of shamanism, but a brief summary from various sources on shamanism. Part of the ‘discovery’ that humans have existed for as long as they have is because of the cave paintings by some of the first humans. As well, there have been bones of humans that have been recovered that help to date how long humans have been around. Given the way in which the discovery of the first ‘human,’ it makes it hard to fall onto one side or the other when it comes to the first appearance of shamanism in history. It is possible that shamanism existed 30,000 years ago, but there is concrete evidence that shamans existed 10,000 years ago because of the excavation. Regardless of the argument of the first discovery of humans, it is safe to say that shamanism has existed for at least the last 10,000 years, and there is evidence that suggests that it has lasted for 20,000 years or more. Now that we have come to this inference, let us examine the etymology or the derivation of the word ‘shaman.’

‘Shaman’ originated from the language of a Siberian tribe known as the Tungus (Peters, 1989; Smoley & Kinney, 2006). More specifically, it comes from the word ‘saman,’ which means “one who is excited, moved, raised” (Walsh, 1989, p. 2). Walsh goes on to say that “[shaman] may be derived from an ancient Indian word meaning ‘to heal oneself or practice austerities’ or from a Tungus verb meaning ‘to know’” (p. 2). It would appear that there is much more consensus on the origin of the word shaman than there is on the first appearance of shamanism in history. It is interesting to note the derivation of the word shaman because it relates to some of the various roles that shamans take on and definitions of shamanism, which we will learn about later on in the paper. Briefly, part of a shaman’s role can involve healing and it is frequently tied to an altered state of consciousness, which explains the reference to austerities. As for the ‘knowing’ part of the etymology, shaman’s commonly engage in ‘conversations’ with spirits in order to gain information to heal. To this point, we have learned that shamanism dates back at least 10,000 years, but there is evidence to support that it has existed for 20,000 years or more, and that the word shaman originated from a Siberian tribe known as the Tungus. In the next section, we will explore some of the various definitions of the word shaman.

Definitions of Shaman

Shamanism has not been a concept with one succinct definition over the years of its existence (Walsh, 2001). However, there have been varying degrees of specificity within the definition. In the broadest definition, “the term shaman refers to any practitioners who enter controlled ASCs [altered states of consciousness], no matter what type of altered state” (p. 32). Given this definition, there is room for mediums and yogis to be classified as shamans. Because of the prestige of shamanism, one might ascertain that shamans would prefer not to be placed into the same category as mediums and yogis, especially since they do different things for their community. There is a definition offered by Michael Harner, who is an anthropologist that “spent years with Amazon tribes in the 1950s and 1960s” (Smoley & Kinney, 2006, p. 158), and later became a shaman himself. Harner (1982) defines a shaman as “a man or a woman who enters an altered state of consciousness at will to contact and utilize an ordinarily hidden reality to acquire knowledge, power, and to help other persons” (p. 25). The definition offered by Harner (1982) is similar to the one offered by Walsh (2001) except in the definition offered by Harner, there is more specificity concerning what the shaman will do when they enter into the ASC. Walsh (1989) offered a much more elaborate, summative, and descriptive definition of shamanism:

shamanism might be defined as a family of traditions whose practitioners focus on voluntarily entering altered states of consciousness in which they experience themselves, or their spirit(s), traveling to other realms at will and interacting with other entities in order to serve the community. (p. 5)

A definition with specificity is much more useful because it identifies the type of altered state, prototypical experiences, and the practitioner’s goals (Walsh, 2001). This specific definition allows for much of the ambiguity to dissipate as any traveling anthropologist could use a checklist of the points offered in this definition to determine the ‘shaman’ in the tribe from the other members. However, there is the possibility that the difficulty in defining a shaman or shamanism is because there really is no real summative definition. Maybe the difficulty in pinpointing an accurate definition of shamanism is because shamans do not call themselves shamans. According to Smoley and King (2006):

This concept [shamanism] is the creation of scholars and anthropologists. Jews regards themselves as Jews, Christians as Christians, even Witches as Witches; but most native shamans do not call themselves that, nor do they think of their religion as “shamanism.” The term has been created by academics to describe a certain facet of religious experience. (p. 158)

The argument presented by Smoley and King (2006) is useful in the process of defining shamanism because they tell us that shamans do not want to define who they are nor do they want to define what it is that they do. To this point, we have learned that shamanism has a broad range of definition that begins with an altered state of consciousness and can be as specific as identifying the type of altered state, prototypical experiences, and the shaman’s goals. We have also learned that shamans do not like to call themselves shamans nor do they like to call their religion shamanism. In the next section, we will examine how one becomes a shaman for their respective tribe.

~

Check back tomorrow for the next section: How One Becomes a Shaman.

Rebranding the Liberal Arts: General Intellectual Capacities

A couple of days ago, someone alerted me to an older article (2011) about the job skills that one learns from the “Liberal Arts.” After I read it, my first inclination was to share it. Having already completed two degrees in the liberal arts, I understand the importance that the liberal arts can have on teaching us how to think about the world around us. Then, I remembered that, for some people, saying “Liberal Arts” is almost like profanity.

I don’t know if it’s because of the word “Liberal” is in there and for those folks who are politically inclined (or hear that word tossed around when talking about politics) think that only “Liberal” people should go to liberal arts schools, but there certainly is a stigma out there — real or imagined. As a result, I thought I’d do some digging to find the phrase’s origin and compare it to some of the other phrases that describe higher education programs.

According to Webster, liberal arts is defined as:

college or university studies (as language, philosophy, literature, abstract science) intended to provide chiefly general knowledge and to develop general intellectual capacities (as reason and judgment) as opposed to professional or vocational skills

Well, that seems simple enough: intended to provide chiefly general knowledge to develop general intellectual capacities. Although, the second half of that is a bit distressing: as opposed to professional or vocational skills. Are we meant to assume that general intellectual capacities are in opposition to professional or vocational skills?

My next search took me to Wikipedia:

The liberal arts (Latin: artes liberales) are those subjects or skills that in classical antiquity were considered essential for a free person (a citizen) to know in order to take an active part in civic life. In Ancient Greece this included participating in public debate, defending oneself in court, serving on juries, and most importantly, military service (slaves and resident aliens were by definition excluded from the duties and responsibilities of citizenship). The aim of these studies was to produce a virtuous, knowledgeable, and articulate person. Grammar, rhetoric, and logic were the core liberal arts.

This explanation certainly ties in with the dictionary definition. Having general intellectual capacities would allow one to participate in public debate and to become a virtuous, knowledgeable, and articulate person.

At this point, it’s still not clear to me exactly why we’re parsing liberal arts from vocational or professional skills, so I thought I’d check out the entry for higher education on Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, this entry also separates vocational and professional schools from the liberal arts. It includes 4 different types of higher education:

1. General. This amounts to what we usually think of when we think of university. There’s a great deal of focus on the abstract and the theoretical.

2. Liberal Arts. This is what we’ve already been discussing. Although, there are two other types embedded within: performing arts or plastic/visual arts.

3. Vocational. There’s a focus on practical experience at these types of institutions of higher education, with a bit of theory. These are sometimes referred to as trade schools.

4. Professional. These institutions usually require that the person applying already have a bachelor’s degree. Examples here could be business school, law school, medical school, etc.

It’s still not entirely clear why the liberal arts should be separate from some of these other types of higher education. For instance, when we revisit the definition of developing general intellectual capacities, isn’t that what the majority of higher education does for its students? Would someone really argue that going to a vocational school, a professional school, or going to a “general” school would deprive someone of developing their general intellectual capacities? Certainly not.

Although, I do think that there are things you learn from some of the different disciplines in the “liberal arts” that you can’t get elsewhere. For instance, psychology is such an important subject for understanding the people around you. I really think that “General Psychology” should probably be a required course in every higher education institution, but with a background in psychology, I’m certainly biased — at least a little. That being said, it’s still hard to understand why people wouldn’t want to take this course. Knowing about what “makes people work” could be so advantageous to getting by in the world.

This quick bit of research led me to believe that the “Liberal Arts” may be in need of a rebranding strategy. Of course, I’m not the first one to suggest this. I found an article in the Journal of College Admission from 2009: “The Liberal Arts Rebranded.” In the article, there were references to a number of examples of strategies used for rebranding. For instance, there’s the example of the “Liberal Arts and Sciences,” or the “Practical Liberal Arts and Sciences.” There’s also examples like “Liberal Education” or “Liberal Learning.”

I haven’t seen any data, but I don’t think that any of these would really sway too many people from their previously held bias against the liberal arts, but I don’t know that anything would for some folks.

If I’m brainswarming ideas for a way to rebrand liberal arts, I would think that the name would need to changed completely. Both ‘liberal’ and ‘arts’ are words that, to some, are too “soft.” If it’s not math and science-y, then they want no part of it. So, I would try to find a way to incorporate that definition we first looked at: general intellectual capacities. Those three words are quite a mouthful, so it wouldn’t work just like that. There’d have to be something that succinctly conveys that message.

 

When Is It OK to Bend the Rules?

Screen Shot 2013-08-01 at 11.58.14 PMA couple of days ago I shared a link on Facebook to a video of a contestant (a young contestant) on Jeopardy!. The post sparked a bit of conversation, so I thought I’d give it a bit more attention. The long and short of it is that the contestant incorrectly spelled the Final Jeopardy! question. As a result of this misspelling, he was scored as having answered the question wrong, even though everyone in the building and watching at home knew that he “answered” the question correctly. It seems that because of the rules that the judges had previously set forth, they couldn’t give the kid the benefit of the doubt, even though the misspelling only included one extra ‘T’ in two words that totaled 23 letters.

To put a bit more detail on this situation: the clue (or “answer,” as it’s known in Jeopardy!), was trying to get the contestants to write down: Emancipation Proclamation. This one particularly contestant wrote down: EmancipTation Proclamation. Now, d’you think that this is close enough to give the contestant the benefit of the doubt?

Based on Alex Trebek‘s (the host) reaction to what the contestant had written down, I think that he thinks the kid should have gotten the benefit of the doubt. You can hear him stalling for time in the video as the judges make their decision. After Trebek relays the decision to the contestant (and the audience), he tries to offer a bit of reasoning for this decision. It sounds like the “closeness” of an answer is determined in advance of the show for which the questions will be used. Meaning, even though the ages of the contestants on the show are between 10 and 12, the severity with which the judges were scoring the questions could have been as if adults were playing. Is this fair? Is it fair to adjust the rules?

As I reflected on this and some of the reaction that it precipitated on Facebook, I wondered how folks would react if the scenario weren’t a game show. What if this scenario were in a school setting? If the student incorrectly misspells the word, they’ll likely get it wrong — on a spelling test. But what if the test has short answers? Do they then get points because the professor/teacher knew what they were talking about? Do they get full credit? Does the professor/teacher take off a fraction of a point?

I don’t have a definitive answer for any of these questions, but it’s certainly something to think about when we reflect on when we think it’s okay to bend the rules.

 

What’s The Modern Day Version of Writing Yourself a Post-Dated $10,000,000 Check?

Before Jim Carrey made it big, he once wrote himself a $10,000,000 check for “acting services rendered.” Some folks might consider this a way that Carrey use to motivate himself to fulfill the goal he’d set for himself. Others may call it wishful thinking. Others, still, may call it manifesting or a form of visualization. Nonetheless, I was trying to imagine if there were a modern day version of this?

Maybe writing a post-dated check is still a good way of motivating one’s self, but with how often we’re simply using our credit cards or check/debit cards (Interac if you’re in Canada!), it seemed to me that this may need some updating. But what would that be? Would one take a screenshot of one’s bank account online and then use Paint (or some other photo-editing program) to change the balance on the account?

That could work, but I had a different idea.

What if you could send yourself an email in the future? What if you could send yourself an email today that wouldn’t get to you for 5 years? Maybe you could write a list of things you wanted to accomplish or maybe what you wished your email signature would be on that day? Maybe you’d write about the place you’d like to live or maybe the places you’d like to have visited?

There is something out there that will let you do this — Boomerang. I don’t use it myself, so I don’t know how far into the future they’ll let you schedule reminders (or emails), but that’d be pretty cool even if you could only send yourself an email 1 year later. A lot can happen in a year.

The Time I Almost Drowned in Paradise

A couple of years ago, I had the good fortune to live in paradise. I lived on the island of Kauai — part of the Hawaiian Archipelago. It really does feel like paradise. There aren’t any roads that permit you to go faster than 50mph. The beaches aren’t usually very crowded. The temperature, on average, doesn’t get any higher than the mid-80s and doesn’t dip below the mid-60s. It’s wonderful.

Just about everyday, I got into the routine of going to the beach. I was living in Hawai’i and I knew that it likely wouldn’t be a long-term thing (though I certainly considered it!), so I wanted to squeeze out as much paradise time as I could. It helped that I had a dog who needed exercise. At some point, I wanted to learn how to surf, but I never quite got around to it. Although, I did enjoy boogie-boarding and playing in the surf. I would usually exercise my dog and then I would go and get my exercise (by boogie-boarding).

Anyhow, there was this one day where the waves weren’t particularly high, so I was just relaxing close to the shore (in the water). In fact, it was on my favorite beach in Hawai’i — Hanalei Bay. Depending on who’s rankings you’re reading, it’s often rated as one of the best beaches in the US. After having spent many afternoons, evenings, and even a Christmas morning (!) there, it’s easy to see why it’s been rated as one of the best in the US. I haven’t seen many beaches outside of the US, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see it on a top 25 (maybe even a top 10?) list of the best beaches in the world.

So, on this world-class beach, I was enjoying the water near the shore. I was experimenting with the undertow, which wasn’t particularly strong that day (but which I would eventually learn that it was stronger than I realized). I would face the horizon and plant my feet in the water and lie back, while still keeping my feet planted. By doing this, the undertow would then rake against my calves and sometimes, it would pull the feet out from under me. When the undertow would pull my feet out, I would sometimes float on the water for a bit before I’d then stand up and go back to the spot that I started.

Well, one of these times that I was floating on the water, probably lost in thought, I went to put my feet down on the ground, but there wasn’t a ground. That’s alright, I thought. I can just swim back into a place where I can stand. So, I started swimming towards the shore. As I was doing this, I noticed that the waves had started to pick up a little bit. In addition, by being out away from the shore, the waves were stronger than the undertow that I was standing in. At first, I thought this was to my advantage. I thought I could just catch one of the waves with my body and have it carry me in.

I would watch the waves and try to catch one as it was picking up speed. No matter what I tried, I never seemed to catch the wave with my body. I later learned that this was probably because I wasn’t doing it right, but at the time I thought I was doing it right. By this time, the rhythm of the waves had taken me out even farther from the shore than when I started trying to bodysurf into safety.

I don’t consider myself a very strong swimmer (which is why I was trying to catch one of the waves back into the shore), but I was out of options — I had to swim. So, I turned on my stomach and started to swim (albeit, a bit panicked) back to the shore. There was one slight problem. I had to watch out for the waves, which had now grew to 3- to 4-feet. By surfing standards, still rather small, but for a not so strong swimmer trying to get back to shore, seemingly insurmountable. Watching for the waves, which were crashing down on me at times and trying to swim back to the shore, I could feel my panic rising. I would swim 5 or 10 feet and then would have to duck under the water because of the wave crashing. When I would reemerge from the water, I’d be right back where I started swimming or sometimes, even farther out!

I was in trouble.

A poor swimmer who was already fatigued was now caught in between the waves and the undertow. I had given up. I wasn’t going to be able to swim back to the safety. Thoughts of drowning started to flood my head. I’m not going to make it. I’m going to be a statistic! I’m going to die in paradise! All I had left to do was to try and wave someone down. My eyes caught the shore which seemed like it was 200 feet away. The beach was sparse. More panic. It was a lazy weekday prevening. I started to wave one of my hands towards the shore trying to get someone’s attention. In order to wave one hand towards the shore, I lost one of my four limbs to keeping my head above water. More panic. I could feel the water getting shallower, so I turned my head to notice — at the last second — that a 5-foot wave was about to crash down on me. I ducked under the water just before the wave crashed on me above the water, but that didn’t stop it from hitting me once under the water.

The force from the wave spun me. When I reemerged from under the water, I was facing the horizon. I turned again to face the shore and began waving an arm again. More panic. The beach was so sparse that I was sure no one saw me.

And then…

It looked like someone was taking a boogie board into the water. Was he coming for me or was he just coming to play in the water? He didn’t seem to be moving with much urgency, so I waved my hand a bit more vigorously. I wanted him to know that I was in trouble. It looked like he was coming for me. Crash. I wasn’t paying attention and the wave crashed down on me. Luckily, it wasn’t like the 5-footer that spun me under the water, but it still knocked me under and forced me to swallow a bit of salt water.

I turned again to face the shore and noticed that the boogie-boarder was only 20 feet or so from me. He was coming to save me. I’m going to live!

When he reached me, he told me to put a hand on the boogie board and we began swimming towards the shore together. With the boogie board, it didn’t take us very long to get into the shore. One of the waves caught us and helped us forward a bit. Soon enough, I was standing again in the water. I was standing! It never felt so good to have the ground under my feet. Even walking through the water back to the beach, I could feel the adrenaline coursing through my veins to the point that I was almost shaking.

When we got the shore, I thanked the Hawaiian man — profusely — and he explained to me that, at first, he thought I was waving at a friend to come out into the water. I’m glad that he eventually realized that was not the case. He also told me what to do in those situations, if it ever happened again (while I was thinking to myself, “yeah right, I’m never going in the water again!”). He instructed me to swim parallel to the shore rather than perpendicular. By swimming parallel to the shore (or on an angle that’s more parallel than perpendicular), I’d eventually get to a place where I could stand. If I continued to swim perpendicular, I’d be stuck in-between the wave and the undertow for hours.

I profusely thanked him again and then walked with my wobbly legs to the car. When I got to my car, there was a surfer there who asked me if I was alright. I said that I was still shaking a bit, but that I was embarrassed and grateful that the Hawaiian man came to save me. He said not to worry about it and that it had happened to him before, too. I thought to myself, really? I was watching him surf and he certainly knew what he was doing. He continued by explaining that sometimes, the waves can get stronger when you’re not expecting it and by the time you realize it, you’re stuck. He said that someone had to come and get him. Wow, I thought to myself. If it can happen to a skilled surfer, I guess it can happen to anyone. I thanked him for telling me. Again, he told me not to worry about it and that it could happen to anyone. I got in my car and drove home.

~~~

I didn’t go to the beach the next day, but I did eventually go back to the beach (I mean, I was still living in Hawai’i, how could I not go to the beach, right?) When I did build up enough confidence to get back to the beach, you can be sure that I was vigilant in my ability to stand while I was in the water.

I thought I’d share this story with you for a couple of reasons.

1. You never know when you’re going to be humbled by nature. I didn’t go to the beach that day expecting to nearly drown. Water makes up 99% of the Earth! The sheer size and force of water is awe-inspiring. As a result, it’s necessary to respect the water. If you don’t, it’s sure to humble you.

2. The kindest of strangers is infinite. The Hawaiian man could have easily ignored my waving hand assuming I was waving to a friend. Luckily for me, he thought I might be in trouble to come check it out. To him, and to strangers, I am forever grateful.

You’re Not Supposed to Hate Work

About a month ago, there was a rather disturbing headline that came as a result of a Gallup study: “70% of americans hate their job.” When I first read that, I thought, that can’t be right, can it? 70%!? That means for every person who likes their job, there are at least 2 people who hate their job. Do you like your job? That means that 2 of your friends hate their job.

Even now, reflecting on this, I find it hard to believe that this many people would stay at a job they don’t like. There would have to be an overwhelmingly compelling reason to stay at a job that one hates. A few things that come to mind: mortgage, children’s college fund, student loans, etc. I suppose we could talk about some of these big-ticket items weigh on the minds of people, but I’d rather talk about work. Why is it that we can’t all be doing something that we like to do?

Assuming that there are as many jobs out there as there are people, couldn’t we reach some sort of Nash equilibrium where everyone’s doing something that they like to do and no one’s doing anything they don’t? Part of the problem with reaching Nash equilibrium would be that some people are motivated by different things or are coming from different situations. So, I might really like construction, but I’m not very good at the things that you need to work in construction. If I have a degree in accounting, I might become an accountant, even though I’d rather be working in construction. There may be someone who’s in just the opposite situation, too. If we could switch jobs, we’d both be moving from miserable situations to desirable situations.

I haven’t really touched on the health implications of hating your job, but that’s an important factor to consider, too:

‘Our analysis clearly established that there was no difference in the rates of common mental disorders, such as anxiety and depression, between those who were unemployed and those who were in the poorest quality jobs.’

I think it’s a misnomer to say that work is supposed to “suck.” Why can’t we do what we love? Maybe for some folks, they don’t do what they love “full-time,” but they can gradually work their way into doing what they love full-time. Ken Robinson, noted TEDTalk speaker, wrote a great book a few years ago about finding your passion. If you’re working in a job that you hate (and statistics would tell us that you probably do) or you know someone who is, I’d recommend taking a look at Ken’s book. It just might change your life…

Should the Baseball Hall of Fame Change Its Voting Rules?

A couple of days ago, three former MLB players were inducted into the hallowed halls of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. All three of these players weren’t able to attend the ceremony as they all had passed away more than 70 years ago. It’s unfortunate that these Hall of Famers weren’t able to receive the recognition (in person) that they earned.

There was an article on SB Nation about a week ago that argued for changing the way the Hall of Fame voted. That is, the Baseball Hall of Fame has some of the most strict guidelines (among pro sports) when it comes to voting people into the Hall of Fame. Part of the argument is that it’ll make the ceremony much more exciting for those who attend and for the sport of baseball. As someone who’s played baseball for a good part of his life, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve watched the Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony. That’s not good for the Hall of Fame nor is it good for baseball.

Another argument is that, in some years, there isn’t even anyone elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. And while that may have been necessary when there were only 16 teams in the league (55 years ago), there are now almost double that amount (30). In baseball, a player needs to be voted into the Hall of Fame by more than 75% of the people voting (the Baseball Writer’s Association of America). The author used the example of Craig Biggio who appeared on the ballot for the first time this year (players have to wait 5 years before they can appear on the ballot). Biggio earned the most votes of those on the ballot, but he didn’t meet the 75% threshold.

~

The author made some practical suggestions for changing the way the Baseball Hall of Fame votes on players being inducted, but I thought that one of the commenters on the article had some rather intriguing ideas. Granted, I realize that some of them are probably very unlikely of coming to pass (given drastic a shift this would be to the current method of electing members), but I thought that it’d be entertaining to include the ideas:

The eligible players should be voted on individually, not as a group. It makes no sense that a vote for Mike Piazza is a vote that can’t be cast for Craig Biggio or Roger Clemens. They have nothing to do with each other. Their candidacies have nothing to do with each other. They should not be limited by a finite pool. They should not have to compete with each other for votes. They should stand on their own merits.

Like I said earlier, I haven’t been following the Baseball Hall of Fame that closely, so I don’t know if this idea’s been proposed in the past. It sounds pretty good to me. Of course, I’m sure there’s a good counterargument as to why it’s not done this way, right?

Here’s the plan:

Every year, around November, the BBWAA gets a vote, living HoFers get a vote, current and retired broadcasters get a vote, retired MLB coaches, managers and executives get a vote, retired players get a vote, and the FANS who pay the  FREIGHT get a vote to, by consensus, determine the 12 most eligible players to be considered for HoF induction. Then starting in January, the votes are done, one player per month, by the BBWAA, 75%, up or down, in or out. For four weeks there is a national debate. First up: Barry Bonds. In or out? Let the sides argue. At the end of four weeks, ESPN hosts a two hour special on Sunday night. The first hour is a retrospective of the player’s career. The next half hour is a debate among three or four BBWAA members, for and against the player’s induction. The final half hour is the actual vote, carried live and with names and votes tallied in real time, so we can see who the assholes are, as the player himself watches and comments on the voting.

Think you’d watch that?

No more of this making the announcement anonymously on a Tuesday afternoon.

If the player gets 75%, he’s in. If he doesn’t, he’s ineligible for another five years. If he doesn’t make the consensus final ballot in five years, that’s it. He’s done forever.

Again, some really interesting ideas. This could be a way for baseball to reclaim its fan-base (or maybe get some new fans?) It’d certainly be entertaining to watch what this commenter proposed. Of course, before making these kinds of drastic changes, questions would need to posed and answered about the purpose and virtue of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Is it meant to honor former players? And if so, is it sullying to use it as a way to draw in more fans?