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.

An Updated Quote and Bio for Jeremiah Stanghini

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post called: “.” I stil think that’s true. In this particular context, I’m writing because I’ve decided to that I’ve had for this website. That’s not to say that the bio that was there previously was inaccurate, it just felt like it needed some refreshing. Similarly, the quote did, too.

To be honest, I probably should have been updating it monthly, but as is common on “static” pages on the internet, they don’t get updated very often. At least, I know that this has been the case for me. I ran into someone the other day who was talking to me about some of the various “resources” that can be found on Genuine Thriving. In particular, the resources that have to do with the book recommendations. After that conversation, I went and clicked through all the various pages on this website to see the things that I had put there almost two years ago (the newest redesign of this website went live in January of 2011, but had been around for a couple of years before that).

The new quote:

“I believe that each of us has something unique and creative to contribute to the world. My creative contribution: effecting positive ‘global change’ by making a difference in the lives of large groups of people. At some point, I get the sense that I will be the leader of an organization that’s not yet been formed, but it would be similar in size, scope, and influence of the United Nations. I believe that through connecting to our deepest wisdom and inner knowing, we can rediscover ways to collaborate with one another. Enhancing our abilities to utilize these powerful human capacities will co-create a better world by way of more effective, more efficient, and better decisions.”

Every Game Counts The Same: Does It Really?

In most sports, there is a “regular” season and a “post” season. That is, the teams play against it each other for a set number of games to jockey for position in the playoffs. As I write this, I’m thinking about in particular, as it is getting very near to the end of their season. As the season comes to a close, many teams are either jockeying for position in the playoffs or they are struggling to remain one of the teams that will get to play in the playoffs.

I was having a conversation with someone the other day about the relative importance of each game, ie. “every game counts.” Some people like to say that games at the end of the season “count more” than games at the beginning of the season. They’ll tell you quite a fancy story about how and why the games at the end mean more to a team than the games at the beginning of the season. And I want to believe them. I want to believe that there’s a formula that accounts for “time” in the relative importance of games. To my knowledge, there isn’t and a game won in the beginning of the season is equal to a game won at the end of the season.

Looking at it mathematically: there are 162 games in a season. So, every game is worth 1/162nd of a team’s record. If a team wins a game on May 6th, that game is worth 1/162nd of that team’s record. If a team loses on June 12th, that game is still worth 1/162nd of that team’s record. And if a team wins the last game of the season (!) that game is still worth 1/162nd of that team’s record.

I think where a lot of people get confused or misled when it comes to games at the end of the season meaning more is because of the cultural bias. It is often written of and spoke of that games at the end of the season mean more than games at the beginning of the season. As a result, people begin to believe this and say it themselves (creating a bit of an ). At the end of the day (literally), the last game of the season has the same weight on a team’s record as a game at the beginning of the season.

Note 1: this line of thinking doesn’t apply to those sports that use a more sophisticated way of measuring the success of their teams. For instance, some sports, like soccer, often use “goal differential” as a way of distinguishing the relative placement of their teams.

Note 2: for sports that have such relatively “short” seasons like the NFL, one could argue that a game later in the season is worth more because of the various tiebreakers that are used for Winning percentage, etc., but the sentiment of every game counting the same still holds.

Twitter and Dunbar’s Number

I wonder: has there been any research done on Dunbar’s number and the number of people that one follows on Twitter?

For those who don’t know, , “a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.” The magic number that is is 150, but it was theorized to be somewhere between 100 and 230.

I’ve written about on here on a , specifically about the people that I follow on Twitter, (which has grown quite substantially since my last “Who To Follow” post). I follow more than 350 accounts on Twitter, but I don’t necessarily follow them all with the same attention. Of course, Dunbar would tell us that this is unlikely. Over the summer, I found I had more time to create lists (at one point pushing up against the maximum number of lists that Twitter allows: 20) and manage the people I follow in this way.

Once classes started up again, the amount of time I had to dedicate to this endeavor severely shrank. I’ve pared back the number of lists I have and pared back the number of people on those lists. The other day, I went and counted the total number of accounts on those lists: 210.

On that note, it looks like I’m right in the range of Dunbar’s number. To be honest though, I know that all 210 of those accounts don’t tweet with the same frequency, which is probably a good thing for me. If they did, I might find it harder to keep up with what they are all saying.

Lessons from “The Art of War”

At the end of August, I thought I was going to be going on a road trip from DC to Newfoundland. In preparation for said road trip, I borrowed 9 books from the library. I’ll be talking about one of those books () when I write about The Stockdale Paradox, (which I teased in a post ).

One of the other books that I borrowed: “.”

It’s a book that has been around for ages and from what I understand, is often revered as scripture for some in the business world. As a result, I thought it would be good to read through it. Of course, to really savor its contents, it’ll be necessary to read it more than once.

I’m about two-thirds through it and I made a note of some interesting quotes that I thought would be worth sharing.

From page 73 of Samuel Griffith’s translation (in 1963):

“Thus, while we have heard of blundering swiftness in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged.”

“For there has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.”

From page 74:

“Where the army is, prices are high; when prices rise the wealth of the people is exhausted. When wealth is exhausted the peasantry will be afflicted with urgent exactions.”

“With strength thus depleted and wealth consumed the households in the central plains will be utterly impoverished and seven-tenths of their wealth dissipated.”

“As to government expenditures, those due to broken-down chariots, worn-out horses, armour and helmets, arrows and crossbows, lances, hand and body shields, draft animals and supply wagons will amount to sixty per cent. of the total.”

I could most certainly attempt to draw comparisons between the US and quotes from page 74, but I don’t think that level of detail is necessary for the point I’m trying to make. I will say this, though: it is most certainly “” to consider the shape of war in 2012 in the context of these 5 quotes, which come from writings that are over 2000 years old.

Tying Up Loose Ends — Again

Earlier this year, I did a where I talked about a number of ideas in one post. This served a couple of interconnected purposes: 1) it emptied my “posts to write” list, and 2) it allowed me to flood that list with some new ideas. (I said the purposes were interconnected.) My list has again started to grow a little bit, so I thought I would do another one of those to flush out the list. There are a couple of ideas that I won’t include in this post because I do want to write a “fuller” post on them, so look for some posts in the next few days about “balance,” “The Stockdale Paradox,” and the idea that “every game (in a season) counts equally.”

The Enneagram — Through my exposure to transpersonal psychology, I was introduced to the . I don’t know this for a fact, but my suspicion is that the Enneagram is highly underutilized relative to its helpfulness in understand one’s self and others.

Life’s all about making decisions — One of my interests is “decision-making.” Books, literature, research: I’m fascinated by how humans make decisions. On that note, one of the things I’ve learned is that life is — really — all about making decisions. More importantly though, it’s important to put yourself in situations that allow you to make good choices. Let me say that again: “It’s important to put yourself in situations that allow you to make good choices.”

Measuring outcomes in the non-profit sector — I’ve talked before about my time with , but I also had a class in this summer. The thing that struck me the most about the non-profit sector is the lack of ways to measure outcomes. That is not to say that there aren’t ways to measure outcomes in the non-profit sector, but when compared to the for-profit sector, it seems that, for whatever reason, there aren’t as many established and agreed upon ways to measure outcomes.

Reframing your life — Many people, myself included, sometimes get caught up in choosing things they want to do (career-wise). An important realization on that front: it’s not what you want to do for the “rest of your life,” but simply, what you want to do “for right now.” Meaning, it’s okay to change your mind later and move into a different position, field, or industry.

Psychological reasons why good people do bad things — I came across this a few days ago that recounts a number of reasons why good people do bad things. I think it’s really important to understand the underlying psychological concepts that contribute to these errors in “decision-making.”

Even The Best, Fail

In the “West,” there’s definitely a preoccupation with success and perfection. Some may say there’s good reason for that, but I thought it would be enlightening to remember an example when someone, widely considered the best at what they do, failed. The person I had in mind: .

Mariano Rivera is the closer for the New York Yankees. During his , he’s become MLB’s all-time regular season leader in saves, the all-time  postseason leader in saves, been chosen for the all-star team 12 (!) times, won the World Series 5 times, and he is most assuredly going to be elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. Without a doubt, a conversation about the best closer of all-time would have to include Mariano Rivera.

Now that I’ve set the stage for just how good Mariano Rivera is, I want to take you back to the . In particular, . Every young boy (and some girls, too!) dream of getting to be the hero in Game 7 of the World Series. For some little boys and girls, that’s about being up to bat in the Bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded and 2 out and the team losing by 3 runs. A grand slam would win the game and forever immortalize them! For other little boys and girls, those who are pitchers (like Mariano Rivera), it’s about being on the mound in the bottom of the 9th. It’s about being the pitcher that the manager and the rest of the team is counting on to finish the game.

This is exactly what happened for Mariano Rivera. In Game 7, the Yankees were playing the Arizona Diamondbacks. The Diamondbacks took the lead in the 6th inning, but the Yankees came back with runs in the 7th and the 8th to take a 2-1 lead. In the bottom of the 8th, Joe Torre turned to Mariano Rivera. Mariano did not disappoint in the bottom of the 8th — striking out the side. And then came the 9th inning. Instead of creating a narrative in print, I thought I’d embed a video I found (courtesy of MLB.com) that replays some of the drama/heroics of game 7. It’s only about 4 and a half minutes long and I highly suggest watching all of it, but if you want to skip to the “Mariano Rivera” part, it starts at around 2:20.

~

This moment was extremely shocking. Even having seen the game live and knowing what’s going to happen, it’s still shocking. One of the best relief pitchers of all-time and widely considered to be at the , failed. It just goes to show us that no matter who you are or where you are in life, fallibility is inescapable.

Drops from the Fire Hose – The Mason MBA Student Association

It’s only been about a week since my last post here at Genuine Thriving, but it seems like a lot longer. I think that’s partly because I have been blogging, but just not for Genuine Thriving. Lately, I’ve been trying to drum up interest/traffic for a student organization I’m part of: The Mason MBA Student Association.

One of my key roles with this organization is running the website. As part of running the website, I thought it would be a good idea to have a daily post of some of the business news/information from around the web. I’ve called this series, “Drops from the Fire Hose.” Why? Well, there is a plethora of business information written everyday, countless books that are published each year, and a number of ways to consume new business information. These daily posts are meant to curate some of the articles/information that Mason MBA students may find useful.

Why am I telling you all about this? Well, for one, I thought some of you might find this useful, too. I usually post a few articles along with a few excerpts of those articles. If you like some of the “business” posts I’ve written here, you’d probably like some of the business articles that I include in the daily “drops.”

I have a list of 6 or 7 things I want to write about and I’m hoping to get them all written by the end of the week. If not, I may have to do one of those posts where I wrote about a bunch of ideas in one post.

There is No Such Thing As “Left-Brain” and “Right-Brain”

Let me just begin by saying that before I knew better, I often referred to the “left-brain” and the “right-brain.” When I got old enough (and studied the brain a little bit), I learned that those are just colloquial terms that referred to the functions most commonly found in the left hemisphere and the functions most commonly found in the right hemisphere. While I understand the importance of using labels to effectively communicate what could be perceived as complicated theories, I think it’s important that we don’t talk about the ‘left-brain’ and the ‘right-brain.’

The primary reason for this — there is only “one” brain, for which there are two hemispheres. When we begin to talk about the ‘left-brain’ and the ‘right-brain,’ it severs us from reality (even slightly). The secondary reason — we’re now learning a great deal about . This is the idea that — essentially — the brain can change. Through environmental, behavioral, or other changes, the actual structure of the brain can change. I recently came across a great RSA talk by on “The Divided Brain.” I’ve included a few quotes that I found worth repeating. Below, you’ll find the video embedded.

On empathy:

“If you can stand back & see that the other individual is an individual like me, who might have interests & values & feelings like mine, then you can make a bond.”

On imagination being in the right hemisphere and reason being in the left hemisphere:

“Let me make it very clear: for imagination you need both hemispheres. Let me make it very clear: for reason you need both hemispheres.”

In case you don’t watch the video the whole way through, he closes with a :

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift. The rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant, but has forgotten the gift.”

Why I’m Considering Not Watching Football

For the better part of my life, I have been a football fan. I’ve seen every since 1991 and seen quite a few between then and now, too. However, I’m strongly considering not watching football anymore. Based on my previous fandom, this may seem strange. The obvious question follows — why?

Well, I had planned on doing a rather lengthy post (in the same fashion as my series or series), but instead, have decided to keep this quite short. Most people know about the injuries that can come from playing football. The more noted injuries are concussions. Of course, concussions happen in sports other than football, but it seems pretty clear to me that of the 4 major sports in America, football is by far the most dangerous.

Plenty has been written about concussions and football over the last couple of years. Here’s a smattering:

— Time, 2010

— Amarillo [Texas] Globe-News, 2012

— The Sporting News, 2012

— Niners Nation, 2012

— Niners Nation, 2012

— Bleacher Report, 2012

— Washington Post, 2102

Some may point to the injuries in other sports and say that it’s only natural for there to be injuries in football, too — it’s a contact sport. While that’s true, football is a contact sport, how much are we — as spectators — willing to put up with? It’s probably a bit over the top to compare the football of today to what they did in .

The last point I want to make about this: consider that when you watch something on TV or when you  buy something at the store, you are, in a sense, endorsing that program or that product. I realize that for some, there can sometimes be restrictions on what they can or cannot buy. I’d like to think, however, that we can all choose not to watch a sport that we think does not espouse the values we hold to be true.

Some Key Differences between a Happy Life and a Meaningful Life

I saw a earlier today from , who’s a Professor of Marketing at Stanford’s , that linked to a she was a contributing author to: “Some key differences between a happy and a meaningful life.” When I clicked over to see the , it got me pretty excited or a couple of reasons.

The first, it’s going to be published in the . It was during my senior year of undergrad when I first came across  — what I think is a rather brilliant subject. In fact, I was even a of the for a brief time. The second, the lead author: . During my time at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology (now called, ), I remember reading a lot of . In fact, one of the papers I wrote on “transpersonal belongingness” relied on a .

Anyway, below is the abstract to the paper that Prof. Aaker linked to. If you find it interesting, I hope you take the time to read the whole journal .

Being happy and finding life meaningful overlap, but there are important differences. A large survey revealed multiple differing predictors of happiness (controlling for meaning) and meaningfulness (controlling for happiness). Satisfying one’s needs and wants increased happiness but was largely irrelevant to meaningfulness. Happiness was largely present-oriented, whereas meaningfulness involves integrating past, present, and future. For example, thinking about future and past was associated with high meaningfulness but low happiness. Happiness was linked to being a taker rather than a giver, whereas meaningfulness went with being a giver rather than a taker. Higher levels of worry, stress, and anxiety were linked to higher meaningfulness but lower happiness. Concerns with personal identity and expressing the self contributed to meaning but not happiness. We offer brief composite sketches of the unhappy but meaningful life and of the happy but meaningless life.