Category Archives: Critical Thinking

I blame you … and me

Posted on by

VotingOne of the common themes I see in politics is frustration with our representatives in Washington. They are perceived to be partially if not fully responsible for the woes of our nation. Personally, I don’t find fault with them. I blame me and and I blame you.

In the United States we live in what is called a Representative Republic. This basically means that the voters elect representatives who make the decisions. Now, we are slowly becoming a democracy but I’ll save my opinion on that development for a future post.

One argument here is that if we don’t like what our representatives are doing in Washington, in our State, or in our home town, then we have a simple remedy. Vote for someone who makes better decisions.

However, this is not my main argument. In a representative Republic the politicians are representative of the voters. So, if we don’t like the politicians then our problem is with ourselves. What has happened to the United States? Or has anything happened? Have we always be selfish, bickering, and out to gratify our immediate needs regardless of future consequences?

I think the evidence suggests that there was a time when Americans cared about something besides themselves. Certainly the Founding Fathers were trying to build a nation that would change the world, not just their circumstances with England.

I realize there are many wonderful people in this country but the we must look to our politicians because they are a reflection of who we are. Our votes, our values, our desires. That’s what we see in Washington, us. I see men and women who desire election more than governance, whose decisions are based on what will grant them immediate gratification (election victory, donor money) and no stomach for painful solutions. Why do I see this? Because this is us. We vote for them, we, apparently, want them.

Don’t get me wrong here. I’m still an Objectivist of the Ayn Rand school. People need to do what is in their self-interest. But, it is in our self-interest to have a strong country.

Your next question is, and should be, so Tom, complain away but what do you offer as a solution? Stop telling me what’s wrong and start telling me how to fix it.

Here it is. Teach people to think critically.

Write blogs on how to make good decisions. Think everything through so as to be a shining example for your friends and your family. Listen to the political pundits and then research their words. Read articles, come to an informed, critical decision. If the majority of people can do this, and it’s not easy, then we will elect politicians who do the same thing. Then, well, anything is possible.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Super Bowl … Saturday?!

Posted on by

Super Bowl 2012

It’s Super Bowl Sunday and I’m going to use the occasion to examine the question of moving the game day to Saturday. This is an idea I’ve been a proponent of for quite some time and when talking about it with friends I always complained that the NFL was foolish not to adopt it.

For many years I stood by this argument without bothering to further examine why the Super Bowl remained on a Sunday. This demonstrated a fallacy called Ought-Is or Wishful Thinking. Simply put it is the idea that we want something to be true so we therefore believe it is true without critical analysis. The Ought-Is is a pretty common reason why we fail to fully examine situations and make mistakes.

So, let’s put on our Critical Thinking caps and get to work!

The benefits of a Saturday game are fairly self-evident. Parties could occur on Saturday night instead of Sunday night. Bars, hotels, and other venues would get a boost in revenue because the revelry could go on all evening. The game itself would air in the evening rather than late afternoon. People could stay up late without having to go to work the next morning.

Our critical thinking skills come into play to determine why the game, with all these tangible benefits, hasn’t been moved. One of the important aspects of critical thinking is determining who stands to gain and who stands to lose by a particular proposition. In this case the thing I chose to ignore was the idea of who loses with a Saturday game. Can you think of the answer? Take a moment.

Two parties lose by moving the game to Saturday, the NFL and the host city. The process by which the NFL determines the host city does not involve, to my knowledge, a direct cash payment. However, the host city is generally chosen by their “ability to host”. Well, let’s parse that phrase. What the NFL means by “ability to host” is really how much money can they extract from people who come to see the game.

While the NFL benefits from direct ticket sales and certainly from advertising I would imagine that the events surrounding the Super Bowl, including specially built venues to entertain the visitors in around the host city, provide a hefty boost to that income. Most of these special events take place on Saturday with a continuation onto game day. This revenue would certainly decrease with only half a day on Saturday to run before the game.

Likewise, the host city gets more hotel revenue and more tourist revenue by having the game on Sunday. Tourists arrive either late on Friday or early on Saturday and spend the rest of their time spending money. If the game were played on Saturday this would eliminate a full day of tourist revenue. Now, certainly many tourists would stay through Sunday in any case but the loss of revenue would certainly be significant.

Ok, now we’ve uncovered the reason for the game staying on Sunday, can we come up with a solution to the problem? The only real solution that I can think of is to have some sort of national holiday on the Friday before the Super Bowl (if the game is on Saturday) or the Monday after (if the game remains on Sunday). The NFL has proposed such solutions but it seems unlikely that the government will get involved and even if they do, some companies would ignore the holiday and this might curtail some of the revenue generation.

So, for all our critical thinking we don’t have an easy solution. That’s the way of it sometimes but at least I have some peace of mind as to why the game continues to be played on a Sunday.

I would suggest that we all try to use our critical thinking skills when faced with a seemingly absurd situation. Oftentimes you will find that Wishful Thinking has blinded you to the reality of a dilemma.

Tweet, Link, Like, Comment, and all the rest if you think other people might like to read this!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Mob Mentality … Individually

Posted on by

There was a recent story about mob craziness that caught my eye and I want to talk about how that same crowd psychology effects individuals when communicating on the internet.

Sigmund Freud said, people who are in a crowd act differently towards people from those who are thinking individually.

I think it’s safe to say that what he means is that people will do things, bad things, that they would not do if dealing with others on a one-on-one basis. It’s fairly self-evident that this is true and I’m not going to devote time in this post to why it happens. What I would like to look at is how the internet engenders mob mentality even when we are sitting alone at a computer.

I don’t know how many of you read the comment section at the bottom of a story but it’s an ugly world. Every voice of reason is sandwiched by layers of vileness. A lot of times these comments come from the same individual who has multiple accounts but the effect is generally the same. A group of people say something vile, often with little or no merit, and it is amplified many times, so much so that other, more rational people, begin to give the ideas credence.

More than once people I know, decent, intelligent people, have repeated something they heard from friends or read in a comment section that was patently false. You can see my previous post about our obligation to correct those sorts of mistakes but that’s not my point here today.

The internet allows us the glory of exploring so many thoughts, so many ideas. There are many voices out there with new, and generally awful, ideas. Just because most of the ideas are bad doesn’t mean there aren’t good things available.

The voices of insanity are drowning out the reasonable. This is dangerous to our society. Good thinkers become discouraged and go into a little corner not to be heard from again.

My point here today is that you can blunt the mob!

Use your Critical Thinking cap when you read a story and even more so when you peruse the comments below. Sign up so that you can comment. Reply with rational arguments. Promulgate reasonable ideas. We can change this country by changing the way people think. Make the internet a force of good. Join in! One comment a day, that’s all I ask.

Like, Tweet, and Stumble with the buttons below and comment, comment, comment!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

NFL Pro Bowl – Effort

Posted on by

The NFL Pro Bowl was a sorry affair according to all who saw it. The idea I want to explore today is exactly what sort of effort was required from the players to make it an entertaining event and how this sort of obligation effects our own lives.

Let’s look at some of the reasons the players would choose not to play hard.

  1. Professional Football is a particularly violent sport and injuries are common.
  2. The game has no effect on the standings of the teams.
  3. Football is a team sport and the players are unfamiliar with one another and have had little time to practice.

I think we can all see the power of the first argument and the fact that players don’t want to risk career ending injuries in a game of this nature. The baseball All Star game fell prey to this same malaise, so much so that a new rule was created to enliven the game. The NHL All Star game has long been a showcase for offense with defense taking a back seat and the normal fierce body checking all but eliminated.  The NBA All Star game is such that pregame events are more exciting than the game itself.

The other two arguments resonate with me as well and I do see good reason to, at least, play a bit more easily and let the offensive stars showcase their talent.

Now let’s see what motivations the players have to play hard football.

  1. It’s entertaining for the fans.
  2. Professional pride in doing their job.

The first argument is a tough one to nail down because not all fans are entertained by the same thing. Some fans love a defensive struggle while others like an high scoring, high flying game. It’s fair to say that most fans came away from this year’s Pro Bowl feeling dissatisfied.

I think it is also accurate that interest in the various All Star game has declined, probably because of the exposure the players get on multiple media outlets. Twenty years ago All Star games were a chance for people to see the stars of other teams for the first time. Now, we can see them pretty much as often as we desire.

Professional pride is an interesting argument as well. I’m all about professional pride but when the outcome of my efforts make no difference, or very little difference, it does become hard to put forward maximum effort. I think the world would be a better place if we all gave it our best but it is unrealistic to expect people to work their hardest under every circumstance.

I suppose, in conclusion, the lesson to be learned is that when the value of an event is reduced it is only natural to expect  people to put forward less effort and there are probably few artificial ways around this fact. We can try to assign value to something but people generally see through such subterfuge.

If you want people to put forward their best effort then there has to be good reason for them to want to do so. This goes for business projects, school, sport, and most aspects of life.

So get out there and give people good reason to shine and you might be surprised by the result.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Half Dome at Yosemite

Posted on by

I recently read an article that explained how the parks department wants to curtail activity at the Half Dome in Yosemite National Park.

There are various reasons for the closing and you can read the entire article if you are interested in that debate but I’d like to talk about the solution to the problem.

Ok, my legion of followers, get ready to put on your Critical Thinking cap.

First, let’s cover the proposed solution which is to limit the amount of people who can use the pulley system up to the top of  Half Dome to 300 a day. Basically the parks department is creating a terrible headache for itself. What will likely happen is that there will be a mad rush to be one of the first 300 people in the line to get the tickets. This will eventually become so ugly they go to some sort of lottery system like they do for big game ticket sales. Anyone at the site before x-hour gets a lottery ticket and then 300 are picked.

This whole process takes time, effort, and management from a parks department that probably already has a lot to do. Now, with our Critical Thinking hat firmly in place let’s try to find a better solution.

Hmmm, you have a product that is so in demand that supply can’t keep up with it, what do you do? Is it really that difficult? Set a price point. If you want to go to the top of Half Dome it will cost $50 a person. If that price tag results in too few or too many visitors after the first year then adjust the price. It’s simple, easy to enforce, and people know what they are getting. Likely it’s a floating price that adjust seasonally. They can then use the money for other parks projects!

Now, the main objection is going to be that the National Parks are there for everyone to enjoy and this is making it a venture only for the wealthy. Now we put on another hat, wait a second, where is it, there we go, my pragmatist hat.

Here’s the deal, the number of people is going to be limited one way or another. So, if the parks department has it their way you could show up with your family, get up a 5:00 a.m. so you can get in line for a chance of getting one of the tickets and get nothing. In fact, that’s what most people would get, nothing. Or, you can decide if you want to pay the fee and then be assured of going.

As for wealthy people getting more, well, that’s capitalism. Getting to Yosemite is not something everyone can afford and the park charges to get in, to hike, and to stay in the lodges. All of these things price out certain groups of people.

In conclusion, I implore you to keep your Critical Thinking hats on for as much of the day as you can and keep that pragmatist cap handy as well!

Tell me what you think!

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Cruise Ship Disaster

Posted on by

The recent crash of the Costa Concordia is generating a large amount of coverage and rightly so although I’d like to take a look at it from a different angle.

Let’s examine the critical thinking and decision making leading up to and after the accident. We don’t have a full picture yet so I’ll have make some suppositions which might well turn out to be inaccurate.

The main factor in steering the vessel close to share, and thus danger, seems to be that the tourists enjoyed the better view. A term called Tourist Navigation. Other cruise lines gained publicity and, presumably, higher capacity ratios at least partially because of said publicity. It appears to have been common practice to steer close to shore for this reason. The liners apparently encouraged or even pressured captains to do it. The decision was based on risk/reward, or more technically, risk-return spectrum. The risk being a grounding, deaths, etcs. The reward, more money.

Naturally the world universally condemns the practice but don’t well all engage in risk/reward behavior every day? Do we cross the street against the light, run the yellow too late, etc? We take our lives into our hands for minor gain. So, was the cruise line and the captain wrong to make this decision?

I’d say it’s their right to make the decision and most often it was the correct call, but they have to pay the consequences when the risk side of the equation hits.

Now, onto the captain who didn’t warn the passengers in time and left the vessel while people were still on board. Here are some decisions that I think are more obviously based on poor critical thinking skills.

In an emergency situation it is generally a good idea to go with safety first. My building at work recently had a water leak which set off the fire alarms. It was a pretty badly burst pipe and water was running down the stairwell but no one was in immediate danger of death. Nevertheless, the alarms went off and everyone was evacuated from the building. So, why did the captain choose to downplay the risk after the grounding, which, to be fair, he might not have understood was going to cause as much damage as it did?

He likely wanted to avoid embarrassment to the cruise line if it turned out to be a false alarm and not inconvenience the passengers. If he had taken time to consider the best case scenario, a few inconvenienced passengers and the worst case sceneario, largely what played out or even more disastrous, I think the decision is clear.

As for leaving the vessel early, well, I can only assign panic to that one. As the captain of the ship he knows his responsibility without question. I’m curious as to how he thought he could disembark before everyone was off. If he was panicked then I would hope one of the other officers would remind him of his duty. I’d like to hear what they did when the captain abandoned ship.

All, in all, a terrible tragedy but an opportunity to examine the critical thinking skills of those involved. Heartfelt sympathy for the families of those who lost loved ones and to those injured in the accident. Stay strong!

Tell me what you think.

Tom
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Finnish School

Posted on by

My friend’s son Peter, posted an article on Facebook about how Finnish school systems are among the most elite in the world. The article focused on the Finnish goal of equity being the primary reason for their outstanding performance and ignored, I thought, the more relevant issues.

The important factor seemed to be that level of personal responsibility the teachers take on in that school system. There is no standardized testing because the teachers individually grade students. The key quote is; Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted.

It took me a second to deconstruct what that meant but it turns out to be a concept directly from Ayn Rand and her objectivist point of view. The idea is that if the teachers are personally responsible for their actions then no one has to check up on their accountability.

The more I thought about it the more it I came to the conclusion that accountability is really just a word for covering my ass. If people are always responsible then we don’t have to worry if they are doing their job properly. Even if something goes wrong it was an honest mistake.

Of course, the practical application comes in trying to teach the next generation how to be personally responsible for their actions. Sadly, I don’t think the current generations is setting a particularly good example which is probably the most important factor.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery, fantasy novels with a Libertarian twist