BCS Madness

The big rematch: #1 LSU vs. #2 Alabama.  They will face each other early next year to determine the National Champion.  Everything about their styles of play indicates that it will truly be one of the best games of the year.  Except for the fact that we already saw it...

LSU and Alabama saw each other nearly month ago and for the two weeks leading up to it, the game was billed as "The Game of the Century".  High expectations to live up to, but the game disappointed nonetheless.  LSU emerged the victor in overtime in a whopping 9-6 overtime victory that never saw a touchdown.  No touchdowns.  How's that for the game of the century.

Critics are now maligning the BCS for the scheduled rematch, accusing the game as a letdown.  They want to see a good game, not a boring one.  Apparently this means more than including the two best teams in college football -which clearly applies to LSU and Alabama.

Others claim that the rematch is fair.  Both teams rose to the top of BCS standings, and a rematch isn't the worst thing that could happen.  Sure, a rematch is not as exciting as seeing two teams that haven't faced off before, but what's really important is to see the best two teams go at it in the Championship Bowl.

To me, the difference in opinions represents the difference in satisfizers and maximizers.  A maximizer looks for the best possible outcome, here represented by a intriguing new and unique matchup, and is disappointed by anything less.  A satisfizer accepts something that may be less than maximal, but is tolerant of an option that is guaranteed to please.  Here, the rematch represents that option.

The difference in maximizers and satisfizers have been studied extensively in psychology and results have pointed to the fact that satizfizers overall lead happier lives.  Instead of constantly searching for the best possible option, they are willing to accept the first one that is acceptable.  They move on and don't worry about the better alternatives and instead focus on the positives of what was presented to them.

It is interesting to me that the same critics (the maximizers) are often pushing for the much-talked-about BCS Playoff system in which 8 teams would spar off in a bracket to determine the national champion.  This is a way to better guarantee the crowning of the "best" college football team, maximizing the odds.

I say, forget about maximizing.  Be appreciative that we have football games at all, and that we are going to get to see the best two teams face each other.  The game may be boring, yes, but I would rather see the best two teams go at it, than watch a beat-down in a national championship game.  Stop complaining, you maximizers.

In Defense of JoePa

Joe Paterno.

A man.  A coach.  A living legend.

Single-handedly this man had coached the Penn State Nittany Lions for the past 45 years.  He's broken almost every college coaching record that ever existed.  He was slated to go down in history as one of the most beloved coaches of all time.  Penn State was JoePa.  Joe Pa was Penn State.

On Wednesday Joe Paterno's reign as head coach came to an end with a swift call from the Penn State Board of Trustees.  He was three games short of finishing his 46th season.  This national icon and local hero has been swept up into allegations of child abuse and sexual assault.  Not his own though.

The allegations are against Paterno's old defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky.  To date, eight boys have come forward with allegations against Sandusky who claim that he sexually molested them between 1994 and 2009.  How is Paterno involved?

In 2005 a coaching assistant approached Paterno with information that he had caught Sandusky in the Penn State locker room molesting a 12 year-old boy.  Paterno alerted his superior, Penn State's Athletic Director, and did not report the incident to authorities.

Legally, Paterno's lawyers say, he fulfilled his obligation.  Ethically, he clearly did not.  While most everyone would agree that a rational person would have contacted authorities immediately, I tend to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt.

Joe Paterno is responsible for one thing and one thing only, making sure his football team is a unit.  They practice together, step onto the field together, and (usually) win together.  To find out that a member of your team - worse, a coaching assistant - has committed one of the most vile acts known to man - I cannot even begin to think of the things running through Paterno's head.  In my opinion, he did the right thing by turning the issue over to his superior.  He didn't betray his team, he didn't betray his obligation, and most importantly he certainly did not betray the victim.

By turning the issue over, Paterno demonstrated his interest in bringing a just end to the issue.  Any inaction beyond that was the fault of the Athletic Director, not of Paterno.  This is a controversial issue and I know that many will think that I am insensitive to the victims of Sandusky's crimes.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  I think that Sandusky should be locked up for life.  He committed the most heinous crime that a person could commit - he literally preyed on defenseless children - worse, if allegations are true, he made a hobby out of it.

I defend Paterno because some part of me is determined to see him in a positive light.  I grew up watching him and admiring his tireless work ethic.  Thinking of JoePa as a villain hurts.  I don't want to, and I think that he deserves the benefit of the doubt - especially after all that he has done for Penn State, and it's dedicated family.

Paterno's statement, released hours after receiving news of being let go by the Board of Trustees:

I am disappointed with the Board of Trustees' decision, but I have to accept it.

A tragedy occurred, and we all have to have patience to let the legal process proceed. I appreciate the outpouring of support but want to emphasize that everyone should remain calm and please respect the university, its property and all that we value.

I have been incredibly blessed to spend my entire career working with people I love. I am grateful beyond words to all of the coaches, players and staff who have been a part of this program. And to all of our fans and supporters, my family and I will be forever in your debt.

How can anybody hate this man?

The Danger of Smartphones

Looking up and down the streets of downtown Los Angeles, it’s hard to go a single moment without seeing someone with a smart phone in hand.  This technology has seemingly been fixed to the palm of our hands with some sort of super glue.  While advances in communication devices have undoubtedly changed the speed of consumer interaction for the better, I fear that smart phones such as the iPhone, Blackberry, and Android devices have replaced canines as man’s best friend.  While an increasingly shrinking world has given us innumerable advances, new technology has taken away something that cannot be suitably recreated or replaced: the essential nuances and qualities of simple face-to-face interaction.

The modern smart phone has given people the ability to keep in constant contact with their family members, their employers and their closest friends, regardless of the vast distances between the two, but is that such a good thing?  While constant contact means quicker transmission of communication and event planning, the idea of always being “linked in” is somewhat chilling.  Often times I find that the most serene moment of my day is in the waning minutes of the night between when I turn off my cell phone and when I go to sleep.  There is something very peaceful about not being able to be reached.

An increase in the amount of smart phone usage coupled with an expanding social media market reflects an increase personal fear about being out of the loop – or left behind.  Public insecurity, as I like to call it, is fueled not by the desire to know more, but to not know less.  Certainly the increased time spent on these devices does indeed augment the number of people that we can be in conversations with at any given time, but I question the value and legitimacy of any conversation that takes an hour when a face-to-face interaction could have settled any dispute in a matter of minutes.

For many, these new-fangled devices offer an ever-present portal to the world of social media, for which I am beginning to develop a bad taste in my mouth towards.  Social media has the potential to be an overwhelmingly useful tool when it comes to keeping in touch with long lost friends, but I fear that websites like Facebook and Twitter have become social replacements as opposed to social supplements.  So often I notice that people sitting side by side in a dorm room will be sitting lazily on their chairs or beds perusing their friends’ Facebook pages, when they easily could be talking to one another.

Looking forward, I see a dichotomy taking form.  There are many people who are embracing social media, who marvel in the vast potential that such networking websites offer.  And yet there remain the conservatives, people like me who prefer traditional forms of communication and miss the more personal elements of regular face-to-face conversation.  Within this dichotomy lie two inevitable ends.  Either social media and smart phones will inevitably change the way that the world operates forever, or a counterculture will develop that lashes back against the scarily fast-developing new technologies.  I hope for the latter.

Along with this trend of ongoing social media and smart phone usage seems and increase in complacency and stagnation.  Too often I see my friends locked indoors, their eyes glued to their computer screens – when the weather is beautiful outside.  While I by no means claim to be a woodsman, or to have a gymnast’s body, the sight of people indoors on a sunny day irks me.  Moreover, I become genuinely confused as to just what it is that draws people ever closer to their computers and devices than the allure of nature.  Perhaps everyone else sees something that I don’t, but I think that if this trend continues, we can expect to live in a world very similar to that in the Pixar film, Wall-E.

Occupy LA: A Wake-Up Call for the Rest of Us

            It takes a particular type of individual with a unique constitution to stand out from the masses and speak out against injustice.  To stand up when others feel helpless and to stand in the face of strong opposition – that is what demonstrates how dedicated a person is to their cause.  Such is the fiber of the people who make up the Occupy movements that have become a worldwide phenomenon over the course of the past few months.  Yet, realistically these protesters have done little for their cause, and yet participants in the Occupy L.A. protest continue to camp in front of City Hall.

            The protesters incessant calls for change, despite their meager influence, serve as a reminder to the public that certain individuals are still willing to step outside of their comfort zone to seek what is right.

            The Occupy demonstrations have been going on for nearly 5 weeks now, with no sign of slowing down.  Despite the fact that some of the protesters have been picketing since the demonstration’s inception, the protesters have done little for their cause.  The Occupy L.A. demonstration claims to represent “the 99%” of American citizen whose wealth drastically contrasts with the wealth of the top one percent.  Protesters want to change financial landscape of the nation and ask the top one percent to give more of their money to the federal government in the form of taxes.

            While their motivation is clear, what’s not clear is their solution.  Countless interview after interview with protesters reveals no real plan for their envisioned end result.  Yet they persist in their demands and have become a real pest in over 70 cities in the U.S. and over 600 internationally.  The protesters’ invariable resolve to continue picketing is what demonstrates their commitment to this cause.  In psychology, clinical insanity is diagnosed when a patient repeats the same behavior over and over again, expecting a different result.  Though these protesters meet the criteria for clinical insanity, their commitment should be taken as a statement of how dire their cause is.

            On the other hand, the movement comes off as somewhat contradictory.  While the protesters seem to stand at odds with the top one percent of tax payers in the nation, their envisioned result asks that distanced group to rejoin the masses.  Essentially, they are asking them to bequeath the “extra” income that they have to the government, and live humbly like the rest of the nation.  Don’t think that the one percent is jumping out of line to rejoin the rest of the nation.

            If there is one thing that this movement lacks, it’s a clear sense of a tangible solution.  I agree that the top one percent of Americans should give more in the way of federal taxes than the rest of us, but it would be unwise to ignore what fuels the American economy.  What drives Americans to continually innovate and push the boundaries farther than previously established is the well-engrained competitive nature of our country.  To take away the rewards of breaking into the top one percent of our wage earners could have devastating and unforeseeable repercussions.  It is a simple psychological equation that when you take away the rewards of a certain behavior, you can expect the behavior to deteriorate immediately.

            While I may not personally agree with the motivations of these protesters, I cannot disregard their resolve.  It is true that there is a growing divide between the rich and poor in our country, and that if the divide continues to expand we may one day see a new kind of civil war on our hands.  The type of conflict that we see unraveling is a complicated issue and the dedication of these protesters is a wake up call for the rest of the nation.  While their solution may not be the most advantageous, it is time for the rest of us to start searching for a new and appropriate solution.

Interesting Op-Eds

I read these articles recently, and thought you might like them as much as I did:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-frank-darwin-economics-20111018,0,5949996.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/wal-marts-layaway-plan.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

American Exceptionalism and The City on the Hill

“For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world.” – John Winthrop on board the Arbella, 1630

These words were originally spoken by Governor Winthrop in a sermon to soon-to-be Massachusetts Bay colonists, warning them that the eyes of the world would be upon them.  The actual influence of his sermon is debatable, but Governor Winthrop’s mentality is one that has pervaded almost every aspect of what it means to be American.  The idea that the United States of America is somehow different than other nations is something that many Americans take for granted. 

Perhaps it’s because the United States was formed not by cultural ties or backgrounds, but by an ideological likeness – that every man has the right to the preservation of life, liberty, health, limb, or goods of another, as John Locke put it so eloquently.  Perhaps it’s because America was the ultimate religious experiment, established as a true City on a Hill. 

Thomas Paine echoed Locke’s ideas in his pamphlet Common Sense over one hundred year later, in 1776:

“We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now.”

Or moreover, perhaps the mentality that the United States is an exception is linked to the notion of Manifest Destiny, which was proposed an exclamation of American virtue, mission, and destiny (Weeks).

Why do Americans feel that they are different – that somehow the seemingly binding laws of culture, country, love and war don’t apply?  The idea can be distilled into one topic: American Exceptionalism.

American Exceptionalism

The concept that has come to be known as American Exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations because it was founded on a distinctly different ideology.  Josef Stalin was the first person to use the term in 1929 when he berated members of the American Communist Party in the United States for thinking that their take on Communism should be anything different than the laws dictated by Karl Marx.

The roots of the notion of American Exceptionalism stem from the Puritan view that New England was humanity’s second chance at salvation.  John Winthrop’s “city on a hill” metaphor is used often as a marker of exceptionalist feelings.

In his essay American historian Howard Zinn writes, “The idea of a city on a hill is heartwarming. It suggests what George Bush has spoken of: that the United States is a beacon of liberty and democracy. People can look to us and learn from and emulate us” (Zinn).  The idea of the America as a beacon of hope is a truly uplifting concept – so much so that U.S. Presidents can’t help but use the coined phrase. 

John F. Kennedy used the expression in his last address to the public before assuming office.  It was meant to be empowering in the darkness cast by the Vietnam War.  Ronald Reagan used the expression to cast hope into the American hearts, dampened by the fear of a Cold War.  He stated: “Four years ago we raised a banner of bold colors – no pale pastels.  We proclaimed a dream of America that would be ‘a shining city upon a hill.’”

Zinn combats the idea that the peoples of America were a shining light for the rest of the world by demonstrating the cruel atrocities that Americans were responsible for over two centuries.  Just years after Winthrop’s famous words, the Puritans laid siege to the Native Americans, in an effort to cleanse the Earth.  Two hundred years later American soldiers slaughtered 600,000 Fillipinos in the Spanish-American War (Zinn).  These are just two of the countless examples Zinn offers to paint a rather bleak impression of American foreign policy.

Zinn argues that American Exceptionalism has been used to justify wars in which the United States has been the bully, and other nations have been victim.  The threat of Soviet Russia’s widespread influence was the United States’ justification during the Cold War.  Afterward, communism was transformed into terrorism, and the perceived threat continued to justify expansion.  Zinn contends that the threat of terrorism does exist, but that it was exaggerated to the point of near-hysteria.  To this end, the United States government has justified its continued foreign “power plays” and deftly maneuvered increasing sphere of influence.

While the idea of American Exceptionalism has hampered American progress in some regards, it has also led to the progress of many American businesses.  Ed Feulner states that the accomplishments achieved in the lifetime of Steve Jobs are uniquely American. (Feulner).  He argues that the boldness to create a new type of technology is a characteristic that is American and that is bred here.  It is hard to argue that the notion of American Exceptionalism alone created the success that was Steve Jobs.  He certainly was a special person, and a national hero in many ways.

Perhaps the idea of American superiority is best summed up by Seymour Martin Lipset:

“In Europe, nationality is related to community, and thus one cannot become un-English or un-Swedish. Being an American, however, is an ideological commitment. It is not a matter of birth. Those who reject American values are un-American” (Lipset).

Where does the notion that American values breed American excellence come from?

Lake Wobegon Effect/Illusory Superiority

A commonly known psychological phenomenon known as Illusory Superiority actually gained attention in the 1970s and 80s because of a well-known radio program hosted by Garrison Keillor, called A Prairie Home Companion.

The show was set in fictional Lake Wobegon, where “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”  The Lake Wobegon Effect, came to be known as the cognitive bias that causes a person to overestimate their abilities.  This is the same phenomenon as Illusory Superiority, however the Lake Wobegon Effect is the more commonly-used name.

One of the most commonly used studies is that of comparison to the mean.  In one such study of MBA students at Stanford, 87% ranked themselves as above the average student (Zuckerman).  The pathology of the phenomenon is unknown but it has been linked to an overestimation of ability and potential failure.

So are Americans just the victim of uncontrollable pathologies of their brains?  Did the United States insert itself into Vietnam in the 1960’s with false confidence?  Are Americans just doomed because of the phenomenon known as Illusory Superiority? 

Not likely, since humans across the world are subject to the same brain pathology as Americans.  For now, Illusory Superiority will have to serve as an aside, but continued research into this topic may one day hold the key to cognitive self-bias.

American Narcissism

Dr. Jim Taylor, a professor of Psychology at the University of San Francisco, recently wrote an interesting article on the occurrence of advancing narcissism in the United States.  Taylor points to the replacement of “us” and “we” with “I “ and “me” in literature.  He also points out vain and egocentric personalities in Hollywood like Charlie Sheen and Kanye West (Taylor).

The advent of American narcissism can be directly linked to a wired age.  Posted messages, pictures, and videos al are available for friends to offer instant feedback.  And as we all know, bad attention is better than no attention.  It’s no surprise either that American families are becoming increasingly nurturing to their young sons and daughters.  Gone are the days when parents would let their children play in the streets unattended by an adult.  Perhaps all of the attention that children are getting when they are young creates a hunger for the same levels of attention later in life.

Perhaps some element of this narcissistic trend has overflowed into the United States persona.  It is a well-known fact that the United States is not viewed as the most courteous nation, and other countries tend to loathe American tourists.  But Americans don’t seem to care.  Is it simple ignorance or arrogance by choice?

As is done with any aversive trait, the first step in weeding out this trend is awareness.  I do believe that Americans are becoming more aware of their general dislike by the rest of the world.  I think that this is a problem that can be solved slowly.

Conclusion

It’s hard to say definitively that the concept American Exceptionalism is a bad thing.  It is true that the United States is in no way exempt from political ideals that govern the rest of the world, but is it so bad to think that it is in some way better?  Sure, foreign policy shoudn’t reflect apathy towards the woes of other nations, but national confidence isn’t something to shy away from either.

The United States, though entrenched in national debt, is still one of the strongest economies in the world, and investors around the world continually invest in the American dollar.  Perhaps this confidence has crippled us in many ways, but in other ways it has given us the boldness to take bold economic risks, to have the confidence to declare war on most powerful entities in the world.

All in all, the concept of American Exceptionalism is slowly dying, especially in regards to superiority.  It is going to be hard for even the most devoted Americans to justify why the United States is the best nation in the world when it is eventually eclipsed by the growing economies of China, India, and Brazil.  However, it is to the credit of the notion of American Exceptionalsim that has gotten the United States to its current place of prominence in the world.  If the world wasn’t watching after John Locke spoke those famous words, then it certain was when it became the international peace-keeper in the 20^th century.

Works Cited

Feulner, Ed. "Steve Jobs and American Exceptionalism." Wilson County News. 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/article.php?id=38739>.

"It's Academic." 2000. Stanford GSB Reporter, April 24, pp.14–5. via Zuckerman, Ezra W.; John T. Jost (2001). "What Makes You Think You're So Popular? Self Evaluation Maintenance and the Subjective Side of the "Friendship Paradox"". Social Psychology Quarterly (American Sociological Association) 64 (3): 207–223.

Kennedy, John F. ""City Upon a Hill" Speech." Miller Center. 9 Jan. 1961. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3364>.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. "American Exceptionalism: A Double Edged Sword." The Washington Post. 1996. Web. 15 Oct. 2011.            <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/americanexceptionalism.htm>.

Locke, John. "Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 2." Index. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm>.

Paine, Thomas. "Common Sense." Ushistory.org. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense6.htm>.

Reagan, Ronald. Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004. Print.

Taylor, Jim. "Narcissism: On the Rise in America?" Huffington Post. 28 May 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jim-taylor/narcissism-america_b_861887.html>.

Weeks, William Earl. Building the Continental Empire: American Expansion from the Revolution to the Civil War. Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 1996. Print.

Winthrop, John. A Model of Christian Charity. Diss. 1630. The Religious FreedomPage. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/charity.html>.

Zinn, Howard. "The Power and the Glory: Myths of American Exceptionalism." Boston Review (1995). Boston Review. Summer 2005. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. <http://bostonreview.net/BR30.3/zinn.php>.

The Psychology of Watching Sports

It has always made me wonder why we watch sporting events with such zeal.  Sure, there are many people out there that couldn't care less who wins games on a weekly basis or who has been traded to what team, but the fact is, a lot of people watch sports so frequently that it has literally created a business out of sports broadcasting agencies like ESPN and CBS Sports.

Evolutionarily speaking, it makes little sense why we care so much for athletes.  Ultimately, the athletes that we watch on TV play little to no roles in our personal lives, so why care?  They don't know who we are, so why should we care about them?


Ultimately, I realize that sports are all about entertainment value.  We cheer for the underdog not because we care about their ultimate fate, but because we care about the little man triumphing over the oppressive spirit.  In some way we are always able to relate to the underdog.


In Jesse Bering's article he discusses the importance of sports in terms of evolutionary terms.  He states that we care about the athletes who clearly showcase their most evolutionarily important attributes—strength, intelligence, endurance, speed and litheness.


This makes some evolutionary sense.  We admire those who possess the most skill to advance their genetic material.  So, to play to the stereotype, guys watch sports because they appreciate the Darwinian values that athletes possess.


The concept is somewhat frustrating, but it makes sense.  Sporting events allow us to  cheer for those who clearly exemplify what it means to be "evolutionarily fit".  Perhaps it's a case of evolutionary jealously...

What Would You Do?

I recently discovered a show on ABC called What Would You Do?, where host John Quinones examines how passerby's react to uncomfortable situations.  An interesting segment that I watched was a scenario where a driver hits a parked car while parallel parking and then walks away, seemingly unaware of the damage caused.  Some passerby's on the street did nothing, while others went so far as to hold the person under a citizen's arrest and then proceeded to call the police.

What is interested about this scenario is that it is a reflection of the battle between personal and community justice.  Some people felt that they had no obligation to the victim of the damage car and thus made no effort to stop the getaway.  To them, an intervention would have been an injustice to them, as their obligation to the victim does not exist.

Others, however, felt an obligation to the victim and made an effort to make the perpetrator cognizant of the wrongdoing.  When the perpetrator seemed not to care, some passerby's gave up while others pressed the issue.  Such is an example of the spectrum of social responsibility people have.  Passive subjects think: "Sure, it would benefit society if everyone was punished for their wrongdoings, but why is it my obligation to make sure vigilante justice is served?"

Especially with a faceless victim, why confront a person and force and uncomfortable encounter?  Not my problem, many would think.

I'm not sure I have an overall message or that there is some great takeaway, and the program didn't really have one either (which I found mildly disappointing).  I found the segment an interesting cross-section of the topic of social responsibility and how people act when they think no one is watching them.

The Food Problem

This post is in response to an article posted by a fellow member of the Roundtable, found here.  In her article Ms. Ng brings to light the ongoing issue of unhealthy food being eaten in America.   As she puts it:

"I guess the real question is, how much are you willing to pay for healthier foods?  Is it worth it?  What should these poor people do?"


This begs the question, what is the solution, but I'm not sure that there is one.  Speaking more broadly, the solution to any large scale problem like this one is ultimately going to be "solved" by equilibrium.  And I put solved in quotations because oftentimes the solution isn't a positive one, but rather an even worse fate that relieved the stresses of the first problem.

Darwinian evolution is the idea that life as we know it responds and adapts to pressures from the environment.  As discussed earlier, public intellectuals are in place to poke and prod society in the right decision - to help them make decisions for themselves that are beneficial to themselves, even if they don't recognize it as such.  But poking and prodding, say, in the form of educational programs to counteract America's poor eating habits can only do so much.

What we're seeking is a solution to do battle with literally hundreds of millions of years of evolution.  Our taste receptors are so well tuned to find what tastes good (like a McDonald's quarter pounder) that we seek the easy way out when it comes to satiating our hunger.  Ultimately many people choose to eat poorly, because quite frankly, bad food tastes good.

The second aspect of out poor choice is economic.  Poor food is cheap.  This isn't immediately recognizable as a result of evolutionary pressures, but it definitely is - in terms of resource management and sustainability.

All in all, I do agree that we, as Americans, need to change our eating habits but I fear that it won't be until serious pressures (that truly challenge our survival) will be eat healthier as a nation.

Some people will listen and change their ways.  But the majority of Americans are going to keep eating what tastes good and is cheap.

Bill Nye, the Public Intellectual ... Guy

It’s impossible for me to hear the name Bill Nye in any setting without having this primal urge to finish the household limerick with the rest that seems to come naturally– “the science guy” – and always to the proper tune.  Along with the tune always comes a rush of nostalgia for my childhood and I remember the intense excitement that I had whenever the show aired.  It was one of my favorites, to be sure, and the only show that I watched on PBS.  For me, and like-minded others in my generation, Bill Nye had done the impossible – he had made science actually cool.

For those unfamiliar with Nye’s work, he is nearly infamous for his long-running program, “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”  The program ran in the mid-90’s and was geared to preteens.  Each of the 100-episode series was aimed at a specific topic in the realm of science.  Topics ranged from the more conceptual “Space” and “Time” to the much more personal, “Smell” and “Garbage”.  Regardless of the material, Nye had a way about him that made the topic understandable – and funny!  His skillful balance of education and humor has landed him 19 Emmy awards.

For years, I watched Nye’s show on PBS and it inspired me to perform his experiments on my own time, after school.  The educational aspects of his show, incorporated with the funny asides shaped my passion for science.  Not only was this a program that I followed mindlessly – it challenged its viewers and only gave answers to complicated problems after commercial breaks.  Bill Nye, the host himself, seemed approachable and had a way of making difficult concepts accessible to all children.

Just watch this clip while Bill explains the Earth’s atmosphere and see if you don’t laugh at his exaggerated style of lecturing.

So what makes Bill Nye a public intellectual?  Simple, his biography from his personal website seems to do a good job of summing up his mission:

“[…]to help foster a scientifically literate society, to help people everywhere understand and appreciate the science that makes our world work.”

Textbook intellectual stuff here.

Herein lies the heart of this blog.   As long as (quasi)educated people exist, there are those who will try to change the world around them, many for the better.  But in the thickets, there also lies a rivaling foe – collective apathy.  It’s inescapable, and has consumed many a household.

In my experience, Nye has found a way to make his viewers care about his subject matter.  And I think it was an important step for him in developing his career into a public intellectual.  Nye’s aim is lofty, but realistic – he doesn’t aim to change the way American’s live their lives.  If they happen to, so be it, but his aim is to spread awareness of the science that dominates our lives, whether we like it or not.

I would consider myself somewhat of a left-brained individual.  While I often stare at the ceiling before I fall asleep, thinking of what life could possibly mean – what our very existence is indicative of – I also like to revel in cold, hard facts.  Facts make me feel safe.  You can’t argue facts.  One of the facts that I’ve (slowly) come to terms with is that people don’t like to be told what to do, especially by someone who they don’t know or trust.  It makes sense, but the critical flaw that I see when it comes to logical, smart public intellectuals who fail, is that they aren’t very approachable, and further, not very likeable.

Nye has more recently engaged himself in the Global Warming debate that has become somewhat of a spectacle in the news since 2006.  That isn’t to say the meteorologists and scientists don’t truly care or believe in their message.  News media has certainly played up the debate, as the constant feud between the “believers” and the “skeptics” has a tendency to become heated debate (Pun intended). Nye appears frequently on news programs providing overwhelming evidence for global warming and asserting that it is in fact happening.  Check out this clip from his guest appearance on FoxNews, where he takes on Joe Bastardi, AccuWeather forecaster.

What really shouts out to me is Nye’s calm and collected manner.  When Bastardi seems to get worked up over the way the data is analyzed, Nye keeps his cool and waits for O’Reilly to calm down Bastardi.  And when Nye disagrees he seems to be able to control his urges to shout over Bastardi.  For me, facts aside, I find myself enjoying the easy-going nature of Nye more than Bastardi based on charisma alone.  Not only do I loathe Bastardi for disagreeing with my childhood hero, but I desperately want to sit him down and force him to learn some debate etiquette.

Perhaps I am unfairly biased, poisoned by my own childhood – doomed, it seems, to see the “Science Guy” as a blessed individual, who by some grace of God harnessed the ability to make science as interesting to kids as a schoolyard game of kickball (My other great elementary school passion).  Perhaps Bill Nye can do no wrong in my mind, but even that reflects the simple psychology of the human being.  I like Bill Nye because I trust him.  He taught me things when I was young and let me into his world of science.  Now, as an adult, I can’t help but listen to him when he appears on the news as a “Public Intellectual”.

This brings me to my next point.  Do we, as a society, need public intellectuals?  Do they serve any real purpose, besides the highly decorated levels of entertainment on news stations?  Do they exist just to garner their 15 minutes of fame, to stroke their own egos and tell reassure themselves that they weren’t nerds in high school?

Yes – and no.  The invention of the public intellectual is a symptom of a shrinking world.  As individuals we have access to every imaginable viewpoint on any given subject matter that exists… in the world.  The most popular ideas, which don’t always represent the most accurate, spread like a contagion.  The fact that any individual has the potential to rise to a position whereby they can produce ideas that infiltrate the homes across continents and bodies of water is somewhat intoxicating to some, I’m sure.

Collective wisdom is the idea that inside the human race there exists a singular body of knowledge.  It is possible and communicable only through the advent of language.  Ideas flow from one person to the next.  Some ideas, like fading memories, flicker like a bright flame and burn themselves out.  Some bits of knowledge don’t ever catch and will die immediately.  And then there are those ideas that spread like wildfire.  Ideas that scare or that inspire, and every great while they will change the perception of status quo.  Einstein changed the status quo when he relayed his ideas of relativity and space-time.  Ghandi changed the status quo when he demonstrated the power of non-violent resistance.

Public intellectuals foster a single purpose, when it comes to the collective wisdom that fills our homes, our society – our earth.  Their role is to poke and prod the body of collective wisdom so that we, as a society, may decide our fate.  Ideas will infiltrate our minds thousands of times a day, millions of times in a lifetime, but only the good ones stick.  Each idea starts with a single person, and the strength of that idea is immediately associated not only with the idea itself, but also with the person representing it.

The successful public intellectual doesn’t necessarily change the status quo with their idea, but they, by factual evidence or by charisma, make society think twice.  It doesn’t matter if the idea catches or not – it’s that every idea that is created has the potential to. 

Makes you feel kinda small, huh?