If you know me at all, you know that my favorite athlete hands down is Lebron James. Before I get into a diatribe about why he should be in your favorites too, let me explain some general aspects underlying his very human struggle (something everyone reading should empathize with).
Happiness as a theory, to me, is predicated upon finding the reasonable ground between expectations and actuality. People who generally find actuality better than expectations are very happy (they are the minority). People who find expectations better than actuality are generally rather sad (again a minority). Most people find themselves in the middle, they generally live life to their expectations save for a few circumstances where they over or under perform. Moreover, society ascribes expectations to people based on its view of actuality. E.g. I would expect a Wharton student with a 4.0 GPA to work at a +$100,000 job merely because he ranked at the top of the class. Expectations would have to be modified to fit reality.
The rarest scenario that can be imagined is twofold; a individual who's actuality is so high or low that expectations set by himself and society prevent him from achieving happiness because they either suggest that he would merely be average (at which pt he would only be like everyone else) or godlike (achieving standards that are beyond human comprehension) in order to meet them. This is the story of Lebron James, an athlete of such incredible physical tools that nothing less than 7 championships would satisfy the moniker of "King James" I know a lot of people who use Lebron's talent against him. "Fuck that guy he is arrogant and didnt earn his skills", "he lacks the clutch gene", "he had to join with two superstars to win a ring", "he is robin to wade's batman". The problem with these statements is that they all rely on expectations which have been misapplied over time. Let me counter with the human perspective:
Lebron was built up by the same people who took him down when it was convenient. They labeled him the next big thing starting at age 14 and placed him on the cover of SI with the title "Chosen One". They gave him marketing deals and made him all the craze on 24 hour pointless sports radio/television. When he failed they talked about his failures to generate viewership. When he failed in 2011, they decided to spend an entire summer laughing at him and questioning if he ever deserved any of there original praise to begin with.
This isn't too different from humanity in general, and we each see it in our day to day lives. People are inherently self-interested and will do what it takes to satisfy themselves prior to ever helping another. The sports media rode his bandwagon when it would make them cool, and jumped off as soon as he fell off. What separates Lebron from the rest of the superstar athlete community is that he asks to be called out and berated by society because he genuinely cares about the expectations laid out for him. Unlike Kobe or MJ, Lebron will never blame a teammate for costing his team a win, he will instead put the burden on himself to make the team that much better and put the teammate in a position to win. Lebron will never take a last minute shot if he see that a proven shooter is left open on the floor. And no matter the circumstances, Lebron will always back his coaches decisions without trade drama etc. It took years of disrespect from the organization and coaches to get Lebron to leave the sports city he built to go to Miami. Even after arriving in Miami, Lebron refused to be labeled as a player of higher importance than his good friend Dwyane Wade despite the obvious spread in ability.
Lebron is the nice guy of the sports world; he makes himself a "doormat" because he cares about his fans, his family, and his reputation. Actions speak louder than words. After inking his first Nike deal, Lebron chose to hire his former high school basketball friends to act as his management team (remember the commercial... "should I stop listening to my friends, but they're my friends"). Despite the accusations laid out against his mom of an affair with a teammate on the Cavaliers, Lebron only blamed himself for the 08 playoff defeat and never pushed his mom out of his life. Lastly, Lebron married his high school sweetheart and decided to stay active in his children's lives, something his own father never did.
We tend to admire superstar athletes who are in actuality assholes because they don't give a shit. Guys like Kobe Bryant,Tom Brady, and Michael Jordan don't care about the people in their lives, or what anyone thinks of them. These guys have never faced failure even when they should have (recall Kobe's putrid 4-24 shooting in game 7 of the '09 final, which was saved by Pau Gasol and Ron Artest). In Jordan's case he was a gambling addict who many people who knew him said was heavily into alcohol and drugs and constantly having extra-marital affairs. Many people have noted that the only thing that drove Michael was the will to be better than everyone else on an intrinsic level, not to live up to any extant standard. But at the end of the day, people like winners, and these aspects are largely forgotten.
Now Lebron is a winner. Its refreshing to see an athlete of high character as well as talent claim what he has worked hard for his entire life. The difference here is that because Lebron cares and set up exaggerated standards for himself, we cant even use his talent as an excuse to say that he lacks work ethic. Actuality finally matches expectations(as unrealistic as they seem), and its nice to know that a person can place pressure on himself and rise from the darkest of places to win back the throne. As a fan, rest assured there is no other player in sports today who cares as much about the expectations laid out for him. Everyone has faced a similar fire whether you believe it or not. Now we can all standby and see if he can conquer MJ's shadow in a similar light.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Different Values Lead to Different Truths; An Election Commentary
So its been a couple of day's since the Presidential/Senate/Congressional election and both sides seem to be in an uproar. The left (AKA at least 60% of my classmates) are enthusiastic and grateful that the nation cares to embrace an evolving notion of rights; be it for women, gays, or even the casual weed smoker. The right, has for the most part accepted defeat graciously, I say "most part" because even Fox News couldn't stop Karl Rove from questioning the actual tally on air. Both sides have plenty to say about their peers, be it that the right is racist and challenges the fundamental rights of people based on a pro-corporate tier one bias or that the left is composed of foolish simpletons who like rights and getting handouts at the expense of those who actually work. Now both arguments are predicated upon vast over generalizations of very complex institutional arguments, despite what either group may retort. I think that at heart most people know this to be true i.e. social institutions and long standing debates regarding policy have led to a chicken and egg sort of chase to find truth.
That being said, my problem with this election was that it conclusively proved to me, as an American, that Americans in vast majority view politics as a clash of values rather than as a clash of ideas. The concept of objectively seeking meaning has been lost in a frenzy of facebook posts, tweets, and TV shows. Objectively seeking meaning is not easy. You do not simply wake up one day and decide that welfare is bad because it discourages work, or that Roe vs. Wade was an incorrect decision because a fetus is equivalent of a child. Rather, meaning requires a careful analysis of the facts, of the related externalities, and consequently the impact of actually holding the belief on society. Majority of people understand the first two, but the third condition serves as the litmus test for meaning. We can consider on the basis of a few questions:
1. What do you believe and are you comfortable holding those beliefs when surrounded by the opposition (e.g. would you hold the same beliefs if you were richer, or poorer, or the other sex etc.?)
2. If put under pressure, would you still hold the same beliefs (e.g. killing one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people, or evaluating each person as inherently valuable).
3. How did you come up with your belief (who and what influenced you)?
Now, this is where truth is squandered. People tend to conflate what they believe to be true with what is actually true. I'm not going to go through the minutia, but there exist a variety of statistically significant biases pertaining to how people attribute their beliefs. These biases range widely, but I think the two most appropriate election related biases are:
1. The halo bias - physical appearance denotes positive or negative attributes. E.g. this pretty girl is so sweet.
2. fundamental attribution error - overvaluing dispositional qualities as explanations for behavior in others while taking a situational approach with yourself. E.g. Sally fell over a rock and is she is clumsy. I fell on the same rock and it only happened because of the rock.
So what we have left over is a variety of extremely socially influenced and contextual beliefs (values) mixed with inherent flaws in human nature (I'll call this the jumble). The end result is an election that does not appeal to truth seeking, but rather tries to empathize with values as closely as possible with as many people as possible. So now we have two caricatures that have built up a reputation and story to appeal to people despite what their policies would actually mean for the electorate.
Barack Obama: a sincere and charismatic leader from humble origins who champions the rights of the underprivileged in a hope to move America forward. He is a community organizer at heart who empathizes with the people and makes it his personal objective to better this country.
Mitt Romney: a self-made business man from your stereotypical American family. Has the CEO look and plans to manage the country as he would a PE portfolio; via cuts on spending and taxes for the upper class who are the backbone of the economy. Believes most importantly in the ideal of freedom and as such has plans to expand the military budget.
Both of these individuals appeal to different people with different jumbles. However, it is worth noting that nothing about either description elucidates an outcome of any variety, nor does it gauge intent. What the hell does being sincere have to do with policy making? Why should America be run like a corporation? And lastly are these guys really what we think they are?
An election based on ideas would force candidates to answer such questions -- and to some extent I do think that this election was an improvement. Yet, the disagreement I see between my peers, the left and the right, is not based on the same questions. Party alignment, wealth alignment, alignment with one or two personal issues (at exclusion of the general electorate) etc. is a recipe for a continuation of lost discourse and political failures. Though pure separation is all but impossible, it is important we consider these factors before stepping into the booth and pressing buttons which impact the future of the world. Truth testing seems to be an art lost in the ruse of "values".
That being said, my problem with this election was that it conclusively proved to me, as an American, that Americans in vast majority view politics as a clash of values rather than as a clash of ideas. The concept of objectively seeking meaning has been lost in a frenzy of facebook posts, tweets, and TV shows. Objectively seeking meaning is not easy. You do not simply wake up one day and decide that welfare is bad because it discourages work, or that Roe vs. Wade was an incorrect decision because a fetus is equivalent of a child. Rather, meaning requires a careful analysis of the facts, of the related externalities, and consequently the impact of actually holding the belief on society. Majority of people understand the first two, but the third condition serves as the litmus test for meaning. We can consider on the basis of a few questions:
1. What do you believe and are you comfortable holding those beliefs when surrounded by the opposition (e.g. would you hold the same beliefs if you were richer, or poorer, or the other sex etc.?)
2. If put under pressure, would you still hold the same beliefs (e.g. killing one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people, or evaluating each person as inherently valuable).
3. How did you come up with your belief (who and what influenced you)?
Now, this is where truth is squandered. People tend to conflate what they believe to be true with what is actually true. I'm not going to go through the minutia, but there exist a variety of statistically significant biases pertaining to how people attribute their beliefs. These biases range widely, but I think the two most appropriate election related biases are:
1. The halo bias - physical appearance denotes positive or negative attributes. E.g. this pretty girl is so sweet.
2. fundamental attribution error - overvaluing dispositional qualities as explanations for behavior in others while taking a situational approach with yourself. E.g. Sally fell over a rock and is she is clumsy. I fell on the same rock and it only happened because of the rock.
So what we have left over is a variety of extremely socially influenced and contextual beliefs (values) mixed with inherent flaws in human nature (I'll call this the jumble). The end result is an election that does not appeal to truth seeking, but rather tries to empathize with values as closely as possible with as many people as possible. So now we have two caricatures that have built up a reputation and story to appeal to people despite what their policies would actually mean for the electorate.
Barack Obama: a sincere and charismatic leader from humble origins who champions the rights of the underprivileged in a hope to move America forward. He is a community organizer at heart who empathizes with the people and makes it his personal objective to better this country.
Mitt Romney: a self-made business man from your stereotypical American family. Has the CEO look and plans to manage the country as he would a PE portfolio; via cuts on spending and taxes for the upper class who are the backbone of the economy. Believes most importantly in the ideal of freedom and as such has plans to expand the military budget.
Both of these individuals appeal to different people with different jumbles. However, it is worth noting that nothing about either description elucidates an outcome of any variety, nor does it gauge intent. What the hell does being sincere have to do with policy making? Why should America be run like a corporation? And lastly are these guys really what we think they are?
An election based on ideas would force candidates to answer such questions -- and to some extent I do think that this election was an improvement. Yet, the disagreement I see between my peers, the left and the right, is not based on the same questions. Party alignment, wealth alignment, alignment with one or two personal issues (at exclusion of the general electorate) etc. is a recipe for a continuation of lost discourse and political failures. Though pure separation is all but impossible, it is important we consider these factors before stepping into the booth and pressing buttons which impact the future of the world. Truth testing seems to be an art lost in the ruse of "values".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)