Takeaways from "Long-Form Improvisation and the Art of Zen"

As I've done several time before (especially when this blog was more active), here are some takeaways from a book I recently finished: Long-Form Improvisation and the Art of Zen. Some of this is items directly from the text and some are just thoughts inspired by it.

I'm reading this book to keep myself fresh as I teach the Alchemy Comedy Theater's inaugural Improv 601 class. It's mean to be a conservatory culmination of our previous 5 levels. It had a submission process and only acceptance 6 students. Each January the plan is for the current Artistic Director to end their 1 year term with this class and "graduate" a new class of veterans. Although this book is far from my favorite on the topic, I really appreciate that it's essentially Jason Chin's blog of thoughts on long-form improv (in fact the last third is literally just excerpts from his blog).

Jason was the reason why I purchased this book a while back. He tragically died very young a few years ago and I had always appreciated his perspective and performance whenever we crossed paths. He was so well loved he even has his own improv holiday. The only time I was in a classroom setting with him was while I was in Chicago for a summer doing the iO summer intensive (I believe the best deal in improv training) and he did a lecture/discussion about the history of improvisation. It was great.

Here's a great excerpt from the book:

In the Godfather movie, Michael Corleone dispassionately discusses his assassination of Sollozzo and the police captain, McCulsky. "It's not personal," he says, "It's business." The novel, however, goes one step further: "Tom, don't let anyone kid you. It's all personal, every bit of business."

It reminded me of the classic Del Close quote:

"Nothing we say to each other is innocent of emotional manipulation. Everything that we do on stage, is to effect each other, in some way and if we notice, very carefully, how those swine we are working with are trying to get to us and get at us. Sometimes I suggest we perform on stage as though we are a whole bunch of raving paranoids.  -Del Close

Nothing is more difficult to build on and heighten that big choices (like for example an assassination) with no one taking it personally. Here's a good rule of thumb: inject either a little narcissism or codependence in all your characters.

Improv scenes are never really about very much, but they are always about something. Understanding all the pieces of a scene are great (Relationship, Characters, Environment). Understanding the comedic Pattern of the scene is essential. But above that, the context of the scene lies in "what the scene is really about". Jealousy. God vs. Science. Survival. Etc. That said, you won't be able to preplan or layout that large thematic concept. What an improv scene is actually about is figuring out what it's about.

Here's another quote from the book, from Bruce Lee:

Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend. 

This is not only great for the nature of how improvisers should be, it's also a good foundation for how improv shows should work. Figure what what makes the first scene it's shape (example: cup) and then pour it into another context (example: bottle).

Jason has an interesting breakdown in the terms coach or director. It encouraged me to layout definitions for Alchemy's three artistic leadership titles for the stage:

• Director: Implement the mission of the theater on stage
• Coach: Implement the mission of the team (as stated by the theater)
• Coordinator: Encourage the members of the team to implement the mission of the team (as stated by the theater)

Similarly, here are how I've now defined the leadership roles off stage:

• Producer: Implement the mission of the theater off stage
• Manager: Implement the mission of the night (as stated by the theater)
• Facilitator: Encourage the attenders of the event implement the mission of the event (as stated by the theater)

Jason was adamant about doing note sessions after shows (something I've done with success at other theaters). However, at Alchemy we have a culture of not doing that and treating the show itself as a moment of play reward for a period of hard work and practice (all of our House Teams and Company Members are required to attend a weekly practice). I think both systems can work and I wouldn't be bothered if a coach wanted to take Jason's suggestion. He also suggests that scene notes never last longer than the scene. Preach.

Hit a inspirational wall as a coach of a team? Ask yourself, "what are you learning?" and teach that. Not learning anything? Well, read a book or take a class.

Jason mentions a different book I've seen suggested several other times in multiple different contexts: Zen in the Art of Archery. Apparently it has many applications.

Here's a another great quote from the book, this one from Daisetsu Suzuki:

Technical knowledge is not enough. One must transcend techniques so that the art becomes artless art, growing out of the unconscious.

For a long time I've intended this 601 class to be a kind of final review for our veteran players. From here, it will just take time to get the groves in your brain to become second nature.

The biggest (only?) advantage improv has in the entertainment industry is that it's live. For that reason it's important to treat the audiences like heroes and performances like lightning in a bottle. In addition, improv theaters also need to do all the things other forms of entertainment do. Be organized, be professional, be on time, etc. From the author: "Improv [sometimes] lacks follow through".

Near the end of the book there is a list of ten suggestions. His number one is Listen. I don't think I've seen a list that didn't have some form of that at number one. The only thing I'd add to that is the other simultaneous number one rule. Act. If you're really listening and they're really saying something, then you'll really have a reaction.

With so many quotes of other people, I'll end with one from the author, Jason Chin, in the afterward of the book:

Improv is a fascinating art form that continues to evolve and mutate. I believe the trend is toward longer and longer shows with smaller and smaller casts (in number, not height) which allows for more intimate emotions and intense performances.

I agree. The graduation showcase for our 601 class will be duo monoscenes on Friday, February 23rd. At just 55 pages this isn't really an improv book, but more a collection of Jason Chin's thoughts on the topic. I'd be interested to read more mini-takes like this.

Takeaways from "Crazy Busy"

These days I finish books about as often as I blog (not very much). One reason for the lack of both is busyness. This Spring Break I took some time and read "Crazy Buzy: A (mercifully) Short Book about a (really) Big Problem" by Kevin DeYong. Here are my takeaways:

Efficiency and punctuality are a part of functioning and showing respect in America, but they are not absolute virtues globally (and certainly not historically).

If you doubt the level of complexity and opportunity in America just visit the cereal aisle.

One way to combat the burden of busyness is to ensure your lifestyle has a "margin". That is, you plan to make room for the eventuality of the unplannable. To not do so is arrogance from a finite person.

A fallacy: "Busyness serves as a kind of existential reassurance, a hedge against emptiness. Obviously your life cannot possibly be silly or trivial or meaningless if you are so busy." -Tim Kreider of the NYT

A primary cause of busyness is pride. Ask yourself: "Am I trying to do good or to make myself look good?" I'm personally guilty of sacrificing the unconditional love of my family for the praise of those I'm less intimate with.

Jesus never ended a sermon with "do more or disobey". The original sin was not a lack of effort for God, it was an attempt to become Him.

This is not a permission to be apathetic. We should hurt for those who hurt. However, our circle of influence will always be smaller than our circle of concern.

Jesus spent 30 years in relative calm before a whirlwind 3 years of public ministry. So don't fear, Jesus (more than most pre-modern people) felt the weight you likely feel of busyness. He was constantly around the disciples, preached to thousands (without a microphone), was swamped by the sick, and sometimes even had to escape by boat. Yet, he certainly had to leave cities with more sick and hungry (literal and spiritual) to continue his larger Mission.

Busyness isn't a planning problem, it's a personal one. You must create a simple list of priorities or "unseized" time will flow towards our weakness and squeaky wheels. At the same time, we have to respect others' priorities and appreciate when we hear "no".

One of the most common American forms of busyness is Kindergarchy: Rule by children. "Children have more options and more opportunities, but parents have more worry and hassle. We have put unheard-of amounts of energy, time, and focus into our children. And yet, we assume their failures will almost certainly be our fault for not doing enough."

In his book, Selfish Reasons to Have Kids", economist Bryan Caplan (remember him?) cites numerous twin and adoption studies that conclude almost every desirable trait parents wish to pass down (health, happiness, intelligence, likeability) are more nature than nurture.

"One of the most resilient and cherished myths of parenting is that parenting creates the child" -Leslie Leyland Fields

However, Bryan Caplan does show 3 traits that can be impacted by parenting: religion, politics, and appreciation of how they were parented. So, perhaps we should just try and instill those and not stress about the others so we can "have a better life and a bigger family".

Technology helps us do more of what we want. So, it can (and often does) feed into our desire for busyness. Easy half-solution: put your phone out reach and/or create full on technology Sabbath day(s).

We actually work less and rest more than we did (farming was hard), but the two are significantly less separated. We work while we play (and visa versa) much more. I may have tried to post this near 5pm so you wouldn't read it at work.

"You can borrow time (from the future), but you can't steal it. There is no such thing as a free coffee boost.

A not very sexy, but correct, concluding point: "If you have creativity, ambition, and love, you will be busy." But how busy?


HT to my brother in law Stephen for the book!

Takeaways from The Great Stagnation

As I described in an earlier post, I recently finished Tyler Cowen's ebook The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All The Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History,Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better. You can read more at his blog Marginal Revolution. Here are my takeaways that didn't make it into the original post:

Things are still great, but paying off debt will be very difficult. In the past it's been useful to have a divided government, it's hard to pass bad laws. But now that we've set things into motion that need to be stopped (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, war), something needs to be done. Sadly, what our debt has done is actually encourage us to spend more (perceived price of government is down because it's all borrowed). The "low hanging fruit" mentioned in the subtitle is divided into three categories:

*Land: initially America had a lot cheap western and and easily accessible natural resources.

*Labor: in the beginnings of American education, there were huge gains to be had. Educating the brightest and hardest working can lead to huge innovation. Today, we educate everyone. The gains from and time needed to educate all will result in less gains.

*Technology: the technology created initially after the Industrial Revolution were more valuable than the inventions created later.

The difference the technologies that have been created recently is that they lead to a lot of private good, not public good. Think about how many spillover benefits there we to the invention of the printing press or running water. But most of the inventions recently, like smart phones and heart surgery, have seen the benefits centralized on the upper half of society.

The thesis only applies to the Western world and those that have already gone through industrialization. For the next century global growth will continue to surge under the "low hanging fruit" from the rest of the world. Hopefully by the time they are done we will be out of our innovative plateau (I'm hoping for teleportation).

One of the reasons innovation has slowed is because it has become more and more difficult for science to be done by amatuers (like for example Gregor Mendel and Thomas Edison).

The exception to this is the internet. From the accuracy of Wikipedia to the great things open source has created, the internet is the last place for smart nonprofessionals to leave their mark. But, as Cowen notes, the internet has not greatly increased GDP nor does it increase median wages. Though some claim it is worth at least a couple thousand dollars.

Cowen cites specific industries that he believes still have some "low hanging fruit" to be had: health care, education, financial, and government services. Each of these are full of inefficiency and often bad rule writing. Sadly, they are all also becoming bigger parts of our economy. Cowen wisely notes that as technology made large corporations possible, it also made big government possible. Could you imagine a welfare state without computers or even the printing press?

Here are his solutions to the stagnation: 1) shrink/improve government (easier said than done), improve science by making scientists rock stars (from the Onion), 2) look forward to and beware of the next big time of economic growth (after all the industrial revolution brought better technology in the form of medicine and weapons).

Takeaways from Q & A with Tyler Cowen

If you are a regular reader of this blog, then you're aware of my affinity for economics professor Tyler Cowen. He covers everything from blogging, to the market, to reading suggestions. He was even nice enough to answer my question about the timing of the Industrial Revolution on his blog. At a teaching economics conference I even heard his co-blogger at Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabarrok, say that "before there was Google, there was Tyler". The weekly podcast Surprisingly Free recently did a Q & A with Tyler. Here are my takeaways:


Water transport is significantly cheaper than trade over land. Though slower, the natural resistance of water travel is simply less than land and air. This may helps explain why buying local may not be that great. I wonder what percentage of the buy local movement is about personal image.

One of the main reasons why there has been relative peace instead of war is that the technologies of peace have been cheaper than the technologies of war. This has not been true through most of human history. Nuclear terrorism may change this.

Trying to incentivize marital fidelity may actually ruin the cultural norm. Shame may be one of the best motivators. Especially the guilt children might put of divorcing parents.

People are more likely to think they are above average when they don't have to pay to prove it. This may be why many teachers don't support merit pay. That said, if the administration, board, or superintendent positions aren't based on merit, then maybe they can't reward merit.

Most economic principles are correct. There may be changes on the margins, but the textbooks probably won't change much.

If the average person doesn't fly much, then they may actually want too much airport security. They are hurt (indirectly) by terrorist attacks, but are barely affected by increased invasive pat downs. Tyler predicts, and I agree, that there may be small cosmetic changes to the current TSA policy, but that most of it will stay intact. Then once we have another attack, anyone still protesting will seem crazy.

One of the best ways to learn economics, like anything, is to do it. That means reading it and writing it. That means blogging.

The best non-fiction books are about the past. The worst non-fiction books are about the future. Worst case scenario: have a very incorrect understanding the world with a high degree of certainty.

In the past I've specifically voted for divided government. Historically this has been the best way to limit the growth of bad government. However, now that our country is on an unsustainable growth in spending, gridlock will bankrupt us.

When asked where Tyler would most like to live in the world he said where he is now. Shouldn't we all say that?

Knowledge is contextual. My job as a teacher is to give my students the context to learn long after final exams.

Tyler thinks marijuana legalization will never happen because of the concerned parent vote. I hope he's wrong.

Apparently my old friend and Clemson economics study partner Tate Watkins is helping to produce the Surprisingly Free podcasts. I must say I'm at least a little jealous.

Here's Surprisingly Free's first Cowen interview from earlier this year on the internet, the iPad, and Lost.

Takeaways from Predictably Irrational, Part IV

I recently finished Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. You can read Dan's current writing at his blog. Here is part one, part two, and part three in a multi-part series of my takeaways from the book. Here is the next and final part, focusing mostly on irrationality in our morals:

Economics is a lot like physics, if particles could think.

There are two types of dishonesty: malice and under the rug. The latter represents a much larger percentage than the first. When cheating is possible, it's not that a few that cheat a lot. It's most people will cheat a little.

Robberies in the US totaled $508 million in losses. Burglary offenses suffered $4.6 billion in lost property. Employee theft from small businesses in America equals $40 billion!

For most people, cheating isn't based on whether you will get caught, but based on whether you can justify it (at least for upper middle class college students).

Reminding people of their morals, for example having them write the Ten Commandments, greatly increases their chances of acting morally. I used this recently in the classroom when I gave my AP Micro students a take home test and made them sign an oath not to work together.

Honesty and trustworthiness are an important factors for wealth creation. It is costly to prevent immorality.

Surprisingly, the presence of cash decreases cheating. People are more likely to cheat when money is not involved. For example if you left a wallet with dollars in it in a break room few people will steal. But if you put sodas in a fridge they will get taken. One way to combat the theft of stuff is to put a price tag on it.

Non-cash cheating is an increasing problem was we move away from cash dealings. Think credit card fraud, trading online, or credit default swaps.

Like the take home test oath, clear contracts can help prevent fraud. Cash even looks like a tiny contract. In person deals can also prevent cheating. In fact, even putting a picture of human eyes nearby can decrease theft. Is this why we put pictures of trusted leaders on our dollars?

Improving our rationality can create "free lunches" by improving our decision making. This is one of the best practical applications for economics.

My summary of the book: Thinking has a cost, so we find shortcuts. Those shortcuts aren't full proof. So these are actually rational responses to the costs of mental calculations and moral reasoning. This can be helpful to people by making the "best" decision easier to make (by pre-committing to retirement savings). It can also be helpful to businesses by making the most profitable decision easier to make (example from the Economist). The way to avoid irrational habits is to constantly reevaluate what you do and why you do it. However, the benefits of getting it right may not be worth the cost of figuring it out. "The unexamined life is not worth living", but perhaps the overly examined isn't either.

Although I loved the book, I'm not convinced people are Predictably Irrational. Instead, I think they are Rationally Irrational.

Takeaways from Predictably Irrational, Part III

I recently finished Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational. You can read Dan's current writing at his blog. Here is part one and part two in a multi-part series of my takeaways from the book. Here is the next part, focusing mostly on where irrationality comes from:

This book is one sentence is an economist looking through the lens of psychology.

When men are sexually aroused there are about twice as likely to admit to interest in what they would deem as morally reprehensible. My guess is there is a similar correlation between other intense emotions like anger, jealousy, sadness, excitement, etc.

These moments of irrationality seem to be evidence to support Biblical truths about fleeing from sin. Avoiding temptation is easier than overcoming it.

There seem to be trade offs between reason and emotion. Like Jekyll and Hyde, each side has it's own strengths. In 2010 America, the calm collected Dr. Jekyll is preferred.

Often there are ways to predict how we might act when emotion arises. Another example from the book is for women deciding whether to pre-plan for an epidural during childbirth. She should attempt putting her hand in freezing water for 2 minutes. Amidst the pain she can predict what she'll want when the pain of birthing begins.

There are also steps we can take to put ourselves a step or two removed from making emotionally driven bad decisions. One unique example from the book is putting your credit card in the freezer in a cup of frozen water.

Predict their savings rates: USA, Europe, Japan, China. Approximate answers (in order): 0%, 20%, 25%, 50%.

The endowment effect is a well documented theory that people value something more after they own it (related to the aforementioned loss aversion). This can lead to a couple different problems: 1) fall in love with what we have to the detriment of what we could have, 2) expect others to value it just as much. So should we  buy less things? Sell less things?

Advertisements play off this owning effect through "virtual ownership".

Another problem associated with this is people don't like giving up potential options. Like the story of Buridan's ass, not making a choice is often the worst choice. Here's an article on the main experimental example in the book. Here's my earlier post on too much choice.

This helps describe the problems of constant career changers, over-activities kids, and people with too many hobbies. In fact, it challenged me, someone who spends a significant amount of time blogging and improvising.

This endowing effect also effects what we believe? It's why first impressions are so important. If you have something bad to reveal, pre-load it with good news. Here's an example: beautiful catering trays with fancy food labels.

Another real world example is prejudice and stereotypes. Surprisingly, it impacts prejudice on those being stereotyped. For example Asians are viewed as good at math, women generally said to be worse at math. In an experiment Asian women were asked to take a math test. Half were initially asked questions about being a woman and they did worse on the test. The other half were asked questions about being Asian and they did better on the test.

A final example from the real world is the placebo effect. I've discussed how perhaps education and ignorance can be placebos, but I'd never considered the reverse placebo effect. If something is perceived as low quality (often measured in price), it may not have it's highest possible effect. Perhaps this may be one of the trade offs in our attempt to decrease health care costs.

I'm unsure how this should impact the pricing of an improv show. Does an expensive show signal quality and therefore increase the average enjoyment of the show? Going back to the first takeaways on the word free, which would get better ratings from an audience, a $12 show or a free show?

This unconscious effect of placebos can be counteracted by the acknowledgement of them.

A related Einstein quote: “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”

Takeaways from Predictably Irrational, Part II

I recently finished Dan Ariely's behavioral economics book, Predictably Irrational. You can read Dan's current writing at his blog. Here is part one in a multi-part series of my takeaways from the book. Here is the next part, focusing mostly on the different kinds of exchanges:

There are two worlds of interaction, the world of social norms and the world of market norms. An example of social norm is a friend helping a friend move a couch. Market norm would be hiring a professional mover.

There can be unexpected problems s in the world of market norms. It was the famous efficiency expert Frederick Taylor who said there is "hardly a competent workman can be found who does not devote a considerable amount of time to studying just how slowly he can work and still convince his employer that he is going at a good pace."

In fact, social norms can actually be more productive. There's a famous story (couldn't find a link) about an attempt to increase the amount of blood donation by paying givers. Surprisingly, less blood was donated. The good feelings that came with donating were replaced by a payment too low to compensate for the lost feelings.

The market and social worlds have a hard time existing together, because when combined the normal pattern of interaction become unclear. Remember my earlier post on loaning friends money? The example in the book was a story about a day care that charged a fine for parents for late pickups and actually got more late pickups (because people didn't feel guilty anymore). After they removed the charge, the late pickups increased even more (because people still didn't feel guilty and now didn't have to pay). Here's my earlier post on moral math.

However, gifts (not cash) can be a way to use market incentives within a social norm would. That's why blood donors get t-shirts and cookies. But be sure not to mention how much the goodies cost.

Another problem with market norms is they make you feel more self-reliant. Think about how helpful you are at home without pay, but how favors at work are bothersome. You assume other people are just as self-reliant as you making you less willing to help others.

This helps explain why businesses want to harness the power of social norms. It's why State Farm is a "good neighbor" and Johnson & Johnson is "the family company". It also helps explain why companies originally gave sick days, health insurance, and other employee perks. They are trying to make you loyal to them. The only problem is they expect you to treat them with the same loyalty. If you nickel and dime employees/customers after you've made them feel like family they treat you not like a greedy corporation, but a like a deceptive uncle.

These social norms are also important for the most valued members of our society. It would be expensive to pay people to run into burning buildings. Or to take down and armed mugger. Or to go to war. Yet firefighters, policemen, and soldiers are plentiful. It's not just because we pay them with money, but because we pay them with respect. They get parades, discounts, and drinks bought for them at bars.

I've always been skeptical of what Dan Ariely calls social norms in the marketplace, but this book showed me their value.

Takeaways from Predictably Irrational, Part I

Continuing my survey of popular economics books, I recently finished Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational: The  Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. You can read Dan's current writing at his blog. Here is first of my takeaways from the book, focusing mostly on understanding value:

The best way to see what's wrong with your culture is to ask someone who is outside of it. Sadly, everyone we know is in our culture.

Dan Ariely's original interest came from a traumatic experience he in a burn ward. The story, as well as some of his experiments, can be heard in his TED Talk.

Figuring out how much we value things can be difficult, so often we compare it to other similar items to create a "relative value". Although this can be helpful, it often does not match our real value. This is shown perfectly in Jeff Monday's visual comparison (earlier dating example).

Because of this valuation problem, often we don't know what we want until we see it in context. Perhaps this is what advertising does. We see a iPhone being used and understand better how it can help us in our everyday life. Here are my earlier thoughts on advertising.

Another way we try to deal with the complexity of valuing things, is stick to our past decisions. This means our first impression matters a lot. Habits are like peer pressure, but with ourselves. Sometimes our original impression isn't based on any real information. Here's an example from the book on how just writing your Social Security number can impact how much you are willing to pay.

A psychological flaw of supply and demand: The price at which we demand a product is influenced by the original price we see it being supplied. The two are not completely independent from each other.

One of the most basic economic assumptions, the law of demand, states that as price goes up, consumers buy less. How much of that is not based on rational trade offs, but instead on the memory of the initial price paid?

As a business, one way to get people away from their past decisions is to create a new category. Give them a product they've never had to decide on before and they'll have "relative value".

If that's how we buy products, maybe it's also how we pick careers. We have an uncle who's an electrician who then inspires (or more accurately models) us to be one too. This can help explain why generational poverty is so hard to escape.

I've posted about money's diminishing effect on happiness. Here's a quote from H.L. Mencken to clarify: "a wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband." To make it easier, just live in a poor neighborhood.

Something I've been wondering for a long time: Is the famous Tom Sawyer whitewashing story actually possible? Can you convince people something is fun if they naturally wouldn't think so?

Another possible irrationality is our unbalanced tastes for gain and loss. Getting $5 brings a certain amount of happiness, but losing $5 hurts more. In economics this is called loss aversion.

This fear of loss makes us prone to prefer things that have no perceived possibility of loss. This i why we are attracted to the word "free". This attraction isn't always rational. In one experiment participants were offered a high quality candy for 16¢ and a low quality for 1¢. On average, a slight majority preferred to the nicer, more expensive candy. Next participants were offered a high quality candy for 15¢ and a low quality for free. Even though the price difference was the same, now a majority of people choose the lower quality candy.

Takeaways from SuperFreakonomics, Part II

I just finished reading the popular economics book SuperFreakonomics, the sequel to the book I recently posted about Freakonomics (Part II). The subtitle is "global warming, patriotic prostitutes and why suicide bombers should buy life insurance". You can read their current writings at the Freakonomics blog. Here is Part I of my takeaways and here is the second and final part:

Often a sick or elderly person will die soon after an expected major event (Christmas, anniversary, reunion). This may explain why Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on July 4th, 1826, exactly fifty years after the Declaration of Independence was signed. In that case, I'm throwing a get together at my house on July 4th, 2076.

Case for selfishness: A parent is more likely to be visited in a nursing home if they have an inheritance to give. Unless of course, they only have one child.

Case for unselfishness: Americans give away 20% of GDP. That's $300 billion a year.

Another case for selfishness: The American tax code is one of the most generous for charitable donations. Is this a way to publicly fund efficient social welfare?

Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets are called "donorcyclists" by doctors who work in the ER.

I can't figure out where this quote comes from originally, but I think it describes the thought process of many economists: "Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Just because an idea is simple doesn't mean it's not valuable. Here's two examples from the book: suppression for hurricanes and StratoShield for global warming . Sometimes the short cut is the best route.

For children over 2, car seats are no better than seatbelts at preventing serious injury or death.

The president most famous for his large government programs, FDR, privately funded and start the March of Dimes which helps discover the polio vaccine. This is part of the reason his face now appears on the dime.

Global warming science reminds me of Macroeconomics (earlier). Here's an article critical of the book's climate science. I don't know enough about the subject to comment further.

Asking people to change their action by the goodness of their heart will not work. Ever.

Human activity accounts for only 2% of global carbon dioxide. There may even be some benefits to extra carbon dioxide (crops grow faster). It's also possible that instead water vapor is the primary cause of global warming.

The cleaner air, although certainly desirable, may also increase global temperatures by allowing more sunlight through the atmosphere.

A rising ocean from global warming isn't mostly from melting ice caps, it's from a heating ocean (water expands when it warms).

Solar panels may actually increase global temperature because they absorb heat.

Knowing and doing are two different things, especially when pleasure or pain is involved.

In the continuing series, Difference Between Humans and Animals, I've been collecting a list of ways that we humans differ from the rest of the animal kingdom. Here's one way we are alike: In a story mentioned in the book and detailed in this New York Times article, monkey's can be taught to use money (following the traditional rules of supply and demand), counterfeit money, and even rob the experimental bank and the profits to buy sex.

Takeaways from SuperFreakonomics, Part I

I just finished reading the popular economics book SuperFreakonomics, the sequel to the book I recently posted about Freakonomics (Part II). The subtitle is "global warming, patriotic prostitutes and why suicide bombers should buy life insurance". You can read their current writings at the Freakonomics blog. Here the first part of my takeaways:

Whether it's books or business, you are battling the lethargy that comes with success.

While there are exceptions to every rule, it's important to understand the rule to understand the exception.

Per mile, drunk walking is 8X more dangerous than drunk driving for the intoxicated person.

In India, over half of men (and women) said domestic abuse against women is justified in some cases. However, in houses that had TV's, women were given more respect. They also had a lower birthrate (important for women's autonomy and health).

In an average year, there are about four fatal shark attacks in the world. Here are some statistics. Is the human fear of sharks our most irrational fear?

Understanding small things is important to understanding big things.

If the government wants to ban something (think prostitution or drugs), perhaps it should focus on buyers, not sellers. If you remove the current suppliers, more will arrive (watch The Wire). If you remove the consumers, the current suppliers will leave.

The price of prostitution has fallen dramatically in the wake of the sexual revolution. To put it plainly, there is more "free" sex to be had.

30% of unpaid sex from prostitutes went to police officers. It's true, in most cases prostitutes are more likely to have sex with a cop then be arrested by them.

The female college conundrum: Get more education to make more money. Yet, now that you have this education, you can marry a man with even more money. Now you are more likely to stay on home with kids. Sounds like a case for missionary dating.

Men and women, Ceteris paribus, perform similarly on most tests. However, if you pay them for right answers, men will outperform women. Does this mean it is efficient to pay men more than women?

Mastery is a result of "deliberate practice", not inherent skill. So do what you love or you'll never enjoy the process of getting good at it (earlier).

Characteristics that predisposes one to be a terrorist are similar to those that predispose one to vote (wealthy, high level of education, desire for political action). And as I shared before, it may be more effective than voting.

Moral norms change from generation to generation more than we like to think. Even life insurance was seen as an uncomfortable profit from the death of a loved one.

Takeaways from Freakonomics, Part II

I finally got around to finishing the popular economics book Freakonomics, where "a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything". You can read their current writing at the Freakonomics blog. You can find Part  I here. Here the last and second part of my takeaways, mostly about parenting and it's outcome:

The first couple of pages of the book make the now popular but still uncomfortable claim that the rise in abortions after Roe v. Wade in the 1970's led to a decrease in crime in the 1990's. Essentially, the unwanted babies were more likely to become criminals.

The American abortion statistics are shocking. In the first year after Roe v. Wade 750,000 women had abortions (1 for every 4 births). By 1980 the number was 1.6 million (1 for every 2.25 births). As of 2004, there have been 37 million abortions since Roe v. Wade.

The American story of abortion and crime is supported by a similar change in Romania.

Jane Roe (real name Norma McCorvey), from Roe v. Wade, converted to Christianity later in life and is now a adamant pro-life supporter.

More police and harsh punishment for laws is the best and easiest way to reduce crime.

The Broken windows theory of policing and the benefits of capital punishment are not supported by any data.

There needs to be, though there may not be, a better way for unwanted children to succeed.

I hate "social promotion".

Low income names are often normal names with weird spellings. Think Destinee, Bobbie, Tiffanie, etc.

Name popularity often goes from upper class, to middle class, to lower class. It seems a name's popularity is a signal for success, but the signal gets weaker as it becomes more popular. Maybe I should copy what  Mark Zuckerberg calls his kids.

Bad parenting matters more than good.

Race makes no difference in achievement (earlier). It only happens to be correlated with other things that do (parent income/education, mother's age at birth, etc).

Surprisingly, single parenthood does not effect achievement at school. Neither do stay-at-home moms (though both probably has other impacts).

IQ of biological parents matter more than IQ of adoptive parents in early academic performance.

Parents often determine their children's possibility through genetics, but peers do most of the influencing (earlier).

Low achieving adopted children did fare better as adults compared to those who stayed in a low achieving household.

What parents are matters more than what parents do. However, what parents do can eventually effect who parents are.

Takeaways from Freakonomics, Part I

I finally got around to finishing the popular economics book Freakonomics, where "a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything". You can read their current writing at the Freakonomics blog. Here is Part I of my takeaways, mostly the economics parts:

The book itself was created by an unlikely duo, willing to work together. Is this how you create something truly unique?

As computers get better at doing things humans used to do (play chess, marketing, copilots) will they ever write our non-fiction for us?

Economics begins (with Adam Smith) at the same time capitalism begins. The two are intertwined.

An idea from Adam Smith: Man's morality comes from our ability to think as an objective third party.

If morality attempts to explain a perfect world, economics attempts to explain the real world.

An incentive is something small that changes something big.

There are three kinds of incentives: economic, social, and moral. All impact each other.

Real estate agents keep their own homes on the market for 10 days longer than average at a profit of 3% above average.

How to tell if what you're buying is really worth it. Are the descriptions vague and hard to prove or are they actually descriptive of the quality of the product.

Most drug dealers aren't rich. I've posted about this Freakonomics research before.

There are four meanful factors to job pay:
1) Number of other workers (available labor)
2) Number of possible workers (skills needed)
3) Unpleasantness of a job
4) Demand for the services provided

In 1987 when the IRS required the listing of social security numbers, not just names, of dependents, suddenly there were 7 million less children in America (1/10 of the total number of children).

Others' happiness makes us happy. So why don't I spend more time trying to make people happy?

Information is powerful. The KKK was partially taken from power by exposing the stupid secrets and privileges they enjoyed.

The lack of information produces fear.

Most people fear the unknown small danger more than the known large danger. Compare our fear of guns to our fear of swimming pools (3X as many children die in pools).

Good economic questions are unusual when proposed and obvious when explained.

Popular economics is figuring out what individuals have already figured out, just in reverse.

Takeaways from Madison's Montpelier, Part IV

This is the fourth and final post in a series about my experience at Montpelier, the home of President James Madison. These are in response to a week of tours, discussions, and lectures. Here are the first, second, and third posts transcribed from my personal and like this one are not necessarily ideas endorsed by the Center for the Constitution. Here is part four of my takeaways:


One of the primary purposes of an educator is to challenge student's upbringing. Show them what they cannot learn at home.

Madison put a large emphasis on prudence. Here's a humorous example of it in practice.

One of the professors asks his students on the first day: "what percentage of my job is to change you?" Most say very little. He then responds with: "what if you're a jerk?" That convinced me that even if students do not want me to change them, I should.

Educators often spend an exorbitant amount of energy on convincing their students they are knowledgeable. Does that teach our students that you can get to a level where you don't need to learn anymore? Perhaps we should teach them that adults don't know what they are doing most of the time, but that they still manage to function.

A lecturer pointed out that it is an American rarity that we fly our flag so much. This question from the UK seems to corroborate that.

One way to draw young students into the content of history is to start each day with "once upon a time".

In any social science (but economics specifically), teachers should give their students the vocabulary tools required to describe the world.

Every elementary school teacher has at one time felt like a babysitter. Every high school teacher has at one time felt like a prison guard.

James Madison's famous wife, Dolly, looks an awful like the woman from the cover of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

Something I appreciated from the week's lecturers is they treated us like academic equals. I felt pulled up. I need to do that for my high school students.

In the long run, there are few jobs more influential than a very good public high school teacher. I see 150 students a year for 90 days for 90 minutes each day. That's is both encouraging and terrifying.

When you find a truth do you simply say "huh, interesting" and move on to your next task? Truth, because it is hard to find, should change our world view.

Many people are clever, but few are wise.

History remembers people in one sentence. Positive example: James Madison was the father of the Constitution. Negative example: John Payne Todd (Madison's step-son) was a drinker, a gambler, and one reason why Dolly Madison had to sell the family home.

America was founded on disagreement. The Constitution was built on conflict (internal and external).

One reason why this week had such a strong impact on me was the combination of fact and fiction. Hearing the content was helpful, but hearing the personal stories and seeing and standing where they happened made the ideas come to life.

When I say the word America, what does your mind's eye imagine? Mine is the eastern seaboard, public speakers, and the American military. Not sure how to interpret those three things together.

Something I did not fully grasp, or more accurately realized I did not fully grasp it, was citizenship. Americans have a looser understanding of that word than most of the world. I think I have an even looser definition.

Part of the experience of the week was meeting new people. More than race, age had a larger impact on who I was drawn to. All the people I met were fabulous, but I am naturally drawn to my generation. I am an agist.

If you can't govern yourself, you can't govern others. This is a problem for voters and politicians.

There is value in concern for your family. There is value in concern for your community. There is value in concern for your country. There is value in concern for your world. When the two conflict, who do you side with? It's either the first or the last. I think the difference in your decision is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.

The Leviathan, or a strong central government, used to be seen as the solution to man's troublesome nature. Today democracy, or the wisdom of the masses, is seen as the best tool. I think there is a third solution, with more of an emphasis on governmental competition and less on educated voters.

All teachers should find ways to get back behind a desk every so often. The National Endowment for the Humanities offers a wide range of options, but there are plenty out there.

And finally, I am very thankful for all of staff and participants who made the week so worthwhile I had to split it into four posts. I'm slowly being convinced we should use the blogosphere for our daily learning and trips like this to give us that regular push forward.

Takeaways from Madison's Montpelier, Part III

This is the third post in a series about my experience at Montpelier, the home of President James Madison. The week included readings, lectures, tours, and groups discussions. Here are the first and second posts transcribed from my notes from the week. Just a friendly reminder, these ideas are mine and are not necessarily those endorsed by the Center for the Constitution. Here is part three of my takeaways:

Both because of structural changes by states and the increased power of political parties, the electoral college does not function like it was originally intended. Though I have no idea if there is a politically feasible was to fix it.

When a court rules, it's labeled an "opinion". That's important when understand the fallibility of the judiciary.

Federalism, that is division of power between the parts and whole, existed in Old Testament Jerusalem with the twelve tribes.

The Constitution was meant to restrict the government's ability to be swayed by the people's "passion".

Nowadays people complain about the partisan griping in Washington, DC, longing for the days when American politicians were more harmonious. Although it may be measurably worse, that is hard to measure, that harmonious time never existed. One of the first meetings of our nation's leaders to discuss the federal government's duties had to take a day off because things got so intense.

It is important to note, most (probably all) of the drafters of the Constitution were frustrated with it. It was built on compromise.

Key to understanding anything: What is the relationship of the parts to the whole?

Do not be fooled by false options. Sometimes the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Counterintuitive teaching is not only interesting, it's Biblical. Jesus himself is regularly quoting using this format: "You may heard this, but the truth is this".

In any discussion, ask yourself if the opposite is also true.

Originally the founders were afraid of a overly powerful legislature. Overtime, it has the executive and judicial branches that have increased their power the most. Look at how often the legislature simply looks the president for leadership. This has occurred because the people love the presidency, and the presidents allow it.

When the executive does the job the legislative branch, it fails to do it's own job effectively.

The power to declare war rests with Congress, from Madison's perspective, to prevent the executive from grabbing more power during a time of crisis. This balance fails when we have quasi-wars: Vietnam Conflict, War on Drugs, War on Terror, etc. This is partially discussed by John Yoo on the Daily Show.

James Madison is the only American to make the executive powers and then use them. For this reason alone we should pay more attention to his presidency.

Every "great" president is one that stretched the bounds of his position.

Though James Madison thought building more roads and canals would unite the country to great benefit, his last act as president was to veto that legislation on the grounds that is was unconstitutional. Today the Supreme Court is seen as the only branch required to make such decisions.

In our loud times, we can' appreciate a quite leader. We praise the showman, not the workman.

One of the speakers for the week emphasized the original role of impeachment as a punishment for politicians overstepping their bounds. Sadly, it has mostly been used for petty crimes (not following a contrived law or lying under oath).  Crimes should be punished legally. Constitutional matters should go the Senate. However, impeachment can't be used correctly unless the people understand the Constitution.

James Madison was a politician that learned and changed his mind. Do we want our politicians to be learning on the job? Jon Stewart certainly doesn't when he plays competing sound bites.

If James Madison was born today, which party do you think he would join? The automatic answer for me was the Libertarian Party, which would probably agree with him on issues the most. However, I don't think he would join a party of government opposition that is so in the minority they cannot participate realistically in government. There is some wisdom from him there.

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

Saying there is a trade off between government and freedom is a false choice. Here's a quote from Stephen Colbert that puts it nicely: "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."

As I sat in what I called "nerd camp" I had to ask myself, and the group, if what we were doing really mattered. Sure 40 teachers were convinced of the benefits of Constitutional presidencies and together we may convince 4000 students, but that is just a fraction of the voting public. The group decided it does matter, because America has a lot to gain from learning what we have to teach.

Takeaways from Madison's Montpelier, Part II

This is the second post in a series about my experience at the Center to for the Constitution which is located on the grounds of President James Madison home. The first post in the series can be found here. I should remind you, these are my thoughts on the week, not necessarily those of the center. That said, here is part two of my takeaways:


Education is not about making students more like the teacher. Instead, it's about bring out what is already inside the student.

One way to win a debate is the control what is debated. James Madison was an expert in this. Not only did he write George Washington's inaugural address, he also wrote the House of Representatives' reply and then wrote Washington's reply to that.

Every revolutionary wants to be the last one you ever need. For that reason they are establishment oriented. In fact, they may even be the next opposition to the next revolution.

You should have the social freedom to not be passionate.

You should feel the personal freedom to not know if you're right.

Republics should not be concerned with what the majority want. Americans today don't understand this.

Believe it or not, it was generally accepted at the conference that George H. W. Bush was the most Constitutional president of recent history. Meaning that he allowed Congress to make law while he enforced it.

Politicians who run on an anti-government platform will probably not be able to effective use the position.

Maybe the most important question for a potential president: how do you interpret Article 2 of the Constitution? That is, what do you think your job is?

People who don't know their job, start to do other people's job, all the while neglecting theirs. This is true for presidents and principals.

One speaker stated that "the opposite of slavery is not freedom, it's citizenship". I haven't decided if I agree.

Constitutional citizenship has a very Old Testament covenant feel. Americans/Christians are people of the book.

Almost all Americans are mostly unfamiliar with what the Constitution says, even me.

Madison's original plan for the Constitution was much more like a parliamentary system.

We should not pledge allegiance to the flag. We should pledge allegiance to the Constitution. For me that is better, but I'm still uncomfortable. Is there anything worth pledging your allegiance to? God? Family? Community?

Government will always be bound by, and must work within, human nature. This is why I am weary about governmental action, it is very unnatural (in the biological sense of the word).

Patriotism is something I only vaguely understand. No matter what most people say, I think that is true of them as well.

Five out of the first six presidents were from Virginia, partially due to the 3/5ths Compromise.

To James Madison the Bill of Rights were not needed because the government was already limited from taking those specific rights. In fact, he worried that by listing them future generations would assume those were the only rights specifically protected.

The role of the government is to provide "comfortable preservation" for its people. Nothing else.

If I asked you where you were from what would you say? Most likely you'd name the state where you live. That's American states' rights culture at work.

Habits are simultaneously one of man's greatest weaknesses and strengths.

In a meeting, the most prepared get their way.

Frederick Douglass on education: "Once you learn to read, you will be forever free."

Takeaways from Madison's Montpelier, Part I

I spent last week in the foothills of Virginia at James Madison's home, Montpelier. I attended a tour and lecture series, along with forty other social studies teachers from around the country, on "James Madison and Constitutional Citizenship". I should preface with a reminder that these are my reflections on the week, not those endorsed by the center. That said, here's the first part of my takeaways:

 Because the trip was paid for by the National Endowment for the Humanities (am I a hypocrite?), we were reminded that we were here "in the interest of the American people, at the expense of the American people". Now if we can just get our students to believe that.

Answering the wrong question with the right answer is still wrong. Figure out what needs to be figured out.

Government is not oppressive, the people are.

All learning is counterintuitive, if it wasn't you'd already know it.

Ignorance in the mind is tyranny in the state.

The US Constitution is written in the present tense. We are "We the People". Or as Jefferson put it "the earth belongs to the living".

It makes much more sense for the president to take his oath of office on the Constitution than the Bible.

James Madison, unlike his more famous counterpart Thomas Jefferson, was a powerful speaker not because he was overly emotional or great with language, but because we was well read, well prepared, and well respected.

If you are considering a law, first ask yourself: "is the problem worth coercion". Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

James Madison, "the father of the Constitution", did not want the rhetoric of the original drafters of the Constitution to be used to interpret it in the future. He wanted the Constitution to be interpreted by each successive generation. This really calls into question the phrase "strict constructionist". This can be seen in how Madison deals with the National Bank over time.

Who benefits from complicated constantly changing law? Lawyers.

We discern truth by holding it up to every argument. We then are the jury.

Madison is America's best pragmatic reformer. Guess who's second best?

There is value to be found in the gray. Black and white issues are easy, embrace the complicated.

"Common sense" comes from our common heritage.

Though the founding fathers did not free slaves, it was probably politically impossible, they made sure not to protect its future. In fact, the 5th Amendment even applied to slaves.

When Madison speaks about tyranny he knows what he's talking about. On slave holding Montpelier, he is a tyrant.

To Madison, prudence is the most important characteristic of a good citizen. Mine would probably be indifference toward issues that don't concern you.

Not only was it legal, but also possible that Marquis De Lafayette, a french born American citizen could have been president. Here's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution".

The Tea Act, which eventually led to the Boston Tea Party, actually made tea cheaper to the colonists. It was the smugglers that would be hurt by it.

In nature we are all equal. We must agree on that before we create a political system.

One speaker asked this question: "Do you love your ideology more than you love your country?" I'm not sure what my answer would be.

The point of being a representative republic was to prevent mob rule. In the 1700's the mob was the lower class.

One of the most unique things about America is that we made ourselves.

The Constitution is the past restraining the present from harming the future.

Takeaways from The Big Kahuna

I was recently encouraged to watch the a movie The Big Kahuna, staring Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito. Not only was the film entertaining, it was full of interesting advice. Here are my takeaways:

Don't qualify compliments. Put yourself out there and vulnerably compliment others.

The world is full of clocks, there are really few reasons to wear a watch.

It's never too early to start thinking about where you're going to end up.

People who look very official while doing their job do so because they don't actually know what they're doing. If you know what you're doing, you don't have to look like you know what you're doing.

Great men aren't those who do no wrong, they are those that can take criticism with gratitude.

Sometimes you have to chew your leg off to get out of life's traps.

Sometimes "principled" people marry another "principled" person only to find out it was their principles that married.

Love has a lot of counterfeits.

The only reason people order sophisticated drinks is to look sophisticated.

God created wives so that they could show men when their being assholes.

A man doesn't know what his soul looks like until he gazes into the eyes of his wife. If he's a decent human being he cries his eyes out, because no man should be comfortable with what he sees.

There are a lot of things in this world that are good for you, even if they're not pleasant.

There is a delicate balance between preaching the gospel and selling Jesus as a product. This is discussed wonderfully here.

When you start steering a conversation you cease being a person and become a marketing rep.

There's a difference between being honest and being blunt.

You gain character by recognizing regret. Not because you've done something worth regretting, but because you recognize you already have plenty of things to regret.

The world will spin without you.

Say I love you to people you love.

As the credits role the famous late 90's song "Wear Sunscreen" plays, which itself is full of good advice. Here is its:

One final thing I take away from this movie is that is was originally a play. I've always been skeptical of the value of live drama compared to those on the silver screen, but I'm sure the dialogue would have been more real in person. My wife and I are taking an anniversary trip to New York City this summer, what should we see?