What is the Ultimate Animal?

In my continuing series, Difference Between Humans and Animals, I've been trying to understand what does and what does not make humans unique. I've discussed many surprising animal abilities, but I haven't stopped and considered which is the best survivor? A recent article in the NYT times has convinced the answer may be none other than the common gray squirrel:

behind the squirrel’s success lies a phenomenal elasticity of body, brain and behavior. Squirrels can leap a span 10 times the length of their body, roughly double what the best human long jumper can manage. They can rotate their ankles 180 degrees, and so keep a grip while climbing no matter which way they’re facing. Squirrels can learn by watching others — cross-phyletically, if need be. In their book “Squirrels: The Animal Answer Guide,” Richard W. Thorington Jr. and Katie Ferrell of the Smithsonian Institution described the safe-pedestrian approach of a gray squirrel eager to traverse a busy avenue near the White House. The squirrel waited on the grass near a crosswalk until people began to cross the street, said the authors, “and then it crossed the street behind them.”

Not only are they communal, they are also selfish:

But the squirrels don’t just bury an acorn and come back in winter. They bury the seed, dig it up shortly afterward, rebury it elsewhere, dig it up again. “We’ve seen seeds that were recached as many as five times,” said Dr. Steele. The squirrels recache to deter theft, lest another squirrel spied the burial the first X times. Reporting in the journal Animal Behaviour, the Steele team showed that when squirrels are certain that they are being watched, they will actively seek to deceive the would-be thieves. They’ll dig a hole, pretend to push an acorn in, and then cover it over, all the while keeping the prized seed hidden in their mouth.

But perhaps their greatest strength, is that world's most dangerous predator, man, doesn't consider them a threat.

Improvisation and the Suggestion

At the top of almost any improv scene the players will get a suggestion from the audience. Sometimes a location, sometimes a relationship, and sometimes just a single word. TJ Jagodowski and David Pasquesi, well known in the subculture that is improvisation, don't take a suggestion before they do an hour long scene, or what they call "perfect" plays. Instead they tell the audience “Trust us, this is all made up”. Here's why:

Dave: Because we think more of the audience. They know that just because they give you a suggestion doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily improvised. We set out to do something different. I think they trust us enough to know that we’re doing this right now. And if they don’t believe us, getting a suggestion isn’t going to help that.

TJ: It’s kind of liberating, too. Like, if you ask for a location and get "kitchen," then you start making breakfast. Without that suggestion, you go right to your partner, because it’s the only thing you've got. Dave’s my suggestion every night.

I don't necessarily agree. Perhaps that is true for his Chicago audience, one mostly made up of thousands of other improvisers. For most improv across the country audiences want to be involved in the process, both through their laughs and their suggestion. That said, every time I see them I am inspired to make my own performances more theatrical. You can see for yourself in their improv scene turned movie Trust Us. Though let me caution you not to judge their improvisation based on the movie alone. Filmed improvisation is never the same as seeing it live. Their is no risk and, like I said earlier, no participation. To see live comedy, you'll have to come to the theater.

Economic View of Past, Present, and Future

In a 25 minute lecture to the Federal Reserve, economist Steve Landsburg lays out a great description of life before and after the Industrial Revolution. This was too good to just put in a links list and a a must watch if you truly understand the world you live in. It's followed by a worthwhile Q & A session.

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.

Say "Yes"

The key to improvisation is accepting the reality created and adding to it. It's helpful in a scene, but also in life:

There are people who prefer to say 'yes,' and there are people who prefer to say 'no.' Those who say 'yes' are rewarded by the adventures they have, and those who say 'no' are rewarded by the safety they attain.

That's from Keith Johnstone. I'll be thinking about this a lot this week as my Improv 101 class continues and my Youth 201 starts. It's interesting to see me convince adults to play more and kids to play less.

Pricing Me Into Museums

As much as I like the idea of museums, I've never really liked going to them. Finally, I understand why:

Bruno Frey and Lasse Steiner claim it can attract casual visitors by asking for an entrance fee that depends on the time spent in the museum. This would allow for a cheap "sneak peek," and true lovers would pay much closer to their marginal utility.

I would love to see a lot of museums for a short amount of time. I walk fast and I'm picky with what I like. This would get me giving more money to more museums all the while learning more and feeling better about it.

Different Types of Libertarians

I remember when Ron Paul came to Clemson's campus a couple of years ago. I got to meet him and a his supporters. I realized during his speech that there was a huge variety of people there. This cartoon describes it perfectly:

Why Alcoholics Anonymous Works

David Brooks nails it on the head:

In a culture that generally celebrates empowerment and self-esteem, A.A. begins with disempowerment. The goal is to get people to gain control over their lives, but it all begins with an act of surrender and an admission of weakness.

In a culture that thinks of itself as individualistic, A.A. relies on fellowship. The general idea is that people aren’t really captains of their own ship. Successful members become deeply intertwined with one another — learning, sharing, suffering and mentoring one another. Individual repair is a social effort

Don't deal with the symptom, deal with the person:

In a world in which gurus try to carefully design and impose their ideas, Wilson surrendered control. He wrote down the famous steps and foundations, but A.A. allows each local group to form, adapt and innovate. There is less quality control. Some groups and leaders are great; some are terrible. But it also means that A.A. is decentralized, innovative and dynamic.

Alcoholics have a specific problem: they drink too much. But instead of addressing that problem with the psychic equivalent of a precision-guidance missile, Wilson set out to change people’s whole identities. He studied William James’s “The Varieties of Religious Experience.” He sought to arouse people’s spiritual aspirations rather than just appealing to rational cost-benefit analysis. His group would help people achieve broad spiritual awakenings, and abstinence from alcohol would be a byproduct of that larger salvation.

This is also useful outside of the specific problem of alcoholism.

Attraction, Love, and Patterns

In a blog I recently come across, You Are Not So Smart, posted on how in relationships opposites don't attract, they repel. Not only are we drawn to those who are like us, but we become more like them the longer we are together. The whole post is worth reading, but here's the money quote:

What most people call falling in love is really falling in pattern

Although my wife and I are very different, compared to people outside our community, we are very similar. I love my wife, but I also love myself. Perhaps the two are more related than we'd like to admit.

Emptying the Bottle: Early-July '10 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:

• Marriage doesn't always make you happier.
• Low self esteem is more likely associated with interest in celebrities (earlier).
• Victory for user created content sharing online.
• North Korea's World Cup fans were really volunteers from China.
• Israel bans subtly airbrushing models.
• Overworking, terrible for your health (earlier).
• Invest, not donate, to the already growing Africa.
• A psychological case for lighter textbooks and more comfortable desks.
• The economic data on prostitution.
• The real problem with Wal-mart is it's selling food too cheap (earlier).
• Fed blames layman economics bloggers. Tyler comes to the rescue.
• Worried immigrants might take taxpayer safety nets, charge them (earlier).

To follow live and to see comments, subscribe via Google Reader.