Diversified New Year's Resolutions

With investment, it's good to diversify. So why shouldn't it be the same for New Year's resolutions? I have personally never made one before, but I've often thought part of unhappiness comes from a failure to do you want (losing weight, saving money, getting ahead at work). This year I plan to make several specific goals (vagueness results in failure) publicly (as a commitment tool) starting today (waiting until New Years only encourages my procrastination) and will post again in three weeks (the time it takes to change behavior) to check back in. Here are my goals for 2010 and beyond:

1) Moderate exercise for 20 minutes a day, 3 days a week. From what I have read this is the minimum time needed to remain nominally healthy. Hopefully I will work my way up from here, but it's good to start small.

2) Drink 0-1/2 a soft drink daily in my home. Again, the plan is to work down to zero, but there's a good chance I'm addicted to caffeine.

3) Read the Bible every weekday. Not many exact parameters on this one yet, but I would like to open and read a portion of the Bible 5 days a week. I claim to believe it's valuable, but my actions say otherwise. (update)

4) Pray regularly. Same details as the previous one.

5) Allow my wife to pick one for me. She knows my flaws better than anyone and I trust her more than anyone. Who better to help me improve? (update)

One final note: I acknowledge that taking on so many changes may overload me and I reserve the right to fail in part or in all. It is incredibly rare for people to change in the short run and as hard as that is to hear our interpersonal relationships would be better if we remembered it. My hope is that there is value in trying, even if you fail. And if that's not true, I bet people who believe it probably succeed more anyways.

Worthwhile Sentences on Life

From Ben Casnocha: "be intense about things that matter, super laid back about everything else."

From the WWF: "Of all the species that have lived on the Earth since life first appeared here 3 billion years ago, only about one in a thousand is still living today."

From Carl Jung: "Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves."

From Seth Spearman: "Marriage as an instittuion has a profound capacity for producing amazing happiness but also the deepest and bitterest soul-crushing misery."

From Justin Wehr's friend Bob: "Feelings are tools for understanding information we get. Our interpretation of them is both influenced by and contributes to our model of the Universe."

*Past worthwhile sentences.

Santa: Naughty or Nice

I waited until after Christmas so as not to be a Scrooge, but this topic is too interesting to pass up. In my family, we went along with the Santa story until all the children figured out it. That is my youngest sister asked me and I unmasked Santa, which is still a point of contention. So the question is important: Is pretending Santa is real good or bad for kids? Here's an experiment from the University of Texas:

Fifty-two children who no longer believed in Santa Claus were individually administered a structured interview on their reactions to discovering the truth. Their parents completed a questionnaire assessing their initial encouragement of the child to believe in Santa and rating their child's reactions to discovering the truth as well as their own reactions to the child's discovery. Parental encouragement for the child to believe was very strong. Children generally discovered the truth on their own at age seven. Children reported predominantly positive reactions on learning the truth. Parents, however, described themselves as predominantly sad in reaction to their child's discovery.

By age seven, the story of Santa Claus seems to exist more for parental enjoyment than for their children. Not even considering the complications of explaining the purpose for celebrating Christmas (Jesus) and how it mixes with elves and flying reindeer, the bottom line for me is the dishonesty. To continue the charade, parents must lie to their children. Whether it's leaving cookies for someone who doesn't exist, having them meet an impostor in the mall, or attempting the explain the scientific impossibilities of Santa; parents who want to convince their children St. Nick is real must deceive them. Though I'm not in their situation yet, it seems most parents tell their children Santa is real for the same reason they circumcise them, peer pressure. They don't want to be different, so they go with the flow. As for now my wife and I plan to treat Santa like a game that some people play more serious than others. My kids will know he's not real, but it's fun to tell fictional stories about him.

Unconscious Competence in Improv

In psychology there are stages of competence that measure the steps needed to progress in learning any skill. In my five years of performing comedy improv, I've seen myself transition through each of the 4 stages:

1) Unconscious Incompetence: "The individual neither understands nor knows how to do something, nor recognizes the deficit, nor has a desire to address it." This is most people. May have heard of improv, or seen Whose Line is it Anyway?, but don't really know what it is because improvisation is hard to understand. It's not a play, stand-up, or sketch, but something completely different all together.

2) Conscious Incompetence: "Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, he or she does recognize the deficit, without yet addressing it." This is the regular improv audience member. Likes to watch it, but doesn't really understand the mechanics. Many times they believe the performance was scripted or at least partially pre-planned. What they don't understand is that would be much harder than playing and supporting.

3) Conscious Competence: "The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires a great deal of consciousness or concentration." This is a student of improvisation. They are learning the basics (characters, games, and "Yes, and"), but have it has yet to be completely natural. They constantly remind themselves of ""the rules" and play tightly to them.

4) Unconscious Competence: "The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it can be performed easily (often without concentrating too deeply)." These are the experts. Like a pro-athlete who relies of experience and muscle memory to complete their task. Though I do realize that even experts are still learning. Michael Jordan did peak when things became natural for him. Hopefully neither will I. Also, this stage would make a great name for an improv team.

I think that I am currently transitioning from 3 to 4. I can feel myself naturally reacting on stage in ways that would have been calculated before. I haven't put in the 10 years or 10,000 hours that many claim are needed for expertise, but I hope I don't have to wait until 2014 for that. The other major difference from Unconscious Competence and the first 3 stages is that they are equipped to train others. In fact, starting on January 13th I will be teaching my first class at the Dirty South Improv Theater. The cost is usually $195/$150 for students, but there is a holiday price of $125 that expires December 31st. There is no obligation to take another level of classes and many community members use it as a tool in their work. You also get to see shows for free during the 6 week course. However, if classes aren't for you, maybe you should consider Conscious Incompetence; seeing me perform every Friday.

Emptying the Bottle: Late-December '09 Links

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

• Sumerians Look On In Confusion As Christian God Creates World from the Onion
• Uninsured in 2009, in terms of life expectancy, is as bad as insured in what year? (earlier)
• Christmas today is better than ever [video].
• What English sounds like to foreigners [video].
• From me: Blogging Under the Influence from the Mister Diplomat blog.
• How to avoid Christmas inefficiency, GiftCardRescue.com.
• Good analogy for inflation [video]. But wouldn't money saved in banks go back out into the market as investments?
• One small health care idea: Teladoc.com.
• Scientific evidence for ripping the Band-Aids fast, but apparently there's support for slow too.
• John Hanson, the first of 7 total US "Presidents" before Washington.
• Doodling helps you focus (earlier on yawning).
• Hilariously interesting review of The Phantom Menace (video part 1 of 7)

It's True, Giving is Better than Receiving

I can be kind of a downer about Christmas gifts, but here's some research that shows there is real value in the act of giving gifts:

Whatever your gift philosophy, you may be thinking that you would be happier if you could just spend the money on yourself – but according to a three-part study by Elizabeth Dunn, Lara Aknin, and Michael Norton, givers can get more happiness than people who send the money on themselves.

Liz, Lara and Mike approached the study from the perspective that happiness is less dependent on stable circumstances (income) and more on the day-to-day activities in which a person chooses to engage (gift-giving vs. personal purchases).

To that end, they surveyed a representative sample of 632 Americans on their spending choices and happiness levels and found that while the amount of personal spending (bills included) was unrelated to reported happiness, prosocial spending was associated with significantly higher happiness.

I got that from the blog Barking up the wrong tree. Though I don't totally get the name, I do find the blog very thought provoking. Here are some other great posts I've come across recently:

• Apparently pro athletes don't break the law more than average citizens
• Study shows peer pressure is a good thing
• SAT accurately predicts college academic performance
• A Brilliant Stock Market Scam
• Detective powers of crowdsourcing

Give Away Intellectual Property

Last week I was contacted by another teacher in my county. One of my students moved, switched schools, and was now in her class. Apparently when she asked him where they were in history, he showed her his notes and she was impressed. I've spent the last year and a half created an outline of each section in our US History book. Then she asked if I would mind sending her a copy of the notes (without paying I assumed). In that split second I had to make a decision and I've spent the last week deciding whether it was the right one. I gave her the notes.

Last year I worked 60 hours a week preparing them and for someone to just get them with one email somehow violated my sense of justice. Yet, just like me, she a women with scarce time. If production is the key to wealth, then hopefully I just made a lot of people better off. Instead of going through each section and creating an outline, now this teacher can work on other educational projects, spend more time with her own children, or in the least catch up on Lost before it returns. Here's the most important part, I have increased her wealth with almost no decrease anywhere else. So what do you think, did I make the right decision?

Healthiness is Happiness Research

Happiness economics has become a growing study as people realize that life satisfaction isn't all about wealth. However, there are still a lot of complaints about the research. The two major problems I have with the science: 1) How to compare happiness throughout time? For example is a peasant is the 1500's less happy because they don't have anesthesia or vaccinations, things they've never dreamed of? 2) How accurate is self reported satisfaction? So instead of relying on how people feel they feel, let's measure how they actually feel. If happiness equal healthiness, then use it as a form of measurement. Don't resting heart rate, body mass index, and blood pressure seem like better measures than "are you very happy, fairly happy, or kinda sorta happy"? Speaking of, here are some interesting things the current research says about that little thing called happiness.

Causes of and Responses to Recessions

In case you haven't heard the news, the "Great Recession" ended sometime over the summer. All that means is Gross Domestic Product (a sum of everything we produce) is no longer shrinking. That doesn't mean unemployment and company profits are back to normal. That's the good news, the bad news is that we, as in the general public, still don't fully understand what causes recessions. As a free marketeer that doesn't necessarily scare me (we don't need to understand it for it to work), but as a voter it worries me. There is historical trend that government power increases in times of uncertainty (Civil War, Great Depression, 9/11). The more we understand economic hardships, hopefully the less fear mongering.

The definition for a recession is when GDP decreases for at least two quarters. That means for 6 months we produced less stuff than we used to. But why? We have the same people, the same buildings, the same machines. The most simple explanation is that recessions aren't economic losses, because nothing is lost that can't be gained back, but are instead economic shifts. In this most recent example, we had a housing bubble. This is due to government subsidies (predicted in 2003) and a general lack of information in the housing market (or tulip market in the 1600's). After the boom busted, houses were plentiful, decreasing housing prices, sending a shock wave into investment and banking. All of a sudden construction workers, realtors, mortgage lenders, etc. are out of work, not buying as much as they would normally and now everyone is hurting. While the unemployed look for new jobs during that transitional period, production is lost. It's important to note, recessions start with loss of production (or mis-production), not loss of spending.

So if that's what causes recessions, how should nations respond to them? Bush and Obama both followed the ideas of John Maynard Keynes. Among other things, he proposed using government spending to counteract the loss in private spending. The idea seems logical, but ignores the fact that any government money comes from present (or future) taxes. Not to say that large government spending can't increase GDP, but that any increase it causes will have at least an equal decrease later. Also, public money is subject to the wills of political officials, with all the inefficiencies and special interest that come along with that. The main opponent of these ideas was Milton Friedman (here's a good rap about the debate). As an advocate for free markets, he proposed waiting through the transitional period and letting things get better on their own. Though he did support government lowering the interest rates to encourage scared investors to come back sooner.

But Keynes is not stupid. If he read this blog post he would agree that in the long run the market would self correct. But he famously said, "in the long run we are all dead". What he forgets is that our children are not. It seems very plausible that Bush's and Obama's stimulus packages increased production and helped some people, in the short run. But our children will be left to pay the bill (but maybe that's not all bad). Yet I must admit, even in a perfect market prices and wages are sticky, which means people don't like to see them change. Much like unemployment benefits, this only makes the transition period longer. Hopefully as time moves on, recession length should shrink due to ease of transportation and internet connections like Craigslist. I personally support allowing the billions of individual decisions of the market to eventually get us back on the road to more prosperity, but I also realize that a government stimulus out of fear is better than electing the next Hitler out of fear.

Read All Legislation Aloud

Whether it's watching the Democrats push reform that ignores market ideas (individual tax exemption, cross state purchases, and HSA's) or watching Republicans become no robots (nobots?) doing everything they can to halt any reform, I haven't been enjoying the health care debate. However, a recent Republican tactic has given me a great idea for future legislation. A Vermont Democrat withdrew his amendment after a Republican called for all 767 pages to be read aloud, which would have taken 17 hours. With the average length of congressional bills getting longer over time (this one is about as long as the Bible), the likelihood of Congress actually reading the bill gets smaller. I propose that all laws have to be read aloud by one of the authors (no clerks allowed). This might not increase knowledge about the bill, but my hope is that it will shrink them or at least discourage wasteful additions. If I'm lucky, it may even increase the opportunity for fast talkers to run for Congress.