Making a Million Dollars

The free agency watch for the Chairman continues into mid-October. On Friday, Oct. 1, the Chairman left an ambiguous message on Facebook and Twitter, saying, "Trying to make a million bucks today." The message left the internet abuzz about whether that message was regarding the long-term plans of the Chairman, the latest Nigerian e-mail fraud scheme, or merely a trip to the store for Powerball tickets. However, sources within the Chairman's inner circle confirmed an official visit with New Orleans representatives occurred two weeks ago at about the same time. The Chairman's manager, Maverick Carter, noted that, "We tryna make it rain on bitches downhur. And you know da Big Easy know da rain. Katrina, y'all." With regard to the million bucks, speculation is that the Chairman is looking for a 6-year deal worth in the neighborhood of $1.1 million.

To add to the intrigue, early Thursday morning, the Chairman posted another ambiguous message, noting that, "Trying to make a million bucks, part II, begins in the morning. See you on the flip side." While no official word has been offered up by the Chairman, representatives from Southwest Airlines have confirmed that the Chairman will be heading to El Paso, TX on Thursday morning. While once considered a dark horse, El Paso has emerged as a highly likely landing spot for the Chairman. Despite being a smaller media market, the opportunity for more playing time and a larger role in the offensive gameplan have made El Paso a desirable landing spot. Additionally, the Chairman has been known to be a fan of noted homophobe, Timmy "I Got Skillz" Hardaway, former player for the UTEP Miners (no relation to the Chilean miners, or any other minors - that we know of).

The expectation from the Chairman's camp is that things will be resolved no later than mid-November.

-Chairman

The Blueprint II: Combine Efforts

In our game, the free agency period is interesting because there's no draft, per se. The rookies are all thrown into the same mix as the young free agents into a scouting combine. This happens at a conference every summer, where teams interview potential recruits for a position 12 months from now (i.e., hiring now for jobs next August).

This year's combine was in Boston this past weekend. Teams brought in recruits, for 45 minutes conversations, back-to-back for 2 or 3 days, talking to anywhere from 15 to 25 candidates. The interviews were typically tag team interviews, with 2 or 3 team reps in the room with the recruit. And what happened this weekend is described as a dog and pony show.


Depending on who you are, interviews go very differently. Rookies will get grilled about their thesis. Generally speaking, that is their only track record, so teams grill rookies about the nitty-gritty details. As a result, rookies have to come prepared, often with a presentation book with slides to flip through, and an accompanying presentation.

Some of the teams will have a good-cop, bad-cop situation set up, where one of the reps asks really tough questions, and one of them try to be the supporter. Some of the teams play bad-cop, worse-cop, where they see how far they can push the rookies, to see how well they respond. But perhaps the worst is the nice-but-not-super-interested-cop, who are friendly, but not really engaging. With the many different possibilities, the process can become exhausting, telling the same story over and over, putting on the show. But most everyone manages to get through it. Not every interview is a great success, but it gets done.

Now being a free agent with a little experience, the Chairman's interviews went differently. Instead of being grilled about his thesis, the conversation was more about his research program and job expectations. Instead of convincing teams that he was a good candidate, it was as much about the Chairman convincing the teams that he'd be willing to sign with them. It was interesting, hearing the teams trying to sell themselves as a good fit. Chairman noted that this was very different than two years ago," I suppose that's the difference between being a rookie with no experience, and being someone with some experience. But all in all it's still a dog and pony show." Only, this time, it was both sides putting on the show.

So what about Free Agency 2010 for the Chairman?

The options have been narrowed down. New Orleans is still the favorite, although there are rumors from the Chairman's camp that it will not be giving out any hometown discounts. Among the locations that have been talked about from the beginning of this process, Washington DC and Clemson, SC are still at the forefront of the rumor mill. Two other strong contenders emerged from the scouting combine in Boston: Portland and El Paso. Portland was rumored to be a desired landing spot, but the El Paso rumors have picked up with the revelation of the incentive clause in the Chairman's promotional deal with Pace Picante Sauce, which would kick in if he signed with a Texas team. Additionally, whispers about two darkhorse locations, Missoula, MT and Provo, UT, that weren't necessarily on the radar at the start of this process, have been coming out of sources within Maverick Carter's inner circle.

At this point, the Chairman's representatives expect to receive 2 or 3 callbacks for final interviews, which will be conducted at team headquarters, probably over the next 6 weeks. They declined to name which teams would be the most likely to give the callbacks. Though there is no official date, most teams adhere to the traditional October 15 date for the start of the signing period. However, some teams may wait as late as the end of November for their signings in the primary market. So, the free agency drama will probably continue on into the fall.

The Blueprint - A Look Into Free Agency

July 3, 2010

New Orleans (AP) -- When July 1, 2010 rolled around, the free agency period started. And for the hype about LBJ/King James, D-Wade/Flash, and (whatever Chris Bosh's lame nickname is - CB4?), perhaps the most intriguing free agency story is that of , The Chairman, who is beginning negotiations for the 2011-12 season.

The Chairman's expiring contract, from the 2008-09 free agency period, is currently a topic of much debate in New Orleans, or at least in room 554 in the GWI business building. With only 2 years guaranteed at $0.25 million), with a mutual options for two 3-year extensions (worth approximately $0.52 million, each), the deals are relatively back-loaded. New Orleans management declined to extend the deal during the season. But subsequent events have left the team with only 3 starters in place, and 2-3 spots left to fill, and perhaps the need to scramble to fill out it's roster. However, this free agency period is expected to be a buyer's market, which makes for an interesting dynamic.

The Chairman's representatives have indicated that while they prefer to build a winner in New Orleans, they are going to let the free agency process play out. During his last press conference, The Chairman noted, "Home is where the heart is, or at least where our stuff is. We are looking to build a winner, and New Orleans may end up being the place to do so. But, we're going to see how things play out."

Internet rumors have been swirling about the possibility that The Chairman will consider some less obvious locales. This seems to be a real possibility, given the links to Urbana, IL, which will never be confused with a giant media market. An unnamed source in The Chairman's circle of advisors noted, "We'll be looking at all the usual suspects - Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Ann Arbor, Bloomington (IN), Clemson, Raleigh, Berkley. But some other, less obvious places may enter the discussion like Ames, Bloomington (IL), Santa Clara, or San Marcos. At this stage, you don't rule anything out."

Much of this hinges on two very distinct set of needs.

Management in New Orleans is looking to fill out it's roster, and may be trying to make a big splash in free agency, at least with one of the roster openings. However, with an uncertain roster (only 2 established players, and one rookie), and a shaky track record (a complete roster overhaul in 2005), New Orleans would seem to need to have some continuity. While The Chairman has put up some solid statistics, and is still widely considered to have tremendous upside, at this stage of his career, his accomplishments are more in line with a "glue guy" than and out-and-out superstar. However, it should be noted that at only 32, The Chairman, is still 3 years younger than most incoming rookies, and is about 8 years than other players with his experience.

For The Chairman, the party line is that it's all about finding the right environment for winning. In an recent interview with Rolling Stone, he offered that, "The location is less important than being in a situation where we can get some good work done. It's more about our legacy than it is about money or location." However, some rumblings within The Chariman's inner circle have put that notion in doubt. "Forget about all that [stuff]. It's all about the cheddar, and no one can do it better. Money talks, [stuff] walks. We play for one team - Team Green," says this unnamed source.

At this point, despite the uncertainty, the most likely scenario has New Orleans signing an established veteran, as well as The Chairman, which would provide some stability, as well as a lot of upside, moving forward.

UPDATE: ESPN's Ric Bucher has reported that New Orleans management team has a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 7, to talk about potential free agent signings.

UPDATE: Fox Sports Radio's Stephen A. Smith has reported that The Chairman had an informal visit with representatives in Houston last week, and had a lengthy phone conversation with representatives from Santa Clara this weekend.

UPDATE: ESPN.com's Scoop Jackson has reported that The Chairman will meet with representatives in Chicago as early as next Friday, and is scheduled to hold talks with representatives from a number of teams in Boston on the weekend of August 13.

Provoking Thoughts: Expected Values

Recently, we've seen an event draw the ire of some folks. And naturally, there are perfectly logical arguments made by people on both sides. And naturally, I think that this whole thing is hilarious.

I'll just put it like this. If you DON'T ask Dez Bryant if his mother was a prostitute, then the terrorists win, and we shame the memory of those who died in 9/11. Bear with me... as I present some things for you to consider.

The first is the story behind the Jeff Ireland - Dez Bryant's Mom's thing. Where basically, as the Miami Dolphins are doing a pre-draft interview, and there's some exchange, where apparently (and this is not clear), Dez Bryant (the player being interviewed) tells Jeff Ireland (the Dolphins' GM) that his dad was a pimp, and that his mom worked for his dad. So, Ireland decides to ask Dez if his mom's a prostitute. Seems logical enough. Sadly, there were plenty of other questions that weren't asked. The question that I'm curious about is, "Is your dad friends with Lawrence Taylor?"

So there are all sorts of questions flying around. Should Ireland have asked this? Should Bryant be offended? Who should apologize to whom? And embedded in all of this is the underlying question of should this even matter?

I can see Dez Bryant being upset, and that Ireland maybe apologizing for asking an inflammatory question. After all, it's a small league, and you never know when the Dolphins may end up bringing in Bryant for another workout in a few years. And if I'm Ireland, I probably send a little letter to Dez Bryant's mom to apologize, as well. But what I think is hilarious is Dez Bryant's mom getting all righteous on us and demanding an apology. Now, this is a woman who has had a few run-ins with the law - she was arrested 12 years ago for selling crack, was arrested last April for selling crack, and then arrested last August for possession. And along the way, she decided that she was going to be a lesbian, much to the chagrin of her son. The lesbian thing isn't really pertinent to my point, but just makes me enjoy the story more. In any case the problems with this is that any time you have a story that makes headlines, the idiots come out of the woodwork.

Now, the idiots on the fringes, I don't worry much about. For example, you have this moron taking 1 or 2 sentences out of context, and vilifying someone who dislikes someone's choices. But happily, idiots don't make it on to my radar. But then you get other idiots who have a bigger stage. When you have folks like Rick Reilly (who have access to a huge, global stage) writing an article that has roots in something between intellectual laziness and downright stupidity, then you have idiocy that I'm worried about. Because of the way the article is written - pretty smooth and apparently unassuming, Reilly's argument becomes attractive because it's so simple and so appealing. And listening to stuff like that, without thinking further, is generally a recipe for disaster.

The reality is that we are very much influenced by the folks around us, and the presence (or absence) of parental influences is crucial to proper development (intellectual, emotional, whatever). And we are very much ensnared by the sins of the father, much like we are bolstered by the successes of the father. The point that I hope that Reilly was trying to make was that the failures of a parent are not guaranteed to lead to the downfall of the next generation, and that genius can arise from meager beginnings. We should intuitively know that, and can see it all around us. However, the more interesting question is how much should we temper hope with prudence. And in this question, not everyone is created equal.

Suspend disbelief for a second, and make the assumption that decision making in real life can be described with fantasy sports analogies. I've written the past that winning fantasy is all about making sure that you don't screw up the first few rounds, and then get lucky in the late rounds or in free agency. Basically, you need to make sure your sure things are sure things. This reflects this 80-20 rule that you hear people throw around all the time (and many folks argue that it's more like the 95-5 rule). Basically, it boils down to something like this: 20% of the things you encounter have 80% of the impact. 20% of the people in an organization do 80% of the work. 20% of the events of your life drive 80% of the outcome. 20% of the people control 80% of the wealth (or commit 80% of the crime). You get the idea.

The next step is the thought that not everything should be equal, because the gravity of each thing is different. Certain decisions require much more intense scrutiny. Again, this should be intuitive. It makes more sense that for the decisions that are in the 20% (which lead to the 80% of utility), you want to dig deeper. But I'll argue that the fundamental question that you should ask is different.

In science, we talk about Type I and Type II errors. Basically, you can screw up in one of two ways. The first, a Type I error, is a false positive. You have an alarm system, the alarm sounds, but there was no intruder. The second, a Type II error, is a false negative. Here, you have an alarm system, the alarm doesn't sound, but there was an intruder. In this instance, a Type I error leads to some annoyance, but a Type II error may make you dead. Evolution has taught us to be a little skittish at times, mainly so we avoid fatal Type II errors. Think about it in terms of hunting. Basically, thinking that a deer is there, when it isn't (a Type I error) makes you go hungry. Not noticing that a tiger is behind you when it actually is (a Type II error) makes you tiger food.

As we think about the case of Dez Bryant, we're looking at a player that was going to be a first round pick. The investment would have been somewhere around $8-$15 million dollars in guaranteed money. You don't want to brick your first round picks. Teams that get production out of their draft picks, do well, can manage the salary cap, and build teams that are successful year to year. Teams that brick their draft picks end up having to get free agents, wrecking their salary cap, and need to get lucky to win. The impact of first round picks are even more amplified because of the guaranteed money.

At this stage of the game, you assume that if things go well, the players you're looking to get are of roughly the same talent and will contribute roughly the same. However, if something goes poorly, you could submarine yourself. Think about outcomes on a 0 to 10 scale. First round players, could tank (and score you a zero), or they could play reasonably well, and perform somewhere between a 7 and a 9. A Type I error, may cause you to miss out on a guy that will perform at a 9, but if you avoid a Type II error, the worst you'll do is a 7, and you could just as well end up with a 8.5 or even another 9. On the other hand, making a Type II error, missing out on the fact that a guy may end up in jail, or whatever, could result in a 0. In this case, it's more important you you avoid the 0, than it is to make the pick that gives you the optimal expected value. This is a case where variance is more important than the mean.

In the choices that we make on a day-to-day basis, more of them are ones where the downside is minimal. These are the situations where we can be a little risk-seeking, take some chances and try to get a little margin. This is trying a new beer, ordering pheasant at the restaurant, or seeing some foreign film. But there are situations where we need to see the entire picture a little more clearly. These situations may be somewhat exotic, like eating fugu (the poisonous blowfish that kills roughly 5 or 6 people per year in Japan) or street racing (where about 100 or so people per year die in the U.S. each year). But they can be much more mundane, as well.

Think about something like screening x-rays at the airport. If you make a Type I error, you slow down the queue, and maybe bring some poor schmuck in for a strip search and/or waterboarding. If you make a Type II error, the terrorists win - literally. Now, statistically inclined folks generally make the case that people tend to spend too much time worrying about the tiger, and that they would gain more utility by trying to find more deer. Or, in this case moving the lines at the airport along a bit quicker. And that's definitely a valid point, for certain situations, but finding that sweet spot is a bit beyond this discussion. And there's something intuitively wrong about worrying too much about the productivity or personal convenience lost when you have to wait in line a little longer, when that tiny bump up in productivity or personal liberty results in being less likely to catch that 1 in a million event.

So, at the end of it all, what I'm saying is this. If you DON'T ask Dez Bryant if his mother was a prostitute, then the terrorists win, and we shame the memory of those who died in 9/11.

-Chairman

Provoking Thought: Punchlines

You want to hear a joke?

Why do Polish airplanes fly so low?
So the pilots can read the street signs.

So the joke was lame. But it becomes much funnier when you put it in a different context. Let's just say that the latest news out of Moscow and Warsaw aren't going to help out the stereotypes of Polish people.

Update - one of my buddies, as his Facebook status: is mowing his driveway in honor of the King of Poland dying yesterday.

Notable excerpts from the New York Times article:

Officials in Poland have repeatedly requested that the government’s aging air fleet be replaced...

...Russian air traffic controllers advised the crew to land in Minsk, but the crew decided to land anyway...

...Russian media reported that the airplane’s crew made several attempts to land before a wing hit the treetops and the plane crashed about half a mile from the runway.

I mean, this can't be good, right?

The notion of a stereotype is interesting to me. Not so much in the way that we use it in common language, or the way that sociologists use it. That's sort of a boring, superficial way to look at an outcome. However, looking at the process of why we stereotype, a more psychological approach, is what I prefer.

Basically, a stereotype is a heuristic (or simple decision rule) that people tend to use, largely because the placing of things into categories is one of the ways to simplify information. Basically, we don't have the capacity to constantly evaluate everything on it's own merits, from scratch. So we bring in information from our previous experiences and knowledge. This helps us make sense of the world around us. Now for something to take hold as a stereotype, there have to be roots in "truth" (we'll get to the quotation marks in a bit). And one argument for stereotypes being helpful to us is that if the things that we see in the world around us consistently run counter to the stereotypes that we hold, then the stereotypes are no longer useful, thus the stereotypes that we have must be consistent with the things that we see.

I particularly like nation-of-origin stereotypes. For example, the stereotype that Yugoslavian automobiles are terrible and may explode on contact may have no basis in fact, but it's what I believe. Similarly, the notion that all Swedish women are 6' tall, buxom blondes who do acrobatic feats on water skis while wearing skimpy bikinis is also a fact in my mind (though this one may be true - we will probably have to look at this more closely). However, stereotypes based on gender and sexual orientation are amusing to me, as well. Actually, as I think about it, I enjoy stereotypes of all sorts.

Now with regard to this notion of what we believe to be "true," we also carry a bias toward ourselves, since everyone thinks they're awesome, or at least better than they actually are. Part of this is because how we judge information is flawed. We don't treat information symmetrically, and I'm going to oversimplify the explanation. Positive and negative things are judged differently. Negative things stand out to us. People who study the effects of word-of-mouth on businesses say that it takes 6 or 7 pieces of good word-of-mouth to overcome one negative piece of word-of-mouth. So, if you believe that black people are criminals, even if you're surrounded by black people with MBAs, PhDs, JDs and MDs, if you see a black guy shoplift from a Wal-Mart, then you're probably going to continue with that belief. Think back to the early interaction between Gene Hackman and Chris O'Donnell in The Chamber, a movie based on the Grisham novel, where Hackman chides O'Donnell for his liberal sensibilities, and notes that when push comes to shove, the dark imagery that come about from stereotypes emerge.

And to be fair, if you buy into evolutionary arguments, these stereotypes emerge as an "avoidance" behavior, where we avoid things that are unfamiliar and dangerous, overestimating the risk and costs involved. Basically, a Type I error (where we have a false alarm) is something that keeps us alive. On the other hand, a Type II error (where we don't detect a threat) is something that makes us dead. So, we're conditioned to avoid unfamiliar situations and to be afraid of unfamiliar people. From this perspective, stereotypes serve a purpose, as well.

As far as overcoming stereotypes, the basic formula is time and effort. We know that 1 negative thing poisons our thoughts, even against the backdrop of generally positive things. So, if we, as a whole, care about changing stereotypes, the onus really has to fall on those who perpetuate the stereotypes. This includes both those who are being stereotyped, as well as those who pass on the stereotypes to others. For example, if I was worried about ending the stereotype that Polacks are dumb, I probably wouldn't have opened up things here with the Polack joke, or posted that NYT article.

Happily, I don't have that burden, and can simply enjoy laughing at the absurd, like I always do.

-Chairman

Stranger Than Truth

I'm starting to get a little skeptical about the New York Times, which has been my go-to source for news ever since I got an HD television and my cable didn't carry the Colbert Report in HD. But apparently, they're a little late with their latest April Fool's hoax. Apparently they're trying to sell us on this idea that there's some rebellion going on in Kyrgyzstan. They've even gone so far as to create a fake Wikipedia page that lists Bishkek as the capital of Kyrgyzstan. That's dedication to the hoax. They've even managed to put in all sorts of awesome photos, which of course, I love.

Apparently, this is the flag of Kyrgyzstan... Pat, I'd like to buy a vowel, please... any vowel.

I will say, that this is quite a strong attempt by the NYT. They've even got "photos" of the protests in "Bishkek."

Apparently this is "Bishkek." Who'd believe that Bishkek is the capital of an actual country?

What's interesting is that the alleged protests in this alleged country are allegedly getting quite heated. En feugo, as a matter of fact (with apologies to Dan Patrick).

More alleged political protests and fire. They go together like PB & J.

Okay. You caught me. I slipped that last one in there. If you look at the top left, there's some private school putz wearing a Bobby Hurley jersey, so you can probably figure out that this was the scene in Durham after Duke survived one last game. But still. There is fire out in Bishkek.

Watch out for old dudes. This one just set a truck on fire, and now he's looking for a fist fight.

And I have to say, is that the level of satire that the NYT is demonstrating is strong. And to be able to keep up a story? Awesome. Check out these excerpts:

On Wednesday, the Kyrgyz government accused the opposition of provoking violence. “Their goal is to create instability and confrontation in society,” the Kyrgyz Parliament said in a statement... Russia, which also has military facilities in Kyrgyzstan and a close relationship with the government, appealed for calm. “We believe that it is important that under the circumstances, all current issues should be resolved in a lawful manner,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said... Mr. Bakiyev easily won another term as president as president last year over Mr. Atambaev in an election that independent monitors said was tainted by massive fraud. Mr. Bakiyev first took office in 2005 after the Tulip Revolution, the third in what was seen at the time as a series of so-called color revolutions that offered hope of more democratic governments in former Soviet republics.

Krygyz Parliament? The Tulip Revolution? Bakiyev? Atambaev? This is straight out of an episode of Star Trek! Great stuff. But again, it's all about the photos. They make this one of the best belated April Fool's hoaxes ever.

We're holding tiny, toy guns! April Fool's!

Now, let's be honest, what's better than an April Fool's hoax where you have photos of these pudgy, middle-aged men pretending to be cops? And when they start in on rock throwing? I just lose it. Love rock throwing, mainly the absurdity of it.

There's just something about rock throwing that we love here in the Board Room.

The ceremonial first rock thrown on Opening Day in Bishkek.

Opening day is Commemorative Riot Shield and Bazookas Night!

Get there early! Only the first 10,000 in attendance will receive the gifts.

But what really gets me is police brutality, both the giving and receiving of it. After all, sometimes, you get the cops...

Admit it. You've dreamed about this sort of thing after getting a parking ticket.

... and sometimes, the cops get you.

How do you say "Rodney King" in Kyrgyz?

This is what my people call "Hakuna Matata," or the "Circle of Life."

All I can say is props to the folks at the NYT for having a sense of humor and the getting the photos to match.

-Chairman

Quick Shoutout: Trillionaires

In case you kids haven't checked out Club Trillion, this blog is pretty entertaining. Redneck boy from Indiana becomes walk-on who never plays at Ohio St. But he has developed a bit of a following from the folks at ESPN, including The Sports Guy. I've caught on a bit late, but I'm now including him as required reading on the right-hand side of the Board Room.

The rundown: Trillion = a 1, followed by a bunch of 0's. If you only play one minute in a basketball game, and don't accumulate any stats, then your line in the box score is a 1, followed by a bunch of 0's. Getting a Trillion used to be a mark of shame. Now benchwarmers everywhere are aspiring to be Trillionaires because of Mark "The Shark" Titus, founder of Club Trillion, and the leader of the Trillion Man March. This dude isn't a good basketball player at the elite level, though he'd dominate intramurals and pickup games. But he can write pretty well, and has a great sense of humor about himself.

Check this site out, if you haven't already.

-Chairman

Killer Research

Latest gem on the NYT comes from good ol' Alabama. Apparently some chick prof gets denied tenure, and then goes to shoot up the other faculty members. But the kicker is that when she was 18 or 19, she actually had popped a cap in her own brother, gave a thin excuse, and then got let off the hook by the cops out in Boston.

(mental note: do NOT apply to Alabama-Huntsville, EVER. Also, send thank you note to 2nd Amendment supporters.)

Now this isn't the first time some academic has decided to go postal on people. In fact, last spring, George Zinkhan III, one of my fellow marketing academics decided to take out some frustrations on his wife, and two other dudes who had the misfortune of being in Georgia community theater. What in the world is going on with academia in the southeast? I don't know, but now that I live in the southeast, I'm sort of jealous that I'm not nearly as cool as these other profs.

(mental note: make that 2 thank you notes to the gun advocates)

I wanted to do a posting last spring, but sort of lost it in the queue of things to do. Now, as I hunt around for info, I really regret not posting about this dude. After all, he seems to have discovered my philosophy of being a widower before becoming a divorcee, which I share with Drew Peterson, who has actually been successful in executing this strategy on multiple occasions (whereas I only operate on a theoretical level).

Unfortunately, it appears that this prof took himself out, rather than go out in a blaze of glory, Butch Cassidy style. But before he went, it seems that this dude was pretty awesome. It gets even better if you scroll down the comments. Boorish behavior isn't exactly uncommon from faculty members, who were generally the geeks who got picked on all throughout high school and college. One very notable exception is a prof at, oddly enough Houston, where George Zinkhan was before he went to Georgia. This dude was a #1 pick of the Expos, out of high school, whose father negotiated a contract where the Expos would pay for all of his education. He blows out his arm the next year, at 19, and then proceeds to do the whole college, grad school, PhD thing, all on the Expos tab - smart dad.

In any case, in my experiences at these academic conferences you see and hear all sorts of things regarding these old dudes w/ no game trolling after the chick doctoral students (who, with some exceptions, are "attractive" only by relative standards - much like being the gold medalist in the Special Olympics). And the sick part is that these chicks must like the attention of these older, douche bags, as well as the possibility of getting a job or getting their names attached to some research. So that basically makes these chicks whores, though probably from a longer-term perspective, and with a different currency than your normal streetwalkers. So, really, no one's innocent. But this Zinkhan dude seemed slimy, even in a slimy setting. Naturally, he's my new professional hero, replacing Jayson Blair.

(mental note: 1 - publish more research, 2 - go to more conferences, 3 - lower standards for attractiveness and/or value intelligence in women more...)

Now, I'm always intrigued when the authorities drop the ball on various issues. In both of these cases, you see where people who have been entrusted by the public have failed. The folks in Boston let a mass murderer go free. The folks at Houston never punished poor behavior, and didn't stand in the way when the folks at Georgia needed a new prof. Then the folks at Georgia turned a blind eye to slimy antics.

(mental note: if current job goes downhill, send resume to Houston and Georgia)

In each of these cases people selectively overlook important things, and you end up with a mess that hits other folks between the eyes. The thing is, we hear about these things because they become major events. But this also happens on an everyday basis with the choices that everyday people make when they're entrusted with the responsibility to serve the people around them. Power and greed are easily predictable outcomes when you simply allow human nature to go unreined and poor behavior unpunished. Especially among sociopaths w/ guns.

All I know is that I'm proud to be an academic.

-Chairman

The Life You Keep

Note, this was originally started back in November, but unfinished until now.

Interesting little discussion going on over at the NYT's Room for Debate. The original article was commenting on the call to extend the ability for parents to cover their childrens' insurance beyond the college years. This issue has come alive in part due to the increasing trend of adult children going back home to live with parents (dubbed "boomerang" offspring, since they come back after you throw them out). Explanations for this phenomenon range from cultural norms to financial practicality, to broader economic difficulties, to the tendency for extended adolescence, to increasing materialism in developed countries.

A few of my own friends had graduated from school, only to un-empty their parent's nests for various reasons. Personally, this would have never worked for me. My parents aren't as into paid escorts, gambling, and sleeping until 2pm as I am, and things may have gotten awkward, as for the third day in a row, I try to shuffle a different "date" out the door at 2 in the afternoon, after a night of decadence. But I'd suggest that the notion of cutting the purse strings completely is a very independent, very individualistic, very American notion. In many cultures living with one's family until you were married (and even living in the same family "compound" afterward) was/is pretty normal. Now, modern lifestyles have made living together physically difficult, even in very interdependent, very collectivist cultures. People go where jobs take them.

However the financial linkages between parent and child are often still very alive. For example I consider myself to be very independent, particularly with regard to my finances. And I've also realized that my view of material goods lean towards Spartan (though not excessively so - I drive a '99 Toyota Camry, a fine car, but I also realized that the undergrad RA's that I have hired all drive nicer cars than I do). But over the years, as different major issues have come up, my parents have been gracious enough to help with things like the closing costs on my house, and giving me two cars while I was in school (note, in fairness, I was in school for a really, really long time). In that sense, it's been very comforting to know that any financial concern of less than, say, low 5-figures wasn't going to be much of a problem. What I think is interesting is that conventional wisdom in American culture is that this would result in an entitled brat. Now, I'm not suggesting that I am anything but an entitled brat, but I think that the reason for this is that I'm smarter than everyone else, not because I'm richer than everyone else. Certainly, I think that the structure of the financial help matters. For example, having an ongoing line of credit w/out any accountability could be much more problematic than giving money based on specific episodes, with discussions attached to each episode.

But what I think is more interesting is that I believe that there's a cultural linkage to the outcome of whether or not financial help from a parent leads to negative results (like a sense of entitlement, irresponsible fiscal behavior, excessive materialism), or are positive (offering a sense of security, promoting responsible fiscal behavior, having an appropriate view of material goods).

Over the years, I'd guess that my parents have given as much assistance to me as they have to my younger brothers'. I think that it's interesting that we have very different perspectives towards this. Until about a year and a half ago, my parents were helping out my brother on a regular basis, and he still had a credit card that was billed to my parents. You could describe this as more of an ongoing support. And he lived on that credit card and that line of credit so that he was living the same lifestyle as he was when he was living at home. My brother's view is generally, "of course they should be helping me out - we're family." And you could easily argue that this is a very Asian (interdependent, collectivist) view of the world. I wouldn't call my brother fiscally irresponsible, but he definitely has more/better stuff than I do and is a bit freer with his spending than I am, especially once you factor in our difference in income (he's a teacher in public schools, whereas I'm rich, bitch).

The way in which my parents supported me was somewhat similar until I started grad school, and I had gotten my own income. During those undergrad days, though I think that my perspective was a little different. Though I fully understood that I was unable to pay for my needs (like tuition, rent, utilities, and even my groceries), I sort of disliked the idea of depending on my parents too much for things that were "wants" (like my paid escorts, my gambling, etc.). So, my spending on those activities were always minimal. You'd probably describe me as having that American ethos, where you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Once I started having my own income, I cut up the credit card that was linked to my parents, and tried to take over as many payments as quickly as possible, to the point where I really did describe myself as independent financially from my parents in grad school. That is, until things like car accidents emerged. Or my mother wanted to give me some money to fully fund an IRA contribution. What happened was that the help that my parent's gave me was viewed in terms of helping me through particular events, and not something that was a given. And I'd argue that if you had to compare between myself and my brother, that I'm definitely less materialistic, feel less entitlement, and am a little more fiscally responsible.

What I think really drives this is how our cultural perspectives fit in with the norms and values of the society as a whole. I think that my views toward finances are more in line with the norms of American culture, whereas my brother's were more collectivist/interdependent. And I suspect that the way in which I perceived the assistance that my parents gave (as being event-based) was different than the way in which my brother perceived his assistance (as being ongoing). This leads to a couple questions. The first is what happens when you change the style of assistance (i.e., give me ongoing assistance, and give my brother event-based assistance), given our cultural perspectives. The next level question is to ask what happens when you change the setting, so that it's still me and my brother with our cultural perspectives, but you change the societal norms. Then how does the style of the assistance change the effects on us as people?

My suspicion is that if you were to take this across a large sample, you'd see that they way in which financial assistance is offered affects people differently, depending on their cultural perspectives. However, I'm not entirely sure the direction of the change (i.e., would giving me ongoing assistance make me more or less materialistic than I would have otherwise been), though I have a suspicion that the level of cognitive dissonance associated with this would have been a key factor, with decreases in cognitive dissonance reinforcing the things that you already believe, and increases in cognitive dissonance stymieing those processes.

In any case, at this point, I'm sort of geeking out in a social psychology kind of way, so I'll end things here. But the point was that how we process information (in this case the message that is sent by receiving assistance from our parents) influences/is influenced by our personal beliefs and how they fit into societal norms. So, it's not necessarily a good or bad thing that people are moving back in with their parents, but how it's happening is going to affect things greatly.

-Chairman

Professing

There's a nice, little article in the New York Times that talks about why academia is a liberal institution. They note that some current perspectives on this issue revolve around individual differences like intelligence (i.e., liberals tend to have higher IQ's, professors tend to have higher IQ's, therefore liberals are more likely to become professors), but the research here talks about something that's on the selection side of things. In the industrial and occupational (I/O) psychology literature, they talk about two major factors that contribute to employee performance: Selection and Training. Basically, what do you look for before you hire someone, and how you train them once you do hire them. Now, I'll argue that there's relatively little training, once you hire a professor. We get hired, and then we're generally left to our own devices. The biggest thing is adapting to an organization's culture. But there's much less of the formal mentorship than you may figure. So we're largely left with the selection side.

The Grosse and Fosse research looks at aspects of the selection side. If you think about this interaction, as the saying goes, you need two to tango. They probably ask questions like, "What makes people want to enter an academic field?" which would help answer the question of what the pool of applicants looks like. And they probably ask questions like, "What characteristics are most common in professors?" which would help answer the question of the things academics value. Now, with the second question, you start to get a feel of what the ethos of the institution is. But that alone can't really point to bias or intellectual corruption as a characteristic of the institution (which is what the conservative vanguard may have you believe). For that, you need to see something systematic when examining the first question. Now, if you see a whole bunch of equally or overly qualified conservatives who want to enter academia being turned away at the door, then maybe you have a case. But if all you have are liberals who want to enter the doors, then the issue isn't bias as a characteristic of the institution.

This research suggests that there's a self-selection going on. The interesting question here is why. My first instinct here has a lot to do with how people think about the world around them. If you think about placing people on a continuum, ranging from left-wing to right-wing, you probably get a bell curve with a few nuts on the far left and the far right, and the majority of people in the middle. Now, this may not be a clean bell curve. This could be something that people call a bimodal (two modes - modes being the data points that appear most often) curve, or less-refined folks call a two-humped distribution. Sort of like a camel. Or boobies.

A Boobie Distribution. This is why I have the warning page when you first show up here.

What this means is that most people are either moderately conservative or moderately liberal. And this makes sense, given the simple, one-dimensional way of looking at the world. For example, conservatives are ordinarily all for fewer laws, less regulation. Yet, they demand laws that regulate abortion (which in terms of governance, would be a very liberal move). Similarly, liberals are all about the expression of people's beliefs and individuality, and recognizing that every person has a right to believe what they want. However, they are entirely against things like public displays of religious faith, or people expressing that they support something like religion. We also know that a given person is likely to have different ways of looking at the world, as the different domains change. For example, they may think differently about their work than they do about their worship, and differ yet in how they think about their family. We can easily imagine how people who label themselves as the same political philosophy (liberal vs. conservative) will differ on a number of different issues, since these different issues touch on many different domains in our lives.

In fact, read through the characteristics of what a conservative is, on this cool-looking webpage. How many different dimensions do they touch on? Patriotism, individuality, morality, religion, taxation, governance, economics, immigration, etc. Is there a core philosophy underneath all that? Or is there just a label that people like to use to encompass a number of different takes on different issues? If it's the latter, then conservatism is simply a label that's meaningless - just like pondering about the significance of a made-up word, like "Lexus." Now, that isn't to say that liberals have it all figured out. Check out this less cool-looking webpage, and it's take on what it means to be a liberal. Just as jumbled. I guess what I'm saying is that we like to use these different labels as an easy proxy.

While I think that having labels can serve a very practical purpose (having heuristics really does simplify our thinking processes), the labels that we attach (such as conservative or liberal) often end up being these one-size-fits-none when the labels become too broad. This ends up being detrimental to the causes that we push for. If you look at our two-party political system, you see a prime example of where the prototypical conservative or the prototypical liberal truly represents a very small slice of our population, once you break things down into their constituent parts. And you end up with a very unfortunate situation where folks that are generally reasonable are forced into silly behaviors, such as being a single-issue voter, because they value certain issues so much that they end up making their taking the stance that they can overlook anything else, so long as this one issue goes their way. Of course, being a single-issue voter is probably preferable to being a non-issue voter (or just a regular non-voter), like yours truly.

Now with regard to what this whole conservative/liberal thing has to do with me as a academic, it's surprisingly little. I recently spoke with a professor of educational psychology out in California who was a very liberal (Marxist, feminist, etc.) who converted to Christianity about 20 years ago and spent time with Mother Teresa's mission. She mentioned that after she converted, she basically lost all but two of her friends in her professional field. In disciplines that are big on dogma, but not as big on objective fact, your philosophical stance is everything. One thing that she also noted (which I had also observed) was the areas in which you saw the most people who believed in God were in the physical sciences and in business, where there is a much more pluralistic approach to knowledge, with an emphasis on objective facts. And in fact, that's a reasonable description on what I'm trying to accomplish. I don't necessarily have a preconceived notion of how things are, and I'm open to letting the evidence speak.

While I label myself a moderate-conservative, my beliefs vary greatly for each different domain. For example, even though I believe greatly in the hope and power of the individual, I firmly believe that structure needs to be imposed for a more effective society. Similarly, I like the notion of inherent rights, but believe that turning many of those rights into privileges would be a more effective way to run things. I don't know that these things really affect much of what I say from the lectern, but they may have a little bit of influence on the research questions that I'm curious about. But at the end of the day, I still believe enough in the integrity of the research in my field that my research will get published based on the quality of the work, not necessarily the dogma behind the findings. And I believe that's true for fields that readily accept conclusive research based on hypothesis testing. Where things get murky is when you delve into fields where the work is entirely qualitative, and/or "research" is really writing philosophy. I appreciate the existence of that stuff. I may even use some of that stuff in my work (mainly in an effort to be thorough). But I'm glad that I don't really need to get too much into that stuff :-)

-Chairman