Middle children are more successful: It is true for you?

Posted on May 1, 2017 by Dr Joseph Russo

For decades, conventional wisdom has held that middle children — those born in between older and younger siblings — tend to have a hard time growing up.  Within their families, they are said to be neglected, underestimated and misunderstood. Their place in the birth order is one of disadvantage, since they do not receive the same attention given by their parents to their siblings who, as first and last-borns, are showered with particularly intense attention. Consequently, and according to the long-established stereotype, they supposedly become withdrawn, resentful and lacking in confidence.

Middle children, so the thinking goes, are far more likely to become outsiders who enjoy nothing like the success or happiness of their brothers and sisters. This kind of analysis seemed to be reinforced by a recent study which revealed that eldest children are, on average, more prosperous than their younger siblings.

And I am amazed at how much ill-feeling is encountered when we counsel middle children. Many, not just a few, will say that they had in some way been abandoned by their parents, but much of this indignation is misplaced.

Indeed, the stereotype does not correspond to reality! Far from being doomed to failure and loneliness, middle children are more likely than their siblings to be successful and enjoy strong social lives and flourishing careers.

The apparent disadvantages they endure in childhood turn out to be beneficial, in many cases giving them the attributes of empathy, independence, articulacy and creativity. Many of our biggest celebrities, such as the film star Julia Roberts, are ‘middles.’ And many business and political leaders were (are) middle children. Take, for example, Bill Gates, my former boss and arguably the most successful entrepreneur of our time.  His remarkable ability to think outside the box and take moderate risks are attributes often found in middle-borns.

And consider this: of all the U.S. Presidents since 1787, no fewer than 52 per cent were middle children. This includes President Donald Trump.

This is not only a far higher proportion than the numbers in the overall population, but also confounds a conventional belief that eldest sons are always the strongest personalities and therefore natural-born leaders.

The list of presidential middles also includes such political heavyweights such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.

Tony Blair, the former PM of Britain, is also a middle child and whatever you think of his politics, his mix of charisma, eloquence and empathy were crucial both in bringing the Labor party back to power and in negotiating the peace deal in Northern Ireland.

But another aspect of middle children’s personalities is an eagerness to please — born out of their efforts in childhood to gain attention — which can mean they are too easily influenced by friends. That could certainly be said of Tony Blair over the Iraq War, when he seemed to be guided more by other political leaders than by his country’s national interests.

The importance of a child’s position in the family birth order has long been recognized. A vast number of studies show it is almost as crucial as genetic influences. But traditionally, the problem lies in the interpretation of the data, with too much emphasis put on the negative consequences of arriving in the middle.

The age gap between siblings can make an enormous difference to their personality and behavior. Typically, siblings born within five years of each other will be most affected, as they vie for parental attention.

There is, of course, little doubt that middle children can be marginalized within families during their formative years. Eldest children are treated very differently, partly because their parents are going through the child-rearing experience for the first time, and partly because they initially have no sibling rivals, so they receive all their parents’ attention.  They become the focus for all their parents’ hopes and fears, the prototype for the rest of the family.

In contrast, by the time the third — or fourth — child arrives, parents tend to be far more relaxed about child rearing. The family unit is already well established. So, the youngest is often indulged, even spoiled, not least because the parents have often decided that this child will be their last. This sense of indulgence often persists even when the youngest has grown up. Even adults in their 40’s can be regarded by the family as ‘the baby’, an attitude that does nothing for their natural resilience.

Yet the sense of indifference from parents and isolation that ‘middles’ feel as children can actually serve them well in later life. The trials they go through, such as having to speak up to ensure they are not ignored, are good preparation for adulthood. Middle children tend to have high degrees of patience, perhaps because they spend so much of their time in childhood waiting their turn. They must bide their time and wait while the first-born gets to star in the school nativity play, or they wait while the last-born’s paraphernalia is piled into the car. So, they learn the art of delayed gratification, one of the true measures of civilized behavior.

Interacting with those older and younger than them, they also learn the art of compromise. Less egocentric than the pioneering eldest or the coddled youngest, middles generally have a high degree of empathy, loyalty and the ability to see other people’s point of view. That is perhaps why, contrary to the received wisdom, they are more successful at relationships. In recent studies, 80 per cent of middle-borns remain faithful to their partners, compared to 65 per cent of first-borns and just 53 per cent of last-borns — perhaps because the latter are used to getting their own way, which, as we know, doesn’t always happen in a serious relationship.

It has also been discovered that, for all their fidelity to their spouses, middles are often open-minded about sex and non-judgmental about others’ behavior.

But there is a downside to this. Because middles are sandwiched between siblings and so have always had to try to please everyone as the diplomat of the family, they dislike confrontation and may shy away from frank discussions about serious problems in a relationship. This lack of honesty can store up problems for the future.

Understandably, middles are less attached to family hierarchies than their siblings, probably because they may not have such warm memories of family life. They often attach more weight to friendships and to the opinions of their peers than those of their elders. They tend to be less close to their parents and, in contrast to their siblings, are more likely to move away from the neighborhood where they grew up.

But that does not mean they do not want families of their own. In a recent study of 300 siblings, it was found that 99% of middles want to have their own children, and revel in the sprawling, noisy exuberance of family life.  Tellingly, despite the experience of their childhoods, they do not favor their own middle children but instead lay a great emphasis on fairness between all their offspring. Indeed, this attachment to fairness is one of the most striking features of middle children.

That is perhaps why so many of the more ambitious of them become reforming politicians or agents for social change — because they are determined to confront injustice.  Abe Lincoln, the man who spearheaded the Emancipation Proclamation, the hero of the anti-apartheid struggle Nelson Mandela, the American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, the Polish campaigner against Soviet tyranny, Lech Walesa, and the architect of Egypt’s peace with Israel in the Seventies, Anwar Sadat, were all middles.

Along with fairness, middles can also be robustly independent, partly because of having to strive to find their own niche within the family structure. They are often infused with a freedom of spirit, a desire to break with conformity, which is why they can be so successful in the creative arts — just look at the careers of the great actor Richard Burton or the writer Ernest Hemingway.

So, there is no need for despondency or resentment among middle children. Their position, with its road to independence, has perhaps put them in the luckiest position of all.

Adapted from a piece by Katrin Schumann, who is an educational consultant and co-author of The Secret Power Of Middle Children.

 

 

Posted in Counseling Concepts, General Musings | Comments Off on Middle children are more successful: It is true for you?

Low Frustration Tolerance and How to Deal with It

Posted on April 28, 2017 by Dr Joseph Russo

Low Frustration Tolerance and How to Deal with It

“There is no law which says that things have to be the way I want. It’s disappointing when they are not, but I can stand it — especially if I avoid awfulizing about frustration and demanding that it not happen.”

Low frustration tolerance is just what it sounds like: You do not tolerate even the most minor frustrations well.  You are easily irritated.  You have a short fuse.  Some people with low frustration tolerance seethe quietly, some explode verbally, and some resort to physical violence when provoked. Road rage would be an everyday example. Rudeness, too, although that has other sources.

Low Frustration Tolerance, or LFT, is really all about resiliency. I learned this the hard way in my 50s when dealing with graduate school at an older age. I am still learning (“Ancaro Imparo,” said Da Vinci) and am still trying to deal with it all. Imagine being in your 80s or 90s and having to deal with the ultimate frustration: death. How will your LFT help you then? Answer: it won’t, so let’s talk about reducing it now (or, more properly stated, about increasing your tolerance).

This piece will deal with some coping strategies and admittedly CBT[1]-based techniques to help you overcome LFT.  I begin (and end) with a review of what Albert Ellis, the great psychotherapist, had to say about LFT, move into alternative responses (not reactions – there is a difference), and end (as I said) with a review of what Ellis called the 12 Major Distortions.

Albert Ellis invented what he called Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, in part to help his clients deal with LFT. One of the by-products of REBT was the ability to self-diagnose (and self-analyze) when LFT occurs, and to develop the ability self-dispute what we call the “cognitive distortions” we engage in.  See my post about cognitive distortions at www.jvrusso.com.

In the meantime, know that the good news is that frustration tolerance can be increased by simply changing the way you think about things.  What is low frustration tolerance and how can you work to address it?  How can you increase your ability to deal with stressors, irritants and frustration without blowing your cool? I hope this article helps!

  1. Realize It’s All in Your Head

When the irritation happens and before you lose your cool, you have a thought or harbor some belief which either lowers or increases your frustration.  What are some examples?  Imagine being stuck in a long bank line for 45 minutes.  Most Americans would become agitated and restless.  Some will blow a fuse.  But consider the African who must sometimes walk several miles to get to a place where they must wait even longer for service. The African might be very pleased to stand in a long line.  The line and the wait time are the same.  Why the difference?   Because of the beliefs they hold about standing in the line.

An American may stand in line thinking:

  • “This is ridiculous.” (candidly, as taxpayers, some lines are downright immoral, but they exist regardless of what we think about their inherent inefficiency)
  • “I don’t have time for this.”
  • “They should have more staff to handle this.” (Again, as taxpayers we GET to think this, but what can YOU do about it, in the moment?)
  • “It shouldn’t take this long to deposit a check.”

In Africa, where people must walk long distances to get from place to place, waiting in a line is viewed as a good thing. They consider it an opportunity to rest.

These two different viewpoints about standing in a line for 45 minutes result in different emotional responses. If you believe you shouldn’t have to wait 45 minutes, you get irritated. If you believe this is a rare opportunity to rest, you feel relieved and happy.

Now consider situations which irritate or annoy you. Look at some of the thinking which may be causing you to be more irritated or frustrated that the situation warrants. Here are some examples:

  • “I can’t take this.”
  • “This is too much.”
  • “I can’t wait that long.”
  • “It shouldn’t be this way.”
  • “It shouldn’t be this difficult (or complicated).”
  • “I should always be happy and content.”
  • “Things must go my way, and I can’t stand it when they don’t.”
  • “I can’t stand being frustrated, so I must avoid it at all costs.”
  • “Other people should stop doing things which annoy me.”

Why is it important to listen to what you are thinking? Because you can change what you are thinking!  As the example of waiting in a line shows above, if you change your view of what is happening, you can change how you feel about it. If you can tune in to what is going on in your head you can rewrite the script.  A large part of feeling frustrated comes from feeling helpless. Realizing you aren’t completely helpless decreasing the frustration.

It can also be the case that what you are thinking is incorrect.  If you have inaccurate beliefs (i.e. your friend or significant other doesn’t always tune you out when you are talking), then your frustration may be unwarranted (he or she may be listening to you this time).  If so, challenging the validity of the belief can challenge the frustration that results from it. The scene that used to make you blow might now have no effect at all, or it may even make you laugh.

Hint:  Be on the lookout for extreme language. Words like “must” “can’t” “should” “have to” “always” “never,” and other inflammatory language are examples of “extremes.” And remember: we strive to never “should” on ourselves.

Irrational Belief Rational Belief
I can’t take this. The fact is, you can take this. You will not die or go insane from standing in line or getting stuck in traffic. You can take it. You have a choice about how you take it.  You can spend the next hour having a conniption fit and raising your blood pressure several points, or, you can spend it listening to music, catching up on calls, or reading a book. Your choice.
This is too much. Too much what?  Stress?  If it is too much stress, remove yourself from it and regroup before you blow your top.  If it is too much inconvenience, frustration or annoyance, ask yourself, is it really too much?

Let’s say you’ve been standing in line at the DMV for four hours trying to get your license. Ask yourself, is it too much of a frustration, or merely an everyday frustration?  If it really is too much, leave and come back when it is less crowded or you have more time. If it must be renewed today, weigh the cost of getting a ticket for driving without a license.  Is it still too much of a frustration?  Or does the danger of a ticket outweigh it?  If the benefit of driving legally outweighs the frustration required to get the license, decide (choose!) about how to pass the time in a productive manner.

If you are standing in line for concert tickets, is it too much frustration, or is it worth it to go to the concert?  Realize you have choices.  You don’t have to stand there, you choose to.  You have something to gain from tolerating this frustration, whether it be concert tickets or a renewed license.
I can’t wait that long. Is it that you can’t wait that long, or you simply don’t want to wait that long?   There is a difference.  If you truly cannot wait that long, leave and plan to come back when you have time to wait.  If you don’t want to wait that long, make a choice.  Is waiting worth it or not?
It shouldn’t be this way. But it is this way.  Now what?  You cannot change the situation, but you can choose how you react to it.
It shouldn’t be this difficult (or complicated). But it is this difficult (or complicated). Now what? Deal with the reality of the situation instead of some ideal situation that you have created in your head.  Let’s say you are trying to complete your income tax return. It is difficult. It is complicated.  You are not a numbers person and forms are not your forte either. You do not have the power to change the difficulty and complexity of the required procedure. Do you want to spend your time and energy ranting about it?  Do you want to hire someone else to deal with it?  Or do you want to do it yourself and get it over with so you can get back to doing what you enjoy?  Choose how will you deal with it.
I should always be happy and content. You should?  Or what?  Your head will explode?  Where is that written?  Is that true for everyone else?  If not, why should it be so for you?  Perhaps you would like to be happy and content all the time, but is that realistic?  No.
Things must go my way and I can’t stand it if they don’t. Things can’t go everyone’s way all the time.  That’s simply impossible.  We can’t all be first in line at the DMV.  So, what are you going to do when it’s not your turn for things to go your way?
I can’t stand being frustrated, I must avoid it all costs. Then do so!  But make a list of what you will lose out on if you do this.  Then decide if it’s worth avoiding the frustration to avoid the pleasure too.  It may be.  It may not be.  But make a conscious choice, do the benefits calculation, then take responsibility for it.

Let’s say you hate driving in rush hour traffic.  So, you might choose to ride the bus to work rather than drive.  It takes about 30 minutes longer each way, but you could use that time to catch up on your reading and arrive at your office refreshed and calm, rather than stressed from driving down the highway at rush hour. However, there may be times when you choose to drive in rush hour in order to be able to accomplish errands at lunch or attend a performance downtown that evening.  Then the convenience of completing the errands or the pleasure of attending the performance outweigh the frustration of the traffic You’ll have to fight your way through.  Either way, you have made a conscious choice and understand that you cannot, ever, have it both ways.
Other people should stop doing things which annoy me. Or what?  You have no control over other people. Only yourself.  You cannot control what other people do.  You can only control how you react to it.  Stop letting other people control your day and your emotions.

 

  1. Expose Yourself

Another way to increase your tolerance for frustration is to gradually expose yourself to frustrating situations.  Make a list of situations in which you tend to lose your cool or overreact.  Commit yourself to face at least one of these each day or each week, depending upon the severity of the frustration.  If it is rush hour traffic, once per day may be too much too often.  If it is waiting in line for coffee, once per morning might be tolerable.  If you can stand your kid’s, your husband’s, or your wife’s, dirty clothes on the floor, try to go a day without picking them up, then two days, then three, etc.  Try to increase your tolerance slowly.

  1. Rate It

Sometimes rating the frustration puts it into context.  If you are thinking, “This is terrible!”  Ask yourself, “How terrible is it?  As bad as a root canal?  An auto accident?  Being fired?  Getting divorced?”  On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst you can imagine, how terrible is it?  Putting it next to other things you have experienced in life may cause you to realize that waiting 30 minutes for lunch during the lunch hour rush may not be the worst thing that ever happened to you.

  1. Develop Skills

Developing skills for helping you handle stressful events can help you weather them with more grace.  Figure out what your issues are when you get frustrated.  Is it that you feel trapped?  Powerless?  Bored?  Pressured for time?  Inconvenienced?  Discounted?  Then figure out how to do something which eliminates that feeling.

Try to carry a book or magazine. Better yet, get a Kindle.  Personal disclosure: Being somewhat of German descent, the idea of “wasting time” is a real frustration provoker.  (I think Germans have special genes which make “waste” and “inefficiency” especially intolerable!)  I know someone (not me), who, when he gets trapped somewhere (rush hour traffic, a long line, a late appointment, etc.), uses that time and opportunity to catch up on his reading, email, and other work.  This serves two purposes:

  1. The time doesn’t feel wasted;
  2. It keeps him amused and out of trouble;
  3. He feels as if he has accomplished something when he finishes reading a book that would otherwise have piled up on his bed stand; and,
  4. He doesn’t feel so much at the mercy of life’s little calamities.

Making active choices instead of merely reacting can greatly decrease your feelings of stress and frustration and give you a better sense of control over your life.  Working to increase your tolerance for frustrations, which cannot be otherwise avoided, will help you feel more confident and competent in your ability to handle annoyances.  Both, together, can make your life more peaceful and your world a little calmer.

How to raise your tolerance for frustration

Know when you are engaging in LFT behavior. Keep a log of such behavior for several weeks or longer. Watch for things like overusing drugs or alcohol, compulsive gambling, shopping, exercising, or bingeing on food, losing your temper.

The technique of exposure is an important way to increase your tolerance. Make a list of things to which you typically overreact – situations, events, risks and so on. Commit yourself to face at least one of these each day. Instead of trying to get away from the frustration as you normally would, stay with the frustration until it diminishes of its own accord. You might, for instance, go without desserts for a while, have two beers instead of four, leave the children’s toys on the floor, or the like.

Another useful technique is rational self-analysis. This amounts to analyzing your frustration – while you are feeling it (if that is at all possible) by trying to step outside of yourself and looking back inside. What are the causes, what is your feeling and where are you feeling it in your body. If it is not easy to do in the moment, do the analysis as soon as possible afterwards. Other techniques you may find helpful are rational cards, the catastrophe scale, reframing, and a benefits calculation.

Rational Cards

After disputing a self-defeating belief, take a small card and write the old belief on the top and the new belief at the bottom. Carry the card with you for a week or so, and take it out of your pocket or purse and read it eight to ten times a day. This will take less than thirty seconds each time, but the repetition can be very productive for establishing a new rational belief. Don’t be misled by the simplicity of this technique – it can be surprisingly effective. Note that a new thought requires daily practice for about twenty-one days before it becomes a habit, so refer to the card at least once a day for a few more weeks.

Catastrophe Scale

This is a technique to get things back into perspective when you find yourself awfulizing. On a sheet of paper draw a line down one side. Put 100% at the top, 0% at the bottom, and fill in the rest at 10% intervals. At each level, write in something you think could legitimately be rated at that level. You might, for example, put 0% – ‘Having a quiet cup of coffee at home’, 20% – ‘Having to mow the lawns when baseball is on television’, 70% – being burgled, 90% – being diagnosed with cancer, 100% – being burned alive, and so on. Whenever you are upset about something, ascertain what rating you are (subconsciously) giving it and pencil it on your chart. Then see how it compares to the items already there. Usually what happens is that you will realize you have been exaggerating the badness involved. Move the item down the list until you feel it is in perspective. Keep the chart and add to it from time to time.

Reframing

This is another strategy for getting bad events into perspective. One way to reframe events is to reevaluate them as ‘disappointing’, ‘concerning’, or ‘uncomfortable’ rather than ‘awful’ or ‘unbearable’. Another way is to see that even negative events almost always have a positive side to them, listing all the positives you can think of.

Benefits Calculation

This is a way to break through decision-making blocks. It is based on the principle that we are likely to be happiest when our decisions take into account both the desirability of getting enjoyment now, and continuing to get it in the future. To carry out a calculation, list all the factors that seem relevant to the decision. Include the likelihood of short- and long-term consequences for each factor. Decide how much value or benefit each item has to you, negatively or positively, then add up the pro’s and con’s.

The Albert Ellis 12 Typical Irrational Beliefs and Disputing Statements

I want to end this piece with a second look at Albert Ellis and his 12 typical irrational beliefs, most of which, or any of which, are what bring clients in to see a counselor. By understanding them, you too can be a counselor to yourself. And thereby save a lot of money!

(review and think about these…)

1. The idea that it is a dire necessity for adults to be loved by significant others for almost everything they do… … instead of their concentrating on their own self-respect, on winning approval for practical purposes, and on loving rather than on being loved.
2. The idea that certain acts are awful or wicked, and that people who perform such acts should be severely damned… … instead of the idea that certain acts are self-defeating or antisocial, and that people who perform such acts are behaving stupidly, ignorantly, or neurotically, and would be better helped to change.  People’s poor behaviors do not make them rotten individuals.
3. The idea that it is horrible when things are not the way we like them to be… … instead of the idea that it is too bad, that we had better try to change or control bad conditions so that they become more satisfactory, and, if that is not possible, we had better temporarily accept and gracefully lump their existence.
4. The idea that human misery is invariably externally caused and is forced on us by outside people and events… … instead of the idea that neurosis is largely caused by the view that we take of unfortunate conditions.
5. The idea that if something is or may be dangerous or fearsome we should be terribly upset and endlessly obsess about it… … instead of the idea that one had better frankly face it and render it non-dangerous, and, when that is not possible, accept the inevitable.
6. The idea that it is easier to avoid than to face life difficulties and self-responsibilities… … instead of the idea that the so-called easy way is usually much harder in the long run.
7. The idea that we absolutely need something other or stronger or greater than ourself on which to rely… … instead of the idea that it is better to take the risks of thinking and acting less dependently.
8. The idea that we should be thoroughly competent, intelligent, and achieving in all possible respects… … instead of the idea that we would prefer to do well rather than always need to do well, and accept our self as a quite imperfect creature, who has general human limitations and specific fallibilities.
9. The idea that because something once strongly affected our life, it should indefinitely affect it… … instead of the idea that we can learn from our past experiences but not be overly-attached to or prejudiced by them.
10. The idea that we must have certain and perfect control over things… … instead of the idea that the world is full of improbability and chance and that we can still enjoy life despite this.
11. The idea that human happiness can be achieved by inertia and inaction… … instead of the idea that we tend to be happiest when we are vitally absorbed in creative pursuits, or when we are devoting ourselves to people or projects outside ourselves.
12. The idea that we have virtually no control over our emotions and that we cannot help feeling disturbed about things… … instead of the idea that we have real control over our destructive emotions – if we choose to work at changing the “musturbatory” hypotheses which we often employ to create them.


[1] CBT = Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. CBT is a four-letter word to some therapists, who believe that it over-simplifies what are otherwise very human reactions. But CBT is evidence-based and it works (for most people in distress, anyway).

Posted in Counseling Concepts, General Musings | 1 Comment

Tips for Making Decisions and Sticking to Them

Posted on April 25, 2017 by Dr Joseph Russo

How many times has this happened to you? You firmly decide what you are going to do – whether it be going to the gym or asking your boss for a raise or placing a much-delayed call to a friend. But then … you end up doing exactly what you did not intend to do: sitting on the couch eating ice cream, binge-watching Netflix, letting one more day go by without speaking to your boss or calling your friend.

 

Issues of procrastination and willpower come into play of course. But how we decide what to do and why our decisions often go the wrong way, are more complicated than that.

Francesca Gino, a professor of psychology at Harvard and author of one of the books, “Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed and How We Can Stick to the Plan” (Harvard Business Review Press), offers this anecdote. She and her husband visited a souk in Dubai, determined to enjoy the day and to buy something authentic to help them remember the experience when they returned home.

After a day of wandering through stalls that sold traditional goods and faux designer products, her husband was drawn to a store where he spent almost two hours haggling over counterfeit watches that looked as good as the super-expensive originals.

He ended up with a replica of a $7,000 watch for just $100. But, Professor Gino wrote, his euphoria was short-lived. How did a plan to go to the souk and enjoy its traditional ambiance turn into hours of bartering over a fake watch? And now, her husband isn’t even sure he likes it that much.

Having experienced similar situations in the past (don’t ask me about the silver bracelet I bought in an Istanbul market that, I discovered later, was stamped “Made in Mexico”), I might just argue that Professor Gino’s husband fell under the sway of a particularly persuasive salesman. But she says that’s too simple.

Too often, in areas big and small — new career paths, saving for retirement, buying a house — we think we’re going to go in one direction and end up in another.

It’s not that changing our minds is necessarily bad, if, with time and research, we discover that our goals have evolved. But it’s quite another thing to end up in a place you do not want to be — walking out of a souk with a counterfeit watch, say — with no real idea of how you got there. That, Professor Gino wrote, can be “discouraging, demoralizing and baffling.”

Just a little background here: Over the last three decades or so, a growing body of research has demonstrated that far from making decisions on a rational basis, as economists had long believed, humans make all sorts of decisions for all sorts of irrational reasons.

We’re affected by offers that seem better than they are. Who hasn’t added items they don’t really need into their shopping cart on Amazon to get “free” shipping? We are affected by having to make too many decisions, and this doesn’t apply just to trivial matters. For example, researchers have demonstrated that parole decisions by an Israeli panel were largely determined by what time the hearings were held.

The best of intentions may go astray, like the vow to exercise that is followed by standing outside the gym, looking in. We also all tend to do things we’re often not aware of doing, but they hamper our ability to make good choices.

Let me lay out the main ones that I took away from Professor Gino’s book and another one to be published in March on the same subject, “Decisive: How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work” (Crown Business), by Chip Heath, a professor at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford, and his brother, Dan Heath, a senior fellow at the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke.

We tend to gather research that confirms our own biases — a phenomenon called, not surprisingly, confirmation bias by social scientists.

A blatant but true example from the Heaths’ book is that back in the 1960s, before we had so much medical information on the dangers of smoking, smokers were much more likely to read an article headlined, “Smoking Does Not Lead to Lung Cancer,” than one with the headline, “Smoking Leads to Lung Cancer.”

We let emotions play too big a role. They can be set off by situations unrelated to the event. If you’re going on a first date, for example, Professor Gino said, and get caught in traffic, you may feel angry and that can spill over into your date. You may decide it was just a bad match, rather than reflecting on the mood you were in when you arrived.

Most of us tend to be overly optimistic about the future and about own abilities and attributes. The Heaths cite studies showing that doctors who reckoned they were “completely certain” about a diagnosis were wrong 40 percent of the time.

I liked even more a 1997 survey conducted by U.S. News & World Report of 1,000 people, cited by Professor Gino, about who was most likely to get into heaven. Michael Jordan had a 65 percent chance, Mother Teresa a 79 percent chance. But 87 percent of the survey takers decided they were the ones most likely to go to heaven.

So, we’re overconfident, emotional and irrational. What do we do about it?

Being aware when we make decisions that our own feelings, our relationships to others and outside powers all have an impact is a good start, Professor Gino said.

Here’s one of her suggestions: Take your emotional temperature. Try to be more aware of where your emotions are coming from and how, even if seemingly irrelevant, they may be clouding your decision.

When short-term emotions threaten to swamp long-term considerations, Chip Heath suggests that a simple yet highly effective way to think about a difficult decision is to consider what you would recommend to your best friend (the one you didn’t call, by the way).

“When we step back and simulate someone else, it’s a clarifying move,” he said.

Carefully researching information — while at the same time considering the source of that information — is important for a number of reasons. It can help you make a better decision, and it may cause less regret in the long term.

Research shows that we tend to have greater regrets about decisions that have gone wrong when we feel we approached the subject without looking into it deeply enough or considering enough options, said Terry Connolly, a professor of management and organizations at the University of Arizona.

One more thing we should consider when making decisions is that we should not fear regret too much. It’s an inevitable part of life, and if you can say you’ve lived a life without regret, “you’re not having enough adventures, or you’re rationalizing and not truly examining when things went wrong,” Professor Connelly said.

We also tend to overemphasize how much regret we are going to feel, said Neal Roese, a professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. “Most of the time, regret happens quickly and sharply, it hurts, and then it’s over.”

So, as much as possible, think about your decisions carefully, dispassionately and with as much valid information as possible. Look to sources you normally would not. Question your own beliefs and confidence. And then go for it. If you regret it, well, there’s always another decision waiting to be made.

Posted in Blogging, Counseling Concepts, General Musings | Comments Off on Tips for Making Decisions and Sticking to Them

Always Wait for the Rest of the Story

Posted on April 11, 2017 by Dr Joseph Russo

Who was the radio personality of years gone by who had a segment entitled “The Rest of the Story”? His name was Paul Harvey and he loved a good yarn.  And Sunday’s incident involving a man who refused to leave an airplane and give up his seat for three transferring United Airlines employees, proves the Harvey Point: Always Wait for the Rest of the Story. There is always more. Always.

United Airlines made some serious errors in its treatment of the passenger, no doubt, but as I sat and watched the incident unfold, I wondered to what extent the passenger also had a responsibility to act responsibly and sensibly. After all, he was offered $800 to exit the plane (by some accounts, it was as high as $1000). Over-bookings happen and notwithstanding Jimmy Kimmel’s pummeling of the airline, the fact is that many ticketed passengers never show up for their flights. The airlines know this and veteran travelers know this. How many times have you bought a ticket only to have something else happen which resulted in a missed flight? Best practice “seat management” almost requires that the airlines plan for this in order to maximize seat revenue. They would be remiss if they did not.

But occasionally even the best of algorithms come up short and a plane is simply booked beyond capacity. We all know this and the reasonable man will simply do the right thing and step-aside. After all, getting United employees to their next stop is crucial for the passengers of the next flight, if not for the safety of all concerned. He could have simply and respectfully move aside.

He did not, and now it turns out that he may have had similar problems in the past (not that United should or could have known this).  To wit, this article today from the DailyMail.com, and as you read this, remember that this man is a doctor. A healer. A man in a position of trust.

By Shekhar Bhatia In Louisville, Kentucky, For Dailymail.com

PUBLISHED: 11:06 EDT, 11 April 2017 UPDATED: 13:02 EDT, 11 April 2017

The troubled past of the doctor who was dragged off United Airlines in an incident which has plunged the company into crisis is revealed – including his felony conviction and need for ‘anger management’.

Dr David Dao has past of illicit gay sex with a patient, and tested positive for drugs, official documents reveal. The medic, who specializes in lung disorders, was accused of refusing to give up his seat on Sunday’s United Express flight UA3411 flight from Chicago to Louisville for the airline’s staff.

Cellphone footage of the Vietnamese-born (not Chinese) grandfather’s ejection has caused an uproar with critics claiming officers were heavy-handed in taking the senior from the flight.  Dr Dao has not yet sued the airline but it is clear that if he did, the documents would be likely to be used by United in their attempt to defend their actions.  The row over its handling deepened on Tuesday as DailyMail.com revealed how United told its staff that the doctor ‘tried to strike law enforcement’. That version of events is not apparently supported by videos taken by other passengers.

The disclosure of what they said to their own staff came after United’s CEO, Oscar Munoz, was accused of being ‘tone-deaf’ for his non-apology to the doctor. United lost $800 million of its value as shared plunged on Wall Street in the wake of the PR disaster.

WHAT THE PSYCHIATRIST FOUND 

An official report detailed the findings of medical exams performed on Dr Dao.

Among the findings were:

  • Mary Gannon ‘noted that Dr. Dao “lacked the foundation to navigate difficult situations, both interpersonally and in a complex profession”. Dr. Gannon noted a need to control, avoidance, withholding information and magical thinking as problematic.
  • The report went on: ‘Dr. Montgomery noted that Dr. Dao appeared to have difficulties with information processing. Neuropsychological screening did not suggest gross difficulties.
  • ‘However, in reviewing records, it was noted that Dr. Dao tends to have poor decision-making despite his overall level of ability.
  • ‘His choices have resulted in significant consequences over the years yet he continues to function in this manner.
  • ‘He is generally not forthright regarding details of events unless challenged and at times he will tell different versions of a story to different interviewers.

Later in the report it found: ‘As far back as April 2002, Dr. Brady notes ” … he would unilaterally choose to do his own thing’.

  • ‘This remains a concern to this day and without a high degree of structure and accountability he is at risk for further boundary related practice issues.’

The father of five, who has won sympathy globally over the incident, was given a suspended jail sentence for illegally obtaining and trafficking controlled substances by fraud and deceit.

He was also found to have in engaged in sex with a male patient- Brian Case, who he knew from the church they both attended – and then supplied him with drugs, including Oxycontin, in exchange for sexual favors.

The sexual liaisons, which happened motel rooms, were recorded by undercover agents. He paid $200 in cash each time he met Case.

The secret sex and drugs life of the doctor first came to light in in July 2003 when police alerted the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure of the allegations against him. In October 2003, he was indicted by a Jefferson County Grand Jury for ‘criminal acts of trafficking in a controlled substance, obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit, and unauthorized prescribing, dispensing or administering of controlled substances’. His medical license was suspended later that month.

Dr Dao underwent intense scrutiny and re-training for several years after his convictions. His wife Dr. Theresa Dao, who was with him on the ill-fated flight, has stood by him. She first alerted the medical authorities about her suspicions of her husband’s involvement with a patient.

In 2015, his medical license was partially re-instated with restrictions placed on his access to patients.

The findings were revealed by the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure in June last year and stipulated that monitoring had to be continued of the doctor’s behavior.

It was found that Dr. Dao had become sexually involved with a patient who had been referred to his practice, who was known as ‘Patient A’. He was named in criminal court as Case, who was 26 at the time, half the doctor’s age.

The board stated: ‘During the initial evaluation, the licensee performed a complete physical examination, including a genital examination, for Patient A who had been referred for collapsed lungs and chest pain.’

The board’s finding went on: ‘Shortly after his first appointment, the licensee made Patient A his office manager; according to Patient A, he quit that job because of inappropriate remarks made by the licensee.

After he quit, the licensee pursued him aggressively, finally arranging to provide controlled substance prescriptions to him in exchange for sexual acts.

This continued for some time, with Patient A and the licensee meeting at hotel rooms and some of these meetings were recorded. ‘At some point, the licensee began splitting some of the prescriptions with Patient A and gave Patient A money to fill the prescriptions.

Of course, none of this was known to United. But it is known to us now and gives us fresh perspective on the good doctor’s antics, all of which are as deplorable, if not more so, than what United did. There are two morals to this story:

  1. Whenever airline personnel ask you to do something, do it, quietly and with at most, respectful resistance. Don’t waste law enforcement’s time having to drag you off of an airplane.
  2. Always wait for the rest of the story. This man was clearly unhinged. Today would be a good day to buy United stock!

As Paul Harvey would say, “Good … DAY!”

Posted in General Musings | Comments Off on Always Wait for the Rest of the Story

Turns Out, We ARE Made of Sugar Candy

Posted on March 23, 2017 by Dr Joseph Russo

As an American lay in the streets of London, close to death from being rammed by yet another terrorist, I was left to wonder why we do not simply close our borders until we figure out a way to properly vet incoming “people” for their tendency toward terror.  But, wait, we have tried that and our liberal judges keep stopping us. Michael Savage is right: Extreme Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.

To me, the solution is simple: Anyone wishing to come to Britain or to America must renounce the ways of their homeland and publicly adopt the ways of their new-found country. Publicly, with all attendant shame, if that is what they feel, for saying out loud that the ways of their old country are decrepit and wrong. It would not bother me at all if they were literally forced to beg for permission to enter. I know we cannot always tell if the shame is heartfelt, but it is, apparently, the only thing left to us.

This piece, written by Katie Hopkins for London’s Daily Mail, summed up my feelings to a tee:

There they stood a year ago in the center of Brussels. Row on row.  Hands held high, making hearts to the heavens. Showing the slaughtered they were not forgotten. Reminding themselves they were here with love. Looking to show humanity wins. That love conquers all.

Then, they lay in the center of London, face down where they fell. Stabbed by a knife, rammed with a car, flung, broken, into the Thames, life bleeding out on the curb. And the news came thick and fast:

  • A car rammed deliberately into pedestrians on the bridge. Ten innocents down.
  • A police officer stabbed at the House of Commons. Confirmed dead.
  • Another woman now, dead at the scene.
  • Shots fired. An Asian man rushed to hospital.
  • A woman, plucked from the water.

And I grew colder. And more tiny.

No anger for me this time. No rage like I’ve felt before. No desperate urge to get out there and scream at the idiots who refused to see this coming.

Not even a nod for the glib idiots who say this will not defeat us, that we will never be broken, that cowardice and terror will not get the better of Britain.

Because, as loyal as I am, as patriotic as I am, as much as my whole younger life was about joining the British military and fighting for my country — I fear we are broken. We are indeed made of sugar candy.

Not because of this ghoulish spectacle outside our own Parliament. Not because of the lives rammed apart on the pavement, even as they thought about what was for tea. Or what train home they might make.

But because this is us now.

This is our country now.

This is what we have become.

To this, we have been reduced.

Because all the while those forgiving fools in Brussels stood with their stupid hands raised in hearts to the sky, another mischief was in the making. More death was in the pipeline.

As the last life-blood of a police officer ran out across the cobbles, the attacker was being stretchered away in an attempt to save his life.

London is a city so desperate to be seen as tolerant, no news of the injured was released. No clue about who was safe or not.

Liberals convince themselves multiculturalism works because we all die together, too.

An entire city of monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Blind. Deaf. And dumb.

Immersed in a seething pit of hatred, hidden in pockets of communities plagued by old animosities and ancient strife. These people may have left their lands. But they have brought every tension, every conflict, every bit of fight here with them.  The Afghans hate the Somalis who loathe the Eritreans. As it was before, it is now. London is a city of ghettos behind a thin veneer of civility kept polished by a Muslim mayor whose greatest validation is his father’s old job. Son-of-a-bus-driver, London’s Mayor Sadiq.

I can see him now, penning a missive about how London is a beautiful and tolerant city, how we are united by shared values and understanding, and how we will not be cowed by terror.

Sure enough, there he was, saying exactly that, just now.

Fool.

Even as mothers text to check their children are safe. Including my own, worrying about me as I sit overlooking the scene, feeling fearful of this place where monsters lurk and steal lives away in an instant. For nothing.  I would ask Mayor Sadiq to stop talking empty words.

Meanwhile, banning pictures of women in bikinis on the Underground. How does that help?

Please, no hashtags, no vigils, no tea lights. I am begging you not to light up Parliament in the colors of the Union.  Because we are not united. We are wrenched asunder. The patriots of the rest of England versus the liberals in this city. The endless tolerance to those who harm us, (while the Home Office tries to shift the focus of public fear to white terror) — versus the millions like me who face the truth, with worried families and hopeless hearts, who feel the country sinking.

We are taken under the cold water by this heavy right foot in the south, a city of lead, so desperately wedded to the multicultural illusion that it can only fight those who love the country the most, blame those who are most proud to be British, and shout racist at the 52%.

This place is just like Sweden. Terrified of admitting the truth about the threat we face, about the horrors committed by the migrants we failed to deter — because to admit that we are sinking, and fast, would be to admit that everything the liberals believe is wrong.

That multiculturalism has not worked. That it is one big fat failure and one big fat lie.

President Erdogan of Turkey said there is a war being waged between the crescent and the cross. But he is wrong. Because the cross is not strong. We are down on bent knee, a doormat to be trodden on, a joke only funny to those that wish us harm.

The war is between London and the rest of the country. Between the liberals and the right-minded. Between those who think it is more important to tip-toe around the cultures of those who choose to join us, rather than defend our own culture.

How many more times?

And how many more attacks must pass before we acknowledge these are no longer the acts of ‘extremists’? That there is no safe badge with which to hold these people at arm’s length, in the way the liberals casually use the term ‘far-right’ for anyone who has National pride.

These events are no longer extreme. They are commonplace. Every day occurrences.  These people are no longer extremists. They are simply more devout, more true to their beliefs. Beliefs which will be supported endlessly across our state broadcaster for the next few months until we buy into the narrative that one religion is not to blame.

That in fact we should blame Brexit supporters. For believing in a Britain. As it was before.

Anything but the truth.

This is why there is no anger from me this time, no rage. No nod for those who pretend we will not be cowed, even as they rush home to text their mum they are safe. No surprise that the city of which I was so proud is now punctured by fear, and demarcated even more formally by places we cannot tread; there were always parts in which a white woman could not safely walk.  Now I feel only sadness, overwhelming sadness.

I will walk over the river tonight and look to the Thames, to the Union flag lowered at half mast, and the Parliament below, and I will wonder, just how much longer we can go on like this.

Winston Churchill once mused that the Allies won World War II because they were not made of sugar candy, that together they were ready to stand up and fight evil.  Alas, he was wrong. We are made of sugar candy.

Posted in General Musings | Comments Off on Turns Out, We ARE Made of Sugar Candy

When Legislators Have Nothing Better to Do

Posted on March 17, 2017 by Dr Joseph Russo

With all the problems in the world … scratch that … with all the problems in New York State, you would think that a law to protect one’s “right to be forgotten” would be somewhere near the bottom of the pile of priorities for state legislators.

In the words of John Belushi, “but, noooo.”

Legislators David Weprin and Tony Avella have introduced a bill aimed at securing a right to be forgotten.  These two lovely liberal New York politicians would require people to remove inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate or excessive statements about others within 30 days of a request from an individual.  Furthermore, it specifies …

that all search engines and online speakers shall remove content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate or excessive, and without replacing such removed content with any disclaimer or take-down notice.

Think about the time that has gone into defining inaccurate, irrelevant, inadequate, or excessive as content which …

after a significant lapse in time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse, especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest.

Thank goodness that they have excepted content related to …

convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.

Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.  You gotta love this shit, folks.  They always manage to legislate attorney’s fees. God love ’em. Lawyers protecting lawyers.

Thankfully, the equally liberal and no less wacky Washington Post has come out against this legislation, which when you think about it would have the Post, among others, squarely in its sites. To wit, the post had this to say:

Under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was no longer material to current public debate or discourse (except when it was “related to convicted felonies” or “legal matters relating to violence” in which the subject played a “central and substantial” role).

And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was “no longer material to current public debate.” Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent business people and others.

But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law, and I hope First Amendment law will stay that way (no matter what rules other countries might have adopted).

Our founding fathers gave considerable thought to what “rights” ought to be enshrined and rendered inviolable. Take the so-called “right to privacy.”  It does not exist. Instead, they, our Founding Fathers,  enumerated various protections which ensured that government would have to take considerable effort to invade your privacy.  This effected a balance between privacy and the public safety.

Similarly, there is no “right to be forgotten.” Period. It does not exist, and no law can ensure it. Inventing rights is dangerous business.  In the present instance, the legislation these two idiots have proposed would protect a government’s power to suppress speech, along with enshrining the power to force people (on pain of financial ruin) to stop talking about other people, whenever some government body decides that they should stop.

Honest to God, do they have nothing better to do?

 

Posted in General Musings | Comments Off on When Legislators Have Nothing Better to Do

The Streisand Effect

Posted on March 13, 2017 by Dr Joseph Russo

The Streisand Effect is a little-known axiom employed by people responding to frivolous lawsuits. I think it is particularly funny, considering how Babs is so quick to lecture us on who we should vote for (Hillary being the latest), the state of the planet (it’s hot, don’t you know), and the deplorable lack of sensitivity to the vast income inequality in our country and around the world (it is “out of control” she wrote). I say “funny” because I doubt very seriously whether Barbara would ever give away her money to help leaven the inequality, live in a home of less than 20 rooms or give away her private jet to help cool the planet, or ever admit that the people have a say in elections.

So, where does The Streisand Effect come from? This little ditty will attempt to explain.

Back in 2002, photographer Kenneth Adelman undertook a massive project wherein he photographed the California coastline in a series of 12,000 photographs. The purpose of the exercise was to document coastal erosion for the California Coastal Records Project, a government-sanctioned project focused on preserving the state’s massive coastline. Naturally, it was paid for by California taxpayers, which had I know about it then would have been added to already very long list of reasons not to reside in the state of my birth.

Anyway, Adelman took pictures of everything along the coast, including homes which were perched precariously along the mountain sides deemed in danger of eroding. [By the way, mountainsides along a coast line are ALWAYS in danger of eroding, but that’s another story.]

Among the many hundreds of homes he photographed, one of them belong to Babs Streisand. Others included Johnny Carson’s, Steven Speilberg’s, and Yoko Lennon’s.

Took a while, but in 2003 when it came to the singer’s attention that her home was displayed on a public website, her lawyers immediately lodged a lawsuit and sued the photographer, the site displaying the images (Pictopia.com), and even the server company hosting the actual files (Layer42). The total damages sought were for $50,000,000. Think about that number! $50 MILLION dollars. How was she damaged to that extent?

Before the lawsuit, nobody (aside from perhaps some die-hard fans) had any idea about the photo, much less the size of her palace. One might wonder what she was afraid of. But AFTER the lawsuit, the story was all over the news and nearly half a million people went to the website for the express purpose of looking at her house. The frivolous lawsuit ended up drawing exponentially more attention to the home than simply ignoring the photograph would have.

The Streisand Effect was thereby born. Mike Masnick, a writer at the time, immortalized the whole affair when he wrote:

How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don’t like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see (like a photo of a urinal in some random beach resort) is now seen by many more people? Let’s call it the Streisand Effect.

The greatest irony here is that not only did Streisand fail to keep her house under wraps, but she permanently linked her name to the futile attempt to do so. Not to mention her contribution to the clogged judicial system.

Remember the words of Will Rogers, “Live your life so that you would not hesitate to sell the family parrot to the town gossip.”

Thanks to How-to-Tech-Blog for the rudiments of this story. 

Posted in General Musings | Comments Off on The Streisand Effect

Chicken Little Speaks?

Posted on February 26, 2017 by Dr Joseph Russo

Back again to the Blog. I have been beavering away teaching an online course this semester (it began in late January) and for anyone who thinks that teaching online is easier than face-to-face, I offer my complete disagreement. It is hard work and far more time consuming, but no less fun. I am having a blast.

Since my last post, we have inaugurated a new president here in the States, Donald Trump. I have been watching with fascination the snowflake melt-down on the left and right, and am sad to see my country so divided. Today, I awoke to an interesting piece by Tyler Durden over at Zero Hedge, a page I follow to stay atop financial matters. This piece is disturbing.

And, so, I am worried. Tyler Durden is worried. Here is today’s post:

Former Reagan Administration White House Budget Director David Stockman says financial pain is a mathematical certainty.

Two weeks ago, David Stockman warned that “the market is apparently pricing in a huge Trump stimulus. But if you just look at the real world out there, the only thing that’s going to happen is a fiscal bloodbath and a White House train wreck like never before in U.S. history.” Stockman goes on to exclaim that, when looking at markets, “what’s going on today is complete insanity.”

Now he is back with another interview, this time with Greg Hunter of USA Watchdog in which he again warns that a giant fiscal blood-bath is coming soon.  He urges people to pay especially close attention to the March 15, 2017, debt ceiling deadline, at which point everything could “grind to a halt.”

Stockman explains,

“I think we are likely to have more of a fiscal bloodbath rather than fiscal stimulus.  Unfortunately for Donald Trump, not only did the public vote the establishment out, they left on his doorstep the inheritance of 30 years of debt build-up and a fiscal policy that’s been really reckless in the extreme.  People would like to think he’s the second coming of Ronald Reagan and we are going to have morning in America.  Unfortunately, I don’t think it looks that promising because Trump is inheriting a mess that pales into insignificance what we had to deal with in January of 1981 when I joined the Reagan White House as Budget Director.”

So, can the Trump bump in the stock market keep going? Stockman, who wrote a book titled Trumped predicting a Trump victory in 2016, says,

“I don’t think there is a snowball’s chance in the hot place that’s going to happen. This is delusional.  This is the greatest suckers’ rally of all time.  It is based on pure hopium [Russo’s Note: this word is a blend of hope and opium], and not any analysis at all as what it will take to push through a big tax cut.  Donald Trump is in a trap.  Today the debt is $20 trillion.  It’s 106% of GDP.  Trump is inheriting a built-in deficit of $10 trillion over the next decade under current policies that are built in.”

“Yet, he wants more defense spending, not less.  He wants drastic sweeping tax cuts for corporations and individuals.  He wants to spend more money on border security and law enforcement.  He’s going to do more for the veterans.  He wants this big trillion-dollar infrastructure program.  You put all that together and it is madness.  It doesn’t even begin to add up, and it won’t happen when you are struggling with the $10 trillion of debt that’s coming down the pike and the $20 trillion that’s already on the books.”

Then, Stockman drops this bomb and says:

“I think what people are missing is this date: March 15, 2017.  That’s the day that this debt ceiling holiday that Obama and Boehner put together right before the last election in October of 2015 expires.  The debt ceiling will freeze in at $20 trillion.  It will then be law.  It will be a hard stop.  The Treasury will have roughly $200 billion in cash.  We are burning cash at a $75 billion a month rate.  By summer, they will be out of cash.  Then we will be in the mother of all debt ceiling crises.  Everything will grind to a halt.  I think we will have a government shutdown.  There will not be Obama Care repeal and replace.  There will be no tax cut.  There will be no infrastructure stimulus.  There will be just one giant fiscal bloodbath over a debt ceiling that has to be increased and no one wants to vote for.”

A complete collapse would please the snowflakes for about 5 minutes, please them that is until their iTunes fail and the ATM doesn’t seem to work any more. I cannot wait to see their reactions.

Posted in Business, General Musings, State of the Nation | Comments Off on Chicken Little Speaks?

Putting Their Money Where Their P***sy Hats Are

Posted on January 22, 2017 by Dr Joseph Russo

The Woman’s March yesterday in Washington D.C. was apparently all about “reproductive rights,” and the threat posed, they say, by a Trump presidency. If such rights boil down to the right for a taxpayer funded abortion, I thought it might be interesting to pose this thought experiment:

Instead of insisting that the American taxpayer fund these odious procedures, why wouldn’t, say, the six richest women in America put up the money themselves? All six were at the March.

I wonder what rights, precisely, are under assault? In 2013, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 664,435 abortions performed in America. Those are the ones we know about. Seems the “right” is alive and well.

Anyway, I did a quick calculation this morning, the morning after the massive Woman’s March on Washington D.C., to see what would happen if the 6 or 7 richest women who attended the March paid for abortions themselves, rather than foisting this odious thing upon the American taxpayer. After all, these women (all of whom apparently attended the March) are rather quick to insist that I, a taxpayer, pay for a procedure so many of them see as a birthright (as oxymoronic as that is). I assume, further, that consistent with the liberal demand on any number of fronts that we “soak the rich,” the top six richest women at the march would be willing to be soaked. How long could they themselves, personally, pay for the 2013 abortions?

The Top Six and Their Worth (according to Forbes): Yoko Ono @ $500m,  Streisand @ $370m, Madonna at $1Bn, Beyonce @ $610m, Cheryl Sandberg of Facebook at $1.4Bn, and Fonda @ $125m. I am not counting in Cher, who is worth $305m because, according to Forbes, her money is kept outside of America. Total? About $4 Billion dollars.

An abortion costs $200 or thereabouts. 664,435 abortions at $200 each totals about $133,000,000 a year. $4 Billion dollars could fund these for about 30 years. No government intervention needed.

Of course, this would mean that each of them give up their jets and multiple homes, but the cause would seem to be worth it.

Putting their money where their silly hats are. What a concept.

 

Posted in General Musings | Comments Off on Putting Their Money Where Their P***sy Hats Are

Calendrical Musings

Posted on December 31, 2016 by Dr Joseph Russo

The New Year has me reflecting upon the calendar that most of the world uses, the Gregorian Calendar. I thought I would re-post this essay  from StratFor, that does a very good job of examining its history and perhaps an idea or two for something different.

When England adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, some 170 years after it was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “It is pleasant for an old man to be able to go to bed on Sept. 2, and not have to get up until Sept. 14.” Indeed, nearly two weeks evaporated into thin air in England when it transitioned from the Julian calendar, which had left the country 11 days behind much of Europe. Such calendrical acrobatics are not unusual. The year 46 B.C., a year before Julius Caesar implemented his namesake system, lasted 445 days and later became known as the “final year of confusion.”

In other words, the systems used by mankind to track, organize and manipulate time have often been arbitrary, uneven and disruptive, especially when designed poorly or foisted upon an unwilling society. The history of calendrical reform has been shaped by the egos of emperors, disputes among churches, the insights of astronomers and mathematicians, and immutable geopolitical realities. Attempts at improvements have sparked political turmoil and commercial chaos, and seemingly rational changes have consistently failed to take root.

Today, as we enter the 432nd year guided by the Gregorian calendar, reform advocates argue that the calendar’s peculiarities and inaccuracies continue to do widespread damage each year. They say the current system unnecessarily subjects businesses to numerous calendar-generated financial complications, confusion and reporting inconsistencies.

In years where Christmas and New Year’s Day each fall on a weekday, for example, economic productivity is essentially paralyzed for the better part of two weeks, and one British study found that moving a handful of national holidays to the weekend would boost the United Kingdom’s gross domestic product by around 1 percent.

The Gregorian calendar’s shortcomings are magnified by the fact that multiple improvements have been formulated, proposed to the public and then largely ignored over the years — most recently in 2012, with the unveiling of a highly rational streamlined calendar that addresses many of the Gregorian calendar’s problems. According to the calendar’s creators, it would generate more than $100 billion each year worldwide and “break the grip of the world-wide consensus that embraces a second-rate calendar imposed by a Pope over 400 years ago.” This attempt, like many of the others, has received some media attention but has thus far failed to gain any meaningful traction with policymakers or the wider public.

Myriad geopolitical elements and obstacles are embedded in the issue of calendar reform, from the powerful historical role of empires and ecclesiastical authorities to the unifying forces of commerce and the divisive nature of sovereignty and state interests. Indeed, geopolitical themes are present both in the creation of the Gregorian calendar and its permanence, and its ascendance and enduring primacy tells us much about the nature of the international system.

How We Got Here

At its core, the modern calendar is an attempt to track and predict the relationship between the sun and various regions of the earth. Historically, agricultural cycles, local climates, latitudes, tidal ebbs and flows and imperatives such as the need to anticipate seasonal change have shaped calendars. The Egyptian calendar, for example, was established in part to predict the annual rising of the Nile River, which was critical to Egyptian agriculture. This motivation is also why lunar calendars similar to the ones still used by Muslims fell out of favor somewhat — with 12 lunar cycles adding up to roughly 354 days, such systems quickly drift out of alignment with the seasons.

The Gregorian calendar, introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, was itself an attempt to address the problems of its predecessor, the Julian calendar, which had been introduced by Julius Caesar to abolish the use of the lunar year and eliminate a three-month gap that opened up between the civil and astronomical equinoxes. It subsequently spread throughout the Roman Empire (and beyond as Christianity spread) and influenced the design of calendars elsewhere. Though it deviates from the time it takes the earth to revolve around the sun by just 11 minutes (a remarkable astronomical feat for the time), the Julian system overly adjusted for the fractional difference in year length, slowly leading to a misalignment in the astronomical and calendar years. For the Catholic Church, this meant that Easter — traditionally tied to the spring equinox — would eventually drift into another season altogether.

By dropping 10 days to get seasons back on track and by eliminating the Julian calendar’s excess leap years, the Gregorian calendar came closer to reflecting the exact length of an astronomical year (roughly 365.24 days) — it is only off by 26 seconds annually, culminating in a full day’s difference every 3,323 years.

But what was perhaps most significant about Pope Gregory’s system was not its changes, but rather its role in the onset of the globalized era. In centuries prior, countries around the world had used a disjointed array of uncoordinated calendars, each adopted for local purposes and based primarily on local geographical factors. The Mayan calendar would not be easily aligned with the Egyptian, Greek, Chinese or Julian calendars, and so forth. In addition to the pope’s far-reaching influence, the adoption of the Gregorian system was facilitated by the emergence of a globalized system marked by exploration and the development of long-distance trade networks and inter-connectors between regions beginning in the late 1400’s. The pope’s calendar was essentially the imposition of a true global interactive system and the acknowledgment of a new global reality.

Despite its improvements, the Gregorian calendar preserved several of the Julian calendar’s quirks. Months still varied in length, and holidays still fell on different days of the week from year to year. In fact, its benefits over the Julian calendar are disputed among astronomers.

Nonetheless, its widespread adoption and use in trade and communication played a fundamental role in the development and growth of the modern international system.

Implementation Problems

From the start, however, the Gregorian calendar faced resistance from several corners, and implementation was slow and uneven. The edict issued by Pope Gregory XIII carried no legal weight beyond the Papal States, so the adoption of his calendar for civil purposes necessitated implementation by individual governments.

Though Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal adopted the new system quickly, many Protestant and Eastern Orthodox countries saw the Gregorian calendar as an attempt to bring them under the Catholic sphere of influence. These states, including Germany and England, refused to adopt the new calendar for a number of years, though most eventually warmed to it for purposes of convenience in international trade. Russia only adopted it in 1918 after the Russian Revolution in 1917 (the Russian Orthodox Church still uses the Julian calendar), and Greece, the last European nation to adopt the Gregorian calendar for civil purposes, did not do so until 1923.

In 1793, following the French Revolution, the new republic replaced the Gregorian calendar with the French Republican calendar, commonly called the French Revolutionary calendar, as part of an attempt to purge the country of any remnants of regime (and by association, Catholic) influence. Due to a number of issues, including the calendar’s inconsistent starting date each year, 10-day workweeks and incompatibility with secularly based trade events, the new calendar lasted only around 12 years before France reverted to the Gregorian version.

Some 170 years later, the Shah of Iran attempted a similar experiment amid a competition with the country’s religious leaders for political influence. As part of a larger bid to shift power away from the clergy, the shah in 1976 replaced the country’s Islamic calendar with the secular Imperial calendar — a move viewed by many as anti-Islamic — spurring opposition to the shah and his policies. After the shah was overthrown in 1979, his successor restored the Islamic calendar to placate protesters and to reach a compromise with Iran’s religious leadership. 

Several countries — Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran among them — still have not officially adopted the Gregorian calendar. India, Bangladesh, Israel, Myanmar, and a few other countries use various calendars alongside the Gregorian system, and still others use a modified version of the Gregorian calendar, including Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Thailand, Japan, North Korea and China. For agricultural reasons, it is still practical in many places to maintain a parallel local calendar based on agricultural seasons rather than relying solely on a universal system based on arbitrary demarcations or seasons and features elsewhere on the planet (several members of the British Commonwealth for example, still mark the turn of the seasons on the first of December, March, June, and September, rather than the equinox and solstice points observed in the United States). In most such countries, however, use of the Gregorian calendar among businesses and others engaged in the international system is widespread.

Better Systems?

Today, the Gregorian calendar’s shortcomings have translated into substantial losses in productivity for businesses in the form of extra federal vacation days for employees, business quarters of different sizes and imperfect year-on-year fiscal comparisons. The lack of consistency across each calendar year has also created difficulties in financial forecasting for many companies.

Dozens of attempts have been made over the years to improve the remaining inefficiencies in Pope Gregory’s calendar, all boasting different benefits. The Raventos Symmetrical Perpetual and Colligan’s Pax calendars feature 13 months of 28 days, while the Symmetry 454 Calendar eliminates the possibility of having the 13th day of any month fall on a Friday. In 1928, Eastman Kodak founder George Eastman introduced a more business-friendly calendar (the International Fixed calendar) within his company that was the same from year to year and allowed numerical days of each month to fall on the same weekday — for example, the 15th of each month was always a Sunday. This setup had the advantage of facilitating business activities such as scheduling regular meetings and more accurately comparing monthly statistics.

Reform attempts have not been confined to hobbyists, advocates and academics. In 1954, the U.N. took up the question of calendar reform at the request of India, which argued that the Gregorian calendar creates an inadequate system for economic and business-related activities. Among the listed grievances were quarters and half years of unequal size, which make business calculations and forecasts difficult; inconsistency in the occurrence of specific days, which has the potential of interfering with recurring business and governmental meetings; and the variance in weekday composition across any given month or year, which significantly impairs comparisons of trade volume since transactions typically fluctuate throughout the week.

In 2012, Richard Conn Henry, a former NASA astrophysicist, teamed up with his colleague, an applied economist named Steve H. Hanke, to introduce perhaps the most workable attempt at calendrical reform to date. The Hanke-Henry Permanent Calendar (itself an adaptation of a calendar introduced in 1996 by Bob McClenon) is, as the pair wrote for the Cato Institute in 2012, “religiously unobjectionable, business-friendly and identical year-to-year.”

The Hanke-Henry calendar would provide a fixed 364-day year with business quarters of equal length, eliminating many of the financial problems posed by its Gregorian counterpart. Calculations of interest, for example, often rely on estimates that use a 30-day month (or a 360-day year) for the sake of convenience, rather than the actual number of days, resulting in inaccuracies that — if fixed by the Hanke-Henry calendar, its creators say — would save up to an estimated $130 billion per year worldwide. (Similar problems would still arise for the years given an extra week in the Hanke-Henry system.)

Meanwhile, it would preserve the seven-day week cycle and in turn, the religious tradition of observing the Sabbath — the obstacle blocking many previous proposals’ path to success. As many as eight federal holidays would also consistently fall on weekends; while this probably would not be popular with employees, the calendar’s authors argue that it could save the United States as much as $150 billion per year (though it is difficult to anticipate how companies and workers would respond to the elimination of so many holidays, casting doubt upon such figures).

Obstacles to Reform and a Path Forward

Most reform proposals have failed to supplant the Gregorian system not because they failed to improve upon the status quo altogether, but because they either do not preserve the Sabbath, they disrupt the seven-day week (only a five-day week would fit neatly into a 365-day calendar without necessitating leap weeks or years) or they stray from the seasonal cycle. And the possibilities of calendrical reform highlight the difficulty of worldwide cooperation in the modern international system. Global collaboration would indeed be critical, since reform in certain places but not in others would cause more chaos and inefficiency than already exist in the current system. A tightly coordinated, carefully managed transition period would be critical to avoid many of the issues that occurred when the Gregorian calendar was adopted.

Today, in a more deeply interconnected, state-dominated system that lacks the singularly powerful voices of emperors or ecclesiastical authorities, who or what could compel such cooperation? Financial statistics and abstract notions of global efficiency are not nearly as unifying or animating as religious edicts, moral outrage or perceived threats. Theoretically, the benefits of a more rational calendar could lead to the emergence of a robust coalition of multinational interests advocating for a more efficient alternative, and successes such as the steady and continuous adoption of the metric system across the world highlight how efficiency-improving ideas can gain widespread adoption.

But international cooperation and coordination have remained elusive in far more pressing and less potentially disruptive issues. Absent more urgent and mutually beneficial incentives to change the system and a solution that appeals to a vast majority of people, global leaders will likely not be compelled to undertake the challenge of navigating what would inevitably be a disruptive and risky transition to an ostensibly more efficient alternative.

Any number of factors could generate resistance to change. If the benefits of a new calendar were unevenly distributed across countries — or if key powers would in any way be harmed by the change — any hope for a comprehensive global agreement would quickly collapse. Societies have long adjusted to the inefficiencies of the Gregorian system, and it would be reasonable to expect some level of resistance to attempts to disrupt a convention woven so deeply into the fabric of everyday life — especially if, say, the change disrupted cherished traditions or eliminated certain birthdays or holidays. Particularly in societies already suspicious of Western influence and power, attempts to implement something like the Hanke-Henry Permanent Calendar may once again spark considerable political opposition.

Even if a consensus among world leaders emerged in favor of reform, the details of the new system likely would still be vulnerable to the various interests, constraints and political whims of individual states. In the United States, for example, candy makers hoping to extend daylight trick-or-treating hours on Halloween lobbied extensively for the move of daylight saving time to November. According to legend, in the Julian calendar, February was given just 28 days in order to lengthen August and satisfy Augustus Caesar’s vanity by making his namesake month as long as Julius Caesar’s July. The real story likely has more to do with issues related to numerology, ancient traditions or the haphazard evolution of an earlier Roman lunar calendar that only covered from around March to December. Regardless of what exactly led to February’s curious composition, its diminutive design reinforces the complicated nature of calendar adoption.

Such interference would not necessarily happen today, but it matters that it could. Policy is not made in a vacuum, and even the carefully calibrated Hanke-Henry calendar would not be immune to politics, narrow interests or caprice. Given the opportunity to bend such a reform to a state’s or leader’s needs — even if only to prolong a term in office, manipulate a statistic or prevent one’s birthday from always falling on a Tuesday — certain leaders could very well take it.

Nonetheless, a fundamental, worldwide change to something as long established as the calendar is not unthinkable, primarily because it has happened several times before. In other words, calendrical change is possible — it just tends to happen in fits and starts, lurching unevenly through history as each era refines, tinkers and adds its own contributions to make a better system. And if a global heavyweight with worldwide influence and leadership capabilities adopts the change, others may follow, even if not immediately.

 

Posted in General Musings, State of the Nation | Comments Off on Calendrical Musings