Blink #3

“At 175, we begin to see an absolute breakdown of cognitive processing… The forebrain shuts down, and the mid-brain – the part of your brain that is the same as your dog’s (all mammals have that part of the brain)—reaches up and hijacks the forebrain. Have you ever tried to have a discussion with an angry or frightened human being ? You can’t do it…”(p. 225)

In this chapter, Gladwell talks about “mind reading” and how your facial expressions are a huge part of this process. This is how our first impressions are created. He also talks about how our snap judgments can fail. In the quote above Gladwell is talking about how when we are anxious, and when our hearts are beating at a rate of 175 beats per minute our brain, our snap judgments are not working properly.

He does a case study on three officers who’s snap judgments failed. They were patrolling the Bronx one night, and shot an innocent man. The man was standing outside late at night getting some air, but the three officers decided that he looked suspicious, and than when he made the movement to his pocket they decided he was dangerous in a split second, but he was not dangerous he was scared. They thought the man was pulling out a gun, when he was really pulling out his wallet. These errors resulted in a man being shot, the officers were anxious, their brains shutdown and they ended up relying on stereotypes. Gladwell goes on to talk about how if the officers were trained better for this situation they would have reacted more calmly, and made better choices. This is because the more similar experiences you have to one another, your brain becomes better at mind reading, so you are able to predict what’s going to happen and have a better reaction to the situation. I think this is where the saying “practice makes perfect” comes from because the more we do something the better we get at that thing, and that is because our brain is able to predict the situation.

Can you mind-read?

"We can all mind-read effortlessly and automatically because the clues we need to make sense of someone or some social situation are right there on the faces of those in front of us." (213)

This is how we thin-slice other people, we mind-read.

When we express emotions on our faces it is an automatic action and they can be voluntary or involuntary. We as people always judge what a person is thinking or how they are feeling. In the blink of an eye these impressions simply come to us, because a face can be a rich map and source of emotion.

I have never connected autism with mind-reading but Gladwell has linked the two with such strength and understanding that I now view autism and mind-reading on a whole new level.

"Their first-impression apparatus is fundamentally disabled, and the way that people with autism see the world gives us a very good sense of what happens when our mind-reading faculties fail." (214)

People with this condition focus on what people say and their words, not a person's facial expressions and "nonverbal cues." Gladwell makes this point very clear when he says that when speaking with someone who is autistic you could pick your nose or pull down your pants and they would not notice.

Those with autism are mind-blind. When you lack this ability you cannot look at someones face and automatically mind-read. Faces are simply objects, and the emotion in them is lost.

An experiment which I read about that was fascinating consisted of watching a movie through the eyes of an autistic person and contrasting this to people without autism. Each group wore hats that tracked their eye movements. One example of where the eye movements were distinctly different was in a scene in the movie where a man says "Who did that painting" and then points to the wall. Someone with autism does not look to where the speaker is pointing or follow this path with their eyes because they are not able to interpret this action; they cannot mind-read. When hearing this line they will look for a wall and search for a painting. Say there are several paintings, they wouldn't know the specific piece.

People with autism are unable to mind-read, something that comes to most people as an automatic response done outside of their awareness.

Blink!

The Dark Side

Our adaptive unconscious makes snap judgements and decisions. This is called thin-slicing, "the ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations and behaviour based on very narrow slices of experience." (23) Thin-slicing is what makes it possible to analyze only 15 minutes of a wife and husband talking and be able to determine with 90% accuracy if that couple will still be married in 15 years. We can determine which doctors will be sued for medical malpractice just based on listening to brief clips of how a doctor talks to his patients instead of studying the physicians past history.

Our unconscious is "sifting through the situation front of us, throwing out all that is irrelevant while we zero in on what really matters, and the truth is that our unconscious is really good at this, to the point where thin-slicing often delivers a better answer than more deliberate and exhaustive ways." (33)

What if in that blink of an eye we become blind?

In the history of American presidents, historians agree that Warren Harding was one of the worst. How is it possible that a man who is hesitant and uncertain of policies and unable to formulate a speech be elected as president. The answer is quite simple, Warren Harding looked the part. When thin-sliced by people he appeared to be a man who would make a great president. Although thin-slicing allows us to "very quickly get below the surface of a situation" (75) sometimes rapid cognition can lead us in the wrong direction. This is what Gladwell calls the Warren Harding error; the dark side to our adaptive unconscious.

The IAT (Implicit Association Test) shows the effects of our feelings and actions when in moments that require spontaneous thinking. Our attitudes towards areas such as race and gender are not only conscious but also have an unconscious aspect where "the immediate, automatic associations...tumble out before we've even had time to think." (85) This is why over 80% of people who take the race IAT have pro-white associations. We are unaware of these associations because they occur behind a locked door on an unconscious level yet they have the power to govern our beliefs and our behaviour. This part of our unconscious are opinions shaped from our experiences.

In that blink of an eye we are blind.

This happens outside of our awareness behind a locked door but it is still something that we can work to control Gladwell argues. It all comes down to our experiences.

Bob Golomb is an extremely successful cars salesman because he is able to control the way in which he thin-slices. He avoids the Warren Harding error by permitting himself from judging his customers based on their appearance or first impressions and instead thin-slices a persons intentions, needs and emotions. He balances his "deliberate and distinctive thinking" (141) and thats what makes his decisions and ultimate prosperity successful.

The power of thin-slicing is incredible but it is something that under certain conditions we must have control of. Malcolm Gladwell is a brilliant man.

The Answer is the Question

"The success of the scientific method in the past has encouraged us to think that with enough time and effort we can unravel nature's mysteries. But hitting the absolute limit of the scientific explanation - not a technological obstacle or the current but progressing edge of human understanding - would be a singular event, one for which past experience could not prepare us." [385]

This is quite the statement. It is potent with meaning and value beyond just the context of this novel. Greene is trying to establish the concept of pushing into the unknown; travelling farther down the rabbit hole. The reason for doing so is because he is concluding his novel. As it becomes more relevant throughout the novel, Greene does not have all the answers to every question we ask. Although it may seem ridiculous to think otherwise, we at least need to be assured that his work has the potential to provide us with the answers. If he can demonstrate that his work will provide us with new knowledge, then we will be convinced and amazed at the capabilities of Theoretical Physics, and come to use it in more common practice.

Up to this point in the novel, Greene has gone about building his structure. This structure is a collaborative process much like any academic subject would be: you must have the basics installed before you can progress. Sure you can buy a spoiler, some fluffy dice, and a little hula girl, but what good are they if you don't have car. The same applies to Greene's novel: if he didn't introduce you his premises you would never have understood nor accepted his ideas. So from that we can deduce that Greene has intentionally led us up to this point, and that if his structure and presentation were both sufficient, we should come to accept his final point.

We revisit Greene's purpose when he precedes the quote above with this idea; "The road from this "in principle" ratiocination to an "in practice" fact is encumbered by many hurdles." [383]

Here he is again, proving his intention of convincing society that his academic does, in fact, fit into the category of the Sciences. He labels the "gap" I discussed in my first blog as "hurdles". Then he goes on in explanation to fill this gap, the beautiful thing about this concluding chapter is that it is built from the previous ones. Due to this form of logic, it becomes so easy for the reader to follow his thoughts and agree with them. Because his previous arguments in each chapter were concise, clear, and well presented; appealing to the human’s intuition, we were led to accept each thesis from each chapter. If not, it was at least clear to see the point he had made, and like a well performed lawyer in a court of law, Greene leaves these points discretely disconnected until the very end when he collaborates his arguments and asserts his verdict to the jury. He shows the reader the path to believing and understanding conclusion and so I am awed at not just the material of the book, but the art of it as well. In any situation, Greene is proclaiming that we should expect the unexpected – as cliché as that may be. In doing so he has essentially grouped Theoretical Physics and Science into the same generalized idea; that if Theoretical Physics hits a dead end, then can be associated with the limits of Science as a whole. This brilliantly, again, persuades the reader to assume that they are of the same origin and nature. Nonetheless, he eloquently finishes his novel with a quote assuring us that life and life’s work is not about finding all the answers, but living fully in the pursuit of the answers. I, for one, was left satisfied and hopeful, with dazzling stars in my eyes.

“As we fix our sight on the future and anticipate all the wonders yet in store for us, we should also reflect back and marvel at the journey we have taken so far. The search for the fundamental laws of the universe is a distinctly human drama, one that has stretched the mind and enriched the spirit... We are all, each seekers of the truth and we each long for an answer to why we are here... And as our generation marvels at our new view of the universe – our new of asserting the world’s coherence – we are fulfilling our part; contributing our rung to the human ladder reaching for the stars” [387]

"The war is lost"

"[von Bronikowski] watched German officers with twenty to thirty men apiece, marching back from the front – retreating towards Caen.…..'They were drunk as pigs, their faces were dirty and the swayed from side to side.' Reeling by, oblivious to everything they saw, they sang 'Deutschland uber Alles' at the top of their voices. Bronikowski watched them until they were out of sight. 'The war is lost', he said aloud."

-Pg 275

By the final hours of June 6^th (American landing beach pictured top right), it had become apparent that the Germans could not push the Allied invaders out. German soldiers, shocked by the sudden appearance of dozens of allied divisions and thousands of warships, retreated in disbelief. Constant flyovers by Allied warplanes, bombing marshaling yards and strafing vehicle columns, had taken their toll. The Germans were truly crushed, and this occurred to everyone; from Rommel, who, when asked if he could throw the invaders back into the sea “shrugged, spread his hands and said ‘…I hope we can’” (Pg 277), to tank commander Colonel von Bronikowski.

Soldiers acted in different ways when faced with the reality of defeat; some merely broke down, fanatics stood their ground and went down in a blaze of allied bullets, and some turned to French alcohol, which the Germans had been compiling since their initial conquest of the nation some four years before. This quote really sums up the importance of “the longest day” - the Germans, for the first time in five years, had been dealt a defeat by the western allies in North-West Europe, and thus the disoriented Germans were on their way to a slow eleven month retreat back to Berlin itself, when the war would finally end. The Germans where routed, and Hitler's "Third Reich would have less than one year to live" (Pg 277).

By blending first-person accounts and the official records into one book, Ryan presents the history of D-Day in a way that is both interesting and gripping but at the same time lets you truly feel like you are on the front lines with the men who were there. While Ryan could have simply have stated that the Germans were dealt a serious blow from which they never recovered, by blending that thesis with first-person accounts, it has such a greater impact on the reader. This attitude has made Ryan's "The Longest Day" one of the best accounts of the D-Day landings.

“Awfully sorry, old man, but we simply landed here by accident”

"The General’s intelligence officer disarmed the two men and brought them up to the veranda. The astounded Reichert could only blurt out 'Where have you come from?' to which one of the pathfinders, with all the aplomb of a man who had just crashed a cocktail party, replied, 'Awfully sorry, old man, but we simply landed here by accident'."

-Page 116

Cornelius Ryan’s “The Longest Day” mixes both the official “big-picture” history of the D-Day landings and the personal, often humorous and unbelievable, stories that are often seen in veteran’s memoirs. Although works like this are usually immensely popular (all of Ryan’s books were New York Times bestsellers, and historians who have followed in his footsteps, such as Max Hastings, have enjoyed similar embraces), these types of books are rare; partially because of the time and effort it takes to write them. For instance, the author worked on this one for ten years – 1949 to 1959. This quote above is an example of how Ryan combines both of these.

In the hours leading up to the invasion, thousands of paratroopers were dropped behind the invasion beaches. Before these paratroopers, small teams of soldiers coined “pathfinders” (pictured, top right) were dropped. Representing the vanguard of the invasion force, their mission was to mark the landing zones for the rest of the airborne forces. However, due to high winds and disoriented pilots, these men were often dropped far off course. This quote pertains to one of these teams – who drifted far off course and landed in the front yard of 711^th Infantry Division commander Josef Reichert's command post. Swiftly captured by the General’s intelligence officer, one member of the British team nonchalantly delivered the line to the astonished general, who was still completely unaware of what was unfolding before him.

"The Longest Day"

“The first twenty-four hours of the invasion will be decisive….the fate of Germany depends on the outcome…..for the Allies, as well as Germany, it will be the Longest Day"

-Erwin Rommel on April 22, 1944 (pictured, to the right)

Often in history, victory and defeat will hinge on a few critical hours. These hours can ensure victory, or seal defeat. At perhaps no other time is this more evident than the events of June 6^th 1944, better known as Operation Overlord, or the D-Day landings. The defeat of the Nazi regime in Europe was sealed by hundreds of thousands of men; men from every walk of life, who came together to do something extraordinary - something that will likely never be equalled in our lifetime.

This quote; told to the author, Cornelius Ryan, by Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s former aide Captain Hellmuth Lang, is where the book get’s its name from. Once the famed “Desert Fox” who lead the Wehrrmacht in a string of victories across North Africa, Rommel is now in charge of defending occupied Western Europe from Allied invaders. Rommel, a student of history as well as a skilled tactician, is acutely aware that any invasion must be halted before the enemy can take a foothold. He believes that there is “only one chance to stop the enemy and that’s while he’s in the water” (Pg 27). Henceforth began the fortification of the coast, the maze of bunkers, trenches and dug in artillery – the things which were to soon become synonymous with any invasion. No longer in the Second World War, would an invading force be permitted a relatively unobstructed amphibious assault. The date of the invasion – yet unknown to Rommel and his commanders – was truly to become the longest day; and the one which sealed the defeat of Hitler’s regime.

This quote provides an excellent prelude to the book itself, as it is a rather foreboding outlook by Erwin Rommel, the man on whom the future of Europe hinged. Knowing the outcome of the battle, it carries even more weight, and makes you think about what could have been if the Field Marshall had his way and had not been limited by his own commanders.

Through this quote and the next two, I hope to give everyone a good feel of what the book is like, and a rough idea of how things progressed that day. This quote provides a view of the situation before the battle (feverish preparations), the next deals with the start of the landings (confusion for the Germans, optimism from the allies), and the last offers closure on the situation (Germans routed, in disoriented retreat).

Improvising

We usually think of improvising as a total spontaneous act that has no structure what so ever. It makes us wonder how some people have the ability to perform an improvised act based on a random idea. Gladwell talks about this in chapter four and studies an improvisation comedy group which uses random ideas from the crowd. It turns out improv isn't as random and chaotic as we may think. Gladwell said if you sit down with the cast of the improv group he worked with you would find "they aren't all the sort of zany, impulsive, free-spirited comedians that you might imagine them to be." (113). Then how, one may wonder are their improv plays so funny and well put together like it was planned? Gladwell explains that improv, believe it or not is governed by certain rules which have to be abided by on stage. The most important rule of improv is the idea of agreement where characters accept everything that happens to them. Spontaneity is also made possible when everyone undergoes highly repetitive and structural practices, which include running through plays over and over and criticising each other's performance. In this way one can practice for an improv performance by perfecting certain skills which will make it easier to engage in the "spur of the moment that makes for good improv" (117).


Before reading this part of the book I've always thought improv was a terrifying random occurrence. But after reading what Gladwell had to say I realized that a lot of work is done before the performance to create the right framework for a well acted improv scene. Characters also have to accept any suggestion given by another character in order to keep the dialogue interesting and from ending abruptly. These two main factors is what makes good improv seem "telepathic" and "pre-arranged" (116).

Physics is in Everything: is Theory?

"What happens to space if a massive object like the sun is present? Before Einstein the answer was nothing;... Einstein [led] to the remarkable suggestion that the presence of mass, such as the sun, causes the fabric of space around it to warp," [68]

Incredible! This picture illustrates Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. As you can see, the object in orbit to the earth is in fact falling down a curved slope. Another image you can have to understand this is that of a whirlpool in a sink or bath tub. You can see the small bits of soap or shampoo accelerating towards the drain, then once those items are in the whirlpool, they swirl downward into the drain. My first immediate thought was that this implies all objects in orbit are falling toward the earth. Which is frightening to think of at first, but then I realized that there is a simple explanation that fits nicely into this theory. The only thing that causes an object to fall into the earth is something that slows it velocity down. The reason why an object is slowing down might be friction. If there is friction experienced in outer space then, yes, the objects will slow down. Our atmosphere extends way beyond in outer space, as it does so, it decreases in it size and its dispersion increases. So a satellite for example comes into contact with a very small amount of our atmosphere while in orbit. This means that yes, our satellite is therefore falling towards earth, but at a very slow rate; so slow in fact that we don't need to worry about it in our lifetime. Although there are a great deal of unexplained reasons to this theory, it would seem at least intuitively correct to some degree.

The novel thus far has done an excellent job at portraying conceptual ideas to the reader. Through the use of visual diagrams and common analogies, Greene invites the intuition of the reader and captivates the imagination with his ideas. Now going back to my first point, I've labelled Greene's purpose to not only educate the reader, but to shift societies perspective on Theoretical Physics. As of late, he has done an exceptional job in my opinion because he has related his ideas to the same tangible and empirical ideas we use in Science. Once he shows us that the method of Theoretical Physics is the same as the Scientific Method, and yields exact and parallel results to that of Science, he can begin to shift societies perspective through our faith in logical reasoning.

We Must Accept; but how?

"...A book that takes on such an abstract subject with the intention of emphasizing the science, not the scientific personalities or the personal anecdotes, might cater to an even smaller audience."

Who would honestly want to read the Almanac? It would appear to be insane to pick up a book with facts and call it a "novel". Brian Greene is a famous physicist in the world of theoretical physics who understands the important connection between the appeal for learning, and the appeal for factual data. In the preface to his novel The Elegant Universe; he sets up the reader with, what appears to be, an honest remark: "This book will not appeal to everyone." (note: not actual quote from book)

After analyzing the first section, I have come to conclude other meanings for why he has used this quoted phrase. In order for you understand what this quote means to me, I must first inform you of its proper context. The page is roughly an introduction to why he wrote the book, how he did it, and to get the reader in a mindset that prepares them for the read ahead. He goes on to say that he was dedicated to writing the book regardless of its social appeal; that he would be satisfied if, "[He] reached one person,...that it would be enough." Of course the word "enough" means enough reason behind his purpose. So from the start we are made to believe that he intends to portray the Science as accurately as possible, regardless of its general appeal to society.

Science is the philosophy of deducing knowledge from your senses; Empiricism. Its hilariously ironic to call Theoretical Physics a form of Science because "theoretical" implies we haven't experienced it yet. Of course if Brian Greene came out and said, "This is technically not Science, but it does use the same process to achieve equally valid conclusions," his book and life's work would lose the potency of its meaning, especially in the hands of the layman. A book is written for society. If the intention of the book is to educate society with your knowledge, you appeal to the bias of the society. This is why Aristotle included the gods in Sophocles; that everyone would derive similar connections and meaning and use that connection to embrace Aristotle's ideas. So when Greene says this quote, and it implies that he is writing something similar to an Almanac, we assume that (because he his absolutely honest in this intention) we are receiving his facts with confidence; that they are accepted as true, and can be used as knowledge.

Today's society is infatuated with Empiricism; that is our bias. If Greene intends to write a novel about his subject, he must appeal to that bias; which he has done. He has underlined his preface with the idea that his knowledge is acceptable as Empirical knowledge. This underlying idea influences our intuition about his work; that we must strive to understand it rather than revoke it. This is brilliant because he has setup the reader's attitude with a bias towards the information he is presenting; we are no longer open minded about the subject matter. Again, there's irony in a Scientific novel proving itself to an Empirical audience. If we accept Science as true because we are Empirical, it would be redundant to write a novel proving what we already believe. Yet, he chooses to write a novel; a way through which we can accept his ideas as true, versus an almanac; just the result.

When we reconsider the irony of Theoretical Physics as a Science, we recall that there is a small disconnect between the two. Greene in this manner is no longer just proving the validity of his work, he's also trying to bridge that small gap between his field of study, and Science. I would love to go into detail regarding the various reasons as to why he might be doing that, but from here on I will keep my bias in perspective and continue to learn form what the novel offers.

To think or to blink?

"There can be as much value in the blink of an eye as in months of rational analysis."

How is it that after months of scientific analysis and investigation of a marble statue it is deemed to be real and bought for $10 million, but when the statue is presented to a group of art experts, in almost an instant they felt an "intuitive repulsion" and knew that the statue was a fake?

Malcolm Gladwell introduces his book Blink by questioning our instincts and proving that although we live in a world where we believe that decision making requires time and effort, decisions that we make very quickly, almost instantly, can be just as good.

When we make decisions we go about this in the same style that we use to learn. We experience things which we think through and develop a theory about, and then we come to a conclusion. Gladwell refers to this as our conscious strategy which despite being "logical and definitive" is also slow. In contrast to this we also have an adaptive unconscious. This part of our brain makes decisions quickly, almost immediately, and based on a small amount of information. It acts under our conscious level where our brain can reach a conclusion without us actually knowing it has done so. Gladwell demonstrates and proves this with the story about the marble statue.

We really on have trust in our decision making at a conscious level. "Haste makes waste. Look before you leap. Stop and think. Don't judge a book by its cover." These have all been installed in us from an early age, as this way of thinking is thought to be a superior and smarter way to the art of decision making. Gladwell argues that we must learn that there are times instead where we must trust the power of our adaptive unconscious and make decisions in the blink of an eye. This is not always the case as there can be times where it can be "thrown off," distracted, and disabled," but it is something that we can develop and foster for ourselves.

Gladwell does an excellent job introducing his book telling stories followed by straight forward yet interesting and thought provoking explanations about the power of a blink; the first two seconds which made more sense of an important art statue than months of rational analysis.

You may say I'm a dreamer...

“It’s and ancient truth that those who risk the least usually live the least.” Ironically... “in many aspects of life the biggest risk is not to risk at all.” The power of taking risks and dreaming big is often beyond what can logically be explained. Cooper alludes to the fact that the problem with goal setting, is that too many of us neglect to set goals that are high enough. Consequently, we must set goals we never thought we could accomplish in order to achieve things that we never dreamt we could achieve.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of the population believes that it is always better to set low expectations and be more likely to achieve them, rather than setting high ones and running the risk of disappointed and failure. But what is “failure”? If you fail to achieve an extremely high goal aren't you still much further ahead than if you had reached a low one, or better yet, set none at all?

I think the correct answer is yes, and I've learned that even thought the thought may be daunting, it is important to dream big and hope irrationally. “We must not be afraid of dreaming the seemingly impossible if we want the seemingly impossible to become a reality.” – Vaclav Havel

The Other 90% - Robert K. Cooper

Non-Fiction #3

"The year showed me beyond doubt that everyone practices cafeteria religion. Its not just moderates. Fundamentalists do it too. They can't heap everything on their plate." pg. 328

At the end of the book Jacobs reflects on what he has experienced over the past year and how living by the Bible, which started as a project, had genuinely changed how he felt about and viewed many things. He realizes that it is almost impossible to live exactly as the Bible says which is what leads to many people picking and choosing which parts they will follow. This book has given a thorough and interesting look into the lifestyle and challenges faced by those who choose to live their lives in exact accordance to the Bible.

Non-Fiction #2

As the book progresses Jacobs becomes more and more devote to following the Bible as literally as he can. For example, he decides to follow the "go forth and multiply" law as soon as he can, and when he and his wife do not seem to have any luck he takes every measure to ensure that she will be able to have children, which in the end worked out for them and she became pregnant with twins.

During this time Jacobs also looks into the idea of Polygamy as set out in the Bible and in turn thinks about convincing his wife that it is a good idea, without actually taking the idea seriously himself. He even receives advice about how to convince her from his religious advisers.

Although many of the Biblical laws, like polygamy, are out dated and in many cases illegal he also describes how this experience has benefited him and has begun to change him. He states that he looks forward to prayers and doesn't mind that he cannot shave his beard. However, the year was far from over.

Non-Fiction #1

The book I have chosen to do for my non-fiction read is "The Year of Living Biblically" by AJ Jacobs. Jacobs, who has written other memoirs such as "The Know It All" where he read the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica, grew up in a secular family. However, he decided he wanted to know what it would be like to follow the bible literally for an entire year. The book is written in somewhat of a journal style and is divided by moths, with details going through each day.

The beginning of the memoir introduces many of the new and more commonly known rules/laws Jacobs will have to follow for the next year (do not lie, give to charity, pray daily, do not steal etc.) however, he also brings to light many of the lesser known laws such as no wearing of mixed fibres, having to play a ten string harp, no taking/creating pictures and to stone adulteres.

Jacobs looks into many different views and opinions within Catholicism but during the second month of the book he focuses on the theory of creation. He visits a creationist museum in Kentucky to do research where he finds they even have a display of dinosaurs with saddles.

The book is written in a humorous manner and provides an in depth look into what it would mean to follow the bible literally for a year.

A-Rod: A man of two sides

At this point in the whole Alex Rodriduez story he has signed with the all time best franchise in major league baseball; the New York Yankees. The book goes on to say how a team like this is a better fit for Alex with him being able to perform in the limelight well not having the responsibility of his team and his teammates put on his shoulder. If there is one thing I've learned about him in this book it is that he is not a leader. A lot of comparing goes on between him and Derek Jeter and it becomes very apparent that Jeter is way more of a leader type than Alex is. Even in the day when A-Rod played for Texas whenever there was pressure put on him steer the vessle he began to underperform. Teamates described him as being a player in his own world who didn't really didn;t put as much effort into the teams performance as he did to putting up his own big numbers on the stats sheet. He made a lot of teammates mad because he would seek special treatment in the clubhouse by having his own personal attendant and demanding a private jet to be at his disposal. He was never really protrayed as a team player and was not what the Texas management was expecting when they signed him to a 10-year $252 million contract, the biggest ever in MLB. Sure Alex was a star slugger who put up huge numbers and won MVP's, but the teams was losing with him. He is a great player but as we would later find out he was a user of steroids and his image was damaged by acts of sometimes selfish indulgments. But alex as a baseball player atleast in my books is a Hallof Famer.

Heros and Zeros

"Most villains are cowards, they do their bad deeds feeling that they are immune to retaliation. Nowhere is this more evident then in the corrupt American media." - Page 149

Nowhere does O'Reilly carry a single speck of respect for "zeros", or "villains". He believes that if anyone has the nerve to make a bold statement and doesn't stand proudly beside their beliefs, that they should be stripped of any rights to publicly distribute their opinions. In a way I totally agree with this "bold" statement, even though freedom of speech is ever present. If someone is so cowardly that they have to hide behind a pen name or become anonymous, don't you think their opinion isn't very accurate. I mean, if you believe in your statement you should be behind your opinions 100%. For someone to hide their name makes me feel they don't believe their own words enough to be accountable for them.

With this quote O'Reilly is partially glorifying himself as a hero by sticking with his statements without being anonymous. In this sense of villainy and heroism I would indeed call him a hero, a hero against false truth. He frequently talks about his ability to detect and depict liers on his television show "The O'Reilly Factor". Personally from seeing his show I enjoy seeing him call out the liers and peace disturbers that think they can spew their lies without consequence.

Lewis Hamilton – The feud with Alonso

Although he has never admitted it, Fernando Alonso, double world champion and McLaren’s new number one driver at 10 million pounds per season, must have though he would be the clear number one at his new team without much competition from his rookie teammate Lewis Hamilton, and on his way to a third drivers title. However, their relationship turned sour at the Spanish Grand Prix, Alonso’s home circuit, where Lewis finished second and ahead of Alonso, who was third. Lewis chalked up his fourth consecutive podium finish and was the leader in the driver’s championship. Alonso, instead of congratulating Lewis, could only blame the tires for his poor fourth place result. Tensions became greater when Lewis won in Montreal and Indianapolis where he was able to extend his championship lead over Alonso and the two Ferrari drivers, Raikkonen and Massa. Throughout the season it appears that Alonso worked against Lewis with subtle complaints about favouritism, Lewis being a British driver and McLaren being a British team. This all led to the Hungarian Grand Prix on August 5th 2007, where during qualifying it appeared Alonso had won pole position. Alonso had however, stayed in the pits for too long and left Lewis sitting behind him meaning he had enough time to complete his final lap where Lewis did not. Lewis was not completely innocent though, when Alonso was on a longer fuel burn Lewis should have let him pas but he did not. Alonso did not deliberately hold up his teammate, instead he was held back. Ron Dennis tried to diffuse the situation by saying that both teams are very competitive and want to win and that they are doing their best to balance the pressures within the team and things did not work today. As a result Lewis was given pole, on his way to winning the race, and Alonso was moved back to fourth on the starting grid. Lewis then stumbled in the last two races, not finishing in China and placing a disappointing 7th in Brazil, giving the drivers title to Raikkonen, who finished one point ahead of both Hamilton, and Alonso.

Lewis Hamilton – Wizard in Oz

“Wizard in Oz” is a chapter from the book and covers Lewis’ first race in formula 1. It is a metaphor describing Lewis Hamilton as the Wizard and formula 1 as the Land of Oz. It shows Lewis as the wizard in three ways, the first being the ruler of the Land, or the “king” of formula 1. Also the wizard in the classic novels is highly respected by the inhabitants of the city because he is the only man capable of solving their problems. This is also true of Lewis because he is also known as the “chosen one” and the boy who saved formula 1, parallel to the wizard of Oz. The Land of Oz is also a dream world and Lewis sees formula 1 as this as well, he says he is living his dream. After his first race in Australia, finishing third and on the podium, Lewis had this to say, “I’m absolutely ecstatic – today’s result is more than I ever dreamed of achieving on my grand prix debut”.

Lewis Hamilton – Hollywood Story

Lewis Hamilton’s childhood and rise to formula 1 is a story right out of Hollywood. His parents divorced when he was two and he spent 8 years with his mom and step dad. At the early age of six he showed a strong interest around everything automotive. Both his father, who visited often, and his mother took notice of this, and for his eighth birthday his father managed to scavenge together 1000 pounds to buy Lewis his own kart. Lewis and his father went regularly to the go kart track and Lewis immediately showed potential and started to race competitively. At the age of 10 he moved in with his father and his step mom to become a professional racer. Anthony promised to Lewis that he would make him world champion if he promised to keep his grades up. Lewis’ father Anthony took three jobs to support Lewis’ competitive racing at the start, but in 2001 when Lewis was 16 he had success in an internet business and was able to fully support Lewis. Lewis’ big break came when he met “Big Ron” Dennis, the boss at McLaren, and he said to Ron that he would race for him one day, and three years after their first meeting Lewis was signed to the formula 1 development programme, where 5 million pounds was spent on his training, and after a few successful years in formula 3 and GP2 Lewis was offered a job as the second driver, behind Fernando Alonso, for the McLaren formula 1 team. Lewis had to make many sacrifices during his childhood. He was not able to make many friends because he was always busy with racing and was never around to spend time with his peers. He had to fight racism throughout his life and even became a black belt at the age of 12 to defend himself from bullying.

The Tipping Point #3

The Power of Context law recognizes that people react differently to the same situation according to the context of the situation. For example, a recent study showed that when a person comes across a person who has collapsed, if they are on their own there is an 85% chance that they will help this person. If they are in a crowded area then there is only a 31% chance of them helping this person. The context shapes the behaviour. This is considered the bystander effect. Epidemics can be tipped by tampering with the smallest detail of the immediate environment. This element suggests that contrary to popular belief, we are sensitive to the context around us. When considering the factors that cause change, I never realized the obvious fact that depending on the situation, reactions will vary, and that it doesn’t take a huge improvement to enhance an impact a message has on a person. This book has really opened my eyes to pay attention to both the big picture, and significant details.

The Tipping Point #2

Another factor that effects change is what Gladwell refers to as the Stickiness Factor. “Stickiness means that the message makes an impact” (Gladwell 36) It is not the information that goes in one ear and out the other, but what sticks in your memory by using specific techniques like repetition. Gladwell compares two popular children’s TV shows, “Blues Clues” and “Sesame Street.” These TV shows were similar in retrospect because one shadowed most techniques used by the other. “Sesame Street” established such a great reputation because it programmed their segments based on children’s cognitive abilities and TV watching behaviours which resulted in aiding toddlers to develop literacy. “Blues Clues” recognized how successful its competition was, and used techniques that can generate improvement in children’s logic and reasoning abilities. Relatively simple changes can be used to enhance the message and impact made on a person.

Light Blue Reign #3

As I make my way through the book Light Blue Reign, I notice the three influential coaches all have many positive aspects about them that are very similar and define how they have become successful. The first characteristic that is most evident is their respect, for themselves and for others. Respecting other people such as their players enables other people to respect them back. This in turns makes it easier for them to complete their duties, for example running practices. Having the players’ respect makes sure that practices are run as smoothly as possible with little interruption which makes the teams more prepared and successful.

The next characteristics are their humility and in contrast their cockiness. Their humility is key as it does not draw negative attention to them and allows them to be sincere. With the humility they posses they can admit to their mistakes and make further progress to becoming a better person and coach. Even though they are humble, they have a presence that can be seen as cockiness. This is used at the right time to solidify their presence.

Even though these are characteristics that helped make them successful as basketball coaches, I feel like these are valuable aspects that are important to be successful in life. These three coaches, McGuire, Smith and Williams, were more than good coaches. They were great people and that is the reason they were and are successful in their careers.

A-Rod #2

As I get further into this story of Alex Rodriguez's life and all the controversy surrounding his rise to stardom the question of steroid use seems to becoming more prevalent. This was all taking place right in the heart of the steroid era in major league baseball. Late 90's to the early 21st century it was starting to become certain that they had to do something to stop it. Alex fell into this category of so called "sluggers" who were putting up huge numbers with an uncommon amount of home runs well keeping this up throughout the lengthy 162 game season. Almost all these players it would later be found out were on some sort of performance enhancing drug although it was pretty obvious at the time. The players association though did not want to make it known because they thought it would hurt baseball by getting rid of these almost superhuman "sluggers." Although Alex was viewed through the public eye as a clean player the evidence at the time was so obvious I am surprised no one caught it, or in the good chance that they did, why didn't anyone speak up. It was really just a reflection of the times where there were strict laws on doping in sport such as the Olympics, and on the world stage. Well in professional league sport it might not have been accepted, but there certainly wasn't the same attention around it.

Bernie with the Money

From what I have been reading about Madoff and his Ponzi scheme, it keeps making less sense. Firstly, there is no coloration between his past and him now. As I mentioned in a previous post, he was a nobody in school... but as we know now, $64 billion stolen later, he is now very well known. Second, how could he get away without anyone else knowing? Within discussions with friends, we have determined that he MUST have had a counterpart, but who and how? As much as what he is was horrible, its quite intriguing.

So, if Bernie wasn't well known in his past, he sure is well known now.

Bernie was a Nobody

"There was nothing outstanding about Bernie, nothing that would lead anyone to believe that he was a genius or a financial whiz. There was nothing sinister about him. There was nothing about him whatsoever," ...

This quote really struck me. When I saw this, I was stunned. I would have expected Bernie to be "that kid" that everyone knew to be a trouble maker, or at the least a good talker. But no, he was (as quoted) a "nobody!" Shocking.

Madoff was a scout?!

"A scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him."

As I was reading "Madoff with the Money", a book about Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi scheme. I came across this quote in one of the early chapters. It really struck me. I could never fathom one of the biggest faudsters in history to be a scout. Since being a scout is all about honesty, trust, and truth, this would be the last thing you would associate Bernie Madoff with, someone who stole more then $64 BILLION from innocent people around the globe. Wow.

The 10,000-Hour Rule

Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

"The idea that excellence at performing a complex task requires a critical minimum level of practice surfaces again and again in studies of expertise. In fact, researchers have settled on what they believe is the magic number for true expertise: ten thousand hours" (Gladwell, pg 39-40).

According to the 10,000-hour rule, no one becomes an expert without practice. Ten thousand hours, or approximately 3 hours of practice everyday for 10 years, is required to gain an expertise in any field.

Even though the "Matthew Effect" theory talks about that those who are born earlier get better opportunities of being success, the 10,000-hour rule gives an impression that anyone can succeed as long as they put the 10,000 hours of efforts in it.

I found this to be true from my own experience. Few years ago, I and my friend were at the same level of playing guitar. As time went on, he practiced every morning and I didn't. After few years, I could see the gap of level between me and him. He became able to play this pro technique called "sweep picking" that I wanted to play but had given up because it was too difficult.

This demonstrates that effort leads to the positive outcome. Perhaps by practicing something for more than 10,000 hours, we can rival the people who were given better opportunities.

Why Evolution Is True; entry 3

In my final entry on Why Evolution Is True, I would like to convey how supportive the book was to an audience that potentially did not know much about evolution. The book took its time, spending sometimes several pages to explain some of the more complex concepts in evolutionary biology (A prime example being embryology) instead of just rushing through it expecting the reader to know everything about the subject.
Another way in which it was very supportive to new readers was by adding a glossary to the back of the book that explained what many of the more complex biological terms meant, should the reader been confused from the text.
Finally, the book provided a large section of its pages to list down books that one could use for further reading into the subject. This would allow people new to the subject to read and learn multitudes more about evolution then they could through this book alone.
Thus I am really glad this book allowed not just the experienced, but the inexperienced as well to enjoy its pages.

The Matthew Effect

Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

"'For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance. But from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.' It is those who are successful, in other words, who are most likely to be given the kinds of special opportunities that lead to further success" (Gladwell, pg. 30).

The socialogist Robert Merton came up with this theory called the "Matthew Effect." A Canadian psychologist Roger Barnsley has analyzed the rosters of hockey teams and discovered that the players born between January to March were typically the most successful. Merton based his theory on this idea that some people are just born to be successful.

I found that Merton's theory also applies to my life. Friends of mine who are born earlier in the year are often better physically, academically and socially than those who are born later in the year. They may not be more talented than those born in December, but they are given more opportunities to help them advance. In that way, our society perhaps makes them seem more talented.

This doesn't seem fair, because I was born in October and did not get these chances. If I had been born in January, I might have gotten some special opportunities that led to my success.

Why Evolution Is True; entry 2

Another interesting factor I found was within the writing, and the quality and quantity of evidence which he presented within 245 pages of a book.
He had managed to cover fossil records indicating past species and the historic links between them and even older prehistoric species. The location of an original species' population and how if parts of it were isolated, different factors based on location would cause the isolated lifeforms to change visibly from each other in the fossil records over time.
He also managed to cover embryology and that as a life form progresses through its embryonic state, it can shares an extremely similar appearance with other species' embryonic states, indicating an original common body plan that is only altered into the final species at and nearing the end of development.
He even managed to put in vestigial structures and suboptimal design. Where vestigial organs are unrequired organs within the bodies of a species that could have only been used by a previous or different species. He tied this in within suboptimal design, where he shows that most species if designed by an intelligent creator could be designed for their purpose in a much superior fashion then they currently are. The prime example he used for this was the human spine and how it is not designed for how we sit, or optimal for standing upright.
It amazed me that he managed to get the major supporting points for evolution (as seen here) with large amounts of evidence for each within 245 pages, and how easily he managed to do so.

Why Evolution Is True; entry 1

I found it rather interesting that Jerry A. Coyne, unlike many other authors, has also provided psychological hypotheses as to why many people choose not to accept evolution. This is different from other evolutionary non-fiction books that I have read, where they just state that evolution is right and creationism/ intelligent design is wrong.
"Evolution is also thought to erode morality. If, after all, we are simply beasts, then why not behave like beasts? What can keep us moral if we're nothing more than monkeys with big brains? No other scientific theory produces such angst, or such psychological resistance" (Jerry A. Coyne, pg 16"
This provides a possible insight into the mind of those that can't believe in evolution. Perhaps there is a perception that we are special to the point that only a divine being could create us and that to compare us to everything else is clearly an err. Perhaps they just fear that with the acceptance of evolution, morality will go out the window as "We are nothing but beasts". However now that I have put thought to it, it is indeed very likely that there is a psychological opposition to evolution and that's what creates most of the opposition.

Light Blue Reign #2

“Players win games and coaches lose them,”- Dean Smith (p. 154)

This a famous quote made by legendary coach at UNC, Dean Smith. This was passed onto him by Frankie McGuire, the man who created North Carolina basketball as the world knows it today. Simply by reading this quote you get a sense of how brilliant these men were that briskly walked the sidelines for many years. This reveals the amount of trust these two magnificent coaches had in their players. The coaches also held themselves to a higher standard taking blame for the negatives. Since McGuire and Smith were the head coaches and the bosses, everyone looked up to them and recognized the obvious success each of them had. Since they held themselves to such a high standard it would seem like the right thing to do to mimic the two coaches’ styles and philosophies.

By Dean Smith and Frank McGuire stating this it shows the confidence and swagger that they posses but at the same time their modesty. Taking the blame for losses allows the players a sense of comfort knowing the coach has their back through thick and then. This is what separated these two coaches from the average coaches. Without these two men Carolina Basketball would not take the outstanding form that it has today. The foundation these two men laid was so solid that it has withstood fifty strong years and will continue for years to come.

Blink #2

The other day in English class we talked about if the things we do affect our behaviour. We talked about how the military uses the video games we play to train soldiers to go to war, to get use to killing people. And yet many video game makers, and movie directors claim their violent video games and movies do not affect how we think. There was an incident of a little boy who played a shooting game and shot his dad thinking he would come back to life.

In the book Blink, I just finished reading the Warren Harding Error, the chapter talks about the first impressions our subconscious makes, and how our first impressions are generated by our experiences. In the chapter there is a test that Gladwell talks about called the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The IAT is a test designed to measure the strength of automatic association between mental representations of objects in the memory. The IAT requires the rapid categorization of various objects, such that easier pairings and faster responses are interpreted as being more strongly associated in memory than more difficult pairings with slower responses. Here is a site where you can try an IAT https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/.

"Our first impressions are generated by our experiences and our environment, which means that we can change our first impressions- we can alter the way we thinslice- by changing the experiences that comprise those impressions.” (p. 97)

In this chapter Gladwell concludes that what we do affects our thoughts composed by our subconscious. He also says to change our first impressions we need to change our environments.

Simple and straightforward

"My definition of evil, like just about everything else about me, is simple and straightforward: if you knowingly hurt another human being without significant cause, like self-defense, you are committing and evil act." - page 59

This quote by Bill O'Reilly leaves an important variable for the definition of evil. He states that if you knowingly hurt someone its considered evil. So does that mean that if you unknowingly hurt someone its perfectly fine? The Nazis were the most evil people to have ever existed in my opinion. Some of which contributed to the actions that occurred without directly knowing. So these bystanders unknowingly supported the murdering of millions of innocent people. Even though they did not know, I personally consider these people to be evil in nature. So in some way there is a loophole to his personal definition, and a major one if I might add.

Also, since he said that his outlook is "simple and straightforward" there isn't much room for variation, in a way everyone is evil. No one can live a perfect life without sin. No matter how small or insignificant, everyone is considered evil by this "simple and straightforward" definition. Later in this book O'Reilly tells us of past experiences that depict him as "evil" if we were to use his own definition. Now does he consider himself evil? Well I certainly don't this so as most people don't.

After finishing his segment on evil I came to my own conclusion that nothing can be defined by a simple and straightforward way. No matter the patriotism or honor in defining things such as evil, there can be no simple answer.

A.S Eddington

“The sanction for correlating a “real” physical world to certain feelings of which we are conscious does not seem to differ in any essential respect from the sanction for correlating a spiritual domain to another side of personality” (page 460)

A. S Eddington looks at science from a very interesting perspective. It is very apparent here how looking at things from a new perspective can give you new insights on the topic you are studying. I find it fascinating how Eddington takes a very complex topic and breaks it down to more manageable parts. By looking at the authors thinking process, it really helps the reader to understand the overall meaning of their work.

René Descartes

“Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess.”(Page 158)

The quote above is from the French philosopher René Descartes. He is trying to make the point that as men we are all equal in terms of our level of judgment. It is rather our opinions which change the decisions that we make. Descartes starts off his paper with this line to display that he does not believe himself to be better than anyone else in terms of intellectual reasoning. However due to the life that he lived, he claims to have been given the opportunity to “augment his knowledge”. Descartes believes it is because of this that he has the ability to comment on the past present and future. I find it interesting that Descartes would start off his paper in a way that proves why his opinions are ones that should be looked at.

Nicholas Copernicus

The Diagram you see above was drawn by Nicholas Copernicus around the year 1540. Now what I find remarkable about this diagram is how Copernicus was able to find out so much about the planets with the rudimentary equipment that was available to him at the time. Furthermore it is primarily through a mix of mathematics, and an unbelievable process of deductive reasoning which leads Copernicus to place the sun in the centre of the universe. Here is an example of this way of thinking. “I also say that the sun remains forever immobile and that whatever apparent movement belongs to it can be verified as due to the mobility of the earth” (page 67). It is this amazing thought process which makes Copernicus one of the top thinkers of his time.

A-Rod #1

My non-fiction read is essentially a biography on the famous baseball superstar Alex Rodriguez. But it is more of a critical biography in that the author emphasizes main points of the baseball players flaws and leads you up to his story of steroid use which was huge news in the sports world. The prologue of this novel gets the reader thinking in a critical direction towards Alex Rodriguez before dabbling into the many ins and outs of his life story.

I find the first few chapters are almost trying to explain an excuse for baseball star's flaws by telling of his childhood and how his father left him and his family and they grew up on the line of poverty and so on. But then it almost begins to contradict itself by explaining how Alex was always surrounded with many good friends and piers and how he always managed to get a good education at private schools. So really we are shown two sides of his life and how they might effect his future.

One of the main themes though does relate t the lack of a father figure in his life and the many ways that this would effect the many decisions he makes. I believe this will continue throughout the book while we continue to learn more about his life story and rise to fame.
Cheers

Light Blue Reign

“Having three times explained that “we’re fricken’ bad at it,” he accidentally dropped the f-bomb in his next answer. He apologized repeatedly for the remainder of the press conference and immediately called his athletic director and chancellor and apologized.” (p. 10)

This passage in the book, Light Blue Reign, talks about the current North Carolina basketball coach Roy Williams and how he lost his temper in a post game press conference. After Roy Williams used inappropriate language, he took it upon himself to make up for his inappropriate actions. His excessive apology shows the respect that Roy has developed over the years as coach, and reveals the true meaning behind Carolina Basketball. The respect comes from the two main figures, Frank McGuire and Dean Smith, who built the program from nothing. This is a measure of the standard that has been set by the two previous coaching legends. Without the respect built in the program, remorse of Roy’s wrongful action would not have been felt. In comparison if the same actions were to be made by a university coach somewhere else in the country, nothing would be thought of it. By Roy Williams reacting the way to his action shows that he is grounded and understands that role that he has been put in as head coach. He is a leader to young men that look up to him for guidance in basketball and life. This apology shows how North Carolina has become a world renowned basketball and sporting program of greatness from a mere activity for a few men to enjoy.

The Tipping Point #1

Malcolm Gladwell's book, "The Tipping Point," discusses social epidemics, their trends, and how they became so popular. Gladwell also explains how some "wanna be" trends never make it to their point of maximum popularity. He uses the example of the once popular shoe, Hush Puppies. This brand of footwear became popular during the late 20th century. One person with social influence bought a pair of Hush Puppies, then a person saw that person wearing the shoes and bought a pair themselves. This trend continued until the social epidemic had reached a significant point of influence. Gladwell finds connections between case studies involving popular shoes, and a spread of syphillis in Boston. His explanation of why the two are connected can be identified by his rules the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context.

The Law of the Few generalizes the statement that in all social epidemics, there is a person or a group of people who spread the "disease." The few people that influence more people are called the Connectors. Using the spread of syphillis in Boston example, one person (the connector) had the infection originally, then passed on to another, who passed it on to another.

I have yet to read the importance of the other two laws, but this book has caught my attention from a business perspective as it has made me realize that the obvious connection may not be the correct connection.

Blink post #1- The Subconscious

"We live in a world that assumes that the quality of a decision is directly related to the time and effort that went into making it." (Blink p.13)

I find this quote to be interesting because many times we have been told to “think before you leap”. We are never really told to act on our subconscious; occasionally we are told to go with our first intuition for multiple choice questions on a test, even if your not a hundred percent positive of the answer. But other than that we always feel the need to develop a theory to explain our decision. Malcolm Gladwell, the author of the novel Blink, also mentions how society does not trust their subconscious because we don't know how to put our subconscious thoughts and feelings into words. Gladwell has been talking about the importance of snap decisions, and how they are directly related to our subconscious. One of his main points so far in his book is how the decisions made in a blink of an eye, can be just as good as thinking the decision through. A lot of decisions may still need to be thought through, but I think what Gladwell is trying to say is that if a thought feels right, act on it, don't try to explain why your subconscious is making that decision.

How the Mighty Fall #3

I have finally finished my novel and have read through the last stage, stage #5 being Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death.

This is the final stage of when a company basically “dies “and from this point there is hardly is a return. However there are two ways companies can go within this stage. They can continue to fight and try to see good that came out of its outcome, or they can struggle all the way to their demise. However this where the people of the failed company learn from their mistakes, or fail to see it. This makes it so next time their company will not fail or the same thing will happen again.

This book was a very good non-fiction; however that is a bias by me as I like business. It provides good examples charts and explanations of each stage that will allow someone to learn about what not to do in the business world so people do not need to see their companies crumble after its already too late to save them. What you learn from reading this book will greatly apply to life skills and will be used in everyday life as because of this book, I go through each of the steps, to make sure that I will not fail.

-Francis Laferriere

How the Mighty Fall #2

This second blog post is about the second reading that I did, which explained stages 3 and 4.

Stage 3 being Denial of Risk and Peril and Stage 4 being Grasping for Salvation.

Stage 3: Denial of Risk and Peril:

This stage is indicated by the fact that companies will deny its financial data, saying it was misinterpreted or wrongly calculated. Also, the company will not believe that it is about to fail even though the numbers are indicating their demise, as well as their financial advisors saying that the company is about to fail. An example that is given is with Lehman Brothers, as the CEO of Lehman Brothers did not believe that the housing bubble would burst, and the cause of that caused Lehman Brothers to collapse.

Stage 4: Grasping for Salvation:

Companies will basically start to try anything to save their company from going down the drain. Usually at this point, many companies’ fate has already been sealed as it is too late, however there is a small chance that companies can redeem themselves here and come out alive. However it is a slim chance that requires a good leader. Statically, the book said that the only company that saved themselves at this point was when their CEO was from inside of their company. Every company that failed however hired someone outside of the company to be the CEO. I have my own beliefs that the reason companies got out of stage 4 was because they made their own employees CEO, and because it was an employee that worked there they had a connection with their company at will try to save it.

-Francis Laferriere