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

How the Mighty Fall #1

I am reading a non-fiction novel called How the Mighty Fall and why Some Companies Never Give In, by Jim Collins. I feel this book will be enjoyed by me as I hope to work in the corporate world of business, and this book can help me detect whether or not a company should fall or not.

I have already read 1/3 of the book and so far and have found that the book presents the decent of a company in the form of stages. In the case of the book, there are 5 stages that will be explained throughout the non-fiction novel.

I have read to the point in the novel where it has explained stages 1 and 2. Stage 1, being Hubris Born of Success, and stage 2 being Undisciplined Pursuit of More.

Stage 1: Hubris Born of Success:

This stage indicates that a company that is doing well will think that it has no problems and nothing can bring them down. This causes companies to neglect their provinces and indefinitely leads to stage 2.

Stage 2: Undisciplined Pursuit of More:

This stage indicates that companies will start to make irrational decisions to expand or to make more of a profit. This usually ends up letting them lose a lot of money in long term, causing them to go into stage 3, which is what I have yet to read.

-Francis Laferriere

Be not afraid of failure: some are born courageous, some achieve great success, and some have great opportunities thrust upon them.

“From our stumbles and mistakes come unexpected lessons”….in fact, invaluable lessons that promote self growth. It’s each set back and failure that we endure that shapes our character and builds on our ingenuity and wisdom. Our society has grown to fear the idea failure instead of embracing challenges. The word “challenges” itself springs and instinctive desire to shy away from an opportunity. Why do we think like this? We have grown up in a society that treasures and celebrates leisure and rejects anything involving hard work. We’d much rather seek the easy way out or find a shortcut into doing things instead of facing something head on. Taking risks takes courage and what we don’t realize is that at these defining moments are opportunities to seek a glimpse of the great person we may one day become. But if we constantly shy away from these golden opportunities to grow and shine, how can we expect to succeed?

If anything, this chapter has taught me one major theme: No one plans for failure, but you should never shy away from a great opportunity because you are scared to let someone down. Backing away from a challenge does little but simply rob you of learning, growing, and discovering ways to make a difference, no matter how big or small.

The Other 90% - Robert K. Cooper

"The Eternal Struggle"

"Why am I telling you this? Because I believe that overcoming fear is an essential key to living a useful and honorable life," - Page 51
People are remembered by their good deeds and "honorable" actions throughout their lives. Take a funeral for example. The ceremony doesn't dwell on the persons wrong doings, rather it honors and adorns the simple actions and deeds that the person had achieved in their past life. O'Reilly states that fear is what we as a society have to overcome to fight injustice and fix what has been damaged. With fear existing in the back of our minds, we cannot rise above the status quo to receive the proper indulgence at our own funeral.

O'Reilly continues on saying that to fight these injustices, conflict must arise.This inevitably leads to suffering. This is the essence of our "Eternal Struggle" and the importance of fear in our minds. Power creates injustices, which leads to the choice of conflict. Conflict is decided by the amount of fear the individual has towards suffering. Thus the Eternal struggle is to overcome fear, whether that is fear of suffering or the fear of a tyrant.

If I were to take the most important piece of information away from this section. It would be that a happy and "honorable" life can only come from sacrifice. The ability to sacrifice or the amount you are willing to do is your own decision and is dictated on your willingness to suffer.

The Skeaky Subconscious

"...Much of the time, we are simply operating on automatic pilot, and the way we think and act-and how well we think and act on the spur of the moment-are a lot more susceptible to outside influences than we realize" (Blink 58)




Gladwell has previously made several references to the subconscious in this chapter, so I feel he is saying our actions are usually based on our unconscious thoughts more than we realize. He uses a few examples to illustrate his point, but one that stuck was an experiment by Joshua Aronson which tested black college students. They were asked to identify their race on a pretest questionnaire. This act was meant to prime them with all the negative stereotypes associated with African Americans and academic achievement. The number they got right on the test was cut in half compared to when they weren't asked to indicate their race. When asked whether it bothered them that they had to indicate their race, all said no. This is why Gladwell says we are usually unaware of outside influences, because most of them are too subtle for the conscious mind to pick up on. The subconscious on the other hand does pick it up and causes us to act differently in accordance to these influences. This struck me as interesting because I've always heard the expression "stay positive" when it comes to tests, but I never imagined negative influences could affect test results this much. I feel we tend to over look the importance of our subconscious, especially the way it notices changes around us. I think it's important to know this because we can use this to our advantage when taking any kind of assessment. We can prime our minds with "smart" thoughts to put ourselves in the right mind frame, which can help us to work to our fullest potential.

"Better safe then sorry"

Is it really better to be safe then sorry?...or is being safe simply a waste of opportunity? Naturally and scientifically, all humans have a tendency to assume the worst. A nervous system called the RAS (reticular activating system) is responsible for magnifying the negativity in the millions of messages it sends to the brain. As a result, whenever we, as humans, are unsure of ourselves, of other people, or even a rumour, we instinctively fall into the negative way of thinking. This natural tendency is the one to blame for the apprehension and second guessing that often occurs within our minds. In fact, it’s what makes trusting and believing in people or concepts so difficult. It’s the reason why we teenagers cannot resist the idea of hearing the new juiciest rumour. And it is also the reason why we may never try something because we don’t believe we are capable. Learning to see the positive in any situation does not come naturally, but it is something that we can and should train our brains to do.

POP QUIZ

What is the first thing you think of when you hear ambulance sirens? a) Someone has been in a horrible accident and is being rushed to the hospital b) A woman just went into labour and her husband is not at home to drive her

The Other 90% - Robert K. Cooper

The Art of "Thin-slicing"

"'Thin-slicing' refers to the ability of our unconscious to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience" (p.23 of Blink)



Gladwell is describing a type of thinking process that is not frequently credited compared to the 'thinking everything through process'. The thinking process Gladwell is talking about is mainly used in situations where we're under pressure, or simply tight for time. In these types of circumstances our mind is forced to compress or filter a large amount of information while retaining the small meaningful bits. This type of thinking doesn't seem as important as the 'thinking things through process', but as I read this statement I became skeptical about this. This made me think of events where I had to make quick decisions by processing the information I already knew regarding my possition. Thinking about these situations made me realize how important it is to have a trained mind that can efficiently sift though facts and come to a reasonable conclusion. I feel we can sometimes take this ability for granted and fail to recognize it as a major factor in decision making. The fact is we aren't always going to have enough time to figure out all the possibilities regarding a situation, which makes 'thin-slicing' so essential to everyday life.