In reading todays NYT, I came across an article describing a huge labor shortage. So what's the catch? Mandatory celibacy for $1,350 per month not including tips. What's the job? Roman Catholic (RC) priesthood.
I have followed articles on the RC church since I grew up in one. Even when I was young, there was an acute shortage of priests. For a couple of days in college, I contemplated the Episcopal priesthood. But when Peter Lee, the local Episcopalian rector, said that there were too many Episcopalian priests and suggested that I consider the RC variety, I quickly discontinued the search. Celibacy ranked right behind hunger strikes in terms of personal appeal.
In order to take care of RC Americans, the U.S. has been wooing priests away from impoverished countries, such as Nigeria, Uganda and India. Even more desirable are Spanish-speaking priests to deal with the large immigrant Spanish-speaking population, but those priests are in even greater shortage in their homelands. While there is a shortage in the U.S. with one priest per 1,500 lay people, there is an acute shortage in Mexico with one priest per 7,000 Mexican lay people.
The article recounts some funny moments in this new cultural mix. My favorite told of a priest who came from one of these hot equatorial countries and thought the frost on his car one cold Kentucky morning was the work of vandals.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
What's Mine?
Recently one of my teachers told me an insightful story. Back in the old Soviet Union, party loyalty was a major testing point. The local party boss went to a farmer and asked him, "if you had 100 cows, would you consider them to be collective assets?" The farmer replied, "of course. I despise capitalism and celebrate our communist system." The party boss asked, "if you had 50 horses, would you consider them to be collective assets?" The farmer replied, "of course. I believe our founders had a great plan and a great vision and I support it." The party boss asked, "if you had 5 chickens, would you consider them to be collective assets?" There was a long silence. The party boss asked, "what's the problem? You have already considered 100 cows and 50 horses to be collective assets." The farmer replied, "well, I have 5 chickens."
Why does this story make us smile? Isn't it that we relate to the farmer? Don't we have a little place "of our own"? Don't we all have those little "guilty pleasures" that give us a feeling that something is ours? Even more, don't we all relate to the sense that the universe and government and powers are going to do what they're going to do? Isn't it amazing how easy it is to do the big things, but not the little ones?
Why does this story make us smile? Isn't it that we relate to the farmer? Don't we have a little place "of our own"? Don't we all have those little "guilty pleasures" that give us a feeling that something is ours? Even more, don't we all relate to the sense that the universe and government and powers are going to do what they're going to do? Isn't it amazing how easy it is to do the big things, but not the little ones?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Is Self-Serving really Self-Serving?
The "Big Book" of Alcoholics Anonymous makes a stark claim in answering the question of what is meant by turning one's will and life over to the care of God (as one understands God).
The authors state that it means "that we be convinced that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success" (pg.60). This statement is difficult. Does this mean that we should simply not do anything? Or does this mean that anything I do is not to be called a success? What are the authors driving at?
The next sentence tells the reader that living on a "self-will" basis brings us into conflict with others, regardless of our motives. Again, such a statement might imply that we are to avoid conflict at all costs or, that conflict is a sure sign of a lack of success. Is that what the authors are driving at?
The questions raised by these comments were helpfully addressed by some insights of Charlie Munger (Warren Buffett's partner). He shared that the one factor he consistently underestimates is "self-serving bias."
He states "My favorite human misjudgment is self-serving bias: how the brain subconsciously will decide that what’s good for the holder of the brain is good for everyone else. If the little me wants it, why shouldn’t the little me have it? People go through life like this. I’ve underestimated this phenomenon all my life. People go bonkers taking care of their own self-interest. It’s a sea of miscognition. People who write the laws, people who treat patients, who experiment with rats, all suffer horribly from this bias."
Given that we are living in this "sea of miscognition," what are we to do about it? Charlie Munger says "to train yourself not to do this," but provides no practical program to do so. In the "Big Book," the authors state that we will not be able to reduce this problem "by wishing or by trying on our own power." Instead, we need to "quit playing God" by making God our Director.
Essentially, the authors are stating that turning our will and our lives over to the care of God may be fraught with self-serving bias and, for this reason, requires prior thought. Without first conceding that our "self-will" is an impediment to success in life, we probably will not quit playing God, even though we may think that we are "turning it over."
The authors state that it means "that we be convinced that any life run on self-will can hardly be a success" (pg.60). This statement is difficult. Does this mean that we should simply not do anything? Or does this mean that anything I do is not to be called a success? What are the authors driving at?
The next sentence tells the reader that living on a "self-will" basis brings us into conflict with others, regardless of our motives. Again, such a statement might imply that we are to avoid conflict at all costs or, that conflict is a sure sign of a lack of success. Is that what the authors are driving at?
The questions raised by these comments were helpfully addressed by some insights of Charlie Munger (Warren Buffett's partner). He shared that the one factor he consistently underestimates is "self-serving bias."
He states "My favorite human misjudgment is self-serving bias: how the brain subconsciously will decide that what’s good for the holder of the brain is good for everyone else. If the little me wants it, why shouldn’t the little me have it? People go through life like this. I’ve underestimated this phenomenon all my life. People go bonkers taking care of their own self-interest. It’s a sea of miscognition. People who write the laws, people who treat patients, who experiment with rats, all suffer horribly from this bias."
Given that we are living in this "sea of miscognition," what are we to do about it? Charlie Munger says "to train yourself not to do this," but provides no practical program to do so. In the "Big Book," the authors state that we will not be able to reduce this problem "by wishing or by trying on our own power." Instead, we need to "quit playing God" by making God our Director.
Essentially, the authors are stating that turning our will and our lives over to the care of God may be fraught with self-serving bias and, for this reason, requires prior thought. Without first conceding that our "self-will" is an impediment to success in life, we probably will not quit playing God, even though we may think that we are "turning it over."
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The Job, The Car, The Girl
Today's article in NYT, "Seeking Employment For Ex-Cons In Newark" points out how misguided some help can be. The article states, "Some 2,300 men and women pour into the city from prison each year, and 65 percent are rearrested within five years. One in six adult residents of the city has a criminal record." Doesn't sound like Newark is such an attractive place to live - who could blame them for looking for a solution?
The misguided help is based on faulty reasoning - throughout the article is an implicit belief that unemployment causes crime, yet the article provides examples of employed individuals who end up committing crime. Duh. It's not "the job, the car, the girl." It's the result of addiction which is not the result of the addicting substance. It's the result of "stinkin' thinkin'."
Interestingly, the article's reporter is alert to this fact, although the local government and various help agencies seem miserably unaware of it. The reporter describes a person who has repeatedly failed in jobs, only to get one more difficult (by distance) work opportunity. He comments, “I know it’s going to be tough. But I can’t be thinking about myself anymore.” Here's someone who's closer to a solution. Thinking about ourselves, our plans and our designs does not improve outcomes when our thinking stinks.
Later on, the director of a program with a stunningly high success rate of 90% shares the key to its success. It takes at least a year, Rich Liebler, of nearby Hillside, N.J. said, to “deprogram” the felons. Most have never owned an alarm clock — months can pass before they show up for class on time — and few can name a family member with a regular job. “We treat them as if they were in a cult,” he said. “We have to reverse the thought process they’ve grown up into.”
Rich Liebler's program works on getting out of the stinkin' thinkin' and then moving to the other aspects. This is a time-consuming process, but is soundly based on true causes and the success rate reveals its power.
The misguided help is based on faulty reasoning - throughout the article is an implicit belief that unemployment causes crime, yet the article provides examples of employed individuals who end up committing crime. Duh. It's not "the job, the car, the girl." It's the result of addiction which is not the result of the addicting substance. It's the result of "stinkin' thinkin'."
Interestingly, the article's reporter is alert to this fact, although the local government and various help agencies seem miserably unaware of it. The reporter describes a person who has repeatedly failed in jobs, only to get one more difficult (by distance) work opportunity. He comments, “I know it’s going to be tough. But I can’t be thinking about myself anymore.” Here's someone who's closer to a solution. Thinking about ourselves, our plans and our designs does not improve outcomes when our thinking stinks.
Later on, the director of a program with a stunningly high success rate of 90% shares the key to its success. It takes at least a year, Rich Liebler, of nearby Hillside, N.J. said, to “deprogram” the felons. Most have never owned an alarm clock — months can pass before they show up for class on time — and few can name a family member with a regular job. “We treat them as if they were in a cult,” he said. “We have to reverse the thought process they’ve grown up into.”
Rich Liebler's program works on getting out of the stinkin' thinkin' and then moving to the other aspects. This is a time-consuming process, but is soundly based on true causes and the success rate reveals its power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)