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.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Saturday, December 29, 2007
1:9 Becoming Objective
The decision-making process is difficult. As a friend used to say, "the quality of the decision is a function of the quality of the process." In Pirkei Avot 1:8 post, I discussed the primary challenges to objectivity: bias and cynicism. If I am not engaged in either of these , Pirkei Avot 1:9 provides additional wisdom on becoming objective.
Continuing in the language of the legal system, the author of this passage focuses on the role of the "witnesses." In 1:8, the "judge" was referenced in the sense of the decision-making faculty and "litigants" were referenced in the sense of opposing desires. The "witnesses" in 1:9 reference the data points themselves.
The author begins, "be extensive in questioning the witnesses," that is, be as thorough as possible gathering the information available. "In questioning" comes from the Hebrew phrase lachakor, which also has the sense of "for exploring." In other words, there is not a conclusion in mind. The questioning should be open-ended - an exploration in the sense of letting the data points unfold, without arranging or ordering.
Confirming this interpretation is some advice in the second part of passage: "be cautious with your words so that the witnesses do not learn to lie." In order for the "witnesses" to be truthful, they must not be led as a lawyer would lead. It is tempting to connect the data points too early thereby making those data points lie. Be patient; let the data points speak for themselves. (Another good translation for "witnesses" might be "facts." As we all know, "facts" can lie if forced.)
Continuing in the language of the legal system, the author of this passage focuses on the role of the "witnesses." In 1:8, the "judge" was referenced in the sense of the decision-making faculty and "litigants" were referenced in the sense of opposing desires. The "witnesses" in 1:9 reference the data points themselves.
The author begins, "be extensive in questioning the witnesses," that is, be as thorough as possible gathering the information available. "In questioning" comes from the Hebrew phrase lachakor, which also has the sense of "for exploring." In other words, there is not a conclusion in mind. The questioning should be open-ended - an exploration in the sense of letting the data points unfold, without arranging or ordering.
Confirming this interpretation is some advice in the second part of passage: "be cautious with your words so that the witnesses do not learn to lie." In order for the "witnesses" to be truthful, they must not be led as a lawyer would lead. It is tempting to connect the data points too early thereby making those data points lie. Be patient; let the data points speak for themselves. (Another good translation for "witnesses" might be "facts." As we all know, "facts" can lie if forced.)
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A Random Reading
In what may be one of the most random posts on this blog, I wanted to write about a pattern that may exist. The English letter and the Hebrew letter is written from left to right, while the Arabic letter is written from right to left. The English sentence is written from left to right; the Hebrew sentence and the Arabic sentence is written from right to left. Any cultural pattern?
In discussing this with a friend of mine, he posited that two great forces drive reality - Justice and Mercy. These forces are driven by the attributes at work in our system - Justice is essentially the way it works and Mercy is the way we want it to work. (Alot more could be said about this and perhaps a later post will address it.)
His thesis is that cultures which write letters from left to right are based on Justice, while cultures that read and write from right to left are based on Mercy. Thus, English and Hebrew language-based cultures are Justice-based, while Arabic cultures are Mercy-based. Further, the writing of the sentence either confirms or offsets this primary emphasis (primary because of the building block nature of the emphasis). Thus, English language-based cultures are Justice-based with an additional Justice emphasis. Hebrew language-based cultures are Justice-based with an additional Mercy emphasis. Arabic language-based cultures are Mercy-based with an additional Mercy emphasis.
I think that there is probably something to this novel theory. I spend much of my time reading annual reports. The format in most of these reports reads with the most recent on the left backwards to the right. In a sense, we are reading history backwards and the way management wants it to work. If, on the other hand, we were to read the reports as they historically occurred, we would be reading with Justice - which is really the thing I want to do with an annual report, but not typically what the management would want. Just a thought.
In discussing this with a friend of mine, he posited that two great forces drive reality - Justice and Mercy. These forces are driven by the attributes at work in our system - Justice is essentially the way it works and Mercy is the way we want it to work. (Alot more could be said about this and perhaps a later post will address it.)
His thesis is that cultures which write letters from left to right are based on Justice, while cultures that read and write from right to left are based on Mercy. Thus, English and Hebrew language-based cultures are Justice-based, while Arabic cultures are Mercy-based. Further, the writing of the sentence either confirms or offsets this primary emphasis (primary because of the building block nature of the emphasis). Thus, English language-based cultures are Justice-based with an additional Justice emphasis. Hebrew language-based cultures are Justice-based with an additional Mercy emphasis. Arabic language-based cultures are Mercy-based with an additional Mercy emphasis.
I think that there is probably something to this novel theory. I spend much of my time reading annual reports. The format in most of these reports reads with the most recent on the left backwards to the right. In a sense, we are reading history backwards and the way management wants it to work. If, on the other hand, we were to read the reports as they historically occurred, we would be reading with Justice - which is really the thing I want to do with an annual report, but not typically what the management would want. Just a thought.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
1:8 Becoming Objective
The Fourth Step of Twelve Step programs reads, "we made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves (pg.59)." This step requires a "fact-finding" and "fact-facing" process (pg.64). Clearly, when we begin by fooling others, we end by fooling ourselves. Objectivity is important, but difficult because of our inherent subjectivity.
Pirkei Avos 1:8 has some helpful advice for assisting our objectivity. The first section of the verse tells us that we are not to place ourselves as a lawyer.
The first section reads al taas atsmecha which can be translated as "do not make yourself" corchei hadayanin "an arranger of judges" or "an advocate who arranges pleas before a judge" or, in our parlance, "a lawyer." The awkwardness of this phrase indicates either a shortage of or embarrassment about the biased role of organizing information so as to persuade judges.
We are warned against being an advocate. I see several reasons. First, I am more likely to become biased. Second, I am likely to get emotionally attached to my viewpoint and dislike those who disagree. Third, and even more importantly, I am likely to begin "playing God" as I lodge with certainty that Reality ought to be other than as it is.
The second section reads "when the litigants are standing before you, let them all be in your eyes as guilty." This section would seem to contradict the advice given earlier in 1:6 "judge every person favorably." Is there a resolution to it? I think so. Just as in the first section, we are urged to not be biased because it will distort Reality, so in the second section we are assured that Reality is as it ought to be, i.e, God's in control. It is important to realize that the litigants are standing there for good reason, not because it is an unjust or random universe.
The third and final section reads "but when they are dismissed from before you, let them all be in your eyes as innocent, provided they have accepted upon themselves the judgment." Here the implied warning is to not obsess about the process. By letting go of it, by understanding that the process has been completed, we are relieved of our entanglement.
But what of the final contingency? Why would we be involved, in any way, to see that they have accepted upon themselves the judgment? Here, I believe, the warning is for us, not for them. If we see them "as innocent," we may be inclined to reach to avert their consequences with such a new view in mind. This final part warns of attempts against the benefits of the process of consequences.
Pirkei Avos 1:8 has some helpful advice for assisting our objectivity. The first section of the verse tells us that we are not to place ourselves as a lawyer.
The first section reads al taas atsmecha which can be translated as "do not make yourself" corchei hadayanin "an arranger of judges" or "an advocate who arranges pleas before a judge" or, in our parlance, "a lawyer." The awkwardness of this phrase indicates either a shortage of or embarrassment about the biased role of organizing information so as to persuade judges.
We are warned against being an advocate. I see several reasons. First, I am more likely to become biased. Second, I am likely to get emotionally attached to my viewpoint and dislike those who disagree. Third, and even more importantly, I am likely to begin "playing God" as I lodge with certainty that Reality ought to be other than as it is.
The second section reads "when the litigants are standing before you, let them all be in your eyes as guilty." This section would seem to contradict the advice given earlier in 1:6 "judge every person favorably." Is there a resolution to it? I think so. Just as in the first section, we are urged to not be biased because it will distort Reality, so in the second section we are assured that Reality is as it ought to be, i.e, God's in control. It is important to realize that the litigants are standing there for good reason, not because it is an unjust or random universe.
The third and final section reads "but when they are dismissed from before you, let them all be in your eyes as innocent, provided they have accepted upon themselves the judgment." Here the implied warning is to not obsess about the process. By letting go of it, by understanding that the process has been completed, we are relieved of our entanglement.
But what of the final contingency? Why would we be involved, in any way, to see that they have accepted upon themselves the judgment? Here, I believe, the warning is for us, not for them. If we see them "as innocent," we may be inclined to reach to avert their consequences with such a new view in mind. This final part warns of attempts against the benefits of the process of consequences.
Friday, May 18, 2007
1:7 Know When To Run
The last section of Pirkei Avos 1:6 finishes with "judge every person favorably." The first section of the next verse - Pirkei Avos 1:7 - reads, "distance yourself from a bad neighbor." What a striking contrast of seemingly opposite approaches!
However, more consistency is yielded by interpreting "bad neighbor" as an ongoing person, institution or principle of "badness," or ra. This section is placed here because someone may justify approaching such ra by saying, "I'm only here because I am open-minded and judging every person favorably." There are clearly times that our motives are suspect.
The next section of verse 1:7 reads "do not join with a bad person." Here a more fruitful interpretation involves focusing on the activity rather than the person. Unlike the prior section which describes a place of ongoing activity, this section describes joining an activity in the planning stage.
The final section of 1:7 reads, "do not abandon bad happenings" with the key word poranut, literally meaning "bad happenings." This section gives clarification to the earlier two sections. In the earlier sections, we are to avoid a place of bad activity and planning a bad activity, but now we are told not to abandon a "bad happening" by simply labeling it a bad activity. Growth in life requires embracing not abandoning challenges.
The focus of this verse, then, seems to be to help us determine what the classic country song advises when it plays, "know when to run."
However, more consistency is yielded by interpreting "bad neighbor" as an ongoing person, institution or principle of "badness," or ra. This section is placed here because someone may justify approaching such ra by saying, "I'm only here because I am open-minded and judging every person favorably." There are clearly times that our motives are suspect.
The next section of verse 1:7 reads "do not join with a bad person." Here a more fruitful interpretation involves focusing on the activity rather than the person. Unlike the prior section which describes a place of ongoing activity, this section describes joining an activity in the planning stage.
The final section of 1:7 reads, "do not abandon bad happenings" with the key word poranut, literally meaning "bad happenings." This section gives clarification to the earlier two sections. In the earlier sections, we are to avoid a place of bad activity and planning a bad activity, but now we are told not to abandon a "bad happening" by simply labeling it a bad activity. Growth in life requires embracing not abandoning challenges.
The focus of this verse, then, seems to be to help us determine what the classic country song advises when it plays, "know when to run."
Saturday, April 14, 2007
"Right-sizing"
In the Pirkei Avos, verse 1:6 reads "make yourself a teacher, acquire yourself a friend and judge every person favorably." This verse has three components yet each component could stand on its own. Why were they put together? Is this simply a Reader's Digest verse?
Before looking at them together, let's look at each component. The first - "make yourself a teacher" has peculiarity in the verb "make" (asai, in Hebrew). Of course a teacher is important, so why not "find" one?
To me, the implication is clear. We are apt to be cafeteria-like in our approach. So "make" seems to have force here, as in, "see if you can make me.." We are to force ourselves to follow what our teachers say - even when we disagree. They have perspective on our situation which we lack.
"Acquire yourself a friend" also has peculiarity in the verb "acquire" (k'nai, in Hebrew). This verb has a financial sense, as in "buy" yourself a friend. Isn't that exactly the wrong way to get a friend?
To me, the implication is again clear. The long term qualities of a friend are similar to the long term qualities of a good investment. Just as finding a good investment requires patience and attention, so too does finding a good friend.
Finally, "judging every person favorably" requires an extraordinary shift in perspective. By viewing each person favorably, we are giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. Although such a viewpoint is difficult to maintain, the rewards are significant and numerous. Along these lines, Schopenhauer said, "a man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills."
Each component of this verse is critical to "right-sizing" our egos. A teacher will make us take actions which are beneficial to us, but in our blind spot. A valuable friend will also challenge us to expand our perspectives. Finally, judging others favorably will remove logs from our eyes.
Before looking at them together, let's look at each component. The first - "make yourself a teacher" has peculiarity in the verb "make" (asai, in Hebrew). Of course a teacher is important, so why not "find" one?
To me, the implication is clear. We are apt to be cafeteria-like in our approach. So "make" seems to have force here, as in, "see if you can make me.." We are to force ourselves to follow what our teachers say - even when we disagree. They have perspective on our situation which we lack.
"Acquire yourself a friend" also has peculiarity in the verb "acquire" (k'nai, in Hebrew). This verb has a financial sense, as in "buy" yourself a friend. Isn't that exactly the wrong way to get a friend?
To me, the implication is again clear. The long term qualities of a friend are similar to the long term qualities of a good investment. Just as finding a good investment requires patience and attention, so too does finding a good friend.
Finally, "judging every person favorably" requires an extraordinary shift in perspective. By viewing each person favorably, we are giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. Although such a viewpoint is difficult to maintain, the rewards are significant and numerous. Along these lines, Schopenhauer said, "a man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills."
Each component of this verse is critical to "right-sizing" our egos. A teacher will make us take actions which are beneficial to us, but in our blind spot. A valuable friend will also challenge us to expand our perspectives. Finally, judging others favorably will remove logs from our eyes.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The 1:5 Problem of Balance
When a verse in Pirkei Avos pushes together several apparently disparate ideas, I struggle to connect them. I merely labelled the resulting idea "The 1:5 Problem of Balance." Here it is.
The verse begins by stating "let your house be wide open." As I wrote in an earlier post, a contemporary translation of our "house" is our mind or our internet connection. So here, the verse encourages an open mind.
But the verse continues with "let the needy be members of your household," moving beyond open-mindedness to generosity. By giving the needy our attention, we are less likely to be self-centered.
So far, so good. But the weird part follows: "and do not over-indulge in light talk with your wife." Wow. How does encouragement to open-mindedness move to admonishing frivolity with one's wife? Realizing that any explanation may look like justification, I would still like to venture my idea.
Sometimes, when one feels "open-minded" and generous, there is an expansiveness - kind of like being "high on life." At such periods, we may be susceptible to new connections, new ideas or even new commitments. With all of that good stuff going on, life may lose its seriousness. As every silver lining has its cloud, the cloud here seems to be frivolity.
This last part of the verse seems to warn that while keeping our heads in the clouds of open-minded generosity, we should be balanced in keeping our feet seriously grounded.
The verse begins by stating "let your house be wide open." As I wrote in an earlier post, a contemporary translation of our "house" is our mind or our internet connection. So here, the verse encourages an open mind.
But the verse continues with "let the needy be members of your household," moving beyond open-mindedness to generosity. By giving the needy our attention, we are less likely to be self-centered.
So far, so good. But the weird part follows: "and do not over-indulge in light talk with your wife." Wow. How does encouragement to open-mindedness move to admonishing frivolity with one's wife? Realizing that any explanation may look like justification, I would still like to venture my idea.
Sometimes, when one feels "open-minded" and generous, there is an expansiveness - kind of like being "high on life." At such periods, we may be susceptible to new connections, new ideas or even new commitments. With all of that good stuff going on, life may lose its seriousness. As every silver lining has its cloud, the cloud here seems to be frivolity.
This last part of the verse seems to warn that while keeping our heads in the clouds of open-minded generosity, we should be balanced in keeping our feet seriously grounded.
"Emotional Stability"
One of my favorite reads of the year is Berkshire Hathaway's annual report. A few hours ago it was published and, as usual, it was filled with insight and humor. But one of the most interesting discussions this year dealt with the challenge of finding an investor to succeed Mr. Buffett. In looking for such a person, he listed as vital qualities for investment success to be "independent thinking, emotional stability and a keen understanding of both human and institutional behavior." While the thinking and understanding components are clearly vital, I found it significant that "emotional stability" got equal billing.
In reading about Twelve Step programs, the eleventh step deals with prayer and meditation. The step's discussion on emotions relates as well to investing as addictive behaviors. In the primary text (Big Book p.88), he writes "as we go through the day, we pause..we are then in much less danger of excitement, fear, anger, worry, self-pity or foolish decisions." Note the progression. It is similar to watching a stock bubble with "excitement" and pop and finally get sold at "foolish" levels. I think Mr. Buffett has once again hit it; like recovery itself, investing is "simple, but not easy" (Big Book p.14).
In reading about Twelve Step programs, the eleventh step deals with prayer and meditation. The step's discussion on emotions relates as well to investing as addictive behaviors. In the primary text (Big Book p.88), he writes "as we go through the day, we pause..we are then in much less danger of excitement, fear, anger, worry, self-pity or foolish decisions." Note the progression. It is similar to watching a stock bubble with "excitement" and pop and finally get sold at "foolish" levels. I think Mr. Buffett has once again hit it; like recovery itself, investing is "simple, but not easy" (Big Book p.14).
Friday, January 12, 2007
Role Models
Pirkei Avos (1:4) advises "let your home be a meeting place for the wise, become dirty by sitting at the dust of their feet, and drink their words thirstily." Such patterns are difficult in today's world. Coffee shops are the more likely meeting places. So how can this advice be best applied?
I have always had a critical place in my heart for those who were avid readers of People magazine. I didn't consider those celebrities worthy of such attention, but in my condemnation I missed something important. Essentially, these people were following the advice given here. They brought their "wise" into their minds and souls (their "homes"). They attended closely to where their "wise" went and remembered their every word. If I will only give my "wise" the same level as they give their "wise" and spend less time criticizing others' choices, I'll be able to apply this advice.
I have always had a critical place in my heart for those who were avid readers of People magazine. I didn't consider those celebrities worthy of such attention, but in my condemnation I missed something important. Essentially, these people were following the advice given here. They brought their "wise" into their minds and souls (their "homes"). They attended closely to where their "wise" went and remembered their every word. If I will only give my "wise" the same level as they give their "wise" and spend less time criticizing others' choices, I'll be able to apply this advice.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Three Dimensions of Human Affairs, Part II
In an earlier post, I contrasted the three dimensions of the Jewish Pirkei Avos with those of the Aristotle's Greek text On Rhetoric. On further reflection, I have come across another three dimensional framework - Steps 10, 11 and 12 of the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Step 10 says "continued to take personal inventory and when wrong, promptly admitted it." Step 11 says "sought to increase our conscious contact with God.." Step 12 says "..practice these principles in all our affairs." These final three steps are the growth and living steps of the program.
Remarkably, they correlate closely with the three dimensions I discussed in an earlier post. Step 10 is a study step, correlating with Torah study and logos. Step 11 is an inner person step, correlating with avodah and ethos. Step 12 is an other person step, correlating with gemulit chassidum and pathos.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Three Dimensions of World
The world I experience is three-dimensional, despite mathematical assertions to the contrary. As I study more, however, I see that this three-dimensionality occurs in wisdom writings. In Aristotle's work titled On Rhetoric, he divides the world of communications into three dimensions: ethos (speaker), logos (idea) and pathos (listener). In Pirkei Avos, the famous Jewish text of wisdom, verse 1:2, states that the world is sustained by three dimensions: Torah study, avodah (service of the heart) and gemilut chassidum (bestowing kindnesses).
I see a relationship. In the construction of our "world," there is one axis of us relating with ourselves. This is a spiritual axis, as in ethos, or avodah. Then, there is a second axis of us relating with our fellow man. This is a physical axis of action, like pathos, or gemilut chassidum. Finally, there is a mental axis of ideas, like logos, or Torah study. For our world, individually or collectively, to sustain itself, study, external relations and interior health are all critical.
This does raise another issue. Where does "emotional" fit in? Some individuals, such as Bill W. of AA fame, seem to put the emotional on the mental axis. Aristotle seems to imply that the emotional is on the pathos axis, while the Pirkei Avos seems to imply that the emotional is a on the spiritual axis. My sense is that the emotional is the dot connecting to the intersection of the other three vectors, possibly explaining its volatility.
I see a relationship. In the construction of our "world," there is one axis of us relating with ourselves. This is a spiritual axis, as in ethos, or avodah. Then, there is a second axis of us relating with our fellow man. This is a physical axis of action, like pathos, or gemilut chassidum. Finally, there is a mental axis of ideas, like logos, or Torah study. For our world, individually or collectively, to sustain itself, study, external relations and interior health are all critical.
This does raise another issue. Where does "emotional" fit in? Some individuals, such as Bill W. of AA fame, seem to put the emotional on the mental axis. Aristotle seems to imply that the emotional is on the pathos axis, while the Pirkei Avos seems to imply that the emotional is a on the spiritual axis. My sense is that the emotional is the dot connecting to the intersection of the other three vectors, possibly explaining its volatility.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Tochacha
The Hebrew word tochacha is important to understand. Variously translated as rebuke, reproof or chastisement, tochacha seems harsh and undesirable. None of us like to be told that we have been or are wrong. Our egos are perfectionists, preferring to be right rather than happy.
Our goal, then, shouldn't be perfection, but growth. The reality is that we all make mistakes and are frequently wrong. In order to make a stepping stone out of these stumbling blocks, a different translation for tochacha may be more helpful to this growth process. For me, a better translation would be "illumination," as that indicates its core kindness.
There are two sides to tochacha - the receiving and the giving. Receiving "illumination" is not easy. Our egos often interfere. Sometimes we're just not ready. After forty long years in the desert, Moses told the Jews, "but God did not give you a heart to know, or eyes to see, or ears to hear until this day." If it took the Jews forty years to get it, we should be patient with ourselves.
In turn, such patience can help us when we give tochacha. Just as with money, giving tochacha is much harder than receiving. As a friend of mine says, "no good deed goes unpunished." By recognizing that "illumination" occurs beyond our control, we can patiently wait for it to be requested. We are not responsible for another's outcome - only for our availability. Further, by understanding tochacha as "illumination," our requested help may be less forced.
Our goal, then, shouldn't be perfection, but growth. The reality is that we all make mistakes and are frequently wrong. In order to make a stepping stone out of these stumbling blocks, a different translation for tochacha may be more helpful to this growth process. For me, a better translation would be "illumination," as that indicates its core kindness.
There are two sides to tochacha - the receiving and the giving. Receiving "illumination" is not easy. Our egos often interfere. Sometimes we're just not ready. After forty long years in the desert, Moses told the Jews, "but God did not give you a heart to know, or eyes to see, or ears to hear until this day." If it took the Jews forty years to get it, we should be patient with ourselves.
In turn, such patience can help us when we give tochacha. Just as with money, giving tochacha is much harder than receiving. As a friend of mine says, "no good deed goes unpunished." By recognizing that "illumination" occurs beyond our control, we can patiently wait for it to be requested. We are not responsible for another's outcome - only for our availability. Further, by understanding tochacha as "illumination," our requested help may be less forced.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Will "Alternative" Foods Go Mainstream?
Since Whole Foods built a new store in Highland Park in 2001, I have been a regular at the store. Despite higher prices, I was attracted to a much higher level of cleanliness, a thorough description of food content and the option of no and low fat foods. In the meantime, I watched Tom Thumb close down a recently remodeled store and asked myself, "why don't they sell some of those Whole Food products?"
The recent purchase of 84% of Tom's of Maine by Colgate-Palmolive (stock symbol:CL and founded in 1806) for $100 million points to movement in that direction. Tom's of Maine was started in 1970 by Tom Chappell as a "natural" product category company with deodorants and toothpastes. Last year sales were about $50 million. In light of Tom's high profit margins, it doesn't appear that CL overpaid. Rather, Tom's will get heavyweight distribution and CL will begin to get that product line that Tom Thumb lacked. Winners all around?
Not likely. It looks like Whole Foods may be the ultimate loser through franchise erosion. As production and distribution gets more efficient for Tom's through CL's efforts, other food chains will have the ability to carry such products. While Whole Foods may argue that Tom's should not diminish its brand by selling through inorganic, animal-haters, CL will logically argue that if Tom's is good for the world, why limit its distribution?
The recent purchase of 84% of Tom's of Maine by Colgate-Palmolive (stock symbol:CL and founded in 1806) for $100 million points to movement in that direction. Tom's of Maine was started in 1970 by Tom Chappell as a "natural" product category company with deodorants and toothpastes. Last year sales were about $50 million. In light of Tom's high profit margins, it doesn't appear that CL overpaid. Rather, Tom's will get heavyweight distribution and CL will begin to get that product line that Tom Thumb lacked. Winners all around?
Not likely. It looks like Whole Foods may be the ultimate loser through franchise erosion. As production and distribution gets more efficient for Tom's through CL's efforts, other food chains will have the ability to carry such products. While Whole Foods may argue that Tom's should not diminish its brand by selling through inorganic, animal-haters, CL will logically argue that if Tom's is good for the world, why limit its distribution?
Saturday, June 24, 2006
My First Prayer - a genuine "placebo"?
While taking my family on a trip through central Europe, I was stricken by the enormous energy peoples had put into defining their relationship with God - buildings built, armies launched and societies structured. This experience caused me to think about how my relationship with God started: my first prayer.
I was 8 years old and staying at my grandparents' home in rural Minnesota. It was summer and I had been riding an oversized bicycle. I lost control of it and landed with my crotch on the handlebars. I was in severe pain. I ran inside their home to lie down on the living room couch. Over the couch hung two large religious paintings. I looked up and prayed a 100% earnest prayer - "Please help me. I will be good."
Suddenly, the pain completely went away. I looked around nervously. I did not know what to do. Clearly the pain was gone and that was good. But I was uneasy about my situation. Had the pain gone away by itself? Had I imagined that God had helped me? Or had I really reached into the realm of God and been helped? Was I helped because I asked? Or was it because I had said that I would be good?
Since that time, I have read about pain management and been impressed by the "placebo" effect. "Placebo" is from the Latin word meaning "I shall be pleasing." The body has inherent pain relief mechanisms that can be triggered. Religious approaches have proven effect - as do fake medicines. Is it possible that this is what occurred in my sincere attempt to be pleasing? Is this impetus the underlying drive for these enormous social commitments I observed in Europe?
I was 8 years old and staying at my grandparents' home in rural Minnesota. It was summer and I had been riding an oversized bicycle. I lost control of it and landed with my crotch on the handlebars. I was in severe pain. I ran inside their home to lie down on the living room couch. Over the couch hung two large religious paintings. I looked up and prayed a 100% earnest prayer - "Please help me. I will be good."
Suddenly, the pain completely went away. I looked around nervously. I did not know what to do. Clearly the pain was gone and that was good. But I was uneasy about my situation. Had the pain gone away by itself? Had I imagined that God had helped me? Or had I really reached into the realm of God and been helped? Was I helped because I asked? Or was it because I had said that I would be good?
Since that time, I have read about pain management and been impressed by the "placebo" effect. "Placebo" is from the Latin word meaning "I shall be pleasing." The body has inherent pain relief mechanisms that can be triggered. Religious approaches have proven effect - as do fake medicines. Is it possible that this is what occurred in my sincere attempt to be pleasing? Is this impetus the underlying drive for these enormous social commitments I observed in Europe?
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Biblical Rules
The Bible has so many rules that it is tempting to simply ignore them and pay closer attention to the stories. But I find that examination of these rules often yields high rewards. Chapter 19, verse 14 of Leviticus (or in Hebrew, Vayikra) reads "You shall not curse the deaf." I thought to myself, "Why? Because they already have it bad enough?" A commentator got me to revisit the verse.
Generally, prohibitions remind us about the harmful side of our selfishness. They help us grow an awareness others and the importance of respecting the needs and rights of others. So when we read a prohibition, our automatic response is to look for the pattern of our selfishness making a victim out of someone else. But apparently this verse is different.
A deaf person is the only person who really can't be damaged by a curse. The verse does not read, "do not curse," but specifically forbids cursing the one person who can't hear a curse. That is why the commentator's insight hit me: I become my own victim. When I curse someone else who can't hear me (because their windows are rolled up and their stereo is blaring), the relief I feel is false - I am actually feeding my ego and moving away from God. I guess I did have something to work with after all.
Generally, prohibitions remind us about the harmful side of our selfishness. They help us grow an awareness others and the importance of respecting the needs and rights of others. So when we read a prohibition, our automatic response is to look for the pattern of our selfishness making a victim out of someone else. But apparently this verse is different.
A deaf person is the only person who really can't be damaged by a curse. The verse does not read, "do not curse," but specifically forbids cursing the one person who can't hear a curse. That is why the commentator's insight hit me: I become my own victim. When I curse someone else who can't hear me (because their windows are rolled up and their stereo is blaring), the relief I feel is false - I am actually feeding my ego and moving away from God. I guess I did have something to work with after all.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Power of Midot
Midot is the plural form of the Hebrew noun mida often translated as "character trait" or "value." (Interestingly, a company named Midot Systems provides integrity diagnostic systems.) Paralleling this Biblical focus on character traits is the sixth step of 12-step programs which reads,"we were entirely ready to have God remove these defects of character." How is this done?
The origins of the word midot provide a clue. Midot actually means "measurements." Over time, its meaning evolved from "measurements" to "character traits." The evolution of midot implies that the way a situation is measured or sized up gives rise to a response. Over time, these responses pattern into a character trait.
A violent behavior can be measured as scary or pitiful (or both), depending on how it is measured. Some behaviors viewed as scary might give rise to anxiety that could evolve into a fear-based character trait. The same behaviors might be viewed as pitiful and give rise to sympathy that could evolve into a love-based character trait. The measurement is the key to character and remeasurement allows for character change.
The origins of the word midot provide a clue. Midot actually means "measurements." Over time, its meaning evolved from "measurements" to "character traits." The evolution of midot implies that the way a situation is measured or sized up gives rise to a response. Over time, these responses pattern into a character trait.
A violent behavior can be measured as scary or pitiful (or both), depending on how it is measured. Some behaviors viewed as scary might give rise to anxiety that could evolve into a fear-based character trait. The same behaviors might be viewed as pitiful and give rise to sympathy that could evolve into a love-based character trait. The measurement is the key to character and remeasurement allows for character change.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Proper American Icon
While studying the photos of the latest Muslim bonfires, I noticed KFC signs more than once. Then I came across this comment in a recent New York Review of Books article which discussed madrasas - the fundamentalist Islamic schools: "Pakistan..banning the public performance of music and depictions of the human form. The one exception to this, bizarrely, is the image of Colonel Sanders outside the new Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Peshawar. This was apparently because the Colonel was judged to be sporting a properly Islamic beard."
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Being Honest with Ourselves
Warren Buffett once said that the problem with fooling others is that you might start fooling yourself. It is probably more difficult to be honest with ourselves because we rationalize behaviors that we don't want to change.
I came across a story on shemayisrael.com that properly illustrates this issue. A rabbi saw a former student of his and was surprised by his lack of observant living. He asked him why he was no longer observant. The former student replied that he had found too many doubts.
The rabbi asked the former student, "if I can answer all of your questions, would you then return to being observant?" The student said, "Absolutely, but I doubt that you will be able to since my questions are very strong."
The rabbi guaranteed him answers, but first needed an answer himself. He asked, "When did these questions develop in your mind? Before you stopped being observant or after?
The young man thought for a moment and then replied, "To be honest, Rabbi, all of the questions came after I became non observant. But that is irrelevant. Now I am bothered by them and if you can answer them, I'll become observant once again."
The rabbi said that he was sorry but he could not help him. The student was shocked and asked why he couldn't. The rabbi explained. "I do have the answers. But they are answers for questions. You don't have questions. You have answers. For answers I have no answers.
You stopped putting on tefillin because you were too lazy to get up early in the morning. You ate non kosher because you are a glutton. You stopped keeping Shabbos because you don't want to be restricted. But you once learned in yeshiva; so your conscience bothered you and you found that you still were not enjoying life. Therefore, you had to come up with answers to relieve yourself of those terrible, guilty feelings. These answers are what you call 'questions'. But they are not real and so I cannot disperse them intellectually. As long as you are not honest with yourself, you will never accept the truth, keeping your brain from working properly."
I came across a story on shemayisrael.com that properly illustrates this issue. A rabbi saw a former student of his and was surprised by his lack of observant living. He asked him why he was no longer observant. The former student replied that he had found too many doubts.
The rabbi asked the former student, "if I can answer all of your questions, would you then return to being observant?" The student said, "Absolutely, but I doubt that you will be able to since my questions are very strong."
The rabbi guaranteed him answers, but first needed an answer himself. He asked, "When did these questions develop in your mind? Before you stopped being observant or after?
The young man thought for a moment and then replied, "To be honest, Rabbi, all of the questions came after I became non observant. But that is irrelevant. Now I am bothered by them and if you can answer them, I'll become observant once again."
The rabbi said that he was sorry but he could not help him. The student was shocked and asked why he couldn't. The rabbi explained. "I do have the answers. But they are answers for questions. You don't have questions. You have answers. For answers I have no answers.
You stopped putting on tefillin because you were too lazy to get up early in the morning. You ate non kosher because you are a glutton. You stopped keeping Shabbos because you don't want to be restricted. But you once learned in yeshiva; so your conscience bothered you and you found that you still were not enjoying life. Therefore, you had to come up with answers to relieve yourself of those terrible, guilty feelings. These answers are what you call 'questions'. But they are not real and so I cannot disperse them intellectually. As long as you are not honest with yourself, you will never accept the truth, keeping your brain from working properly."
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Reinterpreting the Exodus
The most famous Biblical line from the story of the Exodus is God saying, "Let my people go." It is regularly recounted as a statement about freedom. However, a closer inspection showed me that it's not about freedom at all.
In Hebrew, the phrase is: "shalach et ami vaya-avduni." The translation of "shalach et ami" could be rendered "let my people go," but the sentence is not complete. In all eight instances (with minor variations), the rest of the sentence is "vaya-avduni" which may be rendered as "to serve me."
Implicit in this sentence is the concept that God is not moving the Jews towards freedom (at least in its conventional sense), but is moving them towards a closer relationship with Him. This is consistent with the spirituality of twelve-step programs where freedom from the slavery of addiction is conditioned on moving to a God-centered rather than to a self-centered life.
In Hebrew, the phrase is: "shalach et ami vaya-avduni." The translation of "shalach et ami" could be rendered "let my people go," but the sentence is not complete. In all eight instances (with minor variations), the rest of the sentence is "vaya-avduni" which may be rendered as "to serve me."
Implicit in this sentence is the concept that God is not moving the Jews towards freedom (at least in its conventional sense), but is moving them towards a closer relationship with Him. This is consistent with the spirituality of twelve-step programs where freedom from the slavery of addiction is conditioned on moving to a God-centered rather than to a self-centered life.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Baumeister Study in Self-Control
Ever since a close friend told me, "the key is not will power, but surrender," I have pondered this counterintuitive wisdom. When moving through challenges, I have found his advice works and have wondered why. I came across some research that helps explain it.
Baumeister created an experiment to analyze self-control. Participants avoided eating for three hours before the experiment and when they arrived they were put into one of three groups.
The first group was taken into a room where chocolate chip cookies had recently been baked. This room also contained two trays: one laid out with the freshly baked cookies and other chocolate delights, and another full of radishes. This group was told they could eat as many radishes as they wanted in the next five minutes, but they weren't allowed to touch the chocolates or cookies. A second group was taken to a similar room with the same two trays, but told they could eat the cookies and/or the radishes. The third group was taken to an empty room.
The food was then removed and the individuals were given problems to solve. These problems took the form of tracing geometric shapes without re-tracing lines or lifting the pen from the paper. The problems were, sadly, unsolvable. However, the amount of time before participants gave up and the number of attempts made before they gave up were both recorded.
The results were dramatic. The group which could only eat the radishes (and had expended self control in resisting the cookies) gave up in less than half the time than the other two groups. (The no food at all group had the most long-lived persistence.) The first group also made half as many attempts at solving the problems as the other two groups before giving up. (The chocolate eaters were the group with the highest level of attempts.)
From this study, it appears that actively exercising will power is a depleting process. By surrendering and taking a decision out of the "will power" or self-control zone, it appears that more energy is retained for other decisions.
Baumeister created an experiment to analyze self-control. Participants avoided eating for three hours before the experiment and when they arrived they were put into one of three groups.
The first group was taken into a room where chocolate chip cookies had recently been baked. This room also contained two trays: one laid out with the freshly baked cookies and other chocolate delights, and another full of radishes. This group was told they could eat as many radishes as they wanted in the next five minutes, but they weren't allowed to touch the chocolates or cookies. A second group was taken to a similar room with the same two trays, but told they could eat the cookies and/or the radishes. The third group was taken to an empty room.
The food was then removed and the individuals were given problems to solve. These problems took the form of tracing geometric shapes without re-tracing lines or lifting the pen from the paper. The problems were, sadly, unsolvable. However, the amount of time before participants gave up and the number of attempts made before they gave up were both recorded.
The results were dramatic. The group which could only eat the radishes (and had expended self control in resisting the cookies) gave up in less than half the time than the other two groups. (The no food at all group had the most long-lived persistence.) The first group also made half as many attempts at solving the problems as the other two groups before giving up. (The chocolate eaters were the group with the highest level of attempts.)
From this study, it appears that actively exercising will power is a depleting process. By surrendering and taking a decision out of the "will power" or self-control zone, it appears that more energy is retained for other decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)