Fan-Fair

I think several of you might disagree on this week's topic. That topic being fan loyalty and how sometimes it's taken a little too far.

As many of you know, I'm a Packer fan. A huge Packer fan, in fact Recently, a beloved player of mine, Greg Jennings, signed with the Vikings, a team I have always considered to be my biggest and most bitter of rivals.

Picture taken by me during my second visit, c. 12/2010.

When I heard the news, I was less than angry. And by that I mean I wasn't angry at all. I was indeed happy for Greg. This is a great opportunity for him, I thought, to be the true number one receiver on an up-and-coming team that needs a big time wide-out and a fat pay raise to boot. You might think this an odd reaction.

Consider this: You work at a big-time advertising agency and you've developed a close relationship with one of your colleagues. Your agency has long been in competition with a neighboring firm, leading to a constant back-and-forth battle for clients. The peer you've become close with is good at what he/she does. Very good. He/she is a noticeable part of the agency's success. When you learn that this peer has applied for and received a new job at your rival agency, how do you react?

Admittedly, I might feel a little angry/betrayed for a spell, but I'd quickly realize that this man/woman was my friend and my job as his/her friend is to be happy for their success. A promotion and pay raise, no matter the source, is a great success for my friend, so how could I not be happy for him/her?

That's how I think of the Greg Jennings move. Greg is a class act and an exceptionally talented football player, not to mention a great personality on TV, so I truly wish him the best in his career with the Vikes.

However, I've yet to see one other Packer fan share my view on this. On Reddit a couple of weeks ago, the #1 post on the Green Bay Packers subreddit was titled "Greg is making it harder to hate him for [signing with the Vikings]." and contained a screenshot of Greg's Facebook sign-off to Packer fans (a very sentimental, heart-felt sign off, at that). 

I couldn't hold my tongue.

I tried to say that we as Packer fans don't have to automatically hate a player just because he leaves for a rival team, especially as one as amiable and well-liked as Greg. I said it was possible for one to root for a player and not for a team, giving the example of drafting Brandon Marshall in fantasy football--rooting for him to score TDs/get yards but still rooting against the much-loathed Bears. Literally no one shared my viewpoint and I was "downvoted into oblivion" as they say.

This is pretty ridiculous to me. Yes, Red Sox fans, I understand your hatred for Johnny Damon because in his case he said publicly he would never go to the Yanks but did anyway. Also, Cleveland Cavs fans, I 100% understand your contempt for Lebron because they way he left was, in one word, garbage, and the epitome of a "punk move".

But Packer fans hating Greg? There is nothing I find reasonable about that. And that's really what my point is here. I love sports. I love competition. I appreciate fan loyalty and take pride in the tradition and cohesive nature that comes with being a Packer fan. But when your fandom stands in the way of reason; when your love for a team distorts your perception of reality and makes you think irrationally, that's when it goes too far.

How could anyone hate this?

I hate to say this (and some will hate to see me say it), but I've seen this plenty with Vikings fans (and other sports fans).

As a freshman entering college, I elected to have a random roommate assigned to me in the dorms. This roommate turned out to be from the Twin Cities area and several of his friends from that same area decided to attend UND as well. All characters. All good guys. All very opinionated...

All Vikings fans.

Coincidentally, freshman year was the same year that the Vikings nabbed Favre and went on their impressive playoff run. With each win, my friends furthered the illusion of invincibility with the Vikings and the cloud of arrogance emanating from each of their heads grew, merging into a thunderhead of pride so thick and stifling I nearly suffocated. 

When the Vikings lost in the NFC championship game, my immediate inclination was to rub it in all their faces as justice for the miserable year I'd had hearing about how Super Bowl bound the Vikes were. But then I saw how devastated and deflated they were after the game, I solemnly bit my tongue.

Seeing those drear faces sparked a change within me. I realized that I cared about my friends and my friends deeply cared for the Vikings. Thus a Viking loss meant my friends weren't happy. Even as huge Packer fan, I could no longer take great pleasure (though I still do take some pleasure) in a Viking loss like I used to because I knew it ruined my friends' days . 

To me, this fan mentality of "hate rivals at all costs no matter what" is petty and immature. I don't think it's reasonable at all but it seems expected of you once you commit to a certain team. It's what Psychology calls "Realistic Group Conflict Theory": two groups (fans of rival teams) each compete for scarce resources (wins, division titles, etc) which leads to prejudice. This is how I think most rivalries are formed. Prejudice in and of itself is unreasonable, as I hope all of you agree, so how is it any different when it comes to sports? I don't think it has to be that way. Yes, I will still cheer my guts out for the Pack when the play the Vikes and hope we stop Greg dead in his tracks, hold him to 2 catches for 20 yards every time we play them next season, but I'll still be rooting for Greg to make the Pro Bowl because he remains as one of my favorite receivers in the game as well as one my most cherished Packers of all time and seeing my friends happy at a Viking win will always make me happy.

I could delve further into this topic but since this post is running as long as the list of Packer Championships (HEYOO!!!), I'll end it with these: being a fan doesn't have to make you unreasonable; expectations for your team should always be grounded and realistic; hate the team, not the fans and players because they are people like you and I; there's always room for sportsmanship.

"Man, that salt in my wound feels really good! I love a little insult with my injury!" --No fan ever. 

So don't be that guy.

This was uncalled for. I'm actually a Ponder proponent.

Thanks for reading and go Marquette!

What I'm Listening To--March Edition

  

  

(Left to Right, Top to Bottom: Album art for Ripely Pine, Groundislava, Wondrous Bughouse, and Teen Dream)

It's about that time of month for an updated music post. 

I haven't been as music hungry this month as I was in February, but through NPR and Pandora I've managed to find two new sounds (Lady Lamb the Beekeeper and Groundislava) that I really enjoy. Also, one of my favorite Electronic bands, Youth Lagoon, came out with a new album earlier this month and I find it gripping yet oddly soothing. I threw on a track from Beach House's Teen Dream because I'm still loving that album. Here's the list of tracks:

"Real Love" by Beach House on Teen Dream

"A Grass Day" by Groundislava on Groundislava

"Mute" by Youth Lagoon on Wondrous Bughouse

"Aubergine" by Lady Lamb the Beekeeper on Ripely Pine

The playlist: What I'm Listening To--Mar

I'll admit, these tracks are much less accessible than the previous playlist, but keep and open mind and you might find your new favorite band. Enjoy!

School + March Madness = 0 New Posts

I guess technically the logic in the title is flawed, since this is a new post and the one I did late last week was also new, but I think you understand what I'm saying.

I had a test today, have a test on Wednesday, and another test to round out the shortened, Easter week on Thursday. Due to the copious amount of great basketball I watched this weekend, I am way behind on studying for my remaining tests.

It's a busy week.

But, do not fret, loyal readers, I have plans to write a post by Friday and I'll try to make it Good in light of Good Friday, the holiday weekend, and my ineptitude from last weekend.

I hope all is well with you lot. I encourage you to tune into the tournament games starting Thursday; if you like basketball a few tantalizing match-ups this week promise to entertain (especially Michigan State - Duke on Friday). Be on the lookout for my new post and thanks for being patient.

Check back Friday!

                             

My Current Dilemma...

This meme pretty much sums it up.

I'm finding it hard--incredibly hard--to get inspired to write about something this week. I blame this on the fever of March Madness and my obsession over basketball tourney. Even now, as I sit sipping on my coffee brainstorming ideas, the apprehension for Wisconsin's looming tilt against Ole Miss stirs my gut every few minutes, causing me to lose focus and motivation. 

The sheer excitement of the tournament and activity of watching the games on TV do their parts as well. I can't really seem to concentrate on writing and thus, I may fail to write a post by today. I will try my best.

Perhaps a big win by Wisconsin will bet my brain-juices flowing. 

Anyway, I'm sorry to disappoint all you loyal patrons who must be outraged at this display of irresponsibility and capriciousness. This is grossly unprofessional on my part, and to all three of you, I offer my sincerest apologies.

Go Badgers.

Jared Berggren dunking on Vicor Oladipo in the first matchup twixt IN and WI earlier this year.

A Moment of Science...

This past Wednesday, I had the wondrous pleasure of judging junior high science fair projects.

There's a little science for ya.

I signed up as a volunteer for this event a few weeks ago, knowing I wouldn't be going anywhere for spring break. The initial email said I was to judge fifth and sixth grade projects. Piece of cake, I thought. I had judged sixth grade projects a few months before in a separate science fair and I found every project very simple to judge, each participant easy to question. That fair had lasted only two hours and I was led to believe that this one would run for a similar length.

How naive I was.

When I arrived at the Student Union on Wednesday, someone directed me to the judges room. Upon entering, a sign-up table demanded my attention. On it were two packets, one blue, reading Junior High, the other red and labeled Senior High. This made me pause and sweat. Confused and a little frightened, I looked up at the others sitting in the room. I quickly noticed that none of them were undergrad students, at least, none of them looked the part. Grad students and professors all, I suspected, and each of them appearing to be much more versed in science than I. After some hesitation, I  chose the blue pill--the Junior High Division--because I thought myself well under-qualified for the Senior High kids.

I took a seat among the strange lot and opened the packet. The first page told me this was the Regional Science Fair and that each participant was competing to go to State. I gulped. Also, I noted that between the Junior and Senior divisions there were about 80 science projects, all needing to be judged at least 4 times. At that point, there were about 13 judges in the room. I didn't think we'd possibly be able to judge everyone in such a short time (remember, I thought this would only last two hours).

Thankfully, two things happened: 1.) I noticed there was Starbucks coffee and breakfast snacks (it was about 8:30 in the morning at that point) in the back of the room so I greedily helped myself. 2.) Other judges trickled in to the room. I nearly choked on my coffee when two men that I recognized entered: revered former professors of mine, one chemistry, one biology, of whom I had the utmost respect. Although I loved both of them, I was somewhat anxious since I didn't come within a mile of their scientific knowledge.

I was out of my league.

This guy would have made a proper judge.

We had a quick meeting and went over the judging procedure before we went out to actually start judging. Part of our deliberations included each judge voicing their area(s) of expertise--there were many different categories of science represented at the fair, from environmental science to energy/transportation. I told them my "expertise" was in "Behavioral and Social Science" and "Medicinal and Health Science", those were what I felt most comfortable in anyway. Though I'm fairly well-rounded scientifically, I'm nowhere near an "expert" in any field.

It came time to judge and I planned my route. Luckily, of the two kids representing Computer Science there, one of them did a project on educational video games. Naturally, he was first on my list. The kid, a seventh grader, was something of a prodigy. Going into the details would take too long but trust me when I say this kid was a natural programmer. He later one Best In Show for the Junior Division.

I felt more confident after seeing that kid and proceeded along my route, making my way over to the Behavioral and Social Science section. I won't go through every project but some of them were actually interesting. At least, they asked interesting questions. Their scientific method, for the most part, was awful. And they knew very little about the science behind their projects. When asked scientific questions, many of them stumbled over their words, blushed, and became nervous.

One of them even fainted.

Yes, I can now honestly say that I made a girl faint once. Not sure if I should be proud of that. This girl--poor, timid little thing--had done a project on how well humans can match strange faces to their voices (which was a fairly interesting query, indeed). When I asked her what she thought about something (I forget what), she started to answer it, then promptly fainted into my arms. I caught her on her way down and laid her on the ground, thinking she was out cold. Thankfully, she woke a few seconds later and I helped her sit down in her chair.

A novel experience.

I finished my route without any further faintings. While there were some original ideas and enthusiastic, up-and-coming scientists, when I asked where the idea for their project came from, the vast majority said they found it on the internet. I found this disappointing but not the least bit shocking. It just furthers my fear that kids are thinking less and less. They'd rather just follow some recipe on the internet than actually think about a problem and how they might solve it.

If only more kids were as dedicated as this guy.

That's not to say there weren't some future scientists there. Like my boy, the programming prodigy. And this one girl...

She had an unexpected impact on me.

Near the end of my route (actually, the last project I judged before we turned in to discuss all the projects and decide which ones deserved awards), I had the distinct pleasure of judging a girl in the Plant Science category. As I approached her, she saw me and stiffened, clearly nervous. I perceived her anxiety and made a joke (that I don't remember) as I asked about her project. The joke made her smile but didn't calm her at all. She nervously stumbled through her short presentation.

Her project was amazing.

Not groundbreaking or anything like that, but so thorough, so earnestly done. You could tell she had put everything into this project. She said she loved gardening, which led her to ask a question about plants' sense of direction. If turned upside down, would the plants still grow upward?

Of course, almost all plants do this. I learned in General Biology 2 that plants have these things called statoliths in their root caps that can detect gravity and pretty much tell the plant which way is up. The girl had no idea what a statolith was but she had an inclination, a hypothesis that plants could sense gravity and thus reorient their growth in accordance with the correct "up". So, she set up an experiment to test her hypothesis. I'll spare you the details of it.

But I will say that this girl put her whole heart into this project. She dressed professionally. Her poster was carefully put together and designed in a logical yet eye-catching manner. She even demonstrated her planting/growing procedure with mock materials she brought with, and had three separate booklets with several pictures of how the plants grew and changed direction while they were growing. She was trying her best not to sound too excited when showing me the pictures but I practically smelled it on her and couldn't help but smile. Such enthusiasm for science is a rare thing in kids. A recessive allele. A dying breed.

When it came time to judge the projects, almost unanimously we advocated for the programming wiz to receive Best In Show. But there was less assent for the runner up. We finally whittled it down to two projects, one of which was my favorite gardener's. I had spoken up sparingly, afraid to sound foolish in such celestial company. But when he had to decide between third place--which meant no recognition whatsoever--and second--for which you got a prestigious runner-up award and a trip to State--I couldn't hold my tongue.

I had to say something, though.

I did everything I could to advocate for this girl. I told the room how invested she was in her project, how much time and effort she pored into it and how she deeply, truly, cared for the science of plants. After pleading my case, I realized my legs were twitching uncontrollably and my hands were shaking.

"Okay," one of the leaders said, "anyone object to her getting second?"

A flood of relief and unexpected jubilation nearly drowned me when I saw each person's head shake in turn.

My girl was going to State.

The deliberations lasted until 2:00 and all I had had to eat that day was a few crackers, a mini-bagel and four cups of coffee. I desperately had to pee, my stomach thundered in anger at my lack of nutrition, and I was mentally fatigued.

I hadn't felt that good in a long time.
There's no feeling like the feeling that comes when you know you've made a difference in someone else.
I encourage you to strive for this feeling as often as you can.

So, that was my spring break experience. Not very wild or crazy or exotic, but extremely gratifying.

Hooray for science.

"Your dumb" You're*

This will be much less of an empirical post and more of a logic-fueled opinion. I believe the logic I've developed is sound--the points are inspired and backed by psychological facts--and the topic is one in which we are all familiar.

Consider the following scenario: Two people voicing their differing opinions on a social media site or some other internet forum that allows back and forth conversation. Their arguments are as follows:

Girl: "Helvetica is the superior font. It's much more formal, yet still accessible than Times New Roman and its bland style."

Dude: "No way times is way better its more widely used then any other font and its classic."

Upon close inspection of each person's opinion, whom are you more inclined to agree with: Girl or Dude? Who sounded more believable and convincing in their argument?

I'm going to go ahead and guess that most of you thought that Girl was more coercive. Why is that?

The short answer: credibility. Many things go into making someone sound persuasive when they argue--attractiveness, confidence in what their saying, how fast they say it--and the effectiveness of these techniques heighten on trivial issues, such as font styles, where people are more likely to take a neutral stance, not vehemently supporting or opposing the issue. Among such factors, credibility stands at the forefront.

The term credibility, admittedly, is a bit all-inclusive. I guess what I mean is that one who has credibility is perceived as both an expert on the topic and trustworthy: a reliable, accurate source of information related to the issue at hand. This seems pretty obvious when you think about it. Whom would you more easily believe concerning an explanation of the Theory of Relativity, a tenured physics professor or an undergrad physics major?

I would take whatever this cat has to say about chemistry with a grain of salt.

Circling back to the above scenario, we perceive Girl as more credible than Dude because she wrote in articulate, properly grammatical sentences whereas Dude rambled on without punctuation and made some errors when typing. Those errors make Dude look like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about; he loses his credibility when he displays his grammatical ineptitude. I mean, the guy can't differentiate between "its" and "it's" so why should we take his endorsement of Times New Roman seriously?

I see stuff like this all the time on Twitter and Reddit. Spelling errors, misuse of words, incorrect apostrophes, complete absence of any and all punctuation and/or sentence structure...I forgive most of it but sometimes the transgressions are enough to make me cringe. I don't have Facebook but if I did, I'm sure I'd see more of the same.

"But, Seth, who cares about all that grammar stuff? If you understand what the Tweet means, the other things don't matter since the point got across to you." True, I (and I'm sure most other people) do understand what people are trying to say in most instances, but as I've alluded to before, one's point becomes stronger and more infallible when one uses proper English. I'm much less likely to side with someone who doesn't seem to understand the differences between "their", "there" and "they're", "your" and "you're", "lie" and "lay", etc. If you want me to buy into what you're saying, you must appear to me as knowledgeable and competent.


Not only do these sorts of syntactical errors make one less believable, they also detract from one's intended effect, whether it be a call for social reform, an attempt at humor, or a compliment to another person. The comment loses its impact if it contains mistakes. If this post were riddled with errors, would you be tuned in to my message or instead distracted by my slip-ups?

Think we've all been there at some point.

As an aside, I highly recommend doing your research before making a point. Misuse of statistics, misinterpretations of situations, incorrectly using terms and other such deficiencies make one sound uneducated. (Although, I am guilty of this sometimes--I jump into arguments armed with nothing but logic and lose...not advisable.)

Such behavior is incredibly easy to fix, too, especially in the days of Google and autocorrect/suggested spelling. Before you hit "Submit" on that email/text/Tweet/comment/what-have-you, take a few seconds to proofread what you have and make sure you don't sound like a bumbling buffoon who couldn't pass a sixth grade English test and maybe double-check to make sure you used the word "accretion" correctly.

Does this mean I condone of others who actively correct people on Twitter and Facebook? Do I praise the "pedants" that riddle the internet, uplifting them as paragons and educators of the digital age? Uh, no. I find such behavior quite annoying and petty. Reluctantly, I admit I used to be that guy; in middle school I had a habit of correcting people's English during conversations, quickly learning that my behavior was not conducive to earning friendships...

Every once in a while, though, I will correct someone on Twitter. In these instances it looks to me like the person who erred doesn't realize what they did, so I endeavor to educate them, filling them in on the correct usage or the obscure grammatical law so they understand what they did wrong and learn from their mistake, hopefully preventing them from looking like an ass in an email to their professor or boss down the road. I am in no way a grammatical expert, but twenty-one years of being mothered by an English teacher has had unintended benefits. And I recognize that we all make mistakes (including myself), but there is a definite difference between "mistake-prone" and "negligent".

So consider this post a friendly word of advice: If you want to make a good impression, be persuasive, sound knowledgeable, or make someone laugh, ensure the statements you are making are both semantically and syntactically accurate in order to maximize your intended effect, that is, proofread your stuff before you submit it so people take you seriously... lol amirite? k cool ttyl! XD

Thanks again for reading...I thoroughly enjoy blogging...

Cell De-Vision

I apologize for the title of this blog; I realize the severity of its wit could cause irony-overload in some of you.  If this happens, feel free to rant about it in the comments. Anyway...

Consider the following Socially Awesome Awkward Penguin meme below that I created to illustrate the theme of this post:

I hope the above has happened to none of you, but I'm also confident you've experienced a variation of this situation. Example: You're walking down the hallway, locked on to your phone, engrossed in the political/dramatic/hilarious conversation you're having with your BFF or SO or some other acronym-ed acquaintance; you feel people pass by you but take no notice otherwise; unbeknownst to you, you approach a doorway, a double doorway with a divider in the middle; you run directly into said divider, embarrassing yourself (but on the positive side giving witnesses something to laugh about later).

This is a classic case of "Cell De-Vision". Your attention was so focused on the heavy load task (heavy load meaning it demanded a large amount of your cognition to perform) of thinking about and typing your carefully worded message that you left no room for the perception of the metal pole in your way. This sort of thing happens all too often.

As humans, we are not good at multitasking. The brain is a wondrous thing, indeed, capable of many great things and infinite in capacity. But if there is one thing the brain certainly cannot do it's focus on two things at once. This seems intuitive and obvious to most people, but to illustrate just how impossibly hard it is, pop on Pandora, Spotify, or iTunes and listen to a song you don't know very well, then try to understand the words being sung as you read and comprehend a paragraph of this post.

If tried the above task, you failed, because it's not possible. Our brains cannot pay attention to multiple things at once; they can only switch back and forth rapidly between two different tasks. You may think this is an efficient way of doing things, alternating between tasks quickly in order to maximize efficiency and save time. However, this is a major myth about multitasking: trying to do two things that require a fair amount of cognition at once results in doing each of those tasks less efficiently, causing both the quality and speed of performance to suffer. This will not happen if each task is done separately.

Unfortunately, more hands doesn't mean more brains :(

But you might be saying, "C'mon, Seth, it's not as bad as you think. People still know whats's going on when using their phones, bro." I might argue that by saying it's really worse than you think. Picture a crowded/popular yet open place on your college campus or, if you're not a student, picture a department store or mall and imagine yourself talking/texting/surfing on your cellphone while walking through this crowded place. If there were a clown unicycling in the middle of this area, do you think you would notice? I mean, how often do you see a clown unicycling somewhere? Seems pretty hard to miss...

It turns out a psychologist--Dr. Ira Hyman of Washington University--and his crew performed this exact experiment in 2009; they put a unicycling clown in the middle of a trafficked, open place on campus and took note of everyone who was using their phone while walking through this area. They then rounded up those phone users and asked them this question: "Did you see the unicycling clown back there?"

How many do you think reported seeing the clown? Go on, think of a guess.

Well, it turns out that 75% of students using their phones did NOT notice the clown. Yes, you read that right. That is 3 out of 4, my friends. Take a minute to let that sink in...

This study illustrates a pertinent phenomenon that is a huge problem with cellphone users--inattentional blindness, which is failing to detect unexpected changes in our environment. Inattentional blindness helps explain why you didn't notice that divider that suddenly stood in your way and why people don't notice others in general while using their phones. Essentially, staring intently at your phone reduces both your environmental and self-awareness. You probably won't see your friend trying to wave you down across the way or realize just how slow you are moving, how obstructive you are to others, if focused on your phone. 

Of course, this extends to driving.  In another study conducted by Simon Hosking, Kristie Young and Michael Regan in 2006, the psychologists simulated driving tasks with a control group of non-phone users vs. people texting on their phones. It turned out the texters not only drove more slowly and had slower reaction times than the control group, but they spent up to 400% more time with their eyes off the road than the control. That means that there was 400% more of an opportunity for something unexpected to happen on the road, making it 400% more likely that that person would not detect this sudden change.

 PSA: Please, do not text and drive. I am guilty of doing this in the past, but nowadays if I really have to text someone, I call them. If I can't call them, I'll text them when I'm on a clear road with no other cars around or at stoplight, minimizing the potential collateral damage. 

This level of distraction is not exclusive to cellphones. Anything that requires a fair amount of cognitive load, such as changing songs on your iPod, eating, brushing your hair, etc., will leave you more susceptible to accidents and loss of self-awareness. Thus, I ask that you please think about this the next time you whip out your phone in the car or even in public. Consider others as you text while walking, knowing that you will probably walk more slowly and get in people's way. If you must text and walk, try to frequently look up and evaluate your surroundings, i.e. text a word or phrase, then look up and see where you're at in space, then type another word/phrase, evaluate surroundings, and so on. I've started practicing this technique recently and it's hard to describe how noticeable the difference in my awareness and walking speed really is.

Sure, the idea of cellphones is relatively new. People have only been texting each other for about 8 or 9 years. In time, we may become more habituated to it, making it a lower load task that requires less of our concentration. However, in the interim, something needs to change because it's getting to be a big problem.

Protip of the week: Don't fall prey to "Cell De-Vision"; be aware of your surroundings at all times.

Thanks for reading. If you agree/disagree/think I'm a condescending prick, feel free to say so in the comments.

Have a good weekend.