When a case comes to me, I don't do whatever I feel like doing. I have a standard. That standard is what would the people at the time the Constitution was enacted have said.
--Antonin Scalia, Speech at the University of Fribourg, March 8, 2008
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.
Continue reading "Thomas Jefferson vs. Antonin Scalia: an Immaculate Misconception" »
One of my young friends recently related to me that his girlfriend had left him because the relationship was "too codependent." He wondered whether he could reconcile. I rolled my eyes and commented "probably not." She had implied that he was toxic and that the relationship could not continue. I doubted the labeling because I knew him rather well and had worked with him on several projects. In addition, I knew he wasn't using drugs. Furthermore, I also knew that counselor misdiagnoses were at the 60-80% error level. Even the physician level of error, with blood tests and imaging is at least 40%. A med school faculty friend of mine was surprised. He thought the medical level of error would be more than that. But anyway, knowing my extensive psychological background in personality theory and social psychology, my young friend asked about the codependency theory and therapy.
Codependency is one of those very popular self-help movements that, though providing enough support for people to feel good and try on a number of personas for a short time, is ultimately damaging and harmful. That statement won't go down well with thousands of people, but it's true anyway--and there's lots of research that comes up with the same conclusion. The thinking of some is that since it's a very popular approach, it must be good. Popularity is rarely a basis for validating much. Sugared cola drinks are very popular, as are cigarettes, but millions of people suffer horrible, physical diseases as a result of their use.
These codependency "experts" offer counseling that goes something like this: Your happiness is something that should come from within you and should not be dependent on your lover or mate. In effect, these "experts" pathologize love and caring. So your well-being is not your partner's responsibility and their well-being is not your responsibility. Furthermore, you should not let your inner peace be disturbed or undermined by the person you are close to. If you can't do that, there might be something wrong with you. You might be too enmeshed with the other person, so you must learn to set better boundaries. You should be able to distance or, if necessary, separate yourself from the other person....
The latest issue of The Economist (9/29/2018) devotes its lead article to the #MeToo movement. A positive and constructive editorial, the authors drop fascinating tidbits of sociological and historical insight along the way. They argue that women's testimony is being taken more seriously--at last.
But they point out a clear possibility: if #MeToo becomes a Democrats only movement, it will be set back. The polling reveals its partisanship: 39% of Republican women think it's a problem that men get away with. That compares to 66% of Democratic women. The inevitable consequence of these figures, they argue, is that some men will excuse their behavior on the grounds that it's all a Democratic ploy.
The closing paragraph offers the best insight:
For more than 50 years, I’ve been trying to understand why dealing with powerful people was initially so nerve-wracking and scary. When I told one of my daughters about these fears, she was shocked. “But dad,” she responded, “you’re a very powerful and intelligent guy yourself.” That’s not where I started out. Fact of the matter, in a piece of feedback at my 50th high school anniversary, eight of my classmates said they didn’t really recognize me. When I asked why, they responded in unison that the guy they knew as “Dan” was “shy, quiet and withdrawn.” Not the Dan sitting in front of them in 2002.
What changed it all was that I understood that if I was to be successful in my vocation, I’d have to change my behaviors—drastically. I was very fortunate. With tons of education, mentoring and feedback, I was able to make the changes. Though obvious now, for a long time I failed to understand my shyness and withdrawal. I thought it was just a natural characteristic.
Where fear comes from
I grew up with a highly narcissistic mother. Going through the psychiatric classification of mental disorders, the DSM-5, I noted that she knocked seven of the nine defining narcissistic categories out of the ballpark. As my brother said over her grave, she was a “mean lady.” I learned early on that I’d have to work hard to please her, take care of her, defer to her opinions and agree with how she understood the world. Of course, I also learned that if I disagreed or didn’t do what she expected, she was liable to abuse me emotionally and withdraw any and all rewards.
So, going away to college—far, far away, offered freedom at last...
I'm a bit left of center, politically. That means I can't stand crazy lefties or crazy righties. But I'm also open to intelligent lefties and intelligent righties. This is not the first time, but it was Bret Stephens, one of those really, really intelligent righties who outdid himself in today's Times. I expect his analytical skills to be superb because he's a grad of the UCHicago, especially since there are two of these analytical thinkers in my own family. That's a statement of bias.
So, I'll tease you, hoping that you follow the link to his commentary on Blasey vs. Kavanaugh...
Continue reading "When Analytical Expertise is Downright Overpowering" »
You’ve just moved out of state and are looking for a new house in the new location. The local real-estate broker informs you elaborately about several available houses and takes you on a tour. After a couple hours you find yourself completely lost.
The houses differ so many ways that you find yourself completely lost. You’re not certain you can actually make a sound choice. One house is bigger than the others, and also more expensive. You’ve been promoted to director, not vice-president. Another house has a beautiful garden, a great opportunity for you and your wife to unwind and also enjoy some fresh vegetables. Still a third house is a rickety old mansion. It has three bathrooms, one of them with Tuscany marble. A glorious room. . .
In an absolutely fascinating opinion article, Adam Grant opined that "those who can do, can't teach." I laughed as soon as I saw the title. It was pretty clear to me where he was going. Grant argues rightly that the greatest experts in a subject are not necessarily the best teachers. My usual way of getting to this issue is to tell an entry-level person that the best coach will never be more than two levels above you. Beyond that, the expert will be highly abstract, assume the unassumable about you, and won't be able to put the skills in a concrete package.
But Grant's way of going at the issue is so very useful, it needs to be added to your toolkit for coach selection.
First, pay attention to how long since the teacher studied the material. Ignore the top universities' boast about how most of their classes are taught by top faculty. The best teachers are probably grad students who just learned the material and know what it's like to be a beginner. In my post-doc work, I signed up for a course in adult learning and was initially disappointed that it was going to be taught by a teaching assistant, a grad student in his last year of PhD. From the start, he surprised me with his thoroughness. Later in the semester the top prof in the field subbed for his grad student when he had a bad case of the flu. Wow, was I glad the TA was teaching. The expert couldn't get the cookies on the bottom shelf for us no matter how many questions we asked...
Continue reading "If you want to be great at something, who should you learn from?" »
Before You Know It: The Unconscious Reasons We Do What We Do
By John Bargh, PhD
Last Spring, I got cornered by one of my friends, a psych analyst, while vacationing with her and her husband. We’d been having some heavy discussions and I’d been taking a solid position on the conscious brain and ignoring the unconscious (Only nerds like me do such things.) Finally, she asked the question: “Well, Dan, do you believe in the unconscious?” Recognizing she was probably pissed, I stared at her for about 30 very quiet seconds and finally responded, “I’m agnostic.” That discussion went no further.
But after working through John Bargh’s book, I’m a convert to the phenomenal role of the unconscious brain. Bargh had me from the first line of his book: “In college, I majored in psychology and minored in Led Zeppelin. Or maybe it was the other way around.” The scholarship doesn’t get any better, and the fun never stops. .
Continue reading "I Never Thought I’d Read a Psych Book this Enlightening—and This Much Fun!" »
In an interview with Harvard’s Amy Edmondson, the professor points out that today’s managers have to work with teams that cross distance, discipline and hierarchy—a task that doesn’t come naturally. She refers to the task as “extreme teaming,” arguing that with the complications of 24/7 global operations, more people than ever are required to collaborate outside the context of a formal team.
Edmondson is extremely cautious in her conclusions. For example, when asked why we’re seeing more extreme teaming, she responds, “beyond the increasingly globalized workplaces, there’s a recognition that we’re not always going to rely on vertical integration to solve all of our challenges. It sometimes just makes sense to team up with another organization to get something done.”
Note the language: “not always going to rely…” “increasingly globalized workplaces” “sometimes just makes sense.” That many caveats and qualifiers in just two sentences of 37 words including articles? Really? In medium-sized or large corporations, 90% of execution is cross-disciplinary. And in small tech firms, close to 95% of execution is cross-disciplinary.
There actually are hurdles, as the interviewer writes, “Many managers are not equipped with the skills to capture the full value of these multifaceted collaborations.” And what about the ordinary workers who are involved in all these cross-disciplinary teams?
Actually, team failures abound in virtually every organizational change. One recent study of 95 teams in 25 leading corporations found that nearly 75% of cross-functional teams are dysfunctional. Engineers don’t converse well with designers, marketing doesn’t converse well with development, and so on. It’s becoming rather clear that the real business of business is conversation. Yet few have these skills at the level necessary for today’s successful business person.
And what about the few that have these skills in spades?
Balancing free speech with students’ objections to speakers with unpopular views has become a messy task in recent years. With students, the rights of free speech can come into conflict with the need to feel safe and welcome. Although the problem has recently surfaced all across the country, the most public episode was the shouting down of the conservative, Charles Murray, at Dartmouth last year.
Four months later when Murray was to appear at the University of Michigan, the experience was very different than that at Dartmouth. The problem has a long history. My college grappled with the issue back in the 1950s. But with the polarization in our country, the issue has become more front and center.
Part of the problem is that students often come to college having never interacted with someone with a different viewpoint or different lifestyle. Today’s homogeneous residential neighborhoods limit the opportunities for diverse interactions. There are also virtual reality silos where similar views can be curated so that one’s perspectives are always affirmed and never challenged.
Of course, there’s also a bit of imitation going on. The student brain thinks that they did it at Dartmouth so we can do it here in Podunk Center.
The best way to deal with the issue is...