29 days, 19 hours to go...
Well friends, today marks "one month to go" before the marathon. It's been a rainy, humid sort of day, and I did a long effort on the treadmill. I felt good, but with the day of the race approaching I can't help but wondering if I'm ready.
Frank Shorter, gold-medalist in the 1972 Olympic marathon once said, "You have to forget your last marathon before you try another. Your mind can't know what's coming." He might have a point. My first marathon involved 15 miles of joy followed by 10 miles of pain followed by 1.2 miles of end-it-now adrenaline. If that sounds like a roller-coaster experience, it was; certainly one of the more interesting 4+ hour stretches of my life to date.
With that aside, the preparation for this marathon has been much better. I've done several longer efforts, and managed two decent 3-week cycles of track-work. I will probably do two more long efforts before the race, and possible another workout too. I've also done more running in shorter stretches, which believe it or not is an improvement from last time as well, when nearly all my training was done at a walk. And despite my misgivings about readiness, better training and the experience of having done it once already leave me feeling more confident than last time. I count this as a good thing.
So in short, things are going well but also getting "real," so to speak. I feel a curious mixture of excitement and nervous-anticipation, and while training my thoughts, by their own inertia, seem increasingly to wander through thought-experiments of how the race will go. And while I've forgotten a fair bit of my last marathon, I remember enough that such wanderings are rarely unaccompanied by a sense of dear-me-why-did-I-sign-up-for-this-again? It's humorous and terrifying all at once, in a way, and I don't know how the drama will end on race-day. With 29 days, 19 hours to go, bringing these antithetical emotions together for one purpose could prove quite important for keeping a level head.
Happy Friday, friends :)
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
A Reflection on "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life--Review"
I found an interesting review today from the Barnes and Noble Review website on Richard Hoftstadter's 1963 book "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life." In it, reviewer Michael Dirda parses this 1964 Pulitzer Prize winning work, which according to Hoftstadter sought to "trace some of the social movements in our history in which intellect has been dissevered from its co-ordinate place among the human virtues and assigned the position of a special kind of vice."
The review suggests a highly stimulating, albeit somewhat dated book. Yet its central theme remains relevant even to this day; that is, the persistent distrust of intellectual understanding and thought. This "distrust" comes in many forms, but it seems to rest on the notion that intellectuals lack a "warmth of emotion, solidity of character, practical capacity, or democratic sentiment." Claims Hofstadter, how can one defend "...a type of man who at best is deemed to be merely clever and at worst may even be dangerous?" How indeed.
I find this an interesting question, because it has throughout history played a role in the development of anti-intellectual political ideologies even outside the United States. Perhaps the earliest and most recognizable example is that of the "Noble Savage," an archetype which became popular in Europe around the time of the Renaissance. It's basic premise held that civilization and culture corrupt people by drawing them away from their primitive, natural existence. Among other sources, these ideas were derived in part from the Roman writer Tacitus' work Germania, as well as from those exploring newly-discovered civilizations in the New World. While not universally accepted (Charles Dickens famously called it a "prodigious nuisance and an enormous superstition"), the "Noble Savage" ideal nonetheless proved (and continues to prove) influential.
According to the historian Woodruff Smith, toward the end of the 19th century liberals in Germany began using "small-scale peasant agriculture," as "a symbol of preindustrial society, [and] of all that was threatened by modernity and industrialization" (Smith, Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism (1986), p.86), what is today called "Agrarianism." Indeed:
"Agrarianism incorporated a catalog of virtues that were held to inhere in the character of small farmers. Peasant farmers had a stronger and more direct connection with nature than almost any other social type, yet they were not simply nature's untamed children. Their whole life consisted of an interaction between ingenuity and will on the one hand and the forces of nature--both predictable and unpredictable--on the other. The idea that farmers achieved, through effort, a balance among natural forces gave the agrarian image part of its appeal to people with little first hand experience of actual agriculture...The varied experiences that resulted from such contact made small farmers 'well-rounded' persons, gave them a common-sense sagacity and an ability to judge people and issues superior to that of town dwellers or wage laborers" (Smith, 87).
One might glean from this cornucopia of "virtues" that people with a closer connection to the land were believed to have superior qualities of practicality and judgment. Later during the pre-Nazi years, thinkers like Walther Darré began pushing the "Blut und Boden" (blood and soil) school of thought, which essentially combined agrarian ideas with racial-charged eugenic principles; that the strength of any nation was derived chiefly by the connection its people had with the soil, as well as the racial purity of its people's blood. Needless to say, even "pure-blooded" intellectuals were not highly esteemed in such a world-view.
Initially employed by liberals as a "defense of the ordinary man against the elites, [and] the emphasis on the political utility of common sense," agrarian ideology was hijacked in the late 19th century by conservative landholders who divorced it from its liberal beginnings, emphasizing instead that by getting rid of the peasantry (land-holders' laboring class) essential vessels of traditional German culture would be lost(Smith, 89-93). In so doing, traditional landed-elites in Germany hoped to maintain their social position amidst a rapidly industrializing country. Such compromises appear to be common features of many ideologies.
Thus there is no shortage of ideological traditions which spurn intellectuals for less-reflective professions. One thing that struck me while researching the origins of Nazi political ideology back in college was how it constantly brought to mind Tolkien's heroes from The Lord of the Rings. Indeed, while appearing in print a decade after the end of Nazi rule, the wise and heroic figures of that tale come from a farming community (all the hobbits, including Farmer Maggot), are soldiers (such as Boromir, Faramir, Aragorn, Éomer, Éowyn, and Théoden), or mythical types (like Gandalf, Treebeard, Gimli, and Legolas). On top of that, among the villains devious intellectuals like Saruman and Grima Wormtongue can be found, who use their intellect to harm, manipulate, and deceive others in the pursuit of selfish ends. While Tolkien rebelled against Nazi attempts to draw parallels between his earlier stories like The Hobbit and their racial ideologies, it is apparent that both drew from similar intellectual traditions, albeit with different purposes in mind.
Which brings us back to Hofstadter and our own times. In the aftermath of a deep global recession, continued uncertainty in Europe, and a divisive intellectual climate regarding the future of the economy, government, and society generally, there appears to be a sense of anti-intellectual sentiment in the broad conversations of our time. More than once in the last few years have I heard humanities majors lambasted by people who say such majors are a waste of money and lead nowhere. "Study something useful," they often say, like health care, finance, engineering, or computers. "Quit wasting time in history, English, and religious studies." They say, in short, to market yourself like a product; to structure your life like a business.
Interestingly, according to the review Hofstadter discusses the underlying ethos of this idea way back in the 1960s, when business ethos began showing "a contempt for the reflective mind, for culture, and for the past." Added to that might be the consequent elevation of "'practical intelligence,' coupled with a passion for some 'forward step in progress,'" such that, "'American business, once defended on the ground that it produced a high standard of culture, was now defended mainly on the ground that it produced a high standard of living.'"
Due to the depth of the recession, the tepid nature of the recovery, and the real strain it has and continues to wreak on large swaths of the population, I think we are hearing more and more that such business ethos are necessary in order to survive in a world of relative famine; that action, extroversion, and the pursuit of wealth is the best (and perhaps, only) route to happiness in our world today.
Consider the idea put forward by Thomas Friedman in this interview, where among other things he emphasizes the need for Americans today to embrace the attitudes of the "immigrant" and the "artisan"; that we must be willing to work like an immigrant (hard and humbly), and take pride in our work like an artisan (willing to sign our name proudly to everything we make).
I'm sympathetic to these notions, but I worry about what may happen if so much emphasis is placed on acquiring practical skills that we forget the value of intellectual development in the process. Indeed, where are we as individuals or a society if we have know-how, but no sense of how to govern wisely, optimize necessary trade-offs, and discern the difference between intellectual wool-over-the-eyes, and sound, evidence-based theory? This seems to me at least as important as knowing how to repair a car, file taxes, or program a robot.
I will grant that some intellectuals are devious; that some are arrogant, narrow-minded, hypocritical, snobbish, or out-of-touch with the lives of most people. I will grant that many intellectuals do not come across as "wise," whatever that means, or capable of keeping the cogs of civil society turning. Yet I feel the same can be true of almost anyone, given the proper circumstances. And for all the intellectuals who spend their lives buried under heavy tomes of arcane knowledge of an obscure (and let's be honest, not particularly-practical) discipline, there are those whose perspective help the rest of us see a little more clearly the bigger picture of where our world has been, and where it might go. As Mr. Hofstadter suggests, anti-intellectualism has a long history. Yet each time it is embraced something seems to be lost in the process; we embrace the practical, but lose sight of what we're doing and why. Something curious to consider further perhaps.
Happy Thursday, friends :)
The review suggests a highly stimulating, albeit somewhat dated book. Yet its central theme remains relevant even to this day; that is, the persistent distrust of intellectual understanding and thought. This "distrust" comes in many forms, but it seems to rest on the notion that intellectuals lack a "warmth of emotion, solidity of character, practical capacity, or democratic sentiment." Claims Hofstadter, how can one defend "...a type of man who at best is deemed to be merely clever and at worst may even be dangerous?" How indeed.
I find this an interesting question, because it has throughout history played a role in the development of anti-intellectual political ideologies even outside the United States. Perhaps the earliest and most recognizable example is that of the "Noble Savage," an archetype which became popular in Europe around the time of the Renaissance. It's basic premise held that civilization and culture corrupt people by drawing them away from their primitive, natural existence. Among other sources, these ideas were derived in part from the Roman writer Tacitus' work Germania, as well as from those exploring newly-discovered civilizations in the New World. While not universally accepted (Charles Dickens famously called it a "prodigious nuisance and an enormous superstition"), the "Noble Savage" ideal nonetheless proved (and continues to prove) influential.
According to the historian Woodruff Smith, toward the end of the 19th century liberals in Germany began using "small-scale peasant agriculture," as "a symbol of preindustrial society, [and] of all that was threatened by modernity and industrialization" (Smith, Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism (1986), p.86), what is today called "Agrarianism." Indeed:
"Agrarianism incorporated a catalog of virtues that were held to inhere in the character of small farmers. Peasant farmers had a stronger and more direct connection with nature than almost any other social type, yet they were not simply nature's untamed children. Their whole life consisted of an interaction between ingenuity and will on the one hand and the forces of nature--both predictable and unpredictable--on the other. The idea that farmers achieved, through effort, a balance among natural forces gave the agrarian image part of its appeal to people with little first hand experience of actual agriculture...The varied experiences that resulted from such contact made small farmers 'well-rounded' persons, gave them a common-sense sagacity and an ability to judge people and issues superior to that of town dwellers or wage laborers" (Smith, 87).
One might glean from this cornucopia of "virtues" that people with a closer connection to the land were believed to have superior qualities of practicality and judgment. Later during the pre-Nazi years, thinkers like Walther Darré began pushing the "Blut und Boden" (blood and soil) school of thought, which essentially combined agrarian ideas with racial-charged eugenic principles; that the strength of any nation was derived chiefly by the connection its people had with the soil, as well as the racial purity of its people's blood. Needless to say, even "pure-blooded" intellectuals were not highly esteemed in such a world-view.
Initially employed by liberals as a "defense of the ordinary man against the elites, [and] the emphasis on the political utility of common sense," agrarian ideology was hijacked in the late 19th century by conservative landholders who divorced it from its liberal beginnings, emphasizing instead that by getting rid of the peasantry (land-holders' laboring class) essential vessels of traditional German culture would be lost(Smith, 89-93). In so doing, traditional landed-elites in Germany hoped to maintain their social position amidst a rapidly industrializing country. Such compromises appear to be common features of many ideologies.
Thus there is no shortage of ideological traditions which spurn intellectuals for less-reflective professions. One thing that struck me while researching the origins of Nazi political ideology back in college was how it constantly brought to mind Tolkien's heroes from The Lord of the Rings. Indeed, while appearing in print a decade after the end of Nazi rule, the wise and heroic figures of that tale come from a farming community (all the hobbits, including Farmer Maggot), are soldiers (such as Boromir, Faramir, Aragorn, Éomer, Éowyn, and Théoden), or mythical types (like Gandalf, Treebeard, Gimli, and Legolas). On top of that, among the villains devious intellectuals like Saruman and Grima Wormtongue can be found, who use their intellect to harm, manipulate, and deceive others in the pursuit of selfish ends. While Tolkien rebelled against Nazi attempts to draw parallels between his earlier stories like The Hobbit and their racial ideologies, it is apparent that both drew from similar intellectual traditions, albeit with different purposes in mind.
Which brings us back to Hofstadter and our own times. In the aftermath of a deep global recession, continued uncertainty in Europe, and a divisive intellectual climate regarding the future of the economy, government, and society generally, there appears to be a sense of anti-intellectual sentiment in the broad conversations of our time. More than once in the last few years have I heard humanities majors lambasted by people who say such majors are a waste of money and lead nowhere. "Study something useful," they often say, like health care, finance, engineering, or computers. "Quit wasting time in history, English, and religious studies." They say, in short, to market yourself like a product; to structure your life like a business.
Interestingly, according to the review Hofstadter discusses the underlying ethos of this idea way back in the 1960s, when business ethos began showing "a contempt for the reflective mind, for culture, and for the past." Added to that might be the consequent elevation of "'practical intelligence,' coupled with a passion for some 'forward step in progress,'" such that, "'American business, once defended on the ground that it produced a high standard of culture, was now defended mainly on the ground that it produced a high standard of living.'"
Due to the depth of the recession, the tepid nature of the recovery, and the real strain it has and continues to wreak on large swaths of the population, I think we are hearing more and more that such business ethos are necessary in order to survive in a world of relative famine; that action, extroversion, and the pursuit of wealth is the best (and perhaps, only) route to happiness in our world today.
Consider the idea put forward by Thomas Friedman in this interview, where among other things he emphasizes the need for Americans today to embrace the attitudes of the "immigrant" and the "artisan"; that we must be willing to work like an immigrant (hard and humbly), and take pride in our work like an artisan (willing to sign our name proudly to everything we make).
I'm sympathetic to these notions, but I worry about what may happen if so much emphasis is placed on acquiring practical skills that we forget the value of intellectual development in the process. Indeed, where are we as individuals or a society if we have know-how, but no sense of how to govern wisely, optimize necessary trade-offs, and discern the difference between intellectual wool-over-the-eyes, and sound, evidence-based theory? This seems to me at least as important as knowing how to repair a car, file taxes, or program a robot.
I will grant that some intellectuals are devious; that some are arrogant, narrow-minded, hypocritical, snobbish, or out-of-touch with the lives of most people. I will grant that many intellectuals do not come across as "wise," whatever that means, or capable of keeping the cogs of civil society turning. Yet I feel the same can be true of almost anyone, given the proper circumstances. And for all the intellectuals who spend their lives buried under heavy tomes of arcane knowledge of an obscure (and let's be honest, not particularly-practical) discipline, there are those whose perspective help the rest of us see a little more clearly the bigger picture of where our world has been, and where it might go. As Mr. Hofstadter suggests, anti-intellectualism has a long history. Yet each time it is embraced something seems to be lost in the process; we embrace the practical, but lose sight of what we're doing and why. Something curious to consider further perhaps.
Happy Thursday, friends :)
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Practice: learning to show, not tell
I found this piece on The Chronicle For Higher Education's website this evening, talking about how one professor (Mark Spitzer) teaches his students about description, and how with practice they might do it better. The idea seems to involve learning how describe a scene to a reader rather than simply explaining it to them in an ambiguous way; what some people call the "show, not tell" method.
"Showing" is something I work on a lot, particularly when writing letters. But I suspect a little practice wouldn't hurt, so I've decided to start a series of posts with the aim of practicing this "showing" form of description.
My plan is to make as detailed a description as I can in 150-words or less. For the first post, I'll start with something readily hand: my phone.
"Showing" is something I work on a lot, particularly when writing letters. But I suspect a little practice wouldn't hurt, so I've decided to start a series of posts with the aim of practicing this "showing" form of description.
My plan is to make as detailed a description as I can in 150-words or less. For the first post, I'll start with something readily hand: my phone.
This is my phone, a rectangular object with rounded corners,
and slightly perceptible curves to the top and bottom edges. The screen has a
reflective, luminous look, tarnished only by a a scratch here and smudges of
fingerprints there. On the side of the phone without keys a reflective patch
shines up at me, where a circular lens marks the location where the phone’s
camera receives input. Raised diagonal lines which cross at a repeated interval
give this side of the phone purchase. When looking at the screen, the right
side of the phone contains the button for using the camera, as well as the
recharging port, while the left side contains the volume-adjustment buttons,
and a port for receiving a microphone. The keyboard crosses the width of the
phone, bending slightly in the middle as though pulled by gravity. The keys too
shine, but not quite like the screen.
Word count: 150
Well there you have my first attempt. It's not as easy as I expected, and there's much I think that could be added (or subtracted) from the description to improve its efficacy. Nonetheless I think it's a good first start, and perhaps I'll give it a try again soon.
Happy Wednesday, friends :)
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Some ways community affects our lives
According to this piece from The Economist, the "car culture" of rich countries is evolving toward less driving and less interest in automobiles, in part because of new social interactions related to the Internet.
According to this piece from The New York Times, families who moved out of low-income housing using federal vouchers didn't earn more money, but they experienced levels of happiness equal to those who made $13,000 more a year.
And according to this piece in The Wilson Quarterly, mental illnesses like schizophrenia appear to be brought on and/or exacerbated by social context and community.
While reading this past week, I began feeling as though these pieces were all hinting at something, but on which I couldn't quite place a finger. How are they related? And what is a common thread running through them all?
On a broad level, I think they relate with respect to the way community affects the way people feel and interact with their world. In the Economist piece, a study by the University of Michigan is cited which shows that where Internet use is high among young people it is more common to get one's drivers' license later (or indeed, not at all). In another survey, it was found that, "...young people increasingly view cars as appliances not aspirations, and say that social media give them the access to their world that would once have been associated with cars." This is interesting, because it shows how having an online community affects the way people interact off-line. If one can talk and share over the Internet, perhaps there is less need to get in a car and see them.
In the New York Times piece, people who moved out of low-income neighborhoods into more mixed-income neighborhoods didn't see a rise in their earnings, but they did become happier; indeed, as happy as a family which made $13,000 more a year. The first result is perhaps unsurprising, since education is believed to have a far greater effect on earnings than one's neighborhood. The second result is less so, however. Indeed, the move seemed to reduce the level of anxiety and unease families felt, and as a result families showed improved mental and physical health. This time, the community context markedly affected the well-being of individual people and families.
Finally the Wilson Quarterly piece sought to show how mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are not simply the result of genetic time-bombs turning on and ruining a person's life; rather, the way such illnesses are assessed, understood, treated makes a big difference in how frequently cases arise, and how functional patients tend to be. For example, it's been shown that Indian families "don’t treat people with schizophrenia as if they have a soul-destroying illness." Interestingly, Indian schizophrenia patients tend to function better than those in the West.
Also of interest is the way people in certain social contexts are more prone to schizophrenia than others. According to the piece, "The most remarkable recent epidemiologic finding relates to migrants: Some fall ill with schizophrenia not only at higher rates than the compatriots they leave behind, but at higher rates than the natives of the countries to which they have come. Dark-skinned migrants to Europe, mostly from the Caribbean or sub-Saharan Africa, are at risk of developing schizophrenia at rates as much as 10 times higher than those of white Europeans." Evidence like this suggests that any explanation of the disease relying solely on genetic factors is probably missing something.
And to my mind, it is perhaps no accident that social context not only helps those with the disease (such as in India) cope and live, but also plays a role in determining who develops the condition in the first place (such as with migrants).
Taken together, these three pieces seem to suggest some ways in which our community context shapes our lives. Things like social media can change the way we interact with friends, such that instead of driving into town to hang out, people choose to chat online instead. In addition, where we live may not make us materially more wealthy, but it can positively or negatively affect our mental and physical health. Factors which affect how secure we feel now, and how confident we are of future security seem to make a real difference. And finally, how our community understands and treats those with mental illness can play an big role in how functional those such illnesses can live their lives.
Something to think about perhaps.
Happy Fall (or Spring for our southern hemisphere friends) everyone :)
According to this piece from The New York Times, families who moved out of low-income housing using federal vouchers didn't earn more money, but they experienced levels of happiness equal to those who made $13,000 more a year.
And according to this piece in The Wilson Quarterly, mental illnesses like schizophrenia appear to be brought on and/or exacerbated by social context and community.
While reading this past week, I began feeling as though these pieces were all hinting at something, but on which I couldn't quite place a finger. How are they related? And what is a common thread running through them all?
On a broad level, I think they relate with respect to the way community affects the way people feel and interact with their world. In the Economist piece, a study by the University of Michigan is cited which shows that where Internet use is high among young people it is more common to get one's drivers' license later (or indeed, not at all). In another survey, it was found that, "...young people increasingly view cars as appliances not aspirations, and say that social media give them the access to their world that would once have been associated with cars." This is interesting, because it shows how having an online community affects the way people interact off-line. If one can talk and share over the Internet, perhaps there is less need to get in a car and see them.
In the New York Times piece, people who moved out of low-income neighborhoods into more mixed-income neighborhoods didn't see a rise in their earnings, but they did become happier; indeed, as happy as a family which made $13,000 more a year. The first result is perhaps unsurprising, since education is believed to have a far greater effect on earnings than one's neighborhood. The second result is less so, however. Indeed, the move seemed to reduce the level of anxiety and unease families felt, and as a result families showed improved mental and physical health. This time, the community context markedly affected the well-being of individual people and families.
Finally the Wilson Quarterly piece sought to show how mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are not simply the result of genetic time-bombs turning on and ruining a person's life; rather, the way such illnesses are assessed, understood, treated makes a big difference in how frequently cases arise, and how functional patients tend to be. For example, it's been shown that Indian families "don’t treat people with schizophrenia as if they have a soul-destroying illness." Interestingly, Indian schizophrenia patients tend to function better than those in the West.
Also of interest is the way people in certain social contexts are more prone to schizophrenia than others. According to the piece, "The most remarkable recent epidemiologic finding relates to migrants: Some fall ill with schizophrenia not only at higher rates than the compatriots they leave behind, but at higher rates than the natives of the countries to which they have come. Dark-skinned migrants to Europe, mostly from the Caribbean or sub-Saharan Africa, are at risk of developing schizophrenia at rates as much as 10 times higher than those of white Europeans." Evidence like this suggests that any explanation of the disease relying solely on genetic factors is probably missing something.
And to my mind, it is perhaps no accident that social context not only helps those with the disease (such as in India) cope and live, but also plays a role in determining who develops the condition in the first place (such as with migrants).
Taken together, these three pieces seem to suggest some ways in which our community context shapes our lives. Things like social media can change the way we interact with friends, such that instead of driving into town to hang out, people choose to chat online instead. In addition, where we live may not make us materially more wealthy, but it can positively or negatively affect our mental and physical health. Factors which affect how secure we feel now, and how confident we are of future security seem to make a real difference. And finally, how our community understands and treats those with mental illness can play an big role in how functional those such illnesses can live their lives.
Something to think about perhaps.
Happy Fall (or Spring for our southern hemisphere friends) everyone :)
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Thanks Pia Sundhage
Despite the fact that I had to wake up early this morning, I stayed up last night to watch the US Women's National Soccer Team play Australia in a post-Olympic friendly. I probably would have done this anyway, since it's not everyday the national team plays, and the US senior womens' team is amazing. But for last night's match, however, I had greater incentive to stay awake: it was Pia Sundhage's last as manager of the US team.
I was sad but not entirely surprised when on 1 September it was announced that Ms. Sundhage would be stepping down. Rumors had circulated for a time that she wished, if possible, to take a position in her native land of Sweden. Thankfully she will get the opportunity when on 1 December her tenure as manager of the Swedish Womens' National Team begins. With the European Championships coming up next year, Sweden as the host will be under a lot of pressure to do well. It is my humble opinion that they now have one of the best coaches in the world to help them toward that end.
I'm happy that Pia can go home and take up a new, exciting challenge, but I'm also happy with the legacy she leaves behind. Not only did her tenure prove remarkably successful (among other things, reaching 3 major finals and winning two of them); her management of a talented but personality-filled team helped raise awareness of how exciting womens' soccer can be.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, her warmth, passion, and intellect demonstrate what can happen when positive emotions inspire others to believe in themselves and be great; that a manager doesn't have to be a grouch or a tactical wizard to bring out the best in his or her players. Indeed, it may well take such inspired emotions to make and keep"the beautiful game" beautiful.
This is a big reason why I watch womens' soccer. The best teams in the world today are not just physically strong or technically brilliant; they are, but without a doubt they are also fired through with a spirit of belief that is heartening to watch. For whatever reason I just don't see that as much in the mens' game today, though it does happen sometimes.
As a fan I honestly believe this inspired quality is one of womens' soccer's greatest strengths today, and Pia Sundhage has embodied that spirit as manager of the US team. By doing so she not only made a great team even better, but also leaves a powerful example of what can be achieved when we believe in ourselves and others.
So thanks Pia Sundhage for all that you've done, and good luck in Sweden.
I was sad but not entirely surprised when on 1 September it was announced that Ms. Sundhage would be stepping down. Rumors had circulated for a time that she wished, if possible, to take a position in her native land of Sweden. Thankfully she will get the opportunity when on 1 December her tenure as manager of the Swedish Womens' National Team begins. With the European Championships coming up next year, Sweden as the host will be under a lot of pressure to do well. It is my humble opinion that they now have one of the best coaches in the world to help them toward that end.
I'm happy that Pia can go home and take up a new, exciting challenge, but I'm also happy with the legacy she leaves behind. Not only did her tenure prove remarkably successful (among other things, reaching 3 major finals and winning two of them); her management of a talented but personality-filled team helped raise awareness of how exciting womens' soccer can be.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, her warmth, passion, and intellect demonstrate what can happen when positive emotions inspire others to believe in themselves and be great; that a manager doesn't have to be a grouch or a tactical wizard to bring out the best in his or her players. Indeed, it may well take such inspired emotions to make and keep"the beautiful game" beautiful.
This is a big reason why I watch womens' soccer. The best teams in the world today are not just physically strong or technically brilliant; they are, but without a doubt they are also fired through with a spirit of belief that is heartening to watch. For whatever reason I just don't see that as much in the mens' game today, though it does happen sometimes.
As a fan I honestly believe this inspired quality is one of womens' soccer's greatest strengths today, and Pia Sundhage has embodied that spirit as manager of the US team. By doing so she not only made a great team even better, but also leaves a powerful example of what can be achieved when we believe in ourselves and others.
So thanks Pia Sundhage for all that you've done, and good luck in Sweden.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Training Update IX (MCM): The Final Stretch
43 says, 17 hours to go...
With under 50 days to go until the race, we're in the final stretch now. With that in mind, I've been shifting away from the track work which proved so successful earlier in the program, and begun embracing more marathon-specific training.
This involves a few changes to what I've been doing.
First, I've moved a large bulk of my walking regimen away from forest trails and toward the road. That doesn't mean I never walk on trails anymore, but it does mean more time on paved surfaces, which is important because the course over which the race is run is also paved.
Another thing I've done involves the inclusion of longer, sustained runs on my days off from work. Whereas before any running I did also involved a substantial amount of walking, now I'm getting in actual sustained runs. This is important, because it is my hope to run the entire marathon distance. It may not work out that way, but practicing it could improve my chances. In training for my first marathon, I hardly ran at all outside a once-weekly track-workout. Indeed, my "longest" continuous run leading up to that race was a 5-miler I did with Dante and Dan not long before the race. In spite of this dearth of running, I still managed to run the first 15 miles of the race, as well as portions of the last 11, and the whole of mile 26. Taking that into account, I'm making a better effort this time around to get in some more continuous running as the race approaches. In this way, I hope to survive the rigors of my job as well as those of the race. That is my hope at least.
Today I ran a little over 55 minutes on the treadmill, using the incline controls to mimic in miniature the terrain of the race course. So just as the first third of the race involves several climbs, including a rather steep, 200ft climb not far from the start, the first third of today's run focused on hills. Following that, I gradually increased speed over a long flat stretch, which is how much the rest of the race appears. Occasionally a small climb appears during this stretch, so I added a climb or two in the midst of this gradual increase of speed. Finally a rather short but steep climb appears at the end of the race, so I finished with a steep climb at the maximum speed reached over the course.
I felt good doing all this, and would like to extend the effort next week as a way of becoming ever more adapted to the coming race and its challenges. In the mean time, it'll be doubly important to keep a healthy work/training balance, since the date of the race is not far off now, and a serious illness or injury could prove difficult. With that said, I'm really enjoying the training these days. I feel stronger every week, and look forward to the day when myself and 30,000 others begin our long romp through the streets of Washington, D.C. Only 43 days and 17 hours now. Let's keep at it!
Happy Friday, friends :)
With under 50 days to go until the race, we're in the final stretch now. With that in mind, I've been shifting away from the track work which proved so successful earlier in the program, and begun embracing more marathon-specific training.
This involves a few changes to what I've been doing.
First, I've moved a large bulk of my walking regimen away from forest trails and toward the road. That doesn't mean I never walk on trails anymore, but it does mean more time on paved surfaces, which is important because the course over which the race is run is also paved.
Another thing I've done involves the inclusion of longer, sustained runs on my days off from work. Whereas before any running I did also involved a substantial amount of walking, now I'm getting in actual sustained runs. This is important, because it is my hope to run the entire marathon distance. It may not work out that way, but practicing it could improve my chances. In training for my first marathon, I hardly ran at all outside a once-weekly track-workout. Indeed, my "longest" continuous run leading up to that race was a 5-miler I did with Dante and Dan not long before the race. In spite of this dearth of running, I still managed to run the first 15 miles of the race, as well as portions of the last 11, and the whole of mile 26. Taking that into account, I'm making a better effort this time around to get in some more continuous running as the race approaches. In this way, I hope to survive the rigors of my job as well as those of the race. That is my hope at least.
Today I ran a little over 55 minutes on the treadmill, using the incline controls to mimic in miniature the terrain of the race course. So just as the first third of the race involves several climbs, including a rather steep, 200ft climb not far from the start, the first third of today's run focused on hills. Following that, I gradually increased speed over a long flat stretch, which is how much the rest of the race appears. Occasionally a small climb appears during this stretch, so I added a climb or two in the midst of this gradual increase of speed. Finally a rather short but steep climb appears at the end of the race, so I finished with a steep climb at the maximum speed reached over the course.
I felt good doing all this, and would like to extend the effort next week as a way of becoming ever more adapted to the coming race and its challenges. In the mean time, it'll be doubly important to keep a healthy work/training balance, since the date of the race is not far off now, and a serious illness or injury could prove difficult. With that said, I'm really enjoying the training these days. I feel stronger every week, and look forward to the day when myself and 30,000 others begin our long romp through the streets of Washington, D.C. Only 43 days and 17 hours now. Let's keep at it!
Happy Friday, friends :)
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
7 Stimulating Books
The English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) once suggested that "Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested." I like this line, perhaps because it seems to illustrate the way how some books really hold our attention while others do not. Frequently I use the word "stimulating" to describe those "few" books "to be chewed and digested," and credit them with enriching my experiences in life. As such I thought it might be nice to compile a brief list of books I've found stimulating at some point in my life. This isn't an exhaustive list, and is likely biased toward more recently encountered material. Nevertheless I think it could prove a fruitful exercise, so let's dive in and have a look.
In no particular order:
1.) "The Great Divergence: China Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy" (2000)
By: Kenneth Pomeranz
I encountered this book through my friend Laura, who was taking a pre-modern history class our sophomore year of college. One night we were doing homework together in the library, when she began describing this book which contended that coal and colonies provided the decisive cause of European "divergence" during the Industrial Revolution. Utterly puzzled, I remember saying something along the lines of, "Laura, that can't be right, the author has it all backwards: coal and colonies were the result of industrialization, not the cause.
Months later I borrowed that book, and well, my mind was blown. A professor of history at the University of California Irvine, Dr. Pomeranz suggests that leading up to the Industrial Revolution several areas of the globe (parts of northwestern Europe, the Indian sub-continent, and pockets in China) seemed poised to begin industrializing in earnest. That those areas of northwest Europe (such as England, and to a lesser extent France and the Netherlands) took off while those in India and China did not has long puzzled historians, particularly since some areas in China seemed better prepared for such a transition than say, England. This marked change is at the heart of "the great divergence," where parts of Europe became highly industrialized while much of the rest of the world "diverged" down another path and did not.
In the past some have argued this divergence occurred because of an innate "racial" superiority of people of "northwest European extraction." Others have argued that technology, law-codes, and/or cultural ethics of hard work provided Europeans with their advantage. Pomeranz takes a different approach, arguing that the presence of coal and new-world colonies provided both the energy and untapped-hinterlands needed to drive the new industrializing economy. Advantages in excess land capacity, new-world resources such as timber, precious metals, and sugar, and the energy-rich and easily extractable sources of coal in England all provided the means by which a relatively obscure corner of Europe became the driving engine of the world economy for 200 years.
Many have disputed Pomeranz, or have sought to add further nuance to his argument. But for me his book radically altered the way I perceive the rise and decline of tribes and states in world. And while he might not have the last word on what caused the great divergence, Dr. Pomeranz certainly got me thinking about it in a new way.
2.) "Lore of Running, 4th edt." (2003) and "Waterlogged" (2012)
By: Tim Noakes, MD
I combined these two because they are in my mind intimately related. Both works seek to bring the latest in exercise research to the lay-person trying to apply that research in training. Along the way, Dr. Noakes frequently disputes popular theories of exercise performance which do not fit with the available evidence. From his work, I have learned, among other things, about the known effects (long and short term) of overtraining, the available evidence of peaking in performance, and hydration during long endurance events. As important is Dr. Noakes' historical approach, which traces particular ideas in exercise performance from an early date up to the present. His history of training theory in "Lore of Running," and the history of hydration advice in "Waterlogged" both serve as excellent examples of the value in rehashing what has been tried or thought before. If nothing else, such historical digressions provide a good place to begin one's own intellectual journey.
3.) "The European Reformations" (1996)
By: Carter Lindberg
I read this book for a class in college called "European Religious Wars," and again for a class I sat but did not officially take called "The Reformation." The thing I found most thought-provoking in this book were the clear explanations of theology, and how those theological ideas shaped and were shaped by the historical, intellectual, and social context of the Reformation era. Indeed, I've yet to find a better work of history that so effectively explains theology and how it relates to the historical subject.
4.) "Daniels' Running Formula" (1998)
By: Jack Daniels, PhD
This is a staple in the modern coaching literature for distance runners, and it's a good one. In it, Daniels provides a series of tables one can employ to develop a training plan for races from "800m to the marathon." In addition, he stresses the individual training needs, as well as the need to focus on the process of training rather than simply the results of training.
Perhaps the most stimulating aspect of Daniels' book involves the economics of distance training. The basic idea here is that, as when employing economic capital, distance runners should seek to maximize their "running capital" assessing their training needs. In short, the idea is to achieve the maximum benefit from training for the least amount of effort. This involves the employment of stress and recovery, which when combined effectively produce the most fitness gains with the least amount of wear. Ideally a new training stress should be milked for all its benefits before a further stress is added. Finally, the fitness benefits from these new stresses appear to obey the law of diminishing returns, such that each additional amount of stress provides increasingly less additional benefit; conversely, each additional stress also increases the chance of developing an injury. Finding a middle ground between these two curves which effectively meets one's needs and risk-tolerance seems to be at the heart of Daniels' coaching philosophy.
5.) "How to Live: Or A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer" (2010)
By: Sarah Blakewell
This charming biography of the 16th century French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is a creative, fresh way of exploring a person's life, their ideas, and their times. Broken down into 20 thematic chapters, Blakewell provides a rich tapestry of detail, argument, and digression. I particularly enjoyed the way she describes the changing perceptions of Montaigne over time; how in one period he was hailed a great hero of thought, while in another he was loathed as a great deceiver of men. Reading this book encouraged me to read some of Montaigne's Essays myself, and so far it's proved an interesting experience.
6.) "Running Within" (1999)
By: Jerry Lynch and Warren Scott
Originally I borrowed this book from my roommate in college, whose dad left it with him after helping us move in for XC camp. My old roommate never went in for books like this, but I absolutely loved it.
At its root, I think "Running Within" is a book about cultivating healthy attitudes and mental habits related to exercise and performance. Following the opening section (where the concepts are introduced), each chapter concludes with a list of visualization exercises and positive affirmations. The idea is to use these exercises as a way of cultivating a positive mindset while in the midst of difficulty (ex: in a race, a workout, or while recovering from an injury).
It's a touching book, and provoked a lot of thinking on my part about what I want to do when I enter a race, or do anything in life really. One friend called it a "hippie book" when I described it to him, but I liked it a lot.
7.) "The Pillars of the Earth" (1989) and "World Without End" (2007)
By: Ken Follett
I combined these because they're sequels, and quite related. They're both novels of historical fiction, taking place during the late Middle Ages. Among other things, the first details the construction of a Gothic cathedral in England, and the second deals with the Black Plague. Their stories are rich, multi-layered, and laced with great detail.
One feature I liked about both books was the way it intimately portrayed the boom-and-bust cycle of economic activity in the towns involved in the story. Changes in rule-of-law, incentives, pricing, and demand all greatly altered the fortunes of the characters in each tale, which provides a fascinating background over which they seek to adapt and move on.
Some other stimulating books include:
"On War" (1832) by Carl von Clausewitz
"The Confessions of St. Augustine" (398) by Augustine of Hippo
"The Thirty Years' War" (1939) by Georges Pages
"A History of Western Philosophy" (1945) by Bertrand Russel
"The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism" (1989) by Woodruff Smith
Happy Tuesday, friends :)
In no particular order:
1.) "The Great Divergence: China Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy" (2000)
By: Kenneth Pomeranz
I encountered this book through my friend Laura, who was taking a pre-modern history class our sophomore year of college. One night we were doing homework together in the library, when she began describing this book which contended that coal and colonies provided the decisive cause of European "divergence" during the Industrial Revolution. Utterly puzzled, I remember saying something along the lines of, "Laura, that can't be right, the author has it all backwards: coal and colonies were the result of industrialization, not the cause.
Months later I borrowed that book, and well, my mind was blown. A professor of history at the University of California Irvine, Dr. Pomeranz suggests that leading up to the Industrial Revolution several areas of the globe (parts of northwestern Europe, the Indian sub-continent, and pockets in China) seemed poised to begin industrializing in earnest. That those areas of northwest Europe (such as England, and to a lesser extent France and the Netherlands) took off while those in India and China did not has long puzzled historians, particularly since some areas in China seemed better prepared for such a transition than say, England. This marked change is at the heart of "the great divergence," where parts of Europe became highly industrialized while much of the rest of the world "diverged" down another path and did not.
In the past some have argued this divergence occurred because of an innate "racial" superiority of people of "northwest European extraction." Others have argued that technology, law-codes, and/or cultural ethics of hard work provided Europeans with their advantage. Pomeranz takes a different approach, arguing that the presence of coal and new-world colonies provided both the energy and untapped-hinterlands needed to drive the new industrializing economy. Advantages in excess land capacity, new-world resources such as timber, precious metals, and sugar, and the energy-rich and easily extractable sources of coal in England all provided the means by which a relatively obscure corner of Europe became the driving engine of the world economy for 200 years.
Many have disputed Pomeranz, or have sought to add further nuance to his argument. But for me his book radically altered the way I perceive the rise and decline of tribes and states in world. And while he might not have the last word on what caused the great divergence, Dr. Pomeranz certainly got me thinking about it in a new way.
2.) "Lore of Running, 4th edt." (2003) and "Waterlogged" (2012)
By: Tim Noakes, MD
I combined these two because they are in my mind intimately related. Both works seek to bring the latest in exercise research to the lay-person trying to apply that research in training. Along the way, Dr. Noakes frequently disputes popular theories of exercise performance which do not fit with the available evidence. From his work, I have learned, among other things, about the known effects (long and short term) of overtraining, the available evidence of peaking in performance, and hydration during long endurance events. As important is Dr. Noakes' historical approach, which traces particular ideas in exercise performance from an early date up to the present. His history of training theory in "Lore of Running," and the history of hydration advice in "Waterlogged" both serve as excellent examples of the value in rehashing what has been tried or thought before. If nothing else, such historical digressions provide a good place to begin one's own intellectual journey.
3.) "The European Reformations" (1996)
By: Carter Lindberg
I read this book for a class in college called "European Religious Wars," and again for a class I sat but did not officially take called "The Reformation." The thing I found most thought-provoking in this book were the clear explanations of theology, and how those theological ideas shaped and were shaped by the historical, intellectual, and social context of the Reformation era. Indeed, I've yet to find a better work of history that so effectively explains theology and how it relates to the historical subject.
4.) "Daniels' Running Formula" (1998)
By: Jack Daniels, PhD
This is a staple in the modern coaching literature for distance runners, and it's a good one. In it, Daniels provides a series of tables one can employ to develop a training plan for races from "800m to the marathon." In addition, he stresses the individual training needs, as well as the need to focus on the process of training rather than simply the results of training.
Perhaps the most stimulating aspect of Daniels' book involves the economics of distance training. The basic idea here is that, as when employing economic capital, distance runners should seek to maximize their "running capital" assessing their training needs. In short, the idea is to achieve the maximum benefit from training for the least amount of effort. This involves the employment of stress and recovery, which when combined effectively produce the most fitness gains with the least amount of wear. Ideally a new training stress should be milked for all its benefits before a further stress is added. Finally, the fitness benefits from these new stresses appear to obey the law of diminishing returns, such that each additional amount of stress provides increasingly less additional benefit; conversely, each additional stress also increases the chance of developing an injury. Finding a middle ground between these two curves which effectively meets one's needs and risk-tolerance seems to be at the heart of Daniels' coaching philosophy.
5.) "How to Live: Or A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer" (2010)
By: Sarah Blakewell
This charming biography of the 16th century French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is a creative, fresh way of exploring a person's life, their ideas, and their times. Broken down into 20 thematic chapters, Blakewell provides a rich tapestry of detail, argument, and digression. I particularly enjoyed the way she describes the changing perceptions of Montaigne over time; how in one period he was hailed a great hero of thought, while in another he was loathed as a great deceiver of men. Reading this book encouraged me to read some of Montaigne's Essays myself, and so far it's proved an interesting experience.
6.) "Running Within" (1999)
By: Jerry Lynch and Warren Scott
Originally I borrowed this book from my roommate in college, whose dad left it with him after helping us move in for XC camp. My old roommate never went in for books like this, but I absolutely loved it.
At its root, I think "Running Within" is a book about cultivating healthy attitudes and mental habits related to exercise and performance. Following the opening section (where the concepts are introduced), each chapter concludes with a list of visualization exercises and positive affirmations. The idea is to use these exercises as a way of cultivating a positive mindset while in the midst of difficulty (ex: in a race, a workout, or while recovering from an injury).
It's a touching book, and provoked a lot of thinking on my part about what I want to do when I enter a race, or do anything in life really. One friend called it a "hippie book" when I described it to him, but I liked it a lot.
7.) "The Pillars of the Earth" (1989) and "World Without End" (2007)
By: Ken Follett
I combined these because they're sequels, and quite related. They're both novels of historical fiction, taking place during the late Middle Ages. Among other things, the first details the construction of a Gothic cathedral in England, and the second deals with the Black Plague. Their stories are rich, multi-layered, and laced with great detail.
One feature I liked about both books was the way it intimately portrayed the boom-and-bust cycle of economic activity in the towns involved in the story. Changes in rule-of-law, incentives, pricing, and demand all greatly altered the fortunes of the characters in each tale, which provides a fascinating background over which they seek to adapt and move on.
Some other stimulating books include:
"On War" (1832) by Carl von Clausewitz
"The Confessions of St. Augustine" (398) by Augustine of Hippo
"The Thirty Years' War" (1939) by Georges Pages
"A History of Western Philosophy" (1945) by Bertrand Russel
"The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism" (1989) by Woodruff Smith
Happy Tuesday, friends :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)