Matt Metzgar

Making Changes

I'm fairly certain my neighbors are alcoholics.  Twice a week I see their trash can out front loaded with empty beer bottles.  Whenever they're out on their porch, I hear the clang of beer bottles. 

Do people like this ever change?  And how did they end up down this road in the first place?  You read about Alcoholics Anonymous and how it helps people.  But a couple of years ago I dug a little deeper and found this not to be true.  Though the media promotes AA as successful, the numbers say otherwise.

One thing I do remember reading is the process of people who were successful in cleaning up.  It was often a gradual process, where the person would drink less and less, and still occassionally have a few beers.  But these people were successful in bringing their drinking down to a normal, social level. 

I think the idea that alcoholics should stop drinking cold-turkey is flawed.  It may work for some, but it probably fails for most.  It's very reasonable to make changes in small, measured steps.  To completely remove an ingrained habit is not only difficult, but the burden of trying to do it all in one fell swoop may make it virtually impossible.

Guru-less

I think one of the hardest things to do in modern life is to listen to your own internal promptings.  With the internet and other modern forms of media, there is so much information and countless points of view.  I would think a century ago a person's possible influencers were much fewer.

One of the worst parts about the internet is that you can find "sources" to back up whatever viewpoint you like.  Take running for example.  I can find sources that show how healthy it is, and I can find sources that say the contrary.  It's just too easy to rationalize what you do by only looking for supporting evidence.

Not only can you find whatever evidence is convenient for your truth, you can find a guru who espouses it.  It seems the world has an infinite supply of people who are short on knowledge but long on confidence.

Our natural instincts, while not always correct, have guided us properly through millions of years of evolution.  It should be obvious that they are more valuable than the sales pitch of some charlatan. 

The Natural Drive To Work

With technological progress, there are now a lot of jobs that just aren't that exciting.  I think men, due to their psychology, suffer the most in this type of environment.

For millions of years, men were the hunters.  Every other day or so, they would go out together in a band of men and hunt down prey.  Each person played a role on the hunt based on their special skills.  The judgement of their work was simple: either they acquired food or they didn't. 

Now put that same male mind in a 21st centruy job.  He often works alone, not with other male companions.  The job tasks are usually mental (computer-based), not physical.  And how is his work judged?  Others often don't know, don't understand, or really don't care about his work.

I think what modern employers don't get is that men (and women to a lesser extent) have a natural desire to work, to produce something of value.  Only a few people would be happy being a beach bum all their lives.  Even those who are independently wealthy continue to work.

To me, there has to be a better way to set up work so it coincides with the male psyche better.  I see so many adult males that look beat-down, and I think work is the main issue.  I used to think that health was the issue, but now I think it's secondary.  If someone has a strong purpose, they can keep going even if their body is falling apart.  Employers need to set up environments that give men the freedom to produce something of value.

When Success Isn't Success

I've run into a number of people in life who personify the title of this blog post, "when success isn't success."  These people have all the trappings and outward signs of success, but in reality, have accomplished very little in life.

The corporate ladder is rife with people such as these.  They may hold prestigious sounding positions and make a good amount of money.  But actually, their contribution to the company may be minimal, or the contribution the company makes to society is very little.

How about an executive for a tobacco company?  Is there anything redeeming about a position such as this?  They promote poisonous, additive substances to the masses.  Isn't it strange that society looks down at drug dealers, but an executive for a tobacco might garner respect in some circles?

The tobacco industry is an extreme example, but there's many other companies whose contribution to society is minimal.  They may get work through favors and contacts, yet the work they produce may actually be of no value.  But from the outside, the company's employees appear successful, driving the fancy cars and showing up in all the right places.

I bet there are people working for non-profit agencies who produce 100 times more value than a high-paid executive in your average company.  I wish these people received more attention, press, and compensation. 

Distortionary Motives

After my last post on profit, I have also come to the conclusion that the profit motive has other negative consequences.  In Las Vegas, the most obvious example is the intertwining of gambling with most everything else.  While casinos draw people in with glitz and glamour, don't be fooled: their motive is to ruthlessly extract as much money as possible from you.

If you walk through a casino, you will notice that there is almost no open space.  There are no places to hang out, to relax and separate yourself from gambling.  You can go to the bar, but video gambling machines are built into all the bar counters.  There are no clocks, and there are usually no maps to show the way out.  To me, their message is clear: they want as much of your money as possible, regardless of what may benefit you.

Even if you don't go to the casinos in Vegas, you will be assaulted by video gambling machines: in the airport, at gas stations, even at the grocery store.  Does anyone even pretend that all of this is good for people?  Does having gambling machines at the grocery store enhance anyone's quality of life?  Please. 

Such are the problems when an industry ruled by the profit motive is allowed to run amuck in a city.  Some definitions may help clear things up: the purpose of a community is to protect and enhance the quality of life of its members.  Good businesses provide something of value to the community while, of course, making a profit if they are to stay in business.  Other businesses prey on human weakness or produce products that appear to be valuable, though they are really not.

Casinos fall into the latter category, yet, they are given prime importance here.  On the other hand, community is not.  Las Vegas has one of the lowest amounts of open space (like parks) per person out of the whole country.  Other things that would benefit the community have also been squeezed out because more public services means more taxes on the casino industry.  But hey, who needs good parks, schools, and medical services if they've got keno at the grocery store?

Profit and Value

Though I am trained as an economist, I have begun having some doubts lately a certain principle: that profit is a function of value.  For a long time, I have thought the two usually go together, except for the occassional con-artist who separates people from their money.  Standard economics says that when entrepreneurs create value, they will be rewarded by profit in our system.

Yet after thinking about the subject more, I believe it is likely that the two don't go together, and if they do interesect, it's by coincidence.  Let me give a few examples. 

The easiest domain to start is work.  Here in Las Vegas I have run into a number of people who are really producing nothing of value, yet are doing well financially.  This may be because customers perceive the product to have value, or they are getting work due to favoritism, or they are in an organization where they can do nothing but still receive a paycheck.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have dedicated teachers making very little money.  There's probably also an army of coaches who work with young people yet receive a paltry income for it.  There are plently of other examples of people doing valuable work but receiving low pay.

On the false value front, real estate is a prime example of an arena where a person can make money but literally produce nothing of value.  During 2004-2005, real estate investors were making a killing in Las Vegas because housing prices increased by 50%.  In many cases, people bought a property then flipped it a few months later for a profit.  But nothing about the property had changed: the house was the same as when it was originally bought.  No value was created.

As far as products sold, I also am seeing less and less of a tie between profit and value.  Look at all these bogus weight loss and exercise products out there.  Are they creating any value?  No.  But many of them are certainly profitable.  A big factor driving purchase decisions is the perception of value or the expectation that the product will be valuable.  But in the end, many goods fail to live up to this.  However, they are profitable and continue to be for years.

I thought about this when I was in the bookstore the other day.  All these books are fighting for readers' attention, claiming they are valuable.  But how many truly are?  Probably very few, but the rest all sell on the false hope that they will be of value to the person purchasing them.

Hope

The little league post triggered thoughts about another subject for me: hope.  When I lived in Canton, Ohio, I was always surprised at the emotion invested in neighboring Massillon's high school football team.  Massillon has won a number of championships, but it has been quite a while since their last one.  Every year before the season started, you could sense the optimism in the town growing, and also the sense that, "this could be the year".

What was the big deal, I wondered?  They had won championships before, and will probably win again (they almost did last year).  But even if they did win, would anything in the town change?  Would the lives of the fans be that different?

I've thought about this a great deal, and I believe that hope is a value unto itself, regardless of whether the outcome one is hoping for ever comes true.  To say it differently, I think being hopeful facilitates an optimistic outlook on things, and this outlook yields benefits in life.

For example, why did Boston Red Sox fans stick with their team through decades of failure until they finally won the World Series?  I would argue that the Red Sox provided them an opportunity to exhibit optimism.  It almost seems like things would have been better if the Red Sox didn't win.  If you've been waiting your whole life for the Red Sox to win, and then they finally do, then what do you have to look forward to? 

Further, why do many people cheer for underdogs?  If people only looked at things statistically, they would cheer the favorite.  Underdogs win less often, but when they do win it's sweeter.  And along the way, fans of underdogs have had an outlet for their optimism.  It would be neat to test this and see if optimists are more likely to cheer for underdogs than pessimists.

I also think of the old movie, "Midnight Cowboy", starring Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight.  Dustin Hoffman plays a character "Ratso" Rizzo, who dreams of moving to Florida and finding happiness.  This dream drives him throughout the movie, but "Ratso" dies at the end of the movie riding the bus to Florida. 

Yet whether the character made it to Florida or not seems inconsequential.  The seemingly unattainable dream gave Rizzo a purpose, something to hope for.  Just like the Massillon Tigers give their community something to hope for each fall. 

So what about people who buy exercise devices but then never use them?  Was it a wasteful decision?  Perhaps in some ways, but I would argue that this action has other indirect benefits: they chose to be hopeful, they took action, and this series of events most likely put them in a good mood.  The person is in effect "exercising" hope and optimism, thereby strengthening their psychological resources for the future.

If all this is true, maybe little leaguers dreaming of the big leagues isn't all bad.  They are learning to dream big and be optimistic, and that in itself has tremendous value.

Pay It Forward

I finally figured out how to put a new image link on the sidebar.  In keeping with the holiday season, I put up a link for Toys for Tots.  Our family had a good year financially, so I thought it was appropriate to share the wealth, and therefore made a small donation.

On a related note, I have been seeing more mention in the media about the "pay it forward" concept.  Originally, I had no idea what this meant, so I did a little research.  The phrase comes from a book, Pay It Forward, by Catherine Ryan Hyde.  The book is fiction, but its story serves to showcase the pay it forward concept.  The idea is simple: when someone does something nice for you, instead of paying them back you "pay it forward" (do something nice for someone else).  This would then create a chain reaction, where one good deed leads to countless others.

There is now a Pay It Forward foundation, that has some educational resources and other assorted materials.  The phrase "pay it forward" was also mentioned prominently in this week's episode of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.  Here's hoping that the idea spreads in 2006.

Success/Failure

I read a book this weekend, "The Art of Possibility", that really changed my view on some things.  A lot of it is connected to my previous post on the undersampling of failure.  One of the main themes of the book is how the whole viewpoint of success/failure is inappropiate in a lot of cases. 

The book illustrates how life is a process and how focusing on individual events as successes or failures is often unnecessary.  For example, let's say a musician releases a number of songs over the years, some top hits and some bombs.  These individual songs can be viewed as successes or failures, but these labels miss the whole point: the musician is growing and trying new things, and the various songs are just part of the process.  The top hits could not have come without the bombs, because it is this experimentation, this trial and error, that leads to new songs and outcomes.

This is where the media misses the boat.  The often paint the picture of successful people as walking down a golden path in life.  They do not point out the many missteps along the way.  And by doing this they designate failure as something to avoid, rather than a natural part of the growth process.  

For example, Pablo Picasso created more than 20,000 art objects in his lifetime.  What percentage of these creations were masterpieces?  Very few.  Yet these masterpieces would not have come about without his constant experimentation.  Wouldn't anyone produce a few gems if they made 20,000 pieces of art?

This reminds me of a research experiment I read about years ago (I've been unable to find the source).  Students signing up for an art class were divided into two sections.  One section had all semester long to produce one piece of art.  They were to be graded on this piece and it would be their only grade.  The other section was graded on quantity - how many pieces they produced.  At the end of the semester, the group who spent all semester on one piece were judged poorly, while the group that cranked out pieces actually produced better work. 

Again this shows that development is a process, and that success/failure labels are not always necessary.  Feedback is what is needed, not the stigma that comes with along with judgment. 

Further, stigmatizing success or failure often creates tension that restricts performance.  Everyone knows that "choking" is when someone tenses up when victory is near.  Yet one is less likely to choke if they focus on the process and not the outcome.

Failure and success are simply stops along the road of development and learning.  Viewing everything through this lense is not necessary and creates undue stress and pressure.

Undersampling of Failure

Can you learn to be successful by studying successful people?  Many people would say yes.  Yet some recent research by Jerker Denrell shows that studying success is only half of the equation.  Failure must also be studied, even though it is typically minimized and swept under the rug.

Denrell points out how some characteristics, such as risk-taking, may be present in both those who are successful and those who are not.  A risky move that turns out to be successful is regarded as "visionary", while a risk that doesn't pay off is considered "reckless".   

The media often focuses on people's success while barely acknowledging their failures along the way.  For example, Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, failed a number of times before he hit it big with MicroSolutions.  In one of his blog entries, he recounts his many mistakes and setbacks, such as trying to sell powdered milk and getting fired from a software company.  He points out that "no one really asks me" about these failures.  All they want to hear about is how he made millions (and how they can too).