Tag: books

Hugh Howey is an author and he's a fantastic writer.  But he's not your typical author.  Hugh Howey is on the forefront of the future of publishing.  His website gives a status report of the progress he's making on his current projects.  And he engages directly with is fans (I've actually emailed him a few times to report typos I've seen and he's responded each time).

But those are just niceties that any author could be doing.  What sets Howey apart is his understanding that technology has changed the game.  eReaders, on-demand printing, and the Internet overall with easy access to self-run websites and easy-to-use payment systems have changed everything (Amazon is a big player in this new ecosystem).  And not just his understanding about this changing world but his embracing it and pushing it forward.  He's showing everyone else how to be an author in the 21^st century.

I'm a big fan of Howey's.  The first reason is that he's just a fantastic writer.  When I read his work my eyes just glide over the words.  His writing isn't necessarily simple, but it has fantastic flow (his blog post about vocabulary, rhythm, and plot elucidates the point).  It's rare that I stumble over a sentence and have to back up and try again when reading his work.  It's incredible and it makes you want to just keep reading because you barely notice that you are, in fact, reading.

I started with Howey by reading The Wool Omnibus based off a recommendation from the GeekDad blog.  I was hooked.  I needed more.  I quickly devoured the Shift stories that act as a prequel to Wool.  And then I anxiously waited for the conclusion, Dust.  Since then I've breezed through Half Way Home and was just in time to catch the release of the Sand Omnibus.  And I still want more.  (Word of warning: Howey's characters due use expletives on a not-irregular basis, in case that bothers you.)

But he's more than just a fantastic author.  As I said, he sees where publishing is going.

Howey refuses to cripple his eBook works with DRM.  He understands how DRM hurts the very people that support him.  I really appreciate this.

He refuses to sell his soul to a publishing company.  While he now has made deals with publishing companies it's always on his terms (something they told him repeatedly was never going to happen, until it did; they caved, he won).

He refuses to gouge his customers, because to him we're not customers, were fans.  And you need to treat your fans right.  His works are always made available at reasonable prices right out of the gate.  The cost of seeing if you like Howey's writing is so small that you don't even have to think about it.  No one likes dropping $20 on a book and not liking it.  Libraries are great for mitigating this issue, but $0.99 for the first slice of a story is great too.  In fact, right now, you can pick up Wool Part 1 for FREE, that's right, $0.00 for the eBook.  Even if you don't have an eReader you can read it on your computer, or your phone, or your tablet to see if you like it.  Then you can buy the physical book if you want or pick up the rest of the parts in eBook form.

He refuses to restrict other authors' creativity and interests.  He has given his blessing to other authors to explore the worlds he has created.  This is why if you look on Amazon you will find dozens of fan-fiction stories set in his worlds.  He understands that not only does this not hurt him or his work in any way; it helps his fans build a robust and excited community.  A community that will eagerly fall over itself to buy his next story and see where they can take those worlds.

I anxiously await more stories from Howey.

To start, an anonymous commenter asked me to read this book. It is unlikely I would have selected this for reading material without prompting.  Also, I know nothing about Jonah Goldberg outside of this book.  I don't know who he is, what he does, or why anyone should care what he thinks.  So my opinions are not built around any personal like or dislike of Goldberg himself.

I'd like to preface my remarks by plainly admitting that clichés generally lack depth and nuance.  Generally because it's hard to include depth and nuance in an one-sentence sound-bite.  But just because they have obvious and glaring exceptions does not mean there's nothing worth hearing from them.

I'll even agree with Goldberg that when clichés are used as discussion-enders the people who use them as such do a disservice to society.  Like using Wikipedia for research, clichés should be a starting point rather than a stopping point.

Honestly, I kept this as short as I could, but it's still longer than I'd like for a blog post.  But let's get started.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Goldberg introduces his book with his criticism for "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."  One example he uses is Martin Luther King Jr.:

Most reasonable and decent people would recoil at the suggestion that Martin Luther King was a terrorist (some liberals might interject at this point and say, "Aha, but some Southern racists said exactly that about King!," to which a sane person would respond, "Yes, and they were wrong to do so"). (p5)

Goldberg takes an example entirely supporting the idea the cliché represents and then dismisses it because the people holding the viewpoint that King was a terrorist are wrong.  This seems to be a blatant misunderstanding of what the phrase is trying to say.  The phrase is saying that people can view the same situation in completely opposite ways and that to each person their own viewpoint is the valid one.

Similarly, he says it's ludicrous to suggest that George Washington and Osama bin Laden could be viewed as either terrorist or freedom fighter.  Which, of course, they can be if you understand how to view the world from someone else's point of view.  I imagine the British would have happily (and in their eyes, rightly) labeled George Washington a terrorist had the word been used then as it is now.  I also easily imagine that the followers of Osama bin Laden view him as a martyr for their cause for freedom from Western oppression (as they view it).  This does not mean that we can't also view those same examples differently and apply our own moral reasoning.

Goldberg, however, refuses to anyone a point of view which conflicts with his personal sense of morals.  Osama bin Laden can't be a freedom fighter because he wanted to oppress women.  Washington can't be a terrorist because he wanted to create a nation of freedom.  And that's essentially where his argument ends, but not before calling anyone who disagrees "a terrorist sympathizer," "an idiot," or "frightened." (pp4-5)

Centrists, Moderates, Independents and Compromise

Next Goldberg attacks political moderates and the concept of compromise:

The independents and moderates who just grab stuff from this shelf, then from that shelf, like a panicked survivor of the dawn of the dead grabbing what he or she can from the supermarket before the zombies spot her, do not value consistency at all. (p7)

After an eighteen-month campaign, all of the informed, conscious, and ideologically consistent voters have already made up their minds.  All that's left are the undecided centrists, who actually think they have the more sophisticated and serious position; their indecision comes, actually, by virtue of the fact that they've either not paid much attention until way too late in the game, or more simply, they're a**holes (sic) who think they must be the center of the universe. (p8)

If I say we need one hundred feet of bridge to cross a one-hundred-foot chasm that makes me an extremist.  Somebody else says we don't need to build a bridge at all because we don't need to cross the chasm in the first place.  That makes him an extremist.  The third guy is the centrist because he insists that we compromise by building a fifty-foot bridge that ends in the middle of thin air?...The independent who splits the difference has no idea what to do and doesn't want to bother with figuring it out. (p7)

If that's not arrogant, intentional misunderstanding then I'm not sure what is.

He seems to be unable to grasp the concept that a voter may not like any available candidate because none of them particularly align with the voter's ideology; and, therefore, they spend more time trying to decide what to do than a voter who is perfectly aligned.

These excerpts perfectly show Goldberg's reasoning throughout the book:  There are only 2 valid viewpoints, the "liberal" one and the "conservative" one.  And if you don't fit into one of those two bins it's because you "do not value consistency at all",  "[have] no idea what to do and [don't] want to bother with figuring it out", or "[are an] asshole who [thinks you] must be the center of the universe."

When a situation is complex and not easily divided into two sides Goldberg sets up a false dichotomy and then attacks the side he doesn't like.

This leads me to my biggest problem throughout the entire book: Goldberg rarely has anything constructive to say.  Almost every chapter is an angry attack made of emotional vitriol.  Sadly, I rather expected this type of one-sided rhetoric given that the subtitle of the book is, "How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas."  He makes no secret that it's going to be an assault rather than a discussion.

Which is really too bad.  At times you can see that he's intelligent and able to form meaningful thoughts.  And he could have written a book I probably would have really enjoyed; that is, if he had attempted to present a remotely fair view of the topics.  But instead it's all, "I'm right; everyone else is an idiot" (I suppose that's what sells books).  [I'm not even saying he shouldn't pick a side, but at least give the other position a fair shake and then argue for a side instead of just attacking the other.]

Dissent

Liberals are uncomfortable with the topic of patriotism because their core philosophical impulses are to make America a different country than it is.  This is not an evil impulse, and it can certainly manifest itself in patriotic ways.  More importantly, it can manifest itself in humane and decent ways.  But at the most basic level love is about acceptance.  If you are constantly trying to change the person you claim to love into someone he or she is not, there comes a point when it's reasonable to ask whether you really, truly, deeply love the person for who he or she is.  Barack Obama campaigned promising to "fundamentally transform" America.  We would not think a husband who promises to "fundamentally transform" his wife has a healthy love for her. (pp127-128)

In a incredible manipulation of words Goldberg equates patriotism to love and then argues that anyone who wants to change the country (specifically President Obama) doesn't love the country and is equivalent to an abusive husband who demands his wife change to suit his whims [seriously?!--yes he's entirely serious].  (Also, stay tuned for a future blog post discussing nationalism compared to patriotism.)

"Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned"

This, I presume, was the impetus for the commenter asking me to provide a review.  In the aforementioned post I made this remark, "...my predilection for the idea that it is better to let 10 guilty persons go free than to convict 1 innocent person."

This chapter, like a few others, is rather bizarre in that Goldberg never makes any point.  First he rambles on for four pages on the idea that it would be insane to release 10 prisoners every time a defendant was found not guilty in court (or some variation on that theme).  And, yes, it would be rather silly to embark in such behavior.

He then goes on to say that of course that's not what anyone means when they use the phrase.  He then spends one page defending the principle that the phrase represents (that we should have a justice system that errs in favor of the defendants).  He then ends the chapter with this paragraph:

But the phrase becomes pernicious and dangerous when it is used to change the subject from actual and specific questions of guilt or innocence.  If Joe the Accountant is guilty, he is guilty.  Too often, when people invoke n guilty men what they are in fact trying to do is change the subject.  They corral an abstraction--"the system"--because they are uncomfortable arguing the facts in question. The implication is that they are arguing with somebody.  But who are they arguing with?  Not the judge, nor the prosecutor, nor the loved ones seeking justice for the dead, nor the other guests on the cable talk show.  It is a debater's talking point preloaded with its own straw man.  As such it is a way to fend off an argument rather than a means of making one. (p158)

Now, I've read it several times over and I can't make any meaningful sense out of it--especially not as the scathing criticism over the phrase that it's apparently supposed to be.  I guess he's arguing that some people try to use the phrase as a defense for letting someone escape justice?  I've never come across such usage, but then I don't spend my time watching talk shows (where he implies this occurs).

Which leads me to my concluding topic.

In many, if not most, of his chapters he sets up some grand argument (usually a false dichotomy) and then attacks the "liberal" side as being absurd/stupid/ignorant/etc. and rarely actually defends the "conservative" side.  But much of the time I found myself simply not caring, because I personally didn't agree with either side he posited.  But, as I previously mentioned, to him that simply makes me either ignorant, lazy, or an asshole; so take your pick.

I've been on a bit of a post-apocalyptic fiction binge. I've just finished reading three cold-war-era, post-nuclear-war books.

I started with Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank.  Published in 1959, it details a small town's struggle to cope with the results of a U.S.-U.S.S.R. nuclear war.  Much of the U.S. survives the war and enough government continues to exist to maintain order and rebuild the nation.

The bulk of the story is concerned with the need to find safe drinking water, food, sanitation, and supplies; the loss of electricity; the lack of medicines; etc.  The town creates a trading post where people can barter for supplies.  Some townspeople breakdown and can't deal with it, some townspeople take advantage of the situation to loot, rob, and steal.  The characters deal with reinstating order and protecting the town while waiting for contact from the outside world.

It was interesting and I really enjoyed it.  But, I feel like it may have been a little too optimistic.  Compared to the other books it feels lighthearted.  Sure some things go poorly and people die, but overall things aren't so bad.

In counterpoint is A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr., published in 1960.  It covers the rebirth of civilization after a nuclear apocalypse.  Rather than a survival story, though, it's written in a much different style.  The only other work like it I know of is Asimov's Foundation Trilogy (which were published in 1951, 1952, 1953--I wonder if Miller read them and borrowed the idea).  Meaning, it's not a story of a character or set of characters, but it's a story of a civilization.  The book covers about 1200 years starting many centuries past the nuclear apocalypse and eventually seeing civilization obliterate itself again in another nuclear apocalypse.

After the initial nuclear war, civilization collapsed and slipped into warring tribes and factions.  A surviving scientist realized the threat to mankind's knowledge and worked with the surviving Catholic church to found a monastic order dedicated to seeking out and preserving knowledge.  These monks dedicated the centuries to collecting, preserving, and copying what they could find of any and all of mankind's knowledge; waiting and hoping for a day when that knowledge would help mankind rebuild civilization.

Miller does an excellent job of allowing the history of the world and civilization's downfall to devolve into mythology that then become wrapped up into the remnants of Catholicism.  It's a fairly intellectual-level book.  It's not about action, emotion, or being absorbed by the characters, it's about the big picture.

Filling in the gap between immediate survival and civilization's collapse is Nevil Shute's hauntingly effective On the Beach, published in 1957.  In this version of nuclear holocaust the Southern Hemisphere is uninvolved in the nuclear war that encompasses the whole of the Northern Hemisphere.  Set two years after the war we follow the dying struggles of the Australian continent.  Having not participated in the war they have no direct losses, but the extreme radiological contamination in the atmosphere is slowly working its way to their continent.

Two American nuclear submarines survived the conflict and, having placed themselves at the disposal of surviving governments, perform scouting missions in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans searching for survivors in the Northern Hemisphere.  None are found.  The fallout slowly works its way south killing everything in its path.

Even with two years knowledge of their fate the population begins to fray as normal behavior becomes meaningless in the face of having only months, then weeks, then days left to live.  Slowly they lose contact with the remaining more-northern cities around the world as the contamination settles in.  Knowing their fate the government has prepared suicide capsules and injections, to be dispersed as the end draws near, to allow the people to die painlessly.

The novel ends as the young mother and father and their infant daughter become symptomatic.  As their sickness progresses they make the painful decision to inject their suffering baby and then take their own capsules, saving themselves from the final agonies of radiation-poisoning.  It was heart-wrenching and incredibly effective (perhaps especially to someone with an infant daughter sleeping in the next room).

On the Beach is easily the most depressing, and one of the most powerful, books I've read.  Yet even so, I'm not sure I'd say I enjoyed reading it, but it's definitely worth reading.

In Part 1 I discussed Kohn's argument for rewards/punishments creating self-centered individuals and how urging a focus on rewards/punishments can have unintended consequences by encouraging short-cutting the desired behavior in order to satisfy the requirements of receiving the reward or avoiding the punishment.

In Part 2 I discussed motivation and the interaction between it and rewards/punishments.

Here, in Part 3, I will go over Kohn's suggested alternatives to rewards and punishments.

-----------------

If you have now bought in to the idea that rewards and punishments are not only ineffective but counter-productive, long term, (and even if you haven't) then you likely want to know what Kohn suggests as an alternative.

He starts with an important question, "What is your goal?"  If your goal is to simply elicit compliance with your demands then there may not be an alternative to rewards and punishment and you probably don't need one.  So the first question is, do you want blind obedience or internalization of principles?  Back in part 1 I asked you to consider the question of what is is you want your employee/student/child to achieve.  This is where it really matters.

When parents are asked what kind of people they want their children to become they usually respond with things along the lines of: caring, responsible, hard working, self reliant, upstanding, principled, etc.  Unfortunately, with the possible exception of "hard working," rewards/punishments will help develop none of these qualities.

Rewards and punishments make an appeal to authority and self-interest for why we should behave certain ways.  You do this because someone in authority says so and if you don't that person will make your life unpleasant.  You do that because someone in authority says so and if you do that person will make your life more pleasant.  It's condescending.  But it does encourage unquestioning obedience to power.  It reinforces the idea that "might equals right."  But we can pretty much all agree that it is a flawed sentiment.  It is not inherently correct to obey someone because they have more power than you do.

They also contribute to the idea that it's OK to manipulate the people around you to get what you want.  Is that not exactly what is happening when a parent bribes a child to pick up their toys?  Is that not exactly what is happening when a teacher promises a class party if everyone gets an A on the test?  And is that not exactly what is happening when an employer promises bonuses to (or threatens firing) employees based on their performance?

Just think how disturbing it would be to witness a husband tell his wife, "If you have all the floors clean when I come home I'll bring you some flowers."  So why do we think it's fundamentally different when we turn around and say to a child, "If you pick up all your toys I'll give you some ice-cream."?  It seems clear that the lesson is that manipulation is not only acceptable, but desirable.

The Alternatives

One piece of the alternative solution is to appeal to reason and empathy in our behavioral guidance (in so far as the situation permits).  "Because I said so" is one of the most useless phrases of parenting and almost universally breeds resentment.  It directly says that there isn't any meaningful reason to take this action other than I want you to and I'm in charge so you have to do as I say.  It comes with no influencing power except the threat of punishment for non-compliance.

Instead of threats or bribes, Kohn suggests explaining the reasoning behind a request.  A calm reasoned approach to help a person understand why they should do something.  As a manager telling your employees they'll be working late tonight is disrespectful.  Explaining to them that such-and-such needs to be done before tomorrow morning, and that you realize it's unpleasant to stay late, is less likely to result in disgruntled resentment (though it probably still won't make anyone happy).

Explaining to a student the utility of learning calculus is more effective (at least it was for me) than just saying it's part of the curriculum.  This idea really resonated with me because I always found a subject more interesting if I could see useful applications of it within my life.  Understanding that calculus was invented in order to accurately describe physics made it more interesting (especially when applied to specific problems).  Doing contrived problem set after contrived problem set of multi-variable equations while in college was not interesting.

Now, I'm sure every parent is going scoff at the idea of calmly explaining to your toddler why drawing on the wall with poop is unacceptable.  But what are they learning if you punish them?  They might learn that drawing on the wall with poop is unacceptable, they might learn that they need to be more careful not to get caught, or they might learn that you're mean and bully people around.  You don't get to control what they learn from the punishment.  So is trying to explain really such a horrible thing?

For those wondering, yes, Alfie Kohn does have children.  He freely admits that it is hard to use his recommended approach.  It requires a lot of patience.  It is much less effort to simply bribe or threaten, but the research still stands that the long-term consequences will be negative.

"Working with" Rather than "Doing to"

One of Kohn's themes is the idea of approaching children with an attitude of "working with" rather than "doing to."  He suggests that at some point our relationship with our children needs to change from doing things to them to doing things with them (or working with them to solve problems).  When you have an infant you take them on a walk.  As they grow our mindset should change to going on a walk with them.  This is the fundamental shift behind the idea of working with rather than doing to.

To acknowledge that at some point the child is becoming an individual with their own ideas, emotions, and desires is to realize that doing things "to" them can be as disrespectful as doing things "to" another adult.  He suggests we can apply the three C's to help with this process: Content, Collaboration, Choice.  And I'll keep this brief, since we're running quite long now.

Content

Kohn suggests we should reevaluate our requests.  Does what we're asking make sense?  Is it reasonable?  Is there a good reason behind it or is it solely for our convenience?  Is it fair to demand compliance solely for our own convenience?

Collaboration

Kohn suggests that when a child makes a mistake we should try to work with them to find a way to make the situation right rather than punish.  Instead of bribing them to do what we want we should try to work with them to get the task done (in so far as the task permits).  With this approach a child is more likely to learn that they can come to you for help fixing something when they make a mistake instead of trying to hide from you to avoid punishment.  They can learn that you are there to help and not to bully.

Choice

This should be the opportunity for children to make real choices in their life.  This is not the idea of choices where we use the words "you chose" as a lead up to a punishment ("You chose to color on the wall, so you chose to go to your room.").  It is also not the idea of choices where we offer a couple of acceptable options so that we get what we want no matter the "choice."  This can even mean allowing children to make bad choices (when the results will hopefully present a learning scenario and not lead to permanent damage).

This is the process of letting children become autonomous.  In order to learn how to live their own life they need to be given the opportunity to make choices.  A lack of this opportunity sometimes manifests itself in complete disaster then the child finally leaves home to live their own life.  A sudden requirement of making choices can be disastrous to someone who hasn't had the opportunity to do so in an environment where it is easy to recover from bad choices.

Developing a self-awareness and autonomy can help children develop and uphold ethical and moral principles.  When they've been taught that they can and should think for themselves they'll be much more likely to stand up for the things they think and believe when challenged.  They'll also be less likely to accept outside influences because they will have learned the value of their own autonomy.

Final Thoughts

Due to length I've ignored most of the business applications that Kohn discusses.  They're also very interesting and Kohn dives into them fully in the book.

If you can't tell, I found the book very interesting, but I've done a weak and short job of presenting Kohn's ideas here.  If you found them intriguing I highly recommend you pick up the book and read through it yourself.  I hope to be able to apply Kohn's suggestions in my life.  I think it represents a better way of dealing with people, including children.  I don't want to control or manipulate my children because I hate being controlled and manipulated.  I do want to help them grow into responsible, caring, self-aware, principled adults.  And I realize it will be difficult to do so.

In Part 1 I discussed Kohn's argument for rewards/punishments creating self-centered individuals and how urging a focus on rewards/punishments can have unintended consequences by encouraging short-cutting the desired behavior in order to satisfy the requirements of receiving the reward or avoiding the punishment.

Here, in Part 2, I will discuss motivation and the interaction between it and rewards/punishments.

And in Part 3 I'll go over Kohn's alternatives to rewards and punishments.

----------

Many people want an answer to the question, "How do I motivate my employees/students/children?"  Kohn's response is that you don't.  The best you can do is get demotivators out of their way and provide a nurturing, encouraging, environment.

Well, surely this isn't right.  If I tell my kid that for every piece of paper they fold in half I'll give them a dollar it's almost a sure bet that I won't be able to find an unfolded piece of paper before long.  Certainly that means the promise of payment motivated the child to fold paper, right?  And you are absolutely right.  So let's discuss what Kohn means and how it applies.

Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation

We make a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.  Intrinsic motivation is your internal desire to do something.  It stems from your own interest in the matter and the enjoyment you find in pursuing it.  Extrinsic motivation is applied from the outside--it is external to your self.  Paying someone money to do something is to give them an extrinsic motivator.  The idea is that we only do things that we are motivated to do, however that motivation may be either intrinsic or extrinsic.  And there's a big difference between the two.

A person motivated intrinsically is much more likely to persevere at a difficult task and for much longer periods of time than someone motivated extrinsically.  Many actions undertaken because of extrinsic motivation will quickly disappear once the outside factor is removed.

What's really interesting, however, is the interaction between the two.  Extrinsically motivated actions often disappear at the loss of the motivator, but extrinsic motivation can actually replace intrinsic motivation and getting the intrinsic motivation back is difficult.  That is to say, if a child enjoys drawing pictures and you tell them you'll pay them for each picture they draw (and do), and then you stop paying them, the child is very likely to no longer have an interest in drawing pictures (at least for some period of time).  You have, essentially, ripped from them their intrinsic motivation, replaced it with an external motivator, and then took away the external motivator.

Think about what this means, long term, for the kinds of things to which we apply extrinsic motivators.  It is possible (though not assured) that you can destroy the joy someone finds in an activity by actively rewarding them for doing the activity.

Consequences of Extrinsic Motivators

The ability for extrinsic to replace intrinsic motivation is not the end of the problems though.  Extrinsic motivators work great on simple, mechanical tasks.  However, they fail miserably at tasks requiring creativity or complex problem solving.  In fact, not only do they fail, they result in worse performance than when no extrinsic motivator is present.  One possible explanation is that because the motivator focuses our attention on the motivator rather than the task we fail to think deeply about the task in our rush to obtain the reward or avoid the punishment.

Artistic works produced for commissions are judged to be less creative than those done without.  Students take longer trying to find the solution to creative problems when told their performance is being measured.   When performance is being measured and reported students become more interested in how they're doing compared to their peers than how they're doing on the task.

Extrinsic motivators also harm the relationship between the motivator and the motivatee.  It sets the two apart as one having power and the other not.  It sets up a relationship of control rather than respect.  It often leads to resentment.

And there are plenty of other problems with the use of extrinsic motivators.

Nurturing Intrinsic Motivation

I stated at the beginning that Kohn's recommendation was to remove demotivators instead of enacting extrinsic motivators.  This is, of course, much harder than just promising rewards.  Part 3 will discuss some of the alternatives.