Tuesday, November 16, 2010

I hate that it took me 7 weeks to experience “The Social Network”


I guess it would be apropos that I would be at the end of the sloped curve of persons experiencing this movie. I just opened a facebook account this summer, which puts me about 5 years behind that curve as well.

Intellectually there is no solid reason why I waited so long. I saw the trailer in August and loved it. While on the computer that same night I researched the movie and found that one of my favorite writers, Aaron Sorkin, penned the screenplay adaptation from Ben Mezrich book entitled “ The Accidental Billionaires.” So there is no logical reason why it took so long.

An aside, Aaron Sorkin is a brilliant writer. If you’re unaware, he was the creator of “The West Wing” which ran on NBC from 1999-2006. This show is amazing and really gives you an inside look at how political sausage is made on a daily basis. There are 156 episode of classic TV out there just waiting for you. If you haven’t had a chance to experience this show I highly recommend it.

My favorite episode is entitled “Two Cathedrals”. The writing is stellar and the story culminates with the President asking to be left along in the National Cathedral where he questions aloud; life, randomness, death, and the existence of God (in English, and Latin), as he grapples with the senseless death of his close friend and personal secretary Mrs. Landingham.

Sorkin also created “Sports Night” a behind the scenes ESPN style show, and “Studio 60” a dramatic behind the scenes Saturday Night Live style show, both have a cult following but never approached mainstream popularity. These shows are superb and worth a look.

OKAY, getting back to the point here. The Social Network opens in a bar with Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook Founder), and his girlfriend Erica Albright (Muse). They are having a typical conversation that suddenly turns ugly when a shortcoming of Zuckerberg’s is exposed. Feeling threatened he falls back on the one thing that gives him supreme confidence, his superior intellect.

The conversation becomes sharp and frenetic, and evolves into basically a verbal shoot-out at the OK Coral where Albright is carrying a six-shooter, and Zuckerberg an AK-47. This conversation is beautiful because it gives us distinct insight into a genius mind; how it processes words, how it identifies queues, how it interprets syntax, how it parcels context, and unfortunately how it misses humanity.

The six-shooter surrenders and decides to end the relationship with Zuckerberg, which sends him into a dark fertile place where he conceives the facebook idea, as an act of revenge and therapy all at once.

All in all very cool flick. I wish I had seen it when it first came out so I could have had 7 extra weeks with it. Finally….

The story of the movie is told through a narrative of the 2 lawsuits that Zuckerberg is a defendant in. This movie is not for the intellectually squeamish. In fact, at odds, for most of the films is ownership of intellectual property. WHO OWNS IDEAS?
Very interesting concept!

Thursday, November 4, 2010

I hate people who refuse to answer hypothetical questions



Just got done reading "The Shallows" by Nicholas Carr and it reminded me of something I wrote last year. Critical thinking is becoming extinct in our society.

Introduction
I wasn’t there when the first hypothetical question was asked. However, I don’t think I’m taking a logic leap when I say an intellectual person in search of truth probably constructed it. This smart fellow probably was, more than likely, born with an insatiable need to know what people logically thought about things. He probably was blessed with the ability to separate thought from feeling, but encountered people along his journey that, for whatever reason, could not. I’m convinced he sought to know true unadulterated opinion. And of course he wanted to get it before an individuals personal belief system, political correctness reflex, or illogical emotions, hijacked their perfect thought. So he was forced to devise this genius detour “the hypothetical question”.

Let me start by saying, hypothetical questions should be used rarely; only when absolutely necessary. If overused they are liable to destroy the natural flow of conversation. I strongly suggest avoiding them when ever possible because it takes a very skilled person to introduce the question, and then facilitate the answer.

However in our current society: where people pride themselves on personal belief systems, political correctness, and illogical emotions what are we to do? The intellectually curious among us are compelled to ask these questions. We value knowledge and information above everything. We have to know things.



I’ve noticed recently that I’m forced to use too many hypothetical questions during conversations, because people can’t separate their thoughts from their emotions. I can’t get a straight answer because people are too cautious or haven’t dug deep enough to know who they really are. This trend is unsettling. Rational thought is becoming extinct. And society forces me to use hypotheticals so much that I have to use a hypothetical to explain my use of so many hypotheticals. It's exhausting.     


What’s wrong with it?
I have to over-use hypotheticals because people are becoming incestuously intimate with their emotions. It’s gotten to the point that when something happens (anything) the first thing a person thinks of is how it will affect their personal psyche. They can’t see the entire situation because they are wrapped up in how they feel about it. This micro thinking doesn’t lend itself to perfect thought.

The bigger problem however is that people who know better, people that know that this is immature, aren’t standing up and admonishing these freaks. They aren’t holding these people accountable for having to use their perfectly useful rational minds. Many of them have acquiesced, some have jumped ship, while others have committed the most heinous act of treason, and have abandoned logical thought altogether themselves, having joined the Axis of Evil of micro thinkers.

Moreover the macro thinking muscle that we all were born with, that we, once upon a time, used to answer hypothetical questions has atrophied, into this useless mass of nothingness.

At first we dislike hypothetical questions.

Then we refuse to answer hypothetical questions.

And then we finally, sadly, wake up one day and we don’t even have the wherewithal to answer hypothetical questions.

Tell me if this sounds familiar. You’re in the middle of an engaging conversation. You’re about to introduce controversial subject matter. You anticipate resistance, so you enlist the service of a hypothetical, in hopes of circumventing the emotional wall you’re about to run head first into. You craft the perfectly suited hypothetical; that removes word triggers, and conversational speed-bumps, giving your conversation partner the freedom to go in whatever direction he or she chooses. You’re actually proud of yourself. You’ve created the perfect bed to consummate this fantastic mental intercourse. And then, you pause to let your partner take the lead, and they look at you as if you’re the anti-Christ.

Damn!

They become confused.

Discombobulated.






The conversation, all of a sudden, starts to feel like an interrogation. You start to hear responses like:

“I would never do that!”

“ That could never happen!”

And my personal favorite “Why are you trying to make me say something I don’t want to say?”

Conversation over!

Best Practice
We all have to get better at separating emotion from thought. Yes, I know I’m asking a lot but this can be done. We have to first allow ourselves to be uncomfortable for more than 30 seconds. We have to really listen to what others have to say even if it moves us out of our “happy place”. We can’t sterilize everything. We have to throw that security blanket away that our mommies gave us, and take intellectual risks on occasion. Test our boundaries; explore our horizons.

Humans have dominion over the animal kingdom because of our superior intellect. Let’s not lose sight of that? We must not become a people; that is ruled by feeling and emotion. Don’t get me wrong; they both have their place, just not in the realm of perfect thought.

In order for us to reach our true potential, we have to press on to the higher ground of perfect thought; everyday striving to get a little closer to our final destination.



For those that are living in perfect thought already, we must reach back and help our brothers. We can’t stand idle, as our brothers fall in the valley of idiocraty. The great society will settle at the top of the mountain, not at the base. The future of all mankind is riding on our shoulders.

The question “am I my brothers keeper” must be met with a resounding YES!

In a perfect world we would never have to use hypothetical questions. The hypothetical question, although genius, should have never had to come to be. A straightforward question should not be seen as evil. If we ‘d been better stewards of our feelings, hypothetical questions would have never become necessary. But we, of course, live in a very imperfect world. So the next time a hypothetical question is introduced in your conversation don’t run scared. Use it as a path less traveled that will bring you closer to the promise land of perfect thought.