Observations-Memorial Day 2021

As is the habit on Memorial Days, people are expressing their gratitude for those who have sacrificed their lives in defense of this nation. The tributes range from simple statements of thanks to elaborate postings on social media and displays of thanks in their front yards in the form of flags and other tributes.

What has always nagged at me has been the question: is this it? Is this all that we can do? Or is this all that we are willing to sacrifice in recognition of those who have given their lives, the ultimate sacrifice?

It seems incongruent to me that in view of the gravity of the sacrifices that we are commemorating, all we do in response is to have sales on merchandise that none of us truly need, have barbecues, and consume massive quantities of alcohol. It is also the marking of the beginning of Summer, which is also seemingly incongruent.

It is beyond ironic that we commemorate the past deeds of heroism by celebrating so frivolously. Yet, that is in keeping with the nature of our habits as a nation. We invoke the past to inspire and to lecture those who are still living on the importance of duty, on the meaning of living in a democracy, and on the demands of being a citizen; yet when it comes to living those lessons, on demonstrating that we have, indeed, internalized those lessons, we abdicate our responsibilities to the democracy. Instead, we behave more in keeping with celebrating the beginning the Summer than with commemorating the sacrifices that brought us our prosperity.

In this Summer of 2021, after having gone through the year 2020 and having suffered through a pandemic and inept handling of that pandemic, one would think that giving thanks and remembering those who had sacrificed their lives in service to us would be foremost on our minds. Yet all I see is wanton disregard for the gravitas of the occasion, selfish indulgence of our perceived privileges that was a gift from those who we should be memorializing, and selective amnesia of our past in deference to the worship of a mythological glory that never was.

I know this next thought might be unpopular, but I think it is worthy of proposing. It is estimated, as of April 2021, that 3,500 healthcare workers in the US have perished from COVID-19 in leading the fight against the virus. The WHO estimates that 115,000 healthcare workers  worldwide have perished in the battle to keep people alive. In examining their motivation as they gave up their lives for the masses, I see similarities between those who died in battle in defense of our freedom and those who died in defense of our health. There was great uncertainty in knowing who their enemies are for both groups. Both groups stepped into the void fully understanding the probability of their demise was great, yet both groups stepped up and were willing to be counted as those who have put their lives on the line. One could not ask for more from those we seek to commemorate. I see no conflict in adding those lost healthcare professionals to the rolls of lost in battle.

On another note. Viktor Frankl, in his defining book Man’s Search for Meaning. (Frankl 2006) expounds on the relevance of meaning in the daily lives of every human being. It is a profound and ruminative exposition on our ultimate purpose in life: to have meaning in what we do daily. In that spirit, I would propose that we give up our oft repeated profession of gratitude, which often sound hollow and trite because of the repetitiveness of the mantra. We should, instead, dedicate ourselves to give meaning to the lives of the deceased. We, as the beneficiary of their sacrifice, should demonstrate our gratitude by taking their spirit of serving for the good of society and expand the spirit in which they gave their lives, magnify the generosity of their gift to humankind, and seek to sacrifice our comfort and privilege for the good of our society.

President Obama had called for every MLK Jr Day observance be a national day of public service. While that action has been minimized by the previous administration, we should be mindful of the thought and spirit of that idea and propagate that idea through the rest of history. Why not have opportunities for service be available for all who wish to take part? Indeed, why not make all the officially recognized national holidays be opportunities for public service? It gives us meaning, as Frankl proposed; it removes the sense of hypocrisy that comes with celebrating the real sacrifices those who gave their lives for our society with grilling meats and consuming copious amounts of alcohol; and it benefits our society.

Alas, I am an optimist with both feet planted on the ground. I don’t foresee this idea coming to fruition because of the polarization of our society along too many divisive fault lines. What I can do is to put my skin in the game, I will try to do a little bit each holiday, partly to assuage my own guilt and mostly because I see this as doing the right thing. I hope to be doing this without fanfare and self-indulgence because sacrifices are more meaningful with it is not recognized. Every little bit contributes to the greater good, as I search for meaning in my life.

 

Works Cited

Frankl, Viktor. Man's Search for Meaning. Beacon Press, 2006.

 

 

  

Observations-Naomi Osaka and her NO to Press Conferences

Naomi Osaka declared her intentions of not doing press conferences during the French Open tournament, a decision which will end up costing her a lot of money. She said she decided to do this to preserve her mental health. She said that it is mentally hard enough to deal with the emotional ups and downs of playing in a major tournament, as well as the usual pressure that comes with being a world class athlete. She mentioned that the interminable questioning by the press on the same topics and being asked the same questions is mentally draining, and that the questions are, more often than not, dwelling on their failures during the matches rather than on their successes, the players already stress over every point, every mistake by themselves, without the additional questioning of the press, who knows nothing of being an athlete under the microscope. To her point, the press seems to delight in playing gotcha with the interviewees as they press them into moments of weakness. Her contention is that being a world class athlete performing at a level that very few people have experienced is difficult enough, their mental energy needs to be focused on the next match and opponent rather than be wasted on repeating mea culpa to a world which already saw the failures, live and in color.

That statement in and of itself speaks volumes about the pressures of being a professional athlete. But being an individual sport athlete in tennis or golf is made all the more difficult because they are on their own and they do not have the luxury of team mates to ease the pressure – you have no one to depend on to bail you out.  In an era where  mental training is emphasized and celebrated, athletes – professional and amateur – are recognizing the importance of mental health and are hiring sports psychologists and coaches to train the athletes to learn to deal with the pressures of their work.

There has been immediate reaction from the Greek chorus of sports fandom of course, it is particularly interesting to see the responses by some coaches I know. These are coaches who coach juniors, they have spent copious amounts of time debating and learning about preparing their players to deal with the pressures of qualifying for the national tournaments, of learning to play  to the best of their abilities despite the pressures placed on them by coaches, parents, and most of all, themselves. These are the same coaches who have committed themselves to guiding players through the process of coming to terms with those pressures, while also seeking ways to relieve those pressures. They also emphasize, to anyone who would listen, that a select sport like club volleyball can be mentally challenging, and that coaches need to be sensitive to signs of stress induced behaviors and care for the mental health of the players. Our society has only recently come to the belief that there is a mental health epidemic going on. At this point in time, this epidemic could partly be attributed to the COVID pandemic, but it can mostly be attributed to the way our society has evolved culturally when it comes to dealing with self imposed pressures and how each person is able to deal with them. Emphasis have been placed on the need to recognizing signs of mental stress on all citizens, but especially the younger citizens. Sports coaching groups and mental health professionals have created programs to help young people cope with external or internal pressures. The spiraling number of teenage suicides has no doubt driven much of this societal emphasis.

Yet, even with the burgeoning awareness of mental health in our society, particularly in the sports realm, the response to Osaka announcement seems to be negatively judgmental. Although there are some empathies with Naomi Osaka point of view, I was surprised by many of the responses: “she's getting paid millions of dollars to play a game so she can at least put up with going to press conferences.” Or: “This is part of their job; they need to help promote the sport.” It is as if these coaches completely reversed their positions on mental health once  the subject is a professional.

If this is a part of being a professional athlete, I ask:  How big of a part of a job is this? Is appearing at a press conference a bigger part of the job than winning? Is appearing at a press conference a bigger part of the  job than being the best tennis player? Is appearing at a press conference a bigger part of the tennis player job than being mentally prepared to play the game? A professional player’s only job is to play well; under intense pressures from everyone: the fans, the tour, the people who depend on the player to make their living, and most of all, pressure from themselves. I understand that the professional contract requires the players to promote the tour which involves being in front of the gathered press.  The question is: does the French Open rather have a strong tournament with all the players at their best, playing their best, and competing at the highest level, thereby giving the advertisers a great show for their sponsorship money; or would they rather have top players not perform to their highest abilities because they are mentally distracted  or exhausted because they have to deal with the incessant volleys of the press pool, each reporter repeating the same questions as the previous reporters, all hoping for different answers or hoping to evoke emotional reactions in order to create click baits?

Tournaments and tours are prepared to do everything within their powers to prevent disruptions in the players preparations, they make the best medical teams available to the players if they are ill or are injured, no expenses spared. The question is: what are they doing for the mental health of the players? Are they doing everything in their powers to prevent mental distress and fatigue? The press conference is seemingly an unnecessary and avoidable distraction. They could alleviate some of the pressures policing the press conferences, but this being France, regulating the fourth estate is a sensitive topic.

I understand the argument that being a professional means facing criticism, or having their every move analyzed in fine granularity; but, when does that critical analysis turn into harassment and mental abuse? How far should the press go to get at the story? Does the press and general public understand that the professional players a process that meets regularly with their support team during and after each match, every tournament, and every season? That this group performs triage on their failures and discuss methods of ameliorating the problem? They do this without emotional baggage and judgement but with clarity critical thinking. I suppose that is the key difference, the media thrives on emotional baggage’s and judgement: that is what sells papers and magazines, promotes the matches on television, and gather clicks on social media.

Another argument from the Greek chorus is that Osaka’s sponsors are paying her plenty of money to show their labels on television, she should be obligated to obey their every demand.  The question then is: does her sponsors want more than anything to have  that opportunity for the television cameras to catch the teeny logo that is on her attire? Or are they paying her to be a symbol of winning and demonstrating her championship demeanor?  Is the press conference a primary goal for the sponsor’s marketing team? Or is it far down their priority list? I believe that the brand wants to be associated with a winner, that all the advantages that comes from winning and winning with class would rub off on the brand. They don’t need her to be wearing their logo in front of the cameras in a press conference. Indeed, the visual opportunity for the brand is much better when the camera is focused on her during match play than during a press conference.

An inherent issue in this discussion is the way we view professional athletes. When we read or hear the words: professional athletes, what comes to mind? Pampered, spoiled, selfish, self-entered, arrogant, far removed from reality. When we perceive that these athletes are breaking outside of the boundaries that our society places on them, we automatically think: shut and play the game. We don’t want to hear from you, we just want to be entertained by you. We don’t need to know what you think, or how you are feeling, we just want you to be our dancing pony.  We also think, while placing ourselves vicariously in their places, that we would be happy to get paid millions just to play a game or just to wear some nice clothes and shoes. We also believe that we know exactly how we would deal with those pressures if we were in their place. We believe, consciously and subconsciously, that we have the mental grittiness and resilience to handle those things that Osaka is objecting to. In reality, unless you are in the moment as a world class athlete, unless you are under the lights in front of the gathered audience with a camera stuck in your face, you don’t know anything about that situation, and you certainly don’t know how you would react; to say that you do know is to demonstrate Dunning-Kruger effect in its simplest form.

A few points to remember. First, these players did not get to where they are by being mentally weak. They have fought to the top of the pile by being grittier and more resilient than all the other talented players that have been left behind. Their mental acuity is something that they have honed and perfected over a career, getting to that level of  mental focus and keeping it is akin to walking a tight rope, any slight disruption could potentially upset delicate balance, why would anyone deliberately want throw off their balance? Second, a professional athlete's life is limited. They only have a short number of productive years; it is in Osaka’s best interest to take advantage of her productive years to compete at the highest level. She is doing what she feels she needs to do to preserve her mind and body for the center court. She and her team should know what is best for her preparation. If she feels that the best way to focus her energy so that she can be at her best, who can argue with that? Third, the press is interested in grilling only the top players, they could care less about interviewing the qualifiers. It is ironic that the players are expected to give up their preparatory edge when they are at the top of their games, potentially damaging the delicate mental balance for the sake of appeasing the press, all the while knowing that when they become a lesser player, when they are no longer are ranked at the top of the game, they could have all the distraction free preparatory time that they want, because no one would want to hear their press conference.

I admire Osaka for admitting that she is ill prepared to deal with the stresses in her mind resulting from the press conferences; in  so doing, she is admitting her own weakness, her own Achilles heel. She is admitting to the world that  she cannot manage her mental state well enough to handle both the preparation for playing at a high level and dealing with this press conference distraction.

Returning to the central issue: mental health. Let us focus on the developing players, would it be a responsible coaching tactic if we sought to introduce more distraction into their preparation? Is it in the player’s best interest to potentially sabotage all mental and physical work put into their preparation? Is the player’s responsibility to preparing themselves for the game, or is their responsibility to fulfill a tertiary by product of the overall production of the competition? Is it the competition that is sacred, or is it the marketing?

We zealously guard the amateur players preparations as coaches, we would balk at having their preparation disrupted. We also try to prepare the amateur players to deal with pressures of competing. We treat every stress inducing situation as a lesson to be learned, we patiently give them chances to recover and learn. Yet when it comes to professional athletes, we seem to demand that they cease learning and tough it out, much like Gen. George Patton’s process of dealing with soldiers who have PTSD.

Why do we do this? Is it because of our inherent fixed mindset when it comes to anyone who calls themselves a professional? That they should all of this by the time they become professionals? Or it is our inherent hypocrisy?

Observations-Asking the Right Question

 

“When faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution.”

Daniel Kahneman

If one combines the above quote from Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman with the observation that most people do not listen to understand, they listen to reply, I think we would be able to account for most of the vitriolic, confrontational, and many times divisive interchanges in our everyday lives, this applies to all social interchanges, not just on social media.

First, we all subconsciously listen to reply, it is a natural response, it takes someone who is actively listening or are consciously aware of our listen to reply foible to deliberately listen for understanding. Listening to reply is a difficult habit to eradicate, it is also adding layers of misunderstanding and confusion when we habitually listen in this manner. More insidiously, it complicates simple questions because the listener is not paying attention to the speaker, understanding the speaker’s main arguments or questions, superimposing their own agenda on the conversation. What Kahneman points out in his quote is that we also spin and twist the original thought or inquiry to fit a simpler frame of reference, coming from a different world view; which first changes the original question, but also does the original questioner a disservice by bending their intent to the point of view of the responder. The ensuing responses are often not intentionally adversarial but becomes so because the conversation becomes a game of arguing in circles because each side has staked out a piece of real estate to defend, falsely believing that they are speaking on the same topic, never realizing that the conversation has been irreparably changed into two subtly different, but still altogether different questions.

I have observed this many times in my role as an administrator for a discussion group as well as being members of several other groups. Some of the biggest blowups come from initially innocent questions, which somehow gets hijacked, intentionally or unintentionally, by people who responds to the question with their own agenda.

Those who are malicious or who respond with an agenda usually respond with: “I agree with you, BUT…” Or  they go straight for the BUT statement without even acknowledging the original discussion or question by addressing their own agenda directly. Minorities and people of color understand this very well, because that is the usual rhythm of many conversations: first they try to placate the speaker with the “I agree with you” part and then they jump to the BUT, there is always a BUT. Many times they won’t even acknowledge your original point and they go into their defense of their point of view, as if your point is not worthy of discussion and then they proceed to “mansplain” to you how you are mistaken, how your viewpoint is in error, according to their viewpoint coming from their privileged perch without ever taking into consideration your viewpoint coming from your not so privileged perch.

Unfortunately, it is one thing to understand the phenomenon  and it is another to recognize it in the heat of the moment. Your system 1 response (From Kahneman’s Thinking: Fast and Slow) is to respond emotionally because you believe that the response is aligned with your question or your argument. The rational part of your cognition overlooks the slight and subtle twists that skews the question away from what you had asked and perhaps you were also looking for an easier question to answer. The discussion then spirals completely away from the initial point. I have seen many discussions going that route.

Another head fake that goes on is the: “what about this other thing ...” response. Which may not seem as deliberate, but it is yet another tactic used to obfuscate the direct question by introducing situations and facts that muddies the original train of thought. Sometimes the situation or facts are legitimately germane to the original question, but many times they are extraneous. It is the conversational equivalent of dividing and conquering by forcing the original questioner to defend themselves without having had their original question answered.  Regardless of whether the additional factor that is introduced, the conversation inevitably veers off away from the original question never to be brought up again in that conversation. This act saves the person who introduces the “what about this other thing ...” factor from having to answer the difficult question.

I am not saying that every instance of what I am describing are always deliberate, these tricks are ingrained in our psyche and we naturally respond in this way in a very procedural manner, as if that should be the natural flow of conversation rather than acknowledging it for what it is: a head fake, a digression, a spin move.

For example:

Q: I am looking for a place that serves a good burger.

A: XYZ serves a great vegetarian burger.

Q: What are the progressions for teaching perimeter defense?

A: You don’t want to run perimeter, middle-middle is much better.

Q: How does one obtain these parameters experimentally?

A: You can calculate those parameters by using numerical simulation.

On the other side of the conversation, sometimes the original questioners do not ask the difficult questions, they ask the easier question while fully believing that they are asking the question they want answered rather than recognizing that they are asking the easier question.

For example:

Question asked: Good Mexican restaurants and go!

Better question: I am looking for restaurants that serve good Tex-Mex/Authentic Mexican/Foods native to specific Mexican states.

Question asked: My team can’t pass, any advice?

Better question: My passers have a hard time passing jump floaters. Should I position them closer to the net to start?

Question asked: My experimental results does not agree with my simulation results, why?

Better question: I simulated what I assumed to be a linear problem, I believe my experimental results are valid, could there be nonlinear elements in the problem that would skew my results because I did not take them into account?

Habit 5  from Steven Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is: First Seek to Understand, Then be Understood. If we all kept this in mind when we engage in face-to-face conversation or in battle on social media there would be far less wasted time and effort on discussions that turns on misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Observations: COVID Positive? Who me?

Today is the last day of my ten-day quarantine. One of my players had tested positive for COVID-19 two weeks ago, which meant that the team had to quarantine for 10 days. I decided to take advantage of the new testing kiosk at my local pharmacy and take my first COVID test.  Of course, I thought of it as a new experience that comes with this new COVID era. I never thought I would test positive. Positive test it was. I was completely incredulous. I didn’t have a fever, my oxygen levels, courtesy of my online investment in a Pulse Oximeter showed that my oxygen level averaged well above 95%. My sense of taste and smell were still intact. No sore throat, just a cough that recurs every winter for as long as I have been an adult. I questioned the woman who called me, and she assured me that false negatives were more prevalent than false positives and that I should plan on staying home for ten days.

Luck would have it that a series of winter storms rolled through the area, so I wasn’t going to go out anyways. I had food in the fridge, and I was able to discover the wonders of online grocery shopping and anonymous deliveries. I was lecturing to my class through Zoom sessions and everything that I did was easily taken of online.

Except.

I was missing my twice weekly volleyball practices with my team; their quarantine ended a full week before mine did. I missed coaching my knuckleheads something fierce, something that I expected but I did not expect how much I missed them. So, lesson one: I am still passionate about coaching volleyball.

Many people have described their own quarantine experience as pure misery. Being deprived of human companionship was devastating to my friends who had the misfortune of experiencing the same situation as I was about to experience. I knew it would not affect me as badly as it affected them, as I was an introvert by nature and I had accrued an immense To Be Read book pile, so I was not short on entertainment. I didn’t even come close to reading all that I had wanted to read. Lesson two: no matter how much time you may think you have to read; you still don’t have enough.

I did miss the conversations that I had with my coffee klatch group. To be fair, they had also decided to cancel a few of the meetings for the sake of the aforementioned winter storms. I made up for my missed conversations by sending them emails and links to articles that I would have brought up as potential conversation topics during our twice weekly ninety minutes of whirlwind sessions of conversational daring do and intellectual high wire act. Lesson three: you will always  yearn for intelligent conversations with your friends.

I was extremely fortunate in that I was asymptomatic through out my quarantine. There were some coughs and sniffles but the big news with my COVID experience was that it was no drama. The only salient effect is that my circadian rhythm is way off, I couldn’t get a continuous night of sleep. But then again, I was having a hard time sleeping through the night before I tested positive for COVID.

Unlike some people I know who survived the virus, I refuse to examine the chronology of my illness in complete hindsight and pontificate about the wisdom of my approach towards dealing with the virus; I know different, I know I dodged a bullet. Through some miracle of genetics or just sheer dumb luck, I avoided the worst of the punishment that could have been. I am grateful for my unaffected health, I am appreciative of winning this flirtation with disaster, and I am in awe of the powers of ambiguities, uncertainties, and randomness of our world which somehow came down on my side of the equation. Lesson four: dodging the possible by skating along the edges of the probable is very sobering.

There were moments of sheer terror as I experienced a number of  temporary symptoms that threw me into instant panic. Coughs, moments where I thought my forehead felt warm, or moments where I started to sneeze repeatedly. Every time I thought it was time to pay the piper the symptoms went away. I lived in a constant state of vigilance for the first five or six days of the quarantine, always having to pin my ears back at the first sign of abnormal bodily functions. But it never came. Lesson five: living every second of the ten days of quarantine as if you were under the sword of Damocles is a crappy way to live life.

I developed a ritual of texting my early morning vitals to a number of friends. I lived for those return texts of affirmation and happiness from these great friends, it is amazing just how I came to look forward to these tenuous connections to the world outside my house and the affirmations from those that care for me. Lesson six: affirmations from friends are better than ice cream when you are COVID positive.

As the end of the quarantine period came up, I began to feel a bit of guilt, about my asymptomatic status. I am not asking to getting beat up by the virus, I am not asking to suffer through the numerous pains and punishment that many others have suffered. I certainly don’t relish the thought of going into the hospital and hovering between life and death. But still, I keep wondering: why me? Why was I so lucky? One of my close friends lost her sense of smell and taste, she started suffered migraine headaches, and chronic fatigue. Yet here I am, someone who is ill-prepared physically to battle the virus, and I got away with minimal symptoms. You start to wonder about genetics and the serendipity associated with epistemological  uncertainties. I really don’t want to figure out the ins and outs of calculating the probabilities of my being where I am, but I still wonder. Lesson seven: no matter how good you have it; you will always feel guilty to not having had it worse.

Once the state of Ohio receives your positive result, they send your information to social workers and they contact you and basically tell you how to count the days of quarantine and what to do, what to avoid, what is OK, and what is forbidden. My case worker called, and we started chatting. I asked her a million questions and she patiently answered all of them, reassured me if I became nervous or borderline hysterical, and calmly gave me resources to contact. She walked me through the if-then scenarios thoroughly; indeed, she told me to keep the number on my caller ID handy so that I could call her back if anything came up. I called her back a few times and wonder of wonders, she played volleyball collegiately and she coached club volleyball. Who would have thought? Lesson eight: there are volleyball people everywhere you look, and by and large, they are the good people out there.

As my quarantine is coming to a close, my friend asked me what I was going to do when I leave the house for the first time in ten days. I honestly don’t know. First of all, I probably need to shovel the driveway as I had not bothered to do so through a few days of snowfall, so I might be stuck for a few more involuntary days. I may take a little drive around town, enjoy running errands, enjoying grocery shopping for the first time in ten days, even if I have become dangerously enamored with having my groceries delivered. I may even call one of my many favorite restaurants and order take out. I am not going to start eating out in person, not yet anyways. I am hoping to look upon the outside world with new eyes and experience every experience with a new perspective. Most of all, I will be thankful.

Observations-Thanksgiving 2020

Thanksgiving has always been my favorite holiday ever since I first moved to the US in 1973.

It is my favorite holiday for many reasons and on many levels. For a fat kid, it is the best  holiday, you are expected to partake in massive consumption of the bounties of the land. What can be better than that? Turkey, dressing, mashed potatoes, green bean casseroles, and pumpkin pies; it was a fat kid’s dream. I don’t even mind the cranberries. When we think of Thanksgiving, the mental picture that comes to mind is that of Norman Rockwell’s “Freedom from Want”: a table crowded with family and abundance of food, and the unspoken love that permeates the scene.

On a poetic Americana level, the Thanksgiving holiday is evocative of a more romantic and idealistic time, when American society was much more agrarian, when the end of harvest meant something to everyone. The marking of a change of seasons when the hard work of harvesting is done, it was time to rest and reflect before the resumption of the planting season in the Spring.  This sentiment is best expressed by Connecticut Governor Wilbur Cross’ Thanksgiving Proclamation from 1939. It has become an example of evocative exposition, I read it every Thanksgiving eve to get into the mood of the season.

Fall is also my favorite season of the year. The scent of Fall, the colorful landscape dotted with the golden hues of the changing leaves, the need to wear a jacket to ward off the chill of the season, and the visions from my memories of being ensconced in the comfort of home and hearth while being  tucked in against the nip of the cool weather outside.

Most importantly, there is also the meaning of holiday itself. Even though our knowledge of the holiday’s origins have been imbued with the mythmaking involving the Pilgrims and Native Americans partaking in a meal together; the sentiments of gratitude, thankfulness, familial warmth, friendship, nostalgia for simpler times, and community is always present and treasured. It is a time to enjoy the companionship of families and friends, a time for friendship, and communion with our family members.  Even though my own family was just a nuclear family of three, my parents had always hosted others to celebrate together; whether they are newly arrived families to the communities, students and children of friends who have been planted in a foreign land for an unfamiliar holiday, or just friends. My parents didn’t need a reason to host Thanksgiving. Thanksgivings were always a time for togetherness, full bellies, and a great time celebrating amity and our commonalities.

Accordingly, we know that this year is going to be different. It is: Amity in the time of COVID. We will be struggling and searching for reasons to be thankful in excruciatingly difficult times. It is not that we are incapable of finding things to be thankful for, it is that the circumstances facing our world has become so strained and constrained that it is best that we lower our external sights to look deeper into our internal self, in our hearts and minds, to find gratitude that came easily in previous years.

In some ways, that makes our thanks in this time of chaos and uncertainty much more precious  because we are not giving superficial thanks to the obvious advantages that we take for granted because they have disappeared for the moment; we are instead giving thanks for the inherent, amorphous, and ethereal. The emotional toll of isolation, disruption of our long-accustomed routines, and the metamorphosis of our economic wellbeing strains us; as the curtailment of travel, commerce, and large social gatherings constrains us. In some ways, we are no longer us, or the us that we have known and taken for granted; we have been changed, abruptly, without having given our consent, and perhaps irrevocably.  We have evolved instead: in some ways we have evolved routinely and perhaps for the better, yet in some ways we have evolved abruptly and for the worse. Regardless of how and why we have evolved, this Thanksgiving of 2020 has allowed my ruminations about the holiday to mirror my present state of mind. After months of solitude, change, and adjustments, my point of view about this Thanksgiving has changed as compared to the many previous Thanksgivings.

I could follow the pessimistic trend that has been with me since February with my internal dialog and bemoan the loss of opportunities and freedoms that I once took for granted pre-pandemic. I can, if I chose, to recount like the most precise and exacting accountant, all that had been denied me and bitterly list all that the universe owes me. Or I can exercise my free-will, and choose to observe all those losses as they are: things over which I have no control; indeed, they are circumstances in which the only freedom afforded me was my choice of choosing my intrinsic reaction. Of course, being a tiny minded, self-absorbed, and entitled human, there will always be a sense of loss and emotional despondence whenever the memories of this point in time surfaces in my memory, but this too shall pass.

My search for thankfulness in this time is of course, a work in progress, untested by my reality, but the alternative promises to be miserable, unsatisfying, and unpromising. I choose to take control of what I can control.

I am thankful for friendships. New ones that I never expected but have already been tested in the cauldron of necessity in these times. Old ones that have renewed and strongly affirmed because of those friends who have steadfastly given of themselves: their time, their energy, their unique perspective, and their unconditional love. I have depended on the kindness of friends to pull my thoughts out from the deepest abyss, an abyss that is of my mind’s own making. It is due to my friends that I am still at a relatively steady state of mind as the pandemic persists from days to weeks, and then to months. I am not sure if they all understand what they have meant to my mental state, I hope that they do now.

I am thankful for the challenges that have been set before me during the pandemic. It feels like we have been hitting driver on every swing: every little bit of weakness that is hidden in our swing has not only been exposed but amplified. It has forced us to improvise, adapt, and overcome in everything we do every day. We have had to learn to make decisions quickly and correctly as befitting the situation. While I am not perfect at this yet, I am getting better as the pandemic continues, as has everyone. The magic of neuroplasticity has made me realize that my mind is much more agile that I assumed while I hope that it is less beholden to my biases and logical fallacies. No doubt I will continue to stumble and err, the difference is that I am no longer afraid of erring and I have confidence that I can improvise, adapt, and overcome.

I am thankful for the Stoic point of view. My ability to think about things that I can control versus those I can not control comes from the dichotomy of control that is fundamental to Stoicism. Stoics have also allowed me to take the perspective of “premedio valorem”, or  “what is the worst thing that can happen?” This perspective opened my eyes to my own myopia when I became so focused on the negative possibilities rather than the indifferent probable, that was the source of my despair, my own vivid ability to be negative. The irony is that by thinking about the worst show us how our fertile and generally pessimistic conjectures in hard times result in fantasies which drives our worst fatalist fears about the unknown; whereas the practice of playing out “premedio maloram” logically and systematically leads us to the realization that all is not as dire as our immediate emotional responses will predict. It sometimes is necessary to be cruel to be kind to yourself.

I am thankful for all the material possessions that have accrued over my time on earth, and I am thankful for the knowledge that material possessions are not permanent.

I am thankful for the realization that our time on earth is finite, it is not so much that we have so little time available to us, it is that we are frivolous in how we use that time that we have to do what we wish.

I am thankful for my personal view of life, and the paradigm that I carry with me all the time; I am also thankful for the revelation that paradigms are transient, we should be changing paradigms all the time in order to best use our time here.

Of course, I am thankful for that fat and happy post-Thanksgiving prandial somnolence.

I wish you all better days and nights to come, a post-pandemic world, and Peace.

Pete

Observations-Thank You for Your Service

 “Thank you for your service.” Five simple words that conveys a universe of gratitude and indebtedness. People like to say that phrase quite a bit, it is a reflex action, a procedure that their minds kick into gear automatically. Especially on a day like today and Memorial Day. I see it on the social media, I hear it on the streets.

We hope that these five simple words conveys our gratitude, and our feelings for those who willingly give of themselves and step up to the void to take responsibility for protecting our society and defending the wellbeing of their fellow citizens. We  have a volunteer military in this nation, which means that our citizenry will take care of  those who willingly put their lives in harm’s way; we, the grateful nation, must and will always keep that promise to take care of them and their families during and after their service to us. We promise to take care of them when they are ailing from any affliction visited upon their minds, bodies, and souls. This is a solemn promise we the citizens of this country make to the men and women who risks so much for the society and its citizenry.

Please realize that I am not casting aspersions on those who reflexively say those words. I do believe that those five words slip through our tongues much too easily, that we speak them without thinking and committing our hearts to saying those words every single time we say them. I am very sure most people who say those five words say them with heartfelt and true gratitude in their hearts, and the words are imbued with meaning. Yet there are many who say those same five words with different intent and lack of meaning, these are people who feel that they need to say those five words, they feel that society expect them to say it.

I am especially cynical when those five words come out of the mouths of politicians: politicians who wrap themselves in the flag, politicians who will march in front of a marching band pretending to be leading the parade, politicians who are adept at speaking out of both sides of their mouths. I cannot read the hearts of everyone who mouths those five words, but I am pretty sure most of the politicians don’t mean what they say and don’t say what they mean. They are the ones who incessantly mouth those words to appear loyal and patriotic to the uncynical eyes. They need to project a mirage of fealty to those who serve our society. They are projecting a vision, a patriotism because it is a big part of being a politician who needs to be elected. Do they really care in their hearts? I do not know. By no means is this a partisan divide. It is bipartisan: people who are both sides on the divide can be equally insincere in saying the five words.

I have let the politicians color my perspective on those five simple words. It is a shame. I am not happy that I have become so cynical about the people saying those five words. I am very sure those who are the recipient of those five simple words appreciate the gesture, no matter the sincerity behind the gesture, although I have read that some veterans are not all that keen on having those words directed at them all the time. Their reason for not being so excited? It is that even though we have made promises to them: they offer up their minds, bodies, and souls and we promise to take care of them during and after their service, we have not met our end of the bargain.

We treat retired veterans as an afterthought, we treat them as an issue that comes up on our radar only when we are called out for our mistreatment or every four years during the election cycle. Why are the VA hospitals even in the news for dereliction of care? Why are there homeless veterans begging in the streets? Why are there veterans lost in the haze of PTSD?  Why do we allow our veterans waste their GI bill benefits attending for-profit diploma mills? Why are we not taking care of them like they expected? Like we promised? Why are so many veterans committing suicides daily because of war trauma? Why?

Saying the five words are just not enough, we are lying through our teeth to those that we verbally salute because we are writing checks with our mouths that our action never cash.

What can we do about it? Do something. Act rather than let those five attractive words just roll off your tongue.  Vote for somebody who is going to change the Veterans Affairs administration. Treat a veteran to a meal, to a coffee, to a beer, to a shot of whisky.  Do something.

Next time you see a homeless veteran on the streets destitute and sleeping on park benches, take care of them for that moment. If it is a meal that they need, buy them a meal. If it is help that they need,  help them. Rather than mouthing platitudes that are trite and cliched,  do something. Action speaks louder than words. Those five simple words are very easy to say because no commitment from the speaker is involved. It is easy to say the five words and NOT lean in and step up to the responsibility, it involves just moving our lips.

I have gotten to the point where it does not matter how sincere you are in your heart, it matters what you do, what actions you take to demonstrates those words. You must earn the right to say: “Thank you for your service”.

Observations-Some Thoughts on How We Deal with Change

 I was just having a chat with a friend about her dilemma: whether she should send her kids back to school. She is conflicted because she understands that most people do not have the luxury that she does, she's a stay at home mom, and the family can afford for her to stay home, which means that she can have her kids take online classes just to make sure that they are safe. She is afraid of the unknowns: the school district buildings are old and small, and the buildings are not air conditioned, a potential recipe for disaster. She also understands that there are single parent families who cannot afford to make the same choice as she does, she understands that there are children who desperately need social interaction with their classmates for their emotional development. She wonders why we have to choose one option over the other, she wonders why her school system cannot accommodate all the citizen’s needs more equitably? She wonders why it has to be one or the other?

In these pandemic times, we are seeing many such conflicts over what we want versus what we must do. These conflicts arise from the fact that we are reacting to transient conditions: the situation we are facing is a massive disruption of our status quo, our steady state. We humans are horrible at dealing with change, we prefer our status quo, our steady state and when we are faced with any change in our routine our minds runs at a million miles an hour and we overreact in response to the disruption in our routine than to the actual change in our circumstances.  Our inability to grapple with our emotional discomfort dealing with the disruption magnifies the actual change in our circumstances.

When presented with the dilemma, we are extremely focused on our immediate decision, as it should be. We have a problem to resolve and it is a difficult problem, so we devote all of our attention on resolving the problem. There is no foreseeable way to resolve this issue without potentially sacrificing a part of our society. If we forced the children back to school, even with all the preventive measures that we can enact realistically, there is not enough evidence that we can avoid people getting sick or even worse, lose their lives. The fear concerns mostly older people: the teachers, older relatives who live in the same house with children, and even then, we are not sure that the children are completely immune from the disease or are completely immune from dying. There are also instances of death for the young, which we do not completely understand. On the other hand, if we decided to have our schools go completely online we are ignoring the needs of those  who do not have a choice in the matter: those who are financially unable to afford child care, which is more people than most of us realize; those who have no other recourse, single parent families, people who don’t have family locally who can help take care of the children  while the parents work, online or otherwise; and those who have children whose behavioral health are squarely dependent on their ability to socially interact with other children. Atop of all that, enabling technology which are essential for online learning are not equally distributed amongst the population, essential enabling technologies which many people do not have or can not afford. It adds up to a potential disaster, which we are witnessing in real time.

There is a reason why the debate over the decision has grown heated and acrimonious. I do not have an answer to it, because both sides make strong arguments.

If we pulled back from the heat of the debate, if we took a big picture view from an elevation, the questions evolve and morph in tone and reasoning.

If our workers are so essential, why do we not provide for their peace of mind regarding the care of their children when they work?

Why do we defer the responsibility of taking care of the children to teachers? Teachers are supposed to teach, they are not supposed to be childcare.

Why do we put our teachers in the position of being front line first responders during this pandemic? They were never trained for this scenario, and more importantly, they never signed up for this kind of hazardous duty, nor are they compensated as front line first responders. They are in this position because the other portions of the safety net have collapsed, either by neglect or by selfish design, and they were at the bottom.

Why is it that we, the wealthiest industrialized country, do not make access to the essential enabling technologies readily accessible for everyone that wants or needs one? If it is essential enabling technologies, does it not mean that one need the technology to survive and thrive in our society?  Why is it that there are urban neighborhoods and rural hamlets that does not have wifi coverage at all?

Why is it that when we decided to go 100% online that there are still families who do not have the essential enabling technology in their homes in order to go 100% online?

These are not new questions. These questions have been asked ad infinitum since March.

The simple answer is that we did not foresee this Black Swan event, that we were taken by surprise. This is a fair answer given the magnitude of the pandemic. The follow up question to Black Swan Events is: could we have done more to make our infrastructure anti-fragile? Is it possible to create our society structures so that even if we cannot completely ride through the transient situation such as this pandemic unscathed? Is it possible to have an anti-fragile system in place so that our society can mitigate the worst effects of any disaster and survive with enough of our status quo, our steady state intact to quickly restart?

I believe the answer is yes. Seth Godin’s blog today answer the question.

From Seth Godin’s Blog of September 24, 2020  (Godin 2020)

When can we talk about our systems?

Your team is down by a few points and the game is almost over. What play should you call?

[When can we talk about the system of drafting and training that got your team to this situation in the first place?]

Your back hurts and you think you need surgery to help with the pain.

[When can we talk about the technique you use when you go running every day?]

Your employee shows up late regularly. How can you get them to care more?

[When can we talk about your hiring and leadership approaches?]

There’s racial injustice and unfairness all around us.

[Can we talk about persistent indoctrination around caste?]

You just had an argument with your brother. What’s the best way for him to see that you’re right?

[When can we talk about the narratives your family has developed for generations?]

Universities and local schools are in crisis with testing in disarray and distant learning ineffective…

[When can we talk about what school is for?]

It’s comfortable to ignore the system, to assume it is as permanent as the water surrounding your goldfish. But the fact that we have these tactical problems is all the evidence we need to see that something is causing them, and that spending time on the underlying structure could make a difference.

In a crisis, there’s maximum attention. And in a crisis, we often discard any pretense of caring about systems and resilience and focus only on how to get back to normal. This is precisely why normal is what normal is, because we fight to get back to it.

Changing the system changes everything. And it might be even less work than pouring water on today’s tactical emergency.

This is the reason WHY we have systems, so that we are not running around responding to each situation as it occurs, applying ad hoc solutions to potentially permanent situations. This is the reason WHY we need to have safety nets, to prevent any momentary catastrophes from disrupting our status quo lives and societies. So, when my friend and her family is going through the agony of debating the benefits and pitfalls of her children’s schooling options, her long term solution should be: we should change our system so that we won’t have to be so panicked next time something catastrophic befalls us. This is not to say that we should construct a system that is perfect, no system can be one size fits all for all time, but we should strive for a system that is flexible and antifragile so that the least havoc be wreaked.

Works Cited

Godin, Seth. "When Can We Talk About Our System?" Seth's Blog. Seth Godin, September 24, 2020.

 

 

Observations-Marshmallow Experiment

The marshmallow experiment is a famous experiment, it has been referred to by people studying cognition, motivation, and decision making because the experiment demonstrates that a person’s ability to delay gratification is a trait that correlate with success in the later life. In other words, the children who are able to put off the gratification stage are more likely to have success in their lives. Here is an excerpt from James Clears web page that describes the experiment.

In the 1960s, a Stanford professor named Walter Mischel began conducting a series of important psychological studies.

During his experiments, Mischel and his team tested hundreds of children — most of them around the ages of 4 and 5 years old — and revealed what is now believed to be one of the most important characteristics for success in health, work, and life.

The Marshmallow Experiment

The experiment began by bringing each child into a private room, sitting them down in a chair, and placing a marshmallow on the table in front of them.

At this point, the researcher offered a deal to the child.

The researcher told the child that he was going to leave the room and that if the child did not eat the marshmallow while he was away, then they would be rewarded with a second marshmallow. However, if the child decided to eat the first one before the researcher came back, then they would not get a second marshmallow.

So the choice was simple: one treat right now or two treats later.

The researcher left the room for 15 minutes.

As you can imagine, the footage of the children waiting alone in the room was rather entertaining. Some kids jumped up and ate the first marshmallow as soon as the researcher closed the door. Others wiggled and bounced and scooted in their chairs as they tried to restrain themselves, but eventually gave in to temptation a few minutes later. And finally, a few of the children did manage to wait the entire time.

Published in 1972, this popular study became known as The Marshmallow Experiment, but it wasn't the treat that made it famous. The interesting part came years later.

The Power of Delayed Gratification

As the years rolled on and the children grew up, the researchers conducted follow up studies and tracked each child's progress in a number of areas. What they found was surprising.

The children who were willing to delay gratification and waited to receive the second marshmallow ended up having higher SAT scores, lower levels of substance abuse, lower likelihood of obesity, better responses to stress, better social skills as reported by their parents, and generally better scores in a range of other life measures.

The researchers followed each child for more than 40 years and over and over again, the group who waited patiently for the second marshmallow succeed in whatever capacity they were measuring. In other words, this series of experiments proved that the ability to delay gratification was critical for success in life.

And if you look around, you’ll see this playing out everywhere…

·       If you delay the gratification of watching television and get your homework done now, then you’ll learn more and get better grades.

·       If you delay the gratification of buying desserts and chips at the store, then you’ll eat healthier when you get home.

·       If you delay the gratification of finishing your workout early and put in a few more reps, then you’ll be stronger.

… and countless other examples.

Success usually comes down to choosing the pain of discipline over the ease of distraction. And that’s exactly what delayed gratification is all about. [1]

The premise is that if you have the willpower, discipline, or the mental aptitude to forestall your immediate desire to have gratification, the marshmallow, you are more likely to have more success later on in life. Having this ability demonstrates our willpower to put off the immediate rewards while dealing successfully with the unpleasant duties.

During our crisis moment in the COVID-19 pandemic, we are challenged just as those children were challenged. We are asked to put off immediate gratification of living our regular lives, or making our livings as we normally would. We are asked to not go shopping, go out to eat and drink, to put off everything we had considered normal as our society goes through the lockdown.

We were all able to comply because we understood the ramifications of letting the virus persist unchecked. We learned and believed in lowering the curve and to forestall the possible chaos that could come from a full-blown pandemic. We did it with some grumbling, but we all took it in stride because this pandemic is such a massive unknown. After months under a lockdown it is understandable that we all have a short fuse.  We are pretty much at our wit’s end and are itching to go out and lead our regular lives again, the return to normality that is the carrot at the end of the stick.

The undesired and unintended consequence that this lockdown has wrought is that it has essentially destroyed the economy.  36 million people out of work to date is catastrophic. Large and small businesses have been decimated; many have declared bankruptcy never to return again.

It is no wonder that we are all itching to get back to reclaim our society, our jobs, our economy, and our normal way of life. So much so that some have taken to the streets to protest what some consider to be draconian measures continuing the lockdown. In their haste to return to normality, I would guess that the vast majority did not considered or is ignoring the fact that the nationwide infection rate is still on the climb, ignoring the expert opinions  on everything, infection rate, the necessity of further isolation, the need for more significant testing, and the dangers of igniting the infections anew.

In essence, a number of people who has failed the marshmallow experiment. They cannot delay their gratification: their desire for returning  to a state of normality, so they chose to ignore the potential dangers with reopening before all the states has reached the CDC edict on the when reopening is safe and have taken it upon themselves to jump the gun.

Unfortunately, some of the chief executive, leaders, have failed the marshmallow experiment as well. As of the last weekend, 48 states have reopened their states to businesses, some with strict social distancing restrictions, and some with relatively lax rules. Only nine states meet the reopening criteria that the CDC recommends.

There is nothing that can be done at this point to reverse the reopening, unless a catastrophic second wave hits all the states and municipalities that have opened prematurely. As an individual, we can choose to not partake in the reopening until we are sure that the second wave has been averted. The unsatisfactory and nagging feeling is that  we, those who passed the marshmallow test, are at the mercy of those who did not, that our lives may be adversely affected by their inability to delay their gratification, and that those who passed the marshmallow experiment are not infected or worse because of the actions of those who did not pass the marshmallow experiment.

No basket of hot wings is worth sentencing your fellow human to extreme sickness or death.

Observations-On Churches Supporting a Rescinding of the Quarantine by Easter

The response to the posting on my page that mentioned the Evangelical Churches that fell in line with the president on pushing the timeline for the sheltering in place and quarantines around the country so that Easter services  can be held was interesting. Most talked about their own churches and how their churches did not meet on Sundays, they dutifully sheltered in place and attended services online. One person talked about the importance of the social aspect of their church community, another boasted about how awesome their online services were. They spoke with pride about how their churches were able to overcome the challenge and made them able to meet online.

The thing that stood out to me is that there is a defensiveness in their responses. They seem to disavow the practices of the churches mentioned in the posting. The argument was along the line of:  that's not us, we're not that kind of people, we good people who would not do that. That's all fine and good except that, and I am not going to argue whether you are a good Christian or a bad Christian. The tone is distinctly different from the way people talked about Muslims after 9/11.  when most of America blamed Muslims, all Muslims. There was no differentiation at that time, there are no good Muslims, it was said, time and again. There were no differentiations between them, there are no shades of grey. Most sane people did not buy into the hysteria, in fact President George W. Bush very clearly differentiated between the extremist fundamentalist and the rest of Islam. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, many of the people are taking the easy way out by talking about the nuances and shades of grey between Christians. Believe it or not, when there is no separation in people’s minds. People will think in terms of monolithic block called Christians.  That is the Christians baggage, that's your burden to take with you, the good comes with the bad period. Just like Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. have to live with the burden of shouldering the malfeasance of their black sheep. Realistically, I understand the differences between the fundamentalist Evangelicals sects versus other sects of  Christians. Yes it is insane, but that is the way it is. Deal with it.

The other thing I noticed is that people are personalizing the church’s behavior, or more accurately, their personal church’s behavior. Narrowing down the discussion down to their own churches, as a small segment of the overall religion. “We don't do that, we are different, we are better”. As we are talking about this particular situation, your first reaction is defending your little personal church? I find it interesting that no one thought about what this action was going to do to congregations. Most of congregation are older member, the chances of the virus spreading amongst that group of people is great and because there's so many older people, those folks may not survive any potential outbreak in those gatherings. There wasn’t even a “thoughts and prayers” on the comments. Christian charity and empathy were not mentioned.

I look upon one’s moral philosophy, or morality as something that is up to the individual. Moral philosophy is something personal and intangible which is created through my life, through my parents moral teachings, through my own experiences in life, through my own readings, through my exposures to others, and even through whatever religion I was exposed to. I personally put those beliefs through a cycle of questioning, critical thinking, and rigorous testing every time there is a situation that's will test my beliefs. I weigh the facts compared to my experience and I make my decision. If I decide that my personal moral philosophy is wrong after I've gone through my process, then I will adjust my personal moral philosophy. I am not saying that everyone should do as I do. That would make me a hypocrite.

As I look at those people who are in those congregations, I wonder what they think about the church leadership's intent on insisting that they gather on Easter because that decision may very well kill someone. I wonder personal philosophy lines up with what their leaders are telling them. If they are not aligned, I hope that they are courageous enough to walk away because freedom of religion means you can walk away from what they had chosen as their congregation. Many people have in recent days. The real problem is if they are aligned with their leaders, then I wonder about these people’s grasp on reality, on whether they understand that they could very well be killing their friends, neighbors, and family. This is how the Branch Davidian this is how the Jonestown massacre happened: people who have align the personal philosophy to that of their leaders unthinkingly and without question, because they followed that cult of personality.

Observations-Welcome to the Introvert's World

During this time of self-quarantine and social distancing, it became pretty obvious that the introverts have an edge over the extroverts, as our present situation goes straight to our existential being.

Introverts have been described as outliers in a society that emphasizes the qualities of an extrovert and we have been pretty much shunned and pushed aside because we just don't fit into the noisy and oversharing world of the extrovert. Until Susan Cain's Quiet came along most introverts have plodded along on their own paths, finding a way to go about their business and trying to survive in an extroverted world by going along with the extroversion, trying to fake it until we make it. It's been uncomfortable obviously for many of us, but we adapt and then we all run home to our silence and solitude.

This enforced period of solitude and isolation comes along and we watch somewhat bemusedly yet also with a mixed reaction of satisfaction and horror as the rest of the world panics at the prospects of living in what we would consider to be our nirvana: in solitude. Understand that we are bemused but not unsympathetic to our extroverted friends, for we have been living on their nirvana, where the chaos and noise not only discomforts us, it sometimes paralyzes us to the point of incoherence. We had been forced act against our nature. Once the world has flipped and the extroverted world must react in ways that is against their nature. We are here to say: we get it, we understand, welcome to our world, we will help you to understand our world as no one had in helping us understand the extrovert world.

Observations-Fake Meat

There has been a deluge of fast food companies capitalizing on the development of vegetarian meat replacement products and offering fake meat products on their menus. They are doing this in response to the demand of those who have chosen the vegetarian diet and lifestyle.

The response has been quite good, people like the product. Comments like: it tastes just like a real hamburger; you really won’t miss the animal protein; it is so much healthier and yet it still gives me the satisfaction of eating meat.

If you miss meat so much, why don’t you just eat meat?

People change their diets to a vegetarian one for many reasons: religious, spiritual, health, and as a response to the environmental impact of meat production on the earth. I really have no beef  (😊)with that. It is their choice and they are much better than I for being able to live this way.

I do have an issue with why they are seeking to replace meat in all of its culinary glory: the taste, the unctuous mouth feel, the smell of animal fat charring, and the fibrous texture, by imitation.

I am an omnivore, you won’t see me turn down extra helpings of vegetables, but you also won’t see me replacing my meat consumption with faux meat. Even as I get older and I am cutting back on my meat consumption, I would rather consume more vegetables, fish, and chicken than consume something that came out of a test tube and tries to be a reasonable facsimile of meat. Mainly because a reasonable facsimile is not a reasonable facsimile.

The question has always puzzled me: why make something into something that nature had not intended in order to make you feel good about yourself? It seems every culture that has chosen to consume only vegetables have gone out of their way to create something meat-like yet is not meat. Tofu, seitan, tempeh, textured soy protein, jackfruits, beans, lentils, are amongst the many others have been used as meat substitutes, they have been successful to varying degrees but never completely successful. They tell me that the most recent attempts have been more successful.

It seems to me that those who have declared their intention to live as herbivores should hold on to the lofty standards of that lifestyle. There is a large amount of resolve and discipline in becoming and staying a vegetarian; it is indeed a large sacrifice and an intellectual commitment to the rules of whatever form of vegetarianism they claim. It feels like cheating, in my mind when you create substitutes for meat, you are saying: I don’t really want to give up all the gustatory pleasures of eating meat, I just want to not eat meat while I still can derive the same pleasure. It seems contradictory and bordering on the hypocritical.

It is my experience that Asian cultures have tastier vegetarian foods. The requirements of the various Asian religions have caused the Asian vegetarians to react the same way as the western vegetarian: create meat substitutes; even though the Asian vegetarian foods tastes much better and are seemingly more clever in how they disguise the fact that there is no meat in their recipes. Part of it is that the culinary traditions of the Asian cultures are not as meat centered as the western cultures. The amount of meat that are served in each dish is much less than that of a western dish: the proportions of meat to vegetable and starch in much smaller in the Asian culture than the western culture, so it was easier to disguise the lack of meat because there was less to disguise. Speaking for myself, I think the Asian cultures have also had more time to develop their clever ways of making a vegetarian dish - the western vegetarianism became in vogue only relatively recently. There have always been vegetarians in the western cultures, but they did not number in as large a proportion of the general population as vegetarians in Asia.

It is no wonder that the nouveau vegetarians are left hankering for meat replacements, they have much more to replace and their culinary techniques for vegetarian foods are lagging in evolution. But that still begs the question of: why even bother to do this in the first place.

Circling back to the original argument, if once one decides to become vegetarian, should they not be held to that standard of consumption, at least by their own conscience? Why is it that they allow themselves the right to declare as vegetarians and still cheat in order to sate their taste buds?

Believe me when I say that I am not claiming moral superiority because I would not be able to live a vegetarian lifestyle. I can live eating an omnivore diet that is heavily weighed towards vegetables, but I would not be able to give up meat completely. But at least I am honest about my foibles and lack of discipline and not cheat to pretend that I don’t miss meat.

I guess it is more of a moral and philosophical question than a culinary question. What does being vegetarian mean to a vegetarian?