The title of the article seems to be somewhat consistent with the current cultural tide of being an arrogant asshole while claiming to be a "truth teller."
It seems that people have forgotten that it is possible to tell the truth without having to be a dick to someone.
I guess that the internet is so full of muck that the only thing that cuts through it all are "acidic" statements like the title. However, it just isn't good for society (unless your an asshole).
However, then I started to wonder if the NCAA is trying to figure out a way to deal with shady ADs and Presidents at other schools who are taking aggressive public relations stances against the NCAA's cases against their schools and basically thumbing their noses at the NCAA. It seems that as it currently stands, these individuals are not held accountable for those efforts, and thus, they can be an effective approach for the schools (that may be why we are seeing it happen more and more).
I suppose it's possible that these rule changes could actually help Michigan if our AD and President act in more ethical ways than others (which may not really feel like "help" if you want Warde fired).
Ultimately, adults need to sit down and develop a system of rules that makes sense regarding student-athletes and academic institutions. I doubt these kinds of "band-aid" approaches are likely to work. The current state of many schools just flaunting the rules is not good for sports. It seems to me that sports need rules, and they need mechanisms to enforce those rules.
I've wondered if there is something to this argument.
It is possible that the NIL situation may have actually led to Michigan's national championship this year.
Players that are only focused on getting the money from NIL may not end up having the motivation to put everything they have into developing as a player. Thus, in this NIL environment, a team could build a successful recruiting strategy around identifying a core group of players who "live and breathe" football. These players can help you develop an effective culture of excellence and sacrifice because they are a solid chunk of the players. Previously, this kind of culture may have come from the coach (e.g., Nick Saban), but if players are now essentially free agents then that culture can be tougher to build when a player can balk at sacrifice and exceptional work ethic and leave for greener pastures.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years.
From what I can tell, I think you are correct. This appears to be the full (?) statement from Manuel:
"While the ongoing NCAA matter continues through the NCAA process, today's announcement is our way of addressing mistakes that our department has agreed to in an attempt to further that process. We will continue to support coach Harbaugh, his staff, and our outstanding student-athletes. Per the NCAA's guidelines, we cannot comment further until the matter is resolved."
The statement about the 3-game suspension being about a Level I violation comes from the article, not the AD.
In the world of chess, most computers can now beat the best chess grandmaster. However, a human with a computer can beat a computer without a human. What the chess programs can do well is process all the possible moves and determine the best move. What the chess programs can't do is strategize.
Similarly, humans are better at poker than computers.
It appears that AI programs are good at "simpler" problems, problems that have finite outcomes and clear rules (like chess). They struggle, however, with what are known as "wicked problems," problems that have multiple interdependent variables, conflicting or unclear data, and unclear rules.
Future employment is likely to be available for people who are good at working with "wicked problems."
This is why protecting democracy will be critical. The more we move toward oligarchies or autocracies, the more likely it is that we will end up with this kind of societal fracturing.
A more recent theory in the field of psychology is that our thoughts are simply our brain telling us a story about our feelings and bodily sensations, and that they don't necessarily have to be accurate. It's akin to the idea that when we "rationalize," we tell ourselves "rational lies." As long as our thoughts or beliefs seem logical or make a good story, we will believe them to be true.
In a way, the brain can be viewed as a "story-telling machine." For example, there is a theory of dreams that views them as resulting from the brain telling us a story about what are ultimately random neurons firing while we sleep. The randomness is disconcerting so our brain tries to make sense of it, and that it accomplishes this through a story (this is also why stories are so successful at maintaining our attention and improving our memories).
In my experience, I have been able to develop a lot of self-awareness from treating my thoughts as stories that I tell myself rather than them being "true."
You make a great point, and I am by no means a high-volume traveler. My travel is pretty random each year:
2-4 conferences in the U.S.
1-2 flights with family
My daughter is studying in Spain this Fall, so at least 1 European trip
We live in AZ
I simply am hoping to get as many points in order to get some "free" flights in order to minimize the emotional pain of spending thousands of dollars to fly my family of 5 somewhere.
I agree. There are many very good public schools. One problem, though, is the wide variance in public school quality. I would also argue that an underfunding of public schools is one of the factors at play here. Parent Teachers Organizations (PTOs) do a lot of fundraising and pour that donated money into their schools.
In my children's school district, the difference between two elementary schools only 10 miles apart was $100,000 in donations. As a result, that one school has an entire computer lab that the other school doesn't have. And that was just from one year of donations.
If we really want to know how good this team is, I believe we will have to wait until the end of the season.
Until then, it can be helpful to separate our egos from the team, so we can simply enjoy this opportunity to watch our favorite team play football while wearing the best uniforms, representing a university that is one of the best in the WORLD, accompanied by a great marching band playing the best fight song, and sometimes with 100,000 fans watching in the one of the greatest college towns around.
Don't forget to appreciate our abundance of riches.
First, I would want to make it clear that in the following thoughts I'm talking about the "booster" and payments situation, not the members of the Fab Five, the people.
For me personally, I really want to come up with rationalizations about that situation, arguing that Martin wasn't truly a booster because he paid a number of kids (many who didn't go to Michigan). But ultimately, I don't think of it as a situation of which makes me feel proud of my alma mater. So, again for me personally, it does cheapen or cloud things.
In fact, I remember being pretty uncomfortable with Bill Frieder because he seemed to be more on the slimy side of things. And it seemed that a lot of people thought that (which was probably why people were not so upset when he left to go to ASU). Steve Fisher, ironically, seemed less slimy.
I have to admit, though, that I may easily be in the minority as an alumnus. Maybe it's only 5% of the alumni who feel like I do. On the other hand, I wonder if the percentage is significantly lower in the non-alumni fan group?
Keep the focus on your daughter. How does she want to handle it, or have it handled?
Her personal agency/control (around her own body) has been violated. Be careful not to act without involving her and giving her back some of that agency/control. Otherwise, the process itself can end up being traumatic and diminish her agency/control.
I would argue that MGoBlog/Brian hasn't really changed, but that the political landscape has changed.
MGoBlog/Brian has always been about trying to analyze Michigan sports with as much objectivity as possible. UFR's are an attempt to try to break down games by each play and analyze who did well or not. In other words, it is an attempt to not just rely on a subjective experience of a game, where "Michigan sucked" or "Michigan dominated" are just impressions formed by faulty data.
The availability heuristic suggests that we tend to pay attention to more memorable data. More memorable data tends to be emotional, so we often tend to remember the plays that frustrated us the most. So even in a win, fans often do not feel satisfied. We wonder why we can't be Alabama, not realizing, however, that Alabama fans are probably often frustrated after wins for the same reason (they remember plays that didn't go well and frustrated them). UFR is an attempt to avoid that natural bias.
MGoBlog/Brian uses, in essence, a scientific approach. As a result, it is no surprise that he is making more "political" comments because of the nature of the arguments being made that do not take a scientific approach. The scientific method recognizes that confirmation bias will get in the way of finding the truth, and so it actively tests its ideas and attempts to disprove them. Trying to prove your own view is easy, but leads to false confidence. Being able to avoid disproving your own view is much harder, but actually leads to more accurate claims.
MGoBlog/Brian, such as in the example of UFR, is open to disproving his subjective feelings about a game. And I would assume listening to other people make claims based on subjective or political viewpoints probably drives him nuts. And he's going to call it for what it is.
MGoBlog/Brian is being consistent and arguing for a scientific and fact-based approach to information. It's just that the world has politicized science even more than it had in the past. He's standing up for a scientific approach.
Cross-training your brain muscle makes it stronger, especially if you are a young adult who is still developing neurologically (like most college students).
You are not learning Geology to just learn Geology. You are learning how Geologists think about and solve problems, which is different than how Literature people think about and solve problems, which is different than how CIS people think about and solve problems. That cross-training gives your brain more tools to analyze problems and create solutions.
However, many jobs may not require that level of analytical thinking and problem-solving. Instead, you may be simply expected to follow the steps and do what you are told. In that case, vocational training may be more appropriate.
It would be nice to know the value of X on the graph below for any comment. And we can't ask the commenter, because everyone overestimates their knowledge because they don't know what they don't know.
I have no major issues with the notion that the risk of death from car crashes for college-aged individuals is higher than the risk of death from Covid-19. If you isolate just that variable, then those conclusions seem reasonable.
But I'm simply suggesting that it's an "apples to oranges" comparison.
A societal response should not be based on just this one isolated variable (individual risk). Because viruses are contagious, unlike car crashes, there is the potential for exponential growth in infections and some of those will lead to deaths. I believe the public response should be taking that exponential growth risk into consideration as well.
That's why the societal response to a car crash risk will probably be different than the response to a virus risk.
Exactly. The scientific method is self-correcting over time. The problem with which many people seem to struggle is that science is a slow and incremental process that is often probabilistic, which doesn't satisfy people's need for the right answer RIGHT NOW. That's why, psychologically, we are often easily fooled by very confident people, who actually know very little.
How do you take into account the fact that car crashes aren't contagious? If car crashes were contagious and thus prone to exponential growth, what then?
I took the class "Analogy and Creativity" at UofM with Prof. Hofstadter, probably in 1987. Some of the most interesting assignments I've ever had, including having to write an essay of exactly 350 words on what I thought was one of the most creative idea/things from history without using the letter "e" or "i."
He could start with community college to get his feet under him. Costs significantly less, good number of non-traditional aged students, and the instruction is often superior because the faculty are teachers not researchers or grad students.
Could simply try some classes in areas that interest him to see if they spark something.
CC’s are an oft-forgotten jewel of our education system.
If you want ridiculously cheap golf, go to Scottsdale in the summer; golf rates are upwards of 75% off, and the resorts are usually around $100/night. And the courses are pretty empty. You can play a round in a couple of hours.
While it is definitely hot, it's not as bad as you might think if you go early in the morning or late in the afternoon, and use a cart with a canopy. June is the best time to go because the humidity is still very low. In July, the monsoons start increasing the humidity and thus the discomfort.
Having differing learning opportunities is unfair; they should make it so that all schools are equal in the academic opportunities for their student-athletes. /s
I logged in just to give you credit for taking responsibility and being civil. It is sad how rare this is that I felt the need to post, but thank you for being an adult.
I definitely agree that the use of blanket labels for people/points of view can dramatically undermine reasonable debates. And I would argue that you see that labeling from both sides.
It seems like it's a way to try to "win" the debate before it even starts because you paint the person into a corner and they don't get to express their opinion, but rather have to defend themselves from the start.
It's like asking: "Why do you hate American so much?" It's no longer about your thoughts or viewpoint, but instead it's about having to prove you don't fit in some ridiculous frame.
That said, I wonder if an example of someone who could be labeled (unproductively) "pro-fascist" would be a person who is a neo-nazi and argues that the Holocaust didn't happen. Some might argue that a school should not let that person speak on campus because the ideas can be harmful to groups of students. Others might argue that they should be allowed to speak because of the First Amendment and providing open-minded discussions..
IIRC, Mattison has said that the reason for the change was to keep JMFR on the field for all 3 downs, rather than having to be subbed out for 3rd down passing plays. That's not necessarily a terrible idea.
In hindsight, however, it may be better to lose one of your best defensive players for 3rd downs if he is struggling at the Mike. I don't know...
Be careful, because there is a phenomenon called emotional contagion, where being around a group of people in a particular mood can cause you to feel the same way.
It's partly how persons can be smart, but people can be dumb.
I think it might be more accurate to say some members of the fanbase don't do happy. Some people are just generally not happy. Research shows that even if they win the lottery, they won't be happy.
Recent Comments
Reminds me of this:
^^This.
Reminds me of this:
The title of the article seems to be somewhat consistent with the current cultural tide of being an arrogant asshole while claiming to be a "truth teller."
It seems that people have forgotten that it is possible to tell the truth without having to be a dick to someone.
I guess that the internet is so full of muck that the only thing that cuts through it all are "acidic" statements like the title. However, it just isn't good for society (unless your an asshole).
That was my first thought, too. LOL.
However, then I started to wonder if the NCAA is trying to figure out a way to deal with shady ADs and Presidents at other schools who are taking aggressive public relations stances against the NCAA's cases against their schools and basically thumbing their noses at the NCAA. It seems that as it currently stands, these individuals are not held accountable for those efforts, and thus, they can be an effective approach for the schools (that may be why we are seeing it happen more and more).
I suppose it's possible that these rule changes could actually help Michigan if our AD and President act in more ethical ways than others (which may not really feel like "help" if you want Warde fired).
Ultimately, adults need to sit down and develop a system of rules that makes sense regarding student-athletes and academic institutions. I doubt these kinds of "band-aid" approaches are likely to work. The current state of many schools just flaunting the rules is not good for sports. It seems to me that sports need rules, and they need mechanisms to enforce those rules.
I've wondered if there is something to this argument.
It is possible that the NIL situation may have actually led to Michigan's national championship this year.
Players that are only focused on getting the money from NIL may not end up having the motivation to put everything they have into developing as a player. Thus, in this NIL environment, a team could build a successful recruiting strategy around identifying a core group of players who "live and breathe" football. These players can help you develop an effective culture of excellence and sacrifice because they are a solid chunk of the players. Previously, this kind of culture may have come from the coach (e.g., Nick Saban), but if players are now essentially free agents then that culture can be tougher to build when a player can balk at sacrifice and exceptional work ethic and leave for greener pastures.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years.
The weather forcast in Houston, TX:
I hate pop quizzes, and tonight of all nights!
From what I can tell, I think you are correct. This appears to be the full (?) statement from Manuel:
The statement about the 3-game suspension being about a Level I violation comes from the article, not the AD.
In the world of chess, most computers can now beat the best chess grandmaster. However, a human with a computer can beat a computer without a human. What the chess programs can do well is process all the possible moves and determine the best move. What the chess programs can't do is strategize.
Similarly, humans are better at poker than computers.
It appears that AI programs are good at "simpler" problems, problems that have finite outcomes and clear rules (like chess). They struggle, however, with what are known as "wicked problems," problems that have multiple interdependent variables, conflicting or unclear data, and unclear rules.
Future employment is likely to be available for people who are good at working with "wicked problems."
I highly recommend the book, Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World by David Epstein.
This is why protecting democracy will be critical. The more we move toward oligarchies or autocracies, the more likely it is that we will end up with this kind of societal fracturing.
A more recent…
Agreed.
A more recent theory in the field of psychology is that our thoughts are simply our brain telling us a story about our feelings and bodily sensations, and that they don't necessarily have to be accurate. It's akin to the idea that when we "rationalize," we tell ourselves "rational lies." As long as our thoughts or beliefs seem logical or make a good story, we will believe them to be true.
In a way, the brain can be viewed as a "story-telling machine." For example, there is a theory of dreams that views them as resulting from the brain telling us a story about what are ultimately random neurons firing while we sleep. The randomness is disconcerting so our brain tries to make sense of it, and that it accomplishes this through a story (this is also why stories are so successful at maintaining our attention and improving our memories).
In my experience, I have been able to develop a lot of self-awareness from treating my thoughts as stories that I tell myself rather than them being "true."
You make a great point, and I am by no means a high-volume traveler. My travel is pretty random each year:
I simply am hoping to get as many points in order to get some "free" flights in order to minimize the emotional pain of spending thousands of dollars to fly my family of 5 somewhere.
I wonder how it would play out in the long term. I could see where it could lead to some interesting unintended consequences:
It would essentially become a professional league, so it could start to look more and more like the NFL.
At this point, there may be no alternative to that path.
I agree. There are many very good public schools. One problem, though, is the wide variance in public school quality. I would also argue that an underfunding of public schools is one of the factors at play here. Parent Teachers Organizations (PTOs) do a lot of fundraising and pour that donated money into their schools.
In my children's school district, the difference between two elementary schools only 10 miles apart was $100,000 in donations. As a result, that one school has an entire computer lab that the other school doesn't have. And that was just from one year of donations.
Night Shift with Michael Keaton (at his best), Henry Winkler, and Shelley Long (of Cheers fame).
If we really want to know how good this team is, I believe we will have to wait until the end of the season.
Until then, it can be helpful to separate our egos from the team, so we can simply enjoy this opportunity to watch our favorite team play football while wearing the best uniforms, representing a university that is one of the best in the WORLD, accompanied by a great marching band playing the best fight song, and sometimes with 100,000 fans watching in the one of the greatest college towns around.
Don't forget to appreciate our abundance of riches.
Also something that can be explained by statistical issues, in this case: regression to the mean.
First, I would want to make it clear that in the following thoughts I'm talking about the "booster" and payments situation, not the members of the Fab Five, the people.
For me personally, I really want to come up with rationalizations about that situation, arguing that Martin wasn't truly a booster because he paid a number of kids (many who didn't go to Michigan). But ultimately, I don't think of it as a situation of which makes me feel proud of my alma mater. So, again for me personally, it does cheapen or cloud things.
In fact, I remember being pretty uncomfortable with Bill Frieder because he seemed to be more on the slimy side of things. And it seemed that a lot of people thought that (which was probably why people were not so upset when he left to go to ASU). Steve Fisher, ironically, seemed less slimy.
I have to admit, though, that I may easily be in the minority as an alumnus. Maybe it's only 5% of the alumni who feel like I do. On the other hand, I wonder if the percentage is significantly lower in the non-alumni fan group?
Keep the focus on your daughter. How does she want to handle it, or have it handled?
Her personal agency/control (around her own body) has been violated. Be careful not to act without involving her and giving her back some of that agency/control. Otherwise, the process itself can end up being traumatic and diminish her agency/control.
It needs to be about her, not you.
Agreed.
For alumni, I think there is love for UofM that goes beyond just sports. And in many cases, is completely independent of Michigan sports.
UofM is a special place, and doing things like OSU or Alabama would cheapen that.
**Neigh**
I would argue that MGoBlog/Brian hasn't really changed, but that the political landscape has changed.
MGoBlog/Brian has always been about trying to analyze Michigan sports with as much objectivity as possible. UFR's are an attempt to try to break down games by each play and analyze who did well or not. In other words, it is an attempt to not just rely on a subjective experience of a game, where "Michigan sucked" or "Michigan dominated" are just impressions formed by faulty data.
The availability heuristic suggests that we tend to pay attention to more memorable data. More memorable data tends to be emotional, so we often tend to remember the plays that frustrated us the most. So even in a win, fans often do not feel satisfied. We wonder why we can't be Alabama, not realizing, however, that Alabama fans are probably often frustrated after wins for the same reason (they remember plays that didn't go well and frustrated them). UFR is an attempt to avoid that natural bias.
MGoBlog/Brian uses, in essence, a scientific approach. As a result, it is no surprise that he is making more "political" comments because of the nature of the arguments being made that do not take a scientific approach. The scientific method recognizes that confirmation bias will get in the way of finding the truth, and so it actively tests its ideas and attempts to disprove them. Trying to prove your own view is easy, but leads to false confidence. Being able to avoid disproving your own view is much harder, but actually leads to more accurate claims.
MGoBlog/Brian, such as in the example of UFR, is open to disproving his subjective feelings about a game. And I would assume listening to other people make claims based on subjective or political viewpoints probably drives him nuts. And he's going to call it for what it is.
MGoBlog/Brian is being consistent and arguing for a scientific and fact-based approach to information. It's just that the world has politicized science even more than it had in the past. He's standing up for a scientific approach.
Cross-training…
My thoughts:
Cross-training your brain muscle makes it stronger, especially if you are a young adult who is still developing neurologically (like most college students).
You are not learning Geology to just learn Geology. You are learning how Geologists think about and solve problems, which is different than how Literature people think about and solve problems, which is different than how CIS people think about and solve problems. That cross-training gives your brain more tools to analyze problems and create solutions.
However, many jobs may not require that level of analytical thinking and problem-solving. Instead, you may be simply expected to follow the steps and do what you are told. In that case, vocational training may be more appropriate.
It would be nice to know the value of X on the graph below for any comment. And we can't ask the commenter, because everyone overestimates their knowledge because they don't know what they don't know.
Credit: SMBC Comics (https://www.facebook.com/smbccomics/posts/mount-stupidhttpwwwsmbc-comicscomid2475/1795769520491296/)
I have no major issues with the notion that the risk of death from car crashes for college-aged individuals is higher than the risk of death from Covid-19. If you isolate just that variable, then those conclusions seem reasonable.
But I'm simply suggesting that it's an "apples to oranges" comparison.
A societal response should not be based on just this one isolated variable (individual risk). Because viruses are contagious, unlike car crashes, there is the potential for exponential growth in infections and some of those will lead to deaths. I believe the public response should be taking that exponential growth risk into consideration as well.
That's why the societal response to a car crash risk will probably be different than the response to a virus risk.
Exactly. The scientific method is self-correcting over time. The problem with which many people seem to struggle is that science is a slow and incremental process that is often probabilistic, which doesn't satisfy people's need for the right answer RIGHT NOW. That's why, psychologically, we are often easily fooled by very confident people, who actually know very little.
Car wrecks are not contagious, so it might be a little different.
How do you take into account the fact that car crashes aren't contagious? If car crashes were contagious and thus prone to exponential growth, what then?
I took the class "Analogy and Creativity" at UofM with Prof. Hofstadter, probably in 1987. Some of the most interesting assignments I've ever had, including having to write an essay of exactly 350 words on what I thought was one of the most creative idea/things from history without using the letter "e" or "i."
He could start with community college to get his feet under him. Costs significantly less, good number of non-traditional aged students, and the instruction is often superior because the faculty are teachers not researchers or grad students.
Could simply try some classes in areas that interest him to see if they spark something.
CC’s are an oft-forgotten jewel of our education system.
Better today than yesterday, better tomorrow than today...
If you want ridiculously cheap golf, go to Scottsdale in the summer; golf rates are upwards of 75% off, and the resorts are usually around $100/night. And the courses are pretty empty. You can play a round in a couple of hours.
While it is definitely hot, it's not as bad as you might think if you go early in the morning or late in the afternoon, and use a cart with a canopy. June is the best time to go because the humidity is still very low. In July, the monsoons start increasing the humidity and thus the discomfort.
And superior academics...
Having differing learning opportunities is unfair; they should make it so that all schools are equal in the academic opportunities for their student-athletes. /s
I logged in just to give you credit for taking responsibility and being civil. It is sad how rare this is that I felt the need to post, but thank you for being an adult.
He's stalking his prey. Completely focused on bringing the QB down...
I definitely agree that the use of blanket labels for people/points of view can dramatically undermine reasonable debates. And I would argue that you see that labeling from both sides.
It seems like it's a way to try to "win" the debate before it even starts because you paint the person into a corner and they don't get to express their opinion, but rather have to defend themselves from the start.
It's like asking: "Why do you hate American so much?" It's no longer about your thoughts or viewpoint, but instead it's about having to prove you don't fit in some ridiculous frame.
That said, I wonder if an example of someone who could be labeled (unproductively) "pro-fascist" would be a person who is a neo-nazi and argues that the Holocaust didn't happen. Some might argue that a school should not let that person speak on campus because the ideas can be harmful to groups of students. Others might argue that they should be allowed to speak because of the First Amendment and providing open-minded discussions..
I can't think of a time when I've ever seen (or heard of) all-male cheerleaders cheering on a female team...
"it's Like That" by Run-D.M.C. changed my musical future...
In other words, they are all on the same team, and an attack on any member of the team is an attack on the team...
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Wow, that is one long hug!
Yay, "Michigan Man" is dead!
Now, let's hire a former Michigan player!
He said "run the football." He didn't specify how. I wonder if we are going to see more runs by Gardner.
Brian is not a china doll...
IIRC, Mattison has said that the reason for the change was to keep JMFR on the field for all 3 downs, rather than having to be subbed out for 3rd down passing plays. That's not necessarily a terrible idea.
In hindsight, however, it may be better to lose one of your best defensive players for 3rd downs if he is struggling at the Mike. I don't know...
I can see exactly what you're talking about.
Be careful, because there is a phenomenon called emotional contagion, where being around a group of people in a particular mood can cause you to feel the same way.
It's partly how persons can be smart, but people can be dumb.
I think it might be more accurate to say some members of the fanbase don't do happy. Some people are just generally not happy. Research shows that even if they win the lottery, they won't be happy.