What Makes a Best Friend?

I was in a meaningless, meandering online conversation with a friend recently and I started wondering why, at the end of an hour of chatting, I still had this smile on my face. In terms of "productivity" I hadn't achieved much. We had each said several trivial little things and a few  deeper, heartfelt things, and we ended the chat knowing we'd be doing this again soon.

I realized that what made this conversation special was that it was comfortable. I never had to think much before responding because I could be exactly who I am without having to put in the effort to sound clever, thoughtful, or deep. I think you have a best friend when you can just be yourself with them and not have to converse on tenterhooks wondering if some part of the interaction is going to hurt you down the line. You feel comfortable with them because you know they like you for who you are.

It's certainly not that best friends are blind to each others faults (I think those friendships rarely last). Rather the opposite. You acknowledge each others quirks and faults and issues and decide that the good outweighs the bad. When you know that they know your quirks and blemishes and faults and are still willing to spend time with you, you have a best friend. Once you know that you don't have to hide your own unique foibles and hangups from your friend because they're not going to reject you for it, you can just be yourself and have the kind of meaningless conversations and leave happy.

I had someone tell me once about their latest beau, "He's perfect. I just can't see any flaws in him." My thought to myself was "Uh, oh." Best friends, in my opinion, do not see each other as perfect or infallible in any way. The key is not to see no flaws, but to see the flaws, acknowledge them, and still decide that the good outweighs the bad and the relationship is worth pursuing. And, it's not even as simple as magnanimously declaring that you see your friend's flaws and accept them. It requires recognizing and accepting your own flaws. We are all quirky, irrational, and flawed in some way and unless we see that we ourselves have just as many quirks as the other party, there is an imbalance that will never lead to that level of "comfort" with the other party with which I started this essay. You not only have to see and accept your friends' flaws, but have to know that they have seen and accepted your flaws. Then you can relax and be yourself and have the sort of relationship of which dreams are made.

This dream relationship is not without fights, arguments or misunderstandings. In fact, I have got extremely irritated with the behavior of my "best friends" more than once. The flaws don't disappear in a BFF relationship. They often rear their head and lead to frustrations and disagreements. But, the difference with a best friend is that you come back. In the midst of your frustration, you know, in the back of your head, that you're not going to to discard the relationship because of this latest tiff. The good outweighs the bad.

That's why, in my obituary, I hope I don't come across as the perfect guy. I'd know people were lying and pretending that I was who I wasn't. Rather, the most honest compliment anyone could give me would be "at heart, he was a nice guy!"

I Hope We Lose Today!

Most of us involved in psychology research are fully aware of the biases we all carry with us constantly.  What we think and feel about others and our environments is colored by our personal biases and is often shockingly removed from the "truth" as we see it.  We believe we are right and know what's right even though it is probably not true.

Sometimes, these different perspectives we each have on events crash into each other and give us a glimpse of how different our views are from others.  So, last season, I was driving my 8-year-old son to one of his many hockey games and he was chattering away in the back seat.  At some point, he proclaims, "I hope we lose our game today!"  Confident he was being silly and playing an "opposite game" of some sort, I laughed and said something like "Right, as if you want to lose.  You mean, I hope we win big today."

In a perfectly serious voice, he replied "No, Dad.  Today I really hope we lose the game."

"Why?" I asked, wondering if there was some turmoil on his team such that he no longer wanted his team to succeed.

"Because my friend Carter is on the team we are playing and I don't want him to feel bad if they lose," he said with utmost sincerity.

All I heard was the crash of clashing perspectives.

Our son's hockey coach forwarded a great little article to all of us parents today and reading it reminded me of this event from last season.  It is just a fascinating little piece written by a youth hockey coach.  Read through it and tell me what you think:
http://www.truesportpur.ca/en/resources-/stories-6-i-hope-they-didn-t-bring-apple-juice

"Here, Here" for another Grammar Rant

Strangely this blog is evolving into some kind of personal grammar rant. And I don't even like grammar!

When someone says something you agree with, have you ever said "Here, Here!"? What the heck does that mean? Why would you highlight your location to indicate agreement with another person? Well, you shouldn't.

Technically, what the phrase should say is "Hear, Hear!" Now it makes sense. Someone says something that you agree with and you indicate your support of that point of view by telling other people they should "hear" what has just been said.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about this phrase:
"Hear, hear is an expression used as a short repeated form of hear him, hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker.

It was originally an imperative for directing attention to speakers, and has since been used, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, as "the regular form of cheering in the House of Commons", with many purposes depending on the intonation of its user. Its use in British Parliament is linked to the fact that applause is normally (though not always) verboten in the chambers of the House of Commons and House of Lords.

It is often incorrectly spelled "here here", especially on websites and IM.

The phrase hear him, hear him! was used in Parliament since the late 1600s, and had been reduced to hear! or hear, hear! by the late 1700s."

This was just another little annoyance to me (I would constantly read people saying "Here, here" and make some patronizing mental comment about their idiocy) until recently.

I was reading a novel by one of my favorite authors, Robin Cook (I've always enjoyed medical thrillers) and on page 288 of the hardcover 1st edition, I ran into this:

"Here, here!" Shawn said in agreement, motioning with his scotch as if making a toast.

Come on, really? Robin Cook? In all fairness, it may be the work of some ignorant editor on the staff of Putnam's books. But seriously, none of the editors on their staff caught this gaffe?

"There, there!"

Rajiv's Law of Discussion of Issues

Rajiv's Law of Complex Issue Discussion:

The amount of outrage expressed by a person on any complex issue is inversely proportional to their understanding of it.

You must not of learned much!

Okay, I decided to post a quick note to this dormant blog about a pet peeve I have that today boiled over into active frustration. For some reason, today I saw THREE separate instances of people using "of" instead of "have." It drives me NUTS even though I realize how irrational the reaction is.

I am guessing that it is because of the SOUND of the word, people have written things like "I must of learned something in class," or "You should of come over yesterday," or "You must of stayed out late last night."

What is the deal here? Surely when you write it you realize how stupid it looks and sounds? If you can't figure out when to use "have," just go ahead and use a contraction like "must've" or "should've" even though I'm not a huge fan of that usage.

Phew! That feels better ...

And while we're at it, people PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ...

This post cannot peek your interest, but it certainly can pique your interest.

Books ...

Some Great Books I've Read Recently:
Predictably Irrational
Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness

Some books I want to read
Buyology: Truth and Lies about Why We Buy
Call of the Mall
Guesstimation: Solving the World's Problems on the Back of a Cocktail Napkin
Impossible?: Surprising Solutions to Counterintuitive Conundrums
Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior
The Logic of Life
Don't Believe Everything You Think
Blind Spots: Why Smart People Do Dumb Things
Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)
Innumeracy
Irreligion
Crimes Against Logic
Everything You Know About God Is Wrong
Gut Feelings
The Black Swan
The Two Headed Quarter
Thinking and Deciding
More Damned Lies and Statistics
Statistics and Data Analysis: From Elementary to Intermediate
Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart

Open Letter to Vikings Owner Zygi Wilf

Dear Mr. Wilf:

Yes, I know how the sunk cost effect and commitment/consistency theory make it difficult for you to pull the plug on Mr. Dead Man Walking (oops, I meant Mr. Childress). But, please have some pity on Mr. I Just Need to Play Better (a.k.a Mr. Tarvaris Jackson) and put a merciful end to their suffering? And, it may just minimize the misery of another lost season for us Vikings fans.

Actually, you know what terrifies me more than a string of losses this year? A string of wins this year. I am dreading the idea of your continued support for a clueless coach (and let’s not forget his “system”) and an incompetent QB instead of stopping the bleeding right now. I worry that you will feed this team some hemorrhaging medicine that results in a few victories in a row so they end up with a spectacular 9-7 season. Then, what if they somehow make the playoffs. Isn’t it going to be so much harder to fire them then? Why not rip the Band-Aid off now and give all of us some shred of hope for next year?

Let’s give credit where it is due. First, I am sure that Mr. Childress DOES have a brilliant offensive “system.” Too bad it is a LOSING SYSTEM. Second, I am sure that Mr. Jackson is the physical prototype of an NFL QB. Too bad that most of his muscle is between his ears. Third, let’s talk about prized free-agent signing, Mr. Bernard Berrian. Yes, I am sure he is fast. Too bad he’s so fast that his right foot managed to trip up his left foot on the one deep pass that poor Mr. Jackson tried to throw. Finally, let’s talk about the other prominent signing recommended by Mr. Childress. Yes, the guy who dropped the eminently catchable pass in the end zone against the Colts. Visanthe … Wait, isn’t his nickname “Vise-Grip” Shiancoe? ‘Nuff said.

Mr. Wilf, you nobly backed coach Childress when he asked you to open up your pocketbook and pay a fortune for big-name free agent signings. Your loyalty was impressive when you trusted coach Childress who claimed that he had the skill to identify and groom a top notch quarterback in Tarvaris Jackson. I saw you smiling and nodding your head when you stood beside the coach as he talked about how improved Jackson was and how ready he is to lead the offense this year.

Sorry to sound pedantic, but attribution theory (see Kelley 1967) suggests that when consistency is high (Childress’ coaching performance is equally incompetent in different game situations and over multiple years), distinctiveness is low (Childress’ displays the same ineptitude in every phase of the game – whether it be offensive pass effectiveness or defensive pass coverage – and against any team he plays), and consensus is low (other teams – even ones that perform pathetically against other teams – look like superstars against a Childress-coached Vikings), it is reasonable to make an internal attribution (the cause of the failure is Childress). Kelley (1967) says that when the information available forms such a pattern, a clear attribution can be made to the “actor” (Childress). My guess is that a simple analysis of the pattern of information relating to Tarvaris Jackson will also allow you to make a clear attribution as to his role in this fiasco. Given coach Childress’ degree in psychology, this research may actually be familiar to him.

Perhaps I can appeal to your sense of outrage to overcome the normal resistance to going back on your “support” for coach Childress. You gave this man everything he wanted in order to build a contending team today. It is clear you opened your pocketbook to buy him all the toys he could demand to make his mysterious “system” work. Given that his system (which seems to basically consist of carefully concealing his mouth so no one steals his electric plays) has been given many opportunities to prove itself and he cannot blame it on a lack of talented players, maybe it is time to question whether the system works. In fact, how about we even question whether there IS a system in the first place. You know what, I suspect the reason coach Childress covered his mouth when relaying plays is because he wanted to hide the fact that he hadn’t come up with a single play yet! I can imagine coach Childress covering his mouth and muttering “Okay, I’ve got my mouth covered, you think anyone knows that I don’t have any brilliant play thought up yet? What can we do? Hey, how about having our superstar speedster Adrian Peterson run up the middle? Make sure you ask him to find the thickest part of the pile up and run straight towards it with his head down?” Poor Adrian probably hasn’t been executing the way he has been asked to execute by the coach.

Coach Childress loves to say “we’re always looking to put the personnel on the field that give us the best chance to win.” Maybe you should gently suggest to him that he stay home one of these Sundays?