hopelesshappiness.com

Poor little guy
Husk hanging by a thread
Crisped by and by
Roasted, salted, dead

I split and shelled
Pistachio unbound
Nut grasped and held
Half-shell caught dangling down

Silk strand attached
Connecting catacomb
Brave worm dispatched
Poly to Monochrome

He'd found a home
Burrowed to the meat
No more to roam
Pistachi-ated treat

Though cooked not raw
This nestled worm inside
I latched my jaw
My gut still mortified

Poor little guy
Husk hanging by a thread
Crisped by and by
Roasted, salted, dead

I admit; I have entertained the thought that perhaps one day my brilliant, cutting-edge, witty, indispensable, five-and-a-half year, weekly blog would be discovered. And why not? With only 300 million other blogs out there, and my aggressive "Field of Dreams" marketing strategy, a blog called Hopeless Happiness should pop. Right? I have even had the pompous audacity over this five-and-a-half years to, (on three... no, four... or maybe five different occasions), send a post unsolicited to some writer or expert because I thought it relevant to their current thought and/or writing and/or field of expertise. But in hindsight, (and not surprisingly), these occasions were merely my meandering metacognition misfiring. The only adjective (from above) to adequately describe the actuality of my personal blog is "indispensable"; and now, personal. For that is all this determined attempt to comprehend and appreciate has been---personally indispensable. But I have said this before; (here).

It is difficult to maintain that middle ground between confidence and humility. This week it is more a consideration of ego and doubt; or even fear. I wrote the first paragraph above yesterday, actively hoping to find humor in my struggle. And from an objective or confident perspective, it really is sadly comical to watch someone authoritatively pretend to know something that they do not know. Many examples come to mind; including the fact that more than once I have entertained the thought that perhaps one day my brilliant, cutting-edge, witty...

I understand that 1) the fact that I know what the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" is, and 2) the fact that I have frequently---(okay, at least periodically)---championed and worked to practice skepticism, uncertainty, and more frequent usage of the phrase "I don't know," and 3) the fact that I have questioned former foundational, entrenched beliefs to the point that I now refer to them as "former," should all influence my confidence in a positive way. But, I am here to argue that 1) because I know what the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" is, I see myself as a resulting casualty; and 2) because I practice skepticism and uncertainty, I realize that "I really don't know"; and 3) because my foundation in recent years has shifted so dramatically, I still feel its newness and instability. I understand firsthand, as someone who has been "willing to reconsider," how difficult it is to maintain a degree of confidence sufficient to be taken seriously---by others, or by myself.

But, in working to understand and appreciate this struggle, (as well as innumerable others), I will say again, "this blog has been personally indispensable."

According to the American Philosophical Association Delphi Description:

“The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments, willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters, diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit."

Skipping the preliminaries, because I work hard to be a critical thinker, when faced with a multitude of opinions and beliefs so clearly different from my own and certainties so far removed from my own uncertainties, how can I not ask more and more questions and how can I not become more and more uncertain? Because I am still functional, I realize that I may be exaggerating some to make my point; or perhaps I am simply asking, how can others be so unquestioning and certain? But I have asked this before; (here and here).

Also applicable to my struggle is the concept of relevance. This week I have either been sensitive to, or have had more frequent reminders of, my personal insignificance, which in turn has damaged my confidence. When suffering from a lack of confidence, my humility becomes debilitating doubt and/or fear; and when injured in this way I compensate with ego. But then of course, being the skeptical critical thinker that I am, I perpetuate the cycle by questioning my metacognition. And when I come to this point, it helps to remind myself that despite the actuality that I live in a circumstance in which irrelevance is distressingly irrelevant, I strongly believe that irrelevance is exceedingly relevant. But I have said this before; (here and here).

I suppose another part of this struggle and challenge, (that I have probably said before but perhaps not in this way), is that if I want to have a meaningful conversation about the necessity of skepticism and doubt and uncertainty, and the dynamics of relevance, I must find individuals potentially of a like mind, or I must influence individuals to a like mind; yet I am surrounded by a seemingly impenetrable culture of authoritative solipsism. Those in possession of this imposing majority mindset appear to find it very comfortable; and, from where I sit, it also appears that, (both individually and in totality), they would like to remain comfortable. This imperious arrogance attempts to manifest as confidence, (and on occasion, does so), but in actuality it is denial; denial that a questioning skepticism is necessary; denial that certainty is uncertain; denial that irrelevance is relevant; and denial that personal relevance is irrelevant.

This week I am a bit lost. I want to believe that ultimately those entrenched in denial will be overcome with a sense of inevitability, and evolve. And when I think in terms of the inevitability and the necessity of evolution, I do believe this. But this week, this thought is not comforting. This week I need to simply get to next week before I say something I have not said before.

So if I have conducted 81 interviews from a pool of 189 applicants, and I have an array of application review scores that ranked the applicants from 1 to 189 to determine which 81 I would interview, and I now also have an array of 81 interview scores ranking the interviews from 1 to 81 to determine which 26 I will select, and if I want to see how strong the correlation is between the application review scores and the interview scores, all I have to do is add up the first array of numbers, find the mean, subtract the mean from each number in the array, square the absolute value of each of those results, add up those results, divide by 81 (the number of numbers in the array) to find the variance, take the square root of the variance to find the standard deviation, repeat this process to find the standard deviation in the second array of numbers, convert each app review score in the first array to a standard unit by subtracting the app review score mean from the app review score and dividing that by the app review score standard deviation, convert each interview score in the second array to a standard unit by subtracting the interview score mean from the interview score and dividing that by the interview score standard deviation, multiply each candidate's app review score standard unit by their interview score standard unit, add up these results and divide that total by 81, (the number of numbers in each array). Simple.

The number I am left with is the correlation coefficient. It will be somewhere between -1 and 1. The larger the absolute value, the stronger the correlation. A correlation close to 0 indicates no meaningful association. A negative number indicates a negative correlation; (i.e. change in the opposite direction, or, the higher the app review score, the lower the interview score). A positive number indicates a positive correlation; (i.e. change in the same direction, or, the higher the app review score, the higher the interview score). Typically, an absolute value less than 0.3 indicates a weak correlation, an absolute value between 0.3 and 0.7 indicates a moderate correlation, and an absolute value greater than 0.7 indicates a strong correlation.

In this particular circumstance I believe I would like to see a strong positive correlation between app review scores and interview scores because I would like to feel confident that I am not leaving strong applicants without an interview, thus with no chance of selection. But I also have to be true to our interview process, (knowing that it is a more thorough vetting), and refrain from artificially inflating correlation, (possibly by including the app review score as a larger weighted portion of the interview score), simply to justify the app review process. So I must work backwards and structure the app review process to more closely approximate the interview process. If I am unable to strengthen the correlation by making solid connections from one process to the next, (and back), then (after a given time that in this circumstance will be measured in years), I will look at simpler criteria that will provide similar correlation with less complexity and less work. Of course the ultimate measure will be the success of those selected; but in this circumstance it is too early to measure this correlation, hence the continued complexity and effort, and the necessity of years.

Interestingly, between these first two years, I see the strongest correlation (between app review scores and interview scores) in the first year. Obviously this indicates that the two selection processes were more proximate in the first year than in the second year. But proximation does not mean they were better. My interpretation is that in the first year we were more instinctive and subjective, (and less experienced), in both the app review process and the interview process, and in the second year we were more consistent and precise in the app review process, but maintained a more subjective (but also more experienced) interview process. As already mentioned, the success of those selected may help to clarify but even that cannot tell us the appropriate mix of perspectives as we cannot measure the performance of those we did not select; and because of the quantity of candidates it may just simply be difficult to select poorly.

Though this is a good problem to have, it does not justify haphazard methods. If anything, it requires more focused diligence to take advantage of this opportunity to select the best of the best. Additionally, a selection process without consistency and measurement may very well produce positive results but if supply and demand change, how will we know what we have done right? To take advantage of the current circumstance we must continue to analyze the data as it comes, to determine if we have had the unfortunate good luck to have stumbled across two or more years of properly executed methods of selection, or the fortunate bad luck to have one process (statistically) distinguish itself.

Because these results are preliminary and premature, we will continue to make incremental improvements and within three to five years I can start playing with linear regression to predict outcomes based on various explanatory variables. But to do this with confidence it is better to be consistent in our subjective terminology and definitions. The end-result app review scores and interview scores, though objectified, are a mix of both objective data and subjective judgement. What I have done, going into this our third year of selection, is to design a rubric that defines the subjective performance measurements consistent with those subjective measurements utilized, (verbally and thoughtfully, if not expressly), and refined throughout our first two years of selection. I had mentioned that our interview process was a more thorough vetting, and it is largely from this process that I have created this rubric originally intending it to serve as a measure of the performance of those already selected. After some epiphanous analysis though, I have adapted this rubric's terminology and definitions to not only serve as a performance measurement, but also to reach back into the interview process and again back into the app review process, and reflect more precisely how our selection process has functioned and evolved. In a sense, I have used hindsight to structure foresight in order to measure the past, the present, and (ultimately) the future. What I must remember is that the present, (this moment), is fleeting; and to claim, (as I did at the beginning of this paragraph), that only "incremental" improvements are necessary from this moment forward, is to allege an arrogant certainty from a potentially devastating height. To prevent this fall, I must also remember that certainty kills effort, whereas uncertainty, as a byproduct of subjectivity, perpetuates effort.

He was loud and gruff; like the self-important businessman in the coffee shop on his cell phone arranging a fate-of-the-world-dependent materials delivery. He was amorphous and suffocating; uncoiling his nebulous, weighty tentacles to slither down my throat and heave the life-giving breath from the very essence of my being. He was greedy and insistent; leaving no options but to grovel and beg for the tiniest morsel of consideration and respect. He was pompous and condescending; as if he were a God on Earth---and in this moment, He was.

"I pray." And God answers my prayer with loud, gruff, amorphous, suffocating, greedy, insistent, pompous, condescending, momentary demands. And in the next moment, I pray to a different God. And in the next moment... and in the next moment... and in the next moment...

"I pray every day, all day."

If I don't pray, I am obliged to worship.

If I don't pray and if I question the necessity of worship, I am cast out.

If I am cast out, I am obliged to pray.

It is the Way.

On occasion, if I pray AND worship, I am provided an Answer. And on rare occasion, the Answer (to the consternation of the God) provides sustenance. And on these rare occasions, I am obliged to sing praise... and glory in His miracle... and worship with fervor... and spread the gospel... and pray with piety.

It is the Way.

And the Way is the Word.

And the Word is written in the "Statutes at Large" and in the "United States Code" and in the "Code of Federal Regulations" and in some 50 collections of State Statutes and in innumerable county and municipality ordinances and in case law and in regulatory provisions and in corporate and organizational bylaws and in the eternal ever-after of contractual fine print. Amen.

The Word is Law; and the Law is toothy and monstrous. I can stare it down. And I can speak against it. And I do. But I am not acknowledged. And I am not heard. This smile, that hovers above; that I find so hideous, and frightening; many others, (a great many others), find enchanting; hypnotic; beautiful. Yet many others, (a great many others), are not aware. These many others, (these great many others), do not see the enchanting smile as a smile; and they certainly do not see this same smile as hideous; they see the lips; sexy lips; and they believe it to be the kiss of these lips; but it is not; it is the teeth; only the teeth and they call it, Life. And they are chewed up; happily so. Smack; rip. Yummy.

I am not happy about the teeth. Festive decorations help. A road trip helps. A good meal helps. A purchase on Amazon helps. An array of bruises from my thumb to my elbow as a result of misadventures with a cardiologist and a large gauge needle helps. Distractions. I am still not happy about the teeth. But I am, at least, busy.

This week I am disconnected; unplugged; floating, but still tethered; by choice. And I am, at least, busy; by choice. From my vantage point, I can see the edge. I cannot see over the edge. I can see the edge. The edge is more frightening than the smile; but not more hideous. The edge is more attractive than the lips; but not as sexy. The edge is more dangerous than the teeth; but not as painful. To be chomped; and crunched; and gnashed; is to be necessary. But to work to be acknowledged and heard; to chomp, and crunch, and gnash; to actively hope; and still, at the same time, to be necessary, is to be truthful.

That's all. Truthful.

And I am confident that my truthfulness is filled with inaccuracies; like Newtonian Mechanics as it applies to sufficiently small objects; (from my perspective, I am a large object; from THE perspective, I am sufficiently small); or Ptolemy's theory of Geocentrism; (the World does not revolve around me).

And I am confident that my truthfulness is filled with imperfections; occluded and inefficient like the arteries leading to my heart; careless and hurtful like the angry thoughts and words that on occasion erupt from within; deafening and vertiginous like the tsunami freight train forever circling my thoughts; and misguided and ineffective like our efforts to build character in poor children to level a playing field when the leveling should be focused on eliminating poverty!

Yes, my truthfulness is occluded, inefficient, careless, hurtful, deafening, vertiginous, misguided, and ineffective. And it will always be so. Yet, each time I work to be acknowledged and heard; each time I chomp and crunch and gnash; each time I actively hope; I will gain some ground.

And each time I have to pray; each time I am chomped and crunched and gnashed; each time I stop to stare in disbelief; I am confounded.

And this is progress.

To be confounded, is to be necessary.

To be necessary, is to be truthful.

That's all. Truthful.

In more than five-and-a-half years of weekly written thought, it has seldom reflected strictly selfish personal concerns outside of a larger context. And this week I believe I will build to a larger context before I am through, but I will first begin with selfish concerns.

It is early Monday morning, and in an hour-and-a-half I will be checking in at the hospital for a heart catheterization. It will be my sixth cath over the past 7 years. I have been experiencing abnormal chest pain since before Christmas, and it has been increasing in frequency and intensity over the past 4 to 6 weeks. Last week my Wife caught me grimacing and involuntarily clutching my chest, and now here I am. I don't know if they will be adding to my collection of 7 stents, (or if they will be able to), or if the answer and resolution will involve a new experience, or if they will send me home because I am jumping the gun on an issue that is not fully manifested.

I am a bit anxious, and I believe (admittedly or not) that there is always some fear that accompanies uncertainty, but I am, for the most part, calm. For 7 years I have considered the import of my mortality, so in this regard today is merely a magnification.

We will see what comes...

... ... ... ... ...

It is Wednesday morning and after heart cath #6 and heart cath #7, I will be going home today. And in addition to Stent #8, here is what I am taking home:

It is difficult to consistently differentiate me as thinker and me as object. It is difficult for me to even consistently explain this difference because as object I am also thinker. These last 48 hours in the hospital have illustrated this dichotomy between thinker and object in a starkly fundamental way; most especially while on the table in the cath lab. In this circumstantial microcosm as presented, I am simultaneously a cold, shivering bundle of exposed disquietude, and a pulsating, trembling mass of imperfect vitality; an observer of bright lights and technological wizardry, and a clogged artery; a receptor of painful stimuli, and a carefully threaded catheter; an audience for the purposeful buzz of a sterile environment, and a shaved groin. As a thinker I perceive; as an object I am perceived. As a thinker I reach out. As an object I pull in. As a thinker I interpret. As an object I am interpreted. As a thinker I choose and act. As an object I repudiate and react.

I will never be a thinker outside of circumstance. And I should never think exclusively as object. To think exclusively as object would result in ingenuousness; (I would be an actor seeking good reviews).

Either way, (as thinker or object), I will never think outside of a context. Some may argue that Pure Thought is possible. I do not, (at least in this moment), agree. I can add complexity to my awareness of these roles by also recognizing others as objects within the context of my perception, and again as thinkers within the context of their circumstance; and additionally as objects once-removed upon their realization that they are object as perceived and interpreted by me. This relationship can be further removed if my perception of another is influenced or determined by the interpretation of yet another.

So in this regard, perhaps all thought must be, (at least to some degree), selfish thought. Am I more selfish as thinker? Or as object? To better clarify this question, I suppose we need to add another complexity to differentiate 1) me-as-object from 2) you-as-object. When I consider you-as-object, I am turning me-as-object inside out in that I am unable to see you as you see yourself seen. In other words, you-as-object will never attain the visceral resonance of me-as-thinker or me-as-object. From my perspective, I believe, (for the moment), that to consider me-as-thinker and you-as-object has more potential for conscious, productive Good than does my consideration of me-as-object. Instead of an extension of thought, (as we see in me-as-thinker and you-as-object), me-as-object involves a ricocheting cavalcade of thought that is typically less relevant and less productive. Yet often, once started, this me-as-object anguish compels or requires continued consideration of this me-as-object perplexity.

Because all three thinker-object dynamics discussed so far are unavoidable, I believe this differentiation and awareness will work toward productive Good. But what about the fourth thinker-object dynamic? What about you-as-thinker?

... ...After some thought, I believe that consideration for you-as-thinker comes after, (but ideally immediately after), consideration for you-as-object. This accompanying consideration is the determinant for either a) the potential for productive Good or b) the lack of productive Good, to be found within and beyond my consideration for you-as-object. When present, consideration for you-as-thinker manifests as a progression along a spectrum beginning with respect and moving through compassion, friendship, a depth of personal caring, and love, potentially leading to productive Good. If consideration for you-as-thinker is not present, obviously respect for the individual is also absent, and productive Good is unlikely.

And with this fourth thinker-object dynamic, (which is in actuality #3A), I can also clear up a nagging inconsistency. As my thought has unfolded, it has bothered me that me-as-object was not more obviously shunned for the seeming desire to be objectified by others. I see now that when I work to see me as others see me I also see me-as-thinker as part of the package; and so I automatically believe that others also see the whole package of #3 (me-as-object) and #3A (me-as-thinker), and consequently afford me all deserved respect; (and therein lies ego). More often than not, this is not the case. Another, considering me-as-object, (which remember, from their perspective, is you-as-object), is very possibly blind to me-as-thinker, (which again, from their perspective, is you-as-thinker). And still others, who may not be blind, see me-as-thinker/you-as-thinker, and either surgically or violently lop it off, leaving only me-as-object/you-as-object. I would do well to consistently acknowledge this reality.

It would be difficult to go through one's day with no consideration for you-as-object, yet I believe it rare that any one of us go through a day without multiple encounters lacking consideration for you-as-thinker. And in the other direction, (pulling in instead of reaching out), I believe it rare that any one of us will go through a day without multiple occasions of consideration for me-as-object (presuming the inclusion of me-as-thinker). I believe it is the degree of this directional disparity that ultimately defines selfishness.

This week my me-as-object time has dwarfed my me-as-thinker and you-as-object time, combined. This week I was an actor playing a part. This week I was selfish.

This week I let you-as-thinker down.

This week I let me-as-thinker down.

Having learned from the past, I will live in the moment, for the future.