Monthly Archives: September 2014

“Just a Flesh Wound”: Moving Past Stupid Arguments

How many times have you seen a TV segment or newspaper discussion about some hotly-contested issue in which a person with experience, education, training, and professional background is presented next to a person with none of the above?

Usually there’s something about providing a “fair and balanced” look at the issues, an implicit tug of the forelock to the moral relativism of all things. That’s valuable when we’re talking about stuff like religion and morality. Less so when we’re talking about the climate, about health care, about so many other issues where facts come into play.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but an opinion is not the same as evidence. You shouldn’t be able to fight facts with opinion.

Yet we blunder on, letting people present these false equivalencies. We wearily accept this manufactured equality of value between people who’ve delved in the mines of research and have quarried scientific gold and those who merely sprayed gilt paint onto their beliefs. Both look good, but only one of them is useful. Only one holds up when you try to build something with it.

We need to start reminding ourselves, and getting comfortable saying, that people are equal in value but ideas are not. People have inalienable rights; ideas should have to fight to be considered and believed. If your idea can’t hack it, too bad.

My friend Ted Letcher, who’s an atmospheric scientist, came up with a great mental framework for this today. He’s graciously allowed me to reprint his comment here:

“As someone who studies climate and climate change for a living, I was dismayed (though not particularly surprised) to recently see the same old climate denier chestnuts paraded about the internet and news media as legitimate arguments, despite having been thoroughly debunked again and again. Then I got to thinking about Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and I have come to the conclusion that the Climate Change “debate” is very similar to the scene with the Black Knight.

Now if you are unfamiliar with this scene, first, let me extend my sincerest apologies that the trajectory of your life has thus far kept you from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, second; here is a link to the scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw. (scroll down this page to watch)

Both in the climate change debate and scene with the black knight, we start with two sides that appear evenly matched. Overtime however, it becomes more and more apparent that one side has lost all real credibility, and is no longer in any position to be taken seriously.

Now as much as I like to imagine, lets say Rush Limbaugh as a freshly minted quadruple amputee, wobbling around on his torso threatening to bite my legs off (though really anyone who openly accuses myself, my friends, my colleagues, and my mentors of being money hungry frauds, with no real proof is good to imagine here), I believe it’s time, past time, to sheathe the metaphorical sword and move onward in the quest to understand and fix global warming. It’s time to leave the climate deniers (note how I say deniers, and not skeptics … there is a difference) behind for good, as they shout their fears and hatred into the unlistening void.”

Ted’s right. It’s time to “sheathe the metaphorical sword and move onward”. And it’s time to leave the people who present these false equivalencies—who insist on debating science based not on facts but on beliefs—behind in the dust.

We need to find ways to stop arguing with them, and just leave them behind. Unless the rules of the debate involve using actual facts, there’s not much point to trying. We need to learn to keep moving.

If we rebut all their points and they’re still claiming it’s just a flesh wound, we need to stop giving them airtime and mindshare. To say, as Andrew Shepherd does in The American President, “This is a time for serious people, and your fifteen minutes are up.”

People are equal in value, but ideas are not.

I’m going to work on recognizing when a person is shouting a “Black Knight argument” at me, where their rhetorical arms are lying on the ground, there’s no evidence, and they’re just yelling at me.

When I’m in those situations, I’m going to imagine the Black Knight down in the dirt, still saying “right… we’ll call it a draw” even after he’s lost four limbs and (obviously) the fight. I’m going to remember that his argument isn’t based on facts and doesn’t deserve further consideration…

… and I’m going to walk on by. Let’s keep moving.

Adjust Your Bike Brakes the Easy Way

I like my bike brakes to be nice and grippy—I want to be able to stop quickly when I need to, even if I’m going fast. I want the braking to start almost as soon as I touch the brake lever, but most bike brakes are set way too “soft” for me. My local bike shop charges $15 to adjust both brakes… Here’s how to fix them yourself, the easy way.

Here’s the video first; the pictures and description follow.

bike introductory photo

Bike parts

There are lots of names for bike parts, but most bikes have pretty much the same assortment. Here’s what I’ll use in this article:

Bike part labels

 

  • Pull lever. What your hand goes on. Pull to operate the brake.
  • Cable (hidden) and cable housing. Connects the pull lever to the brake calipers.
  • Brake calipers. These clamp together to squeeze brake pads (pieces of rubber, not shown) onto the wheel’s rim to stop the bike.
  • Adjusting knob. This allows you to adjust the length of the cable housing.
  • Lock nut. Locks the position of the adjusting knob so it doesn’t go out of whack.
  • Cable length setting. This is a screw or bolt that physically attaches the brake cable to the calipers. It can also be used to shorten or lengthen the cable, though that’s usually not necessary.

Things to check before you start

I’m writing about standard caliper brakes, as used on most of the bikes I’ve seen in the last decade. If your bike’s brakes are different, this will probably still work, but your mileage might vary.

Check to make sure that there’s still plenty of rubber on the brake pads, and that they’re aligned with the rims (they usually will be). If you need new brake pads, your local shop has them, or you can get them here. Also make sure the bolt on the cable length setting is fully tightened (it usually will be).

One caveat: we’re going to mess with your brakes. Once you’re done, make sure that you test them carefully by spinning the wheels in the air and squeezing the pulls, to make sure they’re functioning properly. Do this before you get on the bike. Seriously.

Adjusting the brakes

For reference, here’s my bike with the pull lever in resting position:

2014-09-27 17.58.24 edited

And here’s where I want the lever to be when the brakes are fully engaged:

2014-09-27 17.58.28 edited

 

For me, that’s a good compromise that gives me plenty of braking power and speed while still making sure the brakes don’t engage when I’m just riding along.

Method

We’re not actually going to adjust the brake cable’s length. We’re going to adjust the housing’s length, which ends up having the same effect: make the housing longer, the cable becomes (relatively) shorter.

You can do this with a bunch of complicated steps. I find it helpful to think of it as just two steps, though:

  1. Make the brakes as tight as they can go, so that they’re fully engaged when the lever is in resting position.
  2. Back off from that position until you hit a comfortable balance where the brake is normally off but still quick and grippy to use.

The advantage of this approach is that you only make the adjustment once, and then you’re done. Other ways I’ve been taught to adjust brakes involve doing a lot of “make a small change, then test it. Now make another small change, then test it.” That eats time.

I’m going to demonstrate on my bike’s front brakes, but the principle is the same for the back brakes.

Release the lock nut

2014-09-27 17.57.40 edited

The lock nut is the one closer to the lever pull, and all it does is hold the adjustment knob in place.

Unscrew the lock nut as far as it can go. On my bike, that’s what you see above.

Clamp the calipers with your hand

Grasp both calipers near the pads:

2014-09-27 17.56.46 edited

And squeeze inward so that the calipers close and the brake pads come to rest on the wheel rims.

2014-09-27 17.56.55 edited

 

If you have a friend to help hold the calipers closed, that makes it a little easier, but you can do it by yourself with no problems.

Unscrew the adjustment knob as far as it will go

Turn the adjustment knob counter-clockwise until its threads are just about to disengage from the brake pull assembly. This puts the cable housing in its longest-available position.

Now try the brake pull. Do the brakes engage where you like? If so, great!

If the brakes engage too soon, keep gentle pressure on the brake lever as you screw the adjustment knob back in. Stop once the brake lever is in the spot you want.

If the brakes still don’t engage soon enough, your brake cable is probably either too long or is damaged in some way. If you’re comfortable, you can unscrew the cable length setting screw slightly, pull a bit more cable through to shorten it, and then repeat the process. Alternatively, visit your local bike shop and ask for help! (If you want to buy your own replacement brake cable, you can get some here.)

Here’s the cable length setting screw:

2014-09-27 17.59.04 edited

If you do adjust that screw, test it rigorously before riding: if the cable slips, you don’t have any brakes.

Screw the lock nut into place

Once you’ve got the lever working the way you want, screw the lock nut down (clockwise) to lock the assembly into position.

2014-09-27 17.56.29 edited

Final check

Make sure that the brakes engage when you pull the levers. The fork assembly should look similar to when you started:

2014-09-27 17.55.57 edited

Lift the bike so the front wheel is off the ground, then give it a good spin. Listen and look to make sure that the brake pads aren’t hitting the rim. If they are, you need to redo the process and screw the adjustment knob in a little more.

Give the wheel another spin and pull the brake lever. The wheel should stop quickly.

Assuming it does, give it a riding test. If it’s not working, use the other brake to stop, then go back through the process and make adjustments.

 

Was this helpful?

If this was useful to you, I’d be grateful if you’d send me a buck or two (via PayPal) to help keep this site available for everyone. My local bike shop charges $15 to adjust both brakes, and you can now do it for yourself, for free, forever.

Donation is quick, easy, and secure–just use the button below. Thanks so much for your generosity, and have fun riding!

Corporate Funding and Common Core

If you like this article, would you Like and follow my new Hollis Easter, Writer page on Facebook and tell me what you liked about it?

This article builds on my earlier piece, Lies My Teacher Told Me About Common Core. If you haven’t read it yet, please start there.

I’ve had a lot of fun talking and writing with people about the Common Core State Standards in the months since I wrote that piece. Nine months later, there’s still a ton of misinformation out there. Repealing Common Core has become a major issue in a bunch of the electoral races around the country this fall.

It makes me sad, because I think the standards are good. A lot of my teacher and professor friends agree.

One of the consistent things that comes up about Common Core is the specter of dirty money: the idea that corporations have bought and sold our future and controlled the destiny of America by shoving Common Core down everyone’s throats. It’s an appealing image, and it resonates for a lot of us—hardly surprising given that we’ve been forced to bail out banks and auto companies, insurance companies and more. We don’t trust corporations.

Questions about Corporate Money

I received an interesting comment on the other post, and I wanted to address it in greater detail, so I’m writing this post. The comment came from Meagan:

“Thank you for this. I am frustrated with the misinformation and confusion, too.

Other concerns I’ve heard, but haven’t fully researched on my own, are the CCSS connections to certain corporations and sources of funding that some folks have beef with, or assume directly influenced the standards. Of all the anti-CC arguments I’ve heard, that’s the only one I might agree with. Otherwise, I think the standards are strong, and as a college writing teacher, think that if they’re taught well (not with canned curriculum and testing-based teaching) they’ll definitely better prepare students for college and life.

If you amend this, would you consider addressing the concerns about the funding behind the push for CCSS?”

My response

Hi Meagan! Thanks so much for writing in—it’s always lovely to interact with readers.

I’ve heard the same things about the corporations and funding issues behind CCSS, but I haven’t been able to find anything conclusive either way. I’m choosing to hold that concern in abeyance until there’s more information available. If there’s a shadowy conspiracy out there, they’re hiding it well. (Readers, if you have actual, sourced information about money and influence peddling in CCSS, please post links in the comments.)

I’m not that concerned about the allegations of corporate money in CCSS for a couple of reasons, if you’ll permit a digression or two:

Preamble. I’ve read the Common Core standards, and I think they’re good. It sounds as though you’ve done the same. I don’t see evidence for most of the criticisms people make against CCSS; I think they’re complaining against bad curricula and bad testing practices. The complaints against CCSS itself don’t hold water.

In any case, we’ve both agreed that CCSS is, mostly, good. It has solid standards, a good framework for thinking, and a way of prioritizing and demanding critical thinking skills that have not previously been required. The standards are good.

The argument you cite really has two prongs:

  1. The identity of the specific corporations/groups funding the development of CCSS taints Common Core by association.
  2. These corporations influenced the development and adoption of CCSS, which is therefore bad.

Let’s address them in order.

Corporations taint Common Core by association

Let’s suppose that corporations really did throw a ton of money at this (which they probably did; it’s hard to find an area of American life that’s unsullied by corporate cash). That leaves us with this:

Corporations spent a ton of money to force us to develop Common Core, and it reflects their agendas.

If the argument is that these corporations have irrevocably stained Common Core through their sponsorship, then we’d need to see evidence of the problem in the finished product. If there is no stain, this problem becomes a philosophical debate.

So where’s the stain? We’ve already looked at the finished product—the Common Core State Standards—and found it good. We like it. We think it leads toward good things. So I’m going to go ahead and say that, whether or not corporations influenced the CCSS development, if we can’t find evidence of it in the final standards, it doesn’t matter.

Corporations influenced the development and adoption of Common Core

This is almost certainly true. So what?

Is that such a bad thing? Let’s suppose the rebuttal goes “yeah, because the curricula suck!”. That’s true, but we allegedly live in a free market society, and eventually someone will make a better curriculum package. The ones available now are really just first drafts; we should expect them to be imperfect. Once someone builds a better package, schools will buy it, and the other companies will innovate, etc.

It’s bound to happen, because that’s how capitalism works. If there’s a niche that’s not being served well, someone will invent a way to serve it. Build a better mousetrap, and the world beats a pathway to your door.  So even if the curricula are bad now, they’ll get better—and probably pretty quickly.

(Let me point out that we’ve neatly slipped away from talking about the Common Core standards now and have begun talking about curriculum packages and testing. This form of sleight-of-hand is part and parcel to the narrative of most of the #StopCommonCore crowd, and it’s good to call it what it is: legerdemain.)

To argue against that, you really have to believe both of these things:

  1. All the textbook companies are in cahoots with each other to collaborate in making bad products. They further agree to never improve them so they can all retain exactly the same market share they have today. All these corporations are satisfied with their current market share, and they will never try to jockey for position or undercut each other.
  2. Nobody else will ever develop a curriculum that is CCSS-compliant, so there will never be new entries into the market; the current offerings are all we get, forever.

I find it pretty hard to believe in an invisible non-competition agreement so widespread and effective that this could actually happen, and last, while blocking out all disruptive competition, forever.

Getting back to the earlier point, we’re saying:

Corporations spent a ton of money to develop and force us to adopt Common Core, and that makes Common Core bad.

This argument is kind of subsumed in the first, but again, let’s assume that corporations really did spend a boatload of money trying to influence the direction and content of the Common Core standards, and that they did all the disgusting power-brokering we suspect them of.

The thing is, we’ve seen the result—the Common Core State Standards—and we like it. So we end up saying:

Corporations spent a ton of money to develop and force us to adopt Common Core, but we ended up liking it. We’ve looked at it carefully, and it looks great.

Again, I don’t see a huge problem.

So, who knows whether corporations spent a ton of money rigging this thing. Even if they did, the standards are good. The curriculum packages will follow. Tons of smart people are working on it. The high-stakes testing is bad, but that’s not really related to Common Core, and we’ll get rid of it.

Common Core remains a good thing.

Make Time for Short Practice Sessions

I encourage music students to practice as often as possible, rather than focusing on practicing as long as possible.

Once your attention starts to fade or waver, practice sessions become less useful. You start cementing bad habits instead of strengthening good ones. That’s why I advocate multiple shorter practices instead of one longer one.

They’re also more fault-tolerant: if you plan on having 15 short practice sessions a week (a couple every day, for a few minutes), you’ll probably actually do at least 10 of them. If they’re 10 minutes each, that still nets you 100 minutes of practice a week.

But if you plan on practicing seven times a week (once a day, for 30-40 minutes), you’re more likely to miss several sessions. Something comes up, you’re tired after work, and suddenly you’ve only practiced twice this week. That’s 60 minutes, losing handily to the 100 minutes from the short practices.

Getting the most from short practice sessions

Set specific goals. You can’t plan on omnibus sessions when you’re only working for five minutes. So pick something small to focus on. You might choose:

  • A specific piece of finger technique in isolation
  • Body posture or hand position
  • Working one passage at multiple tempos/volume levels
  • Making a position change more fluid
  • Improving your intonation on a specific note transition everywhere it appears
  • Memorizing a short passage

Use a timer. Set a timer for the amount of time you intend to work, and then focus exclusively on practicing until the timer goes off. Assiduously guard your attention while you’re playing.

Keep your instrument easily accessible. If you’re doing short practice sessions, you can’t afford a lot of time spent on retrieving your instrument. I believe strongly in storing instruments in their cases when you’re not playing, but you can still keep them nearby and easy to reach. With practice, most instruments can be ready to play within a minute or so.

Use some of your practice sessions for “fun” playing. Playing music should be fun. If you’re doing multiple short sessions, make sure some of them are just playing for enjoyment rather than working. Jeff Kaufman makes this point well.

Keep a log. Write down a few words about what you practiced, and list the date. If you want to write more, that’s great, but start with just documenting the basic facts, like this: “Practiced mandolin, worked on hand relaxation and picking—9/22/14”.

Focus on incremental improvement. If you keep stacking up 5-10 minute sessions, the results will impress you—but the effect of any one session is going to be pretty small. As long as you’re bringing full attention to your practice, you can trust that it will improve your playing, so be kind to yourself.

Look for opportunities to tuck in an extra practice session. Got ten minutes between appointments? Run through one of your pieces in your head. Play a few scales while your dinner finishes cooking. Work on your hand positions while you’re waiting on hold. There are lots of little time slots you can find once you start looking.

An example of a short practice session

Today, I practiced mandolin for 12 minutes on the ferry across Lake Champlain (Grand Isle to Cumberland Head):

Mandolin practice on the ferry
Mandolin practice on the ferry—pick held jauntily in mouth while taking selfie photo

It was about 45 degrees on the boat, and very windy. Frankly, it was really cold! Still, I have a tradition of practicing while I’m on the boat, and I want to keep it going as long as I can. So today, I worked on:

  • Playing with clean technique even when my fingers started going numb. I often play for outdoor events, and developing resilient technique that can cope with bad weather is important for me. I found that my hands kept trying to cramp, so I focused on loosening my fingers and relaxing them whenever possible (since tense muscles impede blood flow and cause cold hands).
  • Steady picking. When my hands started getting cold, it became hard to feel the mandolin pick in my right hand. This made it more challenging to play with steady, even rhythm, so I spent a few minutes noticing my picking and working to make it more even.

That’s it! It was a short practice session, but I think it was valuable. Good experiential learning on playing in adverse circumstances, with some focused work on playing with even rhythm.

Caveat musicus: be careful of temperature extremes. I don’t plan on playing my wooden instruments outdoors for much longer, since it’s getting pretty cold. Also, if you’re playing in the cold, focus on your hand technique: avoid tension, since cold muscles get hurt more easily. Also be aware that if you’re weird enough to play mandolin on a ferry in the cold, lots of tourists will take your picture.)

The People’s Climate March

In preparation for tomorrow’s worldwide People’s Climate March, Jasmine and I attended a small rally in Burlington at the University of Vermont’s campus.People's Climate March Pre-Rally 2014-09-20 13.34.40

We heard impassioned speakers, some young, some old, talking about how we desperately need to work together, not merely as Vermonters or as Americans but as citizens of the world, to make sure that we have a livable planet to bequeath to our grandchildren.

There’s reason for hope. Eight years ago, the largest climate rally in the world happened in downtown Burlington: 1,000 people attended. Not that many people were talking about climate change back then. Tomorrow, between 100,000 and 200,000 people are expected in Manhattan at the People’s Climate March, with thousands more in similar mobilizations around the globe. People are starting to pay attention.

In eight years, talking about carbon sequestration and footprints has gone from nutjob territory to a familiar topic at dinner tables and in classrooms across the world. Sustainability is gaining leverage in economic terms as well as moral ones. Last week, my friend Jay O’Hara‘s trial (for blockading a coal port with a lobster boat) was essentially dismissed, setting precedent for direct actions around the country.

It’s going to take work to fix the climate. Some of the options are already off the table because we’ve delayed too long, and the longer we wait, the more doorways get closed.

So let’s start today.

One of the speakers this afternoon pointed out that Americans tend to mistrust expert opinions and place their faith in the hands of people they know—friends and family members. As a society, our opinions are shaped by those closest to us. They asked us to commit to talking to at least one other person, today, about climate change and the need for action.

So I am talking to you. I believe the evidence I’ve seen about climate change. I believe that without significant changes in the way we live, work, eat, travel, and build, our grandchildren are going to inherit a world that’s actively hostile to life the way we know it. I don’t want that stain on my soul.

The way I see it, we’re going to need a lot of people talking and working, together, if we’re going to fix this problem. It’s already happening, but we need more. For that to happen, silent moderates need to participate in the discussion. It’s okay to say you’re not sure how big the problem is, and it’s okay to say you don’t know what to do about it—but stand up and take part in the conversation. We need more voices.

If you can get to NYC tomorrow (Sunday, September 21st, 2014), please consider attending the People’s Climate March. There’s more information here. With luck, the world leaders attending the United Nations climate summit (a few blocks away from the March route) will pay attention to the voices of the people assembled there. We speak the loudest when we speak together.

Finally, I’d like to ask you to talk about this article with someone, and to do it today. You don’t have to agree. You can call me an alarmist moron if you want. But talk about it.

Talk about the climate. Talk about what rising sea levels mean for island nations, and what it’ll do when Boston and NYC and Miami lose 50% of their land area to the sea. Talk about what a world without maple syrup will taste like once maple trees die off due to climate change. Talk about how we’ll respond to hurricanes like Irene and Rita when we don’t have any gasoline left to power emergency vehicles and generators. Talk about drought and superstorms and the connections between the two.

And most importantly, let’s talk about what we’ll do about it all.

 

Involuntary Hospitalization and Mental Health

How New York’s laws about mental health and involuntary hospitalization work

Involuntary Hospitalization presentation copyright 2014 by Hollis Easter. All rights reserved.

Several years ago, I was asked to help explain how people get sent to psych hospitals involuntarily in NY, whether for suicidal thoughts or homicidal behaviors. It turns out that a lot of people are uncertain about which laws apply, how they work, and what they do.

The same questions often come up when I’m teaching people about suicide prevention or suicide intervention, because someone usually says “just send ’em to the mental hospital!”. It’s not that simple.

New York’s Mental Hygiene Law Article 9 covers hospitalization of the mentally ill. It’s a long and somewhat challenging read, and most people’s eyes glaze over pretty quickly. Moreover, much of what’s in Article 9 never gets used in small rural counties like mine because we don’t have the relevant facilities or specialists.

But this is important stuff.

Involuntary hospitalization involves depriving people of their liberty in order to protect them, or society, from immediate harm. It’s a safety valve the law allows for dealing with emergency situations. But we shouldn’t take it lightly, and it’s essential that people follow the laws when invoking it.

So I made this presentation. It uses instructional design principles, and it ought to help make this complicated subject more clear. I believe strongly in the importance of finding stories to tell about the material we’re teaching, and I hope I’ve given you some pathways into understanding the provisions of NY’s Mental Hygiene Law.

Because of this presentation, I was honored by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (the national professional organization for instructional designers) with their NSU Award for Outstanding Practice by a Graduate Student in Instructional Design. Thanks, friends! I built this presentation during my fifth week in graduate school, so I’ve learned some more things since then, but I’m still proud of it.

I encourage you to watch the video, since it walks you through the tools I designed, but if you’d like to see the flowchart in fixed form, here it is:

Involuntary Hospitalization Flowchart, copyright 2014 by Hollis Easter
Involuntary Hospitalization Flowchart, copyright 2014 by Hollis Easter

Errata

In the years since I made the video, Ruth Ayen has retired as Director of Community Services in St. Lawrence County. The phone number remains the same, so if you need help with a pickup order, call and ask to speak to the current DCS.

Disclaimer

I’m not an attorney. I work in the mental health system and interact with involuntary hospitalization procedures for my job, but I am not an attorney and you shouldn’t consider this legal advice. If you’re using this presentation for training or guidance, you should seek legal counsel to make sure you’re choosing well.

Listening Isn’t About Giving Advice

I cringe a little whenever I hear some well-meaning person say “I’m planning on going into social work—people tell me I give great advice”. Or when someone applies to volunteer at my crisis hotline and says “well, I love giving advice, so this seemed like a great fit”.

See, I think that listening and giving advice are fundamentally different.

Listening involves helping others to tell their stories. It is essentially a receptive process, whether done with “active listening” skills or passive ones. Listening involves becoming a vessel into which others can pour their worries, their passions, their joys, their questions, their hopes, and their fears.

Listening isn’t really about changing the other person. That’s not the goal. The point of listening is to understand better, to connect with the other person, and—perhaps most important—to leave him feeling understood. Sometimes that may lead the person toward new insights or set the stage for potential changes, but the interpersonal connection is the main event.

Feeling understood, feeling heard, feeling like you’re not dealing with things alone, feeling like you matter to another person… these are the hallmarks of good listening.

The paradox is that good listening is simple to grasp and quite difficult to do. In principle, it’s easy: get the person talking, get out of the way, and help them along if they stumble.

In practice, it’s more challenging. It takes experience to know when to offer help, to tell the difference between a person who needs a conversational nudge and a person who’s just searching for the right word. There are all kinds of skills you can learn to help draw out people’s stories, put them at ease, or help them clarify their thinking. But the essence is this:

When you listen, you let the other person fill you with their story. It’s not about changing their story, telling them what it means, telling them what they ought to do about it, or saying what you think. At its heart, listening just involves sharing another person’s story for a while and giving them a chance to tell it.

Giving advice is different.

Advising people involves sharing your knowledge, wisdom, or opinions. Rather than being receptive like listening, giving advice is a dispensing process in which you pour forth your own ideas into the listening vessel of the other person.

That’s still valuable sometimes. Sometimes people want help figuring out what to do about their problems, and they may approach you because of the knowledge and experience you possess. People may genuinely want your advice.

Listen first, though.

Have you ever been to a doctor and found them writing a prescription before you’d finished saying what was wrong? Told a friend about a problem and been told what to do about it before you had even gotten to describing the real issue? Ever had to grit your teeth while someone advised you to do a bunch of things you’d already tried because they didn’t bother to ask what you’d already done?

Then you know what it’s like to receive advice from someone who isn’t listening. It stinks.

Listen first. Help the person tell their story. Invite them to pour it out and share it with you. Let yourself receive, let yourself be the vessel, let yourself be filled.

If, later on, they want advice, they’ll ask. They’ll ask to receive your knowledge, they’ll open themselves to your wisdom. They’ll make themselves the vessels, and they’ll ask to be filled. Once that happens, share what you know. You’ll probably find that, by focusing on listening first, you have a deeper understanding of the situation and can give better advice.

Receiving a story is different from dispensing knowledge, and that’s why listening is pretty much the opposite of giving advice. Both are valuable, but it’s important to start by listening.

Remember, too, that listening matters in its own right, not merely as a prelude to giving advice. Sometimes hearing the stories is enough.

Doublethink in Obama’s ISIS/ISIL Declaration

“Taking out” ISIS / ISIL

President Obama spoke to the nation last night (full text here) and announced that the US is going to “take out” the Islamic State “wherever they exist”, “through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy”. He went on to say that we’ll be carrying out many airstrikes against targets in both Iraq and Syria.

We’re going to war in the Middle East. Again.

ISIS/ISIL is terrible. Most of the world agrees. Something needs to be done about them. Most of the world agrees with that, too. And the US is going to “lead a broad coalition” into war to stop it. They say it’ll be quick; they say it’ll be clean. I’ve heard that before, but maybe they’re right this time.

Obama isn’t seeking Congressional approval for this, and that makes me really uneasy. Technically he needn’t, since he gave notice tonight and it (for now) falls within the 60 days of military action allowed by the War Powers Resolution, and yeah, Congress can’t agree on anything anyway—but the checks and balances are there for a reason. If Congress can’t agree that going to war is necessary, is it necessary? Should it be?

Asking Congress to provide money for training rebels in Syria isn’t the same as asking for a declaration of war, and asking for bipartisan support after announcing what we’re going to do isn’t really the same as asking Congress to participate in the process.

Maybe it’s not really a “war”. Maybe it’s just a police action or something.

Doublethink

George Orwell coined the word doublethink in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and described it thus:

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed…” — George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

I think Obama is asking us to hold two contradictory beliefs when he justifies immediate military action to address threats to our nation and then says ISIS hasn’t threatened us yet.

In tonight’s speech, Obama said (emphasis mine):

“I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are . . . This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

and continued:

“This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

Threaten us and you will be bombed. ISIS is threatening us, so we’re going to bomb them. Right?

“If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies.”

So, they might threaten us at some point in the future, but not yet. But we’re still going to bomb them.

Doublethink is believing two things that contradict each other. Isn’t it doublethink to say that terrorists are threatening us, could threaten us, have threatened us, and have not specifically threatened us, all in the same 15-minute speech?

So what?

Mr. Obama, if there’s a clear case for going to war against the Islamic State, make it. Tell us why. Be specific about what you plan to do and why it will help.

If you won’t bring it to Congress, acknowledge that and tell us why. We’re smart people; tell us why you think this is necessary.

But don’t ask us to go to war to defend against a threat that you aren’t sure exists. If we’re fighting to protect ourselves, tell us about the threat to the USA. If we’re protecting other people, tell us that—and justify it.

Saying we’re going to destroy ISIS because they threaten us even though they haven’t threatened us yet? Not good enough.

Don’t ask us to kill people just because they might threaten us in the future.

 

(Conor Friedersdorf says many similar things in his article for The Atlantic. Jack Goldsmith does the same in Time.).

Slow Tunes Down with REAPER for Learning By Ear

I play and teach traditional music, and I’ve found that students often struggle with learning tunes by ear—the music is really fast, it’s intimidating, and it’s hard to get started. Picking up music quickly by ear is a skill worth developing, and I’d like to help you do it.

It’s really valuable to slow the music down at first. Eventually, you’ll be able to sit in a session and pick the tunes up on the fly, but let’s start small. Technology can help you a lot here!

We’re going to use REAPER, an awesome digital audio workstation software package, to slow down music while keeping it at the same pitch. The “at the same pitch” is important because most software lowers the music’s pitch—its key center—when it reduces the speed. That means you can’t play along with it anymore, and that’s not useful for us.

Get yourself a copy of REAPER at www.reaper.fm and then come back to this tutorial.

Watch how to slow down the tunes

I recommend watching the video, since it shows all the steps and lets you hear the results.

( you may want to watch the video in full-screen mode, or see it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_9KLaCNB_Q&feature=youtu.be )

How to slow tunes down (walkthrough)

Open REAPER

Open the REAPER application and start a fresh project if needed. If you’re just getting started with REAPER, it should open a blank project automatically.

Insert Media File

Go to the “Insert” menu and select “Media file…”.

This will allow you to add an MP3, MP4, or other audio file to the project. If you’re using iTunes or some other digital audio player on your computer, its default music files ought to work just fine.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.12.48 AM edited Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.13.12 AM edited

Here’s what you’ll see after you select a file to insert.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.13.41 AM edited(You can also click-and-drag a track directly from iTunes into REAPER. Just click on the track in iTunes and switch windows to REAPER. You’ll see a dark box appear under the cursor. Drag it to the left, to the beginning of the project, and release the mouse. REAPER will import the file automatically for you. Slick!)

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.13.55 AM edited

Press space bar (or the play button) to test your audio setup and make sure you can hear the audio. You may need to press the rewind button (farthest left) first.

Find the “Rate” slider

Look at the right side of the control bar that has the stop/play/pause buttons in it. You should see a horizontal slider with the word “Rate” above it, and a number (probably 1.0). This is the current master playback rate in REAPER.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.14.10 AM edited

If you just drag the Rate slider right now, the music’s speed will change, but its pitch will change too. So if you’re trying to learn a tune in E major, you’ll hear it slower but now in D or C or even A major. That’s usually not desirable; we want to keep the pitch stable and keep the pitch the same.

Right-click on the Rate slider

This brings up a context menu. If you’re on a MacBook Pro like I am, you can either hold control while you click or, much easier, click with two fingers on the trackpad.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.14.13 AM edited

Select “Preserve pitch in audio items when changing master playrate”

Make sure there’s a checkmark next to the “Preserve pitch” menu item. You can ignore the rest of these options for the moment.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.14.49 AM edited

Drag the slider to set your new playrate (playing speed)

I like to do this after starting the music again (press space or click the play button), so I can get a sense of how fast I want it.

Each time you change the playrate, the music will drift to a different key momentarily, but it’ll snap back to the original key after a half-second or so.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.15.06 AM edited

And hey presto, you’re playing in E major, but at 85 beats per minute instead of 175!

I guess that makes it “hey andante”.

Recommendations for learning by ear

This technology gives you a powerful tool, but it can become a crutch if you overuse it.

Practice trying to pick up the tunes at their original speed, and only use the slow-down technique when you’ve tried the quicker tempo and have found yourself needing a little extra help.

After you’ve gotten the tune figured out, keep bumping the speed back up until you’re playing it at the original tempo.

I’ve found this useful for learning the bagpipe and fiddle tunes I hear on albums, but it’s also good for figuring out what kind of ornaments a favorite musician uses. I sometimes use it to record my own playing and then listen back at a slower speed so I can diagnose problems and figure out where I’m falling off a tune or playing with bad technique. Slow practice is really valuable.

Have fun, and happy playing!

Get REAPER at www.reaper.fm, and please—pay the money to register it if you like using it. It’s not expensive.

Voting for ‘Unviable’ Candidates

Unviable Candidates

I’m tired of being told to vote for a candidate who’s “more electable”, as if that’s somehow a valuable proxy in favor of a candidate whose values I share, whose wisdom and judgment I trust, and whose plan I support.

I’m tired of being told not to “throw my vote away” by voting for people I’d actually like to see elected.

I’m tired of going to war because the pacifist guy wasn’t “electable” enough.

I’m tired of watching climate change become irreversible because doing anything meaningful to stop it hasn’t made it to the top of the political expedience dung heap yet.

And most of all, I’m tired of telling myself that I’m doing my civic duty by voting for people I don’t want merely because they’re better than the likely alternatives. When I do that, I’m part of the problem. If the point of having citizens vote is because there are a lot of us and we’ll work to make sure the best ideas filter up into government, voting against our own interests is violating the trust the system places in our hands. Governing is done by those who show up, and I’ve been showing up in the wrong camp.

So today, I’m resolving to change that. I cast a ballot today for Zephyr Teachout and Tim Wu in NY’s gubernatorial race, not because I think they’ll win, but because I think they should.

If enough of us throw away our votes on unviable candidates, we win. Let’s get started.