Definition: Invasion Sports

Invasion sports

Sports where you have to try to get a “ball” and/or person past another person.

 

More formally…

Invasion sports are team games in which the purpose is to invade the opponent’s territory while scoring points and keeping the opposing team’s points to a minimum, and all within a defined time period.

 

But I like it less because points are generally a given, so is getting more points or minimizing points against, to try to win, along with a time period. But that’s organized sports for you. You can just play and go with the first definition I have.

 

From a long and engaging episode of the Rich Roll podcast with remarkable research by David Epstein on why generalists beat specialists. You have to  listen to this research in this age of hyper-specialization that may be good for some niche things, but leaves us worse off overall. A balance can and should be struck, as with everything, but if you want to be the best you can be, go be more of a generalist than a specialist.

https://twitter.com/digitalcitizen/status/1171225948487933952

Learn About New Emotions so You can Get Them

Supposedly, if you learn about new emotions, you can experience if you get the chance to. That is, you just need to know about them, then be in a situation where they might be the appropriate emotional response. Well, here are 9 you might want to learn about and experience. I think they’re pretty good to have! What they mean is in the TED Talk in the video at end. Enjoy!

  • Hwyl
  • Ilinx
  • Gezellegheid
  • Basorexia
  • Accidie
  • Toska
  • Awumbuk
  • Amae
  • Depaysement

Is There a Good and Fair Policy to Panhandling on Public Transit?

On the two bus rides I took this weekend, each time, someone got on the bus and started panhandling not long after paying their fees. They didn’t hold up boarding, or cause any interference to people getting to their seats, nor did they get in the way of people getting off. However, they went to ask each person for money, bus tickets, or anything else people could spare, as soon as they could after boarding and people got to their seats. Each person who has nowhere to go once the doors are shut, they were trapped in their seats, and the bus is moving. These panhandlers  worked their way through the crowd, passenger by passenger, though one did stop after getting a few “donations”. All this time, the bus driver either didn’t notice, or let it go as if these people were asking everybody for the time.

Now, I’m neither a lawyer nor someone knowledgeable in human rights law, but it would seem to me these panhandlers had a right to ask people for money because public transportation is public space, right? Or is it given it is property owned by the city and like some property, the city has a right to ask people not to smoke, or panhandle? Where does the law come in on this?

Law aside, I can tell you when I’m getting a bus to go somewhere, I’m not looking to be paying to get a road trip and a potential guilt trip! I have empathy for these panhandlers, but neither empathy, nor possibly enough of it, has anything to do not wanting to have to deal with panhandling, or even see it since one of these panhandlers stopped before they got to me. It does make the ride more unpleasant for me, even though it’d be nothing compared to the lives some of these panhandlers have to lead. But I’m neither going to apologize for feeling that way, nor try to change myself for their sake. I’ve got rights, too, and if my rights in this sense is less than theirs legally, which I would not be surprised given my thoughts on the potential of public transportation possibly being public space, then I’ll avoid public transit so I can have my expectations of a trip without a guilt trip bonus fulfilled.

I want to get that out there and make it clear I’m not talking from some righteous podium like it’s insensitive to not have the utmost empathy for panhandlers. I’m human and I don’t. You can call it my “rich” privilege, for all I care, never having owned a car, or insensitivity. I’m standing up for myself here, and playing that card of my rights not to be disturbed for panhandling on public transit if I have to. There are simply times and situations where I don’t want to have to deal with other people’s problems, and that is one of them. I’ve got rights not to have to be open to dealing with people’s problems 24/7.

However, I’ll bet you I’m hardly the only one. Whether I’d be in the majority, even, is unknown since I don’t have survey results. But if I were to bet a decent amount of money, I’d bet my viewpoint is in the majority, not the minority.

The problem if my stance were in the majority, or even in a big minority (say 30-40%), is that public transit ridership can be devastated on this one issue. All that work to get people to ride public transit more, for less traffic that indirectly improves quality of life, the environment that ultimately leads to the same thing, and other reasons, would go down the drain for a very small number of people that may end up panhandling a lot on transit.

So what I want to know is does anybody have a good policy to deal with this issue that is also fair?

Do we allow this and give people free “No panhandling” or “Do not disturb” stickers to take and put on their tops upon boarding, and the panhandlers would have to leave them alone? Or maybe have a no panhandling section where panhandlers can’t penetrate if they were going to panhandle? I’m half kidding with the ludicrousness of these suggestion, but if it were legal to panhandle on public transit, and you don’t want people to abandon it for the bonus guilt trip with their transit trip, you’ll need to find some way to keep the two groups from being in contact.

Give me some suggestions. Maybe even change my mind. Convince me, before I go do something foolish buy a car and say to hell with transit for its panhandling features. Thanks.

Definition: Sonder

Sonder

The realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own—populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness—an epic story that continues invisibly around you like an anthill sprawling deep underground, with elaborate passageways to thousands of other lives that you’ll never know existed, in which you might appear only once, as an extra sipping coffee in the background, as a blur of traffic passing on the highway, as a lighted window at dusk.

 

The profound feeling of realizing that everyone, including strangers passed in the street, has a life as complex as one’s own, which they are constantly living despite one’s personal lack of awareness of it.

 

This seems to be a word created rather than an actual word, but who cares? If it gives you a profound concept there needs to be a word for, then add it to your vocabulary! In this age of unprecedented narcissism with social media, a realization and appreciation of the complexity facing others is a very good thing!

How Much Does Your Name Matter? The Quantitative and Qualitative Research

One of the stories Freakonomics is best known for is their research into whether your name has any positive or negative impact on your economic destiny, particularly if you had a rare name, or name associated with cultures discriminated against widely. The study was focused on African-Americans, as heard in the podcast below from some time back.

https://twitter.com/digitalcitizen/status/1160037065846923264

 

Data, though, doesn’t always tell the full story. In fact, it doesn’t tell anybody’s story, just a group’s outcomes. Freakonomics recently followed up this story with one where Dr. Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck successfully defended a PhD about what it’s like for African-Americans with almost unique names to go through life, to get the personal stories of real people and see if their names really mattered in their lives. Have a listen to hear how the stories differ from the data, even if they may end up in the same outcome, and why the how makes a huge difference!

https://twitter.com/digitalcitizen/status/1162842346167439366