Arrognace is not such a bad thing. The thinkTank Panel (of One) is actually an admireror of Arrogance. Arrogance is simply unknowingly misunderstood by millions. Meanwhile no one seems to realize that arrogance's cousin "confidence" is celebrated simply becasue it is comforting to the collective anxiety of society. Today the ThinkTank Panel (of One) will explain the subtle yet definative difference between arrogance and confidence.
Arrogance (Note the Banned Black Shoes)
There is a very specific difference between confidence and arrogance. Confidence is always based on past perfomance. You've done it before so you believe you can do it again. You have had this question before and you researched the answer to it so you are confident your answer is correct this time around. Or it may be that you have been training long and hard for a competition, and so you are confident that you are prepared and the hard work will payoff.
In contrast to confidence, which is based on a verifible past precendent, Arrogance is not based on anything what-so-ever. It is an absolute resolution or position with no factual or substantial basis. We generally admire confidence becassue it points to a legitimate cause and effect relationship that demonstrates principles we prize as a society such as; hard work leads to success, practice makes perfect, or the best predictor of future outcome is past performance. These are cornerstones of logic. They comfort us by reinforcing the notion that there are definitive patterns that rule the world. Nature is consistent and unchanging. We take comfort in that constency and reliability. In a way, confidence is an expectation that the universe is in perfect working order. It is faith confirmed by experience. It's the essence of common sense.
On the other hand, arrogance has the audacity to rebel against comon sense. To be arrognat is to say "past performance is nothing. The laws of nature as you understand them do not apply to me. The previous answers are wrong, and you are just going to have to trust me on this. "
Arrogance is not inherently bad, but it rubs people the wrong way because it demands blind faith to accept or support it's assertions. Blind faith is a precarious position to be in, and therefore we all feel threatened by arrogance, and resent those that put us in such a postion by being arrogant. But it should be noted that any kind of new discovery, any challenge to the status quo begins as arrogance. But once it is demonstrated and established it becomes confidence, because it is now based on past performnace.
The ThinksIveThunk.com ThinkTank Panel (of One) spent thousands of man hours reviewing various real life scenarios and examples to illustrate this point, and has concluded under rigorous pseudo-analysis a that (as usual) the ultimate example is Michael Jordan.
Michael Jordan took the NBA by storm during the 1984-85 season. Jordan averaged over 28 points per game as a rookie, and his arial assaults on the rim immediately garnered him a national following. Michael not only embodied arrogance in his aggressive, never back down style of play, but also rebelled agaisnt established convention with his signature Black and Red Nike Air Jordan sneakers. Who was this guy to demand the attention and admiration of fans everywhere? Who was this guy that challenged the established pecking order of superstars with out a hint of deference for who the reigning World Champions were? And so the The Black and Red colorway of the Air Jordan was banned by the NBA, and Jordan's fellow All Stars attempted to freeze him out of the All Star game becasue they all collectively and indivdually felt threatened by the arogance of Michael Jordan's unwavering assertion that he was going to dominate the entire game of basketball through shear determined force of his ultracompetitive will. Multiple early playoff exits did not deter Michael Jordan or change his stance. And so Machael Jordan not only remained the epitimy of arrogance, but appeared to be spitefully resisting conversion to confidence as he failed year after year to win a title, which only made him appear more arrogant than he was already percieved as being, if that was even possible.
But then Michael Jordan won an NBA title in 1991. And Suddenly Michael Jordan wasn't quite so arrogant. He won again in 1992 and 1993. He then retired as the Third Supremely confident Athlete of the Century with Babe Ruth and Muhamad Ali.
Then Michael Jordan decdied to play minor league baseball. A professional basketball player had never quit basketball and then become a pro baseball player before ( well it probably happened but not "everybody" knew about it). Attempting to do so challenged the assumptions of what a professional athlete should do and how they should be. Suddenly Michael Jordan was arrogant again. That was until he finally got tired of striking out and decided to return to basketball. At which point he was immediatley hailed as arrgoant again becasue he expected to come back and be as good if not better than before.
Of course after an initial disappoiting playoff loss to Orlando, Michael Jordan won three more NBA titles, and became even more supremely confident than before, because now he had more NBA championships than just about everyone but a handful of Boston Celtics players. He was hailed as confident because he now had 6 rings to back up his claims to dominate the game. His past perfomance justified his attitude and deamenor....Ergo he was confident and no longer arrogant.
That is until he came out of retirement yet again.....but we won't go there due to time constraints and it makes some members of the Think Tank Panel (of One) get a little misty eyed.
The only quasi-clearer illustration of arrogance is this post its self. This post has the audacity to proclaim the definative definition of the word arrogance with no track record of etymology, no credential as a philologist, or even a measly citation. Merely reading this post has demanded that the reader forsake all previous knowldge of dictionaries and vernacular usage of the word and demands that reader to step off a ledge of substance through a perceived veil of nothingness with only the vague hope that the Think Tank Panel (of One) will catch them on the other side. How arrogant is that? It is the very definition of arrogance!!! But if that reader takes that leap of faith and finds the Think Tank Panel (of One) is in perfect postion to catch them, they immediately will have demonstrated the truth of the matter and their step off that ledge is now a past presedent from which an on-going path of confidence can be blazed back through the veil of nothingness to truth.
Given that the Pac 10 conference is currently in negotiations to finalize its scheduling now that it has expanded to 12 team with the additions of Colorado and Utah, the ThinkTank Panel (of One) would like to revisiting it’s proposal for further Pac -10 expansion.
The sticking issue in the Pac -10 scheduling discussion is that the California teams want o all be in a division together, and the rest of the teams want the California teams split amongst 2 divisions so that they get to play in the state at least once each year in front of California high school recruits.
To rectify this situation, the ThinkTank Panel (of One) humbly suggests reviving the super conference band dream boat and set sail on a Pac-16, one day to be a Pac 20.
First step is to, as the ThinkTank Panel Suggested previously, continue to raid the Mountain West of BYU and Boise State. Since BYU’s attempted departure to football independence and WAC everything else earlier this season, the MWC is on shaky ground. No one really wants to be there. If Boise State ( which is supposed to Join the MWC next year, but at the rate things are going why would they want to) and TCU go undefeated and neither plays for the National Title this year, they will be primed o leave so now is the time to plant the seed. Step 2 is raid the WAC as well, forcing the 2 division to reunite and form a mid major super conference of themselves.
In addition to adding BYU and Boise State, the PAC-10 adds 2 additional California Schools in Fresno State and San Diego State. Now you have 16 teams to go into, wait for it………… four divisions consisting of 4 teams each.
The 4 divisions will be….
NW Division: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, and Oregon State
California Division: California, Stanford, USC, and UCLA …. just like they want it.
South Division: San Diego State, Fresno State, Arizona and Arizona State
New Rocky Mountain Division: Boise State, BYU, Utah, and Colorado
At face value this looks like it will no one outside of the California Division will go for it. But her are the scheduling rules:
Each team plays its 3 division opponents.
Each team plays one team from each of the other 3 divisions on a rotating home/away basis. So you play each non-division team once every 4 years.
And here’s the kicker: Each team plays an additional California Division team away game!!
So that means each team will play 7 regular season conference games. At least 2 against the Classic 4 California Schools, one of which is guaranteed in the State of California. Some years a team may play as 3 away games in front of California high school recruits if you happen to play at San Diego State or Fresno State.
And here’s the second Kicker. A 3 games conference tourney pitting the 4 division winners for the conference title. The championship games to be played at the neutral site of Las Vegas as is expected to be the case with the 12 team format anyway.
Future expansion could lead to a 20 team conference with four 5 team divisions. The key is the 4 divisions instead of 2 allows for division champions to be determined while maintaining a balanced schedule allowing recruiting exposure to the super populous California high schools players.
Colorado will complain because they “demand to be in the same division as USC. But the Pac-10 can drop them for Nevada at the drop of a hat, and bust the Buffs back to the Big 12 or as it will soon known as the Former Republic of Texas Conference, once it picks up TCU, and UTEP or Houston, to replace Missouri and Iowa State who will end up paying $20 million bribe/buy in /registration fees to convince the Big-10 to let them in.
The stages of grief were developed byElisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying. They are in order: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. The stages of grief are a staple of current psychological theory. However like all psychological theory, it is subject to much criticism and debate. One of these critiques totally refutes the entire premise of stages of grief (you can link to it here). With that in mind, the ThinkTank Panel (of One) has conducted an extensive analysis of these stages of grief and proposes the following refinements to the theory, designed to address inherent shortcomings, yet maintain the cohesion Kübler-Ross provides.
First the ThinkTank Panel (of One) would emphasize the sequential nature of the stages. It is well established that a person in the grieving process may go back and forth between stages several times before completing the process and overcoming their grief. Whether one is progressing or regressing, they will experience the stages in order, there is no skipping a stage. Just as there is no way to short cut the process there is no way to be “free fall” into a previous stage without passing through the stages in-between. For example if a person finds themselves in the 4th stage of depression and has a setback which leaves them stuck in anger, they will experience a period of bargaining, however brief, before they regress to that anger stage.
Next the ThinkTank Panel (of One) proposes some minor terminology changes to the labels of the stages of grief that are more accurate description s of the psychological mechanism at play in the various stages.
First, the term “denial “is subtly misleading as it implies the griever refuses to admit the event which caused their grief actually occurred. This is inaccurate, and dangerous as it confuses a separate, yet related psychological phenomenon that professionals treating grief must also be aware of. For example: Sally is grief stricken by the sudden passing of her mother from a sudden heart attack. Sally’s initial reaction upon hearing the news is to say “What? No. This can’t be. How can she be dead? I just spoke with her yesterday. She was fine!” While most people would call this a textbook case of denial (and it may well be accurate to depict this action as a denial), it is incorrect to assume this is the first stage of grief as Sally has not yet begun to grieve. This is an example of shock, a distinct psychological issue that if prolonged could require specific mental health intervention. . Sally will not receive this intervention if her actions are incorrectly interpreted as the normal grieving process.
More accurately the denial phase of grieving should be labeled “denial of a problem” to differentiate it from the shock induced coping mechanism of denial of the event, a form of repression. It is only when Sally tries to convince herself and others “I’m fine,” that she begins the necessary, natural grieving process.
The ThinkTank Panel (of One) considered briefly adding shock as the initial stage of grief preceding denial of a problem. However it is readily apparent that Shock is not inherent to grieving, as Sally’s mother could have died from a long battle with a terminal illness, in which case Sally would have expected her passing and would not be in shock. Yet she would still need to grieve
The bargaining stage of grief attempts to describe a state of mind in which the griever is attempting to take control of their grief so that they may dictate the terms of the grief so that they may manipulate the situation into one more acceptable . For instance; Sally’s mother with a terminal illness finds it easier to accept her impending death when she aspires to survive just long enough to see her daughter’s wedding next month. Similarly, Sally negotiates with herself that she will stop missing her mother once she fulfills her mother’s lasting wish for grandchildren, by having a baby. This leads to a year of erratic and irrational behavior, characterized by midnight calls to her physician’s residence when she could not reach him at the office as Sally obsesses over conceiving and then doubly obsesses about the prenatal health and development of her baby. In either case the griever desperately seeks continual control over something to compensate for the helplessness of their grief.
Therefore the second proposed refinement to the stages of grief is to re-label bargaining to the more apt description of desperation, as it is the desperate grasping for control which defines this phase. The bargaining merely refers to the transference of this desperation on to an object or action.
Given the new perspective due to the change from bargaining to desperation leads to the ThinkTank Panel (of One)’s 3rd proposed refinement to the stages of grief. In bargaining, the transition to depression is the idea that the grief does not keep its end of the bargain and dissipate when the griever lives up to their end of the bargain. The result is a complete loss of all hope and a deep depression. Whereas, with the new notion of desperation, there is a realization that that a person’s best efforts to exert control are in vain, which leads them to give up or surrender. Thus the ThinkTank Panel (of One) proposed that the stage of depression be re-labeled surrender.
It may sound like semantics, but the difference is the realization of one’s powerlessness is an important component to explaining how the process of grieving works. One must surrender control voluntarily before one can accept the fact that they actually have no control over a situation. And of course, acceptance is the final stage of grief.
Lastly, in light of the difference a subtle change in verbiage can have on the comprehension of the psychological processes at work, the ThinkTank Panel (of One) suggests that the 2nd stage of anger be relabeled frustration. Conceptually there is better flow between flow between Denial of Problem and Desperation with Frustration than with Anger. In psychological terms Anger implies an emotional state that can be rectified by relaxation. Frustration on the other hand implies emotional arousal in response to an obstacle that must be overcome by finding a solution, and it is the search for a solution that drives one to desperation.
So there you have it. The new ThinksIveThunk.com ThinkTank Panel (of One) approved stages of Grief are:
Denial of Problem
So much of life is going through the motions. We humans being are creatures of habit, we learn by routine and perfect via repetition. Consistency is a virtue we all seek, against the unpredictable chaos that surrounds us. The other virtue we seek to attain is the flip side to this coin; versatility or adaptability, the power to adjust and course-correct in the face of the chaotic onslaught of life. Between these two virtues one can sail through calm seas in record time, and then stay afloat and maintain their heading when those seas become rough. To survive and to thrive.
Well just as the seas can not be both calm and rough at the same time, so too are we human beings either in consistency thrive mode, or adapting survive mode. One can not seek to attain proficiency and perfection through continual change and adjustment, nor can one expect to find innovation repeating the same means over and over.
Now this post's painfully obvious lesson in juvenile pop psychology is probably insulting to the intelligence of most reader's but while the notion is still fresh in your mind....the ThinkTank (Panel of One) would suggest the next time you find yourself merely surviving instead of thriving or vice versa.... try closing your eyes.!!!!!
I have a theory about tipping. I have no evidence to support this what so ever!
Back in the old days when you had Kings and rulers and other royalty who had servants, a visiting dignitary would come and want to receive "special treatment" from the servants of the king he is visiting. Tipping or "gratuity" came out as a way of buying the servants services and silence, in a way in which the host king would not object.
For example, lets say Prince Charming is visiting King Trident, and Charming takes a fancy to one of Trident's chamber maids. He attempts to seduce her and she resists his advances. So Charming offers to her a bribe. The chamber maid refuses and threatens to tell Trident. So the next time they are all assembled at court, before the chamber maid can tell King Trident what happened, Prince Charming gets up and makes this grand speech in praise of the chamber maid and the excellent service she has rendered to him as a servant, and he would like to reward her with a token of his appreciation and pays her the money he attempted to bribe her with earlier. Now if she says anything to Trident she looks ungrateful, and as the only proof she had was the bribery money she is now holding, it would probably lead her to the guillotine. Since she took the money, Charming will later play the "your already in too deep, you might as well go through with it" card, and have his way with her.
Early tipping wasn't always buying sexual favors. More often than not it was buying loyalty. Since the servants are all in the service of King Trident, if Trident wanted to have Prince Charming murdered, he would just command his servants to do so. So tipping for good service with the promise "there's more where that came from, provided I'm still alive" was a preemptive move by Charming to get the servants on his side. Eventually this practice became so common place that all pretense was dropped and it became standard procedure to give servants a little something-something as a general incentive, seeing as you can't kill another kings servants. That's almost as bad as stealing their silverware or losing their horse.
Let me go on the record officially here:
"I invented twitter!!!"
I did it in 1995.
Yes, it was done in a spiral notebook with a #2 pencil, but the concept was the same.
I was in 8th grade sitting in class bored to tears, and naturally my mind would wonder. So I started writing all these random thoughts that came to mind. And the brilliant thing about it was the teachers all thought I was taking notes on everything they said since I was always writing in class. Sometimes they were just verbalized impulses like "I'm hungry" or "This sucks". Other times they were finely or not so finely crafted lyrical epithets or astute observations of the surrounding world and it's workings.
Then I would pass the notebook around to my friends to read it. And before long Adam and Von and Carlos and Casey and Brandon and Josh Sheely were all writing thunks. Josh and Brandon's version got them suspended, not because of the book it;s self or the thunks, but because their thinks I've Thunk Book contained incriminating evidence of things they did that were suspension worthy. Just like the idiots that commit crimes and then tweet about it or post a video of it on youtube.
So you can see I did invent Twitter. I just didn't have the technology to disseminate my thunks in real time. No one did. It was 1995!
In 1995 the internet was still something you could only do when no one was expecting a phone call. The only browser in existence was Netscape. 90% of the people on twitter have never even heard of Netscape because it vanished from existence sometime in 1999. In 1995 you got to see your webpage download one 3 pixel width line at a time. When someone said "It'll just take a few minutes to download the webpage" the other person would reply "Wow that AOL version 2.0 is great."
So yes, I did invent Twitter. At least the concept anyway, I don't pretend to have written computer code or anything like that. I would contest this civilly in court for the billions of dollars I am rightfully due. Unfortunately my original thinks I've thunk books have long since been destroyed. Done so for my own protection. I never forgot the plight of Brandon and Josh from that year, and as I matured me it became expedient that I should rid myself of such a poignent example of my former immaturity. I mean I was 15 what do your think was on my mind and how would it look to have that associated with me now. High school yearbooks are bad enough, they only show the outside of a person. My thinks I;ve thunk books go straight to where my soul would have been had I of had one at the time. Also I tended to write more than 140 characters worth per thought. But that only goes to show I invented the blog as well.
At any rate I have decided not to challenge the empire that is Twitter. I prefer to think of Twitter as my free gift to humanity. And unlike the "Real Napster" as portrayed by Seth Green in the Italian Job, I reserve no Twitter title for myself. Instead I shall now dedicate my life to the task I inadvertently took up over half my life ago; bringing Thinks I've Thunk to the World. And if Twitter contributes to making it be so, so be it!