There has been a lot of digital ink spilled over this topic. I'm not sure where I stand in this respect: Do I teach my boys game? I'm trying to raise Christians and the ultimate goal of game is sex. I know some guys can weave a path between the two. I'm just not sure it can be done.
The MRAs have brought to light some major issues that my sons will need to handle in the future. I'd be reckless if I raised my sons to be unaware of what's out there. They need to know the nature of hypergamy. They need to spot the problems within the church and the feminist corruption of Scripture. They must be prepared for marriage, if they make that choice.
At the University of Man, Prof Mantu wrote a piece that touches on something I've got to be careful about. Too much emphasis on my particular situation (baseless divorce, false charges, debt) can easily lead to lasting bitterness. When I studied game, I think it was Roosh V that pointed something out to a guy. The guy was getting bitter about encountering hypergamy. Roosh spotted the problem immediately. The guy was studying, learning, but wasn't doing approaches. So, he was psyching himself right out of the market.
My divorce isn't final and she will drag it out to the last possible day, even though she initiated it. I will be re-entering the dating market at 41 or so. I'll need to do my own soul searching because I didn't do "chaste" well in my 20s. I also have a number of advantages that a number of guys in my situation and age group don't have going for them.
Touching on the previous post, my sons will see me with another woman(women). I have no interest in parading them in front of my boys, but it will be a reality and maybe a way to teach and prepare them by showing them how to do things. In truth, I don't think I would've been as focused on this aspect, had the ex not decided to blow apart our family.
If you have the misfortune of reading the last few posts, understand that I'm still trying to get a feel for the direction I want to go. The first rule of learning to write well is to write, write, write. Growing pains in the blogosphere.
Monday, June 04, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Get Started!
As soon as I came to my new realization, I wanted to get moving in the right direction as quickly as possible. The resources cited will certainly help. Just like when you buy a computer, you have the extensive and exhaustive manual and you also have the "Quick Start Guide."
Men, Badger Hut has done that work for you.
Things to do Right Now
The good news, for me, is that I am already doing almost all of this list. The one point I missed is about the fish oil. Going to pick some up today.
It's funny, to me. All the chatter about women being more capable of bonding and having stronger relationship skills, yet the manosphere is full of guys working hard to help other guys. They aren't nasty about it. They don't ridicule those who are unaware of the Red Pill/Blue Pill. They patiently explain, give advice, and post their own trials and failures for others to benefit.
Men, Badger Hut has done that work for you.
Things to do Right Now
The good news, for me, is that I am already doing almost all of this list. The one point I missed is about the fish oil. Going to pick some up today.
It's funny, to me. All the chatter about women being more capable of bonding and having stronger relationship skills, yet the manosphere is full of guys working hard to help other guys. They aren't nasty about it. They don't ridicule those who are unaware of the Red Pill/Blue Pill. They patiently explain, give advice, and post their own trials and failures for others to benefit.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
A Gentleman's Guide
Shortly after my ex decided to blow up our family, I wrote a guide for my sons. The guide is pamphlet style and covers topics from picking the right suit to silverware settings to how to be a Best Man. I may publish sections of it, for guys who were raised by single moms and may not have the benefit of having a father, like mine (second to none). Much of it is still useful, but one part seems so bizarre now that I can’t believe my worldview shifted so dramatically in such a short span.
I had a section titled, “Ladies.” In it, I provided the time honored etiquette for treating a young lady. At first, I laughed at the absurdity I intended to teach my boys. Then, I realized more sadness because I believe it is the way women should be treated. However, the modern woman bears little resemblance to the women of fifty years ago. Society has masculinized them, told them to pursue manly goals, shamed them from pursuing feminine interests, and high-fived whorish behavior.
As I list the guide for treating Ladies, the men who have taken the Red Pill will have a far different reaction to the list than the men who haven’t (like me, only months ago). Here was the list:
Always open doors
Offer your seat to women
Always carry a woman’s package
Put her coat on
Help her with her seat
Stand at attention when a lady enters or leaves a room
Give her your arm (escort)
Ask her if she needs anything
And on and on…
Keep in mind, I don’t mind doing these things and this is how I was raised. However, the modern woman will not view these gestures in the same manner as women of decades ago because she has been taught to not respect men. Men are buffoons, the butt of jokes, the predators, and as useful as a bicycle for fish.
Also, understand that there are differences between the dating world and Long Term Relationships (LTR). LTR is a far deeper commitment between a man and a woman. For those in a LTR, I point you to helpful resources, such as Married Man Sex Life. I am hopeful that I will have a LTR in the future, but I’m going in with my eyes wide open next time.
Red Pill Parenting
I have two sons and no intentions to have more. I’m going to focus on raising sons. Will I ever talk about raising girls? Possibly, but not to start.
How do you raise boys to avoid the traps set out before them? I remember a passage from a book I read while married, “Raising a Modern Day Knight.” The author recounts a story about Robert E. Lee.
Lee was walking in the woods with his young son following. The snow was deep and fresh. After some time, he looked back to see how his son was doing. He noticed his son struggled to get his feet to match his father’s pace and to only walk in the tracks his father put down. It was at that point that Lee said to himself (paraphrase), “If my son is to follow my steps, I had better to walk as straight a path as possible.”
In that spirit, I think a father’s primary duty is to carry himself as the Alpha. I won’t get into the natural vs. learned debate. As far as I’m concerned, “fake it til you make it” should work if your goal is to provide an example to your sons.
The web is an incredible resource for men who feel something is terribly wrong, but can’t put their finger on it. It goes by several names and has a number of schools of thought. Search out terms, like manosphere, alpha male, game, and PUA. Your world will open, if your ready.
My initial motivation was re-entering the dating market. I’m an INTJ and one of the stronger traits of that personality is knowing what you don’t know. So, I sought the experts in the field and came across the Pick-Up Artist (PUA) community. Their market is mid-20s men, mostly. However, the work they’ve done on inter-gender relationships is extraordinary and shouldn’t be casually dismissed as simply “seduction.”
I will not try to cover the ground others covered. My work will stand on the shoulders of giants. If you are interested in being educated on how the world shifted and how the game is meant to be played naturally, I suggest you hit the blogs I’ve linked to the right and start reading. In addition to the blogs, spend the money for books, like “Rules of the Game” (Nick Strauss), “The Mystery Method” (Erik von Markovik), “Bang” (Roosh V). Let them lead you to additional resources. Don’t dismiss them because they lack formal credentials. Their understanding of the male and female psyche is deserving of honorary degrees, given the volume of field research and written work. Don't ignore them because you don't want to be a pickup artist. What they can teach you has benefits beyond their field of interest.
Educate yourself. Relearn what you forgot (my case). Learn what you should have learned. For some, it will come more naturally. For others, you will need to “fake it til you make it.” Once it clicks, though, the world starts making much more sense (how people actually interact) as it also make even less sense (how everyone says they should interact).
If your father walked in your shoes, he’d be floored by the differences between dating in the 50s, 60s and even 70s and now. You owe it to your sons to educate yourself, walk the path, show them the way, and reinforce the fundamentals if they stumble into beta-hood.
Taking the Red Pill
I don’t recall the precise moment I took the Red Pill. What is the Red Pill? It is the moment when you realize you have been mal-programmed “for your own good” by your family, your society, and even your church. You come to understand that your natural instincts are a better guide for natural relationships. It is not forgoing the advances of civil society. It is relying on time tested methods and biologically based factors to increase your value to the world.
I was living in a fairly natural state during my 20s. I served in the military, went through college, had a number of women pass in and out of my life, and didn’t feel anything was particularly “missing.” Eventually, I met a woman and married her. We have two great boys. After five years, our marriage was in serious trouble. I believed a greater commitment to my religion would help. After ten years, she blew apart the marriage, filed false claims, tried to turn my sons against me, and proceeded to deplete our shared resources in a pointless divorce.
What went wrong? I was the father I was told to be. I worked every day, providing a good income. I was a coach, cubmaster, and emotionally available father. I read countless books on improving the marriage, asked the ex to go to counseling, and offered to go through any program she wanted in an effort to improve our marriage. In the end, she was unhaaapy and decided to divorce.
What went wrong was the culture shifted under my feet as I grew. I was no match for “no-fault” divorce, the masculinization of women, and the cultural erosion of traditional roles.
The modern husband cannot expect to play the same role as his father (if he was lucky enough to live with him).
The modern father cannot raise his sons as passively as our fathers raised us.
There is a war going on in American culture and men are as passive as the West is toward Islam.
I was living in a fairly natural state during my 20s. I served in the military, went through college, had a number of women pass in and out of my life, and didn’t feel anything was particularly “missing.” Eventually, I met a woman and married her. We have two great boys. After five years, our marriage was in serious trouble. I believed a greater commitment to my religion would help. After ten years, she blew apart the marriage, filed false claims, tried to turn my sons against me, and proceeded to deplete our shared resources in a pointless divorce.
What went wrong? I was the father I was told to be. I worked every day, providing a good income. I was a coach, cubmaster, and emotionally available father. I read countless books on improving the marriage, asked the ex to go to counseling, and offered to go through any program she wanted in an effort to improve our marriage. In the end, she was unhaaapy and decided to divorce.
What went wrong was the culture shifted under my feet as I grew. I was no match for “no-fault” divorce, the masculinization of women, and the cultural erosion of traditional roles.
The modern husband cannot expect to play the same role as his father (if he was lucky enough to live with him).
The modern father cannot raise his sons as passively as our fathers raised us.
There is a war going on in American culture and men are as passive as the West is toward Islam.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
New England Patriots
This post is a direct copy of one I made on an Eagles site I frequent, so if some language seems out of whack, it's because the original intended audience was a football bulletin board
Standard disclaimer applies. Stats only show part of the game and are by their nature selective. However, they can give some insight if the numbers are handled carefully. I count more plays than the NFL because I count plays results nullified by penalties if the penalty has no effect on the result (1 yard run converts a third down, but defensive holding wipes the play away, for example). Not perfect, but since I use an entire season’s stats and plays, it dulls any significant spikes, I think. Don’t like it? Be my guest to do better.
Okay, so since this is the Super Bowl I decided to go all out. I scripted out the first fifteen plays for each game of the season, including this year’s playoffs and the playoff run during their last Super Bowl. I broke down the Patriots on first down, second and long situations (7+ yards), third down conversions, rushing distribution, punt coverage, and other general stats.
First 15 Plays
The Patriots, as far as I know, don’t script their first 15 plays. So, following the deconstructive nature in a certain controversial novel, I figure they may be ripe for pattern recognition. (In the book, a guy has sex at random places, but an observer notes his pattern follows the chaos theory and V-2 rockets subsequently falls where he last had “relations.” In doing so, he actually is a free actor and the universe, of all things, is more doomed to follow his pattern. I regress [for Smiff fans]).
As a whole, the Pats have a 55/45 pass/run mix. Not surprisingly, 63% of their passes and 35% of their total plays are passes to WRs. They also rarely give up sacks in the first 15 plays. 10 sacks out of well over 300 plays (172 pass plays). They may not script their plays, but they sure have them down pat. There are some patterns worth noting. For one, they almost always pass to WRs on the third play. This may likely be a result of the third down situation. Would make sense.
Regardless, what’s really interesting is that their yardage drops off significantly after the first ten or so plays. They average 6 yards per play for the first nine plays every game. The next six (and presumably the following ones)? They average four yards per play. This might not seem like a lot by itself. However, of the ten sacks they gave up in the first 15 plays, 6 came during plays 10-15. I realize the sample is too small to make any definitive declaration regarding the sacks. The first six plays per game, they average about seven yards per play. Plays 10-15, they average four. Take their best shot (first ten plays or so) and you see a dropoff in yards gained per play. The Patriots also set a record of some type this year by scoring first in X number of games. They clearly come out and execute in their first series. After that, it looks like the gameplan become more fluid and less successful.
Finally, Brady has thrown more than double the INTs for passes 11-20, opposed to his first ten throws. Same raw numbers for passes, too, though his yards per attempt dips by a yard and a half. What am I saying? I’m saying something happens after the first ten or so plays and before halftime and the Eagles can capitalize. The second quarter is the time for the Eagles D to strike and force three and outs.
Patriots Running Game
When running during the first 15 plays, they ran 22% to the right, 47% to the middle and 31% to the left. This pattern holds true for their overall run distribution. Dillon pounds the ball between the tackles 47% of the time (4.1 ypc). When they do bounce him to the outside, it is more likely to the left (33% of his runs). What’s odd is that he’s very successful to the outside, average a yard more per carry to the left (5.1) and a yard a half more to the right (5.7). Is this due to Dillon or the OL play? Well, non-Dillon runners (WRs end arounds, QB sneaks, Faulk, Pass) average about 3.6 yards per carry. There’s also no significant increase to the outside. Without Dillon, their run game becomes very pedestrian. Dillon was a pretty steady runner, rarely having a bad game. I think he set a record for consecutive 100 yard games for the Pats, too.
One more thing. The Patriots have a heavy package using DL as eligible players. Klecko checked in a lot of times through the season but is now on IR. Seymour checked in, but is coming back from injury. Would he see time? Doubtful. Maybe Hochstein checks in. If he does, I’d fully expect run, run, run.
First Down Yardage
When the Patriots run on first down, they gain 0-3 yards approximately 50% of the time (includes negative yards, a stat the Eagles defense led the league in). Same with the pass (including sacks). Clearly, this puts the Pats in 2nd and long nearly half the time. More on this later.
One interesting observation is the Pats really focused on the run in the last half of the season and the playoffs. They went from rushing on first down 54% of the time to rushing 63% of the time. The trend can actually be traced back to the Jets and Steelers games. Brady was sacked 7 times and, more importantly, lost the Steelers game. I think Belichick adjusted the playcalling to slow down the pass rush and buy Brady more time early in the game. There’s every reason to believe he will emphasize the run on first down during the Super Bowl.
On first down alone, Brady throws for 59%, 8 yards per pass, and has had 24 20+ yard completions on first down. Contrast that with second down. YPA drops over a yard, big plays drops to 11, and his completion % jumps. His QB rating is much better on second down because he got a lot of his TDs on second down. It looks as though Belichick shortens the passing game on second down to get some yards to make third down manageable. Not earth-shattering, but worth noting.
2nd and Long (7+ Yards)
When faced with second and long, most teams look to shorten the yardage so third down in manageable. The Pats go more for the throat, so to speak. They pass 70% of the time. Of those passes, 60% go to WRs, 18% to TEs, and 16% to RBs. Overall (run plays included), they pass to WRs 42% of the time (TEs 12.5%, RBs 11%). They rarely run, but if they do, the go up the gut (18% overall and 59% of run plays). Almost a quarter (10 of 45) of their sacks came in 2nd and long situations. Following on the last section, I’d bank on short, high completion passes to WRs on second and long.
How often will the Patriots be in this situation? The Patriots average 12 2nd and long situations per game. They average 65 plays per game and 18% of their plays are 2nd and long. I didn’t run other teams to see if this is out of the ordinary, but it sure seems like a high proportion.
To blitz or not to blitz? When defenses blitz, Brady’s QB efficiency drops nearly 20 points. He goes from (non-blitz) 63.8%, 21 TD, 8 INT, 99.2 rating to 55.1%, 7 TD, 6 INT, 80.3 rating (blitz stats from espn.com). There’s no appreciable difference in yards per attempt or completion, either. Situations will dictate, of course, but this looks like an ideal time to send an extra man.
Third Down
The Patriots, propelled by a strong running game, are very effective in third and short situations (3 yards or less). They convert 63% of short yard plays overall and 76% when they run. Considering they run the ball very well, I expected to see a heavier run to pass distribution. They ran more, but not by a super wide margin. Part of this comes from the packages. In the play-by-play, I saw the RB Pass (his name) in on third down, as well as Faulk. Dillon’s not a bad receiver (1,600 yards receiving in his career), so it probably has more to do with keeping the entire playbook open on third down.
Third and long they rarely run for it and for good reason – they rarely convert it by running (four times all season). They do fairly well on third and long overall (39%). As the season wore on, they didn’t do as well on third and long. Their conversion dropped from 43% to 34%. Factor in one element, though. Division rivals were far more effective in stopping conversion than non-division foes (32% vs. 41%).
Punt Coverage
The Patriots punt coverage team has taken some heat from the press. From numbers, it’s impossible to say what the deal is. They allow about 12 yards per return (34 total returns – including playoffs). Nine times this season, they’ve allowed an average of ten yards or more on punt returns. Four times, they’ve allowed punt returns of 20+ yards, two of those were 70+ yard returns. There is no difference between home and away games in return yardage, though Miller nets about three more yards per punt on the road (31 yards net).
When Westbrook had punt return duty last year, he had 20 returns. Two returns went for TDs and he averaged 15 yards per return. Considering the Eagles punt return team has lacked a punch, they may be tempted to use Westbrook to exploit the coverage mismatch. Wynn gets about 10 yards per return, so if they stick with him they should get that amount of yards. He just may not hit a homerun like Westbrook can.
On the flip side, the Eagles allow 6.5 yards per return and the Patriots average 5.8 yards per return (long 23 yards). The Eagles hold a special teams coverage/return edge.
QBs Facing the Patriots
There has been some discussion around the league regarding the quality of the QBs who played against the Patriots. Looking over the QBs and punching in the numbers, there is no appreciable statistical difference between the QBs the Eagles faced and the QBs the Patriots faced. Of course, there are individual situations that aren’t factored in. When the Pats faced the Ravens, Jamal Lewis didn’t play. When they played the Browns, Suggs didn’t play. This isn’t meant to knock the Pats, just to point out that there are situations behind the numbers that can’t be easily reflected. Similar situations happened with the Eagles.
So, I don’t think they faced QBs of lesser quality. The Pats haven’t faced a really mobile QB this season, but have in the past. The most mobile they faced this year might have been Boller. On the flip side, the Eagles have faced QBs that react well to blitzes (Culpepper, Vick, maybe Garcia). I don’t think there’s an appreciable difference here. They throw for about the same amount of yards per game for the same TD and INT rate.
The passing yards per game for the second half of the season remained somewhat steady and a little over 220 yards per game. The Patriots run defense, however, really stepped up. They dropped the average yards per game by about 40 yards per game. Granted, they faced less talent.
Summary
Historically, the Pats offense will sputter a bit (not stall) after the first ten plays and may struggle a bit in the second quarter.
The Pats will emphasize run on first down.
If Hochstein checks in as eligible, I expect the Eagles to go DT heavy, as they did in the GB game to counter the run.
The Pats will be in second and long about 12 times in the Super Bowl and will pass their way out of it, more likely to the WRs on short routes – not necessarily looking to convert the down.
The Eagles can be successful if they blitz and Brady’s efficiency drops significantly when blitzed.
The Patriots third and long conversion took a hit later in the season and in the playoffs.
The Eagles hold a distinct edge in the punting game.
There is no appreciable difference between the QBs the Pats faced and the ones the Eagles faced.
Standard disclaimer applies. Stats only show part of the game and are by their nature selective. However, they can give some insight if the numbers are handled carefully. I count more plays than the NFL because I count plays results nullified by penalties if the penalty has no effect on the result (1 yard run converts a third down, but defensive holding wipes the play away, for example). Not perfect, but since I use an entire season’s stats and plays, it dulls any significant spikes, I think. Don’t like it? Be my guest to do better.
Okay, so since this is the Super Bowl I decided to go all out. I scripted out the first fifteen plays for each game of the season, including this year’s playoffs and the playoff run during their last Super Bowl. I broke down the Patriots on first down, second and long situations (7+ yards), third down conversions, rushing distribution, punt coverage, and other general stats.
First 15 Plays
The Patriots, as far as I know, don’t script their first 15 plays. So, following the deconstructive nature in a certain controversial novel, I figure they may be ripe for pattern recognition. (In the book, a guy has sex at random places, but an observer notes his pattern follows the chaos theory and V-2 rockets subsequently falls where he last had “relations.” In doing so, he actually is a free actor and the universe, of all things, is more doomed to follow his pattern. I regress [for Smiff fans]).
As a whole, the Pats have a 55/45 pass/run mix. Not surprisingly, 63% of their passes and 35% of their total plays are passes to WRs. They also rarely give up sacks in the first 15 plays. 10 sacks out of well over 300 plays (172 pass plays). They may not script their plays, but they sure have them down pat. There are some patterns worth noting. For one, they almost always pass to WRs on the third play. This may likely be a result of the third down situation. Would make sense.
Regardless, what’s really interesting is that their yardage drops off significantly after the first ten or so plays. They average 6 yards per play for the first nine plays every game. The next six (and presumably the following ones)? They average four yards per play. This might not seem like a lot by itself. However, of the ten sacks they gave up in the first 15 plays, 6 came during plays 10-15. I realize the sample is too small to make any definitive declaration regarding the sacks. The first six plays per game, they average about seven yards per play. Plays 10-15, they average four. Take their best shot (first ten plays or so) and you see a dropoff in yards gained per play. The Patriots also set a record of some type this year by scoring first in X number of games. They clearly come out and execute in their first series. After that, it looks like the gameplan become more fluid and less successful.
Finally, Brady has thrown more than double the INTs for passes 11-20, opposed to his first ten throws. Same raw numbers for passes, too, though his yards per attempt dips by a yard and a half. What am I saying? I’m saying something happens after the first ten or so plays and before halftime and the Eagles can capitalize. The second quarter is the time for the Eagles D to strike and force three and outs.
Patriots Running Game
When running during the first 15 plays, they ran 22% to the right, 47% to the middle and 31% to the left. This pattern holds true for their overall run distribution. Dillon pounds the ball between the tackles 47% of the time (4.1 ypc). When they do bounce him to the outside, it is more likely to the left (33% of his runs). What’s odd is that he’s very successful to the outside, average a yard more per carry to the left (5.1) and a yard a half more to the right (5.7). Is this due to Dillon or the OL play? Well, non-Dillon runners (WRs end arounds, QB sneaks, Faulk, Pass) average about 3.6 yards per carry. There’s also no significant increase to the outside. Without Dillon, their run game becomes very pedestrian. Dillon was a pretty steady runner, rarely having a bad game. I think he set a record for consecutive 100 yard games for the Pats, too.
One more thing. The Patriots have a heavy package using DL as eligible players. Klecko checked in a lot of times through the season but is now on IR. Seymour checked in, but is coming back from injury. Would he see time? Doubtful. Maybe Hochstein checks in. If he does, I’d fully expect run, run, run.
First Down Yardage
When the Patriots run on first down, they gain 0-3 yards approximately 50% of the time (includes negative yards, a stat the Eagles defense led the league in). Same with the pass (including sacks). Clearly, this puts the Pats in 2nd and long nearly half the time. More on this later.
One interesting observation is the Pats really focused on the run in the last half of the season and the playoffs. They went from rushing on first down 54% of the time to rushing 63% of the time. The trend can actually be traced back to the Jets and Steelers games. Brady was sacked 7 times and, more importantly, lost the Steelers game. I think Belichick adjusted the playcalling to slow down the pass rush and buy Brady more time early in the game. There’s every reason to believe he will emphasize the run on first down during the Super Bowl.
On first down alone, Brady throws for 59%, 8 yards per pass, and has had 24 20+ yard completions on first down. Contrast that with second down. YPA drops over a yard, big plays drops to 11, and his completion % jumps. His QB rating is much better on second down because he got a lot of his TDs on second down. It looks as though Belichick shortens the passing game on second down to get some yards to make third down manageable. Not earth-shattering, but worth noting.
2nd and Long (7+ Yards)
When faced with second and long, most teams look to shorten the yardage so third down in manageable. The Pats go more for the throat, so to speak. They pass 70% of the time. Of those passes, 60% go to WRs, 18% to TEs, and 16% to RBs. Overall (run plays included), they pass to WRs 42% of the time (TEs 12.5%, RBs 11%). They rarely run, but if they do, the go up the gut (18% overall and 59% of run plays). Almost a quarter (10 of 45) of their sacks came in 2nd and long situations. Following on the last section, I’d bank on short, high completion passes to WRs on second and long.
How often will the Patriots be in this situation? The Patriots average 12 2nd and long situations per game. They average 65 plays per game and 18% of their plays are 2nd and long. I didn’t run other teams to see if this is out of the ordinary, but it sure seems like a high proportion.
To blitz or not to blitz? When defenses blitz, Brady’s QB efficiency drops nearly 20 points. He goes from (non-blitz) 63.8%, 21 TD, 8 INT, 99.2 rating to 55.1%, 7 TD, 6 INT, 80.3 rating (blitz stats from espn.com). There’s no appreciable difference in yards per attempt or completion, either. Situations will dictate, of course, but this looks like an ideal time to send an extra man.
Third Down
The Patriots, propelled by a strong running game, are very effective in third and short situations (3 yards or less). They convert 63% of short yard plays overall and 76% when they run. Considering they run the ball very well, I expected to see a heavier run to pass distribution. They ran more, but not by a super wide margin. Part of this comes from the packages. In the play-by-play, I saw the RB Pass (his name) in on third down, as well as Faulk. Dillon’s not a bad receiver (1,600 yards receiving in his career), so it probably has more to do with keeping the entire playbook open on third down.
Third and long they rarely run for it and for good reason – they rarely convert it by running (four times all season). They do fairly well on third and long overall (39%). As the season wore on, they didn’t do as well on third and long. Their conversion dropped from 43% to 34%. Factor in one element, though. Division rivals were far more effective in stopping conversion than non-division foes (32% vs. 41%).
Punt Coverage
The Patriots punt coverage team has taken some heat from the press. From numbers, it’s impossible to say what the deal is. They allow about 12 yards per return (34 total returns – including playoffs). Nine times this season, they’ve allowed an average of ten yards or more on punt returns. Four times, they’ve allowed punt returns of 20+ yards, two of those were 70+ yard returns. There is no difference between home and away games in return yardage, though Miller nets about three more yards per punt on the road (31 yards net).
When Westbrook had punt return duty last year, he had 20 returns. Two returns went for TDs and he averaged 15 yards per return. Considering the Eagles punt return team has lacked a punch, they may be tempted to use Westbrook to exploit the coverage mismatch. Wynn gets about 10 yards per return, so if they stick with him they should get that amount of yards. He just may not hit a homerun like Westbrook can.
On the flip side, the Eagles allow 6.5 yards per return and the Patriots average 5.8 yards per return (long 23 yards). The Eagles hold a special teams coverage/return edge.
QBs Facing the Patriots
There has been some discussion around the league regarding the quality of the QBs who played against the Patriots. Looking over the QBs and punching in the numbers, there is no appreciable statistical difference between the QBs the Eagles faced and the QBs the Patriots faced. Of course, there are individual situations that aren’t factored in. When the Pats faced the Ravens, Jamal Lewis didn’t play. When they played the Browns, Suggs didn’t play. This isn’t meant to knock the Pats, just to point out that there are situations behind the numbers that can’t be easily reflected. Similar situations happened with the Eagles.
So, I don’t think they faced QBs of lesser quality. The Pats haven’t faced a really mobile QB this season, but have in the past. The most mobile they faced this year might have been Boller. On the flip side, the Eagles have faced QBs that react well to blitzes (Culpepper, Vick, maybe Garcia). I don’t think there’s an appreciable difference here. They throw for about the same amount of yards per game for the same TD and INT rate.
The passing yards per game for the second half of the season remained somewhat steady and a little over 220 yards per game. The Patriots run defense, however, really stepped up. They dropped the average yards per game by about 40 yards per game. Granted, they faced less talent.
Summary
Historically, the Pats offense will sputter a bit (not stall) after the first ten plays and may struggle a bit in the second quarter.
The Pats will emphasize run on first down.
If Hochstein checks in as eligible, I expect the Eagles to go DT heavy, as they did in the GB game to counter the run.
The Pats will be in second and long about 12 times in the Super Bowl and will pass their way out of it, more likely to the WRs on short routes – not necessarily looking to convert the down.
The Eagles can be successful if they blitz and Brady’s efficiency drops significantly when blitzed.
The Patriots third and long conversion took a hit later in the season and in the playoffs.
The Eagles hold a distinct edge in the punting game.
There is no appreciable difference between the QBs the Pats faced and the ones the Eagles faced.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Atlanta Falcons
Excuse me if some of the wording leaves you a bit confused. It's a repost from another site (700level.com)
The Atlanta Falcons feature a very effective running game. Their passing game is suspect, at best. When your leading receiver is your TE, you rarely stretch the field. It also indicates your QB can’t look downfield or doesn’t give deep routes time to develop. However, they boast one of the strongest running games in the NFL, great punt return work, and a solid front seven on defense.
On first downs, the Falcons started the season with a more run focused attack and moved to one with more passes on first down. For every five first down pass plays during the first part of the season, the Falcons ran 11 times. Over 2:1. Toward the end of the season, they increased their pass ratio on first down (presumably to mix it up and keep defenses honest). In the last nine games, for every five first down pass plays the Falcons run 7 times. They balanced their first down playcalling, though still lean on their strength.
What’s been the effect? Their average gain per run remained pretty much the same. When running, they typically gain 0-3 yards on first down about 52-55% of the time. They gain 4-6 about 22% and 7+ about 23%. When passing, however, they’ve gone sharply south. In the first eight, they gained 0-3 (includes incomplete passes, sacks, and catches for loss) 39% of the time and gained 7+ yards a whopping 50% of the time. In the last nine games, they gain 0-3 yards 64% of the time and 7+ has dropped to 29%. Vick is throwing more incompletions on first down and either doesn’t stretch the field or in unsuccessful in stretching the field on first down.
Here’s the odd part. Even though they’re less successful in gaining yardage on first down, their third down completion % jumped during the second half of the season. They went from dismal rates (keep in mind, I count plays wiped from the books by certain penalties away from the play) averaging 27% to a very respectable rate in the second half of the season – 45%. The Falcons offense became more efficient as the year went on and is firing on almost all cylinders.
The running game has two components – the RBs and Vick. For the season and playoffs, the Falcons run 30% to the left, 40% to the middle and 30% to the right. They gain marginally more yards to the left than the right (36% of the total rushing yards gained running to the left and 27% to the right). Seems pretty balanced, no?
No.
Separating Vick’s designed runs and scrambles from the mix, the Falcons run an imbalanced running attack. The RBs run far more heavily to the middle (defined as middle or off guard runs) and more heavily to the right of the line (defined as tackle or end runs). 50% of the RB runs go up the gut, 32% (or so) go to the right and about 17% go to the left. The yardage gained is almost directly proportional, as well. They also almost never pass when Duckett is in the backfield. He doesn’t have the hands and probably isn’t as good at pass blocking.
Vick, on the other hand, runs to the left close to 50% of the time. Not surprising, considering he’s left handed and his eyes more easily see that side of the field. He runs the middle about 33% of the time and to the right approx 17% of the time. What does this mean? Well, a Buc fan friend of mine stated earlier this week the Bucs keep containment on the left side of the line and it greatly hampers Vick’s game. In addition to cutting lanes of escape, he contends if also has the psychological effect of a “trap.”
Considering the Eagles faced another strong running team (Packers) and were incredibly effective, I’ll wager we will see Walker at RDE every now and then to provide a wall to the left of Vick. Consider: Hollis Thomas made his return and Johnson now has the full DT rotation. He can spare Walker to the end and plug Thomas in the middle. I wouldn’t expect this the entire game, but I would expect it during pass plays. In fact, Douglas may get more reps since he may have more lower leg strength than Burgess to hold the tackle in position.
Duckett runs almost exclusively between the tackles and is not successful bouncing to the outside. He goes from six yards per carry up the guy to 3 yards per carry to the outside. Dunn runs up the middle with equal success to the outside, though he has about as many yards from middle runs as the outside runs combined. This team will try to dominate the inside of the line. So, Johnson will have to balance the need to wall off Vick to the left with keeping DTs fresh. Thankfully, the Eagles have very good depth at DL (unlike last year).
Regarding the shotgun formation. The Falcons use it regularly and run from it more frequently than you think. More often than not, it’s a run from Dunn (Duckett will never be in for shotgun). They do have the direct snap to Dunn in their playbook. The run from shotgun is very effective. From my memory, they gained at least five yards or more each time they ran from shotgun. I fully expect to see the formation and at least two runs from it, very likely including the direct snap to Dunn.
Punt Return
Much has been made of Rossum’s ability on punt return and for good reason. He rarely has “bad” days on return duty. Of course, his kick returns are pedestrian. I posted the overview from the last meeting in 2002 and, funny enough, almost nothing has changed:
Rossum is their primary return man. We remember him as the guy that could never break the long one for a TD. He’s been a very good punt returner (12 yards per return, with no long one to throw the average), but is a lackluster kick returner. He averages 22 yards per kick return, despite having a long one for a TD (91 yards).
This year, Rossum averages 12.4 yards per punt return and 21.6 yards per kick return. The more things change…
I count 11 punt returns of 20+ yards and three 50+ yard returns. There is some reason for optimism, though I really can’t gauge the amount. He’s far more successful in domes than in open air. In fact, his average punt return drops from 18 (dome) to 11 yards per return. Without the long run against the Chiefs for a TD (unfair to remove, truth be told), his average drops to seven yards per return. The TD run counts, though, because it shows he can take it the distance under the circumstance.
The net average for Eagles punt is a fairly steady 35-36 yards per punt, home and away. Their coverage units do about the same home as away, but both are good. The coverage team allows about 6 yards per return. When playing against tough defenses (punting more), the coverage team doesn’t slacken. BAL, PIT, and DAL (1st), the Eagles punted 16 times and gave up 5.4 yards per return. They’ve also faced some quality return men (DET- Drummond). The coverage unit should be up to the task and the bad weather should be in their favor if they maintain discipline.
If I can get to it, I’ll do some Altanta defense workups. Just not sure if I can get it squeezed in.
The Atlanta Falcons feature a very effective running game. Their passing game is suspect, at best. When your leading receiver is your TE, you rarely stretch the field. It also indicates your QB can’t look downfield or doesn’t give deep routes time to develop. However, they boast one of the strongest running games in the NFL, great punt return work, and a solid front seven on defense.
On first downs, the Falcons started the season with a more run focused attack and moved to one with more passes on first down. For every five first down pass plays during the first part of the season, the Falcons ran 11 times. Over 2:1. Toward the end of the season, they increased their pass ratio on first down (presumably to mix it up and keep defenses honest). In the last nine games, for every five first down pass plays the Falcons run 7 times. They balanced their first down playcalling, though still lean on their strength.
What’s been the effect? Their average gain per run remained pretty much the same. When running, they typically gain 0-3 yards on first down about 52-55% of the time. They gain 4-6 about 22% and 7+ about 23%. When passing, however, they’ve gone sharply south. In the first eight, they gained 0-3 (includes incomplete passes, sacks, and catches for loss) 39% of the time and gained 7+ yards a whopping 50% of the time. In the last nine games, they gain 0-3 yards 64% of the time and 7+ has dropped to 29%. Vick is throwing more incompletions on first down and either doesn’t stretch the field or in unsuccessful in stretching the field on first down.
Here’s the odd part. Even though they’re less successful in gaining yardage on first down, their third down completion % jumped during the second half of the season. They went from dismal rates (keep in mind, I count plays wiped from the books by certain penalties away from the play) averaging 27% to a very respectable rate in the second half of the season – 45%. The Falcons offense became more efficient as the year went on and is firing on almost all cylinders.
The running game has two components – the RBs and Vick. For the season and playoffs, the Falcons run 30% to the left, 40% to the middle and 30% to the right. They gain marginally more yards to the left than the right (36% of the total rushing yards gained running to the left and 27% to the right). Seems pretty balanced, no?
No.
Separating Vick’s designed runs and scrambles from the mix, the Falcons run an imbalanced running attack. The RBs run far more heavily to the middle (defined as middle or off guard runs) and more heavily to the right of the line (defined as tackle or end runs). 50% of the RB runs go up the gut, 32% (or so) go to the right and about 17% go to the left. The yardage gained is almost directly proportional, as well. They also almost never pass when Duckett is in the backfield. He doesn’t have the hands and probably isn’t as good at pass blocking.
Vick, on the other hand, runs to the left close to 50% of the time. Not surprising, considering he’s left handed and his eyes more easily see that side of the field. He runs the middle about 33% of the time and to the right approx 17% of the time. What does this mean? Well, a Buc fan friend of mine stated earlier this week the Bucs keep containment on the left side of the line and it greatly hampers Vick’s game. In addition to cutting lanes of escape, he contends if also has the psychological effect of a “trap.”
Considering the Eagles faced another strong running team (Packers) and were incredibly effective, I’ll wager we will see Walker at RDE every now and then to provide a wall to the left of Vick. Consider: Hollis Thomas made his return and Johnson now has the full DT rotation. He can spare Walker to the end and plug Thomas in the middle. I wouldn’t expect this the entire game, but I would expect it during pass plays. In fact, Douglas may get more reps since he may have more lower leg strength than Burgess to hold the tackle in position.
Duckett runs almost exclusively between the tackles and is not successful bouncing to the outside. He goes from six yards per carry up the guy to 3 yards per carry to the outside. Dunn runs up the middle with equal success to the outside, though he has about as many yards from middle runs as the outside runs combined. This team will try to dominate the inside of the line. So, Johnson will have to balance the need to wall off Vick to the left with keeping DTs fresh. Thankfully, the Eagles have very good depth at DL (unlike last year).
Regarding the shotgun formation. The Falcons use it regularly and run from it more frequently than you think. More often than not, it’s a run from Dunn (Duckett will never be in for shotgun). They do have the direct snap to Dunn in their playbook. The run from shotgun is very effective. From my memory, they gained at least five yards or more each time they ran from shotgun. I fully expect to see the formation and at least two runs from it, very likely including the direct snap to Dunn.
Punt Return
Much has been made of Rossum’s ability on punt return and for good reason. He rarely has “bad” days on return duty. Of course, his kick returns are pedestrian. I posted the overview from the last meeting in 2002 and, funny enough, almost nothing has changed:
Rossum is their primary return man. We remember him as the guy that could never break the long one for a TD. He’s been a very good punt returner (12 yards per return, with no long one to throw the average), but is a lackluster kick returner. He averages 22 yards per kick return, despite having a long one for a TD (91 yards).
This year, Rossum averages 12.4 yards per punt return and 21.6 yards per kick return. The more things change…
I count 11 punt returns of 20+ yards and three 50+ yard returns. There is some reason for optimism, though I really can’t gauge the amount. He’s far more successful in domes than in open air. In fact, his average punt return drops from 18 (dome) to 11 yards per return. Without the long run against the Chiefs for a TD (unfair to remove, truth be told), his average drops to seven yards per return. The TD run counts, though, because it shows he can take it the distance under the circumstance.
The net average for Eagles punt is a fairly steady 35-36 yards per punt, home and away. Their coverage units do about the same home as away, but both are good. The coverage team allows about 6 yards per return. When playing against tough defenses (punting more), the coverage team doesn’t slacken. BAL, PIT, and DAL (1st), the Eagles punted 16 times and gave up 5.4 yards per return. They’ve also faced some quality return men (DET- Drummond). The coverage unit should be up to the task and the bad weather should be in their favor if they maintain discipline.
If I can get to it, I’ll do some Altanta defense workups. Just not sure if I can get it squeezed in.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Minnesota Vikings
From time to time, I create statistical breakdowns for the Eagles site I visit (www.700level.com). I posted this one already, but for those that don't go to it, I thought I'd post it here. Up next will be the Atlanta Falcons Overview.
MINNESOTA VIKINGS
For those unfamiliar with how I do this, I’ll give a brief overview. Skip ahead if you understand. I take the play-by-play on nfl.com as well as other official stats and I look for trends that may be noteworthy. Typically, I like to look at third down conversion rates. Teams in the playoffs are usually good in 3rd down (Vikes lead the league). When breaking down the plays, I throw out certain plays if there’s a holding penalty and maybe include others, even if there’s a defensive penalty that wipes it out (depending). It’s not perfect, but you’ll get your money’s worth.
Vikings Offense
It’s not surprise to say Culpepper and Moss are crucial to the success of the Vikings offense. In games Randy Moss played most of the time, the Vikes averaged 80 more passing yards (318 to 235), though the scoring was kept up. There wasn’t a dramatic increase in rushing during those games (TEN, NYG, @IND, @GB, DET). We all expect Randy to play and I also think the consensus is he’s faking the severity of his ankle injury.
Overall, their offense has lacked a running game. Seems hard to believe considering the depth at RB, but they’ve only had two 100 yard rushing games by RBs (@NO, TEN). In contrast, they have seven games with at least one 100 yard receiver.
Culpepper takes the game on his shoulders when on the road. This year, he averages eight more attempts and six more completions in other stadiums (irrespective of dome, grass). He also averages approximately 70 more yards passing in those games and one more TD. He doesn’t rush much more than normal, but he does have a tendency to take off.
This isn’t just a quirk. Looking at last year’s numbers (after he returned from injury), we see an almost identical situation. Nine more attempts per game, seven more completions, for 60 more yards.
This isn’t earthshattering at all. I realize it. Expect about 35-40 passes, 65%+, and 300 yards. The TDs, though, are the question that only the defense can answer. Count on this, though. I highly doubt they will try to establish the run. Their RBs will carry the ball about 15-20 times tops. They lost a starting tackle and their best blocking TE/FB to IR. I doubt they break 100 total yards rushing.
Viking Defense
Terrible doesn’t begin to describe it. They gave up seven more TDs than the league average (46/39) and two more FGs than average (24/22). To contrast, the Eagles gave up 30 TDs (one was technically a INT, but is still charged against the defense) and 17 FGs. They put other teams in scoring position more than 70 times throughout the season (Eagles 47+), factoring in missed FGs.
Their defense has been run over badly (and to think, we worry about the Eagles run D). they gave up 100 yards to single RBs eight times this season. In fairness, the RBs weren’t scrubs (Green, Alexander, Taylor, K. Jones [Go Hokies!], Barber, T. Jones). They’ve also allowed 100 yard WR five times (in three games, multiple receivers got 100).
Why are they so terrible? Because they can’t get off the field. Their third down conversion rate (allowed) is one of the highest in the league. To compound matters, they played eight games against teams ranked in the bottom eight of the NFL in offensive 3rd down conversion. They have a terrible rating and they played eight games against terrible 3rd down offenses (conversion rates ranging from 25-34%).
I looked at the 3rd down defense against division and non-division opponents to see if there was a difference. Nothing really stood out. They allowed 3rd down conversions 45% of the time (keep in mind, I count certain plays NFL official records threw out due to penalties). They were marginally worse on the road (42 vs. 47% allowed). What did standout was they’re getting worse.
In the first eight games (mid-season), they had the following rates:
Third and short (3 and less)
Passes converted 62% of the time
Runs converted 67% of the time
Third and long (4+)
Passes converted 34% of the time
Runs converted 17% of the time (Runs on 3rd and long were small enough in number that they didn’t really skew results)
In the last nine games (including GB playoff game):
Third and short (3 and less)
Passes converted 75% of the time
Runs converted 75% of the time
Third and long (4+)
Passes converted 41% of the time
Runs converted 60% of the time
Overall? First eight: 39% Last nine? 49%
Egads. Is it any wonder they give up 22 first downs per game?
Prediction? The Eagles convert 40% of their 3rd downs.
MINNESOTA VIKINGS
For those unfamiliar with how I do this, I’ll give a brief overview. Skip ahead if you understand. I take the play-by-play on nfl.com as well as other official stats and I look for trends that may be noteworthy. Typically, I like to look at third down conversion rates. Teams in the playoffs are usually good in 3rd down (Vikes lead the league). When breaking down the plays, I throw out certain plays if there’s a holding penalty and maybe include others, even if there’s a defensive penalty that wipes it out (depending). It’s not perfect, but you’ll get your money’s worth.
Vikings Offense
It’s not surprise to say Culpepper and Moss are crucial to the success of the Vikings offense. In games Randy Moss played most of the time, the Vikes averaged 80 more passing yards (318 to 235), though the scoring was kept up. There wasn’t a dramatic increase in rushing during those games (TEN, NYG, @IND, @GB, DET). We all expect Randy to play and I also think the consensus is he’s faking the severity of his ankle injury.
Overall, their offense has lacked a running game. Seems hard to believe considering the depth at RB, but they’ve only had two 100 yard rushing games by RBs (@NO, TEN). In contrast, they have seven games with at least one 100 yard receiver.
Culpepper takes the game on his shoulders when on the road. This year, he averages eight more attempts and six more completions in other stadiums (irrespective of dome, grass). He also averages approximately 70 more yards passing in those games and one more TD. He doesn’t rush much more than normal, but he does have a tendency to take off.
This isn’t just a quirk. Looking at last year’s numbers (after he returned from injury), we see an almost identical situation. Nine more attempts per game, seven more completions, for 60 more yards.
This isn’t earthshattering at all. I realize it. Expect about 35-40 passes, 65%+, and 300 yards. The TDs, though, are the question that only the defense can answer. Count on this, though. I highly doubt they will try to establish the run. Their RBs will carry the ball about 15-20 times tops. They lost a starting tackle and their best blocking TE/FB to IR. I doubt they break 100 total yards rushing.
Viking Defense
Terrible doesn’t begin to describe it. They gave up seven more TDs than the league average (46/39) and two more FGs than average (24/22). To contrast, the Eagles gave up 30 TDs (one was technically a INT, but is still charged against the defense) and 17 FGs. They put other teams in scoring position more than 70 times throughout the season (Eagles 47+), factoring in missed FGs.
Their defense has been run over badly (and to think, we worry about the Eagles run D). they gave up 100 yards to single RBs eight times this season. In fairness, the RBs weren’t scrubs (Green, Alexander, Taylor, K. Jones [Go Hokies!], Barber, T. Jones). They’ve also allowed 100 yard WR five times (in three games, multiple receivers got 100).
Why are they so terrible? Because they can’t get off the field. Their third down conversion rate (allowed) is one of the highest in the league. To compound matters, they played eight games against teams ranked in the bottom eight of the NFL in offensive 3rd down conversion. They have a terrible rating and they played eight games against terrible 3rd down offenses (conversion rates ranging from 25-34%).
I looked at the 3rd down defense against division and non-division opponents to see if there was a difference. Nothing really stood out. They allowed 3rd down conversions 45% of the time (keep in mind, I count certain plays NFL official records threw out due to penalties). They were marginally worse on the road (42 vs. 47% allowed). What did standout was they’re getting worse.
In the first eight games (mid-season), they had the following rates:
Third and short (3 and less)
Passes converted 62% of the time
Runs converted 67% of the time
Third and long (4+)
Passes converted 34% of the time
Runs converted 17% of the time (Runs on 3rd and long were small enough in number that they didn’t really skew results)
In the last nine games (including GB playoff game):
Third and short (3 and less)
Passes converted 75% of the time
Runs converted 75% of the time
Third and long (4+)
Passes converted 41% of the time
Runs converted 60% of the time
Overall? First eight: 39% Last nine? 49%
Egads. Is it any wonder they give up 22 first downs per game?
Prediction? The Eagles convert 40% of their 3rd downs.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Spending
Here are some somewhat dated figures:
Spending for 1999-2000
By far, the greatest part of education revenues came from nonfederal sources (state, intermediate, and local governments), which together provided about $346 billion, or 92.7 percent of all revenues. The federal government contribution to education revenues made up the remaining $27 billion. The relative contributions from these levels of government can be expressed as portions of the typical education dollar. For school year 1999–2000, local and intermediate sources made up 43 cents of every dollar in revenue, state revenues comprised 50 cents, and the remaining 7 cents came from federal sources.
I recently reviewed the numbers for another discussion and the %s seem to hold consistant. The feds give a little less than 8% toward a public educated child's tuition.
Cheacking out the National Education Association, I found (link in pdf):
The average PA teacher salary is $52,200. Better not hear another peep about teachers underpaid at $50,000 for eight months of work. Spare me the "they work on lesson plans during the summer." Anyone who knows teachers (or human nature), knows that's bunk.
PA also spend an average of $8,609 per student. Federal share approx $688. Why folks look to presidents to fix national education problems is beyond me. If 92% of your money came from two sources and 8% came from a third, how much attention would you give #3?
Spending for 1999-2000
By far, the greatest part of education revenues came from nonfederal sources (state, intermediate, and local governments), which together provided about $346 billion, or 92.7 percent of all revenues. The federal government contribution to education revenues made up the remaining $27 billion. The relative contributions from these levels of government can be expressed as portions of the typical education dollar. For school year 1999–2000, local and intermediate sources made up 43 cents of every dollar in revenue, state revenues comprised 50 cents, and the remaining 7 cents came from federal sources.
I recently reviewed the numbers for another discussion and the %s seem to hold consistant. The feds give a little less than 8% toward a public educated child's tuition.
Cheacking out the National Education Association, I found (link in pdf):
The average PA teacher salary is $52,200. Better not hear another peep about teachers underpaid at $50,000 for eight months of work. Spare me the "they work on lesson plans during the summer." Anyone who knows teachers (or human nature), knows that's bunk.
PA also spend an average of $8,609 per student. Federal share approx $688. Why folks look to presidents to fix national education problems is beyond me. If 92% of your money came from two sources and 8% came from a third, how much attention would you give #3?
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Voucher Reform
Next topic.
I promised some folks a couple months ago that I'd tackle (as best I can) the coucher issue.
I think I can make a reasonable plan. Now, this doesn't mean I could get it through the unions. I'm not naive.
OBJECTIVES
Vouchers available to, at a minimum, parent of children in "failing" schools.
Money spent per child average should be the same or perhaps boosted in some way.
Schools losing the student must have some incentive to agree and/or approve.
Definitions
The definitions may change as I go and do more research.
Failing: A school fails if the students (not including special needs children) cannot meet a national standard on a standardized test.
I promised some folks a couple months ago that I'd tackle (as best I can) the coucher issue.
I think I can make a reasonable plan. Now, this doesn't mean I could get it through the unions. I'm not naive.
OBJECTIVES
Vouchers available to, at a minimum, parent of children in "failing" schools.
Money spent per child average should be the same or perhaps boosted in some way.
Schools losing the student must have some incentive to agree and/or approve.
Definitions
The definitions may change as I go and do more research.
Failing: A school fails if the students (not including special needs children) cannot meet a national standard on a standardized test.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Student Anti-Intellectualism and the Dumbing Down of the University
Student Anti-Intellectualism and the Dumbing Down of the University addresses a recurring theme. I'm getting close to wrapping this up and moving on to my next topic (school reform).
Trout cavases the college scene to find out that a lot of college students don't want to go to class or do class work. I'll give you a minute to collect yourself. Trout does finally touch on the reason, but not fully. More people are going to college (60% according to the article go on to some form of college), standards are lowered, profs inflate grades to get good reviews and tenure, and no one seems to want to learn.
I don't think it's anti-intellectualism. I think, once again, too many people are in college. Sure they might have the aptitude, but if the sole reason you're in college is to get an employment certificate, you will not care about intellectual pursuits and I can't blame you. It's not anti-intellectual, it's non-intellectual.
Well, folks who know me know I intend to put my kids through private school. The more seniors I meet, the more I'm convinced the public schools in my area (considered "good" because they're above national averages) would not prepare my boys for college. If we can get them in, I want them to go to Covenant Christian Academy. Fractions in kindergarten, Latin in third grade, rhetoric, Greek in ninth grade, and average SAT scores above 1,300. If we can't get in, they'll do what I did. Catholic school for 12 years. Trinity is a little better than the local public schools. Kids average about 70-100 points better on the SATs.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. SATs are only one measurement and a limited one. You got a better way to evaluate schools?
Trout cavases the college scene to find out that a lot of college students don't want to go to class or do class work. I'll give you a minute to collect yourself. Trout does finally touch on the reason, but not fully. More people are going to college (60% according to the article go on to some form of college), standards are lowered, profs inflate grades to get good reviews and tenure, and no one seems to want to learn.
I don't think it's anti-intellectualism. I think, once again, too many people are in college. Sure they might have the aptitude, but if the sole reason you're in college is to get an employment certificate, you will not care about intellectual pursuits and I can't blame you. It's not anti-intellectual, it's non-intellectual.
Well, folks who know me know I intend to put my kids through private school. The more seniors I meet, the more I'm convinced the public schools in my area (considered "good" because they're above national averages) would not prepare my boys for college. If we can get them in, I want them to go to Covenant Christian Academy. Fractions in kindergarten, Latin in third grade, rhetoric, Greek in ninth grade, and average SAT scores above 1,300. If we can't get in, they'll do what I did. Catholic school for 12 years. Trinity is a little better than the local public schools. Kids average about 70-100 points better on the SATs.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. SATs are only one measurement and a limited one. You got a better way to evaluate schools?
You Thank You White!!!: Exploring Anti Intelletualism in Black America
You Thank You White!!!: Exploring Anti Intelletualism in Black America points to a unique problem regarding anti-intellecutalism in America. Dr. Clardy provides a glimpse into the criticism black intellectuals face within their community. He notes this started to develop in the 60s and, prior to that time, there was widespread acceptance of intellectuals in the black communities. He also notes the what is likely the primary cause of the change, which was the breakdown of the traditional family and, by extension, the community support structures. Pilloried at the time, Patrick Moynihan (a Liberal intellectual widely admired) authored The Negro Family:
The Case For National Action, fortelling the disasterous effects of misguided policies and societal breakdown. The breakdown led to the marginalization and eventual ridicule of intellectualism within the black community. He offers ways to reverse the status quo and I'll let readers decide.
I feel certain Dr. Clardy would defend the intellectual weight of prominant conservative blacks. He certainly doesn't share their beliefs, but seems committed to ensuring academic stature is respected. The problem is that certain powers in the black community allow and possibly initiate some nasty smears on conservative blacks. Senator Reid, among others, openly characterizes Justice Thomas as "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," yet never cite specific briefs as evidence. Pat Oliphant depicts Condi Rice as a mindless parrot and Jeff Danziger portrays her as Prissy in "Gone With the Wind". Where's the outrage? Left Wing/Right Wing nonsense aside, until the black community draws the line that such offensive and stereotypical attacks against any distinguished black American is unacceptable, the problem will persist.
The Case For National Action, fortelling the disasterous effects of misguided policies and societal breakdown. The breakdown led to the marginalization and eventual ridicule of intellectualism within the black community. He offers ways to reverse the status quo and I'll let readers decide.
I feel certain Dr. Clardy would defend the intellectual weight of prominant conservative blacks. He certainly doesn't share their beliefs, but seems committed to ensuring academic stature is respected. The problem is that certain powers in the black community allow and possibly initiate some nasty smears on conservative blacks. Senator Reid, among others, openly characterizes Justice Thomas as "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," yet never cite specific briefs as evidence. Pat Oliphant depicts Condi Rice as a mindless parrot and Jeff Danziger portrays her as Prissy in "Gone With the Wind". Where's the outrage? Left Wing/Right Wing nonsense aside, until the black community draws the line that such offensive and stereotypical attacks against any distinguished black American is unacceptable, the problem will persist.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Deep Thinkers Missing In Action
Deep Thinkers Missing In Action discusses the presence of intellectualism on college campuses. Clayton notes, "Critical thinking, self-examination, and questioning of assumptions area all widely genuflected to as part of any good college education. That's not what's happening on many college campuses."
He goes on to state students seem more interested in using college to get a job than to pursue intellectual goals. Well, who's fault is that? Professors weakened curriculum, administators weakened admission criteria, and everyone involved made a tidy sum. We have this ridiculous notion that a college degree suddenly makes you worth more to the workforce. So, they let more people into college who wouldn't have made the cut 50 years ago, they broaden and weaken the curriculum, and then lament that not enough students want to spend free time at the library discussing metaphysics. Shocking.
Couple more things. He gave another source for possible review, "When Intellectual Life Is Optional for Students." Clayton also brought up Harvard's attempt to address grade inflation.
"It's possible to have kids who are very bright, capable, and hardworking, who are not neccessarily intellectual in terms of being inquisitive, part of the life of the mind, in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake." Aaron Friedburg.
They may not pursue the fields of knowledge you think are worthy. I'm an avid football fan. I study different schemes, offensive and defensive. I've studied the West Coast Offense and have a pretty solid grasp on the pre-snap read algorithms, the pass route selection and their progression methodology. I even read Jerry Sandusky's sawdust sandwich "Developing Linebackers the Penn State Way." I just have no time or interest in reading Wordsworth. Did enough of that in college (English major). Studying football isn't deemed "intellectual."
Again, is it really "anti-intellectual" by definition, or because a certain class won't dignify other fields as "intellectual." It is knowledge for knowledge's sake, right?
He goes on to state students seem more interested in using college to get a job than to pursue intellectual goals. Well, who's fault is that? Professors weakened curriculum, administators weakened admission criteria, and everyone involved made a tidy sum. We have this ridiculous notion that a college degree suddenly makes you worth more to the workforce. So, they let more people into college who wouldn't have made the cut 50 years ago, they broaden and weaken the curriculum, and then lament that not enough students want to spend free time at the library discussing metaphysics. Shocking.
Couple more things. He gave another source for possible review, "When Intellectual Life Is Optional for Students." Clayton also brought up Harvard's attempt to address grade inflation.
"It's possible to have kids who are very bright, capable, and hardworking, who are not neccessarily intellectual in terms of being inquisitive, part of the life of the mind, in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake." Aaron Friedburg.
They may not pursue the fields of knowledge you think are worthy. I'm an avid football fan. I study different schemes, offensive and defensive. I've studied the West Coast Offense and have a pretty solid grasp on the pre-snap read algorithms, the pass route selection and their progression methodology. I even read Jerry Sandusky's sawdust sandwich "Developing Linebackers the Penn State Way." I just have no time or interest in reading Wordsworth. Did enough of that in college (English major). Studying football isn't deemed "intellectual."
Again, is it really "anti-intellectual" by definition, or because a certain class won't dignify other fields as "intellectual." It is knowledge for knowledge's sake, right?
On Anti-Intellectualism
On Anti-Intellectualism, by John Hawkins, doesn't offer much that hasn't already been discussed. He does bring up a great quote by William F. Buckley. "Rather be governed by the first 300 names in the Boston telephone book than by the faculty of Harvard University." Hawkin also uses a hiring scenario to illustrate the American tendency to prefer work over study.
Rise and Fall of Intellectualism
Rise and Fall of Intellectualism is a short piece by Ed Quillen. If you're wondering why there are so many short works, I have two boys and doing any in depth reading is difficult. Quillen notes and interesting possibility. He states the rise of the "Social Darwinism" theory led to the Populism movement of the 1890s. An interesting idea in itself, but he continues, "And was it 'anti-intellectualism' or actually people of modest means organizing to protect themselves from rapacious millionaires and the experts who were happy to endorse any theory that justified greed."
Are "anti-intellectual" movements just termed as such in an attempt to marginalize them? There's no doubt that when it's used to describe the American populace, it's meant in a derogatory manner. Is it a matter of the powerful looking to discredit the movements?
In this situation, we see a more right wing movement ("Social Darwinism") encountering left wing resistance (Populism). Now, we see a left wing movement ("Progressivism" in all it's faces) encountering right wing resistance (talk radio, internet sites, Fox News, etc.). I'm pointing this out to open the possibility that the intellectualism vs. anti-intellectualism thing might actually be a power vs. power issue. That doesn't sound right. I'm trying to say the Left is not always the "Intellectuals" and it may not even be a reaction to intellectualism, but rather a an idea being pushed by the powerful (who paint themselves "intellectuals" so they can wear turtlenecks).
Quillen also touched on another "Intellectual" subject, eugenics. He notes it led to immigration controls and forced sterilization in some states. Later, it was discredited because the Nazis used it to justify human experiments (guessing Quillen never heard about the Japanese experiments). Sure, intellectuals may have batted the idea around, but isn't it more of a power issue and trying to control the populace? Would anyone confuse Hitler and his thugs with Pat Moynihan (the quintessential Liberal intellectual)?
Are "anti-intellectual" movements just termed as such in an attempt to marginalize them? There's no doubt that when it's used to describe the American populace, it's meant in a derogatory manner. Is it a matter of the powerful looking to discredit the movements?
In this situation, we see a more right wing movement ("Social Darwinism") encountering left wing resistance (Populism). Now, we see a left wing movement ("Progressivism" in all it's faces) encountering right wing resistance (talk radio, internet sites, Fox News, etc.). I'm pointing this out to open the possibility that the intellectualism vs. anti-intellectualism thing might actually be a power vs. power issue. That doesn't sound right. I'm trying to say the Left is not always the "Intellectuals" and it may not even be a reaction to intellectualism, but rather a an idea being pushed by the powerful (who paint themselves "intellectuals" so they can wear turtlenecks).
Quillen also touched on another "Intellectual" subject, eugenics. He notes it led to immigration controls and forced sterilization in some states. Later, it was discredited because the Nazis used it to justify human experiments (guessing Quillen never heard about the Japanese experiments). Sure, intellectuals may have batted the idea around, but isn't it more of a power issue and trying to control the populace? Would anyone confuse Hitler and his thugs with Pat Moynihan (the quintessential Liberal intellectual)?
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Reader Response to "Blue Anti-Intellectualism"
back40 certainly helped with the apparent contradiction.
"Think tanks aren't educational institutions, they don't affect young minds in need of initial training in critical thinking. Apples and oranges."
This got me thinking about the target audience of the work. The target for academic work in predominantly 18-23 year olds. Even if fully indoctrinated in one way of thinking, what impact can the graduates have on society? Employment immediately following college is rarely, if ever, in a key decision making role and I doubt any district would vote in a young college grad to any state or federal legislative office (constitutional restrictions aside).
This places the student in the work force. Few employers are willing to pay for intellectual pursuits (grads going to advocacy groups could be an exception). Most employers are interested in an immediate return on their investment.
Even if the student received and accepted the full slate of thoughts from the professors, the graduate faces a world less interested in those ideas and more interested in Microsoft Access competancy.
Another point back40 touched on was the makeup of those institutions. How many think tanks are populated with career intellectuals? That's not to say a CEO of MegaCorp can't be an intellectual, but he earned his money in a world of the practical. Results matter and results must be measured to be considered. If your finished products reference actual measured results, they would more likely resonate in the non-intellectual (not neccessarily anti-intellectual) culture.
So why don't Liberal think tanks resonate? back40 contends, in essence, that academia did not challenge them vigorously enough. Gaps were not exposed, theories were not pushed to logical ends, and their arguments were incomplete.
Well, that's a judgement call. Twain's thought to have said, "My opinions may change, but the fact I am always right never will." That is, what we've held as a firm and bullet-proof idea one time in our lives may seem flawed a decade or so later. Point is, and I feel fairly certain back40 would agree, conservatives can also fall into that trap.
I wonder if it's a matter of think tank composition. If the tanks are comprised of people with near identical backgrounds (academia, longtime political operatives, etc.) and they more often professionally associate with people of similar mindset, they can fall into that trap. If the tank is made of people with similar opinions, but whose professional experience has been apolitical or in an intellectually hostile environment (conservative on the NY Times editorial board), they should be less likely to let their rhetorical skill atrophy.
So, to sum up, I think the audience and what role the audience will play makes a difference. I also wonder if certain think tanks are ineffective because they draw from the same pool. A linguistics professor who becomes a staffer for a liberal senator and takes a position at a progressive think tank really only changed seats in the same auditorium. A liberal joining an environmental think tank after 25 years working for 3M may likely bring more to the conversation and may make the message resonate.
Is American anti-intellectual, or are the people who claim the title "Intellectual" just awful at getting their point across? When the message is ignored, do the chattering classes dismiss the masses, rather than asking for tougher introspection?
"Think tanks aren't educational institutions, they don't affect young minds in need of initial training in critical thinking. Apples and oranges."
This got me thinking about the target audience of the work. The target for academic work in predominantly 18-23 year olds. Even if fully indoctrinated in one way of thinking, what impact can the graduates have on society? Employment immediately following college is rarely, if ever, in a key decision making role and I doubt any district would vote in a young college grad to any state or federal legislative office (constitutional restrictions aside).
This places the student in the work force. Few employers are willing to pay for intellectual pursuits (grads going to advocacy groups could be an exception). Most employers are interested in an immediate return on their investment.
Even if the student received and accepted the full slate of thoughts from the professors, the graduate faces a world less interested in those ideas and more interested in Microsoft Access competancy.
Another point back40 touched on was the makeup of those institutions. How many think tanks are populated with career intellectuals? That's not to say a CEO of MegaCorp can't be an intellectual, but he earned his money in a world of the practical. Results matter and results must be measured to be considered. If your finished products reference actual measured results, they would more likely resonate in the non-intellectual (not neccessarily anti-intellectual) culture.
So why don't Liberal think tanks resonate? back40 contends, in essence, that academia did not challenge them vigorously enough. Gaps were not exposed, theories were not pushed to logical ends, and their arguments were incomplete.
Well, that's a judgement call. Twain's thought to have said, "My opinions may change, but the fact I am always right never will." That is, what we've held as a firm and bullet-proof idea one time in our lives may seem flawed a decade or so later. Point is, and I feel fairly certain back40 would agree, conservatives can also fall into that trap.
I wonder if it's a matter of think tank composition. If the tanks are comprised of people with near identical backgrounds (academia, longtime political operatives, etc.) and they more often professionally associate with people of similar mindset, they can fall into that trap. If the tank is made of people with similar opinions, but whose professional experience has been apolitical or in an intellectually hostile environment (conservative on the NY Times editorial board), they should be less likely to let their rhetorical skill atrophy.
So, to sum up, I think the audience and what role the audience will play makes a difference. I also wonder if certain think tanks are ineffective because they draw from the same pool. A linguistics professor who becomes a staffer for a liberal senator and takes a position at a progressive think tank really only changed seats in the same auditorium. A liberal joining an environmental think tank after 25 years working for 3M may likely bring more to the conversation and may make the message resonate.
Is American anti-intellectual, or are the people who claim the title "Intellectual" just awful at getting their point across? When the message is ignored, do the chattering classes dismiss the masses, rather than asking for tougher introspection?
Friday, December 10, 2004
Islamic Intellectualism
Islamic Intellectualism looks like it would make a fascinating book. Skimming through the two pager, however, you eventually fall on a fatal conclusion.
"Twelfth Assumption: "Islam will become the dominant religion of the 21st century. If my first eleven assumptions are correct, my final assumtpion is that, Allah willing, thanks to the efforts of Muslim intellectuals, Islam may well become the dominant religion of the 21st century, at least in North America and parts of Europe, with enormous repercussions for the rest of the globe."
Islam's role in the 21st century aside, it's not likely Islam will get any considerable foothold in the US. That is to say, the US is reflexively anti-intellectual and has a strong, cross-ideological support for a separation between church and state.
How strong is ant-intellectualism in the US? Ask yourself this question. You are a production plant owner. You are retiring and need to appoint a successor. Two applicants - a foreman from a similar production plant in another state with little to no post-secondary education or a business management professor of 25 years from the town university. Regardless of how you decide, did you just get an image of a stuffy academic type who studies economic models, but hasn't turned a wrench in 25 years? And does that give you more apprehension than the forman's inability to quote Adam Smith?
I just don't see how Islam can make such deep inroads when American culture is more influencial around the world. I'm no fool to history. I know of Islam's history of rapid expansion. So, I'm aware I could be speaking with blind exceptionalism.
It just seems like Hoffman's engaged in wishful thinking. Battling anti-intellectualism, maintaining a unique Islamic culture even as young Muslims wear Nikes and watch Hollywood's movies, and assuaging American skepticism regarding policies with subtle religious overtones (abortion, for example) is a tall order.
Hoffman may find the opposite to be true. If the grand "neo-con experiment" is successful and representaive government spreads in the Islamic world, there won't be enough tension to fuel the need for expansion. Unless I'm missing something, other nations with democracies (general sense) are careful with any pressure toward the US or don't attempt it at all.
Europe? Olde Europe will be Islamic before you can blink. I don't think they have the intellectual strength to preserve their heritage. Nothing wrong with an Islamic society. I'm just stating I don't get the impression Europeans have the means to stop a booming Muslim population and the inevitable ramifications. Christianity and Judaism have, after bloody measures, developed into complementary or secondary value systems. Not entirely certain a predominantly Muslim nation could hold laws contrary to the Muslim faith (same sex marriage, for example).
"Twelfth Assumption: "Islam will become the dominant religion of the 21st century. If my first eleven assumptions are correct, my final assumtpion is that, Allah willing, thanks to the efforts of Muslim intellectuals, Islam may well become the dominant religion of the 21st century, at least in North America and parts of Europe, with enormous repercussions for the rest of the globe."
Islam's role in the 21st century aside, it's not likely Islam will get any considerable foothold in the US. That is to say, the US is reflexively anti-intellectual and has a strong, cross-ideological support for a separation between church and state.
How strong is ant-intellectualism in the US? Ask yourself this question. You are a production plant owner. You are retiring and need to appoint a successor. Two applicants - a foreman from a similar production plant in another state with little to no post-secondary education or a business management professor of 25 years from the town university. Regardless of how you decide, did you just get an image of a stuffy academic type who studies economic models, but hasn't turned a wrench in 25 years? And does that give you more apprehension than the forman's inability to quote Adam Smith?
I just don't see how Islam can make such deep inroads when American culture is more influencial around the world. I'm no fool to history. I know of Islam's history of rapid expansion. So, I'm aware I could be speaking with blind exceptionalism.
It just seems like Hoffman's engaged in wishful thinking. Battling anti-intellectualism, maintaining a unique Islamic culture even as young Muslims wear Nikes and watch Hollywood's movies, and assuaging American skepticism regarding policies with subtle religious overtones (abortion, for example) is a tall order.
Hoffman may find the opposite to be true. If the grand "neo-con experiment" is successful and representaive government spreads in the Islamic world, there won't be enough tension to fuel the need for expansion. Unless I'm missing something, other nations with democracies (general sense) are careful with any pressure toward the US or don't attempt it at all.
Europe? Olde Europe will be Islamic before you can blink. I don't think they have the intellectual strength to preserve their heritage. Nothing wrong with an Islamic society. I'm just stating I don't get the impression Europeans have the means to stop a booming Muslim population and the inevitable ramifications. Christianity and Judaism have, after bloody measures, developed into complementary or secondary value systems. Not entirely certain a predominantly Muslim nation could hold laws contrary to the Muslim faith (same sex marriage, for example).
Blue Anti-Intellectualism
Blue Anti-Intellectualism brings to light some intriguing points. The first point touches on observations of anti-intellectualism in the student body. Later, I intend to read Student Anti-Intellectualism and the Dumbing Down of the University. Jones (Blue A-I) writes, "More importantly, it is the cause of the crushingly stupid policy proposals developed in such places, in effect dumbing down all of society since they are operationally anti-intellectual whatever their intention or pretentions."
He goes on:
"Society is diminished by this system and the ideas of liberals are underdeveloped or stigmatized, contributing to the rightward drift of society in recent decades. There are liberal ideas that have worth, that would improve society, but the polarization created by liberal dogmatism has reduced the influence of those ideas on policy. We would be improved by better balance."
He raises a good point, but misses another. During the last two presidential elections, there was talk in the policy wonk circles about the Conservative movement's investment made decades ago. I'd stop reading after the first section, as Sally Covington begins to wander off the ranch. The history is noted, though.
Isn't it contradictory? Think tanks can provide new ideas or re-shape policy, but groupthink stagnates movements. A dollar to anyone who can explain that thinking. True, two different people make those points. However, I'm sure I could get both people to nod their heads in agreement to each statement individually if they were asked two weeks apart. An intellectual society (think tank) advocating anti-intellectual policies (reduced oversight). America, I love you.
Get back to an earlier point. Is student anti-intellectualism a sign of diminished curiousity or is it a reflection of academia's inability to communicate outside the echo chambers?
He goes on:
"Society is diminished by this system and the ideas of liberals are underdeveloped or stigmatized, contributing to the rightward drift of society in recent decades. There are liberal ideas that have worth, that would improve society, but the polarization created by liberal dogmatism has reduced the influence of those ideas on policy. We would be improved by better balance."
He raises a good point, but misses another. During the last two presidential elections, there was talk in the policy wonk circles about the Conservative movement's investment made decades ago. I'd stop reading after the first section, as Sally Covington begins to wander off the ranch. The history is noted, though.
Isn't it contradictory? Think tanks can provide new ideas or re-shape policy, but groupthink stagnates movements. A dollar to anyone who can explain that thinking. True, two different people make those points. However, I'm sure I could get both people to nod their heads in agreement to each statement individually if they were asked two weeks apart. An intellectual society (think tank) advocating anti-intellectual policies (reduced oversight). America, I love you.
Get back to an earlier point. Is student anti-intellectualism a sign of diminished curiousity or is it a reflection of academia's inability to communicate outside the echo chambers?
Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual
In "Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual", Mark Bauerlein goes in a direction I'm not willing to follow, at least in the context of this endeavor. He asserts, as the title states, liberals engage in groupthink in academia. In doing so, they neccessarily limit their worldview to one similar to existing norms, namely modern American liberalism. He goes one step further to indicate the nature of groupthink is anti-intellectual. I'm not interested in turning this into a Left/Right issue. I've noticed two cultures with anti-intellectual strains (USA and Australia). Why pin myself to the dead-end arguments of Left/Right on an issue that transcends borders and generations?
Does this mean consensus politics leads to anti-intellectualism? Perhaps, but there is consensus politics in France and that nation most definitely loves their over-blown intellectuals (Sartre). Don't get me wrong. I find a good deal of Sartre's work interesting ("No Exit," Hell is other people - brilliant twist on an old topic). The French just seem to go ape over anyone with a tweed jacket, leather patches, and a penchant for despising everyday life.
Does this mean consensus politics leads to anti-intellectualism? Perhaps, but there is consensus politics in France and that nation most definitely loves their over-blown intellectuals (Sartre). Don't get me wrong. I find a good deal of Sartre's work interesting ("No Exit," Hell is other people - brilliant twist on an old topic). The French just seem to go ape over anyone with a tweed jacket, leather patches, and a penchant for despising everyday life.
The Renaissance of Anti-Intellectualism
In The Renaissance of Anti-Intellectualism, Todd Gitlin, is helpful at times.
Unfortunately, he can’t separate his bias from his work. He peppers his piece with shots at Republicans. Reagan as "intellectually challenged," Bush is "lazy minded," even George Will took a shot as a writer hired for "his sneers, not his logical mastery or historical depth." The first two are fairly tired plays on the recurring theme of Republican presidents as amiable dolts (Ike, Reagan, Bush 43) or out of touch (Nixon, Bush 41). Suggesting Will has no sense of historical depth is absurd. His columns are peppered with historical references, some well known and some obscure. Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Will. Of course, I’m a fan of his work precisely because he shows an enormous breadth of knowledge and is almost coldly analytical. Pensive envy?
Not surprisingly, Gitlin also pulls out the standard media line for Democrat presidents as "too smart for their own good" (Carter, Clinton, Gore). Now, he’s writing an opinion piece. However, dipping into ad hominem while attempting to show the benefits of intellectualism is an odd approach. I went off on a tangent, I admit. Back to the topic.
Regardless, Gitlin does note possible sources. Intellectualism in American Life, by Richard Hofstadler. Gitlin notes:
"Hofstadter described three pillars of anti-intellectualism -- evangelical religion, practical-minded business, and the populist political style. Religion was suspicious of modern relativism, business of regulatory expertise, populism of claims that specialized knowledge had its privileges. Those pillars stand. But, as Hofstadter recognized, something was changing in American life, and that was the uneasy apotheosis of technical intellect."
Gitlin also cites Alexis de Tocqueville. This may be a good reference tool for me to note any cultural consistencies or variances.
Gitlin does go on to make "populism" a more recent tactic of Republicans. Not sure I entirely agree. Populism was a movement made popular by William Jennings Bryan and he used it for his Democratic presidential platforms in the late 19th century. More recently, the populism trademark "stand up for the little guy" is more closely associated the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. True, Pat Buchanan tried his hand in it, but it’s a stretch to say the Republicans embraced it to tap into an anti-intellectualism sentiment.
Unfortunately, he can’t separate his bias from his work. He peppers his piece with shots at Republicans. Reagan as "intellectually challenged," Bush is "lazy minded," even George Will took a shot as a writer hired for "his sneers, not his logical mastery or historical depth." The first two are fairly tired plays on the recurring theme of Republican presidents as amiable dolts (Ike, Reagan, Bush 43) or out of touch (Nixon, Bush 41). Suggesting Will has no sense of historical depth is absurd. His columns are peppered with historical references, some well known and some obscure. Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Will. Of course, I’m a fan of his work precisely because he shows an enormous breadth of knowledge and is almost coldly analytical. Pensive envy?
Not surprisingly, Gitlin also pulls out the standard media line for Democrat presidents as "too smart for their own good" (Carter, Clinton, Gore). Now, he’s writing an opinion piece. However, dipping into ad hominem while attempting to show the benefits of intellectualism is an odd approach. I went off on a tangent, I admit. Back to the topic.
Regardless, Gitlin does note possible sources. Intellectualism in American Life, by Richard Hofstadler. Gitlin notes:
"Hofstadter described three pillars of anti-intellectualism -- evangelical religion, practical-minded business, and the populist political style. Religion was suspicious of modern relativism, business of regulatory expertise, populism of claims that specialized knowledge had its privileges. Those pillars stand. But, as Hofstadter recognized, something was changing in American life, and that was the uneasy apotheosis of technical intellect."
Gitlin also cites Alexis de Tocqueville. This may be a good reference tool for me to note any cultural consistencies or variances.
Gitlin does go on to make "populism" a more recent tactic of Republicans. Not sure I entirely agree. Populism was a movement made popular by William Jennings Bryan and he used it for his Democratic presidential platforms in the late 19th century. More recently, the populism trademark "stand up for the little guy" is more closely associated the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. True, Pat Buchanan tried his hand in it, but it’s a stretch to say the Republicans embraced it to tap into an anti-intellectualism sentiment.
Intellectualism and Anti-Intellectualism
I'm primarily more interested in studying anti-intellectualism. It's a fascinating topic because it seems to be popular in the US and Australia. What are the roots? Are there other cultures that more widely embrace (doens't need to be a majority, just widely embraced) anti-intellectualism? What can be learned about the cultures?
It's clearly important to compare those cultures with those embracing intellectualism. Differences, similarities, histories. What moves one Western culture toward intellectualism and one away from it?
I'll try to keep the research to online material, but I'll likely have to re-type research from the library.
First up is a definition of terms.
Dictionary.com provides a pithy, if unfulfilling definition. Wasn't expecting it to be an end-all. And don't draw conclusions because I started with the dictionary (reminiscent of Homer Simpson studying progressively simpler books on marketing until he ends with a dictionary).
"The doctrine that knowledge is derived from pure reason"
Here's a more complete definition.
"As an approach to philosophy and to values, the word intellectualism often has the same meaning as philosophical or psychological rationalism and commonly has the same negative connotations of over-reliance on theoretical models to the detriment of practical living."
It's clearly important to compare those cultures with those embracing intellectualism. Differences, similarities, histories. What moves one Western culture toward intellectualism and one away from it?
I'll try to keep the research to online material, but I'll likely have to re-type research from the library.
First up is a definition of terms.
Dictionary.com provides a pithy, if unfulfilling definition. Wasn't expecting it to be an end-all. And don't draw conclusions because I started with the dictionary (reminiscent of Homer Simpson studying progressively simpler books on marketing until he ends with a dictionary).
"The doctrine that knowledge is derived from pure reason"
Here's a more complete definition.
"As an approach to philosophy and to values, the word intellectualism often has the same meaning as philosophical or psychological rationalism and commonly has the same negative connotations of over-reliance on theoretical models to the detriment of practical living."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Read the discussion that follows. Understand that not all people contributing to the conversation have the responsibility of raising young boys. When I read that conversation, I heard myself say, "RTP, quit complaining and map out a plan."
I tossed around a number of ways to start as I continued ot read the replies. It sort of dawned on me that not all men know how to lead, especially younger men. It's not that they're unwilling or unable, but they may never have been in leadership positions or in situations that allow them to witness strong leadership.
I recently read a book, Leading Change, by John Kotter. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a copy of the book in our office. In it, Kotter describes a common failing. We hire good engineers to be managers of engineers, but they may be lousy managers. We also believe managers can lead change. Managers are not leaders.
From the book (p.26):
The military and Department of Defense are well regarded because their managers are also expected to lead. They invest enormous sums in grooming officers and noncommissioned officers to be capable managers and transformational leaders. The phrase drilled into my head, though not unique to the military, was "Lead by example." However, if you are not effective in the "short game," you can charge off into the sunset alone.
If you want to be a Red Pill Parent (RPP), you need to have the skills to manage (short term, routines, predictability) and to lead (vision, inspiration, steady during uncertainty). Before I can expect my boys to follow me, I better get my house in order, train up, and have a plan in place.