Michael Jordan's Competitive Drive

My whole life, I thought of Michael Jordan as a happy-go-lucky basketball genius who inspired kids and marketed shoes and McDonalds. But watching The Last Dance documentary has been fascinating for showing me how this was only a small part of his real personality.

Actually, he was a real jerk to his teammates and had to create feuds, real or imagined, with other players, his own GM, etc, to create an extreme competitive mentality. He was certainly very talented but he also worked really hard, trained very very hard, was lucky to never get injured seriously, and in a league where hundreds of other men were also training hard and were very talented, he was perhaps the MOST talented but equally importantly, he had an extreme competitive flair.

If he had simply been a friendly guy, laid back (which was his public image), he would NOT have achieved everything he did. Basketball requires a sustained fierce attitude since you need to keep up a high momentum of scoring baskets throughout the game. In contrast to hockey or baseball, where the moments of scoring are shorter, there is less need in those sports to have such an extreme Alpha attitude all the time while playing.

It's similar to running a startup where it's like "sprinting a marathon", you need to sustain your competitive fire even when there is no external stimulus forcing you to do it.

I can see Jordan's frustration somewhat with his public image being so kid-friendly - it would probably have been easier for him if his agent hadn't gotten him so many marketing tie-ins that forced him to have such a nice-guy image (like the Gatorade "be like mike" campaign). It would have been easier if his image had been closer to "bad-boy" image of Dennis Rodman, since he could have been more open and more unapologetic about his hard-charging attitude in practices and with players.

I also think it's a shame Jordan smoked (and continues to smoke) so many cigars - what a terrible habit for a professional athlete! Surely that damaged his lung capacity even during his playing days. (Jordan has up to six cigars a day, according to a Sports Illustrated report from 2017.)

Goodbye, Sally

27 February 2017

I can’t remember how I met Sally Jurica.  It was at the University of Waterloo, in 2005, and she was everywhere at once.  She was a member of the Economics Society, the Debating Society, the Arts Student Union, probably dozens of others, including the infamous Cheese Club; she had a wide range of interests, coupled with the ambition to know everyone around her.  These are a politician’s instincts, but she did not seek attention.  She simply wanted to make things better.  She was fascinated by ideas, and by people with big ideas.  She surrounded herself with such people.

I knew Sally was sick, but I never pressed her for details of what she had, and she never told me.  In her way, she didn’t want to burden others.  I respect and admire the resolve it must have taken to stick to this choice.  But it makes me doubly sad to think of the comfort her friends might have been able to give her in near the end.

Sally came into my life at two points: in my final year of university, and eight years later.  I think we both found each other, twice, at just the right time.  It gives me a strange sense of responsibility to know that of the memories we made together, they live only with me now, and nowhere else.

I will remember Sally as a quirky, cheerful, radiant, diminutive, political, redhead who staked out a place in my heart; that place will be hers for the rest of my days.

20 July 2005

4 November 2013

4 November 2013

Curriepedia

Since May 2018 I have spent considerable amounts of my spare time on a hobby, genealogy, and also studying the history of the people, businesses, and places that I knew as a child. I have been accumulating this information in a Wikipedia-style website that uses the same MediaWiki engine. I call it Curriepedia, and it’s at https://curriepedia.org.

I love reading biographies of famous people on Wikipedia. I feel that its 3rd-party characteristic voice and listing of its sources, and narrative format, are absolutely the perfect way to learn about a topic in-depth. It only lacks the ability to convey emotional depth and humour, but this is not really necessary for my purpose. I find this format much more interesting than the usual family tree websites that offer a rigid tree-like structure to add pictures and information to. Since there are only a few hundred people, and the data never changes, it just needs to be fleshed out more and more, it is not much of a burden to maintain the structure of a Wikipedia article, and so the time saved by auto-generating this content from the family tree websites is outweighed by the lack of readability of their format and the strictness.

It originally started from the work my Uncle Bill did on the family tree. It’s now expanded to hundreds of articles, on my relatives on both sides of my family, my childhood friends, business I visited, people I found influential (e.g. Dolores Niskanen or Marshall T. Savage). I find the eminent readability of the style encourages me to visit and make small edits on a nearly daily basis. Regularily I become seized with interest in a particular place or person, and then I become obsessed until I learn everything I can and document it. Only then does the feeling subside. I have very little control over these mini-obsessions.

I’m quite proud that for most of these little-known people and places, Curriepedia is now the top Google search hit for them. For some people, I’d like to think that writing articles about them has essentially resurrected their memory and their deeds from the “ether of time” and brought them back to life in some sense.

I have intentionally omitted particularly embarrassing or sensitive information about particular people, as a compromise of decency and collegiality and to preserve friendships, over a steadfast dedication to truth and completeness.

On Bullying

On bullying:

An observation is usually only hurtful if it has some ring of truth to it. So calling an obese person fat can be hurtful, but calling a very tall person short, or a beautiful person ugly, has far less effect.

Children can often make observations as well as adults, such as noticing if a person is obese or doesn't have as nice clothes as others in the class. But when they are very young, they lack the inhibition that most adults have learned to not express the observation. Worse, once they get a bit older, they may understand the pain that it is causing the other person, and yet they may persist in making the observation out loud anyway. These types of observations are examples of bullying.

My question is: why do children do this? And if it is so hurtful, why don't adults (i.e. the teachers and parents) make it a huge priority to teach children not to do them, so they will understand how hurtful it is. Surely if they understood they would not?

Why would a child WANT to hurt someone else? It is not as if adults go around pointing and laughing at homeless people.

Is it something to do with the fact that children are put in classrooms of 30 of their peers who have nothing to do with one another except that they are similar in age, and essentially forced to socialize with one another? Perhaps if adults were placed in a similar situation we, too, would find it irresistible to treat others in the group harshly in order to preserve our place in the social hierarchy?

Or perhaps adults placed in that situation would continue to restrain their behaviour. That indicates there is something special about children that causes the behaviour. Perhaps at a young age they lack empathy, behaving like sociopaths until sometime in their late teens they acquire a moral sense.

Bullying is not just the stereotype of a lone, damaged, large boy physically pushing and taunting other boys. It is also a phenomenon of socially well-adjusted and otherwise decent children who see some abnormality (fat, poor, disabled, etc) in their classmates and then make hateful statements. Other children may not join in at first but may lack the education or training to know how to stand up in defense of their classmates.

I remember knowing that it was wrong to make fun of the mentally disabled children who attended Pine Street School. However, some of my classmates would spank their own bums and make "retarded noises" when the mentally disabled children were present, to mock them. Even then, as a 6-year-old, I knew that what those other children were doing was wrong.

However: along with several other classmates, throughout our years in elementary school (from ages about 8 to 13) I myself nevertheless made fun of a few of our more awkward (and what I can now see were economically disadvantaged) classmates. I must confess I took a strange, fleeting pleasure in making fun of them and thinking of hateful things to say, like making fun of their body odor or weight.

The fact that had done this started to cause me regret from age 16 or so, and continues to the present day. Why would I do such things? Just to make a joke and be funny, like I would make any other joke, just to pass the time? Or was it to become popular? Or was I just copying the behaviour of others? Why didn't I realize that I was causing them pain?

Now that I think about it, I could have, on any Saturday during the school year, taken the initiative to walk down the street to an unpopular kid’s house over to play with LEGO or something. I could have implored the other children to do this too, not just to make the unpopular children feel better, in some patronizing sense, but moreover to integrate the unpopular children within the circle of friends that existed in our class, transcending any notion of being patronizing or of their even being a hierarchy. I certainly did not do such a thing. Perhaps the real question is: why didn’t our parents and teachers educate us into being better? Perhaps they could not - perhaps it’s not really possible to modify a child’s personality so they become generous of spirit and kind-hearted.

Perhaps social media will cause children to act properly from a younger age, since they must maintain a public profile. Given the advent of cyber-bullying, perhaps my thought here is hopelessly naive, and in fact the Internet has simply opened a new front in the battle of bullying. But I can’t help but wonder if it might also have a positive effect as well, by exposing children to “proper” behaviour from celebrity role models in how they live their personal lives online.

Minimalism: The Starter Kit

In June 2013, my town of Calgary, Alberta experienced flooding on its main river, the Bow.  As a result my neighbourhood, Sunnyside, was evacuated for nearly a week due to flooding and electricity being cut. Inspired by this, I realized that I had accumulated many possessions that I did not need.  So to start, I threw out my old textbooks, and a tape-based camcorder.

It made me feel so great.  I realized that throwing things away felt much better than buying things in the first place.  Still, it was hard to give up the idea that eventually I might find them useful and so I would regret throwing them out.  So it took me a long time to reach my current minimalist apogee.

Now, having sold my car today, I own only the following items:

  • A weeks' worth of casual clothes
  • A week's worth of formal clothes
  • Some athletic clothes
  • My glasses and sunglasses, and their cases
  • A laptop
  • A mobile phone
  • A toiletries case
  • A suitcase, garment bag, duffel bag, and laptop bag.

All items except the formal clothes and glasses are listed in this Amazon Wish List of 18 items worth 1,826 USD.

I am able to live without possessions thanks to some innovations that have taken place over the past few years:

  • I scan all documents using my mobile phone and store them on Dropbox.
  • I rent cars or use Car2Go or Uber.
  • I eat Soylent (or Nutberg while in Asia) rather than preparing meals.
  • I stay in an AirBnB or in hotels rather than owning furniture or an apartment.
  • I'm able to work remotely thanks to various cloud services like Google Hangouts, Jira, GoToMyPC, Trello, Google Docs, Amazon Web Services, and GitHub.
  • I use a Kindle instead of books.
  • I have my physical mail sent to a mail forwarding service.
  • I keep my skis, bike and winter clothes at a storage facility. (Yes, this might be considered cheating...)

It is liberating to know that I am always packed and ready to go anywhere if needed.  It's also relaxing not to have to keep track mentally of all kinds of possessions.  It's stimulating to be able to live in different places all the time; even staying in a different place each month, breaking up the daily routine, I find very stimulating for my mind.

It occurred to me: how is this any different from the way I once lived as a university student?  Isn't this just living in poverty?  Is there a difference between poverty and minimalism?

Minimalism is simply getting rid of things you do not use or need, leaving an uncluttered, simple environment and an uncluttered, simple life.
— Leo Babauta

When I was that university student ten years ago, I dragged boxes and suitcases of clothes I never wore from apartment to apartment, and I kept huge numbers of books, papers, and textbooks I never read.  It's true I was constrained by my income somewhat, but I still wasn't leading a minimalist lifestyle.

As one's income rises it is natural to accumulate items over time.  Unless you have a strong discipline to get rid of unnecessary items, it is very easy over time to have many things you don't need.

By analogy: A very simple computer program is minimal but also not functional.   A complicated program that has minimal bloat is lovely to pivot.  Elegance is orthogonal to program size.

To illustrate that orthogonality, here are examples from all four quadrants.

A poor non-minimalist

A poor non-minimalist

A poor minimalist

A poor minimalist

Dr James Hull, a Jaguar enthosiast and rich non-minimalist.

Dr James Hull, a Jaguar enthosiast and rich non-minimalist.

Steve Jobs, whose simple wardrobe made him a minimalist icon.  A rich minimalist, indeed.

Steve Jobs, whose simple wardrobe made him a minimalist icon.  A rich minimalist, indeed.