I think about investments a lot ... that makes sense given my profession.
Yet, as my kids get older, there is an investment I made that paid-off in a big way ... and I want to share it with you.
Like many parents, I wanted to teach my children that, to a large extent, they control what happens to them. One of the first ways I did that was to set up a "compensation system" for them to earn video games.
Some parents try to limit the amount of time their kids spend watching TV or playing video games. I tried something different. Instead, my kids earned their games by reading books. Here is a photo from way back then.
Paid With Play.
Here's how it worked. When they were younger, 10 books was enough to earn a small game. When they finished a book, it was their right, and my obligation, to take them to the bookstore for us to pick up the next book together. Likewise, when they finished the requisite number of books, it was their right, and my obligation, to take them to the computer store or game store for them to choose any game they wanted.
When they finished a hundred books, they got a bonus of earning the next game system. That meant if they had a Nintendo, they could now also get a PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360.
How Can You Encourage a Jump to the Next Level?
There came a point when I wanted one of my sons to start reading grown-up books. He was comfortable reading a certain type of book, and didn't want to read the kind of books that I read. So, I created a bonus system that counted a particular book as three books. I didn't force him; I just let the easier path to a reward "whisper" in his ear what to read. Once he finished that, he never went back to teen fiction.
It Is a Great Way to Learn About Your Kids.
I also used the bookstore visits to get a sense of how the boys were doing. For example, I might say "I notice that you read five books in that series, maybe you'd like this book". Or, "That sure is a lot of science fiction; what was the last biography you read?" For the most part, though, I didn't care what they read. The key was to get them to want to choose certain books for their own reasons. Ultimately, their preference meant they were learning to love reading.
It Puts Them In Control of Their Destiny and Rewards.
My younger son likes competition. He also broke or misplaced many things. So, in order to earn back the Game Boy unit that he lost, I challenged him to read five books in five days. These weren't easy books either. It was designed to stretch him, and also to teach him that he could read a book a night. The bet was that he either finished all the books in the allocated time, or none of them counted towards games or Game Boys. On the other hand, if he read a book a night for two weeks, not only would he get to have his Game Boy back, the books would count towards a game too. It worked like a charm, and we were both happy.
So, Who Got the Better Bargain?
As they started to get into their teenage years, I needed to up the ante a little. So, 500 books meant they got a laptop of their choice. Both boys cashed in ... and probably felt like they were taking advantage of their dad.
I got what I wanted, though; both my boys love reading. And know that they can accomplish anything they put their minds to … one step at a time.
That's an investment that pays dividends for a long time.
Who Can You Trust?
Information is Power.
Consequently, your choice of information source heavily contributes to your perceptions, ideas, and worldview.
Coincidently, news sources are a lightning rod for vitriol and polemic.
I am still a little surprised by the abject hatred I hear expressed towards a particular news source by those who hold an opposing bias. This often leads to claims of fake news, delusion, and partisan press. Likewise, it is common to hear derision toward anyone who consumes that news source.
Perhaps the reality is that that most sources are flawed – and the goal should simply be to find information that sucks less?
It's to the point where if you watch the news, you're misinformed; and if you don't watch the news, you're uninformed. News sources aren't just reporting the news, they're creating opinions and arguments that become the news. And many don't care enough to think for themselves - or to extract the facts from the opinion.
Here's a chart that shows where news sources rank on various scales. You can click the image to go to an interactive version with more details.
via Ad Fontes Media
I once spent fifteen minutes in an argument about how you know whether the information in this chart is true. If you're curious about their methods, click here.
Distrust toward news agencies, big companies, the government, and basically anyone with a particularly large reach is the "new normal."
Perhaps even more dangerous is the amount of fake news and haphazard research shared on social media. Willful misrepresentations of complex issues are now a too common communication tactic now on both sides ... and the fair and unbiased consideration of issues suffers.
Social media spreads like wildfire, and by the time it has been debunked (or proven to be an oversimplification) the damage is done. People are convinced ... and some will never go beyond that.
The reality isn't as bleak. People agree on a lot more than they say they do. It is often easier to focus on "us" versus "them" rather than what we agree upon jointly. This is true on a global scale. We agree on a lot. Most Democrats aren't socialists, and most Republicans aren't fascists ... and the fact that our conversation has drifted there is intellectually lazy.
This idea that either side is trying to destroy the country is clearly untrue (OK, mostly untrue). There are loonies on the fringes of any group, but the average Democrat is not that unlike the average Republican. You don't have to agree with their opinions, but you should be able to trust that they want our country to succeed.
I don't know that we have a solution. But there is one common "fake news" fallacy I want to explain at least a little.
It's called the Motte and Bailey fallacy. It's named after a style of medieval castle prioritizing military defense.
Launceston Castle via Chris Shaw, CC BY-SA 2.0
On the left is a Motte, an artificial mound often topped with a stone structure, and on the right is a Bailey, the enclosed courtyard. The Motte serves to protect not only itself but also the Bailey.
As a form of argument, an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities. One of the positions is easy to defend (the motte) and the other is controversial (the bailey). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged insists they're only advancing the moderate position. Upon retreating the arguer can claim that the bailey hasn't been refuted, or that the critic is unreasonable by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte.
It's a common method used by newscasters, politicians, and social media posters alike. And it's easy to get caught in it if you don't do your research.
Conclusion
As a society, we're fairly vulnerable to groupthink, advertisements, and confirmation bias.
We believe what we want to believe ... so it can be very hard to change a belief, even in the face of contrary evidence.
But, hopefully, in learning about these fallacies, and being aware, we do better.
I will caution that blind distrust is dangerous – because it feels like critical thought without forcing you to critically think.
Distrust is good ... but too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
Not everything is a conspiracy theory or a false flag.
Do research, give more credence to experts in a field - but don't blindly trust them either. How well do you think you're really thinking for yourself?
It's a complicated world, and it's only getting more complicated. But, hopefully, it encourages you to get outside your bubble and learn more about those you disagree with.
Posted at 08:08 PM in Business, Current Affairs, Healthy Lifestyle, Ideas, Market Commentary, Personal Development, Science, Television, Trading, Trading Tools, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0)
Reblog (0)