Horizontal Thinking and "The Big Man Can't Shoot"
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:44 am
There was a convergence on a topic for me today that included Hipsters, Facebook, and Malcolm Gladwell.
It occurred as I was listening to Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast titled, "The Big Man Can't Shoot". (see - http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes ) It begins with Wilt Chamberlain's historic 100 point game, and the little known fact that for that one game he was incredible from the free-throw line despite being a notoriously bad free-throw shooter. The podcast discusses how earlier in the season, and particularly in this game, Chamberlain had adopted Rick Barry's underhand free throw technique. And then went on to stop doing so. From Sports Illustrated -
In the free throw shooting episode, released this week, Gladwell explores Wilt Chamberlain’s flirtation with the underhanded style. The method, also called “granny style” shooting, was favored by Rick Barry, a career 89.3% free throw shooter, and it helped Chamberlain shoot a career-best 61% from the line in 1961–62, the same season he sank 28 of 32 free throws in his record-setting 100-point game. Much to Gladwell’s dismay, however, Chamberlain reverted to traditional foul shooting, his percentages predictably plunged again, and he later admitted that he felt “like a sissy” when he shot underhanded.
Gladwell’s underlying point is clearly stated: Why would a Hall of Famer reject a proven, simple solution to his most obvious flaw when another Hall of Famer used the exact solution to historically great effect? And, in turn, why have modern players largely followed in Chamberlain’s footsteps rather than Barry’s?
It uses this example to explore what sociologist Mark Granovetter termed the Threshold Model of Collective Behavior (see: https://sociology.stanford.edu/publicat ... e-behavior )
To grossly oversimplify Granovetter's publication, he put forward that every person has different thresholds for making a decision regarding how to behave when they are presented with options. And that the variability has a lot to do with how sensitive a person is to the number and types of other people who are acting in a given way. We are influenced by the behaviors of those around us (or we perceive to be watching) which in turn affects this degree of willingness to act in a given way. And it can cause people to avoid doing logical, sensible and beneficial behaviors when it is contrary to the dominate social equilibrium. It takes a special kind of person to be willing to shoot a granny shot that is proven to make them a better free throw shooter because, well, other people might think poorly of them. Better to miss while shooting like a normal person.
So, like most people I'm guessing, my Facebook is crowded with participants on both the left and right. The right because I have a lot of LDS family. The left probably because of my peer group self-selection. It's made for interesting reading following the election, but in particular when it comes to my friends who are not Trump supporters. Why? I've seen a number of reactions presented, and frankly have made one statement myself in the last week and a half, that argue for democracy and a form of respect for the process even if it is very important to be critical of behaviors and policies put forward with which one disagrees. Some of these Facebook friends have diverse groups of friends who engage them while others seem to have much more self-selected groups. And what's been interesting to me is how strongly there is an impulse among those in discussions where the participants have self-selected as anti-Trump, the dialog seems to become hardened, polarized, and frankly dismissive of those who they apparently see as inferior and not to be engaged. OTOH, while those with more diverse discussions might not have pleasant discussions, they seem to work around some attempt to be civil.
That's purely anecdotal, but it impressed me enough to think there is something to be said for the negative impact on society when we disengage from those with whom we may disagree. Even worse, it seems to have a contagion effect of turning those with whom one doesn't agree into "others", the unworthy of one's time, those "beneath".
And that leads me to horizontal thinking. Horizontal thinking is, as I would describe it, the misconception that because one has a different prerogative than someone else they somehow are qualitatively different. The classic example is that of the American High School. Every American who's attended High School has to have been indoctrinated into the cult of their particular High School brand. That it's better than the other schools in the district. That the other school is somehow inferior, the students unthinking incapable dunces who only luck into victory. But everyone also probably knew the kid or three who knew the whole thing was a marketing campaign and poo-poo'd those going to the pep rallies but who was just as entrenched in the mistaken notion their outsider group was something elevated when putting on the pep rallies of dissent.
I don't think it's inherently in us as a species to avoid this type of illogical positioning based on having differences of belief and taste, but confusing it for something developed. I don't find it inherent anyway.
And that's where the hipster comes in. Specifically, a co-worker friend with whom daily discussions about politics and matters of taste are the norm. He and I have been doing what all silly people do, solving the worlds problems at moments during the day. And yesterday he had brought up something I found interesting. That being, his wife wants to buy a gun. Not because she loves guns. Not because she is Muslim, Hispanic, or wasn't born a US citizen. She's practically the blondest most fair skinned person I currently know and cried when Clinton lost the election. And she is seriously considering buying a gun despite being the most liberal of liberals, as bohemian-hipster as a person can be in Phoenix, Arizona. I asked why, frankly in shock. And the answer? "Because it's very possible society could come apart now that Trump is president." Not his belief. Just what she has been saying.
That's worth some serious concern.
Anyway, I mostly wanted to say Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game in part because he used the granny shot. And that's a record that is almost certain to never be broken in the NBA.
It occurred as I was listening to Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast titled, "The Big Man Can't Shoot". (see - http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes ) It begins with Wilt Chamberlain's historic 100 point game, and the little known fact that for that one game he was incredible from the free-throw line despite being a notoriously bad free-throw shooter. The podcast discusses how earlier in the season, and particularly in this game, Chamberlain had adopted Rick Barry's underhand free throw technique. And then went on to stop doing so. From Sports Illustrated -
In the free throw shooting episode, released this week, Gladwell explores Wilt Chamberlain’s flirtation with the underhanded style. The method, also called “granny style” shooting, was favored by Rick Barry, a career 89.3% free throw shooter, and it helped Chamberlain shoot a career-best 61% from the line in 1961–62, the same season he sank 28 of 32 free throws in his record-setting 100-point game. Much to Gladwell’s dismay, however, Chamberlain reverted to traditional foul shooting, his percentages predictably plunged again, and he later admitted that he felt “like a sissy” when he shot underhanded.
Gladwell’s underlying point is clearly stated: Why would a Hall of Famer reject a proven, simple solution to his most obvious flaw when another Hall of Famer used the exact solution to historically great effect? And, in turn, why have modern players largely followed in Chamberlain’s footsteps rather than Barry’s?
It uses this example to explore what sociologist Mark Granovetter termed the Threshold Model of Collective Behavior (see: https://sociology.stanford.edu/publicat ... e-behavior )
To grossly oversimplify Granovetter's publication, he put forward that every person has different thresholds for making a decision regarding how to behave when they are presented with options. And that the variability has a lot to do with how sensitive a person is to the number and types of other people who are acting in a given way. We are influenced by the behaviors of those around us (or we perceive to be watching) which in turn affects this degree of willingness to act in a given way. And it can cause people to avoid doing logical, sensible and beneficial behaviors when it is contrary to the dominate social equilibrium. It takes a special kind of person to be willing to shoot a granny shot that is proven to make them a better free throw shooter because, well, other people might think poorly of them. Better to miss while shooting like a normal person.
So, like most people I'm guessing, my Facebook is crowded with participants on both the left and right. The right because I have a lot of LDS family. The left probably because of my peer group self-selection. It's made for interesting reading following the election, but in particular when it comes to my friends who are not Trump supporters. Why? I've seen a number of reactions presented, and frankly have made one statement myself in the last week and a half, that argue for democracy and a form of respect for the process even if it is very important to be critical of behaviors and policies put forward with which one disagrees. Some of these Facebook friends have diverse groups of friends who engage them while others seem to have much more self-selected groups. And what's been interesting to me is how strongly there is an impulse among those in discussions where the participants have self-selected as anti-Trump, the dialog seems to become hardened, polarized, and frankly dismissive of those who they apparently see as inferior and not to be engaged. OTOH, while those with more diverse discussions might not have pleasant discussions, they seem to work around some attempt to be civil.
That's purely anecdotal, but it impressed me enough to think there is something to be said for the negative impact on society when we disengage from those with whom we may disagree. Even worse, it seems to have a contagion effect of turning those with whom one doesn't agree into "others", the unworthy of one's time, those "beneath".
And that leads me to horizontal thinking. Horizontal thinking is, as I would describe it, the misconception that because one has a different prerogative than someone else they somehow are qualitatively different. The classic example is that of the American High School. Every American who's attended High School has to have been indoctrinated into the cult of their particular High School brand. That it's better than the other schools in the district. That the other school is somehow inferior, the students unthinking incapable dunces who only luck into victory. But everyone also probably knew the kid or three who knew the whole thing was a marketing campaign and poo-poo'd those going to the pep rallies but who was just as entrenched in the mistaken notion their outsider group was something elevated when putting on the pep rallies of dissent.
I don't think it's inherently in us as a species to avoid this type of illogical positioning based on having differences of belief and taste, but confusing it for something developed. I don't find it inherent anyway.
And that's where the hipster comes in. Specifically, a co-worker friend with whom daily discussions about politics and matters of taste are the norm. He and I have been doing what all silly people do, solving the worlds problems at moments during the day. And yesterday he had brought up something I found interesting. That being, his wife wants to buy a gun. Not because she loves guns. Not because she is Muslim, Hispanic, or wasn't born a US citizen. She's practically the blondest most fair skinned person I currently know and cried when Clinton lost the election. And she is seriously considering buying a gun despite being the most liberal of liberals, as bohemian-hipster as a person can be in Phoenix, Arizona. I asked why, frankly in shock. And the answer? "Because it's very possible society could come apart now that Trump is president." Not his belief. Just what she has been saying.
That's worth some serious concern.
Anyway, I mostly wanted to say Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game in part because he used the granny shot. And that's a record that is almost certain to never be broken in the NBA.