Horizontal Thinking and "The Big Man Can't Shoot"

[_honorentheos]

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.

[_MeDotOrg]

When I was in college, I got paid $5 to be part of an crowd for a basketball commercial. The commercial was shot at UCLA's Pauley Pavilion.

The commercial starred the Boston Celtics (Dave Cowens and JoJo White were the ones I remembered) and the Lakers. I went through a tunnel, and at the other end was Chamberlain. Most really tall men look a little gangly and geeky. Not Wilt. He was perfectly proportioned, like a human being x 1.2. Everything was just bigger. (Ladies who knew Chamberlain have verified this.)

Like most commercials, the camera setup took forever, and Wilt and JoJo White were goofing around, shooting from half-court. Wilt was shooting underhand, using the half-court as the free-throw line. From half-court, I would guess he made somewhere around 35% of his shots. I was amazed.

[_Some Schmo]

Nice post, honor.

I struggle with what you're talking about. I've noticed I have a pretty low threshold for listening to right-wing narratives I know are BS, and I am always tempted to think, "If you believe that, you are uninformed and not worth talking to." Of course, it depends on who's saying it, and how generally opinionated they are. I will not battle the belligerent, because I can't think of anything more pointless.

But I know because I've been saying for years that you have to talk to people with whom you disagree. It's the only way to grow intellectually. I guess the trick is to find people with whom you disagree that are reasonable, fair conversationalists. They're certainly out there.

But yeah, there are certain lines that trigger my "No, this isn't worth it" bone. It's a balance between seeking beneficial and avoiding non-productive conversations with folks with whom you disagree.

[_honorentheos]

MeDotOrg, that's an amazing story to be able to tell. A little piece of history.

I probably haven't watched a full NBA game since the strike in the late 90's but while in high school, basketball was a big part of my closest friendship circle's reason for being. We played a lot of ball, watched a lot, and enjoyed when we could get to games. One time while in high school a friend and I scored tickets to a Utah Jazz game with seats below row 20. As close to court side as I've ever sat at an NBA game. We went early and went to check out our seats and a few of the deep bench players from the opposing team were warming up in a goofing off kind of way. I'm talking 11-12 man deep into the bench. While goofing off one of the Jazz players came out and they started chatting. One took a shot from half court and Swish! The Jazz player lined up and answered him, SWISH! It started a short game of match my shot, which was an amazing display of ability. I don't know how many shots they hit or missed exactly but I seem to recall they were close to the range you mentioned above - between 1 for 3, maybe 1 for 2. All from around half court. It was clear every single one of these players, names I don't even recall today, were elite ball players who could shoot all day long when not contested. It's another level of ability.

Seeing Wilt shoot, that's something else.

[_honorentheos]

Nice post, honor.

I struggle with what you're talking about. I've noticed I have a pretty low threshold for listening to right-wing narratives I know are ****, and I am always tempted to think, "If you believe that, you are uninformed and not worth talking to." Of course, it depends on who's saying it, and how generally opinionated they are. I will not battle the belligerent, because I can't think of anything more pointless.

But I know because I've been saying for years that you have to talk to people with whom you disagree. It's the only way to grow intellectually. I guess the trick is to find people with whom you disagree that are reasonable, fair conversationalists. They're certainly out there.

But yeah, there are certain lines that trigger my "No, this isn't worth it" bone. It's a balance between seeking beneficial and avoiding non-productive conversations with folks with whom you disagree.

It's a tough balance. It just struck me that a couple of weeks ago, this friends wife probably would have been horrified at the idea of buying a gun. Of course, she was also certain that Clinton was going to win, as were most of us. We may not be that different from one another at all, and in that suggestion I think there is room for respecting others with differing views which I find helpful when the impulse is there to just walk away. But I don't know. It's a new world I guess.

[honorentheos]

I'm bumping this thread because it is relevant to the times. Atlanticmike is a symptom, not the root and branch of a problem. When Shades stepped down, asking, "What good is a utopian society if no one wants to live in it?", he may miss that the place was not a utopia but he raised the central question about the preservation of the board's core identity.

[Some Schmo]

This was fun to revisit.

I'm more clear about this than I was five years ago. There's a difference between engaging with someone with a different opinion and engaging with someone with a different reality. It is 100% pointless to engage with people unimpressed by facts.

[Marcus]

This was fun to revisit.

I'm more clear about this than I was five years ago. There's a difference between engaging with someone with a different opinion and engaging with someone with a different reality. It is 100% pointless to engage with people unimpressed by facts.

True. And engaging with someone who won't engage back gets pretty pointless also.

[Some Schmo]

This was fun to revisit.

I'm more clear about this than I was five years ago. There's a difference between engaging with someone with a different opinion and engaging with someone with a different reality. It is 100% pointless to engage with people unimpressed by facts.

True. And engaging with someone who won't engage back gets pretty pointless also.

I can't help thinking the two are related.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm bumping this thread because it is relevant to the times. Atlanticmike is a symptom, not the root and branch of a problem. When Shades stepped down, asking, "What good is a utopian society if no one wants to live in it?", he may miss that the place was not a utopia but he raised the central question about the preservation of the board's core identity.

A Libertarian utopia is premised on everyone sharing libertarian values. Atlanticmike does not share those values. In fact, he's close to an anti-libertarian in that respect. I think the board's core purpose can be preserved, with minimal rules to address individuals who actively subvert having an actual Libertarian utopia.