On wooden ships and foxhole radios

Foxhole radio - c. 1942

We commemorated the two-hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Lake Erie a few weeks ago. On September 10, 1813, a rag-tag group of American sailors led by Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry beat the British fleet at Put-in-Bay, Ohio. This decisive battle was a major factor in resolving the War of 1812. Perry is memorialized in his home state of Rhode Island and at Presque Island, Pennsylvania, where six of his nine-ship fleet were built by hand, from their keels up.

In a seemingly unrelated event, National Public Radio recently aired an appreciative retrospective about AM radio. Listeners called in and recounted tales of making crystal radios from scratch. Veterans of World War II remembered building “foxhole radios” which used a razor blade and pencil as a detector to pull music and comedy skits from the ether, cheering an otherwise grim battlefield.

These disparate observations illustrate an important point. For nearly all of humankind’s existence, we lived in close proximity to our various technologies. You could either weave cloth from wool yourself or knew someone who could. And at the very least, you were certainly capable of understanding how it was done. Nearly anyone could become a blacksmith or learn to grow and reap a crop of wheat. Or build a wooden ship, or a radio.

It is only in the past fifty years or so, the briefest tick of human existence, that our technologies have become so complex, so remote.

Former backyard mechanics joke that one now needs a double degree in mechanical and computer engineering to build a car. But the joke is true. Fifty years ago, we could adjust the point gap and timing, change the carburetor jets, and really understand what was happening. Today, we look at our shiny new iPhone and haven’t a clue that it uses quantum tunneling effects to store our silly cat video, a concept that bedeviled Albert Einstein himself (quantum tunneling, that is, not the cat videos, but one wonders what he would have thought of them).

This evolution of complexity and technological remoteness will accelerate, and it will do so exponentially. Our children and their children will live in a world far removed from crystal radios and backyard brake jobs. This isn’t a bad thing. Technology has given us wonderful advances leading to notably longer human life spans.

But, yet, a wedge is being driven into our humanity, separating us from the world that nurtures us. It’s not that we shouldn’t celebrate the advent of autonomous (driver-less) cars and nano-engineered robots, but we need to retain our connectedness to Mother Earth. It is important to know how to grow a tomato and how to make your own sauce. While enjoying the constant chatter of Facebook, you must write an actual letter, in your own hand, to express your love to a distant elderly relative.

So let’s revel in this wild ride we're all on together, but don’t forget to take that quiet walk in the woods with the iPhone shut off. The silly cat video can wait a bit. 

The self-esteem movement gets an "F"

Illustration by C.S. McGuinness

Sometimes, there is great wisdom to be found on the comics pages. 

In a recent cartoon by Norm Feuiti, the eponymous young character Gil observes his collection of honors: a running trophy proclaiming “finisher,” a ribbon exclaiming “19^th place”, a bowling trophy triumphing a “72 average”, and an award recognizing “participant.”  Gil wryly observes, “I know they’re supposed to make me feel good, but really they just remind me of the things I’m not very good at.”

Garry Trudeau, in his well known strip “Doonesbury”, has young, spoiled character Jeff Redfern relocating his trophy collection to his new home.  Jeff observes, “It was so interesting growing up in the middle of the self-esteem movement.”  His dad, Rick, reads out the plaque on one of the trophies, “Most improved trier, second grade.”  Jeff recalls the moment and observes, “I tied with the rest of the class.”

So what’s the problem with the self-esteem movement and why is it dying?  Apparently, the results are in.  Instilled self-esteem, as opposed to earned, just doesn’t work.

Late last year, USA Today ran an article titled “Is narcissism killing innovation in America?” (December 21, 2011). The premise was that the self-esteem movement, by praising aimlessly, was suppressing incentive and achievement.  Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman stated “By any reasonable standard, the change in how America lived between 1918 and 1957 was immensely greater than the change between 1957 and the present”.  While many factors have influenced this outcome, the self-esteem movement, which was quick to laud and loathe to criticize, seems complicit.

The article continues, “Essentially, when children are praised readily and frequently, regardless of their efforts' outcomes, there is no incentive for them to strive for genuine excellence — or even recognize that it can exist.”

Let’s start with a definition.  What is self esteem?  Very simply, it is a sense of well being, of self confidence and contentment, that arises from competence.  This means that when you are very good at something, you feel relaxed and comfortable in your skin.  Self esteem is a good thing.  But here’s where the self esteem movement went awry. Because you must be very good at something to have high self esteem, it cannot be gifted.  It must be earned.

While teachers and parents love and greatly care for their charges and offspring, they cannot instill self-esteem by bestowing inane awards.  The child, him or herself, must actually become good at something in order to develop a sense of self esteem.  In fact, the teacher or parent who attempts to shortcut this process is harming the child. The child must strive, and fail, and learn; then strive and fail, and succeed.  If you protect her from failing, she cannot succeed.

Self esteem is situational.  If you are not a skilled brain surgeon, you would feel uncomfortable (lack self-esteem) if forced into that role.  Likewise, the brain surgeon would be very uneasy asked to rebuild an automatic transmission or erect a skyscraper.  We are all good at certain things and not so much at others.  As Will Rogers famously said, “We are all ignorant, only on different subjects.”

So what is the path to happiness and a fulfilling life?  I think it is a clear choice.  Young people must find those which are their innate talents, which come naturally and are fulfilling.  Then practice and learn and become expert in those skills.  Finally, find a vocation that requires those strengths.

To work at some profession only for the social status that it conveys, or the wages that it pays, is empty and hollow if you doubt yourself every day. It is far more fulfilling to perform a labor of love, to exercise your strengths and feel the power of self-confidence.

Find out what you are good at, develop those skills, and make them your life’s work.  You will be happier, your loved ones will find you more pleasant, and the economy will benefit.  Where’s the downside?