Perhaps this post should more properly be entitled "Thoughts on self-improvement, inspired by Frank Abagnale's story"
In my previous post, written after reading "Catch me if you can", I started to think aloud about how to try and develop the skills that made Abagnale so effective as a con-artist and (what I think of as a) social engineer. He displayed an extraordiary chameleon-like ability, also an ease of conversation and using it to get information he needed without arousing suspicion. He also was very observant, and something of a fantasist (or liar, you might call it)
One of the reasons he was so good at being a con-man, at an age when I wouldn't have been able to do anything of the sort, is because of the way he lived his life. He was hugely social, became good at interacting wittily (but on a shallow level) with almost anyone. He turned the problem-solving part of his brain to how he could employ his people skills and intellect to the problem of making enough money for the lifestyle (read respect, trust, and women) he wanted.
When I was in my teens, I had plenty of problem solving ability - I just confined it to Mathematical problems and study, and reading too much philosophy. I thought about everything in a different way, was a hell of a lot more cautious, and less worldly-wise. The way you approach problems, and the attitude with which you face them, are often rather unique to you. A people person will be good at thinking of people-solutions to everything, a logician will try and work everything out from solid principles. An artist will try to imagine the solution.
We all have our own style of thinking, and when we try to approach, for example, a people problem with mathematical formulae, or a legal problem with emotional thinking, then we're at our weakest. Another reason why it is good to learn different approaches to life, and get inside the head of someone who thinks at a tangent to the way we do. So yes, I'm now trying to think with the same initiative and imagination as the young Mr Abagnale, if for more legal ends and means!
* * *
I'd like to write a lot more on how Abagnale became the man he did. It is well worth looking into, inasmuch as a teenager making fools of airlines and banks worldwide, hospitals and universities is quite simply amazing
How did he do it? You can't explain his 'achievements' by saying it was his remarkable mix of social skills, intellect, and cheek. You have to look at his story. He lived with his father when his parents divorced, and came into contact with perhaps a rather seedy, bar-room society. This made him cagey, streetwise, and perhaps rather unscrupulous too. He discovered girls - and by the sounds of it went almost temporarily insane in his pursuit of them.
It didn't occur to him that a few dollars cleverly stolen from a big company constituted much of a moral wrongdoing, and with the thrill of success, and more women, his schemes became more daring. He conceived the crazy scheme of pretending to be a pilot - he could cash bad cheques all over America/the world that way and not be caught (so he reasoned) - and began to plan a deception of such cheek that people didn't see it for what it was.
Sunday, 5 June 2011
"He's my boyfriend, I can hit him if I want to"
The quote in the title is from this story, in the Guardian of all places.
No one working for that newspaper is going to question where the attitudes of this girl come from (prevalent attitudes towards men, differences in perception of violence towards men and women), though many lines of print are written there on which attitudes towards women lead to violence.
I'd like to ask anyone reading this to think about why this was said - why the girl thought it was ok to say this. Here are some guesses:
a) the knowledge that she will probably escape a prison sentence (now where oh where did I read that someone wanted to empty women's prisons because they are too nasty? Do let me know)
b) common representations of men as more expendable in the media.How many times have we heard on the news that "women and children" were amongst those hurt" in some disaster, natural or otherwise. Hurting a man is represented as more or less ok, and frequently justified, if you watch BBC dramas.
The fact that we are (probably) hard-wired to have a little more sympathy for women and children doesn't mean we can pretend violence towards men is morally any different. Or we can, only if you are ready to disregard everything that is said about gender equality being for the greater good. You will also have to ignore anyone who claims that attitudes of 'men' towards 'women' are the cause of rape/violence. Some examples of this from our favourite rag:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/mar/08/malaysia-international-womens-day
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/mar/23/church-action-against-sexual-violence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/08/islam-channel-ofcom
I wonder at how easy it was for me to come up with those examples...
Yet if you say this to feminists, they look mystified. They simply cannot see how, if "attitudes towards women" cause violence, there can be any such phenomenon involving blatantly obvious attitudes towards men, and the fact that it is men who are sent off to die for their country, commit suicide more often than women, are treated unequally by the law etcetc.
It's slightly annoying :(
No one working for that newspaper is going to question where the attitudes of this girl come from (prevalent attitudes towards men, differences in perception of violence towards men and women), though many lines of print are written there on which attitudes towards women lead to violence.
I'd like to ask anyone reading this to think about why this was said - why the girl thought it was ok to say this. Here are some guesses:
a) the knowledge that she will probably escape a prison sentence (now where oh where did I read that someone wanted to empty women's prisons because they are too nasty? Do let me know)
b) common representations of men as more expendable in the media.How many times have we heard on the news that "women and children" were amongst those hurt" in some disaster, natural or otherwise. Hurting a man is represented as more or less ok, and frequently justified, if you watch BBC dramas.
The fact that we are (probably) hard-wired to have a little more sympathy for women and children doesn't mean we can pretend violence towards men is morally any different. Or we can, only if you are ready to disregard everything that is said about gender equality being for the greater good. You will also have to ignore anyone who claims that attitudes of 'men' towards 'women' are the cause of rape/violence. Some examples of this from our favourite rag:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/mar/08/malaysia-international-womens-day
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/mar/23/church-action-against-sexual-violence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/08/islam-channel-ofcom
I wonder at how easy it was for me to come up with those examples...
Yet if you say this to feminists, they look mystified. They simply cannot see how, if "attitudes towards women" cause violence, there can be any such phenomenon involving blatantly obvious attitudes towards men, and the fact that it is men who are sent off to die for their country, commit suicide more often than women, are treated unequally by the law etcetc.
It's slightly annoying :(
Friday, 3 June 2011
Chav-land
There are suggestions that the word 'chav' is an attack on the working class. I'm delighted to say that Polly Toynbee is one of those who have said this, and that once again I totally disagree with everything she said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/31/chav-vile-word-fractured-britain
The simple fact is that being a "chav" is nothing to do with how much money you have, or were born into. It does, however, have everything to do with attitudes and behaviour that many working-class people would be ashamed of.
Perhaps this is where Toynbee loses the plot. What she calls "poisonous bile" could actually be described as social forces that help regulate behaviour. We condemn thuggish actions and threatening behaviour. We condemn the videos of kids showing off their knives on YouTube. It's part of what holds society together. Yet according to Polly Toynbee we can't say anything nasty about chavs because, she says, they are working class.
Think about the logic of that for a second. We don't want to do down the working class, so we can't say anything nasty about a criminal if s(he) happens to be working class.
Toynbee has dragged the word 'class' into it for a reason - to obfuscate the argument and delude people into thinking we need to read Marx again to understand the issue. Shall we substitute the word "poor" for working-class? (it seems fair enough) We are now saying: We don't want to do down the poor people for being poor, so we can't say anything nasty about a particular criminal if s(he) happens to be poor.
Happy with that? Because that is what I think she is saying.
The obvious problem is that some of us have started to use the term "chav" fairly derisively. Perhaps Toynbee doesn't like this aspect of things? It's perhaps an ugly part of the social forces I alluded to above, but I wonder whether she has ever said "men" in the same tone of voice we use to talk about chavs? Not even once or twice?
I could argue with every sentence she spills forth. For example:
"Aspiration and social mobility are the useful mirage, laying blame squarely with individuals who should try harder to escape their families and friends, instead of seeking great fairness for all."
No. People should try harder to not stab other people, not give someone a kicking because they are bored. It's not hard, you don't need a rich Mummy and Daddy to make that decision.
As usual with Marxists, they are not at all concerned with the details of a crime, and looking at what might actually have caused it. They start off with the explanation. They are sure it is right - though they don't have the evidence - and over and over again they deny the concept of responsibility for ones actions (apart from rich white men, who are held personally responsible for what other people do). It's the intoxicating, addictive quality that some people seem to find in Marxist ideas - suddenly they have the answer to everything! If only people would listen...
It reminds me of religious sects or cults where "missionaries" are trained in how to answer every question or rebuttal they might encounter. In fact, I think we'd be a lot safer and more rational if we lumped Guardian readers with the Moonies and Waco cult members and just got on with trying to understand difficult problems of the causes of crime without the hysterical know-alls in that paper.
Here endeth the lesson
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/31/chav-vile-word-fractured-britain
The simple fact is that being a "chav" is nothing to do with how much money you have, or were born into. It does, however, have everything to do with attitudes and behaviour that many working-class people would be ashamed of.
Perhaps this is where Toynbee loses the plot. What she calls "poisonous bile" could actually be described as social forces that help regulate behaviour. We condemn thuggish actions and threatening behaviour. We condemn the videos of kids showing off their knives on YouTube. It's part of what holds society together. Yet according to Polly Toynbee we can't say anything nasty about chavs because, she says, they are working class.
Think about the logic of that for a second. We don't want to do down the working class, so we can't say anything nasty about a criminal if s(he) happens to be working class.
Toynbee has dragged the word 'class' into it for a reason - to obfuscate the argument and delude people into thinking we need to read Marx again to understand the issue. Shall we substitute the word "poor" for working-class? (it seems fair enough) We are now saying: We don't want to do down the poor people for being poor, so we can't say anything nasty about a particular criminal if s(he) happens to be poor.
Happy with that? Because that is what I think she is saying.
The obvious problem is that some of us have started to use the term "chav" fairly derisively. Perhaps Toynbee doesn't like this aspect of things? It's perhaps an ugly part of the social forces I alluded to above, but I wonder whether she has ever said "men" in the same tone of voice we use to talk about chavs? Not even once or twice?
I could argue with every sentence she spills forth. For example:
"Aspiration and social mobility are the useful mirage, laying blame squarely with individuals who should try harder to escape their families and friends, instead of seeking great fairness for all."
No. People should try harder to not stab other people, not give someone a kicking because they are bored. It's not hard, you don't need a rich Mummy and Daddy to make that decision.
There seems to be an assumption in there that if only governments eliminated inequalities tomorrow then all this crime would disappear overnight. It's an old, tired argument, and it's not going to happen any time soon, so we won't get to find out whether it's true or not. One of the problems with "social mobility" is not one Toynbee will be happy with - the fact is we only need so many Doctors, CEOs, and Lawyers. So I'm fascinated to know what sort of world she thinks we will live in when inequality is finally defeated.
It reminds me of religious sects or cults where "missionaries" are trained in how to answer every question or rebuttal they might encounter. In fact, I think we'd be a lot safer and more rational if we lumped Guardian readers with the Moonies and Waco cult members and just got on with trying to understand difficult problems of the causes of crime without the hysterical know-alls in that paper.
Here endeth the lesson
Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Thoughts on Frank Abagnale, pt 1
So I read "Catch me if you can" recently and was totally hooked. Usually after reading a book of this kind I find my thinking very affected by the book and the personality of the writer (though this book is actually ghost written so it's my interepretation of the ghost writer's interpretation of Abagnale's thought processes)
He was such a sharp observer of people around him, seeing what people might be impressed by, and like any confidence trickster probably telling a lot about people very quickly from their gait/body language/voice etc. He also clearly had quite an imagination - if only to dream up these schemes and ways of getting information from people.
I imagine him formulating a new plan quickly, and thinking "I must start talking to that girl/an airline official/or whoever". Almost immediately, a scenario would come to his mind where someone had a quite legitimate query or occasion to start a conversation - and he would become that role, like an improvising actor. Such adrenaline-rush-fuelled skills may also explain his apparent success-rate with women - I'm sure Neil Strauss and the other pick-up artists would be interested in his approach if the haven't studied that sort of thing already. (He is what they would call a "natural", I believe)
He must also be good at approaching a conversation indirectly, mentioning a topic so the other person starts talking about it, and all of a sudden they are discussing exactly the kind of thing he wants to know about. Sometimes he will tease someone ("no way have you got an A-grade average...I need to see proof!") and that's a pretty well known technique I guess.
These are not skills I've been displaying in abundance in the last year or two of my life ;) Neither is the initiative that all that (in his case misdirected) industry takes. So now I'm setting myself exercises using time on the bus as body-language reading time (there is plenty of raw material, plenty of bodys, all speaking loudly!). It's also worth working on the improvisation-like skills I've mentioned. Anything you could be better at...
This is part of a self-improvement streak that I have to own up to. I've mentioned Neil Strauss above - one thing he has said is to do with working on "inner-game" ( perhaps another word for a kind of confidence), posture, and appearance. He said something in a seminar, along the lines of:
"You guys have no idea how hard I worked on this stuff, drilling it into myself every day"
And I do wonder what the best study/improvement method is, given that time is limited. Really I want to learn new ways of thinking, and 10 minutes of practice every day is really not good enough. And knowing me I'm in danger of my enthusiasm waning after a short while.
He was such a sharp observer of people around him, seeing what people might be impressed by, and like any confidence trickster probably telling a lot about people very quickly from their gait/body language/voice etc. He also clearly had quite an imagination - if only to dream up these schemes and ways of getting information from people.
I imagine him formulating a new plan quickly, and thinking "I must start talking to that girl/an airline official/or whoever". Almost immediately, a scenario would come to his mind where someone had a quite legitimate query or occasion to start a conversation - and he would become that role, like an improvising actor. Such adrenaline-rush-fuelled skills may also explain his apparent success-rate with women - I'm sure Neil Strauss and the other pick-up artists would be interested in his approach if the haven't studied that sort of thing already. (He is what they would call a "natural", I believe)
He must also be good at approaching a conversation indirectly, mentioning a topic so the other person starts talking about it, and all of a sudden they are discussing exactly the kind of thing he wants to know about. Sometimes he will tease someone ("no way have you got an A-grade average...I need to see proof!") and that's a pretty well known technique I guess.
These are not skills I've been displaying in abundance in the last year or two of my life ;) Neither is the initiative that all that (in his case misdirected) industry takes. So now I'm setting myself exercises using time on the bus as body-language reading time (there is plenty of raw material, plenty of bodys, all speaking loudly!). It's also worth working on the improvisation-like skills I've mentioned. Anything you could be better at...
This is part of a self-improvement streak that I have to own up to. I've mentioned Neil Strauss above - one thing he has said is to do with working on "inner-game" ( perhaps another word for a kind of confidence), posture, and appearance. He said something in a seminar, along the lines of:
"You guys have no idea how hard I worked on this stuff, drilling it into myself every day"
And I do wonder what the best study/improvement method is, given that time is limited. Really I want to learn new ways of thinking, and 10 minutes of practice every day is really not good enough. And knowing me I'm in danger of my enthusiasm waning after a short while.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
How easy it is being a male....
Here you'll find an article on a man who was treated in a particular way by British Airways on the assumption that since he was a man he was, according to them, a risk to children he might be seated next to.
His pregnant wife wished to swap seats with him, so he obliged and found himself next to a child travelling on his own. The man was asked to change back to his seat on the grounds that he became a risk to the child's security.
Now this seems wrong-headed to me, for a number of reasons. Firstly let's not beat about the bush here - it's gender discrimination - precisely what we have been told for years is one of the worst evils in this land. It's sexism but against men so it doesn't make the news. No one will lose their job over this.
BA eventually said that they were at fault because they didn't realise he was with his wife. That too is slightly disgustingly wrong. They are admitting a minor fault, but not retracting their implicit sexism. It's one of the most insulting apologies I've ever seen (and there are many contenders).
Here is a quote from the excellent piece linked to above:
"When you think about it, even though Mr Fischer is quite right to label the policy sex discrimination, he was better off having swapped seats with his wife. Such is the fear and hysteria around child abuse, he might have been at greater risk than any fear-hyped child. Imagine if, having dropped his pen, and feeling for it on the floor, he accidentally brushed his fingers against the child’s leg. The kid screams, “Don’t touch me!” Three hundred eyes swivel his way, the cabin crew come rushing over, the pilot alerts the destination security, the poor sap is hauled off the plane protesting his innocence to no avail, and his life is ruined."
His pregnant wife wished to swap seats with him, so he obliged and found himself next to a child travelling on his own. The man was asked to change back to his seat on the grounds that he became a risk to the child's security.
Now this seems wrong-headed to me, for a number of reasons. Firstly let's not beat about the bush here - it's gender discrimination - precisely what we have been told for years is one of the worst evils in this land. It's sexism but against men so it doesn't make the news. No one will lose their job over this.
BA eventually said that they were at fault because they didn't realise he was with his wife. That too is slightly disgustingly wrong. They are admitting a minor fault, but not retracting their implicit sexism. It's one of the most insulting apologies I've ever seen (and there are many contenders).
Here is a quote from the excellent piece linked to above:
"When you think about it, even though Mr Fischer is quite right to label the policy sex discrimination, he was better off having swapped seats with his wife. Such is the fear and hysteria around child abuse, he might have been at greater risk than any fear-hyped child. Imagine if, having dropped his pen, and feeling for it on the floor, he accidentally brushed his fingers against the child’s leg. The kid screams, “Don’t touch me!” Three hundred eyes swivel his way, the cabin crew come rushing over, the pilot alerts the destination security, the poor sap is hauled off the plane protesting his innocence to no avail, and his life is ruined."
This comes a couple of days after I came out of my OWN HOUSE (which is next to a footpath) and a mother passed calling her 2/3 yr old daughter who behaved slightly shyly. Aforementioned mother then talked to the wife out of our neighbours saying her daughter was being slow because she had seen "a man" - and I think plenty of men would recognize the tone of voice that was said in.
Not only do you get her bad attitude towards men. But the fact that the lady who lives next door - someone I thought I liked - is extremely unlikely to say anything to her friend, possibly (nay probably) on grounds of solidarity. Try and imagine that, ladies - I mean really try imagining living with those entrenched attitudes - and you might have a bit of a eureka moment about why the man in your life is the way he is.
Monday, 16 May 2011
Sometimes there's good news
So from time to time we go on holiday to Wales - often to the same place. Why to the same place, given that I'm a restless sort? Simply because the owners of the B&B and cottages are some of the nicest people I have ever met. We first stayed there 4 years ago when I was going through a stressful time at work. In a few days the holiday turned my mood around. One time, I overheard them talking about us. Usually you don't want that to happen, don't want to hear what other people say about you - but these people seemed to like us as much as we liked them. They gave me the best example I've ever seen of how family life should be - just happy and unworried.
They spoke so calmly - the hostess had a lovely smile and I must admit I was very charmed by her - but the husband too is an unusually happy, positive soul, and wonderful company. We talked about the walks round the area and took their dog on her favourite walk. She charged up and down steep, icy hills and we feared we might lose our host's dog for them but she always reappeared, ready for more mad dashes up and down the hills..
We didn't stay with them this time - but we were passing, so paid this family a visit. Their kindness goes far beyond that of someone trying to keep their guests on-side. Children from around the town came to visit and play on the trampoline. S and I drove back through the road with the most beautiful views I know - alone for miles and miles but for a few sheep and some deserted-looking former pubs - with a man in fatigues wondering between them (the area is used by the military). One of Norah Jones' lovelier albums added to the inner calm I felt. The sun shone over that landscape. My self-worth - whatever that really means - had returned, though I hadn't realised its absence.
It was a wonderful day. Every time I see our friends, I'm reminded how things should be, and how I ought to live. Too much of my life my day-to-day moments seem to have been plagued with nagging worry and discontent - I can still feel that old tension in my shoulders now. But happiness seems such an obvious thing in those Welsh hills. I guess I need that fresh air to breathe. I need to always remember that place inside me.
They spoke so calmly - the hostess had a lovely smile and I must admit I was very charmed by her - but the husband too is an unusually happy, positive soul, and wonderful company. We talked about the walks round the area and took their dog on her favourite walk. She charged up and down steep, icy hills and we feared we might lose our host's dog for them but she always reappeared, ready for more mad dashes up and down the hills..
We didn't stay with them this time - but we were passing, so paid this family a visit. Their kindness goes far beyond that of someone trying to keep their guests on-side. Children from around the town came to visit and play on the trampoline. S and I drove back through the road with the most beautiful views I know - alone for miles and miles but for a few sheep and some deserted-looking former pubs - with a man in fatigues wondering between them (the area is used by the military). One of Norah Jones' lovelier albums added to the inner calm I felt. The sun shone over that landscape. My self-worth - whatever that really means - had returned, though I hadn't realised its absence.
It was a wonderful day. Every time I see our friends, I'm reminded how things should be, and how I ought to live. Too much of my life my day-to-day moments seem to have been plagued with nagging worry and discontent - I can still feel that old tension in my shoulders now. But happiness seems such an obvious thing in those Welsh hills. I guess I need that fresh air to breathe. I need to always remember that place inside me.
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Osama Bin Laden
I can hardly say I am sorry that Osama Bin Laden was shot dead very recently. The manner of the shooting can only convince us, unfortunately, that the Americans a) are a law unto themselves, and b) talk and think as though they are living in a hollywood heroic movie scenario. Or at least canny politicians are aware that if they present things in this way, the US public are more likely to accept it.
Its quite possible that those politicians are as unable to distinguish between Hollywood "right and wrong" and the real world as the public they pitch their propaganda to. That seems to always be the question with them - did Mrs Thatcher firmly believe that we had to go to war (in the Falklands and then in the 1st Iraq war) or how motivated was she by the probable electoral boost that a war win would give her and her government? It's the same as what we were saying about Argentina's General Galtieri at the time..
It is chilling to think that politicians could write away young people's lives for such a reason. Tony Blair's motives were continually in question in his time in No.10, and I wish we could know the full story of why decisions to go to war were made the way they were.
But Bin Laden was unarmed and I have a feeling that he should have been brought to trial. Were the US afraid of tortuous legal proceedings? Did this persuade them that they should quietly advise the soldiers to shoot to kill? I'm making this up as I go along, I know, but the fact remains he was unarmed when shot, and the scenario given to the press was flimsy from the start. were they truly afraid he would blow himself and the soldiers up in a suicide attack when cornered? This doesn't have the ring of truth for me - he wasn't a suicide bomber himself - he provided money and a figurehead for such people - but showed no wish to give up his life any time soon, even for his 'jihad'.
And now the steady slew of "revelations" being fed to the press telling us that, for instance, Bin Laden was planning another 9/11 style attack on the US (yeah right! in a stoned haze he might have said something of the kind). Such reports are there to scare us into thinking that "we got there just in time" - as Reagan famously said (was it about Panama?)
Now we learn that Bin Laden "was in active control of the terror network from his compound in northern Pakistan" when doubts have been raised as to whether al Qaeda had anything but the loosest of command structures - and may have been more a network than a military style organisation.
It all sounds like government-generated BS to me, to be honest.
Its quite possible that those politicians are as unable to distinguish between Hollywood "right and wrong" and the real world as the public they pitch their propaganda to. That seems to always be the question with them - did Mrs Thatcher firmly believe that we had to go to war (in the Falklands and then in the 1st Iraq war) or how motivated was she by the probable electoral boost that a war win would give her and her government? It's the same as what we were saying about Argentina's General Galtieri at the time..
It is chilling to think that politicians could write away young people's lives for such a reason. Tony Blair's motives were continually in question in his time in No.10, and I wish we could know the full story of why decisions to go to war were made the way they were.
But Bin Laden was unarmed and I have a feeling that he should have been brought to trial. Were the US afraid of tortuous legal proceedings? Did this persuade them that they should quietly advise the soldiers to shoot to kill? I'm making this up as I go along, I know, but the fact remains he was unarmed when shot, and the scenario given to the press was flimsy from the start. were they truly afraid he would blow himself and the soldiers up in a suicide attack when cornered? This doesn't have the ring of truth for me - he wasn't a suicide bomber himself - he provided money and a figurehead for such people - but showed no wish to give up his life any time soon, even for his 'jihad'.
And now the steady slew of "revelations" being fed to the press telling us that, for instance, Bin Laden was planning another 9/11 style attack on the US (yeah right! in a stoned haze he might have said something of the kind). Such reports are there to scare us into thinking that "we got there just in time" - as Reagan famously said (was it about Panama?)
Now we learn that Bin Laden "was in active control of the terror network from his compound in northern Pakistan" when doubts have been raised as to whether al Qaeda had anything but the loosest of command structures - and may have been more a network than a military style organisation.
It all sounds like government-generated BS to me, to be honest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)