Posing Routine Quotes

Creative minds are highly susceptible to distraction, and our newfound connectivity poses a powerful temptation for all of us to drift off focus.

One way to make sure children know that questions are welcome is to praise their asking them so routinely that posing good ones becomes a habit.

Vieux bureaucrate, mon camarade ici présent, nul jamais ne t'a fait évader et tu n'en es point responsable. Tu as construit ta paix à force d'aveugler de ciment, comme le font les termites, toutes les échappées vers la lumière. Tu t'es roulé en boule dans ta sécurité bourgeoise, tes routines, les rites étouffants de ta vie provinciale, tu as élevé cet humble rempart contre les vents et les marées et les étoiles. Tu ne veux point t'inquiéter des grands problèmes, tu as eu bien assez de mal à oublier ta condition d'homme. Tu n'es point l'habitant d'une planète errante, tu ne te poses point de questions sans réponse : tu es un petit bourgeois de Toulouse. Nul ne t'a saisi par les épaules quand il était temps encore. Maintenant, la glaise dont tu es formé a séché, et s'est durcie, et nul en toi ne saurait désormais réveiller le musicien endormi ou le poète, ou l'astronome qui peut-être t'habitait d'abord.

Donald Trump consciously stokes racist sentiment, and has given a rocket boost to the ‘alt-right’ fringe of neo-Nazis and white nationalists. But to write off all those who voted for him as bigoted will only make his job easier. It is also inaccurate. Millions who backed Trump in 2016 had voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Did they suddenly become deplorable? A better explanation is that many kinds of Americans have long felt alienated from an establishment that has routinely sidelined their economic complaints. In 2008 America went for the outsider, an African-American with barely any experience in federal politics. Obama offered hope. In 2016 it went for another outsider with no background in any kind of politics. Trump channelled rage. To be clear: Trump poses a mortal threat to all America’s most precious qualities. But by giving a higher priority to the politics of ethnic identity than people’s common interests, the American left helped to create what it feared. The clash of economic interests is about relative trade-offs. Ethnic politics is a game of absolutes. In 1992, Bill Clinton won the overwhelming majority of non-college whites. By 2016, most of them had defected. Having branded their defection as racially motivated, liberals are signalling that they do not want them back.

Zero-tolerance discipline policies, specifically the controversial category of willful defiance, have become a routine way by which to punish and marginalize Black girls in learning spaces when they directly confront adults or indirectly complicate the teacher’s ability to manage the classroom—not necessarily actions that pose a threat to the physical safety of anyone on campus.

Given an area of law that legislators were happy to hand over to the affected industries and a technology that was both unfamiliar and threatening, the prospects for legislative insight were poor. Lawmakers were assured by lobbyists a) that this was business as usual, that no dramatic changes were being made by the Green or White papers; or b) that the technology presented a terrible menace to the American cultural industries, but that prompt and statesmanlike action would save the day; or c) that layers of new property rights, new private enforcers of those rights, and technological control and surveillance measures were all needed in order to benefit consumers, who would now be able to “purchase culture by the sip rather than by the glass” in a pervasively monitored digital environment. In practice, somewhat confusingly, these three arguments would often be combined. Legislators’ statements seemed to suggest that this was a routine Armageddon in which firm, decisive statesmanship was needed to preserve the digital status quo in a profoundly transformative and proconsumer way. Reading the congressional debates was likely to give one conceptual whiplash. To make things worse, the press was—in 1995, at least—clueless about these issues. It was not that the newspapers were ignoring the Internet. They were paying attention—obsessive attention in some cases. But as far as the mainstream press was concerned, the story line on the Internet was sex: pornography, online predation, more pornography. The lowbrow press stopped there. To be fair, the highbrow press was also interested in Internet legal issues (the regulation of pornography, the regulation of online predation) and constitutional questions (the First Amendment protection of Internet pornography). Reporters were also asking questions about the social effect of the network (including, among other things, the threats posed by pornography and online predators).

I have no illusions that I, by myself, pose any threat to the current status quo. They, who have effectively neutered and marginalized the population so greatly, that a coffee-table book of Madonna’s twat constitutes a greater threat in Americans’ minds than does a 150-billion-dollar defense budget during peacetime (more on Madonna’s twat later.)... ...For all the lip service being paid by our candidates for the need to change, it looks like Business As Usual here in America. So, who am I supporting? Which candidate best represents my interests? As for me, I’m voting for Madonna’s twat.

You walk in there and you don’t see a single girl, even in the booths, just a great mob of young men dressed in all varieties of hoodlum cloth, from red shirts to zoot suits. It is also the hustlers’ bar—the boys who make a living among the sad old homos of the Eighth Avenue night. Dean walked in there with his eyes slitted to see every single face. There were wild Negro queers, sullen guys with guns, shiv-packing seamen, thin, noncommittal junkies, and an occasional well-dressed middle-aged detective, posing as a bookie and hanging around half for interest and half for duty. It was the typical place for Dean to put down his request. All kinds of evil plans are hatched in Ritzy’s Bar—you can sense it in the air—and all kinds of mad sexual routines are initiated to go with them.

We were all playing a game, only nobody knew we were playing it. When I walked in that first night, everyone was giving me this look: “I’m dangerous. Don’t fuck with me.” So I went, “Shit, these people are hardened criminals. I shouldn’t be here, because I am not a criminal.” Then the next day everything turned over quickly. One by one, guys left to go to their hearings, I stayed to wait for my lawyer, and new people started to pitch up. Now I was the veteran, doing my colored-gangster routine, giving the new guys the same look: “I’m dangerous. Don’t fuck with me.” And they looked at me and went, “Shit, he’s a hardened criminal. I shouldn’t be here, because I am not like him.” And round and round we went. At a certain point it occurred to me that every single person in that cell might be faking it. We were all decent guys from nice neighborhoods and good families, picked up for unpaid parking tickets and other infractions. We could have been having a great time sharing meals, playing cards, and talking about women and soccer. But that didn’t happen, because everyone had adopted this dangerous pose and nobody talked because everyone was afraid of who the other guys were pretending to be. Now those guys were going to get out and go home to their families and say, “Oh, honey, that was rough. Those were some real criminals in there. There was this one colored guy. Man, he was a killer.

While writing the article that reported these findings, Amos and I discovered that we enjoyed working together. Amos was always very funny, and in his presence I became funny as well, so we spent hours of solid work in continuous amusement. The pleasure we found in working together made us exceptionally patient; it is much easier to strive for perfection when you are never bored. Perhaps most important, we checked our critical weapons at the door. Both Amos and I were critical and argumentative, he even more than I, but during the years of our collaboration neither of us ever rejected out of hand anything the other said. Indeed, one of the great joys I found in the collaboration was that Amos frequently saw the point of my vague ideas much more clearly than I did. Amos was the more logical thinker, with an orientation to theory and an unfailing sense of direction. I was more intuitive and rooted in the psychology of perception, from which we borrowed many ideas. We were sufficiently similar to understand each other easily, and sufficiently different to surprise each other. We developed a routine in which we spent much of our working days together, often on long walks. For the next fourteen years our collaboration was the focus of our lives, and the work we did together during those years was the best either of us ever did. We quickly adopted a practice that we maintained for many years. Our research was a conversation, in which we invented questions and jointly examined our intuitive answers. Each question was a small experiment, and we carried out many experiments in a single day. We were not seriously looking for the correct answer to the statistical questions we posed. Our aim was to identify and analyze the intuitive answer, the first one that came to mind, the one we were tempted to make even when we knew it to be wrong. We believed—correctly, as it happened—that any intuition that the two of us shared would be shared by many other people as well, and that it would be easy to demonstrate its effects on judgments.

Une nouvelle génération, donc, subit simplement l'état de choses ; elle ne se pose aucun vrai problème, et de la « libération » dont elle jouit, elle fait un usage à tous points de vue stupide. Quand cette jeunesse prétend qu'elle n'est pas comprise, la seule réponse à lui donner c'est qu'il n'y a justement rien à comprendre en elle, et que, s'il existait un ordre normal, il s'agirait uniquement de la remettre à sa place sans tarder, comme on fait avec les enfants, lorsque sa stupidité devient fatigante, envahissante et impertinente. Le soi-disant anticonformisme de certaines attitudes, abstraction faite de leur banalité, suit du reste une espèce de mode, de nouvelle convention, de sorte qu'il s'agit précisément du contraire d'une manifestation de liberté. Pour différents phénomènes envisagés par nous dans les pages précédentes, tels que par exemple le goût de la vulgarité et certaines formes nouvelles des mœurs, on peut se référer, dans l'ensemble, à cette jeunesse-là ; en font partie les fanatiques des deux sexes pour les braillards, les « chanteurs » épileptiques, au moment où nous écrivons pour les séances collectives de marionnettes représentées par les ye-ye sessions, pour tel ou tel « disque à succès » et ainsi de suite, avec les comportements correspondants. L'absence, chez ceux-là, du sens du ridicule rend impossible d'exercer sur eux une influence quelconque, si bien qu'il faut les laisser à eux-mêmes et à leur stupidité et estimer que si par hasard apparaissent, chez ce type de jeunes, quelques aspects polémiques en ce qui concerne, par exemple, l'émancipation sexuelle des mineurs et le sens de la famille, cela n'a aucun relief. Les années passant, la nécessité, pour la plupart d'entre eux, de faire face aux problèmes matériels et économiques de la vie fera sans doute que cette jeunesse-là, devenue adulte, s'adaptera aux routines professionnelles, productives et sociales d'un monde comme le monde actuel ; ce qui, d'ailleurs, la fera passer simplement d'une forme de nullité à une autre forme de nullité. Aucun problème digne de ce nom ne vient se poser.

J’ai été obligé de remonter, pour vous montrer le lien des idées et des choses, à une sorte d’origine de ces réserves en vous disant que si l’humanité avait fait ce qu’elle a fait, et qui en somme a fait l’humanité réciproquement, c’est parce que depuis une époque immémoriale elle avait su se constituer des réserves matérielles, que ces réserves matérielles avaient créé des loisirs, et que seul le loisir est fécond ; car c’est dans le loisir que l’esprit peut, éloigné des conditions strictes et pressantes de la vie, se donner carrière, s’éloigner de la considération immédiate des besoins et par conséquent entamer, soit sous forme de rêverie, soit sous forme d’observation, soit sous forme de raisonnement, la constitution d’autres réserves, qui sont les réserves spirituelles ou intellectuelles. J’avais ajouté, pour me rapprocher des circonstances présentes, que ces réserves spirituelles n’ont pas les mêmes propriétés que les réserves matérielles. Les réserves intellectuelles, sans doute, ont d’abord les mêmes conditions à remplir que les réserves matérielles, elles sont constituées par un matériel, elles sont constituées par des documents, des livres, et aussi par des hommes qui peuvent se servir de ces documents, de ces livres, de ces instruments, et qui aussi sont capables de les transmettre à d’autres. Et je vous ai expliqué que cela ne suffisait point, que les réserves spirituelles ou intellectuelles ne pouvaient passer, à peine de dépérir tout en étant conservées en apparence, en l’absence d’hommes qui soient capables non seulement de les comprendre, non seulement de s’en servir, mais de les accroître. Il y a une question : l’accroissement perpétuel de ces réserves, qui se pose, et je vous ai dit, l’expérience l’a souvent vérifié dans l’histoire, que si tout un matériel se conservait à l’écart de ceux qui sont capables non seulement de s’en servir mais encore de l’augmenter, et non seulement de l’accroître, mais d’en renverser, quelquefois d’en détruire quelques-uns des principes, de changer les théories, ces réserves alors commencent à dépérir. Il n’y a plus, le créateur absent, que celui qui s’en sert, s’en sert encore, puis les générations se succèdent et les“choses qu’on avait trouvées, les idées qu’on avait mises en œuvre commencent à devenir des choses mortes, se réduisent à des routines, à des pratiques, et peu à peu disparaissent même d’une civilisation avec cette civilisation elle-même. Et je terminais en disant que, dans l’état actuel des choses tel que nous pouvons le constater autour de nous, il y a toute une partie de l’Europe qui s’est privée déjà de ses créateurs et a réduit au minimum l’emploi de l’esprit, elle en a supprimé les libertés, et par conséquent il faut attendre que dans une période déterminée on se trouvera en présence d’une grande partie de l’Europe profondément appauvrie, dans laquelle, comme je vous le disais, il n’y aura plus de pensée libre, il n’y aura plus de philosophie, plus de science pure, car toute la science aura été tournée à ses applications pratiques, et particulièrement à des applications économiques et militaires ; que même la littérature, que même l’art, et même que l’esprit religieux dans ses pratiques diverses et dans ses recherches diverses auront été complètement diminués sinon abolis, dans cette grande partie de l’Europe qui se trouvera parfaitement appauvrie. Et si la France et l’Angleterre savent conserver ce qu’il leur faut de vie — de vie vivante, de vie active, de vie créatrice — en matière d’intellect, il y aura là un rôle immense à jouer, et un rôle naturellement de première importance pour que la civilisation européenne ne disparaisse pas complètement.

Be Careful of Potentially Unsafe Exercises While it is true that any bone in the body can fracture when exercising due to a fall or some other mishap, some exercises pose a higher risk for people with osteoporosis. As we learned in Chapter 1, fractures of the spine are the most common fractures that people experience, especially as they get older. Therefore, when we engage in controlled exercise poses or routines—for instance, in yoga or strength training—it is vital to protect the spine. Following are some of the exercises that are not recommended for people who have a moderate or high risk for fractures: • forward bending • shoulder stands • twists (rotational moves for the spine) • jackknife (legs bent over the head)

The anthropologist Elliot Liebow observed it in the men he chronicled in Tally’s Corner, his insightful 1967 book on the lives and attitudes of poor black men who hung out on a sidewalk in the nation’s capital: “Convinced of their inadequacies, not only do they not seek out those few better-paying jobs which test their resources, but they actively avoid them, gravitating in a mass to the menial, routine jobs which offer no challenge—and therefore pose no threat—to the already diminished images they have of themselves.

In principle – and after Nehru – in practice, the choice came to be posed simply: either democracy had to be curtailed, and the intellectual, directive model of development pursued more vigorously (one of the supposed rationales offered for the Emergency of the mid-1970s); or democracy had to be maintained along with all its cumbersome constraints, and the ambition of a long-term developmental project abandoned. The striking point about the seventeen years of Nehru’s premiership was his determination to avoid this stark choice. Any swerve from democracy was ruled out; the intellectual arguments had, however, to be upheld. The claims of techne, the need for specialist perspectives on economic development, were lent authority by the creation in 1950 of an agency of economic policy formulation, insulated from the pressures of routine democratic politics: the Planning Commission. Discussions of national progress were by now being formulated in the technical vocabulary of economics, which made them wholly unintelligible to most Indians. The task of translation was entrusted to the civil service, and as the algebra of progress moved down the echelons, it was mangled and diluted. The civil service itself provoked deep ambivalence among nationalists: mistrusted because of its colonial paternity, but respected for its obvious competence and expertise. In the 1930s Nehru had called for a radical transformation of the Indian Civil Service in a free India, though by the time independence actually arrived he had become decidedly less belligerent towards it. It was Patel who had stood up for the civil servants after 1947, speaking thunderously in their favour in the Constituent Assembly. But by the early 1950s Nehru had himself turned more wholeheartedly towards them: he hoped now to use them against the obstructions raised by his own party. The colonial civil-service tradition of fiscal stringency was preserved during the Nehru period, but the bureaucracy was now also given explicitly developmental responsibilities.

But the thing that I remember most about our first meeting was the discussion about marijuana and the changing attitudes about its use and regulation. We speculated about why there hadn’t been appreciable movement toward legalizing recreational cannabis in the southern portion of the United States. At the start of 2016, weed was legal for adult use in four states: Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. By the end of that year, four more states had legalized the drug: California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada. None of these states had a black population as high as the national average of 12 percent. By contrast, the proportion of black citizens living in many southern states is larger than the national average, and cops in these regions routinely cite the smell of cannabis as justification for stopping, searching, or detaining black people. Judge Schneider speculated that the law-enforcement community and their supporters would vigorously oppose any legislation seeking to liberalize cannabis laws because they were acutely aware that claiming to detect the weed’s odor is one of the easiest ways for officers to establish probable cause, and judges almost never question the testimony of cops. What’s worse, there have been countless cases during which officers cited the fictitious dangers posed by cannabis to justify their deadly actions. On July 6, 2016, in St. Anthony, Minnesota, officer Jeronimo Yanez shot and killed Philando Castile, a defenseless black motorist, as his girlfriend and young daughter watched helplessly. Castile informed the officer that he had a firearm on him, for which he had a permit. But within a matter of seconds, Yanez had fired seven slugs into Castile for no apparent reason. The smell of weed, Yanez claimed, constituted an apparent imminent danger. He was acquitted of manslaughter.

Consider fast food, for instance. It makes sense—when the kids are starving and you’re driving home after a long day—to stop, just this once, at McDonald’s or Burger King. The meals are inexpensive. It tastes so good. After all, one dose of processed meat, salty fries, and sugary soda poses a relatively small health risk, right? It’s not like you do it all the time. But habits emerge without our permission. Studies indicate that families usually don’t intend to eat fast food on a regular basis. What happens is that a once a month pattern slowly becomes once a week, and then twice a week—as the cues and rewards create a habit—until the kids are consuming an unhealthy amount of hamburgers and fries. When researchers at the University of North Texas and Yale tried to understand why families gradually increased their fast food consumption, they found a series of cues and rewards that most customers never knew were influencing their behaviors.1.24 They discovered the habit loop. Every McDonald’s, for instance, looks the same—the company deliberately tries to standardize stores’ architecture and what employees say to customers, so everything is a consistent cue to trigger eating routines. The foods at some chains are specifically engineered to deliver immediate rewards—the fries, for instance, are designed to begin disintegrating the moment they hit your tongue, in order to deliver a hit of salt and grease as fast as possible, causing your pleasure centers to light up and your brain to lock in the pattern. All the better for tightening the habit loop.1.25 However, even these habits are delicate. When a fast food restaurant closes down, the families that previously ate there will often start having dinner at home, rather than seek out an alternative location. Even small shifts can end the pattern. But since we often don’t recognize these habit loops as they grow, we are blind to our ability to control them. By learning to observe the cues and rewards, though, we can change the routines.

Stepping out into the hall of statues, he rushed down past the marble figures, envying them their calm poses and their serene faces. Sure as shit the everything’s-cool routine made being inanimate seem like a good deal. Whereas it meant they felt no joy, they didn’t have to go through this burning pain, either.

In one set of experiments, for example, researchers affiliated with the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism trained mice to press levers in response to certain cues until the behavior became a habit. The mice were always rewarded with food. Then, the scientists poisoned the food so that it made the animals violently ill, or electrified the floor, so that when the mice walked toward their reward they received a shock. The mice knew the food and cage were dangerous—when they were offered the poisoned pellets in a bowl or saw the electrified floor panels, they stayed away. When they saw their old cues, however, they unthinkingly pressed the lever and ate the food, or they walked across the floor, even as they vomited or jumped from the electricity. The habit was so ingrained the mice couldn’t stop themselves.1.23 It’s not hard to find an analog in the human world. Consider fast food, for instance. It makes sense—when the kids are starving and you’re driving home after a long day—to stop, just this once, at McDonald’s or Burger King. The meals are inexpensive. It tastes so good. After all, one dose of processed meat, salty fries, and sugary soda poses a relatively small health risk, right? It’s not like you do it all the time. But habits emerge without our permission. Studies indicate that families usually don’t intend to eat fast food on a regular basis. What happens is that a once a month pattern slowly becomes once a week, and then twice a week—as the cues and rewards create a habit—until the kids are consuming an unhealthy amount of hamburgers and fries. When researchers at the University of North Texas and Yale tried to understand why families gradually increased their fast food consumption, they found a series of cues and rewards that most customers never knew were influencing their behaviors.1.24 They discovered the habit loop. Every McDonald’s, for instance, looks the same—the company deliberately tries to standardize stores’ architecture and what employees say to customers, so everything is a consistent cue to trigger eating routines. The foods at some chains are specifically engineered to deliver immediate rewards—the fries, for instance, are designed to begin disintegrating the moment they hit your tongue, in order to deliver a hit of salt and grease as fast as possible, causing your pleasure centers to light up and your brain to lock in the pattern. All the better for tightening the habit loop.1.25 However, even these habits are delicate. When a fast food restaurant closes down, the families that previously ate there will often start having dinner at home, rather than seek out an alternative location. Even small shifts can end the pattern. But since we often don’t recognize these habit loops as they grow, we are blind to our ability to control them. By learning to observe the cues and rewards, though, we can change the routines.

On the other stage, there was a girl who looked like a mix of Japanese and something Mediterranean or Latin. A good mix. She had that silky, almost shimmering black hair so many modern Japanese women like to ruin with chapatsu dye, worn short and swept over from the side. The shape of the eyes was also Japanese, and she was on the petite side. But her skin, a smooth gold like melted caramel, spoke of something else, something tropical. Her breasts and hips, too, appealingly full and slightly incongruous on her Japanese-sized frame, suggested some foreign origin. She was using the pole skillfully, grabbing it high, posing with her body held rigid and parallel to the floor, then spiraling down in time to the music. There was real vitality in her moves and she didn’t seem to mind that most of the patrons were focused on the blonde. Mr. Ruddy held out a chair for me at an empty table in the center of the room. After a routine glance to ensure the seat afforded a proper view of the entrance, I sat. I wasn’t displeased to see that I also had a good view of the stage where the dark-haired girl was dancing. “Wow,” I said in English, looking at her. “Yes, she is beautiful,” he replied, also in English. “Would you like to meet her?” I watched her for another moment before answering. I didn’t want to wind up with one of the Japanese girls here. I would have a better chance of creating rapport, and therefore of eliciting information, by chatting with a foreigner while playing the role of foreigner. I nodded.

When you do science you cannot ignore the data. Anyone can pose an alternative explanation by ignoring what is known; thinking of a plausible alternative explanation that accounts for everything known is a real intellectual challenge not to be taken lightly. Critics of science routinely and universally fail this challenge.

Hit it, girls!” yelled the team leader in an unnaturally high voice. At that, the squad turned to face the audience. There was a moment of stunned silence. “Ye gods!” the goddessgirls shouted in unison. The squad was all boys! As Heracles, Hades, Actaeon, Ares, and Apollo began their comic routine, the girls and everyone else in the audience burst out laughing. The routine was full of hilariously clumsy leaps and strikingly awkward poses. But the chant the five boys had made up was actually pretty good: “Clap your hands, Stomp your feet. Those MOA girls can’t be beat! Go, blue. Go, gold. You’re a wonder to behold!” The boys tripped over one another, lost their wigs, and fell down a lot. At the end of their routine the pyramid they tried to form collapsed as badly as their cake had. They wound up sprawled on the floor. Making the best of it, they came up grinning.

Children make the best theorists, since they have not yet been educated into accepting our routine social practices as "natural," and so insist on posing to those practices the most embarrassingly general and fundamental questions, regarding them with a wondering estrangement which we adults have long forgotten. Since they do not yet grasp our social practices as inevitable, they do not see why we might not do things differently.

Religious believers build self-control by regularly forcing themselves to interrupt their daily routines in order to pray. Some religions, like Islam, require prayers at fixed times every day. Many religions prescribe periods of fasting, like the day of Yom Kippur, the month of Ramadan, and the forty days of Lent. Religions mandate specific patterns of eating, like kosher food or vegetarianism. Some services and meditations require the believer to adopt and hold specific poses (like kneeling, or sitting cross-legged in the lotus position) so long that they become uncomfortable and require discipline to maintain them.

Children make the best theorists, since they have not yet been educated into accepting our routine social practices as “natural,” and so insist on posing to those practices the most embarrassingly general and fundamental questions, regarding them with a wondering estrangement which we adults have long forgotten. Since they do not yet grasp our social practices as inevitable, they do not see why we might not do things differently.

Times reporter wrote that: “… under pressure to reduce costs while improving quality, a handful of hospital systems have embarked on an unusual experiment: they are taking the house call to the extreme, offering hospital-level treatment at home to patients … who in the past would have been routinely placed in a hospital room. And as awareness spreads of the dangers that hospitalization may pose, particularly to older adults, patients are enthusiastically seizing the opportunity …