Culture: Symbolic Family Feud

PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA - I've written in the past about watching game shows with my great aunt here. One of the shows that airs on the Game Show Network (GSN) is the slightly dated version of Family Feud with Richard Karn (I have yet to see the latest version with Steve Harvey). While I remember the show since the days of Richard Dawson, this was the first time I realized just how symbolic Family Feud is of culture in United States.

The basic goal of Family Feud is to come up with the answers that match those of a game show survey of one hundred people. In other words, the idea isn't to come up with the "correct" answer (not that there really is a correct answer to "a thing you check before you go to bed"), but the answer most likely to be stated by average citizens. According to the logic of the show, it's best to think like the average person, not to think more creatively or unconventionally.

Following this way of thinking, if everyone thinks something that is factually incorrect, then matching that incorrect perception would be rewarded. Now, Family Feud would never ask "Who was responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11?" but if they did, answering "Saddam Hussein" would probably earn points for one's team. More realistically, if people had answered "September" to "A month with 31 days" (an actual survey inquiry on a recent show), then that would also be rewarded, despite being incorrect. Granted, the games are often won and lost on some of the less common responses, with perhaps 6-10 of the 100 responses as the most common answers are usually easiest to figure out, but even figuring out those are basically an exercise in thinking in a mediocre fashion.

Think about the reward structure in a lot of fields--sales and finance, for example. They are basically about understanding how the average person thinks. Sales may be based on the fundamentals of what a product has to offer, but it's mostly about connecting with average person in the marketplace. Finance may be based on the fundamentals of the individual businesses, but the real money is made from predicting how people will react to those fundamentals in the securities marketplace.

Those that do well at Family Feud likely will be rewarded for applying those same skills in money-making professions in the United States.

Culture: Don't Use Bright Colors in Canada

TORONTO, ONTARIO - According to Genetic Personality Type theory (which I prefer to call Meridian Personality Theory, but I guess the experts define the language), people from the "thinking" world, one of four basic worlds in theory, do not especially like bright light. Sure enough, most of the "thinking" type people I know keep their lights, even reading lights, pretty dark by my standards at night, and are mostly likely to wear sunglasses for practical (as opposed to cosmetic) reasons.

Canada, as I have argued on this blog before, has a "thinking" type culture, as exemplified by its relative emphasis on ideas and debate relative to its southern neighbor, which has an analogous emphasis on image and emotion. It somewhat surprised me upon moving here, though, to realize that the tendency of thinking types to avoid bright colors also exists in Canadian culture.

One of the first things of this nature that struck me was the packaging for Sun Chips. At the time (2006), in the United States, plain Sun Chips came in glossy, dark blue bags. In Canada, the color was somewhat lighter, and the bags were not at all shiny. Of course, since then Sun Chips packaging has become more subdued than either design on both sides of the border, so there is no longer a difference. At the time, though, I started to wonder: Does bright stuff sell in Canada?

In the United States, there are plenty of brands with bright color schemes incorporating screaming yellows, from McDonald's to Pennzoil to Hertz. While those foreign brands seem to do just fine in Canada, I had trouble finding Canadian brands that used bright yellow. Rona, for example, uses yellow, but it's subdued and almost gold. The only two I saw in the Toronto area were No Frills--which even there is pretty limited, as the yellow mostly colors the banana with no buildings painted all yellow--and Pizza Nova. Within months of that observation, Pizza Nova began a makeover to a green and red image as part of an "up-scaling" initiatives, but I had to wonder if the yellow hadn't been holding them back.

How about "day-glow" colors, such as the orange found on Winston cigarettes or even just the fluorescence added to the pastels of Arizona Iced Tea? Telus tried a neon green for awhile before backing off to a more grassy green and purple. I can't think of a single additional example. While there's plenty of red to match the flag (Canadian Tire, Air Canada and Tim Horton's, for example), it's never a glowing shade and there's nothing overtly bright and in one's face. Most Canadian brands are quite subdued, like the blue and orange of Mark's Work Wearhouse, the almost-pastel orange of Pizza Pizza, or the blue and green of WestJet.

Somehow, marketers must have figured out that they were dealing with a "thinking" world culture where flashy colors weren't going to help them very much.

Culture: It Isn't Green Unless You See Green

TORONTO, ONTARIO - When I went through my audio commentaries from twenty years ago to pick out essays that would seem significant this year, I ran across some that had no news value, but were simply amusing enough to be shared with everyone on the Internet. Take this one, my "Highlight" report from Sunday, 12-August-1990:

It isn't green unless you see green. That sounds like a wonderful piece of philosophy that could guide one through a lifetime. It isn't green unless you see green. This axiom etolls the virtue of comparison--don't make a judgment without thinking about similar judgments in the past. It isn't green unless you see green. The advice could save people from passing judgment too early on various important matters. Decisions of what is brilliant, revolutionary, evolutionary, beautiful, useful, ridiculous, or interesting could all be made correctly by being compared with other things of these descriptions. It isn't green unless you see green. New works of art or science might be recognized as significant if compared with significant works of the past. It isn't green unless you see green. It sounds like a maxim developed by a great philosopher...

It might sound like a great piece of philosophy, but "it isn't green unless you see green" was not written or orated by a great intellectual. My aunt Meri, not known for being a philosopher, was showing everyone a new accessory in her bathroom. Due to the lighting in the room, the dispenser really did not look green. In fact, it almost appeared to be blue. However, when she placed a lush green towel next to the device, sure enough, it looked green.

Though I was nearby, I paid little attention to this demonstration until the statement which you've already heard too many times in this report was uttered. By the time she had enunciated the sentence correctly and I understood, she had said "It isn't green unless you see green" as many times as I have in this report.

Now, before you go off and criticize this report as being too boring and repetitive, compare it with something that was really boring and repetitive. After all, it isn't green unless you see green.

Culture: Life as High School

TORONTO, ONTARIO - For reasons that were apparently so ethereal that I not only don't remember them, but can't seem to re-create them, a rash of radio talk shows about a month ago brought up the topic of life as an extension of high school. Some had quite a bit of fun with the idea, putting well-known radio personalities from their stations in stereotypical high school roles. Regular readers of this blog will probably not be surprised to find out that I argue that this concept is absurd, that life is not particularly like high school. However, I suspect many will be surprised at my reasoning--high school is in many ways a better place than the "real world" because of the sense of community there.

For all of the ills of high school school, there is a certain camaraderie amongst its disparate students. Cliques may not associate with one another on a regular basis, but faced with the prospect of associating with a hated clique from their own school or one from a sports rival school, the choice is easy. Sports have a nice unifying impact, as everyone agrees to cheer on their mascot and not somebody else's mascot.

There's plenty of other things to unify around. Displeasure with authority figures, whether an individual teacher or district policies implemented by the principal, create ample opportunities to create community. It's not all negative, either, as at the high-school level there are plenty of student-run events to look forward to and bring people together. Some will be left out, whether on purpose or by accident, but it's rare for that to result in genuine backlash. The popular people in high school tend to be the ones that cross various groups and bring them together; it's those coalitions that create support for getting elected to student government or the homecoming court. The real villains, when they exist, usually manage to get themselves expelled and don't remain around for long.

Contrast that with general society. While major league sports can have a powerful unifying influence, one rarely knows any of the players, so the effect is not nearly as deep emotionally. Furthermore there's no student pass to attend the games, so sports exacerbate economic divides rather than cut through them. While some get mileage out of railing against government, in republican forms of government, the people elect the government, so that is almost by definition a minority proposition in the long term.

Furthermore, while politicians certainly try to build coalitions in broader society, often the most effective campaign technique in the United States is to try to divide people and energize them in opposition to something to get them to vote. This has resulted in a fragmented society where people are taught to be afraid or at least antagonistic of the "other" and thus broad communities encompassing more than a slight majority are almost non-existent.

Perhaps I'm kind to the high school environment because I went to school with a group of people that even at the time, for as much as I hated to be there and never expressed this thought at the time, were recognizable as a fundamentally pretty decent group. I had a hard time arguing with the choices we made for student government or homecoming events; I might never be able to be them, but they were class acts who were going to do the roles well. The number of true jerks was remarkably low, and some of them were indeed removed way before graduation. There was a sense of community and quite a lot of general interpersonal respect all around the building.

So, no, life in society at large is not like that in high school--it's worse. It lacks broad communities and it lacks unifying tendencies. If I had read this article in high school, I would have found that prospect very depressing.

Culture: Small Town Conversations

BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON - The Tri-Cities are hardly a small town. The 2010 census will likely show the combined population of Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, Washington (for census purposes West Richland is also included) to be more than 250,000 people. Yet, in some ways, the traditional downtown areas still feel like the small towns they were not much more than a generation ago.

I don't find it the least bit odd that my grandmother gets into conversations pretty much no matter where we go in the Tri-Cities. After all, she's lived the vast majority of her adult life in Kennewick, so she should know a lot of people. Indeed, I've rarely gone to a grocery store or discount store with her without running into a distant family member, someone she used to volunteer with, or someone she used to see at high school sporting events.

On the other hand, there's basically no reason for me to end up in a conversation in the Tri-Cities, as I've only lived in the area briefly, and most of the people I worked with in that time have also moved away. Yet, seemingly whenever I headed to downtown Kennewick or Pasco, I ended up in a conversation. I've been asked about my computer, my camera, my shirt from California, and my handbag. I've met an information technology professional that grew up and works in Kennewick, a historian from Sacajawea State Park, and someone from western Benton County that just happened to be looking for honey at the Pasco Farmer's Market on Saturday.

Furthermore, each of these people was very willing to talk about the local businesses in the downtown areas that they trust. In downtown Kennewick, especially, there are a long string of specialist business that these locals I have met claim even to have lower prices than the chains out by Columbia Center. I haven't personally verified most of these claims, but I do remember visiting T&L Office Supply in Kennewick back in 2006, and not only were their prices competitive at that time, but the proprietor made a special order of something I wanted that I ultimately had my grandparents pick up much later. So, I can't contradict the claims, and I can back up at least one of them.

Those of us who live in Toronto should understand this concept--community isn't about the size of the local population, it's about what individuals carve out of it. Just like the neighborhoods of Toronto form their distinct communities and identities, so can the downtown areas of the Tri-Cities.

Culture: Losing Science

TORONTO, ONTARIO - I often cite Russia as the potential future of the United States if corporatist policies are allowed to dominate by both conservatives and liberals. The economic problems in Russia are not so much socialist policies--though the government has a close hand in many companies--as they are problems of lack of competition. Because large companies--usually backed by the government--so dominate market segments, there's really no chance at innovation by small companies; they would be crushed by the dominant companies.

Whether one believes that as a possible future in the United States or not, there's a new cautionary tale out of Russia. The Christian Science Monitor noted in a recent article that scientific research in Russia has slowed significantly. The amount of peer-reviewed papers being published by Russian authors is now not much more than one-tenth of that of the United States, less than one-third of that of China.

While lack of government funding has driven the decline in scientific output, with Russia allocating about 2% as much money as the US (on that basis, their output actually looks quite good!) for scientific research. However, the article points out that the problem is much deeper. Andre Ionin is quoted in the article as saying "the profession of scientist is not prestigious anymore, and the government does not define scientific tasks that would attract talented people." Only 1.6% of Russian students viewed science as a worthwhile career in a 2006 survey.

The money has not dried up in the United States yet, but it seems to me that the social standing of scientists and engineers has fallen. I won't rehash my own experience of watching my peers decide to pursue other professions after getting an advanced degree. Some--though certainly not all--TEA party activists have included scientists as part of the government workforce that "wastes their tax dollars," usually in the context of climate change research, the most common thing they call "junk science." Mainstream media have laid off their science reporters as they have slashed spending in general.

The Obama administration has been increasing science funding. However, as of yet there is no race-to-the-moon-style reason for the general public to get excited by science. Until we have reason to believe, like Bill Nye the Science Guy, that "science is cool," there is always the danger that the United States is just one unsympathetic administration away from heading down the road that Russia has gone in science.

Culture: What Rail Says About a Country

TORONTO, ONTARIO - Let's accept for the moment part of yesterday's premise that the appropriate way to experience a country is by train. What would we learn about North America by doing so?

In Mexico, we'd learn that we can't experience the country by train. With a few exceptions including tourist trains, long-distance and even corridor passenger rail does not exist. Passenger service was ended in 1997 as the national railway was prepared to be privatized. Bus service, some of it reasonably luxurious, has moved into the market once occupied by rail. So, what we learn about Mexico is that the gap between the rich (traveling by private vehicles and air) and the poor (traveling by bus) is so substantial that the middle-class niche normally occupied by rail is not large enough to justify infrastructure investment in long-distance passenger service in a country that does not have a lot of money to spend on transportation.

In the United States, we'd learn that there is a great deal of variation across the country. In the northeast, traditionally where the most people lived until recent generations and where national lawmakers still live, rail service is actually reasonably useful and modern. Amtrak operates high speed service on the corridor between Boston, Massachusetts and Washington DC. However, even where population density is approaching such levels in the west, state governments have had to step up and fund corridor service on their own. California, Washington, and even Illinois have had to pump state money into creating corridors that have started to rival in ridership the Northeast Corridor which is federally funded. Meanwhile, long-distance service languishes with outdated equipment and little respect from host, freight railways, with on-board service from Amtrak that is uneven at best. First class sleeper service is laughable by international standards. Many cities, including large ones like Phoenix and Las Vegas, have no service at all. Unless one lives in a privileged area (where a state pays for corridor service or the federal government funds service), one is almost on one's own in riding a train, rather like many Americans feel treated by their government in general.

Canada presents a similar but distinct picture. In the main population corridor between Windsor, Ontario and Quebec City, Quebec, service is frequent and reasonably modern with good on-board service. However, it is far from world class, with no high-speed service though operator VIA Rail Canada clearly tries to do the best it can. Long-distance service is infrequent, with several routes (including the solitary transcontinental train and the train to Gaspe, Quebec) only running three times a week, but when it does run, it provides world-class service, not only to sleeping car passengers but in coach for the common person as well. Furthermore, in remote areas where service is needed, service still operates, including remote areas of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia, in some cases under provincial or even Native administration. Yet, especially in the west, there are major cities, foremost Calgary, with no service at all where people have to turn to other modes. One gets the impression that Canada does not have unlimited resources, but does a good job of reaching all classes of society with what services it does have, where it does have them.

There may be something to the idea that one can learn a lot about a country from its rail system. The differences between Mexico, the United States, and Canada are reflected in what rail service is available in each country, and what it is like to ride them.