I used to be dismissive of basketball. In part, I’m as bad a player as imaginable. If you can ideate inferior skills, I’m worse. You can always think of someone worse because I am always worse. On the other hand, wrestlers make for notorious ballers. Adversaries alter. On the mat, opponents wilt. On a court, basketballs deflate. It’s really not a good comparison. Few sports require such different skills.not-sure-ifebsBoth entail hand-eye coordination, but the second uses a middleman. Guards and forwards, too. My malfunction is acting like I’m in a match, not a game. I shoot like I’m going for a leg. If you see me struggling with a basketball, I’m probably sparring, if not spazzing. I’ve always liked singles tennis for similar reasons. Being entirely accountable is liberating. In success, win. Otherwise, lose. But not at a loss. Victory is arduous, but losing can be harder.every-group-project-the-hangoverIt’s the harder lesson, but you can understand anything—including that you don’t understand. Mistakes are made to be made. Interrogate the film. Ask not what you did wrong, but what else you could have done wrong. Insofar as you may do better, you may also do worse. Knowing the difference between improvement and sickly competition is imperative. You could be in a major tournament thinking you won; in fact, others may have lost. All that way and everybody sucks.hi-res-1784686_crop_north1mNo one says anything because the field is uniformly abysmal. No one knows any better because there is none. Suppose you enjoyed an advantage in this way. Would you expect others to knowingly endorse that? Would you even ask? In my example, everybody ushers the success insofar as it compelling, not compelled. They don’t clap because you’re the winner, they clap because you shouldn’t be. Is a gold medal even worth anything if you beat everyone so handily?

Only to the extent that it’s gold metal. I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy. In this case, rather, my best competition. If women win every weight class of the 2016 DI NCAA Wrestling Championships, it’s probably not because there has been a sudden influx of unprecedented talent. Title IX has been around. I suspect it’s because the usual suspects didn’t show up; or, if they did, they didn’t. There are awesome female wrestlers—it’s an olympic sport.

That said, you would congratulate them differently for winning an elite men’s tournament. If it doesn’t have elite men, it’s closer to the WCWA, which is elite on its own right. Think think of all those who supported Kacy Catanzaro during her 2014 run in Vegas. Everybody followed her gymnastics and finesse. It had nothing to do with being a girl precisely because she was as good as anybody up to that point.

Viewers expected failure only as everyone did. If you’re great, it doesn’t matter if you’re a guy or a girl. The same is true if you suck.

All the same, however, I find the Jumping Spider explicable in terms of being 4’11.” Any guy in proximity has a similar issue. Audiences support vertically challenged men equally. Just as much, however little. I offer a handicap. Anyone fulfilling equivalent summons is impressive for answering the call. Golfers under par may be on par if they keep up. In other words, a bogey is like an eagle if you’re several shots above.

In watching tournaments, your resolution is enjoyment on its own terms. Getting excited about a bogey is par for the course in a single-shot handicap. Otherwise, viewers estimate outcomes objectively. In subjectivity, however, a favorite is well according to history. The player answers to erstwhile efforts, though marking up elite cards may outdo the former. Full houses override a pair every hand. Nobody bluffs a bluff. Pitchers have the ace up their sleeves.

Solid mechanics improve strokes. Inferior participants subordinate standards. Contact is better than none and good contact upstages some. Of course, a ball is nobler than a foul one. You wouldn’t say stick figures overshadow still life in order to acquit compromised talent. Good ability is uniform, though untold individuals assume it poorly. Expertise in a civilization evokes The Emperor’s New Clothes. Specifically, his pedestrian ensemble.


Did anyone ever think the thing was simply hard for them? Someone might say, “As a fragile corpse, I’m entitled feelings. Entitled and thus correctly so. I’ve opinions, too. Accordingly, I’m smart. In my opinion, that is, I’m smart. My opinions are validated or, therefore, valid.” You are entitled to an opinion, but you are not entitled to be correct. Nowadays, the former is the latter. We all have such conviction without any real convictions. “I can’t.” I can not. Doing nothing is something.

Take my face value. I change thoughts. I’ve changed my mind about having one. I’m accountable. Minds are made like beds and changed like clothes. Can you sleep in them? On them? It’s made up like makeup. Maybe opinions exist, yet manifest complexity. Views undermine expression in undermining by it. “Language is limited. How am I supposed to express it given that? I can’t.” “You can’t what?” “Even.” “Odd.”


“Socrates is the wisest.”

Many experience withdrawal from fitting in. Eventually, you get sick of it. Our emperor gets overhauled, but citizens elect comparable garments in solidarity. It’s also an excuse to be naked. “Those look good on you.” “I look good in them.” Although the majority is naked, you’d probably stand out. Nine of ten isn’t nine out of ten. If stylish, selfies are fool proof. In other words, proof of fools. Snaps put you in the conversation, but language is elusive, if at all.

I understand typing this way is opaque at intervals, but efficient. In other words, essays here attempt an organic jargon yet sacrifice intelligibility. As for emperors, my argument is by expertise. Anyone saying how much is known, especially reviewing esoteric inklings, exceeds balance. By insisting topics are esoteric, you interpret exoterically. Actively imparting privileged information betrays the dilemma. No one ever understands, but should still try.

Legitimizing this insinuates cause for pause. Ruminate on indigestion. “Eating grass, if not smoking.” “I’m equipped for this, not you.” “My enzymes abstain.” “You’ll never know how I feel.” “Maybe experience in humanity lacks humility.” “I’m special. It’s not you, it’s me.” “Should I torment myself?” “Doesn’t matter if you live. It’s how you died.” “That’s disturbingly ominous. I think it’s on you. Expert psychologist, but internally?” Inasmuch as naked, just naked inside.

X, Y, and Z. They want you to understand them, but understand themselves? “I’m me, not you.” Ps & Qs. “Every individual is like a species. Special.” “Why bother if you can’t be?” “Why do anything?” “Intention, contention. It’s as if you omit compassion in order to complain a little more.” “Pity.” “This isn’t my expertise. It sounds like your problem.” Maybe it’s difficult or everybody is. Empathy is built-in, sympathy is built upon.

Today, many advocate awareness with no self-awareness. It’s like Model UN changing the world. “I would be the sunlight in your universe.” Models, but not role models. Being an expert on your opinion doesn’t mean it’s expert. People feel powerfully, if not powerful. “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.” ‘Disagreement is bigotry. I mean, a lot of us harmonize. Elevate awareness vibrating identical frequencies.’ No thinking, just feeling. Lazy.

It’s another way of avoiding examination. Prioritize unconscious collective by amassing ideals. “Let’s just agree and figure out why later.” Mistaking egoism for egotism. “I think.” “You? Everything known is culturally appropriated and inherited. We think.” Agree to disagree? Agreement, no? Identity is fluid, nevermind your mind. Forget it. Instead of being your own person, be everybody else’s. Hive mind is New Age and, therefore, cutting edge.

Feelings have replaced thoughts. Anyone of a different mind hurts them. Dismissed. If you feel bad, don’t think about it. If you feel badly? Don’t think. Emotions supplant thoughts insofar as everybody has them. All told, emotional sophistication is unnoticed. A fly on the wall rather than the elephant in the room. “It’s prejudice and insisting on inequality.” Many movements originated from simple emotions. Inside the bowels of aspiration. Feels.

Aside from flat affect, everybody finds emotion. Even though it is common, however, it is not always managed well. “I find the idea of somebody smarter offensive. They have no right.” Who are you to be Shakespeare? Who is Einstein to be Einstein? “My thoughts have equal reality and must be regarded as such! Different train of thought, same plane of existence.” Civilization is unique as the inhabitants. Equivalently, emotion isn’t intelligent.

Emotion is defined by intelligent implementation. Do you act? Encourage? Many accept emotion on balance. Others deny. The point is everybody has brawn or frailty. Most have unique positions in society. As such, few are better than others. Nevertheless, individuals must be enabled. You can’t hold anybody back in order to uphold others. It’s about equal opportunity, not assured equal achievement. Equal but different is not separate but equal.

One way you see collaborative identity is in sports. Beginning with players, fans associate loyalty and emotion. Raw. Communities journey together. This is one place where intelligence is inconsequential. Perhaps it instills a deeper grasp, yet grabs you all the same. For Love of the Game. I didn’t expect to use that allusion. Others disagree, but I think all fandom is acceptable. Enjoying multiple athletes means more fun. You don’t need an expert to play along.