Andy Young: Miss Cooney's legacy

By Andy Young

As America approaches another presidential election that’s almost guaranteed to leave at least half the nation somewhere between disillusioned and apoplectic, I can’t help thinking about my middle school English and social studies teacher.

Marie Cooney had the misfortune of having me and several similar infantile misanthropes-in-training in her fifth grade class. Then, as if the poor woman hadn’t suffered enough, she got most of us again for Grade Six.

Miss Cooney must have been a good history teacher. She’s the sole reason I still remember that the fertile crescent, consisting of Sumer and Mesopotamia, was located near the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

And my ability to differentiate between nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives speaks to her effectiveness as an English teacher, although she’ll have to share credit for whatever level of literacy I’ve attained with Mrs. Hartley, Mr. Desser, Miss Shanley, Miss Bittner, Mr. Fusco, Mrs. Weston, Mrs. Martin, Mr. Cox, and the other English teachers whose classrooms I took up space in.

But Miss Cooney’s greatest impact involved the student council. As newly minted fifth graders, my classmates and I were middle school neophytes, and it was up to our social studies teachers to not only introduce us to the concept of student government, but to find candidates who were willing and able to serve as class representatives.

Miss Cooney stressed the importance and gravity of the student council. Which, in retrospect, she may have been doing for the sole purpose of discouraging people like me and my similarly immature pals from taking part in the process.

“Student council is important,” she intoned. “Only serious people should consider running for representative; it’s not a popularity contest.”

She needn’t have worried about me running for one of those council seats. I was too busy playing whatever sport was in season and vying for the title of class clown to take the time to actually write a speech I’d subsequently have to deliver to my peers at an all-school assembly.

And even if I’d had the courage and work ethic required to do all that, the possibility of losing an election was more than enough to keep me away from participating. If there was anything more important to 11-year-old me than achieving acceptance and popularity, I wasn’t aware of it.

Looking back, Miss Cooney’s patience and skills as an educator must have done me some good. True, she told my mother I was an underachiever, but I can’t hold that against her, particularly since it was true.

At least she didn’t add “disruptive influence,” like a certain art teacher who shall remain nameless did. And for the record, those other spitball-shooting, clay-throwing kids didn’t need me to encourage them; they were more than capable of being disruptions on their own.

Miss Cooney died long ago. But if reincarnation truly exists and one’s future life is based upon what they did or didn’t do in their previous one, she ought to be living a charmed existence, albeit inside a new outer shell, and with a different name. She deserves at least that much.

But though I doubt she meant to, Miss Cooney misinformed us about one important thing. American elections truly are popularity contests.

And seeing what blindly ambitious and/or selfishly motivated individuals are willing to do to make themselves or the candidate(s) they work for more popular, it’s no wonder that come November 6, I may well be one of the people referenced in this essay’s initial sentence. <

Joe Kellner: Hope for the future

By Joe Kellner

I am writing this as I wrap up my first ever campaign for an elected position in which I’m running for RSU 14 School Board. I am writing this prior to the election, but by the time this is published, it will be behind us with the outcomes likely known. I write to share some of my observations and hopes for the future.

Joe Kellner was elected Tuesday to a
three-year term on the RSU 14
Board of Directors.
COURTESY PHOTO

These observations are mine and mine alone, shared not because I feel one iota superior to anyone else, but rather because I hope to start a dialogue. I felt compelled to write this after my experience campaigning where I spent a lot of time talking to individuals with hugely varying views and mindsets. I want to thank those that took the time to support my campaign – the unsolicited outpouring was truly moving. I also want to sincerely thank all those voters and community members that have taken the time to talk to me regardless of whether or not you chose to vote for me. Anyway, here goes:

When it comes to policymaking and government in our country, I believe we’re inherently structured for divisiveness and disagreement. We are poorly structured to accomplish anything truly meaningful. Of course, we do accomplish good things from time to time, but I often feel it happens despite ourselves. This is less true at the local level and becomes progressively more toward the national level. Where we see the best policy that tends to get made is in non-partisan bodies.

We predominately live in a two-party system. Each of these parties has a general core fundamental set of ideals and beliefs. More importantly when it comes to how policymakers get elected in partisan races, the parties come with vast sums of money. Candidates, in order to access these coffers, must generally get in line with what the party feels is the right “set” of principles and by declaring their ongoing allegiance. Success in a large race will often come down to “get in line” or “be irrelevant.” The money in politics, at its core, inhibits good policymaking and creates tremendous propensity to pick a polar side. This is why we almost never see strong and formidable independent candidates.

We, on the outside of this day-to-day reality, are profoundly influenced by this. The ads we see and the news we watch or read is often the result of incredible spending by groups that endorse candidates or support certain ideals, and seldom by those who would welcome compromise toward good policy that moves us forward. Our views and beliefs should be a-la-carte – in other words choosing those beliefs that we most align with based on our experiences and value systems - regardless of which party may support those ideals. One could, for example, support both universal healthcare and small government even though the “institution” tells you that’s a faux pas.

It's wild how much this has changed in the last 50 years. Presidential elections, for example, used to regularly be won by enormous margins in one direction or another (check out Reagan or Clinton round 1 as examples). We didn’t feel we had to always vote with our team and make decisions based on our own thoughts and values. What happened? In my opinion, vast sums of money and social media.

Our nation (and in many respects our community) has become disturbingly divided. We have picked sides. We have dug our heels in focusing on an opposing team mentality vs. a diverse group of mindsets coming together to find the common good. I also think social media has harmed us. It remains true that a Facebook comment debate changes few, if any, minds – you’re almost definitely wasting your time. The dopamine hit from that zinger of a good comment really serves to accomplish nothing positive in the long run. With respect to social media, if you aren’t paying for the product, you are the product. Sure, it can be a good tool, but know its dangers and limitations.

I encourage you to take some time to turn off MSNBC or Fox News (or insert your favorite information sources here). Much like national politics, those are all about money, too. Getting you to keep watching and to feel something while doing it is how they get ratings – how the hosts get paid their millions upon millions. If you don’t want to do that, at least occasionally change the channel to the opposite one and truly listen. Try to understand how those that don’t think the same way as you are feeling. This will either help you better understand your own value set or maybe even shift your thinking on some beliefs you’ve held. With the degree of influence we encounter within our lives, it takes an active process to distill various pieces of information to form thoughts and opinions that are our own.

Through my work in healthcare, one of the key principles we employ is never judging a patient. We have no idea what they’re going through, and everyone is going through something. In our relatively short time on this Earth, a fact we have been unfortunately reminded of recently, let’s find time to be kind to one another. We have no idea what each other is going through or have experienced. As simple as this sounds, let’s talk to each other – have a real conversation – you may be surprised at what you learn. When you have that conversation, practice really listening, and do it with openness to being persuaded, the long-term benefit is clear. Also remember that while value sets may be different, and there are of course exceptions, the vast majority of people have truly good and sincere intentions.

I want to see us work together to do better. We can find common ground. We can make good policy. Asking good questions is far more productive than declaring strong opinions. Most importantly, we can re-learn to disagree respectfully and enjoy each other’s company while we grow and progress together.

I have no idea if, by the time you read this, I will be an elected official or just some guy that looks vaguely familiar at the supermarket. Regardless of that answer, I end with a question – will you join me? <

Insight: Putting my decisions through cognitive bias testing

By Ed Pierce
Managing Editor

On the drive home from work one evening last month, I listened to a radio program on NPR’s “Life Kit” about cognitive bias and how it affects our daily lives no matter who we are.

Put simply, the premise for this radio discussion was that each person’s personal bias leads to our fixating on negativity more than dwelling on the positive aspects of our lives. It cited as examples how a friend’s negative comments about a particular movie could influence you into not watching that film or why a student would choose a particular major for their college studies because it matched their potential career choices they were aiming for.

Participants in the “Life Kit” discussion suggested that negativity bias can be dangerous because it can lead us into making the wrong choices. In some cases, that negative bias can prevent us from making an important decision because we have doubts about what turns out to be the proper choice.

To examine a situation and make a better decision, those leading the radio discussion talked about playing up the positive attributes of an outcome first. They mentioned that many businesses and product marketers use this tactic frequently, such as the meat department of a grocery store labeling packages of ground beef as 80/20. The 80, of course, means that the ground beef is 80 percent lean, rather than the fact that it contains 20 percent fat.

Yale University Psychology Professor Woo-Kyoung Ahn has written a book about cognitive bias called “Thinking 101: How to Reason Better to Think Better,” and was a participant in the “Life Kit” radio discussion.

She said she believes that the development of human biases originally helped our ancestors to make quick decisions for survival, but as humans, as we have progressed through the centuries, some of those inherent biases now work to our detriment.

Ahn says that the most common cognitive biases that we all possess include having a tendency to overestimate our abilities to solve problems, fixating on negativity, and shaping facts to match our beliefs and views about life.

Ahn recommends that the best way to avoid cognitive bias is to be aware of our human predisposition toward bias and to not make snap or rash decisions.

She says that by taking extra time to think things through before making a significant decision will reduce our human tendency to make faulty assumptions. In weighing situations that arise in daily life, Ahn advocates focusing equally on both the positive and negative aspects of issues before reaching any decision.

Lastly, Ahn says that we should all make a conscious effort to examine issues and current events from a variety of perspectives, instead of always relying on our previous thoughts and assumptions about those same issues and events.

As the executive editor of a daily newspaper in Maine, I once had to interview and hire applicants several years ago for an available reporting position with the newspaper. One reporter applicant I interviewed wore dirty torn grey sweatpants to the job interview and I could see her pink undergarments through the holes. I examined her resume carefully and liked her college background and the fact she had grown up in the community that the newspaper covered. She knew some of the key issues facing the community but could not tell me who the city’s mayor was currently or who the school superintendent was.

I did try and play up her positive attributes as a candidate and play down her negative aspects if she joined our staff, but I had a hard time getting past the fact that she could not put on clean clothing in decent shape to wear to a job interview with a prospective employer. She did not get the job and I stand by my decision, cognitive bias or not.

When the first season of the TV show “Breaking Bad” aired on AMC, I did not watch it because its star, Bryan Cranston, had played the father on the “Malcolm in the Middle” situation comedy and I could not picture him as a serious actor. A year later though, after reading a positive review of the show, I did indeed watch it and found it to be one of the best programs I’ve ever seen. My own incorrect impressions nearly prevented me from viewing one of my all-time favorites and Cranston won numerous Emmy Awards for Best Actor for that role. There’s a lesson to be learned there, for sure, about my own cognitive bias.

My mother cooked most of our family’s meals when I was growing up and she insisted that her children eat as many different types of vegetables for supper as possible through what she called her “Vegetable of the Day.” She prepared and served spinach, rutabaga, squash, lima beans, beets, parsnips, carrots, broccoli, cabbage, zucchini, green beans, sweet potatoes, green peppers, creamed corn, kale, Brussels sprouts, artichokes, and asparagus.

My experience with some of those vegetables led me as an adult to loathe and detest lima beans, creamed corn, and fried parsnips and to eliminate them for my diet completely and forever.

Call it my own personal cognitive bias. <

Andy Young: Signs of the time

By Andy Young

I may not be the second coming of Charles Darwin, but I’m observant enough to know what time of year it is with just a brief glance out the nearest window. Anyone can tell that it’s winter when there’s snow on the ground, spring when trees are budding, and summer when fully developed leaves are producing abundant shade.

But I can go one better. My inherent ability to recognize nature’s subtle hints allows me to not only divine that it’s currently mid-October, but also that those buses full of leaf-peepers are here to look at Northern New England’s fall foliage during autumn of an even-numbered year.

All of Mother Nature’s bright reds, deep purples, blazing oranges, and many other unique hues appear annually in these parts. But every other year, specifically the even-numbered ones, Maine is overrun with a far less attractive form of autumn color.

Shortly after beginning my daily commute to work, my car and I encounter an octagonal red sign that commands us to come to a full stop. These days while I’m pausing, I can’t help noticing the proliferation of campaign signs at the corner. There are nearly 20 of them, each urging anyone reading them to vote a certain way in next month’s elections.

I understand that name recognition is important for someone aspiring to become an elected official. But I’m not sure littering one’s district (or in the case of candidates for governor or senator, the entire state) with mini billboards is going to sway any undecided voters into casting their ballot for the person whose name appears on them.

The four grassy corners of the intersection at the end of my street are currently home to a wide variety of political signs. Two green ones with white printing on them encourage me and anyone else viewing them to re-elect the person who currently serves as our state representative. But several feet away are three similarly sized placards sporting red and black printing on a white background, urging one and all to vote for his opponent.

On the same small patch of grass there’s also a red, white, and blue board with the name of a person running for the state senate on it, along with three separate but identical purple and white signs with a different person’s name on them, apparently designed to convince me that she is a better candidate than the woman named on the tri-colored advertisement located just a few feet away. There are also signs boosting Maine’s current governor, who’d like another four years in the Blaine House, and a former governor, who’d like to return there.

None of the signage I’ve seen touting political candidates has the word “Democrat” or “Republican” on it. Given current attitudes amongst the voting public, it might be that publicly proclaiming one’s party affiliation would cost a candidate more votes than it would gain them.

I consider this proliferation of political posters a scourge, but others may hold a different opinion regarding the current clutter. All those unsightly but attention-grabbing cardboard notices represent a potential fiscal bonanza for the people who print them every couple of years. Those folks look forward to even-numbered autumns with the same sort of ardor that turkey farmers have for Thanksgiving.

Given the current polarized political atmosphere, I wonder if a Republican sign-producer would take an order to print signs for Democrats, or if a liberal printer would produce campaign literature for conservative candidates.

I bet they would. Because whatever dissimilarities Americans with conflicting political persuasions may have with one another, they also have one important thing in common.

They’re all capitalists. <