Redeeming the Commute

Legendary physicist Albert Einstein grew up in a secularized Jewish family. His parents intended to give Albert the family name of Abraham, but decided that it sounded too Jewish. They did not observe the Jewish dietary regulations or the Sabbath work-stoppage, and they were not congregants of a local synagogue.

One extended family member, an uncle, was the exception to that latter trend. Though he was a self-proclaimed agnostic, he frequented his local synagogue. “But, ah, you never know,” he would remark. This thought—an agnostic regularly attending a monotheistic religious service—waffles between absurd and amusing.

Yet, the story of Einstein’s uncle and his quirky quip (recounted in Walter Isaacson’s Einstein: His Life and Universe, 2008) is refreshing. Here, we have a seemingly authentic agnostic, one who acts as if he knows neither if God exists nor if God does not exist.

Many agnostics I have known were actually atheists. To many, agnosticism is a humble or polite atheism. They don’t believe in God, but they have no animosity for those who do believe. If more self-proclaimed agnostics would muse, “but, ah, you never know,” then we would have a much clearer context for evangelism and, secondarily, apologetics.

The deeper irony, of course, is that in a universe ruled by a God, who is jealous for his own glory and gracious in his revelation of himself, agnosticism is a fictitious religious orientation. The ultimate rebellion against God is unbelief, of which we are guilty when we look at the grandeur of creation or hear the good news of Jesus Christ and say, “But, ah, you never know.”

Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow was widely regarded (by, e.g., New York Times, Wall Street Journal) as one of the best nonfiction books of 2011. The work recounts some of the major aspects of the scholarship of Nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahneman.

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman describes two types of thought processes and the critical thinking errors to which these processes are susceptible. Kahneman describes these types of thought processes as “systems,” a word choice of convenience, not of strict categorization. System one refers to quick-thinking intuition, whereas system two refers to slow, deliberate critical thinking.

Kahneman evokes elucidating and entertaining illustrations to describe these systems and their vulnerabilities. These illustrations make Thinking, Fast and Slow an ideal mate for the lover of anecdotes.

Here are my favorite tidbits from Thinking, Fast and Slow. I expect these statistics, studies, and sayings will pepper my conversations. A few of these anecdotes make for good sermon illustration fodder.

• A Riddle: A boy purchases a baseball bat and ball for $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much did the ball cost? Hint: the correct answer is NOT ten cents. Interestingly, a significant portion of college students, even at Ivy League schools, miss this question.

• The Florida Effect: Kahneman references a research study conducted by John Bargh. The study consisted of two phases, which were conducted in two separate rooms that were connected by a hallway. Participants were asked to construct four-word sentences from banks of five words. Some participants’ word banks had an influx of words associated with old age (e.g., wrinkles, Florida). After finishing this task, participants walked to the second room for the second phase of the study. Those participants who were subjected to the “elderly” word banks consistently walked slower to the second room, than their participant-peers who did not have the same word banks.

[Sermon Illustration Idea: What we think about influences how we behave. Consider Psalm 119:11, “I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.” We can emulate the Florida effect in our sanctification: dwell on God’s word and act in accordance with God’s word.]

• Dating and Happiness: Undergraduate college students participated in a two question survey. One question inquired about the number of romantic dates the subjects participated in in the last year. The other question asked subjects to rate their perception of their general happiness. Groups of participants were presented the questions in different sequences. When the “happiness” question occurs first, no correlation occurred between the number of dates and the participants’ happiness ratings. However, when the dating question is asked first, significant correlation existed between these two factors.

[Sermon Illustration Idea: Assessing our happiness is about asking the right questions. Consider 1 Timothy 6:8, “if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.” Are your daily needs met? Then with those, be content.]

• On Sample Sizes. The United States counties with the lowest rates of kidney cancer are rural, in the Midwest or South, and Republican-leaning. Before you speculate on the explanation of this phenomenon, consider this: the US counties with the highest rates of kidney cancer are rural, in the Midwest or South, and Republican-leaning. Kahneman uses this statistical absurdity to underscore the importance of sample sizes. Smaller populations are more susceptible to statistical aberrations.

• The Help Experiment. Kahneman describes a fascinating but, by today’s standards, probably unethical experiment. Groups of participants, each of whom were isolated from each other, conducted a conversation through an intercom system. Each participant prepared a narrative and was given a limited amount of time to deliver his or her remarks. The intercom system transmitted participants’ communication only during their allotted time. One participant in the group was an actor, and during his allotted time, he pretends to have a seizure. Sadly, very few participants attempted to help the seizing group member. The researchers theorized that people are less sensitive to calls for help when they know others have also received the request.

[Sermon Illustration Idea: When we are aware of the needs of other Christians, we must act. Consider 1 John 3:17, “if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” Yes, others may see the need, but that doesn’t excuse you from closing your heart against your brother or sister in Christ.]

• One-armed Economists. President Harry Truman once asked for a one-armed economist because he was tired of hearing “on the other hand.”

• The Semantics of Framing. Credit card companies lobbied Congress for legal protection in the marketplace. They did not want merchants to charge more for credit card purchases—though merchants incur costs in accepting credit card payments. Credit card companies were willing, however, to consent to “cash discounts” offered by merchants. The concepts of “credit card surcharge” and “cash discount” generally convey the same reality.

This concatenation of anecdotes could give the impression that Thinking, Fast and Slow is lightweight pop psychology, intended more for pleasure than learning. But, readers, beware; Kahneman often wades into the technical underpinnings of his scholarship. The lengthy disquisition on prospect theory, for instance, is much less exciting than the tidbits above—a fact seemingly lost on the Royal Swedish Academy of the Sciences and its Economics Prize Committee, when they conferred the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics on Kahneman for his work in prospect theory.

Still, I highly recommend Thinking, Fast and Slow as brain candy for the intrigue-deprived.

Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow is an ideal mate for the lover of anecdotes. Thinking Fast and Slow anthologizes studies with unexpected findings and statistical analyses with significant implications.

One such anecdotal incidence is a study Kahneman cites to illustrate loss aversion. Humans often exert more effort in avoiding loss than achieving gain. Devin Pope and Maurice Schweitzer applied the concept of loss aversion to putting in golf. Kahneman summarizes their findings:

For a professional golfer, one stroke under par, a birdie, is a gain, and one stroke over par, a bogey, is a loss. The economists compared two situations a player may face when near the hole: putt to avoid a bogey and putt to achieve a birdie. …

Pope and Schweitzer theorized that players would try a little harder when putting for par to avoid a bogey than when putting for a birdie. They analyzed over 2.5 million puts in exquisite detail to test that prediction. They were right. Whether the putt was easy or hard, every distance from the hole, players were more successful putting for par than for a birdie.

The difference in the rate of success when going for par to avoid a bogey or for a birdie was 3.6 percent. This difference is not trivial. Tiger Woods was one of the participants in their study. If in his best years, Tiger Woods would have managed to putt as well for birdies as he did for par, his average tournament score would have improved by one stroke and his earnings by almost $1 million per season.

[Transcription from audiobook may contain errors.]

My initial reaction was “of course.” Par putts are very often closer to the hole than birdie putts (especially since the par putt inevitably follows the missed birdie putt). But Pope and Schweitzer accounted for distance, difficulty, and a variety of other factors.

I could not reconcile this account with my own golfing experience, since I was most often putting to avoid double bogey.

FYI.

Jason

“But Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, and moreover, I will not let Israel go.’” (Exodus 5:2)

God answers this question—“who is the LORD—through the plagues.

7:5, “The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them.”

7:17, “Thus says the LORD, ‘By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, with the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water that is in the Nile, and it shall turn into blood.’”

8:10, after Pharaoh asks Moses to pray to God to end the plague of the frogs, “Moses said, ‘Be it as you say, so that you may know that there is no one like the LORD our God.’”

8:17, Pharaoh’s magicians call the plague of gnats “the finger of God.”

8:22, God does not inflict the plagues on his own people, so that Pharaoh “may know that I am the LORD in the midst of the earth.”

9:29, Moses prays to end the plague of hail, “so that you [i.e., Pharaoh] may know that the earth is the LORD’s.”

On ten commutes to work from January 3 to January 17, I listened to the book of Genesis, five chapters at a time, as part of my plan of listening to the Bible in 2012.  Here’s what I heard.

God speaks powerfully.  “…and God said” is a refrain in early Genesis.  When God issues forth words, they create (Genesis 1-2), curse (Genesis 3), and cut covenants (Genesis 6).  Paul and the author of Hebrews were right on when they said God “never lies” (Titus 1:2) and that “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18).  God does not and cannot lie because whatever he says comes to pass. 

The Tower of Babel transition.  This story always struck me as an historical, FYI tidbit in the book of Genesis.  Listening through Genesis five chapters at a time gave me insight on how the Babel episode functions in Genesis.  In Genesis 11, God divides the people of the earth.  He uses language as the divisor, but the result is separate people groups.  In Genesis 12, we meet Abraham (then known as Abram).  So, in Genesis 11, God creates a wealth of nations, but in Genesis 12, he makes known his plan to choose one nation as his treasured possession.  Babel is the backdrop of God’s plan to make a people for himself.

God’s common grace abounds.  Though God has chosen a specific people for himself, he still extends a measure of grace to those outside of this unique relationship.  God is merciful toward Hagar and her son Ishmael, even though his covenant to Abraham will specifically continue through Ishmael’s stepbrother, Isaac.  An interesting facet of God’s common grace is that God often extends common grace to those outside of his covenant love to benefit those inside his covenant love.  We see this in Genesis when God keeps Abimelech from sinning with Sarah (Gen 20).

The steadfast love of God.  Abraham’s servant goes to find a wife for Isaac (Gen 24); he attributes his success to God’s “steadfast love and faithfulness” toward Abraham.  Jacob sees God’s “steadfast love” in the safe departure from Laban (Gen 32).  The “steadfast love” of God is with Joseph after Potiphar’s wife bears false witness against him (Gen 39).  Let us, too, learn to acknowledge the steadfast love of God in our lives.

God’s purpose for the family.  The fall has ravaged the family: wife-against-husband (Gen 3:16), brother-against-brother (Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers), and even in-law conflict (Esau’s Hittite wives “made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah, Gen 26:35).  Yet, God has chosen Abraham’s family to work his purposes.  The great promises to Abraham—land, lineage, and legacy—pass from Abraham to Isaac and from Isaac to Jacob.  Jacob tries to pass the blessing to Joseph’s sons (Gen 48), but it is clear from his prophecy (Gen 49) and from redemptive history that the blessing passes through Judah and his descendants.  From that line comes, the savior (Matt 1:2-3).                   

These storylines—along with others left unmentioned—help make Genesis a fascinating record of God’s wondrous deeds and steadfast love!

Every January, many Christians make Bible-reading resolutions.  Perhaps, the most common of these resolutions is to read the Bible in its entirety in the course of a calendar year.  Justin Taylor produced a helpful recap of plans and strategies for reading the Bible through in a year.

For 2012, I have committed to listen to the Bible in its entirety.  This commitment is part of my ongoing effort to spend my 100 daily minutes of commuting profitably.  I used the traditional reading plan (i.e., three chapters per day) to devise my 2012 listening plan. 

Each morning, I will start my commute by listening to 5 chapters of the Bible.  I have forecasted my progress with this approach, and you can see how this method plays out over the course of a year in the images at the bottom of this post.    

As I developed my listening plan, a few critical issues emerged that required some careful thought. 

First, not all of the books of the Bible have a number of chapters evenly divisible by five.  For example, Leviticus has 27 chapters.  This means that on February 6, I have the choice of listening only to Leviticus 26-27 or continuing on through Numbers 3, so that I listen to a full five chapters on that day.  The basic principle I’ve decided on is to continue through to the next book when the two books are related in genre, theme, and/or authorship. 

So, on February 6, I will listen to Leviticus 26 – Numbers 3.  On February 15, I will listen to Number 34 – Deuteronomy 2.  I made these decisions because Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are all books of the law with the same author (Moses).  On other dates, I have decided to only listen to two or three chapters and, so, finish a book of the Bible and not proceed to the next book.  I felt this was important for major prophetic works (e.g., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), gospels, and New Testament epistles.

Second, one chapter of the Bible significantly exceeds its peers in length, Psalm 119.  I decided to slow down for a couple of days in the Psalms (June 25^th – Psalm 116-118; June 26^th – Psalm 119-120) to accommodate for the length of Psalm 119.  I considered similar decisions for other lengthy chapters in the Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 28, Numbers 7), but I felt their length was not as significant to require a modified listening schedule. 

I beta-tested my listening plan with the book of Genesis.  Most listening sessions required between 20-30 minutes.  I started Genesis on January 3 and finished it on January 17.  After listening to Genesis, I’m encouraged that the listening plan will work very well with narrative sections of scripture.  (In a future post, I’ll share some of the insights from my listen-through of Genesis.)

My listening plan isn’t perfect.  I know that five Psalms a day will be emotionally exhausting.  I know that I won’t get to the New Testament until October.  I know that a sick-day here or there will get me off schedule. 

But my metric for success is not dogmatic, rigid adherence to the plan.  I just hope to obey the words of God the Father, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (Mark 9:7), the words of Jesus Christ, “He who has ears, let him hear” (Matt 13:9), and the words of the Holy Spirit, “He who has an ear, let him hear” (Rev 2:7).