For Love of Dancing

For as long as she could, she danced: wherever, whenever. Every day.

She didn’t dance because she was the best at it. She didn’t dance for the attention. She danced for love of dancing, for the pure joy of it.

Long before I met, and fell in love with, and married her, she had this other love. Through the ups and downs of childhood, and adolescence, and a turbulent young adulthood, and a failed first marriage, she had this.

Music made her want to dance. Dance made her free. For real joy always comes both from the outside in, and from the inside out.

She was very good at it, and it did garner her a lot of attention. In addition, she got to the point where she could be paid to do it, and to teach it, so she did both.

While she was still a teen, she had been told she had structural deficiencies in her knees – parts weren’t there that should be – and that she probably ought to give up her more athletic pursuits, as one or the other of her knees could give out at any point.

But given the cause, she reasoned, that was ultimately going to happen anyway. So she danced: wherever, whenever.

When I showed up in her life, she had three daughters, and all of them danced as well. The eldest was slim, graceful, and her body expressed itself naturally in dance: but she loved dancing for the attention more than the feeling, and so ultimately fell away. The middle girl loved the creative aspect of dancing, and dreamed of maybe being a choreographer; but other disciplines offered her the same chance for creativity, and so she too fell away.  The youngest danced only because she wanted her mother to be proud of her, so she fell away the soonest.

We have a niece, though, who has continued to dance and to teach dance for love of dancing. Even with a young family, and a busy career: because not to do so is unthinkable for her.

My wife’s knees eventually got to the point where the kind of dancing she loved was not possible anymore. But we can, and do, dance some at wedding receptions; I also often catch her dancing with one or more of our grandchildren in the living room, as the familiar signs joy on her face have me falling in love with her all over again.

“Dancing”, for you, may be some other thing. It may be riding a bicycle, or running, or playing basketball; it may be writing, or going to the movies, or participating in poetry readings; it may be music, or painting, or drawing, or cooking, or surfing, or blogging — but, whatever it is, cherish your joy. Nourish it. Love it while you have it.

For the lessons of love and joy are the same: they’re born, they grow, they will change, and they will ultimately pass away. Part of life is about wringing every bit out of these experiences while we can, then letting them go when we must.

So dance for as long as you can: whenever, wherever.

Every day.

A Hollow Noon

It is lunchtime, and that should be a good thing, but I do not feel much like eating. Partially that’s because of how much I had for breakfast, and partially it is because my house has mirrors in it, and I see myself in them. I look like I rarely miss meals, and possibly knock other people down and take theirs. So I can skip a meal now and then.

It’s a sad, depressing day outside, and my work schedule doesn’t help. In January so far, I have typically worked from something like 5 or 6 in the morning until 6 or 7 at night. Yesterday I was up at 3 am and finished at 9 pm; this morning, I was up at a more typical 4 am, getting ready for a 6 am meeting with the president of the company I work for. I am a mathematician (an actuary, actually) by trade, I write poetry out here in spare moments, but spare moments are getting hard to come by.

I feel really hollow right now, exhausted, spent.


There is a strange theory prevalent these days that it requires moral authority to have feelings. I’m not quite sure where it came from, but it is of questionable validity. It takes all kinds of forms, for example:

  • You aren’t smart enough to have feelings.
  • You aren’t rich enough to have feelings.
  • You aren’t poor enough to have feelings.
  • You are too smart to have feelings.
  • You are too (fill-in-the-blank) to have feelings.

I find this attitude to be depressing wherever I encounter it. The only thing I can say about it is that very few people who say they believe in it really do. Because they think their feelings matter, and that they are entitled to them, and they know in real life things aren’t that simple.

COVID-19 has simultaneously increased and decreased the amount of “real life” many of us experience, so that is an ideal breeding ground for ideas people typically hold only when removed from real life. Like owning the privilege of having feelings.


Oh, well, back to work.

For all of you out there reading this, my advice is “Feel your feelings. You’ve earned them.”

And if you’ve got better weather you can send this direction, we will take it.

Divisions

Years ago, I learned a useful model for negotiating relationship issues, which was to separate problems into three components: (a) the facts of a situation; (b) how you feel as a result of the situation; and (c) the story you make up in your head as to why the situation exists.

It is probably best to give an example. My wife comes to me and says, “You have been going to bed earlier and earlier (fact). It has left me feeling kind of abandoned (how she feels). In my head, I keep thinking ‘Well, I guess whatever he does when he gets up so early is more important than time with me’ (the story she has constructed as to my rationale).”

So, I sit with that for a minute before responding. If we agree on the facts (which we do), I turn next to her feelings, which are inarguable. I certainly don’t like her feeling abandoned, as that is not my intention, so we work from there as to what my reasons are for going to bed at 8:30 at night, and try to figure out a way to get more time together at night.

I say all of that to say this: the most common mistake we make in relationships is confusing facts with emotions, facts with stories-in-our-heads, or emotions with stories-in-our-heads.

In the example I just gave, my wife might have said that “You’ve decided whatever you do when you get up so early is more important than me” is not a story-made-up-in-her-head but a fact. If that was the case, there would be no ground to have any kind of constructive dialogue, because she would have already declared my motives as known to her, which they weren’t.

Our tendency to do this is usually directly related to the strength of the emotions involved, and feeling abandoned in a relationship is a terrible feeling if ever there was one.

We do well always to remember that we do not know why people do things, and that no matter how confidently we assert that we do, our explanations are really just made-up stories.

We often find, when we look at issues in the public sphere, that the same sort of distinctions are useful. We should know the difference in the facts of a situation, what our emotions are, and the degree to which we make up stories as to why people think or act as they do.

We’ve almost all had the jarring experience, in public discussions, of having other people tell us why we think the way we think — and it is never for flattering reasons. Argument in these situations is fruitless, because our interlocutor has adopted some made-up-story about us as fact.

Virtually all political sloganeering takes advantage of the confusion between facts and made-up-stories: these types of constructs are easy to spot when used against us, and harder to spot when we go along with them.

Let’s start, by way of example, with an argument about tax policy, since those arguments have been going on for as long as their has been minted or printed money.

One side usually says something to the effect of “this is all a power grab, and it’s about controlling as much of the economy, and hence your lives, as possible. The people doing it think you are too stupid to make decisions for yourselves, and that they can spend your money more wisely than you can.”

The other side typically says something alongs the lines of “we are trying to insure a more fair and just society, which will not happen through our current system of unfair tax breaks for the rich, which only people who benefit from the current system are in favor of, because it advantages them; their desire is to perpetuate all of their current privileges.”

As a brief digression, the history of sports is where we go next. Organized sports were originally encouraged as a way to channel people’s natural aggressiveness into what were deemed healthier ways.

Human beings have been attacking, enslaving, and even killing each other for almost as long as there have been human beings; this is generally accepted as a fact. The reasons why people do so, however, is and has been a subject of considerable disagreement. At the time organized sports were first taking something like their recognizable modern forms, psychological and biological explanations centered around aggressiveness (particularly among boys and young men) as genetic facts that we could either channel or face the undesirable social consequences of.

Since these explanations were not in any major way at variance with the reigning religious views of the time, sports grew in popularity, among both children and young adults, as a healthy way of channeling aggression among the players. More surprisingly, however, it also provided a way to channel the aggression of the followers who gathered to watch the teams.

Fans of sports teams are interesting to look at, as the psychology of players is extensively catalogued and studied, but the psychology and behavior of fans, less so.

Players typically come to sports from every type of situation and background, and display every bit of the wide diversity of human experience that any endeavor has to offer. Almost as a corollary, the reasons why players play varies immensely, although the elements of enjoying competition, camaraderie, excellence, fame, and power (money) typically make up some part of it.

With fans, the variety is just as great, but the reasons are more obscure. A lot of players of sports think that their fans are simply trying to vicariously feel what players feel, i.e., that fans are essentially cosplayers, dressing up in the team’s colors, referring to the team as “we”, and other signs of enjoyment-by-role-playing.

However, many fans become so out of family or area loyalty; from genuine love of the sport; because of interest in or respect for certain individual players or coaches; or even as a way of relating to their own friends who are fans.

Aggression among sports fans is a subject that was studied, intensively, during and after the peak period of football (soccer) hooliganism. The relationship between sports and violence is not a surprising one, when it exists, if you think about why sports was developed in the first place. Because those reasons have largely been forgotten, even the playing of sports is now often looked at as being a cause of violence rather than a healthy channel for it. There are, of course, legitimate arguments that can be made as to that assertion.

One particular part of sports worth looking at are what in America are called “rivalries”, which are usually between teams that play each other often and, for whatever reasons, have particularly intense reasons to hate losing to the other side.

Very often these teams are located close together, geographically; in the U.K., they are often referred to as “local derbies”. An example of this would be between Celtic and Rangers, both association football teams from Glasgow, Scotland, or between the Alabama and Auburn college football teams, located about 125 miles apart in the same state of the United States. Other times, they are between the best teams or teams with the largest numbers of fans, such as between the Dallas Cowboys and Pittsburgh Steelers of the NFL, or between Barcelona and Real Madrid.

One of the main features of rivalries is the degree to which fans of team A learn to hate and despise team B. It is not discouraged (as hatred of most kinds typically is, with children) it is encouraged. Taught. Modeled.

So long as fans keep their dislike of other teams to things like booing them (at live events) or maybe publishing memes making fun of them (the modern pandemic equivalent) it’s all just fun and no one gets hurt; hence it constitutes what has been called “a healthy channel for aggression” earlier in the article.

However, once it involves things outside these proscribed limits, it can become “unhealthy aggression” — throwing things at the other team, calling them offensive names that have nothing-to-do-with-the-sport, posting death threats, defacing other people’s property, etc., etc..

The Internet actually facilitates displays of unhealthy aggression, as, unlike a live event, it is possible to call people names all day and never get caught at it. In fact, I could argue that much behavior on the Internet seems to agree with the 19th century conclusion that people are aggressive by nature and need healthy outlets for it, or they will be more violent and abusive than a society should want to allow.

Much of politics takes on the worst aspects, these days, of sports rivalries. On top of the logical mistake of confusing made-up-stories about people’s motivations for facts, we add to it that people are often taught, from birth, to hate the other side in a reflexive way, or they come upon the view later in life as the only view allowable in order to be initiated into the tribe.

What this does, of course, it make mediation between opposing views next-to-impossible; and, if the other side is evil by definition, why would you even consider it?

People will question anything before they question what they do without thinking, but those are the very things about ourselves we should question.

In our personal lives, the model referenced at the top of this article is, I believe, a useful one for avoiding the worst types of relationship misunderstandings. It does, however, involve a willingness to give up many of our own mental shortcuts, as you may find, if you try to practice it, that the number of stories-you-make-up-in-your-head is far larger than you may have suspected.

As for my wife and me, we worked out a system where she lets me know when she is going to need extra time with me at night, and I try, on days where I am not working the next morning, to plan for more time that we can spend together.

Because I never want her feeling like I’ve abandoned her, not even for a second.

(This essay is a good example of why I write poetry; I have a hard time gathering thoughts on any subject without branching out into every subject. However, if you made it this far, I appreciate your patience with me. – Owen)

Arbitrary Robots

On Sundays — like this last one — I provide music at the church my wife is minister of; I play the piano and the organ. The church is small, but when the pandemic hit, we started broadcasting services over Facebook Live in order to reach those unable to attend, under the account attached to my actual (non-pseudonym) name, using the incredibly high-tech setup of my phone attached to a tripod.

This last Sunday, I turned on the phone halfway through the service (as we do), and went back into the choir loft to play the music before the sermon. Afterwards, as the sermon began, people at home let other congregants know that the broadcast had stopped; I went back downstairs and restarted it. After the service, I looked to see what had happened.

I had gotten a notice from Warner Media that I had used a recording of theirs so they were stopping the broadcast. THEY THOUGHT ME PLAYING LIVE WAS A RECORDING. Their robot/algorithm for detecting uses of their recordings is obviously very flawed, because no classical recording of the piece I played has as many mistakes as I routinely make.

I went back to church in the afternoon and re-recorded the piece, with my usual glorious assortment of missed notes:

Really, Warner Media?

Permanence

We visited our local amusement park many times when I was a child, and I assumed (in the manner of children everywhere) that it would always be there.

It isn’t.

Being around my young grandchildren every day has brought this home to me: they don’t get the concept of things breaking, or breaking down. If a toy gets broken, my granddaughter will say (she’s two) — “we need to buy some more”. To her, things are unquestionably permanent. She may not be able to find something, but she never doubts it is still there, somehow.

She (and her brother) will both learn, as we all must. Neither things, nor people are permanent in this life. But it is a sad lesson to watch children learn.

My own parents believed in the “cycle of life” approach to such things. The birth-growth-maturity-decline-death cycle is one they embraced, as a part of what life is. They were very accepting of the limitations that come with aging, and took practical steps to minimize the inconvenience from it. Because they believed that such things were inevitable, even if we cannot know exactly when and to what degree they will occur.

When it comes to wisdom, both moral and otherwise, my own belief is that humans never really get any better, on the whole. We may get better in some particular regard, but we simultaneously get worse in other regards. As an example, many people eat better these days than they did when I was a kid, but do a much worse job saving money for retirement. So they run the risk of sticking around long enough to realize they can’t afford to.

In other words, I believe in another sort of permanence: the permanence of human failings. This view allows me to simultaneously believe that people are getting better (in some regards) and that they used to be better (in other respects). I see it in myself: I may have gotten wiser in certain aspects of my life, but I’ve lost other sorts of energy and insight and sympathy with age.

We strive to improve, and we can; but other virtues and strengths slip away from us while we do. It’s part of what life is.


This old water slide was, at one time, a very busy place. It closed down long before the current health-related disruption to business, however. I remember being up there as a young man, looking down from that height, exhilarated. At age eighteen, even though I’d seen setbacks, it felt like I owned the world, or maybe better, that I *could* own the world, that it was there for the taking.

Perhaps we are born feeling the world is permanent because if we believed that it wasn’t, while trying to deal with our own bewildering changes, that would be, biologically, too much uncertainty to be useful. Or maybe, as C.S. Lewis famously believed, we are born with a desire for permanence because there really is permanence out there, just, not in this world.

This world of abandoned water slides.

Not So Ok Boomer

I was born in 1962. For those of you of a demographic bent, that means I was born within the last couple years of the so-called “Baby Boom” in the US (which ended in 1964).

I tend to think of all of the generational names as nonsense, part of our endless desire to simplify things with names so we can then make fun of them without having to think too much about it. Much like the way the term “millennials” is used in some circles. It’s all pointless, if you ask me, but people do love their generalizations. Or “isms”, as they are called in other contexts.

Nonetheless, if I try to follow the generalization as far as is allowable for vagueness, I never thought of my generation as being particularly great. My tendency is to think of human beings as being essentially the same in terms of inherent value, although sometimes individuals or groups of people do something unusually salutatory or heinous. So it would be rare that I would think of any “generation” as particularly good or bad. And mine is no exception.

I would say my generation was a little unusual compared to those immediately before and after it, in terms of overestimating its own importance. When you are young, it is natural and even important to be idealistic and visionary — this is how important changes get made, as well as unimportant ones. But we viewed our idealism as in some way unique, despite there being no evidence of the claim other than our frequent repetition of it.

This tendency to an inflated sense of generational self-importance resulted in a tendency on the part of some of my contemporaries — myself included — to make mistakes we might have avoided had we had less hubris. But we didn’t have less hubris, so we did make avoidable mistakes.

I have a lot of sympathy for people of all times and places who want to build, only to see what they’ve tried to build torn down. But that is what life is for most people, most places, in most times. “Happy endings”, in this life, are often only reached by stopping the story at some arbitrary point.

Having said that, I tend to react rather sharply to people who criticize prior generations, as though whatever is known or thought now should have been known or thought then. The appropriate conclusion to draw when viewing human fallibility is that we are all subject to it, and to be more empathetic. That conclusion isn’t drawn as often as would be ideal.

I’m also rather testy and defensive about younger generations, as people are people, and subject to the same range of failings and strengths no matter where you find them.

We should be suspicious of our own thinking any time we feel superior to others — or inferior, for that matter. That is not to say we can’t be passionate about what we think is right and wrong. We should just realize that people are often more than just the issue at hand.

My generation is in the process of transitioning from the working to the retirement years, to the degree that is possible for each individual. The days of seeing everything through the lens of JFK, MLK, Woodstock, Vietnam, Watergate and Reagan are passing away, just as the Great Depression, FDR, WWII view did for the generation before mine. And that is probably a good thing. People who remember only part of the past seem as condemned to see it repeating everywhere as those who famously “don’t remember the past”, for it is the lens they are seeing after a while, and not the world.

An abandoned nuclear power plant, as pictured above, encapsulates my generation in many ways: we talked big, we reached far, we meant well, we pulled back, and we accomplished little — at least, little relative to our big talk.

But the lasting contributions are less often the big public or corporate works, but the little ways we find to make others’ lives better. And there, people my age have much good still to do.

 

A Better Me

I’m 13 years old, and I like girls a lot.

But they don’t like me.

At all.

There was then (as now) two ways of dealing with disappointment: be bitter, or get better. I vacillated between the two. I could observe around me what seemed to “work” with girls; however, most of those things seemed as far from possible as being a superhero.

There is a view out there that comic book superhero stories are escapist:  we imagine ourselves “as them” to forget that we are, in fact, us. But, at the age most people come to comics, we are just then forming our ideas of who we are, and every potential future seems distant, fantastical, and unlikely.

So superheroes, in our imaginations, are no more strange than life is. Life is big, and scary, and exciting, and terrifying, and finding our place in it, while we are simultaneously learning what the weight of social expectations feels like, is a lot — a lot of a lot.

I came to comics in the so-called “Bronze Age”, although I was no more aware of it than were the Mycenaeans. I just knew I wanted to “matter”, to be important, to be more — more than I was as a thirteen year-old kid. In fact, I wanted to be more than I could imagine being, like Superman or Batman.

Much of the criticism of superheroes, as a class, seems to think the “super” part is all that matters. But the “hero” part was what spoke more to me: to do what’s right, to overcome, to persevere, to fight for things that matter. At 5 foot 10 inches and 90 pounds, that was hard for me to think I could ever become.

At heart, you see, many boys and girls are romantics, and want to be worthy of the love they desire. It wasn’t my unpopularity that bothered me, so much as the feeling that I deserved it. And, to this day it’s hard to argue against “being amazing” as a key component to attractiveness.

Note that I am saying the role model aspect of superheroes was the most important part for me. It is not so for all readers, as the medium speaks to different people different ways.

I jumped into comic book reading with a passion, one that embodied the noblest desires I had at that time: to become amazing, to be worthy, to become a better me. Adolescence is often characterized as a time of great confusion, and it was for me, emotionally; it also can be a time of great purity of ideals, and also was for me, even if the constant sexual tinge of my thoughts made little seem “pure” to me at the time. But the desire to be better drove me to try, and I don’t know that I’ve ever tried as hard, since.

When the age came that I realized that there was no “trick”* as to how to interact with girls, I had both gained and lost something. I had gained a more mature and balanced view of myself as a guy: that the key for me in interacting with people was to interact with them as people, individually, and not as generalizations. I had my ups and downs with relationships, but at my best and on the whole, I had gained some wisdom.

What I had lost, though, was more subtle: I had started the process, as most adults do, of accepting my limitations — physical, mental, emotional, and moral. And it was the last of these that was the real loss. I knew in my heart I was no hero, and while I might (and did) find love, I would never know what it was to be worthy of it.

As a better me would have.


* I actually did try a period of pretending to be a totally different kind of guy than I actually am, and got about a year worth of being more popular with girls than I ever was before or since. So when I say there was no “trick”, I mean there was no “trick” that was not disingenuous.

Public Speaker, Private Panic

I had to perform in public as a child, singing with my family.

I hated it. HATED it.

My father could not understand this at all. I could sing, I liked to sing, so what was the problem?

If had been older than the six years old I was, my answer would have been, “because people are looking at me. I don’t like it when people look at me.” The same reason now I rarely post pictures of myself, or, if I post a musical performance, that it is typically an audio only file.

So, naturally, I became a public speaker by the time I was in my twenties.

Wait, what? Why?

I’m glad you asked, Mr. or Ms. Rhetorical Device… I’m glad you asked.


Fast forward from age six to age thirteen, where I am beginning eighth grade in an American Junior High School in the aptly named town of Niceville, Florida. I had tried marching band the year before, but didn’t really care for it, so I decided to try chorus in the current year. A couple of my new chorus friends, who were a year older — you see, in ninth grade, you could take two electives — were also in what was called “Speech and Debate”.

I didn’t really fit in that well with the chorus kids, because many of them were also cool kids, which at the time (and maybe still, for all I know) consisted of athletes and cheerleaders. So I was looking for a social sphere which felt more natural, and the “Speech and Debate” kids seemed a better match.

It wasn’t until the next year that I could join them, but I had already made friends who have been among my closest friends ever since.

Debate, itself, was kind of interesting, but I couldn’t say I ever really liked it. I was hyper-competitive, though, so any kind of competition was useful as an outlet. By the end of high school, three or four years later, I had become competition-adverse, so I left speech and debate behind when I went to college. Most of my friends, in the various colleges they went to, continued it in some way.

I had learned some things though. Like how to write a speech. I had also learned how to give one. For me, the trick was to be able to pretend I was having a conversation with just one or two other people. That was a manageable task for me. So I developed a style of public speaking that was conversational, relaxed, and based on convincing myself of a lie — that there weren’t a bunch of people there.

Nevertheless, I had now had enough practice at it, and at an age where I was at my most self-conscious, that I had learned how to do it. My speechwriting was pretty good: I remember a reasonably large competition where I came in second, only being beaten out by someone I had written a speech for.

But it wasn’t a skill I ever planned to use, as I had punched the “math major” button on my college application, preparing for a career as a professional introvert.


The ability lay dormant for years; there was no call for it in college, and when I started working in Civil Service for the Air Force as a cooperative education student, I was looking at a career in practical mathematics… not one that really involves any kind of public spotlight.

Thankfully.

However, after graduation and being offered and accepting a full-time position, my interests began to shift. As I’ve recounted elsewhere, I had developed an interest in and love for the study of philosophy while I was in college, and I wanted to pursue that into graduate and postgraduate work.

It had been hard, but I had found something even less popular than being a mathematician.

Because I was studying German (with a tutor) and Latin and Greek (on my own) trying to prepare to apply at schools, people I worked with became aware of my interests outside mathematics and engineering. They already knew I played the piano, as I was still doing so, for money, on the side.

Which meant, by the canons of that time and place, that I was the closest thing we had to an extrovert, so I could start speaking for the team at meetings. So I did. And I fell right back into the casual, conversational speechmaking style I had learned in high school. And it went well… better than anyone expected.

Within a couple of years, I was spending half of my time doing presentations, sometimes for organizations I had almost nothing to do with. And that was fine: even though these sometimes involved very high ranking officials, in and out of Washington, DC, there was never more than twenty-five people in the room. So having pretending I was just having a one-on-one conversation wasn’t that far fetched.


I left civil service to become an actuary in my early 30’s. Working for an insurance company as a mathematician wasn’t going to involve much public speaking, I figured.

I was wrong.

It started out innocently enough: we were looking to recruit students from the local college, so they sent me as part of a team to give a recruiting pitch. One our senior actuaries (she eventually became the chief actuary) went first, then introduced me. I talked to them about how we have to go about solving problems by giving them an example to solve.

Not much to it, really.

When I walked off (we had brought along a recent graduate to bring the presentation home) she said, “you didn’t tell me you could do that.”

“Do what?”

“Speak. In public. That was incredible.”

“Sure I did. It was on my resume.”

“Well, I missed it. You’re going to be doing all of these from now on.”

Oh, goody.


A few years after this, we are in a meeting talking about a new product the company is offering. My job is handling the mathematical concepts involved, but the company CEO likes how I word things. He wants me to present the product to the sales team.

That’s about 5,000 people. In a giant hotel gathering space.

Ok, I figure. There’s no way to really say, “I’d rather not,” (a) he’s the CEO; and (b) because I know I can do it. I just need to be prepared.

So I write a speech, get it approved by all the people who matter, then memorize it. I also add an intro and a finish after having the content reviewed, because I want it to be funny, and without surprise, humor can be difficult.


The meeting is in Nashville, and I’m pacing around the gigantic hotel complex at 3:00 in the morning of the day of the speech. I had been on stage the night before: there is a teleprompter, but with my eyesight, it’s worse than useless, because it’s distracting.

It’s the middle of the night, and I’m walking miles through this hotel, doing the speech over and over, because I’m a nervous wreck.

I am mathematician. These are sales people, they do this for a living.

They are going to crucify me.

And… they’ll be looking at me. Yeesh.


I step out on stage. The room is huge, and my face is all over the room on giant screens so that people in the back of the room can see me. I am using a portable wireless mic, because part of being conversational is not being stuck behind a podium. I take a breath, then deliver my opening line.

They laugh.

Part of speaking is establishing why anyone should listen to you in the first place. To a bunch of sales people, I’m making it clear up front that I know nothing about sales, that the product was designed by a team of sales people, whose names I mention. I talk about the process. I talk about the product.

I deliver a few more laugh lines interspersed throughout the presentation. I keep getting laughs, they are staying engaged.

I deliver the final line, get the biggest laugh, applause, leave the stage.

I lived through it. I didn’t embarrass myself.

“Thank God that’s over,” I thought.


It wasn’t over, of course. A week or so later, the surveys came back from attendees of the conference. I was the most popular speaker there, in a three-day slate of speakers, including two Heisman trophy winners and a professional motivational speaker.

Oh, no. I over-toggled, as we say.


I was always a nervous wreck before speeches. The crowds varied — 3,000 was a more typical crowd — and I varied my approach a lot from speech to speech. In kind of a weird predecessor to this blog, I did one speech talking about the illness I had in my twenties, similar to some posts I’ve done out here. I went serious instead of humorous, but the reaction was just as strong. My point wasn’t about me, it was about why people need insurance and the difference we could make in people’s lives.

People loved it. But I hated giving it.

At heart, I am an introvert, and all these years later, I still really don’t like people looking at me. But I was kind of stuck.

There’s nothing stranger than being good at something you don’t like doing. Because typically, we are only good at things we like, and vice-versa.


What eventually saved me was that I changed jobs. This job never involved audiences of more than 40 or so people, typically. I would occasionally get asked to present things or speak at other company functions with bigger audiences, but never again like it was. Thankfully.

The question I have most often gotten over the years is this: “When you know you are good at it, why don’t you enjoy it?”

The implication buried in that question seems to be this: that introverts are only introverted because they are worried about what other people think. Which isn’t true at all. Introverts are introverted for the same reason cats like fish, which is: just because. It’s the way we are made.

Incidentally, I think the question is backwards. Why do extroverts enjoy crowds? That seems like a better question, since I don’t understand that attitude at all. But the answer is probably “just because,” as well.


After every presentation, I would do the same thing: as soon as I could, I would return to total solitude: my car, my hotel room, whatever was available. And I would need about 3 hours to decompress for every half hour of speaking.

I started writing poetry as a way of siphoning off the stress of working, and because the circumstances of my life made music creation more difficult than it once was. Eventually, it took on a life of its own.

However, since I don’t have to face public speaking anymore, there is less stress than they’re used to be.

And these days, we will take all of the “less stress” we can get.

The Things You (Also) Learn

When I was a teenage boy, I developed a fascination with a girl in my school whose name was Vicki. She was very beautiful, and I used to fantasize about what it would be like to kiss her.

What I learned: It seemed like it would be a wonderful thing to actually kiss a girl.
What I (also) learned: It really doesn’t matter unless she wants to kiss, you, too. She didn’t.

At that age, I shared certain characteristics that had people typically classifying me as a “nerd”. As such, I did things like read comic books and science fiction stories and talk about them with my friends. In those stories, certain characters can do things like ‘stop time’. I used to fantasize that I could stop time for everyone but Vicki and me and then she’d realize maybe I was exactly the boy she’d always dreamed of.

What I learned: Fantasies help us see our way out of seemingly unsolvable problems.
What I (also) learned: I have no ability, whatsoever, to stop time. I could, however, spend time, which I did watching Vicki walking around school hand-in-hand with the captain of the football team.

I talked to one of Vicki’s best friends, a girl named Joan. Joan could tell I had a bit of a crush on Vicki. She explained to me that Vicki “liked me” but just not “that way”.

What I learned: The concept of “liking someone” just not “that way” is of intense importance to girls.
What I (also) learned: Like the Backstreet Boys, I wanted it “that way”. Alas.

About a year or so later, I started to notice how beautiful Vicki’s friend Joan was. I wasn’t quite sure why I’d never noticed it before. We had several classes together. We always talked. Maybe, I had been missing out all of this time. So one day, right after class as we were walking next to each other in the locker hall, I asked her, “Would you like to go out with me?”

What I learned: Sometimes, you just have say what you are thinking.
What I (also) learned: It’s better not to ask questions you don’t already know the answer to. I got just-not-that-wayed. Again.

By this point (it was my Junior year in High School) my tally was as follows:

  • Number of girls I’d been out with : 0
  • Number of girls who seemed even mildly interested : 0
  • Number of reasons to continue living I could actually think of : not many
  • Number of girls who liked-me-but-just-not-that-way: seemingly all of them

What I learned: Every food chain has a bottom.
What I (also) learned: There are options. The French Foreign Legion was (and is) still hiring.

I did eventually start dating, after having remade myself over completely. By that, I mean I changed: (1) the way I looked (I tried to look like everyone else); (2) acted – I became far less nice; and (3) spoke – I talked a lot less, and became kind of a 17-year-old version of world-weary.

What I learned: There’s nothing wrong with looking for new ways to connect with people.
What I (also) learned: Pretending to be someone I wasn’t seemed to make me wildly popular with girls, more-or-less overnight. I eventually stopped being phony – I think. However, there is a reason so many guys become posers in the dating world, namely: it seems to work.

However, like good things, all bad things, too, must come to an end. I dated someone long enough that they actually got to know what I was really like, and she actually seemed to like that guy better than the one I was pretending to be.

What I learned: Lies are like manners – when you’re tired or your guard is down, you tend to forget all about them.
What I (also) learned: It’s better to be liked for who you are. If you haven’t found someone who appreciates you, it means just that: you haven’t found them yet. It doesn’t mean you never will.

By the way, I saw Vicki maybe twenty years after we graduated. She was still very beautiful, and very funny. We got to reminiscing about old times, and I couldn’t help but finally admit to her that I had a crush on her for years.

She said, “Wow…. I never really liked you that way… but that’s sweet.”

Some of us never lose our knack for being just-not-that-wayed. It’s kind of a gift.

And I would have never made it in the French Foreign Legion, anyway.