April 8, 2015--Finally the Final Four

Others can focus on the last few games where Wisconsin defeated odds-on-favorite Kentucky and then lost to Duke in the final. I will continue to pay attention to the hypocrisy surrounding big-time college sports and the money that doesn't get to the student-athletes without whom there would be no show.

Most of the money--mainly TV money--goes to fund the schools' athletic programs and the coaches. Especially coaches such as Kentucky's John Calipari and Duke's Mike Krzyewski, Coach K.

Coach K pockets a cool $7 million plus tons more for endorsements and bonuses for getting his team to the Final Four. In Duke's case, almost an annual event.

Coach Capillary (as I'm sure my mother would call him) does even better. He gets about the same base salary as Krzyewski and then receives another $3 million or so for going along with the university's endorsement contracts. Endorsements for everything from sneakers to "official" beverages. Using and not paying for campus facilities, he runs an annual summer basketball camp in a deal that allows him to keep all the income. His Final Four bonus is close to another half mill. Then he gets annual signing bonuses of $1.25 million when he agree to return for another season.

Not bad for a job that involves coaching overgrown boys to run around in their underwear while tossing or slamming a ball through a hoop.

Do not despair for the Wisconsin coach, Bo Ryan. In a state where the governor, Scott Walker, has turned himself into a national political figure by beating up on state employees, state employee Ryan pockets at least $3 million a season. The university chancellor? She makes about $500,000. She obviously needs a new agent.

Something is out of whack. What did the Romans call it? Panem et Circenses? Bread and Circuses? They had it about right.  As a nation we're doing pretty well with the circenses, less good with the panem.

John Calipari

December 31, 2013--Schadenfreude

There is a new book, The Joys of Pain, about the seemingly all-too-dark side of human nature that takes pleasure in the misfortunes of others. About schadenfreude, literally from the German, "harm-joy."

The author, Richard Smith, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky, whose previous book was an anthology about the corrosive Deadly Sin of envy, a close relative of harm-joy, has been studying social emotions for years.

Smith contends that in order to locate ourselves in the social pecking order, to determine our status, we, first, have to create things that denote status. Among others qualities these include possessions, fame, political and social power, appearance, health, talent, physical strength, and intelligence.

He sees this ranking phenomenon characteristic of all peoples from all eras--from the one-percenters with their gilded lives to indigenous people living in traditional ways. He sees this hierarchical tendency also among other species--monkeys and dogs, for example, who compare themselves to their peers. We are all familiar with Alpha Male behavior.

In such a ranked system, since we are unequally endowed and not comparably successful, in order to see oneself rising in relative status, it is, Smith argues, biologically essential and adaptive to see others declining; failing; falling into disfavor; and, often perversely more satisfying, facing tragic circumstances.

He writes that when envy causes pain, schadenfreude serves as a palliative.

What is less clear from Smith is why we are endowed with the capacity to take so much enjoyment from the misfortunes of others. Perhaps in the struggle for species survival this guilty-joy is particularly motivating and thus helps one adapt to threatening circumstances.

Also missing from Smith's work is a thorough look at the reciprocal side of the schadenfreudian story--the seemingly equal human propensity to elevate others, including those with whom one is in potential status competition and who at some future time we may have the opportunity to take pleasure in seeing decline or overthrown.

We in the West place the wealthy, the already powerful, the gifted, the skillful on pedestals of our own inventing. Our cult of celebrity offers opportunities on both sides of the status equation--we elevate entertainment and sports figures way beyond their gifts, accomplishments, and importance and then take particular pleasure when a Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Alex Rodriquez, and Tiger Woods transgress and experience their delicious comeuppance.

By raising some beyond what they are intrinsically worth we take vicarious pleasure in being fellow members with them of the human race--we see something of ourselves reflected in them--and then when watching them fall take even more pleasure as we find our own status affirmed and secured by their plunging from grace.

But not all those we elevate inevitably come crashing down. As, sorry, herd animals we require leaders to help assure our survival; and thus this propensity in itself has its adaptive side. So, for us to thrive, we need some we raise up to fall and others to remain in place to help lead us through life's existential perils.

Further, something Smith also ignores, is the evidence that we like and perhaps require redemption stories.

Tiger Woods and Bill Clinton, after falling and then displaying public humiliation, suffering, and contrition, have made remarkable comebacks. We took pleasure watching them struggle when they were down but now, perhaps even more, enjoy--empathetically and vicariously--seeing them resurrected.

This too means there is hope for all of us.