Note- I published this one on my original blog on March
11, 2016. I did some proofreading in the third section since that date so
what is up here is different from what went up originally. I also made some formatting adjustments to the footnotes.
*******************************************************************
I. Indian-diner?
The last time my friend Charlie visited me in Boston, he shared with me a concept that I immediately found very funny (1). Although the idea described was not exactly complex, I still required my own focused review of the original source material and a couple of clarifications before I fully grasped the fundamentals.
So that's a bang bang. Not much to it, really, and nothing to learn, or so it would seem.
*******************************************************************
II. The Sapporo problem
About a month ago, I met my dad in Porter Square for dinner. Rarely described as a 'destination' (unless you enjoy five minute long escalator rides- the subway station there is several miles underground, give or take a few miles), I suggest that the only reason anyone ends up in Porter from time to time is Sapporo Ramen- which I am just going to call 'Sapporo' until the end of this post. There is nothing outwardly (or inwardly) special about the place. But, this coming April will mark the 21st year we have gone there- and who is to argue with two decades of pure tradition (4)?
leech from the popularity established by decades
of hard work from challenge those folks over at Sapporo to
continue producing top-quality ramen bowls (5).
The first concern is that a big bowl of ramen, like most big bowls/plates/containers of anything, is subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns (7). I speculate that it might apply even more to ramen because of the high salt content of its broth- the salt probably deadens the sensation of your taste buds more quickly than a meal such as, say, grilled salmon, which relies less on salt. And since I consume my ramen 'sumo style' (8) by completely emptying the bowl, I feel the impact of this excess(ive) salt consumption to its fullest possible extent.
So, those are the two problems- ramen is subject to diminishing marginal returns and sometimes you are seated there for about as long as Harry Potter was on the stool when the Sorting Hat put him into Gryffindor. My usual tactic for addressing such concerns goes wasted at Sapporo- the best solution to the diminishing marginal returns concept is to split entrees and some clever staggering of orders is a fine solution to allow natural lingering at the table (9). But Sapporo Ramen repels both of these brilliant maneuvers through a counter-attack that combines the aforementioned pre-ordering process, an unofficial non-recognition of appetizers as a separate stage of a meal, the basic fact that a bowl of ramen is both hard to share and hard to consume multiple servings of, and the total lack of drink or dessert options that cut out two additional opportunities for staggered ordering.
*******************************************************************
III. Your memory does not contain new information, if I remember correctly
Like most fresh solutions to stale, pointless, and generally irrelevant problems, the key step came in identifying the strengths of a seemingly unrelated approach and applying those to the problem at hand.
The epiphany came one dreary winter evening about a month ago. It seemed a great shame that, once again, my dad would drive into town only to stand uncomfortably in line, sit down for the better part of half an hour, and go back home after having spent less time together than we would if we went to a more traditional dinner option. But once I made a mental leap and stood the two concepts- bang bangs and this Sapporo thing- alongside each other in my head, I started making connections and saw how the (albeit minimal) strengths of the bang bang could be used to address the weaknesses of our 'traditional' Sapporo approach.
The 'bang bang' has one obvious strength- the time requirement for eating two entrees is just about what is required for a good time out. I generally need twenty minutes, at least, in any conversation before I know what even I am talking about and I feel a further period of exchange is generally required before anything meaningful ever seems to be said. Since the weakness of Sapporo is the relative brevity of the meal, there was a clear opportunity for application of this one 'bang bang' positive to improve the Sapporo approach.
On the other hand, the failure of the bang bang can be summarized as 'way too much food'- so just applying the concept outright with the Sapporo trip was out of the question. As I already clarified, no one would ever eat two house ramens in an hour. Plus, that marginal returns thing!
The final product for the revised Sapporo approach came from linking the following three generally true ideas.
First, I took the 'bang bang' concept- two restaurants back to back- and tried to apply it (mentally) to Sapporo anyway, just to see what would result. This predictably brought me to the same dead end described above (can't order two ramens, Sapporo won't really do an appetizer course, so on).
But, now that the concept of 'bang bang' was officially involved, the problem felt different and the perspective I took somehow seemed fresher. One way or the other, to increase the length of the dining experience, I needed to find a way to place additional orders that resulted in additional courses. Ultimately, reframing the problem around this question brought no short term changes to the situation. However, it did serve to put the power to fix the situation into my control by diverting my thoughts away from the fixed realities of portion size and restaurant pace.
But, to order more food, I needed to address the 'volume of food' consumed issue. Very straightforward solution here- I adjusted my order from the house ramen with extra pork to just the standard house ramen while tinkering with my dad's standard meal by subtracting a gyoza dumpling order.
Finally, having reduced the total amount of food to be consumed, I paused and reviewed my options. Ordering more at Sapporo (mentioned
seventeen times previously) was out (unless for some crazy reason
we wanted to get back in line and order gyoza dumplings again). But
Sapporo, you may recall, is surrounded by other potentially tasty food
options...
And that quick little mental leap was it- we just took our previously nonexistent appetizer course elsewhere in the food court. This seems very obvious in hindsight- more on that in a minute- considering how many other options literally sat on all sides of Sapporo and how often I studied their menus while standing in the (approximately) forty minute long ramen line (10).
One danger of this 'I knew it all along' afterthought, though, is that instead of reveling in your own ingenuity, you end up feeling like a fool for not 'seeing it' earlier. The key insight- that creative solutions involve mostly reconfiguration and reapplication of existing knowledge- may end up being missed as a result. Over time, consistently missing out on this insight leads to a failure to recognize how much untapped potential we possess. If we reach a point where we become unwilling or incapable of applying our existing knowledge to new areas, the result is that we become less confident, less willing to risk incorrect answers when faced with new questions, and less self reliant in general when approaching new things.
Big, new ideas that draw from knowledge you do not possess is rare, to say the least- technically speaking, it does not seem possible. A joke from a Simpsons episode comes to mind- Homer is having a dream, of sorts, and is receiving nuggets of wisdom from a divine being (or talking animal, or spirit- I forget what exactly). He asks a question at one point to which the response is along the lines of 'this is only your memory- I cannot provide new information'.
But understanding this exchange does not help us understand the source of these 'flashes' of insight that help us solve nagging problems. If we accept that our memories contain no new information, what is really going on when we come up with something that we have never seen or heard before?
What is most likely to me is a simpler idea- we do know the answer all along, it just hides in our own heads somewhere until some other idea or concept comes along to combine with it and become something better. Maybe it works like solving a jigsaw puzzle- sometimes we need helping turning over the pieces right-side up, sometimes we need help putting the pieces together, and sometimes we just need something to come along that shows us the picture on the front of the box.
Thinking of your own creativity in this way is simultaneously empowering and intimidating. On one hand, as long as we keep working, we have the potential to solve any kind of problem. It puts us in a mentality of finding new things to learn and keeps us focused on what we can influence at the expense of accepting what we cannot control.
On the other hand, problem solving that embraces this approach requires failure. This will challenge us to face the vulnerabilities that failure exposes in ways that might discourage or frighten us initially. Without question, it becomes vital to learn how to fail safely so that your early attempts do not damage your confidence or create permanent problems. If others are involved, it also challenges you to create environments where they can fail safely so that you do not discourage those in the earliest, most vulnerable steps of trying something new.
But it is worth the effort to look at problem solving this way- I find the positives are pretty rewarding and you tend to forget the little bumps on the journey when you reach your destination. If you develop the ability to find the problems that no one is working on and are fully aware of what your gifts are and how you can apply them, you might even solve a problem actually worthwhileinstead of being forced to start a blog to
justify laughing aloud while someone eats two straight entrees.
Dad will be back in the area this Sunday to give the Porter Square bang bang a second try. Should be a strong conclusion to a good weekend. Will keep you all posted if any other major theories are applied...
Thanks as always for stopping by and look for me again late next Tuesday morning with my final book from my 2011 reading list.
Tim
*******************************************************************
I. Indian-diner?
The last time my friend Charlie visited me in Boston, he shared with me a concept that I immediately found very funny (1). Although the idea described was not exactly complex, I still required my own focused review of the original source material and a couple of clarifications before I fully grasped the fundamentals.
1. No idea how it came up but my guess is that it involved trying to pick out a place to eat dinner- I may have said something like 'we could just go to two places in a row' as pointless conversation filler which prompted Charlie to recall the idea.Once I 'got it', though, I immediately became obsessed with sharing the idea with others at the soonest available opportunity. And what could this groundbreaking discovery be? I refer, of course, to 'bang bangs' (2).
2. Although review of the aforementioned 'source material' might lead others to conclude that the pronunciation is 'bangbang' or perhaps written 'bang-bang'. I concede that combining what seems like two separate words into one continuous word aligns nicely with the concept so perhaps I am including one space too many above. On the other hand, there is that small break between the two meals and...OH WHO CARES? Here it is:Originating (I assume) from the FX TV show Louie, a bang bang refers to completing the following three steps in precise order:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-Z1di-c58
i) eating one complete meal at a location outside the homeI assume step iv is 'you fall asleep on the floor in front of your couch and have some crazy dreams' but the clip Charlie forwarded to me cut it off after the end of step iii (3).
ii) proceeding directly to a second location outside the home
iii) eating one complete meal at the second location
3. 'You eat two meals in a row' is an even simpler explanation but does leave the door open for basic misinterpretations. The most common misinterpretations observed so far include doing takeout for one or both meals (violating the 'outside the home' clause covered in steps #1 and #2) not quite eating a 'full' meal (anyone can buy two entrees and box them up as leftovers- you could hypothetically do this while fasting) and traveling via a meandering path between location A and B that takes so much time it effectively takes you out of one meal slot and into another (this is not called 'brunch-lunch', folks). My 'expert' recommendation to remain in compliance with these unofficial regulations would be to walk from one restaurant to another without leaving the general neighborhood (3.1).
3.1. On a personal note- I cannot recall accidentally completing any 'bang bangs' in my past despite a sizable appetite. The closest I came involved Charlie on a separate visit a couple of years ago- I ate a sushi dinner, met him coming off his bus at South Station, drank a beer at a nearby bar, and walked over to a second bar for a cheeseburger. At the time of this writing, I do not plan on attempting any formal 'bang bangs' but remain open to the concept and will not rule out the possibility of completing one purely by accident (3.2).
3.2. I guess it works a bit like how I view marathon running- no plans to sign up for one but not ruling it out and not guaranteeing that one day I'll roll out of bed and accidentally run thirty miles with no better explanation than I 'was feeling good that day' (3.3).
3.3. Three footnotes equals a yardnote (3.4)?
3.4 Editor's note: ENOUGH!
So that's a bang bang. Not much to it, really, and nothing to learn, or so it would seem.
*******************************************************************
II. The Sapporo problem
About a month ago, I met my dad in Porter Square for dinner. Rarely described as a 'destination' (unless you enjoy five minute long escalator rides- the subway station there is several miles underground, give or take a few miles), I suggest that the only reason anyone ends up in Porter from time to time is Sapporo Ramen- which I am just going to call 'Sapporo' until the end of this post. There is nothing outwardly (or inwardly) special about the place. But, this coming April will mark the 21st year we have gone there- and who is to argue with two decades of pure tradition (4)?
4. Sapporo is located within the Lesley building food court at 1815 Mass Ave. There is no way to know that it is exists if you are casually walking down the street, making this a magical or irrelevant place, depending on your point of view. It is surrounded on all sides by other fine Japanese dining options that, from time to time, would turn my head and make me wonder about the possibilities. This space used to include a grocery store and I think it was informally referred to as 'Little Tokyo' or 'Japantown' or something along those lines. Times have changed- I think at this point I am more likely to find an MBTA subway turnstile that accepts tokens than someone who would refer to this place as 'Japantown'.Of late, local interest in ramen has spiked (matching worldwide trends, I'm sure), resulting in the prickly matter of all these new 'ramen' places popping up to
5. One thing to know- I consider this the clear cut best ramen establishment in the area. Don't think for one second that this is unrelated to the emotional connection I have to that place. And don't think for one second that a well-crafted logical argument involving taste, alcohol availability, atmosphere, the acceptance of credit cards, the trendy music, the ability to recite your dreams in public, or any other 100% fact-based statement can change my position. As anyone who has taken a position based on raw emotion should understand, logic-infused paper never beats an emotionally resilient rock.I proudly report that these challenges have all been successfully turned aside and my loyalty to Sapporo remains as strong as it was in 1994 (6).
6. To be fair, at that time Sapporo was the only place I actually knew existed in Boston- and even this was not true from the 'cartography' sense since Porter Square is actually in Cambridge.Unfortunately, through the end of 2015, arrival at Sapporo used to remind me of two nagging (trivial/pointless/but-I-bet-you-can-relate) concerns that I never addressed properly (or acknowledged publicly) during all of my trips over the years.
The first concern is that a big bowl of ramen, like most big bowls/plates/containers of anything, is subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns (7). I speculate that it might apply even more to ramen because of the high salt content of its broth- the salt probably deadens the sensation of your taste buds more quickly than a meal such as, say, grilled salmon, which relies less on salt. And since I consume my ramen 'sumo style' (8) by completely emptying the bowl, I feel the impact of this excess(ive) salt consumption to its fullest possible extent.
7. I am no economics whiz but I'll try to explain regardless- the analogy I am making here which applies the law of diminishing marginal returns is the observation that the more you increase the input of something, the less satisfying each corresponding increase in output becomes. To put it in plain English, the application here is that each additional bite of food is less enjoyable than the previous bite. Might not apply to everything, per say, but I think this is a fairly universal truth. At the very least, ramen tends to be better at first mouthful than last.The second issue here results directly from the popularity of Sapporo. The lines at this place are often long enough to fully seat the (generally empty) neighboring restaurant. In order to allow its customers to help deal with this crush of humanity, Sapporo will often grant you the honor of placing your order before being seated. This means that, occasionally, your ramen will arrive at the table before you do. And although this method undoubtedly helps them control the length of their occasionally outrageous line, it means that the amount of time you spend seated and enjoying the company of your companions is limited to some extent.
8. Fine- this is not actually called 'sumo style' and if there is such a thing as 'sumo style' I am currently unaware of it. Still, I bet more than zero readers initially believed it.
So, those are the two problems- ramen is subject to diminishing marginal returns and sometimes you are seated there for about as long as Harry Potter was on the stool when the Sorting Hat put him into Gryffindor. My usual tactic for addressing such concerns goes wasted at Sapporo- the best solution to the diminishing marginal returns concept is to split entrees and some clever staggering of orders is a fine solution to allow natural lingering at the table (9). But Sapporo Ramen repels both of these brilliant maneuvers through a counter-attack that combines the aforementioned pre-ordering process, an unofficial non-recognition of appetizers as a separate stage of a meal, the basic fact that a bowl of ramen is both hard to share and hard to consume multiple servings of, and the total lack of drink or dessert options that cut out two additional opportunities for staggered ordering.
9. You can actually do a hybrid of these techniques if you can split portions at all levels of a meal- appetizer, entree, drinks, desserts, etc- but I find this easier said than done. In fact, sometimes I am surprised by the number of people I know- more than zero- who prefer to just order their own entree. I have heard suggestions that this is a very American approach to dining but I do not think I am well-traveled enough to agree with that statement. It does seem like sharing plates is found more frequently in cultures abroad, however (9.1).And that is pretty much where I left it for a number of years- identify the problem, try to apply the same solution based on a half-assed copy and paste approach from what I would do somewhere else, recognize the imminent failure due to this problem's specific characteristics. Rinse, wash, repeat...
9.1. On a related note, I think I have this ordering process more or less down to a science at the Ittoku, perhaps my favorite place to eat out. Coincidentally, I first became aware of the Ittoku thanks to an advertising poster I saw on a late 2014 visit to Sapporo. Located in Brighton, Ittoku is designed for such a meal structure due to a menu composed almost 100% of shareable appetizer plates. Thus, the degree of difficulty in reaching a level of mastery at 'staggering orders' is about the same as figuring out where to board a red line subway to ensure you get off at your destination at the point closest to the exit- you need to just focus intently for about two or three trips and you should be good to go.
*******************************************************************
III. Your memory does not contain new information, if I remember correctly
Like most fresh solutions to stale, pointless, and generally irrelevant problems, the key step came in identifying the strengths of a seemingly unrelated approach and applying those to the problem at hand.
The epiphany came one dreary winter evening about a month ago. It seemed a great shame that, once again, my dad would drive into town only to stand uncomfortably in line, sit down for the better part of half an hour, and go back home after having spent less time together than we would if we went to a more traditional dinner option. But once I made a mental leap and stood the two concepts- bang bangs and this Sapporo thing- alongside each other in my head, I started making connections and saw how the (albeit minimal) strengths of the bang bang could be used to address the weaknesses of our 'traditional' Sapporo approach.
The 'bang bang' has one obvious strength- the time requirement for eating two entrees is just about what is required for a good time out. I generally need twenty minutes, at least, in any conversation before I know what even I am talking about and I feel a further period of exchange is generally required before anything meaningful ever seems to be said. Since the weakness of Sapporo is the relative brevity of the meal, there was a clear opportunity for application of this one 'bang bang' positive to improve the Sapporo approach.
On the other hand, the failure of the bang bang can be summarized as 'way too much food'- so just applying the concept outright with the Sapporo trip was out of the question. As I already clarified, no one would ever eat two house ramens in an hour. Plus, that marginal returns thing!
The final product for the revised Sapporo approach came from linking the following three generally true ideas.
First, I took the 'bang bang' concept- two restaurants back to back- and tried to apply it (mentally) to Sapporo anyway, just to see what would result. This predictably brought me to the same dead end described above (can't order two ramens, Sapporo won't really do an appetizer course, so on).
But, now that the concept of 'bang bang' was officially involved, the problem felt different and the perspective I took somehow seemed fresher. One way or the other, to increase the length of the dining experience, I needed to find a way to place additional orders that resulted in additional courses. Ultimately, reframing the problem around this question brought no short term changes to the situation. However, it did serve to put the power to fix the situation into my control by diverting my thoughts away from the fixed realities of portion size and restaurant pace.
But, to order more food, I needed to address the 'volume of food' consumed issue. Very straightforward solution here- I adjusted my order from the house ramen with extra pork to just the standard house ramen while tinkering with my dad's standard meal by subtracting a gyoza dumpling order.
Finally, having reduced the total amount of food to be consumed, I paused and reviewed my options. Ordering more at Sapporo (
And that quick little mental leap was it- we just took our previously nonexistent appetizer course elsewhere in the food court. This seems very obvious in hindsight- more on that in a minute- considering how many other options literally sat on all sides of Sapporo and how often I studied their menus while standing in the (approximately) forty minute long ramen line (10).
10. The first try saw good returns at 'I Love Sushi' (yep, that's the name of it) for an appetizer roll and nigiri split and we'll see if things move on from there when we go back this weekend. By the way, it should also be noted that this is a really good solution from the 'marginal returns' point of view due to the increase in variety of food being eaten.So, what to make of all this? The solution takes on that 'I knew it all along' quality which characterizes many good, simple ideas that end up altering patterns on a permanent basis. After all, how many other times have I eaten or drank at consecutive establishments? Over all these years, there were countless opportunities- bar hopping nights, ice cream cones following dinner, etc- to discover a potential adjustment in the Sapporo ordering pattern through simple application of what came naturally in other contexts.
One danger of this 'I knew it all along' afterthought, though, is that instead of reveling in your own ingenuity, you end up feeling like a fool for not 'seeing it' earlier. The key insight- that creative solutions involve mostly reconfiguration and reapplication of existing knowledge- may end up being missed as a result. Over time, consistently missing out on this insight leads to a failure to recognize how much untapped potential we possess. If we reach a point where we become unwilling or incapable of applying our existing knowledge to new areas, the result is that we become less confident, less willing to risk incorrect answers when faced with new questions, and less self reliant in general when approaching new things.
Big, new ideas that draw from knowledge you do not possess is rare, to say the least- technically speaking, it does not seem possible. A joke from a Simpsons episode comes to mind- Homer is having a dream, of sorts, and is receiving nuggets of wisdom from a divine being (or talking animal, or spirit- I forget what exactly). He asks a question at one point to which the response is along the lines of 'this is only your memory- I cannot provide new information'.
But understanding this exchange does not help us understand the source of these 'flashes' of insight that help us solve nagging problems. If we accept that our memories contain no new information, what is really going on when we come up with something that we have never seen or heard before?
What is most likely to me is a simpler idea- we do know the answer all along, it just hides in our own heads somewhere until some other idea or concept comes along to combine with it and become something better. Maybe it works like solving a jigsaw puzzle- sometimes we need helping turning over the pieces right-side up, sometimes we need help putting the pieces together, and sometimes we just need something to come along that shows us the picture on the front of the box.
Thinking of your own creativity in this way is simultaneously empowering and intimidating. On one hand, as long as we keep working, we have the potential to solve any kind of problem. It puts us in a mentality of finding new things to learn and keeps us focused on what we can influence at the expense of accepting what we cannot control.
On the other hand, problem solving that embraces this approach requires failure. This will challenge us to face the vulnerabilities that failure exposes in ways that might discourage or frighten us initially. Without question, it becomes vital to learn how to fail safely so that your early attempts do not damage your confidence or create permanent problems. If others are involved, it also challenges you to create environments where they can fail safely so that you do not discourage those in the earliest, most vulnerable steps of trying something new.
But it is worth the effort to look at problem solving this way- I find the positives are pretty rewarding and you tend to forget the little bumps on the journey when you reach your destination. If you develop the ability to find the problems that no one is working on and are fully aware of what your gifts are and how you can apply them, you might even solve a problem actually worthwhile
Dad will be back in the area this Sunday to give the Porter Square bang bang a second try. Should be a strong conclusion to a good weekend. Will keep you all posted if any other major theories are applied...
Thanks as always for stopping by and look for me again late next Tuesday morning with my final book from my 2011 reading list.
Tim
