Photo highlights from Las Vegas

In the interest of time and timeliness, I'm going to do a photographic essay of my trip to Las Vegas. This way I get something up sooner rather than later and you all get to see what I was up to on the trip.



Scott, Justin and I at Fontana Bar at the Bellagio.














Scott and I in the helicopter on the way to the Grand Canyon.












Hoover Dam from the helicopter


















Paris!


















In the Grand Canyon













After the helicopter tour.














Ready for a night on the town.












That about sums it up: lots of going out, lots of being on the Strip, lots of helicopter pictures. :) Thank to Scott for being such an awesome host.

Do you have a second bag? That'll be $50 roundtrip please.

Today, while double checking that my flight to Las Vegas is still on time tomorrow, I noticed a little red link on Travelocity's homepage that said: United, US Airways Baggage Changes. I'm flying US Airways tomorrow, and United is "my" airline, so I clicked on the link to see what had changed.

Lo and behold, these two airlines have decided to reduce themselves to the level of low-cost carriers the world around! They have both announced a reduction in baggage allowance from two free checked bags per passenger to ONE free checked bag per passenger. If someone wants to take a second bag, then that person has to pay $25 extra EACH DIRECTION to check that second bag. Can you believe that crap?! I think this is absolutely ridiculous. I might have to switch my allegiance to another carrier, which means I have to get rid of my United credit card and memorize another Frequent Flyer number and all sorts of other nonsense. Besides the annoying little things, changing my preferred carrier will result in losing the partnership they have with airlines like Austrian and Lufthansa. Plus United goes to Cedar Rapids pretty frequently! ARGH!

Just wait...in three to five more years they'll do what Ryan Air or SkyEurope have done: the baggage will not only be restricted to one per person, but they'll reduce the weight limit from 50 lbs to 32lbs (~15kg) and charge for the extra weight too.

*$!#&@%!!!!!

Research Methods Meets Real Life

This week's readings for my incredibly tedious Research Methods class included two chapters by Argyris and Schoen on theories of human behavior. Let me break it down for you quickly.

Essentially humans have theories of action, which govern behavior in a certain situation and are generally formulated as "if...then..." statements. Example: if I study for the test, I will get a good grade. These theories of action are bundled together to form our theories of practice. A practice could be that of being a good student. So the theories of action that come together to form the practice of being a good student could include: "if I go to class, then I'll be a good student", "if I seek advice from the professor about my paper, then I'll be a good student", "if I read all the readings for the class, then I'll be a good student".

We use our theories of action and theories of practice to make our espoused theories, which are the ones we tell others we adhere to. For example, I espouse the fact that I am environmentally conscious. My theories of action like, "if I recycle, I am an environmentally conscious person" come together to form my theory of practice. However, we all have theories in use, which is what we actually do despite what we say our espoused theories are. I take a little receipt from the ATM every time I use one; this paper requires trees to be felled that I would otherwise want to protect. This is a very subtle incongruence between my espoused theory and my theory in use and is one I wasn't even aware of as incongruent until a student in class pointed it out.

Some examples of the conflict between espoused theories and theories in use are not quite so subtle. Take for example Eliot Spitzer, the soon-to-be former governor of New York State. His espoused theory, clearly stated on the public record by his prior prosecution of prostitution rings, would be that prostitution is bad. His theory in use however, is quite the opposite, as he himself was the client of a prostitution ring. Client 9 in fact...quite a low number. Does this indicate the length of his tenure as a client?

Anyway, it all comes down to the fact that humans don't like incongruence in their theories. We also don't like to modify our theories of practice or espoused theories, as they are generally what we're SUPPOSED to do as dictated by our socialization. I guess Spitzer will have to change his theory in use (no more prostitutes) and I'll have to do the same (no more ATM receipts). Good luck to both of us!