I was looking for a movie to watch with my son.  Since we both seem to enjoy John Wayne movies, I started looking through that catalog on Amazon Prime.  First, I considered "The Searchers," but decided against that (obvious) choice because I have that on Blu-Ray* and, given the film's duration, would be viewing half of the film today and half tomorrow.  This is not a film that I would want him to consume in chunks as we did with some of "The Expendables" and "Mission Impossible" franchise films, as Ethan Edwards' redemption** cycle has more impact when one watches the film from beginning to end in a single session.  Then I considered "Rio Bravo," but since we both recently watched "El Dorado," which was, in my opinion, a better version of the same story, I decided against that.  At that point, I happened upon "Big Jake."
*Where my player needs to be re-wired to feed through the newer sound system.
**Who was Wayne's co-star?  And what was one of that man's best-remembered roles?  No ... not Captain Pike, the other one?

While "Big Jake" is not my favorite Western, nor my favorite John Wayne vehicle, it does have a few solid points.  The only things going against it for my purposes (finding a moview that we would both enjoy) are not real negatives, but the surface similarities* to "McClintock!," (yes, there is an exclamation point in the title) which we enjoyed not long ago.  Personally, I liked the story in "Big Jake."  Admittedly, I didn't like the fact that Sam and Dog died** in the film, but I enjoyed Jake's relationship with Sam (and Dog) throughout.  The evolution of the relationship between the elder McCandles and his sons, James (Patrick Wayne) and Michael (Christopher Mitchum), while not Shakespearean, was well done.
*Maureen O'Hara was not only in both films, but had a similar, somewhat antagonistic, relationship with Wayne's character.  Patrick Wayne had a substantial role in both films as well and, unsurprisingly, had an explicitly father-son relationship with the film's star in "Big Jake" and an undercurrent of the same in "McClintock!"

**Spoiler?  The film is over 50 years old as I write this.  The real spoiler would be how little consideration those deaths, especially Sam's of course, received in the film.

No, it wasn't lost on me that Wayne played "Ethan" in "The Searchers," while his youngest son, Ethan, played the kidnapped child in "Big Jake."  Oddly enough, it was years after I first saw the film that I discovered that the character of Michael McCandles was portrayed by Robert Mitchum's (see: "El Dorado" above) son.

But!, :-) the title of this mini-blurb isn't about either Wayne, nor either Mitchum.  Instead, it is about the heavy of "Big Jake," Richard Boone.  When I first saw "Big Jake," I had not seen a single episode of "Have Gun - Will Travel."  However, after one watches Boone's portrayal of Paladin, it is a different experience to see Boone get into the skin of a villain without a shred of honor.  John Fain wasn't just "an outlaw," he killed several innocent people in order to kidnap a child whom (he made this *very* clear) he viewed as expendable.

Boone was (I'm no expert ... uninformed personal opinion) very good at portraying a bad guy.  He must have been a big* dude and he did not have the refined features nor classic good** looks typically associated with a western hero (neither did Wayne and he certainly made do), so, in a sense, the fact that he could play a convincing hero should probably be more surprising than that he made a plausible villain.  In fact, Boone made for an extremely convincing bad guy in "Big Jake" (and he was equally despicable in "The Kremlin Letter"), but Boone's depiction of Paladin, close to a polar opposite of these ne'er-do-wells, will likely remain my favorite.  He hit that one out of the park with his impressive balance of intellect, honesty, fairness, and (the necessary) brutality of being a gun fighter (when other avenues to solve a problem had been exhausted).
*Playing a convincing foil to Wayne would require that unless the two characters stayed 20'+ apart in all shots.
**Not that it matters, but that is not intended as a slight.  Maybe he had off-beat good looks or. perhaps. he was considered "ruggedly handsome."

Coming "soon" (or, more likely, not at all).  Truth is, you can probably fill it in for yourself (at least) as well as could I.  I've thought a bit about this, but the summary statement is that there are courses in mathematics (and, likely, other disciplines) in which you* will find that your initial intuition is not a reliable guide.

*Most of the people I have spoken with about similar courses express sentiments indicating that they have found this to be the case.  You may be the rare exception.

The 80s TV show had a through line that (to me) redeems the franchise.  It also had Dwight Schultz's performance as Captain "Howling Mad" Murdock (he later surpassed* this with his turn as Lieutenant Reginald Barclay).

*Imaginary retort: "He chewed the scenery as Murdock; 'surpassing' that effort is leaping over a very low bar."  Watch it again.  I don't know if this is accurate (only the actor could say) or has been said elsewhere, but "Murdock" has some of the earmarks (at least on the surface) of an extended/pseudo-"Hamlet" role.

This is pure opinion, but all four leads were capable actors.  Peppard might have hit what is largely viewed as his zenith as an actor in 1961 ("Breakfast at Tiffany's"), very early in his career, but he was, for a time, a well-regarded leading man.  Hannibal Smith was a pretty over-the-top character, but, to me, as a kid, the most interesting thing was how he related to each of his teammates.  Maybe this was Stephen J. Cannell's writing, but it seemed to me that this was how a good leader (a Colonel) would lead.  His approach when dealing with "Face" was very different than how he communicated with "B.A." and that was, in turn, distinct from how he interacted with Murdock.  Mr. T. managed to make B.A. as likeable as he was fearsome and respected.  The character might have had a lot of "Clubber" Lang's intimidating characteristics, but I never thought of Clubber Lang when I watched B.A. Baracas.  The only negative thing that I could think to say about the role had nothing to do with Mr.T., as it was necessary for the role.  He was a mechanical genius and (more than) capable fighter who managed to be suckered into flying in planes time after time (usually by being drugged, even though, realistically,* the character would have seem it coming and it would probably have gone very badly for the person attempting to administer the sedative).  Dirk Benedict, as "Face" had a tougher job than I think is recognized (maybe he has said is much in interviews ... I have no idea), as he was the least "cartoonish" character.  He was a charmer and a go-between.  While his main asset as a teammate would seem to be his ability to con people out of goods and services for the sake of the mission, he was also something of a peacemaker; a believable second-in-command, who never over-stepped.  Dwight Schultz played two of my all-time favorite characters, Murdock and Reginald Barclay.  The only thing that those characters had in common (past a "similar" physical appearance) was their psychological difficulties.  While Barclay had a more compelling growth arc, Murdock was interesting because it was never clear just how much of his disorder was feigned.  Some of his problems seemed like genuine PTSD, but he could pull it together when his team needed him and it sometimes seemed that he was taking advantage of the fact that (exaggerating?) his disorder allowed him to spend his time in hospitals, rather than being a fugitive, as were his teammates.

*Yes, I used the word "realistically" (unironically ... well, in the moment, from my perspective) when discussing "The A-Team."

Eh.  Not very convincing I suppose.  Still, within the confines of the genre and the constraints set forth at the outset of the series, I found some of the stories interesting and the characters/acting compelling enough to watch.

No, I don't believe in "manifesting" per se.  However, I seem to encounter people who view this as a completely reasonable approach to accomplishing one's goals in life.  This happens often enough, mostly in media, but *occasionally* IRL, that I wondered why it is such a popular idea.  Admittedly, I have no real insight into this, but I'm reasonably proficient in generating hypotheses (obvious, out-of-the-box, and nonsensical).  I land at a position wherein I realize that I don't know why people start down this trail, but I have some confidence in the psychological forces that might allow someone to (happily) persist in this belief (and, of course, my thoughts are shaped by my own conviction that manifesting has no real effect on the world outside our own consciousness).  While I can think of eight reasons why someone might head down this road, the two least controversial are as follows.

While it's not my favorite theory, a great motivator for such "magical thinking" is laziness.  It's much easier to daydream than it is to grind your way towards a goal.  The former does not eliminate the possibility of the latter until daydreaming is made into something more than it actually is (in this context).  Daydreaming as an action often dovetails sloth with a desire to exercise power in the world.  We are all limited beings and no amount of effort will move us any considerable distance towards some of the things that we want in life.  In those cases, struggling can be discouraging, whereas fantasizing, especially when one surrounds this with the trappings of "a process," is fun in the moment (it's probably dopamine abuse, but ... neither here nor there) and not subject to the logical analysis that would inform the individual that they are wasting their time.

My other shareable hypothesis is my current favorite (after thinking about this, off-and-on, for the past 36 hours).  It leverages the fact that people who focus on the positive tend to be happier than those who focus on negative life events.  Generally, it's the negative focus that is mentioned, as it is used as something of a cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) staple to suggest that a depressed person attempt to focus less on the negative.  I'm not sure if the cause-and-effect regarding depression and negative focus/thoughts is known (i.e. how the vicious cycle begins), but it's pretty clear that breaking this negative reinforcement pattern is beneficial for many people with mild-to-moderate (perhaps even extreme) depression.  Manifesting, if one believes in it, would seem to focus one on the events that coincide with the (presumably positive) things that one is attempting to materialize in the real world.  Whether it is focusing on the positive or not focusing on the negative, persisting in this belief (which one is motivated to do, as it is one's belief), tends to set up a virtuous cycle.

Most people are familiar with the unfortunate investment pattern in which one is said to have to have attempted to "catch a falling knife."  In that instance, one does something along the lines of cost-averaging (usually in a more "aggressive" fashion) with a commodity/stock whose price continues to decline for protracted period.  "Falling arrow fallacy" is similar, but I do not believe it is the same, just as catching a falling knife is not identical, but is clearly related to, sunk cost fallacy.

In this case, one does something akin to putting in a limit order that is always just a little short of the trading price for a stock that is consistently rising in cost.  To more accurately mimic how this happens in practice, the "bidder" is bartering with an item that is falling in value while the item one is attempting to purchase is {rising/stable/declining*} in worth.  The (potential) purchaser continues to try to reach a deal that remains (forever) outside of their reach.

*The item sought declines at a lesser rate.

It's easy to confirm* that this is a disordered behavior is not the same as catching a falling knife or sunk cost fallacy because in this scenario, one does not (necessarily) lose anything one possesses, as it is (almost universally) a case of missed opportunity.

*Confirm, delude oneself into believing.  "Tomayto, tomahto."

I'm guessing that this has another (likely well-known, though a quick search did not turn it up) name and I recognize that it is not insightful to point it out, but ... for the few friends I possess ... I thought it might be helpful to mention it.  To that end, I will give two examples from the professional sphere.  The third example, and usually the one most detrimental to a person's long-term well-being, would stem from the inter-personal arena, but it's been my experience that most people not only won't (attempt to) address this pattern in that domain, but will actively resent the one relating the information, simply for reminding them that they have engaged in this course of action, even when the only person who is aware that they have done so is the person receiving the information.

The first example would be that of submitting a technical paper to a journal/conference or making a case (e.g. writing a grant proposal) for something that is (usually "just" ... which is why this pitfall is not easy to avoid ... but, in some cases, the item sought is well beyond the grasp of the seeker) out of reach.  As time goes on ("falling"), one recognizes that this, e.g. conference, is too ambitious a goal, so one lowers their ambition to the next lower, e.g. publication, while the paper ages out of relevance and is no longer "good enough" for the next most desired choice.  If those around you are telling you to aim for the second choice initially, it is not always a mistake to listen to them.

The second example may not be of a substantially different nature than the first, but it may be more relatable, as more people have jobs than publish papers.  Consider a scenario in which one has acquired a skill or have been recognized for some sort of achievement and you believe that you can leverage it into an advancement, intra- or inter-employer.  It's important, and, I suppose, obvious, that one should have a firm grasp on the magnitude of one's accomplishment or the value of the acquired skill.  More than that, it's necessary to recognize that value has many facets, but, in this case, the only one that matters is the (magnitude of) value to the entities making the hiring/advancement decision.  If the (self-)perceived worth of that accomplishment/skill is out-of-balance with the goal one is attempting to "trade" it for, the "bartering" process will not go well, in part because it is so slow so as to be almost invisible as a bartering process.  To illustrate, imagine that you are a grade-6 employee and you have had perfect work attendance for three months.  Instead of using that (commendable) accomplishment to bid that one be promoted to grade-7 employee, a person might advocate that they become a grade-10 employee.  By the time one lowers their goal to the (presumably attainable at the outset) grade-7 slot, it may no longer exist, people may view you as a bit self-important (because of the overreach), etc.  [The numbers are selected, largely at random, but the span is selected to indicate that the people making the decision regarding your advancement to grade-8, for example, are likely grade-8 and grade-9 and they may be aware that you felt that you should be advanced beyond their rank.]

I realize that approximately three (including the author) people will read this "blog."  I'm hoping that at least one of us gets some benefit from thinking about this (or that someone informs me that this is "oranges for tangerines syndrome" or something like that).  The odd bit about this behavior is that I have seen it in people who seem to make remarkably few cognitive errors.  I recognize that one way of avoiding it is to have no ambition or sense of self-worth, but ... clearly ... I'm not suggesting that would be a good path to pursue.  Nor am I certain that it's a case of "striking a happy medium" when it comes to humility, as it seems that there is more at play.

It would seem more accurate to call this "falling target stratagem," but I am guessing that the term I choose here is inconsequential, as this pattern has another (widely agreed upon) designation.