Opening the Partisan Doors

Are we even more partisan than ever?  I think I may think so.  But I haven't quite figured out why.

I think, taking a shot in the dark, a large part of it may be our incredible and unrestricted access to information and incessant communication with a larger scope of like-minded individuals.  Hear me out: Before Facebook, Twitter, newsfeeds, daily updates, and bloggers of all shapes and forms (the Dark Ages, if you will), most information was gathered from magazines, books, the news (on the television...), and our own circle of influence.  We were able to develop our own thoughts and beliefs, defining "liberal" and "conservative" based on our own beliefs, agreeing with some aspects of one group, some from the other, and crafting them into a finely-tuned encyclopedia of personal values.  Issues, I believe, were at the forefront - education, taxation, government spending, religion, and interpretations of the Constitution weren't mutually inclusive, where your beliefs regarding one didn't always guarantee where you stood on another.  And because of this, cooperation wasn't a four-letter word.  Because we each, individually, say across lines and parties, it only made sense that this would continue into the public sector.

Now, however, there's a different situation.  Today, we are assaulted with a constant barrage of stimuli.  Everyday, wherever we happen to be, we have such unprecedented access to whatever anyone cares to say, no matter how crass, short-sighted, or immature it may be, and we've lost that individual sense of self.  I don't recall any traffic law specifying that driver's should not read a newspaper while driving.  Now, however, we've all driven down the highway and glanced at the car next to us wherein the driver is completely engrossed in their phone.  What this also entails, I believe, is that we're now confronted with what parties are "supposed" to look like.  What a good Republican or Democrat should be for.  After all, once upon a time, one had to be an actual journalist to reach even one hundred people.  Now any average joe can start a blog and spout whatever nonsense he or she thinks people want to read (case in point...).  So now, rather than a handful of inputs to consider and bounce off our social circle, we face hundreds, if not thousands every week.  Slowly but surely, we are becoming more and more ingrained to what we're "supposed" to believe and the labels that come with one idea or another.  And, in an effort to avoid becoming an outcast, we begin to affiliate, gradually, with other concepts linked (somehow) to one or two with which we first sided.  And I believe this works both ways: reading a post written to (more often than not) an extreme 180 degrees of your perspective, the less you affiliate with those beliefs to any extent - and push us further into partisan positions.

Just look at Facebook.  Go on, scroll through a few posts.  Chances are, there's at least one talking politics (in some way, shape, or form).  Soon, this may just become a full-blown virtual battle, and, if you pay close enough attention, often you'll find people chiming in, people you know, who, you realize, don't actually have a horse in this race.  Gun control is a great example.  On the left, we need more restriction.  On the right, less.  It doesn't really matter what you actually think about guns anymore.  It's about maintaining your loyalty to your chosen brand.

Go on, ask any Mac user if they're willing to trade in for a PC.  And vice versa.  The Mac user will most certainly decline, citing the simplicity of the operating system, the ability to sync it with other Mac devices, and/or the Mac software.  And PC will argue that they've got the better deal as well, of course.  Now, sifting through all the B.S., unless you're using one or the other for work-related reasons (I hear Mac has better video editing software), is one inherently better than the other?  Of course not.  But we've invested so much of ourselves into the idea that we're right that anything to contrary must be wrong.

And so it goes with politics.  How about we stop thinking about which brand we've invested in, and actually start looking at the issues.  I know it's a big step, but how about a dialogue - not a debate, not a right vs. wrong argument, but an actual dialogue in which we try to understand opposing view points.  Surrounding ourselves with the same perspective will most certainly leave us seeing the same thing.

Post Script: Seeking to understand one another is not as simple as waiting for your turn to talk.  Please, stop nodding your head, shrugging your shoulders, and responding "well, it's the way I feel."  They say that when you stop learning, you should be six feet under.  Well, until you actually listen, you're as good as entombed.

A quote I wish I'd found a month and a half ago...

...as politics and Facebook were making life just awful for just about everyone.

Emotional Maturity can be defined as "the ability to express one's own feelings and convictions balanced with consideration for the thoughts and feelings of others."

-Hrand Saxenian (found in Covey 2004).

Do Selfish Means Justify Communally Beneficial Ends?

Interesting study a friend of mine posted on Facebook recently.  It's about the movement of Emperor Penguins as they try to stay warm in their harsh Antarctic climate (read it here).  In essence, the penguins mob together, packed so tightly that those in the middle can't even move but also aren't losing virtually any body heat.  Those on the outside, however, are constantly moving, as those in the wind navigate the outside of the cluster, around and to the sheltered side.  Of course, this leaves for a brand new crop of penguins stuck in the wind, who also, in turn, work their around to seek shelter.  Ipso facto, the penguins who first worked their way around will be huddled more and more into the middle as those on the outside work their way around, until, finally, those same penguins that first waddled their way away from the wind are right back there again.

Now, the original post talked about how we can learn from the teamwork of penguins, as they look out for themselves, they contribute to a communal victory.  Even further, commentors on this post talked about the trust these penguins must have in one another, having faith that their turn in the middle was nigh, even speculating that these birds recognized the need for collaboration and so never make the attempt to force their way into the middle.

I, however, don't quite see it that way.

As the article itself mentions, the mob was packed so tightly that the middle birds couldn't even move.  Arguing that those on the outside see the community benefit so don't use force to get what they want is pretty much shot down from here, as I can't recall a single instance of a person attempting to escape East Berlin by throwing themselves (successfully) at the wall.  At the same time, I also can't help but wonder if those on the outside stopped moving, would those penguins nice and cozy in the middle be community-conscious enough to offer their warm spot to one on the wind side?  "Excuse me...it's really warm in there.  I mean, I was pretty much sweating and you're out here freezing your ass off.  Seriously, how can you even stand it?  It's like 30 below!  Here, take my spot."  Definitely.  And at this point, I would like to ask all the idealists out there reading this and scoffing at my pragmatism, thinking to themselves that it would totally happen like that when the last time they traded spots with a homeless person on a winter night...

By I digress.  What I see is selfish action, to each his own, trying to make it through the harsh tundra, wantonly using those around him to survive.  But it is through these self-serving actions that the entire is able to survive, something that might not be possible without this phenomenon.  So selfishness saved all of them.

So the questions is, do the ends justify the means?  If I act selfishly and it benefits the larger group, is that okay?  A mantra of Wilderness First Responder is "Look out for #1 (yourself) so you don't become #2 (the victim)."  i.e. Don't put yourself in a position to become injured, leaving two victims to rescue.  Selfish?  Kind of.  Necessary?  You bet.

So I still ask, does it matter?

It's Still a Global Economy...

As part two of my last post regarding the interconnectedness of today's economy (found here), two big side issues come to mind: outsourcing and off-shoring.  It's important to recognize that these are two different strategies, sometimes overlapping, but not necessarily (imagine a Venn Diagram...I do so like those).

Outsourcing has to do with when one company hires another firm to handle some, part, or all of one of it's production facets.  For instance, many colleges outsource food service and housekeeping, hiring an outside entity to handle those operations.  Another company may outsource logistics and transportation.  Or packaging.  Or marketing.  Anything not done in house is, effectively, outsourced.  Often it's just more cost-effective to hire someone else to worry about those things.

Off-shoring is when a company decides it's more cost-effective to produce their products in a different country.  T-shirts might be distributed by an American company, but it's much cheaper to pay workers in Honduras (where the shirt I'm wearing right now was produced even though it's by Fruit of the Loom, an American company).

So which are we more concerned about?  I've heard it here and there that we should move toward a "buy American" market.  That is, we should buy materials made here in the good ol' U.S. of A.  But what about materials made by American companies?  I mean, eventually, doesn't most of that money stay here in the States?  The company's books are U.S. based, so their revenue counts when the IRS comes a'knocking.  But, and ready for a wrench in the works?  What about foreign companies off-shoring to the U.S.?  U.S. workers, saving and spending in the U.S. Isn't that what we're looking for?  But the argument about where the revenue stream heads we just used regarding U.S. products not made in the U.S. is now used against us.  I came across this article in Bloomberg Businessweek which got me thinking about it.  Unbeknownst to me, Anheuser-Busch has been bought out by InBev, a Brazilian/European company.  Since their takeover, they've laid off a couple thousand U.S. workers as the company grows evermore profitable.  Even still, they've taken other brands they own (notably Beck's, as pointed out in the article) and moved production from Germany to the U.S.  That's good, right?

Even now, I still haven't wrapped my head around the global implications of AB InBev or the dozens of other companies that do the same thing...

So what does it mean to "buy American"?

A Globalized Economy

Spoiler alert: it was my hope to write this as a non-partisan, neutral look at a contemporary hot-button issue.  My thoughts on the matter may not resonate with you personally, or even any reader happening across this page whilst enjoying their morning joe.  What follows is simply a hypothetical consideration; one of many sides to a significant and ever-growing issue.  Happy reading.

For the past several years, the U.S. has been spiraling through the “Great Recession”, and, as such, a central issue in both the public and private sectors has been putting American citizens to work.  But let’s consider for a moment just what exactly our economy allows for, specifically regarding off-shoring and outsourcing.

Here we are, 2012, a world that has become steadily interdependent and globalized economy.  We enjoy everyday luxuries impossible to consider a century ago.  Standardized clothing, mass manufactured and shipped from the Caribbean (Honduras, specifically, for my shirt right now) and produce, far out of season in the Midwest, fresh on the shelves from Jamaica and South America.  Toys made in China.  Steel, mined in Brazil, ships to the U.S., where it’s delivered to a tariff-free zone (an area not technically considered the U.S.) where it’s manufactured into usable materials import-free (meaning the good ol’ U.S. of A. makes zero public profit) and shipped to the Netherlands where components are put together into a product.  A U.S. company contracts an Asian company to create computer processors, which, in turn, contracts Chinese mining companies to provide raw materials and Indian firms to write and install software, and the whole shebang is then shipped to a separate company (probably a U.S. company taking advantage of less-expensive labor and more lax import/export laws as it sets up shop in a foreign nation) to put it all together, when other companies come in to market, pack, ship, stock, and sell the item.  Then, if something happens and you need tech support, the phone is answered by someone halfway around the world, working third shift to accommodate the time difference, whose paycheck is still signed by the American company.  Obviously, “bringing jobs back home” is a little simplistic.

Now let’s think what would happen if all this work arrived on our shores: The labor that we in America get all up in arms about when we hear numbers like “$3 a day”, decrying how terrible it is to be paying workers such a paltry sum, suddenly shoots up to American standards, somewhere in the minimum range of $7.50/hour.  (Side note: what we often fail to consider is the purchasing power parity, or PPP, which links changes in the exchange rate between two currencies to changes in the countries price levels.  This adjustment then allows for a more direct comparison of living standards…for instance, in 2007 the GNI per capita in China was $2,360, but the PPP per capita was $5,370, meaning the cost of living was less in China and that the GNI per capita could purchase as much as $5,370 in the U.S.  I’m not saying I’m for or against $3/day, but just that single number alone doesn’t paint an accurate picture).

Anyway, say we have 100 workers at $3 U.S./day, working for one day - $300 in labor.  100 workers at $7.50/hour, working an eight-hour day for one day = $6000.  Now think about that over the course of a year.  Now, if output remains the same, but cost of labor increases, what logically must happen to the cost of the product?  You guessed it.

I would say our next step is figure out what we can do, and what we can do better than anyone else. We can’t very well consider our economy in isolation from the rest of the world; jobs don’t just appear.  We can spout all we want about job creation, but until we find something people will pay for, we can’t very well work it.  We’re in the midst of a global system, what happens in one place inevitably affects what happens elsewhere.

So what’s the point?  We live in an ever-shrinking, ever-flattening world.  No longer is a single country autonomous and independent of the activities, the economies, the products of another nation.  Now, I’m not saying that I necessarily agree or disagree with the current level of out-sourcing and off-shoring, or even that there aren’t some gigs we could do here, simply that “bringing jobs back home” isn’t as easy as that.  

Are we saying what people are hearing?

Language is a funny thing, dear reader.  I say that because more and more I'm becoming aware of the language I use every day, and particularly with groups I facilitate.  What that inevitably means for me is that I find myself thinking about and listening for words and phrases I use without even realizing it - I'm paying attention very much to things I hadn't given much thought to in the not-to-distant past (yes, I've always tried to be conscious of how the words I use come across and their effectiveness to convey my message, but I think this is a step further).

For instance, I commented a while ago that I try to avoid labeling things as "easy" or "hard".  Instead, some things may be "more or less challenging" for a particular person or group.  No one wants to come up short on a something "easy" or "simple".  I often use personal examples - for instance, I find it less challenging for me to memorize random, eclectic facts and trivia items.  On the other hand, math has never come easily to me.  Is one better or worse than the other? 

"You all", "ya'll", or simply "team" has replaced "you guys" in inter-gender groups.  While "guys" is perhaps becoming more gender-neutral, it still has a definite masculinity to it.  Granted, this has often brought ripples of chuckles through groups, as they assume I'm adopting some sort of accent for funsies...of course, it does allow me a chance to explain why I use the term. 

I avoid "nice try" at all costs, instead focusing on what was achieved, rather than what was not.  A "good try" indicates that success wasn't found, after all, Yoda pointed out: "Do, or do not. There is no try."  To "try" is to attempt, to give it your best shot but still come up short.  However, if someone climbs 15 feet up a pole, decides that's it and decides to come down, #1, they've made a very empowered decision to choose their own level of challenge rather than compulsory participation, and #2, for a point of comparison, they were at a height roughly higher than a second story floor - and I think that's worth pointing out.  What they did, not what they could have done.

One last example is the language used to describe guidelines or address issues.  I've seen the success of phrasing these in the positive - "let's be sure to walk", "great job holding the rope"; as opposed to "don't run" or "don't hold anything else".  "Keep looking up" is a big one climbing - after all, if I say "don't think about pink elephants!", what's the first thing you think about?  I thought so.  Phrasing in the positive helps people visualize what they can do rather than what they can't and keeps the mindset of doing.
Now, the question is, what does this have to do with anything outside of facilitating?  Well, fortunately that's a ball in your court - how does language affect your work or life?  And don't forget, how something is said can be just as meaningful as what is said...

Movies and TV shows

I'll admit it: sometimes when I watch "Boy Meets World", Mr. Feeny makes me want to become a teacher.

And Indiana Jones made me want to be a whip-cracking archaeologist.

And I'm alright with it.

Disenchantment

To build off last week's post, I must admit that I find myself more and more disenchanted with our contemporary system.  See, I've been working for the past several years as a team facilitator - I work with groups anywhere from elementary age through adult and corporate, and we work through a sequence of activities directed at any number of outcomes, most revolving around cooperation, communication, trust, and working together.  And, after a few hours or a few days, I bid the group adieu and we go our separate ways, hoping that they picked up at least one or two things to apply back at school, home, or work that may help they resolve differences to continue to move forward.

But at at the same time I know that when they get home, they can flip on the TV and watch our politicians, so polarized by party that any semblance of cooperation or compromise is instantly shut down.  Republicans who vote in favor of Democrat initiatives are shunned and vice versa.  Congressmen and Senators end up losing their seats if they vote "wrong".

No longer does the primary focus seem to be the betterment and growth of America and her people.

It seems the primary focus of votes, campaigns, and activities are instead to prove how right your side is, and that the other side is wrong.  Votes put before Congress are put on hold, a freeze that grips both Houses until either one side concedes or the idea is thrown out entirely.  The important thing is to be a good and true conservative or liberal, not to act in the best interest of your constituents.  Campaign ads this year proved an excellent example, as words such as "liberal" (from a Baldwin attack ad: "More liberal that Pelosi, too liberal for Wisconsin") or "conservative" ("Mark Neumann, conservative way before it was cool") are used as insults as well as compliments.  Pay no attention to their track record, in no small part to a data phenomenon wherein bipartisan committees are only correct if their numbers are something you want to hear.  A candidate this year somehow managed to both agree with the Congressional Budget Office when their numbers lined up with his campaign ideologies, then turn around and dismiss them as partisan when other numbers stopped helping his platform.  The Government Accountability Office shrank form 5,000 to 3,200 after pointing out wasteful spending in Congress.  Their reaction?  Slash the GAO budget.

Some may say "well that's just how it's always been".  And to some point, you're undoubtedly correct.  And even if it's the way it's always been, why would we continue to allow Washington, Madison, and all the others slowly grind to a halt as parties become increasingly important?  Wouldn't we the People want positive change, not partisan decisions taking account party over issue, to decide our direction?  Why not try to change it?

And so it goes.  Compromise becomes the greatest antagonist, spelling career demise for any foolish soul daring to undertake it.  If this is the way American politics are headed and we choose to follow, I believe we deserve what we get.

My Favorite Reality Show

It's that time again!  Every four years, my favorite reality show makes it's way around once again.  I'll admit, it is more of a guilty pleasure as there far-and-away characters, resembling in no way a normal life, argue and bicker back and forth.  I do believe that those are the best shows: those with "regular people"...just the best. I mean, you listen to the talk and just can't help but wonder who they think they're resonating with.  And isn't that perhaps one of the best things about reality TV?  We get to watch these people, these regular joes, televise their exploits, and the irony is that they somehow maintain the idea that they are just like everyone else, while those of us back here on earth watch and shake our heads.  With the exception of those that actually believe some of the things these characters are saying (there's always a few), the rest of us rush home from work, hastily drop our bags and coats, and hunker down in front of the TV to tune in, trying to not miss a single beat.

In the last episode, they characters traveled to Florida to hash out some differences, and what an episode that made for!  Such things as "facts" or "real numbers" somehow don't actually apply.  The back-and-forth "It's true" "No it's not" "It absolutely is", paired with subtle as well as not-so-tongue-in-cheek digs and insults hurled back and forth...  It's like children, going back and forth as the host of the show sits impotently by, like a downtrodden parent who's lost control of their kids.

I mean really.  Where do these people come from?  Where do they get their "facts"? With whom do they believe they're resonating?  And the best part is, I was watching reruns of episodes from 30 some-odd years ago, and their arguments were about the same things!  It's like 'Survivor': every week, every season, we tune in to see who's the backstabber, who's allying with whom, and who's getting voted off.  Every season is like a mild repeat of the very same issues that previously surfaced last season.  All that seems to change (and the same holds true for American Idol, Jersey Shore, and, admittedly, those are the only ones I can name...) is the faces of the competitors.  The only difference is that none of us can possibly imagine watching Jersey Shore intermittently for 30 years.  At some point, people should grow out of it.

One-time contestants, back in 1980, had a great episode wherein contestants went back and forth over jobs, unemployment, military spending, taxes...nice to see how far we've come, eh?  And in this day and age, the audience seems to be more polarized by the mantle their contestants has donned over what they're saying.  There is a "right" and a "wrong", a difference that appears to based more on truth than "fact". Alliances are a sure-fire way to lose ground.  "Compromise" is the latest four-letter word.  Everyone is against outsourcing and off-shoring, and no one (yet everyone) has contributed to both.  Both sides are cutting our access to healthcare, Medicaid, and Medicare, yet both sides are actively protecting them.  Neither side (yet both sides) are raising taxes.  Everyone is somehow both for and against women.  Everyone is both for and against job creation.  See where I'm going with this?

Welcome to the future.  Welcome to numbers and figures that only exist if we want them to.  Where data and facts are hotly debated and even open to interpretation.  There is no such thing as a number anymore.  Here's a list...choose your favorite and laud it as FACT.  Everyone else is WRONG.

Oh, and don't forget to vote today.  I hear it's the most important election of our lives.  But don't worry.  In four years, it will be the most important election once again.

Self-Preservation

Is there such a thing as a truly selfless act?  Now, I don't mean this to paint such an egotistical and narcissistic portrait of human nature as it will almost certainly sound, but I don't know that anything done by anyone anywhere is motivated ultimately by anything more than self-preservation.

But wait, you exclaim, what about soup-kitchens, charity, stopping to help a stranger change a flat?!?  Are those ultimately motivated by selfish logic?  Well, I'd thoughtfully reply, why did so-and-so volunteer at the kitchen?  Why did you donate those clothes to Goodwill?  Why did you pull over?  Well because it's the right thing to do, you'd say, wondering why this idiot even posed such a shallow question anyway.  But again, why?  The answers to that can certainly be far-ranging...

For one thing, it's in accordance to my religious beliefs.  Fair enough, but what happens next?  Once upon a time, I took the Anthropology of Death during my undergrad (back in my youth), we had a great discussion about why people have religion, if perhaps there was no death, there may very well be no religion, for, after all, much of religion consists of "doing the right thing" now, and then reaping the rewards in the afterlife.  If I pray, tithe, donate, spread the Word, off nonbelievers, and so on, I will be rewarded in the next life, whether with virgins, clouds and harps, or rebirth.  Isn't that the idea?  Now here I'd add an addendum: the use of religion to confront the fear and certainty of death is matched only by its use to justify a seemingly unjust world.  If I do good now, even without worldly gain, I will be immortalized later.  So, in effect, what you're saying is that you're helping people now not necessarily because it's the right thing to do, or even because you want to, but because you want to go to heaven?

Well, fine, you say, I help people because it makes me feel good.  After a slight and not-very-inconspicuous sigh, I'd look hard at them and have them figure this one out...  I mean really...you're going to try to justify an action as unselfish because it makes you feel good?  C'mon now.  You're better than that.

I help people because what goes around, comes around.  Again, inevitably attempting to benefit yourself. 

Even politics - we vote not to help the huddled masses, we vote in accordance with our beliefs.  If our candidate espouses our same beliefs, we guarantee that our values survive.  We vote one way or another because we worry about our taxes going up, the future of our employment and industry, the future of our kids (Darwinism...the natural desire to ensure the survival of our genes).

I realize I've barely skimmed the surface of the issue, but consider this food for thought.  So what's your point, you ask. My point is just to be aware of the phenomenon is all; should we stop all charitable acts because we realize that maybe we're a bit more selfish than first thought?  Not at all!  I mean, is a good done for the wrong reasons not still a good deed?  If I donated thousands of dollars to a after-school facility with the expectation that my name be front and center on their next leaflet, isn't that still several thousand more dollars than they had before?  So perhaps it doesn't matter why we help people out - I say it's still a better world wherein we do help those in need for self-preservation than one with self-preservation as an overt motivator.  So, please, go out and help someone.  Spare some change, support a cause, donate some time, effort, money...just because I'm doing it for me and you're doing it for you, that doesn't mean that the act itself is nullified.

So go lend a hand!

And remember, charitable donations are tax-deductible ;)

Thoughts on snacking

There was a news story I just read about a certain snack being banned at some schools, and the comments below were just raring to go on how the government shouldn't be dictating what our kids eat.  “What my kid eats is MY business” said one alias-emboldened commentator.  And yet none seemed to appreciate the irony in the fact that this occurrence is taking place in a public school…an educational system created and functioning because of government involvement.  We demand our children go to school, adhere to laws that decree they can read at or above grade level, and appreciate that everyone, even those without children in that particular school, pay for it.  But suddenly the fight is against government involvement.  Please let me into your reasoning.  We have the responsibility to educate our children, but bear no such onus to stop them from getting fat.  Lovely.  

Quote of the Week #4

"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire."
-William Butler Yeats

Teachers Strike

I realize it's been quite some time since my last post, but the news in Chicago these last few days galvanized me into action.  I can't help but notice a severe failing in logic as I scroll through message boards:

The going opinion is to demonize the teachers for failing to do their jobs.  Angry posts abound, talking about how teachers make too much money, don't work that hard, how the US is lagging drastically behind the rest of the developed world in test scores, and that currently the students are the ones suffering.  That last part is what hits me as incongruent with the rest of their arguments... 

As the teachers are on stirke, they're obviously not in the classrooms.  If they're not in the classrooms, obviously the students are missing a teacher.  If the students are missing their teachers, they're not learning.  But if you listen to some of these arguments, one can almost ascertain that they weren't learning in the first place.  It doesn't really click in my head.  We say that the students suffer because they're missing their education, but follow it up with what a terrible job teachers are doing...are we saying that a bad education is better than no education?  Hmmm.  God I hope not...

Now, we can look at this from a different angle as well: the students suffer because the teachers aren't doing their jobs right?  No one talks about how garbage suffers if Waste Managment goes on stirke.  Or that cars are somehow wronged if steel workers picket.  But if teachers aren't doing their job, it's the youth of the nation that lose.  Correct?  If teachers don't do their job, students lose.  Therefore, if teachers do their job, shouldn't the students win?  Therefore, couldn't one say that teachers doing their job benefits the next generation?  Now, how many other professions could make the argument that they directly impact the quality of a child's upbringing with that level of certainty?  And, therefore, if teachers do in fact play such a weighty role, then don't they indeed deserve higher pay and better benefits?  Doctors go on stirke and the patients suffer.  Teachers strike and the students suffer.  Doctors make, well, let' just say a lot.  Teachers?  Well...

Again, not saying who's right and wrong, just pointing out that if we're arguing that teachers being on strike hurts the students, it makes sense that if they do their jobs, they benefit the students.  So isn't the profession worth it?

Struggling to Get By

"I have guys who qualify for food stamps now," he said. "I have guys who don't know how they are going to pay their mortgage. There are kids working at ice cream stands earning more than their fathers, which is ridiculous."

This is pulled from an article in the Bradenton Herald regarding the latest government action to scrimp and save.  The story goes something like this: with no money in the bank, the mayor of Scranton, PA, cut public employee wages to minimum wage for the foreseeable future.  Politics aside (although the article, which can be found at the bottom of this post, makes a great point of the necessity for bipartisan cooperation), I think this issue brings to light an extreme issue plaguing millions of people: minimum wage is not enough to live on.  In the wealthiest nation in the world, a topic brought up in every election is what to do with welfare and social programs - do we fund them or cut them?  Well, long story short, as long as minimum wage is not enough to stay off of welfare programs.  At $7.25 an hour (as it is in PA and WI, at least), one can expect to make only $13,000 a year, which comes about $100 under the maximum monthly income to qualify someone for food stamps (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm).

Now, if we were to look as this systemically, one may agrue that welfare and social services will always be an issue as long as people aren't making enough to stay off of them.  Seems pretty straightforward, right?  Apparently not.  All we talk about is the Band-Aid we put on the issue - welfare, food stamps, reduced-price lunch - without delving into the actual issue: people don't make enough NOT to use them.  I should think that this situation in Scranton, PA may be a wakeup call to policy makers.  But, alas, I won't get my hopes up.

Find the entire article here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/10/4109205/pa-mayor-cuts-city-workers-pay.html

Quote of the Week #3

"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn no other way."
-Mark Twain

Quote of the Week: #2

"If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
-Isaac Newton

Hiding Online

What is it about social networking sites that provides people an illusion of anonymity?  I can see how that may come into effect on message boards, where an individuals name and personal information is secured behind a screen name and avatar, but places like Facebook, Twitter, and others are created specifically to display a portrait of a person - who they are, who they know, even where they're from and currently live.  In this aspect, it's not so much a "message board" that shows up on your feed, but an extended conversation consisting of people spouting whatever comes to mind - the inane, the insightful, and everything in between - wherever and whenever they feel so inclined.  However, shouldn't this raise a red flag disclaimer before posting?  Not an official or actual, but a personal aside to think before we speak?  Isn't that something we're told when we're young, to think about what we say and who we say it to?

Now, I'm not a heavy advocate for any kind of censorship, personal or otherwise, for fear of offending someone.  An opinion is a great thing, and I encourage people to find their own truth and things to believe in.  However, in what way does it become alright to spout these opinions to the wide world?  Scrolling through my feed this morning, I wondered how adamant some of these people would be if they were expected to make such wide, sweeping, declarative statements in a tavern somewhere.  Is this something they would exult in mixed company?  With friends?  With family?  With strangers?  Sure, there will undoubtedly be those who agree, but surely several that don't.  Would someone be impertinent enough to sit and argue?  To what end?  I have never encountered a situation in which a person has been swayed by a clashing lecture with someone of a differing opinion.  Namely on politics and religion.  And yet we use our social media for exactly this forum.

Again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't make their beliefs known, or that somehow aren't entitled to them, but what are we tyring to prove by pushing these opinions on other people?  What is the hoped for end result of throwing our beliefs in the faces of others?  Wouldn't we be much better served to begin a dialogue, an opportunity to listen and learn?  Sure, we may disagree with what someone is saying, but isn't it entirely possible to still (in this very partisan day and age) have a clear, level-headed conversation?

The way I see it, anger, resentment, and  sheer bullheadedness - taking the place of level-headed and logical, albeit impassioned defenses for our beliefs - are a facade, behind which we hide our own insecurities and doubts of our personal truths.

Left Turn Only/Right Turn Only Maze

The game is to enter through either opening at the bottom and make it out the other.  The caveat is depending on which entrance you choose, you may only make left or right turns at intersections (the entrances are labeled) or go straight.  Good luck!

Quote of the Week #1

"I am not what has happened to me.  I am what I choose to become."
-Carl Jung

Agreed

A precursor here is a recent post of mine (found here), arguing that being content with what you have is more important than focusing on what you  wish you had.  Shortly thereafter I happened across this video and I think this guy's onto something...

It's Not the "Power of Positive Thinking"...

I have a thought: perhaps it's not the power of positive thinking, but rather the power of thinking positively.  The way we see the world has an enormous effect on our affect.  However, all too often, I think we continually set our sights on how much better off, how much happier we would be if we could just land that job, get that bigger salary (caveat if you truly do need that salary to cover basic needs...sorry folks, that new patio or plasma TV doesn't count), or that brand-spanking-new car.  If we could only get, we would receive.  But why do we stress getting?  Why do we need more stuff?  I instead advocate for treating daily circumstances as opportunities for using what we already have, and being thankful for it.

Struggles are an opportunity for growth, annoyances are windows for patience.  The Dalai Lama advocates thanking those people with whom you must interact but absolutely drive you nuts, as they're providing you the opportunity to practice compassion and patience.  In the same vein, the way we decide - yes, decide: we cannot control what others do, but we do have total control over how we choose to react - to view certain circumstances can change our perspective and become less frazzled.  For my job, I often find myself driving through Madison during what we'll call "inopportune times of day".  If you've ever found yourself in a metropolitan area during such a time of day, you'll understand how frustrating it can be.  I've been trying to take this time to #1: recognize that I'm well aware the traffic pattern during the times of day I'll be travelling, and as such am more than able to modify my departure time to avoid it - i.e. leave earlier.  #2: Understand that often there are extenuating circumstances for the traffic, and that it's not actually anyone's fault, certainly not the person trying to merge that I'm continually foiling.  And if traffic's especially bad, usually due to an accident, rather than being upset that I'll be late, I've been trying to change my reaction to one of thanks that it wasn't me or my friends or family involved.  It's useful to keep in mind that things aren't good or bad.  Things just are.

So I see real value in looking on the bright side.  I don't believe that things magically appear if you will them to, but happiness and success, I think, are precluded heavily by focusing on being thankful for and using what you have, not on what you wish you had.

Thinking and Learning II

Several weeks ago, I wrote about how the more you know, the more you can learn (accessed here).

Adding to it with a bit of Ken Robinson into the mix (an animated TED Talk he's done can be found here).  Initially, I predominately indicated that it's useful to have a depth of knowledge from which you may be able to draw referenences and points of comparison, effectively interconnecting the web of information that exists all around us.  And I most certainly still see that as an incredibly valuable asset to have.  The ability to observe a situation, understand the circumstances, recognize likely outcomes, and acknowledge the otherwise unforeseen effects is an incredible ability indeed.

However, I beleve that there may in fact be two sides to the coin.  On the one side, we have depth of knowledge - expereince and insight perhaps only gleaned through conscious effort to learn.  On the other side, I think we can find breadth of knowledge - experience and background into a wide range of topics.  This one's a bit more difficult for me to convey, mostly because I'm not a psychologist.  But I'll give it a shot:

The human mind is perhaps one of the most intricate and interconnected system of avenues and information in the history of the world.  no computer has even come close to providing anything on par with it, and as such, there's still much we don't fully understand.  What we, as humans, have come to learn about the human mind is that it's very dynamic and very diverse.  Two hemisphere's compose the brain, one, on the left, controlling logical/deductive reasoning and the other, on the right, controlling our artistic ability, spatial awareness, and creativity.  It's fun - to draw the left hemisphere, we need the right.  To study and learn about the right hemisphere, we need the left.  The two sides don't operate in a vacuum: they intermingle data from one side to the next, back to the first, shoots it over...and so on and so on and so on and so on, and it happened faster than you read this sentence.

Pretty cool, eh?

But what that means, however, is that as we learn, the dynamic and plastic nature of our mind organizes, accumulates, and reorganizes data in such a way that we haven't even begun to fully understand the pathways and synapses and connections made in the categorization of information.  What we know and what we've experienced shapes our perceptions and influences how we view the world around us.  The language we speak and use influences how we see the world more than how we see the world influences our language.  The experiences each of us have and the encounters we face all play a role in some way, shape, or form how we see the world, and in turn, perceive future events.  As such, if all we study and all we know is, for instance, 19th century English literature, we limit ourselves to (predominately) only be able to perceive the world through that singular lens.  Adding breadth to your knowledge, though, may just be the key to an ability to see more...

Changing Education Paradigms

Check out the video from Ken Robinson.  I'm in the midst of his book Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative, and he makes some excellent points about the widening gap between what and how school's teach and what the modern workforce will need to know and be capable of.  Enjoy!

Common Sense

Thomas Paine first published his short, 48-page pamphlet "Common Sense" in 1776.  At that time is one of the most widely read and distributed pieces of literature throughout the American colonies.  From there, it helped fuel the fires of revolution, swaying readers to buy into the argument that those colonies should be free and independent from British rule, portraying a vivid picture of an American identity.

1852 witnessed the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe.  A best-selling abolitionist novel, the book eventually led President Abraham Lincoln to reference Stowe as "the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war" - the American Civil War.

In our present day, the fires of revolution are still stoked by the spread of the written word.  Egyptian revolutionaries successfully disposed of long-time president Hosni Mubarak in 2011, aided by significant use of social networking sites such as Twitter to coordinate efforts and disseminate information.

We currently live in a globally-interdependent society featuring the most available information, the fastest modes of communication, and the highest level of education in the history of the world.  The world population, thought by some to represent a higher number of living people than the total that have died throughout human history.  At 8 billion, there are more people living on Earth than ever before, and of these 8 billion, more people live in urban areas than ever before as well (up to roughly 50%).  All these modes of communication - cell phones, the internet, and person-to-person - have been used today to put more people in touch with others around the globe that it's difficult to imagine functioning without instant access.  We are able to access - at our fingertips - to have a conversation with someone on the opposite side of the PLANET.

I labelled this post "Common Sense" not only in reference to Thomas Paine's opus, but also because I find it frightening how people have grown to use this information and communication technology in such erroneous ways.  On a social networking site, I was scrolling through posts and came across one from a friend lamenting that a new couch wouldn't fit through their front door.  All I could think about was in what way was informing your hundreds of connections of this piece of trivia relevant or useful?  Take a moment to scroll through your social network of choice and count the number of trivial posts and updates.  I see these and wonder why.

In a world of unprecedented growth, revolution, change, and advances, how much are we taking for granted?  We've corrupted it into an incessant buzz of random thoughts in the heat of moment, void of value or thought, consumed, indeed, asked for on a minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day basis.  Snooki has almost 5 million followers on Twitter but I'm the one people gawk at when they learn I don't have cable or even a smart phone.  When did so much interaction become just noise?

Can technology keep pace with the times?

Evolutionary biologists have argued a system of growth known as "punctuated equilibrium" has been the pattern of human evolution: new species and macro-evolutionary changes happening in swift, steep inclines, followed by a relatively calm period devoid of macro changes, followed by another swift, punctuated change, and then another relatively calm period.  There also comes a time when biological evolution tapers off as cultural evolution takes off (we can now adapt to our environments using clothing, housing, and the like rather than physically change).  Looking at the cultural progression of humankind, however, punctuated equilibrium can be noticed as well: our technological advances have been made in bursts - the Paleolithic Era, the Neolithic Era, and the Iron Age, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, and the Internet Age defining the major technological advances of mankind.

It is also true that technological advances have been accelerating at an astounding rate - referred to as the "law of accelerating returns".  The Paleolithic Era lasted over one million years.  The Neolithic Era lasted less than 7,000.  The Classical Age - rife with Greek philosophy, Egyptian building accomplishments, Chinese gunpowder, and the earliest uses of wind and water energy - lasted less than 1,000 years.  The Middle Ages stayed for another 1,000 while the Renaissance gave this world many of the historical structures and works of art in less than 300.  A brief period of global expansion and imperialism populated the planet, leading to multinational trade, building to the eventual Industrial Revolution - a 150 year period of migration, expansion, growth of urban areas, and mass production.  one hundred years later, the IT Revolution has grown, burst, and regrown in less than 30 years.

It took mankind 50 years to go from the first powered flight to launching a man-made unmanned satellite into orbit, yet less than 17 years after that we landed on the moon.

Alexander Graham Bell patented the telephone in 1876 and Zach Morris was walking around the halls of "Saved By The Bell" with a "modern" cell phone in the early 1990's - 120 years.  By the mid-2000's, internet had been added to a completely different mobile phone - less than 20 years.  

My first flashdrive less than 8 years ago held an incredible 512 megabytes.  Three years ago I picked up a 4GB drive for less than a dinner out.  And since then I've seen 1 terabyte external hard drives for under $100.  That's one million million bytes - more information than many people will ever save to a computer in a lifetime.

I recently read that if automotive technology had advanced at the same rate as computing technology, cars would drive somewhere around 6 times the speed of sound, make 1,000 miles to the gallon, and cost consumers about a dollar to purchase...

Now, the reason I bring this up is because I wonder how far technology can go.  How far can we sustain growth?  The coming 20-30 years will bring about greater technological advances, greater population growth, and greater cultural shifts than the world has ever seen.  By 2050, the world population will grow to over 9 billion people (by 1800, that number was cresting one billion).  Some 60% of people will be living in cities, and the developing nations of today will be outgrowing (both economically and in population) the current developed world. 

So what will tomorrow look like?  And how far will mankind be able to grow, spread, and develop before we hit the ceiling?  Business has the minimum efficient scale - the point at which greater output doesn't lead to additional cost reductions per unit.  The point where the system levels out and growth is stagnant.  At what point will the current system fail to meet our needs (as stone tools, bronze weapons, indentured servants, and rotary phones have already) and a new system becomes necessary?

When will the bubble burst?  After all, empires collapse, they don't just fade away...

Thinking and Learning

Reading some articles of Daniel Willingham (check out some of his work here), one incredible fact sticks out to me: the more you know, the more you can learn.  Think of any random joke that happens across your mind.  Take, for instance, if there's H2O on the inside of a fire hydrant, what's on the outside?  K9P

First of all, that's hilarious.

But think of all the previous knowledge you need to connect the punch line with the joke.  You need to know that the chemical makeup of water is two parts hydrogen (designated by an "H") and one part oxygen (the "O").  And there's a good chance you already knew the function of a fire hydrant so the assimilation of "H2O" and "hydrant" was already apparent in your mind.  As for the punch line, this may have a taken a second to understand (I know it took me a second) because it's not immediately applicable to all people to refer to a dog as a "K9".  As our mind was already focused on interpreting chemical formulas, it may have taken a second to change gears into a new route of thinking.  But that second was undoubtedly just a second.  The connection was swiftly made for "K9" = dog and "P" = urine, drawing on past experience that dogs are known to pee on fire hydrants.

And those connects were made in less than a second.  You undoubtedly didn't have to put any thought into understanding the joke at all, it just clicked.  This is because you already had those requisite concepts stored in your long-term memory, drew them out into your working memory and complied previous knowledge with new information to arrive at the conclusion that the joke is phenomenal.  Without any effort.

Now apply that to reading a book or magazine, following instructions, or having a conversation.  If you're already well-versed in (or at least knowledgeable of) the basics of the Vietnam War, having a cocktail party conversation with someone about the merits and validity of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, the Domino Effect, and proxy battles of the Cold War shouldn't be an issue.  However, knowing absolutely nothing about it may leave you blindly searching your memory for 10th grade history class to retrieve any useful tidbit to avoid standing there staring blankly.  But this ability to retrieve such information is made possible by the fact that you already knew about differences between capitalism vs. communism and understood the opposing view points.  And now, with this prior knowledge, you're able to better understand the delicate nature of the Vietnam War, the incursions into Cambodia, and the confrontation with China regarding proximity to their border.  You're able to understand how photography offered those back home a look at the harsh realities of war and helped turn popular opinion against the war.  You'll be better able to understand the ramifications of the draft, and apply that to a conversation as we ventured into Iraq in the early 2000's regarding another one.

Similarly, the more you know about computers (of which I am not nearly as informed!), each experience, each method, or each upgrade lays the foundation for future situations.  Perhaps not exactly the same issue, but the previous knowledge serves as a building block, a stepping stone to understanding this new situation.

The more you know, the more you can learn...

So really, regardless of WHAT you're learning, just get out there and learn something new today!

Technology to Make Life "Easier"?

I'll admit it: my current technology collection is reminiscent of someone caught between the outdated and even more outdated, but considering the leaps and bounds in technological advances (less than a year for the iPad2 to be pushed out with the iPad3) I'm finding it so much easier to simply ride out the storm with things that not only work, but exceed my needs, rather than scramble to drop a small; fortune on the latest game, the latest tablet, the latest phone, the latest vehicle.  And from this perspective, I've been wondering if these advances are truly making life "easier", considering both the short- and long-term implications.

Not too long ago I happened across a smartphone commercial (while watching one of our two channels we get through the antenna), where the narrator was talking about upgrading to a phone with a longer battery life so one could stay on the phone all day long "and never have to think again".  While I do appreciate that they're no longer beating around the bush, it seems to me that by freely admitting to this also implies a complete lack of concern for it.

This morning I saw a commercial for a new car coming to market, complete with a rear camera for safely backing up, as well as forward cameras to predict things ahead and potential upcoming hazards and blindspot alarms.  I'm sure I would agree with the argument that all these things contribute to the safety of the driver, passengers, and everyone else on the road, absolutely.  But let's look long-term for a second.  In the next decade or so, as everyone becomes used to these features, how long will it take before they're taken for granted and no one checks their blindspot manually or rearview mirror anymore?  How long until people lose the ability to be safe, conscientious drivers without these things?  As we develop greater technology, we must also be aware of the cultural-evolutionary effects of these developments.

Or micro-evolutionary affects.  The "Google Effect" (no specifically tied to Google alone) has been discovered in reference to the way our brains have been subtly changing with the advent of instant searches and the information of the world available at our fingertips.  It's been argued that this instant information has been causing us to lose the ability to create and retain information because, well, we don't have to.  And yet as we lose the ability to think without, specifically, the internet, what effect will that have in the future?  In a previous post I wrote about how the more we know, the more we're able to learn - however, if what we know is limited to what we can find in an internet search, one search at a time, we lose the ability to make those instant connections and, dare I saw, lose the ability to become critical thinkers.

Up next: 21st Century skills - those skills most vital for success in the new century.  Near the top of the list: critical thinking!

And people wonder why the U.S. is slipping in international rankings.  Our inability to reason has been exacerbated by an apathy toward learning in general.

Live to Work or Work to Live?

I was wondering today which was better.

On the one hand, to work to live, I've understood to be the credo of Millennials such as myself.  In a departure from previous generations, the argument for working to live places life first, that a job is something tolerated as a necessity to fund social activities and leisure time.  And this makes sense because after all, isn't there more to life than simply waking up in the morning and heading to a job which you, in all likelihood, can stand but don't particularly  like?  Shouldn't life be more focused on living, on our experiences, our adventures?  By working to live, we no longer define ourselves by what we do.  Although it's still often used as the answer to "So, what do you do?".  A job, we argue, is something we do, not what we are.  And by placing life as the priority, gives us a greater chance to explore who we are and how we matter.  A job is just something that pays the bills.

On the flip side, however, living to work, we could make the argument that our career is exactly who we are. More time is spent working than anything else (sleep may edge it out here...) and who we are is defined by what we do everyday.  To that end, to have the goal of living to work provides an intrinsic motivation to pursue your passions professionally.  To engage in the very experiences others may only find on the weekends.  To contribute to society in a meaningful way.  To do the best job we can in the job we're in.  To make a difference.  Here the priority is on the work: the goal is live everyday doing something in a positive, meaningful way, recognizing the value in a days work, and making a difference at the end of the day.

I work as a challenge course facilitator, which means I have the opportunity to interact with hundreds of people every year, and I hope that by the end of our time together I have been able to help them learn something about themselves and those around them, even if they themselves don't recognize it.  And that gives me great joy and pride in my work, to the point where I may just argue that I live to work.  But it's still only a part of who I am...

So is one better than another?  Alas, I don't have the answer.

Of course, knowing my penchant for revisiting previous posts, I'm sure I'll have a follow up before too long.

Just Waiting For Their Turn to Speak

As I previously averred, I'll try and stay away from strongly opinionated statements and controversy throughout this blog.  That's not to say that sometimes I'll touch on subjects that may themselves be controversial, but only that I'll attempt to explain my thoughts and arguments (often for both sides - hence the blog title) in a way that remains neutral and level-headed.  The primary reason for this is that the natural reaction to offense is defense.  If someone is reading or listening to something they perceive to be an attack, either personally or an assault on his or her beliefs, the natural reaction will be to become defensive, to gear up for fight or flight - either stop reading or counter-attack.  And, before you know it, we'll have something akin to political debates, where one side isn't so much listening as waiting for their turn to speak.  And it's in this sort of atmosphere that nobody really learns.  No one is thinking critically or clearly about the issue anymore, other than trying to force the other side to retreat.  And as long as I've been around other people, I've never seen anyone change their mind because someone forced the opposite on them.  Often I've found it just pushes the person to reassert their initial position, sometimes to avow it more strongly.

Now, I'm not of the mind that people shouldn't take a stance on things they believe in.  Or that they should necessarily be wishy-washy.  Just that people need to hear out the opposition.  We need to empathize and attempt to see the other side of an argument rather than reject it completely simply because it isn't aligned with what we see is right.  It's in these situations that people stop listening to one another and simply fight.  Take, so example, the national debate on abortion.  Without giving my opinion (this isn't the place for what I think - if you're curious, we can talk in person), it seems that the two sides are arguing without listening to each other.  On the one hand we have Pro-Life: anti-abortion, based on the sanctity of life and the rights of those unable to assert themselves.  On the other hand, we have Pro-Choice: in favor of a woman's right o choose what's best for her and her body.  Just think of their names and descriptions.  One is "Pro-Choice", not "Pro-Death" or "Anti-Life".  Nowhere in their argument is it apparent that this group is arguing for more abortions.  Their stance revolves around a woman the freedom over her own body.  On the other side is "Pro-Life".  They're not referred to as "Anti-Choice" because they're not arguing that women shouldn't be allowed any sovereignty over their lives.  The two sides are debating the same issue but they aren't actually listening to one another.  The groups realize they don't agree, and therefore the opposite is wrong.  No gray area.  No middle ground.  And therefore no actual dialogue and no listening.

Not too long ago in Madison, WI, newly elected Governor Scott Walker proposed measures to force public employees to pay more into their pension and healthcare plans as a measure of balancing the budget.  A caveat of this was to strip public union members of collective bargaining rights to ensure these measures would stay intact.  This was met with demonstrations around Capitol Square, in masses sometimes estimated at over 70,000 people.  In the meantime, public employees had agreed to pay more into pensions and healthcare, giving the governor what he asked for monetarily, however he was adamant on collective bargaining.  So now on one side, we've people arguing that the budget needs to be balanced.  On the other side, those arguing that collective bargaining is a necessity for their ability to effectively do their job.  Two opposing sides disagreeing over different things and losing sight of the actual issue.

So although I do have my own opinions and stance on many issues, approaching this blog with a steadfast "I'm right and you're wrong" creates and lose-lose situation.  So instead, I welcome comments that are level-headed and free of attack.  I believe that disagreement is an incredible venue through which to learn (the devil's advocate approach), but the disagreement must be clear and concise, allowing for DIALOGUE and DISCUSSION over debate.

So when was the last time you actually listened to someone with whom you disagreed?  Have you learned from them enough to argue their point?

Why Go to College, revisited, revisited

What does it actually mean to be well-educated, anyway?  I sometimes scoff to myself when I see or hear a misuse of grammar or spelling.  I admit, I have caught myself flabbergasted when confronted with someone who hasn't seen or read something I think is vital.  I have been caught off guard upon the realization that someone doesn't know a fact or tidbit, can't recall an author, or hasn't heard of someone or something.  But does that mean that particular person isn't just as educated, just as intelligent?

Sometimes, more often than I care to admit, I need to remember that there is no definition of "well-educated".  A most humbling experience for me is to talk cars.  Even beyond what happens under the hood, I struggle in conversations about makes and models of cars, current and classic.  I can't rewire a house.  I don't know the first thing about plumbing.  I can't sit and read through the great philosophers (get to the point already!).  I can't mend the human body.  I can't write computer code.  I can't create beautiful and intricate works of art.  I can't do a great number of things.

But I can do a great number more, and many times I can do things, see things, think things, others can't or don't.  So is one better than another?  I see the only vital part of being "educated" is the ability to critically think and reason, synthesize information, and evaluate concepts.  How do you define "smart"?

Why Go to College, revisited.

In the spirit of arguing with myself, I revisited my post regarding going to college.  I know why I went, but obviously that's not why others may opt to attend or not.  Am I advocating for everyone to attend a four-year institution?  Of course not.  What's right for one isn't necessarily right for all.  Am I advocating that everyone develop themselves enough to think critically and synthesize information and evaluate the validity of an argument?  Of course.  That's a vital part of what I see as a rounded individual.

But what does it mean to be "educated"?  Does it mean an associates degree? A technical degree? Undergrad?  Master's?  Doctoral?  Is one inherently better than another?  Let me pose a side question: what would happen if 100% of United States citizens had a doctoral degree?  Or a graduate degree?  What would happen if 100% of us had a bachelor's degree?  Is that required for most jobs?  Is it necessary to survive?  Would we not still have jobs and careers that don't require that piece of paper?  Would anyone want to do them anymore?  Too often through my undergraduate education and after, I've heard people decrying their entry-level or manual labor jobs, that such work was below them because they "have a degree".  What a crock.  A piece of paper doesn't make you any better or worse than the next person. 

What I DIDN'T learn in my undergraduate experience has been much of what I'm finding to be the more important aspects of adult life.  College didn't teach me anything about engines or car repairs.  I didn't learn any electric or plumbing.  I didn't learn how to build of fix a house.  I didn't learn how to mend, sew, or cook from any class.  

So is necessary for everyone to attend a four-year college or university?  Not in the slightest.  Summers between semesters I worked as a landscaper, rising with the sun, sweating and toiling through the day, and when we finished, we could look at what we'd created and be proud.  Helping a friend with some light remodeling work brought the work boots out of hiding as we plastered drywall, insulated walls, and sealed windows.  And again, we looked at what we'd down at the end of the day and could be proud with that we accomplished.  I've found that some of the most satisfying moments in my professional life have been those where the visible fruits of my labor are apparent (I'm a middle child so I suppose I was born to crave attention!)

And I have caught myself wondering if, knowing what I know now, would I do it all over again?

When People ARE Watching

When I started writing this blog, I did so telling myself that it could be used as a springboard, deceiving myself with dreams of grandeur after reading through some of the more widely read and influential blogs.  And yet, even as I began writing, designing the layout, adding gadgets and choosing fonts, I really hadn't expected anyone to actually read my words.  Of course, these thoughts only come to mind now that it has been noticed.  Now I'm faced with the question: how do you act when people ARE watching?  The dozen posts that came before this one had been written - I now realize - uninhibited by concern for anyone but myself.  That may very well not be the case anymore.  Of course, the insight to be gleaned here is the real-life applicability of what I've found to be a cornerstone off moral action: "Would you be comfortable if your actions were posted on the front page of the newspaper?"  The element of accountability is a significant thing.  If anything, I feel impelled to reread, reconsider, and THINK about what I post.

Now, I also realize that this may be a far-fetched idea: thinking MORE about potentially controversial issues or in thrusting my opinion onto the permanence of the internet.  Too often, the presence of an audience offers not accountability, but encouragement to move even farther away from true analysis and more toward creating the controversy so desired by many.

I think I'll stick to doing it my way.  I realize strong opinions enhances contention and boosts patronage, but I don't want to be read because I argue with people, or tell some people what they like to hear at the expense of telling others what they won't read anyway.  Exploiting that partisan way of thinking my boost ratings but inevitability only contributes to a further split.  Too often this divide is more important than the issue itself, and we focus on our disagreement.  But taking the less exciting path, it's my hope to remain readable regardless of the issue, for that's where I hope we can begin a dialogue to progress on the issues, rather than attempt to force one down the others throat.

Besides, I'm prone to the idiosyncrasy of seeing multiple sides to an issue.  Hence "Arguing With Myself" - give me long enough and I'll go back and clarify, rephrase, or down right disagree with myself.

So what about you?  How do you act when people ARE watching?  Would you be alright broadcasting your opinion at Christmas dinner?

Why Go to College?

What I can't figure out is why anyone would go to college anymore.  It seems, at least I was told, that if you go to college and do wel, you can graduate and will get a great job.  "Everyone wants a college grad!".  That's the way it was decades ago, and that's - I'm told - the way it was as I was finsihing up high school.

And then I foolishly followed my interests and majored in History and Anthropology, both without the intent of becoming a historian or anthropologist.  I had been under the impression that liberal arts (and I did study a wide range of topics) wasn't so much about WHAT you studied, but that you LEARNED HOW to study and think and create.  And to that end I did very much.

However, "if the U.S. is to remain competitive in the global market, we need more emphasis on engineering!".  "More hard science!"  "More math!"  More than once (more than three times even) I have been told by instructors through my graduate education that wanton studies like the arts, the social sciences, and the humanities are draining precious resources from our education system.  That the only thing that matters is how we keep up with the evolving technological market.

And yet high school graduates still flock to four-year institutions in droves.

But what's the point?  We can't package and sell intelligence and wisdom to our oversees markets, so why bother.  It's not something we can buy, sell, or mass produce from an assembly line (as much as our policy makers would like to believe...but that's an entirely different post).  So why continue an education, bury yourself in debt, and find very little reward at the other end?

Because people need to learn.  People need to continue to grow and develop and THINK.  I'm glad I studied history because I believe that those who ignore the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.  I'm glad I studied anthropology because I see the need, now perhaps more than ever, for people to respect and understand one another.  To recognize and move away from ethnocentrism.

Would I be doing just fine without having gone to college?  Undoubtedly.  And I'd be debt free.  Am I glad I did anyway?  You bet.  What I took away from the experience was the ability to LEARN.  To THINK.  To REASON.  And those are the skills that will truly matter through the 21st Century.

Thoughts on Successful Organizations

A little while ago, I posted thoughts about what makes an organization successful.  My original post focused mostly on the idea that there is no set formula or recipe for creating and sustaining a successful organization, but I kept thinking about it and arrived at a second thought: perhaps there is a universal equation.  Perhaps if one takes the right people, attempting the right thing, at the right time in the right place, perhaps there's no reason to doubt it would be successful.  Of course, this formula is similar to dieting.  Everyone knows that a healthy diet consists of eating healthy portions of nutritious foods and additional physical activity and exercise.  Simple, right? I'm confident that the vast majority of people are well aware of this idea, but, as always, the devil's in the details. What works for one person will be unlikely to work for another.  The issue comes in the application.  In figuring out what works best for YOU and YOUR organization.

So perhaps there is a universal principle.  Of course, at least one factor is well beyond our control - the right time - and so we have to adapt to do the best we can in the here and now while planning for the future.  So, in continuing the question from the original thought, what works?  What doesn't?  How do you facilitate the variables under your control?  And how do you mitigate those that aren't?

A Self-Made Man

Is there such a thing?  One the one hand, we've the idea that through enough hard work, dedication, and perseverance, we can achieve anything.  That through our own ambition, we are responsible for finding success. Or failure.  On the other hand, the argument can be made that there is no such thing as a "self-made man".  That everyone needs someone to help them out on their way up.  Businesses need someone to buy their services.  Companies need roads to transport their goods.  Even Wall Street needs someone to invest in.  Teachers, associates, the coworker who wrote the letter of recommendation...

I am of the latter persuasion.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating blaming shortcomings or missteps on others, nor for people to sit back and wait for their "white knight".  I'm saying that people need to take responsibility for their lives.  Be it through education, networking, or just taking a wild chance, a shot in the dark - there IS something you can do.  Even given the raw deal or hit with a blow that brought you to your knees, you are still accountable.  How will you react?  Roll over and give up, or fall down seven times, get up eight?  I argue the latter.  So take responsibility for where you end up.  Invest more of yourself.  Take an honest look at your weaknesses and exercise your strengths.  Build your own ladder.  But don't forget all those who enabled you to do so.

Changing Your Fate

I just saw a movie preview with the tagline "Would you change your fate?"  Now that doesn't really make sense to me: how could we know our fate in order to change it?  And once we live out our fate, wouldn't it be too late by then?  And isn't the very point of "fate" that things are the way they are and there's no changing them?  By changing them, wouldn't that effectively nullify the very concept of "fate"?  And again, if we don't know our fate, how could we be sure we're changing it?  What if the change itself was "fated" to happen?

Vicious circle?

See, I'm of the belief that fate is an excuse; used as a scapegoat, a handy way out of taking responsibility for things not working out your way.  I'm sure we've all heard the line, "It wasn't meant to be", or any variation thereof.  As I'm sure you could ascertain from many of my previous posts, I'm not big on the idea that defining your success by everything you've done or everything you have (too many variables.  There is no such thing as the "self-made man"), I do and will continue to maintain that you still get a say in how things turn out.  A cartoon I happened across in the funnies section was a one-panel shot of the protagonist amid a pile of lumber, looking at the empty box titled "Ladder of Success. Some Assembly Required".  What role does fate play there?  We can each decide to build the ladder or sit by and complain that our ladder wouldn't be tall enough anyway.  May we need some help along the way?  Of course.  Can we add to our lumber?  Of course.  So are you going to stand by, wishing to change your fate?  Or will you start building?

I, for one, will build.  But I know I'll need a hand along the way.

Successful Organizations

What makes a successful organization?  Is there a specific formula to follow, or a special recipe where one can add A, B, and C and come out on top?  I'm thinking it's not that easy.  I realize we've been taught since day one that your success is determined by the sweat of your brow and the ache of your back.  That you are solely responsible to make or break your own accomplishments.  The so-called "American Dream", where if you work hard enough, put enough of yourself into it, you can live the dream, so to speak.  But is that really it?  Are there not circumstances outside of your control that can influence the same success or failure?  Regardless of how much we personally invest in something, doesn't it still need outside influence?  Doesn't a business still need people to buy their stuff?  Doesn't an organization still need funding that may or not be available?  Is it YOUR fault if others don't believe in something as much as you do?

Now, I'm sure there are some out there reading this who would pose the argument that YOU need to convince them, that it falls on YOU to change their minds.  And to an extent, I agree.  I would also agree that there are times when it's not so much about succeeding or failing, but what you do and how you react to trials and tribulations.  Do you give up if the first dozen attempts fall through?  Do you just quit, complaining that life's not fair if things don't work out in your favor?  Of course not.  In that aspect we are accountable.  We are the only ones who can fully control ourselves.  Each of us, individually, are the sole proprietors of the we act and react to any given situations.  But at the same time, I would say that's a post for a new day and a completely different train of thought.

What I'm talking about is the organization itself.  What does it take to get an organization, a company, a business off the ground and running?  And maintain sustainability?  I suppose the best place to begin is to look at your own organization.  What are your strengths?  Weaknesses?  What have you been doing well to capitalize on and what needs work?  What else can you take advantage of and what out there should you be wary of?  A quick SWOT analysis may be the first step, and I'd be curious to hear what some strengths are, and look for similar factors across industries.

Smart Phones

So I’ve decided on a New Year’s resolution.  It had been a long time coming, but I couldn’t quite figure out what I needed to work on.  I maintain that it’s not so much a problem to be fixed as much as a noble experiment on my part: I’m resolving to spend less time on my phone.  Now I realize that with QR codes, internet browsing, and all of my awesome apps, I can do just about everything with this minicomputer I keep in my pocket.  It truly is amazing how far technology has come.  Again, I can’t stress enough how much this ISN’T a problem – just a curiosity, a thought as to what life is like beyond the front of my screen.  And it’s not even something I think I HAVE to do – after all, I have the world’s information at my finger tips, I can look for and find anything I’m curious about.  Books?  Magazines?  Memory?  And how on earth do I read a map?  These are all things of the past.  I need not burden my finite intellectual capacity with useless information like the past presidents, the Bill of Rights, contemporary news stories, or eve who starred in that movie…I can just look it up!  I understand that at the dinner table – at home or away – people used to have to sit awkwardly, silently staring at one another until the unbearable tension was finally broken by the arrival of their food.  I acknowledge and respect the long ago traditions of conversation and “small talk”.  But it’s a different time now.  When we go out to eat, all my friends will be checking Facebook, and the topic of talk will be different statuses, who posted what, and hilarious video clips.  And where will my experiment leave me?  High and dry.  Ostracized.  Outcast from the group.  And yet I feel the desire to try it.  I want to see if I can return my mental abilities to intra-cranial ability.  But the more I think about it, the more I wonder why I’m subjecting myself to this?  How will I entertain myself when I’m around uninteresting people?  Without my game apps or my social networking activities, how will I delay boredom?  How will I avoid face-to-face, interpersonal human interaction?  What on earth will I do when we, collectively, cannot remember some trivial fact?  What, should we sit and struggle, wracking our brains?  And how do we make it through social situations?  How will I be able to ignore my fellow human beings?  What, am I expected to make eye-contact with people?  Talk about weird…

On the other hand, perhaps it’s safer for me to stay sheltered within my phone.  Perhaps it’s better I bury my nose in instant, to-the-second updates.  Perhaps I’m not ready to rejoin society.  

Then again, perhaps I don’t have a smart phone.  Perhaps I’m still living in 2002, when people actually had to talk to, acknowledge, and even, (*gasp!*) rely on fellow people in the very same room.  It’s been ten years.  A single decade.  Not even a generation.  Technology has progressed in leaps and bounds.  But when was the last time you wondered something, but rather than allow it to stir up a lively discussion, wherein people exercised the muscle called a “brain”, you or someone sitting next to you whips out the phone (or tablet!) and has the answer without a moment’s notice? 

If you're looking for further reading, here are a couple rather interesting posts and articles:

• The Google Effect: New evidence of the Internet’s impact on brain and memory recalls Plato’s ancient warning
• Google Effect: Changes to our Brains
• Study Shows Internet Alters Memory
• Google turning us into forgetful morons

Post Script: I do also realize such technology has allowed us to do more things, given us the ability to reach further, close the intercontinental gap, and increase collaboration.  Such technology has allowed more information, more knowledge, to more people.  And yet, such technology necessitates increased social responsibility, greater levels of technology education, and significantly greater digital citizenship.  In the words of Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben… 

Choosing Your Challenge

Out on the challenge course, we're very adamant about the philosophy of "Challenge by Choice" (trademark by Project Adventure).  There are two main components to this philosophy, the first (and most apparent) of which is that each person in the group, each participant in the program, each climber on the course, have the opportunity to set their own boundaries.  Some people don't mind being blindfolded.  Others do.  Some people choose not to climb.  Some people choose not to hop around on one foot while quacking like a duck....you get the idea.  The point is, once we stop imposing a REQUIREMENT to participate to the extent of everyone else in the group, we can begin to lift off the unconscious pressure associated with forced participation.  We can begin to instill a sense of autonomy, giving people the ability to choose to challenge themselves, to look inside themselves to mindfully and voluntarily recognize their limits and take that one extra step.  There is a fine line between encouragement and peer pressure, but being aware of yourself and empathetic to those choosing to challenge themselves can help create a more emotionally, mentally, and even physically safer environment.  And, after all, a book read for fun is infinitely more interesting than an assigned text.

The second piece of the philosophy, going hand in hand with the former, is that each person has their own personal limits and abilities.  What may be less challenging for one person may be more challenging for another (I try to avoid labeling things as "easy" or "hard" - after all, do you want to be the person that struggled with the "easy" task?).  A problem that may take one person less than minute to arrive at a solution may take another more than 20.  The thing to remember, though, is that those roles don't always go to the same people.

Sometimes, outside of the course (away from the logical and known application), I suppose it's easy to forget the second piece.  And that's something I need to work on.  Because what we do on the challenge course is moot unless we can transfer it to our everyday lives!

A Book Review

I'm but a few pages away from finishing Daniel Pink's "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us" (a video link here will take to an RSA Animate during one of Mr. Pink's talks about motivation), and I must say that it was quite a good read. Very straight-forward and understandable, Mr. Pink breaks down the things people need most to be fully motivated, things which, unfortunately, many work places (not to mention schools! But a diatribe about standardized testing will come later, I'm sure) have failed to embrace. And from a personal perspective, the ideas of the book have begun to alter the way I hear people talk about work. Yesterday I was discussing ROWE (Results-Only Work Environment) with a classmate, and how places that have fully embraced it have forgone set schedules, meetings, and even mandating that work must be done from the office only, and her question was "Well, [the company of discussion] only has 22 employees. How would one go about managing a company of 300,000?". A fair question, but at the same time no one I've ever heard of directly oversees that many people solo, but more importantly, there's still this completely over-riding notion that people need to be "managed". That we have to have our tasks and assignments laid out for us and then babysat until they're done.

Here I think back to one of the first things any Leadership class discusses: the difference between leaders and managers. If we keep thinking that we need to layout an exact outline for someone to follow or it won't get done, all you're going to get is that. And nothing more. As a facilitator, one of my favorite things is seeing how different groups, different people approach a problem and find completely different solutions that accomplish the task. I don't tell them how it needs to be done. I suggest a final result, a goal, and the group comes up with, more often than not, a uniquely creative and innovative solution. Often something at least slightly different than I'd ever seen before.

I suppose if we simply begin to have confidence in people, they will surprise you. Anyway, good book, quick read, check it out!

Let's start from the beginning...

I suppose I should start from the beginning. I started this blog...well, I'm not entirely sure why, it just seemed like the next step, so here we are. I suppose it was originally supposed to be a soapbox from which I stand and spout my deep and sometimes witty insights of a wide variety of things. A platform from which I can preach and gripe, and, since it's the internet, remain in relative anonymity.

But after two posts I'm already tired of it. Face-to-face is more fun, more challenging, and more enlightening. So instead, I've decided to use this forum as a first-hand account of my observations from here on out. I plan on working toward a goal of healthier living (and I'm down 11 lbs since Christmas!), and reading a book a month (currently working through "Drive" by Daniel Pink before February when I intend to start "Out of Our Minds" by Ken Robinson). I plan on taking the GMAT and applying to a doctoral program. I plan on graduating with my Masters degree in Organizational Leadership, and am considering starting my own company as well as writing a book. I plan on drawing and writing, at least something, for 15 minutes each day. I plan on continuing to work as a facilitator, and learn more about anything and everything (currently the top 3 are solution-focused therapy, creativity, and motivation).

I figure that with all this going on, and yes, perhaps even some side observations pulled from my notes, I should be able to post once a week for at least the foreseeable future.

And now that I'm publishing this to the world wide web, I am creating some sort of accountability for myself. Here goes!