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I'll admit it: my current technology collection is reminiscent of someone caught between the outdated and even more outdated, but considering the leaps and bounds in technological advances (less than a year for the iPad2 to be pushed out with the iPad3) I'm finding it so much easier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?