Multiple Intelligences: Interpersonal (4 of 7ish)

Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to work with and relate to other people. These individuals are generally more aware of others' moods, feelings, and motivations, and tend to be better able to cooperate with others in a group setting.  The following example is former pickpocket Apollo Robbins which, while perhaps not the most broad example to be found, I feel portrays a very interesting take on understanding how people think. I believe this recognition, how people perceive and react, is fundamental to working with people (ideally less manipulative though!)  Enjoy.

Multiple Intelligences: Kinesthetic (3 of 7ish)

Bodily-kinestheitc intelligence, I hope, is fairly self-explanatory. Personally, I can barely hit a baseball (hence tennis being my spring sport of choice...), and examples are everywhere. People strong in this intelligence are the movers - dancers, athletes, even actors. Check out the video below for a collection of incredible athletic feats and physical awareness that at the very least make me regret that last doughnut and maybe even go for a walk...

Multiple Intelligences: Visual (2 of 7ish)

This week let's check out what I believe is a great example of Visual-Spatial Intelligence. People strong in this area have a greater ability regarding visual problems, spatial judgement, and navigating the concrete world. These people (not to used categorizing language - this exercise is intended merely as one of awareness, both personally and socially. Coincidentally enough, both of those being different, distinct intelligences... I guess throughout I seem to be creating my own example in the process!) have strengths in seeing with their mind's-eye, angles, facial recognition, navigation, and fine-details in their physical environment.  The individual in the following video is able to see and recognize the colors and shapes created by cooking pancake batter, and uses this ability to create some pretty cool pictures.  Enjoy!

(By the way, there are a lot of these out there, so if you're interested I'd encourage you to check out others! "Your Week in Pancake Art" is pretty cool, and "Star Wars Pancakes"is one of my favorites.)

Multiple Intelligences: Musical (1 of 7ish)

Cruising around YouTube the other day, I came to a realization. Not only are people capable of really cool things, but their abilities may also serve as a learning experience. Darndest thing, right? We all remember high school, when favorite subjects were more and more apparent, and seeing some of our peers excel in some areas while others excelled elsewhere - whether it was standout athletes, genius mathletes, or that one friend who could sing like angel. Still not free from controversy (don't worry, as per the MO of this blog I'm sure I'll write a post arguing against the theory someday soon), Howard Gardener posed the theory of multiple intelligences back in 1983, which asserts that everyone not only have different skills and abilities, but the way we learn and retain information is different as well. Now, just a heads up, I won't go into much more detail on the theory (I do encourage you to research it though...a lot of great info out there!); this string of posts are simply examples to showcase these innate abilities.

First up: Musical. These people are more sensitive to pitch, tone, timbre, and meter, and can often sing and/or play (an) instrument(s). Sitting, listening, to monotonous lecture simply won't cut it.  Check out the video below for what I think is a fantastic example of musical intelligence, as these guys have found new, creative, and incredible ways to use a single piano...

Unionizing Athlete-Students

A topic in the news for a couple weeks is the ruling that athletes participating at Northwestern University have the legal right to unionize, and it's something I've been rolling around in my head for some time but haven't been able to form a coherent reaction just yet.  Almost as though I'm arguing with myself about how to feel... But I figure at the very least I could sit down and (figuratively) put pen to paper, so I apologize if this reads somewhat stream-of-consciousness-ly.

To begin, I can understand and empathize with where this athletes are coming from. It is true that the NCAA has made bank from their efforts - coaches and executives making millions atop millions season after season, often being paid more than any other person on campus, from professors to the president.  Only a few years ago, Barry Alvarez filled in for the recently-vacated head coaching position of the Wisconsin Badgers football program for the final game or two of the season, receiving a six figure bonus for coaching, and another five figures for going to the Rose Bowl, all on top of his seven figure salary as athletic director.  So I get it.  If I was working day in and day out, seeing none of the fruits of my labors, I would be frustrated as well.  Hell, I'd probably go work for Wall Street where the same thing happens but at least I'd get a paycheck.

That being said, I think this is a systemic issue within the NCAA that needs to be addressed, rather than continue to erode out higher education system.  The title of this post is no mistake. These people are more frequently referred to as "student-athletes", to stress that the "student" comes first, but that's not really the case, now is it?  One of the primary arguments for the team is that they spend upwards of 60 hours each week on football, therefore, it's a job.  But let's think for a second: if they're spending all this time at practice, when exactly are they going to class and/or doing homework/studying?  And going a step further, how, then, are they all pulling 4.0's?

I can't help but feel this movement undermines the entire history of unionizing.  We've all read Grapes of Wrath at some point (at least many of us, or at least know the premise), and I couldn't possibly imagine that this is the same thing.  Hell, even Boy Meets World tackled the issue when the 9th grade students "unionized" after reading the book in an attempt to protest their tests at the school.  Thank you 90's TV for portraying more than any show these days ever could hope to imagine.

But I digress.

The point is that I don't really think this is a positive portrayal of our current system - neither our educations system nor labor movements.  These people are brought to schools for one reason. And when they graduate, chances are they still read at a fifth grade level anyway (and to think that I'm worried about undermining our higher education).  If anyone needs more evidence, simply listen to any professional athlete be interviewed.

And chances are they majored in Communication.  Explain that one to me.

These athletes are receiving a free education, comped room and board, and an almost guaranteed graduation from any number of universities, while the rest of us flounder in student loans for the next two decades.  So could I make an argument that perhaps students themselves should organize?  The masses could fight for lower tuition or better dorms.  I mean, they spend more time at class, studying, and doing homework than many full time careers, so they really should be compensated for it, right?  Not to mention extra-curricular activities like student government, clubs, and the like.  Why are these different than athletics?  Because athletics brings in money?  So now we give more leeway and perks to athletic students while the smart ones drop out and start tech companies.  Go figure.

All in all, I think I would stick with the argument that the NCAA needs to heavily overhaul their entire system, and, at the same time, we need to remember that athletes should students FIRST.  Breakthroughs in human development - medicine, science, economics - rarely, if ever, come from the field or court.  They come from educated, progressive-thinking, insightful individuals.  Believe it or not, their is no Nobel prize for running the 40-yard dash (but those who can run it best call the prize money for winning the Nobel a slow night out.  So at least we have our priorities in the right place).

Perhaps this is yet another case of affluenza.  And the gap widens.  

The Honest, Hardworking Man

I recently heard this poem used in a commercial (unfortunately for Busch Light...), and it struck me as very timely. We're entering into an era where the income gap in the world's richest nation is higher than it ever has been, and is still widening.  Somehow, in some way, we seem to accept the growing gap between the rich and everyone else; as executive salaries skyrocket while ours stagnate. We seem to be content allowing the fruits of our labor to line the coffers of billionaires rather than grace our own tables.  In that respect, I find this to be very appropriate:

The Honest Working Man
 Marie Joussaye

As through the world we take our way
How oftentimes we hear
The praises sung of wealthy men,
Of prince, and duke and peer.
The poets tell us of their fame,
They are lauded o'er the land,
But you very seldom hear them sing
Of the honest working man.
They praise the wealthy banker,
The purse-proud millionaire;
Their pockets have golden lining,
So they're praised from everywhere.
Let others sing the praises
Of those darlings of the land,
But mine shall be a nobler theme--
The honest working man.
Let monarchs prize their glittering crowns
And all their royal host,
Let lordlings brag of their blue blood--
They have nothing else to boast.
But what is all their rank, compared
To our hero, true and grand,
One of fair Nature's noblemen--
The honest working man.
His hands may be both rough and hard,
His clothes and speech be plain,
But you will find his manly heart
Without a spot or stain.
And there are some whose clothes are fine.
Whose hands are soft and white,
But the secret records of their lives
Could never bear the light.
May Heaven's choicest blessings fall
Upon that hero's head,
Who bravely toils throughout each day
To earn his loved ones bread.
You'll find no monarch who can show
A record half so grand.
God bless great labor's true-born knight--
The honest working man.
So now of Fortune's favored ones,
Henceforth let less be said,
And more be spoken of the man
Who toils for daily bread.
God bless each hardy son of toil
That labors in the land.
Let us give three cheers with right good will
For the honest working man.

Fixed Mindset vs. Growth Mindset

"The moment we believe that success is determined by an ingrained level of ability as opposed to resilience and hard work, we will be brittle in the face of adversity."
-Josh Waitzkin

This video (from TEDx Manhattan Beach) offers a great paradigm of learning and success.  Enjoy!

When Conversations Are No Longer Constructive

I was facilitating a group of teachers this past week (coincidentally enough, at the same school which inspired The Golden Rule and Fair vs. Equal) and as we proceeded through the sequence, I noticed a shifting trend in their conversation.

We had just completed an activity in which the 13 participants were provided a string, all of which were tied to a metal ring, through which was fastened a marker.  Their challenge was to collectively draw their school's mascot holding only their end of a string.  The group did an excellent job of planning their work: they first discussed the orientation of the drawing (which way is up, which way it's facing, etc.), agreed on a common visualization (so they were all drawing the same representation of the mascot, as opposed to variations that existed), and asked the cap be left on for a draw run - i.e. they practiced moving the marker together to first get a feel for the task.  Shortly thereafter, we removed the cap, and away they went!

After the completion of the activity (and each teacher signing their work :)...), we began processing the experience.  The group brought up great reactions regarding their progression through the activity - how they planned, listening to each others ideas, working toward a shared vision, practicing their work before beginning, and collectively understanding each person's role and responsibilities.  All in all, I think it was a great experience...to a point.

After conversing about ways to transfer these ideas they'd come up with after the activity back to the classroom and work with colleagues, one teacher commented that it was a great experience largely because I didn't level any additional specifications.  They appreciated the opportunity to take full ownership of the entire process, from planning through action.  This lead (rather organically) to a conversation about the difficulties of holding students to this same expectations - as they rise through the ranks (this was a group of teachers from across grade levels), students seem to lose this ability to think independently and engage in the same process with their school work.  Somewhere along the line, students grow more and more dependent on teachers spoon-feeding them directions, which is an incredible sentiment and one that I would love to explore further...

However, the ball began rolling back down hill soon enough as the group began to reach another consensus: the restrictions and expectations they're held to limit their ability to experiment and try new, creative approaches with their classes.  Now, I'm in no position to assume this sentiment is primarily due to their school's culture or (though this is my leaning) that it's a systemic problem levied against 90% of Amerca's public school teachers.  And while I certainly see the value of airing these frustrations, at some point the conversation took a turn from "what can we do differently" to "what is being to us".

My take away from this experience is to be more aware of the tone of the conversation - how can we keep a proactive attitude?  Transferring this experience to myself, I think of occasions where I suffered from the same affliction - recognizing primarily external forces limiting my abilities and aspirations - rather than realizing my abilities to control my reactions to these forces.  As the adage goes: "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade."  I think this is a good reminder that even if it's not lemonade the way mom used to make, it's better than resenting a big ol' pile of lemons.    

Faith in Humanity

A "friend" on Facebook posted the other day about faith in humanity.  He presents examples of some of the tragedies that have plagued mankind, including wars, genocide, and overall violence perpetrated by one person against another.  He postulates aloud about how these man-made events have made some lose their faith in humanity, shaking some people so deeply as to lose hope.  "With that in mind, to anyone who has lost their faith in humanity, I have only one thing to say: What kind of moron are you to have picked humanity as a place for your faith to begin with?  Pick up a Bible, (insert expletive insult here)".  This was followed by a comment from another, declaring that placing one's faith in humanity is the biggest mistake there is.

Now, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know, and I certainly don't assert any advanced ability to interpret religious works.  I don't claim to have a better grasp on any religion than the next person, nor claim one faith as better than another.

That being said, and the Bible being the reference point within the original post, I felt compelled to point out a personal observation: isn't the New Testament heavily focused on forgiveness and charity?  Isn't an incredible aspect of the Christian faith rooted in the life and teachings of Jesus, a man who reached out to those in need, who lent aid to many others of the time seen as undeserved?   Aren't there reams of examples demonstrating that treating all with fairness and respect, of loving, protecting, and helping those around us is the key lesson?  Heck, as one account reports, among Jesus' last words were "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."  Again, focused on those that are here, with us, and around us.

It almost seems that faith in humanity was what brought about the events of the New Testament.  Even the Old Testament alludes to this: after he murders his brother, Cain responds to God's question as to Abel's whereabouts with "Am I my brother's keeper?"  which "offends against the Torah's ethic responsibility for one's kinsman and neighbor" (Berlin & Brettler, ed. The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, pg. 19).

And looking over human history, those that are honored have all contributed to mankind - indeed, placed their faith in humanity.  Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Viktor Frankl (to name a few).  These people live(d) for those around them, regardless of religious belief.  It just seems to me that more important that beating someone over the head with Scripture is to reach out to them; rather than pointing a finger, they would lend a hand.

As the old anecdote goes, a man asks God, "Why do you allow all these bad things to happen to people?  People are starving and fighting, they're hurting and killing each other, people are freezing at night without enough clothing or shelter, children are malnourished, and many don't have the basic necessities to survive tomorrow.  Why do you let these things happen?"  God simply looks at the man and responds,

"Why do you?"

"Real-World" Preparation

Here's a little something I found interesting:

The child is constantly confronted with the nagging question: "What are you going to be?" Courageous would be the youngster who could look the adult squarely in the face and say, "I'm not going to BE anything; I already am." We adults would be shocked by such an insolent remark, for we have forgotten, if indeed we ever knew, that a child is an active, participating and contributing member of society from birth. Childhood isn't a time when he is molded into a human who will then live life; he is a human who is living life. No child will miss the zest and joy of living unless these are denied him by adults who have convinced themselves that childhood is a period of preparation.(attributed to Professor T. Ripaldi)

Man, this guy makes a great point.  I had a professor in undergrad who espoused the same idea.  He would open each semester explaining that college wasn't so much "preparation for the real world", but a part of it.  After all, handing in a assignment late or failing a test did, in fact, result in actual consequences.  However, is that really the overarching idea we're establishing in youth?

Today, thousands of kids are being signed up for youth soccer, presumably to be learning the values of teamwork, perseverance, and winning and losing graciously.  Unfortunately, and I hate to break it to you, but only mountains speak for themselves - just because a kid plays a sport doesn't automatically mean they'll learn anything.  Second bummer: how on earth can they learn about how hard work pays off, or that persevering to the end and leaving it all on the field - win or lose - is better than having never even tried in the first place?  How can we expect anyone to pick up on these things when every single player on every team wins a medal just for showing up?  Isn't the new message "As long as you're here, you win!"?

Did you know that there are states, counties, and districts with "No-Zero" grading policies?  In a nutshell, students will never be given a zero on an assignment, an incomplete in some places, but never a failing grade. Students have the opportunity try it over and over and over until either they finally understand the material, their teacher realizes there are other students packed into the classroom and just stamps a "C" on their, or money runs out before that 16-year-old ever finishes fourth grade.

So not only are we teaching kids that all they have to do is show up, but also that we're here to protect them, to gently guide and shelter them until that fateful day when they have to step out into the "real world".

"Don't worry", we inadvertently tell our youth,"you're a winner even though you didn't actually accomplish anything.  All you have to do is be yourself and the world will fall into your hands. We'll solve all your problems and take care of you."

So we keep our kids safe and sound, hovering around, ready to swoop down on any potential challenge that may accost our delicate and frail children.  We tiptoe around frail egos, keeping them safe from failure and making sure they never have to face personal shortcoming.  As it turns out, after a bit more research, we already have a word for this process.

It's called domestication.

And it's no known for making animals smarter.

For more fun reading, I think this article sums it up nicely: Why Teenagers Are Growing Up So Slowly Today

Quote of the Week: #2

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

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.

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!