To follow up my last post A question about policy, this one was inspired by a comment made from an article on the internet (oof, don't even get me started...), regarding the 14th Amendment. The 14th, among other things, grants citizenship to all people born on United States soil. And this is being "abused" by immigrants, who cross the border only long enough to have their "anchor baby", and capitalize on the policy of allowing undocumented parents to remain with their citizen-child.
Now, validity aside, I just want to be clear: so because an Amendment is being followed according to the letter, via a literal reading of the words, it's being "abused" and it's "not following the intent of the authors" and should therefore be repealed. Okay, but who says the author's intentions? Isn't that going to be immediately and incredibly subjective?
One may argue that it wasn't the "intent" of the Framer's for the First Amendment to protect the Westboro Baptist Church, KKK rallies, violent, threatening online posts (these were tossed out), or any number of other examples. One could probably argue that the Second Amendment wasn't "intending" to allow for some paranoid doomsday-sayer to stockpile thousands of guns and ammunition for the someday apocalypse. It's fun. Our "right" to be able to walk around in broad daylight with a fully automatic rifle and 50-round clip is boisterously defended. But don't you dare think for a second you can have a baby here! It's a matter of national security!
It's always amused me, when the "intent" is used as a defense. We seem to be awful quick to assume we know what other people were thinking when we can't seem to even be able to do it for ourselves.
Showing posts with label Thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thinking. Show all posts
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Saturday, June 20, 2015
The Spirit vs. the Letter
Found this from February 2013:
Which is more important: the spirit or the letter of the law? On one hand, laws and regulations have been created to protect and serve citizens to the greatest extent allowed and based on the knowledge, beliefs, and traditions of the time they were written. On the other hand, and especially regarding laws with significant gray area, as well as those that pose a greater impact on the needs of the few vs. the beliefs of the many, don't we have the responsibility as citizens to uphold mutually-beneficial regulations and disregard those that have become out-dated?
Which is more important: the spirit or the letter of the law? On one hand, laws and regulations have been created to protect and serve citizens to the greatest extent allowed and based on the knowledge, beliefs, and traditions of the time they were written. On the other hand, and especially regarding laws with significant gray area, as well as those that pose a greater impact on the needs of the few vs. the beliefs of the many, don't we have the responsibility as citizens to uphold mutually-beneficial regulations and disregard those that have become out-dated?
With that in mind, one board member opted to write a personal editorial, that in his eyes, the last point was the most important, and voted against the waiver on the grounds that living in the district was the rule, and rules must be followed. Indeed, another letter was written to the paper, expressing her disappointment that more board members didn't vote against the waiver: "I am disappointed that only three School Board members showed commitment, integrity, and knowledge to vote based on the rules in place. This is leadership. These are the kind of people that are truly responsible..."
Personally, I find the views of these editorial-writers to be short-sighted and far too rigid to allow for growth and progress. Neither address the situation of the school, the performance of the teachers or students, of the relationship the administrator has within the community. Their over-emphasis on the letter of law ignores a significant amount of data necessary to make an informed decision.
As we weigh any option prior to making a decision, aren't we almost required to consider all aspects? Don't we have that responsibility, specifically when our decision affects people beyond ourselves, to look at the larger picture? Now, I could rattle off a laundry list of past examples of the letter of the law becoming out of touch, if not downright immoral, but I think this one example is enough to keep our attention on the issue at hand: do we look at what is written or consider if it's right?
I found this quote last week, and I think I'll be using it more and more:
Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have.
-Emile Chartier
Sunday, May 10, 2015
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.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
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...
Sunday, March 22, 2015
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.)
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
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...
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...
Monday, February 16, 2015
How Thinking Works
A very interesting video about how we think. How many of each animal did Moses actually take on the Ark?
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Daily Purpose
A post I've been rolling around in my head for the past several months. I meant to put pen to paper on this topic - reflecting on purpose, identity, and raison d'etre - for months now, though admittedly I'm glad I've procrastinated this long as I've come to a few new insights.
It's interesting to me the generational differences (and industry differences) in relative perspective at work. No longer is "live to work" the reigning paradigm. Us youngsters generally carry more of a "work to live" mentality, where rather than define ourselves by what we do for a living, but what we do with that living. I tried to take this at face value after leaving my old position and beginning at a tool and die shop for the interim. I argued that it wasn't what I was doing in the hours I punched the clock, but what I was doing the other 118 hours of the week that mattered more. And so I continued, grateful simply for a job to pay the bills, a luxury not available to everyone.
So with my safety and security needs met (Maslow; to be continued), I found myself looking for more. Looking back, with the perspective afforded through 20/20 hindsight, I better see the pros and cons of my previous life, chronicled a bit more in my previous post (found here), and I find myself missing that satisfaction that comes with personally meaningful outcomes. And it is only from this detour that I can see that picture more clearly.
Several months ago I was able to sit down with a company's OD personnel, to talk and network, to glean some insights on breaking into the field. One of the biggest things I took away from that meeting was the metaphor she used when explaining how her son did mazes: he would find the dead-ends first and black them out, ruling out false leads and misdirection, until, eventually, only the way through was left. It seems so simple, and yet so poignant. By figuring out what doesn't work, one can better find their path. Of course this isn't a quick fix. And applying it personally has yielded some interesting, albeit at times uncomfortable realizations.
It is with all this (and always so much more that can't possibly be put into words) in mind that I find myself needing to find purpose once again. "Work to live", I believe, has more connotations than just defining yourself by what you do off the clock (and before I forget I should mention that such generalizations are clearly not true for everyone. Just wanted to throw that out there for completion sake). I think it also is a reversal of defining ourselves by our jobs, instead finding meaningful work defined by who we are personally. I think we've shifted away from finding a position and assuming that identity to recognizing our own identity and finding the work that embodies it. I'm thinking this may be a big reason my generation is over-educated and under-employed, because we've been, by and large, searching more for purpose and passion. For better or worse of course. And so I find myself unfortunately lumped into this cliched stereotype.
But we persevere. I am actively searching for this fulfillment, though tempering it with the realization that this is still the real world and such accomplishments as finding such a purpose will be neither easy nor quick. And, an aspect I fear is lost on many, just because I strive to succeed, because I put in the time, because I want it enough - there is no guarantee. That's life. So I continue to work on it. To think and reflect, and, most importantly, get up and do something about it. "Do or do not. There is no try". Thank you Yoda.
It's interesting to me the generational differences (and industry differences) in relative perspective at work. No longer is "live to work" the reigning paradigm. Us youngsters generally carry more of a "work to live" mentality, where rather than define ourselves by what we do for a living, but what we do with that living. I tried to take this at face value after leaving my old position and beginning at a tool and die shop for the interim. I argued that it wasn't what I was doing in the hours I punched the clock, but what I was doing the other 118 hours of the week that mattered more. And so I continued, grateful simply for a job to pay the bills, a luxury not available to everyone.
So with my safety and security needs met (Maslow; to be continued), I found myself looking for more. Looking back, with the perspective afforded through 20/20 hindsight, I better see the pros and cons of my previous life, chronicled a bit more in my previous post (found here), and I find myself missing that satisfaction that comes with personally meaningful outcomes. And it is only from this detour that I can see that picture more clearly.
Several months ago I was able to sit down with a company's OD personnel, to talk and network, to glean some insights on breaking into the field. One of the biggest things I took away from that meeting was the metaphor she used when explaining how her son did mazes: he would find the dead-ends first and black them out, ruling out false leads and misdirection, until, eventually, only the way through was left. It seems so simple, and yet so poignant. By figuring out what doesn't work, one can better find their path. Of course this isn't a quick fix. And applying it personally has yielded some interesting, albeit at times uncomfortable realizations.
It is with all this (and always so much more that can't possibly be put into words) in mind that I find myself needing to find purpose once again. "Work to live", I believe, has more connotations than just defining yourself by what you do off the clock (and before I forget I should mention that such generalizations are clearly not true for everyone. Just wanted to throw that out there for completion sake). I think it also is a reversal of defining ourselves by our jobs, instead finding meaningful work defined by who we are personally. I think we've shifted away from finding a position and assuming that identity to recognizing our own identity and finding the work that embodies it. I'm thinking this may be a big reason my generation is over-educated and under-employed, because we've been, by and large, searching more for purpose and passion. For better or worse of course. And so I find myself unfortunately lumped into this cliched stereotype.
But we persevere. I am actively searching for this fulfillment, though tempering it with the realization that this is still the real world and such accomplishments as finding such a purpose will be neither easy nor quick. And, an aspect I fear is lost on many, just because I strive to succeed, because I put in the time, because I want it enough - there is no guarantee. That's life. So I continue to work on it. To think and reflect, and, most importantly, get up and do something about it. "Do or do not. There is no try". Thank you Yoda.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Knowing
I believe that in order to truly know something, one must be able to argue the opposite. This idea achieves crystal clarity every election season - everyone's arguing, pointing fingers, and accusing the other side of...something. Liberals like to raise taxes and take away our guns. Conservatives don't care about anyone except rich white people. Blah blah blah. It's always the same. And don't get me wrong, this extends beyond well beyond politics and religion, and into every aspect of what we believe we know for certain.
The issue comes up whenever there is conversation more about being "right" than actually listening. As a sophomore in my undergrad, my roommate and I were polar opposites, particularly on the divisive lines of politics and religion. But we addressed this head-on. In fact, we often would just sit and talk, sharing our perspectives and hearing what the other had to say. We both knew that one, in all likelihood, wouldn't change the other's mind on anything, and with that in mind, we recognized that there was no point in trying. Why yell and get irate? Why foster bad blood and unhealthy relationships? Why not seize the opportunity to listen and learn things that you don't understand?
So can you argue, honestly and clearly, the opposite side without any sarcasm or irony? Do you understand the arguments that can and will be made against your stance? Are you able to articulate what the other side believes (and even take it a step further and explore why they believe it?)? If not, I would argue that more research needs to be done. I don't pretend to understand everything I believe, much less everything someone else may think, but I'm working on it. Once we stop communicating and start clashing, when we start a discourse thinking we'll change their mind or our intent is just to convey how dumb they clearly are, we've already lost. I'm not advocating against have strong, deeply ingrained beliefs. Not at all. Just to consider arguing against them. Whether you believe it or not.
The issue comes up whenever there is conversation more about being "right" than actually listening. As a sophomore in my undergrad, my roommate and I were polar opposites, particularly on the divisive lines of politics and religion. But we addressed this head-on. In fact, we often would just sit and talk, sharing our perspectives and hearing what the other had to say. We both knew that one, in all likelihood, wouldn't change the other's mind on anything, and with that in mind, we recognized that there was no point in trying. Why yell and get irate? Why foster bad blood and unhealthy relationships? Why not seize the opportunity to listen and learn things that you don't understand?
So can you argue, honestly and clearly, the opposite side without any sarcasm or irony? Do you understand the arguments that can and will be made against your stance? Are you able to articulate what the other side believes (and even take it a step further and explore why they believe it?)? If not, I would argue that more research needs to be done. I don't pretend to understand everything I believe, much less everything someone else may think, but I'm working on it. Once we stop communicating and start clashing, when we start a discourse thinking we'll change their mind or our intent is just to convey how dumb they clearly are, we've already lost. I'm not advocating against have strong, deeply ingrained beliefs. Not at all. Just to consider arguing against them. Whether you believe it or not.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Apparently because I'm tall...
I deserve less consideration. According to a (relatively) recent article in the New York Times regarding the airline-seat-reclining-fiasco not too long ago, tall people shouldn't be thought of as any different than short - excuse me: "vertically challenged" - people. And I would never argue that point. As a vertically gifted person (6'6"), I've long accepted that, contrary to the American Myth, I cannot do whatever I set my mind to. I will never be an undercover espionage agent (I don't blend). I will never be a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force nor an astronaut (height restrictions) nor a very good jockey (unless I'm on a Clydesdale taking a break from pulling the Budweiser wagon) . I will always be asked "how's the weather up there?". I will never excel at hide-and-seek. I will forever be self-conscious on the dance floor because I can say without a doubt that everyone will be keeping close tabs on the gargantuan flailing around for fear for their personal safety. These are things I've learned to live with. I know. The trials and tribulations my people face.
But in the article, the author cites statistics that we shouldn't really complain. After all, tall people earn more each year and have more sexual partners than our "average" brethren. Ergo, I mean, obviously, we don't deserve the same consideration; indeed, having some dude gain 3 inches of "comfort" compared to my suddenly feeling like I'm in a toy version of a Geo Metro is almost justified! Who cares that I can't walk down the aisle of a plane without hitting my head on every damn thing around. Or have to walk sideways because my shoulders don't fit between the luggage racks. Or not even be able to put my tray table down without it sitting on my knees regardless (always a good test of character when the guy in front of you reclines and sitting next to you is a socially-conscious individual who lets you use a corner of their table so you don't have to worry about gravity defeating your flimsy cup of ginger ale). But no, we have it coming. I see that now. It's karma for the life decision I made years ago to be tall. Damn my short-shortsightedness!
Don't worry though, the author does go on to point out that he wouldn't recline if he was paid to do so. Quoting another author, he asks if his kind were such "monsters", why is no one willing to pay him to stop? And, admittedly, even as a relatively intelligent individual, I find myself dumbfounded by this argument. That someone could even dream of opening that door. Because let's stop for a second and think about the vast array and extremes of applications for the logic that "if we don't want someone doing something, we should pay them not to". I hope you're there by now. I mean, he might as well go on to consult our corrections programs. Turns out we've had it wrong all along!
In essence, instead of bribing people to be decent, why not just be decent? This is a very simplistic example, but let's see if he could follow it: if you know that people don't like the seat in front of them reclining, wouldn't it appropriate to either a.) not recline the stupid damn seat or b.) have the common decency to at least turn around and ask? It's just a seat. Don't be a jerk. It's not hard.
Unless of course the person behind you has it coming. Like if their tall.
But in the article, the author cites statistics that we shouldn't really complain. After all, tall people earn more each year and have more sexual partners than our "average" brethren. Ergo, I mean, obviously, we don't deserve the same consideration; indeed, having some dude gain 3 inches of "comfort" compared to my suddenly feeling like I'm in a toy version of a Geo Metro is almost justified! Who cares that I can't walk down the aisle of a plane without hitting my head on every damn thing around. Or have to walk sideways because my shoulders don't fit between the luggage racks. Or not even be able to put my tray table down without it sitting on my knees regardless (always a good test of character when the guy in front of you reclines and sitting next to you is a socially-conscious individual who lets you use a corner of their table so you don't have to worry about gravity defeating your flimsy cup of ginger ale). But no, we have it coming. I see that now. It's karma for the life decision I made years ago to be tall. Damn my short-shortsightedness!
Don't worry though, the author does go on to point out that he wouldn't recline if he was paid to do so. Quoting another author, he asks if his kind were such "monsters", why is no one willing to pay him to stop? And, admittedly, even as a relatively intelligent individual, I find myself dumbfounded by this argument. That someone could even dream of opening that door. Because let's stop for a second and think about the vast array and extremes of applications for the logic that "if we don't want someone doing something, we should pay them not to". I hope you're there by now. I mean, he might as well go on to consult our corrections programs. Turns out we've had it wrong all along!
In essence, instead of bribing people to be decent, why not just be decent? This is a very simplistic example, but let's see if he could follow it: if you know that people don't like the seat in front of them reclining, wouldn't it appropriate to either a.) not recline the stupid damn seat or b.) have the common decency to at least turn around and ask? It's just a seat. Don't be a jerk. It's not hard.
Unless of course the person behind you has it coming. Like if their tall.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
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!
-Josh Waitzkin
This video (from TEDx Manhattan Beach) offers a great paradigm of learning and success. Enjoy!
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Logic?
So I was having a great conversation the other night about logic as I posited that I don't particularly believe in it. As I see it, "logic" really boils down to nothing more than having the answer already. I think about so-called "logic puzzles", and, having read more than my fair share, would I be able to assert that I am more logical than someone who hasn't experienced as many? For instance, a relatively well-known puzzle goes like this: you're in an otherwise empty room with a candle, a book of matches, and a box of small thumbtacks. Your challenge is to light the candle in such a way that the flame is six feet off the ground. Spoiler alert: empty the box of tacks and pin it to the wall. From there, simply set the candle on the box. Boom. Now, I know that answer. No, I did not initially come to that conclusion on my own, but I have it now, so who's to say any different? So am I currently more "logical" than anyone else? I would say no.
Now, through the course of the debate, some interesting counter-points were made that really got the ol' brain box working. One such argument would be that logic, as it were, comes down to the ability to connect prior knowledge with new and novel challenges. Touche. However, I would say that that is the definition of intelligence - the ability to take previous education, experience, and background and reapply concepts in different situations to reach a conclusion which then gets assimilated into your working memory once more for future situations. Now even this isn't my own thought. Over the course of my own experience I've been fortunate enough to be exposed to a cornucopia of others and this paradigm comes from the works of Daniel Willingham (the article can be found here). So again I would argue that much of what we "know" is a direct product of external stimuli.
A bit off topic I realize, but by now the conversation had shifted slightly this direction anyway so we ran with it. So, I asked, what would the difference be between logic and intelligence? How does knowledge factor in? What about common sense? I would say that there wouldn't really be a difference per se, but that logic is a misused synonym for intelligence. I've often thought about logic (and I would assume you have as well) as a black or white issue. Either you're logical or you're not, whereas more and more we've broken down intelligence into different types (read more about multiple intelligence) and "objective" levels. I think about Spock, often commenting whether or not a decision was logical, not whether or not it carried any level of intelligence.
So then where exactly are we? Here I tried to summarize my argument about the whole ordeal: if intelligence is the product of years and years of external stimuli being processed and rearranged into new a different situations, and we want to say whether something is logical (or common sense) wouldn't that very logic be entirely subjective and different from one person to another? And if it's subjective, how could we ever assume logic as a constant? See, I received a very different educational experience than even those I went to school with. Just as they had a very different experience than me. I've had life experiences others haven't or experiences in a different order, crossing a bridge before or after others have long since been there, done that. And everyone, you included, have experienced things I never have, and often, never will. So where does that take us? And consider the ramifications of this interculturally and globally!
Here's another puzzle for you: In an otherwise empty, windowless room, with only one locked door in and out, you have a saw, a baseball bat, and a piano. There exist three ways out of the room using only these materials (no, you can't break down the door or saw through it). This one I won't spoil for you.
But if you figure out the three exits, consider if it's "logical" or simply a product of your experiences.
And whether or not it actually matters.
Now, through the course of the debate, some interesting counter-points were made that really got the ol' brain box working. One such argument would be that logic, as it were, comes down to the ability to connect prior knowledge with new and novel challenges. Touche. However, I would say that that is the definition of intelligence - the ability to take previous education, experience, and background and reapply concepts in different situations to reach a conclusion which then gets assimilated into your working memory once more for future situations. Now even this isn't my own thought. Over the course of my own experience I've been fortunate enough to be exposed to a cornucopia of others and this paradigm comes from the works of Daniel Willingham (the article can be found here). So again I would argue that much of what we "know" is a direct product of external stimuli.
A bit off topic I realize, but by now the conversation had shifted slightly this direction anyway so we ran with it. So, I asked, what would the difference be between logic and intelligence? How does knowledge factor in? What about common sense? I would say that there wouldn't really be a difference per se, but that logic is a misused synonym for intelligence. I've often thought about logic (and I would assume you have as well) as a black or white issue. Either you're logical or you're not, whereas more and more we've broken down intelligence into different types (read more about multiple intelligence) and "objective" levels. I think about Spock, often commenting whether or not a decision was logical, not whether or not it carried any level of intelligence.
So then where exactly are we? Here I tried to summarize my argument about the whole ordeal: if intelligence is the product of years and years of external stimuli being processed and rearranged into new a different situations, and we want to say whether something is logical (or common sense) wouldn't that very logic be entirely subjective and different from one person to another? And if it's subjective, how could we ever assume logic as a constant? See, I received a very different educational experience than even those I went to school with. Just as they had a very different experience than me. I've had life experiences others haven't or experiences in a different order, crossing a bridge before or after others have long since been there, done that. And everyone, you included, have experienced things I never have, and often, never will. So where does that take us? And consider the ramifications of this interculturally and globally!
Here's another puzzle for you: In an otherwise empty, windowless room, with only one locked door in and out, you have a saw, a baseball bat, and a piano. There exist three ways out of the room using only these materials (no, you can't break down the door or saw through it). This one I won't spoil for you.
But if you figure out the three exits, consider if it's "logical" or simply a product of your experiences.
And whether or not it actually matters.
Friday, June 28, 2013
"Team-Building" is Killing Teamwork
I've worked with a lot of teams, groups, bunches, and gatherings of people, and by and large many seem (on the surface anyway) to understand what it means to work with other people. Others have no idea. Yet others think they do, but, well, nope.
Here'e the real deal: people argue. They clash. Discussions become "heated". And that's alright. Too often groups come to me with this mentality that if they don't ever argue, they're doing alright. They've been primed to believe that everyone needs to sit passively, waiting for each person to share their thoughts, and engage in polite conversation because that's how we come to a conclusion.
Not a chance. And if issues aren't explored, a team may very well implode as bottled resentment builds and builds and builds until the meltdown comes with such a roar that the ensuing strife is beyond repair.
In 1965, Bruce Tuckman introduced his stages of group development - forming, storming, norming, performing. Now I adhere to a slightly altered version, placing norming after forming and adding "re-norming" after storming, but the principle is the same: a storm is necessary in many situations, especially if there are undercurrents of frustration, if a team is expected to work together for some time, and if it's a collaborative environment. What the steps mean, in effect is that a group comes together ("forming") to accomplish a task. They're in the honeymoon phase, with everyone gently side-stepping any issues for the sake of cohesion. Think about it - it's far more comfortable to get along, even if that means going along. The group begins to drift into the norming phase, where individuals begin to establish their roles in the group - so-and-so is coming up with all the ideas, these two over here often hang back and do what this other person tells them, so on and so forth. People begin to establish their identities within the framework of the group, though often those identities are based off what others expect of them. Cue the storming stage. Suddenly Suzy is becoming more vocal, a bit aggressive because she's sick of not being heard. Fred over here is getting frustrated because Ralph isn't paying attention, always in his own world. Ralph snaps back it's because Gertrude never seems to let him speak. Things are tense.
And that's okay.
As a facilitator, when this point comes, it's an opportunity to get these frustrations known - in a constructive manner! - a chance for people to express themselves and how they're feeling. Even when that point comes after a particularly frustrating task or challenge. But we make these things known, clear-headed and even-toned; the explosion came and went, we think, we reflect, and we collaboratively (and by "we", I mean "they" - the facilitator's role is to instigate the process, guiding when necessary, but if the group can't work through on their own, suddenly they develop a crutch, a figure necessary for any progress) come up with a plan to address people's frustrations and work toward an environment that all are happy with. This step isn't cooperation. It's certainly not compromise. There are no concessions. This is collaboration - building on the strengths of each person to create what otherwise was uncreatable.
And I believe this is near impossible without the storm. Without that opportunity to voice your needs. So, please. Don't be afraid to be heard. But be sure you bring that issue to light with a solution because pointing out a flaw without adding a possible fix does no good. Believe me, I've been as guilty of it as any.
And, no, sitting in a circle and politely listening to everyone's idea is rarely a good solution. Find a happy medium between talk and action. Something I've wanted to get as a facilitation tool is a chess clock to measure the amount of time a group plans vs. how long they do something. Rarely is this an even sway and I'd love to see which a group does more and who's happy with it.
Next up: talking versus communicating. Yes, there is a difference. Think there could be some tension created there?
Here'e the real deal: people argue. They clash. Discussions become "heated". And that's alright. Too often groups come to me with this mentality that if they don't ever argue, they're doing alright. They've been primed to believe that everyone needs to sit passively, waiting for each person to share their thoughts, and engage in polite conversation because that's how we come to a conclusion.
Not a chance. And if issues aren't explored, a team may very well implode as bottled resentment builds and builds and builds until the meltdown comes with such a roar that the ensuing strife is beyond repair.
In 1965, Bruce Tuckman introduced his stages of group development - forming, storming, norming, performing. Now I adhere to a slightly altered version, placing norming after forming and adding "re-norming" after storming, but the principle is the same: a storm is necessary in many situations, especially if there are undercurrents of frustration, if a team is expected to work together for some time, and if it's a collaborative environment. What the steps mean, in effect is that a group comes together ("forming") to accomplish a task. They're in the honeymoon phase, with everyone gently side-stepping any issues for the sake of cohesion. Think about it - it's far more comfortable to get along, even if that means going along. The group begins to drift into the norming phase, where individuals begin to establish their roles in the group - so-and-so is coming up with all the ideas, these two over here often hang back and do what this other person tells them, so on and so forth. People begin to establish their identities within the framework of the group, though often those identities are based off what others expect of them. Cue the storming stage. Suddenly Suzy is becoming more vocal, a bit aggressive because she's sick of not being heard. Fred over here is getting frustrated because Ralph isn't paying attention, always in his own world. Ralph snaps back it's because Gertrude never seems to let him speak. Things are tense.
And that's okay.
As a facilitator, when this point comes, it's an opportunity to get these frustrations known - in a constructive manner! - a chance for people to express themselves and how they're feeling. Even when that point comes after a particularly frustrating task or challenge. But we make these things known, clear-headed and even-toned; the explosion came and went, we think, we reflect, and we collaboratively (and by "we", I mean "they" - the facilitator's role is to instigate the process, guiding when necessary, but if the group can't work through on their own, suddenly they develop a crutch, a figure necessary for any progress) come up with a plan to address people's frustrations and work toward an environment that all are happy with. This step isn't cooperation. It's certainly not compromise. There are no concessions. This is collaboration - building on the strengths of each person to create what otherwise was uncreatable.
And I believe this is near impossible without the storm. Without that opportunity to voice your needs. So, please. Don't be afraid to be heard. But be sure you bring that issue to light with a solution because pointing out a flaw without adding a possible fix does no good. Believe me, I've been as guilty of it as any.
And, no, sitting in a circle and politely listening to everyone's idea is rarely a good solution. Find a happy medium between talk and action. Something I've wanted to get as a facilitation tool is a chess clock to measure the amount of time a group plans vs. how long they do something. Rarely is this an even sway and I'd love to see which a group does more and who's happy with it.
Next up: talking versus communicating. Yes, there is a difference. Think there could be some tension created there?
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Quote of the Week: May 6, 2013
Education's
purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one.
-Malcom
S. Forbes
Monday, April 8, 2013
The Economics Class Socialist Experiment
As I'm sure many of us have read already, there's a continually circulating tale on the internet about an economics professor failing an entire class through an experiment in socialism. Just in case you haven't read it (and because I'm not going to transcribe the whole story here), here's a link to several variations: Social Injustice. Take a second and read through it again so it's fresh in your mind.
Now, I know you may be worried that this post may become a long-winded diatribe about socialism (or capitalism), or even advocating for one economic system over another, but I hope to write this as neither. This is to be simply my reaction to what I see as an over-simplification of complex systems.
In the story, the professor takes all the students grades and averages them together and provides each student the same grade, regardless of effort. If he were a true economist, wouldn't he recognize that in any system, at least at the onset, each individual arrives at various levels? Think for a minute of the ten people with whom you most associate. Your friends, colleagues, etc. Are you all on an even keel regarding income? Home-ownership? Equity? Net value? Educational level? I would image that if this was to be an effective lesson, the professor would have noted that every society has certain systemic inequalities - whether those be income, ethnicity, gender, heritage, and so on. Should these not be factors in any experiment? In setting it up, then, I believe the instructor should have provided some students "A"s before class even began because their parents earned really good grades in school already.
I also wonder how he would have constructed this experiment to reflect the benefits of capitalism. Since capitalism is, essentially, one person selling their labor to another person, would this new experiment consist of 80% of the class studying really hard then providing crib sheets to 20%. That 20% then gets an "A" and the other 80% gets "C"s. Now some of those 80% may also study really really hard and eventually get a "B", sure, and more power to them. But don't forget that because half of that 20% are going to get an "A" anyway because of their parent's really good grades, so it really doesn't matter if some people don't want to study for him/her (although, let's face it, it's pretty much "him"). Oh, and if we want to exalt the American system, for every score of 100% a male student gets, we should certainly award an even proportion of female students who studied just as hard a 81%. Right? (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, page 55)
I believe this to be an incredibly vast oversimplification of a societal system - both mine and theirs - to the extent that the story serves little more than a McCarthyist legend, the same propaganda that has shaded American beliefs of anything other than republic governments and capitalist mentalities.
Am I saying one is better than the other? I am not.
Do I regardless recognize that any economic system and governmental structure has flaws? Of course.
But if we are to begin falling behind anecdotes as arguments, then our partisanship surely has completely left the harbor (pun intended). It's stories such as these that erode our ability to maintain civilized dialogue and empathetic listening.
Now, I know you may be worried that this post may become a long-winded diatribe about socialism (or capitalism), or even advocating for one economic system over another, but I hope to write this as neither. This is to be simply my reaction to what I see as an over-simplification of complex systems.
In the story, the professor takes all the students grades and averages them together and provides each student the same grade, regardless of effort. If he were a true economist, wouldn't he recognize that in any system, at least at the onset, each individual arrives at various levels? Think for a minute of the ten people with whom you most associate. Your friends, colleagues, etc. Are you all on an even keel regarding income? Home-ownership? Equity? Net value? Educational level? I would image that if this was to be an effective lesson, the professor would have noted that every society has certain systemic inequalities - whether those be income, ethnicity, gender, heritage, and so on. Should these not be factors in any experiment? In setting it up, then, I believe the instructor should have provided some students "A"s before class even began because their parents earned really good grades in school already.
I also wonder how he would have constructed this experiment to reflect the benefits of capitalism. Since capitalism is, essentially, one person selling their labor to another person, would this new experiment consist of 80% of the class studying really hard then providing crib sheets to 20%. That 20% then gets an "A" and the other 80% gets "C"s. Now some of those 80% may also study really really hard and eventually get a "B", sure, and more power to them. But don't forget that because half of that 20% are going to get an "A" anyway because of their parent's really good grades, so it really doesn't matter if some people don't want to study for him/her (although, let's face it, it's pretty much "him"). Oh, and if we want to exalt the American system, for every score of 100% a male student gets, we should certainly award an even proportion of female students who studied just as hard a 81%. Right? (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, page 55)
I believe this to be an incredibly vast oversimplification of a societal system - both mine and theirs - to the extent that the story serves little more than a McCarthyist legend, the same propaganda that has shaded American beliefs of anything other than republic governments and capitalist mentalities.
Am I saying one is better than the other? I am not.
Do I regardless recognize that any economic system and governmental structure has flaws? Of course.
But if we are to begin falling behind anecdotes as arguments, then our partisanship surely has completely left the harbor (pun intended). It's stories such as these that erode our ability to maintain civilized dialogue and empathetic listening.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Revisiting Facts and Truth
In a companion post to Facts and Truths, I found a recent exchange more than a little relevant.
A Facebook acquaintance recently posted
The reason I see these as related phenomenon is that there was less of an attempt on the part of the commenter to understand and listen to and think about any perspectives contrary to his beliefs than their knee-jerk reaction to jump into defensive posturing. The facts of the case are clear: the U.S. detained Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans throughout the second World War in light of the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Right or wrong, it's what happened.
One person's truth asserts that this action should be more widely circulated and discussed as part of U.S. curriculum while another person's truth seems to declare that this isn't necessary (somewhat poorly, might I add - declaring an action less noteworthy than arguably similar - if less atrocious - actions because "it was done for vastly different reasons" appears to be neither an affirmation of the means nor the ends but another truth up for debate...).
I found this quote, and it's one I will certainly keep in mind:
But, if that's your perspective, hold on a second: there exists an equal amount of evidence to prove (also) that guns do, in fact, kill people, and that tighter restrictions indeed limit the number of deaths.
How 'bout that?
Personal test time: I challenge you to come up with three arguments and pieces of evidence for each side of the following debates:
Free Markets vs. Government Restrictions
Gun Control vs. Gun Rights
Small Government vs. Involved Governments
Prayer in Public Schools vs. Separation of Church and State
Universal Healthcare vs. Privatized Insurance
Social Programs vs. Privatization of Education/Welfare/Medicaid/Infrastructure/Military/Police Force/etc.
There. That's your challenge. Now here's the kicker: I would argue that if you can't come up with at least three legitimate arguments to both sides of each argument, that you, perhaps, are part of the problem. And, from personal experience, that you're probably a vocal proponent of your selected side...
"If only closed minds came with closed mouths."
No offense.
A Facebook acquaintance recently posted
We always hear about the tragedies that occurred in Germany during WWII; when will American history books acknowledge this tragedy that happened on OUR soil with more than just a passing paragraph? Or what about the millions killed at the hands of Russians? I think the general world population would have greater respect for America if we took responsibility for when we've screwed up rather than just being the "dominant winner." But then again, the winner writes the rhetoric...
Is there some sort of debate about this that I'm not aware of? Hardly anyone disputes that FDR's internment of American citizens during WWII was wrong. It was also many orders of magnitude less severe than what the Nazis or Soviets did, and it was done for vastly different reasons; to compare them is sort of disingenuous, isn't it? On your last point, I'd be eager to see some evidence that our adversaries have any practical interest in our apologies for past policies.
The reason I see these as related phenomenon is that there was less of an attempt on the part of the commenter to understand and listen to and think about any perspectives contrary to his beliefs than their knee-jerk reaction to jump into defensive posturing. The facts of the case are clear: the U.S. detained Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans throughout the second World War in light of the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Right or wrong, it's what happened.
One person's truth asserts that this action should be more widely circulated and discussed as part of U.S. curriculum while another person's truth seems to declare that this isn't necessary (somewhat poorly, might I add - declaring an action less noteworthy than arguably similar - if less atrocious - actions because "it was done for vastly different reasons" appears to be neither an affirmation of the means nor the ends but another truth up for debate...).
I found this quote, and it's one I will certainly keep in mind:
"Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have."We often spend so much time listening to those perspectives we already agree with - we read the books painting our chosen political party in a positive light, we listen to the pundits spouting whatever nonsense we already adhere to... If you believe that guns don't kill people, that people kill people, guess what? You're absolutely correct! And you'll find reams of evidence that prove the more guns save lives!
-Emile Chartier
But, if that's your perspective, hold on a second: there exists an equal amount of evidence to prove (also) that guns do, in fact, kill people, and that tighter restrictions indeed limit the number of deaths.
How 'bout that?
Personal test time: I challenge you to come up with three arguments and pieces of evidence for each side of the following debates:
Free Markets vs. Government Restrictions
Gun Control vs. Gun Rights
Small Government vs. Involved Governments
Prayer in Public Schools vs. Separation of Church and State
Universal Healthcare vs. Privatized Insurance
Social Programs vs. Privatization of Education/Welfare/Medicaid/Infrastructure/Military/Police Force/etc.
There. That's your challenge. Now here's the kicker: I would argue that if you can't come up with at least three legitimate arguments to both sides of each argument, that you, perhaps, are part of the problem. And, from personal experience, that you're probably a vocal proponent of your selected side...
"If only closed minds came with closed mouths."
No offense.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Just Get a Job!
How many times have you heard this as an argument to reduce government spending on welfare benefits? Many of the loudest critics of our nation of "takers" claim that spending on programs such as welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare are allowing citizens to develop a something for nothing mentality. Some figures even estimate that 49% of American households now receive some sort of social welfare.
Well, fair enough. Why exactly is it that so many people abuse services intended to help them get back on their feet? Why don't more people realize their own "American Dream", work hard, and find financial security on their own?
Because this issue is not in a vacuum, that's why. If we're to talk about welfare reform (which I believe we should), why would not also, in the same breath, bring up the vast income disparity afflicting U.S. workers? Wouldn't it make sense to talk about what people are getting paid hand-in-hand with why they need these benefits in the first place?
Conservative estimates put the number of "working poor" in the range of 146 million Americans. That is, workers - with jobs - generally with no savings, no retirement fund, living paycheck to paycheck and hoping no sudden cost springs up such as a sick child, their car breaking down, or housing repair. Some businesses thrive on the labor of their low-paid employees, with the typical worker receiving a paltry $13,900 a year. Executives, on the other, wrangled an average of $9.4 million in annual income, with an additional $175 billion - billion - going to shareholders. But hey! It's the shareholders that invested in the company in the first place! Their holdings allow the company to grow and expand and so they deserve their dividend! And the executives set the strategy and vision for the company to post a profit! They deserve it too! Ok. Fair enough. In that case, since it's the shareholders and executives that make dreams come true, let them roll up their sleeves and stock the shelves.
Wouldn't it, instead, make sense to take care of those individuals that actually do work? Those that actually make the company move forward?
Since 2008, 60% of the jobs created in the U.S. have been low-wage jobs. Now, I'm not saying anyone should claim to be "above" certain industries, regardless of education or background. If you need a job, get a job. Flipping burgers is a job. Get out, provide a service to the greater society.
But when 1 in 4 Americans are now earning less that $10/hour, we can't also assume that people are abusing the welfare system. At some point we have to realize that the system is abusing the people. Walmart, for instance, has been under the microscope for moving to "Flexible shifts", a move that critics say was designed to force full-time employees down to part-time, losing their benefits at the same time. One study estimated that workers for Walmart alone cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every year because of the giant's lack of benefits. At some point, we have to realize that when wealthy people set the salaries for other wealthy people, the social distance between rich and poor will only continue to grow. I say let the employees decide the reimbursement for the executives - then we might see change.
For more fun reading, check out these exciting pages!
A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
CEO Pay and the Top 1% (Economic Policy Institute)
Fortune 50 CEO Income Compared to Average Worker at Company (Payscale.com)
Well, fair enough. Why exactly is it that so many people abuse services intended to help them get back on their feet? Why don't more people realize their own "American Dream", work hard, and find financial security on their own?
Because this issue is not in a vacuum, that's why. If we're to talk about welfare reform (which I believe we should), why would not also, in the same breath, bring up the vast income disparity afflicting U.S. workers? Wouldn't it make sense to talk about what people are getting paid hand-in-hand with why they need these benefits in the first place?
Conservative estimates put the number of "working poor" in the range of 146 million Americans. That is, workers - with jobs - generally with no savings, no retirement fund, living paycheck to paycheck and hoping no sudden cost springs up such as a sick child, their car breaking down, or housing repair. Some businesses thrive on the labor of their low-paid employees, with the typical worker receiving a paltry $13,900 a year. Executives, on the other, wrangled an average of $9.4 million in annual income, with an additional $175 billion - billion - going to shareholders. But hey! It's the shareholders that invested in the company in the first place! Their holdings allow the company to grow and expand and so they deserve their dividend! And the executives set the strategy and vision for the company to post a profit! They deserve it too! Ok. Fair enough. In that case, since it's the shareholders and executives that make dreams come true, let them roll up their sleeves and stock the shelves.
Wouldn't it, instead, make sense to take care of those individuals that actually do work? Those that actually make the company move forward?
Since 2008, 60% of the jobs created in the U.S. have been low-wage jobs. Now, I'm not saying anyone should claim to be "above" certain industries, regardless of education or background. If you need a job, get a job. Flipping burgers is a job. Get out, provide a service to the greater society.
But when 1 in 4 Americans are now earning less that $10/hour, we can't also assume that people are abusing the welfare system. At some point we have to realize that the system is abusing the people. Walmart, for instance, has been under the microscope for moving to "Flexible shifts", a move that critics say was designed to force full-time employees down to part-time, losing their benefits at the same time. One study estimated that workers for Walmart alone cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every year because of the giant's lack of benefits. At some point, we have to realize that when wealthy people set the salaries for other wealthy people, the social distance between rich and poor will only continue to grow. I say let the employees decide the reimbursement for the executives - then we might see change.
For more fun reading, check out these exciting pages!
A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
CEO Pay and the Top 1% (Economic Policy Institute)
Fortune 50 CEO Income Compared to Average Worker at Company (Payscale.com)
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
"Real-World" Preparation
Here's a little something I found interesting:
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
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
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)