By the time your formal education is over you, like me, will have had dozens and dozens of teachers. Some of them will be funny, others will be boring or seem bored themselves, and some will seem like they're trying too hard to be liked. The best of them will keep your attention, fascinate you and inspire you. On this Day of the Teacher, I got to reminiscing about some of the teachers I had.
Among the teachers I had was a creepy middle school English teacher who used to flick his tongue, like a snake, whenever he was asked a difficult question.
Then there was the high school Chemistry teacher who used the analogy of boys asking girls to a dance as a way of explaining chemical reactions. It didn't always work. Whenever a student asked for further explanation, this teacher would simply repeat the same analogy again.
In college, I had an Economics teachers who use to come to class in costumes in an effort to make a very dry subject interesting. It didn't work.
I remember those teachers for their idiosyncrasies, but don't remember much about what they taught. Memorable personalities perhaps, but not particularly good teachers.
The best teachers I had all shared a common trait; passion. Passion not only for the subject they taught, but for teaching itself. Their passion was contagious and inspired me to change the way I looked at the world and the way I thought. I feel their influence to this day.
In high school I had Physiology teacher named Mr. Hawks. He wore his hair in a crew cut and drove a Jeep. He had obviously once been in the military.
His classroom consisted of rows of lab tables. On the first day of class, I sat in the back row. The first thing Mr. Hawks said to us, as he pointed successively to each row of tables, was:
"In my experience, this is where the A students sit (pointing to the front row), the B students (the second row), the C students (the third row), and everybody else (gesturing to the rest of the room)."
"If you want to change your seat," he concluded, "now would be the time to do so."
I didn't move, but thought, "Whoa, this guy is going to be tough"
And he was. He was very demanding and very particular about the quality of our work. He allowed no talking in class and his demeanor was such that he only had to tell us once. But, he was also a fascinating lecturer and a great story teller who always managed to keep our interest. It turned out that talking in class wasn't a problem, because none of us wanted to miss what he had to say.
As the semester went on, Mr Hawks began to loosen up. When we did experiments, we got to see a different side of him, because he went from table to table, patiently answering questions and even making jokes when somebody got an unexpected result.
During winter break, Mr. Hawks took a trip to the Amazon. He returned with several native artifacts, including a blow gun, a bow and a mortar and pestle. He put them on display for the class. We students excitedly approached the display.
One of my classmates picked up the bow and pulled back on its string. The bow snapped. The class went dead silent.
Mr. Hawks gave a death stare to the student and took the bow from his hand.
"No wonder I got it so cheap," he said.
I took Mr. Hawk's class when I was a junior. His inspiration was such that I chose to go to college at U.C Davis as a Biology major and created in me a lifelong interest in the natural world around us.
As a graduate student in college, I signed up for a class called "Theories of Criticism". I like to write and thought that this class was going to be about how to write movie and book reviews. It was about anything but that.
The teacher for this class was a Mr. Jenkins. The class was small, with only about 15 students. We all sat around in a circle. On the first day of class, Mr. Jenkins sat down, look each of us in the eye in turn and declared: "in order to be an effective critic, the first thing you need to do is kill your ego."
This was my introduction to the single most interesting and thought provoking class I ever took. It was way too complicated to explain here, but it turned out to have nothing to do with writing criticism at all. Instead, this class made me take a look at our society as a whole and the hidden forces that encourage us to make the choices we do. This was a 90 minute class in which Mr Jenkins did almost all of the talking and it was never, never boring. If there was a theme to this class it was Socrates' writing that "the unexamined life is not worth living". Mr. Jenkins had a profound influence on how I see the world and the people in it. Just as Mr. Jenkins intended.
Mr. Hawks and Mr. Jenkins couldn't have been more different. Hawks was very fit with an upright, military bearing and liked complete order in class. Jenkins was overweight with long hair and liked to sit, informally, in a circle with us students. Both, however, shared two great loves: love for the subjects they taught and the love of teaching that subject to their students. This is what made them the two best teachers I ever had.
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Jump Rope for Heart
In the gadget column to the right, I've added a link to the Jump Rope for Heart web page. Click on it to open the page then click "Students Register" to set up your own web page. Your page will allow you to send emails to potential contributors and track your fundraising progress. The site provides pre written letters for you to use if you'd like. It's easy and kind of fun. Our goal is $3000. Deadline, and performance day, is Friday, April 2nd, so let's get jumping!
Monday, January 25, 2010
British 7-year-old Raises Over 100,000 Pounds for Haiti
LONDON — A young British schoolboy has raised more than 100,000 pounds ($160,000) Monday for Haiti's relief effort by cycling round his local park.
Seven-year-old Charlie Simpson was so upset by the images of Haiti's deadly earthquake that he asked his mother if she could help him set up a sponsored bicycle ride around a west London park.
Charlie originally hoped to raise 500 pounds (for UNICEF's Haiti appeal with Sunday's 5-mile (8-kilometer) bike ride, but his Internet page was flooded with donations.
He raised nearly 50,000 pounds in a single day. Charlie's story was splashed on the front page of Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper on Monday, and money is still flooding in.
"I want to make some money to buy food, water and tents for everyone in Haiti," he said on his fundraising Web site.
The effort drew the attention of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, with his office Downing Street posting on Twitter: "Amazed by response to the great fundraising efforts of 7 yr old."
The boy's mother Leonora Simpson said she was amazed by the response. "We put it on the Web and that was it, it suddenly took off and we can't believe it," she said.
Seven-year-old Charlie Simpson was so upset by the images of Haiti's deadly earthquake that he asked his mother if she could help him set up a sponsored bicycle ride around a west London park.
Charlie originally hoped to raise 500 pounds (for UNICEF's Haiti appeal with Sunday's 5-mile (8-kilometer) bike ride, but his Internet page was flooded with donations.
He raised nearly 50,000 pounds in a single day. Charlie's story was splashed on the front page of Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper on Monday, and money is still flooding in.
"I want to make some money to buy food, water and tents for everyone in Haiti," he said on his fundraising Web site.
The effort drew the attention of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, with his office Downing Street posting on Twitter: "Amazed by response to the great fundraising efforts of 7 yr old."
The boy's mother Leonora Simpson said she was amazed by the response. "We put it on the Web and that was it, it suddenly took off and we can't believe it," she said.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Evolution of Revolution Foods
To me, Revolution Foods is a company which has a noble goal: to bring fresh healthy meals to “as many students as possible”. Their first customers were schools in low income neighborhoods where, before Revolution Foods arrived, school lunches consisted of cheap meal made from simple carbohydrates, salt, fat and processed sugar. In other words, they weren’t very healthy.
The meals served by Revolution Foods are made almost entirely from organic ingredients. They include fresh vegetables, whole grains and meat raised in natural settings. They also use ingredients from local, sustainable sources.
Organic food is pesticide free. It is also free of hormones, antibiotics and isn’t genetically engineered.
Locally grown means the food hasn’t been transported 1000’s of miles to get here, which saves fuel and helps slow global warming.
I’ve always been impressed with what Revolution Foods is trying to do, which is nothing less than change the way all of us eat. By starting with school kids, they are hoping that good eating habits will filter up through each kid’s family at home.
There was only one problem. The food they made wasn’t very good. When Revolution Foods first started providing Park School with hot lunches, the food was more likely to end up in the trash than in a kid’s stomach.
Revolution Foods then did another remarkable thing. They listened to you. They sent representatives to all of the schools they served and took surveys. They offered taste tests. As a result, their meals got a lot better.
Today, I’m happy to say, the food is much improved. I personally enjoy the Chicken Teriyaki, Baked Ziti and Cheese Lasagna (the pizza still tastes like cardboard).
The kids seem to agree. The Green Team is no longer swamped with uneaten Revolution Foods meals.
When they first started, Revolution Foods provided lunches to schools in the San Francisco Bay Area. Today they provide lunches to schools all over Northern and Southern California, Colorado and Washington D.C.. They’ve truly begun a school lunch revolution.
In order to gain a better understanding of why organic food from local sustainable sources is better for you, to understand why the least healthy food which is also the least expensive and why this is the real cause of the nation’s obesity epidemic, try reading “Fast Food Nation” by Eric Schlosser,
“The Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan
or see “Food, Inc.”
You'll never take your food for granted again.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Hubris
Hubris [hyoo-bris, hoo-], noun: excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.
The thing I like best about Survivor is that it provides living examples of the many varieties of human behavior. Watching it can show how one person’s behavior can affect the rest of a group, how many people prefer to simply follow someone else’s lead and how others overestimate their own strengths. Most striking though, is how, season after season, so many people fail to understand how their actions are viewed by others.
Those of you who don’t watch Survivor should know that each season, or game, starts with two teams known as “tribes”. The tribes compete against each other in challenges similar to, but more elaborate than, the ones we do in PE. Some challenges are “elimination” challenges. The tribe which loses one of these must vote out, or eliminate, one of its members from the game. Once the eliminations bring the total number of players in the game down to 10 or 12, the tribes merge and become one new tribe.
At the time of the merger, one of the former tribes usually has more members than the other, giving them an advantage for the remainder of the game. If the old tribe mates stick together, it is fairly easy for one of its members to win the game. But, therein lies the problem. Only one person can win.
So, each season of Survivor begins with two tribes working together in order to get to the merge with more surviving members than the other. After that, everybody is playing for him or herself.
This season, Russell Hantz played strictly for himself from the first day.
He went in with a Machiavellian (see the post called “The Prince”) strategy of lying, cheating and stealing his way to the merge and used it very effectively.
The thing is, that strategy will usually only work for as long as people go along with it. Once people figure out that someone is using machinations against them, they will revolt against her/him. It’s usually only a matter of time.
The first part of Russell's strategy was to demoralize his own tribe mates. By stealing water from, burning the clothes of and lying to the members of his own tribe, Foa Foa,
he destroyed the tribe’s confidence. By remaining strong and confident himself, Russell emerged as the tribe's leader.
As I watched Russell’s machinations unfold I wondered if his short term gain, control of his tribe, would hurt his long term chances to win the game because Foa Foa's lack of confidence hurt its ability compete against the other tribe, Galu.
Indeed, Foa Foa came to believe that it was a victim of bad luck. They became very discouraged and worse, very hungry. They lost almost every challenge. At the time of the merge, they had only 4 remaining members. Galu went to the merge with 8.
At that point, it looked like 4 members of Galu would have an easy path to the final four because they had a seemingly insurmountable 4 player advantage. All they had to do was vote together at Tribal Council and they could eliminate Foa Foa one by one. Then a funny thing happened. Over the course of next several episodes, almost all former Galu members were eliminated and one switched sides. The former Galu had completely lost control of the game.
How did this happen?
Two reasons.
First, Galu’s leader, Russell Swan
suffered a medical emergency and had to leave the game. This didn’t seem important at the time because Galu had such a big numbers advantage. But, Russell was a true leader who made every effort to keep the tribe working together. After he left, nobody replaced him effectively.
Second, Galu was overconfident. They went into the merge believing they could do whatever they wanted and that the former Foa Foa people wouldn’t put up much of a fight. There is a word for this. It is Hubris.
Hubris means overconfidence, or arrogance, combined with presumption. Presumption means believing that something is true, even though it might not be. Hubris, especially when one is overconfident based on a presumption that is false, can get one into trouble.
Galu’s hubris lead them to make the following questionable decisions:
• The voted out one of their own former tribe mates at the first Tribal Council. They did this because they presumed that all former Galu members would vote together in future Tribal Councils, so even after eliminating one of their own, they’d still have a 3 player advantage. The problem with that thinking was:
• They’d been completely disrespectful of one of their tribe mates throughout the first part of the game. Yet, despite treating her like dirt, they still believed that she’d vote with her old tribe. She didn’t. Would you?
• In one stroke of good luck, Russell played his Immunity Idol before he needed to. Nobody even knew he had it, because he found it without using any clues. After he played it, nobody on Galu seriously considered that he might find it again. He did. At the next Tribal Council, Galu tried to vote Russell only to find that Russell had found the idol again. Galu lost a former member instead. Galu discovered that their vote advantage was gone, when the tribe mate they treated so badly voted against them.
By the time Galu figured out that one of their former tribemates had switched sides, it was too late. Their hubris had cost them the lead. Now, they were doomed.
Foa Foa, the tribe which never won a single elimination challenge and whose most prominent member, Russell, was using everybody against everybody else, was now in control of the game.
The question now became: would Russell’s Machiavellian tactics win him the game?
The thing I like best about Survivor is that it provides living examples of the many varieties of human behavior. Watching it can show how one person’s behavior can affect the rest of a group, how many people prefer to simply follow someone else’s lead and how others overestimate their own strengths. Most striking though, is how, season after season, so many people fail to understand how their actions are viewed by others.
Those of you who don’t watch Survivor should know that each season, or game, starts with two teams known as “tribes”. The tribes compete against each other in challenges similar to, but more elaborate than, the ones we do in PE. Some challenges are “elimination” challenges. The tribe which loses one of these must vote out, or eliminate, one of its members from the game. Once the eliminations bring the total number of players in the game down to 10 or 12, the tribes merge and become one new tribe.
At the time of the merger, one of the former tribes usually has more members than the other, giving them an advantage for the remainder of the game. If the old tribe mates stick together, it is fairly easy for one of its members to win the game. But, therein lies the problem. Only one person can win.
So, each season of Survivor begins with two tribes working together in order to get to the merge with more surviving members than the other. After that, everybody is playing for him or herself.
This season, Russell Hantz played strictly for himself from the first day.
The thing is, that strategy will usually only work for as long as people go along with it. Once people figure out that someone is using machinations against them, they will revolt against her/him. It’s usually only a matter of time.
The first part of Russell's strategy was to demoralize his own tribe mates. By stealing water from, burning the clothes of and lying to the members of his own tribe, Foa Foa,
As I watched Russell’s machinations unfold I wondered if his short term gain, control of his tribe, would hurt his long term chances to win the game because Foa Foa's lack of confidence hurt its ability compete against the other tribe, Galu.
At that point, it looked like 4 members of Galu would have an easy path to the final four because they had a seemingly insurmountable 4 player advantage. All they had to do was vote together at Tribal Council and they could eliminate Foa Foa one by one. Then a funny thing happened. Over the course of next several episodes, almost all former Galu members were eliminated and one switched sides. The former Galu had completely lost control of the game.
How did this happen?
Two reasons.
First, Galu’s leader, Russell Swan
suffered a medical emergency and had to leave the game. This didn’t seem important at the time because Galu had such a big numbers advantage. But, Russell was a true leader who made every effort to keep the tribe working together. After he left, nobody replaced him effectively.
Second, Galu was overconfident. They went into the merge believing they could do whatever they wanted and that the former Foa Foa people wouldn’t put up much of a fight. There is a word for this. It is Hubris.
Hubris means overconfidence, or arrogance, combined with presumption. Presumption means believing that something is true, even though it might not be. Hubris, especially when one is overconfident based on a presumption that is false, can get one into trouble.
Galu’s hubris lead them to make the following questionable decisions:
• The voted out one of their own former tribe mates at the first Tribal Council. They did this because they presumed that all former Galu members would vote together in future Tribal Councils, so even after eliminating one of their own, they’d still have a 3 player advantage. The problem with that thinking was:
• They’d been completely disrespectful of one of their tribe mates throughout the first part of the game. Yet, despite treating her like dirt, they still believed that she’d vote with her old tribe. She didn’t. Would you?
• In one stroke of good luck, Russell played his Immunity Idol before he needed to. Nobody even knew he had it, because he found it without using any clues. After he played it, nobody on Galu seriously considered that he might find it again. He did. At the next Tribal Council, Galu tried to vote Russell only to find that Russell had found the idol again. Galu lost a former member instead. Galu discovered that their vote advantage was gone, when the tribe mate they treated so badly voted against them.
By the time Galu figured out that one of their former tribemates had switched sides, it was too late. Their hubris had cost them the lead. Now, they were doomed.
Foa Foa, the tribe which never won a single elimination challenge and whose most prominent member, Russell, was using everybody against everybody else, was now in control of the game.
The question now became: would Russell’s Machiavellian tactics win him the game?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Prince
Sometime during the course of your education, many of you will be asked to read to book called The Prince. This book was written in 1513 by a man named Niccolo Machiavelli.
Machiavelli is thought to be one of the first people to write about what is now known as political science.
The Prince, which was written for a man named Lorenzo de Medici, is about power; how to get it and how to keep it. The methods described in the book are considered by many to be cruel and amoral, yet it is still widely read almost 500 years after it was first written.
Machiavelli’s methods did not include bucket filling. In fact, while he believed that it was best for leaders to be both loved and feared, he also believed that most people could only be one or the other. In such a case, he wrote, it was better to be feared.
Machiavelli wrote his book in a cold, purely objective tone. It contains no emotional content or sentimentality. As a result, while the book contains some good advice, it is known primarily for supporting the belief that “the end justifies the means”.
For Machiavelli, any tool (the means) used to get or keep power (the end) was okay. That’s been interpreted to include lying, cheating, bullying, backstabbing, stealing, spying and even murder. Today, such methods are called “machinations” and people who use them are called “Machiavellian”.
Some Machiavellian historical figures:
While frowned upon by most people, machinations are used today by people seeking to have a power advantage over others. For example, it is said that Bill Gates,
the founder of Microsoft and one of the richest people in the world, started his company with stolen software.
In the 1990’s Microsoft, then the biggest software company in the world, bullied other companies into using its products and took over companies which made products better than theirs. They only stopped after they were sued several times in several different countries for unfair business practices. Microsoft lost almost every suit.
If you’ve been watching this season’s Survivor, then you’ve seen machinations in action, for one of the players, Russell, is Machiavellian to the extreme.
In his first couple of days on the show, he emptied everyone’s canteen, burned some of their clothes and made alliances with several players. Making alliances are a normal tactic in this game, except that Russell made the same promise to all of the them: “I’ll take you to the final two with me”. You do the math.
On the first night Russell told all of his teammates a story of how he was in New Orleans when hurricane Katrina struck, got stranded on the roof of his house in the flood that followed and lost his dog in the process. All of his teammates felt sympathy for him.
There was only one problem:
“I’ve never been to Louisiana, let alone New Orleans,” he told the cameraman.
Whenever anyone told Russell that they didn’t trust him, he arranged to have them voted off by saying the other player “wasn’t trustworthy”.
Russell’s Machiavellian strategy has gotten him to the merge and the final 10, but he is now outnumbered by the former members of another tribe. They don’t trust him.
Many historical Machiavellian leaders met unpleasant ends. Julius Caesar was murdered. Napoleon was exiled. Hitler killed himself.
Within the tiny world of Survivor, Russell strives to be Caesar. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, for it will demonstrate how effective machinations can be in the 21st century; some 5 centuries after they were first described.
The Prince, which was written for a man named Lorenzo de Medici, is about power; how to get it and how to keep it. The methods described in the book are considered by many to be cruel and amoral, yet it is still widely read almost 500 years after it was first written.
Machiavelli’s methods did not include bucket filling. In fact, while he believed that it was best for leaders to be both loved and feared, he also believed that most people could only be one or the other. In such a case, he wrote, it was better to be feared.
Machiavelli wrote his book in a cold, purely objective tone. It contains no emotional content or sentimentality. As a result, while the book contains some good advice, it is known primarily for supporting the belief that “the end justifies the means”.
For Machiavelli, any tool (the means) used to get or keep power (the end) was okay. That’s been interpreted to include lying, cheating, bullying, backstabbing, stealing, spying and even murder. Today, such methods are called “machinations” and people who use them are called “Machiavellian”.
Some Machiavellian historical figures:
Julius Caesar.
Napoleon.
Hitler.
While frowned upon by most people, machinations are used today by people seeking to have a power advantage over others. For example, it is said that Bill Gates,
the founder of Microsoft and one of the richest people in the world, started his company with stolen software.
If you’ve been watching this season’s Survivor, then you’ve seen machinations in action, for one of the players, Russell, is Machiavellian to the extreme.
In his first couple of days on the show, he emptied everyone’s canteen, burned some of their clothes and made alliances with several players. Making alliances are a normal tactic in this game, except that Russell made the same promise to all of the them: “I’ll take you to the final two with me”. You do the math.
On the first night Russell told all of his teammates a story of how he was in New Orleans when hurricane Katrina struck, got stranded on the roof of his house in the flood that followed and lost his dog in the process. All of his teammates felt sympathy for him.
There was only one problem:
“I’ve never been to Louisiana, let alone New Orleans,” he told the cameraman.
Whenever anyone told Russell that they didn’t trust him, he arranged to have them voted off by saying the other player “wasn’t trustworthy”.
Russell’s Machiavellian strategy has gotten him to the merge and the final 10, but he is now outnumbered by the former members of another tribe. They don’t trust him.
Many historical Machiavellian leaders met unpleasant ends. Julius Caesar was murdered. Napoleon was exiled. Hitler killed himself.
Within the tiny world of Survivor, Russell strives to be Caesar. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, for it will demonstrate how effective machinations can be in the 21st century; some 5 centuries after they were first described.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
How Full is Your Bucket?
If you are one of the two or three non-Park School students who read this blog, you may have noticed that I've made several recent references to a "bucket". This bucket, in case you were wondering, is a metaphor coined by a psychologist named Donald O. Clifton.
Each of us has a bucket. In it, we carry our sense of well being. When it is full, we feel great, but when it is empty, we feel terrible. The fullness of one's bucket is determined, in large part, by one's interactions with other people. Every interaction we have with another person helps fill or empty their bucket.
Every time we do something the least bit positive to another person, like saying "hello" to them or holding the door for them, we are filling their bucket. When we ignore a greeting or shut the door in someone's face, we are emptying, or dipping into, their bucket.
What's interesting about this is that every time you fill (or dip into) someone's bucket you are doing the same to your own. Filling buckets makes you feel good, while bucket dipping makes you feel down.
I introduced the bucket idea to the 5th graders at Park at the beginning of the school year. They understood it right away. I asked them to practice filling buckets and told them that an easy way to start would be to greet people, by name, with a smile.
The results have been amazing. Once the kids discovered how good filling others' buckets made them feel, bucket filling took on a life of its own. One can now hear a chorus of "hi's" and "thank yous" and the saying of names around here every day. Many kids go out of their way to try to fill the buckets of people who are down and sometimes, people who are known to be unfriendly.
Filling buckets sometimes pays unexpected dividends.
One thing I do is greet cashiers and checkers at the various stores at which I shop. I mean, think about it. Cashiers have kind of a thankless job. They have to deal with hundreds of strangers each day. Many of them are in a hurry, preoccupied or view the cashier as a non-person.
I make a point to be pleasant to them. I don't engage them in conversation, but I do say hello, ask them how they are, make eye contact, smile and say "thank you".
Simple, right?
The result is that many of the cashiers who work at the stores where I shop regularly will hold their line open for me, or open their line when they see me. They then greet me with a smile and ask how my day has been.
Try it yourself. Start small. Say "hi" and "thank you". Smile. Use people's names. Make eye contact. I think you'll find that filling buckets like this will make you feel pretty good and that your days will be more enjoyable.
Soon, you may find yourself looking for other ways to fill the buckets of others' and therefore, your own.
Each of us has a bucket. In it, we carry our sense of well being. When it is full, we feel great, but when it is empty, we feel terrible. The fullness of one's bucket is determined, in large part, by one's interactions with other people. Every interaction we have with another person helps fill or empty their bucket.
Every time we do something the least bit positive to another person, like saying "hello" to them or holding the door for them, we are filling their bucket. When we ignore a greeting or shut the door in someone's face, we are emptying, or dipping into, their bucket.
What's interesting about this is that every time you fill (or dip into) someone's bucket you are doing the same to your own. Filling buckets makes you feel good, while bucket dipping makes you feel down.
I introduced the bucket idea to the 5th graders at Park at the beginning of the school year. They understood it right away. I asked them to practice filling buckets and told them that an easy way to start would be to greet people, by name, with a smile.
The results have been amazing. Once the kids discovered how good filling others' buckets made them feel, bucket filling took on a life of its own. One can now hear a chorus of "hi's" and "thank yous" and the saying of names around here every day. Many kids go out of their way to try to fill the buckets of people who are down and sometimes, people who are known to be unfriendly.
Filling buckets sometimes pays unexpected dividends.
One thing I do is greet cashiers and checkers at the various stores at which I shop. I mean, think about it. Cashiers have kind of a thankless job. They have to deal with hundreds of strangers each day. Many of them are in a hurry, preoccupied or view the cashier as a non-person.
I make a point to be pleasant to them. I don't engage them in conversation, but I do say hello, ask them how they are, make eye contact, smile and say "thank you".
Simple, right?
The result is that many of the cashiers who work at the stores where I shop regularly will hold their line open for me, or open their line when they see me. They then greet me with a smile and ask how my day has been.
Try it yourself. Start small. Say "hi" and "thank you". Smile. Use people's names. Make eye contact. I think you'll find that filling buckets like this will make you feel pretty good and that your days will be more enjoyable.
Soon, you may find yourself looking for other ways to fill the buckets of others' and therefore, your own.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
J.T. and Coach: A Contrast in Character
Anybody watch the last edition of "Survivor"?
I started watching this show a couple of years ago, mostly because a lot of my students watched it and it gave us something we could talk about together. Those students are gone now, but I still watch the show because I find it to be an interesting study of people's behavior. As I watch the show I'm always struck by how many different kinds of personalities there are and the way living under extreme conditions brings out the best and worst in them.
As one watches the show, one can't help but to start rooting for, or against, certain players. Through my conversations with others who watch the show I've learned that viewers have many different reasons for liking or disliking characters. I'm always a little surprised at how many viewers choose favorites based on how a person looks. To me, that's completely insignificant. My favorite players are the ones who exhibit the strongest character.
By strongest character, I mean the players who possess personality traits such as trustworthiness, reliability, ingenuity, willingness to work hard, cooperation and leadership ability and who are able to exhibit these characteristics even under the most extreme circumstances.
Last season, there were two contestants who offered a sharp contrasts in character. One of them talked about the value of character, but didn't practice it, while the other practiced it, but didn't talk about it.
In one of his interviews early in the show, "Coach", as he wanted to be known, told viewers that he wanted to play the game "with honesty and integrity".
As the game went on, he called his allies "warriors" and himself the "dragonslayer". He would tell the other players stories of life and death experiences which he barely survived.
At other times, he would wander off by himself (but in full view of the other players) and engage in a martial arts/meditation routine that "only about 20 people in the world know about". Maybe, but it looked pretty hokey.
Other players weren't impressed.
"A 37 year old man who calls himself the Dragonslayer? Give me a break". said one (for that matter, why does a grown man want to known as "Coach"?.
Coach's behavior was designed to do two things: a) draw attention to himself and b) convince the world that he had experience that few others had and that it made him somehow better than everybody else. The "honor and integrity" line was just something he said to make himself look good.
Later in the show, Coach's true nature was revealed. When it was clear that he was losing his grip on the game, Coach suddenly changed his tune. On a day when it seemed like there was a chance that he would be sent to "Exile Island", where he would have to spend the night alone with no fire and no food, he pleaded not to be sent, saying that he had "asthma".
"Asthma?," asked another player, "we've been here 30 something days and that's the first time he's mentioned asthma. I think he's scared to go to exile."
They sent him anyway.
Later, in an immunity challenge requiring a great deal of mental toughness to win, Coach, the dragonslayer and martial arts practitioner, eliminated himself by collapsing onto the ground and curling himself into a ball. He claimed that his back hurt.
The dragonslayer had gone from mysterious and arrogant to just plain pathetic.
In almost direct contrast to Coach was J.T..
While Coach tried to create this mystical air about himself, J.T. described himself as a "just a Farm boy from Alabama". While Coach was "meditating", J.T. was fishing for the whole team or chopping wood or cooking. While Coach was telling stories about his wild "experiences", J.T. just listened, never talking about himself. When all of the contestants were asked "who would you trust with your life?", the unanimous choice was J.T.. When it obvious that it was time to vote Coach out of the game, the only player who didn't vote for him was J.T., because he once promised Coach that he would never vote against him. For all of Coach's talk about playing the game with honor and integrity, it was J.T. who actually did it.
In the end, J.T. became only the second unanimous winner in Survivor history.
Character counts.
Addendum: Honor and integrity? After the show was over, it was revealed that Coach isn't one. That's because he was fired from his job for lying. Apparently, he told the college for which he worked that he needed a leave of absence for "cancer tests". He actually left to play Survivor.
Somebody researched Coach's stories by matching his claimed dates and events to real events and the same times and locations. They didn't match.
Finally, somebody asked Coach where he learned his "meditation" routine. In a rare moment of honesty, he said he made it up for the show.
I started watching this show a couple of years ago, mostly because a lot of my students watched it and it gave us something we could talk about together. Those students are gone now, but I still watch the show because I find it to be an interesting study of people's behavior. As I watch the show I'm always struck by how many different kinds of personalities there are and the way living under extreme conditions brings out the best and worst in them.
As one watches the show, one can't help but to start rooting for, or against, certain players. Through my conversations with others who watch the show I've learned that viewers have many different reasons for liking or disliking characters. I'm always a little surprised at how many viewers choose favorites based on how a person looks. To me, that's completely insignificant. My favorite players are the ones who exhibit the strongest character.
By strongest character, I mean the players who possess personality traits such as trustworthiness, reliability, ingenuity, willingness to work hard, cooperation and leadership ability and who are able to exhibit these characteristics even under the most extreme circumstances.
Last season, there were two contestants who offered a sharp contrasts in character. One of them talked about the value of character, but didn't practice it, while the other practiced it, but didn't talk about it.
In one of his interviews early in the show, "Coach", as he wanted to be known, told viewers that he wanted to play the game "with honesty and integrity".
As the game went on, he called his allies "warriors" and himself the "dragonslayer". He would tell the other players stories of life and death experiences which he barely survived.
At other times, he would wander off by himself (but in full view of the other players) and engage in a martial arts/meditation routine that "only about 20 people in the world know about". Maybe, but it looked pretty hokey.
Other players weren't impressed.
"A 37 year old man who calls himself the Dragonslayer? Give me a break". said one (for that matter, why does a grown man want to known as "Coach"?.
Coach's behavior was designed to do two things: a) draw attention to himself and b) convince the world that he had experience that few others had and that it made him somehow better than everybody else. The "honor and integrity" line was just something he said to make himself look good.
Later in the show, Coach's true nature was revealed. When it was clear that he was losing his grip on the game, Coach suddenly changed his tune. On a day when it seemed like there was a chance that he would be sent to "Exile Island", where he would have to spend the night alone with no fire and no food, he pleaded not to be sent, saying that he had "asthma".
"Asthma?," asked another player, "we've been here 30 something days and that's the first time he's mentioned asthma. I think he's scared to go to exile."
They sent him anyway.
Later, in an immunity challenge requiring a great deal of mental toughness to win, Coach, the dragonslayer and martial arts practitioner, eliminated himself by collapsing onto the ground and curling himself into a ball. He claimed that his back hurt.
The dragonslayer had gone from mysterious and arrogant to just plain pathetic.
In almost direct contrast to Coach was J.T..
While Coach tried to create this mystical air about himself, J.T. described himself as a "just a Farm boy from Alabama". While Coach was "meditating", J.T. was fishing for the whole team or chopping wood or cooking. While Coach was telling stories about his wild "experiences", J.T. just listened, never talking about himself. When all of the contestants were asked "who would you trust with your life?", the unanimous choice was J.T.. When it obvious that it was time to vote Coach out of the game, the only player who didn't vote for him was J.T., because he once promised Coach that he would never vote against him. For all of Coach's talk about playing the game with honor and integrity, it was J.T. who actually did it.
In the end, J.T. became only the second unanimous winner in Survivor history.
Character counts.
Addendum: Honor and integrity? After the show was over, it was revealed that Coach isn't one. That's because he was fired from his job for lying. Apparently, he told the college for which he worked that he needed a leave of absence for "cancer tests". He actually left to play Survivor.
Somebody researched Coach's stories by matching his claimed dates and events to real events and the same times and locations. They didn't match.
Finally, somebody asked Coach where he learned his "meditation" routine. In a rare moment of honesty, he said he made it up for the show.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Making Friends - Step Five
Do you see how the first four steps are interconnected? By smiling, using other people's names and listening, you are demonstrating a genuine interest in other people. People will really start to like you. Now let's learn how to turn this likability into real friendships.
Most friendships are based on common interests, likes and dislikes. Good friends know and understand each other. So, how do you get to know somebody without seeming nosy? How do you learn what another person's likes and dislikes are? How do you demonstrate interest and understanding?
This is actually pretty easy if you're really interested in people and you are a good listener.
You accomplish all of the above by encouraging people to talk about themselves.
People, especially kids, love to talk about themselves. As detailed in a previous post, most kids' conversations are really kids taking turns talking about themselves. That isn't a real conversation. It is people talking at each other instead of to each other.
If you want to know someone better and you want them to feel that you are interested in them, all you have to do is let them talk, while you ask questions that show you are interested in what they have to say. If they are interested in you, they will give you a chance to talk, too.
Example:
Potential friend: "I had a swim meet this weekend."
You: "Me too! How many events were you in?"
Potential friend: "Four. 50 free, 50 fly and two relays."
You: "How did you do?"
Potential friend: "One second, one third and two firsts."
You: "Wow! That's good!"
Potential friend: "Thanks. How was your meet?"
See? The result of this little conversation is that two people discovered they have a common interest. One (you) demonstrated interest in the other by asking questions that allowed the other a chance to talk and the other, after talking, reciprocated. They next time the two meet, they will have something to talk about and will be able to talk to each other, not at each other.
Step Five: Encourage people to talk about themselves
Most friendships are based on common interests, likes and dislikes. Good friends know and understand each other. So, how do you get to know somebody without seeming nosy? How do you learn what another person's likes and dislikes are? How do you demonstrate interest and understanding?
This is actually pretty easy if you're really interested in people and you are a good listener.
You accomplish all of the above by encouraging people to talk about themselves.
People, especially kids, love to talk about themselves. As detailed in a previous post, most kids' conversations are really kids taking turns talking about themselves. That isn't a real conversation. It is people talking at each other instead of to each other.
If you want to know someone better and you want them to feel that you are interested in them, all you have to do is let them talk, while you ask questions that show you are interested in what they have to say. If they are interested in you, they will give you a chance to talk, too.
Example:
Potential friend: "I had a swim meet this weekend."
You: "Me too! How many events were you in?"
Potential friend: "Four. 50 free, 50 fly and two relays."
You: "How did you do?"
Potential friend: "One second, one third and two firsts."
You: "Wow! That's good!"
Potential friend: "Thanks. How was your meet?"
See? The result of this little conversation is that two people discovered they have a common interest. One (you) demonstrated interest in the other by asking questions that allowed the other a chance to talk and the other, after talking, reciprocated. They next time the two meet, they will have something to talk about and will be able to talk to each other, not at each other.
Step Five: Encourage people to talk about themselves
Monday, May 18, 2009
Making Friends - Step Four
Okay, now we're getting into the nitty-gritty. Use the first three tools faithfully, and you will find that people, including people who never showed any interest in you before, will look forward to seeing you, be interested in getting to know you, talking to you and spending time with you.
The trick now is to really get to know these people and turn their interest in you into a real friendship.
This next skill is something that most adults, including me, can do better. Therefore, if you can master this skill at an early age you will possess a skill that many don't. Not only be able to make lots of friends, but you will be successful at anything you choose to do. The skill?
The ability to listen.
At the most basic level, a good listener pays close attention to and absorbs everything that s/he hears.
President Clinton used to have aides read complicated documents to him while he was busy doing something else. When the aide was done, Clinton could remember the document almost word for word. While discussing the document and having a disagreement with an aide about what it said, he would often say something like: "Go back to page 92, second paragraph. The one that begins with..." and he'd always be right.
Mr. Clinton demonstrated a phenomenal ability to listen and absorb words, facts and figures. But there's more to listening than that, especially when it comes to your relationships with people. If you really work at being a good listener and as your understanding of people grows, you will learn that a lot of what you are being told isn't being said.
Sound weird, but it's true. Truly good listening skills mean the ability to hear what is being said to understand what isn't being said. This is called the ability to read between the lines.
Simple Example: Let's say that I have a great player on my basketball team. S/he's tough, fast, skilled, hard working, enthusiastic. Looked up to by the other players. Then one day s/he shows up for a game and says, "my stomach hurts."
This is a simple statement that can mean a lot of different things. Could simply mean that the player's stomach hurts. But it could also mean that the player is scared and is looking for reassurance from me. It is up to me, the listener, to figure out what the player really means.
A poor listener would say something like: "I'm sorry to hear that, but we really need you today. Can you tough it out?"
A good listener would ask questions:
Coach: "Do you think it was something you ate?"
Player: "No."
Coach: "How long has your stomach been hurting?"
Player: "Not long."
Coach: "Do you need to sit out?"
Player: "No."
These answers indicate that the player still wants to play, so the stomach pain might just be anxiety. Coach's job now is to take the pressure off the player.
Coach: "Okay, I'll tell you what. I'm going to start you as usual, but if your stomach really starts to bother you, let me know and I'll take you out, okay? Anything you can do to help is good, so just give us the best you can."
Player: "Okay."
The ability to hear what isn't being said is something that comes with practice and experience. You'll never develop it, however, unless you make an effort to listen closely.
Step Four: Listen
The trick now is to really get to know these people and turn their interest in you into a real friendship.
This next skill is something that most adults, including me, can do better. Therefore, if you can master this skill at an early age you will possess a skill that many don't. Not only be able to make lots of friends, but you will be successful at anything you choose to do. The skill?
The ability to listen.
At the most basic level, a good listener pays close attention to and absorbs everything that s/he hears.
President Clinton used to have aides read complicated documents to him while he was busy doing something else. When the aide was done, Clinton could remember the document almost word for word. While discussing the document and having a disagreement with an aide about what it said, he would often say something like: "Go back to page 92, second paragraph. The one that begins with..." and he'd always be right.
Mr. Clinton demonstrated a phenomenal ability to listen and absorb words, facts and figures. But there's more to listening than that, especially when it comes to your relationships with people. If you really work at being a good listener and as your understanding of people grows, you will learn that a lot of what you are being told isn't being said.
Sound weird, but it's true. Truly good listening skills mean the ability to hear what is being said to understand what isn't being said. This is called the ability to read between the lines.
Simple Example: Let's say that I have a great player on my basketball team. S/he's tough, fast, skilled, hard working, enthusiastic. Looked up to by the other players. Then one day s/he shows up for a game and says, "my stomach hurts."
This is a simple statement that can mean a lot of different things. Could simply mean that the player's stomach hurts. But it could also mean that the player is scared and is looking for reassurance from me. It is up to me, the listener, to figure out what the player really means.
A poor listener would say something like: "I'm sorry to hear that, but we really need you today. Can you tough it out?"
A good listener would ask questions:
Coach: "Do you think it was something you ate?"
Player: "No."
Coach: "How long has your stomach been hurting?"
Player: "Not long."
Coach: "Do you need to sit out?"
Player: "No."
These answers indicate that the player still wants to play, so the stomach pain might just be anxiety. Coach's job now is to take the pressure off the player.
Coach: "Okay, I'll tell you what. I'm going to start you as usual, but if your stomach really starts to bother you, let me know and I'll take you out, okay? Anything you can do to help is good, so just give us the best you can."
Player: "Okay."
The ability to hear what isn't being said is something that comes with practice and experience. You'll never develop it, however, unless you make an effort to listen closely.
Step Four: Listen
Saturday, May 16, 2009
The Power of Determination and Persistance
Graduation speeches are an old tradition. All of you will speak at your 5th grade graduation, but as you get older and your schools get bigger, fewer and fewer graduating students get to speak. At big Universities, famous people are asked to speak.
President Obama will be speaking at University of Notre Dame, one of the most famous schools in the country. Notre Dame has 8000 students.
Michelle Obama spoke to the first graduating class of UC Merced, a school that's only been in existence for 4 years and which has only 2718 students.
Why did Mrs. Obama choose to speak at this small school? Read on...
First Lady Delivers a Charge to Graduates
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
First Lady Michelle Obama waves to the first full four year graduates of the Univ of California at Merced on Saturday.
Published: May 16, 2009
MERCED, Calif. — Michelle Obama on Saturday encouraged the first full graduating class at the University of California, Merced, to help change the world by using the same determination they had shown in bringing her to campus.
“A few people may be wondering why did I choose the University of California, Merced, to deliver my first commencement speech as first lady,” Mrs. Obama said. “The answer is simple: you inspired me, you touched me.
“There are few things that are more rewarding than to watch young people recognize that they have the power to make their dreams come true. And you did just that.”
Mrs. Obama was drafted to speak here at the smallest, newest campus in the University of California system through a lobbying effort by students and their families. They peppered the White House with letters, videos and hundreds of Valentine’s Day cards.
“And let me tell you, it worked,” she said. “Because I’m here.”
The speech capped weeks of anticipation at the university for an event that left some students star-struck on a blazingly bright and hot afternoon.
“I haven’t seen anyone of that magnitude in person,” said Daniel Titcher, 22, a senior. “Maybe a state senator or assemblyman or something, but nothing like this.”
The appearance also delighted university officials, who had been working to raise enough money to pay for a more elaborate commencement, attended by more than 10,000 people. The $700,000 price tag for the event included enhanced security, like dozens of metal detectors. Lookouts were on rooftops around the school’s quad, and Secret Service agents patrolled the campus, which sits surrounded by browning farmland outside Merced.
John Garamendi Jr., the vice chancellor for university relations, said he had been supportive but skeptical when student leaders told him they were trying to book Mrs. Obama. “I said, ‘Good luck,’ ” Mr. Garamendi recalled, with a laugh. “I said, ‘I love you guys.’ And I kept walking.”
But sure enough, in late March, Mrs. Obama announced that she would make her sole college commencement appearance this season at the Merced campus. The decision brought a swell of pride to this university in the Central Valley of California.
“Anybody who asks where my daughter’s graduating from, I say, ‘U.C. Merced,’ and they go, ‘Oh!’ ” said Shelly Comer, a nurse whose elder daughter, Michelle, was receiving her degree in psychology. “And then they start talking about Michelle Obama.”
Mr. Garamendi echoed that. “The eyes of the world are on us at this moment,” he said. “People are learning that there are positive things happening in California’s Central Valley.”
The first lady’s visit brought a jolt of excitement to the region, which has been battered by drought, high unemployment and a high foreclosure rate.
Conor Mangan, 22, said he hoped that Mrs. Obama’s appearance would help the local economy, if only for a day. “I hope it pays off,” said Mr. Mangan, who noted that he had backed Ron Paul in the presidential race.
Economic concerns were also on the mind of Irvin Junprung, 22, a biology major, who summed up the immediate plans for him and many of his fellow graduates. “Find work,” Mr. Junprung said.
Speaking at the commencement, Mrs. Obama stayed on inspirational terrain, echoing President Obama’s themes of community service and perseverance in tough times. “My husband knows a little something about the power of hope,” she said. “You are the hope of Merced. And this nation.”
President Obama will be speaking at University of Notre Dame, one of the most famous schools in the country. Notre Dame has 8000 students.
Michelle Obama spoke to the first graduating class of UC Merced, a school that's only been in existence for 4 years and which has only 2718 students.
Why did Mrs. Obama choose to speak at this small school? Read on...
First Lady Delivers a Charge to Graduates
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
First Lady Michelle Obama waves to the first full four year graduates of the Univ of California at Merced on Saturday.
Published: May 16, 2009
MERCED, Calif. — Michelle Obama on Saturday encouraged the first full graduating class at the University of California, Merced, to help change the world by using the same determination they had shown in bringing her to campus.
“A few people may be wondering why did I choose the University of California, Merced, to deliver my first commencement speech as first lady,” Mrs. Obama said. “The answer is simple: you inspired me, you touched me.
“There are few things that are more rewarding than to watch young people recognize that they have the power to make their dreams come true. And you did just that.”
Mrs. Obama was drafted to speak here at the smallest, newest campus in the University of California system through a lobbying effort by students and their families. They peppered the White House with letters, videos and hundreds of Valentine’s Day cards.
“And let me tell you, it worked,” she said. “Because I’m here.”
The speech capped weeks of anticipation at the university for an event that left some students star-struck on a blazingly bright and hot afternoon.
“I haven’t seen anyone of that magnitude in person,” said Daniel Titcher, 22, a senior. “Maybe a state senator or assemblyman or something, but nothing like this.”
The appearance also delighted university officials, who had been working to raise enough money to pay for a more elaborate commencement, attended by more than 10,000 people. The $700,000 price tag for the event included enhanced security, like dozens of metal detectors. Lookouts were on rooftops around the school’s quad, and Secret Service agents patrolled the campus, which sits surrounded by browning farmland outside Merced.
John Garamendi Jr., the vice chancellor for university relations, said he had been supportive but skeptical when student leaders told him they were trying to book Mrs. Obama. “I said, ‘Good luck,’ ” Mr. Garamendi recalled, with a laugh. “I said, ‘I love you guys.’ And I kept walking.”
But sure enough, in late March, Mrs. Obama announced that she would make her sole college commencement appearance this season at the Merced campus. The decision brought a swell of pride to this university in the Central Valley of California.
“Anybody who asks where my daughter’s graduating from, I say, ‘U.C. Merced,’ and they go, ‘Oh!’ ” said Shelly Comer, a nurse whose elder daughter, Michelle, was receiving her degree in psychology. “And then they start talking about Michelle Obama.”
Mr. Garamendi echoed that. “The eyes of the world are on us at this moment,” he said. “People are learning that there are positive things happening in California’s Central Valley.”
The first lady’s visit brought a jolt of excitement to the region, which has been battered by drought, high unemployment and a high foreclosure rate.
Conor Mangan, 22, said he hoped that Mrs. Obama’s appearance would help the local economy, if only for a day. “I hope it pays off,” said Mr. Mangan, who noted that he had backed Ron Paul in the presidential race.
Economic concerns were also on the mind of Irvin Junprung, 22, a biology major, who summed up the immediate plans for him and many of his fellow graduates. “Find work,” Mr. Junprung said.
Speaking at the commencement, Mrs. Obama stayed on inspirational terrain, echoing President Obama’s themes of community service and perseverance in tough times. “My husband knows a little something about the power of hope,” she said. “You are the hope of Merced. And this nation.”
Friday, March 27, 2009
Spider-Man to the Rescue!
By The Associated Press
BANGKOK —
Thai firefighter Somchai Yoosabai put on a Spider-Man costume to rescue a superhero-loving autistic boy who climbed onto a third-floor balcony and dangled his legs over the side because he was nervous on his first day of school.
Somchai was called in after the 8-year-old boy's teachers and mother failed to coax him off the ledge on Monday, he said.
"He was nervous about the first day at school, and he was asking for his mother," Somchai said. "He cried and refused to let any of us get close to him."
Overhearing a conversation between the boy's mother and his teachers about his love for comics and superheros, Somchai rushed back to the fire station to change into a Spider-Man costume used to liven up fire drills at schools before swinging into action.
"I told him Spider-Man is here to save you. No monster will hurt you now," Somchai said. "Then I told him to walk slowly toward me. I was very nervous that he might have slipped if he got too excited and ran."
The teary-eyed boy broke into a smile and started walking into his arms, Somchai said.
The fictional Spider-Man was created by comic-writer Stan Lee in the early 1960s. The character gained worldwide popularity in recent years thanks to the trilogy of Hollywood films starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst.
BANGKOK —
Thai firefighter Somchai Yoosabai put on a Spider-Man costume to rescue a superhero-loving autistic boy who climbed onto a third-floor balcony and dangled his legs over the side because he was nervous on his first day of school.
Somchai was called in after the 8-year-old boy's teachers and mother failed to coax him off the ledge on Monday, he said.
"He was nervous about the first day at school, and he was asking for his mother," Somchai said. "He cried and refused to let any of us get close to him."
Overhearing a conversation between the boy's mother and his teachers about his love for comics and superheros, Somchai rushed back to the fire station to change into a Spider-Man costume used to liven up fire drills at schools before swinging into action.
"I told him Spider-Man is here to save you. No monster will hurt you now," Somchai said. "Then I told him to walk slowly toward me. I was very nervous that he might have slipped if he got too excited and ran."
The teary-eyed boy broke into a smile and started walking into his arms, Somchai said.
The fictional Spider-Man was created by comic-writer Stan Lee in the early 1960s. The character gained worldwide popularity in recent years thanks to the trilogy of Hollywood films starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Myth of the "Popular People"
Every year at every school a group of kids will get together at every recess, find some remote, but visible corner of the playground and hang out.
The behavior of this particular group is slightly mysterious to the other schoolkids, because the group acts in a secretive way. They huddle together and laugh amongst themselves.
They move to another area when others approach. They speak in a peculiar code in which normal English phrases have a special meaning that only they understand. They talk about subjects which are taboo and which they don't really understand, but like to pretend that they do.
The other kids at school see this group in a variety of ways. Curiosity. Indifference. Envy. Disdain.
The English language has many names for a group like this. Coterie. Posse. Clique. Gang. At the group's school, however, they are known as the "Popular People".
How does such a group get this name? Is it because they more popular than other kids?
I suggest, no matter how much the kids in the group would like to think so, that the answer is no.
I do think that the mysterious, secretive, exclusive behavior of this clique gets it a lot of attention, for it gives others the impression that they know something that non-members don't or are having some fun that others can't. This creates curiosity about what goes on in it, envy in those who want to be a part of it (even though they don't know what goes on in it) and disdain among those who think they are poseurs.
The "Popular People" clique isn't about popularity at all. It's about getting attention. The people in it and who want to be in it think that attracting a lot of attention makes them popular. This is a misunderstanding of what popularity is.
Cliques are basically small groups of people who share some kind of common interest, like a particular kind of music, or video games, or fashion. Cliques are not about popularity. Cliques are about separation. Cliques are often filled with people who aren't sure who they are or lack self confidence and need some kind of assurance or identity. Membership in a clique gives its members a sense of belonging and sometimes, a sense of power.
Here's where the problems start. If a clique gets too big, membership in it is no longer special. If anyone could join a clique, it is no longer exclusive. In the case of the "popular people" clique, it no longer gets attention. So, members devise strategies to control the size of the clique. When "choosing" new members, this can mean making the person who wants to get in do something mean or embarrassing to someone else, like choosing between friends (we'll be your friend only if you stop talking to...)
Once accepted, a member isn't guaranteed a permanent place. People are often expected to prove their worth by engaging in embarrassing, dangerous or mean-spirited activities like Truth or Dare, bullying non-members, hazing (bullying wannabe members) or shoplifting. For many, membership in a cliques creates, instead of a sense of belonging, a sense of anxiety because of the constant need to prove oneself.
So you see, "Popular People" is really just a bad name for a clique. This clique, like any other clique, is not about popularity at all. In this case, it's about exclusion, getting attention and power. The more attention you pay it, the more powerful its members think it is. If it's hurting other people, the best thing you can do is defend those who it is hurting without paying attention to the clique. If it doesn't get attention, it will wither up and go away.
A person doesn't need to be part of a clique to be popular. In fact, a genuinely popular person usually doesn't belong to any one clique, but can move freely from one group to the next. A genuinely popular person is one who treats everyone with respect and who is, in return, respected by everyone. This is called mutual respect. At their core, truly popular people have a high level of self confidence and self respect. A great example one one such person is President Obama.
Truth is, it is far more important be respected than merely popular. Some people become popular for very superficial reasons, only to become unpopular when the thing that made them popular is no longer "cool" - think Brittney Spears.
There is a kid at Park who seems to have no close friends, yet is able to talk to or play with almost anyone. When she has no one to talk to, she simply finds something to do, like read, or build something, or join a game. To me, this indicates a very high level of self-confidence, something far more important than fleeting popularity.
Is she popular? Not in the classic sense, but she is well respected. I know because she got more votes than any other 5th grade girl in the hockey team captain election.
As for the "popular people"? In PE captain elections over the years, members of this clique rarely get elected; perhaps 10% of the time at most. They aren't so popular or respected after all. Their "popularity" is just a myth.
The behavior of this particular group is slightly mysterious to the other schoolkids, because the group acts in a secretive way. They huddle together and laugh amongst themselves.
They move to another area when others approach. They speak in a peculiar code in which normal English phrases have a special meaning that only they understand. They talk about subjects which are taboo and which they don't really understand, but like to pretend that they do.
The other kids at school see this group in a variety of ways. Curiosity. Indifference. Envy. Disdain.
The English language has many names for a group like this. Coterie. Posse. Clique. Gang. At the group's school, however, they are known as the "Popular People".
How does such a group get this name? Is it because they more popular than other kids?
I suggest, no matter how much the kids in the group would like to think so, that the answer is no.
I do think that the mysterious, secretive, exclusive behavior of this clique gets it a lot of attention, for it gives others the impression that they know something that non-members don't or are having some fun that others can't. This creates curiosity about what goes on in it, envy in those who want to be a part of it (even though they don't know what goes on in it) and disdain among those who think they are poseurs.
The "Popular People" clique isn't about popularity at all. It's about getting attention. The people in it and who want to be in it think that attracting a lot of attention makes them popular. This is a misunderstanding of what popularity is.
Cliques are basically small groups of people who share some kind of common interest, like a particular kind of music, or video games, or fashion. Cliques are not about popularity. Cliques are about separation. Cliques are often filled with people who aren't sure who they are or lack self confidence and need some kind of assurance or identity. Membership in a clique gives its members a sense of belonging and sometimes, a sense of power.
Here's where the problems start. If a clique gets too big, membership in it is no longer special. If anyone could join a clique, it is no longer exclusive. In the case of the "popular people" clique, it no longer gets attention. So, members devise strategies to control the size of the clique. When "choosing" new members, this can mean making the person who wants to get in do something mean or embarrassing to someone else, like choosing between friends (we'll be your friend only if you stop talking to...)
Once accepted, a member isn't guaranteed a permanent place. People are often expected to prove their worth by engaging in embarrassing, dangerous or mean-spirited activities like Truth or Dare, bullying non-members, hazing (bullying wannabe members) or shoplifting. For many, membership in a cliques creates, instead of a sense of belonging, a sense of anxiety because of the constant need to prove oneself.
So you see, "Popular People" is really just a bad name for a clique. This clique, like any other clique, is not about popularity at all. In this case, it's about exclusion, getting attention and power. The more attention you pay it, the more powerful its members think it is. If it's hurting other people, the best thing you can do is defend those who it is hurting without paying attention to the clique. If it doesn't get attention, it will wither up and go away.
A person doesn't need to be part of a clique to be popular. In fact, a genuinely popular person usually doesn't belong to any one clique, but can move freely from one group to the next. A genuinely popular person is one who treats everyone with respect and who is, in return, respected by everyone. This is called mutual respect. At their core, truly popular people have a high level of self confidence and self respect. A great example one one such person is President Obama.
Truth is, it is far more important be respected than merely popular. Some people become popular for very superficial reasons, only to become unpopular when the thing that made them popular is no longer "cool" - think Brittney Spears.
There is a kid at Park who seems to have no close friends, yet is able to talk to or play with almost anyone. When she has no one to talk to, she simply finds something to do, like read, or build something, or join a game. To me, this indicates a very high level of self-confidence, something far more important than fleeting popularity.
Is she popular? Not in the classic sense, but she is well respected. I know because she got more votes than any other 5th grade girl in the hockey team captain election.
As for the "popular people"? In PE captain elections over the years, members of this clique rarely get elected; perhaps 10% of the time at most. They aren't so popular or respected after all. Their "popularity" is just a myth.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Spirit of Service
One of the things I like best about President Obama is that he means what he says. Many politicians will say things or change their position on issues simply to get votes. Obama isn't like that. Obama displays a personal characteristic common to the greatest of leaders: integrity.
Obama won the election by promising the average American that they would have a voice and a role in his government. To see how effective this message was, all one had to do was turn on the television on Tuesday morning and look at the huge crowd that turned out for his inauguration.
It is said that 3 million people visited Washington DC for this event. Many had no tickets and no place to stay. Some people drove 90 hours just to be there.
In his speech, Obama constantly emphasized his belief in a government "Of the people, by the people, for the people". He did this in a subtle but significant way. Instead of a speech full of the word "I", he used the word "we". In fact, in his speech, Obama used the word "we" 61 times.
Obama's speech was also full of words like "responsibility", "honesty", "loyalty", "humility" and "generosity". These are all traits of persons of strong character. By mentioning these traits, President Obama was telling us how important they were and asked us to develop them, in ourselves and in others. If we can, once again, became a nation of strong character, Obama says, America can regain the worldwide respect it once had, and once again set an example for the world to follow.
One of the ways to accomplish this is through what the president calls "the spirit of service". It was this spirit, the idea of doing or creating something for the good of all mankind, that made America great. Instead of going through life thinking only of ourselves, Obama asks that we reach out and volunteer to help others succeed.
Obama's first call for volunteer service took place before he took office. He asked the nation to turn Martin Luther King day into a day of service. People responded in overwhelming numbers. War veterans who turned up for food drives were so surprised at the number of volunteers who showed to help that they wept. This is one small example of the power of the people.
Volunteer organizations that help our communities, nation and world can be seen everywhere.
The Peace Corps,
Americorps,
Greenpeace,
Boy Scouts
Girl Scouts,
CYO
and our PTA
are all staffed with volunteers. Without volunteers, the United States might not even exist, for the soldiers who fought for America's freedom during the Revolutionary War were all volunteers.
At Park School, we encourage the spirit of service, too. By volunteering for, and serving on, Green Team, Student Council or as a Peaceful Playgrounds Coach,
you are helping make Park School a great place to be. Your contributions as volunteers are very valuable to the school and can be very personally rewarding. We hope that your experience as a volunteer at Park will encourage you to volunteer for good causes for the rest of your life. This will make our community, our nation and the world a better place.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Weight Obsession
One of the nice little things that happened when my family sat down for our Thanksgiving meal (at a restaurant in Carmel) was that my sister ordered, and ate, a steak and everything that came with it, including potatos, a salad and dessert. It told me that my sister is finally happy with the way she looks.
My sister has never been overweight. In fact, she always been on the thin side. But, for as long as I can remember, she's been on a diet. When we were kids and our family went out to eat, she would order a salad for her main course because it was low in calories. The salads she'd order were so small and so low cal that she'd pick at everyone else's food, she was so hungry. So, I was glad to see her eat at Thanksgiving not only for her sake, but for mine, for it meant I got to eat my whole meal too!
Unfortunately, the next day I heard one of my nieces ask the dreaded question: "does this make me look fat?"
First of all, she is nowhere close to looking fat. Secondly, she's 10 years old, which means that she should be gaining weight, for she is growing. Rapid and sudden weight gain at this age is normal and should not be interpreted to mean that one is "getting fat".
Our society places way too much importance on the way a person looks. This overemphasis on appearance leads to people being overly concerned about their weight.
On the other hand, obesity among young people is a problem in this country. This is basically the result of too much of the wrong kind of food and not enough exercise.
The simple solution: eat sensibly, that is, don't eat too much sweet or fatty foods and get regular exercise.
Good news: the people of Marin County are thought to be the "skinniest" in California because of the way we eat and the amount of exercise we get.
So, do you want to know where you stand? Are you part of the obesity epidemic or are you unnecessarily worried about your weight? I've added a gadget to the sidebar which can help you figure it out. It's called a Body Mass Index Calculator (BMI).
To use it, simply enter your height and weight in the appropriate boxes, then click on the Body Mass Indicator box at the bottom and you will get your BMI. Then, compare your BMI to the range shown in the box below the calculator. Most of you will be happy with what you see, for in my experience with fitness testing at Park School, I've found only one or two students each year who have a BMI in the overweight range.
Please note that BMI is only a estimate of fitness and not perfect. For example my BMI is 24.9. According to the adult BMI scale, that means that I'm overweight. I'm not. My BMI is high because I have big leg muscles from riding my bike so much. Muscle weighs more than fat which causes my BMI to be high. So, while BMI is helpful, it isn't the final word.
My sister has never been overweight. In fact, she always been on the thin side. But, for as long as I can remember, she's been on a diet. When we were kids and our family went out to eat, she would order a salad for her main course because it was low in calories. The salads she'd order were so small and so low cal that she'd pick at everyone else's food, she was so hungry. So, I was glad to see her eat at Thanksgiving not only for her sake, but for mine, for it meant I got to eat my whole meal too!
Unfortunately, the next day I heard one of my nieces ask the dreaded question: "does this make me look fat?"
First of all, she is nowhere close to looking fat. Secondly, she's 10 years old, which means that she should be gaining weight, for she is growing. Rapid and sudden weight gain at this age is normal and should not be interpreted to mean that one is "getting fat".
Our society places way too much importance on the way a person looks. This overemphasis on appearance leads to people being overly concerned about their weight.
On the other hand, obesity among young people is a problem in this country. This is basically the result of too much of the wrong kind of food and not enough exercise.
The simple solution: eat sensibly, that is, don't eat too much sweet or fatty foods and get regular exercise.
Good news: the people of Marin County are thought to be the "skinniest" in California because of the way we eat and the amount of exercise we get.
So, do you want to know where you stand? Are you part of the obesity epidemic or are you unnecessarily worried about your weight? I've added a gadget to the sidebar which can help you figure it out. It's called a Body Mass Index Calculator (BMI).
To use it, simply enter your height and weight in the appropriate boxes, then click on the Body Mass Indicator box at the bottom and you will get your BMI. Then, compare your BMI to the range shown in the box below the calculator. Most of you will be happy with what you see, for in my experience with fitness testing at Park School, I've found only one or two students each year who have a BMI in the overweight range.
Please note that BMI is only a estimate of fitness and not perfect. For example my BMI is 24.9. According to the adult BMI scale, that means that I'm overweight. I'm not. My BMI is high because I have big leg muscles from riding my bike so much. Muscle weighs more than fat which causes my BMI to be high. So, while BMI is helpful, it isn't the final word.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
How Far We've Come
Three weeks after an amazing national election, another American institution did something that was unimaginable only a few years ago: A major league baseball team, the Seattle Mariners, made a Japanese-American man, Don Wakamatsu, its manager.
You kids probably don't think this is a big deal. That is a good thing, for the truth is, you shouldn't. But, it is a pretty big deal to me. Not Barack Obama big, but big enough, for it is another indication of America's growing acceptance of people of color.
This was not always the case.
You probably know that the first African-Americans arrived here against their will as slaves. Slavery was legal in the United States from 1654 to 1865. When America declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776 by saying that "all men are created equal" and that everyone was entitled to "life, liberty (freedom) and the pursuit of happiness", they didn't include slaves. Slaves weren't freed until after the long, bloody American Civil War.
Once freed, African Americans weren't treated equally. They couldn't hold the same jobs, go the same schools, or use the same businesses as Caucasian Americans. This is called racial discrimination.
Not only that, they were only allowed to live in certain areas of most cities and towns. This is called segregation.
You may not believe this now, but all of this was legal until the Civil Rights Movement of 1955-1968 fought against and succeeded in ending all of these unfair practices.
The relations between African Americans by Caucasian Americans have been slowly but steadily improving ever since.
African Americans were not the only ethnic group subjected to racial discrimination.
When the US was building the Transcontinental Railroad, many Chinese immigrated to the United States to help build it.
Fearful that the Chinese would take jobs from others, the US government created a law called The Chinese Exclusion Act in 1883.
This law prevented most Chinese people from moving to the United States. After the law was enacted, very few Chinese were allowed into the country. In the 30 years between 1910 and 1940, only 56,113 Chinese were allowed to enter the US, an average of 1,870 per year. By comparison, 1,004,756 Europeans were allowed to enter the US in 1907 alone.
The law wasn't repealed (canceled) until 1943. Even today, if one were to look at the United States Code (the book of US law), one would find that Chapter 7 of Title 8 is entitled "Exclusion of Chinese." Of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality), it is the only one that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group.
After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1942, the United States government decided that all Japanese living in the US were threats to national security.
All Japanese living in the US were moved into places called "internment camps" which were really prisons in remote, unpopulated areas of the country.
By being forced to move, all of these people lost their jobs, their homes and their businesses.
The funny thing was, America was also at war with Germany, but no Germans were placed in internment camps.
So why were the Japanese moved? For that matter, why exclude only Chinese immigrants and segregate the African American population? Simple answer: they were all visibly different from the Caucasian majority because of the color of their skin.
Today, I marvel at how much has changed.
In a sport where African Americans were once excluded from participation, Tiger Woods is regarded as the greatest player of all time.
Ang Lee, a Chinese man, won an Oscar for Best Director (Brokeback Mountain).
A Japanese man is such a big star in baseball, America's game, that he is known only by his first name, Ichiro.
And an African American man has been elected President of the United States of America.
Best of all, most of you don't think much of any of this. To me, that is the best indicator of how far we've come as a nation.
You kids probably don't think this is a big deal. That is a good thing, for the truth is, you shouldn't. But, it is a pretty big deal to me. Not Barack Obama big, but big enough, for it is another indication of America's growing acceptance of people of color.
This was not always the case.
You probably know that the first African-Americans arrived here against their will as slaves. Slavery was legal in the United States from 1654 to 1865. When America declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776 by saying that "all men are created equal" and that everyone was entitled to "life, liberty (freedom) and the pursuit of happiness", they didn't include slaves. Slaves weren't freed until after the long, bloody American Civil War.
Once freed, African Americans weren't treated equally. They couldn't hold the same jobs, go the same schools, or use the same businesses as Caucasian Americans. This is called racial discrimination.
Not only that, they were only allowed to live in certain areas of most cities and towns. This is called segregation.
You may not believe this now, but all of this was legal until the Civil Rights Movement of 1955-1968 fought against and succeeded in ending all of these unfair practices.
The relations between African Americans by Caucasian Americans have been slowly but steadily improving ever since.
African Americans were not the only ethnic group subjected to racial discrimination.
When the US was building the Transcontinental Railroad, many Chinese immigrated to the United States to help build it.
Fearful that the Chinese would take jobs from others, the US government created a law called The Chinese Exclusion Act in 1883.
This law prevented most Chinese people from moving to the United States. After the law was enacted, very few Chinese were allowed into the country. In the 30 years between 1910 and 1940, only 56,113 Chinese were allowed to enter the US, an average of 1,870 per year. By comparison, 1,004,756 Europeans were allowed to enter the US in 1907 alone.
The law wasn't repealed (canceled) until 1943. Even today, if one were to look at the United States Code (the book of US law), one would find that Chapter 7 of Title 8 is entitled "Exclusion of Chinese." Of the 15 chapters in Title 8 (Aliens and Nationality), it is the only one that is completely focused on a specific nationality or ethnic group.
After the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1942, the United States government decided that all Japanese living in the US were threats to national security.
All Japanese living in the US were moved into places called "internment camps" which were really prisons in remote, unpopulated areas of the country.
By being forced to move, all of these people lost their jobs, their homes and their businesses.
The funny thing was, America was also at war with Germany, but no Germans were placed in internment camps.
So why were the Japanese moved? For that matter, why exclude only Chinese immigrants and segregate the African American population? Simple answer: they were all visibly different from the Caucasian majority because of the color of their skin.
Today, I marvel at how much has changed.
In a sport where African Americans were once excluded from participation, Tiger Woods is regarded as the greatest player of all time.
Ang Lee, a Chinese man, won an Oscar for Best Director (Brokeback Mountain).
A Japanese man is such a big star in baseball, America's game, that he is known only by his first name, Ichiro.
And an African American man has been elected President of the United States of America.
Best of all, most of you don't think much of any of this. To me, that is the best indicator of how far we've come as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
