I hate grand-standing, opportunistic politicans who cloak themselves in patriotism or morality and proclaim how "offended" they are by someone else's behavior purely for the sake of basking in the projected honor and glory.
What brought on this unusual reaction (for me) is an article in our local newspaper on the continuing saga of St. Louis (Minnesota) County Commissioner Keith Nelson who got caught on camera (with the active support of YouTube distribution) making an off-the-cuff response to a silly question at a County Board meeting. Basically, there was a debate on a smoking ban in our county and this guy was opposed to the smoking ban because a majority of his constituents, who he's supposed to be representing, opposed the ban (I mean, isn't that his job in a representative democracy?) In a clever use of argumentation and rhetoric, another commissioner, Bill Kron, asked him if he would have voted "for slavery" if a majority of his constituents did. Stuck in the situation with the need to respond to a rather silly and irrelevant question while reinforcing his point about being a representative for his constituents, he said "Yes." And that started a firestorm of controversy. Now, this whole exchange was repositioned as an elected official advocating in favor of slavery!!!!
Today, the paper reported that he apologized to the Human Rights Commission and agreed to try and take some diversity training. As one of my favorite journalists, John Stossel, likes to say, Give Me A Break! I wish Keith Nelson had instead responded to the question during the meeting by saying "Sir, if a majority of your constituents were against slavery, but you personally believed that slavery was good, would you have voted for it?" That would have put the other commissioner in his place and made everyone realize how stupid and irrelevant that question was. While I don't know Keith Neilson or the other Commissioner, I can identify political correctness run amuck. From what I saw, this man was not advocating or supporting slavery in any way, but was responding to an odd and ridiculous question. To any intelligent person (who is not looking to take advantage of such situations), there was no intent to glorify slavery or support it in any way.
Instead, this man found himself constantly apologizing to everyone from pious Ministers to, recently, the Human Rights Commission. According to today's paper, "I was offended by your statement," Commission Member Linda Esala told Nelson. If this is all it takes to offend Ms. Esala, she should consider herself the beneficiary of the great civil rights leaders who have come before her. I find it offensive that this commission is obviously taking advantage of this slip in the middle of a debate on a smoking ban. Why wasn't commissioner Bill Kron taken to task for asking such a ridiculously irrelevant question? Why wasn't he criticized for equating a smoking ban with slavery? He gets off scot free and Mr. Nelson, who just happened to be on the wrong end of the question gets to spend the rest of his career living this down.
You can watch the video of the response on YouTube below.
Read the latest article (from the Minneapolis Star Tribune) here.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Air Rage? Taking Out Frustrations on Airline Staff
Okay, so let me use today's post to finish my thoughts about my nightmare trip to Boston. now that I'm a little removed form it, perhaps I can be a little more brief than I otherwise would have been.
So, when Northwest handed me the hotel and dinner vouchers, I specifically asked the lady at the counter whether I had to call for a shuttle from the airport or whether they would come automatically. She assured me that the shuttles run on a regular schedule and that I did not need to call (WRONG - what did people do in the age before cell phones?). I also asked her if I needed to use the dinner voucher at the airport or whether I could use it at the hotel's restaurant. She promised me that I could use it at the hotel's restaurant (Well, I guess maybe you could, if the hotel even had a restaurant. The good news is that they're getting one next year!).
Another interesting experience was watching some really irate passengers interact with the gate agents. One old man and his wife seemed in a state of panic and the man was very curt and rude to the agent. The wife kept jumping in with her comments. At one point she said, "But we're diabetics and we're out of medicine." The gate agent started to respond, but the man turned to his wife and said, in a loudd voice, "Honey, they don't care about that. They don't really give a damn about us." I could see the gate agent flush red. He then started to ask how he could help get ... when he was cut off by the man who said "Just help us by doing your job and getting us out of here." Later, after he had gone out of his way to ask them where they could get their prescription refilled and how he could help, he said "Sir, I think you're wrong. We really do care. I was simply trying to get more information from you to help you."
I guess I've done enough traveling to know that there is just no benefit to losing your temper with the airline staff. When bad weather disrupts so many flights, they're as frazzled and frustrated as the passengers are. They are as anxious to get you out of their airport as you are to leave. They're being blamed for something that had nothing to do with their performance. I guess it does make the yellers feel a little better to get it out of their system. But, I think yelling at them doesn't give them any incentive to go out of their way to help you.
Fascinating situation for people-watching, though.
So, when Northwest handed me the hotel and dinner vouchers, I specifically asked the lady at the counter whether I had to call for a shuttle from the airport or whether they would come automatically. She assured me that the shuttles run on a regular schedule and that I did not need to call (WRONG - what did people do in the age before cell phones?). I also asked her if I needed to use the dinner voucher at the airport or whether I could use it at the hotel's restaurant. She promised me that I could use it at the hotel's restaurant (Well, I guess maybe you could, if the hotel even had a restaurant. The good news is that they're getting one next year!).
Another interesting experience was watching some really irate passengers interact with the gate agents. One old man and his wife seemed in a state of panic and the man was very curt and rude to the agent. The wife kept jumping in with her comments. At one point she said, "But we're diabetics and we're out of medicine." The gate agent started to respond, but the man turned to his wife and said, in a loudd voice, "Honey, they don't care about that. They don't really give a damn about us." I could see the gate agent flush red. He then started to ask how he could help get ... when he was cut off by the man who said "Just help us by doing your job and getting us out of here." Later, after he had gone out of his way to ask them where they could get their prescription refilled and how he could help, he said "Sir, I think you're wrong. We really do care. I was simply trying to get more information from you to help you."
I guess I've done enough traveling to know that there is just no benefit to losing your temper with the airline staff. When bad weather disrupts so many flights, they're as frazzled and frustrated as the passengers are. They are as anxious to get you out of their airport as you are to leave. They're being blamed for something that had nothing to do with their performance. I guess it does make the yellers feel a little better to get it out of their system. But, I think yelling at them doesn't give them any incentive to go out of their way to help you.
Fascinating situation for people-watching, though.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
I've Been A Bad Boy ...
I finally faltered. As a few (hopefully not many) may have noticed, I finally missed some postings in my new blog. I was out of town a lot over the last two weeks. I managed to find time to post from St. Louis. But last week I drove to and from Rochester and left the next day for Boston. Each night, I managed only four hours sleep before I had to hop on a plane (I started this story on Wednesday in my last post and will finish it tomorrow). So, I never got a chance to post. I was busy and away from my computer morning to night. When I did get back, I was desperately trying to catch up and never got around to doing all the posting I planned.
I promise I'll try to get "back in the groove" this week. It's not that I don't have anything to say ...
I promise I'll try to get "back in the groove" this week. It's not that I don't have anything to say ...
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Stuck In A Nightmare
It was supposed to be a simple one-day trip to Boston. I left Duluth last evening and was supposed to back in Duluth tonight. Instead, I've seen the best of people, the worst of people and the best and worst of Northwest Airlines.
Because of thunderstorms, I missed my connecting flight from Minneapolis to Boston. The first problem was the aircraft left the gate at Duluth and sat on the tarmac for over two hours. If they had stayed at the gate, I would have simply opted out of this trip. Once in Minneapolis, since there was no flight that night to Boston, I asked to return to Duluth by a late night flight. Then, I told NW that (a) if they could reschedule me for this morning, returning to Duluth tomorrow morning, and (b) pay for a hotel for the night, I was willing to continue on my trip and reschedule my meeting. They agreed (on the phone) and re-scheduled my flights. The first problem was the gate agent refused to honor that and nicely apologized and said I would need to pay for the hotel. I was directed to the ticketing counters. At the ticketing counters, I was asked to stand in two incorrect lines before finding myself to the correct counter. I boiled down the story to (a) pay for a hotel for the night, or (b) put me on the late night flight back to Duluth and refund the ticket. They agreed to pay for the hotel.
That's not even the most interesting part of the story ... Ooops, I better get to the airport. I'll fill in later.
Because of thunderstorms, I missed my connecting flight from Minneapolis to Boston. The first problem was the aircraft left the gate at Duluth and sat on the tarmac for over two hours. If they had stayed at the gate, I would have simply opted out of this trip. Once in Minneapolis, since there was no flight that night to Boston, I asked to return to Duluth by a late night flight. Then, I told NW that (a) if they could reschedule me for this morning, returning to Duluth tomorrow morning, and (b) pay for a hotel for the night, I was willing to continue on my trip and reschedule my meeting. They agreed (on the phone) and re-scheduled my flights. The first problem was the gate agent refused to honor that and nicely apologized and said I would need to pay for the hotel. I was directed to the ticketing counters. At the ticketing counters, I was asked to stand in two incorrect lines before finding myself to the correct counter. I boiled down the story to (a) pay for a hotel for the night, or (b) put me on the late night flight back to Duluth and refund the ticket. They agreed to pay for the hotel.
That's not even the most interesting part of the story ... Ooops, I better get to the airport. I'll fill in later.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Managing Children
Today's "One Big Happy" comic in the newspaper triggered my memory of an incident I encountered this weekend. We were at Blockbuster and there was this little kid (I would guess about 2 years old) who was absolutely flipping out. She was wailing and screaming about wanting some movie. She was running around with tears streaming down her face and screaming loudly about a movie she wanted. The parents of this little girl continued their conversation and occasionally turned to her and said something like "Yes, honey. We'll get the movie some other time." My wife and I looked at each other as this scene continued for a few minutes. It just amazes me to see how some people deal with their kids.
As usual, I am not going to claim I have some magical parenting skills or that I am better than any others, so with that disclaimer, let me finish this story with my opinion on how this should have been handled. When we were all back in the car, I turned to my seven (almost eight) year-old daughter and asked her how she would have handled the screaming child if she'd been the parent. She said, without hesitation, "I would have taken the kid outside and taken her home and said No movie for you because you were misbehaving in the store!"
I told her that I would have handled it differently. To me, the key objective of a parent in this position is to bring the situation under their control in the short run while making steps towards managing such situations in the long run. For the short run, I completely agree with my daughter. The first thing I would do is to take the child out of the public area. No movie picking is that important that it cannot be delayed or canceled for an evening. But, once the out-of-control kid is out of the store, I would sit her (or him) down and ask if she wants to go back into the store so we can continue with the movie picking. If the answer is no (or if there is no reasoned response), I would simply put the child in the car seat and go home (and wait for a later time to talk to the child about how her reaction resulted in the outcome). On the other hand, I would guess that nine times out of ten, the child will want to return to the situation maximizing the likelihood of reward (go back into the store to pick out a movie). The moment I get the kid to agree that she wants to return to the store, I have gained a huge measure of control. I would then agree that we can go back to the store on the condition that ...
The moment the child agrees that she wants to go back into the store to pick out a movie, the parent now gains the power to set the ground rules. The rules then become very clear and any violation of those rules results in the movie being returned to the shelf and immediate departure from the store. However, this rarely happens. By this time, the child knows that his or her only choice (in order to achieve her goal) is to cooperate and the behavior comes under control.
It may be purely luck, but with three kids (now ranging in age from thirteen to six), I can swear that I have never had a screaming child in a store. There has never been a situation where one of my kids was so out of control that I could not immediately defuse the situation and bring things back in control. You'll notice that my only modification to my seven-year-old daughter's naive parenting response is that I would not escalate the situation by simply taking the child home. I think that results in bitterness (the child feels she was unfairly treated and deprived of some reward because of an unfair parent) and extended bouts of pouting. That is why, I would take the child to the car and then give the child the option of cooperating or going home. That way, if the kid doesn't get a grip of herself (or himself) the attribution for the punishment (going home without a movie) clearly rests with the child. (S)he clearly sees the immediate and explicit link between the outcome and his (or her) own behavior. The situation is defused, the child understands how his or her own behavior can influence a positive (or negative) outcome and you've taught the child to take responsibility for his or her behavior.
This is very verbose and probably makes a simple point. I am sure a better writer could make this point more elegantly, but since this is my blog and I don't have a ghostwriter yeat, this will have to do.
P.S.: Sorry for missing yesterday's post.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Buy and Pay (and Pay)
I just realized that a blog is also a forum for me to rant. So, let me end the week on this quick rant against Microsoft Hotmail. Because I was using Hotmail for a business email address some time ago, I needed to access Hotmail through my Microsoft Outlook email reader. So, I paid up the price for a "premium" account with Hotmail.
Well, recently, on re-installing Outlook (my computer hard drive crashed), I found Outlook would no longer access my "premium" Hotmail account. One of the key features of a "premium" account is that you can access it using an external mail program like Microsoft Outlook (and I was using it with no trouble before my system crashed). I am reasonably computer savvy and so I tried all sorts of things including reinstalling the email account, etc. I also made sure I had my email account and password right by logging in to the email account using a browser. Finally, after spending a fair amount of time troubleshooting, I contacted Hotmail technical support and explained the problem. Since it was email technical support, I expected a quick and reasonable response. I was quite surprised when I was told that since I was able to log into the account with a browser, I would have to contact Microsoft Office technical support (despite the fact that compatibility with Outlook is one of the features of the premium Hotmail account). When I contacted Microsoft's Office technical support, I was told that I would have to pay $49.95 as a "per incident" fee for technical support. I tried complaining to the manager, but the answer was clear - you want help? Pay (at least) $49.95 to fix the problem.
Do you get this? I am trying to get TWO LEGAL AND PAID FOR MICROSOFT PRODUCTS to work with each other AS THEY PROMISED IT WOULD and I have to pay them (again) to get it to work? (sorry for shouting). I guess their argument is that this is no different than buying a car. You buy it, but if you have trouble with it, too bad - you pay to get it fixed. But give me a break - does this sound reasonable to you?
Of course, we're lucky that in this market there are options. I will NOT renew my premium Hotmail account (which I was renewing each year purely out of inertia) when it expires later this year. Instead, I got myself a nice free Gmail account that allows me to access mail via Outlook and also has other features like mail forwarding. I also found I could get a bunch of email accounts with my company domain name for less than I was paying for the Hotmail premium account.
So, if you're looking for good, reliable, feature-rich email programs, forget Hotmail. Get sensible (as I did) and get yourself a Gmail account.
Thanks for helping me see the light, Microsoft!
Well, recently, on re-installing Outlook (my computer hard drive crashed), I found Outlook would no longer access my "premium" Hotmail account. One of the key features of a "premium" account is that you can access it using an external mail program like Microsoft Outlook (and I was using it with no trouble before my system crashed). I am reasonably computer savvy and so I tried all sorts of things including reinstalling the email account, etc. I also made sure I had my email account and password right by logging in to the email account using a browser. Finally, after spending a fair amount of time troubleshooting, I contacted Hotmail technical support and explained the problem. Since it was email technical support, I expected a quick and reasonable response. I was quite surprised when I was told that since I was able to log into the account with a browser, I would have to contact Microsoft Office technical support (despite the fact that compatibility with Outlook is one of the features of the premium Hotmail account). When I contacted Microsoft's Office technical support, I was told that I would have to pay $49.95 as a "per incident" fee for technical support. I tried complaining to the manager, but the answer was clear - you want help? Pay (at least) $49.95 to fix the problem.
Do you get this? I am trying to get TWO LEGAL AND PAID FOR MICROSOFT PRODUCTS to work with each other AS THEY PROMISED IT WOULD and I have to pay them (again) to get it to work? (sorry for shouting). I guess their argument is that this is no different than buying a car. You buy it, but if you have trouble with it, too bad - you pay to get it fixed. But give me a break - does this sound reasonable to you?
Of course, we're lucky that in this market there are options. I will NOT renew my premium Hotmail account (which I was renewing each year purely out of inertia) when it expires later this year. Instead, I got myself a nice free Gmail account that allows me to access mail via Outlook and also has other features like mail forwarding. I also found I could get a bunch of email accounts with my company domain name for less than I was paying for the Hotmail premium account.
So, if you're looking for good, reliable, feature-rich email programs, forget Hotmail. Get sensible (as I did) and get yourself a Gmail account.
Thanks for helping me see the light, Microsoft!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Getting Somewhere - Faster!
I know I walk very fast. I constantly hear people I happen to walk with exclaim "Wow, people call me a fast walker, but you're crazy - you don't walk, you run!" I have one person at work who shakes his head any time he sees me in the hallways and exclaims "There he rushes - a man on a mission!"
I've always wondered why I like to walk so fast. The answer is that it's because there is just so much to be done. I have to constantly feel like I'm getting something done. That does not mean I'm a workaholic. I really don't think I am. I have too many non-work interests to be a workaholic. I love to read, listen to music, watch movies, play on the computer, keep up with new technologies, and much more. But, it is because there are all this millions of things I like to do that I hate to "waste time" on anything.
Yesterday, for the first time in a long time, I walked outside on my way to my daughter's dance show at a nearby school. Even though I walk fast, being outside allowed me to see a bunch of things I normally don't see - a burbling brook a few minutes from my house, interesting looking trails leading into deeply wooded areas, and a field of wildflowers surrounding the stream. For a fleeting moment, I thought "I really ought to get out more." But that thought quickly was replaced with "well, if I need exercise, I'd rather do it on my stepping machine in front of the TV." It is not that I watch TV (I hardly watch any TV at all - we don't have cable or satellite at home and don't miss it one bit). But, watching an episode of Twilight Zone from the 6-DVD set I bought two years ago while exercising helps me feel like I'm getting something done. At least one more item on my "To Do" list is being checked off. For some strange reason, that is more satisfying to me than being out for a slow walk in the woods. It's not that I'm not spontaneous or don't enjoy just doing things for the fun of it. It's just that there has to be a goal attached to anything I do. So, if my goal is to relax and walk around aimlessly, I have no problem doing it (remember the fun I had blogging about my Australia trip?)
So, if you want to know, I walk fast so I can get somewhere and do something.
I scare myself sometimes ...
I've always wondered why I like to walk so fast. The answer is that it's because there is just so much to be done. I have to constantly feel like I'm getting something done. That does not mean I'm a workaholic. I really don't think I am. I have too many non-work interests to be a workaholic. I love to read, listen to music, watch movies, play on the computer, keep up with new technologies, and much more. But, it is because there are all this millions of things I like to do that I hate to "waste time" on anything.
Yesterday, for the first time in a long time, I walked outside on my way to my daughter's dance show at a nearby school. Even though I walk fast, being outside allowed me to see a bunch of things I normally don't see - a burbling brook a few minutes from my house, interesting looking trails leading into deeply wooded areas, and a field of wildflowers surrounding the stream. For a fleeting moment, I thought "I really ought to get out more." But that thought quickly was replaced with "well, if I need exercise, I'd rather do it on my stepping machine in front of the TV." It is not that I watch TV (I hardly watch any TV at all - we don't have cable or satellite at home and don't miss it one bit). But, watching an episode of Twilight Zone from the 6-DVD set I bought two years ago while exercising helps me feel like I'm getting something done. At least one more item on my "To Do" list is being checked off. For some strange reason, that is more satisfying to me than being out for a slow walk in the woods. It's not that I'm not spontaneous or don't enjoy just doing things for the fun of it. It's just that there has to be a goal attached to anything I do. So, if my goal is to relax and walk around aimlessly, I have no problem doing it (remember the fun I had blogging about my Australia trip?)
So, if you want to know, I walk fast so I can get somewhere and do something.
I scare myself sometimes ...
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Meet Me In St. Louis
Yesterday, I visited two more "must see" sights in St. Louis. The old Union Station, which is now a Hyatt hotel connected to a massive shopping arcade is quite a sight. The grand hall, very reminiscent of the re-done Grand Central Station in NYC has been beautifully restored and has a sense of grandeur you don't see often in today's architecture.
Later in the morning, I visited St. Louis zoo which is a lot like almost any other zoo except that entry is free. Interestingly, the St. Louis zoo has now overtaken the San Diego zoo in attendance and is now #1 in the U.S.
Despite the rain, another highlight of my visit was the Missouri Botanical Gardens. The gardens
cover 79 acres a few minutes drive from downtown. I found their children's garden quite unique and has several themed areas where kids can climb, explore and learn. The place was founded in 1859 and is the oldest continuously operating botanical garden in the world. Apparently the designation of "botanical garden" implies not just horticultural display, but also research and education. Thus, any "botanical garden" will have major research and education initiatives as part of their mission. Visit the garden's famous web site at http://www.mobot.org/ and learn about this place and everything you wanted to know about gardening!
Now that I'm ready to leave, you know what I think is the best part of St. Louis? It's that I know I'll find something great to keep everyone in the family happy. I can entertain the kids at City Museum and the zoo. I know the Botanical Gardens and Union Station will keep my wife happy. And I know I can spend hours walking the shops at The Loop (looked like there were some interesting record and CD stores that are worth a visit) and visiting the art museum and Missouri history museum (and these are free too - great for a cheapskate like me!)
For those of you who remember St. Louis from several years ago, I can assure you that the downtown area is much different than it used to be I walked around at about 10 PM last night and it seemed perfectly safe. So, hopefully we'll see you some time in St. Louis!
Later in the morning, I visited St. Louis zoo which is a lot like almost any other zoo except that entry is free. Interestingly, the St. Louis zoo has now overtaken the San Diego zoo in attendance and is now #1 in the U.S.
Despite the rain, another highlight of my visit was the Missouri Botanical Gardens. The gardens
cover 79 acres a few minutes drive from downtown. I found their children's garden quite unique and has several themed areas where kids can climb, explore and learn. The place was founded in 1859 and is the oldest continuously operating botanical garden in the world. Apparently the designation of "botanical garden" implies not just horticultural display, but also research and education. Thus, any "botanical garden" will have major research and education initiatives as part of their mission. Visit the garden's famous web site at http://www.mobot.org/ and learn about this place and everything you wanted to know about gardening!Now that I'm ready to leave, you know what I think is the best part of St. Louis? It's that I know I'll find something great to keep everyone in the family happy. I can entertain the kids at City Museum and the zoo. I know the Botanical Gardens and Union Station will keep my wife happy. And I know I can spend hours walking the shops at The Loop (looked like there were some interesting record and CD stores that are worth a visit) and visiting the art museum and Missouri history museum (and these are free too - great for a cheapskate like me!)
For those of you who remember St. Louis from several years ago, I can assure you that the downtown area is much different than it used to be I walked around at about 10 PM last night and it seemed perfectly safe. So, hopefully we'll see you some time in St. Louis!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
A City to Re-Visit - St. Louis
I am in St. Louis on a short visit. Although I've been here before, I realize that the reason I love to travel is that I see (and appreciate) new things each time I am in a town.
Of course, the St. Louis Gateway Arch is just awe-inspiring. When I look up at the thing (or look at it glimmering in the sky from almost any part of town), what I find most inspiring and intriguing is how Eero Saarinen (the architect) even came up with such a bold and daring design. Then, the story of how the engineers developed a structure that would actually be able to stand upright and how the builders were able to erect this incredible piece, are all cause for celebrating the human spirit. Like most of these spectacular innovations, numerous engineering inventions developed for this particular purpose proved to be of value in other building (and non-building) applications. What a story ...
The City Museum which I had never seen before is a marvel in a
different way. Someone please tell me how you can combine numerous young kids running around an old factory with thousands of rusted metal structures (which the kids are encouraged to climb), steep slides, dark and convoluted mazes, massive brick or plaster ramparts from old buildings, and other dangerous items without having regular accidents? This place has to be seen to be believed. It looks like SO MUCH fun, but somehow I was not sure I would be brave enough to bring my kids there and let them run loose in this place. Quite amazing.
Then there was the breathtaking Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis. I have always loved cathdrals for their art and architecture. It is amazing what passoin and belief can drive people to do. But this place exceeded my expectations. I have seen some pretty spectacular cathedrals in Europe, but this rivals the best of them. The interior is completely coverd with mosaic representations of biblical events. The mosaics seem to cover the entire church and are beyond simple description. You have to actually see it to realize how awesome it is.
I'm here for one more day. I don't know what's in store for me today. Perhaps I'll add to this post after my visits today. At the moment, this looks like a city well worth visiting (relatively inexpensive hotels and lots to do). The revitalization of downtown is also quite impressive.
Of course, the St. Louis Gateway Arch is just awe-inspiring. When I look up at the thing (or look at it glimmering in the sky from almost any part of town), what I find most inspiring and intriguing is how Eero Saarinen (the architect) even came up with such a bold and daring design. Then, the story of how the engineers developed a structure that would actually be able to stand upright and how the builders were able to erect this incredible piece, are all cause for celebrating the human spirit. Like most of these spectacular innovations, numerous engineering inventions developed for this particular purpose proved to be of value in other building (and non-building) applications. What a story ...
The City Museum which I had never seen before is a marvel in a
different way. Someone please tell me how you can combine numerous young kids running around an old factory with thousands of rusted metal structures (which the kids are encouraged to climb), steep slides, dark and convoluted mazes, massive brick or plaster ramparts from old buildings, and other dangerous items without having regular accidents? This place has to be seen to be believed. It looks like SO MUCH fun, but somehow I was not sure I would be brave enough to bring my kids there and let them run loose in this place. Quite amazing.
Then there was the breathtaking Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis. I have always loved cathdrals for their art and architecture. It is amazing what passoin and belief can drive people to do. But this place exceeded my expectations. I have seen some pretty spectacular cathedrals in Europe, but this rivals the best of them. The interior is completely coverd with mosaic representations of biblical events. The mosaics seem to cover the entire church and are beyond simple description. You have to actually see it to realize how awesome it is.I'm here for one more day. I don't know what's in store for me today. Perhaps I'll add to this post after my visits today. At the moment, this looks like a city well worth visiting (relatively inexpensive hotels and lots to do). The revitalization of downtown is also quite impressive.
Monday, May 14, 2007
What are memories made of?
I often wonder how my kids will look back on their childhood. What will they remember? What experiences will they have no memory of? Of course, like almost any parent, a great deal of my time, money, and effort is spent on trying to "create positive experiences" for my kids. But sometimes I wonder which experiences they'll cherish and which will be forgotten soon after the experience.
What triggered this line of thought is that a touring production of my favorite musical, Jesus Christ Superstar, is passing through town soon. Of course I was going to go, but my kids (aged 12, 8, and 6) jumped up and down and begged me to take them along. Now, usually, when I go for concerts and shows, I don't include the kids simply because I just don't think the huge ticket prices are worth paying for little kids who won't get as much out of it as I would. But, since my wife had no interest in the show and I usually hate going alone, I asked her if I should take the kids. She shrugged and so I went and picked up four tickets to the show at $50 a piece. As I was signing the credit card receipt for a massive $200, I wondered whether it was good use of the money. Is it worth paying $50 for a 6 and 8-year old kid to see a show. A month or two ago, I paid $100 for a ticket so my 12-year-old could join us for a Blue Man Group concert.
When I think back to my childhood, most of my memories are of vacations or trips where something scary or bad happened. I remember being completeky impressed with the way my Dad handled the situations and being so thankful that he was there to protect us from horrible things that happen to us. I remember an incident where we were stopped at a light and a guy behind us (who we must have cut off) walked over to our car, leaned through the window on the passenger side (where I was sitting) and punched my Dad repeatedly in the face. I recall sitting there petrified as the sunglasses on my Dad's face broke. I remember berating myself for months after thinking that I should have just opened the car door hard to push the guy on to the road instead of just sitting there and letting this bum hit my Dad. I frankly can't remember any specific movie or show I went to with my parents. I'm sure I did ...
On the other hand, perhaps the kids not recalling the details of this specific show years down the line is not important. Perhaps it will add to their collection of experiences and emotions of things they did with Dad. Maybe there are short-term benefits of them seeing a professional Broadway production (all of them now have acted in local plays) that don't necessarily need to translate into some long term memory. Which then brings us back to the opening question, is it worth occasionally spending $200 for one evening of entertainment? Or will it actually "spoil" the kids into not realizing how much money that really is?
What triggered this line of thought is that a touring production of my favorite musical, Jesus Christ Superstar, is passing through town soon. Of course I was going to go, but my kids (aged 12, 8, and 6) jumped up and down and begged me to take them along. Now, usually, when I go for concerts and shows, I don't include the kids simply because I just don't think the huge ticket prices are worth paying for little kids who won't get as much out of it as I would. But, since my wife had no interest in the show and I usually hate going alone, I asked her if I should take the kids. She shrugged and so I went and picked up four tickets to the show at $50 a piece. As I was signing the credit card receipt for a massive $200, I wondered whether it was good use of the money. Is it worth paying $50 for a 6 and 8-year old kid to see a show. A month or two ago, I paid $100 for a ticket so my 12-year-old could join us for a Blue Man Group concert.
When I think back to my childhood, most of my memories are of vacations or trips where something scary or bad happened. I remember being completeky impressed with the way my Dad handled the situations and being so thankful that he was there to protect us from horrible things that happen to us. I remember an incident where we were stopped at a light and a guy behind us (who we must have cut off) walked over to our car, leaned through the window on the passenger side (where I was sitting) and punched my Dad repeatedly in the face. I recall sitting there petrified as the sunglasses on my Dad's face broke. I remember berating myself for months after thinking that I should have just opened the car door hard to push the guy on to the road instead of just sitting there and letting this bum hit my Dad. I frankly can't remember any specific movie or show I went to with my parents. I'm sure I did ...
On the other hand, perhaps the kids not recalling the details of this specific show years down the line is not important. Perhaps it will add to their collection of experiences and emotions of things they did with Dad. Maybe there are short-term benefits of them seeing a professional Broadway production (all of them now have acted in local plays) that don't necessarily need to translate into some long term memory. Which then brings us back to the opening question, is it worth occasionally spending $200 for one evening of entertainment? Or will it actually "spoil" the kids into not realizing how much money that really is?
Friday, May 11, 2007
The Ridiculously Unfair Grader
I certainly don't even pretend to reflect the views of all professors, but I wonder what professors think about students who complain that they thought the grade they received was unfair.
I find that I've changed a LOT on this issue over the years. When I started teaching, I guess it was natural that I was a little unsure of myself. I dreaded having students come into my office complaining about their grade. Grading presentations and reports is a subjective exercise and I hated having to come up with some explanation of why they got an 83 instead of an 87. I think I also used to be more of a pushover in those days. If a student complained enough, I think I would rationalize to myself that they deserved an increased grade because they cared enough about the class to argue for a higher grade.
Things are different now, but still the same in some ways. I had a student send me an email this week complaining that the grade he got on his class presentation was "ridiculously" low and that he really deserved a much higher grade for all he did and compared to the other lousy presentations he saw in class. He copied all his fellow group members on the email. First, I reassured him that there was no chance I would be willing to change his grade. Then, I explained that I understood his frustration and invited him to my office along with all his group members so I can explain their grade to them face to face. Since I give students a host of comments (and not just a grade), I said I would be happy to explain each of my comments in person.
Interestingly, I got emails from other members of the group telling me they were okay with the grade they got and that they were satisfied with my explanations for their grades. One student actually wrote to me apologizing privately for his fellow group member's email and hoping that this would not result in a sour ending for what he said was an outstanding class experience.
As I was replying to him and assuring him that no apology was necessary, I realized several things about myself. First, I was absolutely confident in my assigned grades and I was completely certain that I would not be "adjusting" the student's grade. Second, I did not feel the slightest bit threatened or nervous about the student's arguments regarding his grade. Finally, I honestly did not feel any anger or frustration with the student about his complaint about the grade. In fact, I realized that not only did I like the kid and think he was very bright, but I actually like students who show me they care enough about the course to be disappointed with their grade. While I don't want to engender any frustration with the grading in my classes, I actually am more disappointed in students who get very poor grades and don't bat an eyelid. It frustrates me to no end when a student who gets a really poor grade simply shrugs and goes on his or her way without bothering to come in to me and explain what led to the poor performance. I realize it is one more person I was unable to reach and who ended the course not really giving a damn.
On the other hand, I do know faculty who would definitely not view complaining as a positive indicator. So, if any students are reading this, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!
I find that I've changed a LOT on this issue over the years. When I started teaching, I guess it was natural that I was a little unsure of myself. I dreaded having students come into my office complaining about their grade. Grading presentations and reports is a subjective exercise and I hated having to come up with some explanation of why they got an 83 instead of an 87. I think I also used to be more of a pushover in those days. If a student complained enough, I think I would rationalize to myself that they deserved an increased grade because they cared enough about the class to argue for a higher grade.
Things are different now, but still the same in some ways. I had a student send me an email this week complaining that the grade he got on his class presentation was "ridiculously" low and that he really deserved a much higher grade for all he did and compared to the other lousy presentations he saw in class. He copied all his fellow group members on the email. First, I reassured him that there was no chance I would be willing to change his grade. Then, I explained that I understood his frustration and invited him to my office along with all his group members so I can explain their grade to them face to face. Since I give students a host of comments (and not just a grade), I said I would be happy to explain each of my comments in person.
Interestingly, I got emails from other members of the group telling me they were okay with the grade they got and that they were satisfied with my explanations for their grades. One student actually wrote to me apologizing privately for his fellow group member's email and hoping that this would not result in a sour ending for what he said was an outstanding class experience.
As I was replying to him and assuring him that no apology was necessary, I realized several things about myself. First, I was absolutely confident in my assigned grades and I was completely certain that I would not be "adjusting" the student's grade. Second, I did not feel the slightest bit threatened or nervous about the student's arguments regarding his grade. Finally, I honestly did not feel any anger or frustration with the student about his complaint about the grade. In fact, I realized that not only did I like the kid and think he was very bright, but I actually like students who show me they care enough about the course to be disappointed with their grade. While I don't want to engender any frustration with the grading in my classes, I actually am more disappointed in students who get very poor grades and don't bat an eyelid. It frustrates me to no end when a student who gets a really poor grade simply shrugs and goes on his or her way without bothering to come in to me and explain what led to the poor performance. I realize it is one more person I was unable to reach and who ended the course not really giving a damn.
On the other hand, I do know faculty who would definitely not view complaining as a positive indicator. So, if any students are reading this, DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Not Confident of your reading? You don't have to read this post
Okay, here's a disclaimer. I admit this is a mini-rant. And, I don't want this glimpse of thought here to make you think this is a big issue for me. The basic theme of this post is that I think that kids rise to meet the level of expectations you set for them and setting low expectations is actually doing them a disservice. I'll also let you know that my wife doesn't always agree and thinks I expect too much and can actually turn kids off by setting expectations too high.
What brought on this thought is attending a "end of year" show for all the groups in my daughters' dance class. As usual, I watch some of these performances, glance at my wife and roll my eyes. She smacks me or digs me with her elbow and gives me an exasperated look. Let me be clear, I'm not expecting professional dancing from these kids. In fact, with the little, little kids, it's great just to see them get up there and move around. They're cute and getting up in front of a gym full of parents is achievement enough. As the response to my post on my son's band concert said, it certainly helps build confidence among these little kids. But, once you get up to 6th to 8th grade kids, is it too much to expect a dance show to demonstrate that they've learned grace and coordination? Many of the kids kept looking to the others to decide what they should do and many of the kicks were uncoordinated. Many also seemed like they were going through the moves of the dance without really looking graceful or limber. I know I'm repeating myself, but I assure you I'm not looking for perfection. It's just that all the parents are payingto have these kids learn dance (and in this case paying to attend this performance but that's the subject of a different rant) and it's the time to demonstrate that they're learning something.
I remember some years ago, my son was in an acting class. The teacher of the class insisted that he was good enough to do a monologue. So, during the "final show," he got up there on stage all by himself and delivered a memorized monologue that was funny, interesting, and well acted. The following year he took another acting class and this time, although he said he was going to do a monologue, on the day of the show he never did. When I asked him why after the show, he said, "Oh, the teacher said that if we didn't feel comfortable, we didn't have to do it." Obviously, he was nervous (he was nervous the first time too), but this time the teacher was trying to be "cooperative" and "understanding" and "nice" and said the kids didn't have to do anything that they didn't feel confident about. So, he didn't. The entire show was awful. NONE of the kids had memorized any lines and almost all of them walked on stage for their "skits" with their scripts and simply read the lines with no expression, no feeling, and definitely with no attempt at acting. It was amazing to me how these kids (some of whom were actually in the earlier class with my son) actually did much worse their second time on stage than their first.
As a teacher, I have been "speaking publicly" for over 15 years now. The day I stop feeling nervous before my first day of class is the day I'll realize I've lost my passion for teaching and stopped caring about the kids I teach. To give the kids in the acting class the option of not delivering their lines if they felt nervous is, in my mind, setting low expectations and doing them a disservice. I think the kids learned the wrong lesson that day.
I'll get off my soap box now ...
What brought on this thought is attending a "end of year" show for all the groups in my daughters' dance class. As usual, I watch some of these performances, glance at my wife and roll my eyes. She smacks me or digs me with her elbow and gives me an exasperated look. Let me be clear, I'm not expecting professional dancing from these kids. In fact, with the little, little kids, it's great just to see them get up there and move around. They're cute and getting up in front of a gym full of parents is achievement enough. As the response to my post on my son's band concert said, it certainly helps build confidence among these little kids. But, once you get up to 6th to 8th grade kids, is it too much to expect a dance show to demonstrate that they've learned grace and coordination? Many of the kids kept looking to the others to decide what they should do and many of the kicks were uncoordinated. Many also seemed like they were going through the moves of the dance without really looking graceful or limber. I know I'm repeating myself, but I assure you I'm not looking for perfection. It's just that all the parents are payingto have these kids learn dance (and in this case paying to attend this performance but that's the subject of a different rant) and it's the time to demonstrate that they're learning something.
I remember some years ago, my son was in an acting class. The teacher of the class insisted that he was good enough to do a monologue. So, during the "final show," he got up there on stage all by himself and delivered a memorized monologue that was funny, interesting, and well acted. The following year he took another acting class and this time, although he said he was going to do a monologue, on the day of the show he never did. When I asked him why after the show, he said, "Oh, the teacher said that if we didn't feel comfortable, we didn't have to do it." Obviously, he was nervous (he was nervous the first time too), but this time the teacher was trying to be "cooperative" and "understanding" and "nice" and said the kids didn't have to do anything that they didn't feel confident about. So, he didn't. The entire show was awful. NONE of the kids had memorized any lines and almost all of them walked on stage for their "skits" with their scripts and simply read the lines with no expression, no feeling, and definitely with no attempt at acting. It was amazing to me how these kids (some of whom were actually in the earlier class with my son) actually did much worse their second time on stage than their first.
As a teacher, I have been "speaking publicly" for over 15 years now. The day I stop feeling nervous before my first day of class is the day I'll realize I've lost my passion for teaching and stopped caring about the kids I teach. To give the kids in the acting class the option of not delivering their lines if they felt nervous is, in my mind, setting low expectations and doing them a disservice. I think the kids learned the wrong lesson that day.
I'll get off my soap box now ...
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Sugar in the morning ...
My wife and I both love The Apprentice. We watch not only the Trump version, but also the UK version of Apprentice with Sir Alan Sugar as the employer. I find the contrast in the approaches to business fascinating. I don't know how much of this difference can be attributed to real differences in business styles between the US and UK, but it seems to me that the idea of business as a engine of good is much stronger here than in the UK.
In a recent episode, a contestant on the losing team explained that she had a hard time selling the product because she didn't believe it was good. She said she had no problem with "selling," but just couldn't do it well when she didn't believe in the quality of the product. Sir Alan Sugar was outraged. He said something to the effect of "But this is the real world, luv. That's what businesses do every day. You think all the thousands of businesses really believe in the products they sell? No. That's what sales is about - being able to sell products that may be lousy." Of course, I was paraphrasing here, but the key points he made were that (a) you can't claim to be a salesperson if you can't sell products convincingly even if you don't believe in them, and (b) that most companies try to push products to people with the sole objective of making sales and not because they think the product is any good.
I wonder if this really is the case. I don't think Trump would react that way even if that is what he believed. It could be that Trump's Wharton education has taught him that the path to success is not to convince people to buy your product, but to build a product that people want to buy from you. Sir Alan Sugar does not have a college education and made his gazillions building everything up from scratch. He dropped out of school at 16 and it is possible that this attitude the business is about convincing people to buy your stuff is just his view and not how business is done generally in the UK. I hope it is not my academic, ivory-tower view that makes me believe that contrary to Sir Alan Sugar's assertions, most companies do believe that the products they sell serve some real need for the people buying them.
And the woman who had trouble selling a product she didn't believe in? She was fired!
In a recent episode, a contestant on the losing team explained that she had a hard time selling the product because she didn't believe it was good. She said she had no problem with "selling," but just couldn't do it well when she didn't believe in the quality of the product. Sir Alan Sugar was outraged. He said something to the effect of "But this is the real world, luv. That's what businesses do every day. You think all the thousands of businesses really believe in the products they sell? No. That's what sales is about - being able to sell products that may be lousy." Of course, I was paraphrasing here, but the key points he made were that (a) you can't claim to be a salesperson if you can't sell products convincingly even if you don't believe in them, and (b) that most companies try to push products to people with the sole objective of making sales and not because they think the product is any good.
I wonder if this really is the case. I don't think Trump would react that way even if that is what he believed. It could be that Trump's Wharton education has taught him that the path to success is not to convince people to buy your product, but to build a product that people want to buy from you. Sir Alan Sugar does not have a college education and made his gazillions building everything up from scratch. He dropped out of school at 16 and it is possible that this attitude the business is about convincing people to buy your stuff is just his view and not how business is done generally in the UK. I hope it is not my academic, ivory-tower view that makes me believe that contrary to Sir Alan Sugar's assertions, most companies do believe that the products they sell serve some real need for the people buying them.
And the woman who had trouble selling a product she didn't believe in? She was fired!
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
The Path to Happiness Pt. 2
Okay, so I'll admit that I just got home after having three beers with a friend at a bar. For those who don't know me, three beers is my limit. This is the point at which I feel "happy" and definitely less inhibited than normal. So, I had this great LONG conversation with my buddy over these beers about everything from life and work to love and marriage. And, as such conversations usually go with me, I ended up with some great insight about myself that perfectly fits the objective of this blog. So, even though I'm writing this on Monday night, I promise to post it unedited on Tuesday morning (except for fixing typos and the like) even if I think it may be a little imprudent to publish anything written after three beers. Right now, this insight seems worth documenting.
I have always got along with people around me. I get along with loads of people who don't get along with each other. And, I've always wondered how I happen to enjoy hanging around with so many people who are so different from each other (and usually very different from me). Today, I was struck by the fact that unlike most people, I really have no interest in changing people. I have no drive to make people agree with me or to make people think the way I do. Whenever I meet people (no matter how flawed), I tend to focus in on the things they do better than me. That tends to dominate my view of all the people I meet. As a result, I tend to only see what they do that I don't and give a much lower weight to things they do worse than me. I am not interested in finding the flaws in people but am eager to unearth their goodness. One consequence of this is that I end up liking and admiring more people than the average person. Another consequence is that I focus on the myriad ways in which I am not as good as the people around me. I am also not shy about expressing my admiration for the things people do well.
I am guessing that people like being around those that constantly express admiration for the things that they do well (they tend to know what they're good at so this is not seen as false praise) and they like being around self-deprecating people. Whenever I meet someone, I start by looking for the thing(s) they do better than me. That forms the basis of my conversations with them. This is not faked in any way. I am genuinely more interested in what people do well than what people do poorly. So, I find it easy to make friends of people who are very different from each other. And, this is a key point, I honestly admire them for the things they do well. I find their weaknesses uninteresting and irrelevant. My insight is that I don't think that most people react that way. I believe that people look to find flaws in others to make themselves feel better. As a result, even if they don't express the thoughts, the feelings come through in their interactions. Don't tell me you haven't encountered people who you think are supercilious and condescending. As a disclaimer, I am certain that I have come across as supercilious and condescending at times. My point here is that it is not intended. I think I am a seen as a lot less self-righteous and irritating than many others. I don't think this is something I do consciously. I find this makes it easy for me to make friends and keep friends. As usual, I am not advocating that you do this. In fact, I don't think this is something that people can do consciously. Rather, while in my introspective phase, I find it is something that comes naturally to me and I truly believe in.
An outcome of this view of people is that I rarely encounter people I don't like. I frequently interact with people who have alienated themselves from others because of something they have said or done. But they tend to get along great with me. They confide in me about all the other rotten people around them and I can sympathize. I point out the things I like about them and they see me as someone who understands. My problem is that I can see everyones' view. Not to get too philosophical, but we all view the world through the filter of our own experiences, beliefs and values. When we try to ascribe meaning to the behaviors of others, we tend to fail to notice that we're doing so through our filters and so see deeper meanings in others' behaviors. These deeper attributions are often not true. The other person doesn't ascribe the same meanings to their behavior and see instead view their behaviors as harmless through their background of experiences and values. We then have the perfect recipe for misunderstanding and hostility.
I think what keeps me happy (I am rarely angry, depressed, or judgmental) is that I can see the other person's viewpoint. I can easily see always why they believe the things they do and so don't hold them accountable for their actions. Since my attributions are not personal attributions, nothing people do makes me like them less. Essentially, I believe that it's not them that feels that way, but the situation that is making them express their feelings in that way. So, there's just no point at being mad at you.
Since I know I can do some things better than others (but no one could possibly be interested in what I do better than them) but everyone has something they do better than me, I want to interact with them and talk about the things they excel in. I have no interest in talking about the things I do better in because then there's nothing to learn. Somehow, I think, this works well in building relationships. I also end up spending little to to no time converting people to my point of view. I assume they've got their views for a reason and there really is no reason for more people to feel the way I do. So, I end up doing more listening (and talking about their strengths) than talking about myself. Phew! I wonder if any of this will make sense tomorrow. This will hold the record for the longest blog post.
The fact I'm writing all this in a public forum itself may smack of arrogance and a sense of superiority. But, whether you believe these thoughts are genuine or not is not so important. I am not trying to make you, the wonderful reader of this blog, believe the way I do. I just find it interesting that I am able to make friends of people who may not like each other. And I like them all!
I have always got along with people around me. I get along with loads of people who don't get along with each other. And, I've always wondered how I happen to enjoy hanging around with so many people who are so different from each other (and usually very different from me). Today, I was struck by the fact that unlike most people, I really have no interest in changing people. I have no drive to make people agree with me or to make people think the way I do. Whenever I meet people (no matter how flawed), I tend to focus in on the things they do better than me. That tends to dominate my view of all the people I meet. As a result, I tend to only see what they do that I don't and give a much lower weight to things they do worse than me. I am not interested in finding the flaws in people but am eager to unearth their goodness. One consequence of this is that I end up liking and admiring more people than the average person. Another consequence is that I focus on the myriad ways in which I am not as good as the people around me. I am also not shy about expressing my admiration for the things people do well.
I am guessing that people like being around those that constantly express admiration for the things that they do well (they tend to know what they're good at so this is not seen as false praise) and they like being around self-deprecating people. Whenever I meet someone, I start by looking for the thing(s) they do better than me. That forms the basis of my conversations with them. This is not faked in any way. I am genuinely more interested in what people do well than what people do poorly. So, I find it easy to make friends of people who are very different from each other. And, this is a key point, I honestly admire them for the things they do well. I find their weaknesses uninteresting and irrelevant. My insight is that I don't think that most people react that way. I believe that people look to find flaws in others to make themselves feel better. As a result, even if they don't express the thoughts, the feelings come through in their interactions. Don't tell me you haven't encountered people who you think are supercilious and condescending. As a disclaimer, I am certain that I have come across as supercilious and condescending at times. My point here is that it is not intended. I think I am a seen as a lot less self-righteous and irritating than many others. I don't think this is something I do consciously. I find this makes it easy for me to make friends and keep friends. As usual, I am not advocating that you do this. In fact, I don't think this is something that people can do consciously. Rather, while in my introspective phase, I find it is something that comes naturally to me and I truly believe in.
An outcome of this view of people is that I rarely encounter people I don't like. I frequently interact with people who have alienated themselves from others because of something they have said or done. But they tend to get along great with me. They confide in me about all the other rotten people around them and I can sympathize. I point out the things I like about them and they see me as someone who understands. My problem is that I can see everyones' view. Not to get too philosophical, but we all view the world through the filter of our own experiences, beliefs and values. When we try to ascribe meaning to the behaviors of others, we tend to fail to notice that we're doing so through our filters and so see deeper meanings in others' behaviors. These deeper attributions are often not true. The other person doesn't ascribe the same meanings to their behavior and see instead view their behaviors as harmless through their background of experiences and values. We then have the perfect recipe for misunderstanding and hostility.
I think what keeps me happy (I am rarely angry, depressed, or judgmental) is that I can see the other person's viewpoint. I can easily see always why they believe the things they do and so don't hold them accountable for their actions. Since my attributions are not personal attributions, nothing people do makes me like them less. Essentially, I believe that it's not them that feels that way, but the situation that is making them express their feelings in that way. So, there's just no point at being mad at you.
Since I know I can do some things better than others (but no one could possibly be interested in what I do better than them) but everyone has something they do better than me, I want to interact with them and talk about the things they excel in. I have no interest in talking about the things I do better in because then there's nothing to learn. Somehow, I think, this works well in building relationships. I also end up spending little to to no time converting people to my point of view. I assume they've got their views for a reason and there really is no reason for more people to feel the way I do. So, I end up doing more listening (and talking about their strengths) than talking about myself. Phew! I wonder if any of this will make sense tomorrow. This will hold the record for the longest blog post.
The fact I'm writing all this in a public forum itself may smack of arrogance and a sense of superiority. But, whether you believe these thoughts are genuine or not is not so important. I am not trying to make you, the wonderful reader of this blog, believe the way I do. I just find it interesting that I am able to make friends of people who may not like each other. And I like them all!
Monday, May 7, 2007
Send This Post to Your Friends - Or Your Mother Will Die!
People believe all sorts of things they're told. This is all consistent with the "automatic responding" feature that fascinates me about human behavior. One of the many areas I see evidence of this is with urban legends. Hardly a day goes by without an email from one of my friends or relatives warning me about how microwaving food in plastic containers will lead to cancer, or how drinking 10 liters of water a day will extend my life dramatically. Then I really do still get notices from well-meaning friends to forward a certain message to ten people so that "something wonderful" can happen to me within a few days.
The joke on one of my extended-family email lists is that I am the "urban legends" guy. Invariably, I am the one to send out an exasperated email to the list reassuring people that microwaving water for coffee will not lead to an explosion, or that heating food in plastic containers will not kill you tomorrow. As is usually the case, these urban legends are born from a small shred of truth that is then exaggerated and sensationalized beyond belief. My favorite site to refer people to is http://www.snopes.com/ which is amazingly comprehensive in its coverage of urban legends. Here's the advice that I constantly dish out to people I know. Before forwarding ANY message to lists of other people, check out the validity of the claimed danger (or miracle) at the Snopes Urban Legend site. And I promise you, it has actually been scientifically proven that checking the site before emailing lots of people will result in amazing good luck. The last five people who did this actually became millionaires within a week of visiting that site!
The joke on one of my extended-family email lists is that I am the "urban legends" guy. Invariably, I am the one to send out an exasperated email to the list reassuring people that microwaving water for coffee will not lead to an explosion, or that heating food in plastic containers will not kill you tomorrow. As is usually the case, these urban legends are born from a small shred of truth that is then exaggerated and sensationalized beyond belief. My favorite site to refer people to is http://www.snopes.com/ which is amazingly comprehensive in its coverage of urban legends. Here's the advice that I constantly dish out to people I know. Before forwarding ANY message to lists of other people, check out the validity of the claimed danger (or miracle) at the Snopes Urban Legend site. And I promise you, it has actually been scientifically proven that checking the site before emailing lots of people will result in amazing good luck. The last five people who did this actually became millionaires within a week of visiting that site!
Friday, May 4, 2007
Paternal Pride
I went to the local middle school band concert last night. My son, who is in Seventh Grade plays in the band (bass clarinet) and I went primarily to fulfill my parental obligation. Much to my surprise, I really had a good time. The show consisted of pieces performed by the seventh and eighth grade bands. Remember, these are 12 and 13-year old kids playing in a large band (almost a hundred students each). Perhaps it is my inability to read music that left me completely impressed with the performance of these kids. Performing relatively complex pieces (they played a medley of John Williams songs, The Monkees' I'm A Believer, and several other pieces) as part of a band can't be easy. While the size of the band does cover up some individual goof-ups, there can't be too many otherwise it would sound awful.
The band was for the most part coordinated and you may think me biased, but I honestly believe the seventh grade band was better than the eighth grade band. The entire performance got me thinking that such activities must be good for these kids. While I know it must develop some social or cognitive skill, I have no idea what it might be. I was proud of my son (when he practices at home, he actually sounds good!) and would love to hear from any of you how you think kids benefit from being part of the school band. Is there any skill or ability they learn that will serve them well once they're done with band? I guess it must help to know not only how to read music "on the fly" but also listen to other players at the same time to make sure you're in sync. Anyone have any other ideas?
The band was for the most part coordinated and you may think me biased, but I honestly believe the seventh grade band was better than the eighth grade band. The entire performance got me thinking that such activities must be good for these kids. While I know it must develop some social or cognitive skill, I have no idea what it might be. I was proud of my son (when he practices at home, he actually sounds good!) and would love to hear from any of you how you think kids benefit from being part of the school band. Is there any skill or ability they learn that will serve them well once they're done with band? I guess it must help to know not only how to read music "on the fly" but also listen to other players at the same time to make sure you're in sync. Anyone have any other ideas?
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Opinion Ate Ed
File this post under the "introspection" section of this blog. I realized recently that although I am very opinionated and hold many strong opinions about a variety of things, I think of them merely as opinions. That is, about almost every issue, I am quite open to changing my opinions. Essentially, I love evidence-based reasoning.
I realized this is also why I love to argue, especially with people who don't get personally vested in the argument. It forces me to listen to contradictory opinions in order to see if my opinions are worth changing (if they are well justified enough). There is no opinion I can think of that I hold so strongly that I feel I won't change if you can present strong evidence against it. This is also why I often take stronger positions on certain issues during an argument than I really believe. I enjoy the game of hearing how people counter those positions. I almost want you to talk me into giving in and realizing that I have no counter argument against your assertions.
Even when I work on my research, rather than simply working independently, I find it easier to work on something, develop some ideas and "test it out" on a colleague. So, I am constantly popping into colleagues' offices bouncing ideas off them. If they blow holes in it, I go back to the drawing board and counter their arguments. This process really helps me refine ideas as I develop them.
I wonder if this view weakens my ability to really be a leader. While I think, as a consequence of this view, that I am a great listener, I rarely feel I am so right about an issue that I will act on it no matter what you have to say. Perhaps a dictatorial streak is important to getting things done. That will never work for me. If you can present strong counter arguments, I tend to want to listen. Does that make me a flip-flopper?
I realized this is also why I love to argue, especially with people who don't get personally vested in the argument. It forces me to listen to contradictory opinions in order to see if my opinions are worth changing (if they are well justified enough). There is no opinion I can think of that I hold so strongly that I feel I won't change if you can present strong evidence against it. This is also why I often take stronger positions on certain issues during an argument than I really believe. I enjoy the game of hearing how people counter those positions. I almost want you to talk me into giving in and realizing that I have no counter argument against your assertions.
Even when I work on my research, rather than simply working independently, I find it easier to work on something, develop some ideas and "test it out" on a colleague. So, I am constantly popping into colleagues' offices bouncing ideas off them. If they blow holes in it, I go back to the drawing board and counter their arguments. This process really helps me refine ideas as I develop them.
I wonder if this view weakens my ability to really be a leader. While I think, as a consequence of this view, that I am a great listener, I rarely feel I am so right about an issue that I will act on it no matter what you have to say. Perhaps a dictatorial streak is important to getting things done. That will never work for me. If you can present strong counter arguments, I tend to want to listen. Does that make me a flip-flopper?
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Well Writing Is Important A Lot Or Not?
In the midst of grading numerous student reports, I started wondering about a lot of things related to writing. First, I wonder what makes someone a good writer as opposed to a poor writer. I always thought that my ability to write (fairly) clearly was because I was a very avid reader when I was a kid. Although I still don't know a past participle from a dangling vertebrae, I can instantly read a sentence and realize that it is awkwardly worded. Rewriting a sentence to flow better has always been easy for me. But, my son who is also a very avid reader still writes and speaks using convoluted and grammatically incorrect sentences.
I am grading reports written by college students (all juniors or seniors) and I am appalled at the astonishingly poor writing on many of them. I wonder whether they realize how much writing style influences their grade. Of course, content is critical. That's a given. But even good content, when poorly communicated can dramatically affect their grade. I even explicitly told them this in class. When I am grading report after report, I can feel my frustration rise rapidly when I encounter a report that is poorly organized (jumping from topic to topic with no sense of organization), has lousy sentence structure (convoluted, grammatically incorrect sentences that I have to read three times to understand), and lacks a clear narrative. As I sense my frustration rise, I can almost feel the decrease in my inclination to give them a good grade. Folks, if you're listening, it helps a lot if you make grading easy for your profs. Try to write well so you can get your ideas across efficiently!
Finally, I wonder if this matters in the "real world." Is it just an "academic bias" I have that makes me think clear writing is so important? Perhaps in this world of sound bites, text messaging, and micro-memos, the importance of sentence construction and narrative structure is not as critical as it used to be. Perhaps it is only for school reports that these skills are important. What do you think?
I am grading reports written by college students (all juniors or seniors) and I am appalled at the astonishingly poor writing on many of them. I wonder whether they realize how much writing style influences their grade. Of course, content is critical. That's a given. But even good content, when poorly communicated can dramatically affect their grade. I even explicitly told them this in class. When I am grading report after report, I can feel my frustration rise rapidly when I encounter a report that is poorly organized (jumping from topic to topic with no sense of organization), has lousy sentence structure (convoluted, grammatically incorrect sentences that I have to read three times to understand), and lacks a clear narrative. As I sense my frustration rise, I can almost feel the decrease in my inclination to give them a good grade. Folks, if you're listening, it helps a lot if you make grading easy for your profs. Try to write well so you can get your ideas across efficiently!
Finally, I wonder if this matters in the "real world." Is it just an "academic bias" I have that makes me think clear writing is so important? Perhaps in this world of sound bites, text messaging, and micro-memos, the importance of sentence construction and narrative structure is not as critical as it used to be. Perhaps it is only for school reports that these skills are important. What do you think?
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Learning to Love-Hate School
One of the many issues on which I waver every now and then is the K-12 educational system in this country. In the past, I have always maintained that it is an excellent system that generally encourages students to develop a love for learning more so than in Asia. Of course, having grown up in India, my experiences are limited to that country. There, the pressure to memorize core knowledge is so strong that loving learning is actually looked upon as a negative among school age children. The last time I was there, I actually had a cousin tell me that she was genuinely worried because her daughter loved going to school. She wasn't joking. I myself have often heard "you're going to school to learn, not have fun." The prevailing wisdom is that if you're enjoying it, you're probably not working as hard as you should be. In the U.S., students are encouraged to explore and learn creatively with entertaining and interesting exercises such that my kids all enjoyed going to school. Given that, I was never surprised that US students did not fare well in international tests. Those tests favor the regurgitation of acquired knowledge. I have always maintained that the U.S. continues to excel on the world stage despite the apparently "broken" educational system is that when it matters (when appropriately incentivized), U.S.-educated people are able to learn what is needed to get the job done. On the other hand, those educated in Asia are not in as good of a position to improvise and go beyond their memorized knowledge. Of course, the immigrant melting pot has something to do with it, but no one has been able to adequately explain why, if the educational system is so bad and our kids are so poorly educated in math and science, why some of the best engineers and greatest scientists in the world are Americans. One fascinating theory which makes a lot of sense to me is the "Soft America-Hard America" theory which I'll cover in more detail in a future post if I remember ( or someone reminds me).
Now that my son is approaching high school age, I find myself constantly worried about whether he is learning enough. Suddenly I'm not so sure of my theories that things will "work out in the end" and he will learn what he needs to learn when the time comes. Amazing how perspectives can change so much as you move through life.
Now that my son is approaching high school age, I find myself constantly worried about whether he is learning enough. Suddenly I'm not so sure of my theories that things will "work out in the end" and he will learn what he needs to learn when the time comes. Amazing how perspectives can change so much as you move through life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)