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!

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!

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!

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?

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?

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?

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.