I watched a TED talk titled: “What if we replaced politicians with randomly selected people?” The title of this really pulled me in, it is a unique idea. But an interesting one because politicians are the leaders of our lives on local and national levels… but they don’t truly represent us. Politicians get a lot of hate, often are biased, and are career politicians not because they are passionate about improving society, but probably more for self-interested ideals. I always hear my dad yell at the TV and say “I should be in charge!” this TED talk explains that maybe.. that would create a more successful democracy.

Brett asks the crowd if they  “think living in a democracy is a good thing?” all of the audience raised their hands. He then asked:  “Who thinks our democracies are functioning well?” and all of the hands went down. He explains that the idea of democracy is ideal: equality, justice, fairness, security. But in practice, it is not working because the current political system is distorted by self-interest.

The speaker strives to answer the question: ”how should we live together?” How should societies organize themselves? This has been a question humans have been trying to answer centuries. Brett proposes a system based on Sortition, which is random selection. This idea at first glance is… absurd. Imagining myself as a politician is laughable. But he starts explaining and it begins to make a lot of sense. Sortition would allow the people in charge to represent the demographic, gender, race, beliefs, socio-economic backgrounds. Politicians would be 50% female, equally representative of race and income to the country as a whole. Every citizen would have someone similar to them in a leadership role. “This would simulate how we would all think if we had the time, the information, and the process to come to the moral crux of political decisions.”

Diversity can trump ability when faced with a wide array of societal questions and problems, he explains that these people chosen would become critical thinkers, “if you give people responsibility, they will act responsibly”

He explains that sortition was used in Athenian culture to fill the majority of political positions, they knew career politicians should be avoided and it was crucial to have the leaders truly represent the citizens. I think Brett is a leader because he identifies a problem and backs up to identify the bigger question. He is able to take a new and creative approach to assist democracies to function the way they are designed to. It opens up an entirely new way of thinking which I find very interesting.

I found the following TED talk when I was researching for my critical thinking project focused on climate change. I think the speaker, Renee Lertzman, is able to empower the viewers by validating their fears. With a topic like climate change, it is easy to feel lost, anxious, and stressed. Her approach is very unique and not commonly talked about. She focuses on the psychology between grief and creativity, and how we can use that as a resource to support the climate change crisis.

She brings up three psychological ideas that can help us understand the world’s current emotional state about climate change. The idea I found most interesting was the “double-bind” phenomenon. It comes from the stress of needing to change. Someone knows they need to change, they see the consequences if they don’t, but the issue is so big they begin to feel stuck and powerless. This common human experience is intolerable, and is often pushed away subconsciously so people can be numb. She further explains that this is where a lot of the disconnect about climate change happens, people experience a double-bind, they feel like they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, so they push down that intolerable feeling. This comes off as a lack of caring about the climate crisis, when in reality it might just be anxiety-induced paralysis. Renee creates a very interesting analogy to explain this:        Someone is experiencing a double-bind, they are stuck, so they go to a therapist. The therapist yells at them “why don’t you care?’ “You need to take action now or face dire consequences!” Obviously, that therapist needs to be fired.

Her point is that we lack compassion and attunement. Both of which are crucial, as it is a global issue and needs a global community to solve it. If we can better understand each other’s anxieties about climate change, that can create a foundation for creative solutions. Properly understanding the psychological factors that play into the climate crisis might be essential to solving it.

I love the approach she takes to a world crisis, it is one I personally have never thought about. I see her as a leader because she is able to take a step back from the climate crisis stress and identify a piece that society might be ignoring.

TED Talk: ”How prisons can help inmates live meaningful lives”

The speaker of this TED talk, Dan Pacholke is Deputy Secretary for the Washington State Department of Corrections, and even more importantly: a leader. He had spent his entire career working in different roles for the Department of Corrections. He identifies his vision: changing the prison system so that it actually lives up to its name “Corrections.” Throughout his talk, he was able to answer those key questions we read about in the Harvey reading (Who are we? Where are we? How are we doing? etc). In that same reading, Harvey spoke about how leaders are forward-thinking, and have to get the followers, who are often more focused on the present day, to see the vision, and care about it. I think Dan does that very well in this TED talk.

He begins with his want: he wants to change the way we think about our prison system, because that will allow us to envision new possibilities. He explains that our “Corrections System” is focused on “detaining and controlling,” rather than correcting and improving, “we (prison guards), meet violence with force, and chaos with chaos.” And that is why our current prison system does not work, and does not earn the name: “corrections.”

He spoke about an experiment that he developed with human behavior researchers. They trained staff in teams, focused on deeper training including verbal de-escalation training to decrease the use of force. And then they trained the inmates on the same skills, empowering them. He explains the changed environment and how that resulted in changed behavior. Changed training, along with a more humane living environment (bathrooms separate from cells), resulted in a safer space for both inmates and workers. After this change, he began a project in one of the prisons he was superintendent of. He teamed up with local scientists who needed help with their work and research. Inmates assisted scientists in re-populating endangered species, working on environmental restoration, and training service dogs.  He was able to answer the question: “Could inmates live meaningful lives, and if so, what difference would that make?” The work the inmates are doing currently in his projects has a positive impact on society, and also gives purpose to their time spent in corrections.

The most interesting idea I got from this talk was this: we, as a society, have to rely on a lot of different institutions to reduce the crime rate. If we just rely on prisons, we won’t get anywhere, and I think that is where we are currently at. Rather, prisons can be the source of innovation and improvement, MEANINGFUL work. And crime rate reduction needs to start in schools, with teachers, with job opportunities, etc. Overall, I would recommend this talk to others, this talk gave me a new perspective on the corrections system and what it could be.

The passages chosen out of Paul Loeb’s book really spoke to me, especially in the current state of the world. I think like most people, I found many parts of this reading that I could easily relate to, and found the author explaining phenomena that I grapple with daily in a very simple way. I related to and deeply understood the example given about Global warming and soda cans: it isn’t enough to recycle our cans because we MUST solve Global Warming right now but we can’t so we might as well not recycle. I get caught in this circular train of thought often, I can’t solve this big issue so what can I do? And then I get so caught up in it I don’t really end up doing anything, or I waste so much time that the opportunity has passed. It is the sense of paralysis he speaks about. He also pulls in the idea of envying selfishness, which I do think about sometimes. As someone who overthinks and worries, I do find myself looking at those who can live so in the dark and wonder how peaceful it must be. It goes back to a question Dr. Bezio asked us at the beginning of class it was something like, “would you rather live a life serving others, or a life with self-driven purpose, not coming from others” (I could not find the original question but it was something like that, and both sides has valid reasons.) Although the reading puts a different spin on the two ideas, I see how both, in their simplest forms, are appealing, living for change, and living content (sort of in a personal bubble?). I live constantly thinking:”what am I doing for others”, overly worried about my friends, I often let that be my driving force, it becomes unhealthy. I do understand the envy he describes when I see people living so oblivious to the world and problems around them, so content with what is immediately in front of them. I think there is a middle ground, being able to not overthink allows one to cultivate change. People can be paralyzed by the overwhelming idea that they need to change the world, so finding a balance might be the healthiest mechanism for change. One small step at a time.

COVID-19 Warning

A beautiful idea shared by the author was when he spoke about his morning moments, the times he has to remember the man who gave him a ride in the snow, the kindest of a stranger, activists from around the world. It reminded me that in the current state of the world, with the disease, and struggle, and death, there are many amazing people doing good things, all the healthcare workers giving their all every day, all the grocery store workers cleaning every cart so we can still get food, and especially the many individuals doing good that is unknown to me. I give gratitude to the seen, and unseen good.

He brings up a truth that I have to remind myself of often: “there is a tendency to think that what we see in the present moment will continue,” our history books are centered around the struggle, the bad, our minds see the current state of the world and see that as regular. “The bad things that happen are repetitions of bad things that have always happened- war racism, maltreatment,” even disease. “The good things that happen are unexpected” This key idea fills me with hope, the good things are change, they are human-driven, and often new, never before imagined. During this time, we should remember this is not our new norm, it is temporary, and maybe we can use this time to change something small. It is crucial that we continue those small actions, living that life of change, no matter how small, because one day it might be something huge, or maybe it will be something small, but huge to someone else. Seen or unseen, good is still good and a step forward.

I watched the ads from both the Republic and Democratic runnings for the 1956 election (Eisenhower V Stevenson). The differences between the entire ad campaigns were interesting to see. The Democratic campaign was centered around fear-based tactics and critiquing Eisenhower’s previous term. The Republican approach highlighted a series of Americans and allowing them to talk about why they were voting for Ike. This approach is important for two reasons, 1. the American people were speaking for themselves, this celebrated unity and “the people” ideals, and 2. women were voting, so the marketing approach was focused on women, as individuals.

Lots of studies say Eisenhower’s approach to campaign TO women aided in his victory. The Republicans were able to exploit the gender ideology of the mid-1950s while the Democrats were trying to campaign to everyone, creating too broad of a marketing strategy. My personal favorite ad was titled “Women Voters.” It begins with the statistic: “This year there are fifty-four million women eligible to vote – two and a half million more women than men, enough to decide the whole election.” This clearly explains Eisnhower’s marketing approach, female voters could determine the election results! The speaker continues on and says “because they believe he represents their best hope of achieving these things, the women of America are making their choice for president Dwight D. Eisenhower.” That line is so important, the women of America are a separate group in this election when for so long women did not vote, and when they started to, they followed their husband’s vote. This differentiation of women as a separate voting demographic was a genius marketing strategy. This highlights how crucial women were to this election and that they deserve special attention during campaigning.

When watching the ad you will see a series of 10 women speak about why they chose to vote for Ike, they mention security and minimum wage laws, but most of all, they speak about his character. Words like sincerity, honesty, God-fearing, and respectable. It speaks to the truth of the time: women votes during those years were based on more personal and subjective judgments of the candidates. I was reading up on the marketing strategies of this election and found two interesting quotes. From Republican Bertha Adkins: “There is no question that the woman’s point of view is more subjective and personal. Women are more concerned about the honesty and integrity of the candidate, and they often react emotionally to his personality. If they don’t like him, they may very well stay home on election day.” And from the Democratic side, Katie Louchheim believed, “There just isn’t any such thing as a women’s vote, or any appeal that is more effective for women than for men. The appeal of a candidate’s personality is just as strong for men as for women, and women are interested in all issues.” Here you have two contrasting views, and when understood in the context of the time (because obviously things have changed greatly and I would say Louchheim’s statement is true today), one can see the reason the Republican’s took that specific marketing approach, and they ended up winning; so although the marketing strategy wouldn’t work today, it was genius for this election year.

Quotes from: Brown, Nona “Women’s Vote: The Bigger Half?”, New York Times October 21, 1956, 2.

One of my favorite ads of all time came out in 2012 and was made by Proctor and Gamble. If you don’t know, Proctor and Gamble is the mother company to brands like Pampers, Downey, Tide, Gain, Charmin, Gillette (household brands, cleaning products, feminine products, etc). The ad campaign was titled: “Thank You, Mom,” and aired during the 2012 London Olympics. Not only does the commercial make me cry every time I watch it, but I think they were able to use their products (not commonly associated with the Olympics) and make a connection that Olympic athletes and average viewers alike can relate to. At the core of the advertisement is the fact that behind every successful athlete, is a mom who works harder and cheers louder than everyone else. P&G was able to frame themselves as the helpers of all moms, and all moms around the world should be thanked. They use different sports and family dynamics from multiple different cultures which I think really celebrates the essence of the Olympics, but the consistent idea is that mothers should be celebrated: they have the hardest job in the world, and also the best job in the world.

The beauty of the campaign is that it isn’t about the athletes in the Olympics and highlighting the products they use, it is about the hard work of their mothers, and the products that make life go, like laundry detergent and pads. Olympians start young, the sacrifice so often given by mothers to afford lessons, to push their children, to be that number one supporter, should be celebrated. Although it cannot be ignored that not every country uses these products the same and many households don’t have access to them, I do think it does a very good job of highlighting many different cultures and home environments that Olympians come from. It is beautiful because everyone watching has a mother to thank, you do not have to be an Olympian to feel the nostalgia of being a child and the reliance you have on your mother.

I have attached my favorite two commercials of the campaign below:

“To lead is to ask” (Harvey 99). Harvey’s approach to identifying and reframing questions was a very clear way to assess the leader-follower relationship and the important questions leaders must ask. He was able to pull in many other published ideas about leadership and identify the questions (and their order) that groups and their leaders must confront. I loved reading this chapter and was able to see the identified questions and their sequence in the current context of COVID-19.  I wanted to point out the one question that I think is most absent in the current context of the national leader-follower relationship between Trump, and the general government, and the public.

The final question: Do we understand? I think often, in smaller groups, it is not asked because the prior questions assist in identifying goals, the path to get there, and group identity; and it is assumed that people understand. I know for myself, I have been a follower where I feel like this question was not answered, and it leads me to not feel invested because ideas became so complex and were never explained in a simple way to reinforce my personal involvement. Harvey identifies the main problem as that leaders have more at stake than followers, as they are often the driving force. Not only that, but he brings up the fact that followers are rooted in the present, while leaders attempt to live in the future. Asking this question can merge both the leader and followers together to re-enforce understanding and “team” identity. A strong example of this communication, (simplification without becoming condescending) was Roosevelt and his use of the radio. His “fireside chats” allowed him to create a personal connection with the American public and simplify and communicate important topics. Such as the bank panic of March 1933, where he was able to calmly, clearly, and simply explain to the American public the complex information and current state and express a personal tone and encourage the public to take action.

COVID WARNING

I think with this current state a lot of the questions have been answered. We have been identified in this current context as not only a nation but a global community. The leader and follower dynamic is national, there are constant updates on the news about what’s happening, we know how we are doing, we are working towards more testing, we are trying to go into the direction of a vaccine, we know why we should care. But really, that final question of “do we understand?” is missing. The news today is plagued by rising numbers of those taken by COVID-19, insensitively lumping lost lives into statistics. I think that the urgency of quarantine must be approached the same way Roosevelt approached the bank crisis. Our current way of communication creates national panic driven by fear and uncertainty, fueling the over-buying, hoarding, national stress, and a lost sense of “togetherness.” Asking the question “do we understand?” would look like an explanation of why quarantine is important (because I know there are a lot of people, especially my generation, that aren’t following the guidelines), and re-enforcing the understanding that this is a scary time, but each American can do their part to assist in a faster solution and slower spread.

The sheer capacity of harm done by Colombus and the Spaniards itself is overwhelming, but the fact that history books tell a completely different story demonstrates one of the biggest flaws today. Not only was the violence and brutality skimmed over, but scenes were painted about Native Americans that painted them as less than human, less than civilized: glorifying colonization Zinn’s comment that “the easy acceptance of atrocities as a deplorable but necessary price to pay for progress that is still with us” really struck me as pure truth. This quote is a truth that reveals itself in history books, in many of the holidays we celebrate, and especially in the things we don’t talk about.

There are so many examples of this acceptance of atrocities:  the treatment of the mentally ill, the story we tell about Thanksgiving, the land taken from Native Americans. And even further are things we attempt to completely leave out. I was 19 years old when I learned about the United State’s sterilization efforts. Our time of Eugenics only ended in the 1970s. My parents were just out of college then..  American history books completely leave out the fact that America was huge on the sterilization of disabled people and was called to Germany to teach their methods… We talk about the holocaust, it is too large of an atrocity to accept, but that detail that America not only played a part initially but also participated in the sterilization of peoples without their consent is left out of the modern-day history textbook.

it is mind-blowing how little we know of our true history. Just thinking about how this is true for most countries, painting completely different pictures of who the victims are, hiding away the dark side of the past. This is where biases begin to form: when we are just beginning to learn in school. This creates negative biases around nationalities, religions, cultures of others, preventing genuine human connection cross-culturally. And few people have the opportunity to read things like this to gain awareness and work toward unraveling these biases and looking for that wider truth. So not only are people reading romanized histories of their own societal past (which I would argue hunters true human progress), but this creates dividing lines as we romanticize ourselves and falsely demonize others.

I am personally very interested in the effects of imprisonment on mental health, the ability to re-acclimate into society, and the general concept of the U.S. prison experiment as a whole. Reading about the Stanford Prison Experiment, I felt very.. distressed. There is the whole problem of ethics, but before I talk about that: From the very beginning, I was troubled because the experiment was aimed to study the “psychological effects of prison life.” But the guards in the experiment were not trained AT ALL, and the subjects were not criminals! I would argue that 1. Untrained guards can in no way create a true-to-life prison environment to study (as we saw by the way the guards acted), and also that the psychological effects on an imprisoned person who had actually broken a law may be different than a person who didn’t. (Which is important because there are many people incarcerated wrongfully, my point is that the psychological effects will probably be different among the two groups even though we have both).

The ethics portion of this experiment was flawed beyond measure. 1. Zimbardo had NO knowledge or studies done on prisons or the prison system. According to the APA Code of Conduct, it is required that researchers conduct studies done within boundaries of competence and training. I mean could you imagine just deciding that you were going to create a fake prison and actually get volunteers and carry it out? 2. Harm… I mean the extreme emotional trauma endured does not meet the requirement of “minimizing harm where it is unavoidable.” Being stripped naked, assigned numbers, solitary confinement, the mistreatment, the effects do not just fade with time. 3. There was no informed consent to research. Participants needed to be informed of their right to decline participation and withdraw from research once it had begun.

The following quote on the last page of the article really hammered in the fact that the participants of this study will never truly “recover” from the experiment: “it was a prison to me; it still is a prison to me. I don’t regard it as an experiment or a simulation because it was a prison run by psychologists instead of run by the state. I began to feel that that identity.”

The evolutionary perspective given by Von Rueeden and Van Vugt brought up many new ideas for me in terms of leadership and followership in the SSS and LSS scopes. Their ideas on how sometimes the evolutionary changes of leadership and followers are mismatched in modern contexts was a new concept for me. They touch on dominance and the impact the dominant trait has on today’s decisions made my followers. There is a fine line between leadership and dominance, it is something many are wary of. The authors explain that there has been a sensitivity formed to exploitation throughout time and that followers are very wary of exploitation today by would-be dominant leaders. Hence, it is crucial to emphasize integrity and fairness as a leader, to avoid that sensitivity spike by followers.

Many of the topics the paper discusses are pretty much unalterable, race, gender, height, etc. But this sensitivity and personality trait idea is malleable in the hands of leaders. People running for positions in the LSS context know what is important to followers. There are specialists made to design the disposition of leaders to the public, it is has become “I appear to be sensitive,” (switch out whatever personality trait you want in place of ‘sensitive’). This is through adds, donations, press releases, speeches, etc. My point is that in that LLS context, someone can easily appear a certain way. That is why women wear heels, to appear taller. This is one of the flaws in the LLS context, the leader is so far away, followers see what is made for them to see. While in the SSS context, leaders are in that collaborative state and must be seen.