This tedtalk takes a really interesting focus at low level, or tribal, leadership. The speaker David Logan makes the really interesting point that based off the tribal level you can get a far better idea of the total group is thinking. He cites a really interesting example of ‘councils’ meeting during the Super Bowl in the form of Super Bowl parties. By surveying those parties on which candidate they were going to choose in the 2008 Democratic Primary, they found despite polling saying that Hillary had a strong lead, that the people at these parties tended to rally around Obama instead. This at least suggests that by looking at the lower level and at small tribal groups, we could get a much better idea at how decisions are actually made.

The speaker than went on to describe five different stages of tribes. The first one is the most dangerous, where people severe themselves off from functional tribes and hangout with people in a similarly destressed state. The other stages are a slow position progression. This system reveals how with an effective tribal system people can become far more productive. This is very helpful especially when working in small groups. This also reveals how important it is for leaders to not just look at giant groups. They need to be able to look and understand the lower levels, whether to understand their opinions or make them more effective.

This Tedtalk touched really strongly on the one of last readings we did, and how we actually can have a really large impact. In the video he talks about how we all have inspiring moments which really impact and help others, but we often don’t realize it or remember because we didn’t view it the same way. Our impact on others and the power we hold is often far more than we initially realize, and we find that terrifying.

Another thing this video touched on that I hadn’t really thought of before is how most people are actually scared of the idea that we hold that much power. It’s a terrifying thought, so we try to ignore it. Which the speaker cites as one of the reasons people often don’t remember or realize how important what they did was. We see leadership as something we need to work for and earn, and to use the title of leader without doing so is, as Daniel Goleman puts it, arrogant. But as he also says, this ignores the huge impacts we can have, and does us a great disservice.

This ted talk was particularly interesting for me because I’ve always assumed extroverts were purely advantageous in our society. Growing up, I was an introvert, and I saw this as a disadvantage in the world I was growing up in. Throughout high school I put a lot of effort in acting like an extrovert to become more like one, in the hopes this would put me in a better position. However, I can see how it would be problematic as well. Being “too nice” in business can definitely be seen as a disadvantage, as people view that as the leader not being prepared to do what needs to be done. As shown in the Ted Talk, this is a shame since people prefer to work with nice people who care about them and are friendly.

I also didn’t know there were multiple types of extroverts, though it certainly makes sense. The examples Katherine Lucas used for these types fits very well, and I found it gave a lot of context for why certain leaders struggle and others do well, even if they’re all extroverts. I wonder how we would characterize modern presidents like Barack Obama, as I could see him being called both a Agentic Extrovert and a Affiliative Extrovert. President Obama was seen as a commanding leader by many who thrived in a leadership position,  but he was also very good at social situations while campaigning.

The reading made stop and think for a while. I think I both agree and disagree with it. On one hand, I absolutely understand why and how people can feel like they are powerless. The problems we face are enormous and numerous. Even just one alone, such as climate change, can feel overwhelming and unsolvable. After all, I’m just one person, who isn’t connected, wealthy, or in a position of power. What can I do to have any impact on such a vast, interconnected, and complicated problem?

The problem with this thinking is it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we act like we have no power and can’t solve a problem, then we aren’t going to solve it, validating in our minds that we’re powerless, and continuing the cycle. The people in history that became influential, that fought hard battles, and solved huge problems never started in that position. Even those born into privileged positions had to put in hard work to put themselves in a place where they could combat those issues. And even the most inspiring and intelligent among them wouldn’t have done it if they thought they were powerless. Their belief that they could make a difference helped them get to a place where they could.

My favorite ad was the 1964 Democratic ad called Accomplishments. When evaluating the ads, I watched I was looking for two things: did I personally like the ad? And did I think it was a good campaign ad? The Accomplishments ad succeeded on both fronts for me. Personally, I like ads that focus on past successes, future goals, and the ideals the candidate is bringing to the table. This ad does all of those things, by listing Johnson’s accomplishments and weaving them into the American ideals, making them all the more effective. I particularly liked his focus on the War on Poverty and civil rights efforts.

However, this was also a good campaign ad in its own right. The ad very effectively draws Johnson and Kennedy together, effectively saying they’re the same. At the time, Kennedy was an American hero and incredibly popular. By making himself Kennedy’s successor, Johnson was able to use Kennedy’s popularity to increase his own. Despite all this, the ad isn’t perfect. The mention of the Tonkin Gulf for example, and how he, “turned back communism” is a falsehood, as we all know. Rather than turning back communism, Johnson would help drag us into a brutal and long-lasting war that would cost tens of thousands of lives only to end in a complete communist victory. While of course all of this hadn’t come to pass, Johnson already knew that he hadn’t won a complete victory in the Tonkin Gulf incident, and yet chose to put that forward anyway. This wasn’t Johnson’s first lie, and it wouldn’t be the last. However, I still see this as my favorite ad for the reasons previously listed, despite lie about Tonkin.

My favorite ad has to be the “Got Milk – Arron Burr.” I first saw this ad when I was about ten years old and my Dad showed it to me. I find it really funny and entertaining. It does a great job with humor and is a subtle ad, which is a rarity today. I also don’t find its humor pushy or annoying, unlike the GEICO ads which I personally have tired of. As I’ve gotten older, I continue to enjoy the sentimental memories of it. When I first saw it, I had no idea who Arron Burr or Alexander Hamilton were, this was before the famous play came out, and before I became interested in studying history. Now as someone who studies history and enjoys the Hamilton soundtrack I find the ad even more entertaining.

This reading made me think a lot about what I’ve learned in my leadership and Humanities course over the last semester. One of our units focused very specifically on defining leadership, and the role followers play in it. One of the things my professor touched on that spoke to me is the importance of followers in any leadership dynamic. In today’s society, followers are often seen as a minor part in any group, organization, or movement. People prefer to focus on leaders as the key component to understanding a group. However, as the reading also says, this is a faulty view. The groups, and the followers in them, are critical. Even in very top down restrictive organizations such as the Military followers can and do have significant influence on the activities and strategies said group engages in.

Another idea we looked at in my humanities course is different types of followers. One thing the reading mentions in that for leaders the group must come first and depending on the followers this is absolutely correct. Followers who involve themselves more and are devoted to the cause must see their leader as furthering the group towards said cause, or the leader will be at risk of losing their position. Due to this, the leader has to take great care to ensure that their decisions are supported by their followers and help the group at large.

One of the main conclusions of the Zinn reading that was surprising, and made me uncomfortable, was the argument that the bloodshed and genocide committed in the Americas might be necessary for the drive to civilization. What particularly made me uncomfortable was the comparisons first to the Soviet use of peasant camps and then to the fire bombings of Germany and Japan during World War 2. The problem is all of these are completely different situations.

For example, the genocide and enslavement of native Americans in the Americas by Europe wasn’t done with the goal of civilizing or bettering the Americas. It was done with the goal of enriching Europe with the resources and wealth found in said new territories. Then there’s the Soviet work camps and the killing of peasants. The problem is neither the work camps nor the killing of peasants was done to industrialize the Soviet Union. Rather, they were punishment to help Stalin solidify control of his regime. And then the fire bombings of Germany and Japan just fall off the wagon entirely. These were tactics of war by a foreign power in order to win, not to bring civilization or industrialization. These examples used by the writer are odd, and do little if anything to prove their point.

Reading about the Stanford Prison Experiment was an interesting experience for me. This is not the first time I’ve heard of or researched this experiment. We also covered it in my Leadership and Social Sciences course, and I watched the drama of it on Netflix. I find experiments of this sort interesting as they reveal something a lot of people prefer not to admit that power corrupts easily and that it isn’t hard to corrupt people.

Something the article doesn’t really touch on that we looked at in my previous class is the role responsibility plays. A huge factor all these studies reveal is that for a person, such as one of guards, to descend into the barbarism they end up committing, responsibility has to be removed. In another study where participates thought they were shocking test subjects with ever higher shocks, if the scientist also in the room said they would take responsibility for whatever happened, the majority of participates administered increasingly high, even lethal shocks. However, when told they would be responsible, over 90% of participates refused to continue. This reveals that responsibility plays a massive factor in how far most people are prepared to go. Sadly, the article describing the experiment never really touches on this, and it would have been interesting to see if the guards’ actions would have changed if told they were responsible for the safety and well-being of the prisoners.

I found this reading very interesting, particularly looking at how the things people look for in leaders hasn’t changed much despite the massive changes to our society. Being tall and strong aren’t particularly helpful in today’s world for leaders, and yet these qualities are still surprisingly sought after. We see this play out time and time again especially in US politics, as candidates who play up the strong man identity tend to do better in elections.

I also found it an interesting thought that for the vast majority of human history leaders operated on a small, interconnected and familial scale. This does make sense to a certain extent, especially as you go back thousands of years. However, even five thousand years ago we did see certain societies operating on a far larger scale, such as in Egypt and China. While within those societies there was still a lot of small scale leadership as well, particularly in Egypt we still see hierarchal and top down leadership styles, even five thousand years ago.