In this Ted Talk, Simon Sinek talks about why good leaders make you feel safe. This made me think of our tendency to elect physically dominate leaders in times of uncertainty in order to feel protected. It also made me think back to our studies of evolutionary leadership traits and the need for physically dominate leaders in small scale societies. Similar to the other TED talks I have listened to regarding leadership, he started off with a story of a recent Medal of Honor recipient. While in Afghanistan, Captain Swanson ran into live fire to rescue the wounded. While bringing wounded soldiers to the helicopter, Captain Swanson drops someone off, gives them a kiss on the forehead, and goes back to save more. Simon describes how the military gives medals to people who sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others. While in the business world, people are awarded bonuses for sacrificing others for their own benefit. The difference between leaders in the two worlds is trust and cooperation, both feelings instead of instructions. This trust and cooperation is what kept our ancestors safe millions of years ago with danger all around. When leaders inside an organization put the comforts and needs of their subordinates first, much like in the military, that trust and cooperation is developed. Simon ends by describing how great leaders all want the same thing, to give their followers the ability to achieve more than themselves.

Drew Dudley talks about leadership in daily life during this Ted Talk. He begins we describing how today, people think leadership is out of their reach and an extraordinary feat to accomplish. He goes on to describe how being a leader in everyday life can be accomplished by doing very small things. He redefines leadership with a story a girl told him about the first time she met Drew. She describes her first day at university and how nervous she was. While considering going home because she didn’t think she could do it, Drew, being an orientation advisor, came up to her and made a comical scene. She says that this moment changed her attitude and decision to stay at school. The importance of this story was how little acts such as making somebody feel comfortable in a new setting can create leaders. Without knowing it for four years, this girl looked up to Drew as a leader figure.

Drew claims to not even remember the day, let alone meeting the girl. Everyday actions that may not seem extraordinary to you can effect others’ lives in dramatic ways. Drew explains it as this instance being one of the most extraordinary moments in this girl’s life, he doesn’t even remember. He closes by stressing the importance of acknowledging the people in your life that have made impacts like that. Thinking of ourselves as powerless and thinking leadership is bigger than us gives us an excuse not to take these small actions. Leadership must be redefined by these moments of impacting people’s lives without even realizing. Leadership isn’t about changing the world, it is about changing one person’s experience.

In this Ted Talk, retired Air Force Lt Colonel Brenda Cartier talks about a new vision for leadership in the military. She begins the talk with a story taking place in Afghanistan 2009 when she sent out her aircrafts and airmen to save a ground team who had taken contact. She describes the gruesome scene when the aircrafts land on base, with bloodied medics and soldiers being carrier off the aircraft, a much different scene than shown on the media of draped flags and soldiers in dress blues. She goes on to describe the lone survivor of that special operations team, walking off the aircraft, emotionally shattered. Also a different image than the portrayed tough, emotionless special ops soldiers.

Through this experience, Lt Colonel Brenda Cartier talks about how her femininity benefits her in the military. She describes “precision guided masculinity” which allows her to use the right emotional weapons during the right times; such as comforting that soldier the night he returned. She says being a woman allows her to have a wide range of emotions for the situation and in combat, something many male soldiers lack. This range is what makes her such an effective leader in the military.

This talk interested me very much, because the debate of women in the military and their roles in combat are very debated, and I also have been torn. My philosophy on the issue has always been if the woman is physically and mentally fit enough to drag a fallen soldier off of the battlefield, there should be no problem with it. This talk allowed me to dig deeper into the mental and emotional benefits that women in the military posses. Her balance of hyper masculinity during combat and femininity after makes her much more suited for leadership.

Reading about Goska’s ideas on political paralysis made me think of many topics we talk about in my political science class. Most namely the emergence and effects of political polarization. I think the paralysis is an effect of the polarization. More often it is become “mandatory” for legislators to vote along party lines. Compromise with the other party is seen as weak and traitorous. This form of thought makes it virtually impossible to pass bipartisan bills and is detrimental for the public because change is becoming harder and harder to initiate. Steps toward fluidity among parties would make it much easier for the government to take action. If the polarization in our government continues to grow, I believe one party (most likely whoever has the presidency) will dominate Capitol Hill, making the voice of the minority party unheard.

Once this happens, as Zinn describes, the people/party will be able to control the narrative. Dorner’s systems theory is virtually impossible to execute at this point, as views and rules are pretty much only produced by the single party. The more I lay this scenario out, the more it sounds like some sort of dictatorship, but that is what a single- ideology government produces. In that case, the political competition we have is important in preserving our democracy, but the polarization is much more detrimental than common competition.

I watched a commercial from the 1968 election cycle endorsed by Richard Nixon. this ad focused completely of the Vietnam War. By showing a series of still photos from the war with dramatic drums, that almost sound like explosions and gunshots in the background, the ad attempts to portray the horrors of war. Pictures of American soldiers, Vietnamese citizens, and destroyed towns all play into the theme of security, war, desperation, peace, and the need for change.

While all of these pictures of war are being shown, a voice (not sure if it is Nixon’s or not) is describing the ongoing turmoil and devastation that have yielded little progress. Pairing the images of war with a vocal message of desperation creates a tone of the need for change. I thought this was a very effective campaign strategy since at this point, many Americans were fed up with the way politicians were handling the Vietnam War. Nixon promises change and to bring an end to all the mayhem.

The ad finishes with a picture of Nixon and his campaign slogan, “This time, vote like your whole world depended on it.” This takes a very literal meaning by insinuating that if you (the voter) votes for the wrong candidate (not Nixon) it could have major repercussions on your safety. This also plays into the fear tactic.

Ive always enjoyed the Budweiser Super Bowl Commercials with the horses and puppies but I thought the most recent one was the best. The company brands themselves really well presenting a patriotic, hardworking, and respectable image. The commercial is describing “typical” Americans in a sarcastic way while they are accomplishing extraordinary tasks (military members, farmers, firefighters, protestors, etc). It is an all around feel good commercial that is motivating and gives the audience a sense of pride in their actions and in their country. Because of commercials like these, when I see Budweiser I feel proud to be an American (even though the founders are German). I think that it is the commercials that leave you with a different expression or perspective at the end that are the best, both for marketing and getting a message across.

I thought the Harvey piece was very interesting because I had never related storytelling to leadership before. The more I read, the more I understood that the way the past is presented effects how the present is seen. One example that came to my head is how presidents compare former presidents to themselves. If President Trump claims that Obama’s actions and policies harmed the country and had negative effects, it makes him look better and makes people believe that his actions are much better for everybody. I also thought about how certain races tell different stories of the past in order to justify their actions. The Turkish government not acknowledging that the Armenian Genocide took place saves them thee ridicule of those actions.

To counter these stories and histories, Dr. Bezio’s piece reflected the importance of looking beyond the story itself. Determining who is telling the story, who is listening, when it is being told, etc is equally important. Hence, the moral of a story in the 1600’s would probably be different than the moral of stories today. These pieces made me think about how many stories I know and wonder if they also carried false narratives.

I found the Zinn reading particularly interesting because I often find myself flip flopping on the debate about celebrating Columbus Day. On one hand, we have to credit a large portion of the discovery and and establishment of the Americas to Columbus, which is a pretty important feat. But on the other hand, glorifying somebody who enslaved, raped, and killed natives is obviously not what we want to do. Unfortunately, this trend continued for too long once the states were established. The treatment of Native Americans is one of the most atrocious, yet under recognized doings in our country’s history. The over-simplification of the story of Columbus makes me wonder how many other people I have glorified and celebrated without being told their entire story. I believe people neglect to tell these parts of the stories in order to “save face” and portray a good image of their country. A similar situation is one that takes place right in Richmond on Monument Ave. Although I don’t think removing the status is the answer, I do think the addition of plaques or other statues to tell the other part of the story that Is neglected is necessary.

I was really excited for this weeks readings because I have studied the Stanford Prison Experiment and find it extremely interesting. Basically, the person conducting the experiment assigned a group of people to be “guards” and a group of people to be “Prisoners” in his make-shift prison at the bottom of the building. The “guards” ended up taking their characters to extreme levels, almost forgetting about their previous morals and views. This interesting part is finding out why and how this happened. Primarily, the execution at the beginning of blindfolding and “arresting” the prisoners creates a sense of shock and confusion, possibly helping these people’s minds momentarily forget that they are in an experiment and allowing them to take on different personas. Secondly, the physiological effects of the humiliation make the whole event seem very real, not only for the prisoners but also for the guards. And finally, the fact that the guards were not given any restrictions on what they could and could not do showed how far from reality the volunteers minds could travel in order to fulfill the role of their character. This makes me think that it is good that real police officers have limits and boundaries stated that they can not cross.

The fact that the researcher also fell so deeply into his role of superintendent proved how easy it is to alter one’s persona due to the environment around them. This makes me think of LDST 102 when we talked about nature and nurture being mutual and not separate, but this study of how the change in environment led to the change in personality makes me question that the two are interrelated. One thing I do wonder is how quick they assimilated back into normal life was for both the prisoners and guards. Did they carry out normal life directly after or did they feel out of place and confused like most prisoners when they are released from jail?

First of all, I was happy that this piece was one of the assigned readings because I had Professor Von Rueden last semester and read this article before. I was really interested in how what we have learned so far in this class applies to his teachings of 102. First statement claims that leadership is the primary way of resolving cooperation problems. Until now, we have talked about how communication is the most important factor. I am assuming that good leadership fosters communication which in turn breeds cooperation. I also thought bringing evolution into our argument was interesting and a necessary topic to discuss. I understand why cooperation was so important in small scale societies for survival, but have those same tendencies really followed us to today’s modern world? And are they still applicable? Then again, I understand how reproductive success due to good leadership qualities would pass along those genes that promote survival and leadership. I also find the point about our desire for tall, strong leaders very interesting. I think it is easy to compare this mismatch hypothesis to current world leaders today like Donald Trump. Having a physically strong leader, whether they are fit for the job or not, will instinctively make followers feel safer and have more trust in their leader, even if the threat is something that cannot be stopped by strength (i.e. a nuclear bomb). Overall, it was cool seeing how much genetic impact the environment of small scale markets and societies effect our leadership tendencies today.