This Ted Talk by David Rothkopf, entitled “How fear drives American politics,” was primarily about the inability to generate proportional policy responses in government. He starts off using 9/11 as an example of fear driving policy. He argues that a strong response was necessary, however the changes to our defense system were disproportionate and did not have the intended effects. Rothkopf says that the dysfunction in Washington is more dangerous than terrorism. He acknowledges that sometimes fear can produce constructive responses but that has not been the case for a long time. In today’s world, the largest obstacle to democracy is technology, he seems to believe. I thought he made some good points, for example the deterrence of policy makers to create bold ideas because public attack on social media can be so severe that it threatens reelection. There is an us versus them mentality that is amplified with technology, and this can certainly be threatening.

I thought watching this Ted Talk was rather stressful. A lot of what he was saying made sense, and I can definitely see the ways that the government has failed to adjust to technological advances. There is a great deal of fear and power held in the internet, and it is important that they respond proportionally. However, I wish he had gone a bit more into a solution. I was left with the sense that the government is not working effectively but less of an idea of how to fix it. Nonetheless, Rothkopf highlighted a lot of key problems so I am happy I watched it.

I do see a large connection to the current situation of the pandemic. It makes me especially nervous that the government will make a mistake in their response that we will suffer from for years to come. On a hopeful note, I think there may be an important opportunity for change on the other side of this crisis. So many inequalities have been brought to light that it will be (hopefully) impossible for policy makers to ignore, and that successful changes will be enacted.

The Ted Talk that I watched was called “The Revolutionary Power of Diverse Thought.” It is by the novelist Elif Shafak from Turkey. She starts by describing her answer to the question “can we taste words?” She explains that she initially avoided the question because it was a complicated answer. She knew what she wanted to say but did not know how it would be perceived by others because it was not an uncomplicated answer. People tend to do this when they have mixed emotions or complex situations. It is much easier when they have the ability to choose between one option or another. To resolve the complexity of thought, people force opinions, identities, solutions, etc. into “binary oppositions,” where one cannot choose more than a singular option. This is especially true in politics. These binary oppositions deny the human right to be complex, to have mixed emotions and to not be polarized which is something that has become extremely normalized in Western society especially.

Mainstream political analysists neglect emotion and focus solely on data, as Shafak says, and this perpetuates the attitudes of polarization. Initially, I was confused by this claim. I think of all the times that my family has gotten into political debates that have exploded with emotion. I think of the leadership classes I have taken, including this one, where we analyze political arguments and draw conclusion on how they use emotion to outweigh logic. However, as Shafak continued and I thought more about what she was saying, I realized that despite the fact politics revolves around emotion, there is a rejection of admitting this. Politicians and analysists mask the emotion behind data. Shafak says that underestimating emotion and ignoring the fact that feelings have a major impact is a mistake. People would naturally become less polarized if they acknowledged the emotions that drive their argument.

I think that there is definitely a fear of emotion. Within the last few years, there has been more discussion of why emotion is not evil. For example, feminist theories related to emotion and the movement for men to embrace emotion (rejection of toxic masculinity). I think Shafak would agree that these are steps in the right direction, but removal of emotion impacts much more than we give it credit for. Shafak’s ideas are centered around indecision, for lack of a better word, but this is not a bad thing. It may be uncomfortable, but I think she was right in saying this mindset is extremely beneficial.

https://www.ted.com/talks/elif_shafak_the_revolutionary_power_of_diverse_thought/up-next?language=en

This reading was very inspirational, especially the one about people using the power they have. I think sometimes people feel that they are too small of a person to impact change, and this stops them from trying all together. Goska explained how important it is to stop wishing that we had more power and actually use the power that we have. Her stories were about little acts that had real effects in the lives of people. I love the idea power is not about big sweeping acts, but rather small acts of kindness. What may seem like a small favor may mean so much more to the person receiving it. I thought it was particularly interesting that she said she envies selfishness. This is not something that I had ever thought about. To go about one’s life without worry about helping others or fixing problems certainly seems easier. However, I do not think the world would be better off if everyone was like this. It is more important that they embrace the small powers they have, because this sis the kindness that defines humanity.

Zinn’s reading told similarly inspiring stories. It is nice to think that there are good, caring people exist everywhere. And, what’s more, these are the people that need to come together to create massive change. What he says about overcoming “crumbling of institutions” is obviously extremely relevant to the world today. It is hard to not be short sighted and easy to be pessimistic, but this is exactly what Zinn warns against. Focusing only on the bad things would create a world much worse than the one we believe we deserve. This ties to what Kushner says about facing the end of the world. We want to be able to end knowing that we have created the best version of what we can be, knowing that we have done all we can to improve ourselves. I think striving for this perfection is the reason society progresses as it does. This part of the reading was extremely poetic. As a whole, the reading was helpful to remembering how and why to stay optimistic and kind during situations as grave as this one seems.

After watching the republican ads from 2004, my favorite is the “John Kerry, International Man of Mystery” ad. It is not my favorite because it is necessarily effective, but because it is pretty ridiculous. The ad is an attack add framing democratic candidate John Kerry to be seem unintelligent and unable to stick to one story. It uses a bright, very early 2000s edit emphasize that Kerry is “ridiculous” in what he says. It bounces back from clips of Kerry to shots of large bubble letters, saying words like “Oh really?” and “wow!” in and obviously sarcastic manner. It is called man of mystery because it portrays Kerry as an uniformed and secretive candidate, thus making him incompetent. This is what the ad wants us to believe. However, there is a lot of information missing. Every clip of Kerry is short, and when statements are taken out of context it is easily to paint them negatively, though that might not be an accurate representation. It invokes and immediate reaction from the viewer.

An ad that was more serious and more effective was the one entitled “Tell the Truth.” It begins with a clip of Kerry saying he would never use a negative ad then goes on to show a montage of negative ads apparently funded by him as well as money that his organization has spent on them. A view who does not consider the information of the ad carefully would get the sense that Kerry is untrustworthy, which is exactly what the ad is trying to get across. However, the definition of “negative” ad seems to be a little loose based on the short clips they showed, and this would inflate the numbers. Also, the clip of Kerry is again taken out of context which distorts the story. It is ironic that Bush would bash Kerry for using negative ads at all because 17 of the 20 republican ads were attack ads.

Overall, it was very interesting to watch these ads with the advantage of 16 years. A lot of the promises made, and the fear mongering used no longer applies. In the first ad I watched, Bush talks about the “dot com bust” implying that the internet market crashed. I was too young at the time to have experienced the social context that he was talking about, but it is interesting because the internet and internet investments are thriving. One of them mentioned record home ownership, which we now know 2008 crash of the market was caused by irresponsible lending to buy homes. The ads seemed over the top to me, but were apparently effective as Bush was re-elected.

One part of the reading that stuck out to me was when it said, “we live in a society of extremes” and advertisements play off this by giving us the clear, singular answers we want. Ads have evolved to really tap into the psychology of viewers to sell their product. This reading made me understand why I like my favorite ad. If I had to choose one, it would be the google ad where the old man is asking google home to remember things about his wife. There is another version where someone is asking google questions on their relationship that I also like. They are extremely sweet and emotional, but also incredibly simple. The entire commercial is the google search page with occasional pictures and a voice over. More than anything, this add emphasizes optimism. Google can solve any problem you have, even ones of memory and companionship. It uses a story to engage the audience. The story is easily relatable and those who do not relate directly can share in the feeling of nostalgia. It is also expanding the demographic of Google. As a tech company, users skew to be younger. But since the ad features and elderly man, it emphasizes that not only does everyone have a use for the device, but it is so easy to use that anyone can use it.

The ads I remember most have stories, similar to this Google one. If it is not a story within a singular ad, it is the overarching, recurring format or characters that stick out to me. I definitely fall for the tricks that ads use. However, it is hard to measure their effect. For example, while I really liked the Google ad, I was not inclined to buy the home device for me or any of my family. I do not even truly believe that this is the home device I would choose if I had one. However, the effect of advertisements is not always as direct as buying the product. The Google ad had an impact on my perception of the company. They seem sweet and caring which is important, especially as they grow and gain more power over the market. People need to have the sense of trust to use any of Google’s products, and this ad helped that image. Analyzing ads is very interesting because it reveals the immense knowledge marketers have on our psychology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xSxXiHwMrg

I liked the way Harvey started this reading, by pinpointing why leadership is so complex. In general, I liked this reading because it defends why leadership studies are legitimate and important. Out of his seven questions, I found “Who are we?” to be the most surprising and interesting. It is a simple question, but one that may often go unanswered. Context is important, and without it, we cannot be sure that we are doing the correct thing for a situation. Naming this context and group identities is extremely important. This question may seem to divide people in some cases, but for effective leadership, it is meant to unite people. The end of the questions “Do we understand” is also something that I think is easily glossed over. This is the part that a group evaluates that progress has actually occurred. This reminds me of the phrase “history repeats itself.” Without reflection, we are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. Studying the effects of leaders will show which attributes are beneficial to which situations.

I had never questioned the analysis of fictional characters before reading Bezio’s paper. As I mentioned earlier, we have learned before that context matters, and it makes sense that this would change the evaluation of leaders in Shakespeare’s plays. As stated early on in the reading, certain comparisons do not properly encompass important difference. However, considering context, using fictional leaders can be helpful examples. They are certainly me steadfast and consistent than real life examples. A few comparisons from Pericles to Brexit stood out to me. First, Shakespeare’s reminder to the audience that power does not come from God, but from the people. England’s transition from a pure monarchy to a parliamentary system exemplifies this feeling among the people who voted for Brexit, and thus demonstrated power of the masses. Additionally, Bezio made the parting remark to “advocate for what is just even in the face of storms and corruption.” This idea demonstrated in Shakespeare is a very powerful example that leaders would do well to emulate.

I know and have learned that Richmond has a long of systematic discrimination and it is something that affects and exists in the city today. I had not known about the great fears and lengths that white voters went to in order to maintain power. There were a few of these instances in the “From Intent to Extent” reading that stuck out to me. Trying to prevent the city council from having African American members is one of these. The reading explained that white members knew exactly how losing the majority advantage could change the scope of city laws and resource distribution, and for this reason they pushed for annexation and manipulation the election system. We have discussed how having and holding power affects people, and the white city of Richmond councilors lived in fear of losing this power. When they finally did, it was a “triumph” that embodied the long “protracted struggle for political parity” of African Americans

Looking further back into history, it is shocking to understand what clear crimes were considered the norm. Columbus and his crew did not even recognize natives as people. They did not hesitate to mislead, enslave and murder in the interest of power and riches. What makes the situation worse is the reluctance of history to assign blame and condemnation; instead Columbus is hailed as a hero and adventurer that we teach children about. History, in this case, seems to be on the wrong side of judgement.

I think the way that we look back on these events is extremely interesting. In hindsight, it is so easy to tell what is right versus wrong in the fight for Civil Rights. Even understanding this, it upsetting to see how long it takes for the most basic terms of political and social justice to be fulfilled, and how much more progress needs to be made. I also know that we are less socially progressive now, as Americans, than we have been in the past. In time, I can only hope that we will look back and think it was ridiculous that certain fundamental inequalities existed, but now for they are prevalent. Sometimes, as the case of Columbus seems to show, this “justice” of hindsight is never really fulfilled.

The reading on mystery was extremely interesting. Perception of mystery shows how easily humans can be manipulated in a way. In fiction, mystery can be perceived as evil or hopeful, and the author will clue hints that affect perception. In real life scenarios, I think that it can be a mix of both perceptions. Thinking of our current situation, there is a lot of fear in the unknowns: will me or my family get sick, when will things return to normal, etc. However, I think there is also some hope, like seeing random acts of kindness or thinking of how great school will be once we return. It reminds me of the glass half empty or glass half full analogy. I was a bit confused about Gesalt psychology in general, but I understood the “closure” principle because it’s something I see a lot. It can explain why bending the data to fit the claim is a prominent issue in statistics.

This reading highlighted how we are often irrational when we choose a leadership. The idea of a prototypical leader and the primary effect are not indications that people are drawn toward the best leaders, but rather the superficially attractive one. The lack of effect that situation has to perceivers stuck out to me. In my 102 class, we learned about how different situations called for different leaders, but this reading suggests that we jump to conclusions about a leader despite the situation. Consciously, we know that jumping to conclusions is bad. However, we can trick ourselves into thinking that we are not filling in the blanks with bias and end up at the same slanted conclusion. The four cues perceivers use contribute to this conclusion jumping greatly, and they are quite shallow. I have studied in the past the dangers and lures of charisma, as well as how intrinsically it is relied upon in the American political system. While the logical side of me knows how harmful the tools we use to resolve mystery, I also wonder how hard it is to change these things. Being aware is the first step, but they are so widespread and relied upon, I do not know what it would take.

I had heard of the Stanford Prison experiment before, but never read the details. It was shocking how quickly simulated guards and prisoners alike fell into the real character. It was pretty disturbing to read and unimaginable to think of the long-term abuse that true prisoners have to endure. I have studied the effect of prisons on people in past classes and it is never less shocking to learn about. I think that the general public is not aware of the mystery that surrounds prisons. They are, constitutionally, supposed to be “not unusually cruel” punishment in regard to the crime that was committed, and in so so many cases this is not true.

The Dorner reading was extremely fitting for the situation of the world today. Early on, it discussed how problems can be subtly linked to each other. Only in worst case scenarios do we see how these connections arise. We cannot solve problems one by one anymore, but instead we need to think of the situation as a whole. The reading mentioned that real world decision-making processes are rarely well documented. A lack of this information likely causes us to repeat the same mistakes and stop us from pinpointing common flaws in our train of thinking. Computer simulations, specifically, are a part of this reading that is utilized in the COVID-19 crisis. In real life, they are modeling the spread of the virus under different policy decisions. In the reading, the models tracked success of fictional societies, but also modeled the decisions of different leaders. Figure 7 shoes that leaders who made good decisions, made more and more good decisions, whereas leaders who made bad decisions were more inclined to make bad decisions. In a pandemic situation, it is extremely disconcerting to think that leaders who do not start off making good decisions are unlikely to ever start doing so.

The Forsyth reading, though not directly related, still makes an interesting point of how the solution may make the problem worse than it began. As good as high self-esteem sounds, it is not good in all situations. The study found that bolstering the students who performed poorly made them preform worse. This concept is something that I have been hearing a lot with the pandemic, specifically with the solution of vaccines. Scientist have apparently been rushing and cutting corners in the hope of creating a vaccine to help people as quickly as possible. However, some people are worried that due to the rush, the vaccine that is produced may have negative symptoms that are worse than the actual disease. This is a legitimate concern, but it does not mean there is a clear answer. Is it better to start testing a rushed vaccine or not try at all, and accept not finding a vaccine for many many years. Every solution of the pandemic is essentially facing the same dilemma. As I said before, we will not know the success of solutions until very far in the future.

For the Stern and Kalof reading, I have learned about research definitions and terms before, but it was helpful to be reminded of the many details. My research paper for this class is an example of a retrospective case study I believe. I was able to make some naturalistic observations during the show’s season, but most of my information is from the past. I cannot draw conclusions because I am not running an experiment, so I will end with a correlation.

The von Rueden and van Vuaght reading was very interesting. In 102, my class focused a lot on how different leadership styles could be better suited for different situations, but large scale versus small scale was never a large of discussion. ­The most basic principle is the same: leaders emerge when there is a need to solve a problem. According to this reading, this concept has been the same some basic societies began. In general, the reading says that the ideal leader is an older, stronger man. Characteristics are specific to what a certain culture values, which is interesting to me because it highlights unspoken norms and preferences. In SSS, a potential benefit to being a leader is reciprocity. This is not shared with LSS leadership incentive. This difference seems to show that SSS leadership is more personal. I wonder the different pressures that come from leading a group where so many individuals know you personally versus one that is of a very large scale.

It is easy to focus on LSS leadership because those are the leaders in recent history that are most famous in Western society. It is incredibly insightful to understand how SSS conditions shaped LSS leadership. I think that SSS-type leaders still exist within LSSs. Though some might argue that a university or even a singular classroom does not count as a society, the criteria for emerging leaders may follow SSS guidelines. There are countless connections between different types of leaders. It is very interesting to think of the many reasons they emerge and succeed.