This Ted Talk was called “A 12 Year-Old App Developer.” It was just that- a 12 year-old talking about developing apps for Apple products. He explained how kids his age grew up playing digital games and are now wondering how to make their own. He started by learning coding languages such as Python (apparently this is a more basic one). Once he felt comfortable coding in a few different languages, Apple released the iPad, and the iPad development kit, which allowed users to develop apps for the App Store. This speaker decided to make apps called “Earth Fortune” and “Bustin Jeiber” (apparently his peers don’t like Justin Bieber).

Once this speaker was a pro at making his own apps, he wanted to gather information about what other apps his peers wanted to see, and even produce themselves. So, he made an app development club at school. He thinks that these days, students are more technologically advanced, and can use apps to their advantage in their learning. Teachers, he says, should support this pursuit.

I think this Ted Talk is relevant to leadership because it shows how no one is too young to make an impact. This 12 year-old had a desire for new apps and he made them. Certainly if a middle schooler can have any kind of impact on the world, then anyone can. I think this returns to the point that sometimes our actions feel small. However, it is important to keep doing things, and specifically doing good. Eventually these small actions (like making Apple apps) can have a larger impact.

Link:

This Ted Talk was entitled “Got a Wicked Problem to Solve? First, Tell Me How You Make Toast.” The speaker had a program where he would ask people to draw out something that everyone knows how to do- make toast. He showed examples of some of the responses that he has gotten in the past. These responses vary greatly. While most were just the basic steps on how to make toast (put bread in the toaster, take it out, put on butter), some focused more on the mechanics of the toaster. Some went back to the wheat being grown in the field. Others went all the way back to the Big Bang. I thought it was interesting how this simple exercise shows how differently peoples brains work.

The speaker explained that each “step” is called a node in the person’s thinking. He explained that there is a “correct number of nodes” for any given project. Too few and the project won’t be clear, and too many and it will be confusing. He explained that when participants were asked to draw out the process on sticky notes, there were many more nodes on average. This is a good thing and can then be paired down so that there are not too many nodes. This process, the speaker claimed has been used to reconstruct entire companies.

I think that this Ted Talk is very relevant to Leadership. We have talked about this a lot in this class, but sometimes problems seem to overwhelming to take on and overcome. This process of “making toast” shows how different leaders brains work differently. If a leader can figure out how their own brain works, they will be able to utilize their skills to solve the problem. Also, leaders may feel overwhelmed at time, so breaking down a larger problem into nodes and then organizing them into steps to take helps turn a huge problem into little, manageable steps to work towards the larger issue. I think this is the key to successful leadership.

Link:

For this event blog, I watched a Ted Talk called “The Puzzle of Motivation.” I thought that this would be a good one to watch because currently I have no motivation to finish out the semester and I thought that this Ted Talk might give me some inspiration.

The Ted Talk did not give me any more motivation, but it was still interesting. The talk looked at studies to see if monitary reward motivated people to do better work. In multiple studies, researchers found that in fact, the higher the reward, the worse/slower the work was done. The talk did not really explain in detail why money does not always motivate people. It did say though, that when tasks were purely mechanical, then a higher reward does produce higher productivity. However, when any kind of critical thinking or creativity was involved then the lower reward then the higher the productivity. The speaker then went on to explain that he has studied human motivation for years, and what he found was that there are three things that motivate people to do good work. Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose. That is, the freedom to do their own work, the desire to become great at some skill, and the mission to have in impact greater than themselves.

The one aspect that the speaker focussed on was Autonomy. He talked about googles 20% rule. This means that employees have the freedom to work on any project that they want for 20% of their time at work. Some of Google’s best products have come out of this time. For example, Gmail and Google News were invented in employees free time. This is the kind of productivity that comes out of autonomy.

I think that this concept can be applied to college in many ways. For example, I know that some professors allow students to take classes at their own pace, with no strict deadlines. There are also examples in our own Critical Thinking class (Thanks Dr. Bezio!). For example, we were allowed to choose any topic that we wanted for our research project. Because we have the freedom to chose a topic that we are passionate about, we likely will do better work. Also, in terms of purpose, the Giving Games project was a good example of this. We knew that our work would have a real impact in the world, and so we worked harder at it.

Link: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_the_puzzle_of_motivation?language=en

At one point in the reading, the author uses the example of Rosa Parks. He asks who would have believed that an act as simple as Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus would spark a movement that would completely transform the American South. I think this is a really interesting point that I have never really considered. Rosa Parks was probably not intentionally trying to start a huge movement. She just saw an injustice and did her small part in fighting it. The movement that came after it was a fortunate accident. This proves the point that it is worth doing the small things to fight injustice. Even if it seems insignificant, that small action may have a much larger impact on the world. A person does need to be in the public eye already to cause the change that they want to see.

I thought the end of the reading was pretty ironic. The author argues that in order to get involved politically people need to put down the computers and physically show up. Now, we are living in an age where showing up is not an option. Computers are really the only connection that we have to the outside world. I think it definitely raises the question of how do we continue to make political progress from our own homes. It is something that people need to figure out together and over a period of time.

I liked Reagan’s ad campaign much better than Mondale’s. Reagan’s ads emphasized what he had done in office already, and shared some of his goals. Mondale’s ads however were mostly aimed at attacking Reagan. Reagan’s ads had hopeful, happy music and image of a happy America. They featured patriotic messages, and presented Reagan as a sort of hero to America. Mondale’s ads were fairly negative and were accompanied by ominous music. Overall, they were less pleasant to watch. Neither ad campaign, however, discussed the candidates’ actual plans for the country. In one of his ads, “Reaganomics,” Reagan touches vaguely on what he would do for the American economy, but other than that, neither candidate explains their plan for the country. This goes back to the “where are we going?” versus “how will we get there?” debate.

My favorite ad from he 1984 campaigns was Reagan’s “Peace” ad. I think that it does a good job of reminding American’s why they should care about the future of American- their children. I think that this would have sparked an emotional response from many viewers. Also, the commercial is uplifting and pleasant to watch. It talks about peace for America, which is something that almost everyone in the country was wishing for at that time. Finally, the ad explains what Reagan had done in office already, which is a good way to convince audiences that he already is a good president and should remain in office. Overall, I thought Reagan’s “Peace” ad was effective and pleasant to watch.

Link:

One of my favorite ad campaigns is Snicker’s “you’re not you when you’re hungry” campaign. In these commercials, one character is acting irritable and unlike themselves. Then, they have a bite of a Snickers bar and turn back in to their own personality. My favorite of these ads was a Super Bowl ad from a long time ago with Betty White. She keeps getting tackled playing football, until she eats a snickers bar and turns back into a man playing football.

This ad uses humor to capture it’s audience. Because it is funny, it is enjoyable to watch and consumers won’t be irritated at having to watch a commercial. They will then associate Snickers’ brand with laughing and feeling happy. Also, having celebrities like Betty white in the ad suggests to audiences that the product is endorsed by her. Fans of Betty White will be more inclined to eat Snickers because they believe that she eats them as well. The ad also is something that many Americans can relate to. Playing football with your friends, but having an off day and getting tackled. Because it is relatable, consumers will respond well to it.

The ad also does a good job of getting the message across. It brands Snickers bars as not just a candy, but a snack that will fill you up and give you energy. This comes across clearly in the advertisement, while it is still funny and relatable. I think that this Snickers ad is very effective and it is one of my favorite ads.

Link:

Something that stood out to me in the Harvey reading was the difference between “where are we going” and “how will we get there.” The author says that “there is something poetic or prophetic about stepping forth to answer the question ‘where are we going?'” However, the same aura does not exist in answering the question “how will we get there?” People want to hear their leader tell them where they are going. They want to hear that things will be better than they are now. Answering this question is easy. All a leader must do is paint an idilic picture and tell citizens what they want to hear. However, actually outlining and taking the steps to get to this place is harder. The truth is, there is no way for a leader to create a perfect situation for all people. Some will be angry or disappointed with the outcome. So, leaders often focus more on the “where are we going” question, and do not put as much thought into the steps it will take to get there.

I think that this is an issue that is present in our current political system. All presidential candidates are guilty of this (though some more than others). They tell voters what their vision for the country is, but are vague about their plan for getting the country to that place. This issue comes up a lot in presidential debates, where other candidates press their opponents to be more clear about their plan. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of voters do not care a lot about the “how will be get there?” question. They will vote for the candidate that tells them that they will improve the country, even if that candidate has no idea how to do so. The distinction between the “where are we going?” question and “how will we get there?” question is one that tells the difference between a good leader and a bad one, and I think that the US needs to listen more carefully to the hows in this presidential election.

I also found the communication section was interesting. I think there is a fine line between simplifying the complex challenges that leaders face so that everyone will understand them, and not providing the whole truth. In my opinion, this burden often falls on the media to present the public with all of the facts in a simplified manner, which is the only way to keep and open and healthy communication between leaders and the public.

Something out of the reading from “A People’s History of the United States” was how little that I actually knew about the colonization of the United States. For example, I knew that a lot of Native Americans were killed but I was shocked to learn that more than 9 million were killed from wars, disease, and being taken prisoner. I think that my lack of knowledge on this topic just shows what a skewed version of history that is taught in schools in America. We learn the “white” version of history. I learned in elementary school that Columbus was the hero that brought my ancestors to this country. The version in this book paints him as much more evil. When he met the Native Americans, his immediate reaction was that they would make good servants. This is entirely because of the color of their skin, he immediately had no respect for them as people. I wish that schools in the United States would stop white washing history and give and accurate representation of the way that this country was colonized.

Honestly, I found the second reading boring and a little confusing. However, what I did get out of it was that sometimes I forget what a complex racial history the city of Richmond has. It of course stems back to the Civil War, but it did not end there. African Americans in Richmond had to fight and fight to get a fair amount of city counsel people to represent them. It goes to show how when a group of people is in power, they almost always abuse that power to stay in control . Reading this paper makes me what to take a closer look at Richmond’s government, and see how it may still be under representative of some groups of citizens of Richmond.

Reading about the Stanford Prison experiment was really interesting, however it raises questions for me about the ethics of it all. The thing that struck me the most was the ability to create such intense power dynamics, even though all participants knew that the prison was fake. Not only did the guards take their role seriously, perhaps too seriously, but also the prisoners did not question the guards’ authority. Also, the psychologists behind the study started to act more as prison wardens than psychologists. When they heard rumors of the prisoners trying to escape, they focused all of their energy into trying to foil the plan, instead of studying the prisoners trying to escape. Also, even outsiders, such as family visitors, did not question the authority of the prison guards/ superintendents. It is shocking how real the situation became for everyone, and how quickly the power dynamics strengthened.

This study makes me question the ethics behind it. Although they cut the study short, when it became clear that the prisoners were suffering mentally and the guards were becoming increasingly abusive, prisoners were still tormented severely throughout the experiment. The participants did agree to become prisoners in the study, but I doubt that it was enclosed just how degradingly they would be treated. Also, when one prisoner tried to quit the experiment, he was convinced to stay. Another one was pressured into staying by the other prisoners just to prove that he wasn’t a “bad prisoner.” He had forgotten that he was not even a prisoner at all. Just a college student who had agreed to participate in a study. It struck me when the psychologist reminded the prisoner of this and said “it was as if he had waken up from a bad dream.” Any experiment that makes participants forget who they are cannot be ethical. Also, the guards became abusive, when likely they are good, respectful people.

I recognize that this study was done a long time ago, before there may have been more strict ethical guidelines for psychological studies, but I would hope that after this experience, stricter guidelines were put into place.

I thought this reading was especially interesting considering the current challenges that the US government is facing. As I was reading the example of Greenvale in the study, it occurred to me that our government may make some of the same mistakes that the “bad mayors” make in the example. For one, I think that the government may be asking what questions instead of why questions. For example, it took the Senate days to agree upon a plan to stimulate the economy. Now of course I cannot know for sure, but I would guess that some senators were looking for an easy solution to bring money back into the US economy, without having a specific plan, that considered not only how the money should be distributed, but WHY.

Another point from the Greenvale example that I think that our government may be grappling with right now is the tendency to get fixated on one thing at a time. In this time, it is so easy to get overly focused on one issue- getting the economy back on track, producing more tests, finding a vaccine, washing your hands, etc.. Whatever it is, we cannot stay focused on just one of these things. It is crucial to address all of the issues at the same time, as well as continue on as best we can with the regular upkeep of the country. This is, of course, extremely challenging at a time like this, and, as the reading says, against the nature of some people. However, I think it is increasingly important that the government does not get fixated on just one of the issues at hand.