I really enjoyed this reading and found it to be especially relevant to my own life and the current state in the world. I took a lot away from the Goska and Zinn chapters but did not particularly like the Kushner chapter. In the Goska and Zinn chapters, my main takeaways were that being a virtuous person or being in a position of power can be very differently defined by society versus the individual, and that to feel truly virtuous or powerful, it is essential for people to define it in their own terms instead of society’s definition.

In the Goska chapter, she discusses how people largely associate virtue in artificial/material senses: assuming that if someone has earned a high position, has expensive material possessions or worked for causes that have a large outreach and are commonly known, they are virtuous. While this can be true, the issue with this perception is that it minimizes the effects small deeds can bring for both parties and that often times, these little acts are the ones that can mean the most to people. I personally found this very relatable; in the past, I have done a lot of volunteer work that typically impresses people when I have been asked about it, however, I have often felt more virtuous in doing random acts of kindness that go unnoticed. I also thought the Zinn chapter on power dynamics was really interesting. I had never considered the vulnerability of power within leaders, but the way Zinn put it made a lot of sense. I agree with Zinn that followship is essential in establishing power, and that individuals have a lot of power in choosing who to follow. I also agree with Zinn that individuals do not need to agree with their leaders to be powerful. Looking at a lot of social movements throughout the past century, many norms today in our society are due to movements created by people who disagreed with their leaders at the time, and legislation was later passed to support these movements. I thought these chapters were very uplifting given the current state of the world and I’m glad our class got to read them.

For my last response post, I watched the TEDTalk “How to gain control of your free time” by Laura Vanderkam. I thought this was a really interesting thought that made me change the ways of how I perceive my time. The first thing that really struck me was her quote, “We don’t build the lives we want by saving time. We build the lives we want and then time saves itself.” Often times in the past I have found when I am pressed for time, I will look for little ways to save time by multitasking or figuring out ways to be more efficient. While Vanderkam believes it is important to use time elastically since we cannot make more of it, it is more effective to consider time as a choice. Vanderkam describes how people use the phrase “I don’t have time” as an excuse all too often to not do things when in reality, a more useful way of thinking of things is to not recognize those tasks as priorities. When people default to claiming they “don’t have the time,” much more time is wasted, and tasks we consider to be priorities are left unfulfilled.

One tip Vanderkam gave that I thought was very insightful was to look at how you want to spend your time ahead of you instead of focusing on how you’ve spent it in the past. She gave two examples which I thought were very useful. The first is to plan the following week on Friday afternoons. Friday afternoons are considered to typically be a low opportunity cost, as many of your goals for the current week are already fulfilled and you have a sense of what meetings, classes or assignments will take up your following week. Vanderkam described the time as a good reflection time on what you achieved the past week, and create goals for the next one. This goes into her second example, of asking what personal and professional goals we have a year from now, and try to incorporate ways to accomplish them with the pockets of free time we have. I thought both of these points were useful to people regardless of what extent their schedules are packed. I think planning out free time decreases the likelihood of wasting it, and our goals will be much more likely to be accomplished when they are planned and makes us feel more fulfilled. Coming into Finals, time management can be more important now than ever, so I am grateful I was able to come across this video and will implement these ideas into my daily life in the coming weeks.

Today I watched the TEDTalk “10 Ways to have better conversation” by radio host Celeste Headlee. Headlee started her talk by giving context to her argument for why having effective conversations is more critical now than ever. Due to the immense digitalization of our modern world, people are increasingly communicative online. While the growth of online platforms is a great way to find others with similar viewpoints, the ease of posting opinions online has lead to people using these platforms to validate their previously conceived thoughts instead of listening to others. Due to this, Headlee discussed how according to research from the PEW Research Center, that people are more polarized now than at any point than in human history. I found this really interesting because at the time of this recording the U.S. was not in war and in a strong economy, proving the divisive powers in these social mediums. This is critically important as younger generations are growing up communicating more nonverbally than verbally, making them less conversationally competent than other generations.

As an experienced radio host and interviewer, Headlee discussed how beneficial and stimulating it can be to have thought-provoking conversations. Building meaningful relationships are strongly reliant on having these types of conversations, and it is far more difficult to reach these levels of conversation in nonverbal situations. Therefore, to improve our conversations and our relationships, Headlee gave advice on the different ways she approaches more meaningful conversations. In her list, the parts I took the most away from were to assume that everyone you have a conversation is more of an expert in something than you are and that conversation is more meaningful when you listen with the intent of learning instead of the intent of replying. She also discussed the psychology behind why we are more apt to talk than listen is dually pronged: talking gives a sense of control that our minds crave, and people can typically talk 225 words a minute versus can listen to nearly 500 words in a minute, so listening takes up more of our brain energy and tires us. However, listening is one of the greatest skills we can develop and is what allows us to further our relationships.

I found this talk to be really informative and relevant to the current situation the world is in. Being in quarantine has minimized the ability for humans to have these in-person conversations, and has made me grateful for the times when I could use them.

The political commercial I watched was one titled ‘2.2 trillion dollars,’ an attack ad the Bush administration released on Al Gore’s proposed spending. On the side of the ad, the website described how many core issues for the election regarded issues within the homefront. This included fiscal issues such as the economy and taxes, education budgets, and the future of social security. In this ad, Bush, the Republican nominee, aimed to attack his Democratic opponent Al Gore for proposing projects that will cost too much money. The ad is very minimalist by design, it starts with a white screen and has the voiceover of a man spurring statistics that come up on the screen. The statistics describe the expected surplus for the U.S. economy over the coming decade, and how Gore’s spending model will surpass that surplus and put the country back into a deficit. The ad ends with “Al Gore’s big government spending plan threatens America’s prosperity.”

I thought this was a very interesting commercial as it was unlike any political campaign commercials I have seen before. I found it really interesting how the ad never once showed George Bush’s face or Al Gore’s. Typically when I think of attack ads, I think of a lot of pictures that depict the opponent in a negative light with drastic statistics about them or their previous work. On the other hand, this approach is very simplistic by using a monotone computerized voice with no accompanying music and no visual aids. Reading the summary of the election on the side, it makes me question if candidates revert to more drastic campaign commercials when the country is in a higher stress period of time. It stated how international affairs were not a primary concern of this election, and that the economy was back into a surplus after being in a deficit in years prior. Therefore, a lot of the concerns would be to what extent new government programs should be expanded in this time of a surplus, so it makes sense that the Republican nominee would attack the Democratic nominee for wanting to expand the government role too much and threaten the economy to go back into a deficit. I think it was a very interesting activity to analyze these commercials and learn how strategies can differ in political ads versus product ads.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2000/22-trillion#4171

I think my favorite ad is the “Jake from State Farm” advertisement. Advertising campaigns have always been something I have been interested in; I find it fascinating how 30-second commercials can create lasting impressions about companies for years. In a positive context, advertisements can create lasting branding strategies or prompt a change in social behaviors in society. This State Farm commercial does not attempt to be serious by any means; it has a simple satirical premise that appeals to all types of demographics while highlighting a simple component of the company’s dependency for their customers. The commercial is nearly a decade old, yet guys still dress up as Jake for a last-minute Halloween costume when they don’t want to spend money on a costume (myself included). On the other hand, commercials can gain infamy for all the wrong reasons. In a negative context, controversial campaigns can spark a negative backlash that can be difficult for the brand and the people involved to recover from (the Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad comes to mind in particular).

One thing I find particularly interesting when reading is that the Kendall Jenner Pepsi commercial attempted to do many more of the things on the ‘Advertising Checklist’ in the Teays reading than the State Farm commercial did, yet their legacies could not be more different. The Pepsi commercial attempted a laundry list of these features to try to appeal to a mass audience: it tried telling a story, it exaggerated the product’s power, tried to promote diversity, made assumptions about power and class, attempted a political agenda and used sexuality/celebrity to promote the product. On the other hand, State Farm mainly told a story to appeal to its viewer. Looking at this checklist and the responses from society, I think a key takeaway is that trying to appeal to everyone realistically appeals to no one; the more companies attempt to make a statement to various groups in one cohesive message, the more likely it is to receive scrutiny from the groups they attempt to appeal to. Simplified models that focus on doing one thing really well are much more effective.

In this TedTalk, strategist consultant Amane Dannouri discussed the various externalities that occur when online marketplaces impact local economies. In the talk, Dannouri discusses how there are both positive and negative externalities associated with the growth of these platforms such as Uber, AirBNB and Grubhub, but ultimately, when used properly, it can greatly benefit the greater society. Dannouri discussed how traditionally, people perceive online marketplaces as a threat to local economies, especially within the small business sector that disrupt traditional business models. However, this perception is largely not the case, as new technology can streamline efficiency and provide new opportunities, particularly in emerging areas. Dannouri gave the example of a technology company called Jumia, an Amazon equivalent company in Africa that is making efforts to improve technological literacy within the continent. An example of this that really struck out to me was the company’s service of an online university that prepares people to vend on their platform and increase their business opportunities. Through this program, people have been able to build their knowledge of markets and grow from an online business to a physical storefront and is expected to add three million new jobs in Africa in the next five years. His ending message is that technology does not have to be a zero-sum game; while industries will be restructured, their greater offerings to their communities increase their quality of life and provide new opportunities that would not be there without it.

I thought this was a really interesting Tedtalk given our current state. This talk was posted just before the pandemic was in full swing, but I believe its message is incredibly relevant to the state of the global economy. Small businesses are particularly impacted by this global shutdown; larger companies with multiple locations or multiple services can offset their losses, but smaller businesses do not have these opportunities. However, partnerships with services like Grubhub or Doordash allow for companies to reach their customers at a scale they would not be able to without these services and additionally allows people who have may have lost their job due to the pandemic the opportunity to make an alternative income. While this may seem small, these technologies are allowing people to feel more connected to their local community in times of isolation. New technology will always create a degree of tension and lash-backs, however, in the long-term, technology with overall positive externalities will continue to bring prosperity across the community, and technology with overall negative externalities will fade out.

COVID-19 Warning:
I really liked reading the Harvey piece and thought a lot of the questions he raised regarding leadership are relevant questions we should be asking ourselves right now amongst this pandemic. One point in his first question, “who are we” that struck out to me was the line, (it should be ) “understood that it is more important to know who you are than where you are going, where you are going will change as the world around you changes.” (Harvey 206) While this is a critical question leaders must ask themselves to assess their influence during different times, I think it is something that everyone should ask themselves. I find this to be incredibly relevant right now, as many of the things I and other classmates set up for ourselves for the rest of the semester and summer have been canceled due to the outbreak of the virus. Before the virus, I had accepted a position to intern for a company I really cared about, signed up to be a counselor at Camp Kesum, and was accepted to go abroad in the fall which was something I have been looking forward to since high school. Now, the recruiter I had been in close contact with for months leading up to my offer said they will likely not be having their program this summer, Kesum will be online if it were to happen, and my abroad program is up in the air. It can be very discouraging at times, to think of all the time I spent to make these things become realities to no longer being able to accomplish the things I planned to. However, the point Harvey made that really stuck out to me is to keep these values at your core and not let the externalities of the world affect those values. The world is constantly changing all around us, largely in ways we cannot control. While this can be discouraging, I agree with his point that knowing who we are is the best way to prepare for uncertainty and remain motivated to accomplish the goals we set out for ourselves.

Another part that really stood out to me in this reading is the distinction Harvey made between ‘where are we going’ versus ‘how will we get there?’ When looking at political campaigns, I always get frustrated when candidates have blanket statements to try and enact some sort of change but do not detail how they attempt to bring about that change. I think people as a whole romanticize the idea of long term change, but rarely realize or maintain the steps they need to achieve that goal. I think this is relevant to micro levels of people giving up their ‘New Years Resolution’ by February, or on macro levels in creating legislation for acts they care about. The ‘where we are going’ question has the end goal in vision, but the ‘how we will get there’ question focuses on the steps needed to get there.

I think that the Zinn reading brought across some really intriguing points on how we should look at historical events. While I was reading the chapter, I kept going back to the idea that winners write history. The winners (in this case Columbus, King Ferdinand & Queen Isabella) focused on the prosperity their acts brought for Spain, and the world largely focuses on this as well. At the time, their largest concerns were what they could do to grow their empire and enrich themselves, and would resort to any measures necessary to accomplish this, even if it meant brute violence. This mentality of winners deciding how the world will learn about their actions has a large long-term impact, as we still celebrate Columbus’ voyage with a national holiday and elementary school children are taught to romanticize his voyage and discovering America over 500 years ago, and disregard the advancements Native American settlements had achieved at that time. While this may seem innocent at first, first impressions of historical events have lasting impacts on people, and it is difficult for people to change their perception of events once they have learned about it. This influence has allowed for Americans for centuries to refer to Native Americans as ‘Indians’ only due to the fact that Christopher Columbus believed he landed in India when he reached the United States. My main takeaway from this is how critical it is to be cognizant of the impact colonialism can have on marginalized groups and industrious nations for centuries to come, and that their influence can be in both direct and indirect ways.

I thought the second reading was also very interesting because it made me more aware of the discrimination African Americans faced in our own backyard just a few generations earlier. I have read about the various ways southern states worked around national legislation to discriminate against African American voters but was shocked to learn about to what extent it reached. An instance that particularly struck me was to what extent white elites would go to prevent an African American from earning a spot on the city council due to their fears of losing power.

I think both examples demonstrate how power can easily corrupt an individual’s perception of morality and to what extent they are willing to protect their influence. It can be difficult at that time to realize how long-lasting their influence will affect the way society views these acts in the future. In both examples, their influence is still seen in the modern world, as many people still refer to Native Americans as Indians and African Americans still struggle with segregation and gaining political influence. Both of these examples signify the importance of having both accounts of the incident, so future generations can determine the significance of the event beyond the winner’s account.

I really enjoyed learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment. I had heard the title of the experiment thrown around in various classes or in speaker events but had never read much into it until now. I think this simulation is fascinating because the different scenarios provided a lot of insight as to how humans react to authority and participate in ‘groupthink’ decision making. One example of this I found to be very interesting was in the parents and friends visiting day. On the website, it described how one parent complained to the Superintendent how she had never seen her son so distraught. The Superintendent responded, “What’s the matter with your boy? Doesn’t he sleep well?” The mother responded saying that her son was a leader and tough, and of course, he could handle these conditions. I think the combination of the roles of pride and subjection to authority is fascinating here, as this mother would rather see her son continually struggle mentally and physically than stand up to the Superintendant and admit that these conditions were having a negative effect on her son.

I think this study asks society some really interesting questions about our perceptions of prison life and if we believe they are just. I think people get frustrated with the morality of this study since the inmates had not committed a crime. I think a question we have to ask ourselves is where do we draw the line? From my past experiences and research, I have seen that prison life can have two drastically different experiences on people. I worked with ex-convicts in a halfway house in Puerto Rico who had been released early for good behavior, and when I talked with them, they seemed genuinely motivated to create a better life outside of crime and wanted to move into the United States to support their families. However, I have also seen the latter. In my AP Language and Composition class in high school, we did a unit on the mass incarceration within the U.S. and time and time again, I saw how regardless of how motivated people are in their time in prison, once they get out, our society barricades them from so many opportunities that these felons revert back to their old ways so they can financially support themselves. I think reading about studies such as these start a conversation as to how we should crime and punishment.

COVID-19 Warning:
I thought both readings were very interesting and relevant to what is going on in the world currently. In the Dorner reading, a central theme is how taking action to alleviate short term issues can lead to greater issues long term. When elected officials make these decisions, the decision can ripple into other areas that were not expected. In the reading, an interesting example that stuck out to me is the example of changing the speed limit and placing speed bumps in a downtown district to limit pollution and make the area safer for pedestrians. While this may seem logical, pollution rose because cars were in second gear instead of third gear which causes more pollution, and people ended up going to nearby malls instead to avoid new traffic and congestion issues. While this plan was supposed to help downtown businesses, some businesses ended up going out of business in the long term. I think if the elected officials did trials before enacting this change and considered more long term changes, they could have prevented this from happening and found a more effective way to limit traffic while keeping businesses busy.

I think the examples made in this reading can serve as an allegory to all of the preventative measures being passed due to COVID-19. When the virus was spreading in China and factories, communities, and cities with millions of people were being shut down, the United States spectated as an outsider, and did not take preventive measures at that time to alleviate the inevitable spread of the virus. Now that the virus is in all fifty states and case rates are growing daily, the measures local governments and businesses make cannot keep up with the virus, which will have serious long term implications on society on a micro and macro basis, as employment patterns will change and certain industries will likely not be able to recover. This serves as a reminder to show how critical it is to take threats seriously and consider the long term ramifications for not considering the different outcomes.