I was a camp counselor last summer and this ted talk was actually sent a couple of days ago in my counselor group chat. This talk also relates to the “Impossible” reading that we read for homework. Specifically, this talk is about how we are leaders in our everyday lives. Similar to the Impossible reading, Drew talks about how we have glorified leadership to where we think that leadership is beyond us. He tells a story about a girl coming up to him on his graduation day and telling him how much he changed her life through a simple action that Drew does not even remember doing. I liked this talk because if we think abut our daily lives, we are truly all leaders to someone in some way.

As a mentioned, this talk was sent in my camp group chat. All of the counselors were rather close so after we all watched it, we started sharing stories about times where we were unknowingly leaders. This is my story that I told. Being an overnight camp counselor is incredibly exhausting because you are surrounded by and living with children 24/7. Therefore, the only time you really have to be by yourself or with friends is very late at night. As a result, by the end of the week, all of the counselors were completely exhausted and delirious. I remember one night, my camper was very upset because she was missing a friend of hers who had passed away. She was very shy and never wanted to talk much, so it was hard to help her. But she woke me up at 3 am and my delirious and exhausted self remembers almost no part of my interaction with her in that moment. However, she came up to me on the last day of camp and told me how no one ever just sat with her and talked to her about her feelings and how much that moment meant to her. Furthermore, a lot of the other counselors shared similar stories about how they changed campers’ lives just by doing simple things; a game of soccer, surprise birthday parties, or meaningful activities.

I really would not have considered myself a leader when I was a camp counselor; I saw my time as a counselor as just a job where I could have fun with the kids and my fellow co-counselors. But when I watched this talk, it really validated what I read in the “Impossible” reading. Anyone, and frankly everyone, is a leader in some way. We can all make a difference to someone through our time and our actions. I know it sounds cliche, but I never would have imagined that I could have such an impact on someone, especially in a moment where I had no idea how much I was helping and influencing someone. It is important to understand our glorification of leadership so that we can try and “bring it down.” Everyone needs to acknowledge that they can make such a difference and truly be a leader even if it may not seem like it (again, I know this sounds cliche but it is true). Then, we can inspire further action and understand how to be the best leaders we can from this.

I really liked this reading, especially because throughout my life I have heard many people talk about how they can’t make a change on a small scale. In particular, I discussed this idea in my ethics class and we spend a great deal of time on it. For example, so many people do not donate money to charity because they do not think their money will do anything or will make a difference. But this reading describes how small efforts and small actions can really make a change. For instance, a mosquito net costs about $2. Therefore, say I only have $20. That is 10 mosquito nets. I am making a huge difference! Or think about the current coronavirus pandemic. Donating $20 could probably supply multiple masks and gloves. In sum, this quote from the reading really encapsulated how mighty small efforts can be: “We don’t have to engage in heroic actions to participate in the progress of change. Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world” (71).

After this reading, I started to think about this quote more and more, especially in terms of policy. For example, what if (locally and nationally) policy is being drafted or passed that many people are against. I thought about this example especially in terms of my research project because currently, the US has drafted a peace plan for Israel and Palestine that if enacted, will just be very bad for the region and will exacerbate strife and conflict. But many of us probably think that we can’t do anything about this; 1 of us versus millions of other citizens and leaders. But in fact, if just one person emails their local representative about an issue, that issue immediately gets tallied on their itinerary. If more than one person contacts their representative, then representatives actually have to discuss and consider this issue; the more people that contact, the more likely representatives are to pose legislation, address issues, and pass bills. Therefore, even one person contacting makes a difference.

We can see the impact and importance of this in all walks of life; the reading described giving someone a ride home and even Rosa Parks refusing to move. But we can also see how important this can be for our government and legislation. For example, if I email my representative about my concerns about this peace plan, they will have to consider if. But if 5-10 people contact their representatives, whether they are the same or different, this issue can be addressed a lot easier than we may think (this applies for many different issues and legislation, I just used my research project as one example).

This Ted Talk is about the power to disagree. Many people are scared to openly disagree and are scared of conflict. However, Heffernan talks about how this aversion is causing more harm than good. To give an example, Heffernan discusses a researcher who had a partner. This partner’s job was to try and disprove and argue everything that the other researcher found and concluded. This forced the researcher to defend her research and also to (1) notice the weaknesses associated with the research and (2) try and find a way to rebut the partner’s disagreements. This strategy ultimately made their combined research incredibly valuable, while also making both researchers more knowledgeable.

The most interesting part of this talk was that the researcher described above were doing research on epidemiology and all of the specific research  and evidence that they used to arrive at their conclusions was widely accessible. But, no one was disagreeing with the data. No one was pointing out the weaknesses and arguing for a new strategy. This complacency does not advance knowledge or create change. By avoiding conflict and disagreement, we are actually preventing  progression.

This “silence” can be incredibly detrimental for leadership. For example, what if a co-pilot notices that something is wrong with a plane but the pilot does not. What if the co pilot, who wants to steer clear of conflict, says nothing? Additionally, what if the president or Congress wants to pass a bill or resolution that could be harmful? In both of these examples, if we do not disagree and look at the cons, the consequences and effects can be damaging, all because we were submissive to leadership. Furthermore, do we even want a leader that can not engage in conflict or be open to the conversations that arise from disagreement? Or, do we want a leader who can not challenge ideas to ultimately produce the best possible outcome? After listening to this Ted talk, I know that I want a leader who will understand and engage with both the pro and con of an idea, proposal, or whatever the situation may be because without disagreement and conflict, we really can not progress or enhance knowledge.

r_of_introverts/discussion?language=en#t-857836

This Ted Talk is focused on the “power of introverts.” Specifically, Susan Cain discusses how our society values and focuses on extroversion. To display this idea, she gives the example of desk pods in classrooms and workplace structures that constantly favor collaboration and discussion. Cain does not disagree with the benefits of collaboration, but she also explains how we also must understand and value those who do not prefer this method and would rather work alone and individually. Additionally, Cain describes how there is nothing wrong with people who are introverted and may not always want to be surrounded by or engage with a large group. For example, she talks about how she was the kid at summer camp who wanted to read books and did not want to get “rowdy.” Many people, counselors and kids, would ask her what was wrong and would push her to break out of this mindset. However, she was genuinely content with reading her books and remaining mellow.

Cain also talks about introverted leaders and how they can be overlooked. For example, extroverts are more outspoken and dominate conversation. Therefore, they can accrue followers rather easily compared to an introvert. But this does not mean that extroverts are better leaders. It also does not suggest that they have better ideas. Therefore, our assumptions about who is the best leader can not center around who is the most outspoken. In fact, Cain discusses how introverts can even generate better outcomes than introverts because they let their ‘followers’ “run with their ideas”, whereas extroverts, craving stimulation, can get wrapped up in excitement and cut out free thought.

As an extrovert myself, I found this talk very interesting because I really started to notice how biased our world is for extroverts. Therefore, I think that this talk is really important because we need to realize as a society that introverts can make great leaders; we can not always assume great leadership in the most dominant people. Whether introverted or extroverted, one must see the value that each person brings and honor that people act and view things very differently; this difference does not mean “better” or “more equipped”, it just shows differences.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980

My favorite ad from the 1980’s is the first ad you see on this link: Reagan’s Record. This ad epitomized what I expect from a presidential ad; catchy music, boosting of candidate, cheering and handshaking, and so on. One of the main reasons that I liked this ad was because of their use of “advertising” and statistics, which I found interesting and relevant from last class. For example, this ad states “Reagan was elected governor of California, which, next to president, the biggest job in the nation.” I saw this statement as a parallel to one of the examples that our reading gave, like “number one pizza in America.” Furthermore, the ad also introduces statistics. The ad states that when Reagan was elected “California was faced with a 194 million dollar deficit, which he then turned into a 550 million dollar surplus.” I found these statistics and comments incredibly interesting because they are crammed into a one minute long campaign ad. Therefore, they provide almost no depth or no context. Taking these statements at face value, Reagan seems like a pretty awesome candidate for the presidency. However, given our readings and class discussions from last class, I wonder what is “true” and is solid information to use as a basis.

I also liked this ad because it did not attack Jimmy Carter but instead, it boosted Reagan. Carter’s ads dealt mainly with military issues and attacking Reagan (not many focused on Reagan, but a few). There were also a few ads focused on faith, leadership, and patriotism but in regards to substance and “reform”, his ads talked a lot about military. However, Reagan’s ads did talk a lot about interest rates, security and prosperity, and peace. There were of course a few ads attacking Carter and his foreign policies. However, I found Reagan’s ads to be more appealing to the average American voter and saw how they would be more successful. The reason I picked this ad as my favorite is because I feel that it is the most emblematic of all of Reagan’s ads and found it to be the most successful in appealing to American voters.

My favorite ads are Geico Ads and their “Hump Day” ad has to be one of their most well known and iconic ads. I remember when this commercial came out, Wednesday was known as Hump Day for quite some time. I think that Geico, and also the “Mayhem” Allstate ads that Nadia posted about, are some of my favorite ads and I always find myself tuning into them. I think these ads are so effective and engaging because they are so ridiculous. Geico ads are always over the top and you can always guess which ad is a Geico ad. I think that this style of advertising is so effective for an insurance commercial because it associates Geico’s name with the most over the top situations and shows that even though there is a camel walking through the office, Geico would know how to handle it. I also see this association with the Allstate “Mayhem” ads.

Furthermore, Martin the Geico gecko is not seen in this commercial but he is a staple of other Geico ads. This character is also a tool used in their advertising to associate the ridiculous scenarios with a calm character. It is also a great association tool, like Allstate’s “Mayhem.” Almost every ad has Martin in it and it helps the audience connect the commercial back to Geico. Furthermore, each ad always ends with a catchy slogan about Geico. For example, the most well known is “15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on car insurance.” This repetition will eventually implant into the audience’s mind, especially if it is associated with a funny commercial. I even know this “15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on car insurance”, and have known it for years, and I am not even interested in buying car insurance! Overall, Geico ads use ridiculous and over the top ads to connect their audience to Geico’s ability to help and fix these situations and the hump day ad is one of the most iconic examples of Geico’s effective advertising

I really liked the Harvey reading, especially in terms of the analysis of each question. Specifically, I liked the analysis of the “how are we doing” question. In this section, Harvey explains how many teachers received satisfactory scores in terms of their teaching and there were relatively low amounts of teachers who received unsatisfactory scores. I saw the correlation between this idea and the Forsyth reading we did a little while ago, about confidence boosting and self esteem for college students. For example, Harvey says that if “we can’t distinguish between good and bad teaching, how can they succeed in their mission of teaching?” (Harvey 211). I saw this point relating to the point in the Forsyth reading about students becoming “complacent” in their levels of studying and academic success. If students can not separate effort from confidence/self esteem, then how can they improve in their mission of learning and academic performance? I know that the Harvey reading was centered around leadership and I liked his overarching comments about leadership throughout this section and the article; however, I saw a correlation between these two points and wanted to think further about how they are related.

Additionally, I really liked Bezio’s comments about Brexit in particular. Specifically, I liked Bezio’s commentary about how youth (the 45 and under category) tend to have “a higher capacity for cross- national cooperation” (Bezio 60). I think this is an interesting point because as Bezio points out, this is a quality of future generations that will definitely have an impact on leadership. We would definitely be able to see this is we applied Harvey’s questions to the leadership of these future generations. Additionally, I think it is interesting to look at the current Brexit decision (UK leaving the European Union) in comparison with Bezio’s comments. The youth, who tended to suggest that the UK stay in the European Union, were outvoted in this decision. How will this effect the future of leadership for the UK, especially if they have this “cross-national” cooperation and attitude? How will this then affect Harvey’s questions?

First of all, Columbus is just the worst and I am glad that I am at least learning more and more about this now. My education growing up certainly did not depict the true Columbus and was definitely an example of exactly what Zinn discusses in his article. It is really disappointing to know that we have covered up, or masked, a lot of the atrocities that he committed. It was also revealing to read how exactly people are able to do this; on page 8, Zinn states that the way that the phrasing was constructed around Columbus and his actions left us to presume that “it should weigh very little in our final judgements.” Now that I know the reasoning behind “historian distortion” I wonder what other examples I may have been exposed to throughout my own education.

This reading really reminded me of a discussion we had in my 101 class about the University of Richmond’s history because it seems like we are doing the same thing. When I came to Richmond, I did not know about the “founders” of Richmond and the people like Ryland, Heilman, and more who were really not good people (owned slaves, blatantly racist, etc.) If we are condemning the fact that we mask information that then has certain implications for what is/is not important, then we should condemn the lack of openness and transparency about Richmond’s founders. Additionally, are we are doing the same thing by not publicizing the racism that occurred on campus this past semester? It is one thing to publish is but it is also another thing to “bury the public in a mass of other information (social media posts NOT about the issues or messages of comfort), which is to say to the reader (or public/campus in this case) with a certain infectious calm: yes, racism and racist acts took place but it should weigh little in our final judgements; it should affect very little what we do in the world” (Zinn 8). I see Zinn’s analysis to be very applicable to this example.

I was really captivated by the Stanford Prison Experiment. I had heard about it in my previous classes (mainly the ethical issues with the experiment) but did not know many details. I think that the idea of the experiment was a good one; how does prison really change people? However, along with this comes the ethical issue of subjecting people to these experiments. But if this experiment was meant to simulate an actual prison, why can’t we argue then that prisons as a whole are unethical? This experiment revealed inmate perspectives that we have all heard about at some point in the past; physical abuse, psychological problems, identity crisis, malnutrition, etc… Therefore, after reading more about this experiment, I really started to question the ethics of the prison system as a whole. Furthermore, this experiment further revealed why many ex convicts still struggle with mental health issues and can even end up back in prison; this idea in tandem with structural discrimination can be really revealing for why prison is a cyclical process for many.

Another point that I found very interesting was their emphasis on emasculating the prisoners. Yet to me it seems as though they also made the guards seem more masculine with their dark sunglasses covering their face and equipped with whistles and clubs. This hierarchical structure must definitely lead to identity crisises.  In my Justice class first semester, we read a book on toxic masculinity and I could see some of these themes present during this experiment. I wonder how the prisoners would respond to a question about this; did you feel like less of a ‘man’ when you were in prison? How so? Why do you think this is the case? This toxic masculinity also makes me wonder how women and LGBTQ prisoners would handle this experiment. Would there be more instances of sexual, mental, physical abuse (although there were examples with the Stanford experiment, I am wondering if there would be more in this example)? How would their mental health differ as a result?

I actually had Dr. von Rueden for my leadership 102 class and we discussed a lot of these ideas (our “textbook” was Van Vugt). Perhaps the idea that I have always found most interesting is evolutionary mismatch, or the mismatch hypothesis, which centers around the idea that we sometimes carry over values and leadership traits from small scale societies and apply them to our large scale societies. But this does not always make sense. In the reading, Dr. von Rueden describes how we see stronger, more physically dominant people as leaders of the military and wars. Another example we talked about in my 102 class is the focus that we place of political leaders’ personal lives. For example, in a small scale society, it makes sense to value and pay attention to a leader’s personal life. However, why does that carry over to a large scale society? Does it matter if Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky? If he is a good leader, why does his personal life matter to us? Another example of the mismatch hypothesis is fear. For example, evolutionary mismatch explains why we still fear spiders and insects but not cars, which have killed and harmed thousands more than spiders.

I found his evolutionary explanation about gender very interesting. In class, we discussed how men have evolved to take on more leadership roles in SSS and why they are viewed as leaders. Women tend to build a smaller social network with people that they trust. This is mainly due to the idea that they take care of offspring and need trustworthy individuals to help them with these tasks (mutual aid). Men, on the other hand, tend to build bigger social networks in order to compete for resources, mates, and more. On page 981 of the reading, it states that “emergent leaders tend to be hubs of social networks.” This is one train of reasoning that can explain why men tend to emerge more as leaders in SSS than women; pairing this idea with the idea that physical size signals leadership in SSS also strengthens this idea.