I thought that this was a really timely reading. I think nothing makes me feel more powerless than literally not being able to leave my home. It seems that a lot of people that are not any type of healthcare worker feel powerless because it feels like you cannot actually help anyone. Though I understand that staying home is helping to flatten the curve and protect others from coronavirus it does not have that same satisfactory feeling of directly helping somebody in need. It is more of a long term project where you will not see results for a little while and I think that is what makes it more difficult to stay motivated. Additionally, it is annoying to see people that are not abiding by quarantine rules because it makes you feel as though your staying inside ultimately won’t count because there are other people that aren’t. If they aren’t paying attention to the advice of medical professionals, why should I?

The other area I most feel this type of powerlessness in is climate change. I often do feel like we are full speed ahead towards a climate apocalypse and the end of the conditions on earth that allow for human life. I have a lot of “eco-anxiety” and I think this especially because I feel like a majority of people either do not realize where we are headed or do not care. Additionally, solving our climate crisis is an area that would require the collaboration of a lot of people. Though I can do my personal best to reduce my impact, I cannot personally shut down, for example, all animal agriculture. When you feel like you are not around other similarly motivated people it feels like your impact doesn’t matter because it is outweighed by all these actions that hurt our planet. It is, however, like what Zinn said about the supernova at the end of the reading. When whatever the end of the planet looks like does come I do want to be able to say that I did give my best effort.

These readings made me reflect on how I think about change on both personal and global levels. I realized how our perceptions of good deeds, making change and having power are extremely generalized and inaccurate. For example, I fell into the fallacy described by Goska, equating virtuous with acts receiving major recognition/attention. Of course I try to be a good person, but I would apply this method of thinking onto other people. Reading about the problem with people not using the power they have, how easy it is to excuse oneself from being better if they consider themselves an insignificant contributor. They discredit their own power and in doing so, become the problem.

Chapter five made me think of the protests and events in response to the racist incidents that occurred earlier this semester. Students rallied together to bring attention to an important issue and call for administrative action. If “small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world”, then imagine what could happen if students at every university advocated for creating a culturally inclusive society. I’m not trying to say that the protests and events were small acts. Only that they could become even more powerful if people who discredited their own power would act.  Similar to Kushner’s sentiments, if everyone would find an issue they are passionate about and fight for it, the world would be more united in generating solutions. Each person would be pushing themselves to be a more humane human being and use their power for good. Obviously, it’s not that simple to just make everyone interested in taking that initiative but it is amazing to think about how far we could go if even 50% of the world population did that.

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.

I watched a Ted Talk entitled “How to overcome our biases? Walk boldly toward them” by Verna Myers. In her talk, Myers mentioned many of the unwarranted killings of young black men. She cautioned that the same stereotypes and prejudices that resulted in the deaths of those young black men are inside us all because we have all grown up learning them. Myers wanted to give people advice on how to overcome their biases and prevent another Ferguson. She gave three main pieces of advice:

The first thing she said was to stop trying to deny our implicit bias. Myers does diversity seminars and sees people all the time trying to come up to her and claim that they are good people and don’t have any biases. The truth is that we all have biases whether or not we realize them. When times get difficult we lean on those biases that we did not even know we had. Myers urged listeners to stop trying to be colorblind because the problem is not that we see color it is the way we react when we see people that are not the same color as we are. Once we realize our bias we should actively work to disconfirm it. She said that we should all stare at awesome black people to help us dissociate black and negative. We need to go looking for our biases and disconfirm them. 

Next, she said that we need to move toward young black men and not away from them. Here she is asking us to walk towards discomfort. She challenges listeners to take inventory of their social and professional circles and take not of which people are missing from those circles and seek them out. We need to expand our circles and embrace any discomfort that might come with that. 

Finally, Myers urged us to remember to say something when we see something, even to the people closest to you. Biases move from generation to generation because younger people do not see racist behavior called out, which tells them that behavior is okay. We need to shelter children from racism so they do not internalize it and act on it. We should work to create the expectation that if anyone sees racist behavior they will say something.

COVID-19 warning

I thought that The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen’s Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear was such a great way to end this course and the semester given the state of our world right now. The question that the woman asked at the Spirituality and Ecology conference in 1998, “‘I want to do something, but what can I do? I’m just one person, an average person. I can’t have an impact,” is a question I think a lot of us Jepson students think all the time. Danusha Veronica Goska’s essay, “Political Paralysis,” was a reminder that even the “unnoticed” and “insignificant” actions altogether, can make a huge impact on the world and the people around us. In leadership studies, we don’t only focus on famous leaders like political figures, monarchs, and social justice warriors. We learn that we are in charge of our own actions and choices and through our education, we can work together to make informed and collective impacts. I know this is somewhat cliché, but we see this exact mentality given the current pandemic being so important. If we are social distancing, staying home, and supporting small businesses and healthcare workers–for those that have the privilege to do so–we know that we can contribute to slowing the spread of COVID-19. Although we are each one person in the 300,000+ million in the U.S., it does in fact matter.

This essay also made me think about the power of integrity and how not all actions need to be seen or celebrated to be important. The example that Goska gave with global warming helped me put this into perspective. If we don’t recycle soda cans, limit plastic use, and lower our meat consumption, it may seem like these unnoticed, insignificant actions do nothing. However, this mentality is dangerous because if these actions are so “unimportant,” we might as well not try to stop the slow of global warming if we can’t stop it NOW. Small actions like recycling or lowering meat consumption, if done by a greater population, can, in fact, make a tangible difference. That is not to say global warming is not a worldwide emergency that we need to take immediate, dramatic action to fix. But, it can be slow to help enact this change as politicians and the public continue to neglect global warming. So using individual moments and following heroes–in this essay she used Gandhi–it is the sum of these small actions that led such influential leaders to prominence in the first place. It is with the lack of integrity and submission to larger systems that “burnout” and “apathy” come from. I thought this was a well-written, inspiring piece that I’ll certainly refer back to when I feel like my activism or strides for change go unrecognized.

Anna Marston

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.

The Impossible Will Take a Little While by Paul Rogat Loeb reminds us that we are not powerless in the face of issues ranging from racism to starvation. Several authors in this piece reveal how many of us have accepted that we have no power to change what we believe is morally wrong in the world. Howard Zinn emphasizes how this negative belief in powerlessness has become “a self-fulfilling prophecy” (p.70). One can look at the world as a cruel and evil place, but history has shown us that pure evil cannot sustain itself. The reason why no one has conquered the world is that people will go against repression. I truly believe that Zinn’s argument is true because if we admit defeat, we will have given up on our humanity. Despite the pain and suffering, there is beauty in our world. Each moment where someone has died, someone new has been born in the world. Thus, it is our collective responsibility to uphold values of justice and respect each day.

This reading reminded me of how we can be virtuous right now. During this unprecedented time of quarantine, each of us has been encouraged and ordered to stay at home. While many of us are not nurses or doctors caring for COVID-19 patients, we can contribute to the effort of reducing the transmission of this virus. This pandemic is not a war we can ignore in the news or a natural disaster affecting a small nation, it is a global issue. The coronavirus has shown us the best and worst parts of humanity. I think it is better to remember the positive parts of humanity. So far, people have donated food, money, and resources to those in need for this virus. This can be seen in the viral donation campaign launched by Captain Tom Moore, a 99-year-old World War II veteran in England. Captain Moore managed to walk a hundred laps in his garden to generate money for the National Health Service and now is at the enormous sum of £14 million. This story shows that we are not powerless because we can do something small and even something big. Compassion and love for humankind can overcome many issues we believe are impossible. I think we shouldn’t count out humankind in the journey for what is right!

I watched the TedTalk “What it takes to be a great leader” by Roselinde Torres. She started the talk by saying that the image that many of us carry of a great leader is outdated. She said that many of us are thinking of “this all-know superhero who stands and commands and protects his followers.” This image is no longer relevant to the world that we are living in or will ever live in again. 

The research she did was motivated by the problem many companies are having in finding good leaders. Many companies are investing more time and resources in developing leaders, but they still fail to develop strong leaders. Torres was looking to solve this problem by answering the question: What makes a greater leader in the 21st century? She answered this question in the form of three other questions that would be asked to potential leaders.

The first question was, where are you looking to anticipate change? With this question, she is trying to emphasize that leaders should be shaping their own future not just reacting to what comes at you. She thinks that companies should be asking their potential leaders who they are spending time with, what topics they are learning about, where they are traveling, what they are reading, etc. The hope is that this will translate into an effective plan to prepare for the future.

The second question was, what is the diversity measure of your network? This question is about a leader’s ability to make connections with people that are different from them. Are they able to form connections outside of just the group they are used to and comfortable? They need to establish connections such that very different people are able to collaborate and work towards the same goals effectively. A diverse network is beneficial because it gives you a wider variety of perspectives and solutions to potential problems.

The third question was, are you courageous enough to abandon the past? Here she is saying that a good leader should not just be using strategies that have worked for them in the past. Nobody wants a leader that is unable to get out of their comfort zone because they will be unable to adapt as things change. 

One of my favorite political advertisements is one from recent memory that truly struck me, an Obama ad from 2012 titled “read my plan.” I’m a big fan of this advertisement because it succeeds at doing what most political advertisements truly try to avoid doing. In the advertisement, it is Obama who is speaking the entire time, and specifically about his plans for the future. He does not offer blank promises or poetic words of hope, as he is more known for. Instead he truly focuses on the politics of the time in a way all Americans could grasp. He begins by stating that if he could sit down in American family’s living rooms and go through his plans with each one of them, he would. He then proceeds to succinctly explain his largest economic initiatives, all within about a minute. It is emphasized in this advertisement that Obama does not work towards partisanship, but instead works toward goals everyone could get behind.

Rather than attacking Romney, as he does in other ads, Obama focuses entirely on policy. He references how his policies pulled the country out of crisis, and that Romney’s propositions resemble those of the past that were problematic. He does not attack Romneys character at all whatsoever. This altogether makes him seem extremely competent, cool-headed, and politically aware. At the time, I am certain it is advertisements like these that largely contributed to Obama’s eventual second victory.