Dare to Disagree

In this talk, Margaret Heffernan's basic argument is that conflict is a very good means for creative thinking, because when you set out to respectfully conflict with someone, you can create something that's much stronger and well-functioning. Do you think this is always true? I wonder how this idea would play out in Taiwanese culture. First, let's look at the video:

Language and Relationships

Innuendo is indirect speech, it could also be called veiled speech.

The forms of communication where indirect speech is most often used are:

bribes
requests
seductions
solicitations
threats

Why are these veiled when both parties presumably know exactly what they mean? Because if you don't know what they mean, they don't work.
It turns out it's because we have to convey meaning while also negotiating a relationship type.

To do this people use language at two levels. They use the literal form to signal the safest relationship to the listener while counting on the listener to read between the lines to entertain a proposition that might be incompatible with that relationship

Vulnerability

We actually discussed this one before, in 2011, but I think it is a good follow up to last week's discussion.

One interesting thing about this video is that I've noticed it's consistently in the top ten suggested TED videos on the TED site, for quite a long time now. I think it's struck something in people.

Empathy, Motivation, Dishonesty

So, we're going to try a little experiment.

We're going to look at the premise of 3 separate RSA Animate talks, and spend a little time on each one.
Then, I'm hoping we can reflect on the three concepts together and see what we come up with in our concluding statements. Shall we try?


First up, is a video on empathy.
The Power of Outrospection

How to talk to little girls

First go and read this story about the author's encounter with a little girl.

What came to mind when you read it?
What comes to mind when you read the following quote?

Try this the next time you meet a little girl. She may be surprised and unsure at first, because few ask her about her mind, but be patient and stick with it. Ask her what she’s reading. What does she like and dislike, and why? There are no wrong answers. You’re just generating an intelligent conversation that respects her brain. For older girls, ask her about current events issues: pollution, wars, school budgets slashed. What bothers her out there in the world? How would she fix it if she had a magic wand? You may get some intriguing answers. Tell her about your ideas and accomplishments and your favorite books. Model for her what a thinking woman says and does. Here’s to changing the world, one little girl at a time.

Adult?

I just have two questions for you today:

How do you define somebody as an adult? What constitutes 'being an adult'?

When can you say somebody has become an adult? How old do they have to be?

Teaching people how they should treat you

I found this interesting stub of an idea on Racism 101, and I'd like to discuss it with all of you. They're posting it in the context of dealing with people who are racist towards you.

It's also related to how people deal with conflict. What's your attitude toward conflict? Do you relish it? Do you try to make everyone like you to avoid conflict at all costs?

And it's also related to our attitudes about how we should be connected to people. Like, is all connection good? For example, if you're a freelancer, should every client be held on to just because they're a client? Or in the area of personal frienships, should you stay connected to someone just because you've been friends a long time?


From Racism 101:

“We’re taught to turn the other cheek—that being kind in the face of hostility is the better way to respond to conflict so love can overcome hate. According to psychologist Clifford N. Lazarus, writing for Psychology Today, that sort of reaction just teaches abusive people that their behavior is effective. Here’s why.

It all comes down to something called the “Law of Effect”, which refers to the way people interpret and understand the behavior of others. For example, if someone treats you poorly and you treat them kindly, the effect produced by their bad behavior is your affection. By being nice to mean people, you’re essentially creating a reward system for bad behavior.

This doesn’t mean you should devolve into a complete asshole anytime you encounter one, but it is important to remember that there is such thing as being too nice. When someone does something that bothers you, it’s important to take that immediate opportunity to tell them. Being kind is often just an excuse to avoid necessary conflict. You don’t have to be a jerk, but you do have to confront the situation or risk encouraging the bad behavior you’re seeking to prevent.”

Work, But No Jobs

Here's the text in the poster, with an added note from the blogger I found this through.

How Slavery is Corrosive to All Human Beings

Last week, when talking about privilege and oppression, a question came up:

Why don't slaves 'rise up' and fight to be free?

Thinking it over this week, I began to realize that it's the same as asking, Why do slaves stay slaves? Why do they 'let themselves' be slaves?
Which is a lot like blaming someone for being dead when they are murdered. Or blaming a robbery victim for getting mugged. Or, way more accurately as a metaphor, it's like asking why women are always 'getting themselves raped'.

When you look into it, you find out that slavery as an institution is as old as civilization. Some even argue that civilization is inseparable from slavery, that literally civilization came about because people began enslaving other people. So let's first try to answer the question, "What is slavery?" How do you define slavery?

A good succinct answer:

The permanent, violent and personal domination of natally alienated and generally dishonored persons.
Orlando Patterson, Sociologist

Another way to say this is that a person is removed from the culture, society and land of her or his birth and suffers 'social death'. So you could say slaves are the walking dead. It makes you wonder about the obsession in American culture with zombies, who are literally the walking dead.

Okay, so let's look at a brief history of slavery, focusing on the Atlantic slave trade of the 19th century:

The Damage of the Damsel in Distress

The damsel in distress is a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and then must be rescued by a male character, usually providing an incentive or motivation for the protagonist’s quest.


From Damsel In Distress (Part 1):
The damsel in distress is not just a synonym for “weak”, instead it works by ripping away the power from female characters, even helpful or seemingly capable ones. No matter what we are told about their magical abilities, skills or strengths they are still ultimately captured or otherwise incapacitated and then must wait for rescue.

Distilled down to its essence, the plot device works by trading the disempowerment of female characters FOR the empowerment of male characters.

What do tests test for?

What is the point of a test? To show what the tester can do? To create a barrier? To ensure competence in the tested group? In 'Why I Let My Students Cheat On Their Game Theory Exam' the author shows us a novel way to test students and the surprising results.


An entire field of study, Game Theory, is devoted to mathematically describing the games that nature plays. Games can determine why ant colonies do what they do, how viruses evolve to exploit hosts, or how human societies organize and function.

Tests are really just measures of how the Education Game is proceeding. Professors test to measure their success at teaching, and students take tests in order to get a good grade. Might these goals be maximized simultaneously? What if I let the students write their own rules for the test-taking game? Allow them to do everything we would normally call cheating?

Men, the emotional sex

It is just patently absurd to say women are more emotional than men. Men commit 25 times the murders; it’s shocking what the numbers are. And if anyone ever sees a woman with road rage, they should write it up and send it to a medical journal. -Ben A. Barres

Men are too emotional to have a rational argument
What I want to talk about is how emotional outbursts typically more associated with men (shouting, expressing anger openly) are given a pass in public discourse in a way that emotional outbursts typically more associated with women (crying, “getting upset”) are stigmatized.
I wish to dispel the notion that women are “more emotional.” I don’t think we are. I think that the emotions women stereotypically express are what men call “emotions,” and the emotions that men typically express are somehow considered by men to be something else.
This is incorrect. Anger? EMOTION. Hate? EMOTION. Resorting to violence? EMOTIONAL OUTBURST. An irrational need to be correct when all the evidence is against you? Pretty sure that’s an emotion. Resorting to shouting really loudly when you don’t like the other person’s point of view? That’s called “being too emotional to engage in a rational discussion.”
Not only do I think men are at least as emotional as women, I think that these stereotypically male emotions are more damaging to rational dialogue than are stereotypically female emotions. A hurt, crying person can still listen, think, and speak. A shouting, angry person? That person is crapping all over meaningful discourse.