Creative approaches to today’s issues
This morning while at the gym I listened to two Ted talks. The first was one by Reshma Saujani entitled “Teach girls bravery, not perfection” and the second was by Caleb Harper, “This computer will grow your food in the future.”
Ms. Saujani says that research shows that one of the reasons females are underrepresented in STEM, C-suites, in boardrooms, and in Congress is that they are socialized to be perfect and, thus, are very cautious. She understands cautious to be the opposite of brave. She reminds us that many professions require one to take risks and thus, to be okay with making many mistakes. In 2012 she started a company to teach girls to code. She says,”…by teaching them to be code I had socialized them to be brave. Coding is an endless process of trial and error…So in 2012 , we taught 20 girls. This year we’ll each 40,000 in all 50 states.”
Caleb Harper is the director of CitiFARM at the MIT Media Lab. He and his team work on developing food computers. They began to study the fact that the time from picking an apple, for example, to purchasing and eating it is 11 months. He says “Ninety percent of the quality of that apple -- all of the antioxidants -- are gone by the time we get it. It's basically a little ball of sugar. How did we get so information poor and how can we do better? He and his colleagues asked themselves, “What if ... we built a digital farm? A digital world farm. What if you could take this apple, digitize it somehow, send it through particles in the air and reconstitute it on the other side? What if?”
Actually he is not going to actually digitize it and send it through particles in the air, but, “So into the world now. Personal food computers, food servers and food data centers run on the open phenome. Think open genome, but we're going to put little climate recipes, like Wikipedia, that you can pull down, actuate and grow.”
One can listen to the Ted talks by both of these individuals and/or do one’s own research about the amazing creative, positive work that folks such as Mr. Harper and Ms. Saujani are doing.
What they are not doing is standing back and criticizing others for what they are doing or not doing. For me, one of the attractions of the Ted Talks, which I admit are an addiction, is the fact that they are talks by people who take a positive, creative approach to problem solving and enriching the lives of themselves and others. They are not building more effective weapons of mass destruction and using them to attempt to decimate the people they label as enemies. They are not spending energy on suggesting that folks attempting other approaches are bad people or have stupid solutions. They are upbeat, positive individuals who do not even mention those taking more negative approaches.
I ask myself, what is to prevent we humans from taking a more positive approach to world conflict, negative political campaigns, and other social issues? From my very limited perspective it seems to me that X does something. Y perceives this as negative and criticizes X. C who a supporter of Y criticizes Y. X then uses this as justification or further criticism of Y who then further criticizes ... One can quickly grasp the pattern and see why negative leads to more negative which leads to more negative. If Ms. Saujani spent her time and energy lambasting we males as sexist pigs who do not encourage the females to be brave, we poor males would probably get defensive and then criticize the whining, critical females who…
A good example is the fact that number of “establishment” politicians such as Mr. Romney have criticized the presidential candidate Mr. Trump and, by association, his supporters. Mr. Trump and his supporters then criticize those criticizing he and his supporters who in turn… The result is that Mr. Trump and his supporters are able to say, “See I told you that we are being disrespected and that it is up to us to look out for our concerns and interests. Ergo, a stronger, more confident Mr. Trump and more determined supporters will turn out more voters.
I suspect that the approach to dealing with ISIS and others that we label as enemies is to offer attractive alternatives. In order to do that we must follow the example of those who give Ted Talks. Their approach is:
Identify the issue one wants to address. In the case of Ms. Saujani, she could have labeled the problem as we sexist males, the education system, the profit motive of those who make Barbie dolls, or the mothers who taught their daughters by example to be cautious. Instead she labeled the problem as not teaching females to be brave.
Design a solution which directly addresses the need. Ms. Sunjani designed a practical method for both teaching bravery and a very usable and useful skill. Mr. Harper and his colleagues are designing a practical way to grow food in any season in any part of the world. He and his colleagues are now addressing the issues of cost and practicality.
If we want to problem solve issues which are of paramount concern to the angry, disaffected voters who see Mr. Trump as their advocate or to those who are attracted to ISIS and similar groups, we have to offer a more practical, positive approach to their concerns. Homeboy Industries was part of the alternative to living a dangerous, destructive life as a Los Angeles Gang Member. Father Boyle and those working with him did not begin by criticizing the gangs leaders or members, the drug trade, or the rituals demanding that young gang members prove themselves. He and those working with him offered a positive, listening ear and then found ways to address the needs and concerns of those to whom they listened.
Recently there was a column in the Tampa Tribune which some readers read as calling Trump and his supporters gullible, hate filled, and racist. This morning, March 9, 2016, in the editorial section of the same paper there were three outraged Trump supporters more determined than ever to support Mr. Trump. This is not surprising to me. I suspect that these three letters represent a multitude of Trump supporters. If some people are already feeling as if their concerns are not being addressed by the other candidates, why in the world would one think that telling them that they are bad people whose concerns are not important, make them feel better?
If one believes that there are better alternatives than those being offered by Mr. Trump, then one must accurately identify the concerns of those who are attracted to his approach. From my perspective those concerns seems to be:
There are not enough decent jobs and other resources for the average person to support one’s family.
There seems to be more concern for the illegal immigrant than there is the citizen born in this country who has worked hard or who is willing to work hard.
The values which made this country great are no longer respected. It is not the country our founding fathers intended.
These are just a few of the emotional issues which many believe that Mr. Trump will address. What is the truth? Some of the truths are:
The jobs which helped many achieve the dream they had learned to trust – union coal mining manufacturing, and similar well-paying jobs which did not require college but may have been highly skilled - are no longer available.
Working hard and sending one kids to college so that they can have a better life is no longer possible for the average person.
Problems which used to be handled by families or more informally are now legislated and handled by law enforcement. Individuals often feel as if they no longer have any important role to play in the family or in the community.
The world is less safe and there are more attempts to take away the rights of the average person to protect himself and his family.
Father Boyle and others working with gang members in Los Angeles did not tell gang members that Homeboy industries could pay the same income one could make on the street selling drugs. That would have been dishonest and everyone would have known that.
We live in a vastly different world than the one envisioned by the founding fathers of this country. There is no turning back. Along with the rest of the world, we have to redesign how we are going to live and work together. The truth is that we can grieve the loss of what was and use our very creative selves to learn to listen to and together redesign the Brave New World in which we find ourselves. Our only hope of doing this is to take the concerns of the various individuals very seriously and not engage in name called which only validates their belief that “the establishment” does not care about their concerns. We can do this if we treat everyone with respect and address concerns honestly and realistically We need to follow the positive approach of those represented at the Ted Talks.
Written March 9, 2016
This morning while at the gym I listened to two Ted talks. The first was one by Reshma Saujani entitled “Teach girls bravery, not perfection” and the second was by Caleb Harper, “This computer will grow your food in the future.”
Ms. Saujani says that research shows that one of the reasons females are underrepresented in STEM, C-suites, in boardrooms, and in Congress is that they are socialized to be perfect and, thus, are very cautious. She understands cautious to be the opposite of brave. She reminds us that many professions require one to take risks and thus, to be okay with making many mistakes. In 2012 she started a company to teach girls to code. She says,”…by teaching them to be code I had socialized them to be brave. Coding is an endless process of trial and error…So in 2012 , we taught 20 girls. This year we’ll each 40,000 in all 50 states.”
Caleb Harper is the director of CitiFARM at the MIT Media Lab. He and his team work on developing food computers. They began to study the fact that the time from picking an apple, for example, to purchasing and eating it is 11 months. He says “Ninety percent of the quality of that apple -- all of the antioxidants -- are gone by the time we get it. It's basically a little ball of sugar. How did we get so information poor and how can we do better? He and his colleagues asked themselves, “What if ... we built a digital farm? A digital world farm. What if you could take this apple, digitize it somehow, send it through particles in the air and reconstitute it on the other side? What if?”
Actually he is not going to actually digitize it and send it through particles in the air, but, “So into the world now. Personal food computers, food servers and food data centers run on the open phenome. Think open genome, but we're going to put little climate recipes, like Wikipedia, that you can pull down, actuate and grow.”
One can listen to the Ted talks by both of these individuals and/or do one’s own research about the amazing creative, positive work that folks such as Mr. Harper and Ms. Saujani are doing.
What they are not doing is standing back and criticizing others for what they are doing or not doing. For me, one of the attractions of the Ted Talks, which I admit are an addiction, is the fact that they are talks by people who take a positive, creative approach to problem solving and enriching the lives of themselves and others. They are not building more effective weapons of mass destruction and using them to attempt to decimate the people they label as enemies. They are not spending energy on suggesting that folks attempting other approaches are bad people or have stupid solutions. They are upbeat, positive individuals who do not even mention those taking more negative approaches.
I ask myself, what is to prevent we humans from taking a more positive approach to world conflict, negative political campaigns, and other social issues? From my very limited perspective it seems to me that X does something. Y perceives this as negative and criticizes X. C who a supporter of Y criticizes Y. X then uses this as justification or further criticism of Y who then further criticizes ... One can quickly grasp the pattern and see why negative leads to more negative which leads to more negative. If Ms. Saujani spent her time and energy lambasting we males as sexist pigs who do not encourage the females to be brave, we poor males would probably get defensive and then criticize the whining, critical females who…
A good example is the fact that number of “establishment” politicians such as Mr. Romney have criticized the presidential candidate Mr. Trump and, by association, his supporters. Mr. Trump and his supporters then criticize those criticizing he and his supporters who in turn… The result is that Mr. Trump and his supporters are able to say, “See I told you that we are being disrespected and that it is up to us to look out for our concerns and interests. Ergo, a stronger, more confident Mr. Trump and more determined supporters will turn out more voters.
I suspect that the approach to dealing with ISIS and others that we label as enemies is to offer attractive alternatives. In order to do that we must follow the example of those who give Ted Talks. Their approach is:
Identify the issue one wants to address. In the case of Ms. Saujani, she could have labeled the problem as we sexist males, the education system, the profit motive of those who make Barbie dolls, or the mothers who taught their daughters by example to be cautious. Instead she labeled the problem as not teaching females to be brave.
Design a solution which directly addresses the need. Ms. Sunjani designed a practical method for both teaching bravery and a very usable and useful skill. Mr. Harper and his colleagues are designing a practical way to grow food in any season in any part of the world. He and his colleagues are now addressing the issues of cost and practicality.
If we want to problem solve issues which are of paramount concern to the angry, disaffected voters who see Mr. Trump as their advocate or to those who are attracted to ISIS and similar groups, we have to offer a more practical, positive approach to their concerns. Homeboy Industries was part of the alternative to living a dangerous, destructive life as a Los Angeles Gang Member. Father Boyle and those working with him did not begin by criticizing the gangs leaders or members, the drug trade, or the rituals demanding that young gang members prove themselves. He and those working with him offered a positive, listening ear and then found ways to address the needs and concerns of those to whom they listened.
Recently there was a column in the Tampa Tribune which some readers read as calling Trump and his supporters gullible, hate filled, and racist. This morning, March 9, 2016, in the editorial section of the same paper there were three outraged Trump supporters more determined than ever to support Mr. Trump. This is not surprising to me. I suspect that these three letters represent a multitude of Trump supporters. If some people are already feeling as if their concerns are not being addressed by the other candidates, why in the world would one think that telling them that they are bad people whose concerns are not important, make them feel better?
If one believes that there are better alternatives than those being offered by Mr. Trump, then one must accurately identify the concerns of those who are attracted to his approach. From my perspective those concerns seems to be:
There are not enough decent jobs and other resources for the average person to support one’s family.
There seems to be more concern for the illegal immigrant than there is the citizen born in this country who has worked hard or who is willing to work hard.
The values which made this country great are no longer respected. It is not the country our founding fathers intended.
These are just a few of the emotional issues which many believe that Mr. Trump will address. What is the truth? Some of the truths are:
The jobs which helped many achieve the dream they had learned to trust – union coal mining manufacturing, and similar well-paying jobs which did not require college but may have been highly skilled - are no longer available.
Working hard and sending one kids to college so that they can have a better life is no longer possible for the average person.
Problems which used to be handled by families or more informally are now legislated and handled by law enforcement. Individuals often feel as if they no longer have any important role to play in the family or in the community.
The world is less safe and there are more attempts to take away the rights of the average person to protect himself and his family.
Father Boyle and others working with gang members in Los Angeles did not tell gang members that Homeboy industries could pay the same income one could make on the street selling drugs. That would have been dishonest and everyone would have known that.
We live in a vastly different world than the one envisioned by the founding fathers of this country. There is no turning back. Along with the rest of the world, we have to redesign how we are going to live and work together. The truth is that we can grieve the loss of what was and use our very creative selves to learn to listen to and together redesign the Brave New World in which we find ourselves. Our only hope of doing this is to take the concerns of the various individuals very seriously and not engage in name called which only validates their belief that “the establishment” does not care about their concerns. We can do this if we treat everyone with respect and address concerns honestly and realistically We need to follow the positive approach of those represented at the Ted Talks.
Written March 9, 2016
RSS Feed