Tag Archives: Perspective

Let’s Talk About “Gays and Lesbians”: Language Matters!

On my way back from an airport drop-off this morning, I was listening to NPR. There was a news report that the Boy Scouts of America would be deciding today whether they would allow ‘gays’ to be in the Boy Scouts of America. They then spoke about the Governor of Texas and former Republican Presidential (!) candidate Rick Perry who thinks that the Boy Scouts most certainly should not change the rules. NPR then played a clip of President Obama and his position on allowing ‘gays and lesbians‘ to serve openly in the military.

All of this is starting to get really irritating.

Right now, at this moment, (unless you know me or can infer from the title of this post), you probably think I’m going to make a plea for the status quo. Well, that’s absolutely false.

Instead, I’m going to make a plea for the reporters, pundits, politicians, talking heads, and just about anybody else that we not refer to each other by a single characteristic. Gays. Lesbians. When was the last time you turned to your friend and referred to the “straight people?”

This reminds me of my days as a doctoral student in a clinical psychology PhD program. During one of our classes, I remember one of the members of my cohort make an impassioned plea that we stop referring to people by their personality disorder. Schizophrenics. Borderlines.

I can completely understand why people do it. I’ve done it. And I’m sure I’ll do it in the future (though, not intentionally, of course). It’s easier to refer to a group by saying gays and lesbians than it is people who are gay or people who have a sexual orientation different from me (as it’s usually non-gay people who are marginalizing folks who are gay and lesbian). Not only is it “easier,” but it’s the way that everyone else does it. If there were ever a reason that needed to be almost completely banned from being a reason for doing something, that would be it.

Look, I understand that most people say it like that or that it’s easier to say it that way, but do you understand what you’re doing when you refer to the “gays and lesbians” in that way? It’s dehumanizing!

How?

Well, by dissociating any other human characteristic in your description, it’s easier to marginalize and think of people who are gay/lesbian as different. It’s also easier to be more crass, harsh, and inhumane. In particular, if you think you’re talking about someone who’s not human, this’ll make it easier to, naturally, not treat these people as human.

Making this change won’t be easy. Speaking in this way is so pervasive. It’s in the immigration debate in the way we refer to people by their ethnicity. Though, even just invoking ‘immigrant’ for some folks makes it easier to be inhumane. Short tangent: I always find the immigration debate altogether strange in the US. A great majority of the people who live in the US today are descended from immigrants. Do they not remember? Do they not care? Don’t they realize that the people trying to immigrate to the US share so many characteristics with their ancestors who did the same many moons ago? I digress.

Marginalizing people by referring to one characteristic is pervasive. I should also say that categorizing people, at times, can be useful. “All the boys line up on this side of the classroom, all the girls on that side.” And that makes perfect sense. There’s utility in a lot of things (maybe not everything), but when it’s taken to the extreme, it can do harm. Categorizing, taken to its extreme, can look like marginalization and by extension, inhumanity.

It’s time we start recognizing that the way we speak has profound effects on the people around us. I’ve written before about the importance of the words that we choose and how they can have an effect on those around us, and I’d say that this discussion is an extension of that. We need to be mindful of the way we talk about people — because — they — are — people. It may seem trivial, but it’s important to remember. We’re talking about people.

So — my call to action — notice what you’re saying and how you’re saying it. Do you say people who are gay/lesbian or do you say gays/lesbians? The first step in making this kind of a change is noticing that you’re doing it.

I’ll Be Ready in 300 Seconds…

“I’ll be ready in 5 minutes…”

“Be there in 5…”

“I’m almost ready — give me 5 more minutes…”

How many times have we heard someone say 5 minutes only to have them take triple that time? A very specific measurement (5 minutes) — in my experience — has lost a great deal of its validity. That is, our understanding of 5 minutes is not universal. Five minutes to you is not always 5 minutes to me — but you’re saying to me, “this makes no sense!” Indeed. It doesn’t. And it shouldn’t. “Five minutes” is empirical. It is something we can measure. It has a specific ending. Though, it is rarely used in its proper form.

Michio Kaku had a great series on time for the BBC a few years back and one of those episodes had to do with daytime. In it, Kaku explores the concept and experience of time (on a small scale). He also explores it from the perspective of “life” time, “Earth” time, and “cosmic” time. If you get a chance, I highly recommend watching it. Back to 5 minutes, though.

As I said earlier, part of the problem with using the term “5 minutes” is because we all have a different relationship to time. Some people come from countries that are more polychronic, while others come from countries that are more monochronic. Typically, those who come from cultures that are polychronic tend to have a more fluid understanding of (and relationship to) time. Conversely, those who come from cultures that are monochronic cultures tend to have a more rigid and precise understanding of (and relationship to) time.

As a result, it is my supposition that when folks who come from contrasting cultures (with regard to time), there is bound to be a misunderstanding when using “5 minutes” as a term of measurement.

As a way around this — sometimes — I like to use the term “300 seconds.” Why 300 seconds? Well, 300 seconds is the same amount of time as 5 minutes. (Weird, eh?) But it sounds different, doesn’t it? Similarly, if I’m going to need more than 5 minutes, say 10 minutes, I might say 600 seconds. Of course, if we all start using “seconds” as a more frequent term of measurement (in this way), the same problem is likely to occur. Although, until then, I just may have a unique advantage in communicating as it relates to time.

The World — as we know it — is in its Infancy

After watching this week’s Crash Course: World History on decolonization and nationalism, I have a newfound understanding (respect?) for the current state of the world. I used to think, ‘my goodness, humans have existed for so long, why are we still fighting?’ This presupposes that the makeup of the world had stayed relatively the same. And this, of course, is wrong.

According to modern scientific thought, humans have been around for 200,000 years. I always thought that with our being around for so long, we would have ‘figured it out’ by now and would be “nice” to each other. After reading Wilber and delving into Integral Theory, it adds a unique lens on why some groups of people are different from other groups of people, with regard to their development. Still, that wasn’t enough for me to “get it.” I still thought that development should have “happened” such that we treat each other better.

It wasn’t until I watched “Decolonization and Nationalism Triumphant” yesterday afternoon that I realized how young the world is in its current form. At most, we’ve existed in this way for about 70 years. Crazy, huh? When it’s put in those terms, that’s less than a lifetime! It starts to make more sense that certain conflicts haven’t yet settled and that there is still a desire for guns.

Shutting Pitchers Down Early: A Creative Lesson in Long-Term Sustainability

I’d been meaning to write about this for the last few weeks. In fact, I first got the idea after the Washington Nationals made the playoffs for the first time in a long time. I immediately knew that there were going to be a number of articles written in trying to sway the management of the team to let Strasburg (the star pitcher) pitch in the playoffs. However, management had already decided that this particular pitcher had “reached his limit” and would no longer be pitching this season.

There are pros and cons to this, but I wanted to look at it for: “short-term gain vs. long-term sustainability.”

When we look at companies that have failed, often times, it’s because they sacrificed long-term sustainability for short-term profits. That is, they took a shortcut to make a quick buck without due consideration for how it was going to affect the company in the long-term. Or, maybe they did consider it, and just chose the short-term gains instead.

As I watched — painfully — the Nationals be eliminated from the playoffs a bit ago, I couldn’t help but reflect on this idea of short-term gains and long-term sustainability. Those folks who screamed for Strasburg to pitch kind of have a point. It’s possible that he Strasburg may get hurt at some point next season or the season after or that the Nationals will never get that opportunity to return to the playoffs. And it’s because of this that Strasburg should have been allowed to pitch.

Though, if I think about it from a ‘business’ perspective, the argument can be made that it’s best to “take care of your assets.” That is, if your company had a Ferrari, you wouldn’t necessarily overuse your Ferrari simply because you had a Ferrari. No, you would want to take care of that very expensive (and valuable) asset to reap the benefits over the long haul.

In sum, I don’t know how I would act if I were the General Manager of the Washington Nationals. However, I do think that this is a creative example in illustrating the difference between pursuing short-term gains or long-term sustainability.

The Most Important Thing: Ask Good Questions

I’ve read — . And I continue to read — . And I probably will keep reading — . From this reading (and experience) I’ve learned quite a bit. I’ve read a variety of opinions on a variety of subjects. After all of this reading, patterns start to emerge. You start to see the same thing being written, but in a different context. Or, you start to see the same thing written, but with a different twist. There are lots of different ways that people have developed to help make us perform better, be better, or feel better about ourselves. One of the things that I’m surprised I don’t see written about more often is the powerful effect of asking good questions. To me, it as to be one of the most important things you can do.

Why? Well, because in some cases, it’s all you have.

There are different scenarios where we could discuss how asking good questions serves you well: job interviews, “ask the experts,” crisis response, etc. Instead of going down that road, I want to talk about why I think asking good questions (generally) is an important thing.

There’s the idea that if you ask a good question, you may impress (unintentionally) the person you’re talking to and as a result, you may seem smarter to them than you actually are or you may be memorable. While that’s all well and good and may be a motivating factor for some to ask good questions, I’m more interested in asking good questions because I think it’s one of the unique ways that we can contribute (to the world).

As I mentioned above, I’ve done a lot of reading. As a result of that reading, I have a unique perspective on whatever conversation I’m in because it’s unlikely that there will be someone else like me in the conversation who has interacted with all the different things that I have interacted with. And so because of this, the ideas or thoughts that I may have about a given subject will likely be different from the rest of the people in the conversation. I may see connections that no one else sees or that no one else considers (but may be obvious to me because of what I know). In that sense, it’s almost like it’s my duty or obligation to come up with an intelligent question that incorporates that perspective.

I want to make it clear that I’m not advocating asking questions for the sake of asking questions. The question should still be meaningful and add value to the discussion. I’ll give you an example.

This summer, I had the chance to ask a question of the former COO of Obama for America (as he had just been hired to the organization I was working for this ). Because of this person’s unique work experience, I thought he would be able to provide perspective on organizational structure. Specifically, whether or not a “Team of Teams” approach may work in the private sector. In my question, I also made reference to the (then) at Barclay’s and JP Morgan Chase. In asking the question, my plan wasn’t to impress the person answering the question nor was it my intention to impress the crowd. In fact, the question was read as (anonymous). Ironically, after the question was read, there was a bit of a gasp from the crowd and the person answering the question sort of laughed about starting off with an “easy” one.

You Need To Seek Out Ideas and Opinions That Are Different From Your Beliefs

[Editor’s Note: This post’s title was changed on September 16th from “if you’re a conservative, tell me which liberals you read: if you’re a liberal, tell me which conservatives you read.”]

I was born and raised in Canada and really didn’t start paying attention to politics until I moved to the US, so most of my understanding of politics comes through the lens of American politics. Watching the Democrats and the Republicans fight (bicker?) year after year starts to get intolerable. As , many American agree with this sentiment.

Part of this is a result of our to seek out opinions that confirm our own previously held beliefs. That is, if one is more liberal, they are probably more inclined to watch MSNBC and/or read the New York Times. Similarly, if one is more conservative, they are probably more inclined to watch FOX News and/or read the Wall Street Journal. There’s no “good” or “bad” here, though I would .

So, if we know that we have a tendency to seek out opinions that confirm our previously held beliefs, it would behoove us to intentionally seek out opinions that we know are counter to our own! That sounds a lot easier than it actually is — especially in today’s world of RSS, Twitter, Facebook, and personalized news.

Not to pick on Facebook, but the friends you have on Facebook, more than likely, share your political affiliation. It’s just natural for us to befriend those and even if you have a few friends from the “other side,” the news that they share on Facebook will most likely: a) get drowned out by all your other friends’ sharing news; or b) won’t be elevated to the top of your newsfeed because you tended not to click on the links provided by these friends.

While I don’t think there’s anything “wrong” with it, I do think that there’s something that we should be doing about it. If you’re a conservative, there are a critical mass of people out there who think that your opinion on issues of the day are wrong. If you’re a liberal, there are a critical mass of people out there who think that your opinion on issues of the day are wrong. What are you doing to try to understand why they think your opinion is wrong?

And yes, there are things that you can do.

Lifehacker proposed to do this:

  • Get random reading content delivered to your inbox
“The easiest, no hassle way to get a random selection of news is to have it delivered right to your inbox.”
  • Automatically get different points of view for articles you read
“When you’re browsing the news it’s easy to stick with the sites you know. Sometimes that means you’re missing an entirely different point of view.”
  • Randomize your start page
“Your browser’s home page is a great place to dump interesting and random content for your accidental and automatic discovery. Obviously you don’t want to do this on your work computer in case you get distracted, but it’s a good way to discover new things when you have the time.”

~
Head on over to the for more details and specific suggestions (for your start page). There’s one more suggestion I want to make (as it’s something that I do): Twitter. Instead of just following/reading news from people/accounts that I know are similar to my previously held beliefs, I have sought out those accounts that often discuss the issues from a perspective that is not native to me. This way, I’m able to read about the news from an entirely different perspective and from one that I may not have considered were it not for someone giving words to it.

So, I ask: if you’re a conservative, tell me who are the liberals that you read — if you’re a liberal, tell me who are the conservatives that you read.

Operation Cat Drop: A Lesson in Externalities or Unintended Consequences

In the last 3+ months, I’ve been meaning to write a post about “.” With my recent “” of having to write an “article,” I feel more comfortable recounting the story and adding a few of my ideas to the post. For those unfamiliar with the story of Operation Cat Drop, here’s a that has collected many versions of the story. According to said site, there are at least  of the story. Regardless of the number of variants on the story there are and the , the lessons from the story still stand. Here’s a brief account found on :

In the early 1950s, there was an outbreak of a serious disease called malaria amongst the Dayak people in Borneo. The World Health Organization tried to solve the problem. They sprayed large amounts of a chemical called DDT to kill the mosquitoes that carried the malaria. The mosquitoes died and there was less malaria. That was good. However, there were side effects. One of the first effects was that the roofs of people’s houses began to fall down on their heads. It turned out that the DDT was also killing a parasitic wasp that ate thatch-eating caterpillars. Without the wasps to eat them, there were more and more thatch-eating caterpillars. Worse than that, the insects that died from being poisoned by DDT were eaten by gecko lizards, which were then eaten by cats. The cats started to die, the rats flourished, and the people were threatened by outbreaks of two new serious diseases carried by the rats, sylvatic plague and typhus. To cope with these problems, which it had itself created, the World Health Organization had to parachute live cats into Borneo.

The coincidental nature (for me) of having wanted to write this post so many times in the last few months is striking. Two of my most recent submissions for coursework have involved me explaining: 1) unintended consequences and 2) externalities. They are, essentially, the same thing, but has a history in the economics literature. My point in raising the story about dropping cats into Borneo is that it’s very important to consider the ramifications of the actions being taken.

That’s not to say that those folks who were involved in Operation Cat Drop (if there was one) didn’t think about the unintended consequences or (externalities) of what they were doing, but just to illustrate the importance of these concepts. A perspective that takes into account the “whole system” would — at a minimum — consider the possibility of externalities and unintended consequences. I think that as the world grows closer together (read: ) it is vital that decisions take into account even disparate connections.

John Green’s Crash Course in World History

If it wasn’t clear from my series of “,” I would think that one of on the course would lead one to believe that I enjoy learning. (One might also point to my bachelor’s degree and two master’s degrees!) In addition to Prof. Sandel’s course, I’ve also been watching another course online: .

is an author (; ) and one half of the . John and his brother Hank post YouTube videos couched in the form of a conversation to each other. It’s very accessible. Hank has a . There are a number of other dedicated YouTube channels to different things that John & Hank talk about: , , and .

Back to Crash Course World History: , I really think that people should have a basic understanding of world history. If that’s too much to ask, I think that I would like to have a basic understanding of world history. Especially because of my inclination to take a ‘systems perspective to things,’ (look for a post on this soon!) I think that having an understanding of the macrolevel events that led to today can help us (me?) gain a better understanding of where we might be headed in the future. If nothing else, it serves as ‘trial and error’ of what’s happened in the past, so as to avoid (or at least attempt to avoid) doing in the future.

The crash course in World History is not yet complete. John Green posts a new one each week. He intends to post 40 episodes and as of this post, he’s posted only 19. That means, there’s still a lot of world history to get to! Each video is approximately 10 minutes long and there tends to be a lot of information crammed in. One is often encouraged to watch the videos more than once and I must say, I’ve definitely done this.

For those interested, here’s the first episode:

~

~

Watch Your Favorite Team: From The Other Side

Truth be told: when I first started blogging here and I wrote down a bunch of categories that I thought I would write about, I thought I would have a harder time writing articles that weren’t about . Today’s post will be my 10th in the sports category, which is still 7 behind the and categories (both have 17 each), and last among the 11 categories here at Genuine Thriving.

Six or seven years ago, I was at a sports lounge watching one of my favorite teams play. There was something different this time, though. Instead of watching my team on the “home” network where I usually watched them, I was watching them on the network of the other team. At first, this might not seem like anything special, but as I continued to watch the game on this network, I noticed something: a home-team bias. The odd thing: it wasn’t a bias for ‘my’ team.

It was a home-team bias for the “other” team. And it was pretty blatant, too. There was a controversial call (and it was really close), but the announcers were saying that it was an “easy” call in favor of their team. At first, I was a little surprised that they could be so biased. I always thought that announcers were supposed to be “unbiased” or at least not display their biases, while on-air.

A little while back, I wrote about . The quote to start that post was from a scientist who has won a Nobel prize for his work in this area: “You will learn from others around you being skeptical more than you will learn by becoming skeptical.”

This may take a bit of abstraction, but let’s think about how we can apply this to the scenario of watching your favorite team from the ‘other’ side. Typically, the announcers for your favorite team will develop a relationship with the players on said team. When announcing, they may display (unintentional) biases towards your team. However, if you were watching on the other team’s network, the announcers just might see things that the home-team announcers won’t (because of their biases).

I realize that it’s not always possible (or easy) to get a hold of the opposing team’s broadcast of the game. However, I would encourage you to try it once or twice. The first few times I did it, I learned some interesting things about ‘my’ team. Why? Mostly because announcers like to supply “interesting facts” about the opposing team. As a result, I learned things about ‘my’ team that I wouldn’t have ever heard had I only ever listened to the regular broadcast.

I know that for some sports, this really isn’t possible. For American football, the games are usually nationally televised on either FOX or CBS, so there isn’t a blatant bias by the announcers for one team or the other. However, for sports like hockey, baseball, and basketball, there are usually local broadcasters for the game.

Today (and Yesterday), It Snowed in Washington, DC

This morning, I woke up to some light flurries in the Metro DC area, but what I really want to talk about is . I spent most of the day in the office and the blinds weren’t open. I happened to leave the office and catch a glimpse of the outside — snow — lots of it. This is my first time living in the DC area and everything I’ve been told about living here is that snow is (not common). Having grown up in Canada and spent a great deal of time living in places where there are , the snow didn’t bother nor affect me, really — or so I thought.

As I understand the importance of , I make a point of working out. I also had a few errands that I needed to take care of. I started the car and then dusted off the snow, which was rather wet and heavy, before pulling out of the driveway and heading down the road. I live in a place where I have to drive on a two-lane road for about 5 miles (in nearly all directions) before there are lanes with which I can legally pass someone.

About 1.5 miles into the trip, I came upon a school bus. I know that school buses typically will go near (or less) than the speed limit on this particular two-lane road, so when the school bus was going ~30mph on a 45mph road, I still didn’t think too much of it. I made it to the end of the road, turned onto a road with two lanes (in both directions), and accelerated to the speed limit, before engaging cruise control. After about 2.5 miles, I “caught up” to traffic.

It wasn’t that there was a lot of volume, no. It was just that everyone was going particularly slow. At first, I grew a little frustrated with this, which is understandable. I grew up in the . Heck, we even once had to (twice!) because there was so much of it. Suffice to say, I’m comfortable driving in snow. Moments after my frustration grew, it subsided. I quickly realized that these people were probably nowhere nearly as comfortable as I was driving in the snow. Once I arrived at this state of compassion, my frustration disappeared. I eventually was able to move around the crowd and drive at the speed limit, but that’s not the point I want to highlight.

The first point, compassion. By putting myself in the shoes of the other drivers, I fostered a sense of compassion for their situation. Not only compassion, but empathy. I, too, (of course), had once never driven in snow and had to learn how a car behaved in the snow.

The second point, perspective. I would gather that a fair number of the drivers out on the roads in DC yesterday were not expecting to get into their cars after work to be greeted by a snowstorm. When they were, there could have been any number of reactions. Some may have cursed the snow because they wanted to make it home (or to the sports lounge) to see the college football national championship. Some may have wanted to race home to see their family. For others, the snow presented an opportunity to assume a new perspective on their situation. As I said earlier, snow is not a common occurrence in this part of the world. .