Televised Politics: Presentation Skills

The presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was a major event of the 20th century.  This debate on September 26, 1960 marked television's grand and lasting entrance into presidential politics.  It was the first chance for so many potential voters to actually see their candidates in competition.  Studies after this televised event found that the audience of 70 million claimed by a large margin that Kennedy was the winner of the debate.  In contrast, the debate's radio audience claimed that Nixon was the winner.  At the time, Nixon was just released from two weeks in the hospital, was underweight, and refused to wear make-up to brighten his image.  Kennedy on the other hand looked confident, tan, and well-rested.

Many concluded from this that those who tuned into the debate via television were focused on what they saw rather than what was actually said.  Kennedy looked better and had a more smooth, charismatic feel about him.  His appearance a difference.  Does that mean that televising politics is wrong? No.

Televising politics really did change the nature of presidential politics.  It has been a technological advancement responsible for an increase of informed participation in the political process.  Also, the importance of personal image has become a more important factor for candidates which I believe is not necessarily a bad thing.  As the world is inevitably becoming more televised and globalized.  How a politician presents him or herself is important in making negotiations, addressing the public, and bringing confidence to a nation. How a person presents him or herself is completely different than physical appearance, but sadly physical appearance has become an unavoidable determining characteristic for politicians as well.

Also, there is a fine line between presenting oneself well and being a flatterer.  The Book of Mormon was truly written for our day.  In Mosiah 11:7 it says,

   

"..they were deceived by the vain and flattering words of the king and priests; for they did speak flattering things unto them."

When I think of general authorities for the church, I think that not necessarily every one of them is the most handsome man to walk the earth (don't get me wrong, I think they are all great) but they are all do a fine job of presenting themselves.  They don't tell us things just because that is what we want to hear.  They aren't flatterers.  We can look for the presenters without choosing flatterers.

Televised politics allows voters to recognize presenting skills of candidates which is an important consideration for candidates which is hopefully prioritized after considerations of actual issues.  Although presentation skills are important for politicians, they are all too often weighted too heavily.  We should be aware that televising politics is virtually unavoidable and creates both positive and negative effects in regard to informing voters.  

Below is a link of a YouTube video called "BUSH: The 10 most stupid moments of his life."  If these were my top 10 most stupid moments, I would be proud of myself.  However, it does have to do with the importance of self-presentation and composure in political office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D4uAW_3Gjg

Digital Use and Abuse

Due to the recent devotional on Valentine's Day, I have been considering my use of digital technology.  I've been considering my usage time and my usage purposes.  I feel that God has willingly allowed us to grow in our digital technologies exponentially.  There is, however, opposition in all things.  It is important to reflect on our own usage, and not just eliminate it completely.  I know people have talked about this many times from our class, but it is a topic that takes personal realization to have any real impact.  From what I have learned, my argument is similar to that of David A. Bednar's which is expressed in the video below: Digital technologies, like all of God's gifts, can be used resourcefully and abused wastefully, so we need to assess ourselves accordingly.

David A. Bednar.  "Things as They Really Are."  Mormon Messages.

From an LDS standpoint we often view the internet as a potential good technology because it can be used for family history/genealogy, and we view it as a potential bad technology because it can be used for the viewing of pornographic images.  These potentials are both obvious and extreme in opposite directions.  It is important for us to recognize everything in between.  

The following link shows the most popular internet activities.  If you view this table you will see that the vast majority of these activities can be done productively and appropriately.  I have come to find that reflecting on and accordingly adjusting these various activities based on their real use can go a long way.  On my last blog post alone I got distracted while researching and ended up checking Facebook twice and watching four completely unrelated YouTube videos.  I knew this was a problem and that is part of the reason I am writing this.

I have had my Facebook account since the summer of 2008.  I have been on it enough to know its potential for bluntly both good and evil.  It really can be evil in that misuse of it will lead to wasted irreplaceable time.  It leads to missed opportunities to do so many more important things in our limited mortal existence.  It is a sin, most often of omission, but a sin nonetheless, to not take advantage of the gift of this earthly life that our Father in heaven has provided for each of us.  That being said, there are also several great capabilities made easy through Facebook, and they are valuable enough to possibly prevent me from ever deleting my account.  From keeping up with the colleges my high school friends get into, to seeing pictures of family members back home, to knowing about upcoming events, there is no doubt that we can utilize it appropriately.  But too much of a good thing isn't always good anyway.  The following infographic-style video hits on how widespread Facebook usage is.  (Usually I don't include two videos in one post)

( http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/facebook-statistics-stats-facts-2011/ )

Today is the day that I put StayFocused on my Google Chrome browser.  I am starting by limiting my time on Facebook to 10 minutes a day.  It is will actually be hard for me on some days, but I know it is a good start.  I have had friends who said it was very helpful, and it improved their productivity significantly.  I would pass on their recommend to you for any site you could definitely use some limited time on.

I also want to illustrate that improvements of digital technology are gifts from God.  With everything that God gives us comes the opportunity to use and abuse through agency.  He gives us the ability to reproduce and people abuse that.  He has allowed us to have cars, and people drive recklessly or avoid exercise.  He has allowed us to have drugs for medical purposes, and people abuse them.  All of his gifts to us can be abused, but that does not mean that we should not ever use them.  Just think of all the capabilities that recent improvements in digital technology can have on spreading the gospel and improving the lives of saints.  I think this is just as true as how God led the Reformation in order to make the world readier to accept the restored gospel.  In Preach My Gospel it says,

“After centuries of spiritual darkness, truth-seeking men and women protested against the current religious practices. They recognized that many of the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel had been changed or lost. They sought for greater spiritual light, and many spoke of the need for a restoration of truth. They did not claim, however, that God had called them to be a prophet. Instead, they tried to reform teachings and practices that they believed had been changed or corrupted. Their efforts led to the organization of many Protestant churches. This Reformation resulted in an increased emphasis on religious freedom, which opened the way for the final Restoration.”

The Reformation was a medium in which the earth was prepared for the gospel, and improvements in digital technology are a medium in which the gospel is able to spread.

Just to clarify, I really enjoyed Elder Bednar's words on this topic that I shared at the beginning of this post, and if you get anything at all from this post, you should get it from him.

Gamification on a personal level

Gamification has caused a lot of conversation recently.  At first glance, some may feel that it creates unbalanced priorities, but I feel that it can serve as a motivation to do something that we already know is good.

Nike set up Nike+ which is program set up to track running.  Nike+ gathers this information and creates competition between runners which can lead to more running. http://nikerunning.nike.com/nikeos/p/nikeplus/en_US/what_is_nike_plus

The examples we have been using including the one above have been mostly involving how influential gamification can be in promoting desirable behavior in others.  We have seen how gamification works in social causes, businesses, and other ways.  In addition to using gamification to impact others, I think we should use it on ourselves.  Are we smart enough to make ourselves think that something otherwise ordinary or even boring can be fun?  I think we are, and we do this maybe more than we think we do.  We can have our personal burdens made light with gamification.

Some examples I thought of are probably more obvious than you could be thinking.  Some fall more under the umbrella of gamification than others.

1)Music/Dance
The first example for this I thought of was in cleaning.  Those of us in apartments or dorms may or may not have as much cleaning to worry about as previously, but we still have to do it, and it takes time.  Cleaning is a physical activity that for many is made easier by the accompaniment of music.  If you're brave enough you can even dance as you clean.  

2)Make it a Contest (yes, even with yourself)
When out grocery shopping, try to beat your savings records.  Make it a contest with yourself by seeing how well you can track down deals at the supermarket and beat your previous record.  It can be fun and save you money.

3)Keep a Progress Chart
I have about five progress charts hanging up on my bulletin board in my bedroom.  They are each for various projects or goals.  Whenever I accomplish specific tasks, I mark off my progress.  I also have occasional checkpoints that constitute a personal reward.  Despite how pathetic, that may sound, it works.  One result of this is that I can keep up on long-term projects and avoid my usual procrastination.  Making a point system to reward oneself is also beneficial.

4)Role Play
Do you have a hefty, dry slice of reading to do for a class?  Read it in an accent, either in your head or out loud.  This may be my favorite of the list.  It can keep you alert and entertained while reading.  You have to make a more conscientious effort to focus on the words and the flow of words, which for me at least increases my understanding.  Accents can be fun without being offensive.  And why not simultaneously work on your Australian accent as you read?  Such a skill could score countless dates.  (Don't do that.)

5)Make it Artistic
Try to make a cheap and ordinary meal look exquisite.


6)Develop a Rhythm
Really redundant and monotonous tasks can be done to a rhythm.  I associate this technique more with physical tasks.  Maybe with sweeping, hammering nails, or painting a wall.  If you can get a rhythm in place, your effort can be less conscious.

7)Do it with a Friend
Misery loves company?

8)Unnecessary Rules
A lot of times when I go up large sets of stairs, like going up the RB stairs when I'm out for a run, I make it a rule that I have to skip every other stair.  It makes me think less of the climb without actually lessening the climb.

There are definitely other categories and great specific examples that you may have to gamify the not-so-fun parts of life.  There are plenty of examples other than and better than the ones I brainstormed.  Share them and use them, they can really help.  I have tried a couple of these techniques in my life recently, and I'm interested in any more others could come up with.  It truly is very effective and I think we should consider incorporating this more to a personal level.

Consumers of Creavitity

Our globe is an interconnected weaving of peoples and cultures.  With constantly improving technologies, we gain access to sources of culture from virtually anywhere.  With this wonderful accessibility comes a price, however.  We feel less of a need to create, and we limit our scope of what we feel creativity is.

When culture is readily available to us, we tend to refrain from creating additional culture.  We feel no need since it is so readily available to us.  Overall, there have been some who continue to be creative while the rest of us devolve to simple consumers of culture.  I read about this phenomenon in the book Remix by Lawrence Lessig about three weeks ago, but it has since stood out to me.  This tragedy is preventable, especially at an individual level.  One may argue as well that it can be prevented at a more societal level with education reform, but I won't go into that now.  I absolutely loved the clip of President Uchtdorf talking about creativity that was shown in class.  In it he said,  


"The desire to create is one of the deepest yearnings of the human soul.  No matter our talents, education, backgrounds or abilities, we each have an inherent wish to create something that did not exist before.  Everyone can create.  You don’t need money, position, or influence in order to create something of substance or beauty.  You might say, I am not the creative type.   If that is how you feel, think again.  Creation is your opportunity in this life….. Start small.  Creativity does not require a brush, a pen, or the keys of a piano.   Don’t let the voice of critics paralyze you.  You will make the World a better place.  Improve, beautify, extend, smile, cultivate, develop, create."

These are truly inspiring words coming from one of God's special witnesses, and I like it so much that I had to include the whole thing.  All too often, some of us choose to be only the beholder rather than the artist, when in reality we are artists at birth.  We have more tools to create readily available to us than any generation has ever had.  What we need to do is wake up from our sluggish ways.  There are already  some who are making so much use of the tools available, and they are able to accomplish so much.  From virtual choirs to improved farming methods, we've seen it all.  No. We haven't seen it all.  That's the point.  We think we have witnessed so much creativity from others that we refuse to.  I wanted to list out some examples of creativity, but I couldn't.  It's whatever we make of it, and enumeration is part of the problem.  Too many feel that creativity can only be music, drawing, interior design, engineering, or writing.  This is a bold claim, but there is not an aspect of our lives that we cannot be creative in.

 In a TED Talk "Creativity is the process of having original ideas that have value", Sir Ken Robinson used statistics from the chart above which measures divergent thinking.  Divergent thinking is a measure of creativity and is defined as thinking in an unusual and unstereotyped way to generate several possible solutions to a problem.  Different age groups were measured for this characteristic, and Kindergartners outscored other age groups by a long shot.  Robinson suggests this is due to our education system.  I however, think it is based more on two other factors: 1)the increase in conformity as we age and 2)our access to culture.  Both, as I stated earlier are preventable at a personal level.  Also, the first factor may even be a result of the second.  We can choose to break the trend for ourselves and invite others to do the same.

 In a somewhat related note, We value the gems that we dig for. As consumers of culture, we cannot adequately appreciate what we consume without being familiar with the process of creating.  When we've gone through the process for ourselves, we realize what it takes to create.  It causes us to understand the rigor of the means.  Otherwise, we only take in the end result without being able to properly determine the value of the work of others.  

Educational Foundations

Many brilliant people believe they are not.  What is it that gets some kids into good colleges and others not?  Okay, so they are supposedly smart students and hard workers, but how did they get that way?  Motivation plays the largest factor.  The second 16th century group's presentation got me thinking.

Our education system is structured in a way that makes assumptions about students.  These assumptions can alter the willingness or the self-confidence necessary to demonstrate capabilities.  Additionally, it is often hard to say that capabilities are even being assessed properly.  I feel that one evidence of such assumptions is the implementation of forced bell-shaped curves.  A forced bell curve is a literal manifestation of how some are expected to excel while others lag behind, when in reality all within reason can excel.  There is no doubt that students need to be prepared for an economically competitive world, but it is my belief that a child's educational foundation should be first based on competition with oneself rather than with others.  Comparison with others can promote progress for some in the group, but comparison with oneself can promote progress in all.  Children are already too caught up enough in how they compare to their peers, so why would we contribute to this eminent problem at this stage in their lives?  With a self-actualizing foundation at a young age, individuals can have the base they need to compete with others in the competitive society of today.

Children start their first years of school at different educational levels from one another.  I feel this is due partly to personal capabilities but also significantly due to different parenting methods.  I'm not going to crack open the nature vs. nurture egg, so just assume that both are contributors.  Our educational system needs to do a better job at addressing these immediate differences in starting points by not completely swamping children with ending points.  Ending points are great when they do not expect too much or too little

If my ideas are starting to sound anti-capitalist, let me explain.  I am certainly not factoring out personal agency as a determinate of personal educational progress.  In fact, in the majority of cases, individuals definitely carry the most massive portion of their futures in learning.  However, this just means that it is the role of educational systems to develop an environment that promotes good educational choices since the choices cannot be made for them.

"No such thing bad student, only bad teacher" were Mr. Miyagi's famous words.  I agree with this but only because I believe that the student has a partial role as the teacher as well, and this role is his agency.  An instructor or educational system can do everything in its capability, but at some point agency is has to come into play.  Jesus was the perfect teacher, yet his 'students' were not.  But they CAN become perfected through Him.

A quote from my book about Isaac Newton stood out to me.  Newton wrote in a letter to Robert Hooke, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."  Among other things, this says to me is that not only does education prosper when it's not competitive between individuals, but education does prosper when it is collaborative between individuals.

Be sure to check out Changing Education Paradigms  if you haven't already!

Also, this is Wikipedia but the tab "Educational Economies in the 19th Century" gives a great description of the inequality within solely private educational systems.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_reform

Can it be?

In my presentation on Thursday I brought up the idea of "I want to help" vs. "This cannot be."  I really like this ideology by Thomas Clark (it's not actually a quote by him, just a summary of this thoughts).  I used it in regards to openness, but there is a great variety of issues in which it could be used.  These issues can range from a long wait in a supermarket check-out line to the barbaric practice of slavery.  I will therefore be somewhat general at times in talking about these mindsets.


I feel with this ideology, there really is an option.  Not all issues will be nor should be answered with "This cannot be."  It is not the go-to answer.  It is a personal responsibility to evaluate whether support is appropriate and to evaluate which mindset is appropriate.  The issues that are answered with "This cannot be" are ones in which the a current characteristic of society is unacceptable compared to potential alternatives.

The analogy I think of for this, which was not actually all that controversial, is the initial usage of tin cans in the early 19th century.  The tin can was one of the great inventions of this period that even now has widespread usage.  Its obvious use was to increase food preservation efficiency, and the first tin can was patented in 1810, yet the first can opener was patented in 1858.  For decades, tin cans were opened with knives, chisels, or through other creative manners.  Yes, people could get their cans open, but why would anyone hack at a can with a knife when they could use something as simple as a can opener?  In this analogy the "I want to help" mindset would be to realize how hard it is to efficiently open cans and react by becoming good at opening cans with a knife.  The "this cannot be" mindset would be to realize that there has got to be an easier way and seeking for the way to do so.  I recognize that this is only one of the many ways


Both mindsets can potentially be supportive of revolution, but the "this cannot be's" tend to be the real leaders and pushers of movements.  These are those who stick it to the man.  But, are these revolutionaries anything without the "helpers" of the cause?  And when do the helpers become merely blind followers rather than reserved supporters?  


Revolution is word with a large range of possible connotations.  It can be perfectly noble or utterly wicked.  This reminds me too easily of the Matthew 7:18&20
          
           18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  
          20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


This ideally is what our mindsets and support against or for a movement must be based.  Yet, in many debates there is seemingly not a more righteous side to argue.   It then requires a conscientious effort to inform oneself enough about issues to make an informed opinion. 


In terms of open science, I do not have enough of an expertise to officially declare which of the two mindsets I have toward the idea, although I am for it.  My support of it includes the recognition that open science can be carried out well, and it can be carried out not so well.  I feel however that open science carried out well outperforms private scientific research that is carried out well.  The reservations associated with open science are legitimate ones, but they are possible to overcome.


I want to end with a semi-related excerpt that to me illustrates the nature of scientific research:  "Ultimately, if the researcher succeeds, a flood of colleagues will pave roads over the path laid, and those roads will be orderly and straight, taking an investigator in minutes to a place the pioneer spent months or years looking for."  (The Great Influenza, John M. Barry)

Presentation Links for Openness

Flow Chart

http://www.ijest.info/review-process.php

TED

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_nielsen_open_science_now.html

Research Gate

http://www.researchgate.net/

Thomas Clark, British Abolitionist:

I Want to Help

vs.

This Cannot Be

Open Notebook Science

Start watching at 3:08, Stop at 5:58

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFL0vbUOjfo

-Shows how this form of open science is good for editing flawed data/procedures

Why We Choose ‘Open Science’

-Allen Institute using open science to accelerate research on brain diseases

-Discusses rationale, pros/cons, and process involved with choosing open science

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577058162033028028.html

Better Means

Innovative business model that uses openness/equality between workers for efficiency

http://bettermeans.com/front/index.html

Cracking Open the Scientific Process

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journal-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html?pagewanted=all

Passage from The Great Influenza, an account of the 1918 flu epidemic, author John M. Barry writes about scientists and their research.

Certainty creates strength. Certainty gives one something upon which to lean. Uncertainty creates weakness. Uncertainty makes one tentative if not fearful, and tentative steps, even when in the right direction, may not overcome significant obstacles.

To be a scientist requires not only intelligence and curiosity, but passion, patience, creativity, self-sufficiency, and courage. It is not the courage to venture into the unknown. It is the courage to accept—indeed, embrace—uncertainty. For as

Claude Bernard, the great French physiologist of the nineteenth century, said, “Science teaches us to doubt.”

A scientist must accept the fact that all his or her work, even beliefs, may break apart upon the sharp edge of a single laboratory finding. And just as Einstein refused to accept his own theory until his predictions were tested, one must seek out such findings. Ultimately a scientist has nothing to believe in but the process of inquiry. To move forcefully and aggressively even while uncertain requires a confidence and strength deeper than physical courage.

All real scientists exist on the frontier. Even the least ambitious among them deal with the unknown, if only one step beyond the known. The best among them move deep into a wilderness region where they know almost nothing, where the very tools and techniques needed to clear the wilderness, to bring order to it, do not exist. There they probe in a disciplined way. There a single step can take them through the looking glass into a world that seems entirely different, and if they are at least partly correct their probing acts like a crystal to precipitate an order out of chaos, to create form, structure, and direction. A single step can also take one off a cliff.

In the wilderness the scientist must create . . . everything. It is grunt work, tedious work that begins with figuring out what tools one needs and then making them. A shovel can dig up dirt but cannot penetrate rock. Would a pick be best, or would dynamite be better—or would dynamite be too indiscriminately destructive? If the rock is impenetrable, if dynamite would destroy what one is looking for, is there another way of getting information about what the rock holds? There is a stream passing over the rock. Would analyzing the water after it passes over the rock reveal anything useful? How would one analyze it?

Ultimately, if the researcher succeeds, a flood of colleagues will pave roads over the path laid, and those roads will be orderly and straight, taking an investigator in minutes to a place the pioneer spent months or years looking for. And the perfect tool will be available for purchase, just as laboratory mice can now be ordered from supply houses.

Not all scientific investigators can deal comfortably with uncertainty, and those who can may not be creative enough to understand and design the experiments that will illuminate a subject—to know both where and how to look. Others may lack the confidence to persist. Experiments do not simply work. Regardless of design and preparation, experiments—especially at the beginning, when one proceeds by intelligent guesswork—rarely yield the results desired. An investigator must make them work. The less known, the more one has to manipulate and even force experiments to yield an answer.