(토요모임) [1. Feb. 2020] Saturday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy !  It's me Scarlett !   

This week, we will talk about the 'Pandemic Outbreaks', 'Generational rifts', 'Free rider issues' and 'Debating cultures'. 

Do not be obsessed with all the articles too much. Just pick some articles what you have interests and prepare your opinions related to those articles. :)

Topics are as follows. 

◈ Small talks with Morning Speacial

◈ Wuhan Coronavirus Outbreak and Urgent Public Policy Making Process

--- We’ve Had a Lot of Pandemics Lately. Have We Learned Anything From Them?

--- Residents of Jincheon, Asan refusing to welcome Korean evacuees from Wuhan

--- The World Health Organization just declared the coronavirus outbreak a global health emergency because it could spread to countries that aren't prepared

◈ YouthQuake

--- How Millennial Leaders Will Change America

--- Millennials: Disadvantaged Generation?

◈ Free rider issues

--- How to Avoid the Free Rider Problem in Teams

--- ‘Free-rider problem’—Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes says he and other 0.1%-ers need to pay up

--- China’s Free Rider Syndrome

--- Are We Becoming a Nation of ‘Free Riders’?

◈ Discussions, Debates and Democracy

--- Why Our Personal Values Matter More Than Ever Today

--- WHAT IS DEBATE?

--- 12 Ways Debating Will Help You for the Rest of Your Life

Hope you enjoy the topics.

With luv 
Scarlett

------------------------------------------------

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Unlikely Rise: AOC On Her Family, Generational Differences & More | TIME

------------------------------------------------

Millennials: Disadvantaged Generation?

--------------------------------------

Economist Arthur Laffer and Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes debate the 'wealth tax'

------------------------------------------------

What Is the Free Rider Problem?

------------------------------------------------

A Deeper Look at Public Goods

------------------------------------------------

EXCLUSIVE OBAMA INTERVIEW:China as a Free Rider |The New York Times

------------------------------------------

Small Talks : Morning Special (2020. Jan. 30. ~ 2020. Feb. 1.)

You can find more detailed contents in the attached article. 

------------------------------------------

<Questions>

Q1. What do you know about 'Wuhan coronavirus' ?

Q2. What is the insignia of your organization? In this sentence, insignia means a design or symbol which shows that a person or object belongs to a particular organization, often a military one. Do you like your organization's insignia? 

Q3. According to article, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte made the historic apology at the country’s annual Holocaust commemoration in Amsterdam that came on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz Nazi death camp. What is the reflection ? Do we have those culture in Asian culture? 

Q4. How do you maintain your smartphone safe? 

Q5. Can you feel the polarization between the rich and the poor in the educational field? 

------------------------------------------

We’ve Had a Lot of Pandemics Lately. Have We Learned Anything From Them?

By REBECCA ONION/ JAN 30, 202011:29 AM

On Wednesday, China confirmed that almost 6,000 people have been infected with the new coronavirus scientists are calling 2019-nCoV. The progress of 2019-nCoV, as witnessed via media, feels both scary and familiar. As the 21st century moves forward, and we lose all sense of time and space, one pandemic panic seems to merge into another. (As a reminder, a pandemic is when a new disease strain spreads beyond a local epidemic into a large regional or worldwide event.) Here’s a brief timeline of the emerging infectious diseases that have made headlines this century—with updates on what we’ve learned since they were the focus of global concern.

■ 2002–03: SARS: severe acute respiratory syndrome, a serious pneumonia caused by a coronavirus called SARS-CoV

What happened: The first casualty of SARS died in Guangdong, China, in November 2002. No drugs were effective against this sickness, which presented as serious pneumonia, and health care workers were especially hard-hit. The World Health Organization believes 8,098 people were eventually infected in 29 countries; the death toll ended up being about 774, with the death rate at about 9 percent to 12 percent of those who were diagnosed.

International cooperation helped send the disease into hiding. After researchers published the genetic code of the virus on the internet, epidemiologists determined that isolation, quarantine, and contact tracing would slow the spread of the disease—and, because the nature of the virus that causes SARS meant that victims were most contagious late in its course, when they tended to be hospitalized, these old-school public health measures worked.

A smaller outbreak in 2004 in China seems to have its origins in people who were working with the virus in a medical lab. The WHO declared SARS contained in 2005.

How we responded: SARS set the stage for the 21st-century debate over whether the answer to global pandemic should be the defensive sealing of borders or improvements in international coordination that facilitate better tracking and control of a disease’s spread.

In some places, SARS triggered xenophobia and Sinophobia. In North America, newspapers like the New York Post ran China-blaming cartoons. The fact that China’s government initially suppressed information about the virus added to the climate of blame. In an editorial that ran in March 2003, the Wall Street Journal called for the rest of the world to “suspend all travel links with China until it has implemented a transparent public health campaign”—a way for the rest of the world to force China to “act responsibly.” In Canada, where 43 people died, Asian Canadians reported racist comments and loss of business due to SARS panic.

What we’ve learned since then: In 2006, scientists published research arguing that civet cats they had examined carried a virus with the same genetic profile as the one found in human victims. (Civet cats were sold for meat in the area where SARS emerged.) Researchers confirmed in 2017 that a colony of horseshoe bats in Yunnan province may have been the originators of the virus, with civet cats merely acting as the intermediary between bats and humans. Experts hailed the discovery with hopes that a vaccine might emerge—as yet, it has not.

SARS also lives on in labs—including in the Institut Pasteur, in Paris, which famously lost track of more than 2,000 vials containing the virus in 2014.

■ 2003–07: H5N1, or “bird flu”

What happened: This flu strain, first isolated in Guangdong Province, China, in 1996, was confirmed present in a human patient in 1997 in Hong Kong. Starting in late 2003, Korea, China, Thailand, and Vietnam reported a stream of new H5N1 cases in animals—including, most dramatically, in zoo tigers that had been fed on infected chickens—and, then, fatalities among humans.

Migratory birds brought H5N1 across borders, and birds both domesticated and wild could carry it. This flu could pass from person to person, but did so less frequently than some other strains; mortality rates, on the other hand, were high with 6 out of every 10 people known to have been infected dying from H5N1—a total of about 300 global deaths.

But soon, reported infections slowed to a trickle, and the last confirmed human infection was detected in February 2017.

How we responded: With terror. Time’s Feb. 9, 2004, issue featured an egg with a beak breaking through it, and a coverline asking: “Is Asia hatching the next human pandemic?” This cover must have sold well, because the magazine’s Oct. 17, 2005, edition featured a humble white chicken topped by a yellow headline: “DEATH THREAT.” The bird flu also fascinated journalists and science writers. Geographer and journalist Mike Davis published a book in 2005 that warned of a total apocalypse: The Monster at Our Door.

What we learned: This outbreak impressed upon us the importance of the anti-viral oseltamivir (Tamiflu), which had been successfully used to treat patients with H5N1. Several governments began stockpiles. On Nov. 1, 2005, George W. Bush asked Congress to fund America’s stash of Tamiflu and Relenza with a budget of $1 billion. The pandemic also prompted additions to research budgets for flu-related projects.

In a 2019 piece about the legacy of H5N1, Stat’s Helen Branswell wrote that the reasons for the dissipation of this strain aren’t completely understood. H5N1 may have simply mutated into other “bird flu” viruses that are highly pathogenic to both wild and domestic avian populations, but less dangerous to humans—for now. In 2015, the American poultry industry suffered through an outbreak of H5N8 and H5N2 in large chicken flocks in the Midwest; this outbreak, which the USDA linked to migration routes, did not cross over to humans. As recently as November 2019, crows that died en masse in India tested positive for H5N1.

■ 2009: “Swine flu,” caused by the H1N1 virus

What happened: Within one week in mid-April 2009, a 10-year-old boy and a 9-year-old girl in Southern California, both of whom came down sick with the flu, tested positive for a new strain—H1N1. On April 24 of that year, the WHO announced that in March and April, Mexico had reported about 900 cases suspected to have been caused by the same strain, with 60 suspected deaths. The WHO officially declared a pandemic on June 11. By June of that summer, all 50 American states had reported cases, and more than 30 summer camps reported outbreaks. The flu receded as the summer wore on, then had a second wave in the fall of that year.

Finally, in August 2010, the WHO declared the end of the pandemic. Eventually, researchers estimated that at least 300,000 people died (though estimates are necessarily fudgy). Unlike with a more typical seasonal flu, elderly people were less likely to fall sick, because of immunity that derived from a flu strain that circulated in the middle of the 20th century.

How we responded: For this outbreak, we were primed to panic, maybe because of the precedent of SARS and bird flu. Egypt ordered 300,000 pigs killed. At the height of the outbreak, in the summer of 2009, the emergency room at St. Luke’s, in New York City, saw double the usual number of patients—most of them didn’t have the flu but were just scared they had it. Colleges canceled summer programs in Mexico; scammers sold shampoos and hand sprays supposed to protect against “swine flu”; members of Congress pressed the administration to seal the border with Mexico, against the CDC’s advice. The American government went all-in on vaccination and stockpiled anti-virals, despite growing skepticism among scientists about the effectiveness of those measures.

What we learned: “This pandemic has turned out to be much more fortunate than what we feared a little over a year ago,” Margaret Chan of the WHO said in a statement on Aug. 10, 2010. “We have been aided by pure good luck. The virus did not mutate during the pandemic to a more lethal form,” widespread resistance to oseltamivir did not develop, and the vaccine worked well.

The relative mildness of swine flu, after so much buildup, triggered some suspicion. European countries, especially, felt deflated, having spent money on vaccine stockpiles. In June 2010, a joint investigation by the British Medical Journal and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism concluded that the WHO had taken advice from scientists in the course of its pandemic planning who were also being paid by pharmaceutical companies that produced vaccines and anti-virals. Responding to this investigation, the WHO convened an external Review Committee, whose proceedings were to be made open to the public.

The committee recommended that in future, the WHO should increase transparency around its decision-making process, but found that there wasn’t any improper influence exercised in this instance. But, for those media consumers who heard about the accusation but not the exoneration, this affair certainly can’t have boosted their trust in international public health authorities.

■ 2011: Contagion

What happened: Steven Soderbergh spun the previous decade’s pandemic fears into a dark drama with a star-studded ensemble cast, featuring Gwyneth Paltrow as a businesswoman who brings a deadly virus home from a trip to Hong Kong, and Kate Winslet as a scientist who races to figure out what happened.

How we responded: Clearly, Paltrow’s grim hospital-bed scenes struck a nerve. The film grossed more than $136 million worldwide.

What we learned: Although the movie was sophisticated in its representation of epidemiology, and featured a biting portrait of a fraudulent “wellness” guru (Jude Law) making bank off fake cures, we seem to have learned little about consuming pandemic-related information critically, since people are currently circulating misinformation about the latest coronavirus. 

■ 2012–present: MERS: Middle East respiratory syndrome, caused by a coronavirus called Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, or MERS-CoV

What happened: MERS-CoV was first identified in a patient in Saudi Arabia in 2012. As with SARS, the disease looks like severe pneumonia; with MERS, patients also have gastrointestinal symptoms, and sometimes experience kidney failure. Since 2012, 27 countries have reported cases, with 2,494 people confirmed infected and 858 dead, mostly in Saudi Arabia. All cases of MERS, the CDC stipulates, have been linked back to people who live in or have traveled to the Arabian Peninsula.

The WHO reports that about 35 percent of MERS-infected people have died, with health care workers at highest risk—though, since MERS can also result in such mild symptoms that a person may have it without knowing it, that death rate is almost certainly inflated.

In 2017, the WHO put SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV on its Priority Pathogen list, hoping to spur further research into coronaviruses.

How we responded: The WHO called an outbreak at a hospital in Seoul, South Korea, in 2015—a patient who had recently returned from the Middle East with what turned out to be MERS was left in an emergency room and a hallway for three days—a “wake-up call” for hospitals trying to manage emerging infectious diseases. As the outbreak in Seoul was at its height in the spring of 2015, the government quarantined almost 17,000 people, and foreign tourists shunned the city. That outbreak in Korea eventually killed 36.

What we learned: Dromedaries, researchers believe, play a major role in the spread of MERS-CoV and have likely transmitted the infection to humans. Scientists have tested other animals—goats, cows, sheep, pigs, birds—for MERS-CoV and haven’t found it. Although we don’t know the whole story, MERS-CoV seems to have first originated in bats, with camels serving as intermediaries between bats and humans, much as civets did in the case of SARS. MERS-CoV can be transmitted not only by the eating of camel meat, or the drinking of camel milk without proper pasteurization, but also by simple proximity between camels and humans.

■ 2013–16: Ebola

What happened: Over the course of 2½ years, this outbreak of the Ebola virus caused 28,600 recognized cases and 11,325 deaths, mostly in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. For the first time, the outbreak spread from small towns to urban centers, and public health officials feared a more widespread epidemic.

How we responded: Compared to the strange new flus and coronaviruses of the previous 10 years, Ebola, which had been on American radars since the mid-1990s thanks to Dustin Hoffman and Richard Preston, seemed almost familiar. And very few Americans were ever infected by, or killed by, this outbreak. But that didn’t stop Americans from ranking Ebola the third-most-urgent health problem in the country in November 2014, according to one poll.

Donald Trump, as always, proved helpful in soothing the public, tweeting: “Ebola is much easier to transmit than the CDC and government officials are admitting. Spreading all over Africa—and fast.”

What we learned: In 2014, a wildlife epidemiologist working with a team investigating the origins of the outbreak theorized that the first victim, a 2-year-old boy named Emile who lived in Meliandou, Guinea, may have gotten the disease after playing in a hollow tree where bats also roosted. The discovery underlined the fact that consumption of bush meat—often used by racists as a reason to blame Africans for their own suffering—isn’t the only way outbreaks begin.

The high mortality of health care workers, and the strain on the health care system in affected countries particularly, alarmed public health officials. Modeling effects of the outbreak on mortality from other endemic diseases, public health researchers estimated in a 2016 paper that this Ebola outbreak might result in a significant exacerbation of mortality rates from tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and malaria.

In August 2018, the Ministry of Health of the Democratic Republic of Congo notified the world of a new outbreak of Ebola. This new outbreak, unconnected to the one that ended in 2016, was to go on to become the second-worst epidemic of Ebola on record.

■ 2015–16: Zika, transmitted by ZIKV (the Zika virus)

What happened: ZIKV, a virus spread by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, was first discovered in 1947, but commanded media attention when a significant series of outbreaks began in 2015 in Brazil. ZIKV barely registers with an adult, but can cause stillbirth, preterm birth, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and something researchers call congenital Zika syndrome in infants whose mothers are infected by mosquito or via sexual transmission. Conditions that make up CZS include microcephaly—probably the most well-known consequence of maternal ZIKV infection—as well as impaired vision and hearing, mental disabilities, and shortened limbs. The 2016–17 outbreak caused more than half a million suspected cases in the Americas, resulting in 3,720 confirmed cases of CZS in affected children.

The WHO ended the epidemic’s emergency status in November 2016. The incidence of cases has declined since then, the WHO reports. In 2018 and 2019, according to the CDC, there were zero cases of local mosquito-borne Zika transmission in the continental United States. We may have evolved herd immunity that protects against the Zika that scared us in 2016, but there’s always a threat that the virus may reemerge, as children who haven’t been exposed grow up without immunity.

How we responded: In the United States, people delayed vacations and called for the cancellation of the Olympics held in Rio de Janeiro in 2016. Surveyed by the New York Times in early 2017, global health experts critiqued Congress for delaying its funding for Zika response for months at the height of the crisis, slammed cities (besides Miami!) for failing to apply themselves to mosquito control, and argued that officials’ warnings had the effect of protecting wealthier Northern tourists, while leaving poverty-stricken Southerners “unprotected” by failing to inform them they might want to delay pregnancy. Touchy politics around reproduction, these experts argued, got in the way of risk communication.

What we learned: ZIKV, scientists have since found, has two major lineages, Asian—a strain of which caused the epidemic in the Americas in 2015–16—and African. Apparently, ZIKV has been present in Africa for decades, but we don’t yet know what effect the African strain has on birth outcomes. Another open question has to do with effects of CZV that don’t show up as something obvious like microcephaly. Subtler neurological problems may still manifest in babies exposed to Zika, and scientists are conducting long-term studies to assess how this works.

As of 2019, 18 vaccine candidates for Zika were in the development pipeline. 

Read more of Slate’s coverage of coronavirus 2019-nCoV.

Article source : https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/01/coronavirus-outbreak-sars-swine-flu-viral-history.html

------------------------------------------------

Residents of Jincheon, Asan

refusing to welcome Korean evacuees from Wuhan

Published : Jan 29, 2020

Residents of two central South Korean towns, formally picked Wednesday to house South Korean nationals evacuated from Wuhan, China, this week, are strongly protesting the government's decision as a threat to their health.

The government said it will send about 700 South Korean nationals arriving from Wuhan to the National Human Resources Development Institute in Jincheon, North Chungcheong Province, and the Police Human Resources Development Institute in Asan, South Chungcheong Province. Jincheon is 90 kilometers southeast of Seoul, while Asan is a similar distance south of the capital.

The Korean evacuees will land at Gimpo International Airport, western Seoul, from Wuhan -- the epicenter of the new coronavirus -- in the Chinese province of Hubei, Thursday and Friday, before being bused to the two state-run facilities to be kept in quarantine for two weeks, it said.

Previously, the Seoul government had pushed to send the South Korean residents of Wuhan to two public facilities in Cheonan, South Chungcheong Province, but gave up after opposition from the city's residents.

The two new candidate facilities in Jincheon and Asan, both close to Cheonan, are normally used for training civil servants and police officers. The dormitory at Asan's police facility can accommodate 1,200 people.

But the government's plan faces hurdles, as residents in both Jincheon and Asan have also put up strong resistance.

About 60 residents of Asan began a sit-in protest after blocking the entrance to the police development institute with five farm machines, including tractors and cultivators.

"We cannot accept the government's decision, as it has changed the initial location of temporary camps for Wuhan evacuees from Cheonan to Asan due to protests from Cheonan residents," said one of the protesters, calling for safety measures for Asan residents.

Asan's municipal council held an emergency session and decided to stage a campaign against the government's decision.

"The police facility in Asan is not suitable for a camp for Wuhan evacuees, as it is surrounded by apartment complexes," said Rep. Lee Myung-soo of the main opposition Liberty Korea Party.

A similar atmosphere of resistance exists in Jincheon, where a group of 30 residents blocked the entrance of the National HRD institute with tractors.

Jincheon's county government, council and residents have all denounced the government's decision as "inappropriate," noting 17,237 residents in 6,285 households live within a 1 kilometer radius of the HRD institute.

"From a broader perspective, it is OK to accept Korean evacuees from Wuhan. But we cannot accept it if the location has been changed from Cheonan due to protests from the city," Jincheon Mayor Song Ki-sup said.

Jincheon's county council also called for a review of the government's decision. (Yonhap)

Article source : http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200129000906

------------------------------------------------

The World Health Organization just declared the coronavirus outbreak a global health emergency 

because it could spread to countries that aren't prepared

Hilary Brueck and Aria Bendix 12 hours ago

Director-General of the World Health Organization Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Reuters

■ The World Health Organization on Thursday declared the coronavirus outbreak that started in Wuhan, China, a global health emergency.

■ At least 200 people have died and more than 9,000 other people have caught the virus — more than the total number of cases during the 2003 SARS coronavirus outbreak.

■ Symptoms can range from mild to deadly and may look a lot like the flu.

■ Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.

Doctors and public-health experts at the World Health Organization in Geneva on Thursday declared the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak a "public-health emergency of international concern."

The virus has so far sickened at least 9,000 people and killed more than 200 others in China, where it originated. Cases have been reported in 19 other countries.

"Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed the emergence of a previously unknown pathogen which has escalated into an unprecedented outbreak," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Thursday while announcing the emergency declaration.

"We don't know what sort of damage this virus could do if it were spread in a country with a weaker health system," he added. "We must act now to help countries prepare for that possibility."

The agency reserves the health-emergency distinction for the most serious, sudden, unexpected outbreaks that cross international borders. These illnesses pose a public-health risk without bounds and may "require a coordinated international response," the WHO said on its website.

The WHO's emergency distinction has been around since 2005 and been used only five times before. A global emergency was declared for two Ebola outbreaks: one that started in 2013 in West Africa and another that has been ongoing in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 2018. Other emergency alerts were used for the 2016 Zika epidemic, for polio emerging in war zones in 2014, and for the swine-flu pandemic in 2009.

The designation alerts the 194 member countries of the WHO that they should step up precautions, such as screening travelers and monitoring international trade, in hopes of preventing the outbreak from spreading out of control. The countries are also legally required to share information with the WHO.

For now, the WHO does not recommend limiting the movement of trade. But it does hope that countries will work together to identify gaps in their preparedness plans and accelerate the development of vaccines.

"Suddenly the world's alerted to a much greater extent, and they'll start pouring a lot more assistance and aid to airports, to transport hubs, and do their best to control this outbreak," Dr. Adrian Hyzler, the chief medical officer at Healix International, previously told Business Insider of the designation.

Last week, the WHO committee was split about whether to declare the new coronavirus outbreak — which experts suspect originated at an animal market in the Chinese city of Wuhan — an international emergency. Members delayed their final decision, saying they needed more time to gather information about the virus' severity and transmissibility.

"This declaration is not a vote of no confidence in China," Ghebreyesus said on Thursday. "Our greatest concern is the potential for the virus to spread to countries with weaker health systems and which are ill-prepared to deal with it."

Human-to-human transmissions of the coronavirus have been confirmed in several countries outside China, including the US, where the virus was spread between a husband and wife. The virus only survives outside the body for a matter of hours, but it can easily be transmitted through bodily fluids, like saliva or mucus.

Symptoms of the coronavirus — which is in the same family as the common cold, pneumonia, MERS, and SARS — can range from mild to deadly. Most of the deaths so far (which have all been in China) have been elderly people and people with preexisting conditions. Only a laboratory test can confirm‎ that a virus is the novel coronavirus.

One of the best ways to protect yourself from this or any virus is to stay at least six feet from people who are sick and to wash your hands well with warm water and soap. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is not recommending that people wear face masks, which health experts have said are not a very effective way to prevent the spread of this virus.

"The best things that you can do are the things that we generally recommend at this time of year to prevent the spread of infectious diseases," Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters on Thursday. "Wash your hands, cover your cough, take care of yourself, and keep alert to the information that we're providing."

Article source : https://www.businessinsider.com/who-wuhan-coronavirus-2019-ncov-global-health-emergency-2020-1?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=sf-bi-uk&fbclid=IwAR1XI7q29sKDNzHYkrZZm8oscHBEU4laa7VDhntmrAPCISuwvnmR1K8dM7M

------------------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What do you know about Wuhan Coronavirus? 

Q2. We’ve Had a Lot of Pandemics Lately. Have We Learned Anything From Them?

Q3. What was the most hazardous infectious Pandemic outbreak from history? For instance there are outbreaks of pandemic such as SARS, bird-flu, Swine flu, MERS, Ebola and Zika virus. What is your opinion on that? 

Q4. How to prevent the spread of those deadly epidemic?

Q5. Do you know what the NIMBY phenomenon? What is the difference of Nimby from Pimby?

Q6. What do you think of response of residents in Asan and Jincheon? Is it understandable or not? If it was your case what would be your response to it? 

Q7. What is the more appropriate attitude by government when they are carrying out those urgent countermeasure policies led by unexpected disasters? 

------------------------------------------------

How Millennial Leaders Will Change America

By  Charlotte Alter/ January 23, 2020 

Love ’em or hate ’em, this much is true: one day soon, millennials will rule America.

This is neither wish nor warning but fact, rooted in the physics of time and the biology of human cells. Millennials–born between 1981 and 1996–are already the largest living generation and the largest age group in the workforce. They outnumber Gen X (born 1965–1980) and will soon outnumber baby boomers (born 1946–1964) among American voters. Their startups have revolutionized the economy, their tastes have shifted the culture, and their enormous appetite for social media has transformed human interaction. American politics is the next arena ripe for disruption.

When it occurs, it may feel like a revolution, in part because this generation has different political views than those in power now. Millennials are more racially diverse, more tuned in to the power of networks and systems and more socially progressive than either Gen X or baby boomers on nearly every available metric. They tend to favor government-run health care, student debt relief, marijuana legalization and criminal-justice reform, and they demand urgent government action on climate change. The millennial wave is coming: the only questions are when and how fast it will arrive.

So what’s America going to look like when this generation rises to power? I spent the past three years trying to answer that question by crisscrossing the country, interviewing the young leaders who are among the first in their cohort to be elected to public office. I sat down with Democratic stars like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 30, and former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, 38, and Republican up-and-comers like Representatives Elise Stefanik and Dan Crenshaw, both 35. I interviewed rookie Democratic Congresswomen like Lauren Underwood, 33, and Haley Stevens, 36, and a smattering of local leaders from California to New York, including Stockton, Calif., Mayor Michael Tubbs, 29, and Ithaca, N.Y., Mayor Svante Myrick, 32. The result is my book, The Ones We’ve Been Waiting For.

If I set out to learn what millennials believe and why, I ended up with something more compelling: a glimpse of our country’s future. Millennials, after all, are starting to gain political power at a time when America looks more like a gerontocracy than ever. Donald Trump is the oldest first-term President in U.S. history, elected largely by older, white voters. He is surrounded in Washington by senior citizens like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, 82, who can manage only a small window every day when he can “focus and pay attention and not fall asleep,” according to one Politico report. Trump’s Senate allies are similarly geriatric. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, 77, graduated from the University of Louisville when tuition ran just $330 a year, and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, 86, was kindergarten age before the chocolate-chip cookie was invented, in 1938.

It’s not just Republicans. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, 79, and two of the top Democratic presidential candidates–former Vice President Joe Biden, 77, and Senator Bernie Sanders, 78–were born before the discovery of the polio vaccine and the bikini. Many of the lawmakers who must now grapple with questions of net neutrality, cyberwarfare and how to regulate Facebook were approaching retirement age when social media was invented.

Of course, age isn’t everything. Sanders, whose politics broadly reflect the preferences of the rising millennial electorate, has emerged as a Democratic front runner in part because of his popularity among young voters, while Buttigieg is most popular among older, more moderate Democrats. And Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 86, has become a hero among young liberal women.

Nor will a generational uprising come all at once. Young people have historically voted at much lower rates than older people, and factors like geography, gerrymandering and voter-suppression efforts–which tend to disenfranchise college students and new voters–will conspire to diminish the power of millennials as the largest voting bloc. It may take years or even decades for millennials to be proportionally represented in the halls of power.

But a progressive youthquake is coming. Research has shown that people’s experiences in early adulthood have the greatest impact on their lifelong political leanings, and millennials, for the most part, have experienced an America riven by inequality, endless wars, a financial collapse, a student debt crisis, and inertia in the face of climate change. All that has made them distinctly more liberal than their elders. “The America we grew up in is nothing like the America our parents or our grandparents grew up in,” Ocasio-Cortez told me in an interview in her Capitol Hill office last year. “A lot of what we have to deal with are issues and decisions that were made by people in generations before us.”

According to Pew, 57% of millennials hold “consistently” or “mostly liberal” opinions, while only 12% report having conservative views. Even Buttigieg, who is often cast as a moderate in this Democratic presidential primary, is significantly more liberal than centrists of the previous generation, favoring universal health care, student debt relief and urgent action on climate change. He is also openly gay–which just a generation ago might have disqualified him from the South Bend mayor’s office, let alone the presidency. Meanwhile, Trump is deeply unpopular among young Americans. One Harvard poll found his disapproval rate among people under the age of 30 topped 70%.

There’s nothing more natural than generational turnover. Every couple of decades, a wave of elected officials begin to retire and a new generation fills the void. In the 1950s and ’60s, it was the Greatest Generation, the ones who fought WW II and led a civic revival that built the national highway system and the rockets that sent men to the moon. In the ’70s and ’80s, the so-called Watergate babies swept into office to clean up corruption and reform institutions, ushering in a new era of entrenched partisanship. And for the past 30 years, baby boomers have been running the show. They shaped American politics according to their principles of fierce individualism, embracing privatization, tax cuts and policies rooted in “personal responsibility.” Generation X’s leaders, including former Georgia house minority leader Stacey Abrams and Republican Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley, are now ascendant.

Millennials are next. And by understanding the forces that shaped their politics, we can understand what America might look like when they’re in charge.

On Christmas Eve 1999, 16-year-old Haley Stevens opened her journal, gripped a purple marker and wrote: Haley’s Millennium Ideas. Her letters were large and looping. “The polar ice caps are going to melt,” she wrote. “Natural disasters and mad leaders at war … what we read and what we do became so unbalanced and money driven.” Like most diary-scribbling teenagers, she had a flair for the dramatic: “We won’t stop our mistakes,” she wrote. “So what the prophets predict will come true.”

Back then, Stevens was just a high school junior who filled her journal with America Online instant-message chats with boys from camp. (She printed them out and saved them for later analysis.) Now she’s a freshman Democratic Representative from Michigan’s 11th District, one of 20 millennials who were elected to Congress in 2018 in a wave of discontent with the Trump Administration.

I first met Stevens a couple of months before she won her primary. She had never held elected office, and at that point she was a long shot to win her party’s nomination, much less go on to flip her Michigan House district. Which is perhaps why she let a reporter into her mother’s bright yellow kitchen to read her childhood journals and sift through boxes of old keepsakes. “I think there’s a little bit of a misperception that people have about millennials: we do feel very called to service,” she told me at the time. “Kids of the ’90s, we grew up thinking that we were going to change the world.”

The conventional wisdom has long been that young people usually lean to the left and then become more conservative as they age, buy homes, build wealth and raise families. Winston Churchill once supposedly said, “If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.” But the data tell a different story. Researchers have found that popular Presidents tend to attract young people to their party, while unpopular Presidents repel them. Those formative attitudes are persistent: if you’re disenchanted by a Republican President as a teenager, you’re disproportionately more likely to vote for Democrats well into your adult life. One Pew study of 2012 data found that those who turned 18 during the unpopular Republican Richard Nixon years were more likely to vote for Democrat Barack Obama, while those who turned 18 just a decade later, during the prosperous Ronald Reagan years, tended to vote for Obama’s GOP opponent in the 2012 presidential race, Mitt Romney.

In several studies, Andrew Gelman, a political scientist at Columbia University, and Yair Ghitza, chief scientist at Catalist, a data provider for Democratic and progressive organizations, found that political events experienced between the ages of 14 and 24 have roughly triple the impact of events experienced later in life. (Their research focused on white voters, since longitudinal data on voters of color is more difficult to find.) “It’s much more about cohort than age,” Gelman says. “One way of understanding these up and down trend lines over the decades is asking: What happened when people were young?”

Consider, then, the millennial generation’s experience of America so far. For many, their political awakening came on Sept. 11, 2001. Ocasio-Cortez, then a seventh-grader, remembers coming home early from school and watching the towers fall on television, wondering whether her mom would be home from work in time for the apocalypse. Representative Max Rose, then a high school freshman, surprised his parents after the tragedy by hanging an American flag in his messy teenage bedroom in New York City. Stefanik, who was a high school senior in Albany, N.Y., remembers watching a friend collapse on the floor because her sister worked in one of the towers. (The friend’s sister was ultimately found safe.) “It’s one of the reasons I wanted to go into public policy,” Stefanik told me later. “On that day, we became a globally aware generation.”

The millennials who enlisted to fight in the endless wars that followed would learn firsthand the consequences of American foreign policy. Crenshaw, who was also in high school on 9/11, lost his eye in Afghanistan while serving as a Navy SEAL, completing a mission he thought was a misguided use of resources by Obama’s Pentagon. Rose was injured by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan; his life was saved by a new kind of Stryker vehicle that has been recently funded by Congress. When Buttigieg arrived in Afghanistan as a naval intelligence officer in 2014, his fellow officers told him the war was over: he spent most of his nights in his bunk, reading Tolstoy’s War and Peace and thinking about the question Vietnam veteran John Kerry once asked during congressional testimony: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

The young people who served in Iraq and Afghanistan often have a more comprehensive view of American military engagement than their peers. Crenshaw is a vocal supporter of American military abroad and bucked his party to oppose Trump’s proposed withdrawal of troops from Syria. He often says, “We go there, so they don’t come here.” But while the baby boomers endured the Vietnam draft, only a small fraction of millennials have served in the military, and many see the wars as folly at best, immoral at worst. To many of them, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were expensive fiascoes that shattered their sense of American exceptionalism.

In 2017, just half of millennials said they thought the U.S. should take an active part in world affairs, compared with almost three-quarters of boomers. Only about a third of millennials said they thought the U.S. was the greatest country in the world.

Meanwhile, young people weren’t doing great at home either. Thanks to a series of public-policy moves, including slashing federal funding for state colleges and institutionalizing debt as a means to pay for it, millennials ended up owing nearly four times as much in student loans as their parents did. The student debt burden in the U.S. now stands at $1.6 trillion, most of which is owed by younger generations.

Then came the financial crisis in 2008, which has had cascading effects for millennials and shaped many of their young political leaders. Ocasio-Cortez’s father died just as the economy was melting down, and as her mother fought in court to recoup her husband’s assets, Ocasio-Cortez’s younger brother Gabriel noticed bank officials prowling around taking photos of their home. He had read that having a dog on the property can slow down the foreclosure process, since the bank would have to compensate its managers with hazard pay. He started leaving the family’s Great Dane, Domino, on the porch.

Between student debt and the financial crisis, millennials are lagging behind boomers and Gen X-ers. One study found that nearly a decade after the recession, millennialled households still had 34% less wealth than older generations had at their age, and the recession prevented millennials from substantially increasing their net worth. Youth unemployment spiked to 20% after the recession, and when millennials did find jobs, they were often in the gig economy, which likely meant irregular hours and no benefits. Between 1989 and 2011, the percentage of graduates covered by employer-sponsored health insurance was halved. Millennials, as a group, are more likely to have debt, less likely to have union benefits, and less likely to own a house or a car compared with the generations before them. Those who have gotten married have done so later and had fewer children. No wonder, then, that many young people today feel that 20th century systems aren’t working. They want to build 21st century solutions for 21st century problems.

The 2008 presidential race was a galvanizing political moment for many young people. Buttigieg, who was 26 at the time, trudged through Iowa canvassing for Obama, digging out his car with his clipboard when it got stuck in the snow. Eric Lesser, who is now a Massachusetts state senator, worked as a luggage handler for Obama’s campaign. Obama’s victory was due in large part to youth enthusiasm: he won two-thirds of voters under 30.

Obama rose to power on a message of consensus building, and many of the young people who worked for him internalized that message. Stevens, who also worked for Hillary Clinton in the primary and for Biden’s vice-presidential bid in 2008, was hired to work on the new President’s auto task force. She remembers staying up all night in the Treasury Department, eating Cheerios straight out of the box as the task force tried to find a way to save the auto industry. Lauren Underwood, now a first-term Illinois Congresswoman, worked in Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services, helping implement the Affordable Care Act. “We have very high goals, just like Obama did,” says Lesser, who spent much of Obama’s first term sitting in a tiny cubby outside the Oval Office, working as a special assistant to senior adviser David Axelrod. “But we also understood that sometimes it’s the singles and doubles and triples that get you there.”

Other young people were galvanized in a different way by Obama’s focus on consensus. “A lot of our generation put our hopes into Barack Obama’s campaign,” says Waleed Shahid of Justice Democrats, a progressive organization that supports young, working-class candidates like Ocasio-Cortez in campaigns against moderate Democrats. “And then as soon as he gets into office, there’s all these things that go on that are kind of disappointing to young people.” If this was the best a transformative leader like Obama could do within the system, many people figured, then maybe the system itself was broken.

If systems were the problem, then movements–not individuals–would be the solution. In the wake of the Obama Administration, millennials began founding and joining “leaderless” social movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, demanding systemic overhauls to fix structural inequality and institutional racism. These groups rejected Obama’s hopeful pragmatism. “We’ve never seen bipartisanship function in society,” says Varshini Prakash, a leader of the Sunrise Movement, a group of young people agitating for a Green New Deal. “We’ve fundamentally seen our political institutions fail to fix the most existential threats of our lifetime.”

So when Sanders ran for President in 2016 on a message that the system itself was rigged, his message struck a chord. Working as a bartender in New York, Ocasio-Cortez sometimes made as little as $60 in tips in a nine-hour day. “I didn’t have health care, I wasn’t being paid a living wage, and I didn’t think that I deserved any of those things,” she told a cheering crowd of Sanders supporters in late 2019, after endorsing his presidential run. “It wasn’t until I heard of a man by the name of Bernie Sanders that I began to question and assert and recognize my inherent value as a human being.”

Among young voters, Sanders’ embrace of democratic socialism was not a liability; it was part of his appeal. Young people’s approval of capitalism dropped 15 points from 2010 to 2019, according to Gallup. By 2018, fewer than half of 18-to-29-year-olds said they supported capitalism, according to an annual poll from Harvard’s Institute of Politics; 39% said they supported democratic socialism. The word itself–socialism–became something of a generational Rorschach test: to boomers, it conjured images of Soviet gulags and Venezuelan famine; to millennials, it meant universal health care and day care, climate solutions and affordable housing.

None of this looks good for the GOP. Republicans have long done well among white voters, but millennials and their younger siblings in Gen Z (those born since 1997) are the most racially diverse generation in U.S. history. Republicans maintain strong ties to religious voters; millennials widely reject organized religion and are more openly LGBTQ than any generation before. On nearly every predictor of social conservatism–religion, race, wealth–millennials are headed one way and the GOP is headed another.

In the years before 2016, young Republicans urged their party to do a better job of appealing to millennials. Former GOP Representative Carlos Curbelo of Florida, first elected at age 34, pushed his party to embrace immigration reform and described a widespread acceptance of marriage equality among younger conservatives. “This is a live-and-let-live generation,” he says. “We don’t seek to impose our moral codes on others.” Stefanik and Curbelo both pushed their party to act on climate change, an issue that many of their septuagenarian colleagues have either dismissed or ignored. (Stefanik, who first emerged as a voice of moderation in the GOP, has now taken a hard right turn, defending Trump against impeachment and signing on as a New York co-chair in his re-election campaign.)

But Trump’s election in 2016 scrambled young Republicans’ efforts to appeal to a new generation. When Curbelo, once a rising star in the GOP, was ousted in the 2018 midterms, Trump mocked him as Carlos “Que-bella.” As Trumpism rose, many young conservatives began nursing serious doubts about their party, and some jumped ship altogether. From 2015 to 2017, roughly half of young Republicans defected from the GOP, according to Pew. Over 20% came back to the party by 2017, but almost a quarter left for good, Pew found. By 2018, only 17% of millennials identified as solidly Republican.

Conservatives may find solace in the fact that young people are still much less likely to vote than their parents or grandparents. But that may be changing too. Millennial turnout was 42% in the 2018 midterms, roughly double what it was four years prior, and they voted for Democrats by roughly 2 to 1. That turnout helped send 20 millennials to Congress, from firebrand socialists like Ocasio-Cortez in New York City to moderate seat flippers like Representative Abby Finkenauer in Iowa. And nearly 60% of Americans under 30 say they definitely plan to vote in 2020.

These generational rifts have already defined the Democratic primary in surprising ways. Buttigieg has frequently noted that he is a member of the “school-shooting generation,” and emphasized that millennials like him will be on “the business end” of climate change. When I first met Buttigieg at a coffee shop in Manhattan in 2017, he told me he thought a lot about the 2004 commencement speech that the comedian Jon Stewart gave at William & Mary. “He said, ‘Here’s the thing about the real world: We broke it, sorry’–I think he meant grownups,” Buttigieg told me, paraphrasing the speech. “He said, ‘We broke it, but the thing is, if you figure out how to fix it, you get to be the next Greatest Generation.'”

Today Buttigieg is part of a quartet of top contenders in the 2020 Democratic primary. If he wins, he’ll be the first millennial presidential nominee. And if the nomination goes instead to Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, both in their 70s, it will be because millennial voters have dragged the party to the left. Nearly 6 in 10 young Democrats favor the most progressive candidates: according to a January Quinnipiac poll, 39% of voters under 35 favor Sanders and 18% support Warren.

Which means that if 2016 was a skirmish, then 2020 could be an all-out generational war. It may take two years, or five years, or 10, but the boomers who run Washington today won’t be around forever. A surge is coming. The elections this year could tell us if it’s already here.

Adapted from Alter’s book, The Ones We’ve Been Waiting For, out Feb. 18

This appears in the February 03, 2020 issue of TIME.

Article source : https://time.com/5770140/millennials-change-american-politics/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_term=_&linkId=81105900&fbclid=IwAR3K3uS_FAj4QysRjPIKkEipmkgGybzF_WzBT4D__u-mRYuyWA_v-uez1yM

--------------------------------------

Millennials are set to overtake Baby Boomers

as America's biggest generation

06 Mar 2018/ Richard Fry/ Senior Researcher, Pew Research Center

Millennials are on the cusp of surpassing Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living adult generation, according to population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau. As of July 1, 2016 (the latest date for which population estimates are available), Millennials, whom we define as ages 20 to 35 in 2016, numbered 71 million, and Boomers (ages 52 to 70) numbered 74 million. Millennials are expected to overtake Boomers in population in 2019 as their numbers swell to 73 million and Boomers decline to 72 million. Generation X (ages 36 to 51 in 2016) is projected to pass the Boomers in population by 2028.

The Millennial generation continues to grow as young immigrants expand its ranks. Boomers – whose generation was defined by the boom in U.S. births following World War II – are aging and their numbers shrinking in size as the number of deaths among them exceeds the number of older immigrants arriving in the country.

Because generations are analytical constructs, it takes time for popular and expert consensus to develop as to the precise boundaries that demarcate one generation from another. Pew Research Center has assessed demographic, labor market, attitudinal and behavioral measures and has now established an endpoint – albeit inexact – for the Millennial generation. According to our revised definition, the youngest “Millennial” was born in 1996. This post has been updated accordingly (see note below).

Here’s a look at some generational projections:

Millennials

    With immigration adding more numbers to this group than any other, the Millennial population is projected to peak in 2036 at 76.2 million. Thereafter, the oldest Millennial will be at least 56 years of age and mortality is projected to outweigh net immigration. By 2050 there will be a projected 74.3 million Millennials.

Generation X

1. For a few more years, Gen Xers are projected to remain the “middle child” of generations – caught between two larger generations, the Millennials and the Boomers. Gen Xers were born during a period when Americans were having fewer children than in later decades. When Gen Xers were born, births averaged around 3.4 million per year, compared with the 3.9 million annual rate from 1981 to 1996 when the Millennials were born.

2. Though the oldest Gen Xer was 51 in 2016, the Gen X population is projected to grow for a couple more years. Gen Xers are projected to outnumber Boomers in 2028, when there will be 64.6 million Gen Xers and 63.7 million Boomers. The Census Bureau projects that the Gen X population will peak at 65.8 million in 2018.

Baby Boomers

Baby Boomers have always had an outsize presence compared with other generations. They peaked at 78.8 million in 1999 and have remained the largest living adult generation.There were an estimated 74.1 million Boomers in 2016. By midcentury, the Boomer population is projected to dwindle to 16.6 million.

Note: This post was originally published on Jan. 16, 2015. It was updated April 25, 2016, under the headline “Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation,” which reflected the Center’s definition of Millennials at the time (born between 1981 and 1997). This third version reflects the Center’s newly revised definition, under which Millennial births end in 1996.

Article source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/millennials-projected-to-overtake-baby-boomers-as-america-s-largest-generation

--------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q0. In this article, what the YouthQuake stands for? 

Q1. What do you think about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? How do you think about her as a politician? 

Q2. According to above article, millennials tend to favor government-run health care, student debt relief, marijuana legalization and criminal-justice reform, and they demand urgent government action on climate change. How about you ? Which agenda do you suppot among above policies? 

Q3. How many millennial politicians who speak their own ideas independently without manipulated by other older colleagues, do you have in your country? 

Q4. What is the most urgent agenda for millennials? 

Q5. According to article, Ocasio-Cortez told me in an interview in her Capitol Hill office last year. “A lot of what we have to deal with are issues and decisions that were made by people in generations before us.” Do you agree with this idea?  

Q6. Winston Churchill once supposedly said, “If you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.”, however, according to a research political events experienced between the ages of 14 and 24 have roughly triple the impact of events experienced later in life and those formative attitudes are persistent: if you’re disenchanted by a Republican President as a teenager, you’re disproportionately more likely to vote for Democrats well into your adult life. What do you think about this idea? Do you think your political stance is changing by your age term or is it consistent since your early age experiences?

Q7. What impressive political event happened when people were young?”

Q8. In this article, Buttigieg said, paraphrasing the speech, ‘We broke it, but the thing is, if you figure out how to fix it, you get to be the next Greatest Generation.'”. Do you think most of the problems faced by youngsters are solved by millennials now?

Q9. Which generation are you involved in among Millennials, Generation X, Boomers and Silent? 

Q10. Do you think we have battles of the generations? 

Q11. Do you think Millennials are the disadvantaged generation? 

Q12. Could you tell some differences between Millenials, Gen X and Gen Z? 

Q13. Which generation are you more look like among Millenials, Gen X and Gen Z? 

Q14. What's the side effects of generational imbalance? 

Q15. How could we bridge the wealth gap between the baby bommers and the millennials? 

Q16. Do you think Increasing the voting age can help to reflect more political needs of millennials? 

Q17. Society is getting aged and voices of younger generation is neglected often. Because Politicians are sensitive on the group of people who has the 'Wealth' and the 'Power'. And in our society, generally, 'Wealth' and 'Power' goes to the old generation. How could we let the politicians to develope more younger generation friendly policies?

--------------------------------------

How to Avoid the Free Rider Problem in Teams

05/16/2016 06:35 pm ET   | Updated May 17, 2017   

There’s always a team member that doesn’t pull their weight. In economics this is called a free rider problem—people who benefit from resources they don’t pay for. 

Wharton professor and author of Originals Adam Grant (building on an old meta analysis by Karau and Williams) identified a series of factors that encourage people to contribute their fair share. 

1. Make the task more meaningful. 

People often slack off when they don’t feel that the task matters. When they recognize the importance of their efforts, they tend to work harder and smarter. 

2. Show them what their peers are doing. 

Sometimes people simply don’t realize that they’re doing less than the norm. 

3. Shrink the group. 

When working in a large team, it’s easy to question whether individual efforts really matter. 

4. Assign unique responsibilities. 

Many groups balloon in size because people are trying to be polite—they want to include everyone and offend no one.

5. Make individual inputs visible. 

When it’s impossible to see who’s doing what, people can hide in the crowd. 

6. Build a stronger relationship. 

If it’s challenging to change the task or the results, it may be time to work on the relationship. People don’t worry much about letting down strangers and acquaintances, but they feel guilty about leaving their friends in the lurch. 

7. If all else fails, ask for advice. 

Sometimes it’s useful to go right to the source. What if you approached a slacker and said the following? “I’m trying to get some members of this team to contribute more, and I wanted to seek your guidance on how to do that.” 

When thinking about building a team, the HR Council says it’s important to think about the team needs (building and maintaining of the team), the task needs (getting the project done), and individual needs. They suggest establishing group norms that everyone feels comfortable with, affirming the importance of keeping commitments made to the group, and holding group members accountable.

■ Free Riders at Schools

The free rider problem at school starts early—as soon as teachers assign group projects. It’s frequent enough that a national foundation executive said, “I don’t support project-based learning because of the free rider problem.”

When there is evidence of a free rider, it’s important to diagnose the problem. John Larmer, Buck Institute, said step one is to “find out why this is happening; don’t assume a student is being lazy or is at fault—maybe the team isn’t organized well, or one person is dominating and doing too much; perhaps the student has language issues or lacks necessary skills.” Lower than expected contribution could be a function of a lack of skill, a lack of interest, or a lack of psychological safety on the team. Understanding the nature of the contribution problem can help identify the right solution—academic intervention, updated team norms, or a pep talk. 

Buck Institute suggests, “When creating project teams, four is often the best number. Groups of five may spread the work too thin. But groups of three can work also.” They suggest teachers should set up heterogeneous groups strategically so they have the support they need to be successful. For example, “you want to make sure that any students who are still learning English have someone who speaks their language in their group.” 

Larmer also suggests when forming teams, do not put best friends together who may not be able to tell each other to step it up.

▶ To ensure individual accountability while creating team-based products, the Buck PBL 101 Workshop suggests: 

• giving students organizers or forms for planning their tasks and dividing up the workload;

• structuring tasks so each student contributes;

• observing and collect reports on who did what work;

• having students assess themselves and their peers on how much they did; and

• giving more weight to individual work than team-created products.

▶ To help ensure individual accountability in team presentations: 

• require shared presentation duties;

• question each individual (about any part of presentation); and 

• if you want to get tough, tell them any student may be asked to do any part of presentation.

▶ To help students work well in teams, Buck suggests teachers: 

• Discuss teamwork with students, drawing from their past experience, noting what can go wrong & what it looks like when it goes well; 

• Develop clear criteria for team work: use a collaboration rubric, contracts, set of expectations and norms; 

• Practice collaboration skills before and during a project (e.g., use role-plays, team-building activities, have them practice on short tasks); 

• Give students organizers (like those in the “Useful Stuff” section of the PBL Starter Kit and PBL in the Elementary Grades) so they can plan their time & tasks, divide the workload, and establish plans for communication and meetings;

• Teach students conflict resolution skills and decision-making strategies;

• Have students self-assess and reflect on collaboration skills at checkpoints; and

• For secondary students make classroom culture like a workplace including hiring and firing policies (“fired” students must complete the project on their own) and entry and exit plans (if students come or go).

■ Tracking Progress

EL Education supports a national network of project based schools. CAO Ron Berger encourages continuous assessment in a project-based environment. He notes that many teachers consider the final product to be a sufficient form of assessment, but Berger says, “If the teacher isn’t assessing all along the way then the final product will not typically show the high quality of success.” 

Waiting until the end of the project can also mean overlooking serious team dysfunction and a student that, for one of several reasons, isn’t making an adequate contribution. 

Ron suggests building in smaller assessments, in some cases on demand assessments, at multiple times before the final project, “Don’t wait; check along the way.” Several checks give the teacher a sense of individual student levels of understanding throughout the project. 

Larmer suggests requiring each student to do specific tasks when working on a team product and have checkpoints to be sure this is happening.

Next generation school models combine personalized and project-based learning yielding a frequent measures of growth and achievement —both automated and teacher observed—which can help spot problems that may detract from team contributions. 

■ Sink or Swim

At the Katherine Smith School in San Jose a project called “Sink or Float” challenged fifth graders to design and sail a cardboard boat that would hold a three-person team. Students were asked to use concepts of area, perimeter, volume, mass, density, water displacement and buoyancy to engineer a boat, made out of only cardboard and packing tape, that would hold three student crew members.

Principal Aaron Brengard said, “It was project-based learning at its finest - a challenging problem, a public product, authentic application of knowledge, and, of course, collaboration.”  

Katherine Smith, a member of the project-based New Tech Network, has a mission to prepare students to think, learn, work, communicate, collaborate, and contribute. Of these six habits of success, “collaboration is one that drives our innovation and pushes work to a higher quality,” said Brengard.

Here is the Katherine Smith definition: “Collaborate constructively. Take responsibility for yourself and your team. Listen with empathy and understanding with a commitment to shared success. Give and receive feedback.”

Shared norms and tangible sink or swim experiences, like those at Katherine Smith, may be the best way to avoid the free rider problem. 

For more see: 

• Inclusive Special Education via Project Based Learning

• 4 Ways to Use Project-Based Learning to Support English Language Learners

• Blended, Project-Based and Social Emotional Learning at Thrive Public Schools

Tom Vander Ark is CEO of Getting Smart and a partner at Learn Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in educational technology.

Article source : https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-avoid-the-free-rid_b_9997334

------------------------------------------------

‘Free-rider problem’—Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes says he and other 0.1%-ers need to pay up

PUBLISHED MON, FEB 11 201911:10 AM / Matthew J. Belvedere

---------------

KEY POINTS

■ The top 1-percent—and even more specifically the top 0.1-percent, “aren’t paying their fair share,” says Hughes, an advocate for wealth equality.

■ “My taxes should be higher,” says the Facebook co-founder — who left the social network in 2007, after three years, with about $500 million.

■ Art Laffer, father of “trickle down” economics under Ronald Reagan, argues that government should raise folks up, “not pull other people down.”

---------------

Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook and an advocate for wealth equality, told CNBC on Monday that he and other ultrawealthy Americans should be paying higher taxes to help make life better for everyone in society.

“We have a free-rider problem. The top 1-percent — and even more specifically the top 0.1-percent, those with household wealth above $50 million — aren’t paying their fair share,” said Hughes.

Hughes’ argument echoes that of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who officially launched her 2020 Democratic presidential campaign on Saturday. The Massachusetts Democrat wants to impose an annual wealth tax of 2 percent on households with assets over $50 million and 3 percent on households with assets over $1 billion. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a freshman socialist firebrand from New York, wants to slap a 70 percent marginal tax rate on income above $10 million.

“As a member of that 1-percent, 0.1-percent, I can tell you, I can afford a little bit higher taxes and it would make my life better,” Hughes said in a “Squawk Box” interview. “The point is clear — my taxes should be higher.”

Hughes, a Harvard dormmate of co-founder and Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg, was the early spokesperson for the social network. Hughes said he made about $500 million for three years of work. He left Facebook in 2007 to work on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

In 2016, Hughes co-founded the Economic Security Project, an effort to explore how to provide financial security for all Americans through cash transfers. Appearing on CNBC in 2018, he said workers who make less than $50,000 per year should get a government stipend of $500 per month — paid for by raising taxes on the top 1-percent.

As a member of that 1-percent, 0.1-percent, I can tell you, 

I can afford a little bit higher taxes and it would make my life better.

Chris Hughes/ FACEBOOK CO-FOUNDER

However, economist Art Laffer, father of the “trickle down” policies of the Ronald Reagan presidency, disagreed with Hughes’ premise that taxing the wealthy further would lead to more prosperity for lower-income Americans. “When you do wealth taxes and death taxes, it does change the incentive.”

The government should pursue policies that raise folks up, “not pull other people down,” said Laffer, co-author of “Trumponomics,” which similarly to “Reaganomics” espouses that tax cuts on individuals and corporations spur investment and a stronger economy and job market, which benefits lower-income workers more than the rich.

We should have a low rate broad-based flat tax and then 

Warren Buffett would pay what he deserves.

Art Laffer/ ECONOMIST

Appearing in the same CNBC interview as Hughes, Laffer also took a shot at the Facebook co-founder, saying if he wants to pay more taxes, just pay them. “I have no problem with you sending a check to the government, if that’s what you want to do with your money,” Laffer told Hughes, who responded by smiling. “We should have a low rate broad-based flat tax and then Warren Buffett would pay what he deserves,” Laffer added.

In saying he should pay higher taxes, Hughes sounded like Buffett. The billionaire investor has long called for wealthier Americans to pay higher tax rates, pointing out over the years during Democratic and Republican administrations that he pays a lower rate than his office employees because most of his income comes from capital gains.

Article source : https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/facebook-co-founder-chris-hughes-says-0point1percent-ers-need-to-pay-more-taxes.html

------------------------------------------------

China’s Free Rider Syndrome

Will Marshall, Contributor/ President and Founder, Progressive Policy Institute

12/01/2010 01:52 pm ET   

There may be no method to North Korea’s madness, but the world’s response to its episodic outrages has settled into a familiar pattern. It’s a dangerous pattern, and one likely to recur as long as China keeps enabling Pyongyang’s belligerent behavior.

First comes an utterly unprovoked attack on South Korea. Seoul reacts angrily and threatens unspecified consequences. Washington firmly backs its ally, and solicits global censure of North Korean aggression. The Chinese, however, decline to assign blame and instead urge resumption of direct talks with Pyongyang. South Korea eventually backs away from confrontation, on the perfectly rational premise that living with the North’s occasional spasms of violence is preferable to an all-out war that would devastate both countries.

The latest crisis began last week when the North shelled a South Korean island. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak called the attack, which killed two civilians and wounded 16, a “crime against humanity” and warned that Seoul would not tolerate a direct attack on its soil. The United States dispatched an aircraft carrier, the George Washington, while China called, irrelevantly, for a resumption of the long defunct six-party talks aimed at dismantling the North’s nuclear weapons program. And yesterday, Seoul moved to dampen war fever by canceling live-fire artillery drills on the stricken island.

Essentially the same cycle played out last spring, when North Korea sunk a South Korean patrol boat, the Cheonan, killing all 46 sailors aboard. Pyongyang paid no price for this act of war, either.

Pyongyang’s behavior may look like a classic case of winning through intimidation, except that it’s not clear what it gains from such brutal tactics. The North is as isolated and poverty-stricken as ever, and, with dictator Kim Jong il preparing to hand off power to his son, no relief is in sight for its thoroughly regimented society.

One explanation is that the regime from time to time must manufacture external threats to justify the extreme sacrifices it demands of its people. Another is that its assaults are part of an elaborate shake-down racket meant to get the world’s attention — along with bribes for good behavior.  Except that it seems to be having the opposite effect. Last week’s shelling, along with the Cheonan incident, have driven the final nail in the coffin of the South’s “sunshine policy” of economic and humanitarian aid to the North. Nor is Washington eager to reward Pyongyang’s bellicose conduct by rushing back into the six-party talks.

This latest outrage throws a spotlight on China’s role as North Korea’s enabler. Not only does Beijing shield Pyongyang from the consequences of its disruptive behavior, it also helps to keep the regime afloat by supplying fuel and other economic assistance. Perhaps it’s too facile to assume — as Republicans like John McCain and Lindsay Graham do — that China can bring the mercurial Kim regime to heal just by threatening to shut down oil shipments or cross-border trade. But is it really too much to ask of China that it at least not cover up the North’s crimes and collude in its ludicrous lies?

Beijing wants very badly to be accorded the respect that its growing wealth and power implies. It wants a seat at the table where global decisions are made. Yet on issue after issue, China is proving to be a free rider. Beijing takes maximum advantage of an open world economy while contributing little to strengthening the system that has made it rich. Instead, it pursues a mercantilist policy that creates enormous imbalances in world trade and investment flows, while keeping its currency artificially high to make discourage imports from the U.S. and elsewhere. Instead of trying to tamp down tensions on the Korea peninsula, it feeds them by shielding its delinquent ward in Pyongyang from accountability. Instead of throwing its weight behind international efforts to restrain rogue regimes from Khartoum to Tehran, it seeks commercial advantage while hiding behind the supposedly sacrosanct principle of non-interference in other nation’s internal affairs.

China’s amoral and selfish behavior increasingly engenders doubt and fear, not respect. Its failure to accept the responsibilities that accompany its growing power undermines global cooperation and stability. It’s time for the Obama administration to move China’s free-riding to the center of its engagement with Beijing.

This item is cross-posted at Progressive Fix.

Article source : https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chinas-free-rider-syndrom_b_789888?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABJsF-JGIENZAOc_CZEiQH6DuZf6EpsfCQGU-xMchcWAgR8eEyTkJ4eKgONskXjjzMKdyxw-ccgpcxM2vJ70FiWmUGnznVLV4t8-ez41JqOKhJOyVEErdTqRJ01-zYYDpdZJ8Uyic0S5dUiIXwjmgOc1IectdfwLqKqATR_dbjPD

------------------------------------------------

Are We Becoming a Nation of ‘Free Riders’?

Vijay K. Mathur, Contributor/ Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio

03/10/2016 01:28 pm ET   | Updated Dec 06, 2017   

Usually the term free rider is defined in the context of a public good.  An individual is a free rider who is reluctant to contribute voluntarily in the provision of a public good.  All people consume a pure public good in the same amount, and it is not probable to exclude others from its consumption.   National defense is an example of a pure public good. 

The free rider problem could arise in a common property resource such as public pastureland and forestlands, public waterways and clean air.  It could also arise in the provision of private goods, such as the electricity grid, when some individuals hook up to the system without paying.  Such cases arise due to large detection and enforcement costs in eliciting payments.  Hence, in large group settings, it is necessary to use enforcement mechanisms of taxes and/or user charges with the force of the law.

Estimates developed by the IRS show that Net Tax Gap (NTG), tax liability minus taxes neither paid in time nor collected, increased from $290 billion in 2001 to $385 billion in 2006.  NTG was 85.5% percent of the Gross Tax Gap that comprises only taxes not paid in time.  Tax evasion occurs when one fails to report income or claims more than the legally allowed deductions.  The underreporting gap on individual income taxes, corporate taxes and employment taxes is close to 98 percent of the NTG.  IRS report Tax Gap for Tax Year 2006, Overview, January 6, 2012, found that  “More than a third of the growth in the underreporting gap was attributable to corporate income tax.” (www.IRS.gov).    

These tax evaders are free riders, as they benefit from public goods and services.  I am sure there are many minor free rider issues that are not cost effective to be resolved.   However, when large amounts of revenue loss is involved or large groups are involved, it could impose a heavy cost on the nation.  Joel Slemrod and Jon Bakija (SB) in their book Taxing Ourselves (2008) argue that tax evasion creates horizontal inequities, since equally well off people share different tax burdens.  Tax evasion deprives the government of revenues that could have been used in the production of public goods, such as infrastructure, cleaning up the environment or more spending for education and training programs.  Tax evasion, if pervasive due to lack of monitoring and enforcement, may necessitate higher tax rates, thus causing further evasion and loss of productivity and income.  

Tax avoidance by businesses and individuals, though legally sanctioned, increases vertical inequities since large corporations and wealthy individuals have resources to hide their profits and/or incomes in offshore tax havens.  In a study Picking UP the Tab 2013, Phineas Baxandall and Dan Smith, April 2013, found annual tax revenue loss of $150 billion in 2012 from tax havens. Authors estimate that if this extra annual loss of $150 billion “was distributed evenly among all taxpayers, in 2012 each American taxpayer would pay an additional $1026” to offset the loss.  Such tax avoiders are legally sanctioned free riders.

A particular free rider problem, recently reported in the media, caught my attention.  Certain ranchers in Utah and other Western states claim that BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and USFS (US Forest Service) are interfering with their rights to use public lands for grazing their livestock.   BLM and USFS require permits and user fees from ranchers for grazing rights on public lands. 

Cliven Bundy, a rancher in Nevada, supported by armed anti-government groups led by his son David Bundy, refused to pay long overdue grazing fees for his cattle on public lands managed by BLM.   In order to avoid violence, law enforcement officers withdrew from the ranch without collecting fees.  But, finally Cliven Bundy was arrested recently when he was involved with armed occupiers of a wildlife refuge in Oregon, headed by his son Ammon Buddy. Many other armed men involved in standoff in Nevada and Oregon, including David Bundy, were arrested and indicted for criminal acts.

BLM and USFS manage most of the public lands, and most of the land is in 11 Western states. These rebellious ranchers claim the right to use public lands free of charge.  The data from The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), January 2015, show that grazing fees that have been declining since 1991 adjust with the cost of raising livestock and the market price of livestock and were only 6.72% of the private grazing user fees on private lands.  Hence, all ranchers who use public lands are already obtaining large amounts of taxpayers’ subsidized benefits to earn profits.   However, these rebellious ranchers would like to obtain extra subsidy from taxpayers, including other law-abiding ranchers.  

The rise in the ratio of unreported income to reported income to IRS since 1985, as shown by estimates developed by Professor Edgar Feige, and public lands’ grab by some ranchers with tacit support of some politicians, are indicative of a developing culture of free ridership. This culture is corrosive to the economic system.  It creates a contagion effect when law-abiding taxpayers notice some others not fulfilling their responsibilities to the society.   Research shows that dishonesty and honesty are contagious.  Leaders, who either directly or tacitly encourage free riders, contribute to the contagion effect and hence undermine lawful functioning of the society and nurturing of trust in the state.

Mathur is former chair and professor of economics and now professor emeritus, Department of Economics, Cleveland Sate University, Cleveland, Ohio.  He resides in Ogden, Utah.

Article source : https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-we-becoming-a-nation-_b_9422650

------------------------------------------------

< Questions >

Q1. What is the definition of free rider? 

Q2. Do you know what the wealth tax is? 

Q3. According to an above movie clip, Hughes, an advocate for wealth equality asked that the top 1-percent—and even more specifically the top 0.1-percent, aren’t paying their fair shares? How do you think about it? 

Q4. According to a above movie clip, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes - who left the social network in 2007, after three years, with about $500 million - said “My taxes should be higher".  What do you think of his wealth tax idea which is about increasing the taxes of 0.1-percent of rich? 

Q5. Could you show us some exemplary cases for free rider? 

Q6. Who benefits from public goods?

*** Public Goods 

A public good is a product that one individual can consume without reducing its availability to others and from which no one is deprived. Examples of public goods include law enforcement, national defense, sewer systems, and public parks.

Q7. Did you have any issue with free riders in your life? 

Q8. If you find any free rider in your life, how do you deal with them? 

Q9. What are the types of people who you like and you dislike? 

Q10. What kind of colleagues do you like or dislike? 

Q11. How to Avoid the Free Rider Problem in Teams?

1) Make the task more meaningful. 

    People often slack off when they don't feel that the task matters. ...

2) Show them what their peers are doing. ...

3) Shrink the group. ...

4) Assign unique responsibilities. ...

5) Make individual inputs visible. ...

6) Build a stronger relationship. ...

7) If all else fails, ask for advice.

Q12. Do you have your own conflict resolution skills when you have the issues with other colleagues? 

------------------------------------------------

Why Our Personal Values Matter More Than Ever Today

Heather Poole/ Technical writer 

What’s important to you? Your morning coffee? Making time to walk your dog? Getting that assignment to your boss on time? Okay, but what’s valuable to you? According to Atlantic Magazine, 7 out of 10 Americans say people’s values have been getting worse in America over the past decade.[1] What are your personal values?

 What Are Values?

Your values are a testament to your true self, because they are what matter most to you when it comes to personal and professional life. Your values influence that little voice in your head that tells you whether or not to care about something, and how you should prioritize your time. Your values are the things that you believe are important in the way you live and work.[2]

Your core values help determine what you truly want out of life, while simultaneously acting as the measuring stick you use to tell if you’re satisfied with your current situation and living in a meaningful way. Core values define who we are while helping us find our purpose. Here’re a few good examples of the core value words:[3]     

Reliability	Dependable	Respectful
Loyal	Committed	Teamwork
Caring	Adventuros	Efficient
Listening	Diversity	Humility

Some of these values are instilled in you from childhood. They can be cultural or learned through watching your family and hearing their discussions about things they’re passionate about.

Perhaps now, in adulthood, you realize you’re passionate about those same things. It’s not a bad thing to share core values with those around you, but it can be detrimental to live a life that doesn’t honor those values.

 How Do Core Values Affect Our Day-to-day Decisions?

We make decisions based on our values every day, but we sometimes forget about the important decisions we face, big and small, and the potential stress those choices can create.

When you can identify your values and make choices that align with them, life suddenly becomes a little easier. But when you’re running on autopilot and not allowing your values to coincide with your choices, you can find yourself becoming incredibly unhappy, and maybe you don’t know why.

Discovering your core values don’t help with huge aspects alone, they also impact seemingly small things, too. Remember that thing you bought that you didn’t really need, but you just felt like having? You made the decision that spending money wisely was not valuable to you. But is that truly how you feel? Now it’s the end of the month and bills are due. Perhaps it would be really helpful to have that money back, so it’s created stress. That disconnect stems from living a life that doesn’t correlate with your core values.

When you begin to make those choices that seem small at the time knowing what you find valuable, you begin to feel less stress in other aspects of your life. This has a snowball effect, and leads to continued better choices and prolonged stress-free existence. And the best part is, there’s no hard work needed, just some introspection and self-awareness. And if simply sitting alone for a few minutes could impact the rest of your life in a positive way, wouldn’t it be worth it? After all, knowing your values make important decisions, like accepting a job, starting a business, or making a big change, much easier.

 How Do We Find Out Our Personal Core Values?

Core values are important to us. By figuring out the things which matter to us most, we can lead a better life. Here’re two ways to find out your personal core values:

- Start with what you already know about yourself; your morals.

Knowing your core values can certainly sync up with your morals. After all, your values have a direct impact on your standards of behavior.

Think about it: if it is morally important to you to arrive at your workplace and focus on nothing but work on company time, it will also be true that being an honest and efficient employee is a value you carry to every job you occupy.

Maybe you’re the kind of partner who puts their phone away when on a date. This probably means you are a morally loyal person and want to ensure your partner knows you value time with them. This is a strong indication that, as a core value, you put relationships first and work hard to show people you care. You could easily list respect and commitment to your list of personal core values.

- Your own experience will be your best tool in realizing what’s valuable to you.

For instance, think back to a time you were the happiest. Why were you so happy? Was the fulfilment you felt due to other people? Who were they? Think about when you were proud of yourself, and why you felt that pride. Your own experiences can shine great light on what you hold important.

And don’t be afraid to look ahead; what values do you want to exemplify to your children? If you want others to value it, it’s valuable to you.

 What Should I Do With My Core Values?

Just sit down and make a list of what comes to mind, and let yourself explore those core values words. There is no set limit on how many values you can have, but allow yourself to list as many as you can.

- Prioritize Your Values

If you wind up with 20 words, consider crossing out those that barely made the list and prioritize your values.

Personal development blogger Steve Pavlina suggested identifying the top value, then the second highest value, and so on until you’ve rebuilt the list in order of priority from the top to the bottom.[4] As you’re trying to prioritize the values, have this question at the back of your mind: if I have to choose from these, which one go first and which one I can live without?

Some of the words may easily float to the top, where as others might stump you. Allow that to happen and accept that it aids in teaching you who you are.

- Look To Your Values Every Day

Once you’ve determined what your values are, it’s vital to look to them every day. We all face challenging situations and decisions, and Sam Whittaker put it best when he wrote,[5]

All [people] are thrust into tough situations from time to time…situations where the right thing to do isn’t obvious. Knowing which values are most important to you before these situations arise will help make you make better decisions.

So, let your values be valuable to you. Everyone is on their own path, and no one can tell you what your core values are but you.

- Don’t Be Afraid To Rework Your List In Future

When you realize your values and begin to live by them, you may find that not all of them are as important as you believed. Rework your list! You’re allowed to consciously change your values over and over again.

You are not your values. You are the thinker of your thoughts, but you are not the thoughts themselves. Your values are your current compass, but they aren’t the real you.[6]

Remember: Your values should aid in creating your best life, and your most authentic self. You make the rules. Be patient with yourself and dedicate the time to discovering your core values. You’ll be amazed at the things you can accomplish.

References

[1] ^ The Atlantic: 21 Charts That Explain American Values Today

[2] ^ MindTools: What Are Your Values?

[3] ^ ContentSparks: Big List of Core Value Words

[4] ^ Steve Pavlina: Living Your Values Part 1

[5] ^ Sam Whittaker: How to Define Your Personal Values

[6] ^ Steve Pavlina: Living Your Values Part 1

Article source : http://www.lifehack.org/569422/what-are-values-and-why-need-them-for-fulfilling-life?ref=category_section_post_6003

---

<Questions> 

Q1. What are values? What is the roles of core values in your life? 

Q2. What are your core values? Here’re a few good examples of the core value words.  

Reliability	Dependable	Respectful
Loyal	Committed	Teamwork
Caring	Adventuros	Efficient
Listening	Diversity	Humility

Q3. How do core values affect your day-to-day decisions?

Q4. How do you visualize your core value in your real life? 

------------------------------------------------

WHAT IS DEBATE?

"I may be wrong and you may be right and, 

by an effort, we may get nearer the truth."

- Karl Popper -

Debate is a formal contest of argumentation between two teams or individuals. More broadly, and more importantly, debate is an essential tool for developing and maintaining democracy and open societies. More than a mere verbal or performance skill, debate embodies the ideals of reasoned argument, tolerance for divergent points of view and rigorous self-examination. Debate is, above all, a way for those who hold opposing views to discuss controversial issues without descending to insult, emotional appeals or personal bias. A key trademark of debate is that it rarely ends in agreement, but rather allows for a robust analysis of the question at hand. Perhaps this is what French philosopher Joseph Joubert meant when he said: “It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a question without debating it.”

 The Karl Popper Debate Format

At the secondary school level, IDEA debaters follow the Karl Popper debate format, which places students in two teams of three members. Teams are presented with a 'resolution', such as “Economic development should be valued above protection of the environment” or “Human genetic engineering is immoral". The team affirming the resolution speaks first. The opposing team then must refute the arguments offered by the affirming team and offer arguments rejecting the resolution. Both sides are given the opportunity to present their positions and to directly question the opposing team. Neutral judges - usually parents or teachers - eval‎‎uate the persuasiveness of the arguments and offer constructive feedback on such elements as faulty logic, insufficient evidence and arguments debaters may have overlooked. Debate teams are judged strictly on the merits of their arguments.

 Debate and Democracy

Debate is not a forum for asserting absolute truths, but rather a means of making and eval‎‎uating arguments that allows debaters to better understand their own and others’ positions. This sense of a shared journey toward the truth brings debaters closer together, even when they represent opposing sides of an issue or come from vastly different cultures or social classes. In so doing, debate fosters the essential democratic values of free and open discussion.

Article source : http://idebate.org/about/debate/what

------------------------------------------------

12 Ways Debating Will Help You for the Rest of Your Life

St. John’s-Ravenscourt | January 11, 2016

Reasoning, research and even public speaking skills are just some of the positives behind learning how to be a great debater. From planning your argument (even if you don’t agree with it) to choosing your words wisely, debating will help you take on whatever life chooses to throw at you.

Debating is by no means the same as entering into a full-on argument. In fact, you will need to develop a succinct, effective argument, which will gain you support and kudos, rather than blindly attacking your opponent.

From Cicero to Churchill, history’s great debaters have helped shape the world we live in and resolve many of society’s issues. Here are 12 ways that debating can help you in your life for years to come.

1. Be a better critical thinker

While you might not debate on a day-to-day basis, chances are you will get involved in small disagreements and differences of opinion. Debating, instead of arguing, can help you defuse a rapidly escalating situation. Rather than raising your voice, take a step back and choose your words wisely.

Debating helps you to develop essential critical thinking skills – the ability to make reasoned and well thought out arguments in addition to questioning the evidence behind a particular stance or conclusion. Critical thinking will help you become curious about new ideas while also retaining a level of scepticism and building a healthy attitude to questioning. It will also help you to become more humble – well, you can’t be right all the time! 

2. Articulate your thoughts

Ever had that feeling when you just can’t get your words out quickly enough? Debating can help you become even better at explaining a whole variety of topics. From explaining complex mathematical equations to the plotline of your favourite book, debating helps you to identify your audience and choose the appropriate tone. Too formal a tone will only alienate you from your listeners, while being too relaxed might undermine your own arguments. The ability to articulate and plan your thoughts is key in debating, producing a well- planned out and sharp argument.

3. Education is key

In any debate the argument matters, even if you don’t agree with it on principle. The manner in which you deliver your winning speech is also incredibly important: keeping calm and maintaining eye contact are all proven as effective debating techniques. Last but not least is the method in which you put your debate together. Are your arguments coherent? Do they make sense?

A good debater will keep all of these in mind in addition to the core elements they have acquired through education (reading and finding sources, writing and drafting a speech, speaking confidently and being able to listen) – useful both inside and outside the classroom. 

4. Think on your feet

Think outside of the box, challenge your opponent and be ready to identify any loopholes in their counter-argument. The ability to think on your feet and respond to questions and comments is essential while debating – hesitating could cost you precious time and points. In fact, the ability to think on your feet could stand you in good stead in any situation which life throws at you, when time is of the essence and a decision needs to be made fast.

5. Conflict resolution

A good debater will remain focused and won’t stray from the issue they are discussing. Just like any successful orator, remember who it is you want to keep on side, and present a personable argument – you will appear instantly much more amenable and likeable.

Knowing how to lose graciously and accept your failings are important skills, both in debating and during everyday life. This will also help resolve any conflicts before they have a chance to begin. So, accept any criticism that comes your way. It will make you a much more polished and proficient speaker – and human being – in the long term.

6. Show some empathy

A successful speaker will always maintain a degree of empathy while debating – you might not believe in what you have been assigned, but empathy will help you understand and accept the beliefs of others. Nobody is asking you to agree with the other party’s argument, but empathy is an important life skill, helping you to improve your relations on a personal and professional level.

7. Keep your emotions in check

A good debater will also remember to retain an element of poise and composure – addressing the issue rather than getting carried away emotionally. In fact, managing your emotions will not only stand you in good stead while debating. It is no easy skill to manage, but will gain you respect in every walk of life.

8. Construct meaning out of complex situations

Debating will also help you learn how to construct meaning out of, what are usually, rather complex topics. From world peace to banning nuclear energy, taking the time to research the subject and carefully construct the points you want to make will help you construct a better argument.

Finding solutions to a previous problem and compiling creative solutions and ideas are also key skills for any good debater. Thinking outside of the box and making the best of a bad situation are excellent traits to have, meaning you are prepared and ready to take on any challenge, no matter what the size.

9. Presentation skills

Presentation plays a crucial part in how others perceive you as an individual, and more importantly, as competition.

Consider what you are going to say, speak slowly and with clear enunciation. It will make for better reasoning and a clearer understanding of what you say. Good presentation skills will earn you instant respect both while debating and in future situations.

10. Confidence boost

Good presentation skills will also help boost confidence – helping you to shine at interviews or work related events. If you are confident you feel more able to take on increased responsibility and even take some risks – helping you to stand out as an individual. A polished overall presentation and confident speaking manner will make you a memorable individual.

11. Be more socially conscious

Debating is a skill which requires any individual to be much more politically and socially aware of current affairs. In fact, debating also requires you to address a whole range of diverse social issues and viewpoints. Being more socially and politically aware is not only important while debating but it will also ensure that you connect and relate better to others, both socially and in the workplace.

12. An expanded worldview

Debating not only touches on political and social topics, it can also help individuals acquire a totally different worldview too. Debating means students study topics that they wouldn’t normally consider, meaning they have a deeper understanding of the society and the world which we live in. An expanded worldview also encourages students to be proud of their talents and achievements, in addition to being more appreciative of the opportunities that await them.

Being more conscious of the world we live in will stand you in good stead for the future – even if you don’t win the debate this time.

____________________

This article was sponsored by St John’s-Ravenscourt School. Over the last 28 years, students at the Canadian school have been named World Debating Champion on 14 occasions. Students of all ages and skill levels practice various forms of debate and travel across the country and the world competing.

Read more at https://www.studyinternational.com/news/12-ways-debating-will-help-you-for-the-rest-of-your-life/#WguAVbhDMVdeioip.99

------------------------------------------------

< Questions > 

Q1. What is the difference between debate and discussion?

*** What is the difference between panel discussion and debate?

Debate is for argument and to attack to win while group discussion is to exchange ideas and opinions for a better understanding of a topic. ... The views of all participants matter in a group discussion while, in a debate, a speaker has to defend or attack to win.

Q2. What is the main purpose of debate? 

 Debate and Democracy

Debate is not a forum for asserting absolute truths, but rather a means of making and eval‎‎uating arguments that allows debaters to better understand their own and others’ positions. This sense of a shared journey toward the truth brings debaters closer together, even when they represent opposing sides of an issue or come from vastly different cultures or social classes. In so doing, debate fosters the essential democratic values of free and open discussion.

Q3. Do you know any good debater? 

Q4. Why do we need education for skillful debating culture? 

Q5. What is the strength and weakness of each candidate ?

Q6. What is the critical roles of a excellent leader? 

Q7. Are you a good debater? 

Q8. What would be the advantages of good debating skills? Please reference below 12 merits suggested by above article.

1. Be a better critical thinker

2. Articulate your thoughts

3. Education is key

4. Think on your feet

5. Conflict resolution

6. Show some empathy

7. Keep your emotions in check

8. Construct meaning out of complex situations

9. Presentation skills

10. Confidence boost

11. Be more socially conscious

12. An expanded worldview