(토요모임) [15. Feb. 2020] Saturday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy !  It's me Scarlett !   

This week, we will talk about 'Generational rifts', 'THE ETHICS OF RIGHT AND WRONG', 'Free rider issues', 'Critical thinking' and  'Carbon Neutrality'. 

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 topics. :) Topics are as follows. 

◈ YouthQuake

--- Parasite director Bong Joon-ho: 'Korea seems glamorous, but the young are in despair'

--- How Millennial Leaders Will Change America

--- Millennials: Disadvantaged Generation?

◈ THE ETHICS OF RIGHT AND WRONG

--- SELECTED TED/TEDX TALKS ON THE ETHICS OF RIGHT AND WRONG

--- Black-and-White Thinking in our Social Worlds

◈ 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

◈ Critical thinking 

--- ‘Interstellar’ takes Korean box office by storm

--- 5 benefits of being a curious person

--- Why we need creative confidence

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

◈ Carbon Neutrality Declaration 

--- Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions 

--- Global Carbon Emissions

--- S. Korea abandons international carbon neutrality declaration

Hope you enjoy the topics.

With luv 
Scarlett

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

'Do not go gentle into that good night' - Dylan Thomas(1914~1953)

'Do not go gentle into that good night' (순순히 어두운 밤을 받아들이지 말라)

- Dylan Thomas (딜런 토마스(1914~1953)) -

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

Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,

Because their words had forked no lightning they

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright

Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,

And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight

Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,

Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.

Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

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

Parasite | Official UK Teaser [HD] | In Cinemas 7 February

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

Millennials: Disadvantaged Generation?

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

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

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

Is Right and Wrong Always Black and White? 

| Juan Enriquez | TEDxBeaconStreet

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

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

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

NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2

This 2014 video uses 2006 data and a high-resolution NASA computer model to simulate how natural and human emissions of CO2 traevel through the earth's atmosphere in one year starting January 1, 2006.

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

Causes and Effects of Climate Change | National Geographic  

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

Climate Change 101 with Bill Nye | National Geographic

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

Parasite director Bong Joon-ho: 'Korea seems glamorous, but the young are in despair'

Fri 31 Jan 2020

Bong Joon-ho … ‘The Oscars are very local.’ Photograph: Sarah Lee/The Guardian

After a sojourn in Hollywood, the film-maker went back to South Korea to do his next film – and produced an undisputed masterpiece. Why is his stunning critique of the class system striking chords all over the world?

The past year has been a whirlwind for Bong Joon-ho, and he is still in the midst of it. His movie Parasite has whisked him to places few directors – and certainly no South Korean director – have been before. It started with winning the top prize at the Cannes film festival last May, and the momentum has not let up: critical adulation, box office success, US talkshow appearances and a ridiculous 170 awards and counting.

And not just not just awards in the “foreign film” categories; Parasite is the first foreign-language film to win the Screen Actors Guild’s coveted ensemble performance award. It is also up for six Oscars, including best picture and best director. Before, it was only connoisseurs who appreciated Bong’s singular output – including Donald Glover, Edgar Wright, Guillermo del Toro and Quentin Tarantino. Now there’s a whole online “#BongHive” sharing memes, news and general love about the 50-year-old film-maker. He’s this season’s must-have selfie for Hollywood stars to brandish on Twitter. Even Bong’s ever-present interpreter, Sharon Choi, has become a minor celebrity.

Bong has kept his feet on the ground throughout. He brought his eight-minute standing ovation at Cannes to a close because he was hungry. Similarly, he described the Oscars as no big deal because they are “not an international film festival. They’re very local.”

When we meet in London on a rainy, wintry morning, Bong is looking pretty windswept. His bouffant mop of hair is just about back in place, but he is wrapped in a big scarf, and has a cough. “The most difficult part has been the double, triple jetlag,” he – or rather Choi – says. Bong understands English and speaks it a little, but prefers to answer in Korean, trusting her to translate the nuances. “Physically, it has been really horrible but right now I’m doing good.”

Bong is no wide-eyed ingenue, though. His two preceding films, 2017’s Okja and 2013’s Snowpiercer, both effects-heavy sci-fi tales, were primarily in English and featured the likes of Chris Evans, Tilda Swinton, Jake Gyllenhaal and Ed Harris. He loves British and Irish actors, he says, not to mention British cinema – he claims to have watched Hitchcock’s Psycho at least 50 times. He has also been around the Hollywood block long enough to have had a run-in with Harvey Weinstein – of which more later.

The irony that Bong has scored his biggest success by returning to his native country and tongue is not lost on him. “I actually came up with this idea back when I was working on Snowpiercer,” he says. “It wasn’t as if I was motivated to return to Korea and do a Korean-language film, although I did want to pack this film with very Korean details.” There is a great deal of local specificity in Parasite, from its reference to a craze for opening Taiwanese pastry shops to an invented dish of packaged instant noodles mixed with sirloin steak (which has, of course, become a real-life trend), but Parasite is that rare “local” film that has struck a resounding global chord.

Parasite is a story full of spoilable surprises. Suffice to say, the setup contrasts two Seoul families at opposite ends of the class ladder. The Kims (led by Bong’s regular lead actor, Song Kang-ho) live in a semi-basement hovel in an alley that doubles as a public toilet; the Parks live in a minimalist palace on a Seoul hilltop. Things kick off when the son, Kim Ki-woo, becomes an English tutor to the Parks’ teenage daughter. Sensing an opportunity, the Kims set about replacing the Parks’ domestic staff one by one, pretending not to know each other. But, needless to say, the plan does not come off perfectly.

“Korea, on the surface, seems like a very rich and glamorous country now, with K-pop, high-speed internet and IT technology,” Bong says, “but the relative wealth between rich and poor is widening. The younger generation, in particular, feels a lot of despair.” Just as there are people living in tents just around the corner from where we are in central London, so there are homeless people sleeping rough around Seoul’s central station, he says. “People who are in society’s blind spots.”

Parasite is not a simple tale of rich v poor. No one is totally innocent or guilty. Bong describes the film as “neutral”. He points out that Mr Park, whom he likens to Mark Zuckerberg, accrued his wealth through honest hard work. “He’s not particularly greedy, it doesn’t feel like he became rich by doing bad things.” At the same time, though, the Parks repeatedly express their contempt for the lower classes, even complaining that they smell different.

But the hard-up Kim family are also hard-working, albeit to more devious ends, and, in contrast to the atomised Park family, they are very unified. “That was one of the things I wanted to talk about with this film,” Bong says. “It’s not as if they have shortcomings or they are lazy. It’s just that they can’t get proper jobs.” He references a conversation in the film about how 500 college graduates applied for a single job as a security guard. “That’s not an exaggeration; it’s based on a real article I read.”

In that sense, Parasite could be taken less as a criticism of the class system than a “neutral” interrogation of the whole capitalist system. Is exploitation an inevitable outcome? Is there a better alternative? “People have to maintain mutual respect towards each other,” says Bong. “And this film deals with a situation where that minimal amount of respect you should have towards another human being is completely destroyed and ignored.”

Bong is as fascinated and baffled as anyone by how Parasite has taken off. “A lot of people say it’s a universal story because it’s about the gap between rich and poor, but I don’t think that’s all the answer,” he says. “I think this film has done so well because it appeals in a very cinematic way, as a film in itself. I really want to take time to look back at what that cinematic appeal was.”

Parasite isn’t just a great story; it is a great story brilliantly told. The pieces all seem to fit together: the performances, the structure, the meticulous design, the symbols and symmetries. The visual storytelling is so fluent, it barely needs subtitles, and Bong throws in a few of his trademark slow-motion scenes of extreme mayhem. But one of the director’s defining characteristics, for which the #BongHive adore him so much, is his uncanny ability to switch between tones and genres most western film-makers regard as mutually exclusive – often within a single scene. Parasite defies categorisation. It is a family drama, a black comedy, a suspense thriller, a class satire, even a domestic horror. That Hitchcock influence is clearly detectable, as are many others, but he has created a genre that is his own.

Social division is a theme that runs through much of Bong’s work, and, despite his avowed neutrality, he tends to favour the underdogs. His 2006 film, The Host, for example, also focused on a poor but loving family running a food stall, again led by Song. They take on a mutant fish-monster accidentally created by pollution from the US military in Seoul’s Han River. In Okja, it was a down-to-earth country girl who battles a dystopian corporation to save her only friend, a strangely adorable giant mutant pig. Snowpiercer, adapted from a French graphic novel, stages a class revolt on board a train containing the entire postapocalyptic population of the world – a horizontal counterpart to Parasite’s vertical class stratification. Chris Evans leads an assault by the have-nots at the rear on the privileged passengers dwelling at the front.

It was Snowpiercer, incidentally, that led to Bong’s run-in with Weinstein. The disgraced mogul acquired distribution rights to the film in 2012. Bong knew in advance of Weinstein’s “Harvey Scissorhands” reputation, and, sure enough, the producer chopped 25 minutes out of Snowpiercer. But Bong pushed back. At one stage, to retain a scene involving fish-gutting, he invented a lie about how the scene had personal meaning because his father was a fisherman. After bad test screening results for Weinstein’s cut, the mogul ultimately went with Bong’s original version, although it never had a UK release. Bong had no personal relationship with Weinstein to speak of, he says. Or, if he did, he would rather not get into it. “Because he was so high up and busy, I didn’t get to see him often. I only met him a couple of times in his editing room and in his office.”

Bong’s father is actually an art teacher. He places himself in the middle of Korea’s social ladder. “I grew up in a middle-class family. Even in terms of real estate, the house that I grew up in is in the middle – between the semi-basement home and the rich house you see in the film. I was really close with friends and relatives from both classes.” Parasite was inspired by his own experience tutoring a boy from a much wealthier family – at the introduction of his then-girlfriend, who was already tutoring the boy in English.

Surely after the success of his movies, Bong must be pretty well-off himself these days? “I’m not that rich!” he laughs. “I live in an apartment on the ninth floor. In terms of size, it’s probably around a quarter of the size of the house in the movie. Of course, my films did make a lot of money, but I don’t know if you could call me rich if you just look at my place in society.”

Bong first came to international prominence in the early 00s as part of a wave of exciting new directors emerging out of South Korea, including Park Chan-wook (whose Oldboy also won a prize at Cannes), Lee Chang-dong, Kim Jee-woon and Kim Ki-duk. As with Bong, these film-makers seemed to have something fresh to offer. The stories were often dark and gruesome, but told with technical finesse, clearly influenced by Hollywood as well as Asian cinema, and unafraid to switch up tone and genre.

Bong’s second movie, Memories of Murder, was based on the real-life hunt for a serial killer in the 1980s, who had never been caught. It is a window on to how different life must have been in the South Korea of his childhood: military dictatorship, civil unrest, inadequate public services. Under permanent threat of attack from the North, schools hold drills for gas attacks, and whole towns are subjected to “blackout drills” at night. Bizarrely, the real-life killer was recently brought to justice. “One of his cellmates said he watched the movie a couple of times, but we don’t know if that’s true.”

Even within this grim premise, Bong finds moments of absurd comedy in the police investigators’ incompetence. “It’s not as if we were trying to make the audience laugh; it just really reflects the absurdity of Korea in the 1980s,” says Bong. “The laughter has a tinge of sadness to it.” It is a similar story with Parasite, he suggests. “It reflects that absurdity of our current times. The foolishness of this era of polarisation.”

Perhaps this is a particularly Korean state of mind? “There is this collective anxiety,” he says. “Because war and separation of families, these are not abstract ideas to us. Even my mother’s sister in the North. These basic units of society and family are damaged, and Korea has spent decades with those consequences. So there’s a unique hysteria preval‎ent in Korean society.”

Whether or not it is a national trait, that element of bittersweetness seem to run through all of Bong’s work. It is never one thing or the other; it’s usually both, from Parasite’s steak-and-instant-noodle recipe to slapstick comedy in the face of serial killers and nuclear annihilation. Even Parasite’s world-conquering victory lap Bong regards with a level-headed ambivalence: “It’s kind of like a side job for me as a director,” he says. “My main job is not promoting a film, it’s writing scripts, and, of course, I’m doing that right now, in hotel rooms and on flights, but it hasn’t been easy. So there’s a duality with this entire process. Of course, it’s great and exciting, but I’m also desperate to return to my main job as soon as possible.”

• Parasite is released in the UK on 7 February, with a nationwide preview featuring a live streamed Q&A with Bong Joon-ho on 3 February

• This article was amended on 31 January 2020 because an earlier version incorrectly referred to Sharon Choi as a translator, when she is Bong Joon-ho’s interpreter.

Article source : https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/31/parasite-director-bong-joon-ho-korea-seems-glamorous-but-the-young-are-in-despair

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

< Questions >

Q1. How often do you watch a movie in the cinema hall?

Q2. What is the most favorite movie among Director Bong's works? 

Q3. How do you think about Director Bong? What makes him unique from other directors?

Q4. What was the most impressive scene in the movie 'Parasite'? Why?

Q5. What is the movie 'Parasite' about? How do you feel after watching a movie?

Q6. According to an article, Parasite could be taken less as a criticism of the class system than a “neutral” interrogation of the whole capitalist system. Is exploitation an inevitable outcome? Is there a better alternative? “People have to maintain mutual respect towards each other,” says Bong. “And this film deals with a situation where that minimal amount of respect you should have towards another human being is completely destroyed and ignored.”  Which one Do you find those mutual respect or dispise between the rich and the poor in our society?

Q7. Do you have any character you like in the movie 'Parasite'? Why?

Q8. What is the most urgent issue to be tackled in the Korean society?

Q9. What problems do the young generations have in Korea society?

Q10. How could we tackles those troubles related to accelerating unbalanced structure of social system ?

Q11. What is the one unique characteristic that makes you different from others?

Q12. Do you think 'Capitalism' is perfect ruling system? How about 'Socialism'?

Q13. What is the better way to make citizen happy?

Q14. What is the difference between capitalism and socialism?

Capitalism is a market-driven economy. The state does not intervene in the economy, leaving it up to market forces to shape society and life. Socialism is characterized by state ownership of businesses and services. ... Most countries are mixed economies, falling in between the extremes of capitalism and socialism.Jul 30, 2019

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-are-differences-between-capitalism-and-socialism.asp

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

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 >

Q1. In this article, what the YouthQuake stands for? 

Q2. Who is the most vulnerable generation in your society?

Q3. What do you think about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? How do you think about her as a politician? 

Q4. 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? 

Q5. How many millennial politicians who speak their own ideas independently without manipulated by other older colleagues, do you have in your country? 

Q6. What is the most urgent agenda for millennials? 

Q7. According to Ocasio-Cortez “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?  

Q8. 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?

Q9. What impressive political event happened when people were young?”

Q10. 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?

Q11. Which generation are you involved in among Millennials, Generation X, Boomers and Silent? 

Q12. Do you think we have battles of the generations? 

Q13. Do you think Millennials are the disadvantaged generation? 

Q14. Could you tell some differences between Millenials, Gen X and Gen Z? 

Q15. Which generation are you more look like among Millenials, Gen X and Gen Z? 

Q16. What's the side effects of generational imbalance? 

Q17. How could we bridge the wealth gap between the baby bommers and the millennials? 

Q18. Do you think Increasing the voting age can help to reflect more political needs of millennials? 

Q19. 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?

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

SELECTED TED/TEDX TALKS ON THE ETHICS OF RIGHT AND WRONG

Compliance in popular culture/ February 23, 2018

Traditional discussions of morality have often focused on dichotomies of good and bad, virtuous and evil, right and wrong. This polarized thinking simplifies the world into opposing absolutes. In this view, all people and all conduct stand on one side or other of an imaginary line.

Bad people are responsible for all evil actions and wrong decisions, whereas good people should always be expected to behave in a virtuous manner and to make the right choices. This views resigns any hope of someone who is judged “bad” making positive contributions to the world or being expected to have integrity; these people must be controlled against, excluded, and blamed when events take the wrong turn. 

Good people, on the other hand, are subject to straying from their presumably natural interest in behaving with integrity and must be prevented from doing so and punished if this ever happens, followed by being re-judged as bad if they do not respond to punitive and remedial treatment.

The limiting and unrealistic expectations of such a system are clear. In practice, this retrograde view can have chilling effect on a truly progressive understanding of organizational integrity and dynamics or any true restorative justice for individuals.

Unfortunately, rules-based systems tend to produce these polarized, inflexible views.  Mandatory compliance with its roles and responsibilities and reliance on policies and procedures can have such an outcome.  Of course, the law, internal requirements, and regulatory expectations often do follow a bright line and so adherence to these expectations is as straightforward as a yes or a no. 

However, this strict structure must be supported by a more dynamic and realistic system of values and principles.  Only then can the culture of compliance reflect the true nature of people and their choices and actions, which are all much more complex than a choice between two contrasting modes. 

Is Right and Wrong Always Black and White? (Juan Enriquez) – As discussed above, judgments about right and wrong, and the opinions about what is moral that follows them, are often limited to yes or no answers. In reality, people’s attitudes and actions can be heavily dependent upon contexts that limit their choices, pressure them to behave a certain way, or predispose them to certain opinions and options.  Looking back, people too often take the view of hindsight, where all the decisions and possible outcomes are neatly lined up and can be reviewed and compared in an unemotional and objective state.  However, real life is nearly never in such vacuum and so compassion is a necessary element in making these considerations between right and wrong less dichotomous and more realistic.  It is easy to stray into moral relativism, where people’s actions are judged by different standards and based upon subjective expectations.  However, perhaps short of that, and more instructive overall, comes moral discretion, to apply some understanding and reason to interpreting people’s moral decisions, the conditions in which they are made, and the consequences that arise from them.

Uncomfortable “truth” between right and wrong (Chris Rhyss Edwards) – Similar to the previous talk, Chris Rhyss Edwards focuses his viewpoint on the difficult decisions people need to make under exceptional circumstances. Like Juan Enriquez, Edwards does not suggest that a weighted view of a person’s worth through the filter of moral relativism is the right approach.  However, Edwards does urge people to look beyond the sum of an individual’s actions in making moral judgements about intentions in and reasons for behavior.  As a former soldier, Edwards has a novel perspective on his ethical quandary of choice – is it ever moral for a person to kill another?  For Edwards, in order to answer this question we must blend two perspectives.  One, there could be reasons why it seems necessary to kill, due to defense or duty for example.  But two, humans should contribute to reduction of violence in society overall to make a more peaceful world where people will not have to make choices about killing.  Edwards refers to this as an attitude of “appreciate enquiry,” suggesting this is as a lens through which to view complicated factors of motivation and choice.

Why we are wrong when we think we are right (Chaehan So) – The influence of impressions can have an intense impact on judgment of right and wrong. Confirmation bias plays heavily into people’s assessments and can easily cloud the real situation.  Much of judgment involves making quick predictions about outcomes and relying on overt or unconscious biases to guide expectations without really doing a true, substantive investigation into the truth of the situation.  Therefore, people often mistake right for wrong or vice versa. 

Changing instinctive ideas is very challenging as these preconceptions are deeply-rooted; however, understanding that these instincts exist and affect our judgment is crucial in working toward better decision-making.

Moral luck (Neilandri Sinhababu) – Neilandri Sinhababu introduces the paradoxical and even confounding concept of moral luck.  Sinhababu challenges the dual assignments of good and moral, validly questioning whether an action that is one is somehow inherently the other all of the time. 

The difference in judgement may hinge upon the importance of ultimate consequences in determining “good” action versus the emphasis on initial intentions in “moral” action.  In an approach which seeks to solve an ethical dilemma – and one that would be most appropriate for corporate compliance programs, incidentally – one must consider both intentions and consequences to reach for the best available result.  Therefore hoping to get “lucky” with results that match earnest intentions would not be as necessary because the compatibility with possible outcomes would have already been considered and taken into account when making the risks of any of the choices.

Moral behavior in animals (Frans de Waal) – Finally, for something entirely different, check out this talk from Frans de Waal on the surprising moral traits that humans and animals seem to share. While morality and ethics are not universal because they are heavily tied to many varying factors and beliefs that come from people’s different social and cultural backgrounds, there are some behaviors with moral implications or subtexts which seem to be natural or innate. 

It is interesting to consider these traits that seem distinctly human, but can also be exhibited by animals, in light of advancements in technology and the narrowing gap between natural (human) learning and artificial (machine) learning.  If the morality of animals is any indication, human consciousness and moral codes may be challenged and surprised by the ethics machines are taught or adopt.

Despite the questionable application of these views on “right” versus “wrong,” so many social and cultural norms and expectations are based upon this that it is impractical to ignore them.  Instead, these preconceptions need to be contemplated and challenged, to understand what is universal and useful, and to parse that from that which is unrepresentative and unhelpful.

Article source: https://compliancecultureblog.com/2018/02/23/selected-ted-tedx-talks-on-the-ethics-of-right-and-wrong/

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

Black-and-White Thinking in our Social Worlds
The Evolutionary Basis of Simple Thinking

Posted Jan 12, 2016 

Good guy or bad guy; with me or against me; friend or foe; right or wrong; love versus hate; yin and yang.

Our minds seem to like simple categorical ways to divide up information in the world. This is kind of interesting given how terribly complex and nuanced most things are - especially in our social lives. So why do we so strongly tend toward categorical simplicity in understanding the world? And what are costs and benefits of such reasoning in our day-to-day lives?

The Figure/Ground Illusion and Simplicity-Seeking

Source: Guam / Wikipedia Commons

The figure/ground illusion (see Hasson et al., 2001) exists when we look at an image that can be interpreted in multiple ways. For instance, the image included here can be seen as a vase. But after a few seconds of seeing it that way, we tend to see it as two faces looking at one another. However, and this point is critical, we cannot see both the vase AND the faces at the same time. To allow us to perceive the world in coherent units, our perceptual systems have evolved to force us to see a cluster of stimuli as only one coherent form at any given moment.

Simplicity-Seeking in Social Psychology

One of the interesting things about human social psychology is that, in many regards, we tend to over-simplify stimuli in our social worlds - seeing things that could be conceptualized as complex and nuanced as simple and categorical. 

For instance, in many ways, we divide people into the category of “on my team” or “not” per the powerful ingroup/outgroup phenomenon (Billig & Tajfel, 1973). Quickly and automatically, people divide folks into these categories - and research has shown that we treat people very differently if they are in our (psychologically constructed) group or not.

We see others as friends or as foes. We see people as good or bad. We see people as on our side, or against us. In an important sense, then, the simplicity-seeking processes in our basic visual systems parallel simplicity-seeking processes in our social perceptions.

And this tendency to see others in our social world in neat little categories, such as “good” or “bad,” likely helped our ancestors make efficient social decisions that helped them consort with others who were likely to help and support them and their families.

Implications of Being Simplicity-Seeking Creatures

Of course being overly simplistic in our social perceptions can be the basis of major problems in our worlds. As a college professor in the behavioral sciences, I am always trying to get students to understand nuances and complexities that underlie all behavior. Further, as an evolutionary psychologist, I am always teaching about human universals - or the fact that, at the end of the day, we’re all humans and all have come about the by same processes - and are all working toward similar goals that stem simply from being part of the living world.

Simplicity-Seeking and the Perception of Narcissists

And sometimes our science encourages simplicity seeking. As one example, consider current research on the topic of narcissists (see, for example, Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Researchers into relatively “dark” aspects of human personality have found that a core dark trait is narcissism - a tendency to focus overly on oneself at a cost to caring about others. People who are high on narcissism tend to behave in ways that truly benefit themselves a lot and such individuals tend to have little problem disregarding the interests of others.

This said, one nuance that often gets lost in the mix when it comes to narcissism is this: Narcissism is a continuous trait - people vary from one another by matters of degree. As is true with all continuous personality traits, people do not vary from one another categorically on this dimension. Thus, technically (and importantly), it’s not like there are “the narcissists” and “everyone else.” Rather, everyone has some proclivities toward narcissism - and some do more so, on average, than do others.

Now that’s a much more nuanced approach to thinking about what narcissism is, isn’t it? It’s also less simple. It’s less black-and-white. And, as someone who has taught courses in personality psychology since 1995, I can tell you also that it’s a difficult way for students (or anyone) to think about narcissism. It is so much easier and more natural for us to think about “narcissists” versus “everyone else” - and this fact is strongly rooted in our basic perceptual processes that promote black-and-white thinking in all areas of our lives.

Of course, this same problem, of seeing other people in overly simplified ways, is related to how things like ethnic or religious background affect how we see others. And yeah, lots of problems in this world stem from this fact.

Bottom Line

The social world is complex. In reality, people don’t really easily fall into categories of “good” and “evil” or "smart" or "dumb" or "helpful" or "lazy" - etc. In spite of the fact that human universals underlie so much of who we are, people have a very strong tendency to see others in highly simplistic, categorical ways. It’s way easier to see someone as “a narcissist” than to see that person as “slightly above the mean on the narcissist dimension at times.” It’s way easier to see someone as “a hypocrite” than to see someone as “less likely to hold and express consonant thoughts on average compared with others.”

We see a simple set of visual stimuli as either a vase OR as a pair of faces. And we often treat people in our social worlds with this same kind of categorical simplicity - often to the detriment of our getting to really know others in our world.

References

- Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27–52.

- Hasson, U., Hendler, T., Ben Bashat, D., and Malach, R. (2001). Vase or face? A neural correlate of shape-selective grouping processes in the human brain. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 13, 744–753.

- Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K.M. (2002). The Dark Triad of Personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563.

Article source : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201601/black-and-white-thinking-in-our-social-worlds

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

< Questions >

<< THE ETHICS OF RIGHT AND WRONG >>

Q1. Bad people are responsible for all evil actions and wrong decisions, whereas good people should always be expected to behave in a virtuous manner and to make the right choices. How do you think about above sentence? 

Q2. How do you decide what is wrong or right? 

Q3. Where do you learn the right thing or the wrong thing? 

Q4. I would like to ask one more time. When you judge what is wrong or right, do you affected by others or do you think on your feet?

Q5. What does the black and white thinking mean?

<< Black and White thinking >>

Q1. How would you define prejudice? 

*** Prejudice is an affective feeling towards a person based on that person's perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived, usually unfavourable, eval‎‎uation of another person based on that person's political affiliation, sex, gender, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality, beauty, occupation, education, criminality, sport team affiliation or other personal characteristics.

source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

Q2. Why does prejudice occur?

Q3. Have you ever suffered because of prejudice?

Q4. Christian Bovee said: “The great obstacle to progress is prejudice.” What do you think of this opinion?

Q5. Would you act if you saw cases of prejudice?

Q6. According to this article, we tend to over-simplify stimuli in our social worlds - seeing things that could be conceptualized as complex and nuanced as simple and categorical. For instance, in many ways, we divide people into the category of “on my team” or “not” per the powerful ingroup/outgroup phenomenon. How about you? Do you have similar over-simplifying experiences as above example suggested by dividing the group of people as your friends or foe? 

Q7. What is meant by splitting(all-or-nothing thinking)?

*** Splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.

Q8. We need organized history for 'Social justice'. However, sometime people go too much. People pursue the 'Social Justice' while they are ruining the procedural justice. Do you think Korean politicians are enormously obsessed with the past and splitting thinking? What is the required attitude for brightening Korea future and for the citizen? 

*** Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources. One aspect of procedural justice is related to discussions of the administration of justice and legal proceedings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_justice

Q9. What is the most important value for our peaceful and brightening future Korea and Korean citizen? 

Q10. Which generation is main player in your society? 

Q11. What would you do if prejudice was directed against you?

Q12. What does your government do to fight prejudice?

Q13. Do you think everyone in the world has prejudices?

Q14. Do you know any people who have prejudices?

Q15. What’s the worst form of prejudice you know of?

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

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

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

< 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? 

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

 ‘Interstellar’ takes Korean box office by storm

The much-anticipated space epic “Interstellar” nabbed the top spot on Korea’s weekend box office chart in its opening week.

Christopher Nolan’s film garnered more than 1.25 million viewers in the four days after its release on Thursday and dominated 1,310 of the 2,599 screens nationwide, according to the state-run Korea Film Council.

The film, starring Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway, is an end-of-days sci-fi flick, which takes place at a time when humanity is facing extinction as a result of drought and famine. A mysterious wormhole is discovered in space that will enable mankind to survive. A group of explorers, which includes Cooper (McConaughey) and Amelia Brand (Hathaway), is given the mission of saving humankind by finding a habitable new planet. 

While “Interstellar” is lengthy, at a hefty 169-minute running time, and deals with serious science subjects such as Einstein’s theory of relativity, the film’s emphasis on love and its emotional, thought-provoking plot have attracted viewers of all ages. Following suit after Nolan’s previous successes here with “Memento” (2002), the “Dark Knight” trilogy (2005-2012) and “Inception” (2010), the film insiders expect that “Interstellar” is expected to draw more viewers and set another box office record this season.

Article Source : http://khnews.kheraldm.com/view.php?ud=20141109000246&md=20141110003157_BK

'Do not go gentle into that good night' (순순히 어두운 밤을 받아들이지 말라) - Dylan Thomas (딜런 토마스(1914~1953)) -
Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.	순순히 어두운 밤을 받아들이지 마오. 노인이여, 저무는 하루에 화내고 악을 써야 하오.  분노하고 분노하시오, 꺼져가는 빛에.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night.	현명한 사람들도 마침내 어둠이 옳다는 것을 알지만, 그들의 말은 진리처럼 날카롭지 못 했기에 순순히 어두운 밤을 받아들이지 마오.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.	선한 자들은 마지막 파도가 지난 후에야 그 덧없는 행적들이 푸른 바닷가에서 얼마나 빛나게 춤추었을지 한탄하며 분노하고 분노하시오, 꺼져가는 빛에.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way Do not go gentle into that good night.	떠가는 태양을 붙들고 찬미하는 야인들은, 너무 늦게 깨닫고는, 태양이 그저 제 길을 가고 있음에 슬퍼하면서,  순순히 어두운 밤을 받아들이지 마오.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light.	죽음을 앞둔 채, 눈이 멀어 수심에 찬 이들은,  먼 눈에는 별똥별처럼 불타오르고 화사할지  모르지만, 분노하고 분노하시오, 꺼져가는 빛에.
And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.	그리고 그대, 나의 아버지여, 슬픔의 절정에서,  그대의 격한 눈물로 나를 저주하고 축복해주오,  내 기도할터이니. 순순히 어두운 밤을 받아들이지 마오.  분노하고 분노하시오, 꺼져가는 빛에.

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

< Questions >

Q1. 'Interstellar' is a science-fiction adventure film directed by Christopher Nolan. And Matthew McConaughey was starring in this movie as a main character who explores the black holes to save his family members and humankinds. However, there is low chance for him to meet their family again. If you are in his shoes, would you take your destiny as a new frontier or a challenger ?

Q2. If there is no more chance for human being to survive in the globe due to the climate change, and there is a little possibilities to find livable planet for next generation in the universe, what would you choose between a quest for new planet or staying in the earth?

Q3. What is more important to you between survival of humankinds or happiness and love of your family?

Q4. In this movie, what is the contextual meaning of the poem 'Do not go gentle into that good night'  which is written by Dylan Thomas ?

Q5. Do you think mankinds are the only intellecture creatures in the universe? Or do you think there are any other higher life forms in somewhere outside of a solar system? If there are other creatures like 'ET' out there, would you like to meet them?

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

 5 Benefits Of Being A Curious Person

Curiosity killed the cat? Not exactly. Evidence continues to emerge about the benefits of being an inquisitive, interested person. Not only does staying wide-eyed about the world make life more fun, it also has a number of surprising benefits.

Here are five reasons why curiosity is great.

It can strengthen your relationships.

Your curiosity about people and the world around you can make your social life richer. If you demonstrate an interest in what someone has to say and maintain many of your own interests that you can discuss, people probably enjoy spending time with you.

"Curious people are often considered good listeners and conversationalists," Ben Dean, Ph.D. wrote in a newsletter for the University of Pennsylvania. "In the early stages of a relationship, we tend to talk about our interests or hobbies. One reason for this is that people tend to equate 'having many interests' with 'interesting,' and for good reason. Curious people tend to bring fun and novelty into relationships."

It can help protect your brain.

Ever heard that crossword puzzles may help prevent Alzheimer's disease? Craving new experiences doesn't hurt either.

“Keeping your brain mentally stimulated is a lifelong enterprise,” David Knopman, a professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said, according to Bloomberg. “If one can remain intellectually active and stimulated throughout one’s lifespan, that’s protective against late-life dementia. Staying mentally active is definitely good for your brain.”

It can help you overcome anxiety.

It's perfectly normal to be nervous before a big date. But your curiosity and excitement about getting to know an attractive new person might push your anxieties into the background.

"Socially anxious people who experience high levels of curiosity, or appraise certain events as having a high possibility to satisfy curiosity, may be more likely to engage in approach behavior amidst conflicting avoidance motivations," according to a study published in 2009 by psychologist Todd Kashdan in the Journal Of Anxiety Disorders.

It correlates with happiness.

One theory on happiness is that we develop a "happiness set point" at an early age. We're at this baseline happiness level most of the time, and the level goes up or down depending on positive and negative life events. Kashdan, who authored the book Curious?: Discover The Missing Ingredient To A Fulfilling Life, argues that staying curious can kick our set point up a few notches.

"When we experience curiosity, we are willing to leave the familiar and routine and take risks, even if it makes us feel anxious and uncomfortable," Kashdan writes in his book. "Curious explorers are comfortable with the risks of taking on new challenges. Instead of trying desperately to explain and control our world, as a curious explorer we embrace uncertainty, and see our lives as an enjoyable quest to discover, learn and grow."

It can help you learn pretty much anything.

A new study published in the journal Neuron found that it's much easier to learn not-so-interesting things when our curiosity is piqued. For instance, if what you're trying to learn just isn't sticking, try watching 10 minutes of your favorite TV show between study sessions. It'll give you a nice break, and it will pique your curiosity, stimulating your brain's pleasure center. When you return to studying, your brain might be more willing to let in some of that information you thought was boring.

"Look for ways to connect the uninteresting things you have to learn with something you're curious and excited about," Lifehacker suggests. "Whatever makes you tick can be used, even if it's not actually related. Study in between 10-minute sessions of that show you're addicted to, go over presentation talking points while playing a new video game, or place study index cards throughout that new page-turner."

Just don't let the innocent 10-minute break turn into an all-night Netflix binge.

Article Source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/09/benefits-of-being-a-curious-person_n_6109060.html?utm_hp_ref=healthy-living

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

< Questions > 

Q1. Do you think you are an inquisitive or interested person?

      Or do you know anyone who has lot of curiosity on various issues?

Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having much curiosities?

Q3. From the article, some of games such as crossword puzzles could be the stimulus to our brain. So It may help prevent Alzheimer's disease. Do you have any intention to apply those activities to remain intellectually active and stimulated throughout your life span?

Q4. Do you think someone who has lots of curiosity on diverse matters is more creative than average person?  

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

 Why we need creative confidence

In 2012, IDEO founder and longtime Stanford professor David Kelley took the TED stage in Long Beach and shared a deeply personal story. It was the tale of his own cancer diagnosis, of finding a lump in his neck and being told he had a 40% chance of survival. This was clearly a sobering moment, but he wasn’t sharing the story to seek our sympathy. Rather, he wanted to talk about his resulting epiphany. “While you’re waiting for your turn to get the gamma rays, you think of a lot of things,” he said drily. “I thought a lot about: ‘What was I put on earth to do? What was my calling? What should I do?'”

His conclusion: “The thing I most wanted to do was to help as many people as possible regain the creative confidence they lost along their way.” And that’s what he’s done through his work at the d.school, a program at Stanford teaching design principles and processes to students from all disciplines, and with executives and business leaders through his work at innovation consultancy, IDEO. The latest step along his own way: the publication of Creative Confidence, a book he co-authored with his brother Tom. We spoke about the book, his continued mission as a creativity-for-all evangelist, the real meaning of design thinking and why embedding innovation in organizations is such a fuzzy, imprecise process. An edited version of our conversation follows.

 Innovation is scary. After all, no one knows what the outcome will be.

      How do you persuade people to take the leap and trust that this is the way to go?

The main thing that seems to work is to have a bunch of experiments where people dig in. We have trouble if it’s a linear path and everyone is heading towards a finish line. Then people start to feel it’s important that their idea is the one to follow. A better way to do things in early teams is to treat everything as an experiment. It’s a bunch of little brush fires looking to make a forest fire. Then people aren’t so precious — it’s not so important, it’s just an experiment. Then there’s the fact we really believe in this empathy stuff. If we really have two people disagreeing, then there’s one thing to do: get them to agree that if we go visit 9 people, we’ll let them help make our decision. The higher authority comes from the people we’re trying to please. That’s a part of the value system.

 So how do you embed innovation in an organization?

The first thing a client doesn’t want to hear is that it’s probably a 10-year process. Generally, CEOs won’t last that long, and it’s hard to sign up to get payoff in 10 years when your tenure is two or three — that doesn’t make any sense to them. In order to get a culture to work up and down an organization, senior people have to want to do this. Then you build a fire in people who are doing projects, and that goes back to experiments. In any organization, people are fixed in their ways. They’re all good people, all well-meaning — and they have habits. They know if they just stick to these habits then things’ll come out… medium. This is what we call the fear of being judged. People don’t want to step out and say ‘let’s do this new thing.’

Our solution is almost always: ‘Hey, team. I know you do things in this way and that works for you, but we need to move the company. And as a way of putting our toe in the water, let’s do these three experiments.’ And actually, it’s really important that some of those experiments fail, that someone is proven right that an idea didn’t work. And you have to do a few experiments so people in the company realize we’re serious. I referred to my favorite psychologist, Albert Bandura, in my talk, and he has proven scientifically that the way to make big change is for people to to get over their fears of the new through guided mastery. He did it with people’s phobia of snakes, and we’ve seen it over and over again with cultural change: take people through a series of small successes. It sounds like common sense but it really is powerful.

 You’ve been at the forefront of the so-called “design thinking” movement.

      How have you seen the thinking about design thinking evolve?

I’m a professor at Stanford, and we used to have lots and lots of meetings about the importance of being multi-disciplinary. We’d divide the pie and then everyone would go back to their respective labs and keep on doing the same things. Design thinking is a human-centered approach, and one time we got people to sign up to try it. So we would get the psychologist and business person and doctor and engineer in the room to work together and see if we might come up with something different. The first thing is to use design thinking to build empathy for the people you’re trying to help. It is so commonsensical, and so for some reason people were willing to sign up to do that. There was always something that was in one discipline’s wheelhouse and it turned out our method was acceptable enough to a bunch of people who wanted to work together, who got it that their life experiences plus working with someone different resulted in something more innovative than anything they might come up with on their own.

 Some designers really get riled up about design thinking,

     imagining that it somehow dismisses the importance of design. What do you say to them?

At Stanford, it’s clean. They grant a degree — it’s the program I went through that offers degrees in product design. They’re the only people getting degrees in design. The d.school doesn’t give degrees to anybody, but is teaching how designers think. So I’m still making rockstar designers, and they’re not threatened by these other people. In fact, these other people are starting to value them more and more. You were a business person who never understood design; now you’re a business person and you’re intimate with the power of design and what design thinking can do. When you go into the world, you’re more likely to appreciate designers. Designers who are at odds with this are missing the boat. This is making them more important in the world.

 So you’re not saying that by learning the design thinking process, anyone can be a designer?

It’s just giving people a tool. In some ways, we use design thinking to differentiate from design. I don’t want super talented design friends to think I’m saying a doctor can be like them. That’s not the case. But a doctor can solve his or her problems more creatively, look at them in human-centered way and attack them in the way a designer would attack them.

 Who’s your favorite example of someone who’s mastered the design thinking process

      and is taking it forth in interesting ways?

There’s a guy named John Keefe. I think he was a Knight fellow and he ended up taking a class at the d.school. He didn’t think he was a designer — he was a producer at WNYC — but pretty soon the whole morning show was being run in a design thinking-led way, with prototyping, getting teams to work on stories on Tuesday that would go on air on Thursday. But we have literally hundreds of those stories. We’ll have military guys who sit in the back of the room, frowning, and pretty soon they’re design thinking’s biggest supporters.

 How do you feel when you see that?

It’s magical to see these people flip. Especially in people who’ve been analytical their whole lives. It’s so emotional for them. Once it happens, people will say they always knew they were creative. They’re so convinced it’s biological, putting it down to an uncle being a dancer or a brother-in-law being an architect. How does that have anything to do with anything? They look for a reason, but the reason is: we’re human and wildly creative. We simply took the blocks away from keeping them from being creative.

Some people think that we’re teaching creativity at the d.school, but that couldn’t be further from truth. We’re taking the blocks away from people being naturally creative.

 So what next?

We just got here! My focus will be on this, so I think I can take a breather from figuring out what’s next in general. The TED Talk was the beginning of me coming out and saying I was going to focus my career on helping people gain creative confidence. There are lots of ways to do that: I can bring in the management of a company and put them through a workshop. Through executive education I can get 30 people in a room and I’m sure I can move the needle for them and make them feel more creatively confident. So what about a book? That could surely affect more people around the world. Just how much damage can a book do in helping people gain creative confidence?

Article Source : http://ideas.ted.com/2013/10/16/david-kelley-on-the-need-for-creative-confidence/

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

< Questions >

Q1. Are you a creative person? Why the creativity is so important in our society?

Q2. When the new concepts or ideas are released in the society, in the first phase, idea developers usually get resistances from the society members. However, people are following new rules when they get used to it. In this perspective, If you want to lead the people into a new concept, you have to be the risk-taker who can face the adverse force and embrace all the criticism from the society. Do you think you are ready for it?

Q3. Everyone faces various troubles in their work place. And their own ways to treat problems are differentiated by each one's characteristics. Do you have any experience to tackle those problems in a creative approach? For example, you might learn from Colombus who change the view-ports toward the egg and make it stand. Never take anything for granted. Try to see the different perspective of the phenomenon. 

Q4. Do you agree that developing the creativity thinking ability needs challenging minds and daring attitudes not to afraid of being a risk-taker? How about you ? Are you ready to be a risktaker?

Q5. Do you have your own ways to develop creative thinking abilities ? Plz share it with us !

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

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? 

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

Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions 

Published Jul 16, 2008  | Updated Oct 10, 2019 

The world’s countries emit vastly different amounts of heat-trapping  gases into the atmosphere. The chart above and table below both show data compiled by the International Energy Agency, which estimates carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the combustion of coal, natural gas, oil, and other fuels, including industrial waste and non-renewable municipal waste. 

Here we rank the top 20 highest emitters of cumulative carbon dioxide in 2016 (the most recent available data).

The rankings change when we account for the population of each country (ie, per capita emissions).

The picture that emerges from these figures is one where—in general—developed countries and major emerging economy nations lead in total carbon dioxide emissions.

However, developed nations typically have high carbon dioxide emissions per capita, while some developing countries lead in the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions. These uneven contributions to the climate crisis are at the core of the challenges the world community faces in finding effective and equitable solutions to global warming.

Article source : https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions

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

Global Carbon Emissions 

Last Updated: 08 January 2020

Global carbon (C) emissions from fossil fuel use were 9.795 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2014 (or 35.9 GtCO2 of carbon dioxide).  Fossil fuel emissions were 0.6% above emissions in 2013 and 60% above emissions in 1990 (the reference year in the Kyoto Protocol).

Based on a 2015 GDP forecast of 3.1% by the International Monetary Fund, the Global Carbon Project projects a 2015 decline of 0.6% in global emissions.

Human Sources

Fossil fuel emissions (including cement production) accounted for about 91% of total CO2 emissions from human sources in 2014. This portion of emissions originates from coal (42%), oil (33%), gas (19%), cement (6%) and gas flaring (1%).

Changes in land use are responsible for about 9% of all global CO2 emissions.

In 2013, the largest national contributions to the net growth in total global emissions in 2013 were China (58% of the growth), USA (20% of the growth), India (17% of the growth), and EU28 (a decrease by 11% of the growth).

Natural Sinks

For the decade from 2005 to 2014, about 44% of CO2 emissions accumulated in the atmosphere, 26% in the ocean, and 30% on land.

Cumulative Emisions

From 1870 to 2014, cumulative carbon emissions totaled about 545 GtC.  Emissions were partitioned among the atmosphere (approx. 230 GtC or 42%), ocean (approx. 155 GtC or 28%) and the land (approx. 160 GtC or 29%).

Atmospheric Accumulation

The 2014 level of CO2 in the atmospheric was 43% above the level when the Industrial Revolution started in 1750. 

Quick Links 

 GCP  2015 global carbon budget highlights (compact)

CDIAC  Data for Global Carbon Project (all years) [2015 .xlxs]

CDIAC  DATA: Global CO2 emissions 1751-2011 [files] [more]

ESSD  Related articles & links

ESSD  Le Quéré et al. | Global Carbon Budget 2015 [.pdf]

CO2 in Context Foley, 2020: 3 most important climate graphs [web]

IPCC Carbon Budget

Countries that signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted a target to stop the average global temperature from rising before it reaches 2°C above pre-industrial levels. 

The Fifth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) quantifies the global maximum CO2 the world can still emit and also have a likely chance of keeping global average temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures.  It reports that the goal is likely to be met if cumulative emissions (including the 535 GtC emitted by the end of 2013) do not exceeed 1 trillion tonnes of carbon (PgC).  A gigatonne of carbon (1 GtC) is the same as a petagram of carbon (1 PgC).

If you accept the 2°C target, the world need to emit no more than 465 GtC by the time carbon emissions end.  Many developing countries also support a reduction in the target to keep global average temperature increases below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

Article source : https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions

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

S. Korea abandons international carbon neutrality declaration

Feb.6,2020 

Government’s adjusted plan to reduce carbon emissions fall short of Paris Agreement

South Korea, which has been criticized as one of the world’s four biggest “climate offenders,” has effectively abandoned a carbon neutrality declaration made by around 70 countries.

Carbon neutrality involves establishing measures to eliminate as many greenhouse gases as are discharged in order to keep net emissions at zero. The abandonment of this approach in South Korea’s climate crisis response measures appears poised to draw international condemnation.

The Ministry of Environment (MOE) announced on Feb. 5 that the 2050 Low-Carbon Society Vision Forum had submitted a review plan that day for its “2050 long-term low emission development strategy.” According to the Paris Agreement, all parties must develop such a strategy by this year. The core of each country’s strategy should concern plans for achieving a sustainable low-emission society by 2050 to meet the target of restricting the rise in the global average temperature to within two degrees based on scientists’ warnings. With 69 experts participating in seven subcommittees, the forum has held over 60 discussions since March 2019.

The review plan, which amounts to the draft version of the South Korean government plan, suggested five main options, ranging from a first option (maximum) that involves a 75% reduction of the 709.1 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 by 2050 to a fifth option (minimum) with a 40% reduction.

The fifth option is similar to the climate change response plan announced by the South Korean government in October of last year. It involves reducing emissions by 24% from their 2017 levels by 2030 -- a rate that would make it difficult to meet the agreement’s recommendation to keep the temperature rise within two degrees. The first to third plans, with respective reduction rates of 75%, 69%, and 61%, would at least remain within the recommendation range. The government plans to hold additional discussions on the review plan before finalizing its decision, which is to be submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by the end of the year.

Regarding the achievement of carbon neutrality, the forum only made reference to “targets that must be swiftly met” and the “need for continued wide-ranging societal discussions.” With the forum merely recognizing the need without addressing it through a target plan, critics said its attitude amounts to an abandonment of carbon neutrality.

At a UN Climate Action Summit in September of last year, 73 countries declared plans to achieve carbon neutrality at the national level. In an interview with the Hankyoreh that October, Minister of Environment Cho Myung-rae said, “We plan to promote a ‘net zero’ [carbon neutrality] declaration.” But the omission of such content from the draft is expected to spark harsh criticism both domestically and overseas.

By Park Ki-yong, staff reporter

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]

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

< Questions > 

Q1. What is the most effective ways to reduce the climate change phenomenon? 

Q2. What is the meaning of Carbon neutral statement?

*** Carbon neutrality, or having a net zero carbon footprint, refers to achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal (often through carbon offsetting) or simply eliminating carbon emissions altogether (the transition to the "post-carbon economy").

Q3. What do you know about the Paris Agreement? 

Q4. Which country is first ranked in terms of carbon dioxide emission in 2016 in total and per capita respectably? 

Q5. Could you tell us the rank of countries in terms of green house gas emissions?  

Q6. Do you think your country makes enough efforts to reduce the carbon dioxide level? 

Q7. How could you mitigate the carbon dioxide emission individually ? 

[김연철]

방대한 양의 모임 자료 준비하시느라 수고 많으 셨습니다. 감사합니다.

[Scarlet]

Anthony ! 일부 새로운 자료 추가하고 기존자료들과 재구성 한거임 ㅎ 함께 토론 했음 좋았을텐데 아쉽군 담주에 보아 !