(토요모임) [13. Aug. 2016] Saturday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy ! 

It's me Scarlett !   

This week we have 4 topics. 

◈ Well-being : 9 things happier people have in common

◈ Tech : Electric cars are coming. But are cities ready for them?

                In Tesla and SolarCity Deal, a Glimpse of Musk’s Clean-Energy Aspirations

◈ Education : Why debating still matters? 

◈ Leadership : What it takes to be a great leader: A recommended reading list

Hope you enjoy the topics. 

With luv 

Scarlett

---

9 things happier people have in common

Kevin Loria and Florence Fu, Tech Insider/  Aug. 4, 2016, 9:57 AM

In recent years, the science of happiness has exploded. Positive psychology, which focuses on what makes individuals and communities thrive, has been an incredibly popular field of study. Researchers have even started to produce reports on happiness around the globe. 

It makes sense: we all want to be happy. And we now know a good amount about how certain behaviors, attitudes, and choices relate to happiness. While most research can only identify correlations, things that happy people have in common, we think that trying to do many of these things could have a significant effect on our own personal happiness levels.

With that in mind, here are nine happiness-promoting behaviors that are backed by science.

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

1. Relationships are essential: A major study that followed hundreds of men for more than 70 years found the happiest (and healthiest) were those who cultivated strong relationships with people they trusted to support them.

2. Time beats money: A number of studies have found happier people would prefer to have more time in their lives than more money, and even trying to think that way seems to make people more content.

3. But you need enough money to pay the bills without stress: People's well-being rises with income up to about $75,000, studies have found. (That number probably varies depending on your cost of living.)

4. Stop to smell the roses: People who slow down to reflect on good things in their lives report being more satisfied.

5. Perform acts of kindness: Give your friends a ride to the airport or spend an afternoon volunteering. Some research has shown that people who perform such acts report being happier.

6. Regularly break a sweat: Exercise tends to help fight off mental illness. And studies show that happiness is associated with physical activity; increased levels of activity are even connected to higher levels of happiness.

7. Buy fun: People tend to be happier if they spend their money on experiences instead of things. But researchers have also found that buying things that allow you to have experiences — like a tennis racket or a book — can also increase happiness.

8. Learn to be present in the moment: Several studies have found that people who practice mindfulness meditation experience greater well-being.

9. Spend time with friends, especially close friends who are happy: Interactions with casual friends can make people happier, and close friendships — especially with happy people — can have a powerful effect on your own happiness as well.

Article source : http://www.businessinsider.com/science-happiness-traits-behaviors-2016-8?utm_content=buffer36901&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

---

<Questions>

Q1. Are you a happy person? What is happiness for you?

Q2. Do you have time to reflect yourself every day? What is advantages of having reflection time with you? 

Q3. Do you think that happiness lies within you? Or does it depend upon other people and external things?

Q4. What makes you feel happy? Can money buy happiness?

Q5. What are the three most important things for you to be happy?

Q6. Would you be happier with a soul mate or single?

Q7. When was the happiest time of your childhood?

Q8. Are the people in your country generally very happy?

Q9. What affects your levels of happiness?

Q10. Nine happiness-promoting behaviors were proposed as follows. How many similar behaviors do you have to be happy?   

1. Relationships are essential 2. Time beats money 3. You need enough money to pay the bills without stress 4. They slow down to reflect on good things in life.  5. Perform acts of kindness 6. Regularly break a sweat

7. They spend their money on experience instead of material things. 8. Learn to be present in the moment 9. Spend time with friends, especially close friends who are happy

Q11. Do you feel that you have to work hard and be miserable now in order to be happy later?

---

Electric cars are coming. But are cities ready for them?

Written by Gareth Wynn(Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting), Mark Esposito(Professor, Harvard University Extension School), Terence Tse(Associate Professor of Finance, London campus of ESCP Europe Business School)

Published Wednesday 3 August 2016 

Our research on megatrends has shown that more and more people are living in cities. For instance, roughly half of China’s population lives in cities and the government plans to push that to 70% by 2025. This is not only happening in emerging countries; cities in developed economies are also growing. London is a case in point. Urbanization brings certain benefits, such as private and public investment, and increased job opportunities, that raise economic prosperity. At the same time, however, urbanization is producing new challenges. One of these is no doubt air pollution. And this is a tough one: London, which is not the worst major city for air pollution, breached the EU’s annual pollution limits just one week into 2016. Alongside their lower carbon footprint, this is why electric vehicles have been hailed as an important way to improve our environment. By one estimate, London will have some 20,000 electric cars by 2020. And this would possibly grow by five times to 100,000 in the five years that follow, according to Transport for London.

Overpowering the power grid

This all sounds good except that there could be one slight problem: London’s power grid may not be able to support such large numbers of electric cars charging without significant reinforcement. The need for electricity as a result of more electric vehicles could see peak demand rise by 30% by 2035. Even now, the city’s infrastructure of cables and substations that channel electricity from power stations to homes and offices is already extra-loaded from new households and businesses driven there by urbanization. Even though some £17 billion is expected to be spent to upgrade and maintain the electricity network, it is unclear whether this investment has factored in the capacity needed to meet the demand resulting from the dramatic uptake of electric vehicles.

Therefore, a careful strategic response to how people would be charging their electric cars is needed. Ideally, incentives could be introduced to get electric car owners to charge at night, when the demand for electricity is lower. Yet the possibility of selling back electricity at peak times could make it more complicated. Indeed, Nissan recently announced plans to roll out special “vehicle to grid” points to enable its electric car owners to sell electricity stored in the batteries of their cars back to the grid.

Cars that do more than just drive

What happens if we own an electric vehicle and take advantage of the difference in tariff? Let’s say we only charge our cars at night to benefit from cheaper off-peak electricity tariffs. During the day, we could use up the electricity by using the car. Or we could draw electricity from the car to feed the electrical needs of our house during the more expensive daytime peak hours. What Nissan’s scheme is offering is the opportunity for us to make money by selling back energy to the suppliers. In this case, we could buy electricity at low price, store it in the giant battery sitting outside our house and then make a profit from the up to 45% price difference between unit price of off-peak and peak time electricity.

If one household is doing it, this might not seem like a big deal. But with tens of thousands of electric cars likely to be in the system very soon, this source of flexible electricity storage could rapidly become a meaningful contribution to matching supply and demand. If poorly coordinated, this could create problems in the whole electricity supply chain. Properly done, this kind of electricity storage could help overcome the challenges of intermittency of solar and wind generation. It could also make a disproportionate contribution to the environment, because cheaper night time electricity is likely to be drawn more from low-carbon nuclear generation. We can rely less on the least efficient electricity generation plants that are currently used to meet high-peak demand.

However, making this happen requires the right level of investment in the electricity networks, setting up smart two-way flows of electricity and the right regulatory framework to encourage and incentivize car owners to use their vehicles like this. It might also lead to new entrants into the electricity markets from battery makers, car producers or other technology-based firms,with all the innovation they bring. Major incumbent energy suppliers would not necessarily welcome this: consumers’ power may grow stronger. On the other hand, the grid operator, whose role in procuring power and balancing the system with many more points of production and sources of storage, is likely to become increasingly complex.

If electric vehicles were to fulfil their promise, both businesses and governments would need to think deeply not just about their business or political implications, but the social ones, too.

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/can-cities-handle-an-electric-car-boom?utm_content=bufferdfa0e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

---

In Tesla and SolarCity Deal, a Glimpse of Musk’s Clean-Energy Aspirations

By LESLIE PICKER and BILL VLASICAUG. 1, 2016

In the face of questions about debt, widening losses, governance and strategic logic, Tesla Motors and SolarCity announced a $2.6 billion stock merger on Monday.

Now, it is up to Elon Musk to persuade the shareholders of the two companies — he founded both — that the deal makes sense. The transaction requires the approval this year of a majority of shareholders from both Tesla and SolarCity, excluding Mr. Musk and other insiders.

Completion of the deal may come down to whether enough investors have the patience to accept the near-term headaches while waiting for Mr. Musk’s long-term vision.

His idea is that Tesla’s batteries could store the power that SolarCity’s panels have harnessed, a bet on the increasing use of solar energy. Most analysts, though, say this vision could take years, maybe even decades, to play out on a large scale — often longer than many investors tend to wait.

“I don’t know why people would be voting in favor of it,” said Efraim Levy, chief automotive analyst at Standard & Poor’s Global Market Intelligence. “The valuation is excessive given the current prospects and the time horizon we’re looking at.”

But Mr. Musk, who also founded a third company with the hope of sending humans to Mars one day, is known for his visionary zeal. By doing this deal, he sees Tesla eventually moving beyond autos to become more of a clean-energy company that also happens to sell cars.

“This is really all part of solving the sustainable-energy problem,” Mr. Musk said in a conference call with analysts on Monday. “That’s why we’re all doing this — is to try to accelerate the advent of a sustainable-energy world.”

The stocks traded on Monday as if most investors expected the deal would get done. Under the terms of the deal, SolarCity shareholders will receive 0.11 Tesla shares for each SolarCity share they own. That represents $25.30 per SolarCity share, or about 58 cents under where the shares ended trading on Monday.

The prospects of a deal surfaced on June 20, when Tesla submitted a proposal to Lyndon Rive, the chief executive of SolarCity — and Mr. Musk’s cousin — to acquire the company. The letter included an exchange ratio of 0.122 to 0.131 shares of Tesla for each share of SolarCity, higher than the agreement reached on Monday.

Subsequently, independent members of the Tesla and SolarCity boards conducted due diligence and consulted with financial and legal advisers to arrive at the agreed-upon price.

Tesla, which will report its second-quarter earnings on Wednesday, is going through a major transition as a car company. It is expanding its assembly plant in California, in hopes of beginning to fill the more than 300,000 preorders for its coming Model 3 sedan by next year. To speed the process, Mr. Musk has overhauled his manufacturing team, bringing in new executives from rival automakers such as Audi.

Tesla is also facing more pressure from federal regulators and Congress about its Autopilot assisted-driving system, which was operational in a Model S that crashed into the side of a tractor-trailer in Florida on May 7. The driver, Joshua Brown, was killed in the accident — the first known fatality in a vehicle being driven by computer technology.

Tesla has until late August to respond to a set of detailed questions from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the accident, as well any others involving the Autopilot system, which includes assisted steering, adaptive cruise control, collision avoidance and emergency braking.

The National Transportation Safety Board and the Senate Commerce Committee are also investigating the incident.

The safety investigations may not directly affect the approval process for the proposed merger. But they could be seen as setbacks in Tesla’s grand expansion strategy, and a distraction for Mr. Musk as he tries to win over investors.

Monday’s deal includes a so-called go-shop period, which enables SolarCity to continue soliciting proposals from other parties until Sept. 14.

The two companies plan to cut about $150 million in costs through the transaction in the first full year after the deal closes. They expect customers to benefit through lower hardware and installation costs, and they plan to use Tesla’s 190 stores to expand SolarCity’s reach.

Through Tesla’s stores, SolarCity would get easier, cheaper access to millions of customers; SolarCity has struggled to reduce its customer acquisition costs. In addition, it could benefit from the carmaker’s expertise in manufacturing, just as SolarCity prepares to produce its own solar panels at a heavily subsidized factory in Buffalo.

Mr. Rive, of SolarCity, said in the conference call that he expected almost all solar systems to include battery storage within three to five years, and that the combined company would be able to prosper by providing those systems, along with energy services for the grid. Adding rooftop solar to the overall energy mix, Mr. Musk said, would allow utility companies to avoid building new substations and transmission lines as the rising use of electric vehicles and heating systems increases demand for power.

The merger, he said, would help Tesla take better advantage of all the customers it attracts to its stores by offering them more products. Making the solar systems appealing, he said, was important.

Although some investors have expressed support for the deal, many analysts and investors have continued to question whether it makes sense for the carmaker to take on SolarCity, which has piled on debt as it seeks to continue its aggressive expansion. Last month, SolarCity said it had raised $345 million in tax-equity financing and added $110 million to a loan agreement, bringing its total to $760 million.

And on Monday, SolarCity reduced projections for residential system installations for 2016 by nearly 10 percent because the pace of installations had been slower than expected in the first half of the year.

Many analysts are still optimistic that, despite the risks, the deal will ultimately get done.

“Everything about Elon is for the long term,” said David Whiston, an analyst with Morningstar. “I suspect the big, institutional shareholders understand that and they’re all in on Elon, and I expect the large shareholders will vote yes for the deal.”

Article source : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/business/dealbook/tesla-solar-city-merger-elon-musk.html?_r=0

---

<Questions>

Q1. Have you ever thought about buying an electric car instead of a fossil fuel using car? Why did you consider buying an electric vehicle? 

Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages when we are using an electric car? 

Q3. How do you think about the merger between Tesla Motors and SolarCity by Elon Musk?

Q4. How do you think about Elon Musk? Do you agree with his strategies to reach sustainable energy concept? 

Q5. What is your life goal? Do you think you have the visionary and community-oriented goals in your life like Elon Musk?

Q6. Where do you live between a city and a countryside? Why do you live there? Do you like it? 

Q7. Please compare a life in urban area to a life in suburban area ! For each case, please tell us the merits and demerits living in there. For instance, air pollution, housing problem and traffic concerns. 

Q8. Due to the heat waves in Korea, we use way more electricity than before. How long do you use air conditioning system each day? 

Q9. Do you think power grid system in your city is prepared enough to use an electric car? Do you think our supply of electricity meet the demand? 

Q10. In England, people can sell electricity on day time by charging their electric car during night time? This idea is possible, because they use differentiated electricity rating system according to their time use in England. How about the electricity tax system in Korea? Can we sell the electricity during a day time like England?

Q11. What are the roles of government?

Q12. Do you think how the 'Progressive rating tax system' affect the use of electricity car? 

Definition of 'Progressive Tax'

• Definition: Progressive tax is the taxing mechanism in which the taxing authority charges more taxes as the income of the taxpayer increases. A higher tax is collected from the taxpayers who earn more and lower taxes from taxpayers earning less. The government uses a progressive tax mechanism.
  

• Description: Under progressive taxes, it is believed that people who earn more should pay more. The income tax is divided into slabs. As the income of the tax payer crosses a benchmark income, a new rate of tax (higher than before) is charged to him.
  

Source : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/progressive-tax

---

Why debating still matters

A team of teenagers from England have just won this year’s World Schools Debating Championship. 

But what relevance do skills more often associated with ancient Greece – or public school – have in today’s world?

Alex Clark/ Saturday 6 August 2016 09.00 BST

The current political scene might have been radically different if Remain had had Diodotus on its side: if you could persuade an assembly of Athenians bent on retribution to spare the lives of a group of rebels, then you could probably best Boris Johnson. The Mytilenian debate of 427BC is perhaps one of the ancient world’s best examples of an argument with something vital at stake: following an unsuccessful insurrection in the city of Mytilene, the Athenians had voted to put to death not only the uprising’s leaders, but all Mytilenian men, and to enslave its women and children. Fears that this judgment erred on the side of harshness led to a second debate, with Diodotus arguing for clemency, and Cleon, “the most violent man at Athens”, opposing him.

Cleon’s point was that justice must prevail in the face of the deliberate malice of the Mytilenians, and that a show of weakness by the imperial government was potentially disastrous; better, he said, to enforce bad laws than to shilly-shally around with good ones. And what, he asked his audience to imagine, would the rebels do if they were in the Athenians’ shoes?

None of this daunted Diodotus, whose counter-argument began with a paean to the power of debate: “The good citizen,” he insisted, “ought to triumph not by frightening his opponents, but by beating them fairly in argument.” And beat Cleon he did, in a series of detailed appeals to his audience, setting out his belief in how Athens’ long-term interests would best be served. The vote was close, but Diodotus won the day. The Mytileneans were spared.

Fast-forward two-and-a-half millennia – past the sight of Johnson and Michael Gove, both presidents of the Oxford Union in the late 1980s, practising in its august chamber for later life – to Stuttgart in July 2016, where Team England beat Canada in the final of the World Schools Debating Championship in a debate about states’ responsibilities towards refugees. Like all good teenagers, the five members of the team (which is funded and supported by the English Speaking Union, who also provide coaching) regularly found time to relax – rapping along to the soundtrack of Hamilton the musical was a favourite activity – but their focus and determination was undeniable.

Their victory allows us to pose a question, or indeed a topic for debate: what is the value and relevance of this kind of debate in the contemporary world, where the word itself has come to be associated more with politicians slugging it out on TV than a honed, elegant rhetorical skill? Whichever side you’re on, it’s hard to see Owen Smith or Jeremy Corbyn as latterday Athenians; their first debate in Cardiff on Thursday night revealed some substantial, outward-looking argument, but also an awful lot of cagey positioning and irritable repudiation of the other’s views, record and ability. And parliamentary debates rarely reach a level we might happily call Ciceronian.

Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith go head to head in tense Labour leadership hustings

And yet the art of debate involves mastering skills of obvious intrinsic value: the confidence to speak in public, and make sense; the construction of a logical argument; the ability to read an audience’s reactions; and, perhaps most importantly, the willingness to hear others’ arguments, and to respond to them. For Rosa Thomas, one of Team England’s members, being brought face to face with the reality of other debaters’ lives was particularly memorable: “It makes you more aware of your national assumptions,” she says. “For example, that there is a national health service. But you can’t rely on this with an international audience. Also, you are aware that when talking about other countries, there will be individuals from those places in the audience. It makes you think about using more nuanced examples – I remember thinking this during the semi-final, when I used the Israel-Palestine conflict as an example, and seeing some members of the Israel team in the audience.”

If a perception of this kind of competitive debating as old-fashioned and the preserve of public schools and university societies goes unchallenged, then we lose a great deal. Robert Sharpe of the worldwide writers’ association English PEN sees charges of elitism as a shame, because “the skills one learns through a good debate are crucial for modern life. Political events continue to remind us of the importance of persuasive arguments and good oratory that appeal not only to our rational side, but our emotional side too.” He also thinks the ability to see the other side is particularly important. “The essence of free speech is that we allow people with whom we disagree to speak. Wrongheaded views will be aired. But free speech means no one gets the last word. We can – and indeed, we should – use our own right to free speech to challenge expression‎ we think is unpleasant or wrong. To do this we need to be equipped to argue in public. Debating competitions are a fantastic way to teach this important skill to young people.” Later this year, English PEN will join the Chamber Debate in the House of Lords, in which students from state schools across the country will discuss the issue of free speech.

The discussion of the possible limits and limitations of free speech recurs on an almost constant basis across social media, and perhaps nowhere so starkly as on Twitter, where those disagreeing with one another rail at anyone who will listen – and indeed, anyone who won’t. Twitter’s problem is its encouragement of the individual’s “broadcast mode”, where the superficial appearance of a conversation is, in fact, two or more people simply stating and restating their views with ever-intensifying fury. Nothing real is at stake: the exchange can be abandoned at any point. Hacked off with someone? Block them. Too shy to block? Mute (the word is telling).

But the powerful thing Twitter has going for it is that there is no barrier to entry if you have access to the internet. To take part in a debate, you have to be allowed through the front door in the first place; it’s striking, if not surprising, that Ife Grillo is the only state-educated member of the English debating team. His path to Stuttgart began when he joined Debate Mate, an organisation founded to encourage children from less privileged backgrounds to learn. Meg Hillier, MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch, which contains Grillo’s school, the Bridge Academy, makes the point that his success is particularly exciting because “it shows that Hackney schools are not just about exam results and rote learning, they’re about teaching wider life skills. The ability to speak well is something that’s useful throughout the employment process.” Hillier also thinks the idea of a generation plugged into social media, not listening to one another, is unduly pessimistic: “I was at a debate on the EU referendum the other day, and it was full of talented, bright young people making their case very reasonably. I told them we could probably learn from them in parliament.”

Those still in need of convincing of the importance of debate as a force for social change should watch The Great Debaters, in which Denzel Washington stars as Melvin B Tolson, a real-life teacher at the largely black Wiley College in Texas, who in the 1930s coached his debating team in the face of prejudice. And the idea of prejudice within debate is key throughout history: for arguments to be properly heard, one has first to accept that all have the right to make them, and to believe in a commonality of capability, capacity and sensibility.

Think, for example, of the fourth act of The Merchant of Venice, in which the characters gather to determine whether Shylock shall have his pound of flesh from Antonio. As Bassanio pleads with Shylock, Antonio tells him, “I pray you, think you question with the Jew: / You may as well go stand upon the beach / And bid the main flood bate his usual height”; he ends with a declaration that nothing is harder than a Jew’s heart. The point may seem to be simply describing Shylock’s implacability – but the fact that it occurs as Shylock is using logic and reason to rebuff the noblemen creates a link between his capacity for debate and the idea of him as inhumane, beyond empathy. It’s not that Shylock isn’t good enough at winning the argument; it’s that he’s too good.

The slaughter of the Mytileneans, the extraction of a pound of flesh; not all debates have such visceral and bloodthirsty subject matter. But the greatest encounters have altered the course of history: Thomas Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce dissecting the theory of evolution in Oxford in 1860; the war cabinet debate of 1940 that led to Churchill’s ascendance; Richard Nixon’s sweat-coated appearance against a fit, tanned JFK in the 1960 presidential race.

The elision of the purer forms of debate with politicians seeking advancement is a more recent development – and one we might be ambivalent about inasmuch as it rewards the slick and telegenic. Jeremy Corbyn’s fervent following demonstrates that the electorate is keen for what it sees as authenticity and a lack of spin; others may argue that Corbyn’s plain-speaking is also a persona. I asked Sam Leith, author of You Talkin’ to Me? Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama, what he thought.

“It’s tempting to look at modern-day political debates and think what a long way we’ve come from the days of Cicero and Pericles,” he told me. “But it’s worth remembering that the whole game is knowing your audience, and knowing the medium. Nowadays, the main audience for a debate won’t be the people in earshot: the exchange is intended to be, as it were, overheard by hundreds of thousands of people on television and social media. So, of course, people don’t make three-hour-long, perfectly turned speeches intended to be taken in whole: they semaphore emotion, repeat key words, pepper it with catchphrases and soundbites. And that’s what works.”

And what’s his view of a young generation of Ciceros? “Debating in schools seems to teach you things unlearnable in other ways: not only how to construct an argument (and rejig it on the hoof), but how its success depends more than anything on the form of its expression‎. It teaches you to think on your feet and fight dirty. Plus public speaking is shit-scary, and that’s good for kids.”

If we are to hold our politicians to account – especially as we enter a protracted period of negotiations about our national future – then it is as well to be able to follow the arguments of those in power and expose their inconsistencies. We have just come through an epochal political event that saw the repeated claim by voters that they couldn’t make their way through the thicket of facts, half-facts and rhetoric put before them. Time to say goodbye to that cloud of unknowing: joining the debate is more of a necessity than ever before.

‘It makes you question your own opinions’

Ife Grillo, member of England’s 2016 champion debating team

I did a lot of debating at school before deciding to enter. At first I was skeptical – do I really want to spend my summer debating? But after the first trial I knew I wanted to be in the England team. It took three tries to get a place.

One of the big things I’ve learned is that it’s not just about speaking well – it’s about learning to embrace a wide variety of arguments. The audience should not be able to tell whether you personally believe something. The process forces you to at least respect the other side of an argument and it makes you question your own opinion.

This was particularly the case during one motion, which was “This House believes that the Obama administration’s foreign policy has done more harm than good”. I have always really respected Obama, and he is one of my favourite speakers. I didn’t want to hate him. But I had to think about the perspectives of people in places like Syria and Yemen. When you get up to speak you have to set aside your emotions and put yourself in someone else’s shoes. It’s like acting in that sense.

I used to do a lot of slam poetry in London, too, which helped a lot. The last spoken word I did was in March at the Southbank – a poem called I Stand, about solidarity around the world. Maya Angelou is a big inspiration – she is a speaker who always makes me feel something. I love her poem I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.

Another huge help was the fact that Kenza was a phenomenal captain. I think the main reason we won was our teamwork. We knew what made us frustrated or annoyed.

I knew when Rosa was writing, for example, she didn’t like any of us to speak, and I had to respect that. We were really good at coordinating with each other. It was more stressful to be in the audience watching – you have less control. I would be thinking, “Come on! Say that thing we talked about!” By the end I had much more faith that they would do their thing and I was much more relaxed.

This is probably one of the most diverse teams England has had. We all have different backgrounds. Diversity is not just a buzzword – it genuinely brings a lot of value to debating. The more experiences and backgrounds there are, the stronger the team.

Next year I am taking a year out. I’m doing some work for a thinktank and also some debate coaching. I’m not sure what I would like to do after that, but I am thinking of politics. I’m also doing some work with the Youth Select Committee (a British Youth Council initiative supported by the House of Commons), as I am a big believer in getting more young people engaged with politics – particularly now, when there are so many angry young people who feel they are not being listened to. Ife Grillo was speaking to Sarah Whitehead

Article source : https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/aug/06/why-debating-still-matters

---

<Questions>

Q1. Do you enjoy having a discussion or a debate? 

Q2. Do you think critical thinking is something to do with debating ability? 

Q3. What are the merits and demerits of lecture using debating or discussion?

Q4. How do you think about the education system in Korea? Is it developing your critical thinking or memorizing capacity? 

Q5. What is the goals of Education? 

Q6. Why do you study? 

Q7. Have you ever seen a comparing picture of national assembly meeting between England and Korea? What ideas are coming up after watching it? Do you think what are the biggest difference between two nation's approach during national assembly meeting? 

Q8. Have you ever joined any kinds of debating competition before? What were the most difficult points for you to attend that competition? 

Q9. Do you join any gatherings to develop your debating or persuading skills?

---

What it takes to be a great leader:A recommended reading list

Feb 4, 2015 / Thu-Huong Ha

Our image of a great leader is outdated, says Roselinde Torres of management consultancy BCG (TED Talk: What it takes to be a great leader). That all-knowing superhero who both lords over and protects his followers is neither realistic nor effective in today’s business, she says. To prepare for a global, digital, fast-paced future, she offers three questions we should ask of tomorrow’s leaders: How diverse is your network? Are you courageous enough to abandon the past? Where are you looking to anticipate change? Below, read works that explore these crucial questions, with commentary by Torres.

 How diverse is your network?

1. Jazz vs. Symphony

John Clarkeson/ BCG Perspectives, 1990

“John Clarkeson, a former CEO of BCG, wrote this piece nearly 25 years ago. ‘Prescient’ best describes his take on how future leaders wouldn’t be able to rely on exclusive decision-making authority, the overwhelming force of personality, or a monopoly of information.”

2. Is Your Team Stuck?

Michael Shanahan and Roselinde Torres/ BCG Perspectives, April 5, 2012

“Bold leadership makes a big difference in turbulent times. Companies can exploit their competitors’ paralysis and make important, even game-changing, moves that position them for enduring success. It happened during the Great Depression, and it’s happening now.”

3. Creating Minds

Howard Gardner/ Basic Books, 2011

“Gardner’s book was first published more than 20 years ago, but its insights into the creative process — told through the stories of seven remarkable individuals from different fields — remain just as relevant today. While they shared some traits, they all followed different paths to success.”

4. Thinking in New Boxes

Luc de Brabandere and Alan Iny/ Random House, 2013

“Thinking outside the box is easier said than done. Luc and Alan describe a different approach to stretching people’s perspectives. When people think in new boxes, they learn how to ask the kinds of questions that will unlock creativity, innovation and opportunity.”

5. The Idea of Justice

Amartya Sen/ Belknap Press, 2011

“It’s important to look at complex issues — in this case, the theory of justice — from multiple perspectives, rather than through a lens shaped exclusively by one’s own context and understanding. You end up seeing more alternatives, more shades of grey.”

6. The Social Animal

David Brooks/ Random House, 2012

“The two characters in this book come together despite having grown up on opposite ends of the social spectrum. It’s a compelling reminder that diversity can make for strong bonds and great collaborations.”

 Are you courageous enough to abandon the past?

1. What Matters Now

Gary Hamel/ Jossey-Bass, 2012

“In today’s world, you have to be comfortable with change and willing to adapt. This book features case studies of companies that had the courage to abandon tried and true management models in favor of new ways of working.”

2. Lighting the Way

Karenna Gore Schiff/ Miramax Books, 2007

“The title says it all. Karenna Gore Schiff profiles women who were true trailblazers. They were ahead of their time on socially controversial issues, and they faced huge odds in trying to instill meaningful change.”

3. Mandela

Anthony Sampson/ Vintage Books, 2000

“There’s no shortage of insightful books about Nelson Mandela, including this authorized biography. I like this one because it provides an objective and comprehensive perspective on how he was shaped by the world he lived in, and how he in turn reshaped it.”

4. My Beloved World

Sonia Sotomayor/ Vintage Books, 2014

“Sonia Sotomayor provides intimate, candid details about her upbringing and her determination to pursue her dream. It’s a deeply personal story, but it would resonate with anyone who seeks to fulfill their highest potential.”

5. You Learn by Living

Eleanor Roosevelt/ Harper Perennial, 2011

“A great source of practical lessons, this book defines fulfillment as a combination of professional and personal satisfaction. It’s a nice, rounded view and it highlights the value of making a difference in the lives of individuals and in society.”

6. Personal History

Katharine Graham/ Vintage Books, 1998

“Katharine Graham assumed control of The Post Co. in 1963, after her husband’s suicide. Her transition from shy homemaker to one of the most respected leaders in the male-dominated world of publishing was remarkable. A true pioneer, she was the first woman to head a Fortune 500 company.”

 Where are you looking to anticipate change?

1. Adaptive Leadership

Roselinde Torres et al./ BCG Perspectives, December 13, 2010

“Adaptive leaders have a distinct style that’s invaluable during times of uncertainty and change. They learn through experimentation, canvas a wide range of views to scope out their options and reward accomplishment with autonomy.”

2. The Five Traits of Highly Adaptive Leadership Teams

Roselinde Torres and Nneka Rimmer/ BCG Perspectives, December 21, 2011

“Adaptive leadership teams have a handle on the basics of effective teamwork, but they also have five added traits that less successful teams lack. It’s these traits — the ‘special sauce,’ so to speak — that fuel high performance.”

3. Fighting Corporate Hubris

Hans-Paul Bürkner/ BCG Perspectives, June 6, 2013

“The best managers follow what we call the Perpetuity Principle. They serve as stewards of their companies and, by doing so, develop profitable, sustainable and trusted businesses. They focus on results, ensure that substance triumphs over style and champion a true humility.”

4. Own the Future

Michael Deimler et al. (Editors)/ Wiley, 2013

“Drawing on BCG’s experience advising organizations on how to achieve and sustain competitive advantage, this book offers 50 powerful ideas to help you chart your organization’s path to future leadership in an era of accelerating change.”

5. Transforming Leadership

James MacGregor Burns/ Grove Press, 2003

“This book provides stories about leadership in settings as diverse as monarchies, tribes and academia. It profiles individuals who had the foresight to see where their worlds were going and to mobilize and empower others so they could help shape that future.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Thu-Huong Ha writes and edits for TED. She likes to eat and learn, at times in tandem.

Article source : http://ideas.ted.com/what-it-takes-to-be-a-great-leader-a-recommended-reading-list/?utm_campaign=social&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_content=ideas-blog&utm_term=business

---

<Questions>

Q1. Do you like reading? What was the most impressive book for you? 

Q2. What are the most important traits to be a great leader? 

Q3. According to an article, there are 3 standards to be a tomorrow's great leader in a global, digital and fast-paced future. What are your answers for following questions? 

1. How diverse is your network? 

2. Are you courageous enough to abandon the past? 

3. Where are you looking to anticipate change?

Q4. Did you find any intriguing books from the above article? Why did you choose them?