(토요모임) [15. July. 2017] Saturday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy ! 

It's me Scarlett !   

This week we have 4 topics. 

◈ Art of living : 11 incredible psychological tricks to get people to do what you want

◈ Education : Bill Gates thinks this should be the future of education

◈ Social issue : What are you revealing online? Much more than you think

◈ Art of Living : 10 TED Talks that are worth more than an MBA

Hope you enjoy the topics. 

With luv 

Scarlett

---

11 incredible psychological tricks to get people to do what you want

Samantha Lee and Shana Lebowitz/ Nov. 24, 2015

There are plenty of ways to get people to do what you want — without them even realizing you’ve persuaded them.

Whether you want people to like you, to agree with you, or to buy your products, use these tips to feel more powerful in your everyday interactions.

Article source : http://uk.businessinsider.com/psychological-tricks-to-influence-people-2015-11?utm_content=bufferdcb93&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

---

<Questions>

Q1. There are plenty of ways to get people to do what you want. Do you have your own ways? 

Q2. How often do you ask the others to do you a favor? 

Q3. When you have any favor how do you ask the others to do it?

Q4. How to politely turn down a task that is beyond the scope of your job description?

Q5. Would you select most efficient 3 ways to make others do what you want from below 11 psychological tricks?

1. Use a "decoy" option to get people to buy your product.

2. Tweak the environment to get people to act less selfish.

3. Help advance someone's goals to get them to do you a favor. 

4. Mimic people's body language to get them to like you.

5. Speak quickly to get an argument opponent to agree with you. 

6. Confuse people to get them to comply with your request. 

7. ask people for favors when they're tired to get them to cooperate. 

8. Display an image of eyes to get peoples to behave ethically. 

9. Use nouns instead of verbs to get people to change their behavior.

10. Scare people to get them to give you what you need. 

11. Focus on what your bargaining partner is gaining, not losing. 

---

Bill Gates thinks this should be the future of education

Written by Chris Weller/ Published Wednesday 31 August 2016

Bill Gates is one of the most successful people in history, but even he admits his education could've been better.

"I was good at math, but when it came to writing, I felt less sure of myself," Gates wrote in a recent Gates Notes blog post. "I'd be working on an essay and start wondering, 'Am I going to get an A or a C on this thing? What skills do I need to improve?'"

That's why Gates says it was so heartening to take a trip to Summit Sierra, a Seattle-based charter school where kids get heaps of feedback as they guide their own learning.

The model is known as personalized learning.

Under the personalized learning framework, teachers don't lecture so much as supervise. With the help of personal laptops and tablets, they give kids individual work and group-based projects to learn as flexibly (and in as many contexts) as possible.

Not all schools can afford to employ the personalized learning model — cutting-edge technology is expensive — but the model has shown success when districts make the investment.

A study published last year, for example, found that among 62 schools using personalized education, many of the kids scored higher in math and reading compared to kids learning normally. Many who were below-average scorers ended up above-average.

"To be fair," Gates says, "we don't know yet how much of this improvement is due to personalized learning, versus other good things these schools are doing." But at least at Summit Sierra, and many schools like it, the dynamic between students and teachers seems to be a productive one.

Not only do kids get to learn at their own pace, which gives them more confidence, but teachers at Summit get matched with students who they'll mentor for all four years. Instructors can use in-house software to see which of their dozen or so students has completed certain assignments and exams.

The end result is that kids don't have many opportunities to slip through the cracks. And by taking an active role in their education, they learn responsibility and self-reliance.

"I love that approach," Gates says. "When students get out in the world, they have to organize their own time, have goals, and realize what they’re behind on. It's fantastic to see them getting a head start on those skills in school."

Check out the rest of Gates' experiences below:

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/bill-gates-thinks-this-should-be-the-future-of-education?utm_content=buffera3220&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

---

<Questions>

Q1. How do you think about the concept of personalized learning? Do you agree with Gates' opinion?

Q2. When you look back your school days, did you have any class you don't want to take? What was the reason for that?

Q3. What is your personal identity? Do you need more knowledge or skills to enhance your own traits? 

Q4. World is changing rapidly and many students have to keep abreast of these trends to prepare their future and to adapt themselves to this kinds of 'New normal' trend. In this perspective, do you think our education system carry out their role properly to support students? If not, what is required more? 

Q5. When you look back your school days, what was the most needed classes or skills? Did you take that class in the school or out of school?

Q6. Which one do you need more between knowledge and experience? 

Q7. Have you ever take any online lecturing course before? If yes, what motivates you to have that lecture? 

---

What are you revealing online? Much more than you think

Jul 1, 2014 / Thu-Huong Ha

Try this link 

http://www.takethislollipop.com/

How much are you prepare to reveal?

What can be guessed about you from your online behavior? Two computer privacy experts — economist Alessandro Acquisti and computer scientist Jennifer Golbeck — on how little we know about how much others know.

The best indicator of high intelligence on Facebook is apparently liking a page for curly fries. At least, that’s according to computer scientist Jennifer Golbeck (TED Talk: The curly fry conundrum), whose job is to figure out what we reveal about ourselves through what we say — and don’t say — online. Of course, the lines between online and “real” are increasingly blurred, but as Golbeck and privacy economist Alessandro Acquisti (TED Talk: Why privacy matters) both agree, that’s no reason to stop paying attention. TED got the two together to discuss what the web knows about you, and what we can do about the things we’d rather it forgot. An edited version of the conversation follows.

I hear so much conflicting information about what I should and shouldn’t be posting online. It’s confusing and unnerving not to know what I can do to protect myself. Can you both talk about that? 

Alessandro Acquisti: My personal view is that individual responsibility is important, but we are at a stage where it is not sufficient. The problem is much larger than any one individual’s ability to control their personal information, because there are so many new ways every week or every month in which we can be tracked or things can be inferred about us. It’s absolutely unreasonable to expect consumers and citizens, who are all engaged in so many other activities, to also have the ability to continuously update their knowledge about what new tracking method the industry has discovered and to be able to fend it off. I think it’s a larger problem that requires policy intervention.

Jennifer Golbeck: I agree with that. Even if you did have a person who wanted to be on top of this and was willing to dedicate themselves full-time to keeping track of what technology can do, and then try to make decisions about what they can post, they still actually don’t have control.

Take language analysis, a really powerful tool where we look at the kinds of words that you use — not even necessarily obvious things like curse words, but things like function words: how often you use “I” versus “we,” how often you use “the” versus “a,” these little words that are natural in the way that you develop language and inherent to your personality. It turns out that those reveal all sorts of personal traits. There’s a whole field of psycholinguistics in which people are doing deeper research into comparing the kinds of words you use and how often you use them with personal attributes, and that’s not something you can understand or control.

AA: It’s also difficult to predict how information you reveal now could be used five or ten years out, in the sense of new inferences that could be discovered. Researchers may find that a piece of information “A” combined with a piece of information “B” can lead to the prediction of something particularly sensitive — also in the sense of how this particularly sensitive information could be used. These are literally impossible to predict, because researchers every month come up with new ideas for using data. So we literally do not know how this will play out in the future.

What would a policy solution look like?

JG: Right now in the U.S. it’s essentially the case that when you post information online, you give up control of it. So there are terms of service that regulate the sites you use, like on Facebook and Twitter and Pinterest — though those can change — but even within those, you’re essentially handing control of your data over to the companies. And they can kind of do what they want with it, within reason. You don’t have the legal right to request that data be deleted, to change it, to refuse to allow companies to use it. Some companies may give you that right, but you don’t have a natural, legal right to control your personal data. So if a company decides they want to sell it or market it or release it or change your privacy settings, they can do that.

In Europe, users have more of a right to their data, and recently there was a decision in Spain where a man had sued Google because when people searched for him, it was coming up with information about financial problems that he had had a long time ago. He was basically arguing that he has a right to have this information forgotten about him. When we declare bankruptcy, for example, that stays on our credit report for seven years; it’s not going to be there 30 years later. But a lot of this stuff on the Internet, including public-record stuff, does stick around well past the time that we would allow it to expire before, and users don’t have control over that online.

So Europe is saying users have a right to own their data in a certain way, and in the U.S. we don’t have that. That’s one of the spaces where there are some clear and straightforward legal solutions that could hand control, at least in some part, back to the users.

“There are a number of ways in which transparency control can be bypassed or muted.” Alessandro Acquisti

AA: If you go back to the 1970s, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — so not exactly an anti-business or anti-capitalist organization — came up with a number of principles related to handling personal data. These Fair Information Practices, or FIPs, were guidelines for what policymakers could do to make the handling of personal information fair.

If you look at those principles, and then you look now at the state of policymaking in the United States when it comes to privacy, you see a significant difference. The policymaking effort in the U.S. focuses almost exclusively on control and transparency, i.e. telling users how their data is used and giving them some degree of control. And those are important things! However, they are not sufficient means of privacy protection, in that there are a number of ways in which transparency control can be bypassed or muted. What we are missing from the Fair Information Practices are other principles, such as purpose specification (the reason data is being gathered should be specified before or at the time of collection), use limitation (subsequent uses of data should be limited to specific purposes) and security safeguards.

Alessandro, in your talk you mentioned an experiment in which it took only 15 seconds for transparency — in this case, a privacy policy — to be rendered ineffective for users.

AA: Indeed. A very interesting aspect of that experiment is that people do remember what we told them about how we would use their data. But adding this delay between the time that we told them how their data would be used and the time where we actually started asking them to make choices about their data was enough to render that notice ineffective. That’s probably because their minds started wandering.

JG: We are actually in the middle of a project where we’ve been showing people the Facebook privacy policy, and then alternatively having them watch this interactive video called “Take This Lollipop,” which is one of my favorite privacy-oriented things online. It’s an interactive personalized horror movie where this creepy stalker guy looks at your Facebook profile — which is generated because you click “Connect with Facebook” when you go to the website — and he looks at all your pictures and gets really angry and then kind of tracks you down.

When it first came out, I remember thinking, “Oh, I’m not going to bother trying this, because I’m one of the people in the world who knows the most about Facebook privacy settings. I have them cranked up so high; there’s no way it could possibly see anything on my profile.” A week later, I thought, “Well, you know, let’s click on it and see,” and it got all this data that I didn’t think it could get. I remember thinking, if I don’t understand what kind of data is being given to apps, how can anybody else understand?

We found that having people watch the video made them more informed and understand better what information was being shared than anything else. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the way that you want to convey a privacy policy, because it does show deep risk in some of this information being shared when it’s not necessarily as risky as that video conveys, but I think this is an interesting point.

AA: To explain this phenomenon I borrow the term “rational ignorance.” Rational ignorance has been used in other fields to refer to situations where people rationally decide to remain ignorant about a certain topic because they expect that the costs involved in making an effort will not be offset by the benefit of getting this information. Sometimes, in privacy, we may feel the same way. Sadly, sometimes correctly so: we may do everything to protect ourselves and do everything right, and still our data is being compromised or used in manners that we don’t know about and don’t want. And therefore, some of us may give up, and decide not even to start protecting ourselves.

“It’s really important that people understand that there are computational techniques that will reveal all kinds of information about you that you’re not aware that you’re sharing.” Jennifer Golbeck

JG: At the same time, the thing that I’ve had a hard time communicating in the years that I’ve been doing this work is for people to really understand that we can find things out computationally that they’re not sharing explicitly. So you can “like” these pages, you can post these things about yourself, and then we can infer a completely unrelated trait about you based on a combination of likes or the type of words that you’re using, or even what your friends are doing, even if you’re not posting anything. It’s things that are inherent in what you’re sharing that reveal these other traits, which may be things you want to keep private and that you had no idea you were sharing.

So on the one hand, it’s true that even if you know about all these computational techniques, you can’t necessarily protect yourself. On the other hand, it’s really important that people understand that there are computational techniques that will reveal all kinds of information about you that you’re not aware that you’re sharing.

How is what’s happening on the Internet different from people analyzing the way I dress, cut my hair, where I work or where I live? I don’t give people on the streets permission to judge those things, but they do it anyway.

AA: It’s different on at least two grounds. One is scale. We are talking here about technologies that vastly increase the kind of abilities that you’re describing. They make them more sophisticated. They allow many more entities — not just the friends you meet in your day-to-day life, but entities across the world — to make inferences about you. This data remains somewhere and could be used later to influence you.

The second is asymmetry. We all grow up developing the ability to modulate our public and private spheres, how much we want to reveal with friends, how much we want to protect. And we are pretty good at that. But when we go online, there is an element of asymmetry, because there are entities we don’t even know exist, and they are gathering continuously information about us.

“The point is, we really don’t know how this information will be used.” Alessandro Acquisti

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that all this information will be used negatively, or that online disclosures are inherently negative. That’s not at all the point. The point is, we really don’t know how this information will be used. For instance, say I’m a merchant — once I get information about you, I can use this information to try to extract more economic surplus from the transaction. I can price-discriminate you, so that I can get more out of the transaction than you will.

That’s why I’m interested in working in this area, not because disclosure is bad — human beings disclose all the time, it’s an innate need as much as privacy is — but because we really don’t know how this information will be used in the long run.

JG: You pick what clothes you wear, you pick the neighborhood you live in, you pick the job that you have — and in some way you know what that’s saying about you. Say you’re Catholic. Some people are going to associate one thing with you being Catholic, and some people are going to associate another. You have an easy way to understand what all the reactions will be.

But the kinds of things that we’re talking about online aren’t things that you can necessarily anticipate. One example of this is a pretty early project from a couple of undergrads at MIT called “Project Gaydar.” They were able to infer people’s sexual orientation by completely ignoring anything that the person had actually said and instead looked at the person’s friends and what they had disclosed about themselves. So even if you’re a person who wanted to keep their sexual orientation private, we can still find it out, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

We have such a huge base of data — hundreds of millions of people, combinations of actions, likes and words. By themselves, it’s a pile of traits that doesn’t mean anything. Yet we can detect small patterns among these hundreds of millions of people to pretty accurately infer information that has basically no relationship to what they’re choosing to disclose.

Once those algorithms are mapped out, how do you keep them from being used for evil? Do you worry your research could be used by less genuine entities?

JG: I sometimes tell people that I feel a bit like I’m working on the Manhattan Project. But I actually approach this from a scientific perspective. I’m interested in the science of it, and I think pretty universally, with very few exceptions, it’s always worth doing the science. And in fact, what we’re doing to infer these things can actually be used to teach people how to protect themselves. One of the things that we learned through this research is that the more data we have about people, the easier it is to make inferences about them. That has led me to be a regular purger of all my information online. That’s a lesson that comes out of the science.

You’re right that this stuff is going to get into the hands of companies, governments, and could potentially be used in evil ways. I don’t think not doing the science is the solution to that. As Alessandro said earlier, the only solution is a legal one where people have control over how their data is used and there are limitations and real regulation on data brokers and other companies that have this data.

AA: I doubt that even the best researchers are able to give ideas to the industry that have not already come up or will not come up soon by themselves. In the best scenario, we are maybe one or two steps ahead of the game. And that would be important, because it’s about raising awareness among individuals and among policy makers about things that are about to happen, or have started to happen.

Article source : http://ideas.ted.com/do-you-know-what-youre-revealing-online-much-more-than-you-think/?utm_campaign=social&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_content=ideas-blog&utm_term=technology

---

<Questions>

Q1. Do you think how much do you aware of online hacking on private information?  

Q2. Do you use any SNS on the internet? Why do you use it? 

Q3. What are the merits and demerits of using SNS? 

Q4. If you want to know about someone, how would you get the information on her/ him? By asking in person, searching the website or any other route?

Q5. Do you want to erase every item related to your personal info. on the internet if it is possible? 

Q6. Do you think should we make more stronger penalty system for those who are hacking information on the web site without permission? 

---

10 TED Talks that are worth more than an MBA

Laura Garnett, Inc./ Jul. 23, 2016, 11:00 AM

In today's business world, leaders are emerging at all ranks. The role of the leader is not exclusive to executive-level positions. 

But being a great leader doesn't have to mean going to management school.

You can emerge as an effective trailblazer in your office by being true to yourself and constantly learning from the information that is at your fingertips.

Start by watching these short lectures and embodying their lessons.

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

1. Carol Dweck: The Power of Believing That You Can Improve.

Unleash potential in yourself and in those you lead by encouraging a growth — rather than fixed — mindset.

In this talk, Dweck discusses the power of students receiving a "Not Yet" grade versus a failing grade — it increased their motivation and ability to succeed.

In another talk about mindset, Charlie Reeve found that employees with a growth mindset were constantly looking to adapt and to grow in their professional and personal worlds; they didn't believe that their talents and futures were predetermined.

Think about how you can shift your mindset to be more growth oriented. Now, imagine the results if you helped your peers and employees shift their mindset as well.

2. Sam Richards: A Radical Experiment in Empathy.

This is, as the title suggests, a radical and often misunderstood TED Talk about the importance of putting ourselves in others' shoes.

Not only is empathy a quality of being a good person, it is also key to being a great leader.

It helps us understand how to better communicate with and understand our superiors, peers, and employees. Do not underestimate this key characteristic. 

3. Angela Lee Duckworth: The Key To Success? Grit.

Duckworth defines grit as "passion and perseverance for long-term goals."

Grit is one of those intangible concepts that we still know very little about, but one thing is clear: The grittier we are, the more successful we become.

This is just another reason to find your true passion and purpose in life and truly dedicate yourself to it. 

4. Srikumar Rao: Plug Into Your Hard-Wired Happiness.

I attribute my consistent, joyful attitude to what I learned about mindset and happiness from Srikumar Rao.

In his TED Talk, Rao discusses how the "if-then" model of happiness is hurting our current well-being and success. Happiness is actually hardwired into us — it's easier to achieve than you think. Think about the quality of your life and career if you were happy right now.

5. David Marquet: How Great Leaders Serve Others.

David Marquet's experience as the captain of a naval ship allowed him to see that the traditional leadership style of giving orders wasn't going to work.

To empower means to let go of the idea that you know everything and that your job as a leader is to always tell others what to do.

When you give up control, you make room for everyone on the team to be innovative and authentically engaged. 

6. Ramsey Musallam: 3 Rules to Spark Learning.

In the changing business world, innovation is becoming more and more critical for success. To stay on top and gain a leading edge, businesses must be pushing their creativity and problem-solving efforts.

The type of high-octane brainpower required for that kind of forward thinking can only come from someone who is engaged, curious, and comfortable being themselves in their environment.

And we need leaders who are dedicated to helping their teams achieve this level of open-mindedness and forward-thinking. Ramsey Musallam's TED Talk perfectly shows how curiosity and experimentation are the windows to powerful and fulfilling results. 

7. Linda Cliatt-Wayman: How to Fix a Broken School? Lead Fearlessly, Love Hard.

Linda Cliatt-Wayman embodies what it means to care passionately — caring so much that you are willing to break with convention and be radical for the sake of your people.

Truly great leaders make an effort to meet and care for everyone in their organization, school, and family.

8. Mike Brady and Dion Drew: Hiring the Unemployable.

I have recently been inspired by Mike Brady, president of Greyston Bakery in Yonkers, New York. His bakery operates in a radical way in order to help people — they have a policy called "open hiring," which means that they will hire anyone, no questions asked.

In this TED Talk, Mike shares Greyston's mission, and Dion Drew, one of the employees, tells how the bakery affected his life. Dion's story is a powerful example of someone being given the reins of possibility and doing the most with it. Dion's story is a great example of the power of giving and the power of owning your own potential.

9. Brené Brown: The Power of Vulnerability.

Moments of vulnerability truly are inspiring, and they make way for the possibility of even greater connection and appreciation.

When you are vulnerable, when you put a name to your resistance, it can be addressed, acknowledged, and worked through. When one of my clients opens up and shows his or her vulnerable side in our work together, I know success is guaranteed.

10. Yves Morieux: How Too Many Rules at Work Keep You From Getting Things Done.

This is a great talk about how our society's obsession with measurement and processes in the name of productivity are actually quite counterproductive.

Human creativity and innovation does not flourish in these rigid systems — we must make room for more freedom and collaboration.

Article source : http://www.businessinsider.com/10-ted-talks-that-are-worth-more-than-an-mba-2015-9

---

<Questions>

Q1. During your vacation, do you have any plan for reading some books or watching movies? Do you have any recommendations for books or any movie that make us reflect ourselves or have more motivation for our lives?

Q2. Do you have any recommendable TED Movie clip? Why did you pick it as an impressive one? 

Q3. Do you have any goals you want to achieve this year? What are you doing to acquire your target? 

Q4. Do you think what is the key to success? What the success mean to you? 

Q5. Do you have any good mentor someone who leads you whenever you are falling into desperate situations? 

Q6. Do you have any role model? Why do you respect him/ her? 

Q7. How do you develop your new knowledge? What are the main sources of your knowledge? 

Q8. Do you have any regular volunteering activities for your communities or any regional organization ? 

[John Park]

항상 끝말에있던 luv가 Love의 비격식체 였네여...
『LUV :: Luxury Utility Vehicle. 』
SUV보다 좀더 고급스럽고 럭셔리하게 제작된 차 로 지금까지 오해 했었어여....

 

[Scarlet]

ㅋ 제가 서민적인 사람이라. ㅋ 그런 용어가 있는줄도 몰랐네요.ㅋ
그럼 모임에서 뵈요.ㅋ

[frank]

내용은다읽지못했지만유용한자료감사합니다