I remember the good ol' days when reality TV first hit the scene. People were fascinated by this new genre, although at first it was just an outcropping of what had already been in place. Game shows where people competed for outlandish prizes and talk shows where people were exposed for their good deeds, odd quirks, or outrageous personalities. Still, most people I knew thought the reality TV thing was a phase that would pass. It certainly seemed that way, as soon "Celebrity" editions of popular shows came out, trying desperately to change things up to keep audiences interesting. Still, some of the first shows exist - Survivor and Big Brother, and other shows are always coming and going. Some shows are educational, others are entertaining, and still others are just wrong on so many levels.
This year I have found myself watching some of the shows, despite not having cable and despite not really wanting to. I was just drawn in. But I feel like I could be a great contestant on some of these shows. For other shows, I will have to wait for "special editions" to compete, like:
"America's Next Top Really Really Short Slightly Overweight Kinda Old to Begin a Career Like this and Not All That Attractive to Begin With Model." (also known as "America's Next Top Foot Model" (or hand...or elbow...just not face)
"The Moderate Loser" For those of us who really want to be pushed to lose that extra 10 - 20 pounds
"Dancing With the Regular People."
"Extreme Makeover: Condo Edition" Although I've never seen them demolish a home that is part of a larger block of homes...I don't think I have done anything of merit to qualify for this.
"I Was Smarter than a Fifth Grader when I Was in Fourth Grade."
But I think reality TV should try to do some good in the world, while it is going strong. For instance, instead of all the celebrity editions of everything, these shows should hire people who have been out of work for a long time, to help jump start the economy. Also, some of the TV shows could really serve purposes in psychological research, all they would have to do would be to tweak a few things to make the experiments truly scientific. A show I watched a few times, "Dating in the Dark," claims to be a unique new dating experiment. Well, why not take it up a notch and get some psychology grad students involved in designing the show so that it truly meets the qualifications for an experiment. The same could be said about, "What Would You Do?" This is a great show that puts people in interesting situations and then tests what they would do. It is close to scientific because they change up different variables, one at a time, in order to see if the response changes. Once again, just a few tweaks, and people could write believable research papers on the results. Similar to "Myth Busters," it would be both educational and entertaining, and colleges would benefit from the research funding.
And, of course, the shows could continue the great work they do with charity - shows like Oprah's big giveaway, where people compete to do the most good or like "Extreme Home Makeover." Even normal shows like "American Idol" or "Dancing With the Stars" could incorporate community service - teaching young, at risk, teens how to dance or sing to keep them out of trouble.
And maybe we could get some of the morals back in line with traditional American values, or at least not glorify risky behaviors. Imagine a show about young people choosing to date purely. Or the next episode of the bachelor could (SPOILER ALERT) end with the bachelor rejecting both finalists with a Public Service Announcement type discussion on why we don't enter serious relationships with men who date multiple women at once.
Since reality TV looks like it's here to stay, I just figured these could become incorporated into the genre for the betterment of all Americans.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Silence
I wonder what it would have been like to be an alien watching our planet in the 1940's. Or even an impressionable teenager or pre-teen. The world seemed ready to fall apart, at war for years. Millions were dying. In Europe, a crazy dictator was methodically trying to exterminate an entire race of people. Others, even those who were considered credible in the free world, supported a less drastic measure of "purifying" the world through eugenics. Wars raged on, with no side appearing to win, and all over the globe. Those countries that abstained from the war effort drew into themselves, their populace beginning to seethe with discontent. In or out of the world, things would have appeared hopeless - perhaps to the extent of the end of humanity itself.
If we didn't know it was true, the horror of the Holocaust would seem like a sci-fi or horror film. I saw "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas," and it seemed like some sort of M. Night Shamaylan creepfest, but unfortunately too much of it was based on historical fact (the surprise twist was made up).
And then, a victory - in Europe - that gave hope to the world, but it was short lived hope. How could the Allies rest while there was still a gruesome war going on halfway around the world?
And so it happened in early August, two flashes of light. Boom. Boom.
And then, silence.
If our observer were to watch the next 50 years, it would be as if the entire world took a collective gasp. What was this horror that had been unleashed? And when would it strike next? It was as if the world was waiting.
On the planet, life went on - advances were made in technology, social norms changed, people married and had children, they worked and played. But collectively, the gasp remained. In the silence of space, looking down on the planet our observer might wonder what had happened to make the planet as quiet as the space around it.
And gruesome as the question is, I have to wonder, 65 years later, why there were only two explosions.
While the world gasped at the display of power, the United States stood like a mother separating feuding children. The world was gasping. She was screaming, "Stop!" Like the first time a child gets spanked, the effect was instantaneous and, in the scheme of history, short lived.
Our alien doesn't know that in the quiet the world shivers. Nations race to develop the power to explode these horrendous bombs. But the mother is ready, her arms remain outstretched, weapon in hand, facing her enemy, who also carries his weapon. The parents face off - the children cower behind their legs.
I can't help but wonder what would have happened if it had not been the United States who developed this weaponry first. What if it had been any one of our three main enemies at the time. Would they have used the bombs as a warning signal? Or would they have used them to annihilate their enemies and advance their agenda? I know that history is written by the winners, and that the winners therefore come out as "good." But couldn't you also assign the term "good" to the defenders, rather than the aggressors? In which case, wouldn't the result be the same?
Silence.
After going through the Liberty Memorial, I am even more aware now that we may just be living in the time between two wars. 20 years after World War I, Hitler was still vengeful. 20 years after World War II, the war was still at the forefront of Europe's mind, and C.S. Lewis was always writing about it in the 60's.
And yet, even as the pot starts to simmer again, I wonder if this weapon will ever seriously come back. The mother is watching the kids of her enemy - little children who want to play with their daddy's gun. But mother still has her arms outstretched, ready to defend her children. I think that, even between the adult parents, there was an unspoken agreement not to pull the weapon out again. A decision to take two steps back in that particular scientific advancement to advance the cause of something more important that was threatened by its very existence. Humanity.
If we didn't know it was true, the horror of the Holocaust would seem like a sci-fi or horror film. I saw "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas," and it seemed like some sort of M. Night Shamaylan creepfest, but unfortunately too much of it was based on historical fact (the surprise twist was made up).
And then, a victory - in Europe - that gave hope to the world, but it was short lived hope. How could the Allies rest while there was still a gruesome war going on halfway around the world?
And so it happened in early August, two flashes of light. Boom. Boom.
And then, silence.
If our observer were to watch the next 50 years, it would be as if the entire world took a collective gasp. What was this horror that had been unleashed? And when would it strike next? It was as if the world was waiting.
On the planet, life went on - advances were made in technology, social norms changed, people married and had children, they worked and played. But collectively, the gasp remained. In the silence of space, looking down on the planet our observer might wonder what had happened to make the planet as quiet as the space around it.
And gruesome as the question is, I have to wonder, 65 years later, why there were only two explosions.
While the world gasped at the display of power, the United States stood like a mother separating feuding children. The world was gasping. She was screaming, "Stop!" Like the first time a child gets spanked, the effect was instantaneous and, in the scheme of history, short lived.
Our alien doesn't know that in the quiet the world shivers. Nations race to develop the power to explode these horrendous bombs. But the mother is ready, her arms remain outstretched, weapon in hand, facing her enemy, who also carries his weapon. The parents face off - the children cower behind their legs.
I can't help but wonder what would have happened if it had not been the United States who developed this weaponry first. What if it had been any one of our three main enemies at the time. Would they have used the bombs as a warning signal? Or would they have used them to annihilate their enemies and advance their agenda? I know that history is written by the winners, and that the winners therefore come out as "good." But couldn't you also assign the term "good" to the defenders, rather than the aggressors? In which case, wouldn't the result be the same?
Silence.
After going through the Liberty Memorial, I am even more aware now that we may just be living in the time between two wars. 20 years after World War I, Hitler was still vengeful. 20 years after World War II, the war was still at the forefront of Europe's mind, and C.S. Lewis was always writing about it in the 60's.
And yet, even as the pot starts to simmer again, I wonder if this weapon will ever seriously come back. The mother is watching the kids of her enemy - little children who want to play with their daddy's gun. But mother still has her arms outstretched, ready to defend her children. I think that, even between the adult parents, there was an unspoken agreement not to pull the weapon out again. A decision to take two steps back in that particular scientific advancement to advance the cause of something more important that was threatened by its very existence. Humanity.
Friday, September 3, 2010
A Never Ending Recession
I'm two classes short of a minor in economics, but I do have a Master's in Accounting. And two years into the Recession, I have the same thought about it I did going in. "How did the Great Depression end?" and "Will this not be a self perpetuating crisis?" Frankly, I don't think there is a way out, and it's a good and bad thing. Much like the crisis we have created with healthcare, it is a crisis of our own doing.
Let me explain.
During the recession, people are either out of work or afraid they will become out of work, or they are asked to take a pay cut. As such, they cut back on spending all but the necessities. This causes companies that make "luxury" items (anything that is not clothes, food, houses, cars) to lose revenue and lay people off, adding to the recession. Now, some of these companies struggle as well, because we have found creative ways to make a necessity (car) a luxury (fully-loaded SUV, a new one purchased every two years). So more people lose jobs, less people buy luxuries. I really don't see the cycle ending until we are back to food, utilities, cars, houses, etc. (On the other hand, when the iPad and the Kindle are some of the hottest selling items of the year, can anyone really say that we are in a recession? Perhaps people just traded their annual splurge on a car to a splurge on an electronic device - I could see that).
But there is something, I think, different about this recession than there was about the Great Depression. We actually have enough resources to go around. Yes, there has been an influx of homeless and no structures in place to take care of them, but that is just because shelters take time to build. Americans still produce enough food and clothes and shelter to give everybody the necessities.
Take a simple economy. 100 years ago people spent all day every day making food. Everybody worked and everybody ate. Then someone discovered a way to make twice as much food using half the workers. Now there is a surplus of food, but there is 50% unemployment. The question becomes, how do you distribute food to people who aren't working? So the newly unemployed start being creative. They invent luxury goods and a perceived "need" among the employed. They trade those goods for food. Again, someone refines the process, and the number of employees needed to produce food is cut in half again. Pretty soon, only a small fraction of the population is producing food for the entire population, but a large economy has sprung up to trade non-food luxury items back and forth.
Now, let's look at real history. In the 1950's we suddenly had an influx into the workforce. We always talk about women going to work, but in reality, we mean middle class women. Any perusal of a 19th century novel will show you that women had been working for centuries - either to support themselves or if their husbands could not make enough to support a family. So what we mean by women in the workforce is "women who otherwise would not HAVE to work and still be able to feed their family."
Of course this caused an economic boom. Families' incomes doubled, so they were able to purchase more luxury goods. And these luxury good companies sprung up and hired the additional workforce that had caused such an influx.
Now we are faced with the opposite problem. Baby boomers are starting to retire - which may help our employment numbers. But it also means the largest portion of the population will be scrapped for cash.
But if we think about present unemployment numbers and then walk back to the pre-1950's era, are we really surprised that we now see 10 - 17% unemployment? (17% is the estimated actual unemployment when people who have dropped out of the job market are considered). Would this represent the previously unemployed middle class woman?
I wonder if every married, parenting couple that could affor do to so voluntarily selected a parent (let's be feminist here and say it could be the father OR mother) to stay home with the children, I imagine our unemployment numbers would fade away. Sure, these families may have to downsize and not live the large life they had been living. But look at the alternative. Employment is allocated sporadically across the population. Most families still have two incomes, while young singles right out of college and divorced mothers may have been hit by layoffs. Going back to a pre-1950's model may actually put our economy back in balance. It would just lower our standard of living.
But once again, our standard of living was actually over-inflated. Partially because so many people were living up to their ears in debt (I am still furious at what I see as the majority of American people who put us into this terrible mess and still expect someone else to get them out of it). But also because we had two-income households.
I am not writing this as a sort of action item, although I do think the real benefactors of having single income families would be the children who get to be raised by their parents again instead of corporate day care. I am just pointing out that the economy is a big and complicated monster - prone to cough up problems rooted decades ago. We must face the reality that perhaps our productivity is so good that we can only ever gainfully employ 90% of the population. And we have resources enough for everyone - we are just in the middle of growing pains to discover how to make sure everyone has them.
Let me explain.
During the recession, people are either out of work or afraid they will become out of work, or they are asked to take a pay cut. As such, they cut back on spending all but the necessities. This causes companies that make "luxury" items (anything that is not clothes, food, houses, cars) to lose revenue and lay people off, adding to the recession. Now, some of these companies struggle as well, because we have found creative ways to make a necessity (car) a luxury (fully-loaded SUV, a new one purchased every two years). So more people lose jobs, less people buy luxuries. I really don't see the cycle ending until we are back to food, utilities, cars, houses, etc. (On the other hand, when the iPad and the Kindle are some of the hottest selling items of the year, can anyone really say that we are in a recession? Perhaps people just traded their annual splurge on a car to a splurge on an electronic device - I could see that).
But there is something, I think, different about this recession than there was about the Great Depression. We actually have enough resources to go around. Yes, there has been an influx of homeless and no structures in place to take care of them, but that is just because shelters take time to build. Americans still produce enough food and clothes and shelter to give everybody the necessities.
Take a simple economy. 100 years ago people spent all day every day making food. Everybody worked and everybody ate. Then someone discovered a way to make twice as much food using half the workers. Now there is a surplus of food, but there is 50% unemployment. The question becomes, how do you distribute food to people who aren't working? So the newly unemployed start being creative. They invent luxury goods and a perceived "need" among the employed. They trade those goods for food. Again, someone refines the process, and the number of employees needed to produce food is cut in half again. Pretty soon, only a small fraction of the population is producing food for the entire population, but a large economy has sprung up to trade non-food luxury items back and forth.
Now, let's look at real history. In the 1950's we suddenly had an influx into the workforce. We always talk about women going to work, but in reality, we mean middle class women. Any perusal of a 19th century novel will show you that women had been working for centuries - either to support themselves or if their husbands could not make enough to support a family. So what we mean by women in the workforce is "women who otherwise would not HAVE to work and still be able to feed their family."
Of course this caused an economic boom. Families' incomes doubled, so they were able to purchase more luxury goods. And these luxury good companies sprung up and hired the additional workforce that had caused such an influx.
Now we are faced with the opposite problem. Baby boomers are starting to retire - which may help our employment numbers. But it also means the largest portion of the population will be scrapped for cash.
But if we think about present unemployment numbers and then walk back to the pre-1950's era, are we really surprised that we now see 10 - 17% unemployment? (17% is the estimated actual unemployment when people who have dropped out of the job market are considered). Would this represent the previously unemployed middle class woman?
I wonder if every married, parenting couple that could affor do to so voluntarily selected a parent (let's be feminist here and say it could be the father OR mother) to stay home with the children, I imagine our unemployment numbers would fade away. Sure, these families may have to downsize and not live the large life they had been living. But look at the alternative. Employment is allocated sporadically across the population. Most families still have two incomes, while young singles right out of college and divorced mothers may have been hit by layoffs. Going back to a pre-1950's model may actually put our economy back in balance. It would just lower our standard of living.
But once again, our standard of living was actually over-inflated. Partially because so many people were living up to their ears in debt (I am still furious at what I see as the majority of American people who put us into this terrible mess and still expect someone else to get them out of it). But also because we had two-income households.
I am not writing this as a sort of action item, although I do think the real benefactors of having single income families would be the children who get to be raised by their parents again instead of corporate day care. I am just pointing out that the economy is a big and complicated monster - prone to cough up problems rooted decades ago. We must face the reality that perhaps our productivity is so good that we can only ever gainfully employ 90% of the population. And we have resources enough for everyone - we are just in the middle of growing pains to discover how to make sure everyone has them.
On 9/11
Sometime in the days after September 11, 2001, my history teach began to ponder the impact of the terrorist attacks in a historical sense. I remember how he analzyed it at the time, that it was not as big an event as the attacks on Pearl Harbor had been. But, he said, we would have to see just what the consequences of the attacks were.
Nine years later, I think he was right to some extent, but he may have undervalued the significance of the attacks. Nine years later we are still involved in the war on Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Nine years later people are still sore and hurting about a mosque being built in New York City. Nine years later the idea of a terrorist attack is more real to us than it ever was before the attack.
Pearl Harbor forced our hands - and it got us involved in a world wide war, and it ultimately resulted in the Allies winning the war. If the War on Terror ever careened to the proportions of World War II (I hope not World War III at all), then it would be comparable.
I also noticed the impact World War II had on those who lived in that time period, and also the impact of World War I. 20 years after World War I, Hitler began the second World War because he was still bitter about the outcome. 20 years after World War II C.S. Lewis was writing books about the war, using Nazis as his example of "bad guys." (Frankly, 65 years later World War II continues to have a lasting impact on us - even those who did not live in that time period. It literally changed the world!)
So we are not even halfway to the midpoint of 20 years to see if this was a defining moment. We are in the middle of a recession that, experts say, will define my generation's spending habits. And my generation is still involved in the Afghanistan war. But in 11 years will we all continue to think of September 11th with the same patriotism and fervor that we do now?
I don't know. And I don't know what answer I would like. I would like to say "yes" because it means we would remember those who died that day and what it means to be an American. On the other hand, to say "yes" would imply the terrorists had won - they had created an "incident" as great and terrible as the attack on Pearl Harbor had been.
But I supose it doesn't matter - in 20 years I will probably still know exactly what 9/11 means on my calendar. But hopefully 11 years from now the terrorists will finally understand what the Japanese learned - don't mess with the USA.
An afterthought: the other day I went downstairs to our cafeteria, and the news was playing. On it was a picture of black, billowing smoke. My immediate thougth was, "Oh no, what have they blown up this time?" The video turned out to be of the oil well explosion in the Gulf. However, it reminded me of the impact 9/11 had on me - an embedded uneasiness about certain things - behaviors of airplanes, clouds of smoke. I don't know when that unease will go away.
Nine years later, I think he was right to some extent, but he may have undervalued the significance of the attacks. Nine years later we are still involved in the war on Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Nine years later people are still sore and hurting about a mosque being built in New York City. Nine years later the idea of a terrorist attack is more real to us than it ever was before the attack.
Pearl Harbor forced our hands - and it got us involved in a world wide war, and it ultimately resulted in the Allies winning the war. If the War on Terror ever careened to the proportions of World War II (I hope not World War III at all), then it would be comparable.
I also noticed the impact World War II had on those who lived in that time period, and also the impact of World War I. 20 years after World War I, Hitler began the second World War because he was still bitter about the outcome. 20 years after World War II C.S. Lewis was writing books about the war, using Nazis as his example of "bad guys." (Frankly, 65 years later World War II continues to have a lasting impact on us - even those who did not live in that time period. It literally changed the world!)
So we are not even halfway to the midpoint of 20 years to see if this was a defining moment. We are in the middle of a recession that, experts say, will define my generation's spending habits. And my generation is still involved in the Afghanistan war. But in 11 years will we all continue to think of September 11th with the same patriotism and fervor that we do now?
I don't know. And I don't know what answer I would like. I would like to say "yes" because it means we would remember those who died that day and what it means to be an American. On the other hand, to say "yes" would imply the terrorists had won - they had created an "incident" as great and terrible as the attack on Pearl Harbor had been.
But I supose it doesn't matter - in 20 years I will probably still know exactly what 9/11 means on my calendar. But hopefully 11 years from now the terrorists will finally understand what the Japanese learned - don't mess with the USA.
An afterthought: the other day I went downstairs to our cafeteria, and the news was playing. On it was a picture of black, billowing smoke. My immediate thougth was, "Oh no, what have they blown up this time?" The video turned out to be of the oil well explosion in the Gulf. However, it reminded me of the impact 9/11 had on me - an embedded uneasiness about certain things - behaviors of airplanes, clouds of smoke. I don't know when that unease will go away.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
A Good Friday
Recently I wrote about a typical Sunday for me. I thought it would be fun to explain my typical Friday. First of all, let me backtrack to the rest of the week. Most nights I get home around 5:00 and aim for bed by 9:00 (so I actually get to bed by 10:00). These days include as long a walk as I can stand, eating dinner, playing computer games, maybe a soak in the tub.
Mondays I volunteer, which I always go to in a crabby mood, dragging my feet. I don't get home until 7:30 or later, which cuts my 5 hours into about 2 (thus the crabbiness).
Tuesdays Kristen is usually home, so I like to talk to her. Sometimes we just sit together in the living room both playing our computers. Sometimes we go out to dinner.
Wednesdays are my veg nights. I have nothing going on.
Thursdays I have puppy class (intermediate dog training, actually).
But Fridays I don't care when I go to bed, because I can "sleep in" or take a nap the next day. So I have a ritual. While the general weeknight pattern takes place, I have a few twists. I eat cheese pizza, for one. I also allow myself any other fun snack - like ice cream or s'mores. Sometimes I rent a movie. But the best part happens at 9:00.
At 9:00 I get into the big poofy red chair and prop my feet up. I have at my disposal a book or my laptop. I also have a nice glass of either wine or Dr. Pepper (in a wine glass, of course, to add to the glamour of it). Then I turn on the TV and watch "Star Trek: The Next Generations" - which I personally think is the least appealing of the four series I have followed in my life, but which I had rarely cared to see when it was airing. I get lost in the sci-fi show, in odd musings, subtle political statements. And, of course, I have my book or computer for the advertisements.
After Star Trek the King of Queens comes on and reminds me of my stay in Chicago - ah, I miss those days!
And I also miss Fridays when I don't get to play this came. I am half tempted to perform the routine tonight, and just risk being crabby tomorrow morning. I haven't decided yet, but I do know that I don't have any Dr. Pepper or wine lying around...
Mondays I volunteer, which I always go to in a crabby mood, dragging my feet. I don't get home until 7:30 or later, which cuts my 5 hours into about 2 (thus the crabbiness).
Tuesdays Kristen is usually home, so I like to talk to her. Sometimes we just sit together in the living room both playing our computers. Sometimes we go out to dinner.
Wednesdays are my veg nights. I have nothing going on.
Thursdays I have puppy class (intermediate dog training, actually).
But Fridays I don't care when I go to bed, because I can "sleep in" or take a nap the next day. So I have a ritual. While the general weeknight pattern takes place, I have a few twists. I eat cheese pizza, for one. I also allow myself any other fun snack - like ice cream or s'mores. Sometimes I rent a movie. But the best part happens at 9:00.
At 9:00 I get into the big poofy red chair and prop my feet up. I have at my disposal a book or my laptop. I also have a nice glass of either wine or Dr. Pepper (in a wine glass, of course, to add to the glamour of it). Then I turn on the TV and watch "Star Trek: The Next Generations" - which I personally think is the least appealing of the four series I have followed in my life, but which I had rarely cared to see when it was airing. I get lost in the sci-fi show, in odd musings, subtle political statements. And, of course, I have my book or computer for the advertisements.
After Star Trek the King of Queens comes on and reminds me of my stay in Chicago - ah, I miss those days!
And I also miss Fridays when I don't get to play this came. I am half tempted to perform the routine tonight, and just risk being crabby tomorrow morning. I haven't decided yet, but I do know that I don't have any Dr. Pepper or wine lying around...
Monday, August 30, 2010
Memorial to Liberty
The first and last things you witness at the Liberty World War I Memorial Museum are striking, overwhelming, and contemplative. For lack of a better description, they are, “Whoah!” moments. And everything in between is like walking through a History Channel special – complete with sounds and music, wafting through the museum, from the video repeating itself at the far end of the exhibit.
The first “Whoah” comes with the entrance video that uses the primitive footage of the day to describe the factors leading up to the first World War. Social, economic, political, nationalistic. Along with ominous drums beating, the video informed us that the pot was boiling. And then, the assassination of the Archduke of Hungary.
What comes next is what makes the entire video worthwhile – the words scroll up too quickly to write down or memorize, but I will summarize from what I can remember. One at a time, in complete silence, the following sentences appear on the screen. “One month later, within the course of a week:” “Russia declares war on Austria.” “Germany declares war on Russia.” “Germany mobilizes its troops against Belgiuim.” “France declares war on Germany.” “Russia declares war on Germany.” “Germany declares war on France.” “England declares war on Germany.” Within a week, the entire world is at war.
The first half of the museum takes you through the first half of the War – when only Europe was involved. You are astonished by the death toll – over 20 million – not just stated, but displayed in various graphs. One in three soldiers die. You see photographs of ancient castles in Europe destroyed. And you peer into diorama trenches to see exactly what trench warfare looked like from a soldier’s point of view and hear him describe his experience. Trench warfare defined World War I – in a little less than a month after the war began battle lines were drawn. Both sides dug trenches and waited. Waited for the other side to lose enough men to give up. For three years, the battle lines barely changed. Meanwhile Germany began to suffer a horrible famine, even as its resources were being sent to the war.
Another moving, although less mind-boggling, video describes the environment in which America entered the war. In short, Germany offered Mexico the Southwest states if they would join the war against the U.S. and convince Japan to do the same. In an act of outrage and self-defense, President Wilson, who had just been re-elected because of his stance of trying to gain peace in Europe while staying out of the war, declared war on Germany. Coming from a museum in Kansas City, MO, USA, perhaps the video was a little one sided. But I couldn't help but be moved by the thought of the Americans coming to the rescue - that it was our entrance into the war that changed the outcome and spelled the beginning of the end.
In fact, after three years of deadlock, the war the Americans entered was fairly fast paced. Just the body count of the troops we sent to Europe drastically outnumbered the German soldiers. Even though Russia pulled out to deal with its own crisis, the Allies still pushed through. Once the war was won, it was interesting to think of what a horror that time period must have been. The dead, over 20 million, were barely buried when a flu crisis swept around the world, killing as many. Communism swept through Russia, causing panic and scare in America. And Germany was left bitter. Even more interesting was learning that England was already setting up a Jewish state in Israel and dealing with Palestinians to negotiate a treaty - a treaty that would be vague and broken and lead to lasting tensions 100 years later.
The museum is set up in a kind of mirror image, and so the last "Whoah" moment came at the end, in a room of quotes. Each quote was on a holographic display, and when you moved around it, you could see who said it and when. The second to last quote hissed, "The deaths of 2 million German boys shall not have been in vain - we demand vengeance." Who said it? Adolf Hitler, 1923. Chilling.
The first time I went to the museum another takeaway was the sheer brutality of the conditions of war. Men lived in trenches filled with icy mud, with very little room. They were dirty, cold, sick, scared. We really have no appreciation for intense pain these days. But then again, not long before World War I, pioneers were travelling through heat and cold to cross the country and living amid bugs, bad water, and dangerous attacks. People were working in dangerous factories and living in dirty slums. Life was just plain harder back then. Add to the distress the sheer pointlessness of the war - a war even experts can't quite agree on why it happened.
But one thing is for certain - although we may not understand why World War I happened, we know exactly what caused World War II. The War to End All Wars did not take the pot off the heat, it just left it simmering.
The first “Whoah” comes with the entrance video that uses the primitive footage of the day to describe the factors leading up to the first World War. Social, economic, political, nationalistic. Along with ominous drums beating, the video informed us that the pot was boiling. And then, the assassination of the Archduke of Hungary.
What comes next is what makes the entire video worthwhile – the words scroll up too quickly to write down or memorize, but I will summarize from what I can remember. One at a time, in complete silence, the following sentences appear on the screen. “One month later, within the course of a week:” “Russia declares war on Austria.” “Germany declares war on Russia.” “Germany mobilizes its troops against Belgiuim.” “France declares war on Germany.” “Russia declares war on Germany.” “Germany declares war on France.” “England declares war on Germany.” Within a week, the entire world is at war.
The first half of the museum takes you through the first half of the War – when only Europe was involved. You are astonished by the death toll – over 20 million – not just stated, but displayed in various graphs. One in three soldiers die. You see photographs of ancient castles in Europe destroyed. And you peer into diorama trenches to see exactly what trench warfare looked like from a soldier’s point of view and hear him describe his experience. Trench warfare defined World War I – in a little less than a month after the war began battle lines were drawn. Both sides dug trenches and waited. Waited for the other side to lose enough men to give up. For three years, the battle lines barely changed. Meanwhile Germany began to suffer a horrible famine, even as its resources were being sent to the war.
Another moving, although less mind-boggling, video describes the environment in which America entered the war. In short, Germany offered Mexico the Southwest states if they would join the war against the U.S. and convince Japan to do the same. In an act of outrage and self-defense, President Wilson, who had just been re-elected because of his stance of trying to gain peace in Europe while staying out of the war, declared war on Germany. Coming from a museum in Kansas City, MO, USA, perhaps the video was a little one sided. But I couldn't help but be moved by the thought of the Americans coming to the rescue - that it was our entrance into the war that changed the outcome and spelled the beginning of the end.
In fact, after three years of deadlock, the war the Americans entered was fairly fast paced. Just the body count of the troops we sent to Europe drastically outnumbered the German soldiers. Even though Russia pulled out to deal with its own crisis, the Allies still pushed through. Once the war was won, it was interesting to think of what a horror that time period must have been. The dead, over 20 million, were barely buried when a flu crisis swept around the world, killing as many. Communism swept through Russia, causing panic and scare in America. And Germany was left bitter. Even more interesting was learning that England was already setting up a Jewish state in Israel and dealing with Palestinians to negotiate a treaty - a treaty that would be vague and broken and lead to lasting tensions 100 years later.
The museum is set up in a kind of mirror image, and so the last "Whoah" moment came at the end, in a room of quotes. Each quote was on a holographic display, and when you moved around it, you could see who said it and when. The second to last quote hissed, "The deaths of 2 million German boys shall not have been in vain - we demand vengeance." Who said it? Adolf Hitler, 1923. Chilling.
The first time I went to the museum another takeaway was the sheer brutality of the conditions of war. Men lived in trenches filled with icy mud, with very little room. They were dirty, cold, sick, scared. We really have no appreciation for intense pain these days. But then again, not long before World War I, pioneers were travelling through heat and cold to cross the country and living amid bugs, bad water, and dangerous attacks. People were working in dangerous factories and living in dirty slums. Life was just plain harder back then. Add to the distress the sheer pointlessness of the war - a war even experts can't quite agree on why it happened.
But one thing is for certain - although we may not understand why World War I happened, we know exactly what caused World War II. The War to End All Wars did not take the pot off the heat, it just left it simmering.
Friday, August 27, 2010
DiSCover Your Personality Type
Red, yellow, lion, D, C. What do these things have in common? Why, they're personality types, of course! In my short life I have undergone multiple personality tests. They are an almost magical window into the unknown world of me, or anyone else, and yet, they use a simple and accurate method to analyze your deepest desires. You. Unlike horoscopes and bogus personality tests that ask your favorite color, real personality tests ask you to describe yourself in unique ways and by thinking of different situations. And what I find interesting is that the three legitimate tests I know of end up with four basic personality types. Now, I don't know if a Lion and Red and i are all the same thing - I get more confused allocating the animals out. So I am going to talk about a personality system I took last summer, DiSC, because I am most familiar with it, and because my family members have also happened to take this test.
In one sentence or less, the personality types in the DiSC test are:
D - Leader, impatient, results oriented, fast paced decision maker.
i - Politician, personable, chatty, people oriented
S - Loyal, kind, nice, friendly
C - Logical, wants the correct answer.
Note that the i and S personality types are people oriented and describe people that most of us would want to be our friends. The outer two are more results oriented, and they describe traits that many of us would see as key to success. Remember that.
Now, the DiSC test can actually create infinite personality types, but there are 12 main ones. Each person has a most dominant and second most dominant personality trait. For instance, my mom is a CS - Logical but also really nice. The infinite number of traits just depends on the person. Some people have almost even traits - where all four are either high or low. Some people have dramatic differences between their first trait and their second. There is a graph I filled out for myself, but just imagine each trait being assigned a number, and the higher the number, the more of that trait you have. But the 12 main ones are the combinations of the strongest and second strongest trait for any given individual. And that is what we were asked to look at when learning about our personalities.
So if there are 12 traits, we end up with 2 traits being predominantly results oriented (non-social), and 2 traits being predominantly people oriented - DC, CD, iS, Si. Assuming that personality traits are evenly distributed across the population (which they very well may not be) that results in 1 in 6 having very few people skills and 1 in 6 being incredibly people oriented. When I think of this, it makes sense. Most people are just normal, but get a group of friends together and you will ultimately have one wallflower and one social butterfly (unless the group is of 12 people, in which case you will have two of each, and so on).
Now, I wanted to blog about this, because I want to bring it up later. In addition, I think it's important to be aware of the different personalities and what they bring to the table. Their strengths and weaknesses. I think everyone should participate in a personality study (not just the test - there should be some formal or informal learning ABOUT the different personalities as well, not just your own) at some time in their life. Many companies promote these as well. But your personality types affects how you see the world. I, unfortunately, am of the 1 in 6 with double no-people-skills personality whammy. DC. That is not an excuse for me to be rude or anything, but it helps me understand some of my difficulties in working with people. I also wish more people would attempt to understand the DC's and CD's.
When I was learning about the DiSC personalities, our instructor divided us into groups by strongest trait, so I was with the C's (my test was wrong the first time I took it, but my CD numbers are similar). It was fun working with like-minded people to answer the instructor's questions. (I also had fun pointing out when my C's were acting like D's "Let's just answer the question and keep going." Because I was at a training for accountants, there were quite a few C's that had strong D traits and, I assume, vice versa). Right before this exercise I had been complaining to a friend that the i's ruled the world. Even though we all went through these nice little personality sessions, at the end of the day we were all expected to talk to each other and behave like i's. During show and share my worst fears were confirmed. When asked how their personality group could change and be aware of other personality types, the i's said, "We don't change for other people. Other people change for us."
A year later, I am still exhausted by this mentality. Being an i is a self-perpetuating talent. At some point you were accepted in a large peer group, you developed skills for engaging with lots of people (I think i vs. S may have a little to do with those who prefer a large circle of friends vs. a smaller circle). And now you will always have a large circle of friends because you have a sort of magnetism. You are popular.
I wonder if there was ever a time where the "popular" or "admired" personality type was a D or C. I think, perhaps, during the times of the Greek philosophers C's were admired and respected. D's or Di's are probably in their prime in times of war - when great leaders need to take charge. (Now a Di or iD is probably a politician, and you can see how respected those are). And some personality traits are gender linked, too. I don't think there are more female S's than i's, but if you have the people personality, I think women are expected to behave more like S's, while men are expected to behave more like i's.
Ultimately I have never walked away from a personality session without being cognizant that it takes all four types to really get anywhere - whether we have that in people with two strong traits or a mix of one strong trait for everyone. I just wish the world at large would begin to recognize the contribution of the D's and C's.
In one sentence or less, the personality types in the DiSC test are:
D - Leader, impatient, results oriented, fast paced decision maker.
i - Politician, personable, chatty, people oriented
S - Loyal, kind, nice, friendly
C - Logical, wants the correct answer.
Note that the i and S personality types are people oriented and describe people that most of us would want to be our friends. The outer two are more results oriented, and they describe traits that many of us would see as key to success. Remember that.
Now, the DiSC test can actually create infinite personality types, but there are 12 main ones. Each person has a most dominant and second most dominant personality trait. For instance, my mom is a CS - Logical but also really nice. The infinite number of traits just depends on the person. Some people have almost even traits - where all four are either high or low. Some people have dramatic differences between their first trait and their second. There is a graph I filled out for myself, but just imagine each trait being assigned a number, and the higher the number, the more of that trait you have. But the 12 main ones are the combinations of the strongest and second strongest trait for any given individual. And that is what we were asked to look at when learning about our personalities.
So if there are 12 traits, we end up with 2 traits being predominantly results oriented (non-social), and 2 traits being predominantly people oriented - DC, CD, iS, Si. Assuming that personality traits are evenly distributed across the population (which they very well may not be) that results in 1 in 6 having very few people skills and 1 in 6 being incredibly people oriented. When I think of this, it makes sense. Most people are just normal, but get a group of friends together and you will ultimately have one wallflower and one social butterfly (unless the group is of 12 people, in which case you will have two of each, and so on).
Now, I wanted to blog about this, because I want to bring it up later. In addition, I think it's important to be aware of the different personalities and what they bring to the table. Their strengths and weaknesses. I think everyone should participate in a personality study (not just the test - there should be some formal or informal learning ABOUT the different personalities as well, not just your own) at some time in their life. Many companies promote these as well. But your personality types affects how you see the world. I, unfortunately, am of the 1 in 6 with double no-people-skills personality whammy. DC. That is not an excuse for me to be rude or anything, but it helps me understand some of my difficulties in working with people. I also wish more people would attempt to understand the DC's and CD's.
When I was learning about the DiSC personalities, our instructor divided us into groups by strongest trait, so I was with the C's (my test was wrong the first time I took it, but my CD numbers are similar). It was fun working with like-minded people to answer the instructor's questions. (I also had fun pointing out when my C's were acting like D's "Let's just answer the question and keep going." Because I was at a training for accountants, there were quite a few C's that had strong D traits and, I assume, vice versa). Right before this exercise I had been complaining to a friend that the i's ruled the world. Even though we all went through these nice little personality sessions, at the end of the day we were all expected to talk to each other and behave like i's. During show and share my worst fears were confirmed. When asked how their personality group could change and be aware of other personality types, the i's said, "We don't change for other people. Other people change for us."
A year later, I am still exhausted by this mentality. Being an i is a self-perpetuating talent. At some point you were accepted in a large peer group, you developed skills for engaging with lots of people (I think i vs. S may have a little to do with those who prefer a large circle of friends vs. a smaller circle). And now you will always have a large circle of friends because you have a sort of magnetism. You are popular.
I wonder if there was ever a time where the "popular" or "admired" personality type was a D or C. I think, perhaps, during the times of the Greek philosophers C's were admired and respected. D's or Di's are probably in their prime in times of war - when great leaders need to take charge. (Now a Di or iD is probably a politician, and you can see how respected those are). And some personality traits are gender linked, too. I don't think there are more female S's than i's, but if you have the people personality, I think women are expected to behave more like S's, while men are expected to behave more like i's.
Ultimately I have never walked away from a personality session without being cognizant that it takes all four types to really get anywhere - whether we have that in people with two strong traits or a mix of one strong trait for everyone. I just wish the world at large would begin to recognize the contribution of the D's and C's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)