Explain, in your own words, what you think being vulnerable means and how you see it play out in your life. Why do you think it is so challenging for people to be vulnerable? What are advantages and disadvantages to being vulnerable?
Vulnerability is a trait and expression that is far underused in our day to day lives. It is something that I personally find myself avoiding often in what I believe is a learned pattern of behavior, due to the undervaluation or stigmatization of vulnerability, especially with respect to masculinity. These contradicting concepts were brought together during my pledge education process through my fraternity, where we watched the same TED talk by Brené Brown as the one in class. The lessons that I learned about vulnerability in such a masculine-centric environment were powerful due to this juxtaposition and I am happy to explore them further in this discussion.
I believe that being vulnerable means being "OK" with being honest and open. Like Brené said, vulnerability was not described as comfortable by those that exercised it, as it is not meant to be, but that it has a lot to do with being true to who you are. Being vulnerable does not feel good, but plenty of things that are good for us may not feel good. Exercise, many would argue, does not feel good but has an overall positive effect on one's health; similarly, being vulnerable may cause discomfort, but the results from expressing your true self or making yourself capable of being harmed overall enriches you more than locking it up. I personally see myself avoiding being vulnerable too much in my life and not being open enough. I tend to overthink, and see it contributing to my fear of being vulnerable with people around me. Being vulnerable is also a lot of discussing one's self with others, something that I try to not overdo or am very conscious of when I do, making me a little uneasy doing so as well.
I believe that it is challenging for people to be vulnerable for a variety of reasons. Similar to what I said about myself and my vulnerability earlier, I believe lots of people are conscious about talking about themselves and do not want to talk bring up themselves as a topic of conversation for sake of not sounding rude. Even though the things that are discussed in vulnerable conversations tend to be heavy subjects, this aversion from discussing oneself contributes to quieting even important conversations. As a culture we have an aversion to making ourselves vulnerable, something that I believe comes from the pedestal upon which we put capitalism and thus competition. We are afraid of others using our weaknesses against us if we show them, or that they make us a weaker person to show. Revealing vulnerability has plenty of advantages; it shows the humanity in the demonstrator and is a clear display of maturity to be okay with being uncomfortable and imperfect in front of one's peers. It can put one's peers at ease to show vulnerability and create a relationship not just based on each others's achievements, but each others flaws (which often are what are on our mind all day anyway). Vulnerability can have disadvantages based on the peers that are around and whether they want to take one's vulnerability and use it against them, but other than that I do not see a way that being vulnerable is directly detrimental to the one opening up.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Values and Their Expression
Values are a common way that people and organizations define themselves. They set individuals apart from one and other by what they put "value" in as they go through day to day life. The VIA test that we took in class listed a comprehensive set of common values that the user appeared to exhibit in the order of the strength with which they are expressed. My very first value that VIA identified was "judgement," followed closely by "perspective." These fall under the heading of "Wisdom and Knowledge," an area that I am glad is identified in my most expressed values based on a recent shift, in the form of a fast forward, in my academic goals. Utilizing this area of values, as opposed to temperance or transcendence, is important to me as I have to rely highly on my senses of judgement and perspective in order to form plans that have life or career altering implications before employing the rest of my values in how I choose to execute these plans.
Authenticity in relation to values in my experience is understanding what one's values are and making sure to stay true to them. Not understanding what one's values are would lead to being inauthentic since there isn't a way to excel or show one's true self without understanding what that self is. This kind of inauthenticity is common since most people do not reflect on their defining values in the task and achievement focused culture that we live in. Often we are seen as defined by our achievements or accomplishments, when really the driving, motivating values that lead to these achievements are what are worth exploring. Exploring these values leads to authenticity as one understands and develops these values and learns to express them better and better. Learning to express them is the best way to be authentic, since trying to alter them or express something else as a large part of yourself is not as efficient or easy as those that are your truest values.
Authenticity in relation to values in my experience is understanding what one's values are and making sure to stay true to them. Not understanding what one's values are would lead to being inauthentic since there isn't a way to excel or show one's true self without understanding what that self is. This kind of inauthenticity is common since most people do not reflect on their defining values in the task and achievement focused culture that we live in. Often we are seen as defined by our achievements or accomplishments, when really the driving, motivating values that lead to these achievements are what are worth exploring. Exploring these values leads to authenticity as one understands and develops these values and learns to express them better and better. Learning to express them is the best way to be authentic, since trying to alter them or express something else as a large part of yourself is not as efficient or easy as those that are your truest values.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Introversion and Groups
Introversion versus extroversion is always a topic facing any group and the balance that a group has of the two will do lots to determine the group dynamic. I believe that introverts are often encouraged to act as extroverts since I feel that America is a nation with a shorter and shorter attention span. Lots of what Cain was explaining that some of the power of introverts was their process that included reflection and time alone to think ("In the wilderness") that can lead to very powerful and profound answers to problems. I believe that the short attention span that is encouraged by our society is not conducive to this kind of process, and encourages people to be constantly sharing or just talking, evidenced also by Cain's examples of the desks facing each other or the idea that "great ideas only come from gregarious interactions." I believe that this impetus for quick action and constant sharing may come from the industrial revolution and the implications that it has had on our education system, perhaps teaching extroversion as the more efficient of the two traits for quick productivity.
I believe groups may gain the reflected and complex ideas that can only be thought up as result of introverted thinking or influence. Including an introvert in a group and having their introversion expressed can lead to these ideas or a culture that promotes them to balance the talking and discussing that extroverts may encourage. Having introverts express introversion in groups can also lead to a healthier balance of the group dynamic so that the different people in the group can contribute at different rates in order to be most productive. Without introverts, clamoring over one and other and quick decisions without an entire method of thought used.
Considering Tuckman's Model, I can see suppressing any member of the group as a misfire of storming that leads to bad norming. In a case of bad storming, it is easy to imagine people trampling those that may have softer voices, such as introverts, leadership capability and skills in general can be misallocated overlooked, leading to the group performing at less than its potential. This would not be performing at all, according to the model, and could lead to premature adjourning before the group has made its maximum impact.
Monday, October 6, 2014
On Dead Poets and Integrity
Dead Poets Society presents leadership and compares strategies in leadership between Mr. Keating and Principal Nolan. Keating is the representative of and acts with integrity and positive leadership, while Nolan represents negative, authoritarian leadership. One of the largest points that the movie makes that relates to this class is the emphasis on empowered followership that Keating makes.
Nolan, in his teaching style that we see late in the movie, as well as in his role as principal, does not respect the boys as people, but rather sees them as means to an end. They are vessels that need to be filled with practical knowledge in order to be successful in the professional world that will keep up the reputation of academic success something that serves his but not wholly the needs of the students. Even in the values of the school are listed concepts that hinder development as effective and creative leaders ("tradition," "discipline"). The characters respond to this practice and his methods of reinforcement (corporal punishment) by actively subverting him, for example tapping into radio during study group or forging a letter in his name for Neil to audition for the play. By contrast, Keating uses the approach of empowering the boys through developing their creativity and individuality with approaches such as the poem writing assignment and the practice he goes through with Todd creating poetry spontaneously, and encouraging him to have a voice. Keating's pursuit of empowering his students and encouraging their free thinking is evidence of his work as a leader that practices with integrity. He is rewarded for this behavior in the final scene of the film where the students that felt affected by his leadership rose, in defiance of Nolan, to salute the exiting Keating. Leadership without integrity does not prosper according to Dead Poets Society, something that Komives, Lucas, and McMahon would agree with.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
One Dimensional People
The Tedtalk that we watched in class hit on many points about the easy habit of making people into single dimensional persons, effectively objects. The conception of this as a "single story" is very apt, and recently I have discovered that it plays out especially in my life as a student. In my major, many classes reduce people to a mass of similar individuals with predictable interests and give them simplistic stories in order to make modeling what "should" occur easy to compute. I've recognized recently that this kind of thinking has made itself more pervasive in my thinking than I realized. I had this discovery in my women's study class, when suddenly the gendering of development flipped everything I had been taught about development on its head. I had been always told the same story about developing countries: they need certain programs, they need money, they build industry, until my professor asked "What about the women?"
This question opened up the story of the developing world to me. The cultural norms, traditional division of labor, resource variation, and countless other aspects of the developing world that hardly get considered by the theorists telling me how to approach development contribute to the plethora of stories found in the developing world. Understanding that there is no single story calls for a lack of ignorance that comes along with respecting people for being unique, and not turning lives full of unique experience into statistics, another way that the single story is used to amass people into anonymous bundles. These may be different from the way that the single story was exemplified by the speaker Adichie, as believing to know one's history before learning it, but follows the same ethos of her story. I believe that anonymity is a large part of how the "single story" sustains itself. It is easy to subject an anonymous group to the single story that one chooses, but with names come the uniqueness of each person's history and story. Illuminating individuals' differences diffuses the power of the single story, and being interested in learning individuals' stories is the ultimate cure to the prejudice and assumption that comes from the single story.
This question opened up the story of the developing world to me. The cultural norms, traditional division of labor, resource variation, and countless other aspects of the developing world that hardly get considered by the theorists telling me how to approach development contribute to the plethora of stories found in the developing world. Understanding that there is no single story calls for a lack of ignorance that comes along with respecting people for being unique, and not turning lives full of unique experience into statistics, another way that the single story is used to amass people into anonymous bundles. These may be different from the way that the single story was exemplified by the speaker Adichie, as believing to know one's history before learning it, but follows the same ethos of her story. I believe that anonymity is a large part of how the "single story" sustains itself. It is easy to subject an anonymous group to the single story that one chooses, but with names come the uniqueness of each person's history and story. Illuminating individuals' differences diffuses the power of the single story, and being interested in learning individuals' stories is the ultimate cure to the prejudice and assumption that comes from the single story.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Ernest Shackleton's Voyage
One leader from history that I would like to bring up and discuss is Ernest Shackleton, one of the last great explorers. Shackleton and his famed Trans-Atlantic Expedition were the stage for his leadership style to prove its strength in the face of impossible odds, and he delivered a superhuman performance.
Shackleton was a British national who worked his way up through the Merchant Navy to gain a reputation in the world of British seafarers. From this reputation he then was selected to go on a couple of expeditions to the Antarctic, the last unexplored region of the globe at this point (c. AD 1905). After missing the race to the South Pole between the explorers Roald Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott, Hemmingway decided he would attempt the last great expedition, crossing Antarctica. In 1914 Shackleton finally had the funding to realize this dream expedition, one that would turn out very different than he had planned.
Shackleton prepared for a rough, cold, and weary journey across the last unconquered continent, but could not have imagined the trials that he and his crew would face. His ship, the Endurance, left from South Georgia to became trapped in floating ice near the shore, at which point he demanded that regular ship routine was to be abandoned and that it be converted into a winter base. When the ship's integrity failed, Shackleton organized the abandonment of the ship and move to a makeshift camp on an ice floe. As the ice floe drifted, Shackleton lead the crew to move yet again to Elephant island by way of the life boats they salvaged from the original trip, all while in the dangerous south seas. Shackleton, captained one of the lifeboats from Elephant Island all the way back to South Georgia. Landing on the opposite side of the island than the inhabited one, and in a last heroic venture, made it back in time to send a rescue party for the rest of the crew back on Elephant Island.
These are ridiculous accomplishments. The original plan to cross the Antarctic was an insane goal to have (I was cold enough at the Indiana game last year) but to survive a much longer journey in circumstances that changed drastically and dangerously with every leg of the trip is down-right incredible. But it was not just luck that got Shackleton's crew (and one stowaway, an extra mouth to feed) through this entire journey without a single mortality. It was Shackleton's specific blend of leadership that brought his crew through in the end.
I thought that including all of this backstory might help explain why I believe Shackleton was an example of a near-ideal leader. He had the correct leadership strategy and attitude for the situation that presented itself, in this case, a deadly and painful journey through the antarctic. He made a point of loosening traditional hierarchies found on these kinds of expeditions in the past. He understood that the most important quality for his expedition was camaraderie and morale. He was flexible and valued the group over himself, constantly giving of himself for the sake of the crew whether it be his rations or his sleep. He fully understood the changing needs of the group as they transferred from ship to base to ice to sea with just one minor revolt that he handled as well. He adapted to lead through it all in the face of an indefinite future, with minimal resources, and still fostered the most important resource, hope. A leader that can selflessly make his followers believe and press on in the face of impossible odds is the best leader.
Shackleton was a British national who worked his way up through the Merchant Navy to gain a reputation in the world of British seafarers. From this reputation he then was selected to go on a couple of expeditions to the Antarctic, the last unexplored region of the globe at this point (c. AD 1905). After missing the race to the South Pole between the explorers Roald Amundsen and Robert Falcon Scott, Hemmingway decided he would attempt the last great expedition, crossing Antarctica. In 1914 Shackleton finally had the funding to realize this dream expedition, one that would turn out very different than he had planned.
Shackleton prepared for a rough, cold, and weary journey across the last unconquered continent, but could not have imagined the trials that he and his crew would face. His ship, the Endurance, left from South Georgia to became trapped in floating ice near the shore, at which point he demanded that regular ship routine was to be abandoned and that it be converted into a winter base. When the ship's integrity failed, Shackleton organized the abandonment of the ship and move to a makeshift camp on an ice floe. As the ice floe drifted, Shackleton lead the crew to move yet again to Elephant island by way of the life boats they salvaged from the original trip, all while in the dangerous south seas. Shackleton, captained one of the lifeboats from Elephant Island all the way back to South Georgia. Landing on the opposite side of the island than the inhabited one, and in a last heroic venture, made it back in time to send a rescue party for the rest of the crew back on Elephant Island.
These are ridiculous accomplishments. The original plan to cross the Antarctic was an insane goal to have (I was cold enough at the Indiana game last year) but to survive a much longer journey in circumstances that changed drastically and dangerously with every leg of the trip is down-right incredible. But it was not just luck that got Shackleton's crew (and one stowaway, an extra mouth to feed) through this entire journey without a single mortality. It was Shackleton's specific blend of leadership that brought his crew through in the end.
I thought that including all of this backstory might help explain why I believe Shackleton was an example of a near-ideal leader. He had the correct leadership strategy and attitude for the situation that presented itself, in this case, a deadly and painful journey through the antarctic. He made a point of loosening traditional hierarchies found on these kinds of expeditions in the past. He understood that the most important quality for his expedition was camaraderie and morale. He was flexible and valued the group over himself, constantly giving of himself for the sake of the crew whether it be his rations or his sleep. He fully understood the changing needs of the group as they transferred from ship to base to ice to sea with just one minor revolt that he handled as well. He adapted to lead through it all in the face of an indefinite future, with minimal resources, and still fostered the most important resource, hope. A leader that can selflessly make his followers believe and press on in the face of impossible odds is the best leader.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Who Am I
Okay, so who am I?
I would be remiss to try to delve into the deep answers to what makes me the person without listing some of the more superficial answers to that question first. My name is Clayton Perry. I am a young man, I am a teenager. I'm a fifth generation Washingtonian. I'm the grandson of a rocket scientist who is my namesake and I am the son of two eccentric and dedicated people.
As far as background, I spent a good deal of my life growing up in neighborhoods I wasn't allowed to walk down the street in. My parents called themselves "urban pioneers," and would move into nearly gutted houses in a bad neighborhood to fix them up while we lived in them. We would then move on to the next house and rent out the previous one. In contrast to this, I commuted to the same private school for my entire education before college. Some of my classmates were related to movers and shakers of Washington, D.C., while others, like myself, were well-off but lucky to get into this school. I learned that my grandfather had gotten me a letter of recommendation from the previous head of school that supplemented my application for kindergarten, which was reviewed along with my interview. Letters of recommendation and interviews for a four-year-old. It still sounds ridiculous to me, and as I learned these things in my adolescence it made me wonder about whether I had really earned my spot where I was. I tried to prove this wrong by taking AP tests or trying to out perform my classmates, while attempting to give the impression that I did no work at all. I wanted to embrace the culture of the neighborhoods I lived in to appear more disadvantaged than I was while still performing at this level, and took risks for no reason but to give off an impression I thought would be impressive. I don't think that I had a "passion" until I hit the 11th grade.
Going into my junior year of high school I had elected to take my school's only course in economics. The teacher was renowned for being fantastic but the class was for being very hard, and I took it out of hope for challenge and the outward appearance of taking on a challenge. I soon fell in love with the course, between the material and the presentation. The teacher did a fantastic job of keeping the class engaged while the course material seemed just so logical and applicable. I excelled among my classmates and made it my goal to go into banking a make a lot of money. It did not seem like a noble goal, but a fun one and that it would be good for my future children, so it was acceptable to be somewhat selfish in it. By the end of the year I felt brilliant and was looking forward to taking the same teacher's class in Environmental History and Philosophy the next year as an easy A for senior year.
That class flipped me on my head. It broadened my perspective to try to encompass all of the people that would be effected by my actions as well as the systems that guide our society. I wanted to save the world, and still do. More than people, I do want to save the world overall. I empathize for the people in the near future that may be effected terribly by the climate change I believe we are causing as a population. At the same time, I'm very comforted by the fact that the world will live on after us. Worst disasters have happened to the planet and worse have yet to come, yet the planet lives on, even if we don't. That aside, I do have a vested interest in our species continuing to live and doing so sustainably, and that has become my passion and my charge in college and hopefully my career.
I would be remiss to try to delve into the deep answers to what makes me the person without listing some of the more superficial answers to that question first. My name is Clayton Perry. I am a young man, I am a teenager. I'm a fifth generation Washingtonian. I'm the grandson of a rocket scientist who is my namesake and I am the son of two eccentric and dedicated people.
As far as background, I spent a good deal of my life growing up in neighborhoods I wasn't allowed to walk down the street in. My parents called themselves "urban pioneers," and would move into nearly gutted houses in a bad neighborhood to fix them up while we lived in them. We would then move on to the next house and rent out the previous one. In contrast to this, I commuted to the same private school for my entire education before college. Some of my classmates were related to movers and shakers of Washington, D.C., while others, like myself, were well-off but lucky to get into this school. I learned that my grandfather had gotten me a letter of recommendation from the previous head of school that supplemented my application for kindergarten, which was reviewed along with my interview. Letters of recommendation and interviews for a four-year-old. It still sounds ridiculous to me, and as I learned these things in my adolescence it made me wonder about whether I had really earned my spot where I was. I tried to prove this wrong by taking AP tests or trying to out perform my classmates, while attempting to give the impression that I did no work at all. I wanted to embrace the culture of the neighborhoods I lived in to appear more disadvantaged than I was while still performing at this level, and took risks for no reason but to give off an impression I thought would be impressive. I don't think that I had a "passion" until I hit the 11th grade.
Going into my junior year of high school I had elected to take my school's only course in economics. The teacher was renowned for being fantastic but the class was for being very hard, and I took it out of hope for challenge and the outward appearance of taking on a challenge. I soon fell in love with the course, between the material and the presentation. The teacher did a fantastic job of keeping the class engaged while the course material seemed just so logical and applicable. I excelled among my classmates and made it my goal to go into banking a make a lot of money. It did not seem like a noble goal, but a fun one and that it would be good for my future children, so it was acceptable to be somewhat selfish in it. By the end of the year I felt brilliant and was looking forward to taking the same teacher's class in Environmental History and Philosophy the next year as an easy A for senior year.
That class flipped me on my head. It broadened my perspective to try to encompass all of the people that would be effected by my actions as well as the systems that guide our society. I wanted to save the world, and still do. More than people, I do want to save the world overall. I empathize for the people in the near future that may be effected terribly by the climate change I believe we are causing as a population. At the same time, I'm very comforted by the fact that the world will live on after us. Worst disasters have happened to the planet and worse have yet to come, yet the planet lives on, even if we don't. That aside, I do have a vested interest in our species continuing to live and doing so sustainably, and that has become my passion and my charge in college and hopefully my career.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)