El Blog de The Outside Group

Colaboracion o la Muerte....

2012-01-23T08:54:00.001-04:00

Un estudio revela que las personas que carecen de relaciones afectivas en el lugar de trabajo pueden estar en mayor riesgo de desarrollar condiciones de salud que culminen en enfermedades terminales. Una razon adicional para colaborar diariamente.

Getting Along with Coworkers May Add Years to Your Life

THURSDAY, Aug. 11 (HealthDay News) -- Good relationships with your co-workers and a convivial, supportive work environment may add years to your life, new Israeli research finds.

Published recently in Health Psychology, the study tracked 820 adults with an average age of 41 who worked 8.8 hour days for about 20 years; a third of them were women. Employees who reported low social support at work were 2.4 times more likely to die during those two decades, compared with their colleagues who said they had a good social support system in the workplace.

During the study period, 53 people died, most of whom had negligible social connections with their co-workers. Lack of emotional support at work, in fact, was associated with an 140 percent increased risk of dying in the next 20 years, the researchers found.

"We spend most of our waking hours at work, and we don't have much time to meet our friends during the weekdays," co-author Dr. Sharon Toker of the department of organizational behavior at Tel Aviv University in Israel, explained in a statement. "Work should be a place where people can get necessary emotional support."

Dr. Toker and her colleagues surveyed the study volunteers about their relationships with their supervisors and peers.

They found that peer or informal social support at work was a more potent predictor of health and longevity than relationships with a supervisor or boss. This effect was significant among employees aged 38 to 45, but not in those younger or older.

The findings held up even after the researchers controlled for factors such as age, sex, obesity, smoking, alcohol use, blood sugar, cholesterol, depression and anxiety.

Study participants were also asked if they took initiative at work and if they had the freedom to make their own decisions. Men did better when they were given more control at work, while women with the same amount of control actually had shorter lifespans.

Specifically, women who reported significant control over their tasks and workflow were 70 percent more likely to die during the 20-year period, the study showed. Exactly what is behind this finding is not known, but the study authors suggest that women in positions of power may be overwhelmed by the need to be tough at work and still carry out stressful duties at home.

The study authors also noted that the modern workplace often lacks a supportive environment. Many people telecommute; others communicate via e-mail even if they are in the same office. Coffee corners where people can sit and talk, informal social outings for staff members and/or a virtual social network may encourage employees to feel more connected, the researchers suggested.

"Being happy at work can be a huge productivity booster, and happy people work better with others, are more creative, have more energy, get sick less often, learn faster and worry less about mistakes," said Dr. Alan Manevitz, a psychiatrist with Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City who was not involved in the study. "The old-fashioned coffee break, talking to people face to face or having an employee picnic on the weekend are very good morale boosters," he said.

However, the study can't answer whether the happy, healthy employee is the chicken or the egg, Manevitz said. Are these employees happy because they work in a supportive environment, he asked, or does their positive energy spill over into how they perceive their work place?

New companies like Google and Zappos are famous for their work hard, play hard credos, and this really speaks to balance, he said. "You don't want to play hard without working or work hard without playing," he said. These companies break down the traditional workplace hierarchies and create bull-pens where people can approach one another freely, but this only works in companies where people are not worried about losing their jobs, he said. Due to the economy, "job security has gone out the window."

Dr. Elyse Schimel, a psychologist in private practice in New York City, said that in the current economy, you have to really weigh your options. "Feeling supported and having a good work environment isn't as important as keeping a roof over your family's head and food on the table," she said. "There are buffers that can help you cope with stress including exercise, sleeping well, eating well, family support and social support," she said. "If you are in a hostile work environment, but don't have feasible options to leave, you want to get balance elsewhere in your life."

More information

Find out more about maintaining a work-life balance at the Mayo Clinic.

SOURCES: Elyse Schimel, Psy.D., psychologist, private practice, New York City; Alan Manevitz, M.D., psychiatrist, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City; May 2011 Health Psychology

Homenaje visual a la lectura...

2011-12-15T10:24:00.000-04:00

Solo hay errores si no sabemos como responder a estos

2011-12-15T09:08:00.000-04:00

En este video el maestro Stefon Harris demuestra como los "errores" en un grupo muchas veces se deben a la falta de conciencia sensible y aceptacion de lo que los demas traen a la mesa. A su vez esta falta de respuesta adecuada a los eventos que ocurren es lo que llamamos "errores". Muy interesante y me pone a pensar en multiples escenarios en las organizaciones a los que puedo traspolar este principio.

La colaboracion masiva + relaciones justas = Resultados im - posibles

2011-12-12T14:47:00.001-04:00

¿Quieres aprender un nuevo idioma mientras ayudas a traducir el internet? Luis von Ahn ha creado esta aplicaion y la palabra clave en su discurso es JUSTA. Mas alla de la increible tecnologia detras del sistema de Duolingo, este se construye sobre un modelo de justicia que reta los modelos de negocio tradicionales. Este es una muestra mas del poder de la colaboracion.

Las Escuelas Pueden Ser Diferente

2011-11-03T13:57:00.000-04:00

Project-based Learning at High Tech High from New Learning Institute on Vimeo.

La Molecula de la Confianza y la Moralidad

2011-11-02T15:01:00.000-04:00

Interesante descubrimiento sobre la molécula oxitocina y posible conexión con la confianza y la moralidad.

Investigacion del Cancer en la era del Open Source

2011-10-27T12:43:00.000-04:00

Este video es una de las demostraciones mas impactantes del beneficio de la colaboracion abierta. No solo por la importancia que tiene el descubrimiento de nuevas medicinas para curar el cancer, pero por la rapidez y efectividad que el modelo provee. Compartir las ideas tan pronto se pueda, abiertamente, con una finalidad superior al beneficio individual, nos permite tener logros impensables. Creo que este es el camino al futuro, y que los paradigmas cyberneticos se estan desbordando cada vez mas sobre el mundo concreto. ¡¡En hora buen Dr. Jay Brander!!

El Cerebro Dividido

2011-10-21T10:07:00.000-04:00

Desarrollo del Caracter y el Poder Vivir la Buena Vida

2011-09-14T11:59:00.000-04:00

Siempre he estado muy interesado en el tema del desarrollo del Carácter, tanto como desarrollar mi propio carácter, ayudar a otros a mio alrededor a que desarrollen el suyo y, mas reciente, como padre, proveyendo le a mi hijo el modelaje y las enseñanzas para su desarrollo. Aquí un articulo muy interesante que sirve de reflexión sobre la enseñanza y desarrollo de esta gran cualidad.

What if the Secret to Success Is Failure?

By Paul Tough

The New York Times

September 14, 2011

Dominic Randolph can seem a little out of place at Riverdale Country School — which is odd, because he’s the headmaster. Riverdale is one of New York City’s most prestigious private schools, with a 104-year-old campus that looks down grandly on Van Cortlandt Park from the top of a steep hill in the richest part of the Bronx. On the discussion boards of UrbanBaby.com, worked-up moms from the Upper East Side argue over whether Riverdale sends enough seniors to Harvard, Yale and Princeton to be considered truly “TT” (top-tier, in UrbanBabyese), or whether it is more accurately labeled “2T” (second-tier), but it is, certainly, part of the city’s private-school elite, a place members of the establishment send their kids to learn to be members of the establishment. Tuition starts at $38,500 a year, and that’s for prekindergarten.

Randolph, by contrast, comes across as an iconoclast, a disrupter, even a bit of an eccentric. He dresses for work every day in a black suit with a narrow tie, and the outfit, plus his cool demeanor and sweep of graying hair, makes you wonder, when you first meet him, if he might have played sax in a ska band in the ’80s. (The English accent helps.) He is a big thinker, always chasing new ideas, and a conversation with him can feel like a one-man TED conference, dotted with references to the latest work by behavioral psychologists and management gurus and design theorists. When he became headmaster in 2007, he swapped offices with his secretary, giving her the reclusive inner sanctum where previous headmasters sat and remodeling the small outer reception area into his own open-concept work space, its walls covered with whiteboard paint on which he sketches ideas and slogans. One day when I visited, one wall was bare except for a white sheet of paper. On it was printed a single black question mark.

For the headmaster of an intensely competitive school, Randolph, who is 49, is surprisingly skeptical about many of the basic elements of a contemporary high-stakes American education. He did away with Advanced Placement classes in the high school soon after he arrived at Riverdale; he encourages his teachers to limit the homework they assign; and he says that the standardized tests that Riverdale and other private schools require for admission to kindergarten and to middle school are “a patently unfair system” because they evaluate students almost entirely by I.Q. “This push on tests,” he told me, “is missing out on some serious parts of what it means to be a successful human.”

The most critical missing piece, Randolph explained as we sat in his office last fall, is character — those essential traits of mind and habit that were drilled into him at boarding school in England and that also have deep roots in American history. “Whether it’s the pioneer in the Conestoga wagon or someone coming here in the 1920s from southern Italy, there was this idea in America that if you worked hard and you showed real grit, that you could be successful,” he said. “Strangely, we’ve now forgotten that. People who have an easy time of things, who get 800s on their SAT’s, I worry that those people get feedback that everything they’re doing is great. And I think as a result, we are actually setting them up for long-term failure. When that person suddenly has to face up to a difficult moment, then I think they’re screwed, to be honest. I don’t think they’ve grown the capacities to be able to handle that.”

Randolph has been pondering throughout his 23-year career as an educator the question of whether and how schools should impart good character. It has often felt like a lonely quest, but it has led him in some interesting directions. In the winter of 2005, Randolph read “Learned Optimism,” a book by Martin Seligman, a psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania who helped establish the Positive Psychology movement. Randolph found the book intriguing, and he arranged a meeting with the author. As it happened, on the morning that Randolph made the trip to Philadelphia, Seligman had scheduled a separate meeting with David Levin, the co-founder of the KIPP network of charter schools and the superintendent of the KIPP schools in New York City. Seligman decided he might as well combine the two meetings, and he invited Christopher Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan, who was also visiting Penn that day, to join him and Randolph and Levin in his office for a freewheeling discussion of psychology and schooling.

Levin had also spent many years trying to figure out how to provide lessons in character to his students, who were almost all black or Latino and from low-income families. At the first KIPP school, in Houston, he and his co-founder, Michael Feinberg, filled the walls with slogans like “Work Hard” and “Be Nice” and “There Are No Shortcuts,” and they developed a system of rewards and demerits designed to train their students not only in fractions and algebra but also in perseverance and empathy. Like Randolph, Levin went to Seligman’s office expecting to talk about optimism. But Seligman surprised them both by pulling out a new and very different book, which he and Peterson had just finished: “Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification,” a scholarly, 800-page tome that weighed in at three and a half pounds. It was intended, according to the authors, as a “manual of the sanities,” an attempt to inaugurate what they described as a “science of good character.”

It was, in other words, exactly what Randolph and Levin had been looking for, separately, even if neither of them had quite known it. Seligman and Peterson consulted works from Aristotle to Confucius, from the Upanishads to the Torah, from the Boy Scout Handbook to profiles of Pokémon characters, and they settled on 24 character strengths common to all cultures and eras. The list included some we think of as traditional noble traits, like bravery, citizenship, fairness, wisdom and integrity; others that veer into the emotional realm, like love, humor, zest and appreciation of beauty; and still others that are more concerned with day-to-day human interactions: social intelligence (the ability to recognize interpersonal dynamics and adapt quickly to different social situations), kindness, self-regulation, gratitude.

In most societies, Seligman and Peterson wrote, these strengths were considered to have a moral valence, and in many cases they overlapped with religious laws and strictures. But their true importance did not come from their relationship to any system of ethics or moral laws but from their practical benefit: cultivating these strengths represented a reliable path to “the good life,” a life that was not just happy but also meaningful and fulfilling.

Six years after that first meeting, Levin and Randolph are trying to put this conception of character into action in their schools. In the process, they have found themselves wrestling with questions that have long confounded not just educators but anyone trying to nurture a thriving child or simply live a good life. What is good character? Is it really something that can be taught in a formal way, in the classroom, or is it the responsibility of the family, something that is inculcated gradually over years of experience? Which qualities matter most for a child trying to negotiate his way to a successful and autonomous adulthood? And are the answers to those questions the same in Harlem and in Riverdale?

Levin had believed in the importance of character since KIPP’s inception. But on the day of his trip to see Seligman, he was feeling a new urgency about the subject. Six years earlier, in 1999, the first group of students to enter KIPP Academy middle school, which Levin founded and ran in the South Bronx, triumphed on the eighth-grade citywide achievement test, graduating with the highest scores in the Bronx and the fifth-highest in all of New York City. Every morning of middle school they passed a giant sign in the stairwell reminding them of their mission: “Climb the Mountain to College.” And as they left KIPP for high school, they seemed poised to do just that: not only did they have outstanding academic results, but most of them also won admission to highly selective private and Catholic schools, often with full scholarships.

But as Levin told me when we spoke last fall, for many students in that first cohort, things didn’t go as planned. “We thought, O.K., our first class was the fifth-highest-performing class in all of New York City,” Levin said. “We got 90 percent into private and parochial schools. It’s all going to be solved. But it wasn’t.” Almost every member of the cohort did make it through high school, and more than 80 percent of them enrolled in college. But then the mountain grew steeper, and every few weeks, it seemed, Levin got word of another student who decided to drop out. According to a report that KIPP issued last spring, only 33 percent of students who graduated from a KIPP middle school 10 or more years ago have graduated from a four-year college. That rate is considerably better than the 8 percent of children from low-income families who currently complete college nationwide, and it even beats the average national rate of college completion for all income groups, which is 31 percent. But it still falls well short of KIPP’s stated goal: that 75 percent of KIPP alumni will graduate from a four-year college, and 100 percent will be prepared for a stable career.

As Levin watched the progress of those KIPP alumni, he noticed something curious: the students who persisted in college were not necessarily the ones who had excelled academically at KIPP; they were the ones with exceptional character strengths, like optimism and persistence and social intelligence. They were the ones who were able to recover from a bad grade and resolve to do better next time; to bounce back from a fight with their parents; to resist the urge to go out to the movies and stay home and study instead; to persuade professors to give them extra help after class. Those skills weren’t enough on their own to earn students a B.A., Levin knew. But for young people without the benefit of a lot of family resources, without the kind of safety net that their wealthier peers enjoyed, they seemed an indispensable part of making it to graduation day.

What appealed to Levin about the list of character strengths that Seligman and Peterson compiled was that it was presented not as a finger-wagging guilt trip about good values and appropriate behavior but as a recipe for a successful and happy life. He was wary of the idea that KIPP’s aim was to instill in its students “middle-class values,” as though well-off kids had some depth of character that low-income students lacked. “The thing that I think is great about the character-strength approach,” he told me, “is it is fundamentally devoid of value judgment.”

Still, neither Levin nor Dominic Randolph had a clear vision of how to turn an 800-page psychology text into a practical program. After that first meeting in Seligman’s office, Levin and Randolph kept in touch, calling and e-mailing, swapping articles and Web links, and they soon discovered that they shared a lot of ideas and interests, despite the very different school environments in which they worked. They decided to join forces, to try to tackle the mysteries of character together, and they turned for help to Angela Duckworth, who at the time was a graduate student in Seligman’s department (she is now an assistant professor). Duckworth came to Penn in 2002 at the age of 32, after working for a decade as a teacher and a charter-school consultant. When she applied to the Ph.D. program at Penn, she wrote in her application essay that her experiences in schools had given her “a distinctly different view of school reform” than the one she started out with in her 20s. “The problem, I think, is not only the schools but also the students themselves,” she wrote. “Here’s why: learning is hard. True, learning is fun, exhilarating and gratifying — but it is also often daunting, exhausting and sometimes discouraging. . . . To help chronically low-performing but intelligent students, educators and parents must first recognize that character is at least as important as intellect.”

Duckworth’s early research showed that measures of self-control can be a more reliable predictor of students’ grade-point averages than their I.Q.’s. But while self-control seemed to be a critical ingredient in attaining basic success, Duckworth came to feel it wasn’t as relevant when it came to outstanding achievement. People who accomplished great things, she noticed, often combined a passion for a single mission with an unswerving dedication to achieve that mission, whatever the obstacles and however long it might take. She decided she needed to name this quality, and she chose the word “grit.”

She developed a test to measure grit, which she called the Grit Scale. It is a deceptively simple test, in that it requires you to rate yourself on just 12 questions, from “I finish whatever I begin” to “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one.” It takes about three minutes to complete, and it relies entirely on self-report — and yet when Duckworth took it out into the field, she found it was remarkably predictive of success. At Penn, high grit ratings allowed students with relatively low college-board scores to nonetheless achieve high G.P.A.’s. Duckworth and her collaborators gave their grit test to more than 1,200 freshman cadets as they entered West Point and embarked on the grueling summer training course known as Beast Barracks. The military has developed its own complex evaluation, called the Whole Candidate Score, to judge incoming cadets and predict which of them will survive the demands of West Point; it includes academic grades, a gauge of physical fitness and a Leadership Potential Score. But at the end of Beast Barracks, the more accurate predictor of which cadets persisted and which ones dropped out turned out to be Duckworth’s 12-item grit questionnaire.

Levin and Randolph asked Duckworth to use the new methods and tools she was developing to help them investigate the question of character at KIPP and Riverdale, and she and a handful of Penn graduate students began making regular treks from Philadelphia to New York. The first question Duckworth addressed, again, was the relative importance of I.Q. and self-control. She and her team of researchers gave middle-school students at Riverdale and KIPP a variety of psychological and I.Q. tests. They found that at both schools, I.Q. was the better predictor of scores on statewide achievement tests, but measures of self-control were more reliable indicators of report-card grades.

Duckworth’s research convinced Levin and Randolph that they should try to foster self-control and grit in their students. Yet those didn’t seem like the only character strengths that mattered. The full list of 24, on the other hand, felt too unwieldy. So they asked Peterson if he could narrow the list down to a more manageable handful, and he identified a set of strengths that were, according to his research, especially likely to predict life satisfaction and high achievement. After a few small adjustments (Levin and Randolph opted to drop love in favor of curiosity), they settled on a final list: zest, grit, self-control, social intelligence, gratitude, optimism and curiosity.

Over the course of the next year and a half, Duckworth worked with Levin and Randolph to turn the list of seven strengths into a two-page evaluation, a questionnaire that could be completed by teachers or parents, or by students themselves. For each strength, teachers suggested a variety of “indicators,” much like the questions Duckworth asked people to respond to on her grit questionnaire, and she road-tested several dozen of them at Riverdale and KIPP. She eventually settled on the 24 most statistically reliable ones, from “This student is eager to explore new things” (an indicator of curiosity) to “This student believes that effort will improve his or her future” (optimism).

For Levin, the next step was clear. Wouldn’t it be cool, he mused, if each student graduated from school with not only a G.P.A. but also a C.P.A., for character-point average? If you were a college-admissions director or a corporate human-resources manager selecting entry-level employees, wouldn’t you like to know which ones scored highest in grit or optimism or zest? And if you were a parent of a KIPP student, wouldn’t you want to know how your son or daughter stacked up next to the rest of the class in character as well as in reading ability? As soon as he got the final list of indicators from Duckworth and Peterson, Levin started working to turn it into a specific, concise assessment that he could hand out to students and parents at KIPP’s New York City schools twice a year: the first-ever character report card.

Back at Riverdale, though, the idea of a character report card made Randolph nervous. “I have a philosophical issue with quantifying character,” he explained to me one afternoon. “With my school’s specific population, at least, as soon as you set up something like a report card, you’re going to have a bunch of people doing test prep for it. I don’t want to come up with a metric around character that could then be gamed. I would hate it if that’s where we ended up.”

Still, he did think that the inventory Duckworth and Peterson developed could be a useful tool in communicating with students about character. And so he has been taking what one Riverdale teacher described as a “viral approach” to spreading the idea of this new method of assessing character throughout the Riverdale community. He talks about character at parent nights, asks pointed questions in staff meetings, connects like-minded members of his faculty and instructs them to come up with new programs. Last winter, Riverdale students in the fifth and sixth grades took the 24-indicator survey, and their teachers rated them as well. The results were discussed by teachers and administrators, but they weren’t shared with students or parents, and they certainly weren’t labeled a “report card.”

As I spent time at Riverdale last year, it became apparent to me that the debate over character at the school wasn’t just about how best to evaluate and improve students’ character. It went deeper, to the question of what “character” really meant. When Randolph arrived at Riverdale, the school already had in place a character-education program, of a sort. Called CARE, for Children Aware of Riverdale Ethics, the program was adopted in 1989 in the lower school, which at Riverdale means prekindergarten through fifth grade. It is a blueprint for niceness, mandating that students “Treat everyone with respect” and “Be aware of other people’s feelings and find ways to help those whose feelings have been hurt.” Posters in the hallway remind students of the virtues related to CARE (“Practice Good Manners . . . Avoid Gossiping . . . Help Others”). In the lower school, many teachers describe it as a proud and essential part of what makes Riverdale the school that it is.

When I asked Randolph last winter about CARE, he was diplomatic. “I see the character strengths as CARE 2.0,” he explained. “I’d basically like to take all of this new character language and say that we’re in the next generation of CARE.”

In fact, though, the character-strength approach of Seligman and Peterson isn’t an expansion of programs like CARE; if anything, it is a repudiation of them. In 2008, a national organization called the Character Education Partnership published a paper that divided character education into two categories: programs that develop “moral character,” which embodies ethical values like fairness, generosity and integrity; and those that address “performance character,” which includes values like effort, diligence and perseverance. The CARE program falls firmly on the “moral character” side of the divide, while the seven strengths that Randolph and Levin have chosen for their schools lean much more heavily toward performance character: while they do have a moral component, strengths like zest, optimism, social intelligence and curiosity aren’t particularly heroic; they make you think of Steve Jobs or Bill Clinton more than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi.

The two teachers Randolph has chosen to oversee the school’s character initiative are K.C. Cohen, the guidance counselor for the middle and upper schools, and Karen Fierst, a learning specialist in the lower school. Cohen is friendly and thoughtful, in her mid-30s, a graduate of Fieldston, the private school just down the road from Riverdale. She is intensely interested in character development, and like Randolph, she is worried about the character of Riverdale students. But she is not yet entirely convinced by the seven character strengths that Riverdale has ostensibly chosen. “When I think of good character, I think: Are you fair? Are you honest in dealings with other people? Are you a cheater?” she told me. “I don’t think so much about: Are you tenacious? Are you a hard worker? I think, Are you a good person?”

Cohen’s vision of character is much closer to “moral character” than “performance character,” and so far, that vision remains the dominant one at Riverdale. When I spent a day at the school in March, sitting in on a variety of classes and meetings, messages about behavior and values permeated the day, but those messages stayed almost entirely in the moral dimension. It was a hectic day at the middle school — it was pajama day, plus there was a morning assembly, and then on top of that, the kids in French class who were going on the two-week trip to Bordeaux for spring break had to leave early in order to make their overnight flight to Paris.

The topic for the assembly was heroes, and a half-dozen students stood up in front of their classmates — about 350 kids, in all — and each made a brief presentation about a particular hero he or she had chosen: Ruby Nell Bridges, the African-American girl who was part of the first group to integrate the schools in New Orleans in 1960; Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian fruit vendor whose self-immolation helped spark the recent revolt in that country; the actor and activist Paul Robeson.

In the assembly, in classes and in conversations with different students, I heard a lot of talk about values and ethics, and the values that were emphasized tended to be social values: inclusion, tolerance, diversity. (I heard a lot more about black history at Riverdale than I did at the KIPP schools I visited.) One eighth-grade girl I asked about character said that for her and her friends, the biggest issue was inclusion — who was invited to whose bat mitzvah; who was being shunned on Facebook. Character, as far as I could tell, was being defined at Riverdale mostly in terms of helping other people — or at least not hurting their feelings.

Randolph told me that he had concerns about a character program that comprised only those kind of nice-guy values. “The danger with character is if you just revert to these general terms — respect, honesty, tolerance — it seems really vague,” he said. “If I stand in front of the kids and just say, ‘It’s really important for you to respect each other,’ I think they glaze over. But if you say, ‘Well, actually you need to exhibit self-control,’ or you explain the value of social intelligence — this will help you collaborate more effectively — then it seems a bit more tangible.”

When I spoke to Karen Fierst, the teacher who was overseeing the character project for the Riverdale lower school, she said she was worried that it would be a challenge to convince the students and their parents that there was anything in the 24 character strengths that might actually benefit them. For KIPP kids, she said, the notion that character could help them get through college was a powerful lure, one that would motivate them to take the strengths seriously. For kids at Riverdale, though, there was little doubt that they would graduate from college. “It will just happen,” Fierst explained. “It happened to every generation in their family before them. And so it’s harder to get them to invest in this idea. For KIPP students, learning these strengths is partly about trying to demystify what makes other people successful — kind of like, ‘We’re letting you in on the secret of what successful people are like.’ But kids here already live in a successful community. They’re not depending on their teachers to give them the information on how to be successful.”

At KIPP Infinity middle school, which occupies one floor of a school on West 133rd Street, across from the M.T.A.’s giant Manhattanville bus depot, report-card night last winter fell on a cold Thursday at the beginning of February. Report-card night is always a big deal at KIPP schools — parents are strongly urged to attend, and at Infinity, almost all of them do — but this particular evening carried an extra level of anxiety for both the administrators and the parents, because students were receiving their very first character report cards, and no one knew quite what to expect.

Logistically, the character report card had been a challenge to pull off. Teachers at all four KIPP middle schools in New York City had to grade every one of their students, on a scale of 1 to 5, on every one of the 24 character indicators, and more than a few of them found the process a little daunting. And now that report-card night had arrived, they had an even bigger challenge: explaining to parents just how those precise figures, rounded to the second decimal place, summed up their children’s character. I sat for a while with Mike Witter, a 31-year-old eighth-grade English teacher, as he talked through the character report card with Faith Flemister and her son Juaquin Bennett, a tall, hefty eighth grader in a gray hooded sweatshirt.

“For the past few years we’ve been working on a project to create a clearer picture for parents about the character of your child,” Witter explained to Flemister. “The categories that we ended up putting together represent qualities that have been studied and determined to be indicators of success. They mean you’re more likely to go to college. More likely to find a good job. Even surprising things, like they mean you’re more likely to get married, or more likely to have a family. So we think these are really important.”

Flemister nodded, and Witter began to work his way down the scores on Juaquin’s character report card, starting with the good news: every teacher had scored him as a perfect 5 on “Is polite to adults and peers,” and he did almost as well on “Keeps temper in check.” They were both indicators for interpersonal self-control.

“I can tell this is a real strength for you,” Witter said, turning to Juaquin. “This kind of self-control is something you’ve developed incredibly well. So that makes me think we need to start looking at: What’s something we can target? And the first thing that jumps out at me is this.” Witter pulled out a green felt-tip marker and circled one indicator on Juaquin’s report card. “ ‘Pays attention and resists distraction,’ ” Witter read aloud, an indicator for academic self-control. “That’s a little lower than some of the other numbers. Why do you think that is?”

“I talk too much in class,” Juaquin said, a little sheepishly, looking down at his black sneakers. “I sometimes stare off into space and don’t pay attention.”

The three of them talked over a few strategies to help Juaquin focus more in class, and by the end of the 15-minute conversation, Flemister seemed convinced by the new approach. “The strong points are not a surprise,” she said to Witter as he got up to talk to another family. “That’s just the type of person Juaquin is. But it’s good how you pinpoint what he can do to make things easier on himself. Then maybe his grades will pick up.”

A month later, I returned to KIPP to visit Witter’s classroom. By that point in the school year, character language had permeated Infinity. Kids wore T-shirts with the slogan “Infinite Character” and Seligman’s 24 character strengths listed on the back. The walls were covered with signs that read “Got self-control?” and “I actively participate!” (one indicator for zest). There was a bulletin board in the hallway topped with the words “Character Counts,” where students filled out and posted “Spotted!” cards when they saw a fellow student performing actions that demonstrate character. (Jasmine R. cited William N. for zest: “William was in math class and he raised his hand for every problem.”)

I came to Witter’s class to observe something that Levin was calling “dual-purpose instruction,” the practice of deliberately working explicit talk about character strengths into every lesson. Levin wanted math teachers to use the strengths in word problems; he explained that history teachers could use them to orient a class discussion about Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad. And when I arrived in Witter’s class at 7:45 on a Thursday morning in March, he was leading a discussion about Chinua Achebe’s novel “Things Fall Apart.” Above Witter’s head, at the front of the class, the seven character strengths were stenciled in four-inch-high letters, white on blue, from optimism to social intelligence. He asked his students to rank Okonkwo, the protagonist, on his various character strengths. There was a lot of back and forth, but in the end, most students agreed that Okonkwo rated highest on grit and lowest on self-control. Then a student named Yantzee raised his hand. “Can’t a trait backfire at you?” he asked.

“Sure, a trait can backfire,” Witter said. “Too much grit, like Okonkwo, you start to lose your ability to have empathy for other people. If you’re so gritty that you don’t understand why everyone’s complaining about how hard things are, because nothing’s hard for you, because you’re Mr. Grit, then you’re going to have a hard time being kind. Even love — being too loving might make you the kind of person who can get played.” There was a ripple of knowing laughter from the students. “So, yes, character is something you have to be careful about. Character strengths can become character weaknesses.”

Though the seven character strengths aren’t included in every lesson at KIPP, they do make it into most conversations about discipline. One day last winter, I was speaking with Sayuri Stabrowski, a 30-year-old seventh-and-eighth-grade reading teacher at KIPP Infinity, and she mentioned that she caught a girl chewing gum in her class earlier that day. “She denied it,” Stabrowski told me. “She said, ‘No, I’m not, I’m chewing my tongue.’ ” Stabrowski rolled her eyes as she told me the story. “I said, ‘O.K. fine.’ Then later in the class, I saw her chewing again, and I said: ‘You’re chewing gum! I see you.’ She said, ‘No, I’m not, see?’ and she moved the gum over in her mouth in this really obvious way, and we all saw what she was doing. Now, a couple of years ago, I probably would have blown my top and screamed. But this time, I was able to say: ‘Gosh, not only were you chewing gum, which is kind of minor, but you lied to me twice. That’s a real disappointment. What does that say about your character?’ And she was just devastated.”

Stabrowski was worried that the girl, who often struggled with her behavior, might have a mini-meltdown — a “baby attack,” in KIPP jargon — in the middle of the class, but in fact, the girl spit out her gum and sat through the rest of the class and then afterward came up to her teacher with tears in her eyes. “We had a long conversation,” Stabrowski told me. “She said: ‘I’m trying so hard to just grow up. But nothing ever changes!’ And I said: ‘Do you know what does change? You didn’t have a baby attack in front of the other kids, and two weeks ago, you would have.’ ”

To Tom Brunzell, who as the dean of students at KIPP Infinity oversaw the implementation of the character report card, what is going on in character conversations like that one isn’t academic instruction at all, or even discipline; it’s therapy. Specifically, it’s a kind of cognitive behavioral therapy, the very practical, nuts-and-bolts psychological technique that provides the theoretical underpinning for the whole positive psychology field. Cognitive behavioral therapy, or C.B.T., involves using the conscious mind to understand and overcome unconscious fears and self-destructive habits, using techniques like “self-talk” — putting an immediate crisis in perspective by reminding yourself of the larger context. “The kids who succeed at KIPP are the ones who can C.B.T. themselves in the moment,” Brunzell told me. Part of the point of the character initiative, as he saw it, was to give their students the tools to do that. “All kids this age are having mini-implosions every day,” he said. “I mean, it’s middle school, the worst years of their lives. But the kids who make it are the ones who can tell themselves: ‘I can rise above this little situation. I’m O.K. Tomorrow is a new day.’ ”

For Randolph, the experience that Brunzell was describing — the struggle to pull yourself through a crisis, to come to terms on a deep level with your own shortcomings and to labor to overcome them — is exactly what is missing for so many students at academically excellent schools like Riverdale. And perhaps surprisingly, it may turn out to be an area where the students at KIPP have a real advantage over Riverdale kids. On the professional development day in February when I visited Riverdale, Randolph had arranged a screening for his entire faculty of “Race to Nowhere,” a movie about the stresses facing mostly privileged American high-school students that has become an underground hit in many wealthy suburbs, where one-time showings at schools, churches and community centers bring out hundreds of concerned parents. The movie paints a grim portrait of contemporary adolescence, rising in an emotional crescendo to the story of an overachieving teenage girl who committed suicide, apparently because of the ever-increasing pressure to succeed that she felt both at school and at home. At Riverdale, the film seemed to have a powerful effect on many of the staff; one teacher who came up to Randolph afterward had tears in her eyes.

“Race to Nowhere” has helped to coalesce a growing movement of psychologists and educators who argue that the systems and methods now in place to raise and educate well-off kids in the United States are in fact devastating them. One central figure in the movie is Madeline Levine, a psychologist in Marin County who is the author of a best-selling book, “The Price of Privilege: How Parental Pressure and Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of Disconnected and Unhappy Kids.” In her book, Levine cites studies and surveys to back up her contention that children of affluent parents now exhibit “unexpectedly high rates of emotional problems beginning in junior high school.” This is no accident of demographics, Levine says, but instead is a direct result of the child-raising practices that prevail in well-off American homes; wealthy parents today, she argues, are more likely to be emotionally distant from their children, and at the same time to insist on high levels of achievement, a potentially toxic blend of influences that can create “intense feelings of shame and hopelessness” in affluent children.

Cohen and Fierst told me that they also see many Riverdale parents who, while pushing their children to excel, also inadvertently shield them from exactly the kind of experience that can lead to character growth. As Fierst put it: “Our kids don’t put up with a lot of suffering. They don’t have a threshold for it. They’re protected against it quite a bit. And when they do get uncomfortable, we hear from their parents. We try to talk to parents about having to sort of make it O.K. for there to be challenge, because that’s where learning happens.”

Cohen said that in the middle school, “if a kid is a C student, and their parents think that they’re all-A’s, we do get a lot of pushback: ‘What are you talking about? This is a great paper!’ We have parents calling in and saying, for their kids, ‘Can’t you just give them two more days on this paper?’ Overindulging kids, with the intention of giving them everything and being loving, but at the expense of their character — that’s huge in our population. I think that’s one of the biggest problems we have at Riverdale.”

This is a problem, of course, for all parents, not just affluent ones. It is a central paradox of contemporary parenting, in fact: we have an acute, almost biological impulse to provide for our children, to give them everything they want and need, to protect them from dangers and discomforts both large and small. And yet we all know — on some level, at least — that what kids need more than anything is a little hardship: some challenge, some deprivation that they can overcome, even if just to prove to themselves that they can. As a parent, you struggle with these thorny questions every day, and if you make the right call even half the time, you’re lucky. But it’s one thing to acknowledge this dilemma in the privacy of your own home; it’s quite another to have it addressed in public, at a school where you send your kids at great expense.

And it’s that problem that Randolph is up against as he tries to push forward this new kind of conversation about character at Riverdale. When you work at a public school, whether it’s a charter or a traditional public school, you’re paid by the state, responsible, on some level, to your fellow citizens for the job you do preparing your students to join the adult world. When you work at a private school like Riverdale, though, even one with a long waiting list, you are always conscious that you’re working for the parents who pay the tuition fees. Which makes a campaign like the one that Randolph is trying to embark on all the more complicated. If your premise is that your students are lacking in deep traits like grit and gratitude and self-control, you’re implicitly criticizing the parenting they’ve received — which means you’re implicitly criticizing your employers.

When I asked Randolph to explain just what he thought Riverdale students were missing out on, he told me the story of his own scholastic career. He did well in boarding school and was admitted to Harvard, but when he got to college, he felt lost, out of step with the power-tie careerism of the Reagan ’80s. After two years at Harvard, Randolph left for a year to work in a low-paying manual job, as a carpenter’s helper, trying to find himself. After college, he moved for a couple of years to Italy, where he worked odd jobs and studied opera. It was an uncertain and unsettled time in his life, filled with plenty of failed experiments and setbacks and struggles. Looking back on his life, though, Randolph says that the character strengths that enabled him to achieve the success that he has were not built in his years at Harvard or at the boarding schools he attended; they came out of those years of trial and error, of taking chances and living without a safety net. And it is precisely those kinds of experiences that he worries that his students aren’t having.

“The idea of building grit and building self-control is that you get that through failure,” Randolph explained. “And in most highly academic environments in the United States, no one fails anything.”

Most Riverdale students can see before them a clear path to a certain type of success. They’ll go to college, they’ll graduate, they’ll get well-paying jobs — and if they fall along the way, their families will almost certainly catch them, often well into their 20s or even 30s, if necessary. But despite their many advantages, Randolph isn’t yet convinced that the education they currently receive at Riverdale, or the support they receive at home, will provide them with the skills to negotiate the path toward the deeper success that Seligman and Peterson hold up as the ultimate product of good character: a happy, meaningful, productive life. Randolph wants his students to succeed, of course — it’s just that he believes that in order to do so, they first need to learn how to fail.

Paul Tough (inquiries@paultough.com), a contributing writer, is the author of "Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada's Quest to Change Harlem and America." His book "The Success Equation" will be published next year.

La felicidad colectiva - La necesidad que se le escapo a Maslow

2011-08-17T13:58:00.001-04:00

Un nuevo estudio mediante encuesta a cientos de miles de personas en 123 paises revela cuales son las necesidades universales de los humanos. Entre los hallazgos principales se encuentra que la necesidad a nivela de sociedad es fundamental parea la felicidad individual. Es beneficioso vivir en una sociedad con otras persons que tienen sus necesidades cubiertas. El mejorar individualmente en una sociedad no es suficiente.

Maslow 2.0: A new and Improved Recipe for Happines
by Hans Villarica
August 17, 2011
The Atlancic

What are the ingredients for happiness? It's a question that has been addressed time and again, and now a study based on the first-ever globally representative poll on well-being has some answers about whether or not a pioneering theory is actually correct.

The theory in question is the psychologist Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs," a staple of Psychology 101 courses that was famously articulated in 1954. It breaks down the path to happiness in an easy-to-digest list: Earthly needs, such as food and safety, are considered essential, since they act as the groundwork that makes it possible to pursue loftier desires, such as love, respect, and self-actualization (the realization of one's full potential).

The problem is, Maslow's theory remained a theory. Though it gained popularity, scientific psychologists largely ignored it. "They thought the needs were too inborn and universal," says Ed Diener, the author of Happiness: Unlocking the Mysteries of Psychological Wealth, "and that the idea of self-actualization was too fuzzy. They started to believe everything is learned and due to socialization."

To find proof that Maslow's theory translated into real life, Diener, a University of Illinois psychologist and senior scientist for the Gallup Organization, helped design the Gallup World Poll, a landmark survey on well-being with 60,865 participants from 123 countries that was conducted from 2005 to 2010. Respondents answered questions about six needs that closely resemble those in Maslow's model: basic needs (food, shelter); safety; social needs (love, support); respect; mastery; and autonomy. They also rated their well-being across three discrete measures: life evaluation (a person's view of his or her life as a whole), positive feelings (day-to-day instances of joy or pleasure), and negative feelings (everyday experiences of sorrow, anger, or stress). Finally, Diener analyzed the poll data with fellow University of Illinois psychology professor Louis Tay for a study in the current edition of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The results are mixed. Maslow rightly saw that there are human needs that apply regardless of culture, but his ordering of these needs was not right on target. "Although the most basic needs might get the most attention when you don't have them," Diener explains, "you don't need to fulfill them in order to get benefits [from the others]." Even when we are hungry, for instance, we can be happy with our friends. "They're like vitamins," Diener says on how the needs work independently. "We need them all."

The study's methodical investigation of both day-to-day positive and negative feelings and overall life evaluation uncovered novel nuances as well. As it turns out, the needs that are most linked with everyday satisfaction are interpersonal ones, such as love and respect. Our troubles, conversely, relate most to lack of esteem, lack of freedom, and lack of nourishment. Only when we look back on the quality of our lives thus far do basic needs become significant indicators for well-being.

For Diener, the implications for public policymakers are clear. Since each of Maslow's needs correlates with certain components of happiness, he says, "all the needs are important all the time. Our leaders need to think about them from the outset, otherwise they will have no reason to address social and community needs until food and shelter are available to all."

University of Pennsylvania psychology professor Martin Seligman, who says the study might be a breakthrough, adds: "Governments should take these measures seriously and hold themselves accountable for public policy changes for the well-being of their citizens." Focus away from monetary measures should be considered, especially in light of Diener and Tay's finding that income has little impact on day-to-day happiness and is significant for well-being only in so far as it allows for basic needs to be met. Seligman argues in his book Flourish:

.[G]ross domestic product should no longer be the only serious index of how well a nation is doing. It is not just the alarming divergence between quality of life and GDP that warrants this conclusion. Policy itself follows from what is measured, and if all that is measured is money, all policy will be about getting more money.

Perhaps, as Seligman suggests, governments could take their cue from Bhutan, a nation that consistently ranks high in "gross national happiness," if not GDP. University of British Columbia economist John Helliwell points to the recent riots in London, where social connections had ostensibly frayed, to illustrate the dangers of an unhappy citizenry. Such anti-social acts, he says, should prompt world leaders to adopt the recently passed U.N. resolution to make happiness a primary goal for global development and to consider Diener's model. "It shows clearly the importance in all societies of human connections and social supports, something that's been ignored in recent years," he says.

Indeed, Maslow's theory has led psychologists to focus on the self over the social for decades, what with self-actualization as the height of human motivation. Diener and Tay's revised model, however, aims to strike a balance between the pursuit of happiness as the end goal and the fulfillment of both personal and social goals to get there. "Maslow got right that there are universal human needs beyond the physiological needs that everyone recognizes," Diener says. "But it turns out people are inherently social. We are called the social animal now."

La confianza, la colaboracion y la evolucion de la generosidad

2011-08-15T15:27:00.001-04:00

Segun este estudio sobre psicologia evolutiva, colaborar es uno de los principales factores para el exito de nuestra especie. Lo que me interesa principalmente es el uso de los juegos de simulacion para validar que si colaboramos tendremos exito como humanos. Pero, ¿en verdad hace falta este estudio para probar esto....? De todas maneras creo que los hallazgos del estudio son relevantes.

The Evolution of Generosity
The Economist
July 30, 2011

The extraordinary success of Homo sapiens is a result of four things: intelligence, language, an ability to manipulate objects dexterously in order to make tools, and co-operation. Over the decades the anthropological spotlight has shifted from one to another of these as the prime mover of the package, and thus the fundament of the human condition. At the moment co-operation is the most fashionable subject of investigation. In particular, why are humans so willing to collaborate with unrelated strangers, even to the point of risking being cheated by people whose characters they cannot possibly know?

Evidence from economic games played in the laboratory for real money suggests humans are both trusting of those they have no reason to expect they will ever see again, and surprisingly unwilling to cheat them—and that these phenomena are deeply ingrained in the species’s psychology. Existing theories of the evolution of trust depend either on the participants being relatives (and thus sharing genes) or on their relationship being long-term, with each keeping count to make sure the overall benefits of collaboration exceed the costs. Neither applies in the case of passing strangers, and that has led to speculation that something extraordinary, such as a need for extreme collaboration prompted by the emergence of warfare that uses weapons, has happened in recent human evolution to promote the emergence of an instinct for unconditional generosity.

Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, two doyens of the field, who work at the University of California, Santa Barbara, do not agree. They see no need for extraordinary mechanisms and the latest study to come from their group (the actual work was done by Andrew Delton and Max Krasnow, who have just published the results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) suggests they are right. It also shows the value of applying common sense to psychological analyses—but then of backing that common sense with some solid mathematical modelling.

Be seeing you

Studying human evolution directly is obviously impossible. The generation times are far too long. But it is possible to isolate features of interest and examine how they evolve in computer simulations. To this end Dr Delton and Dr Krasnow designed software agents that were able to meet up and interact in a computer’s processor.

The agents’ interactions mimicked those of economic games in the real world, though the currency was arbitrary “fitness units” rather than dollars. This meant that agents which successfully collaborated built up fitness over the period of their collaboration. Those that cheated on the first encounter got a one-off allocation of fitness, but would never be trusted in the future. Each agent had an inbuilt and heritable level of trustworthiness (ie, the likelihood that it would cheat at the first opportunity) and, in each encounter it had, it was assigned a level of likelihood (detectable by the other agent) that it would be back for further interactions.

After a certain amount of time the agents reproduced in proportion to their accumulated fitness; the old generation died, and the young took over. The process was then repeated for 10,000 generations (equivalent to about 200,000 years of human history, or the entire period for which Homo sapiens has existed), to see what level of collaboration would emerge.

The upshot was that, as the researchers predicted, generosity pays—or, rather, the cost of early selfishness is greater than the cost of trust. This is because the likelihood that an encounter will be one-off, and thus worth cheating on, is just that: a likelihood, rather than a certainty. This fact was reflected in the way the likelihood values were created in the model. They were drawn from a probability distribution, so the actual future encounter rate was only indicated, not precisely determined by them.

For most plausible sets of costs, benefits and chances of future encounters the simulation found that it pays to be trusting, even though you will sometimes be cheated. Which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense. Previous attempts to study the evolution of trust using games have been arranged to make it clear to the participants whether their encounter was a one-off, and drawn their conclusions accordingly. That, though, is hardly realistic. In the real world, although you might guess, based on the circumstances, whether or not you will meet someone again, you cannot know for sure. Moreover, in the ancient world of hunter-gatherers, limited movement meant a second encounter would be much more likely than it is in the populous, modern urban world.

No need, then, for special mechanisms to explain generosity. An open hand to the stranger makes evolutionary as well as moral sense. Except, of course, that those two senses are probably, biologically speaking, the same thing. But that would be the subject of a different article.

Sonrie

2011-08-08T10:13:00.000-04:00

Un corto visual para estimular las buenas ideas....

Un nuevo mapa de relaciones humanas

2011-08-04T10:53:00.001-04:00

Uno de los fenomenos principales de la era digital es la interconectividad instantanea a nivel global entre los seres humanos. Gracias a Facebook, Tweeter, y mensajes de textos, hoy mas que nunca nuestro circulo de influencia (y a su vez el nivel de ser influenciados por otros) se expande y cruza fornteras y espacios. Solo piensa en el ultimo "status" de un amigo virtual que te hizo pensar, reir, o reflexionar y sabras a lo que me refiero.

Para entender la magnitud de este efecto vean este mapa de relaciones humanas de los friends de Facebook. Paul Butler, un intern de Facebook, ha hecho una representacion grafica de las conexiones de "friends" de los mas de 500 millones de usuarios de esta red social a traves de todo el mundo. Butler dice en su entrada de blog "What really struck me, though, was knowing that the lines didn't represent coasts or rivers or political borders, but real human relationships."

El lenguaje como medio de colaboracion

2011-08-04T10:27:00.000-04:00

El biologo Mark Pagel propone que el lenguaje es una pieza de tecnologia social que realza los beneficios de la cooperacion. Gracias al lenguaje los humanos hemos podido acceder la esfera de la cooperacion y explotar sus beneficios.

Cambio, Colaboracion, Medios Digitales y Surfing

2011-07-12T14:55:00.000-04:00

John Seely Brown from New Learning Institute on Vimeo.

El Uso de Lenguaje Explicito para Crear Conocimiento Compartido

2011-05-26T14:15:00.000-04:00

Prensa Comunitaria = Comunidades Colaborativas

2010-10-18T10:35:00.001-04:00

Poder expresar las visiones, experiencias, logros y desafios de las comunidades ha sido un gran reto ante la falta de acceso directo a los medios de comunicacion masiva. En este video vemos como l@s amig@s de Prensa Comunitaria han logrado crear una red de difusion de informacion para las comunidades. Me capta muchisimo la atencion la magnifica diversidad que existe entre los colaboradores del proyecto: diversidad de nivel educativo, edad, profesiones, y trasfonso socio-economico, entre otos. Sirva este de ejemplo para iniciativas colaborativas exitosas en el Pais.

Cambiando los Paradigmas de la Educación

2010-10-14T16:23:00.002-04:00

Un buen amigo me dijo una vez que "si los jóvenes no aprenden como les enseñamos, pues enseñémosle como ellos aprenden". En este video el pensador educativo Sir Ken Robinson comparte su perspectiva sobre el desfaz educativo de los paises industrializados. Presenta el caso para la necesidad de cambiar los paradigmas sobre los cuales nuestro sistema educativo ha sido edificado. Muy estimulante.

Long Tail: Escasez vis a vis Abundancia

2010-10-05T11:24:00.002-04:00

Chris Anderson es el editor de la revista Wired. En este video del 2006 presenta el concepto del Long Tail comparando los modelos de Escasez y Abundancia y sus implicaciones economicas para las empresas. El concepto del Long Tail ha sido ampliamente utilizado para reforzar el modelo de colaboracion virtual. Parte de mi esfuerzo va centrado a la busqueda de formas de transportabilidad a escenarios y contextos no-virtuales.

Naciones Colaborativas

2010-10-04T12:26:00.002-04:00

Recientemente la empresa Cisco comisiono un estudio sobre las tendencias de uso de las herramientas colaborativas en los departamentos de IT en compañias a traves del mundo. Debo avisar que este estudio forma parte de un esfuerzo de mercadeo de los productos de Cisco en este reglon, incluyendo su impresionante sistema de video conferencia llamado TelePresence. Aun asi, creo pertinente su trabajo por varias razones. En primer lugar legitimiza el valor de las relaciones colaborativas en las organizaciones. Segundo, propone una relacion directa entre la colaboracion y el rendimeinto. Pero probablemente lo mas importante que presenta el estudio es la clara realidad de que los individuos en las organizaciones estan sumergidos en el nuevo paradigma colaborativo basado en redes sociales y "peer sharing"; Un paradigma que choca con las estructuras organizacionales restrictivas y que requieren ser transformadas para maximizar las energias colaborativas.

Lo Que No Saben Los Imbéciles

2010-10-03T09:53:00.004-04:00

Aquí les traigo una columna de Javier Cercas a cerca de la empatía. Encuentro interesante la dimensión transformadora de la empatía. Cuando somos empáticos con los demás, no solo nos ponernos en la situación del otr@ para entender el mundo desde su posición, sino que nos obligamos a entretener por un momento modelos y paradigmas diferentes a los nuestros. Este "ejercicio" psicológico nos sirve para probarnos nuevas maneras de ser y comenzar a transformar nustras propias vidas. Además, como dice el escritor, es tarea del imbécil no comprender a los demás.

Lo que no saben los imbéciles
Javier Cercas 3/10/10 elpais.com

El número de septiembre de la revista Letras Libres contiene una interesantísima correspondencia entre el escritor J. M. Coetzee y Arabella Kurtz, profesora de psicología en la Universidad de Leicester. El hilo conductor de ese diálogo es la vindicación que Coetzee hace de la empatía, entendiendo por tal cosa la capacidad de identificarnos imaginativamente con otra persona, de meternos en su cabeza y en su piel, de ver el mundo como ella lo ve: una capacidad que Coetzee parece valorar casi tanto como nuestra capacidad de razonar. Esa vindicación permite a los dos interlocutores discurrir acerca de asuntos diversos, sobre todo acerca de la paternidad y la educación, lo que resulta particularmente instructivo en el contexto español. Quiero decir que en España el debate sobre la educación parece a menudo encallado en el debate sobre la autoridad, o más bien sobre la crisis del concepto de autoridad, que se traduce en la falta de autoridad de padres y profesores; pero, formulado en esos términos, el debate es, me parece, desoladoramente pobre, si no inútil, porque el problema no es si padres y profesores deben ejercer la autoridad –cosa que debería darse por descontada–, sino cómo pueden o saben o quieren ejercerla. Pues bien, respondiendo a la visión trágica que Coetzee tiene de la paternidad –“Es parte de la tragedia de la paternidad que el amor de los padres no se reconozca como amor”, escribe; “es decir, que el amor entre padres e hijos es unilateral”–, afirma Kurtz: “Hablando como hija, pienso que cuando un padre ama a sus hijos, cuando intenta entenderlos y cuidarlos en sus propios términos y no se relaciona con ellos a partir de sus necesidades personales, esto es percibido como amor, incluso desde una edad muy temprana. Hablando como madre, pienso que algunas veces es tremendamente difícil amar a tus hijos de este modo”.

Me parece exactísimo: la cuestión no radica en ejercer la autoridad sobre un niño –esto sabe hacerlo hasta un imbécil–, sino en ejercerla después de identificarnos imaginativamente con él, de meternos en su cabeza y en su piel, de ver el mundo como él lo ve, y de hacerlo todo ello en función de sus necesidades y no de las nuestras; esa es sin duda una operación difícil, pero también una forma de que la paternidad se parezca un poco a lo que era para Kafka, que nunca tuvo un hijo: “Lo máximo a que, a mi parecer, puede aspirar una persona”. No todo el mundo tiene esa capacidad de empatía, sin embargo, o no todo el mundo está dispuesto a realizar ese esfuerzo. En 1966 el dramaturgo Arthur Miller tuvo un hijo con síndrome de Down; recién cumplidos los 51 años, Miller juzgó que aquel hijo, de nombre Daniel, desbarataba su proyecto vital, y a los cuatro días de su nacimiento lo ingresó en un orfanato, lo borró de su vida y no volvió a verlo hasta que 29 años más tarde, al terminar un acto público en el que él acababa de hablar en defensa de un discapacitado mental acusado de asesinato, su hijo abandonado subió al escenario, le dijo quién era y lo abrazó. La historia de Miller es conocida; no menos conocida es una historia opuesta. Tres años antes de que naciera el hijo deficiente de Miller, nacía el hijo deficiente del novelista Kenzaburo Oé; se llamaba Hiraki y era hidrocefálico y autista, y los médicos aconsejaron al padre dejarlo morir. Por entonces Oé acababa de cumplir 28 años y tenía una vida y una carrera literaria prometedoras por delante, pero no aceptó la sentencia de los médicos, y, tras una operación, su hijo siguió viviendo. A partir de aquel momento Oé dedicó exclusivamente su vida a cuidar a su hijo, y sus obras a tratar de entenderlo (y a tratar de entenderse a sí mismo a través de su hijo); a este doble empeño se debe quizá que Hiraki Oé sea ahora mismo un reconocido compositor musical y se debe sin duda que Kenzaburo Oé sea uno de los grandes narradores vivos, porque muchos de sus libros –entre ellos obras maestras como Una cuestión personal o como Dinos cómo sobrevivir a nuestra locura– constituyen un salvaje esfuerzo moral por asumir su responsabilidad en el destino de su hijo y un esfuerzo imaginativo asombrosamente logrado por ponerse en la piel de su hijo.

Es dudoso que Kenzaburo Oé hubiera llegado a ser el enorme escritor que es sin haber aceptado con plenitud a Hiraki Oé; es un hecho que, a partir de mediados de los sesenta, cuando fue incapaz de aceptar a Daniel Miller, Arthur Miller entró en decadencia y dejó de ser el enorme escritor que había sido. Me disculpo: quizá es abusivo, o simplista, establecer una relación de causa y efecto entre la irresponsabilidad moral y la decadencia artística de un escritor. De hecho, quizá es irresponsable hablar de irresponsabilidad moral. Puede ser. Pero, si tiene razón Savater y todo lo que cuenta en la ética es el reconocimiento de lo humano por lo humano y el deber íntimo que nos impone, entonces quizá no lo es. Porque quizá no hay ética sin empatía.

Lo Que Realmente Nos Motiva en las Organizaciones

2010-09-15T10:16:00.001-04:00

Muchos de nosotros pensamos que la mejor manera de motivarnos es mediante estimulos, tanto internos como externos, que responden a dos fuentes principales; dolor y placer. Me muevo hacia lo que me da placer y le huyo a lo que me da dolor. Tambien le llaman el modelo de la Zanahoria y el Palo.

Parece que este modelo sirve para explicar situaciones simples pero no es aplicable a todos los escenarios de motivacion en especial a la motivacion dentro de las organizaciones de hoy dia. Dan Pink presenta una manera refrescante de analizar el asunto de la motivacion personal ante los retos del siglo 21. En su libro Drive: The Surpising Thruth About What Motivates Us, Dan propone tres elementos para una verdadera motivacion - Autonomia, Maestria y Proposito.

Aqui les traigo un video, narrado por Dan Pink e ilustrado por los magnificos artistas de RSA Animate, que explica los principios de este modelo.

Delivering Happiness - La Cultura de Felicidad en Zappos!

2010-06-17T13:21:00.003-04:00

Les presento 2 videos de como el gigante en ventas por internet Zappos! llego de 1 millon a 1 billon de dolares en ventas en menos de una decada. Es interesante que mientras otras compañias se esfuerzan en recortar gastos, automatizar procesos y reducir personal, Zappos! se enfoca en proveer la mejor experiencia de servico posible. Esta inversion en servicio se traduce en una experiencia de felicidad para todos; clientes, empleados y suplidores.

Colaboración y Data Libremente Accesible: Una Combinación Extraordinaria

2010-05-10T13:07:00.001-04:00

Tim Berners-Lee, el inventor del World Wide Web o www, se ha convertido en uno de los principales proponentes del acceso libre de la data pública en la web y su conversión en maneras útililes mediante el uso de aplicaciones innovadoras. En este video Tim presenta varios ejemplos de proyectos que solo han sido posibles gracias al acceso libre de la data y al poder extraordinario de la colaboración espontanea. Disfruten.

Los Problemas son Particulas Espaciales

2010-05-04T08:36:00.003-04:00

De vez en cuando, cuando siento que las cosas no van acorde a lo que he planeado o cuando me siento que mis problemas y retos son mas grandes que mi capacidad para enfrentarlos, busco maneras y cosas que me ayuden a cambiar de perspectiva. Este video es una de ellas. De igual forma, cuando me siento que soy el centro del universo, que mis necesidades son las mas importantes o cuando mi ego toma control de mi, estas imagenes me regresan humildemente a mi contexto y me devueleve la perspectiva necesaria para entender mi humanidad.

CCK09 - Aprendizaje en redes

2009-11-30T00:59:00.001-04:00

Acabo de comenzar un curso abierto en linea llamado Connectivism & Connective Knowledge 2009. Es acerca de las nueva teorias de aprendizaje basadas en redes. Estoy un poco atrasado ya que este curso tiene mas de diez semanas de comenzado, pero esta es una de las maravillas del aprendizaje en linea; se rompen las barreras de tiempo para aprender.

Planificación de Ciudades de Manera Colaborativa

2009-11-29T18:58:00.002-04:00

Uno de los mayores retos que enfrentan las estrategias de colaboración virtual es crear exitosamente el puente desde el mundo cibernetico hacia el mundo concreto. En otras palabras, como impactar nuestro entorno físico mediante trabajo realizado colaborativamente en el ciberespacio. Poco a poco ese puente esta siendo edificado por creadores y colaboradores en múltiples disciplinas. Uno de estos creadores es el Dr. Mark Elliot, fundador de Collabforge. Elliot ha sido el arquitecto intelectual de Future Melbourne, un plan de uso de la ciudad de Melbourne, Australia que ha utilizando estrategias de colaboracion ciudadanas basadas en wikis. Mas alla de limitar la participacion ciudadana a cerca del proyecto a simplemente expresar sus opiniones en vistas publicas y "town hall meetings", como tradicionalmente se hace, Future Melbourne fue creado completamente por colaboracion ciudadana. Cientos de organizaciones e individuos colaboraron el la redaccion del plan que servira de mapa para la vision de futuro de la ciudad. A continuacion un video de la presentacion del proyecto por parte del Dr. Elliot. Recomiendo aumenten el video a pantalla completa para apreciar el video.

Creative Commons - Cultura Compartida

2009-11-29T13:19:00.002-04:00

¿Que significa ser humano si no tenemos una cultura compartida? ¿Que significado tiene una cultura compartida si no la puedes compartir?

La Sociedad Global Colectivista

2009-11-23T12:31:00.007-04:00

De vez en cuando encuentro un artículo en la web que catalogo como un ramillete de semillas. Estos son artículos que sirven de plataformas para expresar múltiples ideas, distinciones, conexiones, en fin, un punto de partida para otras reflexiones. Este es uno de esos artículos. La revista Wired siempre esta a la vanguardia de la cultura techie y con este lo comprueban.

Estimo muy importante hacer una aclaración; este NO es un articulo de política. Es una demostración de la cultura de colaboración y de trabajo compartido que esta ocurriendo, a pesar de las filosofías políticas y económicas. Si tienes problemas con la palabra "Socialismo", reemplázala con algún sinónimo que te permita liberar tu mente para el aprendizaje.

Otra aclaración es que intente traducir este artículo pero realmente contiene conceptos y palabras difíciles de traducir. Por esto pido comprensión.

Por ultimo, tan rico como es el contenido del artículo, lo es la discusión de los lectores de este. Puedes encontrar sus respuestas al final del articulo original en wired.com.

The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society is Coming Online
By Kevin Kelly wired.com

Bill Gates once derided open source advocates with the worst epithet a capitalist can muster. These folks, he said, were a "new modern-day sort of communists," a malevolent force bent on destroying the monopolistic incentive that helps support the American dream. Gates was wrong: Open source zealots are more likely to be libertarians than commie pinkos. Yet there is some truth to his allegation. The frantic global rush to connect everyone to everyone, all the time, is quietly giving rise to a revised version of socialism.

Communal aspects of digital culture run deep and wide. Wikipedia is just one remarkable example of an emerging collectivism—and not just Wikipedia but wikiness at large. Ward Cunningham, who invented the first collaborative Web page in 1994, tracks nearly 150 wiki engines today, each powering myriad sites. Wetpaint, launched just three years ago, hosts more than 1 million communal efforts. Widespread adoption of the share-friendly Creative Commons alternative copyright license and the rise of ubiquitous file-sharing are two more steps in this shift. Mushrooming collaborative sites like Digg, StumbleUpon, the Hype Machine, and Twine have added weight to this great upheaval. Nearly every day another startup proudly heralds a new way to harness community action. These developments suggest a steady move toward a sort of socialism uniquely tuned for a networked world.

We're not talking about your grandfather's socialism. In fact, there is a long list of past movements this new socialism is not. It is not class warfare. It is not anti-American; indeed, digital socialism may be the newest American innovation. While old-school socialism was an arm of the state, digital socialism is socialism without the state. This new brand of socialism currently operates in the realm of culture and economics, rather than government—for now.

The type of communism with which Gates hoped to tar the creators of Linux was born in an era of enforced borders, centralized communications, and top-heavy industrial processes. Those constraints gave rise to a type of collective ownership that replaced the brilliant chaos of a free market with scientific five-year plans devised by an all-powerful politburo. This political operating system failed, to put it mildly. However, unlike those older strains of red-flag socialism, the new socialism runs over a borderless Internet, through a tightly integrated global economy. It is designed to heighten individual autonomy and thwart centralization. It is decentralization extreme.

Instead of gathering on collective farms, we gather in collective worlds. Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected to virtual co-ops. Instead of sharing drill bits, picks, and shovels, we share apps, scripts, and APIs. Instead of faceless politburos, we have faceless meritocracies, where the only thing that matters is getting things done. Instead of national production, we have peer production. Instead of government rations and subsidies, we have a bounty of free goods.

I recognize that the word socialism is bound to make many readers twitch. It carries tremendous cultural baggage, as do the related terms communal, communitarian, and collective. I use socialism because technically it is the best word to indicate a range of technologies that rely for their power on social interactions. Broadly, collective action is what Web sites and Net-connected apps generate when they harness input from the global audience. Of course, there's rhetorical danger in lumping so many types of organization under such an inflammatory heading. But there are no unsoiled terms available, so we might as well redeem this one.

When masses of people who own the means of production work toward a common goal and share their products in common, when they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge, it's not unreasonable to call that socialism.

In the late '90s, activist, provocateur, and aging hippy John Barlow began calling this drift, somewhat tongue in cheek, "dot-communism." He defined it as a "workforce composed entirely of free agents," a decentralized gift or barter economy where there is no property and where technological architecture defines the political space. He was right on the virtual money. But there is one way in which socialism is the wrong word for what is happening: It is not an ideology. It demands no rigid creed. Rather, it is a spectrum of attitudes, techniques, and tools that promote collaboration, sharing, aggregation, coordination, ad hocracy, and a host of other newly enabled types of social cooperation. It is a design frontier and a particularly fertile space for innovation.

In his 2008 book, Here Comes Everybody, media theorist Clay Shirky suggests a useful hierarchy for sorting through these new social arrangements. Groups of people start off simply sharing and then progress to cooperation, collaboration, and finally collectivism. At each step, the amount of coordination increases. A survey of the online landscape reveals ample evidence of this phenomenon.

I. SHARING

The online masses have an incredible willingness to share. The number of personal photos posted on Facebook and MySpace is astronomical, but it's a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of photos taken with a digital camera are shared in some fashion. Then there are status updates, map locations, half-thoughts posted online. Add to this the 6 billion videos served by YouTube each month in the US alone and the millions of fan-created stories deposited on fanfic sites. The list of sharing organizations is almost endless: Yelp for reviews, Loopt for locations, Delicious for bookmarks.

Sharing is the mildest form of socialism, but it serves as the foundation for higher levels of communal engagement.

II. COOPERATION

When individuals work together toward a large-scale goal, it produces results that emerge at the group level. Not only have amateurs shared more than 3 billion photos on Flickr, but they have tagged them with categories, labels, and keywords. Others in the community cull the pictures into sets. The popularity of Creative Commons licensing means that communally, if not outright communistically, your picture is my picture. Anyone can use a photo, just as a communard might use the community wheelbarrow. I don't have to shoot yet another photo of the Eiffel Tower, since the community can provide a better one than I can take myself.

Thousands of aggregator sites employ the same social dynamic for threefold benefit. First, the technology aids users directly, letting them tag, bookmark, rank, and archive for their own use. Second, other users benefit from an individual's tags, bookmarks, and so on. And this, in turn, often creates additional value that can come only from the group as a whole. For instance, tagged snapshots of the same scene from different angles can be assembled into a stunning 3-D rendering of the location. (Check out Microsoft's Photosynth.) In a curious way, this proposition exceeds the socialist promise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" because it betters what you contribute and delivers more than you need.

Community aggregators can unleash astonishing power. Sites like Digg and Reddit, which let users vote on the Web links they display most prominently, can steer public conversation as much as newspapers or TV networks. (Full disclosure: Reddit is owned by Wired's parent company, Condé Nast.) Serious contributors to these sites put in far more energy than they could ever get in return, but they keep contributing in part because of the cultural power these instruments wield. A contributor's influence extends way beyond a lone vote, and the community's collective influence can be far out of proportion to the number of contributors. That is the whole point of social institutions—the sum outperforms the parts. Traditional socialism aimed to ramp up this dynamic via the state. Now, decoupled from government and hooked into the global digital matrix, this elusive force operates at a larger scale than ever before.

III. COLLABORATION

Organized collaboration can produce results beyond the achievements of ad hoc cooperation. Just look at any of hundreds of open source software projects, such as the Apache Web server. In these endeavors, finely tuned communal tools generate high-quality products from the coordinated work of thousands or tens of thousands of members. In contrast to casual cooperation, collaboration on large, complex projects tends to bring the participants only indirect benefits, since each member of the group interacts with only a small part of the end product. An enthusiast may spend months writing code for a subroutine when the program's full utility is several years away. In fact, the work-reward ratio is so out of kilter from a free-market perspective—the workers do immense amounts of high-market-value work without being paid—that these collaborative efforts make no sense within capitalism.

Adding to the economic dissonance, we've become accustomed to enjoying the products of these collaborations free of charge. Instead of money, the peer producers who create the stuff gain credit, status, reputation, enjoyment, satisfaction, and experience. Not only is the product free, it can be copied freely and used as the basis for new products. Alternative schemes for managing intellectual property, including Creative Commons and the GNU licenses, were invented to ensure these "frees."

Of course, there's nothing particularly socialistic about collaboration per se. But the tools of online collaboration support a communal style of production that shuns capitalistic investors and keeps ownership in the hands of the workers, and to some extent those of the consuming masses.

IV. COLLECTIVISM

While cooperation can write an encyclopedia, no one is held responsible if the community fails to reach consensus, and lack of agreement doesn't endanger the enterprise as a whole. The aim of a collective, however, is to engineer a system where self-directed peers take responsibility for critical processes and where difficult decisions, such as sorting out priorities, are decided by all participants. Throughout history, hundreds of small-scale collectivist groups have tried this operating system. The results have not been encouraging, even setting aside Jim Jones and the Manson family.

Indeed, a close examination of the governing kernel of, say, Wikipedia, Linux, or OpenOffice shows that these efforts are further from the collectivist ideal than appears from the outside. While millions of writers contribute to Wikipedia, a smaller number of editors (around 1,500) are responsible for the majority of the editing. Ditto for collectives that write code. A vast army of contributions is managed by a much smaller group of coordinators. As Mitch Kapor, founding chair of the Mozilla open source code factory, observed, "Inside every working anarchy, there's an old-boy network."

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some types of collectives benefit from hierarchy while others are hurt by it. Platforms like the Internet and Facebook, or democracy—which are intended to serve as a substrate for producing goods and delivering services—benefit from being as nonhierarchical as possible, minimizing barriers to entry and distributing rights and responsibilities equally. When powerful actors appear, the entire fabric suffers. On the other hand, organizations built to create products often need strong leaders and hierarchies arranged around time scales: One level focuses on hourly needs, another on the next five years.

In the past, constructing an organization that exploited hierarchy yet maximized collectivism was nearly impossible. Now digital networking provides the necessary infrastructure. The Net empowers product-focused organizations to function collectively while keeping the hierarchy from fully taking over. The organization behind MySQL, an open source database, is not romantically nonhierarchical, but it is far more collectivist than Oracle. Likewise, Wikipedia is not a bastion of equality, but it is vastly more collectivist than the Encyclopædia Britannica. The elite core we find at the heart of online collectives is actually a sign that stateless socialism can work on a grand scale.

Most people in the West, including myself, were indoctrinated with the notion that extending the power of individuals necessarily diminishes the power of the state, and vice versa. In practice, though, most polities socialize some resources and individualize others. Most free-market economies have socialized education, and even extremely socialized societies allow some private property.

Rather than viewing technological socialism as one side of a zero-sum trade-off between free-market individualism and centralized authority, it can be seen as a cultural OS that elevates both the individual and the group at once. The largely unarticulated but intuitively understood goal of communitarian technology is this: to maximize both individual autonomy and the power of people working together. Thus, digital socialism can be viewed as a third way that renders irrelevant the old debates.

The notion of a third way is echoed by Yochai Benkler, author of The Wealth of Networks, who has probably thought more than anyone else about the politics of networks. "I see the emergence of social production and peer production as an alternative to both state-based and market-based closed, proprietary systems," he says, noting that these activities "can enhance creativity, productivity, and freedom." The new OS is neither the classic communism of centralized planning without private property nor the undiluted chaos of a free market. Instead, it is an emerging design space in which decentralized public coordination can solve problems and create things that neither pure communism nor pure capitalism can.

Hybrid systems that blend market and nonmarket mechanisms are not new. For decades, researchers have studied the decentralized, socialized production methods of northern Italian and Basque industrial co-ops, in which employees are owners, selecting management and limiting profit distribution, independent of state control. But only since the arrival of low-cost, instantaneous, ubiquitous collaboration has it been possible to migrate the core of those ideas into diverse new realms, like writing enterprise software or reference books.

The dream is to scale up this third way beyond local experiments. How large? Ohloh, a company that tracks the open source industry, lists roughly 250,000 people working on an amazing 275,000 projects. That's almost the size of General Motors' workforce. That is an awful lot of people working for free, even if they're not full-time. Imagine if all the employees of GM weren't paid yet continued to produce automobiles!

So far, the biggest efforts are open source projects, and the largest of them, such as Apache, manage several hundred contributors—about the size of a village. One study estimates that 60,000 man-years of work have poured into last year's release of Fedora Linux 9, so we have proof that self-assembly and the dynamics of sharing can govern a project on the scale of a decentralized town or village.

Of course, the total census of participants in online collective work is far greater. YouTube claims some 350 million monthly visitors. Nearly 10 million registered users have contributed to Wikipedia, 160,000 of whom are designated active. More than 35 million folks have posted and tagged more than 3 billion photos and videos on Flickr. Yahoo hosts 7.8 million groups focused on every possible subject. Google has 3.9 million.

These numbers still fall short of a nation. They may not even cross the threshold of mainstream (although if YouTube isn't mainstream, what is?). But clearly the population that lives with socialized media is significant. The number of people who make things for free, share things for free, use things for free, belong to collective software farms, work on projects that require communal decisions, or experience the benefits of decentralized socialism has reached millions and counting. Revolutions have grown out of much smaller numbers.

On the face of it, one might expect a lot of political posturing from folks who are constructing an alternative to capitalism and corporatism. But the coders, hackers, and programmers who design sharing tools don't think of themselves as revolutionaries. No new political party is being organized in conference rooms—at least, not in the US. (In Sweden, the Pirate Party formed on a platform of file-sharing. It won a paltry 0.63 percent of votes in the 2006 national election.)

Indeed, the leaders of the new socialism are extremely pragmatic. A survey of 2,784 open source developers explored their motivations. The most common was "to learn and develop new skills." That's practical. One academic put it this way (paraphrasing): The major reason for working on free stuff is to improve my own damn software. Basically, overt politics is not practical enough.

But the rest of us may not be politically immune to the rising tide of sharing, cooperation, collaboration, and collectivism. For the first time in years, the s-word is being uttered by TV pundits and in national newsmagazines as a force in US politics. Obviously, the trend toward nationalizing hunks of industry, instituting national health care, and jump-starting job creation with tax money isn't wholly due to techno-socialism. But the last election demonstrated the power of a decentralized, webified base with digital collaboration at its core. The more we benefit from such collaboration, the more open we become to socialist institutions in government. The coercive, soul-smashing system of North Korea is dead; the future is a hybrid that takes cues from both Wikipedia and the moderate socialism of Sweden.

How close to a noncapitalistic, open source, peer-production society can this movement take us? Every time that question has been asked, the answer has been: closer than we thought. Consider craigslist. Just classified ads, right? But the site amplified the handy community swap board to reach a regional audience, enhanced it with pictures and real-time updates, and suddenly became a national treasure. Operating without state funding or control, connecting citizens directly to citizens, this mostly free marketplace achieves social good at an efficiency that would stagger any government or traditional corporation. Sure, it undermines the business model of newspapers, but at the same time it makes an indisputable case that the sharing model is a viable alternative to both profit-seeking corporations and tax-supported civic institutions.

Who would have believed that poor farmers could secure $100 loans from perfect strangers on the other side of the planet—and pay them back? That is what Kiva does with peer-to-peer lending. Every public health care expert declared confidently that sharing was fine for photos, but no one would share their medical records. But PatientsLikeMe, where patients pool results of treatments to better their own care, prove that collective action can trump both doctors and privacy scares. The increasingly common habit of sharing what you're thinking (Twitter), what you're reading (StumbleUpon), your finances (Wesabe), your everything (the Web) is becoming a foundation of our culture. Doing it while collaboratively building encyclopedias, news agencies, video archives, and software in groups that span continents, with people you don't know and whose class is irrelevant—that makes political socialism seem like the logical next step.

A similar thing happened with free markets over the past century. Every day, someone asked: What can't markets do? We took a long list of problems that seemed to require rational planning or paternal government and instead applied marketplace logic. In most cases, the market solution worked significantly better. Much of the prosperity in recent decades was gained by unleashing market forces on social problems.

Now we're trying the same trick with collaborative social technology, applying digital socialism to a growing list of wishes—and occasionally to problems that the free market couldn't solve—to see if it works. So far, the results have been startling. At nearly every turn, the power of sharing, cooperation, collaboration, openness, free pricing, and transparency has proven to be more practical than we capitalists thought possible. Each time we try it, we find that the power of the new socialism is bigger than we imagined.

We underestimate the power of our tools to reshape our minds. Did we really believe we could collaboratively build and inhabit virtual worlds all day, every day, and not have it affect our perspective? The force of online socialism is growing. Its dynamic is spreading beyond electrons—perhaps into elections.

OpenCourseWare: Aprendizaje Universal Colaborativo

2009-11-23T11:08:00.004-04:00

La revolución colaborativa es real y llego para quedarse. Una muestra adicional de esto son los avances de la colaboración y el conocimiento compartido que se estan llevando a cabo en las instituciones académicas del mundo. El OpenCourseWare Consortium es una colaboración de instituciones de educación superior con más de 2 00 asociados y organizaciones de todo el mundo mediante la creación de un cuerpo amplio y profundo de los contenidos educativos abiertos utilizando un modelo compartido. El formato utilizado es el de OpenCourseWare que es una publicación digital gratuita y abierta de materiales educativos de alta calidad, organizados como cursos. La misión del OpenCourseWare Consortium es promover la educación y la autonomía de las personas en todo el mundo a través de OpenCourseWare. Los Objetivos del Consorcio son (1) ampliar el alcance y el impacto de OpenCourseWare, fomentando la adopción y adaptación de materiales educativos abiertos en todo el mundo,(2) fomentar el desarrollo de proyectos de OpenCourseWare adicionales, y (3) garantizar la sustentabilidad a largo plazo de los proyectos de OpenCourseWare mediante la identificación de formas de mejorar la eficacia y reducir costes.

Un vistazo al contenido de los cursos en las diferentes universidades y veras que en la inmensa mayoría, las universidades aun no han hecho el salto total a abrir sus currículos al mundo (pero es un buen paso). En gran parte solo comparten una selección de cursos introductorios, o una porción del material de los cursos. Dicho esto, sigue siendo un gran avance y un movimiento imparable hacia la masificación de las ideas. Actualmente existen decenas de miles de cursos online gratuitos. Me impresiono muchísimo la gran diversidad de universidades representadas. Solo necesitas una herramienta de traducción como la de Google o FireFox y ya eres parte de la experiencia educativa mundial.

Colaboracion des-organizada

2009-11-04T14:50:00.000-04:00

Quiero compartir un vídeo, que quizás para algunos parezca información básica sobre colaboración (si es así, mis felicitaciones, estas sumergido en la actualidad) y quizás para otros sea una nueva perspectiva para posibilidades y oportunidades. Se trata de las ideas de Clay Shirky. Desde el comienzo del siglo, Clay ha sido propulsor del enorme potencial colaborativo provisto por los avances en tecnología, en especial el Internet y las redes sociales. La revista WIRED lo describe como "una de las pocas personas con la pretensión de justificar el apodo digerati. Se ha convertido en una voz profética constantemente en las redes, software social, y los efectos de la tecnología en la sociedad".

Yo había visto este vídeo hace varios años atrás, así como leído su libro Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organization s. Sus ideas me han ayudado muchísimo (junto a las de otros precursores y teóricos los cuales presentare en una proxima ocasion) a entender los nuevos paradigmas y modelos mentales que darán forma al futuro de la colaboración y la cooperación humana. El clip es extremadamente explicativo, rico en conceptos y distinciones profundas fundamentales para entender como crear espacios colaborativos en nuestros equipos y comunidades. Por ultimo, cuando vean este vídeo, tengan en mente que fue filmado en el año 2005. En este mundo de proliferación acelerado de ideas, 4 años es el equivalente a décadas, para aquellos que nacimos antes del 1980.

Esfuerzo + Amabilidad = Transformación

2009-11-04T08:47:00.002-04:00

Hace unas semanas conversaba con uno de mis mentores y apreciado amigo Ulises Pabón acerca de nuevos conceptos en el campo de la innovación y la trasformación radical. El, conociendo mi interés por el campo de la educación, me hizo referencia a un libro que estaba leyendo titulado Work Hard. Be Nice.: How Two Inspired Teachers Created the Most Promising Schools in America del reportero Jay Mathews del Washignton Post. En este, Mathews describe como dos maestros, Mike Feinberg y Dave Levin, lograron elevar el nivel de ejecución académico de miles de jóvenes de escuelas urbanas de Houston TX bajo la iniciativa KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program). Al presente, KIPP es una red de 82 escuelas públicas a través de 19 estados de la nación, impactando sobre 20,000 estudiantes. Lo más interesante de este ejemplo de éxito, es que la consigna que sirvió de base valorativa para Feinberf y Levin fue "Work Hard, Be Nice" Literalmente estos dos profesores asumieron responsabilidad absoluta de lo único que tenían en su control; Su esfuerzo y la manera de relacionarse con los demás. Con estas dos tareas han logrado transformar su entorno. Que sirva de ejemplo a todos los que pensamos que desde nuestra posición no tenemos poder para crear cambios radicales.

Espejos: Una historia casi universal

2009-10-28T10:53:00.000-04:00

El cronista y escritor latinoamericano Eduardo Galeano comparte sus anotaciones de su libro Espejos: Una historia casi universal, en la Biblioteca Pública de la ciudad de Los Ángeles. Una version de la hsitoria que relata la gran aventura de la existencia humana.

Por Asociación

2009-10-27T18:57:00.005-04:00

¿Que tal si te digo que conozco a alguien a quien deberías conocer? Pues esa es la idea que By/Association plantea. By/Association es un servicio privado de presentaciones. Individuos son elegidos por su creatividad excepcional, visiones de mundo y redes sociales multi-disciplinarias. Luego estos son introducidos los unos a los otros creando conversaciones que impactan su crecimiento y que transforma el mundo que los rodea.

Me capta la atención las reglas de interacción que propone By/Association:

1. No egos.
2. Valora cada conexión.
3. Muestra curiosidad y pasión.
4. Diviértete. Reírse es muy bueno.
5. Asistir a los encuentros establecidos.

Aquí les presento varias ideas de trasfondo sobre el servicio.

Manifesto

“Innovation is an emergent phenomenon that happens when a person or organization fosters interaction between different kinds of people and disparate forms of knowledge.” —Murray Gell-Mann

By/Association seeks to reinvent the traditional notion of “networking” by enabling substantive interactions and long-term relationships.

By/Association is for people who want to make their lives, ideas, and networks richer by meeting other remarkable people. It’s not about getting help with your current need or project. It’s about connecting to people that make you better — to inspire more action, better ideas, and new ways of seeing the world.

The impact you have in your life is shaped by the people you meet. We simply seek to accelerate that process in a powerful, meaningful way.

Connection Theory

Every introduction made through By/Association is intended to foster meaningful long-term growth for our members. The community is organized on a system of “currencies” derived from the concept of “new wealth.” The process is human-driven by our Connectors, who craft introductions from sets of shared and complementary “currencies.” We continually refine ongoing connections through feedback from our members.

Some of what inspires us:

1.New ‘wealth’ - Traditionally, wealth has been based on money, family name, education, etc. But this definition of wealth is exclusionary, and even destructive. We believe that as we move into a conceptual age, the valued currencies around ‘new wealth’ should be based on creativity, innovation, and social benefit.

2.Social Origins of Good Ideas - Ronald S. Burt of University of Chicago explains that “people who live in the intersection of social worlds are at higher risk of having good ideas.” In other words, the more people you know who aren’t just like you, the better chance you have of thinking and behaving differently.

3.The Straddle - Technology should exist as a means to facilitate and enhance real-world interactions, and should not be treated as an end in itself. We believe in networking that is actually social.

4.Better Filters - Communication is now more efficient than at any other point in human history, but forces us to accept irrelevant interactions. Quality still trumps quantity. The movement towards an increasingly fleeting and fragmented world must be balanced by smart filters. And we believe these filters should be ‘human’ in nature.

5.Littlewood’s Law - According to Cambridge University professor J.E. Littlewood, mathematically, individuals can expect a miracle (an exceptional event of special significance) to happen to them at the rate of about one per month. We would like to guarantee those odds for you.

¿Sabias que?

2009-10-21T17:14:00.004-04:00

Curas colaborativas

2009-10-21T15:33:00.004-04:00

¿Alguna vez haz padecido de una condición de salud y luego de una larga búsqueda tu medico y tu han encontrado el tratamiento correcto para alivarte? O padeces de alguna enfermedad a la cual no encuentras cura? Pues no estas solo. Los amigos de CureTogether han creado un espacio colaborativo que ayuda a personas rastrear y comparar data de salud, para entender mejor sus cuerpos, tomar decisiones informadas a cerca de su tratamiento y a la vez contribuir con las investigaciones globales.

Alexandra Carmichael y Daniel Reda lanzaron CureTogether en Julio del 2008 para ayudar a seres conocidos que padecian de dolor cronico. Comenzando con 3 condiciones, el programa de expandio rapidamente a 391 condiciones de salud a peticion de miles de pacientes que han solicitado que sus condiciones sean añadidas a los estudios. Actualmente hay 4,695 personas activamente colaborando en la busqueda de curas. Es un esfuerzo de unificar experiencias. CureTogether creen que en estas expereincia colectivas contienen respuestas que le serviran a millones de personas para sobrepasar sus barreras de salud Esta iniciativa ha sido reconocida por el Mayo Clinic y otorgada el premio iSpot para ideas que transformaran la manera en la que hacemos salud. Dato curiosos, CureTogether es financiado por sus fundadores, inversiones caritativas y no auspicia ni recibe ingresos de esfuerzos promocionales. Un ejemplo creativo e innovador que utiliza la colaboracion como eje central.

La Teoría de la Diversión

2009-10-10T10:57:00.006-04:00

"Life is like a piano... what you get out of it depends on how you play it."

A veces crear cambio en el comportamiento de las demás personas es más simple de lo que pensamos. El equipo creativo de Volkswagen ha creado una campaña dirigida a transformar el comportamiento humano para bien en cualquier escenario. Le han llamado The Fun Theory. Incluso han creado un a competencia llamada el "Fun Theory Award" en la que otorgaran 2,500 Euros para buscar métodos divertidos que promuevan cambio en el comportamiento.

Open Video - Colaboración en medios visuales

2009-10-09T14:55:00.004-04:00

Realmente estamos viviendo momentos excitantes en cuanto a colaboración y cooperación se refiere. Aquí otro ejemplo de los esfuerzos para acortar barreras a la comunicación y al intercambio de ideas y formas de expresión de la comunidad. Me refiero al Open Video Alliance, un consorcio de precursores de los formatos colaborativos como lo son el Information Society Project de Yale Law School, Kaltura, Miro Community, Participatory Culture Foundation, iCommons, Red Hat y Mozilla entre otros. En la coalición se encuentran representadas universidades, organizaciones civiles, empresas e individuos. Es curioso ver que el gran ausente en este tipo de trabajo colaborativo es el sector gubernamental. Más adelante analizaremos esa ausencia.

Por ahora, les presento el vídeo de promoción del primer evento celebrado del 19 al 21 de junio de 2009 en NYU Law School. ¿Y que es esto de Open Video? Pues observe, ¡en 12 lenguajes!

El poder de las metáforas Pt.2

2009-10-09T13:46:00.008-04:00

Continuando con el tema de metáforas, a continuación un vídeo del Prof. George Lakoff que de manera simple explica la relación entre enmarcar ideas, las metáforas y nuestro cerebro. El vídeo sirve antesala a un artículo que presenta los conceptos de las "metaforas primarias" y la teoria de la "mente encarnada" o "embodied mind".

The astonishingly deep effect of primary metaphors in our lives (excerpt)

By Jody Radzik

In 1980, cognitive linguist George Lakoff and philosopher Mark Johnson described the notion of the embodied metaphor in their landmark book, Metaphors We Live By, mapping out the brain’s amazing exaptation of its motor functions into the fundamental units of human cognition. In 1999, they wrote another landmark book, Philosophy In The Flesh, in which they further describe the “embodied mind,” the veritable (and largely cross-cultural) syntax and grammar of human reason, and use the notion to incisively critique a good cross-section of Western philosophy. Now, in 2009, these ideas are beginning to surface in more mainstream media, including a recent article written by Drake Bennett in the Boston Globe.

Metaphors aren’t just how we talk and write, they’re how we think. At some level, we actually do seem to understand temperament as a form of temperature, and we expect people’s personalities to behave accordingly. What’s more, without our body’s instinctive sense for temperature--or position, texture, size, shape, or weight--abstract concepts like kindness and power, difficulty and purpose, and intimacy and importance would simply not make any sense to us. Metaphors like this “don’t invite us to see the world in new and different ways,” says Daniel Casasanto, a cognitive scientist and researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands. “They enable us to understand the world at all.”

An embodied metaphor, or primary metaphor, is a mental reflection of an action or condition of the physical body. For instance, you “engage” “in” a “heated” conversation with your coworker, until you “cut” him “off,” or “short.” In “essence”, there is no “way” to “avoid” “using” an embodied metaphor “in” “communicating” a notion. All human cognition “rests” “on” them like an ocean “on” its seafloor. (That was an example of a descriptive metaphor.) Now, these ideas are beginning to bear fruit in experimental psychology, and the implications of what is being discovered have the potential to reach into almost every aspect of human social life. To whit, very simple physical manipulations can have profound effects on our subsequent cognition.

El poder de las metáforas Pt.1

2009-10-09T12:00:00.006-04:00

Cuando escucho la palabra metáfora, inmediatamente me viene a la mente una gema de película llamada "Il Postino" del año 1994. En éste film italiano, un cartero humilde de una pequeña aldea costanera de Italia descubre el concepto de la metáfora con la ayuda del maestro Pablo Neruda y armado de metáforas sale a la conquista de su amada.

Pero las metáforas no solo nos embriagan de amor, sino que, según hallazgos científicos recientes, son la manera por la cual aprendemos, razonamos y hacemos sentido del mundo que nos rodea. El campo de "Experiential Learning" y de "Outdoor Education" ha sido pionero en el uso de las metáforas como herramienta para presentar y facilitar experiencias de aprendizaje y para reflexionar y transferir estos nuevos conocimientos para crear cambios duraderos en las vidas de los participantes. Autores como Michael Gass, han descrito a profundidad el poder de la metafora la experiencia vivida.

A continuación un articulo que detalla varios de estos experimentos y las implicaciones que estos resultados tienen en nuestro comportamiento.

Thinking literally - The surprising ways that metaphors shape your world.

By Drake Bennett - Boston Globe

WHEN WE SAY someone is a warm person, we do not mean that they are running a fever. When we describe an issue as weighty, we have not actually used a scale to determine this. And when we say a piece of news is hard to swallow, no one assumes we have tried unsuccessfully to eat it.

These phrases are metaphorical--they use concrete objects and qualities to describe abstractions like kindness or importance or difficulty--and we use them and their like so often that we hardly notice them. For most people, metaphor, like simile or synecdoche, is a term inflicted upon them in high school English class: “all the world’s a stage,” “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” Gatsby’s fellow dreamers are “boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” Metaphors are literary creations--good ones help us see the world anew, in fresh and interesting ways, the rest are simply cliches: a test is a piece of cake, a completed task is a load off one’s back, a momentary difficulty is a speed bump.

But whether they’re being deployed by poets, politicians, football coaches, or realtors, metaphors are primarily thought of as tools for talking and writing--out of inspiration or out of laziness, we distill emotions and thoughts into the language of the tangible world. We use metaphors to make sense to one another.

Now, however, a new group of people has started to take an intense interest in metaphors: psychologists. Drawing on philosophy and linguistics, cognitive scientists have begun to see the basic metaphors that we use all the time not just as turns of phrase, but as keys to the structure of thought. By taking these everyday metaphors as literally as possible, psychologists are upending traditional ideas of how we learn, reason, and make sense of the world around us. The result has been a torrent of research testing the links between metaphors and their physical roots, with many of the papers reading as if they were commissioned by Amelia Bedelia, the implacably literal-minded children’s book hero. Researchers have sought to determine whether the temperature of an object in someone’s hands determines how “warm” or “cold” he considers a person he meets, whether the heft of a held object affects how “weighty” people consider topics they are presented with, or whether people think of the powerful as physically more elevated than the less powerful.

What they have found is that, in fact, we do. Metaphors aren’t just how we talk and write, they’re how we think. At some level, we actually do seem to understand temperament as a form of temperature, and we expect people’s personalities to behave accordingly. What’s more, without our body’s instinctive sense for temperature--or position, texture, size, shape, or weight--abstract concepts like kindness and power, difficulty and purpose, and intimacy and importance would simply not make any sense to us. Deep down, we are all Amelia Bedelia.

Metaphors like this “don’t invite us to see the world in new and different ways,” says Daniel Casasanto, a cognitive scientist and researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in the Netherlands. “They enable us to understand the world at all.”

Our instinctive, literal-minded metaphorizing can make us vulnerable to what seem like simple tweaks to our physical environment, with ramifications for everything from how we build polling booths to how we sell cereal. And at a broader level it reveals just how much the human body, in all its particularity, shapes the mind, suggesting that much of what we think of as abstract reasoning is in fact a sometimes awkward piggybacking onto the mental tools we have developed to govern our body’s interactions with its physical environment. Put another way, metaphors reveal the extent to which we think with our bodies.

“The abstract way we think is really grounded in the concrete, bodily world much more than we thought,” says John Bargh, a psychology professor at Yale and leading researcher in this realm.

Philosophers have long wondered about the connection between metaphor and thought, in ways that occasionally presaged current-day research. Friedrich Nietzsche scornfully described human understanding as nothing more than a web of expedient metaphors, stitched together from our shallow impressions of the world. In their ignorance, he charged, people mistake these familiar metaphors, deadened from overuse, for truths. “We believe that we know something about the things themselves when we speak of trees, colors, snow, and flowers,” he wrote, “and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things--metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities.”

Like Nietzsche, George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and Mark Johnson, a philosophy professor at the University of Oregon, see human thought as metaphor-driven. But, in the two greatly influential books they have co-written on the topic, “Metaphors We Live By” in 1980 and “Philosophy in the Flesh” in 1999, Lakoff and Johnson focus on the deadest of dead metaphors, the ones that don’t even rise to the level of cliche. They call them “primary metaphors,” and they group them into categories like “affection is warmth,” “important is big,” “difficulties are burdens,” “similarity is closeness,” “purposes are destinations,” and even “categories are containers.”

Rather than so much clutter standing in the way of true understanding, to Lakoff and Johnson these metaphors are markers of the roots of thought itself. Lakoff and Johnson’s larger argument is that abstract thought would be meaningless without bodily experience. And primary metaphors, in their ubiquity (in English and other languages) and their physicality, are some of their most powerful evidence for this.

“What we’ve discovered in the last 30 years is--surprise, surprise--people think with their brains,” says Lakoff. “And their brains are part of their bodies.”

Inspired by this argument, psychologists have begun to make their way, experiment by experiment, through the catalog of primary metaphors, altering one side of the metaphorical equation to see how it changes the other.

Bargh at Yale, along with Lawrence Williams, now at the University of Colorado, did studies in which subjects were casually asked to hold a cup of either iced or hot coffee, not knowing it was part of the study, then a few minutes later asked to rate the personality of a person who was described to them. The hot coffee group, it turned out, consistently described a warmer person--rating them as happier, more generous, more sociable, good-natured, and more caring--than the iced coffee group. The effect seems to run the other way, too: In a paper published last year, Chen-Bo Zhong and Geoffrey J. Leonardelli of the University of Toronto found that people asked to recall a time when they were ostracized gave lower estimates of room temperature than those who recalled a social inclusion experience.

In a paper in the current issue of Psychological Science, researchers in the Netherlands and Portugal describe a series of studies in which subjects were given clipboards on which to fill out questionnaires--in one study subjects were asked to estimate the value of several foreign currencies, in another they were asked to rate the city of Amsterdam and its mayor. The clipboards, however, were two different weights, and the subjects who took the questionnaire on the heavier clipboards tended to ascribe more metaphorical weight to the questions they were asked--they not only judged the foreign currencies to be more valuable, they gave more careful, considered answers to the questions they were asked.

Similar results have proliferated in recent years. One of the authors of the weight paper, Thomas Schubert, has also done work suggesting that the fact that we associate power and elevation (“your highness,” “friends in high places”) means we actually unconsciously look upward when we think about power. Bargh and Josh Ackerman at MIT’s Sloan School of Business, in work that has yet to be published, have done studies in which subjects, after handling sandpaper-covered puzzle pieces, were less likely to describe a social situation as having gone smoothly. Casasanto has done work in which people who were told to move marbles from a lower tray up to a higher one while recounting a story told happier stories than people moving them down.

Several studies have explored the metaphorical connection between cleanliness and moral purity. In one, subjects who were asked to recall an unethical act, then given the choice between a pencil and an antiseptic wipe, were far more likely to choose the cleansing wipe than people who had been asked to recall an ethical act. In a follow-up study, subjects who recalled an unethical act acted less guilty after washing their hands. The researchers dubbed it the “Macbeth effect,” after the guilt-ridden, compulsive hand washing of Lady Macbeth.

To the extent that metaphors reveal how we think, they also suggest ways that physical manipulation might be used to shape our thought. In essence, that is what much metaphor research entails. And while psychologists have thus far been primarily interested in using such manipulations simply to tease out an observable effect, there’s no reason that they couldn’t be put to other uses as well, by marketers, architects, teachers, parents, and litigators, among others.

A few psychologists have begun to ponder applications. Ackerman, for example, is looking at the impact of perceptions of hardness on our sense of difficulty. The study is ongoing, but he says he is finding that something as simple as sitting on a hard chair makes people think of a task as harder. If those results hold up, he suggests, it might make sense for future treaty negotiators to take a closer look at everything from the desks to the upholstery of the places where they meet. Nils Jostmann, the lead author of the weight study, suggests that pollsters might want to take his findings to heart: heavier clipboards and heavier pens for issues that they want considered answers for, lighter ones for questions that they want gut reactions on.

How much of an effect these tweaks might have in a real-world setting, researchers emphasize, remains to be seen. Still, it probably couldn’t hurt to try a few in your own life. When inviting a new friend over, suggest a cup of hot tea rather than a cold beer. Keep a supply of soft, smooth objects on hand at work--polished pebbles, maybe, or a silk handkerchief--in case things start to feel too daunting. And if you feel a sudden pang of guilt about some long-ago transgression, try taking a shower.

La prueba de tres

2009-10-01T10:47:00.008-04:00

Un día en la antigua Grecia (469-399 BC), un joven filósofo se acerco a su colega Sócrates y le dijo, "¿Sócrates, sabes lo que he escuchado de uno de tus estudiantes?"

El maestro le respondió, "Detente un momento. Antes que me cuentes, me gustaría realizar una simple prueba. Se llama la prueba de tres."

"¿La prueba de tres?" pregunto el joven.

"Eso es correcto" continuó Sócrates. "Antes que hables de mi estudiante vamos a examinar lo que vas a decir. La primera prueba es Verdad. "¿Estas seguro que lo que vienes a decir es absolutamente cierto?".

"No", respondió el joven. "En efecto, lo acabo de escuchar."

"Muy bien." dijo Sócrates. "No sabes con certeza si esta información es cierta o falsa. Ahora hagamos una segunda prueba, la prueba de la Bondad. ¿Lo que me vas a decir sobre mi estudiante es algo bueno?"

El joven, un poco abochornado, se encogió de hombros, como si dijera que no.

Sócrates continuo, "Aun puedes pasar el examen, ya que falta la ultima prueba, la de Utilidad. ¿Lo que me vas a decir sobre mi estudiante es de utilidad para mi?"

"No, realmente no." dijo el joven filosofo.

"Entonces" concluyo Sócrates, "si lo que me vas a decir no es ni cierto, ni bueno, ni siquiera útil, ¿para qué me lo vas a decir?

El joven reflexionando y con un nuevo sentido de vergüenza se mantuvo callado y se alejo.

La próxima vez que alguien venga a donde ti para decir algo acerca de un compañero o colega juega el papel de Sócrates. Si por el contrario, sientes la necesidad de compartir algo de un compañero con otra persona pregúntate a ti mismo estas tres preguntas. Quizás lo que te van a decir o lo que vas a decir no valga la pena comunicar.

Una filosofía más ambale y gentil sobre el éxito

2009-09-30T13:15:00.005-04:00

Una de las ideas más es estudiadas en la psicología de apoderamiento es el concepto del éxito y como los seres humanos definen sus creencias para alcanzarlo. Pero rara vez encontramos un filósofo que nos haga cuestionar las premisas sobre las cuales construimos las estrategias para alcanzar el éxito. Alain De Botton es escritor, filósofo y observador del entorno social. Ha escrito varios libros acerca el amor, viajes, arquitectura y literatura. Su estilo de escritura basado en ensayos ha sido descrita como "filosofía del todos los días". En este vídeo describe elocuentemente la necesidad de un acercamiento más, sensible, amable y gentil hacia el éxito.

Como los otros monos nos perciben

2009-09-30T11:52:00.002-04:00

Los monos...un video para estimular un cambio en nuestra propia percepción.

Estrategias Colaborativas para Manejar y Superar la Crisis

2009-09-26T00:29:00.009-04:00

En el día de hoy 25 de septiembre de 2009, 16,970 personas, muchas de las cuales son mujeres, madres jóvenes y jefes de familia, han sido notificadas de que serán despedidas de su empleo en el servicio público. Las razones para los despidos, los ahorros que generaran al erario público y la emisión de jucio reprochable o en apoyo son temas de discusión con argumentos y debates de parte y parte. Lo que si es claro es que se ha tomado la decisión y que solo el tiempo demostrara el resultado de esta. A estos hay que añadirle los cientos de miles de empleos en la empresa privada que se han eliminado en los pasados meses debido a la crisis económica mundial y los que se eliminaran a raíz de esta decisión y tenemos una situación realmente sin precedente en la historia de nuestra sociedad.

Hace varios meses que los medios de comunicación locales han provisto numerosas sugerencias para afrontar la situación de crisis y desempleo. Es casi una nota diaria, ya sea en radio, televisión o prensa escrita y cibernética, en todo momento hay algún psicólogo, motivador, economista o comediante dando sus consejos y dino-cápsulas de como salir adelante en estos tiempos.

Estoy seguro que estas personas hacen sus sugerencias de manera sincera y con la mejor intención. Pero hay algo en común en el listado de estrategias de éxito que los expertos declaman; Todas son soluciones individuales, como si viviéramos en una jungla y el darwinismo social fuese la única regla de sobre vivencia. Todas se basan en las teorías neo-existencialistas de auto-ayuda, a lo Paulo Coelho, poniendo la totalidad de la responsabilidad (tu escogiste trabajar en el gobierno) y el esfuerzo en el individuo (eres el autor exclusivo de tu propio destino). Como si el haber escogido mi vocación de educador, trabajador social o salubrista haya sido mi error. O peor aun, como todos tenemos el potencial de llegar a ser mega exitosos, si no logras salir de esto es por que eres un fracaso. La realidad es que este reto es sistémico y mucho más complejo. Una receta de comida para el éxito o una sopa de pollo para la depresión no serán suficiente.

Inclusive hay soluciones que profundizan los problemas. Una de las alternativas más recomendadas es establecer su propia empresa. Suena muy alentador, pero (sin entrar en las probabilidades y estadísticas de fracasos en pequeños negocios a los 12 meses de fundación) el libre mercado es uno de competitividad voraz y frió. Por definición habrá perdedores. Es ponerse a competir el uno contra el otro hasta que queden unos pocos sobrevivientes.

Hacen falta propuestas de soluciones colectivas, comunitarias y colaborativas para sobrepasar esta crisis y poder emerger exitosos, más fuertes y hacia un mejor futuro.

Yo no soy guru de auto-ayuda, ni aspiro a serlo. Pero he estado pensando en cosas diferentes, en comunión, que se nutren de la necesidad de interdependencia de las personas. Aquí unas ideas.

1. Buscar alternativas comunitarias a los problemas - Digamos que hay un problema de que muchas madres no podrán costear el cuido de sus bebes e infantes. Pues quizás, la comunidad se puede encargar del cuido de los menores, asignando unas personas para esta tarea, bajando los costos de cuido y proveyendo ingresos a miembros de la comunidad. Si el gasto en alimentos es muy alto, quizás se pueda hacer compras de comida por barrio, calle o comunidad y que se logren reducir los costos de los alimentos al comprar al por mayor. O mejor aun, identificar agricultores, ganaderos, y productores locales que estén dispuestos a vender sus productos a bajos precios a "canastas comunitarias" de alimentación.

2. Conglomerarse en comunidades de intereses comunes - Dicen en el campo que todo río caudaloso fue primero muchas gotas. Nuestra sociedad se ha alejado de ver el valor de estar organizados y unidos. Los pocos ejemplos de esto se han desvirtuado en organizaciones inútiles y centradas en personalismos e intereses individuales sobre los colectivos. Aun así, creo que es buen momento para tener razones claras y tangibles para estar organizados y plantear estrategias colectivas basadas en necesidades comunes. Sí, hay que salir de la casa. Sí, hay que reunirse y conversar, dialogar, conspirar, expresar, manifestar y retar. Retar posturas, visiones y creencias. Retar colectivamente el modo de hacer país, ya que lo que estamos viviendo es resultado de este modo.

3. Lanzarse a empresas con modelos cooperativos y de sociedades - Se trata de ensanchar nuestra idea de como alcanzar el progreso. Sobrepasar el modelo individualista de "él" empresario, visionario, exitoso y talentoso. Movernos de la auto-gestión a la gestión-colectiva. Llegar a la profunda creencia que juntos lograremos más. Estuve leyendo que en el Departamento de Educación habrá sobre 1,000 secretarias y oficinistas desplazadas. Cada una de esas trabajadoras podría ir a competir por los pocos puestos secretariales existentes en la Isla. Pero si se organizaran en una cooperativa, una sociedad comercial o alguna otra estructura legal podrían ofrecer sus servicios en conglomerado a empresas y agencias gubernamentales estadounidenses que enfrentan el gran reto de integrar una población hispana en rápido crecimiento. De igual forma, todos los empleados de mantenimiento, planta física y demás trabajos diestros podrían crear una empresa PPT de servicios de construcción liviana y remodelación (que le digo por experiencia escasean los trabajadores responsables y honestos en esta industria). En fin, revisar el banco de talento no solo personal, pero colectivo y construir sobre nuestras fortalezas.

Estoy seguro que las ideas y oportunidades de actuar colectivamente ante esta crisis abundan y van mucho más allá de mi imaginación. Tengo que confesar, que aunque llevo la mayor parte de mi vida explorando maneras de unificar esfuerzos y fomentar la colaboración entre individuos, sigo siendo producto de este modo de país y por consecuencia tengo limitaciones estructurales de formación que me impiden ver más soluciones en este momento. Aun así, creo pertinente explorar soluciones en países vecinos y otros no tan cercanos que han pasado por situaciones similares o más severas y de manera colaborativa, compartir con estos estrategias comunitarias a las crisis.

A los cerca de 17,000 trabajadores mi más genuino y honesto respeto, aprecio y solidaridad. Les invito a explorar conmigo soluciones comunitarias y sepan que no importa lo solitario que parezca el camino, existen oportunidades para colaborar.

Karel A. Hilversum M.Ed.

El autor es científico social, educador y facilitador de procesos de integración y colaboración de grupos y equipos en organizaciones, corporaciones y grupos comunitarios.

El rey del Hip Hop invierte en Liderazgo

2009-09-20T23:00:00.010-04:00

Russell Simmons es mogul del Hip Hop, empresario afro-americano, escritor, creador de conversaciones culturales, y filántropo. Uno de sus proyectos es la creacion del African Leadership Academy. Fundada en septiembre de 2008, el ALA une a jóvenes talentosos de 16 a 19 años de 54 naciones africanas en un programa innovador de 2 años de duración. El programa aspira a preparar y edificar a estos jóvenes en los futuros lideres del continente. A continuación una transcripción de una entrada hecha por Simmons en su portal Global Grind - El Mundo de acuerdo al Hip Hop (me encanta esta presunción de perspectiva!)

Scratching the Surface in South Africa

Russell Simmons

A few years ago, I founded the Diamond Empowerment Fund (D.E.F.) (www.diamondempowerment.org) to raise support of education initiatives in African nations where diamonds are a natural resource. Most people that know about D.E.F. think of the Simmons Jewelry Co's Green Bracelet, the symbol of our cause worn by many celebrities, athletes, and a few politicians. That's great, and every time I see someone wearing it I am happy to know it's out there getting seen and making a difference.

But sometimes even I forget how important the cause is since there are so many needs in the world, not to mention in Africa. D.E.F. is supporting two programs - CIDA City Campus and African Leadership Academy - both based in Johannesburg, South Africa. CIDA is the first virtually free business college in South Africa with almost 1000 students from very difficult circumstances and most coming from extreme poverty. African Leadership Academy is based in South Africa, but has set its sights on transforming the continent by helping talented and driven students from throughout Africa get the top education that will help them fulfill the promise of their God-given talents by getting a world-class education.

Plain and simple, both of these programs are about access to resources. I promise you - you will be hard pressed to find young people who are as focused, determined, and grateful for opportunity as the students of CIDA and ALA. They deserve to be able to get an education and chase their dreams with a chance of catching them. Read this important report from the NY Times which gives us some insight into the challenges and opportunities for South African youth. Reminds me we are just scratching the surface.

-Russell

Mapas Mentales y 'Brainstorming" en Equipo

2009-09-18T15:43:00.003-04:00

Los mapas mentales son un tremendo recurso para organizar y tener presentes todos los conocimientos y eventos necesarios para el desempeño diario. Es una excelente herramienta para la planificacion, colaboracion, plasmar nuevas relaciones de conocimiento o crear una imagen de conceptos y relaciones complejas. Hace muchos años que llevo utilizandolos como herramienta primordial personal y profesional ya que mi estilo preferido de interpretar el mundo es el visual. Recientemente me tope (gracias a mi gran amigo Victor) con esta nueva technologia llamada XMind que permite de manera facil crear mapas mentales de una calidad impresionante. Quizas lo mas importante e innovador de XMind y lo que lo distingue de otros programas similares es la integracion de conceptos de Web 2.0 como "community sharing", su plataforma open source de acceso gratuito y la capacidad de compartir mapas con otros mediante blogs y otras plataformas. A continuacion un video explicativo del programa. Espero que esta herramienmta nos sirva para integrarnos y acercarnos mas.

Google Wave - Una nueva conversacion en colaboracion virtual

2009-09-14T16:40:00.006-04:00

Los genios de Google nuevamente han salido de la manada y han creado una herramienta de comunicacion y colaboracion llamada Google Wave. Integra un sin numero de herramientas existentes como la idea de chat, e-mail, documentos compatrtidos y los han llevado a conversaciones "real time" integradas. Adicional estan lanzandolo codigo abierto para que el mundo lo pueda utilizar, transformar y modificar, exponiendolo al increible potencial de la comunidad. El video es del lanzamiento de la aplicacion. Tiene una duracion aproximada de hora y media, pero garantizo que les va a estimular la imaginacion radicalmente, especialmente el traductor "real time" de 40 lenguajes!!! Ya no hay barreras de comunicacion entre culturas!!!!! Definitivamente el trabajo en equuipo y la colaboracion ha alcanzado un nuevo nivel.

Liderazgo en momentos de crisis

2009-09-11T13:46:00.010-04:00

A 8 años del acto terrorista, quisiera compartir una lectura simple que resume las actuaciones de un líder en el momento de crisis.

Adicional a esto, creo que una buena manera de recordar es escuchar las diversas perspectivas de ese momento de varios escritores y estudiosos del tema de liderazgo grabadas justo diís luego del 11 de septiembre de 2001. El listado incluye impresiones de Ken Blanchard, Marshall Goldsmith, Tom Peters, Stephen Covey y otros. Visiten http://www.masie.com/perspectives/.

9/11 Leadership Lessons

Jeff Janssen, Janssen Sports Leadership Center

FOUR STEPS FOR CRISIS LEADERSHIP

On September 11, 2001 we witnessed both the destructive power of evil leadership and the resilient power of heroic leadership by FDNY, NYPD, and countless others.

One figure who stands tall as an example of effective leadership during the crisis is former New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani.

Regardless of your current political leanings, Guiliani's leadership during the 9/11 tragedy is something leaders from all walks of life can learn from.

In his book titled Leadership, Giuliani writes, "It is in times of crisis that good leaders emerge."

Giuliani demonstrated that during times of crisis, leaders must do four critical things: be highly visible, composed, vocal, and resilient.

BE VISIBLE

Giuliani writes, "While mayor, I made it my policy to see with my own eyes the scene of every crisis so I could evaluate it firsthand."

During a crisis, leaders must be out front rather than running or hiding from the ordeal. They must go to the scene of disaster and stand front and center - to accurately assess the situation as well as show their concern, while also demonstrating confidence that the group will persevere.

Business author Tom Peters writes of Guiliani's courage to be visible: Rudy "showed up" - when it really mattered, on 9/11. As one wag put it, he went from being a lameduck, philandering husband to being Time magazine's "Man of the Year" in 111 days. How? Not through any "strategy," well-thought-out or otherwise. But by showing his face. By standing as the embodiment of Manhattan's Indomitable Spirit.

As a leader, be sure you don't retreat when faced with a crisis. Rather than hide from the chaos and confusion, be sure to step in to sort things out and find a solution.

Again, political preferences aside, the importance of being visible during a crisis can also be learned from George W. Bush's presidency. Like Giuliani, Americans rallied around President Bush when he went to Ground Zero and grabbed a bullhorn amid the rubble to reassure the nation.

Contrast that with President Bush's lack of a timely response to Hurricane Katrina. Bush was noticeably absent during the first few days of the crisis and his poll numbers took a big hit.

Bottom Line: Step up during a crisis to survey the scene and be there for your people.

BE COMPOSED

Guiliani writes: "Leaders have to control their emotions under pressure. Much of your ability to get people to do what they have to do is going to depend on what they perceive when they look at you and listen to you. They need to see someone who is stronger than they are, but human, too."

No matter how difficult things may seem, you must maintain your poise under pressure. People will be looking to your face as well as tuning into the tone of your voice to determine whether they should panic or remain calm; to give in or maintain hope.

As Duke men's basketball coach reminds us in his book Leading with the Heart, "A leader must show the face his team needs to see."

Bottom Line: Be sure to show your team that you are calm and in control, even though you may not exactly feel that way at the time. Your calm demeanor will go a long way toward helping your team think clearly and react appropriately during the crisis.

BE VOCAL

Giuliani writes, "I had to communicate with the public, to do whatever I could to calm people down and contribute to a orderly and safe evacuation [of lower Manhattan.]"

In addition to being visible and composed, leaders must step up in an effort to calm people down and communicate with them.

Bottom Line: You must speak up and take charge of what people are thinking and feeling at the time. You must reassure them and give them a simple yet specific plan that will get people through the crisis. Outline important action steps that they can take immediately to help themselves and the team.

BE RESILIENT

As difficult as the crisis can seem, remind people that there is hope.

Giuliani writes: "I am an optimist by nature. I think things will get better, that the good people of America and New York City will overcome any challenge thrown our way. So in the face of this overwhelming disaster, standing amid sixteen acres of smoldering ruins, I felt a mixture of disbelief and confidence... that Americans would rise to this challenge."

While your athletic challenges pale in comparison to 9/11, they can still discourage, distract, and debilitate those on your team.

Bottom Line: Give your team a sense of hope. Let them know that they have the ability to make it through the crisis.

Crecimiento Post-Traumatico

2009-09-09T15:24:00.018-04:00

Post-Traumatic Gowth

Tony Robbins July 14, 2009

We have all heard of post-traumatic stress syndrome. We have studied how human beings deal with and react to extreme stressors they encounter in their lives: war, attack, financial ruin, illness, death. There are thousands of tragedies and crises that can produce extreme stress in human beings. But very few people have actually studied how people respond to stress in a positive way. There is something called post-traumatic growth. You can have amazing personal growth come out of extremely stressful situations. And that's what I talk to people about. When you face extreme stress you have a couple of options. One positive option is to face that stress, do something and try to deal with that problem in your life. Reappraise your life. Decide that you "have to look at life differently." It's the proactive approach.

Three benefits of extreme stress:

You Discover what you are made of. You come to realize that you are stronger than you ever dreamed. Your sense of what you are capable of shifts and becomes an "inmune system" that allows you to face other challenges in your future more easily.

It deepens all of your relationships. You get to find out who your real friends are. The depth and the appreciation of those friendships is extraordinary. When you experience an extreme stressor and you aren't able to give everyone everything they want, your fair weather friends disapear. Remember, what truly make people most happy is their internal emotional and social relationships.

Changes your consciousness. When things are going well we keep expecting things to keep going well. It puts a different perspective on your life. You value the little things in life more.

People who face extreme stress, instead of hiding from it, can experience benefits. We are all stronger than we think we are. Winter doesn't last forever and what follows is a beautiful springtime. If you remember that, you can go to work and focus on what you can do to change your life, change your perspective, rather than denying it or living in fear.

¿Que significa ser Humano?

2009-09-09T12:24:00.008-04:00

Algunas de las mentes mas talentosas del mundo se reunen en una conversacion exquisita sobre lo que significa ser Humano. Es impresionante entender las diferentes perspectivas, tomando en cuenta la gran diversidad de areas de estudio de este grupo compuesto por Biologos, Filosofos, Neurocientificos, Antropologos, Geneticistas, Sociologos, Ingenieros de Computacion y Fisicos. Realmente una oportunidad unica de ampliar nuestra percepcion y acercarnos a entender nuestro estado de humanidad.

WDYDWYD?

2009-09-07T11:56:00.008-04:00

Why Do You Do What You Do? Esa es la pregunta que le hizo un niño de 12 años a Tony Deifell (foto) una noche en 1999. Pregunta profunda, que nos lleva a reflexionar diariamente sobre nuestro sentido de proposito y razon de ser.

Tony decidio hacer esa misma pregunta a otras personas creando un proyecto artistico-comunitario a nivel global combinando imagenes y texto en maneras creativas. Desde entonces cerca de 3,000 imagenes respondiendo a esta pregunta han sido posteadas en el site de wdydwyd?

Y tu, ¿Por que haces lo que haces?

Moon Ball

2009-09-04T15:23:00.007-04:00

Uno de los primeros juegos cooperativos que aprendi cuando era joven es "Moon Ball" o Bola Lunar. El objetivo del juego es tratar de mantener una bola de playa grande en el aire por el mayor tiempo posible sin que las personas hagan dos toques corridos. Bola Lunar es muy divertido y requiere una buena planificacion y gran coordinacion. Hay muchas variantes de este juego; ¿Que piensas de esta?

Signs

2009-09-04T14:37:00.009-04:00

Solos una gota; Juntos un diluvio

2009-09-04T13:23:00.004-04:00

¡Impresionante! La próxima vez que llueva, sal y mójate....

Escala Pentatónica

2009-09-04T13:09:00.005-04:00

Hace años que Bobby McFerrin maravilla al mundo con su genialidad. Ha grabado muchisimos discos entre ellos con estrellas como Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, con Yo-Yo Ma y muchos otros. Ha hecho jazz, se codea con los clásicos, ha ganado varios premios Grammy, y nos ha tenido tarareando "Don’t Worry, Be Happy" a muchos, muchas veces. Esta vez nos demuestra que la música tiene un lenguaje universal. Son tres minutos de sorpresa y genialidad.

La neblina del dia a dia

2009-09-03T12:17:00.010-04:00

Este artículo me puso a pensar en lo necesario que es tener una buena perspectiva de las cosas....

My Brain on Chemo: Alive and Alert
By Dan Barry. Published: August 31, 2009

Within the chemotherapy alumni corps there exists a mutual respect not unlike the bond shared by veterans of war. Sometimes that respect is silently conveyed; not everyone wants to talk about it. And sometimes it is shared in the shorthand of the battle-hardened.

Where? Esophagus. Who? Sloan-Kettering. What kind? Cisplatin, fluorouracil, Drano, Borax ... . Side effects? The usual: nausea, vomiting, hair loss. And the toes are still numb.

Yeah.

At this point the two chemo alums may begin to sense a phantom metallic taste at the back of their throat, a taste sometimes prompted by the intravenous infusion of the corrosive chemicals intended to save their lives. A strong drink might be in order; maybe two.

With that first, taste-altering sip, the two might begin to discuss another side effect that has received attention lately, the one rudely called “chemo brain”: the cognitive fogginess that some patients experience after completing their regimen. That fogginess does not always completely lift, and oncologists are now taking seriously what they might once have dismissed as a complaint rooted in advanced age or cancer fatigue.

For me, reading about chemo brain has resurrected that faint taste of metal. I underwent chemotherapy in 1999 and again in 2004, thanks to a profoundly unwelcome recurrence. Depending on one’s perspective, I was both unfortunate and fortunate. Unfortunate in that I endured all the concomitant fears and indignities, twice. Fortunate in that I had the option of chemotherapy, twice. Not all cancers respond; not everyone is so lucky.

I experienced all the typical side effects. Nausea: for several days at a time, though vomiting sometimes broke the monotony. Hair loss: I was balding anyway, so chemo saved me from comb-over delusions. Neuropathy: even now, my toes feel as if they were wrapped in cotton.

And, I now think, chemo brain — but a form that seems to be the common definition’s opposite. My self-diagnosis is that I had a pre-existing case of fogginess that lifted during and immediately after my chemotherapy regimen: I suddenly experienced acute clarity. Then, as the effects and memory of chemotherapy faded, my confusion returned. Twice.

In 1999, before the diagnosis of cancer and the prognosis of let’s hope for the best, I was enveloped in the haze of the everyday. Rather than rejoicing in a loving wife, a daughter not yet 2, a job I enjoyed — in being, simply, 41 — I created felonies out of matters not worth a summons. Traffic jams. Work conflicts. No Vienna Fingers in the cupboard. Felonies all.

Cancer, as is often said, tends to focus the mind. But my diagnosis hovered in the theoretical until the moment I began the first of six rounds of chemotherapy, each one requiring a five-day hospital stay. The nurse hung bags of clear, innocent-looking liquid from an IV pole, found a plump vein along my right arm — and the fog slowly lifted.

Sickened by the mere smell of food, I suddenly saw the wonder in the most common foods: an egg, a hard-boiled egg. Imprisoned and essentially chained to an IV pole, I would stare out my hospital room window at the people below, and feel a rush of the purest envy for their routine pursuits. Imagining the summer night air blowing cool through sweat-dampened shirts, I’d think how good a $3 ice cream would taste right about now, or a $5 beer, and how nice it would be to watch a baseball game of no consequence.

Men acting like boys, hitting, throwing, running on grass. I used to play baseball. In the morning, after urinating away the remnants of poisons pumped into me, I would roll my IV-pole partner back to the window and study again the people below, moving, hustling, ambling, to jobs, to appointments, to a diner, maybe, for one of the fried-egg sandwiches served countless times every morning in Manhattan.

Gradually, from midsummer to late fall, the chemotherapy transformed me into a bald guy whose pallor was offset only by the hint of terror in his eyes. But the chemo also wiped away the muddle, revealing the world in all its mundane glory. I won’t tell you that I wept at the sight of a puppy. But I did linger over my sleeping daughter to watch her tiny chest rise and fall. I did savor the complexities of a simple olive. I did notice fireflies, those dancing night sparks I had long ago stopped seeing.

After the chemotherapy, radiation and a few weeks to allow things to settle down, as my doctor put it, I was declared “clean” in February 2000. Never again, I vowed, would I take these simple things for granted. I was blind, but now I see.

The fog, of course, returned as the effects and memory of chemo faded, no matter that my wife and I were now blessed with two daughters. How I hated traffic jams. And the Vienna Fingers! Who ate the last Vienna Finger?

Then, in the late spring of 2004, probably while I was railing about something eminently unimportant, my cancer impolitely returned. Once again I felt the frigid breath of mortality at my neck. I also felt like a fool. What is the use of surviving cancer if you don’t learn from it? Are improved by it? Am I so thick that I need to receive the life-is-precious message twice?

I returned to Sloan-Kettering for more chemotherapy and more of the same side effects — including my own manifestation of chemo brain. Fog lifted, world revealed.

After the chemotherapy came major surgery, which provided the exclamation point to whatever chemo was trying to tell me. Once again I was declared clean. And this time, by God! This time!

I became a walking platitude, telling friends without a trace of irony to live every day as though it were their last. Because, man, I’ve been there. And if I weren’t so repressed I’d give you a hug.

Slowly, insidiously, the fog of the everyday has returned to enshroud me. It came in wispy strips, a little more, then a little more, wrapping me like a mummy. Just the other day, in the car with my wife and my two daughters, I began railing about being stuck in a traffic jam.

Perspective, my wife said. Perspective.

I could not hear her. You see, I’m struggling with this pre-existing human condition.

Dan Barry writes the “This Land” column in The New York Times.

Nueva Perspectiva Economica para Puerto Rico

2005-08-31T06:53:00.001-04:00

Para el mes de noviembre 2005 estara disponible un nuevo libro sobre la economia de nuestra Isla titulado The Economy of Puerto Rico: Restoring Growth de los autores Susan M. Collins, Barry Bosworth, and Miguel A. Soto-Class, eds.. Este es un trabajo en conjunto realizado por el think tank de The Brookings Institution en el cual colaboran sobre 30 investigadores de sobre 17 instituciones academicas entre ellas la Universidad de Puerto Rico, Harvard University, Columbia University, Princeton University y Duke University.

Dejanos saber que opinas...

Como Lance ve el mundo.

2005-08-09T19:43:00.002-04:00

Recientemente Lance Armstrong se convirtio en el unico ser humano en ganar 7 Tour de France. ¿Que tiene Lance que los demas no tienen? Aqui unas citas que nos brindan luz sobre sus creencias y manera de ver el mundo.

"Yellow wakes me up in the morning. Yellow gets me on the bike every day. Yellow has taught me the true meaning of sacrifice. Yellow makes me suffer. Yellow is the reason I'm here."

"I believed in belief, for its own shining sake. To believe in the face of utter hopelessness, every article of evidence to the contrary, to ignore apparent catastrophe-what other choice was there? We do it every day, I realized. We are so much stronger than we imagine, and belief is one of the most valiant and long-lived human characteristics. To believe, when all along we humans know that nothing can cure the briefness of this life, that there is no remedy for our basic mortality, that is a form of bravery." "To continue believing in yourself, believing in the doctors, believing in the treatment, believing in whatever I chose to believe in, that was the most important thing, I decided. It had to be." "Without belief, we would be left with nothing but an overwhelming doom, every single day. And it will beat you. I didn't fully see, until the cancer, how we fight every day against the creeping negatives of the world, how we struggle daily against the slow lapping of cynicism. Dispiritedness and disappointment, these are the real perils of life, not some sudden illness or cataclysmic millennium doomsday. I knew now why people fear cancer: because it is a slow and inevitable death, it is the very definition of cynicism and loss of spirit... So, I believed."

"But the fact is that I wouldn't have won even a single Tour de France without the lesson of illness. What it teaches is this: Pain is temporary. Quitting lasts forever."

"Cancer is my secret because none of my rivals has been that close to death and it makes you look at the world in a different light and that is a huge advantage."

"I had learned what it means to ride in the Tour de France. It's not about the bike. It's a metaphor for life, not only the longest race in the world but also the most exalting and heartbreaking and potentially tragic. It poses every conceivable element to the rider and more. During our lives we're faced with so many elements as well, we experience so many setbacks, and fight such a hand-to-hand battle with failure, head down in the rain, just trying to stay upright and have a little hope. The Tour isn't just a bike race, it tests you mentally, physically, and even morally."

Dejanos saber que opinas...

Saludos a nuestra gente!

2005-08-09T18:25:00.000-04:00

Hoy comenzamos a usar esta nueva tecnologia para mantenernos conectados con ustedes de manera rapida, fresca y facil. Mas que un espacio para la promocion de nuestra empresa, deseamos crear un espacio en el que se puedan crear conversaciones de transformacion personal, grupal y comunitaria. Gracias Fernando Flores!!!!!