16.11.19 11:14최종 업데이트 16.11.19 11:19 김종성(wanderingpoet)
© 2016 OhmyNews
| 안철수가 노무현에게 배워야 할 한 가지 (1) | 2016.03.08 |
|---|---|
| 기어코 막 내리는 필리버스터 이제 더민주는 뭘 보여줄 것인가 (0) | 2016.03.08 |
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
 | |
| ▲ 야권통합 제안에 다른 생각하는 안철수-김한길 국민의당 안철수 공동대표와 김한길 상임선대위원장이 4일 오전 서울 여의도 당사에서 열린 선대위 회의에 참석하고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 유성호 | |
| 뉴스룸의 기막힌 의도, 청와대 상대하려면 이정도는 돼야 (0) | 2016.11.19 |
|---|---|
| 기어코 막 내리는 필리버스터 이제 더민주는 뭘 보여줄 것인가 (0) | 2016.03.08 |
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
 | |
| ▲ 국회의장에 의해 직권상정된 테러방지법을 막기 위한 야당의원들의 무제한토론(필리버스터) 8일째인 1일 오후 여의도 국회에서 필리버스터 중단 여부를 논의하기 위한 더불어민주당 의원총회에 김종인 대표, 이종걸 원내대표가 참석해 국기에 대한 경례를 하고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 권우성 | |
 | |
| ▲ 국회의장에 의해 직권상정된 테러방지법을 막기 위한 야당의원들의 무제한토론(필리버스터) 8일째인 1일 오후 여의도 국회에서 필리버스터 중단 여부를 논의하기 위한 더불어민주당 의원총회에 참석하기 위해 김종인 대표가 도착하고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 권우성 | |
 | |
| ▲ 국회의장에 의해 직권상정된 테러방지법을 막기 위한 야당의원들의 무제한토론(필리버스터) 8일째인 1일 오후 여의도 국회에서 필리버스터 중단 여부를 논의하기 위해 열리는 더불어민주당 의원총회에 이종걸 원내대표가 참석해 회의 시작을 기다리고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 권우성 | |
 | |
| ▲ 국회의장에 의해 직권상정된 테러방지법을 막기 위한 야당의원들의 무제한토론(필리버스터) 8일째인 1일 오후 여의도 국회에서 필리버스터 중단 여부를 논의하기 위한 더불어민주당 의원총회가 김종인 대표, 이종걸 원내대표 등이 참석한 가운데 열리고 있다. | |
| ⓒ 권우성 | |
| 뉴스룸의 기막힌 의도, 청와대 상대하려면 이정도는 돼야 (0) | 2016.11.19 |
|---|---|
| 안철수가 노무현에게 배워야 할 한 가지 (1) | 2016.03.08 |
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
It’s lonely at the top, and being one of the rarest and most strategically capable personality types, INTJs know this all too well. INTJs form just two percent of the population, and women of this personality type are especially rare, forming just 0.8% of the population – it is often a challenge for them to find like-minded individuals who are able to keep up with their relentless intellectualism and chess-like maneuvering. People with the INTJ personality type are imaginative yet decisive, ambitious yet private, amazingly curious, but they do not squander their energy.
With a natural thirst for knowledge that shows itself early in life, INTJs are often given the title of “bookworm” as children. While this may be intended as an insult by their peers, they more than likely identify with it and are even proud of it, greatly enjoying their broad and deep body of knowledge. INTJs enjoy sharing what they know as well, confident in their mastery of their chosen subjects, but owing to their Intuitive (N) and Judging (J) traits, they prefer to design and execute a brilliant plan within their field rather than share opinions on “uninteresting” distractions like gossip.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
A paradox to most observers, INTJs are able to live by glaring contradictions that nonetheless make perfect sense – at least from a purely rational perspective. For example, INTJs are simultaneously the most starry-eyed idealists and the bitterest of cynics, a seemingly impossible conflict. But this is because INTJ types tend to believe that with effort, intelligence and consideration, nothing is impossible, while at the same time they believe that people are too lazy, short-sighted or self-serving to actually achieve those fantastic results. Yet that cynical view of reality is unlikely to stop an interested INTJ from achieving a result they believe to be relevant.
INTJs radiate self-confidence and an aura of mystery, and their insightful observations, original ideas and formidable logic enable them to push change through with sheer willpower and force of personality. At times it will seem that INTJs are bent on deconstructing and rebuilding every idea and system they come into contact with, employing a sense of perfectionism and even morality to this work. Anyone who doesn’t have the talent to keep up with INTJs’ processes, or worse yet, doesn’t see the point of them, is likely to immediately and permanently lose their respect.
This isn’t to be misunderstood as impulsiveness – INTJs will strive to remain rational no matter how attractive the end goal may be, and every idea, whether generated internally or soaked in from the outside world, must pass the ruthless and ever-present “Is this going to work?” filter. This mechanism is applied at all times, to all things and all people, and this is often where INTJ personality types run into trouble.
INTJs are brilliant and confident in bodies of knowledge they have taken the time to understand, but unfortunately the social contract is unlikely to be one of those subjects. White lies and small talk are hard enough as it is for a type that craves truth and depth, but INTJs may go so far as to see many social conventions as downright stupid. Ironically, it is often best for them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight – where the natural confidence prevalent in INTJs as they work with the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people, romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and interests.
INTJs are defined by their tendency to move through life as though it were a giant chess board, pieces constantly shifting with consideration and intelligence, always assessing new tactics, strategies and contingency plans, constantly outmaneuvering their peers in order to maintain control of a situation while maximizing their freedom to move about. This isn’t meant to suggest that INTJs act without conscience, but to many Feeling (F) types, INTJs’ distaste for acting on emotion can make it seem that way, and it explains why many fictional villains (and misunderstood heroes) are modeled on this personality type.
INTJs are defined by their confidence, logic, and exceptional decision-making, but all of this hides a turbulent underbelly – their emotions. The very notion of emotional expression is synonymous with irrationality and weakness to many INTJs, a display of poor self-governance and fleeting opinion that can hardly stand up to the enduring light of factual truth.
People with the INTJ personality type take pride in remaining rational and logical at all times, considering honesty and straightforward information to be paramount to euphemisms and platitudes in almost all circumstances. In many ways though, these qualities of coolness and detachment aren't the weapons of truth that they appear to be, but are instead shields designed to protect the inner emotions that INTJs feel. In fact, because their emotions are such an underdeveloped tool, INTJs often feel them more strongly than many overtly emotional types because they simply haven't learned how to control them effectively.
This is a challenging paradigm for INTJs to manage, especially younger and more Turbulent types who are already less confident than they would like to appear. These feelings are contrary to INTJs' idea of themselves as paragons of logic and knowledge, and they may go so far as to claim they have no emotions at all. This does not mean that people with the INTJ personality type should be seen as, nor should they aspire to be, cold-blooded and insensitive geniuses living by the mantra that emotions are for the weak. INTJs must understand that this isn't the case, and isn't ever going to be.
More mature and Assertive INTJs find more useful ways to manage their feelings. While they will never be comfortable with a truly public display of emotions, INTJs can learn to use them, to channel them alongside their logic to help them achieve their goals. While seemingly contradictory, this can be done in several ways.
Firstly, INTJs are goal-oriented, with long-term ideas founded on sound logic. When something does cause an emotional reaction, good or bad, that energy can be used to further those goals, aiding rational and pre-determined plans. Secondly, emotions are figurative canaries in the coal mine, indicating that something is off even though logic can't see it yet. These feelings can help INTJs to use their logic to ask questions they may not have thought to ask. "This is upsetting. Why? What can be done to resolve it?"
In this way, emotions are not INTJs' way of addressing a decision, but rather an indication that a decision needs to be addressed. INTJ personalities' Thinking (T) trait acts as a protective big brother to their Feeling (F) trait – seeing that something has upset the less able sibling, it steps in to take action, letting logic do the talking and resolving the condition rather than complaining about its consequences.
There comes a time though, when logic is simply the wrong tool for the job, when there just isn't a rational solution to a problem, and it is in these situations that INTJs must use their Feeling (F) trait most clearly. INTJs would do well to practice this from time to time, or at least be aware of it, because however they may try, it is impossible to truly separate emotion from the decision-making process. The fact is that INTJs do feel, and deeply, and this makes them better, not worse.
In romance, people with the INTJ personality type approach things the way they do with most situations: they compose a series of calculated actions with a predicted and desirable end goal – a healthy long-term relationship. Rather than falling head over heels in a whirlwind of passion and romance, INTJs identify potential partners who meet a certain range of pre-determined criteria, break the dating process down into a series of measurable milestones, then proceed to execute the plan with clinical precision.
In a purely rational world, this is a fool-proof methodology – but in reality, it ignores significant details that INTJs are likely to dismiss prematurely, such as human nature. INTJs are brilliantly intellectual, developing a world in their heads that is more perfect than reality. People entering this world need to fit this fantasy, and it can be incredibly difficult for INTJs to find someone up to the task. Needless to say, finding a compatible partner is the most significant challenge most INTJs will face in life.
Sentiment, tradition, and emotion are INTJs' Achilles Heel. Social standards like chivalry are viewed by INTJs as silly, even demeaning. The problem is, these standards have developed as a means of smoothing introductions and developing rapport, of managing expectations, the basis of personal relationships. INTJs' propensity for frank honesty in word and action tends to violate this social contract, making dating especially difficult for them.
As they mature, INTJs will come to recognize these factors as relevant, incorporating pace and emotional availability into their plans. But the meantime can be dangerous, especially for more Turbulent INTJs – if they are shot down too many times they may come to the conclusion that everyone else is simply too irrational, or simply beneath them intellectually. If cynicism takes hold, INTJs may end up falling into the trap of intentionally displaying intellectual arrogance, making solitude their choice rather than happenstance.
The positive side of INTJs' “giving up” is that they are most attractive when they aren't trying to be attractive, working in a familiar environment where their confidence and intelligence can be seen in action. Allowing others to come to them is often INTJs' best strategy, and if they perceive a potential to the relationship, they will spare no effort in developing and maintaining stability and long-term satisfaction.
As their relationships develop, INTJs' partners will find an imaginative and enthusiastic companion, who will share their world and at the same time grant a huge degree of independence and trust. While INTJs may never be fully comfortable expressing their feelings, and may spend more time theorizing about intimacy than engaging in it, they can always be relied upon to think out a mutually beneficial solution to any situation.
But when it comes to emotional satisfaction, INTJs are simply out of their element. Not every partner has the sort of fun INTJs do in addressing conflicts and emotional needs as puzzles to be analyzed and solved. Sometimes emotions need to be expressed for their own sake, and putting every outburst under the microscope isn't always helpful. If this becomes habit, or INTJs think it may, they are capable of simply ending the relationship, rather than dragging things out.
INTJs are bewilderingly deep and intelligent people, bringing stability and insight into their romantic relationships. They prize honest, open communication, and all factors of the relationship are open to discussion and change, but this must be reciprocated. INTJs do what they think is right, and sometimes that comes across as cold – it's important to know that INTJs don't make these decisions lightly. They spend a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to understand why and how things go wrong, especially if they've devoted themselves to the relationship, and they certainly hurt deeply when things fall apart.
The challenge is finding partners who share those same values – though Intuitive (N) types are uncommon, they may be a must for many INTJs, as sharing this trait creates an immediate sense of mutual belonging. Having one or two balancing traits, such as Extraversion (E), Feeling (F), or Prospecting (P) can help to keep a relationship dynamic and growth-oriented by keeping INTJs involved with other people, in touch with their emotions, and open to alternate potentials.
People with the INTJ personality type tend to have more success in developing friendships than they do with romantic relationships, but they none-the-less suffer from many of the same setbacks, substituting rational processes for emotional availability. This intellectual distance tends to go both ways, making INTJs notoriously difficult to read and get to know, and making INTJs not want to bother reading anyone they think isn't on their level. Overcoming these hurdles is often all but impossible without the sort of instant connection made possible by sharing the Intuitive (N) trait.
INTJs tend to have set opinions about what works, what doesn't, what they're looking for, and what they're not. These discriminating tastes can come across as arrogant, but INTJs would simply argue that it's a basic filtering mechanism that allows them to direct their attentions where they will do the most good. The fact is that in friendship, INTJs are looking for more of an intellectual soul mate than anything else, and those that aren't prepared for that kind of relationship are simply boring. INTJs need to share ideas – a self-feeding circle of gossip about mutual friends is no kind of social life for them.
Further, having more than just a few friends would compromise INTJs' sense of independence and self-sufficiency – they gladly give up social validation to ensure this freedom. INTJs embrace this idea even with those who do fit into their social construct, requiring little attention or maintenance to remain on good terms, and encouraging that same independence in their friends.
When it comes to emotional support, INTJs are far from being a bastion of comfort. They actively suppress their own emotions with shields of rationality and logic, and expect their friends to do the same. When emotionally charged situations do come about, INTJs may literally have no clue how to handle them appropriately, a glaring contrast from their usual capacity for decisive self-direction and composure.
When they are in their comfort zone though, among people they know and respect, INTJs have no trouble relaxing and enjoying themselves. Their sarcasm and dark humor are not for the faint of heart, nor for those who struggle to read between the lines, but they make for fantastic story-telling among those who can keep up. This more or less limits their pool of friends to fellow Analysts (NT) and Diplomat (NF) types, as Observant (S) types' preference for more straightforward communication often simply leaves both parties frustrated.
It's not easy to become good friends with INTJs. Rather than traditional rules of social conduct or shared routine, INTJs have exacting expectations for intellectual prowess, uncompromising honesty and a mutual desire to grow and learn as sovereign individuals. INTJs are gifted, bright and development-oriented, and expect and encourage their friends to share this attitude. Anyone falling short of this will be labeled a bore – anyone meeting these expectations will appreciate them of their own accord, forming a powerful and stimulating friendship that will stand the test of time.
Parenting, like so many other person-to-person relationships, is a significant challenge for INTJs. Being so heavily invested in rational thought, logic, and analyzing cause and effect, INTJs are often unprepared for dealing with someone who hasn't developed these same abilities who they can't simply walk away from. Luckily, INTJs are uniquely capable of committing to a long-term project, especially one as meaningful as parenthood, with all the intellectual vigor they can muster.
First and foremost, INTJ parents will likely never be able to deliver the sort of warmth and coddling that stereotypes say they should. INTJs are rational, perfectionistic, often insensitive, and certainly not prone to overt displays of physical affection – it will take a clear and conscious effort on their part to curb and adapt these qualities to their children's needs, especially in the younger years. If they have an especially sensitive child, INTJs risk inadvertently trampling those sensitivities or coming across as cold and uncaring.
Even less sensitive children will need emotional support from time to time, especially as they approach adolescence – INTJs, even more so than other Analyst (NT) types, struggle to manage their own emotions in a healthy way, let alone others'. As a result, INTJs tend to avoid “unproductive” emotional support, instead taking a solutions-based approach to resolving issues. This is where INTJs are strongest – assessing a dilemma to find the underlying cause and developing a plan to solve the problem at its source.
INTJs also recognize that life is often the best teacher, and they will tend to be fairly liberal, allowing their children to have their own adventures and make their own decisions, further developing these critical thinking skills. This isn't to say that INTJs parents are lenient – far from it – rather, they expect their children to use their freedom responsibly, and often enough the weight of this expectation alone is enough to lay out understood ground rules. When they need to though, INTJ parents will communicate openly and honestly with their children, believing that knowing the truth is better than not knowing, or worse yet, simply being wrong.
If their children are receptive to this approach, INTJ parents will find themselves respected and trusted. INTJs are excellent communicators when they want to be, and will frame problems as opportunities for personal growth, helping their children to establish their own brand of rational thinking and independent problem-solving skills to be applied to more and more complex situations as they grow, building their confidence as they make their own way. INTJs' ultimate goal as a parent is to ensure that their children are prepared to deal with whatever life throws their way.
All this is the exertion of INTJs' core philosophy of intelligent self-direction, and in this way they try to mold their children in their own image, working to create capable adults who can go on to use their own minds, solve their own problems, and help their own children in the same way when the time comes. INTJs understand that this can't happen if they shield their children from every source of ill and harm, but believe that if they give their children the right tools, they won't have to..
Professional competence is often the area in which INTJs shine most brilliantly. Their capacity for digesting difficult and complex theories and principles and converting them into clear and actionable ideas and strategies is unmatched by any other type. INTJs are able to filter out the noise of a situation, identifying the core thread that needs to be pulled in order to unravel others' messes so that they can be rewoven into something at once beautifully intricate and stunningly simple in its function.
The real challenge for INTJs is that in order for their innovative (and to less insightful individuals, seemingly counter-intuitive) ideas to be heard, they need to have a friendly ear to bend, and developing an amiable rapport with authority figures is not exactly in INTJs' list of core strengths. In their early careers, INTJs will often have to suffer through menial tasks and repeated rejections as they develop their abilities into a skillset that speaks for itself.
INTJs tend to prefer to work alone, or at most in small groups, where they can maximize their creativity and focus without repeated interruptions from questioning colleagues and meetings-happy supervisors. For this reason INTJs are unlikely to be found in strictly administrative roles or anything that requires constant dialogue and heavy teamwork. Rather, INTJs prefer more "lone wolf" positions as mechanical or software engineers, lawyers or freelance consultants, only accepting competent leadership that helps in these goals, and rejecting the authority of those who hold them back.
Their independent attitude and tireless demand for competence mean that INTJs absolutely loathe those who get ahead by seemingly less meritocratic means like social prowess and political connections. INTJs have exceptionally high standards, and if they view a colleague or supervisor as incompetent or ineffective, respect will be lost instantly and permanently. INTJs value personal initiative, determination, insight and dedication, and believe that everyone should complete their work to the highest possible standards – if a schmoozing shill breezes through without carrying their own weight, they may find INTJs' inventiveness and determination used in a whole new capacity as the winds turn against them.
As their careers progress further and their reputation grows, so will the complexity of INTJs' tasks and projects. INTJs demand progress and evolution, new challenges and theories, and they often accomplish this by pushing into more active strategic positions. While they don't care for the spotlight, INTJs do enjoy controlling their ideas, and will often expand into low-profile but influential roles as project managers, system engineers, marketing strategists, systems analysts, and military strategists.
But really, INTJs' vision, creativity, and competence in executing their plans make them viable in just about any career that requires them to think about what they're doing. While some careers, such as low-level sales and human resources, clearly do not play to their strengths, INTJs are able to build a niche into just about any institution, including their own, that they put their minds to.
Above all else, INTJs want to be able to tackle intellectually interesting work with minimal outside interference, no more, no less. Time-consuming management techniques like trust-building getaways, progress meetings, and drawn-out, sandwiched criticisms are only going to annoy INTJs – all they need, be they subordinate, colleague, or manager, is to meet their goals with the highest standard of technical excellence and to be surrounded by, if anyone at all, people who share those values.
On paper this makes them appear to be exemplary employees, and in many ways they are, but there are many types, especially those with a combination of the Observant (S) and Feeling (F) traits, who will find a work (or any other) relationship with INTJs extremely challenging. INTJs have a fairly strict code of conduct when it comes to their work, and if they see coworkers valuing social activities and "good enough" workmanship over absolute excellence, it will be a turbulent environment. For this reason, INTJs tend to prefer to work in tight, like-minded groups – a group of one, if necessary.
INTJs are independent people, and they quickly become frustrated if they find themselves pushed into tightly defined roles that limit their freedom. With the direction of a properly liberal manager, INTJs will establish themselves in a position of expertise, completing their work not with the ambition of managerial promotion, but for its own intrinsic merit. INTJs require and appreciate firm, logical managers who are able to direct efforts with competence, deliver criticism when necessary, and back up those decisions with sound reason.
Note that it is INTJs' expectations of their managers that are being defined here, and not the other way around, as with some other personality types. Titles mean little to INTJs – trust and respect are earned, and INTJs expect this to be a two way street, receiving and delivering advice, criticisms and results. INTJs expect their managers to be intelligent enough and strong enough to be able to handle this paradigm. A silent INTJ conveys a lack of respect better than all their challenges ever will.
Active teamwork is not ideal for people with the INTJ personality type. Fiercely independent and private, INTJs use their nimble minds and insight to deflect personal talk, avoid workplace tension, and create situations where they aren't slowed down by those less intelligent, less capable, or less adaptable to more efficient methods. Instead, they will likely poke fun by forcing them to read between the lines and making them deal alone with work that could have been easier if they'd only taken INTJs' suggestions.
INTJs are brilliant analysts, and will likely gather a small handful of trusted colleagues to involve in their brainstorming sessions, excluding those who get too hung up on details, or who otherwise have yet to earn their respect. But more likely, INTJs will simply take the initiative alone – INTJs love embracing challenges and their consequent responsibilities, and their perfectionism and determination usually mean that the work comes out clean and effective, affording INTJs the twin joys of solitude and victory.
Though they may be surprised to hear it, INTJs make natural leaders, and this shows in their management style. INTJs value innovation and effectiveness more than just about any other quality, and they will gladly cast aside hierarchy, protocol and even their own beliefs if they are presented with rational arguments about why things should change. INTJs promote freedom and flexibility in the workplace, preferring to engage their subordinates as equals, respecting and rewarding initiative and adopting an attitude of "to the best mind go the responsibilities", directing strategy while more capable hands manage the day-to-day tactics.
But this sort of freedom isn't just granted, it's required – those who are accustomed to just being told what to do, who are unable to direct themselves and challenge existing notions, will have a hard time meeting INTJs' extremely high standards. Efficiency and results are king to INTJs, and behaviors that undermine these conditions are quashed mercilessly. If subordinates try to compensate for their weakness in these areas by trying to build a social relationship with their INTJ managers, on their heads be it – office gossip and schmoozing are not the way into INTJs' hearts – only bold competence will do.
Few personality types are as mysterious and controversial as INTJs. Possessing intellect and strategic thinking that allow them to overcome many challenging obstacles, INTJs have the ability to both develop and implement a plan for everything, including their own personal growth.
Yet INTJs can be easily tripped up in areas where careful and rational thinking is more of a liability than an asset. Whether it is finding (or keeping) a partner, making friends, reaching dazzling heights on the career ladder or adapting to the unpredictable, INTJs need to put in a conscious effort to develop their weaker traits and additional skills.
What you have read so far is just an introduction into the complex concept that is the INTJ personality type. You may have muttered to yourself, "wow, this is so accurate it's a little creepy" or "finally, someone understands me!" You may have even asked "how do they know more about me than the people I'm closest to?"
This is not a trick. You felt understood because you were. We've studied how INTJs think and what they need to reach their full potential. And no, we did not spy on you – many of the challenges you've faced and will face in the future have been overcome by other INTJs. You simply need to learn how they succeeded.
But in order to do that, you need to have a plan, a personal roadmap. The best car in the world will not take you to the right place if you do not know where you want to go. We have told you how INTJs tend to behave in certain circumstances and what their key strengths and weaknesses are. Now we need to go much deeper into your personality type and answer "why?", "how?" and "what if?"
This knowledge is only the beginning of a lifelong journey. Are you ready to learn why INTJs act in the way they do? What motivates and inspires you? What you are afraid of and what you secretly dream about? How you can unlock your true, exceptional potential?
Our premium profiles provide a roadmap towards a happier, more successful, and more versatile YOU! They are not for everyone though – you need to be willing and able to challenge yourself, to go beyond the obvious, to imagine and follow your own path instead of just going with the flow. If you want to take the reins into your own hands, we are here to help you.
| 안철수가 노무현에게 배워야 할 한 가지 (1) | 2016.03.08 |
|---|---|
| 기어코 막 내리는 필리버스터 이제 더민주는 뭘 보여줄 것인가 (0) | 2016.03.08 |
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.
Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.
In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
The third Democratic contender, Martin O’Malley, is a personable and reasonable liberal who seems more suited for the jobs he has already had — governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore — than for president.
Mrs. Clinton is a strong advocate of sensible and effective measures to combat the plague of firearms; Mr. Sanders’s record on guns is relatively weak. Her economic proposals for financial reform reflect a deep understanding of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act, including the ways in which it has fallen short. She supports changes that the country badly needs, like controls on high-frequency trading and stronger curbs on bank speculation in derivatives.
Mr. Sanders has scored some rhetorical points against Mrs. Clinton for her longstanding ties to Wall Street, but she has responded well, and it would be comical to watch any of the Republican candidates try to make that case, given that they are all virtually tied to, or actually part of, the business establishment.
One of the most attractive parts of Mrs. Clinton’s economic platform is her pledge to support the well-being and rights of working Americans. Her lifelong fight for women bolsters her credibility in this area, since so many of the problems with labor law hit women the hardest, including those involving child care, paid sick leave, unstable schedules and low wages for tipped workers.
Mrs. Clinton is keenly aware of the wage gap for women, especially for women of color. It’s not just that she’s done her homework — Mrs. Clinton has done her homework on pretty much any subject you’d care to name. Her knowledge comes from a commitment to issues like reproductive rights that is decades old. She was well ahead of Mr. Sanders in calling for repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which severely limits federal money to pay for abortions for poor women.
As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton worked tirelessly, and with important successes, for the nation’s benefit. She was the secretary President Obama needed and wanted: someone who knew leaders around the world, who brought star power as well as expertise to the table. The combination of a new president who talked about inclusiveness and a chief diplomat who had been his rival but shared his vision allowed the United States to repair relations around the world that had been completely trashed by the previous administration.
Mrs. Clinton helped make it possible to impose tougher sanctions on Iran, which in turn led to the important nuclear deal now going into effect. She also fostered closer cooperation with Asian countries. She worked to expand and deepen the dialogue with China and to increase Washington’s institutional ties to the region. Mrs. Clinton had rebuked China when she was first lady for its treatment of women, and she criticized the Beijing government’s record on human rights even as she worked to improve relations.
In January 2011, before the Arab Spring, Mrs. Clinton delivered a speech that criticized Arab leaders, saying their countries risked “sinking into the sand” unless they liberalized their political systems and cleaned up their economies. Certainly, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis deepened during her tenure, but she did not cause that.
Mrs. Clinton can be more hawkish on the use of military power than Mr. Obama, as shown by her current call for a no-fly zone in Syria and her earlier support for arming and training Syrian rebels. We are not convinced that a no-fly zone is the right approach in Syria, but we have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton would use American military power effectively and with infinitely more care and wisdom than any of the leading Republican contenders.
Mrs. Clinton, who has been accused of flip-flopping on trade, has shown a refreshing willingness to learn and to explain, as she has in detail, why she changed her mind on trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She is likely to do more to help workers displaced by the forces of trade than previous presidents have done, and certainly more than any of the Republicans.
Mrs. Clinton has honed a steeliness that will serve her well in negotiating with a difficult Congress on critically important issues like climate change. It will also help her weather what are certain to be more attacks from Republicans and, should she win the White House, the possibility of the same ideological opposition and personal animus that President Obama has endured. Some of the campaign attacks are outrageous, like Donald Trump’s efforts to bring up Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity. Some, like those about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers.
Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.
| 기어코 막 내리는 필리버스터 이제 더민주는 뭘 보여줄 것인가 (0) | 2016.03.08 |
|---|---|
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
Je Suis Charlie
샤를리 에브도
풍자를 용치 않음을 넘어 피로 대응하는 잔인함 .. 나의 세상은 좁고 안이하다.
| 성격 테스트 결과 - 전체의 2% INTJ 건축가 (0) | 2016.02.19 |
|---|---|
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
Marriage really is a beautiful thing. I used to think it was a bit pointless, just a piece of paper that allows you an extra tax cut. However, the more I thought about it, the more I learned to appreciate what marriage could be.
Marriage gets a bad rap because most people are really bad at it. It’s not marriage’s fault. It’s the couples’ fault for being neither mature enough nor smart enough to manage.
I used to believe people couldn’t possibly promise to love someone else in 10, 20 years when neither their partners nor they will be the same people they are now. But that’s the point. We know that the future is filled with uncertainty.
Regardless, we still want that promise because it gives us courage to give ourselves to another without reservations.
You may not be able to keep that promise, but you can keep the promise to do your best to be an amazing life partner. That’s all anyone can really ask for. If you’re thinking about tying the knot then be sure that your future life partner to-be can honestly answer these questions to your liking:
People seem to feel this is a question that doesn’t especially need answering. Most will say we love others simply because we love them — a horrible answer. All people need to know exactly why it is that they love the people they love.
Loving someone is a very selfish act, and it’s okay. You love the person you love for what that person does for you and how he or she makes you feel.
We may all have slightly different answers as to why we love someone, but if we aren’t able to exactly define the parameters of our love, then we’re likely to struggle later on once the initial intensity dies down. If your partner can’t answer why he or she loves you now, then imagine the inevitable uncertainty down the road.
“Because I love you” is not a good answer. Life is a journey — one that is best not traveled entirely alone. However, not everyone has the same destination in mind. Wanting to take different pit stops along the route is one thing. Wanting different things out of life is another entirely.
Your partner should be able to tell you what life experiences he or she hopes to share with you. It’s these little goals you set for yourselves that make your life special.
Keeping the romance alive is not an easy task. Yes, it’s all mental, but keeping interest for such a long time is difficult. It takes a lot of work and creativity. It takes the other person regularly trying to please and impress you, which in itself becomes increasingly difficult with each new year.
Romantic love cannot survive on its own; both of you are going to have to maintain it constantly. Is your partner willing to keep the romance as one of his or her main priorities?
We may not know exactly where our lives will take us and what we will learn — who we will become — along the way, but we can make a conscious effort to grow closer together and not apart.
Most people grow apart over the years because they feel like they’ve accomplished everything in their relationships that needs accomplishing.
This is one main reason marriages end up being so horrible — people think that there is no greater peak to climb than the one their relationship is already resting on. Marriage shouldn’t be the end, it should be the beginning.
The good times are a piece of cake. The difficult times, however, will destroy your relationship if you allow them to. There comes a point in every relationship when you have to make a decision. It’s a decision that, if made, is only made once. You will reach a point where you will either decide you are going to be there for this person for the rest of his or her life, or not.
If you decide you’re going to stick with this person then you can’t allow any tragedy or outside force to shake that decision. This is one of the most important decisions we make in our lives — or, as it often turns out, fail to make decisively. Has your lover made the decision? Have you?
The key to a successful marriage is taming your ego. No matter how competitive we are, sometimes you just need to pick your battles. Sometimes the arguments and the stress just aren’t worth it.
What you need to understand is that 99 percent of arguments aren’t arguments over fact, but rather over opinion. An opinion is neither right nor wrong. Sometimes you just have to let things be.
Life has a lot to offer. And if you’re anything like me, you have a very large appetite. We want everything life has to offer, and then some. The problem is we don’t have enough time to have it all; our lives are too short. We can only pick a few things we consider important and do our best to flourish in those areas.
The beauty of marriage is that it can be used as a base to build the rest of your life on. Your partner should be just that: your partner. Your relationship is the most important thing in your life because it’s what makes the rest of your life possible.
Again, how could anyone know he or she will be a great parent? Easy. You just decide you’re going to be. That’s it. No tricks. No gimmicks. Just a decision and then action.
Some things don’t need too much thinking involved. You’re going to be great because you decided you will be. Will your lover do the same and be a great role model for your children?
People not only want, but need to hear it. We need to be reminded you love us because we know that love doesn’t always last forever. We want to hear the words and then have that reassurement reinforced with actions showing how much you love us.
It really is enough just to love us, but understand you need to love us the way we need to be loved — just like we need to love you the way you need to be loved in order for you to be happy.
Sparks don’t spark on their own. Think about how a lighter works. You have a spark that lights the fuel, which creates a flame. But how does that spark, spark? You have to create a force that will result in the energy creating a spark.
Just the same, you can’t expect sparks to keep flying if you’re not trying. If you want to have a happy and healthy marriage, then you need to find someone willing to devote the necessary energy.
Not just financially, but mentally. Maybe even physically if necessary. No one knows what life holds. The unexpected happens, often leaving us weak, hurt or even permanently damaged. Will your partner carry you when you can’t walk?
Will your partner support you when you’re weak at the knees? Will your partner carry the family you’ve created until you regain your strength? Is your partner capable of mustering the strength to fight battles for the both of you?
Marriage is not entirely the end of the person you were and the start of a new you. Sure, being in a serious relationship does require a person to change in many ways.
Yet, there’s a part of us we can never, under any circumstance, let go of. The dreams, wants and hopes we have — our personal goals — must stay alive.
When we lose them, we lose ourselves and inevitably lose the person we love. Marriage isn’t just an “us.” It’s also a you and him/her. You have to juggle being the person you have always been with being a part of a larger whole. It’s not easy. But it is necessary.
Will your partner take care of him or herself by eating healthy and exercising? Will your partner get regular checkups and take vitamins? This may sound silly, but I’ve seen what letting yourself go can do to a marriage.
Moreover, I’ve seen how not maintaining your health can make the lives of those closest to you incredibly difficult.
Yes, your family should take care of you when you need to be taken care of — but it’s your responsibility first and foremost to take care of yourself. No people should become a burden to those they love.
Will your partner hold your hand when you’re too weak to hold it back? Will your partner kiss your forehead and tell you he or she loves you, that you made life worth living? That, because of you, life made sense? Will your partner be there for your last breath, when you find yourself pressed betwixt fear and content?
No one should leave this world alone. It’s said that we leave it the way we come into it, but even when we come into it, there’s someone there to hold us. I understand most people don’t like to think about death, but seeing as it’s an inevitability, it’s better to plan ahead.
You love this person. You want him or her to be happy regardless of whether he or she is with you or without you. If death collects you ahead of schedule, you’ll want to know during those last few seconds that the person you love will continue to live life to the fullest.
That your partner will continue to do great things, continue to be happy, and — if you have children — continue to love your children and guide them through life.
The death of a loved one can ruin you. It can break you in ways that make full-recovery impossible. Can your partner promise you to find the strength and courage to press forward?
I don’t know about you, but the last thing I’d want for the woman I love is for my departure to be her downfall. If my being in her life or leaving her life will in anyway destroy hers, then I clearly made a mistake by allowing myself into her life.
| NYT 의 공개적 지지 힐러리 클린턴 (0) | 2016.01.31 |
|---|---|
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
4 A.M. WAKE-UP CALL
TUMBLR (REALLY)
DEADLINES
READ EVERYTHING
MAKE FRIENDS
RECAP YOUR MEETINGS
RUN EVERY DAY
STAY PRESENT
| Charlie Hebdo 샤를리 에브도 (0) | 2015.11.17 |
|---|---|
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
Ever finished a book? I mean, truly finished one? Cover to cover. Closed the spine with that slow awakening that comes with reentering consciousness?
You take a breath, deep from the bottom of your lungs and sit there. Book in both hands, your head staring down at the cover, back page or wall in front of you.
You’re grateful, thoughtful, pensive. You feel like a piece of you was just gained and lost. You’ve just experienced something deep, something intimate. (Maybe, erotic?) You just had an intense and somewhat transient metamorphosis.
Like falling in love with a stranger you will never see again, you ache with the yearning and sadness of an ended affair, but at the same time, feel satisfied. Full from the experience, the connection, the richness that comes after digesting another soul. You feel fed, if only for a little while.
This type of reading, according to TIME magazine’s Annie Murphy Paul, is called “deep reading,” a practice that is soon to be extinct now that people are skimming more and reading less.
Readers, like voicemail leavers and card writers, are now a dying breed, their numbers decreasing with every GIF list and online tabloid.
The worst part about this looming extinction is that readers are proven to be nicer and smarter than the average human, and maybe the only people worth falling in love with on this shallow hell on earth.
According to both 2006 and 2009 studies published by Raymond Mar, a psychologist at York University in Canada, and Keith Oatley, a professor of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto, those who read fiction are capable of the most empathy and “theory of mind,” which is the ability to hold opinions, beliefs and interests apart from their own.
They can entertain other ideas, without rejecting them and still retain their own. While this is supposed to be an innate trait in all humans, it requires varying levels of social experiences to bring into fruition and probably the reason your last partner was such a narcissist.
Did you ever see your ex with a book? Did you ever talk about books? If you didn’t, maybe you should think about changing your type.
It’s no surprise that readers are better people. Having experienced someone else’s life through abstract eyes, they’ve learned what it’s like to leave their bodies and see the world through other frames of reference.
They have access to hundreds of souls, and the collected wisdom of all them. They have seen things you’ll never understand and have experienced deaths of people you’ll never know.
They’ve learned what it’s like to be a woman, and a man. They know what it’s like to watch someone suffer. They are wise beyond their years.
Another 2010 study by Mar reinforces this idea with results that prove the more stories children have read to them, the keener their “theory of mind.” So while everyone thinks their kids are the best, the ones who read have the edge as they truly are the wiser, more adaptable and understanding children.
Because reading is something that molds you and adds to your character. Each triumph, lesson and pivotal moment of the protagonist becomes your own.
Every ache, pain and harsh truth becomes yours to bear. You’ve traveled with authors and experienced the pain, sorrow and anguish they suffered while writing through it. You’ve lived a thousand lives and come back to learn from each of them.
If you’re still looking for someone to complete you, to fill the void of your singly-healed heart, look for the breed that’s dying out. You will find them in coffee shops, parks and subways.
You will see them with backpacks, shoulder bags and suitcases. They will be inquisitive and soulful, and you will know by the first few minutes of talking to them.
They will write you letters and texts in verse. They are verbose, but not in the obnoxious way. They do not merely answer questions and give statements, but counter with deep thoughts and profound theories. They will enrapture you with their knowledge of words and ideas.
According to the study, “What Reading Does For The Mind” by Anne E. Cunningham of the University of California, Berkeley, reading provides a vocabulary lesson that children could never attain by schooling.
According to Cunningham, “the bulk of vocabulary growth during a child’s lifetime occurs indirectly through language exposure rather than through direct teaching.”
Do yourself a favor and date someone who really knows how to use their tongue.
You should only fall in love with someone who can see your soul. It should be someone who has reached inside you and holds those innermost parts of you no one could find before. It should be someone who doesn’t just know you, but wholly and completely understands you.
According to Psychologist David Comer Kidd, at the New School for Social Research, “What great writers do is to turn you into the writer. In literary fiction, the incompleteness of the characters turns your mind to trying to understand the minds of others.”
This is proved over and over again, the more people take to reading. Their ability to connect with characters they haven’t met makes their understanding of the people around them much easier.
They have the capacity for empathy. They may not always agree with you, but they will try to see things from your point of view.
Being overly smart is obnoxious, being wise is a turn on. There’s something irresistible about someone you can learn from. The need for banter and witty conversation is more imperative than you may believe, and falling in love with a reader will enhance not just the conversation, but the level of it.
According to Cunningham, readers are more intelligent, due to their increased vocabulary and memory skills, along with their ability to spot patterns. They have higher cognitive functions than the average non-reader and can communicate more thoroughly and effectively.
Finding someone who reads is like dating a thousand souls. It’s gaining the experience they’ve gained from everything they’ve ever read and the wisdom that comes with those experiences. It’s like dating a professor, a romantic and an explorer.
If you date someone who reads, then you, too, will live a thousand different lives.
"Deep reading" is vigorous exercise from the brain and increases our real-life capacity for empathy
Gregory Currie, a professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, recently argued in the New York Times that we ought not to claim that literature improves us as people, because there is no “compelling evidence that suggests that people are morally or socially better for reading Tolstoy” or other great books.
Actually, there is such evidence. Raymond Mar, a psychologist at York University in Canada, and Keith Oatley, a professor emeritus of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto, reported in studies published in 2006 and 2009 that individuals who often read fiction appear to be better able to understand other people, empathize with them and view the world from their perspective. This link persisted even after the researchers factored in the possibility that more empathetic individuals might choose to read more novels. A 2010 study by Mar found a similar result in young children: the more stories they had read to them, the keener their “theory of mind,” or mental model of other people’s intentions.
“Deep reading” — as opposed to the often superficial reading we do on the Web — is an endangered practice, one we ought to take steps to preserve as we would a historic building or a significant work of art. Its disappearance would imperil the intellectual and emotional development of generations growing up online, as well as the perpetuation of a critical part of our culture: the novels, poems and other kinds of literature that can be appreciated only by readers whose brains, quite literally, have been trained to apprehend them.
Recent research in cognitive science, psychology and neuroscience has demonstrated that deep reading — slow, immersive, rich in sensory detail and emotional and moral complexity — is a distinctive experience, different in kind from the mere decoding of words. Although deep reading does not, strictly speaking, require a conventional book, the built-in limits of the printed page are uniquely conducive to the deep reading experience. A book’s lack of hyperlinks, for example, frees the reader from making decisions — Should I click on this link or not? — allowing her to remain fully immersed in the narrative.
That immersion is supported by the way the brain handles language rich in detail, allusion and metaphor: by creating a mental representation that draws on the same brain regions that would be active if the scene were unfolding in real life. The emotional situations and moral dilemmas that are the stuff of literature are also vigorous exercise for the brain, propelling us inside the heads of fictional characters and even, studies suggest, increasing our real-life capacity for empathy.
None of this is likely to happen when we’re scrolling through TMZ. Although we call the activity by the same name, the deep reading of books and the information-driven reading we do on the Web are very different, both in the experience they produce and in the capacities they develop. A growing body of evidence suggests that online reading may be less engaging and less satisfying, even for the “digital natives” for whom it is so familiar. Last month, for example, Britain’s National Literacy Trust released the results of a study of 34,910 young people aged 8 to 16. Researchers reported that 39% of children and teens read daily using electronic devices, but only 28% read printed materials every day. Those who read only onscreen were three times less likely to say they enjoy reading very much and a third less likely to have a favorite book. The study also found that young people who read daily only onscreen were nearly two times less likely to be above-average readers than those who read daily in print or both in print and onscreen.
To understand why we should be concerned about how young people read, and not just whether they’re reading at all, it helps to know something about the way the ability to read evolved. “Human beings were never born to read,” notes Maryanne Wolf, director of the Center for Reading and Language Research at Tufts University and author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. Unlike the ability to understand and produce spoken language, which under normal circumstances will unfold according to a program dictated by our genes, the ability to read must be painstakingly acquired by each individual. The “reading circuits” we construct are recruited from structures in the brain that evolved for other purposes — and these circuits can be feeble or they can be robust, depending on how often and how vigorously we use them.
The deep reader, protected from distractions and attuned to the nuances of language, enters a state that psychologist Victor Nell, in a study of the psychology of pleasure reading, likens to a hypnotic trance. Nell found that when readers are enjoying the experience the most, the pace of their reading actually slows. The combination of fast, fluent decoding of words and slow, unhurried progress on the page gives deep readers time to enrich their reading with reflection, analysis, and their own memories and opinions. It gives them time to establish an intimate relationship with the author, the two of them engaged in an extended and ardent conversation like people falling in love.
This is not reading as many young people are coming to know it. Their reading is pragmatic and instrumental: the difference between what literary critic Frank Kermode calls “carnal reading” and “spiritual reading.” If we allow our offspring to believe carnal reading is all there is — if we don’t open the door to spiritual reading, through an early insistence on discipline and practice — we will have cheated them of an enjoyable, even ecstatic experience they would not otherwise encounter. And we will have deprived them of an elevating and enlightening experience that will enlarge them as people. Observing young people’s attachment to digital devices, some progressive educators and permissive parents talk about needing to “meet kids where they are,” molding instruction around their onscreen habits. This is mistaken. We need, rather, to show them someplace they’ve never been, a place only deep reading can take them.
| questions about marriage (0) | 2015.10.21 |
|---|---|
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
1. 말로 입은 상처는 평생간다
말에는 지우개가 없으니 조심해서 말하라
2. 이왕이면 다홍치마다
썰렁한 말 대신 화끈한 말을 써라
3. 하고싶은 말보다 듣고싶어하는 말을 하라
모두가 고객이다
4. 걸러서 말하라
체로 거르듯 곱게 말해도 불량이 생긴다
5. 눈을 보며 말하라
눈이 맞아야 마음도 맞게 된다
6. 풍부한 예화로 들어라
예화는 말의 맛을 내는 조미료다
7. 같은 말 두 번 하지 마라
듣는 사람 지겹다
8. 일관되게 말하라
믿음을 잃으면 진실을 의심받는다
9. 상대방에게 말할 기회를 주어라
대화는 일방통행이 아니다
10. 상대방 말을 끝까지 들어라
말을 가로채면 돈 빼앗긴 것보다 더 기분 나쁘다
11. 내 생각만 옳다고 생각하면 큰 오산이다
상대방의 의견도 받아들여라
12. 죽는 소리 하지 말라
죽는 소리를 하면 천하장사도 죽는다
13. 상대방이 말할 때는 경청하라
지방방송은 무식함을 드러내는 신호다
14. 불평불만 꺼내지 말라
불평불만은 불운의 동업자다
15. 시시비비를 가리지 마라
옳고 그름은 시간이 판결한다
16. 눈은 입보다 더 많은 말을 한다
입으로만 말고 표정으로도 말하라
17. 조리있게 말하라
전개가 잘못되면 동쪽이 서쪽이된다
18. 결코 남을 비판하지 말라
남을 감싸는 것이 덕망있는 사람이다
19. 편집해서 말하라
분위기에 맞게 넣고 빼면 예술이 된다
20. 미운 사람에게 각별히 대하여라
각별하게 대하면 적군도 아군이 된다
21. 남을 비판하지 말라
남에게 쏜 화살이 자기 가슴에 명중된다
22. 재미나게 말하라
사람들이 돈내고 극장가는 것도 재미 때문이다
23. 누구에게나 선한 말을 해주어라
그래야 좋은 기의 파장이 주위를 둘러싼다
24. 상대방이 싫어하는 말을 하지 말라
듣고 싶은 얘기만 해도 바쁜 세상이다
25. 말에도 맛이 있다
입맛 떨어지는 말 말고 감칠 맛나는 말을 하라
26. 또박또박 말하라
웅얼거리면 염불하는지 욕하는지 남들은 모른다
27. 뒤에서 험담하는 사람과는 가까이 말라
모진 놈 옆에 있다가 벼락 맞는다
28. 올바른 생각을 많이 하라
올바른 생각을 많이 하면 올바른 말이 나오게 된다
29. 부정적인 말은 하지도 듣지도 전하지도 말라
부정적인 말은 부정타는 말이다
30. 모르면 다시 물어라
몯는 것은 결례가 아니다
31. 밝은 음색으로 말하라
듣기좋은 소리는 음악처럼 느껴진다
32. 상대방을 높여라
말의 예절은 몸으로 하는 예절보다 강하다
33. 칭찬 감사 사랑의 말을 많이 사용하라
그러면 사람이 따른다
34. 공통화제를 선택하라
화제가 다르면 남의 다리를 긁는 셈이다
35. 경솔하게 말하지 마라
가슴에서 우러나오는 말을 하라
36. 대상에 맞는 말을 하라
사람마다 좋아하는 말도 다르다
37. 같은 말이라도 때와 장소를 가려라
저기서 히트곡이 여기서는 소음이 된다
38. 품위있게 말하라
말이 곧 인격이다
39. 표정으로 말하라
드라마 이상의 효과가 나타난다
40. 활기있게 말하라
생동감은 상대를 감동시킨다
41. 솔직하게 말하고 진실하게 행하라
그것이 승리자의 길이다
42. 말에는 책임이 따른다
책임질 수 없는 말은 하지 말라
43. 실언보다 변명이 나쁘다
실언했으면 곧바로 사과하라
44. 말에는 메아리 효과가 있다
내가 한 말은 내게로 돌아온다
45. 말이 씨가 된다
어떤 씨앗을 뿌리고 있는지 생각하라
| Are Good Habits The Secret To Success? (0) | 2015.10.20 |
|---|---|
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
| Boringness: The Secret to Great Leadership by Joel Stein (0) | 2014.01.11 |
Karl Pillemer has spent the last several years systematically interviewing hundreds of older Americans to collect their lessons for living.
Pillemer admits he's an advice junkie. He's also a Ph.D. gerontologist at Cornell University.
Some years ago, after turning 50, he wondered whether there is something about getting older that teaches you how to live better. "Could we look at the oldest Americans as experts on how to live our lives?" he asked. "And could we tap that wisdom to help us make the most of our lifetimes?"
His first book, "30 Lessons for Living," synthesized advice from over 1,000 elders on topics like happiness, work, and health.
Now Pillemer has followed up with "30 Lessons for Loving," which features practical wisdom from over 700 older Americans with 25,000 collective years of marriage experience. One couple he profiles was married for 76 years. Another interviewee describes divorcing her husband, then remarrying him 64 years later.
I spoke with Pillemer for Sophia, a HuffPost project to collect life lessons from accomplished people (that was partly inspired by his work).
Pillemer shared seven key pieces of advice he's heard repeatedly from older Americans -- about their greatest regrets, finding fulfillment, and keeping relationships healthy through life's ups-and-downs.
1. Stop worrying so much.
I asked these oldest Americans what they think people tend to regret at their age, and what they would advise younger people to do to avoid regrets.
I expected big-ticket items -- an affair or a shady business deal, something along those lines. I really didn't expect to hear the one answer that was among the most frequent and certainly among the most passionate and vehement: stop worrying so much.
One of the biggest regrets of the very old was, I wish I hadn't spent so much time worrying. They weren’t talking about planning, but the kind of mindless rumination that all of us do over things we have no control.
One of the people who said that summed it up this way. It was a woman who said, "I knew there were going to be layoffs at my job. I did nothing over the coming three months except worry about being laid off. I poisoned my life. I didn't think about anything else, even though I had no control over it." And she paused and said, "I wish I had those three months back, because that was just lifetime lost."
I'm sort of a chronic Woody Allen-esque worrier. Hearing hundreds and hundreds of older people saying that when you get to our age, you'll see time spent needlessly worrying as time wasted, it really had a profound effect on me.
People have asked me, "What do you do with that insight? How do we stop worrying?" For me, when I start to get into the mindless rumination, I will remind myself that it's an almost absolute certainty that everybody, when they get to the end of life, will say to themselves, "I wish I hadn't spent so much time worrying about something that wasn't going to happen." After doing this for so long, I kind of have this feeling of a thousand grandparents in a room yelling at me [laughs].
A related insight of older people comes through very strongly in their advice about marriage. Very often a lot of their advice revolves around lightening up. We allow things, like marriage or other domains of life, to become extremely grim.
Their viewpoint from later on -- this may sound like a cliché, but they mean it -- is most of the things they worried about didn't happen, and the bad things that happened to them were things they hadn't considered.
2. In relationships, sweat the small stuff.
If I learned one thing about how to keep the spark alive over many decades, there's a point that the elders make that aligns very closely with research. It is an emphasis on thinking small -- the small, minute-to-minute, day-to-day interactions that make up a relationship.
We tend to think of relationships globally. But all relationships are made up of hundreds or thousands of daily micro-interactions where you have the opportunity to be positive and supportive to your partner, or to be dismissive and uninterested.
There's been research showing, for example, that how you respond if your partner interrupts you while you're doing something is very diagnostic of how good the relationship's going to be. If you're actively involved in reading the paper or doing something, and your partner wants to show you something of interest to him or her, whether you respond dismissively or you briefly stop what you're doing and engage with your partner is very diagnostic of positivity in the relationship.
Other research has shown that it takes around 10 positive interactions to make up for one nasty one, so the ratio of positive to negative small interactions in a relationship is really critical. And that's exactly what older people say. Many of their lessons embody this same concept.
For example, one of the things that older people argue is that we ought to be polite in our relationships. You know, the old things that people learned in elementary school, to say please and thank you and observe normal civility, is something people forget to do all the time in their relationships, mostly because we feel comfortable.
They argue using politeness and tact, but also making a habit of positive things, of compliments, of small surprises, of doing a partner's chore, if you have a fairly rigid division of labor. Many people described that. I had more than one woman -- perhaps it’s quote from someone else -- but they jokingly said that their husband doing the dishes was the best aphrodisiac they could think of. So I would say that for a good relationship that lasts a long time, one of the absolute keys is attending to being positive, cheerful, supportive in the small aspects of the relationship.
Another thing which is closely related: many couples begin to develop divergent interests and one partner then becomes hostile to a passionate interest. I had many older people say, "Our relationship changed when I gave my partner's interests a chance and embraced them."
One guy in his mid-80s, he was astonished. He said, "I started going to opera and ballet. Me! Opera and ballet! But it was worth it to engage with my partner." Or wives who took up golf or developed an interest in football. At some point, people begin to say that positivity in the relationship is more important than fighting over these kinds of like minor differences.
People who have very positive relationships consciously tend to maximize these small positive interactions. And that is a place where elder wisdom completely or very closely aligns with what we know from research about good marriages.
3. Don't sacrifice your relationship for your children.
There's a very strong research finding in family social science. It is called the U-shaped curve of marital happiness. Basically, marriages start out pretty happy. Marital happiness drops precipitously at the birth of the first child and usually never completely recovers until the last child has left the house.
So even though kids are great -- they satisfy our existential longings, and we love them, and it's one of the most profound experiences -- they are stressful for marriages. You probably don't need a social scientist to tell you that, because anybody who's been through it knows that.
There's no question that a lot of marital arguments and difficulties revolve around children. It's one of the paradoxes of marriage that good things, like having kids or having a really good job, even owning and taking care of a house, also can be sources of marital stress. It's the double-edged sword of marriage.
The elders had one really strong recommendation in terms of adjusting to kids. Put your marriage first, put your relationship first, and don't let kids distract you from having a good relationship with your partner.
Couples lose themselves in the mix of kids and work and fundamentally abandon attention to their relationship. The advice of the oldest Americans is very similar to that famous instruction on airplanes -- put your own oxygen mask on first and then put it on the kids. If you aren't attending to your relationship, you aren't going to be very effective as child-rearers.
It's very unusual that people have an awful relationship and wind up being good parents. If you sacrifice your relationship for your children, you have a reasonable chance of losing both.
Now, they aren't saying, of course, that you don't love your kids and that you wouldn't hurl yourself in front of a train to save them. But they argue that a marital relationship needs constant attention in spite of the kids.
I was shocked, in focus groups I did in preparation for the book, how many young parents couldn't even remember when they'd gone out on their own or spent much individual time together. The oldest Americans' argument is: Carve it out. Impose on grandparents. Develop a babysitting exchange. Even if you don't have any money.
I had people who grew up in the Depression. One couple said, "We returned our disposable soda bottles and went to McDonald's. It was just an opportunity to be away."
Even if it's something as artificial as a weekly date night where you scrimp and arrange for babysitting and go off on your own, you simply must do it. If you lose yourself in this middle-aged blur of work and kids, you really won't do your kids any good.
4. People who share core values typically have better marriages.
One hallmark of these long and harmonious marriages -- and this is a piece of advice, too, that older people explicitly give -- is to marry someone a lot like you.
We have in our popular culture this vast amount of examples of where opposites attract and make for great relationships, from “Romeo and Juliet” through “The Little Mermaid” through “Pretty Woman” and on and on.
Both the elders and research say, not so much. Marrying somebody who is very similar to you -- in the trade, we call it homophily. Homophilous marriages, where the partners are pretty similar across a range of domains, tend to last longer and be happier.
What seems to really make the difference are core shared values. For example, work and the importance of work, the number of children and the way children are to be raised and goals for children, how important money is, spiritual and religious values to some extent. If there's core value similarity, that seems to really make for these longer and happier marriages.
There's no magic bullet. But marrying someone who's fundamentally similar to you, especially in outlook, worldview, and values, really does seem to make a difference. It makes everything else much easier.
You might ask, in our complex multicultural society, is that really a good thing to recommend? What they would say is, you can have differences. Sometimes differences do spice up a relationship. But if you have two people who are, for example, strongly committed to two different religious traditions, you've got to be aware that you're going to have to work around that in your relationship. If you have other kinds of strong value differences, it's important to be aware of those and deal with them.
5. Communicate early, communicate often.
I've spent a lot of time interviewing young people. Of course, I'm speaking anecdotally. I know a lot of them as a college professor. One thing I've learned is that even in long dating relationships, it’s actually relatively unusual that they have a deep discussion about child-rearing values or even having children.
I think that's a problem. I think the elders would say it's a problem. Understanding how your values align is very important early on.
This is related, and it may seem obvious, but virtually all of the elders in long marriages say the key to their success was learning how to communicate effectively on important issues.
People who were divorced very typically attribute it to a communication breakdown. I had several couples in the study who had gotten divorced and then remarried. One couple was actually remarried almost a half century after they were first divorced and began to have a very positive relationship. Almost always that was attributed to learning how to open up, to have open and successful communication and to really talk to one another.
6. Approach marriage as a discipline.
The unspoken, unquestioned, and underlying assumption, especially of people 75 and older, was that marriage would last forever.
They viewed marriage as an unbreakable bond; they simply had to work within those parameters. That means, for example, you live through rough patches and don't just try to get out of the relationship. You come to accommodations and acceptances of the other person. You see this unit as something that is bigger than two people and their immediate individual satisfaction.
When they got married, they were making a commitment to the concept of marriage as a worthwhile institution, rather than the partnership based on immediate satisfaction of the individuals involved.
I got from them the idea of marriage as a discipline -- not a punishment kind of discipline but the way it's used if you're learning music or a martial art. Marriage is a lifelong path, one that you never perfect and that you continually work to get better at. You're continually working to improve communication and overcome problems and establish more interest.
This worldview -- that once you were in marriage, you were in it for good -- shaped people's day-to-day experience and view of it. It's one of the things which those who do articulate it recommend to younger people. They say, even if the reality is that you may not stay married, you ought to have this attitude, because it will make you work harder to get through difficult times. And there are such benefits to doing that that you ought to do it.
7. Take time to craft the story of your life.
There's been considerable research on the importance of reminiscence, life review. Most old people would like to be able to see their lives as a meaningful whole, to be able to sum it up into a coherent narrative.
I don't want to wax too poetic, but I have really been struck by something which the famous psychologist Erik Erikson said. At some point you realize that you're given this one chance -- he words it this way -- ‘this one chance in all of eternity to enact an identity and to play it out in the real world.’
Towards the end of life, what's really important to people is to be able to see how their life mattered, how it was meaningful, how there was a story to it that wraps up in a good way.
People who are able to create that kind of narrative, and think of their life in that way, are typically happier. They're more generative. They're much more serene and open to the end of life. So that is really good work for people to do. Writing about it is something that a number of my interviewees did. Often my best interviewees were people who had done some writing of memoirs.
There is a concept which some of them also did, it's called the “ethical will,” where people will write down what they would like to leave to younger generations about their values and principles and morality, how someone should live a life.
It's so critical for older people to record their memories. I would go one step further. Stop me if -- actually, I'm going to go ahead and say it. We're in the midst right now in our society of a very dangerous experiment. That's one where young people, outside of intermittent contacts in their own family, have no meaningful contact with older people in any other dimension of their lives.
Whereas old people were often much more integrated and were sought out as sources of wisdom and advice and life experience, now they really aren't, because our society is so age-segregated.
I think that we place young people in peril without these kind of intergenerational contacts. This is something that's so natural for the human race. It's really only been about the last hundred years that people have gone to anyone other than the oldest person they knew for advice about something, say like marriage or child-rearing.
Even though it sounds artificial, it's important for older people to record their own thoughts and memories, but it's really critical for younger people to ask them for them, and not just for stories, but for guidance and practical advice for living. I'm not against professional help. I think it's great. But sometimes people might go and ask the elders in their lives for advice on finding a meaningful career or improving a relationship first.
So I think that it's both older people doing it themselves, nurturing these memories and reflecting on their lives, but it's also our role as younger people to help them to do it, to express interest in it and be a part of their reminiscing and summing up their life into a meaningful story. That's what we really risk losing now. It's a large reason for these projects, I have to say, and why I'm writing these books.
Transcription services by Tigerfish; now offering transcripts in two-hours guaranteed. Interview has been edited and condensed.
Sophia is a project to collect life lessons from fascinating people. Learn more or sign up to receive lessons for living directly via Facebook or our email newsletter.
| Reading Literature Makes Us Smarter and Nicer (2) | 2015.02.17 |
|---|---|
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
| Boringness: The Secret to Great Leadership by Joel Stein (0) | 2014.01.11 |
| 빌 클린턴 Bill Clinton 2012 DNC 연설, 사람의 마음을 대중을 움직이는 힘 (0) | 2012.09.14 |
I feel bad for marital communication, because it gets blamed for everything. For generations, in survey after survey, couples have rated marital communication as the number one problem in marriage. It's not.
Marital communication is getting a bad rap. It's like the kid who fights back on the playground. The playground supervisors hear a commotion and turn their heads just in time to see his retaliation. He didn't create the problem; he was reacting to the problem. But he's the one who gets caught, so he's sent off to the principal's office.
Or, in the case of marital communication, the therapist's office.
I feel bad for marital communication, because everyone gangs up on him, when the truth is, on the playground of marriage, he's just reacting to one of the other troublemakers who started the fight:
1. We marry people because we like who they are. People change. Plan on it. Don't marry someone because of who they are, or who you want them to become.Marry them because of who they are determined to become. And then spend a lifetime joining them in their becoming, as they join you in yours.
2. Marriage doesn't take away our loneliness. To be alive is to be lonely. It's the human condition. Marriage doesn't change the human condition. It can't make us completely unlonely. And when it doesn't, we blame our partner for doing something wrong, or we go searching for companionship elsewhere. Marriage is intended to be a place where two humans share the experience of loneliness and, in the sharing, create moments in which the loneliness dissipates. For a little while.
3. Shame baggage. Yes, we all carry it it. We spend most of our adolescence and early adulthood trying to pretend our shame doesn't exist so, when the person we love triggers it in us, we blame them for creating it. And then we demand they fix it. But the truth is, they didn't create it and they can't fix it. Sometimes the best marital therapy is individual therapy, in which we work to heal our own shame. So we can stop transferring it to the ones we love.
4. Ego wins. We've all got one. We came by it honestly. Probably sometime around the fourth grade when kids started to be jerks to us. Maybe earlier if our family members were jerks first. The ego was a good thing. It kept us safe from the emotional slings and arrows. But now that we're grown and married, the ego is a wall that separates. It's time for it to come down. By practicing openness instead of defensiveness, forgiveness instead of vengeance, apology instead of blame,vulnerability instead of strength, and grace instead of power.
5. Life is messy and marriage is life. So marriage is messy, too. But when things stop working perfectly, we start blaming our partner for the snags. We add unnecessary mess to the already inescapable mess of life and love. We must stop pointing fingers and start intertwining them. And then we can we walk into, andthrough, the mess of life together. Blameless and shameless.
6. Empathy is hard. By its very nature, empathy cannot happen simultaneously between two people. One partner must always go first, and there's no guarantee of reciprocation. It takes risk. It's a sacrifice. So most of us wait for our partner to go first. A lifelong empathy standoff. And when one partner actually does take the empathy plunge, it's almost always a belly flop. The truth is, the people we love are fallible human beings and they will never be the perfect mirror we desire. Can we love them anyway, by taking the empathy plunge ourselves?
7. We care more about our children than about the one who helped us make them. Our kids should never be more important than our marriage, and they should never be less important. If they're more important, the little rascals will sense it and use it and drive wedges. If they're less important, they'll act out until they are given priority. Family is about the constant, on-going work of finding the balance.
8. The hidden power struggle. Most conflict in marriage is at least in part a negotiation around the level of interconnectedness between lovers. Men usually want less. Women usually want more. Sometimes, those roles are reversed. Regardless, when you read between the lines of most fights, this is the question you find: Who gets to decide how much distance we keep between us? If we don't ask that question explicitly, we'll fight about it implicitly. Forever.
9. We don't know how to maintain interest in one thing or one person anymore. We live in a world pulling our attention in a million different directions. The practice of meditation--attending to one thing and then returning our attention to it when we become distracted, over and over and over again--is an essential art. When we are constantly encouraged to attend to the shiny surface of things and to move on when we get a little bored, making our life a meditation upon the person we love is a revolutionary act. And it is absolutely essential if any marriage is to survive and thrive.
As a therapist, I can teach a couple how to communicate in an hour. It's not complicated. But dealing with the troublemakers who started the fight? Well, that takes a lifetime.
And yet.
It's a lifetime that forms us into people who are becoming ever more loving versions of ourselves, who can bear the weight of loneliness, who have released the weight of shame, who have traded in walls for bridges, who have embraced the mess of being alive, who risk empathy and forgive disappointments, who love everyone with equal fervor, who give and take and compromise, and who have dedicated themselves to a lifetime of presence and awareness and attentiveness.
And that's a lifetime worth fighting for.
| 말의 달인이 되는 45가지 방법 (0) | 2015.02.04 |
|---|---|
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
| Boringness: The Secret to Great Leadership by Joel Stein (0) | 2014.01.11 |
| 빌 클린턴 Bill Clinton 2012 DNC 연설, 사람의 마음을 대중을 움직이는 힘 (0) | 2012.09.14 |
| '농업정책, 전문기자 다섯이면 바꾼다' [농촌문제세미나] 김현대 <한겨레> 농촌전문기자 (0) | 2012.05.13 |
Until recently, I hadn’t really known any great leaders. As a writer, the highest-ranking people I deal with are editors, and they’re pretty much just writers who have gotten lazy. The only thing an editor has ever led me into is a bar.
So my images of leadership were based mainly on movies and sports. I figured great leaders did a lot of alpha-male yelling and inspirational speechmaking. To me, the epitome of leadership was when a baseball player is yelling at the umpire and about to get ejected and his manager runs out to the field to jump in front of him, so he can yell at the umpire and get thrown out of the game instead. In fact, I always thought baseball-team owners were awful people for not getting on the field in front of both the manager and player and getting ejected in their place. I may have felt this way because my favorite team was owned by George Steinbrenner.
But after spending time with a range of leaders for my new book, Man Made: A Stupid Quest for Masculinity, I learned that my vision of what makes a good leader was all wrong. I spent hours working alongside fire chiefs, army captains, Boy Scout troop leaders, and others who guide teams. To my surprise, the best of them tended to be quiet listeners who let other people make most of the decisions. They weren’t particularly charismatic. Or funny. They weren’t the toughest guys in the pack. They didn’t have a Clintonian need to be liked, or a Patton-like intensity. They were, on the whole, a little boring.
Like firefighter Capt. Buzz Smith, whose firehouse in Hollywood is one of the busiest in Los Angeles. For one thing, he doesn’t look like a “Captain Buzz Smith,” by which I mean he is not a plastic action figure. He has a gentle face, an easy smile, a mustache, and a general kindness to him. If he were cast as an astronaut he’d be the guy in charge of mixing Tang.
But what Capt. Smith and the other effective leaders I met have is a code. Capt. Smith isn’t weighing each decision based on a desire to keep his team happy, or to be fair to each guy. Capt. Smith has a way of doing things he believes is right, and he doesn’t waver. His mission is to follow the rules of the city, even if that means driving every 911 caller who asks to the hospital, whether they need to or, far more likely, do not. His job is to run a clean, orderly house so the team can respond with military precision. The calmness Capt. Smith exuded, I eventually realized, was humility. He didn’t need to express everything he felt immediately, because he understood that he wasn’t the most important person. It’s also a lot easier to feel secure in your leadership when you’re named Buzz.
Everyone at his firehouse knows they are doing things exactly right. And that seems to make them both proud and assured. They would do anything for Capt. Smith. Not because they love him — I’m not entirely sure that outside of the firehouse he could inspire them even to switch TV channels — but because his deep belief in his mission makes them also believe in that mission.
What Capt. Smith understands is that inspiring people through your personality is a risky, exhausting endeavor. But if you make people feel like you’re going to help them accomplish something far bigger than you — not just saving lives, but living by a system that provides dignity and pride — you can let your belief do the work for you.
I cannot believe, actually, that there’s not one of those inspirational wall posters about boringness. It’s a lot more effective than screaming.
Joel Stein writes a humor column for Time magazine. His first book, Man Made: A Stupid Quest For Masculinity, is very, very good. He wrote this paragraph too.
| 행복 공식 (0) | 2015.01.22 |
|---|---|
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
| 빌 클린턴 Bill Clinton 2012 DNC 연설, 사람의 마음을 대중을 움직이는 힘 (0) | 2012.09.14 |
| '농업정책, 전문기자 다섯이면 바꾼다' [농촌문제세미나] 김현대 <한겨레> 농촌전문기자 (0) | 2012.05.13 |
| [경향] 정부 “미 쇠고기 검역 중단 않겠다” ..더러워서 안 먹는다 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
빌 클린턴, 늙었다. 말 참 잘 한다, 히야 .. 잘 한다 하면서 보고있는데 본인이 직접 쓴 연설이란다, 대박. 마치 이 캠페인을 위해 태어난 듯, 능숙함과 편안함. 미국 정치라는 공간에 인생을 담은 사람이니만큼 익숙한 것이 당연하겠지만 여전히 놀랍다. 참으로 내가 원하고 잘하는 일을 하면서 사는 것, 이란 저런 것이구나, 저것이 정석의 모습이구나 싶은 모습. 감탄에 감탄이다, 어메이징. 이러한 현란하지 않은 간단함, 공감의 주제들을 적절히 다룬, 자신이 지식과 능력을 한껏 활용한 연설. 이러한 것이 사람의 마음을 움직이고 대중을 움직이는 힘이다 싶다. 보면서 '투표하고싶다'는 생각이 들게하는 것, 이것이 힘이다. 박수.
| 관계 공부 relationship management 인생은 외로움 (0) | 2014.12.01 |
|---|---|
| Boringness: The Secret to Great Leadership by Joel Stein (0) | 2014.01.11 |
| '농업정책, 전문기자 다섯이면 바꾼다' [농촌문제세미나] 김현대 <한겨레> 농촌전문기자 (0) | 2012.05.13 |
| [경향] 정부 “미 쇠고기 검역 중단 않겠다” ..더러워서 안 먹는다 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
| 재미있는 오피니언 '원자력은 절대 부패한다' 과연, 대중에 전달되는 과학적 사실의 정확성 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Boringness: The Secret to Great Leadership by Joel Stein (0) | 2014.01.11 |
|---|---|
| 빌 클린턴 Bill Clinton 2012 DNC 연설, 사람의 마음을 대중을 움직이는 힘 (0) | 2012.09.14 |
| [경향] 정부 “미 쇠고기 검역 중단 않겠다” ..더러워서 안 먹는다 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
| 재미있는 오피니언 '원자력은 절대 부패한다' 과연, 대중에 전달되는 과학적 사실의 정확성 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
| 히피 hippie 문화의 굉장함 역량 역사 (0) | 2012.04.23 |
미국에서 광우병에 걸린 소가 발견되면서 국민 불안이 가중되고 있지만 정부는 미국산 쇠고기 수입을 계속 허용키로 한 방침에 변함이 없다고 밝혔다.
서규용 농림수산식품부 장관은 27일 경기 용인의 검역시행장인 강동냉장(주)을 찾아 수입 쇠고기의 검역 절차를 점검하는 자리에서 “미국산 쇠고기의 검역 중단 조치는 하지 않겠다”고 말했다.
| 빌 클린턴 Bill Clinton 2012 DNC 연설, 사람의 마음을 대중을 움직이는 힘 (0) | 2012.09.14 |
|---|---|
| '농업정책, 전문기자 다섯이면 바꾼다' [농촌문제세미나] 김현대 <한겨레> 농촌전문기자 (0) | 2012.05.13 |
| 재미있는 오피니언 '원자력은 절대 부패한다' 과연, 대중에 전달되는 과학적 사실의 정확성 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
| 히피 hippie 문화의 굉장함 역량 역사 (0) | 2012.04.23 |
| 구글 Google 의 생활 (0) | 2012.01.17 |
재미있는 사설. 매립된 플루토늄의 반감기 2만 4000년 동안 누출방지를 위한 모니터를 미국 정부가 한단다 하하. 상식은 전문가가 아닌 할머니의 것이 정확 할 수도 있다. 그렇지만 원자력의 대안이 탈핵이라는 어설픈 마무리. 아무튼 재미있군 그래.
더구나 Hanford 는 Washington 에 위치. 이에대한 말이 왕왕 들린다. 지난 달 학교 신문에서도 Hanford 의 한 핵 전문가가 발전소에 대한 보고서를 정부에 올리는 과정에서 발전소 임원들의 부패와 비리를 밝히려다 해고당한 사건이 소개되었다. 이렇게 무시되고 덮히는 사실들 속에서 원자력 발전소에 대해 우리는 얼만큼 정확히 알고있는가.
세상은 세부적으로 발달되었다, 자연도 과학기술도 기계도 에너지도 사회구조도 경제도 금융계도 심리도 일일한 세포와 단백질의 구조 어느 하나 자세하지 않은 것이 없다. 그것을 모두 이해하기란 부족하기에 각자의 분야를 맡지만 서로를 이해 시킨다는 것은 불가능에 가까워 보인다. 원자력에 대한 과학적으로 정확하고 사회적으로 객관적인 의견은 어디에서 찾을 수 있을까, 대중은 그것을 받아들일까. 광우병도 에이즈도, sexuality 도 과학적인 객관성과 무관히 사회적 정치적 영향력을 위해 오용되고 남용되는 사실들이 너무나 많다 .. 대중에게 정확함을 전달한다는 것은 불가능인가.
평균 기자들은 원자력에 대해 얼마나 알고 있을가, 원자력의 미래는 어디일까 ..
[경향]
http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201204182111485&code=990000&s_code=ao124
1970년대 초반 일본 학생들의 미국 워싱턴주 핸포드 핵시설 견학을 주선한 바 있다. 견학 시점을 나가사키 원폭투하 기념일(8월9일)에 맞췄다. 이 때문에 견학 안내자는 당혹스러워했다. 자신들이 만든 플루토늄으로 나가사키에 투하된 원자폭탄을 만들었다는 것을 알고 기뻐하는 핸포드 핵시설 노동자들 사진 앞에 섰을 때 안내자의 목소리는 중얼거리듯 작아져 거의 들리지 않았다.
하지만 핸포드 핵시설이 얼마나 안전한지 설명하는 대목에서 그는 매우 활기를 띠었다. 그는 플루토늄 폐기물은 깊은 구덩이에 매립되며 누출되지 않도록 세심하게 모니터된다고 말했다. 내가 질문했다. “플루토늄의 반감기가 2만4000년이라고 하지 않았나요? 누가 그렇게 오랫동안 모니터하게 되지요?” “미국 정부가 하지요.” “인류 역사를 통틀어 2만4000년이나 지속된 정부가 있나요?” 그는 대답하지 않고 경멸하듯 나를 쳐다봤다. 내가 애국심이 없는 사람이라고 생각했을 것이다. 그 순간 나는 매우 똑똑하고 고도로 훈련된 기술자라도 바보가 될 수 있다는 걸 깨달았다.
나의 전공인 정치학에서 나온 유일한 과학적 법칙이 있다면 바로 ‘권력은 부패한다’는 것이다. 절대 권력은 절대적으로 부패한다. 하지만 절대 권력에 가장 가까운 힘이 원자력이라는 사실을 간파한 정치학자들은 거의 없다. 원자력은 특유의 방식으로 그것을 맹신하는 사람들의 사고를 타락시킨다. 사람들은 원자력이 상식적 판단이 적용되지 않는 아주 높은 곳에 있는 것으로 여기게 된다. 죽음의 방사능을 계속해서 내는 물질을 생산하는 것은 어리석다든지, 그럼으로써 수만년동안 그것을 모니터해야 한다든지 하는 상식적 판단들 말이다.
| '농업정책, 전문기자 다섯이면 바꾼다' [농촌문제세미나] 김현대 <한겨레> 농촌전문기자 (0) | 2012.05.13 |
|---|---|
| [경향] 정부 “미 쇠고기 검역 중단 않겠다” ..더러워서 안 먹는다 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
| 히피 hippie 문화의 굉장함 역량 역사 (0) | 2012.04.23 |
| 구글 Google 의 생활 (0) | 2012.01.17 |
| Carbon Nation 탄소 제국, 사람과 환경은 하나임을 기억하며 서로를 위한 대체 에너지를 찾아야한다 ! (0) | 2012.01.01 |
utopian possibility
non-materialistic
alternative society
anything is possible
take control, do it in a better way
freedom
nothing to fear nor enforce
living the live as beautifully as we can
war with love and peace
free clothes, free medical service, free food, free community
"if you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair"
i don't have words, i just have a soul
criminalizing LSD
make love not war
"dressed like tarzan, hair like jane, smelled like cheetah"
utopian society
| [경향] 정부 “미 쇠고기 검역 중단 않겠다” ..더러워서 안 먹는다 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
|---|---|
| 재미있는 오피니언 '원자력은 절대 부패한다' 과연, 대중에 전달되는 과학적 사실의 정확성 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
| 구글 Google 의 생활 (0) | 2012.01.17 |
| Carbon Nation 탄소 제국, 사람과 환경은 하나임을 기억하며 서로를 위한 대체 에너지를 찾아야한다 ! (0) | 2012.01.01 |
| [사설] 나가사키와 후쿠시마 '비극의 뿌리' (0) | 2011.12.04 |
Google. It’s one of the most common household words in today’s modern society, and yet for a company that is used by most of us essentially as an algorithm, it tends to trigger a highly emotional response when overheard. It’s a dream job for college students nearing graduation, a highly coveted invitation to lunch by friends and colleagues who work near campus, and the bane of existence for those who produce content for the Internet. For several years, most of the public has seen quick glimpses of the life of those who work at Google: offices filled with primary colors, couches, large kitchens, massage chairs, and even hammocks. There’s no doubt that working at Google comes with perks; not only does Google provide the traditional benefits like health insurance and extremely competitive pay, but Googlers are treated to free breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks, free on-site massages, car detailing, on-site fitness centers, and even napping pods.
It’s almost as if you could live on campus and never leave. Google’s motto is (apparently) “Don’t be evil,” and it goes out of its way, every day, to ensure Googlers live extremely well on campus. But what is this life really like?
One software engineer on the Mountain View campus, who is married with an 18-month-old son, says that these perks encourage a work-life balance. For example, he comes into the office around 9 a.m., and may leave for salsa dancing classes with other Googlers at 2 p.m. He then comes back, codes for a few hours, then may go to a bar on campus with some colleagues, return to work, and then go home around 7 p.m. He says he typically gets back to work, while at home, around 10 p.m. To him, this is the epitome of Google’s work-life balance, though the amount of personal life in his day amounts to less than three hours with his family, assuming the rest of the time is spent sleeping.
Other Googlers do use the full features of the campus to essentially live and breathe Google, ensuring they stay healthy and fit with Google’s exceptional dining facilities, on-site gyms, and medical teams while demonstrating a devout work ethic. It’s no secret that one of the biggest perks of Google is the food — in fact, some warn new hires of the “Google 15″ due to the massive options, especially at the Mountain View campus. Google features full showers and locker rooms, enabling Googlers to work as hard as they want, potentially for days at a time. A former contractor for Google noted that many of the engineers and sales teams “are always pushing themselves and each other. I saw a lot of really determined, competitive people there,” to the point that they would stay on campus for several days at a time.
Brilliantly, Google has designed all of its offices so its employees can stay at work overnight, without having to worry about a thing — such as their hunger, health, or hygiene.
That is, unless you have a family. The software engineer I spoke with usually makes the choice to go home, as do the members of his team. He notes that “there are a large collection of people who have families on [his] team.” However, he also explains that at Google, “your compensation is correlated to the amount of effort you can put in.” While he says there is no direct pressure to conform to “crazy hours,” he hints at the reason he lives a Google-centric life: His pay is directly related to the amount of time he spends with Google. For those who can’t keep up with the demand, they simply have no choice but to leave, as previous (and notably older) Google employees have done when they must make the choice between raising a family or getting a raise. (I personally know at least one former Seattle-area Googler who quit under similar circumstances after being forced to either choose seeing his newborn less, or receive a demotion if he didn’t travel more.)
But is Google really that bad? For those who strive for work-life integration, rather than crave work-life balance, the Google lifestyle seems to truly be a dream. The software engineer I spoke with highlighted that there really are “no hindrances to leave campus, as Google wants to make sure that [it] can provide you with the means to get things done without knocking you out of [the] productivity zone.” Employees can punctuate their day (like he does with salsa classes) and grab food, play a game of pool, or nap as needed. He said that “as an engineer you can get into the zone, but it’s hard to get back into it if you’re knocked out.” He said that at Google, the design of the campus and the company benefits are definitely a “way to get the most out of employees,” allowing Googlers the mental breaks they need to be the most productive.
Google also ensures its employees that it’s not all work, and no play. In fact, this might be the biggest misconception of Google employees. Not only does the office look fun; it is fun. The engineer told me that alcohol is extremely prevalent on campus, complete with several tiki bars. He said that at these bars there are “glasses of wine and scotch available, and if you try hard enough, you can always find alcohol” somewhere on campus.
Drinking? While working? While you might crack a beer on your desk at 4 p.m. on a Friday, drinking is just part of the job at Google. The software engineer even revealed that “some managers even pressure their teams to drink.” Googlers also celebrate a “TGIF” every Friday, where even more booze flows freely. During these sessions, a New York Times best-selling author might speak, or Lady Gaga might perform, with Googlers filling the cafeterias of multiple buildings to listen and watch. Other times, it’s a very casual happy hour that often lasts late into the evening — all while never leaving the cozy confines of their home away from home. Luckily for these Googlers, the Mountain View campus is now starting to serve meals on weekends. (Hangover brunch, anyone?)
Google’s closed doors have cultured an open environment internally that has empowered its employees — at least the ones who can afford to live and breathe the search behemoth — to speak their minds. The problem is that Google is growing in not only in its own power, but in size, and in age. Young, unmarried Googlers can easily choose to work more than those who are older with kids and are being compensated accordingly — which forces those with more tried and proven talent to join other corporations. Google is also losing its agility as it grows — the perks now come with red tape and decisions are harder to make by management. Google is no longer a fun, whimsical startup with a few young kids with big ideas. In fact, some town hall meetings about controversial decisions, such as the Google+ real names policy, get so heated that discussions between other Googlers erupt nearly to the point of physical violence (which is notably not tolerated).
Working at Google is a choice to eat, sleep, and breathe Google. It’s a conscious decision, and also an emotional choice for each employee. While we as consumers, dream-job seekers, and bloggers each feel a specific way about Google, we merely enjoy a Doodle or stress about changes to the algorithm. However, those inside the castle walls feel nothing but Google, and only because of Google.
And while those from both the inside and outside see an office that is, according to that software engineer, “an area that feels organic and free flowing so you don’t feel like a cog in a machine,” that is exactly the antithesis of the culture that Google has bred. While employees rave about the amount of alcohol available, the free food, and the lack of hindrances to leaving campuses — and yet say they are a free moving object — it’s hard to deny that working for Google sounds like being a part of, well, something else.
The only real question is: Where is the Kool-Aid?
| 재미있는 오피니언 '원자력은 절대 부패한다' 과연, 대중에 전달되는 과학적 사실의 정확성 (0) | 2012.04.29 |
|---|---|
| 히피 hippie 문화의 굉장함 역량 역사 (0) | 2012.04.23 |
| Carbon Nation 탄소 제국, 사람과 환경은 하나임을 기억하며 서로를 위한 대체 에너지를 찾아야한다 ! (0) | 2012.01.01 |
| [사설] 나가사키와 후쿠시마 '비극의 뿌리' (0) | 2011.12.04 |
| 재외선거 - 절차 및 자료링크, 중앙선거관리위원회 (0) | 2011.11.25 |
carbon nation is a documentary movie about climate change SOLUTIONS. Even if you doubt the severity of the impact of climate change or just don't buy it at all, this is still a compelling and relevant film that illustrates how SOLUTIONS to climate change also address other social, economic and national security issues. You'll meet a host of entertaining and endearing characters along the way.
quotes from carbon nation:
“Do I think man is causing global warming? No, but that doesn’t make any difference. I want clean water and I want clean air. And that’s so simple.” THE WILD ALASKAN
“Climate change in fact is a national security issue. This is no longer the purview of Birkenstock-wearing tree huggers. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” THE ARMY COLONEL
“So if you don’t give a damn about the environment, do it because you’re a greedy bastard and you just want cheap power.” THE BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEER
| 히피 hippie 문화의 굉장함 역량 역사 (0) | 2012.04.23 |
|---|---|
| 구글 Google 의 생활 (0) | 2012.01.17 |
| [사설] 나가사키와 후쿠시마 '비극의 뿌리' (0) | 2011.12.04 |
| 재외선거 - 절차 및 자료링크, 중앙선거관리위원회 (0) | 2011.11.25 |
| Egypt Revolution 이집트 혁명, 그 후 (0) | 2011.11.24 |
 instagram @watericious 배우며 감동하며 여행하며 행복 travel seattle by water_ |
||
|
