Posts Tagged ‘differences’

Dr. Irene S. Levine: I can’t believe she defriended me!

Saturday, September 4th, 2010

This week, I received an email from another writer who reminded me that she had once defriended me on Facebook. We both belong to the same professional association (which meets annually) but we live in different States and have virtually no contact with each other (although we might see each other’s posts on forums). While I was stunned that I had been defriended, I had totally forgotten about the incident until I received her recent note. The subject line read I’m Sorry . My ex-Facebook friend wrote: Irene, I’m sorry that I defriended you last year after I felt hurt following some Facebook comments early last year. I’d like to think I’ve developed thicker skin since then…but I’m a human. :) Anyhow, I hope we can work beyond our differences… Read More… More on Facebook

Go here to see the original:
Dr. Irene S. Levine: I can’t believe she defriended me!

Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Iraq’s Remains of the Day

Monday, August 30th, 2010

On Tuesday evening, President Obama will address the nation to mark the end of America’s official combat role in Iraq. He will speak from the Oval Office as Vice President Biden — hurriedly dispatched to Baghdad yet again — is warning squabbling Iraqi politicians that Iraq’s continuing drift, dissent and violence could become the bitter legacy to be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately, even with Biden’s deft pressure it is unlikely Iraq’s bitter political rivals will put aside their differences quickly enough to enable the President to announce such a deliverable. As for the Iraqi people, with an inestimable number – perhaps over 100,000 dead — the infernal feuding political establishment and a increasingly non-functioning government are sad reminders of so much lost for whatever many may still wonder is an uncertain future. And it is hard to imagine that after the Sunni Awakening and the Petreaeus Surge, elections, the liberation of Fallujah and Ramadi…the capture and killing of so many Al Qaeda commanders, that Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) could terrorize its way back into play. Yet, it is rearing its ugly head once again like a once dormant, now increasingly virulent virus. Read More… More on Israel

Here is the original post:
Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Iraq’s Remains of the Day
Iluvnutrition

Brendan Nyhan: Obama Muslim Myth on the Rise

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

The Pew Research Center released a new poll this morning updating its measure of public belief in the misperception that President Obama is a Muslim (coverage: NYT , WP , AP ). The news is not good — belief that Obama is a Muslim increased from 11% in March 2009 to 18% now, while belief that Obama is a Christian declined from 48% to 34% and the group who said they didn’t know increased from 34% to 43%. Here’s a visualization of change in beliefs about Obama over time using the full time series from the Pew questionnaire (PDF): As Pew notes, “The view that Obama is a Muslim is highest among his political opponents (31% of Republicans and 30% of those who disapprove of his job performance express this view).” If we compare these results with those from March 2009, it’s clear that Republican beliefs about Obama’s religion have dramatically shifted: The most important issue, though, is why the misperception has increased over time. The Washington Post story does a good job of breaking down different possible explanations: White House officials expressed dismay over the poll results. Faith adviser Joshua DuBois blamed “misinformation campaigns” by the president’s opponents… Among those who say Obama is a Muslim, 60 percent say they learned about his religion from the media, suggesting that their opinions are fueled by misinformation. But the shifting attitudes about the president’s religious beliefs could also be the result of a public growing less enamored of him and increasingly attracted to labels they perceive as negative. In the Pew poll, 41 percent disapprove of Obama’s job performance, compared with 26 percent disapproval in its March 2009 poll. More than a third of conservative Republicans now say Obama is a Muslim, nearly double the percentage saying so early last year. Independents, too, are now more apt to see the president as a Muslim: Among independents, 18 percent say he is a Muslim, up eight percentage points. It’s extremely difficult to distinguish between these explanations in poll data; both are likely to play a role. In particular, as Republicans and independents view Obama more unfavorably, they’re likely to be more receptive to negative information about him, including false claims about his religion. For more on why it’s so difficult to correct misperceptions like this one, see my Political Behavior article with Jason Reifler (PDF). See also our working paper testing different approaches to correcting the Obama Muslim myth (PDF), which I discussed on NPR’s On the Media last year. Postscript : It turns out that Time conducted a survey this week (August 16-17) which found similarly disturbing results. Using different question wording and response options, they found that 24% of Americans believe Obama is Muslim: 16. Do you personally believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim or a Christian? Muslim: 24% Christian: 47% Other: 5% No answer/Don’t know: 24% By contrast, here is the wording for the Pew question: Now, thinking about Barack Obama’s religious beliefs… Do you happen to know what Barack Obama’s religion is? Is he Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, or something else? While it’s possible that the misperception increased due to Obama’s comments on Friday about the proposed Muslim community center near Ground Zero (Pew’s poll was conducted July 21-August 5), the differences between the questions mean the results are not directly comparable.

Read more:
Brendan Nyhan: Obama Muslim Myth on the Rise
Iluvnutrition

Robert Gibbs Clarifies "Professional Left" Criticism, Calls Initial Comments Inartful

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

In a statement to the Huffington Post, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged that his recent broadside against the “professional left” was inartful, and called for renewed unity among the Democratic community. Referring to statements he made in an interview with The Hill published Tuesday, Gibbs reiterated his belief (which served as the basis of his initial remarks) that the president had achieved a host of legislative accomplishments for which he was not getting proper credit. But he said that Democrats, “me included,” need to “stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we’ve come too far to turn back now.” “I watch too much cable, I admit,” Gibbs told the Huffington Post. “Day after day it gets frustrating. Yesterday I watched as someone called legislation to prevent teacher layoffs a bailout – but I know that’s not a view held by many, nor were the views I was frustrated about.” He continued: So what I may have said inartfully, let me say this way — since coming to office in January 2009, this White House and Congress have worked tirelessly to put our country back on the right path. Most importantly, to dig our way out of a huge recession and build an economy that makes America more competitive and our middle class more secure. Some are frustrated that the change we want hasn’t come fast enough for many Americans. That we all understand. But in 17 months, we have seen Wall Street reform, historic health care reform, fair pay for women, a recovery act that pulled us back from a depression and got our economy moving again, record investments in clean energy that are creating jobs, student loan reforms so families can afford college, a weapons system canceled that the Pentagon didn’t want, reset our relationship with the world and negotiated a nuclear weapons treaty that gets us closer to a world without fear of these weapons, just to name a few. And at the end of this month, 90,000 troops will have left Iraq and our combat mission will come to an end. Even so, we will continue to work each day on the promises and commitments that the President made traveling all over this country for two years and produce the change we know is possible. In November, America will get to choose between going back to the failed policies that got us into this mess, or moving forward with the policies that are leading us out. So we should all, me included, stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we’ve come too far to turn back now. The lengthy statement comes hours after Gibbs’ interview with The Hill , in which he mocked liberal affection for Canada’s healthcare system and suggested that progressives wanted to eliminate the Pentagon. There were various theories about why Gibbs initially ridiculed the president’s progressive detractors. One Republican strategist suggested that the White House, in an effort to diffuse the notion that it is chock-full of socialist schemers, was eager to project distance between itself and its base. A Democratic strategist aligned with the administration echoed Gibbs’ remarks, arguing, “A vocal part of our base doesn’t understand the legislative process and thinks we should govern by dictate. That’s not how even a reformed version of Washington works. We have passed the most progressive legislation in a generation, a large portion of what we campaigned on, and the fact that that is not enough to motivate them or change their tune is a real drain on our party and a threat to our electoral prospects.” The vast majority of the reaction, however, was sharply negative. “Spiro Agnew — sorry, Robert Gibbs — says “the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama” emailed Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com. ” Well, the Obama in the White House is not the Obama who organized, campaigned, raised money and ran for office, so I guess its’ a wash.” “There are two big problems with Gibbs outburst – policy and politics,” added Robert Borosage, head of Campaign for America’s Future. “In policy, the left got it right. The president is hurting because his reforms were not bold enough… On politics, the enthusiasm gap comes less from forced compromises than from political malpractice. The destructive health care waltz with Baucus and the supposed moderate Republicans… the White House’s infatuation with taxing union health care benefits; the White House’s unwillingness from day one to pound on the failed conservative policies that drove us off the cliff… Part of that malpractice, arguably, was on the left as well – as significant energy was devoted to the sausage making of the Congress, and too little resources and energy went towards independent mobilization. There was and is no reason for the ersatz Tea Party right to capture the populist voice.” Read more: Gibbs Hill Interview , Gibbs Professional Left , White House Base , Gibbs Base , Gibbs Progressive , White House Progressive , Democratic Base , Politics News

View post:
Robert Gibbs Clarifies "Professional Left" Criticism, Calls Initial Comments Inartful

Ruth Bettelheim, Ph.D.: Why Gender Neurology Matters in Political Decision Making

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Sex and Stress: Male Vs. Female Political and Domestic Strategies Neuroscience research confirms that when stressed, men tend toward ‘fight or flight’ reactions, while women prefer to talk — and that men take more risks, while women are generally more cautious. However, neither the mechanisms underlying these findings, nor their implications for businesses, politics and families, have been adequately explored. One month ago, Kathleen Parker’s column in the Washington Post called President Obama ” The First Female President ” and concluded that his “feminine” political style is a liability that’s making him less popular. However, Ms. Parker’s conclusions are based neither on scientific understanding of male and female negotiation strategies nor on persuasive evidence. For example, Nancy Pelosi’s recent success in getting the health care reform bill passed caused many to label her the most skilled house majority leader in history, believing she outperformed her male predecessors. Her abilities have been honed over a lifetime, but it is possible that the differences between male and female stress responses also contributed to her performance. Scientists are finding that under stress, men’s and women’s brains respond in almost directly opposite ways, both in decision-making strategies and responses to threats. The fight or flight response usually described as the normal human reaction to a threat turns out to only be normal for males. Stressed and threatened women instead tend to seek affiliation with others, and now brain scans show why. Specifically, when looking at angry faces, stressed women’s brains respond in opposite ways to those of stressed men. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which anyone is exposed to more angry faces than Speaker Pelosi was during the health care debate. When stressed women look at angry faces, the parts of their brains that respond to faces (the fusiform face area) are highly activated and coordinated with those areas that handle understanding other people’s emotions and perspective. Certainly this tendency would have enhanced Ms. Pelosi’s already formidable skills. In contrast, stressed men looking at angry faces have reduced activation and coordination of those brain areas. Similarly, behavioral studies show that when stressed, men tend to withdraw (flight or fight) whereas women seek affiliation (want to talk), especially when confronted with an angry person. According to Dr. Mara Mather of the University of Southern California, a leading cognitive neuroscience researcher, this is probably caused by a sort of feedback loop. If you are not as attuned to other people’s responses when under stress, you may not be as good at dealing with others, and thus tend to withdraw. But if you read angry people especially well, you may feel further empowered to engage with them. Men and women under stress have different decision-making strategies as well. Stress tends to increase risk taking in men but decrease it in women. In stressed women, the parts of the brain that assess subtle changes in body states are highly activated. So are other parts of the brain that send emotional signals that something bad is about to happen, increasing a sense of foreboding. The opposite is true in the brains of men who are stressed. Men receive fewer body signals and have a reduced sense of impending danger. It is possible that men, when receiving fewer bodily sensations than normal, take additional risks to increase these signals. If we apply these findings to the performance of both high profile and ordinary people under stress, we may gain a better understanding of their behavior, such as Nancy Pelosi’s superlative performance with an angry nation at her back, and Jack Kennedy’s risky confrontations with the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis and the Bay of Pigs disaster. More prosaically, women confronting angry partners tend to want to talk extensively or seek therapy, while men often resist such strategies and occasionally become violent. This pattern is made more comprehensible by our new understanding of the differences between male and female responses to stress. We should take these differences seriously. Learning to understand and use the strategies of both genders (including risk taking and avoidance, affiliation, withdrawal, and confrontation) can make us better negotiators, whether in politics or in our professional and personal lives. President Obama has been praised for achieving the passage of more important, controversial reform legislation in his first 20 months in office than any president since FDR. His success may be due to his appreciation and mastery of both male and female negotiating styles. Or, to our own detriment, we can continue to ignore or condemn the natural strengths and tendencies of the opposite sex. Perhaps it is time to insist that all sensitive negotiations, whether in The White House, Congress, Middle Eastern diplomacy, business, or in the family, make deliberate, appropriate use of both male and female strategies to arrive at the best outcomes. Maybe with true collaboration between the sexes, we will get not only financial reform, and health care for all but peace in homes and between nations. More on Nancy Pelosi

Link:
Ruth Bettelheim, Ph.D.: Why Gender Neurology Matters in Political Decision Making

Terrorism issue first, insisted India – The Hindu

Friday, July 16th, 2010

Reuters (press release) Terrorism issue first, insisted India The Hindu NEW DELHI: Differences over the pace at which outstanding issues such as Siachen and Kashmir would be taken up undermined Thursday's Foreign Minister-level talks with Pakistan, but officials from both sides denied that the acrimony displayed in … Qureshi: Indian side was ill-prepared The Hindu Mixed views Indian Express BJP wants India-Pakistan talks called off The Hindu MiamiHerald.com

World leaders meet to thrash out recovery plans – AFP

Saturday, June 26th, 2010

The Hindu World leaders meet to thrash out recovery plans AFP TORONTO — The leaders of the world's most powerful countries met in the eastern Canadian city of Toronto to settle their differences over how to nurse the fragile world economy back to health. The G20 nations convened on the heels of a tough-talking G8 … Obama, G8 leaders boost pressure on North Korea, Iran Reuters G8 criticizes North Korea, Iran CNN World leaders seek common ground on crises The Associated Press Voice of America

Report: Meg Whitman SHOVED eBay Employee In Altercation

Tuesday, June 15th, 2010

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman had an altercation with an eBay employee when she was CEO of the company, The New York Times reported Monday, prompting Whitman’s campaign to say such disputes are not uncommon in high-stress workplaces. The two later overcame their differences, and the employee continues to work at the online auction site. The Times posted a story to its website based on anonymous sources that said Whitman became angry and pushed the employee in an executive conference room at eBay’s Silicon Valley headquarters. The employee, Young Mi Kim, was helping Whitman prepare for a media interview for which Whitman felt unprepared, according to the newspaper’s account. The story said Kim threatened to sue after the incident three years ago, but later agreed to a mediated settlement that remains private. “Meg is a serious, results-focused boss. A verbal dispute in a high-pressure working environment isn’t out of the ordinary,” Whitman campaign spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said in a statement issued to The Associated Press. “Meg’s record of accomplishment in business, including her success at leading eBay from a 30-employee startup to a Fortune 500 company, speaks for itself.” The report cited multiple former eBay employees the newspaper said had knowledge of the incident, although it also said that no one else witnessed it. It said Kim was not injured, but left the company for about four months afterward. She eventually returned and is now a senior manager for corporate and executive communications. In an e-mailed statement to the Times, Kim said she and Whitman had overcome their differences. “Yes, we had an unfortunate incident, but we resolved it in a way that speaks well for her and for eBay,” Kim told the newspaper. “And ultimately, I came back to the company, which is not something I had to do.” Whitman’s experience leading eBay from a startup to a global power in online auctions is a central aspect of her campaign narrative. She has contrasted her decades in the corporate world against the political career of her opponent, Democrat Jerry Brown, and says such real-world business experience is what’s needed to turn around California’s declining fiscal fortunes. More on Meg Whitman

Read more:
Report: Meg Whitman SHOVED eBay Employee In Altercation

Jim Selman: Collaboration: An Endangered Competence?

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

I cannot remember having experienced or even having read about a time when there have been so many “extremes” co-existing in terms of political points of view and ways of understanding the world. All seem to simultaneously have the quality of being both ‘life threatening’ AND intractable. Whether we’re discussing climate change, social justice, lifestyles, civil rights, the economy, our political process or the price of oil, everyone seems to have a strongly held point of view without much evident interest in learning or working toward some common resolution of our differences. It would seem collaboration is fast becoming extinct–an endangered competence. Collaboration isn’t the same as compromise or negotiation. Collaboration is not about winning an argument or making the strongest case for a particular point of view. Collaboration is grounded in the simple notion that we can’t accomplish something alone . To collaborate means to accept and value our differences, rather than attempting to homogenize our thinking into some sort of bland agreement. Collaboration, like coaching, is primarily a process of creative critical thinking and communication in which multiple stakeholders in some ‘game’ work together toward an outcome that works for everyone–an outcome that is almost always “greater than the sum of the parts.” The ability to collaborate may be one of the most important competencies for leaders in today’s increasingly contentious world. Learning to collaborate begins with two very basic commitments. These commitments must exist if there is to be the possibility of a satisfactory outcome. First, all parties must be willing for there to be an outcome that works for everyone . In other words, we must be more committed to the possibility for a breakthrough with respect to our differences or to a vision that is larger than our personal point of view. Second, each party must agree that everyone’s point of view is valid (not just their own) and that no one has or knows ‘the truth’ . We are all flying blind. Knowledge is expanding exponentially and most solutions are obsolete before they are implemented. We can no longer trust or defend our forecasts. We must coordinate and appreciate each other’s view of the world, but recognize that our assessments are never true or false. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is action. Are we aligned in our commitments? If not, what is missing for us to be aligned? What are we going to do (or not do)? Ideologies, belief systems and theories are important for the members in a particular club or community. We need to have an intellectual framework to make sense of our world. But when we become captives of our points of view, then we cease to be thinking beings. We no longer have a point of view: our point of view has us. Collaboration doesn’t come naturally, particularly when conflicts and lack of trust have become institutionalized to the point that people often don’t even trust their own leaders. Often it is only an external threat or some form of ‘hitting bottom’ that brings adversaries to the table with a willingness to collaborate in the interest of mutual survival. One choice we always have, however, is where the ‘bottom’ is. Here are some questions I’ve found useful when entering into complex conversations in which multiple stakeholders have different and conflicting agendas: Why are we here? What is the purpose or desired outcome of this conversation? What is at stake for each of us? Are we willing to accept that the other’s views are as valid as ours? Can we ‘listen generously’ and ‘talk straight’ without attacking each other? Is there enough trust to accept and honor each other’s commitments (word) if we reach some alignment going forward? Do we have (or can we get to) some agreements regarding how to resolve breakdowns when they inevitably occur? There are, of course, many practices that must be mastered to lead a collaborative process. Collaboration requires we give up our attachments to a black and white, either/or worldview and accept the practical fact that being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is irrelevant if the house is on fire. To collaborate, we must learn to love ambiguity. We must learn to love living in the ‘gray zone’ where our answers are all interim and our focus is on serving a future that works for everyone. Consider the speed, power, creativity and generosity of spirit we can muster in a crisis. All of us can function with extraordinary effectiveness under the right conditions. We don’t need new books on leadership or new organizational models. In a crisis, we are all present and in action. Differences are noted and quickly resolved. Principles are secondary to what works. The question is why does it take a crisis to bring out the best in us? Copyright 2010 Jim Selman. All rights reserved. More on The Inner Life

See the original post:
Jim Selman: Collaboration: An Endangered Competence?

This Daria Werbowy Editorial For Interview Feels Rather Racist (PHOTOS, POLL)

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

This Mikael Jansson-shot editorial titled “Let’s Get Lost” for Interview Magazine is provocative, without doubt, and really got us thinking about what exactly it means for Daria Werbowy to “lose” herself in a throng of black partygoers. From the differences in their dress (Daria’s in ethereal, angel-like gowns, the others are in knits and leathers) to their body language (A limp yet super-sexual Daria is the main focus, the others feel almost like props), the whole spread has a rather racist vibe that we can’t get down with despite the gorgeous art direction of the spread. Don’t you agree? After all, regardless of what some say, fashion is at its core a political and social product–how power relationships are set up in editorials can speak volumes. So while the super-sexy, ethno-traditional thing is very of the moment, it all seems to be setting up a 21st century colonial construct that makes us very uncomfortable. What do you think?

See more here:
This Daria Werbowy Editorial For Interview Feels Rather Racist (PHOTOS, POLL)