The thing with me is, I already know there are a lot of things about my lifestyle that I wish to change. The problem for me is actually changing them. So at first, I thought this exercise would be a waste of time, but I gave it a shot anyway. Turns out, it really wasn’t a waste of time. Let me tell you why. I knew there were things about my life I wanted to change, but I never thought about how I wanted to change it. Well obviously I told myself, “okay I’m going to change this” but that was about it. These are currently the “buts” I have in my lifestyle:

I want to eat healthy and drink more milk, but I wake up too late and am too busy for it.

I want to spend more time studying, but my environment always distracts me.

I want to sleep earlier, but I always have leftover work I need to do.

I want to be more efficient, but I don’t know how.

I want to exercise more, but it takes a lot of time and the CRC is on the other side of campus.

Mainly, when I changed but to and….

I want to eat healthy and drink more milk, and I wake up too late and am too busy for it. So I need to wake up earlier to eat breakfast, manage my time better, and always look for the healthiest choices in the dining halls.

I want to spend more time studying, and my environment always distracts me. So I need to move to a place where the environment is perfectly suited for my better learning. The library may do wonders.

I want to sleep earlier, and I always have leftover work I need to do. So I need to make sure I prioritize and do anything important first and then be more efficient with it. If I manage my time right, I can get plenty of sleep a night.

I want to be more efficient, and I don’t know how. So I need to talk to someone who is good with efficiency and time management. I also need to be resolute when I know there is work I must get done. Prioritizing is also necessary.

I want to exercise more, and it takes a lot of time and the CRC is on the other side of campus. So I need to realize physical health is important for mental health and overall body performance. I need to manage my time better and have a set schedule on lighter days where I can go to the CRC and get fit.

It is ridiculous the effect one simple change can have. Once that but is changed to and, my mind starts thinking about solutions to the problem. It also starts to think, “wait, what am I doing? I better get back on track with my life!” I cannot say this solves all major problems, but it definitely does help in coming up with a solution.

Once that solution is found, it is your job to work towards it. This exercise is not meant to be the solution, but is meant to create a path to the solution. I haven’t exactly been able to follow the path yet, but at least I now know what I need to do to get there. I may still need some help on the “how” to get there though.

img source: http://nbcprobasketballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/images.jpg?w=200&h=170&crop=1

img source: http://a2.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/117/61b19d50a20d4224ad77eccdcae86797/m.png

Daniel Pink defines empathy as the ability to imagine yourself in someone else’s position and to intuit what that person is feeling. He talks about how empathy is different from sympathy in the sense that sympathy is feeling for someone and empathy is feeling with someone. Making the mental connections needed to understand the emotions of others utilizes the right brain heavily.

Empathy, like all of the other high-concept, high-touch senses, has a huge application in the workforce. Empathy is one of the few remaining qualities humans can possess that keeps us from all being replaced with computers. You can’t make a computer feel emotion. In the Informational Age, empathy didn’t matter so much, because people only cared about the result. Now, when people are so concerned with the why, empathy gives companies a way to connect with consumers and make their businesses incredibly profitable. As a result, workers who possess a high level of empathy become very valuable to employers.

For my empathy exercise, I decided to try eavesdropping on a few random conversations in my dormitory’s lounge. Luckily, nothing too incredibly private was being shared, or I may have felt bad. I don’t really consider myself an extremely empathetic person, and, to no surprise, trying this exercise more or less validated that thought. When I listened in, I could put myself in another person’s shoes in the sense that I understood what they were talking about, but not really what they were feeling. After a little bit of time, however, I could start to understand the emotions of what other people were saying. I think this may have been because I was practicing a mental task that I do not normally perform.

After trying this exercise, it is clear to me why empathy can be such an important skill in the workforce. Being able to connect with someone on an emotional level like that would make it very easy for someone to create a product or design a method custom tailored to their emotions. I believe that the Conceptual Age will have a large level of application for empathy.

image from radiiskate.org

I like “smile” : )

To me, people look so friendly and more attractive when they have smile on their face.

I think there is no ugly person with smile. Again, I do love smile.

So, I chose this activity, Spot the Fake Smile. Before the test, I was confident. ” This would be easy. Ha! Who would get this kind of question wrong?” I sorted out unawkward smiles from genuine ones. However, my test result was a bit surprise. 13/20 : (

I learned some interesting facts after the test. The first line of the extra information projected after the test was “most people are surprisingly bad at spotting fake smiles.” I was relieved that I was among normal people. I learned that although fake smiles look very similar to real smiles, they have slight differences due to different muscle uses. It was a small shock to me that my real smile comes from unconcious brain activity. I thought I smile the same whenever I smile, whether it is a real one or fake one.

There was a part explaining about how to distinguish real smiles from fake ones, but I did not read it. I was curious. I wanted to tell the difference between them. However, I suddenly was afraid of the aftermath. “What if I become to know when others are faking their smiles?” “Would I still want to be their friend? These kind of questions popped up. And, it was definitely not a happy thing. I think smiles are smiles, they are not slangs or insults. Whether it is a fake or genuine one, smile makes inter-relationships among people more flexible. Smile is good, so smile : )

For my exercise on empathy, I decided to take Dan Pink’s advice and test myself. I chose to do two different tests that he suggested in this chapter. The first was the “Spot the Fake Smile” test and the second was the “Mind in the Eyes Test.” The first test was obviously a test to see whether or not you could spot a fake smile. The test displayed short video clips of 20 different people smiling, and the objective was to determine whether the smile was genuine or not. Each clip could only be viewed once, and so I had to make a judgement based on my first instinct. This test actually proved quite difficult and I scored 12 correct out of 20. For most people it really is hard to determine the difference between the genuine and fake smiles, as it is really only a slight difference in the way the person’s mouth and eyes move during the smile.

The next test I took, the “Mind in the Eyes Test,” was a test to see if you could determine the facial expressions of different people only based upon seeing their eyes. There would be a picture such as this:

and then four answers. At first I thought this test was going to be extremely difficult. I thought “How am I supposed to tell what these people are thinking by only looking at their eyes?” But in all honesty, after taking the test  it really wasn’t nearly as hard as I thought it would be. For the picture above the choices were: “apologetic, friendly, uneasy, or dispirited.” Take a few seconds and see if you can figure out the answer. Rather than trying to analyze it in depth just go with your gut feeling, it usually is right. (The answer for this particular picture was ‘uneasy.’ Did you get it right?) I ended up scoring a very respectable 27 of 36 on the test. It seemed that, despite what I thought, the harder test for me was the first one about spotting the fake smiles.

Taking both of these tests was quite beneficial for me because it made me think about things that I would normally just take for granted. When I see someone laugh or smile, I never really think about whether it is actually genuine or not. And when I see someone’s facial expression, I generally just know how they are feeling or at least I can get a good idea of what they are thinking about. It was strange to actually take a test to see how good I was at doing these things that happen all the time during normal interactions with other people. Dan Pink wrote about how people all over the world recognized facial expressions all in the same way. This fact that people just inherently know how each other are feeling amazed me when I really thought about it, and it shows that we all can show empathy towards one another without even really trying.

PS- If you would like to try these tests yourself you can find them here:

Spot the Fake Smile - http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/

Mind in the Eyes Test - http://glennrowe.net/BaronCohen/Faces/EyesTest.aspx

After reading Daniel Pink’s chapter on empathy, I explored Simon Baron-Cohen’s research on empathizing versus systemizing. I was unfamiliar with his research and found the concept that gender plays a major role in empathy intriguing. I learned that empathizing includes being able to recognize another person’s feelings and personally feel them. A good empathizer is able to read whether or not someone is lying, faking a smile or internally perplexed. Then he/she attaches themselves to the other’s feelings. On the other hand, I learned that systemizing people are detached, absorbed in details and structured by rules. After understanding what these terms meant, I was not shocked to find out that Simon Baron-Cohen’s research concluded that women are naturally better empathizers and men are better at systemizing. I decided to take the Simon Baron-Cohen’s empathizing/systemizing test to see what my scores would.

I scored a 60 on the empathy test. The questions I was asked centered around my ability to read other people’s feelings without them directly stating or showing them. I believe my score is fairly accurate to my personality. I have a more nurturing attitude for the people I am close to in my life. I attribute this to my natural instincts as a woman to protect my family. For the most part, I am very good at intuitively knowing the people I am close with feelings. However, I have trouble empathizing with people I do not know well. This explains why I received a middle range score on my empathy test.

While I am a relatively good empathizer, my strong suite is in systemizing. I love lists, rubrics, organizing, excel spreadsheets, charts, detailed plans, and understanding how things happen and why they work. Essentially, I am a very Left-brained thinker. I dwell on the analytical and become freaked out if rules are not followed. I believe this is why I received an 81 on my systemizing test. I grew up analyzing details with my dad and constantly asking why things work. I would somewhat detached myself from objects and/or scenarios in order to dissect them and rationalize conclusions. Unfortunately, this is not a very good tactic in sympathizing with other people’s feelings.

I believe my ability to adequately empathize with others balances my systemizing brain. While I tend to fixate on details and rationalizations, I still am able to recognize other’s emotions and appropriately react. The Myers-Brigg survey I discussed in my last blog post said that I am a 1% thinker. This simply means that I am slightly more rational than emotional with my decision making. My results from the Simon Baron-Cohen’s test nicely complements these results. However, I do go against the gender norms predicted by Simon Baron-Cohen. Generally females have a higher score on empathizing than systemizing. I attribute my inverted scores to the fact that I grew up in a very rational family. I learned to analyze situations instead of just going by my emotions. All in all, doing these tests has shown me that I am a pretty balanced individual when it comes to thinking.

Photo Credit: Kelsea Shriver

My volunteer work last summer was very limited, but it still gave me a sense of great satisfaction and deepened my appreciation for the opportunity to study in the U.S. Last summer, an unprecedented amount of rain from typhoon Morakot struck the mountainous area of southern Taiwan. My father and I walked on foot into the disaster area to deliver needs and to cheer up the refugees.

We walked into the mountains carrying relief supplies. The muddy rivers, once beautiful, carried down rocks and enormous amount of water. The only bridge connecting the mountain and the city was crushed by the giant flow of water. Hills that used to be filled with flower blossoms and birds singing were completely covered by mud, and structures that once stood tall were destroyed by strong wind or swept away by the mud slides. Walking along the rough path, I saw some small animals buried under crumbled trees. After an hour walk, we finally arrived at the refugee center.

Many of the inhabitants were crowded in temporary housing and overwhelmed with loss and grief. Survivors waited for news of missing family members, searched for items in the ruined homes, and worried about their devastated farmlands. Through the long night that my father and I spent with the refugees, we tried to console them and to comfort them. On the piano inside a church, I played “Symphony No. 9” (by Beethoven, a final piece of him which has another name, Ode to Joy) for them, hoping to lift their spirit and create a better mood for them to face the difficulties that lay ahead. Despite my limited ability to alleviate their pain, I did see some smiles among the children. After dinner, while we gathered with the villagers in a big circle to share stories, an old man told us his own experience.

This old farmer began his story by encouraging his neighbors to be stronger and braver. He told us that he was a farmer in the deep mountain. His farmland and his house were swept away in the typhoon, and his family—a wife and a young son—with it. All he had left were the memories of the final moment before his wife and son were separated from him by the mud slide that came from above. For days, he thought he had no reason to live in this world and was so desperate that he almost committed suicide.  However, he did not forgo any chance to save his family members and thus begged the rescue teams to scrutinize fully if there were any sign of life in the area where his wife and son disappeared. He waited for a whole week, but the rescue team brought no news. One night, the volunteers came and pulled him from the dark corner of the refugee house and pushed him up aboard a helicopter. The flight was heading to the hospital—to see his wife and son. He ended this story with tears running down his cheeks. Sharing the thrill of that moment when the family was reunited, my father and I, though exhausted after a very long day, enjoyed the atmosphere which teemed with hope. His story touched me deeply.

After this summer, my father and I have given our time and energy to help the poor living in remote areas of Taiwan, where poverty, malnutrition, and pestilence are still problematic. Whether helping to deliver materials or just sharing a kind word, I have dedicated myself to doing my part for those in need. Usually, I go to the children center, where kids without parents live, to help the children with their homework. I teach them some songs and sing with them in a purpose to help them ease the fear in their deep mind. I enjoy the moment when the face of the naïve kid smiles again.

Thanks to this extra-curricular activity, I feel connected to all of humanity. The experience has provided me inspiration not only to share with those in need but also to cherish the life I have. My service to the needy has taught me to value both the people and the opportunity to serve them.

Our lives are built on conversations, whether it is on the phone, on the computer, or face to face. Though so much goes on through electronics, the most meaningful and effective means is through a personal face to face conversation.  Because of this the many of conversations we have a day, are crucial in not only in work, but in life.  Susan Scott in her book “Fierce Conversations” is out not only to enhance everyday conversations, but make them “fierce.”

“… a fierce conversation is one in which we come out from behind ourselves into the conversation and make it real.” (pg. 7)  This is how Susan Scott wants us to interact with others.  With every person we talk to there is another opportunity to have a fierce conversation.  We can all tell the difference between a forced conversation and a real one.  A forced conversation begins and ends with small talk, and is very forgettable. Neither person has really given the other anything substantial to hold on to in their mind, so there is a good chance that neither person is excited about the other.  A real or fierce conversation is a memorable and genuine. A great example of where I put this into action was at the most recent career fair.

Recruiters at the career fair look at hundreds of potential candidates in a matter of hours, and then have to narrow the field down to the about twenty people they want to give a second look at or interview.  With that much of a cut down in such a small amount of time, if you are going to make that first cut then you need to memorable.  Resumes are not the way to do that, you may have the best resume in the world, but the recruiter will probably forget 95% of what he saw from his quick scan.  They respond best audio stimulation, or fierce conversation.  They will remember the guy they sat and talked to about his family or hometown.  One of the big points that Susan Scott brings up is to be here, prepare to be nowhere else.  Recruiters can tell when students have other places to be, because they can tell in the way you talk to them.  Treat every conversation as if it is the most important conversation you will ever have with that person, because it might be.  Even with many people waiting and many other booths to visit, I made the conversation my only priority.  This allowed me to get invited to seven interviews and receive three internship offers for this summer.  Being committed to the conversation goes a long way in conversation especially at a career fair, because almost everyone else will not show the same amount of interest you do.  That will make you stand out even more.

A way she describes to spark up a fierce conversation is to use the “Mineral Rights.” They are a type of conversation designed to get deep, past the surface and into the truth of what is going on. The approach accomplishes four purposes: Interrogate reality, provoke learning, tackle tough challenges, and enrich relationships.  This will give us a clear path to accomplishing these goals in the conversation.  Interrogating reality will find the purpose of the conversation.  Provoking learning will allow the engagement from both parties during the conversation. Tackling tough challenges will allow you to find the solution to problems you may be faced with.  And all of this leads to enrichment in your relationship.

She lays down seven steps that will give greater clarity and improve understanding of the rights.  1) Identify the most pressing issue.  This cut down the amount of time spent discussing the issue, and increase the amount of time fixing it. 2) Clarify the issue.  If it is clear what the problem is then it will be easier to fix it. The next two are crucial for any troubleshooting.  3) Determine the current impact. If something is going wrong, how bad is it?  4) Determine the future implications. This will help you decide when to deal with the problem bases on other priorities and the problems impact on the future.  5) Examine your personal contribution to this issue.  Determine how your job and/or skill set will be useful in solving the problem.  6) Describe the ideal outcome.  Lay out what the end result needs to be.    7) Commit to action.  With a plan of action, commit to getting it done efficiently and effectively.  Now clearly all conversations do not have pressing problems that need to be solved, in fact most of them are much less serious.  However, that does not make them any less meaningful.  These steps can be applied to any conversation to dig down deep and make the conversation real, but a clear way that I can apply this to my career is through problem solving.

One of the main jobs of a chemical engineer is to manage, maintain, and optimize chemical plants.  The chemists come up with the process, and the chemical engineers make their process a reality on an extremely large-scale.  You are responsible for the effectiveness of the machinery, safety of the workings.  Say a distressed employee runs up with a problem, now is the time to use the steps to make this conversation meaningful.  He says that there is a leak in the recycle stream of a plug flow reactor that is synthesizing long chains of PTFE (Teflon).  This leak is causing a loss of material which requires the reactor to use more energy while producing fewer products.  However, the composition of the leaking material contains the very dangerous byproduct Hydrofluoric Acid, HF.  This is extremely hazardous to the reactors, as well as the workers, so this becomes the top priority in this situation (1).  Now in order to properly solve the problem, you must know the details about it.  It is imperative to get information about the location and size of the leak, before you decide what you need to do to fix it (2).  As you assess the scene, discuss with the employee what the current danger this leak is causing (3), and what this will be the consequences for not addressing it (4).  This will help you to decide how to fix the problem.  For example, you must decide whether you must stop the leak immediately, or wait until you contain the mess that has already escaped.  There are other factors that go into this decision (How long has it been leaking?  Where is the does it accumulate?), but future implications are the biggest.  How will the people and the reactor be effected in the future by a certain course of actions.

Next you must decide how your skill set will be able to contribute in fixing the problem (5).  As the manager, it is our job to know how to properly fix the leak, as well as clean up the toxic chemicals.  You must discuss with your team the plan to arrive at an ideal outcome (6).  A huge part of this is to lead by example, because a plan has no effectiveness without a commitment from the leader to get it done.  This is extremely stressful and dangerous operation, so commitment to excellence from the leader is what they need to do this job efficiently and effectively (7).  This conversation may give new meaning to fierce, but it was effective none the less.  The seven steps broke down a very stressful and potentially tumultuous situation into an organized and effective conversation that wasted little time in solving the urgent problem.  If even one step is omitted then the conversation would not led to an effective and efficient solution.

Now another attribute that Susan Scott points out and that shines through in most of her examples is leadership.  For example in my theoretical example from my future, the steps of conversation taken solve the problem display leadership.  “The best leaders talk with them not at them.”(pg 218)  Proper communication is paramount for reaching a goal for a team, and the best leaders know how to not only communicate well, but communicate in a way that will get the best out of everyone else including themselves.  Talking at a person does not engage them.  Silence can be just as effective as talking. Every great and effective leader not only has great ideas, but understands that others do as well.  Listening is just as critical.  Conversations should be a two-way street.  It is very easy to get caught up in what you have to say, and to ignore what anyone else thinks.  This essentially tells the other person that your idea is more important than anything they have, and that is not an effective way to get the most out of everyone else.

Your body language can also engage the other party.  Solid soft eye contact allows you to focus on the information, and lets the other person know that you are paying attention.  A simple head nod also shows the other person that you are not only hearing the words but also understanding them.  The lack of fierce conversation in the world today leads to the gravity of your meaningful conversation.  You may not consider yourself a natural leader, but by implementing the steps to make a real and open conversation you are showing many of the traits of an effective leader.  By engaging them you lead them into a fierce conversation that they may have never had. You do not have to be given a leadership title to lead people in the right direction. Your insight along with the input from others will allow everyone to understand what is best.

This is very applicable with a large team such as the swim team.  With over 40 swimmers and coaches, the amount of personalities and ideas are over abundant.  There are four captains, but the title does not entitle them to special treatment.  Just because they are appointed leaders does not mean they do not have to act like it.  The conversations need to be with people not at them for the captains to be effective in doing what is best for the team.  “It is exceedingly difficult, almost impossible, to gain a firm footing in conversations filled with noise.” (pg. 219)  With so many people the good ideas are always coming, and it is the leader’s job to be a good listener.  However, this does not let all the others off the hook.  Just because you are not the captain does not mean you are allowed to have shallow and one-sided conversations.  Any person can lead the team by listening as much as they talk.

The transformation from an ordinary dialogue to a fierce conversation takes work, but can result in real, results oriented, highly informative, and enthusiastic discussion that is profitable for both parties.  It is important to engage the other person through body language and silence.  The input from both parties makes the conversation effective.  When discussing a problem it is important to walk step by step through the process to find the problem, and the correct solution.  In order to enrich your relationships with meaningful conversation, you must dig down deep to the heart of the conversation.  This allows you to find what is real and meaningful, discuss with emotion, and tackle the hard problems together. Finally, it is important to be completely invested in the conversation.  People can tell when you have other agendas, and it is extremely refreshing to see someone completely invested in a conversation.  Your passion and enthusiasm will allow the other person to come out from behind themselves and join in the fierce conversation.  “While no single conversation is guaranteed to change the trajectory of a career, a company, a relationship, or a life – any single conversation can.” (pg xix)  The doors for your career, company, relationships, and life will open one fierce conversation at a time.

When I was surfing through the empathy exercises Daniel Pink suggest to do I thought that the Spot the Fake Smile was the most useful one. Every day I interact with many people. Usually I like to be with people that bring smile and laughter. In other words, I always like to be in positive conversations that bring joy to the group. The reflection of joy on people is through their smiles.

As I read the description of the test I wondered how good I was spotting fake smiles. I really thought I was going to be good. In the beginning of the test, all smiles seemed genuine but I knew something it was not right the way I was identifying the smiles. So I started to focus on the eyes and the ending of each smile.

Whenever the eyes of the person smiling did not slightly closed at the end of the smile I labeled the smile as genuine and the ones that completely changed their facial expression at the end, I labeled them as fake smiles. At the end of the test I realize that I need to get better at spotting fake and genuine smiles. I got 8 out of 20 smiles correctly identified.

For me the picture of the woman above reflects a genuine smile. I really thought that the man definitely reflects a fake smile. According to the test both of these people have genuine smiles. So in other word, I really do have to work on my smile detection.

According to BBC lines between eyes appear on fake smiles and cheeks may bunch up making the eyes look as if they were contracting. In the other hand, BBC says that in a genuine smile the eye cover folds, the fleshy part of the eye between the eyebrow and eyelid move downwards and the end of eyebrows dip slightly.

One fault that I think the test has is that it uses people from different heritages. Maybe it is easier for people to detect fake or genuine smiles from people of their same or similar heritages. So I think the test does not accurately say that one good or bad at spotting fake or genuine smiles.

 

Sources:

The information and images were provided by BBC-Science & Nature of Human Body- Spot a Fake Smile Test Results