"I've done it many times, it won't work!"
"Gimme 10 good reasons why I should listen to you!"
"The leader should set example!"
"I've never been praised, so why should I praise others?"
Does all these sound familiar? If they don't, I'd be very interested to know which organization you come from so that I can visit the disease prevention department to learn a thing or two. Because these are 'diseases', call it 'cynicism' for the sake of simplicity, that I find it hard to cure, they are extremely contagious, and permeates through the file and rank in any organizations you can imagine. Or more accurately, these diseases are evident in places where human interact. They spread through verbal and on-verbal transmission mediums, and passed on from one to another regardless of age, race, colour or creed. Especially susceptible to these contagion is between people of different social or hierarchical status within human organizations - people higher up the chain of command spread to more at one go as compared to those lower down. Interestingly, unlike bird flu which has recently been found to infect human from birds, the 'cynicism' disease has so far been observed to remain humanly. So for this reason, there must be some undiscovered antibodies in animals that has kept them immune till this day. The origin of 'cynicism' is unknown, but evidence has it that it is observed since the beginning of homosapiens... okok... you get the drift here, I'm talking about cynical people who makes cynical remarks about anything and everything cynical or uncynical. But before I begin to turn cynical myself, I offer a few reasons why cynical people choose to be cynical.
Firstly, being cynical is an attempt to legitimize one's own failure or non-performance. When a person feels incapable about something, lack of innovation for example, he innately tries to find excuses to justify why he should not be seen as lacking in innovation but instead exposes all possible imperfections that led to his deficiency in the first place. This is especially evident through erecting "it won't work", "I've tried it before", "I'm not convinced" barriers to down play the originality of an idea when first surfaced.
Secondly, it is an attempt to prevent other's success. A cynical person never makes it easy for others to succeed probably due to "red-eye" tendencies which is also explained by Adam's Equity Theory. This person's world view is one of conflict, that when one rises others have to fall. Under the influence of such philosophy, the defence system responds by making sure others don't rise in the first place. Being cynical is probably the easiest and most effortless of all human activity, yet has the propensity to generate enough power to provide adequate defence for oneself.
Thirdly, it is an attempt to attribute failure to others. Especially evident in situations when mistakes are made, one conjures up all possible deficiencies in others and verbalize them in a way that led others to believe they were the originators of those mistakes.
To remain silent when the cynicism disease is flying around is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to do. Because the very act of remaining oblivious is indirectly promoting the contagion - so if you are not the murderer, you are the accomplice. Let me offer a few tips if you happen to be caught between the act:
1. "Did you just have 'cynicism' for lunch?"
2. "I can see 'cynicism' written all over your forehead!"
3. "I just had a flu jab, do you need one for 'cynicism'?"
Monday, April 21, 2008
Thursday, April 03, 2008
When I reflect on my before and after...
As of last October, I have completed what I once thought was an unattainable feat - part time masters degree. After 1.5 years, it's finally over... with icing on the cake... high distinctions!!!
I remember the many occasions where coursemates and myself criticized the modules and lecturers for what appeared to be an attempt to rationalize what is and is not "value for money". On reflection, I think we (or me at least) may have been too myopic in the moment to make those criticisms. It is not for euphorical reasons that I am saying this now that I have completed the program. It is through some deep before-and-after self reflection that I think this program has not only achieved its intended purpose, but also provided me with a platform on which I can grow.
What is my biggest change before and after? It is my competence in critical thinking. For a start, I realize I am asking not only more questions about things that happen around me but also asking right questions. Not only does it facilitate my own learning on a particular subject area, it helps others around me learn too. Some of my colleagues see a change in me - not physically but mentally in terms of my thought processes. I was told that I have an innate sense to want to "break the code". For good or for bad, I think it does reflect the deeper and broader level of engagement I now do as compared to 1.5 years ago. From not knowing what questions to ask, to asking more and asking right. This transition took me 1.5 years and more than 20K. Is there a way to shorten it and make this transition more economical? I am not sure, neither do I think the result will be the same by taking short cuts.
So what exactly did I do in this 1.5 years that led me to this state? The essays and research assignments. Period. I did many essays across a multitude of topics. And every essay requires me to be inquisitive, to argue, to challenge assumptions, to be critical and not take what others say for granted. 10 essays and 1 research project to be exact and almost 50,000 words in all. Doing this over and over helped condition my thinking process to a way typical researchers would. If I was merely given a procedure on how to research, I would never have come this far. If not because of that repetitive exposure to research materials and continuous conditoning of my thinking process, I bet I wouldn't have benefitted enough to say that my money and time were indeed well spent.
Critical thinking therefore is a skill, or a capability, that cannot simply to taught. Because it is about a way of thinking, changing it requires considerable effort and time. One has to learn it, given some guidance, and through deliberate and rigorous experiences, condition it to a point where it becomes an unconscious competence. There are many books and training out there that teaches "critical thinking skills". Yes, they do provide a method or structure, but what is worth noting is that the investment of money and time you put in to be a "critical thinker" is way beyond what you would pay for that book or that workshop. So don't be fooled by persuasive and quickie marketing words. Get real!
I remember the many occasions where coursemates and myself criticized the modules and lecturers for what appeared to be an attempt to rationalize what is and is not "value for money". On reflection, I think we (or me at least) may have been too myopic in the moment to make those criticisms. It is not for euphorical reasons that I am saying this now that I have completed the program. It is through some deep before-and-after self reflection that I think this program has not only achieved its intended purpose, but also provided me with a platform on which I can grow.
What is my biggest change before and after? It is my competence in critical thinking. For a start, I realize I am asking not only more questions about things that happen around me but also asking right questions. Not only does it facilitate my own learning on a particular subject area, it helps others around me learn too. Some of my colleagues see a change in me - not physically but mentally in terms of my thought processes. I was told that I have an innate sense to want to "break the code". For good or for bad, I think it does reflect the deeper and broader level of engagement I now do as compared to 1.5 years ago. From not knowing what questions to ask, to asking more and asking right. This transition took me 1.5 years and more than 20K. Is there a way to shorten it and make this transition more economical? I am not sure, neither do I think the result will be the same by taking short cuts.
So what exactly did I do in this 1.5 years that led me to this state? The essays and research assignments. Period. I did many essays across a multitude of topics. And every essay requires me to be inquisitive, to argue, to challenge assumptions, to be critical and not take what others say for granted. 10 essays and 1 research project to be exact and almost 50,000 words in all. Doing this over and over helped condition my thinking process to a way typical researchers would. If I was merely given a procedure on how to research, I would never have come this far. If not because of that repetitive exposure to research materials and continuous conditoning of my thinking process, I bet I wouldn't have benefitted enough to say that my money and time were indeed well spent.
Critical thinking therefore is a skill, or a capability, that cannot simply to taught. Because it is about a way of thinking, changing it requires considerable effort and time. One has to learn it, given some guidance, and through deliberate and rigorous experiences, condition it to a point where it becomes an unconscious competence. There are many books and training out there that teaches "critical thinking skills". Yes, they do provide a method or structure, but what is worth noting is that the investment of money and time you put in to be a "critical thinker" is way beyond what you would pay for that book or that workshop. So don't be fooled by persuasive and quickie marketing words. Get real!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
