Sunday, December 20, 2015

A500.5.3.RB_LouBeldotti




As I think about how I think about how I think about my thinking, I start to think.  Is my thinking about how I think?  Is my thinking about how others want me to think?  Is my thinking about how I really want to think?  Am I just thinking to think?  Am I thinking about thinking?  Or do I answer myself about how I think about my thinking?  Jeez!  I do not think about how I think.  I do not think in a sink.  I do not think of my thinking about the way I think.

This is way too Dr. Seuss.  Not with a goose or a papoose or even in a caboose.   
Critical thinking is about how I think about my thinking.  This is how I think.  I think.

As I sit here watching my Patriots win their 12th regular season game, I think about how they won.  Did they win because they are a better team?  Yup.  I think so. 
My critical thinking abilities are already well situated in my mind.  Do I look at other things differently as they present themselves?  I think so.  Has my thinking changed based on this course?  I think not.


I think that I will analyze everything in a way that I have already established.  However, I will take all things into consideration based on any new material that changed the mechanics of my thinking.  This course has given me new ways of analyzing the things that I already think about.  There is much to be considered.   

Saturday, December 12, 2015

A500.4.3.RB - Ballet Slippers or Adorable?








I watched Dr. Sheena Iyengar’s video (Iyengar, 2010) on www.ted.com. I listened intently and found 

myself backing the video up to be sure that I got everything that she said. I was not only edified but I 

was also entertained. She started out by telling a personal story about being in Japan and ordering a 

cup of green tea with sugar. The waiter informed her that sugar is not used in green tea. She persisted 

and the restaurant manager became involved. He informed Dr. Iyengar that they did not have sugar. 

She then decided to order a cup of coffee. When the coffee was delivered, on the side of the saucer, 

she found sugar packets. She surmised that the waiter and manager were helping her save face. In 

this situation, she was not given a choice. I believe that this had everything to do with cultural 

differences and beliefs.
            She then described multiple cultural/social experiments that she performed.  The first and most interesting was when they brought Anglo and Asian children into a room and gave them choices with control measures.  There were three groups each of Anglo children and Asian children who were given the following choices:  The first group could each pic their own pictographs and marker colors, the second group was given a pictograph and marker color chosen by Ms. Smith and the third group was told that their mother had chosen their pictograph and marker color.  The results were profound.  In the first group, the Anglo children chose more pictographs whereas the Asian Children chose less.  In the Second group the Asian children performed better than the Anglo children.  Finally, the in the third group, the Asian children performed better that the Anglo Children where their “Mothers” had chosen the pictographs and marker colors for them.  I made the assumption that the Asian children were more comfortable when not given choices and told what to do and the Anglo children performed better when they made their own choices and were not told what to do.  It reminded me of a news broadcast that I once saw about the Asian Tiger Mom.  I can’t recall if I saw it on 20/20, 60-Minutes or ABC’s Good Morning America.  However, I did a search on Google and found information on Wikipedia ("Tiger Mother," 2015).  According to the wiki, “Tiger mother (or tiger mum, Chinese: 虎媽) is a strict or demanding mother who pushes her children to high levels of achievement, using methods regarded as typical of childrearing in East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia.[1][2][3][4] The term is coined by Yale law professor Amy Chua in her memoir Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, which gave some Asian Americans and Asian parents the “license” to be as strict in order to ensure the success of their children in today's competitive global economy.[5]
            Advocates suggest a strict approach to parenting produces an exceptionally high proportion of top performers – kids who display academic excellence across the board with great musical ability and professional success later in life.[6]
            The name “Amy Chua” tickled a memory and I believe that it was indeed her that was interviewed and discussed her memoir, mentioned above.  It is my recollection that she portrayed herself as the ultimate “helicopter” parent.  Omnipresent.  Always injecting and directing.
According to Dr. Iyengar, Americans, unlike their Asian counterparts, believe the following when it comes to making choices:
1.       Make your own choices,
2.      More options leads [sic] to better choices, and
3.      Never say no to choices.
            I gave great thought to Dr. Iyengar’s assumptions and tend to completely agree with her.  The implication of her comments on leadership speak volumes to me about cultural awareness.  It is evident that we must culturally aware when leading organizations that are culturally diverse.

            In closing, Dr. Iyengar spoke of another action research experiment in her final remarks.  She states that she went to a nail salon and when asked what color of nail polish she wished, she informed the nail technician that she was blind.  She asked the nail technician to select color options for her.  The nail technician chose colors of pink with one being ballet slipper which she was informed was elegant and adorable which was glamorous.  Unable to see, she chose one.  She wondered if the names influenced the nail technician.  She took a bottle of each back to her lab and removed the labels.  When she questioned her test subjects, some informed her that the colors were exactly the same.  I have concluded that not only does culture play apart in her research but so do perceived influence. 

Sunday, December 6, 2015

A500.3.4.RB - Explore the Hunt Library





I have been using digital libraries for well over ten years.  When I was attending Trident University International (TUI) for my B.S.B.A. and M.B.A., I became very intimate with ProQuest and other digital resources.  While attending the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy, not only did I have access to its vast media center but also digital libraries such as the Combined Arms Research Library (http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/) and the Pentagon Digital Library (http://www.whs.mil/library/).
I use the Google search engine for a variety of things.  I use it to take me to a website that I do not know the URL for, to look up things that I am interested in, to find out information about people or things that intrigue me and much more.  However, search engines are only reliable to a point.  One might stumble upon a website that has not been vetted, validated and offer substantiated information.  There are plenty of those.  There are look-alike sites, sites filled with agendas, false information, manufactured information and even outright lies. 
As I explored the Hunt Library, I thought about the differences between search engine results and authentic digital libraries and what makes a resource scholarly or not.  As previously mentioned, search engines sometimes offer unverified information.  It’s not that someone cannot find scholarly information by using search engines but searching requires time and once information is found it mused be vetted for authenticity and reliability.  With that said, I verified my thesis by doing a search for “LEADERSHIP CONCEPTS” at both www.google.com and at the Embry-Riddle’s digital Hunt Library using only the first search result.  My Google search produced the following result:  http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcon.html.  As I review the web page, “Big Dog & Little Dog’s Performance Juxtaposition: Concepts of Leadership by Donald Clark it was easy to see that Mr. Clark uses other verifiable sources to produce his page.  His concepts are not his own.  I’m not claiming plagiarism however Clark fills his page with other verifiable resources and scholarly writings.  If I wished to use Clark’s website as a source or reference for research, I would also have to cite all of the sources and references that he had used.  When I used the same search criteria at the Hunt Library, my search produced the following result: http://voyager.db.erau.edu:7008/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=1&recCount=50&recPointer=488&bibId=236605.  As I reviewed the reference abstract, Key Concepts in Leadership/Jonathan Golsing, Stephanie Jones and Ian Sutherland with Joost Dijkstra, Los Angeles [CA]; London: Sage (2012) it became immediately clear that this was a verified scholarly reference that did not require me to search other references and sources.  This was the only source needed.
In closing, it is evident that using digital libraries is definitely a better resource for my studies that using a search engine because of its reliability and verified references.