Monday, February 23, 2015

La Botta Secreta






Once upon a time, an elderly fencing master, after a long and distinguished career, was asked, “How is it so many champions came out of your salle d’armes?”
“Very simple,” he replied. “Only champions came in.”

*******

I’ll tell you a secret.
It’s the secret to being a good fencing master, good teacher, good boss, good leader.
It’s a simple thing, and it doesn’t require you to go on a diet, stand outside during inclement weather, or do any heavy lifting. It won’t muss your hair or scuff up your blue suede shoes.
Here’s the secret in a nutshell:
Believe in your students, in your workers, in your followers.
And show them that you believe in them.

I offer the following four items of evidence for your consideration.

Item #1: The X Files  v The Y-Philes
Very few people, under very few circumstances, labor for extrinsic rewards alone. They will, however, bust the proverbial hump in order to feel competent and self-determining in dealing with the world as it exists for them.

Douglas McGregor postulated two different theories on peoples’ work behavior, dubbing them Theory X and Theory Y. There is a fair amount of social science research to back him up.  Each of the theories encompasses certain specific assumptions.

Theory X assumes:
The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can.
Because of their dislike for work, most people must be controlled and threatened before they will work hard enough.
The average human prefers to be directed, dislikes responsibility, is unambiguous, and desires security above everything.
Theory X management is characterized by tight controls, “micro-management,” and harsh, often disproportionate punishment.  Theory X thinkers view people as expendable, easily replaceable. I think of it as the “Plantation” model, the “Work ‘em ‘til they drop; slaves are cheap,” philosophy.

Theory Y assumes:
The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest.  Indeed, work can BE play.
Control and punishment are not the only ways to make people work.  Man will direct himself if he is committed to the aims of the organization. (Note, as example, the great numbers of volunteer firefighters).
If a job is satisfying, then the result will be commitment to the organization.
The average person, under proper conditions, will not only accept responsibility, but seek responsibility.
People will use their imagination, creativity, and ingenuity to solve work problems.

Item #2: The Mood Pyramid?
Abraham Maslow postulated that there were a variety of human needs that provided the motivation for human behavior. He arranged these needs in his famous – and frequently misunderstood – “hierarchy of needs.”   I’d be willing to wager he almost immediately regretted that he hadn’t called it a circle of needs, a garden or a pantheon of needs,  or even “Abe’s Big Box of Human Needs.”



Maslow’s five types of needs are: 
1. Biological or Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear.

3. Social Needs (Love and belongingness) - friendship, intimacy, affection and love, - from work group, family, friends, romantic relationships.

4. Esteem needs - achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, self-respect, respect from others.

5. Self-Actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.

According to Hoyle, 1) when one has a deficit in one of these needs, one is motivated to fulfill that need and) 2) one must fulfill the lower needs before one can address the higher needs.

The trouble with Hoyle’s interpretation is that it is demonstrably false.      
 IF, as typically asserted, the lower biological needs and safety needs MUST be met before one can be motivated by the higher social, esteem and self-actualization needs, just how exactly does one explain the phenomenon of the volunteer firefighter?  A volunteer firefighter is a person who knowingly and willingly assumes great personal risk in order to rescue another person (or sometimes even a dog or a cat or other animal), who may be a complete stranger, a person to whom he/she has no prior specific duty, thereby putting his/her own “biological and safety needs” on hold for the sake of social, esteem or self-actualization needs.  AND the volunteer firefighter does this for NO material reward. If the “hierarchy” model were correct, then volunteer firefighters would be impossible, at least without the influence of incredible amounts of alcohol or demon possession.

This is not the single lonely exception.  From the Spartans at Thermopylae, to Sidney Carton, to Rachel Corrie, human history is replete with exceptions. And there are countless exceptions today, every day, as ordinary people do extraordinary things, apparently oblivious to their own biological and safety needs. I should hasten to add that not all these things are good and noble.

I would submit that, in fact, those human needs, so astutely observed by Mr. Maslow, aren’t arranged in a rigid, permanent hierarchy at all. At any given moment, a person may be motivated by a particular need, depending on a complex web of circumstances. One must ask, like a good actor, not just “What is this person’s motivation?”  but also “What is this person’s motivation AT THIS MOMENT.”  That notwithstanding, it’s also true that a person may seem to have a particular core need that tends to drive his/her behavior. Often, this driving need is the result of some significant experience of deficit, in that person’s past, for which their current behavior is an attempt to either compensate, or prevent a recurrence of the experience. 

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Find out what it means to me.  – Aretha Franklin



Item #3: Don’t it Make My Brown Eyes Blue
The day after civil rights leader and anti-war spokesman Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was murdered, Jane Elliot, a third grade teacher decided to try an experiment to help her all-white class understand the meaning of racial discrimination.

On that first day of the exercise, she designated the blue-eyed children as the superior group. Elliott provided brown fabric collars and asked the blue-eyed students to wrap them around the necks of their brown-eyed peers as a method to easily identify the minority group. She gave the blue-eyed children extra privileges, such as second helpings at lunch, access to the new jungle gym, and five extra minutes at recess. The blue-eyed children sat in the front of the classroom, and the brown-eyed children were sent to sit in the back rows. The blue-eyed children were encouraged to play only with other blue-eyed children and to ignore those with brown eyes. Elliott would not allow brown-eyed and blue-eyed children to drink from the same water fountain and often chastised the brown-eyed students when they did not follow the exercise's rules or made mistakes. She often exemplified the differences between the two groups by singling out students and would use negative aspects of brown-eyed children to emphasize a point.

At first, there was resistance among the students in the minority group to the idea that blue-eyed children were better than brown-eyed children. To counter this, Elliott lied to the children by stating that melanin is responsible for making children blue-eyed and was also linked to their higher intelligence and learning ability. Shortly thereafter, this initial resistance fell away. Those who were deemed "superior" became arrogant, bossy, and otherwise unpleasant to their "inferior" classmates. Their grades on simple tests were better, and they completed mathematical and reading tasks that had seemed outside their ability before. The "inferior" classmates also transformed – into timid and subservient children who scored poorer on tests, and even during recess isolated themselves, including those who had previously been dominant in the class. These children's academic performance suffered, even with tasks that had been simple before.

The next Monday, Elliott reversed the exercise, making the brown-eyed children superior. While the brown-eyed children did taunt the blue-eyed children in ways similar to what had occurred the previous day, Elliott reports it was much less intense. At 2:30 on that Wednesday, Elliott told the blue-eyed children to take off their collars. To reflect on the experience, she asked the children to write down what they had learned. Later she was quoted as saying "I think these children walked in a colored child's moccasins for a day." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott)

In addition to providing a direct, emotionally-connected learning experience for her students, Ms. Elliot brought to light a vital psychological principle, often know as the Pygmalian Effect. Simply stated: “people tend to perform in accordance with the expectations placed upon them.”  Treat people like winners, and they will tend to behave like winners; treat them like losers, and they will tend to behave like losers – and lose.
This is because everyone acts in accordance with what he/she believes to be true.

Item #4 Goldilocks and the Three Learning Domains
We recognize three types or “domains” of learning: the cognitive, the psycho-motor and the affective.
In short, the cognitive domain is about knowing,  the psycho-motor domain is about doing, and the affective domain is about feeling.

The cognitive domain deals with acquisition and processing of  information.. If you can explain how an internal combustion engine works, you’re operating in the cognitive. If you can recite a history of 16th century fencing masters, the books they wrote and what they said in those books, that’s the cognitive domain. If you know all the rules, tactics, and strategies of the game of basketball and who played for what team over the last decade and what all their “stats” are, that’s the cognitive domain.

The psychomotor domain deals with the acquisition and performance of a physical skill. Now, if you can disassemble and reassemble an internal combustion engine, that’s the psychomotor domain. If you can PLAY basketball, even if you can’t remember who started for the Boston Celtics at the GARDEN in 1961, that’s the psychomotor domain. If you can wield a sword effectively, even if you’ve never even heard of Capo Ferro’s “Gran Simulacro…”that’s the psychomotor domain.

As teachers, as coaches, as bosses, we tend to concentrate on these two domains. Do our people have the knowledge to do the thing? Do our people have the skill to do the thing?  If they do, then all should be well, right?
Not so fast, m’darlin.’

Enter the affective domain, the realm of the emotions. The affective domain is how you feel about the thing, about your work.  While the Cognitive domain explains WHAT to do and the Psychomotor domain teaches you HOW to do it, the Affective domain tells you WHY you do it.  It provides the emotional connection that motivates (back to you, Abe…) your behavior. You can have all the knowledge and skill in the world, but without motivation…

Allow me to cite my favorite example. 1990. Japan. “Iron” Mike Tyson versus James “Buster” Douglas for the heavyweight boxing championship of the world. 

Tyson was in the view of most aficionados of the sweet science, a practically invincible champion. He had summarily destroyed the previous 9 challengers in less time than it generally takes me to make coffee. Buster Douglas was a good but uneven fighter, sometimes excellent, sometimes mediocre. Though the challenger was ranked #3 in the world, the fight was seen as such a mismatch, that the odds against Douglas were about 50 to 1.  If there were bets made, they were bets on whether or not Douglas would survive the first few rounds. It was inconceivable that Douglas might actually win the fight, right up to the moment Douglas knocked Tyson out in the X round.    

Upon winning the fight, the first thing Douglas said to the microphone-proffering sports press was this: “for my mom, god bless her heart.”  You see, Buster’s mother, to whom he was very close, had died just 23 days earlier.  He fought the most perfect fight of his life, not for the belt, not for the money, not for himself at all.
He did it for his mom. 
Because she had believed in him.

La Belle
I strongly encourage to cultivate your capacity to believe in your people. REALLY, believe in them. In your gut. This isn’t something you can fake. If you’re faking it, anyone with two brain cells to rub together will see through your posturing in short order. It has to be real, honest and sincere. If you’re a teacher and you can’t or won’t believe in your students, if you’re a boss who can’t or won’t believe in your crew, then I strongly encourage you to find another line of work.

Take Home Points
1.     All people act in accordance with what they believe to be true.
2.     People tend to act in accordance with expectations placed upon them.
3.     People are not primarily motivated by survival or safety needs.
4.     People need to feel competent and self-determining.
5.     Teaching in the affective domain is the key to enabling a person’s best possible performance.

Recommended reading/viewing
1.     Religion, Values and Peak Experiences by Abraham Maslow
2.     Psycho-cybernetics by Maxwell Maltz
3.     A Class Divided (1985 Frontline Episode re: Jane Elliot)   



 aac


Thursday, February 19, 2015

Don Pedro Sangre



It was soon over. The brute strength, upon which Levasseur so confidently counted, could avail nothing against the Irishman’s practiced skill. When, with both lungs transfixed, he lay prone on the white sand coughing out his rascally life, Captain Blood looked calmly at Cahusac across the body.
“I think that cancels the articles between us,” he said.  

-- Raphael Sabatini, Captain Blood

Friday, February 13, 2015

Hero Homework #12



Movie Magic
Film and television are extremely powerful communication mediums, extremely powerful persuasion mediums. The viewing experience can have a profound affect on the viewer, sub-consciously as well as consciously. It can shape your beliefs, attitudes, assumptions, expectations, and values. 
And without you even knowing it.
But once you know how the trick works, you can never be fooled by it again – unless, of course, you want to be.

I’m going to recommend three films to you. Two of them are classics. The other, well, isn’t.
I want you to watch these three films, and I want you to be a good audience. That means, with the two classics, both of which were shot in black and white, I want you to let yourself watch them as if you were seeing them at the time they were made. I know you’re much more cinematically sophisticated than those earlier audiences, what with computer-generation now, and so on.  But some pretty fine music can be played on a very old guitar. So focus on the music, not the guitar. Let yourself be the audience of that time and that place.
The other thing it takes to be a good audience, is to willingly “suspend disbelief” and let the movie take you on the ride it’s trying to take you on. Experience the feelings the movie elicits. Don’t fight it or force it.
What we want to discover from this experience is what you feel during the film. There are no right or wrong feelings. You feel what you feel. Then, afterward, you can go back and examine HOW the film-maker elicited those feelings from you. The idea is to identify the “tricks of the trade” so you won't be quite so easy to trick.

Years back, I attended a workshop with Michael Hauge (Writing Screenplays that Sell) and, among the many things I learned over that week-end, I remember two in particular.
1.     The screenwriter’s job is to elicit an emotional response in the viewer.
2.     The audience must identify with your “hero” within the first 10 minutes of the film. Within the first 5 minutes would be better. The first minute, would be excellent.
To identify with the hero means that you will experience emotion through that character. There are specific ways in which the writer/film-maker gets you to immediately identify with the hero:
1.     Sympathy - Create sympathy for the hero by showing that he/she is the victim of undeserved misfortune
2.     Jeopardy – show that the hero is in danger of losing something of great value to him/her
3.     Likability –
a.     Show that he hero is kind or good natured
b.     Show that the hero is well-liked by other characters
c.      Show that the hero is funny
  
Then you can give your hero qualities for strengthening that empathy and identification. Such as:
·      A high level of skill in something
·      Living or working in a familiar setting
·      Having familiar flaws and foibles
·      Being in touch with his/her own power
·      Power over other people
·      The Power to do what needs to be done, without hesitation
·      The Power to express feelings regardless of others’ opinions
·      Superpowers
·      Serving as the eyes of the audience

The three films I want you to watch are:
·      Birth of a Nation, Dir. DW Griffith, 1915 - 190 min

·      Triumph of the Will,  Dir. Leni Riefenstahl, 1935  - 110 min

·      The Blood of Heroes, Dir. David Peoples/Guy Norris, 1990  - 102 min

After you feel whatever you find yourself feeling during each of these film, go back to my list of tricks and see if you can find when and how the film-maker started to manipulate your emotions.
Don’t feel bad about it. Your emotions are hard-wired in. They come "naturally," without any effort on your part. It’s thinking  --- critical thinking, that is -- that's  an acquired taste, and has to be learned, requiring both time and effort.  
By becoming aware of your feelings and how those feelings are elicited, you will, to some degree, inoculate yourself against being manipulated. 
You may never be "trick-proof."
But at least you won't be such an easy mark.

 aac




Friday, January 16, 2015

Hero Homework #11


Counterfeiters

Counterfeit money looks like real money --- as long as you don’t look too close.
Similarly, a counterfeit argument seems like a real argument until you analyze it more closely.  A counterfeit argument is called a “fallacy.” A fallacy uses poor or invalid reasoning.
Two of the most common fallacies are the appeal to authority, and the appeal to popularity. In the former, one argues that an assertion is true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.  In the latter, one argues that an assertion is true because many people believe it to be so.
Example:
Appeal to Authority
"It's true because my fencing master said so."   
You may substitute for "fencing master" any authority figure: Teacher, President, Priest, Police Officer, Judge etc. This argument assumes that the vaunted authority is a competent authority about this particular issue, that the authority figure never lies, and never makes a mistake.

Appeal to Popularity
"9 out of 10 beer drinkers prefer X Brand of Beer."
I like to call this one the "69 million Germans can't be wrong" fallacy. That was the population of Germany in 1939. I assume you know what they were wrong about.

The appeal to authority has a flip side that's also very common: the ad hominem argument in which one argues that an assertion is false because there is some "flaw" in the person asserting. In the ad hominem attack, one entirely avoids discussion of the issues in question, but attacks the character of the opposition instead. Name-calling, the standard Facebook  is the simplest example.
Example:
A offers irrefutable evidence that the the earth is not flat, but round.
B responds by calling A  a heretic, an idiot, a "conspiracy theorist," a communist,  a "liberal," a "nazi" or a homosexual.  
Whether or not any of these things is true about A, it does nothing to refute A's assertion about the shape of the earth.

Sometimes, the appeal to authority and the appeal to popularity combine to form what I call  the “settled science” fallacy in which one argues that an assertion is true because many authorities believe it to be true.
Below are a few examples:

Your hero homework: Listen. 
Listen to the news. Listen to people having discussions about various topics.  Can you identify these fallacies when you hear them?
Do you ever catch yourself making these counterfeit arguments?
If so, STOP DOING IT.

aac




Saturday, November 29, 2014

Hero Homework #10


Paratus Pro Quisquam
The thing that keeps most people from taking action when it’s time to take action is that they have no expectation of success.  Without that expectation of success, they have only fears of failure, injury and embarrassment.
A hero, at the moment of action, has an expectation of success, can imagine it, visualize it.             I think you can cultivate that, cultivate a can-do state of mind. Most people find excuses for failure. A hero finds reasons to succeed.
Nothing breeds success like success. That is, success brings an expectation of success.  Good boxing trainers know this well. The bring a novice fighter along slowly matching him (or her!) against less challenging opponents first to build up the fighter’s confidence, the fighter’s “expectation of success.” Only then does the trainer progressively include more challenging opponents.
When Muhammad Ali declared “I am the greatest!” he wasn’t saying that for the public, or for his opponents. He was planting that belief  and reaffirming it in his own mind. In addition to being the GOAT, Ali was a natural sport psychologist.
How does one develop a can-do attitude, or what I sometimes call a “superior will?
That’s easy. Establish a history of success.
Here’s how:
Start with something easy.  Do 50 push-ups. J    Start with one on day one. On day two, do 2. On day 3 do three, and so on for 50 days.
Or  meditate for 5 minutes every day for 21 days.
Or fast for 24 hours.
Or…well, it doesn’t really matter what it is you choose. The point is, you SAY you’re going to DO something, and you DO IT.  No matter what. No exceptions, no excuses.  The most important thing you have is your word, and you should always keep your word – especially to yourself.
Then try something you’ve never done before. Learn another language. Learn to play a musical instrument. Write a sonnet. Bake a cake. Build a coffee table. Fix an engine. Learn a magic trick.
The more things you do, the more you will realize that there’s really nothing you can’t do, if you set your mind to it. You begin to expect success.

Your next hero workout:
Make a promise to yourself and keep it. DO what you SAY you’re going to do. Challenge yourself, and meet that challenge. Then do it again with another challenge, a little harder one. Create for yourself an expectation of success. 

Do it. We need every hero we can get.

-aac

IMPOSSIBLE IS JUST AN OPINION.

– Muhammad Ali


Thursday, November 20, 2014

The Superior Will


Don't look for excuses to fail.
Look for reasons to succeed.


aac

Sunday, November 9, 2014

The Musician's Martial Art


The Musicians’ Martial Art
                                     
Above is a portrait of Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint- George, sometimes called, “The Black Mozart.”  It is interesting to note that, while he was a brilliant composer and celebrated violinist, this portrait depicts him holding, not a bow, but a fencing foil.  You see, Saint-George was not only one of the finest musicians of his era, he was also the most formidable swordsman of his day.  Some would see those accomplishments in arts and arms as contrasting.
We view them as complimentary.
Those qualities that contribute to superior musicianship – sensitivity, passion, concentration, and a patient, persistant attitude – are also traits of the superior swordsman.
As a teacher of “Classical Fencing,” I have for many years observed that my best students have nearly always been those who were excellent musicians -- and those students have reported that the practice of fencing enhanced their musical abilities.  As a musician, myself, I had found it so, yet I was still a little surprised to learn that it was true for others, and not only for me.
If you're a musician who has studied classical fencing, I’d like to hear about your experience.
Drop me a note.
Maybe even 8 bars.

aac