August Is Here...

In August, we/I need to:

• register our daughter for school


• get her started in school


• get me registered for school


• get me a parking pass


• get me on school insurance


• take the tests to exempt calculus and linear algebra


• start school

That's the short list of big items to accomplish. There's still the day to day - cooking, cleaning, yardwork, finding things we've unpacked, grocery shopping, etc. etc. etc....

All in all, though, I'm glad to be at this point. I get to find out if I'm cut out for this career. Am I really as good as I like to believe? Will I make any difference at all? Will I be the low man on the totem pole right from the start?

Hopefully I will do well. I believe in myself. I like to think that the people who let me in and seem to respect my abilities know something about evaluating doctoral candidates. Next month may be the hardest thing I have ever done - at least academically - but I still feel ready. I am excited. I am here.

-- Robert

Authentic Leadership

I spent some time this week delving into the research on the subject of leadership. The focus of two articles so far has been the idea of "authentic leadership". What does the term mean? Much like it sounds, it means a leader who is real about himself, his expectations, and his desire for his group. It also goes a step further, though, at least in this literature, to mean someone who is genuine AND positive - someone interested in the growth of his team members, interested in being open and honest about strengths and weaknesses, and interested in building an environment where everyone feels comfortable to be ethical, work for personal and organizational improvement, and who upholds the importance of accountability.

In short, authentic leadership extends very logically from the area of positive psychology and positive organizational behavior. I could see arguments to the contrary - someone can be genuine and still not be positive. Yes, but those people do not tend to remain leaders. The great point raised at the end of the article was the long-term nature of building an environment of positivity and trust. What can be built over decades can be destroyed in minutes. It is only in continuing to put forth an open, honest, positive image that a person can rise above and stay there.

I can think of quite a few examples of people in my life who have stood tall amidst the crowd as moral and ethical giants. Those men and women remain etched in my memory, and I find they tended to be very successful. Perhaps they did not have large material wealth, but they were happy in life and enjoyed their work. That defines success for me. I hope to bring these ideas to future students, hopefully by example as well as by my words. I know I owe a huge debt of gratitude for those who have been such examples to me.

-- Robert

Vibrance of Youth

Last night, I had a wonderful conversation with a young man I haven't seen in a while. He is about to start taking piano lessons from my wife. In his eyes, I saw something I hadn't seen in him for a while: hope. A vision of the future, perhaps. Whatever it was, it clearly had changed his coutenance, and I was glad of it. He has always been a "good" kid, so it was hard to see him going through a rough time, but now he seems to have decided to do some things for himself instead of for "the crowd". Instead of playing every sport available, he wants to focus on becoming a musician and acting with the drama department at school. He even has a plan for where he wants to go to college and what he wants to do when he gets there. I was glad to hear it. I told him that a sailboat on the water without a plan will go whichever way the wind blows, but if its captain has a plan he knows which way to trim the sails. So many people wander aimlessly through life, letting forces outside of themselves dictate their paths. Clearly this young man still has a lot of years ahead of him before he can accomplish the plan he has set in place, but I hope, and more importantly believe, he can. Focus of purpose is powerful, and desire is even better.

How did I conclude he was serious about his plan? As we were about to part, my wife's friend mentioned a book in our presence, How Full Is Your Bucket, and I told him a little bit about it. Then I told him about another book written by the same author, Strengthsfinder 2.0, and then another one for youth called Strengths Explorer. He said, "I would love to read that book, and with summer coming up, I've got plenty of time to do it." Someone who really wants to accomplish a goal tends to look for resources to do so. When I suggested he might find some insights into his plan by reading those books, he jumped at the chance. That's how I knew he was serious, and that's why I feel confident he can achieve his goals.

He also invigorated me because that conversation is just the sort I hope to be having with future students when I become a professor. I know that is my calling in life, to inspire others to greater heights. I am excited for that future.

-- Robert

P.S. Yes, I realize this is the longest period I've had without a post on this blog. I've had a lot going on at work and in life as we prepare for our move. We've got less than two months before we leave, and I've got a lot to accomplish in that time.

Insatiable

This weekend, as my wife and I were driving to Atlanta, we were having a discussion about the parenting book we've both been reading. Being the introspective (some might self-absorbed) person that I am, I commented on what I saw in the book about my own childhood.

And I had an epiphany. Before I explain, I want to be clear: I am not trying to pass judgment on my parents for what I'm writing. I simply realized that one of the ways my mother responded to my efforts had a profound influence on my entire character. I was, and in many still am, insatiable. One reason this book would suggest as to why was the way my mother was never complimentary to my grades. If I got a 93, she would ask, "Do you understand what you missed?" If I got a 100, she asked, "Was that the highest score possible." These were neither preceded or followed by any form of of the phrase "job well done."

I have no sour grapes over what she helped make me. I became a child who wanted to always do my best and even then I wasn't necessarily pleased. I was a very successful student as a result. I looked for new and better ways to improve myself and my outputs. I was able to use what I learned and what I became to pay my way through my Bachelor's on scholarships, and then get paid to get a Masters and now to get a Ph.D. I see no reason to complain about my psyche in this regard. I would say I did teach myself to deal with doing less than my best, but it still involved coping rather than being satisfied. I have never liked grades below A for myself. At least not in subjects I care about. So yes, I am grateful that the desire she instilled helped make me a success.

The problem is, my insatiable nature was not limited to school. I am overweight. One reason I am overweight is I do not have something in me that says "I am no longer hungry." I wonder if one reason for that is the fact that I was treated as a disposal by various family members (not always my mother) as a child. If there was just a little left of something, I was expected to eat it quite often. If I had not broken my leg at four and been more involved in sports in my early years, then it might not have resulted in my becoming overweight. Still, I can see how some elements of my weight stem from the same insatiable personality. If I had learned to stop myself, I might not be so big. It's something I will struggle with for the rest of my life, I am sure.

So what am I saying? No, I am not saying "it's all my parents' fault." What would I be blaming them for, exactly? I have a wonderful family, I am generally successful in life, I am a happy person most of the time, and I am about to pursue a lifelong dream with the support of a wonderful wife who has urged me to do it. So maybe it is my parents' "fault" that I love education, and their "fault" I am so successful. They certainly deserve a lot of credit for the good in me, so this is not a negative post. It was just something that I've thought about many times in the past - how I was raised - and I realized a lot of who I am could be tied to that one word. I'm not sure I'd change it, either. I just need to be aware of it, and manage it wisely in the places where it can hurt me. As for it helping me in my career... I can't say I will try to rein it in at all.

-- Robert

Problem Solver

A few weeks ago, I posted about the book Strengthsfinder 2.0, and I listed my five strengths. The accompanying book Strengths Based Leadership breaks all the strengths into categories - executing, influencing, relationship building, and strategic thinking. One of my strengths was influencing - maximizer, my strongest, which basically means I love to find my own strengths and the strengths of others and maximize them. Another was in relationship building - individualization, which means I see people distinctly and not as a stereotype. The other three fell into strategic thinking - strategic (seeing solutions), context (learning from the past), and futuristic (looking to the future). Basically what that says to me is that I look at people individually, and at problems individually, I find the people who can best meet it given their skillset, and I organize a group to create a solution based on past experience and future desired outcomes. Basically, I solve the problem.

I have always been a problem solver. I loved solving logic problems, crossword puzzles, and math quizzes since I was little. When it came to people, I was the friend who people came to for tutoring, help with relationship troubles, or suggestions of how to deal with a teacher they were not seeing eye to eye with. I have diffused countless squabbles between peers just because I saw a way to find peace, or at least resolution. The biggest problem with being a lifetime problem solver: solving the problem of wanting to solve the problem.

I really have been working at being a better listener. I can be a great listener, and when I choose to use that ability, some people even think it's one of my greatest abilities. I think it is because I have really worked on it in my life, not because it necessarily comes natural to me. Lately, though, I find myself overtalking people again far too much. I want to "solve the problem" in what they're saying - even if they're not presenting one. I also tend to over-personalize: I have an amazing ability to make almost any story about me. I hate that I do it, sometimes even as I do it. Yet I see the connections between other people's stories and my own so readily, it's hard not to want to say, "Oh, this is how I dealt with that problem." Again, I do it even when they're clearly not asking how to solve it. It's especially annoying when they're not even talking about a present problem, but something from years back.

So I am writing this post as my personal pledge: I am going to do my best to stop overtalking, stop making the story about me, and stop solving problems without being asked. If I come close to that goal, I'm sure I will learn from the exercise. Who knows I might even learn to solve another problem.

-- Robert

Strengths

When I started looking at research to decide what interested me, I came upon the subject of Positive Organizational Studies (POS). Building on the work coming from Positive Psychology, this area of research focused on looking at what good companies did well instead of diagnosing where poor or ailing companies were suffering (just as positive psychology focuses on wellness and strength instead of illness and weakness). I loved it, but in the end, I moved away from the subject simply because, as one professor, organizational behavior research often seems like too much "navel gazing" (meaning looking too much at minute details instead of the bigger picture). Still I find the mindset very invigorating.

This past week, I came across a book my mother-in-law had called StrengthsFinder 2.0. I knew it must have come from that school of positive psychology, and after reading it I saw that the author was a graduate of Michigan, which is one of the major players in that area of research. Since I love reading about self improvement and ways to help people accomplish it, I picked up a copy of that book as well as Strengths Based Leadership which focuses on using a strength set understand what sort of leadership style a person has. Each book comes with an access code to the StrengthsFinder 2.0 test, which takes about 35 minutes to answer before it gives the five strengths. My five were Maximizer, Individualization, Strategic, Context, and Futuristic. The leadership book breaks those into four areas: Executing, Influencing, Relationship Building, and Strategic Thinking. None of my five fell into Executing, Maximizer (my strongest) falls under influencing, Individualization falls under Relationship Building, and the rest fall under Strategic Thinking.

I loved that I wrote a post about potential days before taking the test, and so much of my result focused on my desire to maximize my own and others' potential. Maximizer itself focuses on maximizing strengths. I felt sure I would have other strengths, but the ones I thought fit me correlate very nicely into the five I have, especially when the five are put together.

If I had to boil the five strengths down into who I am, I would say it something like this: I like to help people improve themselves and their lot in life by getting to know them, seeing where they excel or have potential to do so, and encouraging them to focus in those areas. Basically, the goal of the book is very much the goal of my life, to help people focus on the positive and the good in themselves and make the most of it. Their research fits very well with my own experience: people find greater happiness and fulfillment when they work on improving strengths and doing what they love than if they focus on their weaknesses and getting rid of their problems. Focusing on strength often has a way of overshadowing or eradicating those very weaknesses. It might not make them go away, but it might help a person realize a better way to move past them.

One great piece of advice I got from a speaker about nine years ago was, "Sinatra never set up his piano." What he meant was that Frank Sinatra knew his talent - to sing and play music - and he only focused on those talents. If Sinatra had spent more time learning to get his piano ready, he might never have become Ole Blue Eyes to the world. As StrengthsFinder 2.0 states and I have seen, being well-rounded sounds great, but in the end, it is those who are truly exceptional at a particular skill or set of skills that we remember, and that we follow. People look up to and admire those who have maximized their talents much more so than those who have spent a lot of time becoming a jack-of-all-trades. Surgeons don't sterilize instruments and operating rooms (nor would we want them to) - they focus on knowing how to use those instruments in that operating room to remedy some internal problem.

Ours is a world of specialists, probably more so than ever before. I do believe in knowing a little about a lot of things, but I have learned more and more the value of knowing a lot about a few things. As I begin my career in research, I will hopefully become a master of my area. I might even become a name known for a given area of study. One thing is sure, though: I will never accomplish that feat if spend my time on too many different subjects instead of focusing.

-- Robert

Almost Home

This afternoon or evening, we should get back to our little rental house, having been on a long odyssey. We've met wonderful people, gotten to know some better who I'd already met, and hopefully began some friendships. We each had our own highlights from this trip, of course, but all in all, it has been wonderful for the whole family. My wife loved seeing her folks, getting to know some new people, and seeing a new place she'd never been before. The kids loved seeing their grandparents, going to museums and parks, and the musical number played by one of the professors we visited.

That song was definitely one for me, especially since it was the same professor about whom I wrote not long ago. He is truly a gifted, amazing man. I look forward to getting to know him better. I think I will have a great chance to do that in the coming months and years, since I have unofficially accepted the unofficial offer as I await the official offer information next week some time. I know there are more schools to hear from, but I know in my heart I have found a place that can become our new home, at least for a time. I never dreamed I would have the opportunity they are offering me. The professors want to send me things to work on before I even get there so I can (quoting the professor) "get to where most students are after their first year before [I] start." I am still humbled to get such an offer. I know living up to his expectations and hopes for me will spur me to greater heights than simply working with just anyone might. I have had many wonderful mentors throughout my life that have helped me stay motivated to work hard because I respected them so much. It will be great to have the mentors and hopefully friends at this school.

I will write the name of the school on this blog when I get the official offer and accept it. I am just very excited to find out more about it and get to work. For now, I have about ten books to read along with several academic research papers. My future professor is sending me a book written by another future professor so I can learn and understand his mind better. He also suggested some great novels, and I thought I would at least give them a try, if for no other reason than to see what he enjoys. I've got three books I'm sending him that I know he will enjoy based on the collection of novels I saw on his bookshelf. On top of the novels, I'm reading StrengthFinder 2.0 and Strengths Based Leadership at the suggestion of my mother-in-law. They are short books with a large compendium of strengths in the back, or in the case of the Leadership book a compendium of how to lead from a perspective of a given strength and how to lead someone with that strength. It seems like something I could use in a future class, possibly. I love books that encourage people to get to know themselves better. Since both books come with an online code for a web-based test to help the reader find out his top five strengths, they really are a great resource for anyone who could use a little introspective examination.

I might list my top five, if anyone has any interest. For now, I need to rest up a bit more before driving the last leg of this journey.

-- Robert

Potential

Looking back at my life, at what first made me want to become a professor, and at what I want to do now that I am going to, I realize one word best describes what I see as my focus: potential. I want to help people, groups, and organizations find their fullest, best potential. The courses I first wanted to teach were about helping students see the value of service, but also in seeing the value of knowing what they wanted for themselves. Courses that help students consider their strengths, seeing what those strengths suggest they might pursue as a career, and then using their college courses as a means to get to that career as they build a skillset rather than pass a list of required courses.

That is what I want to do with my life and career. If I can find a way to research it and improve my teaching, so much the better. To me, finding the focus that comes from having a path has a way of energizing people, and afterwards their lives are so much more fulfilling as a result of that direction. To me, that is what my faith has always taught me as well. Finding our full potential is why we are all here. So here's hoping I can make this happen. I know the professors I plan to work with want to help me do just that. What more could I hope for?

-- Robert

Another Definition of Entrepreneurship

In that conversation from Monday I mentioned, I heard one of the best definitions of entrepreneurship yet. The professor said, "When transactions that should occur are not occurring in the market, that is where entrepreneurship happens." What a perfect way to describe something. Often people see a need unserviced and think, "I can start a business and make money to serve that need." Some businesses (like the one I presently work in) are formed out of the need for middle men in a marketplace - brokers, as they are most often termed. Brokers facilitate the meeting of two sides of a transaction - a buyer and a seller of real estate, a truck needing a load and a shipper needing freight moved, or simply a consumer wanting a product and a producer needing a way to get it to them. Retailers are brokers in that way. They stock goods for producers so that consumers can purchase them. Most (if not all businesses) grew out of an observation that transactions were being missed, for lack of a better term.

One of the most enjoyable class discussions I've heard on this subject was with the man who created the Multi List Service (MLS) for realtors. He had a friend in real estate, and he noticed the box of listings that seemed extremely unwieldy when it became necessary to find a type of home in a given area. He asked his friend, "Do you think people would be interested in a catalog of those listings?" His friend knew they would be, and so MLS was born. He knew nothing about printing at all, nor was he much of a photographer (the idea was to take a picture of a home and put it in a book with its relevant information on location, size, and numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms). He had a friend who took the pictures for him, and he went to work learning how to run a printing press, mostly on a trial and error basis. When he was just about to sign a one-year contract with the realtors board in his area, they asked very casually in a meeting, "Can you make it in color?" He agreed, but in his own words, "If printing in black and white is like walking across this room, printing in color was like flying to the moon." Still, he learned how and he produced his catalog in color. One lesson he said he learned was to get a contract whenever possible. That gave him the chance to screw up a few times without losing the business altogether. Some years later, he sold MLS for an undisclosed sum (most likely tens of millions). He kept the amount unpublished so his children would never know how much he had and therefore they would not lose their drive to make something of themselves.

I am now reading an article by the professor who gave me that wonderful definition. I look forward to finding more of his work, and perhaps to getting the chance to work with him soon.

-- Robert

Meaningful Conversation

I started to write a long post about one of the most meaningful conversations I've had in my life. It truly is rare to recognize in the midst of a great exchange that it will resound for years to come. Yet I had such a conversation yesterday, and I hate to write about it and diminish it. It's almost too personal - and certainly too boastful because of what was said about me - to want to share it here. Just know I had a great campus visit.

-- Robert

Definitions of Entrepreneurship

The article I am reading today (I might write about autonomy tomorrow) has several definitions of the word "entrepreneurship" in it. One such definition from Joseph Schumpeter states that "Entrepreneurship... consists in doing things that are not generally done in the ordinary course of business routine; it is essentially a phenomenon that comes under the wider aspect of leadership." I like that definition because I see a clear link between entrepreneurship and leadership, and I want to study those things in my own research in time. Without a leader driving an idea, it never comes to fruition as a venture, much less a profitable venture. That idea is nicely captured by Agarwal whose knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship states that "entrepreneurship is the result of opportunities created through knowledge investments made in one organization, but commercialized through innovative activity in a new venture." More simply put: great ideas require a driving force to become successful ventures. I use the term venture because corporations already in operation can start new product lines, new divisions, or other elements not in their present business model and thereby generate a new venture. That is what researchers call "corporate entrepreneurship."

I thought these ideas would be a great way to explain to people who keep asking me "So you want to research new businesses?" that entrepreneurship does not only mean "new businesses." It more broadly refers to newness, in my mind, newness driven by an individual or team with an interest in developing a new idea or reworking an old one into a profitable venture. In the context of this blog, "profitable" does not have to mean increased bank accounts. Many small business owners find greater personal fulfillment in their endeavors, which would be emotional or spiritual capital. Some do a lot to give back to the community through their business, which would be social capital (there is a branch of growing research called Social Entrepreneurship that studies this idea). More ability to manage one's schedule appeals to many entrepreneurs - especially stay at home moms with online businesses - which might be thought of as "time capital". Simply put, the reason to start something new does not only stem from a desire to be financially wealthy. Dave Ramsey actually points out, I believe accurately so, in his book Total Money Makeover that most people do not start a business to become wealthy. They just want to do something they enjoy doing, and often that turns into a profitable business (passion coupled with effort can have amazing results).

So, not to be too corny, but I believe I have managed to bring my current endeavor full circle and relate it all back to this blog. I am "making that money" by pursuing a dream. Fulfilling that dream will give me tremendous emotional capital that will make me a far richer man than I might otherwise be. Perhaps that even qualifies me to be an "educational" entrepreneur. Whether or not anyone else does, though, this article really helped me highlight my own thoughts on why this field of research fascinates me and draws my attention so much. I look forward to adding to it soon enough.

-- Robert

When They Start Talking About Real Estate...

That's a pretty good sign.

What do I mean? Today my phone interviewer began by apologizing for not calling me first. His actual apology was, "My colleagues would be very upset with me if they found out I forgot to call you." He then explained that they were very interested in my application, so he didn't simply mean they would be annoyed at his general rudeness, but rather his rudeness to me in particular. I found that an excellent start to the conversation.

He asked me two simple questions: 1) why his school, and 2) what do I want to do after a Ph.D. I answered them to his satisfaction, and then the conversation turned even more casual. He asked if I had been to his town. I don't think I have and I told him so. He let me know that living in town near campus was very good if I had children to worry about in public schools, but outside of town the schools were not so great.

(see title of post, make connection)

We talked about questions I had about the program, and I definitely liked all he had to say. He gave me the good advice to get to know the faculty at every school where I am accepted before deciding where to go.

"It's not really like any other situation," he explained. "It's not really like a student/teacher relationship. We're accepting you into our world. It's more like making you a part of a family. If you don't think you will get along with the people at a place, then you shouldn't go there."

I have mentioned before on this blog how welcoming the academic community has felt to me thus far. What he said just furthered that feeling of acceptance and camaraderie that I have already connected with on a basic level. I also felt very excited by his general reaction. After all, most of the schools I have applied to are similarly excellent in their own rights. If his school is so excited to have me, hopefully all of them will be.

-- Robert

Orson Scott Card and Brant Gardner

A week ago, I had never heard of Brant Gardner. Then I stumbled upon this video*, where he explains his background as an interested party in Book of Mormon archaeology. I loved his reference to "seeing the dog" - once a hidden image within a picture is visible it cannot be "unseen". I found his style very engaging, and his method of explaining complex facts very effective. So I watched more and more of his videos. Then I heard a reference in this video** (the transcript of the series is available here) to Orson Scott Card. Since Card has been one of my favorite fiction authors for some time, I wasn't sure I had heard him right at first, so I listened to the part over to be sure he was actually mentioned. I noticed a slide showing the quote and ran a search for the title, "The Book of Mormon: Artifact or Artifice" and found it.

Orson Scott Card continues to blow me away. He takes on so many different topics in his writing. He shares his thoughts in so many settings. In this case, the article was adapted from a speech he gave at a conference held at BYU. He does not speak about archaeological evidence here at all, really. Instead he uses his expertise - that of writing - to explain some things about the nature of the Book of Mormon. He explains how much the culture of an author plants itself within anything the author writes - even if that author is working hard to conceal his background. Card then explains the Book of Mormon itself in terms of who handled the writing of it. Which sounds complicated. But here goes: the Book of Mormon is an abridging of the writings of Nephi, Jacob, Enos, and various authors after them by Mormon, who then wrote accounts of Alma, Mosiah, Helaman, and Moroni, followed by his own book, then a book called Ether about a people called the Jaredites who had almost died out when their account was brought forth to the primary people in the Book of Mormon (the Nephites), and finally his son concludes the book with his own book, Moroni. This "book" was compiled on golden plates over a thousand years (600 BC to 400 AD) by its authors, and then hid up in a hillside for another 1400 years.

Enter Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith received the golden plates four years after first being led to them by an angel (Moroni, who hid it in the first place). Joseph Smith then translated the book by divine inspiration (it was Hebrew language written in Egyptian letters). Card explains how Joseph Smith's influence as a translator might exhibit itself properly (or unproperly):

If the account he gave us is true, then the Book of Mormon must be what it purports to be, which is the record of an ancient people written by an ancient author, and Joseph Smith's role in providing us with the Book of Mormon was solely as translator. Therefore, we should find his influence in the book, or the influence of any other 1820s American, only where we would expect to find a translator's influence: that is, in matters of word choice, consciously or unconsciously linking Book of Mormon events to experiences that he and his American readers could understand, choosing the clearest language he had available to him, fitting ideas he found in the book into existing American concepts as best he could.

Simply put: his use of language would shade how he translated words, but it would not change the underlying meaning if he was not the actual author. If he was the author, though, then he would fall back on his own culture - or a need to explain a deviation from his culture to his readers somehow - when creating the story. Card's references to Gulliver's Travels and Robinson Crusoe and even I Love Lucy to explain how much culture shows up writing are spot on.

Does the Book of Mormon contain such connections to 1820's culture, the culture Joseph Smith had grown up when the Book of Mormon was published? In Card's view, no, it simply does not. The only references are, as he says, in choice of language - Joseph Smith didn't write the Book of Mormon in Bulgarian because he doesn't speak Bulgarian (not how Card put it, but just a thought of my own there). Not far from where he grew up, French was the predominant language, but he did not speak it and therefore didn't use that language, either. No, he used the English he knew to translate. No translation from one language to another is ever perfect (Card is absolutely write) simply because the phrasing of certain words, the idioms that have meaning to one people and not to another, and even the different layers of words that might all have one word in another language (Greeks have something like four words for different types of love, for instance) cannot be conveyed completely without something getting a little lost in translation. The King James Version of the Bible was embellished greatly by its translators who wanted to make certain points to the readers or just make the prose sound more flowery in some way. Still, the underlying culture of the Book of Mormon shines through as completely distinct from that of Joseph Smith. Indeed, it shines through as the interests and purposes of different writers exhibit themselves. Nephi wrote largely to make a record of his journey to this new land, and to record the great deeds for his people to remember. Mormon was much more interested in military campaigns - especially of a certain Captain who he named his son after. And then there's the changing of culture over time, and the fact that three different cultures are talked about in this book. The complexity is unreal, yet never inconsistent within a part or in the whole. Card wrote, "Search all you like through that book. I have, and I can't find a flaw. Yet we should expect to find a consistent pattern of getting it wrong. Not just one example, but thousands of examples within a book that long, but - they are not there."

So does this article prove the Book of Mormon is true? Here is what Card thinks about such a notion:

Now, does this mean that I've proved the Book of Mormon true? Obviously not. You can always still suppose that perhaps Joseph Smith or whoever wrote the Book of Mormon was the greatest and luckiest creator of phony documents from made-up alien cultures ever in history. The Book of Mormon only matters because it's a life-changing book.

The truth, the important truth of the Book of Mormon is only understood with the Spirit through faith. If you don't believe in the book, it's not going to change your life. And I mean believe in it in a way far different from believing it's a genuine artifact. You have to believe in it also as something meant for you as a guide to your life. So, I have very little interest in attempting to prove the book. I haven't proven it here. The only real proof is when you prove it with your life, living the gospel it teaches and participating in the Church that was established with that book as the mortar holding it all together.

I absolutely agree. Proof is not needed for faith. Proof is needed for knowledge. As Christ told his disciple, Thomas, "because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Whether someone chooses to believe any book of scripture - the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or any other - comes down to faith, and how that faith is acted upon.

Me, I just loved this whole article and wanted to share it. I read over half of it to my wife as we waited to be admitted to a birthing room for our new son. I imagine it will have a special place in my heart for that reason in years to come. And yeah, I love that a great author respected outside our faith has turned his brilliant eye to analyzing the Book of Mormon and found no fault in its narrative. And I just love reading more things that make me love the work of Orson Scott Card on a new and deeper level. So there's that, too.

-- Robert

P.S. I am posting this on my son's birthday to give my wife the chance to write about him first. Then I'll write my thoughts, I'm sure, when I find time.

* This particular video actually is a six part series of videos, the rest show up in my list of related videos when I watch so I won't post them all here.
**This video is part of a six part series, but the first reference I heard to Card was in part one or two.

Endurance

Today in church I gave a talk about trials. This year, after all, seemed fraught with trials for almost everyone we know. I certainly don't know anyone who felt the year went through care-free. So, in preparing my talk, I read Elder Hales's talk from April '98 General Conference called Behold, We Count Them Happy Which Endure (which comes from James 1:5). The message of that talk was powerful, that in trials we learn of our true strengths and deepen our faith. I remembered my mother-in-law's story about liking hard things. She had a student who kept struggling with a piece and complained about it, so she let him know he liked hard things. He disagreed, but she asked if he played the same level of a video game over and over, or if he still had training wheels on his bike. He agreed such things were silly, so she pointed out that he must like hard things.

I must say, I must like hard things. I have certainly taken a tough route to realize I should have headed into teaching much earlier, and now I am going to do the hard thing and go back to school, leaving behind a good job with a good paycheck. I know I must do the hard thing, and I must like doing it.

I didn't focus so much on my own life and situation as I spoke today, though. I shared some stories from history, some from the article, and some from those I know who have learned from particularly difficult trials. As I said in my comments, I doubt anyone prays for trials and difficulty, we all seek after hardship from time to time. We set goals to improve, and improvement almost always requires effort which can sometimes wear us out. Still, without improvement, complacency sets in, and eventually an atrophy of the organ not used - even of the brain itself. Something must grow, or it begins to die. Here's hoping my brain hasn't already started to atrophy. The meandering style of this post points to yes, unfortunately. Still, the talk was well received, so hopefully this post will be, too. Or at least maybe it will make sense.

Whatever the case, hopefully this can set a tone for the new year: trials may come, by we can learn from them all.

-- Robert

Gifts

No, this post is not about Christmas. I am not writing a list of inexpensive gift ideas (hmm, maybe that might work for another post). I am writing about one of my gifts. This post is inspired by Melissa's post about playing an instrument extremely well on certain pieces. The pieces she just owns. My instrument, to draw a broad analogy, is a deck of cards. I can play Spades pretty well, and I do fine with cribbage. I "own" Bridge.

When I first was getting to know my wife, we spent a lot of time talking about our interests and abilities. Somewhere in those conversations she said there was no one thing she was the "best" at among those she knew. I told her there was only one thing about which I could say I felt I was best, and that was playing Bridge. I could tell she was somewhat shocked, and she clearly thought I was simply joking or showing bravado. I asked her what else she had observed about me that made her think of me as a braggart. She acknowledged that nothing really had. Still, she remained skeptical.

Then she watched me play. After one time, I think she understood I had simply reported a fact. I play the game of Bridge as well as anyone I know. Of course, writing such a thing on my blog is probably an invitation for a challenge, but I would enjoy it. I haven't played in a while and might well lose a few hands and games before catching fire. Still, I know in the end I could beat anyone willing to play me, as long as we each had partners with reasonable skills. A truly terrible partner can be kryptonite to any player, simply because bad information or outright misinformation can truly ruin a good Bridge hand, game, or rubber.

Much like Melissa, I imagine most of my (few) readers won't "get" this post. Not a lot of people play Bridge anymore. But for any who do, they can probably understand these statistics. I once played 14 rubbers in a weekend and lost only one of them. My father, on the drive home, said "Well, you sure got lucky." I asked him if he honestly believed luck was all it was. He thought about it and connected my meaning. Someone can "get lucky" on a hand or two, win a game here and there, but to get lucky that long against that many different people makes no real sense.

Another time I was invited to play in a tournament hosted by my grandmother for her friends. Each player in the tournament played with everyone else for five hands. I won every round except one - the round I played with the person who came in very last. I would've won that one, too, if I had simply ignored her and bid one particular hand the way I just knew I should. Still, I beat the next competitor by nearly double, scoring over 10,000 points and scoring a rubber in every five-hand round but the one I lost. I was never invited back. I think the rest of the players didn't find it competitive with me in the mix.

I do not take credit for my skill as though it were all my own doing. I spent many hours playing Bridge with a group of women who taught me a tremendous amount about bidding strategies and techniques. In time I was able to boil all my basic strategy down on to the front and back of a single printed page. I jokingly call it my Jeet Kun Do (like Bruce Lee, who created that martial art by combining elements from many different ones and making the Way of the Fist). To understand the system, it requires a basic understanding of how Bridge works, but with those basics it is pretty usable in actually bidding a hand at Bridge. I love sharing it with people because it has been so helpful to me.

But to return to the metaphor, knowing how to play the notes on a page is one thing when it comes to playing an instrument. Yes, a person can learn to strike the right keys on a piano at the right time, to pull a bow across a string on the right beat, or blow at the right time with the valves in the right place to play a note. To truly bring a piece of music to life, though - to "own it" - can require years of training, and in the end requires a piece of the musician's heart and soul to become a masterpiece. When I am playing Bridge at the highest level I am capable of, it sometimes feels like I am playing my masterpiece. That's the best way I can explain how I play Bridge.

-- Robert

P.S.: I am very grateful to a wife who finally took up the game herself and has become a very accomplished player in her own right. I truly enjoy playing with her across from me.

Teatro - Some Very Talented Singers

The other day, I was listening to a YouTube video of Phantom of the Opera, specifically the song "Music of the Night" when another video showed up. I had never heard of Teatro before, but I was very impressed. Each of the men in the group has an extensive resume in musical theater, and they were brought together to form the first theatrical "group" (though the producer apparently had the Four Tenors in mind more than the Backstreet Boys). After hearing how well these four men sang one of my favorite songs together, I felt like going to buy their CD. Unfortunately, it is not available in the US. It's crazy to me that I can listen to their CD samples and watch their music video, and yet I can't purchase it even as a download off iTunes.

So here's hoping I can get a lot of bloggers to start a groundswell to get them over here so their CD will be available. I know I would rather listen to them than about half of what is on the radio today. For now, I'll have to make due with the samples off their site.

Toastmasters

In writing my applications for school, I have had the chance to remember something I used to be fairly involved in: Toastmasters. I often find myself using the techniques I learned to evaluate and improve myself, and I suggest it to anyone who has a fear of public speaking. It's even great for people who just want to get better. What is Toastmasters, though?

Toastmasters International, as the name indicates, is a worldwide organization that was created to help people communicate more effectively. The primary focus is to help with public speaking, but it can help improve general skills along the way. Below is a post I wrote on Natasha's blog about a typical club meeting:

A typical Toastmasters club meets once a week. Each week's meeting should include a portion where someone has the job of asking anyone (though those assigned to give speeches might be left out) questions that they then get to respond to in a minute and a half. The goal there is to help people 1) think well on their feet and 2) answer questions in succinct sound-bytes. It also warms up the crowd. I forget what that portion of the meeting is called, but it's often the most fun simply because anyone can be involved and the questions and answers can be funny or interesting.
The next part of the meeting two or three speakers will give speeches that were assigned or that they agreed to give, but the subject matter is up to them. They just have to meet the criteria of the speech they are giving - there are ten in the beginner's manual. The first is basically just get on your feet and tell about yourself. Each lesson after that tries to help people develop more skills as a speaker by incorporating more into what is required. One speech requires people to do something to teach people, another requires visual aids, and so on. The tenth speech incorporates a lot of requirements, and when that is completed, a person is certified as a Competent Toastmaster. After that, there are manuals to choose from that a person can choose to develop particular skills - such as speaking with the use of a projector or something like that. It's a great program. Early speeches are generally 5-7 minutes, later ones might run 12-15. One of the best things I learned from Toastmasters is how to run an efficient meeting and how to plan an agenda.
And here's the neat part. Every speaker has someone assigned to critique the speech, and everyone else fills out a written critique (generally just a few comments). The assigned person to give the critique stands up and tells everyone what went well, what could be improved, and the general feeling of how well or poorly the speech went. Early speakers are to be treated with kid gloves unless they ask, while later speakers should be ready for more specific things they can improve. By getting feedback, a person might realize he waves his hands in a meaningless way, or that he stands too still. He might find out he should slow down or speed up. Read less, emote more. Those sorts of things can come out in a critique, and I have watched the most terrified speakers become quite accomplished thanks to this program. I was a seasoned speaker by the time I started the first club, but I still learned a lot. The critiques each last about two minutes.
Three more assignments in the meeting: an "ah/umm" counter, meeting coordinator, and meeting evaluator. The umm counter might use a clicker (like some clerks use to count attendance in Sacrament) and the noise of that clicker can often help a speaker stop right away. Every speaker (even the ones who answer questions off the cuff) should be counted so he can learn to quit using fill words like that. The meeting coordinator has the job of introducing all the different speakers and evaluators, as well as the person in charge of the questions, much like the counselor in charge of conducting sacrament or any other meeting might. The meeting evaluator has the job of evaluating the entire meeting - how well was the agenda managed, a comment or two on speakers or on how well the Q&A session went, and a comment on the evaluators. The idea is to create an environment where everyone can learn and everyone can teach in a great big feedback loop.

So here's what a typical agenda would look like:
I. Open the meeting (just a few words of welcome, 2-3 minutes)
II. Question session (12-15 minutes, depending on the size of club, generally 10 questions is good)
III. First speaker 5-7 minutes
IV. Second Speaker 5-7 minutesV. Evaluator I 2 minutes
VI. Evaluator II 2 minutes
VII. Ah counter presents numbers 2 minutes
VIII. Meeting evaluator 2-5 minutes

Total time - 35-45 minutes, roughly. Some time to socialize at the end is good, just so the meeting isn't completely formal, and so members can get to know each other. Refreshments can be brought in, and sometimes they are available at the beginning, but they tend to be a distraction so they are often held to the end. Some clubs have none (my first didn't because the library didn't allow them, my second and third often had pizza to get students to come who might claim they couldn't manage to come unless there was food).

I'm amazed how much I remember, considering I haven't had a meeting in five and a half years (or close to that long). The manuals are all excellent teaching tools and they come with the dues paid to Toastmasters International, which are quite reasonable. Local clubs generally have minimal dues unless they choose to have them for advertising the club or sharing the cost of food. My first club had no local dues while my second had some to help pay for the cost of advertising to the campus in future years. I would recommend having some local dues because my third club is still alive, while my first club is long gone (they disbanded when I went back to school). A club needs new members to stay fresh. Holding a quarterly open house of sorts is a great way to do that, I imagine, but I've never been in a club long-term to have to manage those things.

Right now I'm sure you're thinking "I wish I hadn't asked." Sorry for the long-winded response. I love Toastmasters.

-- Robert
P.S.: I generally try to avoid "second person" writing in my posts, but I didn't have the time to re-write the comment without it. Also, thanks to co-author Todd, I was reminded that the Q&A session is called "Table Topics." Generally there's a theme to those, which I also forgot to mention.

Why Do You Need To Know?

I have now filled out, in part or in total, ten different applications. I have decided not to finish three of them for various reasons, so in the end I will be applying to seven schools for my doctorate. I have not found the part on any form where I get to ask "why do you need to know?"

Yes, I'm being silly, I realize, but there are some truly strange questions on some of these applications. I fail to see why any answer should affect the quality of my application, so I wonder why a school would ask.

Joking aside, I have genuinely enjoyed most of the applications. I think each school I have decided to send an application to has made a genuine effort to get to know me through what I can say about myself or through those who would recommend me. They offer various ways to explain my research interests, my education, my work life, and my extracurricular activities. I can imagine the process of sifting through hundreds of these applications can become somewhat tiresome, but it would be interesting to read the essays. I got to read some of the applications by undergraduates to the leadership program I worked with in grad school, and I was amazed by the variety and the quality of people so young. I can only imagine what doctoral applications would bring.

Here's hoping mine somehow rise above the fray.

-- Robert

Suggestion Box

I must first give the credit for this post to Natasha for her post about an online store. She suggested that the site offer a place where customers could design their own product (in this case, clothing) so they could have something they wanted without necessarily having to learn the skills necessary to create it. Basically, she described what I would call a virtual suggestion box.

One of the ideas I have found quite cool, for lack of a more articulate term, about the entrepreneurial orientation research I've been reading is that it mentions how companies can utilize their customers ideas to be more entrepreneurial. Many companies have surveys, others have suggestion boxes near the entrances or exits, and some allow customers to customize or personalize their purchases for a fee. Harnessing the creative power among customers could truly help a lot of businesses increase sales, improve profitability, and raise customer satisfaction. The virtual design center at IKEA.com provides a great example of how companies can help customers visualize their design of a room. Certainly clothing companies could hire some programmers to develop an interface that allows consumers to start from a basic idea (some outfit already on the market, perhaps) and input a few measurements to help with appropriate fitting. Then they could adjust certain areas of the outfit (e.g., add more material to the sleeve, lengthen the bottom of a shirt, or fluff out a pant leg) to make it more personal and (ideally) more satisfying as a purchase. How many women go shopping for hours to find one or two perfect outfits? I can imagine them spending those hours designing dozens of them instead. With an ensemble function, they could design all the pieces of a whole outfit. They could even accessorize right there online, all while sitting in their comfy sweats at home. Just imagine the new meaning of a day of shopping with girlfriends. They all gather at one house, let the kids play together and then surf the web together designing clothes.

In fact, I am guessing this idea is far too brilliant to not at least be in the works. If I were more interested in clothing, I might spend some time surfing clothing designers' websites looking for such a feature. Instead, I want to simply put the idea out there, admire the brilliance of it (it wasn't my idea, after all), and maybe after I've spent some time in a doctoral program, I could even research the companies that decide to take the suggestion to see whether they are, in fact, more profitable as a result. I suppose this could be my first "experiment" as a researcher.

-- Robert

Eureka!

Today's Hump Day Hmm asks, "What shift in thinking have you experienced that caused you to view others differently, and created a new way of thinking in yourself?"

When I was really young, I heard a lot of comments about teachers and professors that diminished their achievements. "Those who can't do, teach" would fit the general theme of these comments. I certainly encountered my share of teachers who seemed to fit that mold, though I would say the majority of my teachers in school did not. Yet somehow that mindset still stuck with me. In college, I ran across a few more who might have explained that mindset about professors, but again, I met more who didn't fit it. Still, I could not bring myself to just switch off that thought when it came to my own career choices, "I just can't be a teacher; I don't want to be thought of like that." So I set aside my desire to teach with the thought that "some day" I could go back and teach once I had "been there" or "knew something".

Along those lines, I also thought of research as one of the most boring, mundane things I could imagine. I imagined people stuck in a lab working with chemicals and running experiments or in a library combing over dusty tombs. Research was either science (which was fun to read about but not what I wanted to actually do) or history (which was a lot of fun to read about but absolutely not what I wanted to spend a lifetime on). I just knew it would be the "bitter pill" I would have to swallow if I did decide to become a professor, so that gave me even more reason to wait until I had accomplished "enough" that I wouldn't have to delve into such mundane tasks.

Then I went to graduate school. My professors were down to Earth people, but also extremely bright. Clearly they were accomplished, and in many cases paid better than many executives for their advice. The idea that these intelligent people could not "do" simply did not fit anymore. They had chosen the career that made them happy, and they were a joy to work with in most cases. So I knocked a few bricks out of my own mental wall that kept me from believing I could become a professor. Still, there was that "research" which had to be done. So I talked to a professor about getting a Ph.D. so I could teach. She immediately pointed out that one never gets a Ph.D. "to teach" but instead to pursue a career in research. I listened to her explanation, but it just sounded too much like "Don't plan on being a professor anytime soon" at the time.

My moment of Eureka did not come in a bath tub, and I definitely did not run naked down the street. It might not have even been one moment. But it finally clicked: research was exactly what I wanted to do with my life. Research is where new ideas are formulated, tested, and retested. Then those ideas are put forth for others to consider and either use or challenge. Research brings forth cutting edge concepts that help the next generation of business leaders continue to innovate. I am sure these thoughts sound like a sales pitch to some, but it really clicked in my brain, especially after reading several research papers. I WANT to research. I can reach more students with that work (if other professors utilize my publications) than just those I teach in my classrooms. No longer is research the bitter pill for me, but instead it is something that excites me to become a part of. I look forward to a future filled with curiosity and intrigue. As several professors have said, "This is the greatest job in the world. I get to choose what I do every day, and I get to work on things that matter to me."

That was the awakening that came to me over the last few months that completely changed my thinking about myself and my future. Now I know why professors do what they do, and why research is such an important part of the equation on university campuses. Without new research, the same material would be taught over and over, dumbing down with each new regurgitation. Instead, classroom material is revitalized and renewed, innovations are encouraged and brought forth. Out with the old (if it is no longer valid) and in with the new (hopefully because it improves things). It's an entrepreneurial perspective on research and academic endeavors - and I love it.

-- Robert