TEDxUNC: The importance of thinking collectively
BY: JANNA JUNG-IRRGANG
The TEDxUNC event that took place on Jan. 21, 2012 at the Fedex Global Education Center of UNC-Chapel Hill was inspired by something that started off as a simple idea: getting “ideas worth spreading” to the people. TED conferences were founded in 1984 as a event joining people from different disciplines who were each contributing in major innovative work. The success story of TED is clearly visible considering the 900 online videos and ongoing events on all continents.
An underlying theme connected the topics of the TEDxUNC speeches which reached from Pharmaceutical Developments to our own will power: the extraordinary level of human collective knowledge and it’s impact on creativity and research. This topic was realized on two levels, through the overall event and as one of the main research strategies addressed by the lecturers.
The speaker who addressed this issue most explicitly was Joseph DeSimone, Chemistry Professor at UNC and multiple award winner for innovation and invention. The idea that he proposed is simple but has been extraordinarily successful: applying the knowledge from one field of science (technology) to another (chemistry). What makes this special is that it combines the intuitive emphasis of specialized expertise with the idea that cooperation across borders is essential.
This particular concept was highlighted in a recent article published in the New Yorker magazine. Jonah Lehrer writes about the “Building 20” at the MIT that became famous in the 50s for the exceptional inventions that its occupants (a wild mix of scientists from very different areas) tended to produce. The thesis that Lehrer lays out shows that the structure of the building (a cheaply and quickly built block) “forced solitary scientists to mix and mingle,” thereby creating the perfect atmosphere for creative work. The research he cites in support of this thesis makes clear that it is most important to get input from a broad range of what may be seemingly unrelated areas in order to achieve the full potential for creativity.
The article did also emphasize the importance of working in groups instead of isolation, in particular in challenging research environments because the most creative outcome is produced through critical exchange between people.
It comes to no surprise that Steve Jobs recognized this importance and built the main office of Apple around a central atrium that “made it impossible for you not to run into the rest of the company.”
The effect of this strategy was implicitly addressed by several other speakers at TEDxUNC and is something the organizer, Rachel Myrick, highlighted in particular.
“The whole concept is on fostering the idea of creation through connection. It brings the crowd to think about the intersections between the different talks and that’s where you generate really interesting ideas.”
John McGowan, the Director of the Institute for the Arts and Humanities at UNC-Chapel Hill pointed the audience towards focusing in a similar direction. According to McGowan, we don’t need to create heroic figures; we will get further by investing into “collective enterprises.”
Indeed, most impressive outcomes were seldom achieved by a single person; it seems like specialization only works to a certain extent and we can achieve many things better in a creative group with less knowledge than individuals ever would.
Myrick described the conference as “people from different backgrounds coming together to discuss and solve important issues.” She added that the organizers focused on keeping the program varied in the topics covered in order to keep people thinking about different issues that related only loosely.
Another example of the collective knowledge theme was demonstrated through a TED video displayed at the conference about a primary school teacher who invented a game in which his students solve the most difficult world issues through collaborative effort.
While the next year’s TEDxUNC conference is already in the planning stages, the 2012 conference can be described on its own as a successful event that “created a lot of tangible enthusiasm” on campus.
The campus environment that UNC provides is clearly one that can offer the foundational conditions for creativity. TEDxUNC clearly displayed how, in order to become creative and successful, cooperation is not only helpful but necessary. This brings to light the importance of collective knowledge in any creative process.
Romney’s ‘Faith in America’ speech ‘not a JFK speech’
BY: HAYLEY FAHEY
With the Michigan primary fast approaching, the GOP pool of candidates finally seems to be narrowing. Romney has roots in Michigan, but recent polls show a surge of support for Santorum, despite Romney’s sweep of the state back in 2008.
What’s troubling Romney now?
His (in)famous “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” op-ed might have rubbed some Michigan-ians the wrong way. But there’s another problem that has stuck with Romney since his first primary run: his Mormon faith. And for blue-collar evangelicals living in Michigan, that might be enough to turn their favor towards the more palatable Santorum.
Romney is far from lost on this “issue” surrounding his candidacy. In 2007, he delivered a speech (“Faith in America”) that many have compared to JFK’s 1960 address. The men might have been in similar situations—each held some faith unprecedented amongst American presidents. And each professes a belief in the importance of religious tolerance.
But that’s where the similarities end.
One difference that is obvious, but crucial to each candidate’s success or failure, has been their audience. Each speech took place in Texas; Romney addressed a crowd of religious and conservative leaders, while Kennedy spoke to an immediate audience of Protestant ministers. But their separate party affiliations led to separate targeted audiences, and to changes in their message: Republican voters are looking for different qualities in their candidate than Democratic voters are seeking in theirs. So Kennedy and Romney tailor accordingly.
The importance of audience becomes clear when we look at the candidates’ language.
We see Romney and Kennedy both promise “separation of church and state.” But this American tenet has a unique meaning to each. For Romney, the separation principle means that the state will not impose any one religion, or impede the practice of any other:
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.
And for Kennedy, the state should be similarly free from religious influence:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.
But one thing is different.
Romney’s Republican, evangelical base is not going to forget about God; his voters need to see some religious reverence in their candidate, and Romney needs to show that to them. So we see Romney profess the religious heritage of America (“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders”) and denounce “the religion of secularism” that an undefined “some” wish to see.
Kennedy, however, doesn’t have to walk this tightrope: his Democratic voters are reliably un-evangelical, and he can say, without fear, “I believe in an America . . . where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference,” and where religion is “a private affair.”
And while Kennedy, too, memorializes the Founders, he does so not in the name of America’s founding on religion, but on American history’s indifference to the faiths of its people:
And in fact, this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died […] For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test there.
Maybe this is why Romney, before his address, made sure to tell reporters his speech would not be “a JFK speech.”
And maybe this is also why Romney faces greater challenges in his Mormon beliefs than Kennedy did with his Catholicism. Michigan’s Republican evangelicals want a God-fearing man. But they want their president to honor the Founders, too.
A Rebel Hospital: Demanding a Syrian Oasis
BY: AUDREY ANN LAVALLEE
What do you do when the government turns against you? Here, a Syrian “rebel” explains how he and his friends built a makeshift hospital to care for those wounded during the major December protests in Palmyra. The improvised care center is of importance to those who, by their opposition to the regime, risk losing their lives accessing basic governmental care.
Audio of reporting by Audrey Ann Lavallee here: A Rebel Hospital: Demanding a Syrian Oasis
Historic Thousands on Jones Street People’s Assembly
The sixth annual Historic Thousands on Jones Street (HKonJ) People’s Assembly took place in Raleigh on February 11, 2012 in honor of promoting reform of the criminal justice system to prevent prosecutorial misconduct against any citizen regardless of race.
Photos by Tyler Tran
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Together we must end dating violence
BY: Vice President of the United States Joe Biden
More than twenty years ago, I read a study of junior high school students in Rhode Island that included one finding I’ve never been able to get out of my head. Students were asked if a man who spent money on a woman during a date was entitled to force her into sexual activity. An astounding 25 percent of the young boys said yes – and even more astounding, 17 percent of the junior high school girls agreed.
You may think that sounds like a long time ago – and it was. But, sadly, dating violence remains a very real problem in our country – especially on college campuses.
Today, while in college, nearly one in five women will be a victim of sexual assault and one in ten teens will be hurt on purpose by someone they are dating. These aren’t just statistics, these are people you know: your roommates, your friends, your sisters, your classmates. This is a problem we all have to face.
My dad used to say that there’s no worse sin than the abuse of power. Whether it was raising a hand to someone weaker, or using any advantage to push people around, he taught me that if you saw abuse, you had an obligation to attempt to stop it. It’s a lesson to remember every day, but especially this February, during Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month.
Awareness is the first step to pushing back against a problem this big. When I held Senate hearings on violence against women more than two decades ago, domestic abuse in American society was rarely spoken about in public. I’ll never forget the stories of abuse I heard in over a thousand hours of hearings. The brutality of family members, acquaintances, and strangers against the women in their lives was absolutely devastating.
It was those hearings that led to the Violence Against Women Act, and since then annual incidents of domestic violence have dropped by more than 50%. But for women in college and younger today, the risk is still much too high.
That’s why I joined with Education Secretary Arne Duncan last April to announce historic new guidelines for colleges and universities about their responsibilities under Title IX to prevent sexual assault. Under the federal civil rights law, schools have an obligation not only to respond appropriately when an assault occurs, but also to create a climate on campus that makes such violence unacceptable.
I also started an initiative called 1is2many to help reduce dating violence and sexual assault among teens and young adults. We harnessed the power of technology to get our message out, launching a national contest to develop “Apps Against Abuse.” The two winning apps – which will be available later this spring – will let you get in touch with your friends quickly and safely so you can call for help if you need it and stop violence in its tracks. We’ve also made sure the National Dating Abuse Helpline can be reached by text, online, or phone 24/7.
Last month, the FBI changed the way the federal government defines rape. The narrow, outdated definition – unchanged since 1929 – said the assault had to be forcible and against a woman’s will to be classified as rape. It’s just not true, and it’s a point that I make on college campuses all across the country. Rape is rape and no means no. No means no whether drunk or sober. No means no whether in the dorm room or on the street. There is never an excuse. Young women and men alike need to understand this. Under the new definition, rape occurs when there is no consent, and it also includes sexual assault against boys and young men in national law enforcement reporting.
These are important changes, but ending dating violence and sexual assault isn’t just a matter of laws and legislation. It’s about education. It’s about attitudes. It’s about your participation. I need your help to address this issue in your dorms and on your campuses. Studies show that men’s ideas about what other men think is one of the strongest determinants of how they act. So guys, you need to speak out.
The ultimate measure of a civilized society is how its laws and culture treat the abuse of women. Attitudes can change. Violence can end. But it can’t happen without universal understanding that dating violence and sexual assault will never be tolerated anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Period. That’s all of our responsibility.
