In media, Social Intelligence translates to the net inner gains and losses we experience with a given person or in a given conversation, to create the net balance of feelings we maintain about a brand or product. We participate in this interpersonal economy whenever a social interaction results in a transfer of feeling–which is virtually always:

Perhaps, Author Daniel Goleman in “Social Intelligence” has captured this experience:
“We are wired to connect.” Each encounter between people engages their emotions and in turn, steer our emotional economy. Given our socially reactive brains, we must “be wise,” he says, “and be aware of the ways that our moods influence the each life we touch.”

Specifically, in the discussion of Mood Drivers, Daniel Goleman remembers while visiting other regions of the country:
“…being pleasantly surprised by the friendly tones of the taped voice on the telephone that informed, ‘Your call could not be completed as dialed’… gave a small trill of good feeling – due largely to my years of irritating phone company’s computerized voice back home.”
Goleman further explains that the decision to use a less friendly voice in other instances felt like an immediate punishment for misdialing and would ultimately put him in a bad mood.

References: Daniel Goleman, “Social Intelligence”, Bantam Dell, 2006

I’m reading Social Intelligence by Daniel Goleman at the moment, and he talks a bit about epigenetics, a relatively young field of research born out of the Nature vs Nurture debate that says who we are is actually a result of complex communication and development between the two.

This means that you can have a genetic pre-disposition towards alcoholism, shyness, confidence, but that those dispositions can be weak or strong to begin with, and then our social interactions after birth, in childhood and until early adulthood, can impact on that pre-disposition, strengthening or weakening it further, when our brains are still learning and developing the most, and we aren’t yet set in our ‘neural patterns’.

This means things like a penchant for addiction, depression, joyfulness and drive are a lot more complex than just choosing to think or behave in a certain way, because they are impacted and moulded by our experiences and social interactions as infants and children, but also depend on what genetic lucky-packet we received at birth. In the future, epigenetics could teach us more about how people work, in social situations as well as understanding why some people who grow up in the same geographic and economic situation can still have completely different lives because of small differences that have a big influence on how weak or strong our genetic dispositions towards different behaviours are.

For example, a child who receives a genetic disposition towards shyness, and has a shy parent might not be able to develop a confidence because the shyness of their parent and resulting social interaction only strengthens the shy disposition. Whereas the same child, with the influence of another confident role model in their lives can have a different outcome, where shyness is not as pronounced as it could have been.

Because our neural pathways are still developing as children, influencing genetic disposition at this time can have a huge effect on the person that child becomes. The way I think of it is that our inherited dispositions are like pathways our parents have ‘given’ us in our brains, for behaviour. The paths are already there once the brain is formed, but repeated alternative experience and social interaction after birth and throughout childhood gives us the ability to cut a new neural pathway while the ground is still fresh.

It’s pretty scary stuff for parents, and gives a whole new scepticism towards all the child-rearing help-books out there because it shows there really isn’t a formula. What works for one child with a shyness issue might not work for the next because of the variables in that lucky-packet of inheritance. Throw in the impact social interaction with siblings, peers and other adults and you’ve got a spectrum of social influence a parent can’t possibly control to the enth degree (and shouldn’t anyway, I think).

Perhaps more disturbing is the thought that once you’ve reached adulthood whatever you’re like is set for life. While the adult brain at this stage is not as malleable as a child’s, the bulk of Goleman’s book is really about how we can effect the same kind of change and self-growth through being socially intelligent as adults. It takes work and relearning, but even as adults we have the ability to change with social interaction.

One of the examples he uses is of the interaction between romantic partners going through the stage of baby-speak, and how that time is actually a form of intimate social interaction that almost allows each person in the relationship to reform the caring, nurturing relationship between them as it exists between child and parent. In other words, that irritating nunu-talk? It’s a good sign that you’re communicating well, creating a ‘loop’ of give and take communication the same way a mother and baby create a dynamic between them. It allows each person to better ‘read’ the other.

How fascinating! And good news too, for me, trying to become more than the product of my circumstances.

Daniel Goleman wrote in Social Intelligence: “our brain’s very design makes it sociable, inexorably drawn into an intimate brain-to-brain linkup whenever we engage with another person.” (p.4)

Although our own very existence is dependent on other people, we have, paradoxically, a resistance toward them. We seem to like others when they are like us and distance ourselves when they are different. Yet at a deeper level we crave for something different. Same ole, same ole gives us a sense of security and safety, yet it is not fully satisfying. We really need the other and the other really needs us.

Instead of isolating ourselves in parallel universes, we need to start flexing our reaching out muscle, we need to start practicing the art of the embrace. To help with this Samir Selmanovic wrote the book It’s really all about God. If you are anxious that he might ask you to give up your identity, your tradition and start compromising … you can RELAX!!! To the contrary, he’s proposing a way to better discover ourselves, to deepen our understanding. What I like about this book, is that it is “an attempt to step above, under, or sideways from our religions and look at them not merely as their adherents but as human beings.” [Italics mine] Samir does a wonderful job at this in his reflections and more importantly in the memoir of his personal story. For way too long we have approached our religions (or any belief system for that matter) in such an abstract way (we like to call it “spiritual”) that we forgot the human element essential to them. Samir brings us back to earth and puts our religions to the test of life, breaking the typical boundaries religions tend to set.

The only way we can stop the animosity between various faiths traditions is by seeing each other as fellow human beings and not objects of each other’s conquests.

If you’re interested in finding out which religion is the right one or trying to find a way to validate your tradition against the others … well, you will find the book not very satisfying.

Before you can appreciate though what the author is saying it’s important to understand the presuppositions underlying the book.

1. About God. After all, the book is It’s really all about God, right? The basic idea is that there really is only ONE God. This God created only ONE race, the human race and so He is personally invested and involved in each human being life (reflected in God’s image in each one of us). Here’s the kick. Although we have this human bond in common, each of us has been created unique. We each reflect God uniquely in our life. We each represent a facet of this wonderful diamond called humanity, reflecting the glory of God. So to get a better glimpse of the Divine we need each other.

2. About people. The author doesn’t operate from a dualistic view of humanity: us vs. them. Out of the first premise flows this second one which confers dignity to all people. Even if we have different stories and come from different backgrounds we all have the same access to the Divine. God does not restrict Himself from anyone. God does not have favorite children. Because God created us all, we all have equal inherent value and in turn something sacred (of value) to offer to all. The problem is, due to this openness on God’s side we tend to think that it is unique to us, to our tribe, to our religion and develop a superiority complex. We construct sophisticated language trying to contain God and our experience of Him. And so from something once beautiful we erect walls around to protect us against the other, not realizing that in so doing we cut ourselves from a fuller understanding of God.

With these few notes have a delightful reading !!!

For those who read the book, can you share some thoughts with us?

Is there anything in what I said that makes you uncomfortable? Can you share?

___________________________
Here’s what’s coming next Monday: The unpredictable God of order

When I used to think about someone with social intelligence, I tended to think about someone who was skilled in social situations. In other words; someone who used social skills to get what he wanted. During periods since the term Social Intelligence was first introduced, Social Intelligence has been seen like just logical intelligence but into use in social situations. As Daniel Goleman points out in his Social Intelligence, studies of the human mind and Neuroscience in particularly, this is far from the whole truth. A truly social intelligent person is an empathic person, who can truly connect to oneself and to others.

But what about my image of that shroud person? Well, he’s better part of what Goleman refers to a part of The Dark Triad. Three personality traits/profiles which might seem social adapt but are really not. Since true empathy is not part of the picture.

The narcissist

This is probably the most common type and many successful leaders have traits from this profile. The narcissist might not be aware of it, but he puts himself first, sees blame in everyone else. Narcissists puts too much value into themselves and sees themselves as superior others.

In a positive sense, a narcissist can bring onto great change and brings self esteem. But it’s a slippery slope to blind eye to one selves bad sides and down sides.

Daniel Goleman points to that narcissists as leaders can make organizations narcissistic, and one cannot help seeing the organization described in Jim Collins Why The Mighty Falls:

The Mach

The profile is named after Niccolo Machiavelli and his concept of The Prince. Here we have someone who on purpose uses social skills to get what he wants. This person strive against his goal and if someone gets in his way, this is collateral damage.

Goleman does not discuss organizations being Machs, but sometimes when you read horrific stories about companies knowingly putting their staff and customers in peril, you cannot help wondering.

The psychopath

Furthest down on the ladder, we find the true psychopath. For this individual, people are just objects, which can be used or should just be removed. Where as a Mach might understand that he’s done something bad, the Psychopath does not recognize this. He cannot see a problem with his behavior.

The bottom line

What do you think is social intelligence? How would you feel, working for a company or a leader who is part of The Dark Triad? Would you know? Would you care?

Since I’ve at least worked for narcissists and narcissistic organizations, I say that for me it was not worth it. To bring passion and your precious time to such an environment is just a waste. In hindsight, you might learn from it. I did, but the price you pay might be high.

So, how do you build social intelligence? Well, Daniel Goleman points to an inner strength and true empathy as ground for social intelligence. In the short run, The Dark Triad might be successful, but in the long run, you alienate yourself. A bite of narcissism is probably necessary for success, but without that precious empathy true success will probably not be long lived. And you will probably be lonely in those precious moments of your life.

Sometimes you become a part of tightly knit team. You seem to almost think the same things and solutions just comes flowing. What you probably have felt is something Daniel Goleman in his book Social Intelligence refer to as Rapport. It’s one of the most rewarding social connections and the ability to Rapport is a crucial part of social intelligence and well being. And often a team with Rapport can be very productive.

But there are also risks. As James Surowiecki points out in The Wisdom of Crowds, this forming of the tight, homogenous group gives ground to group thought in a negative sense. Surowiecki gives a lot of examples of when group thought stops innovative ideas from being realized or even thought or expressed. The fear of breaking the group thought is perhaps not obvious or even realized, but is there. If you break that precious bond, you lose that comfy feeling. We’ve all been in that situation too. We have that small, tight group and in comes the Outsider with the Outsidish idea. What an idiot. He knows Nothing. We’ve already tried that. But we are the experts. And so on. The outsider must in many cases chose between aligning and thereby just provide ideas which are in line with what is acceptable ideas within the group or stay an outsider.

What can be elusive is that the tight group might not be without conflicts or debates. The principle is that the alternatives are just within the acceptance range of the group. And thereby many great ideas are never explored.

According to Surowiecki, it is key to keep groups heterogeneous to harvest the collective intelligence instead of the narrow group thought.

These books really got me thinking about groups and teams. Agile software development is all about creating the most business value for the least effort and here is probably an important key factor. How to use the collective intelligence and still have the comfort and calm which Rapport brings. And how to minimize the negative effects of group thought. Working with the 7 Habits gives me a lot of tools but I will probably struggle with the Scrum team idea. Scrum teams are supposed to be cross border but how often are they really? And if they become true teams, how homogenous will they not become? Not that Kanban or other methods are better in this perspective.

Well, I have something to work with next year!

A lot of Time is spent thinking about reinvesting investments. Everybody Else likes to think their common derivatives make them friends.

What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is mine. I fall for that a lot. Nickels for dimes because they are bigger kind of thing that is not a thing. Theoretically it’s not nice to trick any one. Everybody Else does it all the Time. Always have.

This is not what I meant. It is the trouble lately when the fog descends. More like tied up in a burlap sack. No radar. Thoughts come out side ways due to Spinning Inertia. Communication is next to impossible. Certainly difficult.

The Three T’s (TTT) Transformation, Transition, Telephone (TTTTTT). Altogether this makes six T’s. If you are trying this at Home, please do not attempt a Transformation or Transition without a Telephone.

This is backwards. Six T’s do not transcribe intelligibly backwards (TTTTTT). This leaves Emotional Intelligence temporarily without direction. This is difficult for Everybody Else especially with fog.

Everybody Else in Other Countries may do this. We do not try this without a Telephone. We give it the full six T’s in America. I wonder if we will turn out more like Russia. In Europe Everybody Else uses a Telephone with Social Intelligence

Here on this blog, I’ve often written about the progress of my newest venture, Lift9. My thoughts on company-building and entrepreneurship are a recurring theme for sure.

After coming up with a business plan in July and finding the right partners, we started hiring and building a social media research center in Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam. That has been,and continues to be, a tremendously rewarding experience. Our staff there has exceeded all my expectations not only in ability, but also in their embrace of our company vision and culture.

After a couple of months of ramp, we started to offer our services here in the US to forward-looking brands. Our traction really started to take hold this month in December. We are closing out 2009 with great anticipation for the coming year.

Amongst friends, however, some still have a difficult time grasping what it is that Lift9 does. This is not surprising given the newness of our industry in social intelligence. Recently, Lift9 posted one of our research reports on Slideshare (see below). This report measures the sentiment and reaction on social media to Nordstorms’ New Moon Sweepstakes campaign and its Twilight Fashion Line.

Our reports require a lot of data cleansing and validation, but the findings are very interesting. Also, we try to have tangible actionable takeaways from each page.

I hope this helps everyone understand the value that Lift9 is providing, and why we are all so excited about our future.

Peace everyone!

I’m a big fan of Twitter. It works as a huge filter of information, depositing tens of interesting links to me daily. Someone else has gone to all the trouble of finding and filtering them and I reap the benefit of stumbling upon something I would never read otherwise. This evening a new article from Harvard Business Review Online came across my Tweetdeck.

‘Social intelligence and the biology of leadership‘ by Daniel Goleman and Richard Boyatzis continues on the earlier themes of mirroring from Goleman’s social intelligence books but adds data tying them to the behaviours of successful leaders. They found that the manner of delivery of a message affected the mirror neurons of the receiving team member and that negative feedback delivered with positive emotional signals resulted in feeling better than when negative signals such as frowns were used. They advise that to get results, make demands in a way that fosters positive feelings in your teams. It’s not what you ask for, but how you ask for it. Top and mid performing leaders elicited much more laughter from their subordinates. A great read for anyone interested in the role of social intelligence in the workplace.

The way we connect to one another can be positive , negative, deep,or shallow. How do we connect on a deep, positive level? We need to gain emotional and social intelligence through books, courses or any other way in which self-awareness can be learned.

Rapport: the ability to attune to another’s emotions and talk in their unique style of conversation. Attuning to another’s emotions means engaging in what they are saying, talking in their preferred love language…(kinesthetic, audio, or visual), to better relate. One indicator of rapport is two-way empathy: both people experiencing being experienced.

Helpful tips to build close bonds with your loved ones and friends:

• Become fully present when listening to one another, give undivided attention
• Pay attention to emotional cues as to how one is feeling, facial expression, body language, etc.
• Pay attention to your tone of voice, it is more important as to how you say something, than what you say
• Become aware of your facial expressions, your face never lies as to how you are truly feeling
• Pace and timing of your conversation is very important to relying an emotion, fast-paced talking may mean anxiety and nervousness
• Eye contact!
• Body close together, open…not crossing arms or legs

These are just a few of the many helpful skills one needs to learn in order to build stronger and more positive relationships with others. I work on learning as much as I can in order to relate better to different people. Because my desire is to help others, I strive to become the best I can be at positively relating to others and will continue to make it one of my top priorities.

Social Intelligence and Leadership

An interview with Daniel Goleman, Psychologist. See how you can use emotional and social intelligence to improve your own and your organization’s performance.

Source – Harvard Business Publishing – YouTube Channel – http://www.youtube.com/user/HarvardBusiness

Over the past few weeks I have had the opportunity to talk with several bestselling authors and business leaders on a variety of topics.

Some of the most interesting areas upon which these discussions have focused involves issues of leadership, motivation, emotional versus social intelligence.

Given the role that movies play in terms of inspiring us with stories of beating the odds and coming out on top, the PI Window on Business published a poll which asked the question “Which Movie is the Most from an Motivational or Inspirational Standpoint?“

From a personal perspective, one of my all time favorite movies is Cinderella Man, which is the true story of boxer James J. Braddock.

What movie inspired you the most?  Use the following Link to cast your vote keeping in mind that if your movie isn’t listed you can vote “Other” and provide the name in the comments section of the poll.

Over the past few weeks I have had the opportunity to talk with several bestselling authors and business leaders on a variety of topics.

Some of the most interesting areas upon which these discussions have focused involves issues of leadership, motivation, emotional versus social intelligence.

Given the role that movies play in terms of inspiring us with stories of beating the odds and coming out on top, the PI Window on Business published a poll which asked the question “Which Movie is the Most from an Motivational or Inspirational Standpoint?“

From a personal perspective, one of my all time favorite movies is Cinderella Man, which is the true story of boxer James J. Braddock.

What movie inspired you the most?  Use the following Link to cast your vote keeping in mind that if your movie isn’t listed you can vote “Other” and provide the name in the comments section of the poll.

By Bakari Akil II, Ph.D.

In an episode of Hawthorne, a show about a Chief Nursing Officer at the fictitious Trinity Richmond Hospital, the main character Christina (Jada Pinkett-Smith) is faced with a dilemma. In an effort to ’save’ a close friend, that is suffering from stage four cancer, she convinces him to participate in a clinical trial for cancer patients who are at stage two. She is able to coerce the researcher conducting the trial to admit her friend but it results in disastrous consequences for others. As a result of her friend being accepted into the program another man who has a ‘greater’ chance for survival is forced out. The man happens to be a patient of the Head Surgeon of her hospital and the Head Surgeon is also Christina’s good friend. When she is confronted about her activities she is forced to decide who gets the spot.

What would you do?

These type of predicaments are now standard fare for many television shows. The characters are placed in scenarios that are nuanced, layered and can’t easily be resolved. Steven Johnson, in his book, Everything Bad is Good for You, argues that in many ways these new types of shows improve your social and emotional intelligences. He asserts that multiple plot lines, no clear delineation of hero and villain and unending story lines keeps the audiences engaged and in our efforts to understand or critique we improve our social skills.

Great examples of these shows are Friday Night Lights, Weeds, Californication, Lost, Survivor, Prison Break, 24 and Nurse Jackie. These programs force audiences to use their cognitive skills in ways past television shows could not. The levels of logic, intuition and pure common sense audiences must exercise while viewing these shows raises the term ‘armchair quarterback’ to a new level. Additionally, the often outlandish behavior of characters on both scripted and ‘partially scripted’ (reality) TV shows are hard to ignore and not make judgments about.

But, do shows like these really help us in meaningful ways? Can nursing students learn valuable lessons from watching Hawthorne or Nurse Jackie?

The power of such shows, Johnson states, is that viewers often empathize with the characters or at the least think about what they would do if they were faced with similar situations. Constant viewing of these shows provides the audiences with opportunities to broaden and enrich their social toolbox and to think about some of their own emotional issues.

Ultimately, these shows are just entertainment, but many explore issues pertaining to gender, race, ageism, violence, politics and a host of ordinary, everyday problems. At the least, Johnson offers that people gather to watch these shows and discuss them at school, work and on the Internet; which he claims further increases their analytic skills or at least provides a reason for social interaction.

Do I agree fully? No. — But at least when I’m watching a Numb3rs marathon on Netflix or Weeds on Showtime I can argue that I’m improving my social skills.

Hey Guys, I have recently been added as a blogger at Psychology Today (Magazine). Come check out my blog, Communication Central

Do you push yourself, try to discover a little more about what you’re good at?  How about other people — do you try harder to find out something new about them, learn what they value, what their challenges are, how you might be a better friend?

How was your weekend?  Are you ready to start a new week?

fnord

The Environment, The Interpersonal Economy and Eye-openers

In my introductory message I mention the words ‘scan the environment’.  But what exactly do I mean by ‘environment’?

According to the Webster’s New Dictionary (2004) it means ‘the aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or community’ (p.418).

One would assume, therefore, that (for both individuals and organisations) there are some tangible benefits to be gained by remaining close to environment.

So let me start by examining some of the key issues and reasons that make scanning the environment so very important.  The first and foremost reasons why we should scan our environments (especially in the current economic climate of global credit crunch and various industry sector subsidence) are that they enable the possibility of developing a lead on emerging opportunities, identify trends and hard-wiring connections with data from multiple sources.

Think of it as a method by which one arouses the amygdala and embraces originality.

We have long known about the powers of networking – a process which helps to cement relationships and assemble multiple connections with individuals and organisations.

Indeed, that is exactly what the amygdala does.  It has a wide range of connections with other brain regions, allowing it to participate in a wide variety of behavioural functions.

Daniel Goleman, in his book entitled Social Intelligence (2007) intimates to this exchange using the term ‘interpersonal economy’…

“These tacit transactions drive what amounts to an emotional economy, the net inner gains or losses we experience with a given person, or in a given conversation, or on any given day.  By evening, the net balance of feelings we have exchanged largely determines what kind of day (good or bad) we fell we’ve had.  We participate in this interpersonal economy whenever a social interaction results in a transfer of feeling – which is virtually always”

Yet this interpersonal currency also enables us to avoid walking or running off a cliff-edge without first checking to see if the parachute is firmly in place on ones back!

Surprises of that nature may be exhilarating for about 3 seconds, in that situation, but most of us would prefer to avoid any unexpected and destructive eye-openers.

By Bakari Akil II, Ph.D.

Recently, I’ve been reading “Yes Man.” It is actually just as good as the movie, “Yes Man,” starring Jim Carrey. It had me laughing from the first few sentences and I was entertained throughout. One difference between the book and the movie though was that the movie was based in the US and the book in the UK. Another was the amount of time the book characters spent in pubs. The main character in the book, Danny, spent a lot of time socializing with friends, girlfriends and people he barely knew in watering holes throughout London.  

As I read, I kept thinking about a short article Daniel Goleman, author of “Social Intelligence,” wrote in 2008 comparing “the mental and physical health” between Americans (U.S.) and the British. Goleman asserted that U.S. citizens have higher rates of diseases such as diabetes and cancer, work longer hours and our wealthier citizens’ health is no better than the least wealthy of British citizens.

Why? 

He cites research that opines one contributing factor is that people in the UK place greater value on spending time in pubs rather than those in the US. In other words, socializing with their “neighbors.” This also leads to a higher number of friends and acquaintances which plays a role in overall mental health.

We all know that social networks mean that others are there if we need them and vice versa. But besides that and fun, how often do people focus on socializing as a tool for overall mental and physical health?

Bryan Caplan at econlog has a very interesting post on social intelligence. He makes the claim that a blanket policy of friendliness to everyone is a weakly dominant strategy.  This cannot be the case because we see people being unfriendly to each other all the time. Instead, Caplan really means that blanket friendliness is a maxmin strategy. You can’t make a mistake by being friendly but the social and material consequences of being unfriendly may be very large. If the person to whom you were unfriendly is powerful or mentally unstable they could retaliate in very harmful ways. Especially for a person with little social intelligence, a mistake is very easy to make. Given these negative outcomes why are people unfriendly?

Here are some non-emotional explanations:

1) Unfriendliness can serve as a sanction for people who have done something harmful. The reasoning is that being unfriendly is painful to the other person so they would try harder to avoid harming you.

2) A powerful person may wish to demonstrate this fact by being inattentive to other people. A powerful person is not desperate for friends and is not afraid of retaliation from a person in a weaker position. Not caring about friendliness signals that unlike other people the person does not need to appeal to everyone.

3) A demonstration of importance. Consider an attractive woman that is approached often or a busy professor. It is natural for them to create a reputation of unfriendliness to avoid being bothered.

4) In group vs out of group mentality. One can demonstrate commitment to a social group by shunning people not in the group.

So everything these days centers around 2.0. Virtually every blog I read has some reference to Web 2.0. Socialization. Interconnectedness of human beings. The evolution of static html into relationship, or network-based communications. Web 3.0 is now beginning to appear in some media streams I see. Google plans to release Google Wave later this year taking collaboration to the next level. I mean this makes sense, right?  How do we relate better. We understand. Understanding is intelligence. Action from intelligence is learning. (Cynical, I know.)

Recommended Prerequisites: Emotional & Social Intelligence by Daniel Goleman; Multi-Intelligence by Karl Albrecht; Authentic Leadership by Bill George

Regurgitation vs. Creation

In school, memorization was often key to successful grades. As I moved into College, critical and abstract thinking became more of the norm. I had to adapt. What was purely regurgitation in High School, was now moving towards creation. I literally mean moving here. It hadn’t arrived for me. Still hasn’t totally. However, after my first couple of weeks on twitter, I still see a lot of regurgitation. Many tweets are in essense retweets or just merely communicating someone else’s work. No big deal there. I mean, this is how we disseminate the information. It’s what we do with it, though, that matters. We can choose to be a mere observer, a disseminator, an aggregator (where we may try to summarize multiple sets of information into one for ease of assimilation, or we can, ACT!

Changing anything takes courage and often hard work. We can’t just sit back and observe. We must engage. We must assimilate, we must interpret, and we must challenge the information we see and provide a new twist, a new view, a new entity from the old. This is creation. This is creativity. This is actionable intelligence.

One school teacher is taking this charge. Tara Seale is working ever so diligently to infuse technology into the public school system. Moving our children’s education beyond the traditional mode of regurgitation and into the creative future. Look. She is not necessarily replacing what students do to show, or rather, exhibit, learning, but instead, she is taking the initiative to change their education for the better by infusing tomorrow into that learning today. For example, an English teacher can take a 10-20 page term paper and instead assign multiple lessons of work to create blogs requiring the same sets of skills and reinforcing those skills with which the students must and should master.  This can truly not only be as effective, but it can incorporate technology and other Web 2.0 skills providing a secondary educational lesson as well. We must prepare our kids better to compete in the world, to collaborate with the world, to change the world for the better! Final note. She doesn’t view economic difficulties within the school system as an unavoidable obstacle either. She works hard with other fellow teachers to secure those resources. No one said change is easy. Thank you, Tara, for looking beyond the status quo and into the future of serving others in an actionable and intelligent way.

Check out this Twitter Experiment at UT Dallas (RT @problogger: Reading: How One Teacher Uses Twitter in the Classroom – http://is.gd/LTwI)

I want to hear from you. What ways are local schools/teachers around you preparing our kids to better be prepared to engage and contribute in the future? Any other good resources on the subjects of intelligence or preparing students (any level, even College) for the “real world” that you’d recommend?