Category: At the Ath

What makes someone good or evil? Robert Sapolsky, professor of biology, neurosurgery, and neurology at Stanford University, dives into human biology to find the answer. By looking at the history of our species and its genetic inheritance, his Ath talk explores what we are restrained by, what we are capable of, and what we can do to change the world for the better.

As a MacArthur “Genius” Fellow, Sapolsky has proven to be exceptionally creative. Sapolsky delves into the neurobiology of human beings, such as how the fear-inducing amygdala activates differently within different people, how dopamine drives motivation and anticipation for reward, and more. Sapolsky argues that the term “good” and “evil” can be linked to people’s cultural influences, their biological programming, and differences in upbringing.

However, though the introduction to neurology helped clarify exactly why humans behave the way they do, his conclusion on what we could do about it received a standing ovation from the entire audience.

Sapolsky’s conclusion? That humans are complicated. We scorn violence that occurs to innocent bystanders, yet we desire violence on those who inflict horrendous crimes against humanity. We perform acts of war, yet during war, we also perform acts of kindness. To Sapolsky, humans have the capacity to simultaneously believe in two contradictory things. Despite living in continuous contradictions, which Sapolsky says is just life, he challenges us to always do better and strive to bring empathy, altruism, and kindness to the world. Though it is irrational to believe that those who are our enemies deserve our empathy or those who have wronged us should be forgiven, he says that this is the uniqueness of humans. He leaves us with a quote, telling us that though learning about history teaches us not to repeat mistakes from the past, learning about our biology teaches us that we can replicate acts of goodness in times when we need it the most. The more impossible it seems to do the right thing, the more important it is that we do so. . That is, to Sapolsky, what makes us human.

Didn’t make it to the talk? Catch Sapolsky’s TED talk on the uniqueness of humans here. 

By: Sharon Chiang

 

This week, environmental and developmental psychologist at Cornell University, Gary Evans, paid us a visit at the Athenaeum. Prof. Evans’ talk highlighted that poverty is bad for children mainly because of the confluence of environmental and psychosocial risks it creates.

When it comes to psychosocial risks, it has been proven that low income is associated with aggression, low math scores, deferred graduation, poor language and memory development, higher divorce rates, and frequent corporal punishment. When it comes to increased environmental risks, studies have shown that poverty is bad for childhood development because it leads to smaller access to park spaces and supermarkets (which contributes to higher obesity rates), incomplete bathrooms, lack of central heat and overall low quality housing, higher exposure to allergens, crowded housing spaces, and exposure to sulfur oxides, which have been associated with serious consequences for IQ levels.

On top of these, Prof. Evans’ own studies have indicated that poverty and stress may harm parts of the brain sensitive to cognitive stress, leading to diminished reactivity in the face of life challenges and slower recovery to baseline blood pressure levels. Additionally, it appears that children who have grown up in poverty may develop a smaller hippocampus, which might retard the neurological mechanisms associated with coping strategies.

Hence, poverty is not dangerous for children just because of poverty itself. It is dangerous because of the cumulative risk exposure and confluence of risk factors that it creates. Childhood poverty cultivates a system in which, “when it rains, it pours.”

Last week, The Berger Institute along with The Kravis Leadership Institute and the Robert Day School of Economics hosted the 8^th annual Women’s Leadership Workshop at the Athenaeum. Designed to connect 5C students with successful female leaders, the workshop featured alumnae from fields such as law, non-profit, consulting, and education.

The event started with an inspiring talk by Victoria Halsey, author and VP of Applied Learning at The Ken Blanchard Companies. Mrs. Halsey stressed the importance of communication in leadership. She pointed out that what sets a leader apart from others is their ability to overcome the assumed constraint of asking questions without fear. As women, we often believe that we need to do everything on our own when, in truth, leadership emerges from collaboration and extending a helping hand.

Following Mrs. Halsey’s talk, students were given the opportunity to briefly chat with alumnae about their experiences in the workforce. The alumnae I spoke with highlighted the value of combining one’s professional and social goals in order to excel. For instance, after hitting a plateau in her career, one of the alumna quit her job and sought a volunteer position as president of a non-profit organization. Non-profits pursue professionals with extensive leadership experience, but often cannot afford their desired wages. Temporarily moving to a volunteer-based position can enrich your experience and allow you to go back to the corporate world prepared to move up the ladder – all while giving back.

This week, I attended Arthur Brooks’ Ath talk on “Abundance without Attachment.” The talk was initially titled, “How to Live Life like a Start-up,” but was later changed. Prior to the talk, I wondered why Brooks would change the talk from something attention-grabbing to the entrepreneurial spirits of CMC to one that was vague; however, by the end of the talk, it was clear why he had done so. The main crux of Brooks’ talk was on the formula to happiness. While there are many economists and businessmen explaining their steps to living a entrepreneurial lifestyle, there are few that elaborate on the importance of happiness.

As a business and government professor with a Ph.D. and an M.Phil. in policy analysis from the Pardee RAND Graduate School, Brooks engaged the audience through his charismatic take on finding happiness in a capitalist society, making tradeoffs between relationships and career, and other relevant insight. Currently, he is the president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, and a bestselling author.

Before his present accomplishments, Brooks spent 12 years as a classical musician. His transition to economics came after his desire to find a solution to poverty. During his trips to India, capitalism became hard evidence of a powerful tool that lifted poor nations from deep poverty. Brooks then decided that he wanted to be a part of the solution and started his career switch.

The question remains: what does the title even mean? The best way to describe “Abundance without Attachment” in western words is “If you love something, set it free.” Brooks argues that capitalism is not evil. Capitalism is a machine run by people, who can be good or not. The abundance of money that rises through capitalism is not bad; however, the distinction is that the attachment to the abundance of money is what causes dissatisfaction.

What should we value instead? Brooks talks about the four aspects to the formula for happiness, which includes pouring ourselves into:

1. Faith
2. Family
3. Community
4. Meaningful Work

Brooks’ formula for happiness was not groundbreaking to me since it wasn’t the first time I’ve learned about it. I’ve heard about it from my parents, read about it from psychology experiments, and witnessed it firsthand through the fulfillment of my decade-long friendships and sharing life stories with strangers while traveling abroad. However, coming from Brooks, whose background is intertwined in both music and economics (such as mine), the advice hit close to home. Brooks’ talk was a great reminder to continue prioritizing what is most important in life.

Didn’t make it to the talk? Check out the link featuring Arthur Brooks’ commentary on TED.

By: Sharon Chiang

This week, I had the pleasure of attending the discussion on politics, art, and the role of the theater in shaping public policy with internationally recognized playwright J.T. Rogers and CMC professor Eric Helland. A 2012 Guggenheim fellow in playwriting and under commission from Lincoln Center Theater and the Royal National Theatre, Rogers hails from an impressive background.

CMC is known as a prestigious liberal arts college with strengths in pre-professional preparation. Though theatre is not a major offered at the college, there were many practical lessons taken away from the talk that deal with developing meaningful connections and experiences that we can apply to our daily lives.

When asked about the role of both journalism and theater, Rogers responded that “While journalism sharpens our minds, the theater can expand our sense of what it means to be human. It is where we can come together in a communal space to hear ideas that grip us, surprise us — even infuriate us — as we learn of things we didn’t know. For me, that is a deeply, thrillingly, political act.” Non-fiction can tell you facts but exclude the emotions that accompany these events.

So how does one write a play? The short answer is by understanding the human experience. Like any great career advice, J.T. Rogers simply says to use what you know. The characters need to be believable, coming from real backgrounds and having authentic human emotions and behaviors. When talking to people about their experiences, Rogers states that what is important is a personal level of understanding, such as how they wake up in the morning, and not just listening to their list of achievements. He seeks to create a conversation, not an interview.

To conclude the talk, Helland asked about how living in a rent-controlled apartment in New York affected the trajectory of Rogers’ career. To Rogers, his experience in New York was pivotal to the beginning of his career. Genius is not alone; genius comes from being in an environment with a lot of creative and ambitious people. This brought me to think about how lucky I am to be attending CMC, a college that not only promotes discussion and exploration of new ideas, but also adds value by being around the impressive people that go here. Rogers’ discussion at the Ath raises more awareness about the role of theatre in politics and even the privilege to attend CMC.

Didn’t make it to the talk? Check out the link featuring J.T. Rogers’ commentary on his latest play Oslo.

By: Sharon Chiang ’17

This week at the Athenaeum, I had the pleasure of attending a panel discussion regarding the current state of the book publishing industry and the representation of diversity in the field. The panel consisted of author and CMC alumni Yi Shun Lai ’96, executive editor Rachel Kahan of William Morrow and Company, and book publicist Kima Jones of Jack Jones Literary Arts.

The highlights of the panel discussion touched upon the economic and social challenges in the publishing industry. For instance, entering the industry can be difficult for those who are financially unable to take on an unpaid internship, since this opportunity serves as a launching pad into the industry. Financial stability can be an issue, too. Yi Shun Lai, also a literary editor at the Tahoma Literary Review and the Los Angeles Review, said her first post-grad publishing job only paid $18,000/year. To get by in New York, she survived off of “bar food and ramen.”

The panelists also highlighted the social challenges that marginalized groups face to become published: female writers struggle to achieve the same respect as their male counterparts, and the publishing industry is concerned that the POC viewpoint may not be relatable or marketable enough for a mass audience.

Despite shedding light on the challenges of the industry, the panelists remained optimistic about the future of the publishing industry becoming more diverse. Kahan believes that the industry underestimates their readers’ ability to empathize and learn from the narratives of diverse voices. They’re calling for publishers and readers alike to demand more diversity in the field and encourage all literary enthusiasts to continue pursuing their passions.

Didn’t make it to the talk? Check out the link featuring panelist Kima Jones’ commentary on diversity in the publishing industry.

By: Sharon Chiang ’17

This week, I had the pleasure of attending Michael Hiltzik’s talk at the Athenaeum. As a Pulitzer Prize-winner journalist and author, Hiltzik enriched students and faculty on his findings and views on how the middle class gets squeezed by income inequality and unfair government tax benefits.

Recently, education and housing prices have increased while remuneration in middle class job positions have decreased, moving a significant part of the population down the ladder. Additionally, the middle class continues to get squeezed out of government programs: they make too much to qualify for Obamacare benefits, but too little to afford private health insurance. These incidents have caused the middle class to “lose its foothold on the American dream.”

With the period of extreme instability and doubt that has clouded American politics since Trump’s victory, Hiltzik predicts continued transformations for the middle class. Because this group has been abandoned by the government, its political support is now up for grabs and can define the fate of American politics. The question that remains is: how can we save middle class America and the American dream?

As a Robert Day School Professor, Jeffrey Flory specializes in development economics and has received grants from the World Bank and the Lowe Institute of Political Economy.

This week, I had the honor of attending his Athenaeum talk on the effect of competitive workplaces on female employees.

It is common understanding that there are prominent gender differences in our labor market. In the US, women’s wages are approximately 20% lower than men’s; women only account for 2.5% of the 5 highest paid executives in large firms; and, compared to their male counterparts, are more likely to be unemployed. Various explanations have been offered as to why these disparities still exist: differences in human capital skills, the effect of traditional family roles, and stereotype threats against women.

Prof. Flory’s research expands on a novel approach to explain the gender gap in the workplace: competition. Laboratory experiments have found that work performance of men is substantially more responsive to competition incentives than that of women. This, in turn, may prevent female workers from performing their best when they know they are competing with other employees for promotions or raises. Further lab experiments show a gender difference in preferences for performing in competitive settings. On average, men have a taste for competition, while women tend to exhibit a distaste for it. This results in men embracing competition and women shying away from it.

It is essential that we become aware of the implications of these findings. For the social realm, these conclusions indicate that if women have an aversion to competition, they are less likely to seek promotions and raises, perhaps even removing themselves from the picture. Moreover, if women dislike performing under competitive circumstances, they are more likely to shy away from fields that are perceived as highly competitive. Findings also indicate that highly competent women select out of competitive workplaces while incompetent men select into them. The economic implications of these observations are of great importance. This poor allocation of employee capacity affects firms’ productivity and efficiency, indicating that perhaps firms are not attracting the best possible talent, thus failing to maximize economic performance and prosperity.

Prof. Flory aims to develop this field of study, taking research outside of the lab into natural economic environments. His real labor market experiment involved 9,000 job-seekers interested in a real employment position. By manipulating compensation treatments, he found that having a team-based work environment as well as lowering the amount of wage that is based on competition can help eliminate the gender gap.

This research can provide invaluable insight into a prominent issue in our society. I am looking forward to seeing how this field advances, and observing its positive impact on our changing workplace.

This week, CMC alumnus Pat Crowley paid us a visit at the Athenaeum. Pat ’02 is the founder and CEO of Chapul, Inc., a company that is transforming the natural foods industry with its cricket energy bars. Concerned with topics of food and water sustainability, Pat aims to introduce edible insects into the western diet. Unbeknownst to us, most of the food products we consume require extremely high levels of water consumption, aggravating the issue of water conservation and sustainability. Insects, on the other hand, barely require any water, increase the diversity of food supply, and grow in a wide range of climates, making it an efficient and healthy source of nutrients, especially protein.

What Pat points out as the main inhibitor of the propagation of alternative forms of nutrients, such as insects, is the cultural barrier. Some Western cultures are not ready for this revolution and lack acceptance. However, Pat believes this to be temporary. As soon as the cultural perception surrounding this matter shifts, a new food supply chain will be engineered.

Although still aiming for cultural-wide acceptance, Chapul’s mission has already captivated the natural foods industry, which understands the importance of sharing and maximizing resources. A collaborative effort is required in order to shift our perspective on consumption. Happily, companies like Chapul are gradually gaining market share and traction in the right direction towards the proliferation of conscientious consumption. Please join me in congratulating Pat’s efforts in building a more sustainable future and revolutionizing the food industry.

For more information, please visit http://www.chapul.com.

by Larissa Chern ’17

This week, CMC students had the chance to participate in a dynamic, fun, and enlightening talk led by Dr. Paul Zak at the Athenaeum. Dr. Zak, who administers the first doctoral program in neuroeconomics as well as the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University, was credited with the first published use of the term “neuroeconomics.” His lab is responsible for advancing the academic research on oxytocin, the brain chemical that facilitates trust between individuals.

According to Dr. Zak’s findings, the secret to a high-performance organization lies in a high-trust environment. The list below numbers the various ways in which leaders can increase their peers’ oxytocin levels, thereby enhancing their organizations’ performance:

1. Ovation: Recognize people who do outstanding work. If your colleague worked hard last week to hand in that important report and it turned out to be of great quality, make sure to recognize him in front of everyone. If that ovation is unexpected and public, its effect is even stronger.
2. Expectations: Design hard, but achievable challenges within your organization. Challenge stress stimulates oxytocin, increasing empathy and strengthening bonds between colleagues.
3. Yield: Give control of projects to others. When we don’t micromanage, we induce innovation and allow colleagues to make mistakes and learn from them.
4. Transfer: Let people choose what projects to work on. If you let you colleagues bid for the work, they are more likely to devote themselves to it completely. It’s also important to let people work where they like (be it at a café or at their house) and whenever they like (it’s okay if they do their work at 3AM, as long as they do it, and do it well). Offering colleagues a sense of autonomy increases their energy and health.
5. Openness: Communication, communication, communication. Allow everyone to be on the same page. Announce important information pertaining to the company. After all, all members of the organization have just as much importance.
6. Caring: Humans are social creatures who build relationships all the time. Foster a friendly and caring environment, allowing for meaningful social interactions.
7. Invest: Invest in your colleagues’ personal fulfillment. If there is anything about the job they do not seem to be satisfied with, make sure to address their concerns. By helping others achieve work-life balance, you help them foster a sense of growth rather than shackling them to the job.
8. Natural: Be a vulnerable and authentic leader. Leaders who are seen as confident, but who also make mistakes, are seen as more trustworthy.

Research shows that employees working in high-trust environments report less stress, more innovation, fewer sick days, and more satisfaction with their lives outside of work. It’s no coincidence that the “best companies to work for” have higher stock return and employee retention.