World=Globe

On Saturday night, I had a very significant conversation with my fellow educational psychologist, Pat Kyllonen. Pat was a student of Stanford Professor Richard Snow about a decade before I joined Snow's research group. As we talked about APA Division 15 (Ed Psych) at APA's annual conference, Pat spoke with conviction about the great potential of the Division, and of the field, if we recognize the relevance of its research to the rest of the world, and vice versa. This is because the sophistication of research outside the U.S. is rising rapidly. We all know about the decline of American K-12 education compared to other countries. The United States dropped from best in the world in 1960 to barely in the top 20 today. The same trend is being repeated with a vengeance at the university level. While the U.S. still enjoys being top dog in research across fields, Americans risk being being overshadowed if we do not collectively respond to the emergence of Asia and Europe as centers of discovery and technology. Isolation and self-absorption no longer work. The concept of globalization is nothing new; it's simple, even obvious. Yet in our research proposals, articles, and conference proposals, we often justify our projects on the basis of American interests. This is passe. Along with many of my colleagues, I must wake up to a reality in which the relevance of research, invention, and commerce is no longer defined by dotted lines on a map. As never before, the world corresponds to the entire planet. World and globe increasingly coincide.

Life is Good?

The phrase, Life is Good began to appear on hats and shirts a few years ago. It turns out that Life is Good is a trademarked brand. This is funny, because most other brands imply the same message in their ads, but the trademark now prohibits them from saying it explicitly. No doubt those who wear Life is Good apparel do so to make a statement about their attitude or philosophy. This is not a bad idea. A person who believes that life is good probably tends to filter experience to see the goodness in life. Goodness is definitely there. On Amy's refrigerator I saw a list: "Things that make me happy." The list looked perfectly valid. Every one one of us can easily list a dozen "things" that makes us feel happy, at least temporarily. So I agree that life is good, but is life only good? No way. To believe so indicates either incredible immaturity or anxious avoidance of the truth. Life is often stained by, and sometimes awash in, frustration and pain—even unmitigated evil. To be a mature person, a real adult irrespective of age, entails the ability to see the innumerable ways in which life is beautiful—so beautiful that it can bring tears to your eyes. But it also means being sufficiently honest and brave to perceive the terrible suffering all around, and to weep. To live successfully means never to forget either truth.

Fluid Mosaic

As an undergrad bio major at UC Davis, I learned that cell membranes are composed primarily of a phospholipid bilayer—a double layer of fatty acids. The double layer gives each cell the stability of a solid and the fluidity of liquid. Embedded within the cell membrane are gateway structures that allow nutrients in and send waste products out. Blood sugar, compromised in diabetics, is controlled by an insulin-regulated gateway. Because these gateways float around in the bilayer, the overall structure is called a fluid mosaic. I really like the dualistic quality of the fluid mosaic model. The duality of stability and fluidity is, in a way, intelligent at the level of microscopic cells. It's also intelligent at the level of daily life. I tend to be overly structured in my routines and commitments. This has certain advantages: Cycling through my structural commitments—writing, exercise, and various other pursuits—adds up to progress over time. The downside is that it can lead to rigidity. Once in a while, my best friend gently reminds me that I could be a little more flexible. She's right, flexibility and fluidity are essential. Apparently, Stephanie and the common cell have formed an alliance; together, they teach me how to be more balanced—and more intelligent.

First Feelings, Then Reasons

I'm busy. Are you? Right now, the most important people in my life, those I love most, all seem to face packed and shifty agendas. Lives lived full to the brim inevitably produce oscillations of mood. This is common to humanity—feelings change within a day, a week, a year. All human souls experience the spectrum of emotions. People have different baselines though, similar to the hypothesized "set point" of weight. The idea is that if we diet and lose ten pounds, our weight very commonly rebounds to the set point that the body somehow remembers. Emotions have a set point, too, which like the weight set point varies from person to person. Some people are constitutionally happy; others tend toward the melancholy end of the scale. But even around emotional set points, feelings fluctuate. We usually think of moods as responses to life events. Unfairness, put downs, and failures make us sad or mad; friendship, success, and pleasure make us happy. The funny thing, though, is that our mood can shift without an immediate knowledge of the reasons why. We might ask ourselves, "Why do I feel sad? or "Why am I happy?" It's a funny quirk of the psyche that, very often, we feel before we know. For those who exalt rationality and downgrade emotions, there is reason to reconsider: Which is more basic to human nature?

Do the Right Thing

Finding a solid basis for moral action is difficult. Laws are one guide, yet courts and legislatures routinely make decisions that make legal behaviors illegal, and vice versa. The Prohibition is an example. Moral behavior is trickier. Standards of morality also shift over time. Every society shares a collective sense of proper behavior, but around that consensus people inevitably differ to some degree. Between cultures, too, standards of morality vary. What forces, then, construct our moral sense? Vitally important are the rules of homes, schools, and communities that strongly shape a child's sense of right and wrong. Books, especially the Scriptures, also serve as influences or even definitive standards. Some say that more is caught than taught, and so role models are important. The life and conduct of a real person presents a flesh-and-blood pattern to which we try to conform. The heuristic, "What would Jesus do?" is, for many, the ultimate metric. All these influences converge to form our internal moral compass, our conscience. Is there a standard for all? At an abstract level, yes--"Love thy neighbor" is profoundly effective as a general rule, but its expressions are wildly variable. This means that we have creative freedom in the particulars; we are not moral clones. This is not an endorsement of relativism, but a concession to our imperfect knowledge of perfect morality in the details of life. Applied to the question, "What is the right thing?" this stance implies that the expressions of good, right, and loving actions are limitless.

H & M Auto

Today, without fanfare, Hilly and I opened H & M Auto. Our specialty is roadside repairs. Sometime in the late morning, I took a call from our first customer. A young lady, new to the area, phoned in semi-desperation. She explained that she had parked her Honda Accord miles from home and it would not restart. This was not completely unexpected. That very morning, a kind young gentleman, woken from sleep by the very same lady, drove to her home and jump-started the car. Alas, the jump was no permanent fix. When the call came to H & M, Hilly and I sprung into action. We quickly diagnosed the problem as a dead battery five years overdue for failure. Clumps of green gooey power on the terminals proved the case. We secured a replacement battery, and after only 2 1/2 hours the Honda was ready to go. With a turn of a key, the car fired up with gusto. Satisfied by a job well done, Hilly and I closed business and headed home. On its very first day of business, H & M Auto was a singular success.

Jim Was Right

A few years ago, a UCI professor named Jim gave a talk on how to lead a meeting. Jim is one of those all-too-rare academics who is not only smart, he also has strong people skills--a great combination for leadership in a university or any other setting. One idea from the talk stuck with me, and it's amazingly simple: Whenever you lead a meeting, do so with a clear idea of the outcomes you want. According to this principle, a leader should not only introduce ideas, problems, and decision points. The leader should also have in mind the most desirable conclusions that will emerge from the meeting--whether or not to accept an idea, how to solve the problem, or what decision should be made. This all makes sense but for one factor: The stance hints of manipulation, or even Machiavellianism, because the leader has a hidden agenda, a personal agenda behind the public agenda. I would be skeptical about the moral rectitude of this strategy if it not were for the generosity and goodwill that Jim so consistently exhibits. He is no manipulator. So how is the tension resolved? I think it's simply that productive leadership has an end in mind. That end need not be etched in stone; effective leaders, I believe, will respond positively to the good ideas that others bring to the table. But a good leader is not clueless about how to proceed. With an end in mind, wandering is minimized. Instead of being lost in the fog, the well-led group finds a way.