"wiki": communicationsas in Wikipedia.
Any collaborative website that users can easily modify via the web, typically without restriction.
A wiki allows anyone, using a web browser, to edit, delete or modify content that has been placed on the site, including the work of other authors.
This has been found to work surprisingly well since contributors tend to be more numerous and persistent than vandals and old versions of pages are always available.
6/11/2007
COLLABORATIVE WRITING
"Collaborative writing is working in a group as small as two or as large as one can imagine to create a document. The group members can work in a synchronous environment (face to face, at the same computer, in the same classroom) or asynchronous (discussion board, email, letters). The group collectively negotiates, coordinates, researches and monitors their writing process to accomplish their task. Often group members will be assigned roles such as monitor, consultant, editor, reporter and leader to streamline the process. They will often follow a schedule of brainstorming, outlining, drafting, reviewing, revising and copy editing to produce the document. This coordinated consensus will produce many benefits. Maximum input, increased learning, varied points of view and fraternization are benefits of this style of work. It is believed this method of writing will produce a higher quality of work as opposed to a single writer/single reviewer method. Collaborative writing is utilized by members of academia, business and government."
Lowry Curtis Lowry, 2004
Lowry Curtis Lowry, 2004
Rx..............A SENSE OF HUMOUR? 'They' say that an acute sense of humour masks a very intelligent mind.
'They' say that an acute sense of humour masks a very intelligent mind. Nothing could be more accurate or life defining.
In view of the fact that humour puts two completely disparate thoughts together in a juxtaposition such that the connection between the two thoughts are so absurd as to be humourous........and,
In view of the positive health rendering value of humour we advocate its abundant use in our daily communication.
Here is a definition: "A sense of humour is the ability to experience humour, a quality which healthy people share, although the extent to which an individual will personally find something humorous depends on a host of absolute and relative variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, and context."
In engaging others in genuine conversation our skill and ability to establish the extent of another individual's 'sense' of humour is a reliable precursor of the likeliness of the outcome we may be seeking in our dialogue.
6/10/2007
THE FOG OF WAR..............A DOCUMANTARY by errol morris
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara is a documentory film directed by Errol Morris and released in December, 2003. The film includes an original score by Philip Glass.
It won the Acadmy Award for Documentory Feature for 2003.The film consists of interviews with former United States Scretary of Defence Robert McNamara, detailing his life and the difficult decisions that he made during his career. The term "fof of war" refers to the cloud of uncertainty that descends over a battlefield once fighting begins.
IRAQ - Does History Repeat Itself?
Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
In pursuing our vision of transformational change in a 'wired' world we are obliged to tidy up the mess we inadvertently can create through the deployment 'process' of clinical change. The word 'clinical' implies the notion of 'sanitized'.........which is not necessarily present within The 'Fog of War'.
On Iraq: "If you break it.....you own it!"
General Colin Powell
United States Secretary of State
It won the Acadmy Award for Documentory Feature for 2003.The film consists of interviews with former United States Scretary of Defence Robert McNamara, detailing his life and the difficult decisions that he made during his career. The term "fof of war" refers to the cloud of uncertainty that descends over a battlefield once fighting begins.
IRAQ - Does History Repeat Itself?
- The tragedy & Lessons of Vietnam
- The film's eleven lessons
- Empathize with your enemy.
- Rationality will not save us.
- There's something beyond one's self.
- Maximize efficiency.
- Proportionality should be a guideline in war.
- Get the data.
- Belief and seeing are both often wrong.
- Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.
- In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.
- Never say never.
- You can't change human nature.
- McNamara's additional ten lessons
These were written as a companion to the film and are included in the Special Features of the DVD.
The human race will not eliminate war in this century but we can reduce war, the level of killing, by adhering to the principles of a just war, in particular of proportionality.
The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations.
We are the most powerful nation in the world — economically, politically, and militarily — and we are likely to remain so for decades ahead. But we are not omniscient.
If we cannot persuade other nations with similar interests and similar values of the merits of the proposed use of that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely requirement to defend the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii.
Moral principles are often ambiguous guides to foreign policy and defense policy, but surely we can agree that we should establish as a major goal of U.S. foreign policy and, indeed, of foreign policy across the globe : the avoidance in this century of the carnage — 160 million dead — caused by conflict in the 20th century.
We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility to our own poor and to the disadvantaged across the world to help them advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy, health, and employment.
Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between a soft heart and a hard head. Of course, they have responsibilities to their employees, their customers and to society as a whole.
President Kennedy believed a primary responsibility of a president — indeed "the" primary responsibility of a president — is to keep the nation out of war, if at all possible.
War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court — that the U.S. has refused to support — which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity.
If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy — I don't mean "sympathy" but rather "understanding" to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
One of the greatest dangers we face today is the risk of mass destruction as a result of the breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Regime.
We — the U.S. — are contributing to that breakdown.
11 Lessons from Vietnam
The origin of the film's lesson concept is the eleven lessons in McNamara's 1996 book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam:
- We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience …
- We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
- We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
- Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
- We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine…
- We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
- We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
- After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
- We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
- We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions
… At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
In pursuing our vision of transformational change in a 'wired' world we are obliged to tidy up the mess we inadvertently can create through the deployment 'process' of clinical change. The word 'clinical' implies the notion of 'sanitized'.........which is not necessarily present within The 'Fog of War'.
On Iraq: "If you break it.....you own it!"
General Colin Powell
United States Secretary of State
THE 'COLLABORATIVE' HEART AND MIND
"Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between a soft heart and a hard head."
The Fog of War
Robert S. McNamara
United States Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968
The Fog of War
Robert S. McNamara
United States Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968
NET GIVERS
"We make a living by what we get...........we make a life by what we give."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
"THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH"........
..........everything you ever wanted to know......but were afraid to ask.
It is a clinical statement of the facts as we understand them..........based upon our 'financial MRI'............and delivered with insight and care only upon a deep understanding of the needs of our client.
It is a clinical statement of the facts as we understand them..........based upon our 'financial MRI'............and delivered with insight and care only upon a deep understanding of the needs of our client.
IN SEARCH OF MEANING........
We are passionate and relentless in our search for meaning.....in its discovery......and deployment.....with excellence in our execution.
We believe in both intuitive (experiential...instinctive) based and the logic based discovery of meaning. We use an applied science approach to the process of discovery.
Our instinct includes the sum of all our experiences...retained in 'our' hard drive for immediate access to be considered as data in our never ending search.
We also believe passionately in delivering the "unvarnished truth".
We believe in both intuitive (experiential...instinctive) based and the logic based discovery of meaning. We use an applied science approach to the process of discovery.
Our instinct includes the sum of all our experiences...retained in 'our' hard drive for immediate access to be considered as data in our never ending search.
We also believe passionately in delivering the "unvarnished truth".
THE TRUTH...........WHAT IS IT?.......SOME THOUGHTS.
And the 'truthiness' shall set you free.
'Feeling' the truth might be as good as thinking it.
School taught one and one is two, but by now, that answer, just ain't true.—
The Moody Blues long before Stephen Colbert happened along to give the world "truthiness" — voted last week as word of the year in a poll by Merriam-Webster's dictionary — there was a certain Pontius Pilate, circa the first century A.D., who is said to have asked a relevant and seemingly urgent question:
"What is truth?"
He never did get an answer, which is scarcely surprising since, in the ensuing 2,000 years, we've yet to provide anything like a simple one.
Theories abound, of course, "Truth" being the big game for hunter-philosophers — the definitional trophy everyone would love to hang in their study, just above a brass plate with his or her name on it.
Any philosopher worth his salt has tackled the issue.
There's the ancient "correspondence theory" (Plato, Aristotle; a proposition is true if it corresponds with the real world), and "coherence theories" (a variety, most of which say statements are true if they "cohere" with other statements accepted as true), and even a "consensus theory" (if most of us agree something is true, then it is).
To each of those theories — and countless others — have come objections small and large. We could get close to discovering what truth is but never close enough to satisfy most of us.
It turns out we may have been tackling the problem the wrong way. As a Polish logician named Alfred Tarski started emphasizing in the 1930s, we'd been bundling together two questions without worrying about how one related to the other: "What is true?" and "How do we know what we say is true?"
Separate those two questions, and a lot of intellectual fog starts to lift. We remove unnecessary complications."There are huge numbers of statements that are true and we just have no way of finding them out," says Norman Swartz, philosophy professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.
For instance, someone must've been the architect of York Cathedral in England, says Swartz, but his name is lost. There could now be competing claims about who the architect was, but we would have no way of knowing which claim is true. Yet one of those claims has to be true.
History is loaded with situations where we still don't know all of the facts, adds Tom Hurka, philosophy professor at the University of Toronto. "The truth about why the dinosaurs went extinct, we may never be able to find, but there is a truth."
In other words, an external reality and truth do exist, even if we can't always grasp it, much less like it.
"Truth is a matter of what the nature of reality is, and reality is what it is regardless of what anybody thinks about it or would like it to be," says Harry Frankfurt, professor emeritus in philosophy at Princeton University and author of the best-selling On Bullshit and the just-published On Truth.
"So it's independent of our responses, or our expectations or hopes or gut feelings." What, then, are we to make of "truthiness," hailed by the Merriam-Webster people as, more or less, their word of the year?
The expression was popularized by Stephen Colbert, who first used it on his satirical television show The Colbert Report while skewering U.S. President George Bush over one of his judicial nominees.
Said Colbert: "If you `think' about Harriet Miers, of course her nomination's absurd. But the president didn't say he 'thought' about his selection. He said this: 'I know her heart.' "Notice how he said nothing about her brain? He didn't have to. He feels the truth about Harriet Miers."
The same basic narrative was at play when Bush opted to invade Iraq, Colbert suggested. That decision might not stand up to rational analysis, but hey, "doesn't taking Saddam out feel like the right thing?" For Colbert, "truthiness," not blue states versus red ones, is the real divide south of the border.
There are people who rely on their intellects and think things through in their pursuit of truth. And then there are those who simply go for "truthiness" — shorthand for gut feeling — with scant (or no) regard to facts, intellect or logic.
Truthiness, in short, seems to hail from the same dark alley as "bellyfeel," the Newspeak word George Orwell coined in Nineteen Eighty-Four to denote "a blind, enthusiastic acceptance."
Truthiness also has an arresting echo in former president Ronald Reagan's verbal misstep when he declared, "facts are stupid things." (He'd misread "stubborn" on the teleprompter, and seemed truer to himself in the process.)
But has Colbert, on sober second thought, actually captured an essential difference?
Is intellect and analysis the only path to truth, while mere truthiness and gut feelings lead to foolishness and falsehood?
Shouldn't we bear in mind Tarski's distinction between what's true and how we know what we're saying is true?
As 21st-century humans, we still tend to admire heroes who, faced with a complex or threatening situation, listen to an inner voice that seems more heart and soul than mind. We see it in the television detective who just knows someone is lying, even if he or she can't articulate why the (presumed) villain is lying.Is this conclusion wrong because it's been reached via gut feeling or gut instinct?
In casual conversation, we tend to use the two expressions interchangeably, and they seem to be in the same hamper in Colbert's definition of truthiness.But maybe we need to think about a distinction between the two.
A gut feeling implies something raw, an emotion.
In his book Blink, which is all about first impressions and instant decisions, Malcolm Gladwell expressly avoids using the word "intuition," on the grounds that it implies emotion.
A gut instinct, by contrast, seems to go beyond emotion, even if it includes an emotional element. There's something rational backing up an instinct, although we don't immediately recognize it that way.
Consider what happens in baseball when the team manager has to decide which pinch-hitter or relief pitcher to send in. There are two competing theories about how he should make this decision, how he should seek the right choice, the truth.
The manager can use his head, scan vast tables of numbers about a player's past performance and come up with an answer based on statistical probabilities.
Or he can rely on what we sometimes cherish as a hunch, a gut instinct.That hunch, it turns out, is a lot more than momentary emotion, notes Frankfurt.
"If he has a great deal of experience with this sort of thing and has many, many times sent pitchers up and seen what they do, and many, many times compared the statistics of a pitcher with the actual performance of the pitcher on a particular day, I suppose that his gut instinct may be more reliable than the conclusions to be drawn from statistics."
"He may, without realizing what he's doing, perceive aspects of the situation that aren't reflected in the statistics: a sparkle in the eye or the way the guy walks or whatever it would be.
"It's based on experience — a decision that is now completely instinctive, but is informed by some prior analysis that is no longer front-of-brain. More often than not, the player who looks hungry or hunted on a particular day will exceed the expectations his record might otherwise suggest — and the coach knows it. He just reaches this conclusion by picking up on body language and mixing that with great experience.
Hurka offers an automotive analogy: "When you learn to drive a standard-transmission car, you've got to go through the sequence of events — depress the clutch, put it in gear, give it a little gas, release the clutch — and you go through them in sequence, thinking about what you're doing."
But once you learn how to drive, you just do that automatically without thinking. Your sense of when you should change gears is just based on what the engine sounds like. It's not by the seat of your pants. It's just because you've done it unconsciously many times. It's become second nature.
"We do a lot of things that way. When we first meet someone, for instance, we come to a whole bunch of conclusions about whether that person is apt to be trustworthy or loyal or a potential friend. That's usually because we've previously encountered that "type," or unconsciously recognized some familiar body language that either warns or reassures us.
But just because we've arrived at this "truth" by something other than an explicitly intellectual, fact-based process doesn't make the conclusion untrue.In some cases, going with your instinct may even be preferable, says Hurka, such as the daunting prospect of choosing a spouse.
"The idea that you're going to sit down and draw up a check list of pros and cons for different possible spouses, you're not going to do a good job doing it that way. In that circumstance, it's much better to just let yourself either respond or not respond to people.
"The problem is, we can't immediately know whether someone using gut instinct has actually arrived at the right decision and captured the truth. Nor can we fully understand how they've reached this conclusion — the second, Tarski question.
Not even the person making that gut decision can articulate the process, says Frankfurt.
"For people who rely on their heads, at least you can check up on them, you can investigate their thinking and decide whether or not their thinking is rational, whether the evidence they've relied upon is sufficient to warrant their conclusions.
That may be why so many of us, Colbert included, prefer the more overtly intellectual path in matters of state.
As Frankfurt puts it: "In a face-off between people who rely on their heads and people who rely on their hearts, my inclination is to favour the people who rely on their heads.
"But I recognize that some people, their hearts are very reliable. The trouble is, you can't be sure which people those are.
"At least not until it's too late.
Dec. 17, 2006.
KENNETH KIDD
FEATURE WRITER
The Toronto Star
'Feeling' the truth might be as good as thinking it.
School taught one and one is two, but by now, that answer, just ain't true.—
The Moody Blues long before Stephen Colbert happened along to give the world "truthiness" — voted last week as word of the year in a poll by Merriam-Webster's dictionary — there was a certain Pontius Pilate, circa the first century A.D., who is said to have asked a relevant and seemingly urgent question:
"What is truth?"
He never did get an answer, which is scarcely surprising since, in the ensuing 2,000 years, we've yet to provide anything like a simple one.
Theories abound, of course, "Truth" being the big game for hunter-philosophers — the definitional trophy everyone would love to hang in their study, just above a brass plate with his or her name on it.
Any philosopher worth his salt has tackled the issue.
There's the ancient "correspondence theory" (Plato, Aristotle; a proposition is true if it corresponds with the real world), and "coherence theories" (a variety, most of which say statements are true if they "cohere" with other statements accepted as true), and even a "consensus theory" (if most of us agree something is true, then it is).
To each of those theories — and countless others — have come objections small and large. We could get close to discovering what truth is but never close enough to satisfy most of us.
It turns out we may have been tackling the problem the wrong way. As a Polish logician named Alfred Tarski started emphasizing in the 1930s, we'd been bundling together two questions without worrying about how one related to the other: "What is true?" and "How do we know what we say is true?"
Separate those two questions, and a lot of intellectual fog starts to lift. We remove unnecessary complications."There are huge numbers of statements that are true and we just have no way of finding them out," says Norman Swartz, philosophy professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.
For instance, someone must've been the architect of York Cathedral in England, says Swartz, but his name is lost. There could now be competing claims about who the architect was, but we would have no way of knowing which claim is true. Yet one of those claims has to be true.
History is loaded with situations where we still don't know all of the facts, adds Tom Hurka, philosophy professor at the University of Toronto. "The truth about why the dinosaurs went extinct, we may never be able to find, but there is a truth."
In other words, an external reality and truth do exist, even if we can't always grasp it, much less like it.
"Truth is a matter of what the nature of reality is, and reality is what it is regardless of what anybody thinks about it or would like it to be," says Harry Frankfurt, professor emeritus in philosophy at Princeton University and author of the best-selling On Bullshit and the just-published On Truth.
"So it's independent of our responses, or our expectations or hopes or gut feelings." What, then, are we to make of "truthiness," hailed by the Merriam-Webster people as, more or less, their word of the year?
The expression was popularized by Stephen Colbert, who first used it on his satirical television show The Colbert Report while skewering U.S. President George Bush over one of his judicial nominees.
Said Colbert: "If you `think' about Harriet Miers, of course her nomination's absurd. But the president didn't say he 'thought' about his selection. He said this: 'I know her heart.' "Notice how he said nothing about her brain? He didn't have to. He feels the truth about Harriet Miers."
The same basic narrative was at play when Bush opted to invade Iraq, Colbert suggested. That decision might not stand up to rational analysis, but hey, "doesn't taking Saddam out feel like the right thing?" For Colbert, "truthiness," not blue states versus red ones, is the real divide south of the border.
There are people who rely on their intellects and think things through in their pursuit of truth. And then there are those who simply go for "truthiness" — shorthand for gut feeling — with scant (or no) regard to facts, intellect or logic.
Truthiness, in short, seems to hail from the same dark alley as "bellyfeel," the Newspeak word George Orwell coined in Nineteen Eighty-Four to denote "a blind, enthusiastic acceptance."
Truthiness also has an arresting echo in former president Ronald Reagan's verbal misstep when he declared, "facts are stupid things." (He'd misread "stubborn" on the teleprompter, and seemed truer to himself in the process.)
But has Colbert, on sober second thought, actually captured an essential difference?
Is intellect and analysis the only path to truth, while mere truthiness and gut feelings lead to foolishness and falsehood?
Shouldn't we bear in mind Tarski's distinction between what's true and how we know what we're saying is true?
As 21st-century humans, we still tend to admire heroes who, faced with a complex or threatening situation, listen to an inner voice that seems more heart and soul than mind. We see it in the television detective who just knows someone is lying, even if he or she can't articulate why the (presumed) villain is lying.Is this conclusion wrong because it's been reached via gut feeling or gut instinct?
In casual conversation, we tend to use the two expressions interchangeably, and they seem to be in the same hamper in Colbert's definition of truthiness.But maybe we need to think about a distinction between the two.
A gut feeling implies something raw, an emotion.
In his book Blink, which is all about first impressions and instant decisions, Malcolm Gladwell expressly avoids using the word "intuition," on the grounds that it implies emotion.
A gut instinct, by contrast, seems to go beyond emotion, even if it includes an emotional element. There's something rational backing up an instinct, although we don't immediately recognize it that way.
Consider what happens in baseball when the team manager has to decide which pinch-hitter or relief pitcher to send in. There are two competing theories about how he should make this decision, how he should seek the right choice, the truth.
The manager can use his head, scan vast tables of numbers about a player's past performance and come up with an answer based on statistical probabilities.
Or he can rely on what we sometimes cherish as a hunch, a gut instinct.That hunch, it turns out, is a lot more than momentary emotion, notes Frankfurt.
"If he has a great deal of experience with this sort of thing and has many, many times sent pitchers up and seen what they do, and many, many times compared the statistics of a pitcher with the actual performance of the pitcher on a particular day, I suppose that his gut instinct may be more reliable than the conclusions to be drawn from statistics."
"He may, without realizing what he's doing, perceive aspects of the situation that aren't reflected in the statistics: a sparkle in the eye or the way the guy walks or whatever it would be.
"It's based on experience — a decision that is now completely instinctive, but is informed by some prior analysis that is no longer front-of-brain. More often than not, the player who looks hungry or hunted on a particular day will exceed the expectations his record might otherwise suggest — and the coach knows it. He just reaches this conclusion by picking up on body language and mixing that with great experience.
Hurka offers an automotive analogy: "When you learn to drive a standard-transmission car, you've got to go through the sequence of events — depress the clutch, put it in gear, give it a little gas, release the clutch — and you go through them in sequence, thinking about what you're doing."
But once you learn how to drive, you just do that automatically without thinking. Your sense of when you should change gears is just based on what the engine sounds like. It's not by the seat of your pants. It's just because you've done it unconsciously many times. It's become second nature.
"We do a lot of things that way. When we first meet someone, for instance, we come to a whole bunch of conclusions about whether that person is apt to be trustworthy or loyal or a potential friend. That's usually because we've previously encountered that "type," or unconsciously recognized some familiar body language that either warns or reassures us.
But just because we've arrived at this "truth" by something other than an explicitly intellectual, fact-based process doesn't make the conclusion untrue.In some cases, going with your instinct may even be preferable, says Hurka, such as the daunting prospect of choosing a spouse.
"The idea that you're going to sit down and draw up a check list of pros and cons for different possible spouses, you're not going to do a good job doing it that way. In that circumstance, it's much better to just let yourself either respond or not respond to people.
"The problem is, we can't immediately know whether someone using gut instinct has actually arrived at the right decision and captured the truth. Nor can we fully understand how they've reached this conclusion — the second, Tarski question.
Not even the person making that gut decision can articulate the process, says Frankfurt.
"For people who rely on their heads, at least you can check up on them, you can investigate their thinking and decide whether or not their thinking is rational, whether the evidence they've relied upon is sufficient to warrant their conclusions.
That may be why so many of us, Colbert included, prefer the more overtly intellectual path in matters of state.
As Frankfurt puts it: "In a face-off between people who rely on their heads and people who rely on their hearts, my inclination is to favour the people who rely on their heads.
"But I recognize that some people, their hearts are very reliable. The trouble is, you can't be sure which people those are.
"At least not until it's too late.
Dec. 17, 2006.
KENNETH KIDD
FEATURE WRITER
The Toronto Star
TRUTH TO POWER OR TRUTH TO AUTHORITY?
Which is it?
Our employer has authority and responsibility.
Our client has power.
We have a choice in our interpretation of the direction we will seek in speaking truth as we understand it.
Dan Zwicker.
Our employer has authority and responsibility.
Our client has power.
We have a choice in our interpretation of the direction we will seek in speaking truth as we understand it.
Dan Zwicker.
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER
Speak Truth To Power is dedicated to the promotion of human rights awareness.
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER is a division of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial.
(This is an excerpt)
DEFENDER FROM SPEAK TRUTH WINS 2006 Nobel Peace Prize!
"On behalf everyone at Speak Truth to Power, we warmly and delightedly congratulate Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen bank, recipients of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
The pair was honored for their development of microcredit, a banking system which helps poor people in Bangladesh start businesses without collateral, enabling them to lift themselves out of poverty."
As the Nobel prize committee stated: "Lasting peace cannot be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty.
Microcredit is one such means. Development from below also serves to advance democracy and human rights.”
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER is a division of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial.
(This is an excerpt)
DEFENDER FROM SPEAK TRUTH WINS 2006 Nobel Peace Prize!
"On behalf everyone at Speak Truth to Power, we warmly and delightedly congratulate Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen bank, recipients of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.
The pair was honored for their development of microcredit, a banking system which helps poor people in Bangladesh start businesses without collateral, enabling them to lift themselves out of poverty."
As the Nobel prize committee stated: "Lasting peace cannot be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty.
Microcredit is one such means. Development from below also serves to advance democracy and human rights.”
EMPATHY..........the key attribute of professional advisors.
In the delivery of unconditional service to others in the most sensitive personal areas of their lives the capacity for genuine....empathetic understanding is without equal.
Here is a definition:
Empathy (from the Greek εμπάθεια, "to suffer with"): is commonly defined as one's ability to recognize, perceive and directly... experientially feel the emotion of another.
As the states of mind, beliefs, and desires of others are intertwined with their emotions, one with empathy for another may often be able to more effectively divine another's modes of thought and mood.
Empathy is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or experiencing the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself, a sort of emotional resonance.
This is a "sine qua non" in the delivery of life related financial instruments.
Dan Zwicker.
Here is a definition:
Empathy (from the Greek εμπάθεια, "to suffer with"): is commonly defined as one's ability to recognize, perceive and directly... experientially feel the emotion of another.
As the states of mind, beliefs, and desires of others are intertwined with their emotions, one with empathy for another may often be able to more effectively divine another's modes of thought and mood.
Empathy is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or experiencing the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself, a sort of emotional resonance.
This is a "sine qua non" in the delivery of life related financial instruments.
Dan Zwicker.
JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS an american icon
One hundred and fifty years ago Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis was born in Louisville, Ky., the son of immigrants from Czechoslovakia.
He graduated from Harvard Law School with some of the highest grades ever received there.
He was named to the Supreme Court by President Woodrow Wilson as its first Jewish and most liberal member.
If he is remembered for nothing else, he will be remembered for discovering a constitutional right to privacy, which became the underpinning of the right to an abortion.
But there is more.Justice Brandeis upheld the right of an individual to "think as you will and to speak as you think," even against the government.
He enunciated a right to be left alone by the government as the right "most valued by civilized men."
He held that decency, security, and liberty require that "government officials be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen."
He asserted that the doctrine of separation of powers was adopted "not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."
And, on an issue hotly debated during President Roosevelt's New Deal days, he held that there must be power in the states and in the nation to remold, through experimentation, our economic practices and institutions.
He graduated from Harvard Law School with some of the highest grades ever received there.
He was named to the Supreme Court by President Woodrow Wilson as its first Jewish and most liberal member.
If he is remembered for nothing else, he will be remembered for discovering a constitutional right to privacy, which became the underpinning of the right to an abortion.
But there is more.Justice Brandeis upheld the right of an individual to "think as you will and to speak as you think," even against the government.
He enunciated a right to be left alone by the government as the right "most valued by civilized men."
He held that decency, security, and liberty require that "government officials be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen."
He asserted that the doctrine of separation of powers was adopted "not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."
And, on an issue hotly debated during President Roosevelt's New Deal days, he held that there must be power in the states and in the nation to remold, through experimentation, our economic practices and institutions.
SALESPERSON OR LEADER?
In the provision of financial security at the time of death the instruments that we use for the benefit of our clients are not made available through an act of sales.........but rather through an act of genuine leadership.......one on one.
There is no joy in dealing with the subject of death.
There is, however, great satisfaction in knowing that at a moment of extreme personal distress those individuals who are professionally authorized to provide a replacement of the capital that would otherwise have been provided had the deceased lived were able to provide the social, economic and moral leadership necessary at an earlier date leading to a decision on the part of the deceased to put in force the coverage that would one day become essential in the lives of those who depended upon his or her well being.
There is no sales process known that fulfills this service.
Dan Zwicker
There is no joy in dealing with the subject of death.
There is, however, great satisfaction in knowing that at a moment of extreme personal distress those individuals who are professionally authorized to provide a replacement of the capital that would otherwise have been provided had the deceased lived were able to provide the social, economic and moral leadership necessary at an earlier date leading to a decision on the part of the deceased to put in force the coverage that would one day become essential in the lives of those who depended upon his or her well being.
There is no sales process known that fulfills this service.
Dan Zwicker
GRATITUDE'S INFLUENCE ON CLIENT RETENTION
The feeling of gratitude allows us to forgive those matters which we generally consider troubling.
When we are capable of forgiving the road reopens.
Hence its central importance in the marketing of services of any kind where strong interpersonal relationships are essential to the long term continuity and success of the relationship.
When we are capable of forgiving the road reopens.
Hence its central importance in the marketing of services of any kind where strong interpersonal relationships are essential to the long term continuity and success of the relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
