The Post-American World

The world is witnessing the end of American dominance according to The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria.

So why are we entering what Zakaria says is the third power shift in the past 500 years? Because world economies have shown the greatest gains ever in the past 20 years, something he calls "the rise of the rest." So-called "developing countries" have shown remarkable growth:

In 2006 and 2007, 124 countries grew at a rate of 4 percent or more. That includes more than 30 countries in Africa, two-thirds of the continent," writes Zakaria.

These findings coincide with an earlier cultivation's link to a lively statistics lecture about third world myths. In it, researcher Hans Rosling argues that developing countries have pulled themselves out of poverty more than we think—and he has the facts to back it.

Is it too optimistic to believe these findings are good news? I love my country, but competition from all over the world means will be constantly pressed to keep up—meaning better overall performance. To be fearful of these changing times is to be somewhat hypocritical. We are the beacon of capitalism. Are we really going to be afraid of competition after years of dominance? Or are we going to be a leader in setting higher standards?

The Evolving Workplace

This week's issue of Time focused on a series of articles about the future of work. Now that employment has been uprooted, dispersed or terminated altogether by the economic crisis, a new wave of job standards is taking shape. Time cites examples of the cubicle life slowly disappearing, along with the company ladder, and reason to believe they will only continue to do so in the future.

Working from home (also known as telecommuting) has already become a company trend. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Labor reported a whopping 20.7 million people who work at home at least once a week. This represented 15% of the nation's non-agricultural workforce. However, that percentage was roughly the same since 2001. The cubicle workplace was still the average American job.

That's about to drastically change as companies begin to hire more and more telecommuters in order to save. According to Time, telecommuting can save up to 20% on real estate costs and 10% on payroll.

Accountability will become less about the ability to show up on time everyday to work under the watch of a supervisor. Instead, work will be measured as several completed tasks in the boss' e-mail inbox at 5 o'clock.

For the most part, this seems like a win-win for everybody. Employers save money while employees get freedom in the form of more time with family, less traffic, and a less stressful working environment. But I imagine this will require workers to muster much more self-discipline and motivation at home. After all, there's nobody to watch the work in progress; all that matters is that it's finished at the end of the day. Mixing work with leisure without immediate consequence now becomes possible.

On the other hand, opening up to potential employees who can work from virtually anywhere creates a more competitive market. So handing in sloppy work from home is probably not the best idea, even in local businesses that usually see less job competition.

If we think markets are competitive now, then we're in for an unpleasant surprise:

The only reason to go to work, I think, is to do work. It's too expensive a trip if all you want to do is hang out. Work will mean managing a tribe, creating a movement and operating in teams to change the world. Anything less is going to be outsourced to someone a lot cheaper and a lot less privileged than you or me," writes Seth Godin of Time Magazine.

Along with telecommuting is a much more recent change in work style: the death of the company ladder. Workers are increasingly opting to work for less time (and at home) rather than consistently moving up the ladder—which doesn't always mean less pay. They are more likely to move within a company, assuming multiple positions with varying amounts of commitment.

The result? Still to come for the most part. But flexibility tends to make workers happier. Minimal risk to job security and later advancement? Even better. The opportunity to continue working for the same company when it would be otherwise impossible means this is a change to look forward to in my book.

Movie Review: Angels & Demons

I had been eagerly awaiting the release of Dan Brown's Angels & Demons since I heard it was making its way as a movie adaptation a few years ago. Unfortunately, it did not quite live up to the hype, though it was still worth seeing.

The plot continues with Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) following The Da Vinci Code (2006). This time, the age-old feud between science and religion clash when the church is attacked by The Illuminati, a 400-year-old secret society of freethinkers bent on destroying the Vatican.

Those familiar with both books might be a bit confused about the order of events. Though Angels & Demons was the book prequel to The Da Vinci Code, the movie actually comes second, both in release date and within the plot. This isn't a big deal though, except to say that the church is more hesitant to allow Langdon access to the Vatican archives after his first controversial adventure.

Langdon's character is less patient and a bit edgier this time around, probably because he's got Vatican authorities who absolutely despise him down his throat every two seconds. Not to mention, every minute lost is a minute closer to the death of another Vatican priest, making time a more pressing issue than in the previous film.

But the pacing may prove to be a bit too fast. The result is quick points to the next destination (sometimes, literally), with little time for the neat explanations that really came together nicely in the book. Obviously, a lot gets cut out when a book goes film, but The Da Vinci Code was able to hold its own. This time around, not so much.

The movie's forte is it's stunning visuals and fast action, but remained weak throughout at getting to the heart of the issue (science versus religion) or showing Langdon's thought process between clues.

For that, I give this a solid 7 out of 10. It's worth seeing, but doesn't quite capture the essence of the story nearly as well as the book does.

With that said, I hope Brown's next Langdon book, The Lost Symbol (on shelves September 15), lives up to its hype.

Mind Eraser

Victims of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be able to finally get past their repeating fear.

Recent advances in neuroscience have revised our conventional view on memory. We used to think that long-term memory was stored in our brains for good once they were stored that way. But a 1999 presentation by a relatively obscure neuroscientist, Karim Nader, changed all that.

He discovered that every time the brain recalls a long-term memory, it is stored again; meaning, the memory can be altered before it goes back to long-term storage, replacing the previous one as if it were never there.

Now, Nader and a team of scientists/psychologists are finding successful results in treating patients with PTSD. Newsweek recently reported that "participants' symptoms dropped by 50 percent, and 70 to 80 percent no longer meet the full criteria for PTSD." And this is only early data.

So is this going to spin out of control, like in 2004's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Jim Carey, Kate Winslet)? Will we succumb to erasing memories so as to never remember having loved and lost?

The answer is: so far, no. And, according to Nader's team, it doesn't look like it's heading that way. The treatment is intended to alter only the pain in existing memories, not erase them completely.

And that's a good thing. There is a great deal to gain from "bad" memories. Painful experiences shape who we are, and at the very least prevent us from repeating similar mistakes.

PTSD is a different story, however. But defining the line that decides who gets to alter their memory and who doesn't will certainly be up for interesting debate in the coming years.

Goodbye Childhood

By now, Alec Greven is well-known across the nation. The 9-year-old sensation appeared on The Tonight Show, Late Night, and Ellen with his published self-help book, "How to Talk to Girls," which grew from a $3 school project he sold to classmates to New York Times best seller.

What some people may not know is that his young entrepreneurship didn't end there. Shortly after his advice book began selling well, Twentieth Century Fox quickly bought the rights for a movie adaption. He also recently released a new book cleverly titled, "How to Talk to Moms," and is working on follow-ups for Dads, Grandmothers and, yes, even Santa.

Beyond the fact that this kid states mostly obvious dating advice (like "don't wear sweatpants," for example), which is part of his charm, I can't help but think how setup he is for disappointment. I mean—where do you go next after making millions before puberty?

Lisa Belkin, family life writer for the New York Times, asks if children these days are growing up too fast. She contends the notion that pushing kids too far at a young age, even if it's towards what they want, can be just as bad as not pushing them at all.

Yes, Tiger started young. But would he have lost any ground had he started later? And for every Tiger, are there not countless other children who have burned out early because they leapt too fast and too soon out of the gate?" writes Belkin.

What's worse is that these child stars are mostly seen in a positive light by the media, who no doubt sensationalize the story. Left out is the sad brevity of childhood, resulting in adult behavior exhibited by former child stars like Michael Jackson.

It seems that rather than just think "this kid has so much potentional," we might want to add "to grow up all messed up."

Hard Work Versus Natural Talent

David Brooks of the New York Times points out new findings that show genius is more ordinary than we think, having more to do with countless hours of practice rather than a natural gift. Two recently published books, The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle and Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin, argue this very point.

The latest research suggests a more prosaic, democratic, even puritanical view of the world. The key factor separating geniuses from the merely accomplished is not a divine spark. It’s not I.Q., a generally bad predictor of success, even in realms like chess. Instead, it’s deliberate practice. Top performers spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously practicing their craft," writes Brooks

There are no substitutes for truly dedicated, hard work. Even though it may not be fun, exiting or "cool," a consistent work ethic is most likely more valuable than a natural born talent. Without progressive cultivation of that talent, the gift would simply be wasted.

I personally would rather be recognized for something I've earned rather than something that was given to me. Whenever I hear: "I guess you were born with it," I always feel like hours of practice are being overlooked and demeaned, as if that particular talent would continually "wow" without constant re-use and examination.

There's no denying that genetics can play its part in great accomplishment (Michael Phelps, for example), but there's a lot to say of lifestyle. Phelps trained for the 2008 Olympics every day on a 12,000 calorie diet. He didn't win eight gold medals just because he was built to swim, though that surely helped. He won them because of a rigorous training routine. That routine would bore just about anyone to death, but it was needed to keep him physically and mentally in shape to break several records.

Both of the aforementioned books argue that the method of practice is what matters most. Coyle has an Amazon video explaining what's known as "Deep Practice," which is practice done very slowly. Colvin argues that analyzing results from trial and error is the best method to learn from mistakes and systematically improve skills.

Living in the Age of Narcissim

"Generation Me."

That's what a recent psychology book, The Narcissism Epidemic by Jean M. Twenge, is calling a new culture of egocentrics. A recent Newsweek article featured the book, praising it for its accurate description of our society.

...we've built up the confidence of our kids, but in that process, we've created a generation of hot-house flowers puffed with a disproportionate sense of self-worth," writes Raina Kelley.

I think that speaks volumes. American culture, with its idolized egotistical celebrities and sense of entitlement, can definitely use some deflation and humility. We're so high on self-worth that we write status updates (Facebook) and Tweets (Twitter) about our daily routine. Not only does it have absolutely no value, but somehow we've made it socially acceptable to broadcast this information like it's important to everyone (friends/followers).

The problem with this type of behavior, according to the premise of the book, is that it can magnify to attitudes that turn others off real quick—the idea that you are more important than everyone else. It's the type of thinking that leads to costly mistakes (Spitzer, Bernie Madoff), and just plain gives a snarling impression of arrogance.

We need to realize that simply thinking you're the only one that matters doesn't make it so, and how important it is to always keep that attitude in check.