Abraham Lincoln

coba

I've lost some respect, as of late, for strength and conditioning coaches Mike Boyle and Charles Poliquin; especially so for Poliquin, and I'll explain why in just a moment.  But first you might be wondering, just what in the bloody hell is this all about?

At this controversy's root is the problem, from a strength and conditioning "guru's" point of view, of there being far too little trophy game available for the relatively high number of active hunters.  That is to say, supply-and-demand and market forces are generating heated competition within the S & C community -- with the resultant snarky remarks and back-biting -- among folks attempting to rise to the top of the guru heap.  And who just happens to be at the top of the heap right now?  Crossfit, that's who.  And in my opinion, deservedly so.

Note: I consider myself as objective as reasonably possible in this matter (kinda like being a Libertarian in the midst of the Republican/Democrat throw-down), however, my workout style is skewed heavily toward the Crossfit camp.  And although I don't consider myself part of the "Crossfit nation", I do draw extensively from their ideas, then tailor those ideas to fit my own, specialized needs.  Namely, I emphasize more of the sprint/explosive elements of Crossfit and de-emphasize the endurance elements.

So why is it that Boyle and Poliquin can't give Crossfit its due?  Because, quite simply, in doing so, they'd have to concede a certain portion of market share -- and, therefore, potential clients -- and the resultant, dirty, sexy money that comes with those clients.  What's my take on this?  Simple.  Number one, you've got to know where you want to be in the future, i.e., know your goal.  Number two, objectively assess your current status.  Now, from that great, universal grab-bag of ideas and knowledge, assemble your own, personal, transport system.   That system might be a Poliquin, Boyle or Crossfit-leaning system -- or it may lean toward any of a dizzying number of systems.  The thing is that most all systems will work for their intended target audience.  The trick is to discern, through the fog of (intentional or unintentional) misinformation and false claims, what is right for you and your goals.

Now, ironically -- and in the same article in which Poliquin dismisses Crossfit, he paraphrases one of my favorite sayings: Adopt what is useful and reject what is not.  But just how do you "know" if something is useful or not, if you refuse to lend it proper study?  This is a mind-set that I've never quite understood.  And it's certainly not limited to the S & C community, either; this mid-set is prevalent in any field you choose to study.

If you have the want to, check out this podcast of Crossfit's rebuttal of Mike Boyle's dismissal of the Crossfit system.  It's actually a good discussion, and not what you might think something like this would sink to -- namely, a Jerry Springer-like idiot-fest.  There's some good, high-quality information put out in this discussion.

And to be honest here, I've never borrowed much from Mike Boyle's bag of tricks -- I haven't found all that much in his training philosophy that I agree with -- so it was relatively easy for me to dismiss his Crossfit rant.  Not so with Charles Poliquin.  I've borrowed heavily from his training philosophy and I consider him -- and consider him still -- as being one of the most knowledgeable, effective and preeminent S&C coaches in the business.  My take on this, though, is that Poliquin has succumbed to "guru envy" in this matter.  What he won't admit is that his pool of potential clients is small  due to specialization.  His focus is on (and should be, because he's proven his worth here) training upper-level athletes.  He's trying to expand that potential client pool by saying, effectively, that if it's right for the highly-developed athlete, it is therefore, by extension, the correct prescription for the athletic-leaning, general public.  This is where I disagree with Poliquin -- and where, too, I'm disappointed in his failure to, at a minimum, address this notion.

For Poliquin not to concede the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crossfit program in developing better physically-prepared policemen, firemen and armed-forces personnel (or anyone with at least some modicum of beginning fitness, for that matter) is to be either blindered by personal ambition, wilfully ignorant, or unknowledgeable of the physiological sciences.  I think everyone familiar with Charles Poliquin would say that the last two options are non-sequiturs, which leaves us with the first option -- that of the ugly beast of personal ambition.  And for an otherwise respected man in his chosen field to allow personal ambition to trump the dissemination of truth, my friends, is highly, highly disappointing to me.

In Health,

Keith

]]> http://authorfriendly.wordpress.com/?p=136 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:11:29 +0000 authorfriendly http://authorfriendly.de.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-learn-to-love-the-market/ As a psychologist I thought in these tough times I could offer:

Five Stress Busting Techniques to Deal with Market Volatilty

1. Find something compelling to take your mind off it. The wild swings of the market and steep slides can be absorbing, but if you think about it, there are many equally compelling things in your life to dwell on instead. What consumed your attention and time a month ago? Switch chanels in your mind to that other interest.
2. Figure out something you can do and then do it. You don't have any control over market swings but there are things you could do. If you are worried about the value of your home you could plant an attractive tree to improve curb appeal. And if stocks are your concern, find the stock in your portfolio you don't feel comfortable with and sell it.
3. Take Care of Your Family. While its unlikely that the recession would progress to a depression, it might feel a little safer at home if you buy some extra canned goods and bottled water, just in case things did go south fast.
4. Exercize. Now is a good time to put on your running shoes or cut the sweets out of your diet. You may not be able to control your finances as much as you like, but you do have a lot of impact on how your body feels and looks.
5. Learn some stress Reduction Techniques. Meditation and prayer can be helpful if you do that sort of thing, but there are plenty of alternatives. An online search will lead you to many sites that have breathing exercizes, and they boil down to take several very deep slow breaths, paying attention to making your breathing full and rhythmic. Doing this can help reset your nervous system from an anxious fearful stance to a resting place from which it is much easier to make good choices.

Chuck Reid

Thursday morning, October 9th, 2008

My journal notes reveal that I haven't done this particular combo since last spring.  And for the life of me, I can't  pinpoint why; it's a fantastic combination and an excellent workout.  I can only assume that the weather turned foul for a while and I got sidetracked on other things, or maybe I just felt at the time that I'd sucked all I could out of this particular combo and moved on to working other perceived deficiencies.  Whatever the reason might have been, though, I'm glad I had the combo noted in my journal, or my I might not have stumbled back upon it.  Another shameless plug for jotting down some workout notes.  They need not be extensive, just something to jog the memory.  More extensive notes on my part, however, might have revealed why I left the combo behind, serving to satisfy my nagging curiosity.  This is purely a cost-benefit thing, however, everyone has to feel that out for themselves.  If I were a professional athlete, I'd detail every aspect of my diet, training and performance.  As it is, I detail enough to keep myself in a perpetual state of progress in some aspect of my performance.  That is to say, I record enough to know when I've hit a plateau in a modality, and need to shift things a bit.

This workout lasted approximately 30 minutes, warm-up included:

1. 60 meter sprints from a rolling start.  8 x ~90% effort.  Approximately 1 minute between sprints.

Then:

1. Slosh pipe lunge x 20 steps
2. 30-lb medicine ball caber toss x 5 all-out heaves.

Three rounds of these two exercises, done back-to-back.

Notes: knobbers22 does a good job of demonstrating proper form with the medicine ball (actually, a kettlebell) toss.  His other videos are worth checking out as well.

The girl in this video does some slosh pipe lunges at around 1:26.  As you can see (and imagine) there is all kinds of fun to be had with a slosh pipe.  Mine is a 10-foot long x 4-inch diameter beast.  You want people to question your sanity?  Let them see you workout with a slosh pipe.

I knocked-out the following workout on Friday morning, October 10th, 2008:

1. Dumbbell Snatch + Press/Push-Press/Push-Jerk combo.  5 snatches + the pressing combo, each side, constituted 1 set.
2. Kipping "push-away" Pullups.  x 7's

4 rounds of this in approximately 20 minutes.

Notes: This video is a demonstration of the barbell version of the press complex.  It's not too far a stretch, though, to imagine the DB version.  I use a split stance on the jerks, though, with the foot opposite the "DB side" as the lead.

Here's the kipping pullup explained.  For my purposes in this combo, I over-emphasized the "push-away" at the apex of the movement, really trying to fling myself out and away from the bar.

In Health,

Keith

]]> http://businesspreneurserviceinnovation.wordpress.com/?p=40 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:33:07 +0000 gverstoep http://businesspreneurserviceinnovation.de.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/servicescripts-nuttig/ Dienstverlening is een weerbarstig proces. Toch is er van alles te doen aan een consistente en goede indruk achter te laten bij uw klant.
Soms is het een bijna een structuurvraagstuk. James Heskett noemt deze structuur “service bookends”:

The stage for the service experience is set in the first few minutes of the situation. Once the tone has been established, it is difficult to change a customer’s impression of what fallows.
Last impressions count too. That last few minutes of a service experience may cement the final impression of the event, which influences a customer’s willingness to make a repeat purchase or provide positive “word-of-mouth” selling to a potential customers. These first and last parts of the service encounter are the “service bookends.”

De belangrijkste les:

• Beschouw een bezoek van een klant als een scene uit een film.
• Bepaal de "touchpoints" waar je kunt scoren bij de klant en die consistent zijn met de service visie van uw organisatie.
• Zorg voor een keihard bewijs aan het begin van de scene en voor een uitstekend bewijs (touchpoint) aan het einde van het klantbezoek.
• Op deze manier bepaalt u, vanuit uw cirkel van invloed, in sterke mate de perceptie van de klant.

Succes!

[bron: Aedesnet]

Ondernemen met een missie

‘Ondernemen met een missie’ geeft jou de bagage om in de praktijk dit vraagstuk adequaat op te pakken.

Graag reiken we jouw non profit organisatie twee “tools” aan:

(1) MARKT- MISSIE SYNERGIE CHECKLIST
* De checklist is een korte vragenlijst (10 minuten invultijd) waarbij je jouw organisatie beoordeelt op het vermogen om je missie te verbinden aan kansen in de markt;
* De checklist geeft inzicht in de mate van professionaliteit van je organisatie om missiegerelateerde kansen vanuit de markt te kunnen benutten. Je krijgt de resultaten van de checklist na terugzending kosteloos aangereikt;
* Uiteraard worden jouw gegevens vertrouwelijk behandeld en worden jouw gegevens niet voor andere doeleinden gebruikt.
* Deze checklist is aan te vragen (digitaal) door een mail aan gverstoep[apestaartje]businesspreneur.nl

Doe de missie-markt checklist en kijk waar uw missie de marktkansen kan vergroten: download hier de checklist

(2) SPEL VOOR NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIES, die betekenis willen geven aan marktgericht ondernemen
* Businesspreneur heeft een spel (strategie spel voor non-profits) ontworpen, die managers op een laagdrempelige manier de spanningsvelden laat ervaren van ondernemen met een missie;
* Doel van het spel is om duidelijke keuzes ten aanzien van marktgericht ondernemen te nemen, zonder de missie uit het oog te verliezen;
* Je wilt ervaren wat ondernemen met een missie voor u kan betekenen.
* In het spel zijn een aantal vraagstukken geformuleerd, die karakteristiek zijn voor een non- profit organisaties die marktgericht ondernemen steeds meer gaan oppakken.
* Centraal in de aanpak staat “ kiezen” ‘, ‘ Niet alles doen wat op je afkomt’ maar welbewust en afgewogen keuzes maken, met hart en hoofd, ervaar de ruimte tussen markt, missie en mens;
* Het spel laat zien waar de markt, missie en mens ondernemen met een missie stimuleert en soms ook belemmert;
* Het spel biedt handige tips, verdiepingen en licht advies. De deelnemers gaan naar huis met een ervaring (beleving) maar krijgt tevens de bagage aangereikt om het vraagstuk op te pakken.

Wat betekent ondernemen met een missie voor jouw organisatie?

De klant is op zoek naar duurzaamheid, authenticiteit, gebruiksgemak, omgeving, respect, veiligheid, ervaringen, gezondheid, mobiliteit, interactie, betrokkenheid, openheid, creativiteit en geluk. Dit zijn een aantal van de klantwaarden waar het om gaat!

De praktijk laat zien dat een groot deel van nieuwe marktconcepten, producten en diensten niet aansluiten op de wereld van de klant. Veel inspanningen, weinig resultaat.

• De klant van vandaag wil alles, de beste deal, is kritisch, minder loyaal, veeleisend, wil een persoonlijke benadering.
• Hoge technologie acceptatie en de iPod-generatie. Hoe verandert jouw organisatie de cultuur, producten en diensten om aansluiting te krijgen met de nieuwe generatie klanten en moderne werknemer?
• Klanten zijn op zoek naar betekenisvolle ervaringen. Betekenisvolle ervaringen creëren emotie bij de klant. Deze emoties worden verbonden aan de producten en diensten van jow organisatie. Op deze wijze krijgen klanten een emotionele verbintenis.
• Meer co-creatie. Klanten willen meer regie, keuzes en vrijheid. Klanten willen meer regie, keuzes en vrijheid. Geef klanten de ruimte om in co-creatie hun serviceverlening te maken. Bedrijven gaan op steeds grotere schaal samen met klanten nieuwe merken, producten en diensten ontwikkelen.
• Klanten doen de marketing. Er ontstaan effectieve manieren van consument gedreven marketing. Ook in de verbeterslagen van diensten spelen webblogs en klantenforums een evidente rol. Online communities schieten als paddestoelen uit de grond. Consumenten doen de marketing en Pr over uw merk en of product zelf
• Klanten willen eenvoud. Op technisch gebied neemt de complexiteit toe maar klanten willen eenvoud. Diensten lijken steeds meer op elkaar. Diensten zijn minder tastbaar, waardoor het keuzeproces voor de kant vaak moeilijk is.
• Het beste gezicht. De persoon op persoon interactie levert de hoogste belevingswaarde op voor de klant. De baliemomenten worden dan ook bij uitstek de momenten van de waarheid genoemd.

Klanten herdefiniëren de regels van het spel.
Wordt het tijd om de klant te herontdekken ?

Klantinzichten genoeg

Waar draait het om?
Op een dieper niveau de klant en de klantcontext begrijpen en hierop je diensten afstemmen.
Hoe kun je bouwen aan unieke klantinzichten, die jouw organisatie een duurzaam concurrentievoordeel geven.

Het verbinden van mensen (klanten) aan diensten.
Mensen veranderen steeds sneller dan organisaties. er ontstaat dan ook steeds sneller een kloof tussen wat mensen willen en nodig hebben en wat organisaties bieden. Dienstverlening gaat om een intense manier van klantinteractie. Juist klantinteractie vormt op dit moment een belangrijk fundament voor diensteninnovatie.

Het meer integreren van klanten in het proces, geeft organisaties de mogelijkheid om klanten beter te ontdekken, feedback te verkrijgen. De klant staat niet meer, vanuit de traditionele focus, buiten de organisatie. De klant is 1 van de kritische spelers binnen het kapitaal, het dynamische netwerk van de organisatie. Deze klantgerichte organisaties proberen in te spelen op de behoeften van klanten om juist meer in control te komen. Het onderscheid tussen medewerker en klant wordt steeds geringer. Traditionele organisatiegrenzen vervagen, organisaties worden steeds meer 'customer centered'.

Organisaties die dieper inspelen op klantentrends door vernieuwende vormen van klantinteractie, creëren nieuwe kansen voor interactie, dialoog en leren in serviceconcepten, integreren klanten in het serviceproces.

Laat jij kansen liggen om opnieuw af te stemmen met je klant? Welk interactiemodel staat centraal in jouw dienstverleningsconcept?

The methods engine highlights the difference between decision management and decision-making.    Decision management includes 5 related processes:

• Plan Decisions: Proactive identification and prioritization of the decisions to be made in any situation.  Planning the decision analysis effort.
• Make Decision: The typical process that folks call decision-making; how to make any one decision well.
• Manage Consequences: Identify and flowdown the results of a decision into requirements and project plans.
• Manage Decisions over Time: Roadmapping
• Manage Decisions across Domains: Decision patterns and their reuse.

I've touched many of the concepts behind the Decision Driven® method engine in other posts, but I thought it might help to show you the bigger picture.  Over the next week or two, I'll be discussing how each of these decision management capabilities can help you avoid common decision faults (defects, problems) and improve your organization's decision speed, quality and results.

Please sign up for our next Using Decision Patterns webinar.  It’s free!  See the What’s Happening panel on the left for details.

Casey Stengel

OlliK

Came across an interesting post yesterday on Art Devany's pay site.  The gist of the post (for those without access) is a testimonial from a 46 year-old man (known as JF) who has lost 70-ish pounds by following Art's Evolutionary Fitness lifestyle.  Hell, the guy wasn't even really faithful to the "lifestyle" since he didn't workout while all this fat loss was occurring -- he simply adhered to the proper diet.  Imagine what the weight loss -- and, more importantly, the overall body fat loss and bodily re-composition (muscle retention) -- would've been had he even undertaken a half-assed workout regimen.  70 pounds.  And the important fact to remember is that he's made a change in eating habits that can be maintained for life.   

Compare this, then, to the supposed success of the Jenny Craig superstars. Now, obviously, calorie restriction “works” in the short term, vis-à-vis weight loss. The real question is – and this is a question left conspicuously unanswered by Jenny Craig and their ilk – is just how permanent this weight loss is in the long term. In other words, How long will the JC faithful be able to maintain this weight loss once forced to re-integrate into the real world? With calorie restriction as the mainstay? Prepared meals?  Are you kidding me?   Let's not even get into the muscle wasting issues.

Full disclosure, here, before I continue: I've had a long-time boy-crush on Valerie Bertinelli since way back in the One Day at a Time era, so I'm going to go easy on her here (I even thought her weightier self was pretty hot), and concentrate my riff, instead, on the Jenny Craig phenomenon as a whole. 

SerenityF

Anyway, I wonder if ol' Val will still be hucking the Jenny Craig "thing" 5 years from now -- better yet, will she be able to maintain her poster-girl status 5 years out.  This, methinks, would make for an interesting case study.   I mean, really, how long can one wolf-down “prepared” meals or count calories, monkey with scales and food journals or screw around with “food exchanges” before the mind short-circuits? I think Michael Pollan (Omnivore’s Dilemma -- a fantastic book, by the way) has deftly encapsulated the only diet advice you’ll ever really need with this:

“Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much”.

Now, I might dicker with the “mostly plants” in want of “mostly protein”, but really, can you go wrong using Michael’s advice? Nope, I think not. And it costs not a damn thing to follow.

In Health,

Keith

]]> http://trendliest.wordpress.com/?p=297 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:48:11 +0000 evankessler http://trendliest.de.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/rid-yourself-of-sinfast/ Hey fellow believers in Trendlyism, Have you been good this year? Probably not. If you're a God-fearing human being odds are your clothes and skin are washed in nothing but Tide and sin. Have no fear (unless it's a rational fear of God or death) Trendliest is here to tell you how to wipe the sin off the surface of your being and achieve the friendly, trendy state of equilibrium between naughty and nice that can only be attained through atonement.

Despite popular belief, atonement is more than just an Oscar-nominated film starring that transgression-free vixen Keira Knightley.  If you're wondering how the esteemed Brit beauty rid herself of all wrongdoing, the answer is simple.  The star of such films as "The Jacket", and "Domino" frequently engages in the most effective slate-cleansing practice, known as fasting. Other famous fasters include Gandhi and pre-pregnancy Nicole Richie.

Fasting, put simply, is the act of not eating in the hopes that the lord will think you're a good person because you've chosen to deprive yourself of such a simple pleasure in order to fool him/her.  Depending on your religion, fasting only works in the riddance of iniquity on several instances throughout the year.  If you just so happen to be of the Jewish faith not eating from sundown to sundown on Yom Kippur or "The Day of Atonement" erases all wrongdoing that you've engaged in over the past year. So whether you eat meat and dairy together on a Friday or molest children on Wednesday, as long as you don't eat on this one day you can feel good about yourself again and start anew on this year's docket of depravity, knowing full well all you have to do is make it to the next "Day of Atonement."

Some celebrities rife with sin attempt other methods of achieving atonement.  Don Henley originally wrote the song "Heart of The Matter" from his 1989 album The End of The Innocence in an attempt to garner favor with his lord and savior during lent.  The vocals were peppered with mentions of "atonement", but Henley's record label didn't think the lyrics were catchy enough and replaced that word with the more populous term "forgiveness".  Needless to say, Henley wasn't forgiven, he rejoined The Eagles and subsequently caused hell to freeze over.

Even though writing a song about atonement seems like a relatively painless way to get off scot-free, not everyone possesses the means to do so.  That's why it'll always be friendly and trendy to fast in order to achieve the ultimate level of atonement.  Your deity will thank you...and so will your guilty conscience.

In my experience, student’s become more inclined to speak up in a discussion if they are “affected” in some way. Sometimes this can occur when a teacher brings in real world/everyday occurrences that student’s are either aware of, or take part in during their everyday life. When a teacher is able to relate classroom material with everyday occurrences, students are able to view the reason for study and, as such, are more willing to participate.

When involved in discussion, the one area of concern is whether or not off-topic tangents rule the conversation. Tangents, at times, are valuable because they enable students to talk about the subject matter in a slightly different way. When tangents become the end-all-be-all of the discussion, however, the academic aspect of the conversation has been lost. Teachers need to become aware of how and when to bring tangents back to the topic at hand. Understanding when the topic has gone too far adrift and learning how to properly engage the students with the subject matter once again is an ability that I believe comes with proper training and, most importantly, experience in the field.

There is no doubting the importance of classroom discussions. When put together properly, teachers have the opportunity to raise awareness about the importance of the subject matter at hand while at the same time engaging students. The moment students become excited about their work is undeniably their best opportunity to learn.

MacNealy's work was very easy to read. I actually read it the first time over the summer. She has a very simple straightforward style, and she says what needs to be said clearly and concisely. The book delivers just exactly what the title suggests: a series of strategies. It offers important information, like how new articles need to be to avoid the likelihood that they have been superseded, or that articles, because they publish faster, are sometimes more valuable than books. There is also
practical advice, like to avoid constantly doing more research and to keep track of what you read through some sort of write up (like, for instance, this blog). She also goes over the qualities that good empirical research has, and how to avoid pitfalls in validity, reliability, etc.

As for the articles, there are three. The first is Davida Charney's "Empiricism Is Not a Four-Letter Word." This article is largely a memorandum telling those in the field how they should research. More specifically, it talks about how we do too many studies that are disconnected, constructing "A broad shallow array of information, in which one study may touch loosely on another but in which no deep or complex networks of inference and hypotheses are forged or tested" and that we "should encourage reviews of previous studies that compare findings and methods in particular kinds of sites, to generate questions and hypotheses that can be pursued with a full range of methods" (297).

This is not to say that the current empirical methods are bad. As the title suggests, Charney is suggesting, if anything, the opposite. What he is saying is that we need to look closer at the things we do, and we need to connect the studies within our field. He says that "Objectivity then is not a fixed feature of particular methods" (284), suggesting that we need to accept that not all research will be objective. Maybe that's even okay.

This brings me to "Action Research and Wicked Environmental Problems: Exploring Appropriate Roles for Researchers in Professional Communication" by Stuart Blythe, Jeffrey T. Grabill and Kirk Riley. Aside from having a mouthful of a title, this article is a report on a study about action research. "The authors argue that the primary goal of action research related to environmental risk should be to identify and support the strategies used by community members rather than to educate the public" (272). This is a bold and interesting claim. Rather than teaching people what strategies can be used to reduce environmental risk, they argue that we should just support the strategies that people already use. Now, there's a bit of a disconnect in terminology here. They say that that the strategies to be studied are those of "community members" and that these people are different from "the public." This seems counter intuitive to me; the community members involved in such a thing would be the public, wouldn't it? Unless they mean "community" in the sense of Discourse Community, or "public" in the sense of those not in the community.

But if that is the case, then they are basically saying that it's more important to understand the strategies of the people involved in a situation than it is to teach people who aren't involved how those strategies are used by those who are. That seems obvious to me, and so likely not what they meant.

Their conclusion is basically "that critical action research in professional and technical communication can provide valid and robust understandings of complex communication practices and tools for improving these practices" (296). I take this to be a statement about the value and purpose of critical action research, but as little else. It seems, again, like an obvious conclusion. Maybe I just don't understand what critical action research is or what they mean by "tools for improving these practices."

Last but not least for reading this week, we come to "Situational Exigence: Composing Processes on the Job by Writer's Role and Task Value" by Barbara Couture and Jone Rymer It seems to me that this article is one of categorizing and separation; important tasks within any field. Couture and Rymer write about "a new approach to explore the influence of social context on professional writing" (4), an approach which leads them to claim verification "that the planning and revising procedures of professionals who write as part of their jobs differ less among this broad group than they differ from the writing practices of career writers [. . .]" (5).

Let me unpack that as best I can. I think that what this is saying is that people who write as part of their jobs generally all do it the same way. That is, the methods they use for revision are pretty similar to one another. More importantly, these methods are different from those of career writers. So the people who write all the time, for a living, tend to have different views on planning and on revision than those who simply write as part of their job. Maybe that's obvious, but it's also important: it says that professional writers (who we assume are better at it) are using strategies that other people aren't, which suggests that those strategies, if taught to the others, would be generally helpful.

What is interesting about their conclusions from this study is that "composing practices are not so much influenced by a writer's professional discipline and occupation as by a writer's functional relationship to writing" (19). That is, the way people write depends more on how much they write and how important writing is to them than what they do for a living. I like that idea, obvious as it may be.

As for my outside reading, I spent a good deal of the week reading about futurism. I read about the predictions for the next few decades, including everything from how important technical writing is going to be (very) to when we can expect a manned mission to Mars (sometime in the 2020s). I also went through some older works, like Drexler's work on nanotechnology. All this together is giving me a new vision of the future. Specifically, of my future.

I've been trying to determine a project, a focus that I can keep in mind as I go through my coursework. The problem I've been having is that I'm worried that I am moving into territory that isn't legitimate, or at least not legitimate enough. Studying technology that doesn't exist, that may potentially never exist (remember flying cars?) seems like it may be a bad way to focus the rest of my career.

But at the same time, I feel like there is a very important project here. There is a gap between the introduction of a new media, of a new technology, to culture and its introduction into the educational world. Sometimes that gap is as long as a decade. Sometimes it's so short that technology is jumped on before it has been considered, and before it can be well used. Second Life, for example, has all kinds of possibilities. But how are most educators using it? They're setting up lecture halls and teaching in exactly the same way they would in the real world. Why bother with Second Life if that's all it will be used for? On the other hand, to have YouTube just get into the classroom over the past year or so seems ridiculous.

So the project would be twofold. On the one hand, the goal would be to shorten that gap, to introduce technology faster. But on the other hand, it would be to make sure that new technology is considered, that its possibilities are investigated, so that it is used better, not just faster.

That seems legitimate to me. But I just can't shake the feeling that I'm basically trying to build a career on science fiction.

There seems to be a shy move away from the earthy, personal writing style in the first half to the second half. I think this can only be credited to "A Flock of Cultures," which is, for me, a definitive sidestep from the previous chapters. Here, Scholes lost me for nearly the entire chapter. I understood him, and I understood his purpose, but there wasn't enough of Scholes represented in these pages to keep me reading attentively. What did stick out was this quote: "What I am opposed to is the pretense that there may be some cosmic canon that transcends all institutions because it is based on an unexaminable and unchallengeable Absolute" (111). Aside from the fact that I wholeheartedly agree with this notion, it is more so the label "cosmic canon" that initially grabbed my wandering attention. It's poetic, it's a wee bit sarcastic, and it's Scholes.

The fortunate fall out of Chapter Four tossed me into a wicked cool assignment, that of Pacesetter English, which A) is brilliant, B) makes complete educational and cultural sense, and C) has made me want to revamp my own style of teaching (as much as I can within the limits of the district-imposed standards and expectations, blah blah blah the PSSA is a waste of time, money, energy, and political BS). What proved most profound out of these 90-odd pages of reading was Scholes' recommendation to "replace the canon of texts with a canon of methods" (145). I love it, I will talk more of it in my reflection paper, and seriously? Has no one thought of this pre-Scholes?! He remains my pedagogical, theoretical hero.

How can we discover new ways to create services that positively engage consumers’ attitudes and values, and create high degrees of satisfaction.

I start this discussion with my point of view:

-Much attention for the dreams, emotions, feelings, life of the customer. Solutions/ new services must be meaningful for the life of customers. The focus is not the product or additional services but the customer, the life of customers. How can we help the customer to manage the complexity of life, is an example of this broader perspective.

-Service innovation is a great opportunity to give customers a great experience. The studies show us that the sky is the limit. Service innovation (customer interaction, service concept, process, new value propositions in the network etc.) can give you a system thinking perspective how you reconnect your services to the world of your customers. Organisations must have a a clear view on (unique) customer insights.

-Customer insights: organisations must adopt new ways to investigate customers. The new methods are available, like ethnographic study, observing customers, foto-study, user diaries, storyboards, service metaphors, social probes. Organisations must stop to copy customer insights from each other. New market leaders, service champions will introduce new services based on new, unique insights.

-Study of Forrester emphasise on "breaking the status quo", other studies refer to the comfort zone of customers. Can you bring services closer to the things customers already "accepted and çontrol" and how can you make it easier for you customer. "big" innovations bring insecurities working with/ consume the new, innovative services.

What are your points?

1. The attack - A pointed argumentative piece that points out the blindspots in the field or calls a specific individual or school of thought onto the carpet for their intellectual transgressions.

2. The rebuttal - Could also be termed, "The Defense." It is an article that defends the contested grounds or norms from the onslaught of the attackers. Very often, this article tends to take the offensive as well, blurring the lines between "attack" and "rebuttal."

3. The synthesis (a.k.a. "Can't we all just get along?") - Though this takes many forms (the mapping essay, the "survey the field" essay, or even an outright article of arbitration between two camps), it is always trying to level heads, to point out the holes that exist on both sides of an argument and, often, to point out the inherent strengths of all contested viewpoints. This genre seeks to temper the extremism often exhibited by the two aforementioned genres, while calling the field to a sensible middle ground.

To be sure, this is really just graduate student hogwash. It is not intended to essentialize authors' arguments, nor is it intended to claim that these boundaries are solid, measurable, or even capable of being effectively coded. Indeed, I would bet that most articles--if one were to go to the trouble, say, of coding the last ten years of CCCC journal articles for the above three categories--would fall firmly into all three genres at once, moving fluidly from attack to defense (rebuttal) to middle ground and back again to bared teeth and claws. I'm sure that the authors of said articles would often claim their work in all three categories at once. If the author has done their work well, I'd argue, even the nastiest attack or rebuttal will end at some sort of middle ground (whether firmly stated or implicit in the hedging and acknowledgement of holes in knowledge).

At the same time, articles often leave me (speaking from my subject position here!) with a pronounced feeling of one or the other. Charney's empiricism article seems firmly rooted in defense position, attacking (the argument-diffusing nature of that verb choice is not lost on me!) what she sees to be an excessively critical and subjectivist turn in comp and tech comm research. She seeks to demystify the "objective" stance of scientistic research that critics unabashedly implicate in power and postivism, call our attention to the plausible case that scientists are actually better social constructionists of knowledge than we are, and poke holes in the fashionably sympathetic armor worn by the qualitative researchers (especially those who root their ethnographies and case-studies in an uncompromising inward look at the subject-position of the researcher) by reminding us that these ungeneralizalbe and localized findings don't do much for the advancement of knowledge in the field (both from an outsider-looking-in perspective and a colleague-trying-to-replicate-and-build-a-case type of perspective). In good form, she then ends with a decidedly "synthesis" turn: according to Charney, all methods are rife with preconditions that must be subjected to criticism. She says, "To promote the growth of a complex and interconnected framework of knowledge and methods, we need both qualitative and quantitative empirical methods." At the end of the day, though, she believes that "By producing numerous individual subjective studies, we have constructed a broad shallow array of information, in which one study may touch loosely on another but in which no deep or complex networks of inferences and hypotheses are forged or tested." And she concludes, "Power and authority will never be handed over just because of what kind of people we are. The only way to progress as a discipline is to undertake the hard task of interconnecting our work, by building up provisional confidence in our methods and our knowledge base by challenging and impressing each other--and anyone who cares to look."

On the whole, I sympathize with Charney's stance. To essentialize science and "objective" quantitative research is to engage in a type of reverse-positivism that says there is nothing for our field to learn in these endeavors. That's a dangerous and limiting assertion, especially given Charney's call for research that can be replicated, tested, and--gasp!--socially constructed by the critical eyes and minds of the field. At the same time, I was disconcerted by her assertion that "Reformers have to admit the possibility that some hegemonic practices are not very oppressive or can cease to be so. They might have to question whether a group's power relations and prevalent practices necessarily determine the problems they face and consider that the power structure might sometimes be irrelevant" (my emphasis). While I am willing to grant that objective, quantitative methods have their place, I am not so sure that we can easily say that--in a field where we're studying communication practices of human beings embedded within social structures, communities, and institutions--"power structure might sometimes be irrelevant." If we were studying atoms or the instinctive behaviors of new infants, perhaps that would be true. But we're almost always studying children or adults in all their messy, communicative glory, and the power structures that are embedded in those interactions or form the contexts of how these children or adults define their options are never irrelevant.

Take home lesson: Utilize quantitative, objective methods when appropriate. Do not write them off as merely instrumental. Own the smallness (the locality) inherent in purely qualitative studies, and realize that other methods might be able to augment these thickly descriptive findings. But, whatever you do, never EVER divorce your research in social settings from an analysis of the foregrounded or backgrounded power structures that give those sites their shape. In so doing, you don't have to advocate for certain outcomes nor do you have to essentialize the values assigned to those power structures. Buy you do have to acknowledge their pervasive nature, and that our agency as individuals is necessarily constrained (never obliterated, but constrained--and sometimes severely so) by their operation.

One silly question: MacNealy seems to lump qualitative research in with "empirical" research (perhaps I'm reading her wrong?), whereas Charney makes it clear by her title that quantitative research is the only one deserving of that mantle. This makes an already fuzzy line that much blurrier. Where should we actually draw it?

My interest in the paper is not so much the substantial content as the nice reminder it was to me as an aspiring political scientist to still keep a critical eye towards papers that at first eyesight appear to have a thorough empirical basis. I don't think I'd have noticed the flaws these two scientists did.

The paper is well worth a read for anyone interested in quantitative methods.

Read Kai Arzheimer's post and both papers here.

A major sticking point for me has always been, and continues to be, that I know how the ending will be, but I don't know how the final showdown will take place.

Tonight, I opened a new story file and started over with my outlines. I plotted the entire novel and fleshed out my characters a little better. I defined each characters' positive points, negative points, objectives, and what stands in their way.

I still have to decide how the final chapter will go down. After I do that, I'm a little stuck. I'm not sure if I should write a plot treatment next or go back and write the novel, THEN write a plot treatment to make sure everything fell into place as it should have. I'll have to read a little more about plot treatments.

A book that has proven incredibly helpful to me is Novelist's Boot Camp: How to Take Your Book from Boring to Bestseller, especially in terms of defining characters. It's a little light on the ending though, so I'll have to find another book to help with that.

In other news, I landed a new client today, and I hope it will be an enjoyable relationship for both of us. My first assignment is due Monday, and looks to be a good one, so I'm jazzed. At the moment, I'll keep the details to myself, but I will say this: I found the job on journalismjobs.com, which has a number of freelance openings every week. If you have a strong editorial background, it's worth a look, even if you're committed — as I am — to never working in a cubicle again.

As a newbie grad student, though, the most significant thing I took from this reading follows (concerning the author's own follow-up research on "Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance as an explanation for the stiumulus to creative activity" (12):

"Next, I interviewed 28 literary scholars from three different post-secondary institutions. I found that their descriptions could be classified into one of four kinds of cognitive dissonance: a clash between beliefs, an expectation violated, a gap in knowledge, or a previously unnoticed connection between two phenomena" (12).

These four categories seem like a nice heuristic to help me follow my nose as a researcher. For instance, I was fired up by Longo's historical review of Bacon's worldview-altering work. In a way, he used the values and rhetoric historically reserved for religion to effectively usurp religion's claim to sole authority in governance and knowledge. I would perhaps go so far as to claim that--at this point--his groundwork has fully dethroned religion and placed science (especially if you include economics as a "science") in its place as the sole arbiter of knowledge and the true path to "progress." I wonder if anyone else has traced this arc? It seems to have so many ramifications on us today, as religion is a refrain claimed by leaders even as they ignore the basic tenets of their religion's ethical system at the behest of the science of the market, or the applied science of the military-industrial complex, or plain old "political science." At the same time, leaders still use religious mores to delineate "acceptable" science (stem-cell research?), and justify (development and agro-business) or downplay (climate change) human agency in the natural world. Heck, it seems that some folks are trying to use religion (it's God's plan and armageddon is on its way) to justify some silly decisions leading us down some scary paths, all facilitated by our trust in the progress of science.

This seems like it's calling for a study of an historical "clash between beliefs," and a nuanced understanding of how this dialogic tension still informs political leaders' narratives of "progress."

Or, as I was searching for resources for my annotated bibliography, I ran across some sources that want to add environmental concerns to the litany of causes under the umbrella of "critical pedagogy." Then, I found some sources highly critical of some basic assumptions of the vanguard crew of critical pedagogues (McLaren, especially). This seems like a "clash in beliefs" and a "gap in knowledge", as both sides assent that we should be teaching so students understand the environmental conundrums bearing down on us, but disagree on how to frame that pedagogy. At the same time, though, maybe there are some "previously unnoticed connections" between them??

I'm fascinated by the material, but I'm still wondering what the CENTRAL QUESTION is for my annotated bib assignment. Alas, time grows short!!!

The problem is this: I have the story. I know the main characters, her motivation, the plot, the setting, all the little details, but I can't sit and write. Well, I can. I sit down with a pen and notebook, but nothing comes to mind. I'm really having trouble writing this one.

And it's starting to bother me.

For a while, I thought I didn't have enough details. So, I got out my Blue Book (is a sketchbook), and I wrote out a character list, defined my main character a bit more, drew a map of the reality and created the path she travels. I took time to sketch out some outfits, define relationships and really try to build up the backstory. And I still have nothing on the bigger picture.

I also took out my Moleskien (tiny journal about the size of my palm. Very convenient for traveling) because it had little segments that will make their way into the story eventually. There are bits of the story here and there in it.

And still, nothing.

This wouldn't frustrate me so badly if it weren't for the fact that it's the second or third time that I've tried to write this story in four years. It's been brewing in my head since I finished Garnet, and it's somewhat of a continuation of that story. And normally, I would be content to set it aside for a while and move onto something else, as I've done in the past, but I don't have anything else. I don't have a back-up story to work on. I've used them!

I think, what I may have to do, is sit down and put together another story, and once again, set this one aside. Which kind of disappoints me. I know most of this one and really want to write it. But something is blocking me, mentally.

I guess that I'll move on to Vampires. I want to do something with them and I think I'm going to make them spies. I'll have to find my Moleskien again, because I had an idea sketched out in there, and it might work...

Oh, and everyone should go to Barnes and Noble and buy a Moleskien of their own. They're very handy.

Now we here at the Trendliest aren't condoning selling your newborns onto the black market (just yet).  We're merely suggesting that you start preparing your child for a successful career early on so they can literally and figuratively stop sucking at your teat before they ever start while chipping in a little towards your monthly rent or mortgage payment that their birth has helped make more difficult to pay.

First off, the road to success starts in the womb and certainly is paved with both placenta and gold.  While your child is developing, don't underestimate the importance of music.  Play as much meaningless pop as you can so when your child finally pops out he or she will be influenced by the songs of relatively young idols like Britney Spears and Avril Lavigne, appearing at an early age to want to follow their career path.  Once your child is old enough to hum or sing, invoke the Lynne Spears Method of Parenting as laid out in her book, Through The Storm: A Real Story of Fame and Family in a Tabloid World.

The most important part of this method is never saying no to your child.  If you've done your job correctly so far, your son/daughter will want to be a singer. Cater to all their performance whims and make sure to constantly encourage them in their performance field.  Be sure to purchase a big stereo with a karaoke feature and a top of the line microphone so that they might practice at home for all of their big auditions, it'll pay for itself. Tell your child they have the most beautiful voice in the world and that they should take singing and dancing lessons and go on auditions so mommy and daddy won't be poor no more.

As for education, School is a formality when you're getting your degree in Showbiz.    No matter how unready your child may be, ignoring education will put a fast track to success and a slightly slower track to the mental ward or rehab, but the latter two results are just minor obstacles to maintaining a fabulous career.

If you've not succeeded in Ms. Spears method your child might want to be an NFL Place kicker, a fireman or Chief of Police, in which case you should probably start practicing kickoffs, taking your child to the firehouse to practice drills, or just having a gun in the house to hone those respective skills.  After all catering to your childs first whim and encouraging them to be whatever they want to be as long as it has the potential to earn you cash is the trendliest way to parent.

What do costumers want to see in next generation products and services? Are there clear scenario’s about the needs of customers and what kind of service value
proposition they really need? Translate customerinsights in meaningful components of the service value proposition.
"Winning customer insights represents a deep understanding of customer needs and the drivers of customer behavior These insight will allow you to:

Much attention for the dreams, emotions, feelings, life of the customer. New services must be meaningful for the life of customers. The focus is not the product or additional services but the customer, the life of customers. How can we help the customer to manage the complexity of life, is an example of this broader perspective. “

Organisations must adopt new ways to investigate customers. The new methods are available, like ethnographic study, observing customers, foto-study, user diaries, storyboards, service metaphors, social probes. Organisations must stop to copy customer insights from each other. New market leaders, service champions will introduce new services based on new, unique insights.