S
o… what do you do?”
I get asked this question
everywhere I go. It is
the
first
thing
on
the
agenda
when
meeting new people,
whether
it’s
your
neighbors at a garage
sale or recruiters at
an event. Answering
this question is tricky.
Though no one says
it so directly, it is
likely that people will
scrutinize and judge
your response. This
question carries so much weight
that it is even considered the
life’s most dangerous question,
according to The Minimalists.
So, how do we get it right? How
can we fascinate people in just a
few seconds?
I never knew how to respond
but I always knew how not to. I’ve
realized that most people have
a limited way of answering this
question. If you observe closely,
people sound like a recorded
resume. Press “play” and they will
spew out their job titles and all their
projects and accomplishments.
They assume that being impressive
means talking technical. But no
one likes a robot. If you bombard
people with details, you lose them.
When it comes to the topic
of effective speaking, there are
countless self-help books and
YouTube videos on how to become
more charismatic and how to
be more memorable. Some are
convinced that we must maintain
eye contact and talk slowly; others
maintain that we must turn
anxiety into excitement. This
is all great advice — but there’s
one other factor that is often
overlooked. My own view is that of
James Whittaker, a distinguished
engineer from Microsoft: that
storytelling is, in fact, the secret to
turning this dreadful question into
a moment of fascination.
In fact, a study from Princeton
University
finds
that
stories
synchronize our brains — the same
brain regions activate
in both the speaker
and listener when we
tell a story. Stories
are
powerful
and
memorable
because
we can relate to them.
Here’s
how
Whittaker
put
storytelling
into
practice.
Whittaker
met Bill Gates for
the first time at a
conference full of overachievers.
Desperate
to
get
a
moment
with Gates, a guy from Cornell
boasted about his expertise in
machine-learning and another
guy from Stanford talked big about
computer vision. But their rhetoric
worked against them. Whittaker
examined their interactions only
to find that Gates was bored out of
his mind.
So what did Whittaker do
differently so that one of the
world’s most influential people
held on to his hand and didn’t
let go?
“Mr. Gates, I test software,
because a computer on every
desk and in every home that
doesn’t work is no contribution
to humanity, sir,” Whittaker said.
How brilliant. Not only did he tell
a story, he actually used Gates’s
own story to connect with him.
“A computer on every desk and
in every home” was Microsoft’s
motto at the time.
So if we love stories, why don’t
we tell more of them? It is because
we tend to dismiss small talk as an
opportunity to connect. Yes, we’ve
all been there. The uncomfortable
silences in elevators and waiting
rooms, taking out cell phones to
avoid eye contact.
Talking
to
strangers
is
uncomfortable. As Laurie Helgoe,
author of “Introvert Power: Why
Your Inner Life is Your Hidden
Strength,” writes in her book, “We
hate small talk because we hate the
barrier it creates between people.”
Small talk is also often looked
down upon. A friend wrote in
my high school yearbook, “Small
talk is for small people, and that
stuff is not for you.” In making
this comment, he meant that I’m
a big and imaginative person who
shouldn’t settle for less. But what
he also implied here is that small
talk is insignificant.
But here’s what people may
overlook: All conversations and
relationships do start small, and
taking these moments to share
stories is where fascinating and
boring people differ.
By no means am I suggesting
you to be someone you’re not. You
don’t have to change who you
are. In fact, “You have to become
more of who you are,” says Sally
Hogshead, creator of Fascination
Personality test. We are all born
fascinating — we just have to
unlearn how to be boring.
Break out of your scripted
responses. Break out of your already
prepared conversations. Start out
your next presentation with a story.
Remind people in the elevator
about the first time you got stuck in
one. Ask the person standing next
to you in Starbucks line what their
favorite drink is and why. People
want to connect. And who knows?
From these interactions, you might
capture someone’s attention who
could be your next employer, best
friend or even the love of your life.
(I certainly did.)
So, what do you do? Well I eat, I
work out (occasionally) and I type
really loudly on keyboards. And I
also write stories about how people
can become more fascinating.
What is your story?
I
spent this weekend skiing
in
northern
Michigan
while basking in the warm
weather. Skiing with
the sun beating down
on my face as the
temperature hit the
50s would have been
perfect if it hadn’t been
February. It was still an
enjoyable experience,
don’t get me wrong,
but the looming threat
of
global
warming
intruded
on
my
happiness. I grew up
in northern Michigan
and spent my childhood
exploring the slopes. I started skiing
around the age of 3 and started
snowboarding
and
ski-racing
around the age of 12. These hills
defined my youth, and I couldn’t
help but fear my kids would never
be able to have that experience.
This
might
seem
overly
dramatic or, if you don’t believe
in climate change, absolutely
ridiculous.
Publications
like
Breitbart, after all, will have you
believe that the warming of the
earth’s climate can be disproved
by lower temperatures in parts
of the world. Breitbart also
claims that climate change is a
hoax against taxpayers. These
views aren’t exclusive to far-
right publications, however. A
study published in the journal,
Public Understanding of Science,
shows that the more Americans
use conservative media, like Fox
News, the less they trust scientists
and the less certain they are that
global warming is happening.
Our very own president once
tweeted, “The concept of global
warming was created by and for
the Chinese in order to make U.S.
manufacturing non-competitive.”
Well,
if
China
fabricated
climate change, it sure is putting
its money where its mouth
is.
China’s
National
Energy
Administration announced plans
to spend $361 billion on renewable
power sources through 2020.
China is also halfway through
a plan to spend $88 billion on
ultra-high-voltage direct-current
connectors to stabilize their
energy supply and better supply
renewable energy to cities and
industrial centers. Wow, they
sure fell for that one!
China,
though,
isn’t
the
only
country
that
has picked on the
scientific
consensus.
The European Union
aims
to
spend
at
least 20 percent of its
budget through 2020
on
protecting
the
climate. Additionally,
the EU, along with
192
states,
signed
on
to
the
Paris
Climate
Agreement,
committing
to
lowering
global
CO2
emissions
and
mitigate
the
effects of climate change. Those
schmucks! Oh, wait, no, the United
States is one of the signatories. Mr.
Trump has said he would cancel
the climate deal, a commitment
that brought him sharp criticism
from 375 scientists, including 30
Nobel Prize winners. Those hacks?
But even when not considered
to be a conspiratorial hoax,
climate change is often considered
an issue at odds with U.S. economic
interests. The narrative goes that,
yes, climate change is happening,
but fighting climate change would
put the United States at an economic
disadvantage, so the environment
must be put on the back burner
for now. But with so many other
countries
making
substantial
investments in sustainable energy,
is refusing to address the need for
renewable resources really the best
course of action for our country? Is
Trump’s promise to “put the coal
country back to work” a practical
economic strategy?
If I had to guess, clinging to
the past and burying our heads
in the sand probably isn’t the
best way to promote economic
growth and stay economically
competitive as a country. It’s time
to embrace that economic growth
and environmental sustainability
are not diametrically opposed.
Sustainable energy is the future,
and pretending otherwise might
be profitable in the short term.
In the long run, though, failing
to invest in sustainable energy
and fight against climate change
will bring about self-inflicted
economic hardship. Instead of
maintaining an oil pipeline that
is corroding, losing coating and
putting Michigan’s water and
shorelines in danger, Michigan
should invest in energy sources
that don’t threaten our tourism
industry and natural beauty. This
shouldn’t be controversial or
partisan: it’s common sense and
it’s in all of our best interests.
So,
if
melting
snow
and
childhoods without skiing don’t
tug on your heartstrings enough,
consider the economic argument
for embracing the industries of the
future. And if that’s not enough
for you, consider the rising
sea levels due to ice melting.
Florida might be one of the more
bizarre states, but it would be a
bit of a bummer if it was entirely
submerged in water.
With all this pressing need for
progress, though, our country
seems to be moving backward. Last
Friday, Scott Pruitt was confirmed
to
lead
the
Environmental
Protection Agency, despite the
fact that he has built a career
of suing the EPA to block its
environmental regulations. Pruitt
has acknowledged the existence of
human-caused climate change, but
his past suggests that he would do
little to prevent the consequences
of climate change. He claims his
fights against the EPA are merely
against government overreach.
But if the head of the EPA doesn’t
think the government should fight
climate change, who will be able
to take up the fight to preserve our
country and our prosperity?
We might be about to find
out.
The
day
after
Pruitt’s
confirmation, hundreds gathered
in Ann Arbor to march for climate
change action in the Citizens’
Climate Rally. On April 29, the
People’s
Climate
Movement
will bring people to march for
the cause in Washington D.C.
and around the country. These
marchers aren’t just tree-hugging
hippies whom we can afford
to ignore — they are scientists,
advocates and, ultimately, people
who care about our Earth, our
economy and our future. We
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, February 23, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Never be speechless
GINA CHOE | COLUMN
The climate change conspiracy?
MAY KATE WINN | COLUMN
Gina Choe can be reached at
ginachoe@umich.edu.
MARY KATE
WINN
D
isclaimer: As an adoptee,
I consider the family
I live with in America
as my family and I consider my
biological Vietnamese family as
my birth family.
“Gotcha Day” has been a day
that has been met with warmth
and love from my parents. It’s
a day that is celebrated when
adopted parents finally get their
adopted child. I was six months
old when I was got from Thai
Binh, Vietnam. My name before
then was Nguyen Đai Duong. I
was got on Feb. 9 and not too long
after, my name would be Adam
Yeager Brodnax.
Why
is
“gotcha”
so
cringeworthy?
Articulating the word gotcha
feels like I’m on my iPhone
with “Pokemon Go” opened
as I frantically flick my finger
across the screen trying to catch
a Snorlax. My typical uses of
the word “gotcha” are when I’m
on my tippy toes reaching for a
glass on the top shelf, or when
I catch a firefly flickering in my
aunt’s backyard.
The nomenclature of this
day is problematic in itself.
Margaret Schwartz suggested
the
day,
“International
Gotcha Day,” in 2005 in her
book “The Pumpkin Patch: A
Single Woman’s International
Adoption
Journey.”
Though
with good sentiment, the name
“Gotcha Day” celebrates the
beginnings of a family that is
ultimately insensitive toward the
circumstances of many children
who are involuntarily taken from
their ancestral threads as a door
closes behind them.
The
word,
“gotcha,”
has
multiple definitions, synonyms
and connotations that don’t
encompass what being adopted
means to me. The online Oxford
Dictionary defines “gotcha” as
“a sudden unforeseen problem.”
Merriam-Webster
defines
“gotcha” as “an unexpected
usually disconcerting challenge,
revelation, or catch.” So using
the term “gotcha” to celebrate
the adoption of a child seems a
bit off, right? It is not so simple
to reduce the trying process of
adoption to the word “gotcha.”
It requires extensive paperwork
for the adopting family that can
take a while to get through all
while another family is going
through the process of giving
up one of their own. When can
you last remember celebrating a
loved one or being at a wedding
where a spouse celebrated their
significant other with “I gotcha?”
The flipside
With adoption, there are two
distinct worlds that only ever
collide in one singular body.
My birth family never met my
adopted family. This makes
me the physical and emotional
embodiment that bridges these
two worlds together. To one
world, the joy that accompanies
the addition of a child should be
celebrated. It’s a beginning —
that part is unequivocally true.
The struggles and tribulations
of legally adopting are a burden.
The relief of that burden comes
in the form of the child finally
arriving. The joy and happiness
that was brought to my parents
is something that should be
acknowledged,
because
they
put their hearts into ensuring I
grew up happy and healthy.
Yet, what is so often forgotten
is that what’s left behind is a
mother wondering where in the
hell her kid landed. The joy of
the legal addition to a new family
comes at the expense of plucking
a child away from a pair of arms
— the emotional abandonment of
one of her own. While there are
many reasons a family may give
up their child, I cannot move
myself to imagine that my birth
family’s decision to give me away
came without pain.
So let’s abandon the word
“gotcha”
The process of deciding that
you can’t afford another life
cannot be trivial. People are so
easily reduced to dollar signs.
For my American parents, they
had to pay fees and services
to legally adopt me. My birth
family had to decide financially
that they couldn’t afford me.
This cold, inhumane concept
of commodification envelopes
me with willowing pain and
unsettling
frustration.
Child
adoption is not PetSmart — you
do not walk in, pick me off the
shelf, slap a barcode on my body
and check-out. You do not got
me.
In a process filled with so
many
conflicting
emotions,
we
should
not
reduce
the
summation of the adoption
process to a word as predatory
and as acquisitional as “gotcha.”
This
is
a
day
filled
with
gratitude, regret, love, longing,
heartache
and
dissonance.
“Gotcha Day” is a day where I
am filled with so many questions
for my birth family surrounding
my adoption. Why was I given
up? Do I look like any of my
siblings? Are they healthy? Are
my parents still alive? I have
no photos of my birth family,
so for me, I struggle to imagine
what my life could have been.
I don’t know if I look more like
my dad or my mom, and that’s
something that hollows my
heart. But, adoption should be
a time of elation for these new
moms and new fathers. It’s
the beginnings of a family that
couldn’t have existed without
tribulation. We rightfully should
celebrate it, but we should be
conscious of the pain. We must
be mindful that the feeling of
abandonment, at whatever age,
is breaking. Whatever bond that
child had developed with their
birth parents is ripped away
slowly and at the price of their
shaky readiness to let go.
This day, which is filled
with
polarizing
emotions,
must acknowledge just that.
It must encompass the weight
of the birth family’s loss while
relishing in the elation of the
family who just welcomed their
new child. To the critics who
will not validate my pain for this
day without a solution, I will
give you a solution. Of the many
proposals out there, the one
that resonates most is “Family
Day” because it considers both
families. This name includes
both the Brodnax family and it
includes the Duong family and
recognizes my belonging to
both. It is inclusive to the two
strings of yarn that have been
woven through generation after
generation into the infused
thread I am today.
Let’s abandon the word “Gotcha”
Adam Brodnax is a senior editor for
Michigan in Color.
GINA
CHOE
Mary Kate Winn can be reached at
winnm@umich.edu.
MICHIGAN IN COLOR
ADAM BRODNAX
“
JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU
for the ones that got abandoned