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