For the video of the original presentation of these ideas, along with many others, check it out here. Her book, Collective Genius, has its own website: collectivegeniusbook.com.

I just attended the Franklin College session celebrating Constitution Day that was sponsored by the Political Science department.  The speaker was Professor Eric Dannemeier from the McKinney School of Law at IU in Indianapolis.  The topic – Standing to Sue – seemed, well, obscure to me at first, but I quickly learned about four important cases in this area that affect environmental policy and practice today. 

The heart of this issue as I heard it links back to the constitutional right that citizens have to petition the government. The courts do limit this right, though, to the people that have been directly affected by the transgression.  In other words, I cannot sue someone because, for example, I observed that person hit someone else’s car.  I can only sue if MY car was hit. 

This relates directly to environmental law: under what circumstances can I sue a person or organization (or governmental body) about an environmental issue?  A tree cannot sue for being cut down, or a mountain cannot sue for being stripped.  It turns out that a lawsuit can only happen when someone has been directly affected, and not just when someone says it destroys a lovely view (an ethical value).  In principle I may want that lovely view to exist, but that doesn’t give me standing in a court of law unless it has a direct impact. 

Additionally, it turns out that a state, such as Indiana, also now has a right to sue on behalf of its citizens because they have a degree of “quasi-sovereignty” (and there is a word I have never used before).   When the constitution was set up, the states did not give up all of their rights, and in this case they do retain the right to sue on behalf of their citizens. 

The session closed with a short but incisive discussion on Indiana’s same sex marriage status in the courts.  I, for one, did not know that of the 24 federal courts that have reviewed the status of same-sex marriage, 23 of those courts have ruled that the states have no right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying.  It appears that same-sex marriages may not even need to be heard by the Supreme Court because the precedents are so clear.  Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas are the relevant decisions from the Supreme Court that are key to these decisions. 

This turned out to be an engaging learning experience for me, and a valuable time for me to spend in celebration of Constitution Day.  By the way, I also learned that colleges that receive Federal funds are required to have a program on the topic of Constitution.  As noted in the program, there is not an easy way to enforce this, but I am glad that provision of a law, and the work of the Political Science department, enabled a good discussion today. 

Last note: I am not a lawyer!  If I did represent something incorrectly, please let me know in the comments.  

Each individual tile is distinctive. But the overall effect is a synthesis of of those individual, distinct tiles, and in the end is much different than something that is blended together into a homogenous mass.

The MOOC (Massive Open Online Class) is being hotly debated now in educational circles, often as a new model and replacement for the current model of coursework at the college and university level. I think MOOCs have much to offer; I'll plan to share some of my personal experience in future postings. But I view the MOOC not as a whole new mosaic, but instead as a new -- and valuable -- tile in a learning mosaic. 

Rather than fighting the MOOC, and rather than blending something together, I'm recommending that we look at the overall learning mosaic that we build with each learner, and figure out how we pick and place the right pieces of the mosaic for the purposes we seek to achieve. We have many pieces of the mosaic available for our use, and technology is bringing new pieces that we could never dream possible in previous days. 

I believe my Kickstarter investment was $15. I was struck by the nature of this transaction: $15 buys me a deck of cards, individually designed by 54 different artists from probably 25 countries, managed in Barcelona, printed in Latvia, and shipped to me in Connecticut.

I have a concept called the Ten Facets of Computing that consolidates everything you can do with a computer system into 10 basic “human”  categories.  This project clearly fits into the categories of Create and Move. There is also a Transaction, plus probably elements of some of the others.  But it does go to show the power of interconnected networks, the globalization of even small parts of the economy, and the potential of crowdsourcing. 

In short, this really made my day.  I think it is time for a card game.

For more information about the deck, you can check it out for yourself at http://digitalabstracts.com/playing-arts-project/

And this is not just some kind of charity that happens after someone gets enormously wealthy. This is a consistent model of giving credit, of conceding major points in business relationships, and not trying to squeeze the last nickel out of every deal.

Does this make sense? After you read Give and Take, it will. Adam Grant has plenty of stories to illustrate his major points; my personal favorite was the story of George Meyer, the key collaborative genius behind much of the Simpsons as well as a key writer for Saturday Night Live and the Letterman Show. The chapter that describes how his creative idea generation made whole teams highly successful should be required reading in any corporation.

But Grant’s book is not just a series of anecdotes. He fills his pages with many authoritative research studies on collaboration, creativity, and success. Unlike many business books, his points are backed up by real research. Although I have read a considerable amount in the areas of psychology and behavioral economics, I found many of Grant’s information sources refreshingly new. Although a reader may not find a direct and immediate line that leads to quarterly profit, an astute person will find a more valuable set of insights that leads to longer term success and personal satisfaction.

A few famous people come out a little worse for wear: you’ll find that Michael Jordan, Frank Lloyd Wright and Jonas Salk may have suffered professionally by their reputations as takers. This book is not a miracle cure that says being a giver will bring you fame and riches; it is much more subtle than that. There is much good advice about how to avoid being a doormat as a giver, and how negotiating as an advocate for someone else might help you override the negative aspects of some givers’ personalities. I highly recommend Give and Take as a thoughtful and memorable set of insights into human behavior and success.

For a more lengthy discussion of Adam Grant’s work, you will want to also read the New York Times Magazine article, “Is Giving the Secret to Getting Ahead”, by Susan Dominus.