🔴How COVID 19 human challenge trials work and why I volunteered?
In April 2020, I made what many perceive as a risky decision. I volunteered to be deliberately infected with COVID-19. This infection would be part of what is called a human challenge trial, where young, healthy people are given a vaccine and are deliberately exposed to the virus that causes COVID-19. These trials help researchers figure out more quickly if a vaccine is working.
I think this research is crucial, because today, I'm going to speak to you for six minutes. In that time, roughly 1,250 people will be confirmed infected with COVID-19. Twenty-one people will die. And then this pattern will repeat hour after hour and day by day, until we're able to vaccinate most of the eight billion people affected by this global crisis.
Scientists have been working around the clock to make those vaccines a reality. But what should we do when the human cost of waiting for those vaccines is rising by the day? This is where human challenge trials come in. They're different from the traditional phase three vaccine trials taking place now, where people are given a vaccine or placebo and asked to go about their everyday lives. Here, researchers have to wait to see how many people in each group become infected. Until enough of them get sick, we don't have enough data to know whether a vaccine is working.
Finding an effective vaccine with this method can take months or sometimes years, and it requires thousands of volunteers. A challenge trial works faster because researchers control exposure, instead of waiting for people to get sick. So instead of a year, we could know in as little as a month whether a vaccine seems effective. Instead of thousands of volunteers, a challenge trial relies on just 50 to 100.
Because we know for certain when people are exposed and develop disease, these trials also allow us to gather data about the early stages of infection and our immune response. This data is impossible to gather in any other way, especially for people who become infected but never show symptoms. This knowledge is important for designing policies that limit COVID-19 transmission. The time saved translates into precious months' head start on manufacturing, getting us more working COVID-19 vaccines faster. These trials are useful -- even though recent phase three results sound encouraging.
The arrival of the first vaccine is going to be a monumental breakthrough. It just isn't quite the fairytale ending we're all hoping for. We're going to need multiple vaccines, because we just don't have the infrastructure needed to immunize all eight billion people on the planet with just one kind. Each type of vaccine requires its own special process and equipment to make, store and deliver it. If we had multiple working COVID-19 vaccines, we could make use of all of our equipment at the same time. Some of the leading candidates need to be kept extremely cold before they are delivered to people. This can be really hard, especially in countries where there isn't reliable electricity or a secure method to store them.
Scientists have been using human challenge trials for hundreds of years. They've sped up the development of vaccines against typhoid and cholera, and they've helped us better understand how immunity develops to things like the flu, malaria and dengue. We've even used them for other types of coronavirus before.
In April 2020, I made what many perceive as a risky decision. I volunteered to be deliberately infected with COVID-19. This infection would be part of what is called a human challenge trial, where young, healthy people are given a vaccine and are deliberately exposed to the virus that causes COVID-19. These trials help researchers figure out more quickly if a vaccine is working.
I think this research is crucial, because today, I'm going to speak to you for six minutes. In that time, roughly 1,250 people will be confirmed infected with COVID-19. Twenty-one people will die. And then this pattern will repeat hour after hour and day by day, until we're able to vaccinate most of the eight billion people affected by this global crisis.
Scientists have been working around the clock to make those vaccines a reality. But what should we do when the human cost of waiting for those vaccines is rising by the day? This is where human challenge trials come in. They're different from the traditional phase three vaccine trials taking place now, where people are given a vaccine or placebo and asked to go about their everyday lives. Here, researchers have to wait to see how many people in each group become infected. Until enough of them get sick, we don't have enough data to know whether a vaccine is working.
Finding an effective vaccine with this method can take months or sometimes years, and it requires thousands of volunteers. A challenge trial works faster because researchers control exposure, instead of waiting for people to get sick. So instead of a year, we could know in as little as a month whether a vaccine seems effective. Instead of thousands of volunteers, a challenge trial relies on just 50 to 100.
Because we know for certain when people are exposed and develop disease, these trials also allow us to gather data about the early stages of infection and our immune response. This data is impossible to gather in any other way, especially for people who become infected but never show symptoms. This knowledge is important for designing policies that limit COVID-19 transmission. The time saved translates into precious months' head start on manufacturing, getting us more working COVID-19 vaccines faster. These trials are useful -- even though recent phase three results sound encouraging.
The arrival of the first vaccine is going to be a monumental breakthrough. It just isn't quite the fairytale ending we're all hoping for. We're going to need multiple vaccines, because we just don't have the infrastructure needed to immunize all eight billion people on the planet with just one kind. Each type of vaccine requires its own special process and equipment to make, store and deliver it. If we had multiple working COVID-19 vaccines, we could make use of all of our equipment at the same time. Some of the leading candidates need to be kept extremely cold before they are delivered to people. This can be really hard, especially in countries where there isn't reliable electricity or a secure method to store them.
Scientists have been using human challenge trials for hundreds of years. They've sped up the development of vaccines against typhoid and cholera, and they've helped us better understand how immunity develops to things like the flu, malaria and dengue. We've even used them for other types of coronavirus before.
There's been a lot of debate about whether challenge trials are too risky. I happen to think that those risks are worth taking. A challenge trial would only recruit young and healthy participants -- think between the ages of 20 and 29. Fewer than one percent of people in that age-group need to be taken to hospital after becoming infected with COVID-19. So it would likely be even lower in a challenge trial, because researchers check to make sure that participants have no preexisting conditions. The risk of a young healthy person dying of COVID-19 is around five thousandths of a percent. That means for every 100,000 20-year-olds who become infected with COVID-19, about five die. If I were to give birth in the United States, my risk of dying would be higher than that.
Or you could choose to think about it this way. If my little sister needed a kidney, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment before I offered her mine. And if I can take on that risk to benefit a loved one, it makes sense to allow people to take on a similar risk to speed up the development of a vaccine that would benefit not just their loved ones, but everyone around them as well.
There's a lot we still don't know, especially about the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection. I volunteered despite that uncertainty because like many of you, I feel frustrated knowing that hundreds of thousands of people are dying. And that's without mentioning the millions more who are struggling as measures to stop the spread take a toll on their physical, emotional and mental well-being.
It turns out I'm not alone in feeling this way. Since May, over 39,000 people from across the world have volunteered to participate in potential COVID-19 challenge trials through a nonprofit I helped found called 1Day Sooner. We advocate for challenge trial participants and have been encouraging stakeholders to begin preparing for these trials. As early as May, when challenge trials were still being considered for their role in the fight against COVID-19, the World Health Organization cited 1Day Sooner as an example of the kind of public engagement needed to run a challenge trial. In mid-October, the UK government formally announced their intention to conduct a challenge trial at the beginning of 2021.
It is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis. It has inspired record-shattering innovation, and it has highlighted the heroic acts of many frontline workers, but is has also taken a catastrophic toll. The arrival of each new vaccine brings us one step closer to rebuilding. But the true global solution lies in those vaccines being in the hands of people all over the world. Challenge trials could be a part of that solution.
Thank you.
#Coronavirus #Virus #Science #Vaccines #Medicine #Health #Pandemic #Disease
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
Or you could choose to think about it this way. If my little sister needed a kidney, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment before I offered her mine. And if I can take on that risk to benefit a loved one, it makes sense to allow people to take on a similar risk to speed up the development of a vaccine that would benefit not just their loved ones, but everyone around them as well.
There's a lot we still don't know, especially about the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection. I volunteered despite that uncertainty because like many of you, I feel frustrated knowing that hundreds of thousands of people are dying. And that's without mentioning the millions more who are struggling as measures to stop the spread take a toll on their physical, emotional and mental well-being.
It turns out I'm not alone in feeling this way. Since May, over 39,000 people from across the world have volunteered to participate in potential COVID-19 challenge trials through a nonprofit I helped found called 1Day Sooner. We advocate for challenge trial participants and have been encouraging stakeholders to begin preparing for these trials. As early as May, when challenge trials were still being considered for their role in the fight against COVID-19, the World Health Organization cited 1Day Sooner as an example of the kind of public engagement needed to run a challenge trial. In mid-October, the UK government formally announced their intention to conduct a challenge trial at the beginning of 2021.
It is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis. It has inspired record-shattering innovation, and it has highlighted the heroic acts of many frontline workers, but is has also taken a catastrophic toll. The arrival of each new vaccine brings us one step closer to rebuilding. But the true global solution lies in those vaccines being in the hands of people all over the world. Challenge trials could be a part of that solution.
Thank you.
#Coronavirus #Virus #Science #Vaccines #Medicine #Health #Pandemic #Disease
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔴3 rules to help you build a successful business
#Creativity #Entrepreneur #Business #Leadership
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
#Creativity #Entrepreneur #Business #Leadership
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🔴درس بیست و یکم کتاب 504 لغت ضروری همراه با مثال ، تلفظ و ترجمه فارسی 👇👇
https://b2n.ir/b46476
Join ➣ @BestIELTS ☜عضويت
www.bestielts.ir
https://b2n.ir/b46476
Join ➣ @BestIELTS ☜عضويت
www.bestielts.ir
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔴The Birth Of Wikipedia
#Business #Collaboration #Culture #Invention #Media #Technology #Software
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
#Business #Collaboration #Culture #Invention #Media #Technology #Software
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🔴آیلتس چیست؟ [همه چیز از 0 تا 100 آزمون آیلتس]
🔻واژه IELTS مخفف ۵ کلمه ی International English Language Testing System به معنای سیستم بین المللی ارزیابی زبان انگلیسی می باشد. آیلتس معتبرترین آزمون بین المللی سنجش زبان انگلیسی است که ...
📃 ادامه مطلب
Join ➣ @BestIELTS
www.bestielts.ir
🔻واژه IELTS مخفف ۵ کلمه ی International English Language Testing System به معنای سیستم بین المللی ارزیابی زبان انگلیسی می باشد. آیلتس معتبرترین آزمون بین المللی سنجش زبان انگلیسی است که ...
📃 ادامه مطلب
Join ➣ @BestIELTS
www.bestielts.ir
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔴Being Human
#Spoken_Word #Poetry #Nature #Art #TED_Fellows
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
#Spoken_Word #Poetry #Nature #Art #TED_Fellows
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔴 5 tips for dealing with meeting overload
#Business #Work_Life_Balance #Work #Leadership
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
#Business #Work_Life_Balance #Work #Leadership
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🔴5 tips for dealing with meeting overload
Have you ever reached the end of what feels like a grueling workday only to realize you didn’t actually accomplish anything? That it was just meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting --
As a recovering corporate executive, I know we all feel like our time isn’t our own, like other people are controlling our calendars and we’re simply reacting to their whims. But calendar creep isn’t inevitable. There's so much in the world we can't control. We can’t control our senior leaders, we can’t control our customer demands, and we certainly can’t control a global pandemic. But we can actually control our time, we’ve just forgotten how to do it.
I’ve come up with five, easy-to-implement steps that can take your calendar from working against you to working for you. And they really work. We worked with a big global company and asked some of their leaders to put these tips into practice while others didn’t. And guess what? The leaders who used these steps saw significant hours open up on their calendars for, you know, actual work.
Tip number one: Ask yourself, “Do you really need the meeting?” We’re under the illusion that we need a meeting for everything. We think “I need to make sure so-and-so is OK with this so I’ll book time.” Or “I’ve got a quick question on process, I’ll grab a meeting.” The reality is for almost half of the meetings we schedule, we could simply pick up the phone or shoot a text for a quick answer.
A trick to stop this: when you’re thinking of calling a meeting, write the invitation first. And if you can’t start with a subject line with an action verb, you shouldn’t have the meeting. “Decide, finalize, create next steps.” Those are reasons to call a meeting. “Review,” on the other hand, isn’t an action verb. If you're calling a meeting to review something, send it out ahead of time and schedule a 15-minute meeting for questions. That should get Joe to finally read the deck.
Related to that action verb, if you’re going to call a meeting you should be able to create a clear purpose statement. “In this meeting we’re going to decide boom, boom, boom. Come prepared.” You don’t need a whole agenda; nobody’s going to read it anyway. But that purpose statement is enough so that when you start, everybody is sitting up, paying attention and focused on the goal.
Tip number two: invite the least number of people possible. Let’s be honest, most of us invite people to meetings defensively. We know that Raco’s the one we need but if Dion doesn’t feel like he’s involved, he’s going to be cranky, so you invite him and then Shannon and then Jane. And now we’re wasting all of these people’s time instead of just going directly to the decision maker. It’s time to let go of those grade-school fears and just invite the people who are necessary for the objective. Everyone else can be informed later.
Let’s also agree it’s OK if we’re not invited to everything. Research has found that the optimal size of a decision-making meeting is around five to eight people. Any time you're inviting more, you're making it less likely you'll achieve your goal.
Tip number three: make your meetings shorter. If you want your time back, ditch the hour-long meeting. I schedule 30- and 45-minute meetings. That’s it, period. Full stop. That gives people time to digest, figure out next steps, then take a breath and maybe, I don’t know, go to the bathroom. It stops that horrible snowball of lateness that rolls downhill over the course of a day.
Tip number four: say no to other’s people’s meetings. We’re in the habit of saying yes to every meeting we’re invited to. Often we show up out of fear of missing out, or worse yet, ego. Neither of those is a reason to spend your precious time in a meeting. A better way to decide: Ask yourself, “Is my opinion absolutely vital to the purpose of this meeting?” Even better, “Does this meeting move my goals, my team’s goals or my customers’ goals forward?” If not, just say no.
Have you ever reached the end of what feels like a grueling workday only to realize you didn’t actually accomplish anything? That it was just meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting --
As a recovering corporate executive, I know we all feel like our time isn’t our own, like other people are controlling our calendars and we’re simply reacting to their whims. But calendar creep isn’t inevitable. There's so much in the world we can't control. We can’t control our senior leaders, we can’t control our customer demands, and we certainly can’t control a global pandemic. But we can actually control our time, we’ve just forgotten how to do it.
I’ve come up with five, easy-to-implement steps that can take your calendar from working against you to working for you. And they really work. We worked with a big global company and asked some of their leaders to put these tips into practice while others didn’t. And guess what? The leaders who used these steps saw significant hours open up on their calendars for, you know, actual work.
Tip number one: Ask yourself, “Do you really need the meeting?” We’re under the illusion that we need a meeting for everything. We think “I need to make sure so-and-so is OK with this so I’ll book time.” Or “I’ve got a quick question on process, I’ll grab a meeting.” The reality is for almost half of the meetings we schedule, we could simply pick up the phone or shoot a text for a quick answer.
A trick to stop this: when you’re thinking of calling a meeting, write the invitation first. And if you can’t start with a subject line with an action verb, you shouldn’t have the meeting. “Decide, finalize, create next steps.” Those are reasons to call a meeting. “Review,” on the other hand, isn’t an action verb. If you're calling a meeting to review something, send it out ahead of time and schedule a 15-minute meeting for questions. That should get Joe to finally read the deck.
Related to that action verb, if you’re going to call a meeting you should be able to create a clear purpose statement. “In this meeting we’re going to decide boom, boom, boom. Come prepared.” You don’t need a whole agenda; nobody’s going to read it anyway. But that purpose statement is enough so that when you start, everybody is sitting up, paying attention and focused on the goal.
Tip number two: invite the least number of people possible. Let’s be honest, most of us invite people to meetings defensively. We know that Raco’s the one we need but if Dion doesn’t feel like he’s involved, he’s going to be cranky, so you invite him and then Shannon and then Jane. And now we’re wasting all of these people’s time instead of just going directly to the decision maker. It’s time to let go of those grade-school fears and just invite the people who are necessary for the objective. Everyone else can be informed later.
Let’s also agree it’s OK if we’re not invited to everything. Research has found that the optimal size of a decision-making meeting is around five to eight people. Any time you're inviting more, you're making it less likely you'll achieve your goal.
Tip number three: make your meetings shorter. If you want your time back, ditch the hour-long meeting. I schedule 30- and 45-minute meetings. That’s it, period. Full stop. That gives people time to digest, figure out next steps, then take a breath and maybe, I don’t know, go to the bathroom. It stops that horrible snowball of lateness that rolls downhill over the course of a day.
Tip number four: say no to other’s people’s meetings. We’re in the habit of saying yes to every meeting we’re invited to. Often we show up out of fear of missing out, or worse yet, ego. Neither of those is a reason to spend your precious time in a meeting. A better way to decide: Ask yourself, “Is my opinion absolutely vital to the purpose of this meeting?” Even better, “Does this meeting move my goals, my team’s goals or my customers’ goals forward?” If not, just say no.
Now I know what you’re thinking: it’s hard to say no to a meeting. But it really isn’t. Simply tell the organizer the truth. You know that they’ve got this, and if they need you, simply give you a ring. You can also use the opportunity to delegate the meeting to a high performer or subject matter expert who may be a better choice anyway. You can even simply let them know you have other priorities that week and ask if your attendance is necessary. All you need to do is communicate with honesty and clarity.
Tip number five: be ruthless with your time. As any flight attendant will tell you, you have to put your own oxygen mask on first. It’s the only way you can be at your best for others, so give yourself time to do the things you need to in order to feel like a human being. That includes scheduling blocks of uninterrupted time to focus on your own work. If you have a project that going to take you 10 hours of really focused time and effort, schedule that time in your calendar. Try putting in “no-fly zones” two hours a day, a few days a week, at whatever time you’re at your most productive.
You don’t have to make these changes in a vacuum, like it’s some kind of secret. You can tell people that you’re trying something new and taking control of your calendar. And you do not have to do everything at once. Simply pick one idea and try it. People will not only understand it, but they’ll appreciate it.
So the only question left is: Do you have the courage to own your own calendar? I think you do.
#Business #Work_Life_Balance #Work #Leadership
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
Tip number five: be ruthless with your time. As any flight attendant will tell you, you have to put your own oxygen mask on first. It’s the only way you can be at your best for others, so give yourself time to do the things you need to in order to feel like a human being. That includes scheduling blocks of uninterrupted time to focus on your own work. If you have a project that going to take you 10 hours of really focused time and effort, schedule that time in your calendar. Try putting in “no-fly zones” two hours a day, a few days a week, at whatever time you’re at your most productive.
You don’t have to make these changes in a vacuum, like it’s some kind of secret. You can tell people that you’re trying something new and taking control of your calendar. And you do not have to do everything at once. Simply pick one idea and try it. People will not only understand it, but they’ll appreciate it.
So the only question left is: Do you have the courage to own your own calendar? I think you do.
#Business #Work_Life_Balance #Work #Leadership
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
👍1
برای مطالعه مقاله چرا باید انگلیسی یاد بگیریم به لینک زیر مراجعه کنید👇👇
https://b2n.ir/s80518
Join ➣ @BestIELTS ☜عضويت
www.bestielts.ir
https://b2n.ir/s80518
Join ➣ @BestIELTS ☜عضويت
www.bestielts.ir
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔴Dear world leaders, these are our climate demands
#Climate_Change #Activism #Future #Countdown #Leadership
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
#Climate_Change #Activism #Future #Countdown #Leadership
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
❤1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔴The emotions behind your money habits
#Relationships #Money #Personal_Growth #Emotions #Finance
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
#Relationships #Money #Personal_Growth #Emotions #Finance
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🔴The emotions behind your money habits
I am an accountant with a numbers problem. I mean, I'm good with numbers and using them to report what's happening, but I'm also concerned with the full story behind those numbers, the part that gets lost in translation, the part that numbers can't quite tell, the story that goes deeper than mere strategies for saving and earning money. And without that story, I don't think I'm doing my job well. That's why I've dedicated my career to figuring out how my work as an accountant can tell stories about people, stories that will ultimately help them improve their lives. Let me explain.
It all started when someone told me, "You're obsessed with chocolate." And I was like, "What? No, I'm not." But then I wondered, could I be in denial about my own obsession? Was I actually spending a lot of money on chocolate but blind to it? Well, here was a chance for me to test this theory. Using my accountant lens, off I went tracking my spending on chocolate -- and there it was, my love for chocolate. I was spending about 50 dollars a month on chocolate, especially in months when I was overstressed and months when I was overjoyed.
Analyzing my expenses helped me to understand that I had an emotional pattern where when I'm struggling or celebrating, I binge on chocolate. I had struggled with my weight for a very long time and I was convinced that my diet was not the problem. I was convinced that it was my lack of effort in exercise, and certainly not chocolate. Tracking my spending on chocolate, though, helped me realize that I was afraid of facing myself in the mirror, literally and figuratively, and that I lack the courage to deal with the real problem, my diet. So I continued to exercise, but devoted less time to it and instead shifted my focus and energy towards developing a more healthful diet. That year I lost 50 pounds.
Our relationship with money represents our relationship with life. The accounting of my own chocolate behavior told me the story of my own denial. I realized that perhaps I could also help my clients see what they were overlooking in their own lives and help them realize their own emotional patterns through their tracking and spending of their expenses.
So I started to pay close attention to the story behind my clients' expenses that may be hidden to them. One of my clients, a critical care nurse, was convinced that her personal budget was reasonable and expenses justifiable. She had struggled to build up her savings and I noticed that she had minimal records of her expenses. I suggested to her that her lack of savings could be due to more than just a gap in her financial knowledge and offered to help identify the problem. I encouraged her to start tracking and charting her expenses. After a few months, her financial records revealed that most of her spending was on expensive clothing and shoes. As we sat together, she was genuinely surprised to see just how much of her budget was going towards fashion. She remarked, "Wow, these are impulsive purchases, aren't they? I guess I didn't realize that."
She analyzed further and realized that she was buying clothes in an attempt to impress and appear successful to her friends. And also when her confidence was low, buying clothes temporarily boosted it. She told me that buying clothing was her attempt to find meaning in life and feel valued. She sighed, and she set a goal for herself and her finances. Six months later, she called me to tell me she had saved a bunch of money by reducing her spending on shopping and instead choosing to exercise when she felt the urge to shop. She's much happier around her friends. Three years later, home ownership is on the horizon.
I am an accountant with a numbers problem. I mean, I'm good with numbers and using them to report what's happening, but I'm also concerned with the full story behind those numbers, the part that gets lost in translation, the part that numbers can't quite tell, the story that goes deeper than mere strategies for saving and earning money. And without that story, I don't think I'm doing my job well. That's why I've dedicated my career to figuring out how my work as an accountant can tell stories about people, stories that will ultimately help them improve their lives. Let me explain.
It all started when someone told me, "You're obsessed with chocolate." And I was like, "What? No, I'm not." But then I wondered, could I be in denial about my own obsession? Was I actually spending a lot of money on chocolate but blind to it? Well, here was a chance for me to test this theory. Using my accountant lens, off I went tracking my spending on chocolate -- and there it was, my love for chocolate. I was spending about 50 dollars a month on chocolate, especially in months when I was overstressed and months when I was overjoyed.
Analyzing my expenses helped me to understand that I had an emotional pattern where when I'm struggling or celebrating, I binge on chocolate. I had struggled with my weight for a very long time and I was convinced that my diet was not the problem. I was convinced that it was my lack of effort in exercise, and certainly not chocolate. Tracking my spending on chocolate, though, helped me realize that I was afraid of facing myself in the mirror, literally and figuratively, and that I lack the courage to deal with the real problem, my diet. So I continued to exercise, but devoted less time to it and instead shifted my focus and energy towards developing a more healthful diet. That year I lost 50 pounds.
Our relationship with money represents our relationship with life. The accounting of my own chocolate behavior told me the story of my own denial. I realized that perhaps I could also help my clients see what they were overlooking in their own lives and help them realize their own emotional patterns through their tracking and spending of their expenses.
So I started to pay close attention to the story behind my clients' expenses that may be hidden to them. One of my clients, a critical care nurse, was convinced that her personal budget was reasonable and expenses justifiable. She had struggled to build up her savings and I noticed that she had minimal records of her expenses. I suggested to her that her lack of savings could be due to more than just a gap in her financial knowledge and offered to help identify the problem. I encouraged her to start tracking and charting her expenses. After a few months, her financial records revealed that most of her spending was on expensive clothing and shoes. As we sat together, she was genuinely surprised to see just how much of her budget was going towards fashion. She remarked, "Wow, these are impulsive purchases, aren't they? I guess I didn't realize that."
She analyzed further and realized that she was buying clothes in an attempt to impress and appear successful to her friends. And also when her confidence was low, buying clothes temporarily boosted it. She told me that buying clothing was her attempt to find meaning in life and feel valued. She sighed, and she set a goal for herself and her finances. Six months later, she called me to tell me she had saved a bunch of money by reducing her spending on shopping and instead choosing to exercise when she felt the urge to shop. She's much happier around her friends. Three years later, home ownership is on the horizon.
Sometimes, though, charting expenses may not reveal something specific, as a chocolate addiction or shopping problem, but what it reveals can be just as valuable. A marketing strategist and upcoming musician needed help with her taxes. When I met with her, I immediately took note of the fear in her face as she looked through her records and expenses. I checked in with her and she expressed to me that some things in her life didn't quite seem to work out, including her relationships. She was afraid of facing how much money she was about to lose after taxes. As we continued talking about her finances, she started to notice a connection between her fear of losing money and her fear of losing relationships. She went on to tell me that she was afraid of committing to anyone because she didn't want to get hurt. She expressed that she had not been close to anyone in over seven years because she feared failure. And maybe she might have an avoidance strategy around both her money and her relationships.
It's been six years since I first help her chart her finances, and she's still consistently keeping up with her spreadsheet. As she confronted her personal accounting and grew her savings in advance of each tax season, she developed less fear of loss and grew more open to relationships. She tells me that she even has the courage to walk away from a relationship when it's not serving her. She recently told me, "My spreadsheet is basically a story of my life's progression and I can see it through the numbers.”
I believe we can all do this type of audit of our own financial behavior and that we can learn surprising things about ourselves through tracking and charting our expenses. Here's how. Number one, take a look at your bank statement for the last six months and categorize the expenses by type for a more holistic view. For example, your spending on shopping versus transport versus entertainment.
Number two, when an expensive pattern emerges, see what that pattern says about yourself. Be curious and inquisitive. At first, it may not be that obvious, but asking yourself what led you to make that choice in a given moment can provide some clues. Do you buy pizza every Wednesday night because that's when you're too tired to cook after a stressful weekly meeting?
Number three, observe if there are any line items that you are shocked by in terms of value or volume and see what patterns emerge. For example, did you buy that new smartphone just before a major function or event so that your friends would notice? Or do you tell yourself you only take taxis late at night, but then realize that you're taking way more taxes every month than you thought? Are you working late more than you thought?
There's so much that we can learn about ourselves if we take the time to look. And sometimes our money knows us better than we know ourselves. Tracking our finances can reveal what we are in denial of, our hidden biases, our fears and what might be holding us back. Though it can be difficult and uncomfortable to take a good, hard look at our financial behavior, it can reveal some deep emotional truths. Some truths that can help us re-evaluate our careers, our relationships and our priorities. So give it a try. The payoff could be huge.
Thank you.
#Relationships #Money #Personal_Growth #Emotions #Finance
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
It's been six years since I first help her chart her finances, and she's still consistently keeping up with her spreadsheet. As she confronted her personal accounting and grew her savings in advance of each tax season, she developed less fear of loss and grew more open to relationships. She tells me that she even has the courage to walk away from a relationship when it's not serving her. She recently told me, "My spreadsheet is basically a story of my life's progression and I can see it through the numbers.”
I believe we can all do this type of audit of our own financial behavior and that we can learn surprising things about ourselves through tracking and charting our expenses. Here's how. Number one, take a look at your bank statement for the last six months and categorize the expenses by type for a more holistic view. For example, your spending on shopping versus transport versus entertainment.
Number two, when an expensive pattern emerges, see what that pattern says about yourself. Be curious and inquisitive. At first, it may not be that obvious, but asking yourself what led you to make that choice in a given moment can provide some clues. Do you buy pizza every Wednesday night because that's when you're too tired to cook after a stressful weekly meeting?
Number three, observe if there are any line items that you are shocked by in terms of value or volume and see what patterns emerge. For example, did you buy that new smartphone just before a major function or event so that your friends would notice? Or do you tell yourself you only take taxis late at night, but then realize that you're taking way more taxes every month than you thought? Are you working late more than you thought?
There's so much that we can learn about ourselves if we take the time to look. And sometimes our money knows us better than we know ourselves. Tracking our finances can reveal what we are in denial of, our hidden biases, our fears and what might be holding us back. Though it can be difficult and uncomfortable to take a good, hard look at our financial behavior, it can reveal some deep emotional truths. Some truths that can help us re-evaluate our careers, our relationships and our priorities. So give it a try. The payoff could be huge.
Thank you.
#Relationships #Money #Personal_Growth #Emotions #Finance
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
👍1
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔴Are you a giver or a taker?
#Anthropology #Behavioral_Economics #Business #Collaboration #Community
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
#Anthropology #Behavioral_Economics #Business #Collaboration #Community
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
🎙Join ➣ @TEDTalksLearning ☜
❤1
🔴Are you a giver or a taker?
I want you to look around the room for a minute and try to find the most paranoid person here --
And then I want you to point at that person for me.
But, as an organizational psychologist, I spend a lot of time in workplaces, and I find paranoia everywhere. Paranoia is caused by people that I call "takers." Takers are self-serving in their interactions. It's all about what can you do for me. The opposite is a giver. It's somebody who approaches most interactions by asking, "What can I do for you?"
I wanted to give you a chance to think about your own style. We all have moments of giving and taking. Your style is how you treat most of the people most of the time, your default. I have a short test you can take to figure out if you're more of a giver or a taker, and you can take it right now.
[Step 2: If you made it to Step 2, you are not a narcissist.]
This is the only thing I will say today that has no data behind it, but I am convinced the longer it takes for you to laugh at this cartoon, the more worried we should be that you're a taker.
Of course, not all takers are narcissists. Some are just givers who got burned one too many times. Then there's another kind of taker that we won't be addressing today, and that's called a psychopath.
I was curious, though, about how common these extremes are, and so I surveyed over 30,000 people across industries around the world's cultures. And I found that most people are right in the middle between giving and taking. They choose this third style called "matching." If you're a matcher, you try to keep an even balance of give and take: quid pro quo -- I'll do something for you if you do something for me. And that seems like a safe way to live your life. But is it the most effective and productive way to live your life? The answer to that question is a very definitive ... maybe.
I studied dozens of organizations, thousands of people. I had engineers measuring their productivity.
I looked at medical students' grades -- even salespeople's revenue.
And, unexpectedly, the worst performers in each of these jobs were the givers. The engineers who got the least work done were the ones who did more favors than they got back. They were so busy doing other people's jobs, they literally ran out of time and energy to get their own work completed. In medical school, the lowest grades belong to the students who agree most strongly with statements like, "I love helping others," which suggests the doctor you ought to trust is the one who came to med school with no desire to help anybody.
And then in sales, too, the lowest revenue accrued in the most generous salespeople. I actually reached out to one of those salespeople who had a very high giver score. And I asked him, "Why do you suck at your job --" I didn't ask it that way, but --
"What's the cost of generosity in sales?" And he said, "Well, I just care so deeply about my customers that I would never sell them one of our crappy products."
So just out of curiosity, how many of you self-identify more as givers than takers or matchers? Raise your hands. OK, it would have been more before we talked about these data.
But actually, it turns out there's a twist here, because givers are often sacrificing themselves, but they make their organizations better. We have a huge body of evidence -- many, many studies looking at the frequency of giving behavior that exists in a team or an organization -- and the more often people are helping and sharing their knowledge and providing mentoring, the better organizations do on every metric we can measure: higher profits, customer satisfaction, employee retention -- even lower operating expenses. So givers spend a lot of time trying to help other people and improve the team, and then, unfortunately, they suffer along the way. I want to talk about what it takes to build cultures where givers actually get to succeed.
I want you to look around the room for a minute and try to find the most paranoid person here --
And then I want you to point at that person for me.
But, as an organizational psychologist, I spend a lot of time in workplaces, and I find paranoia everywhere. Paranoia is caused by people that I call "takers." Takers are self-serving in their interactions. It's all about what can you do for me. The opposite is a giver. It's somebody who approaches most interactions by asking, "What can I do for you?"
I wanted to give you a chance to think about your own style. We all have moments of giving and taking. Your style is how you treat most of the people most of the time, your default. I have a short test you can take to figure out if you're more of a giver or a taker, and you can take it right now.
[Step 2: If you made it to Step 2, you are not a narcissist.]
This is the only thing I will say today that has no data behind it, but I am convinced the longer it takes for you to laugh at this cartoon, the more worried we should be that you're a taker.
Of course, not all takers are narcissists. Some are just givers who got burned one too many times. Then there's another kind of taker that we won't be addressing today, and that's called a psychopath.
I was curious, though, about how common these extremes are, and so I surveyed over 30,000 people across industries around the world's cultures. And I found that most people are right in the middle between giving and taking. They choose this third style called "matching." If you're a matcher, you try to keep an even balance of give and take: quid pro quo -- I'll do something for you if you do something for me. And that seems like a safe way to live your life. But is it the most effective and productive way to live your life? The answer to that question is a very definitive ... maybe.
I studied dozens of organizations, thousands of people. I had engineers measuring their productivity.
I looked at medical students' grades -- even salespeople's revenue.
And, unexpectedly, the worst performers in each of these jobs were the givers. The engineers who got the least work done were the ones who did more favors than they got back. They were so busy doing other people's jobs, they literally ran out of time and energy to get their own work completed. In medical school, the lowest grades belong to the students who agree most strongly with statements like, "I love helping others," which suggests the doctor you ought to trust is the one who came to med school with no desire to help anybody.
And then in sales, too, the lowest revenue accrued in the most generous salespeople. I actually reached out to one of those salespeople who had a very high giver score. And I asked him, "Why do you suck at your job --" I didn't ask it that way, but --
"What's the cost of generosity in sales?" And he said, "Well, I just care so deeply about my customers that I would never sell them one of our crappy products."
So just out of curiosity, how many of you self-identify more as givers than takers or matchers? Raise your hands. OK, it would have been more before we talked about these data.
But actually, it turns out there's a twist here, because givers are often sacrificing themselves, but they make their organizations better. We have a huge body of evidence -- many, many studies looking at the frequency of giving behavior that exists in a team or an organization -- and the more often people are helping and sharing their knowledge and providing mentoring, the better organizations do on every metric we can measure: higher profits, customer satisfaction, employee retention -- even lower operating expenses. So givers spend a lot of time trying to help other people and improve the team, and then, unfortunately, they suffer along the way. I want to talk about what it takes to build cultures where givers actually get to succeed.
So I wondered, then, if givers are the worst performers, who are the best performers? Let me start with the good news: it's not the takers. Takers tend to rise quickly but also fall quickly in most jobs. And they fall at the hands of matchers. If you're a matcher, you believe in "An eye for an eye" -- a just world. And so when you meet a taker, you feel like it's your mission in life to just punish the hell out of that person.
And that way justice gets served.
Well, most people are matchers. And that means if you're a taker, it tends to catch up with you eventually; what goes around will come around. And so the logical conclusion is: it must be the matchers who are the best performers. But they're not. In every job, in every organization I've ever studied, the best results belong to the givers again.
Take a look at some data I gathered from hundreds of salespeople, tracking their revenue. What you can see is that the givers go to both extremes. They make up the majority of people who bring in the lowest revenue, but also the highest revenue. The same patterns were true for engineers' productivity and medical students' grades. Givers are overrepresented at the bottom and at the top of every success metric that I can track. Which raises the question: How do we create a world where more of these givers get to excel? I want to talk about how to do that, not just in businesses, but also in nonprofits, schools -- even governments. Are you ready?
I was going to do it anyway, but I appreciate the enthusiasm.
The first thing that's really critical is to recognize that givers are your most valuable people, but if they're not careful, they burn out. So you have to protect the givers in your midst. And I learned a great lesson about this from Fortune's best networker. It's the guy, not the cat.
His name is Adam Rifkin. He's a very successful serial entrepreneur who spends a huge amount of his time helping other people. And his secret weapon is the five-minute favor. Adam said, "You don't have to be Mother Teresa or Gandhi to be a giver. You just have to find small ways to add large value to other people's lives." That could be as simple as making an introduction between two people who could benefit from knowing each other. It could be sharing your knowledge or giving a little bit of feedback. Or It might be even something as basic as saying, "You know, I'm going to try and figure out if I can recognize somebody whose work has gone unnoticed." And those five-minute favors are really critical to helping givers set boundaries and protect themselves.
The second thing that matters if you want to build a culture where givers succeed, is you actually need a culture where help-seeking is the norm; where people ask a lot. This may hit a little too close to home for some of you.
[So in all your relationships, you always have to be the giver?]
What you see with successful givers is they recognize that it's OK to be a receiver, too. If you run an organization, we can actually make this easier. We can make it easier for people to ask for help. A couple colleagues and I studied hospitals. We found that on certain floors, nurses did a lot of help-seeking, and on other floors, they did very little of it. The factor that stood out on the floors where help-seeking was common, where it was the norm, was there was just one nurse whose sole job it was to help other nurses on the unit. When that role was available, nurses said, "It's not embarrassing, it's not vulnerable to ask for help -- it's actually encouraged."
And that way justice gets served.
Well, most people are matchers. And that means if you're a taker, it tends to catch up with you eventually; what goes around will come around. And so the logical conclusion is: it must be the matchers who are the best performers. But they're not. In every job, in every organization I've ever studied, the best results belong to the givers again.
Take a look at some data I gathered from hundreds of salespeople, tracking their revenue. What you can see is that the givers go to both extremes. They make up the majority of people who bring in the lowest revenue, but also the highest revenue. The same patterns were true for engineers' productivity and medical students' grades. Givers are overrepresented at the bottom and at the top of every success metric that I can track. Which raises the question: How do we create a world where more of these givers get to excel? I want to talk about how to do that, not just in businesses, but also in nonprofits, schools -- even governments. Are you ready?
I was going to do it anyway, but I appreciate the enthusiasm.
The first thing that's really critical is to recognize that givers are your most valuable people, but if they're not careful, they burn out. So you have to protect the givers in your midst. And I learned a great lesson about this from Fortune's best networker. It's the guy, not the cat.
His name is Adam Rifkin. He's a very successful serial entrepreneur who spends a huge amount of his time helping other people. And his secret weapon is the five-minute favor. Adam said, "You don't have to be Mother Teresa or Gandhi to be a giver. You just have to find small ways to add large value to other people's lives." That could be as simple as making an introduction between two people who could benefit from knowing each other. It could be sharing your knowledge or giving a little bit of feedback. Or It might be even something as basic as saying, "You know, I'm going to try and figure out if I can recognize somebody whose work has gone unnoticed." And those five-minute favors are really critical to helping givers set boundaries and protect themselves.
The second thing that matters if you want to build a culture where givers succeed, is you actually need a culture where help-seeking is the norm; where people ask a lot. This may hit a little too close to home for some of you.
[So in all your relationships, you always have to be the giver?]
What you see with successful givers is they recognize that it's OK to be a receiver, too. If you run an organization, we can actually make this easier. We can make it easier for people to ask for help. A couple colleagues and I studied hospitals. We found that on certain floors, nurses did a lot of help-seeking, and on other floors, they did very little of it. The factor that stood out on the floors where help-seeking was common, where it was the norm, was there was just one nurse whose sole job it was to help other nurses on the unit. When that role was available, nurses said, "It's not embarrassing, it's not vulnerable to ask for help -- it's actually encouraged."
Help-seeking isn't important just for protecting the success and the well-being of givers. It's also critical to getting more people to act like givers, because the data say that somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of all giving in organizations starts with a request. But a lot of people don't ask. They don't want to look incompetent, they don't know where to turn, they don't want to burden others. Yet if nobody ever asks for help, you have a lot of frustrated givers in your organization who would love to step up and contribute, if they only knew who could benefit and how.
But I think the most important thing, if you want to build a culture of successful givers, is to be thoughtful about who you let onto your team. I figured, you want a culture of productive generosity, you should hire a bunch of givers. But I was surprised to discover, actually, that that was not right -- that the negative impact of a taker on a culture is usually double to triple the positive impact of a giver. Think about it this way: one bad apple can spoil a barrel, but one good egg just does not make a dozen. I don't know what that means --
No -- let even one taker into a team, and you will see that the givers will stop helping. They'll say, "I'm surrounded by a bunch of snakes and sharks. Why should I contribute?" Whereas if you let one giver into a team, you don't get an explosion of generosity. More often, people are like, "Great! That person can do all our work." So, effective hiring and screening and team building is not about bringing in the givers; it's about weeding out the takers. If you can do that well, you'll be left with givers and matchers. The givers will be generous because they don't have to worry about the consequences. And the beauty of the matchers is that they follow the norm.
So how do you catch a taker before it's too late? We're actually pretty bad at figuring out who's a taker, especially on first impressions. There's a personality trait that throws us off. It's called agreeableness, one the major dimensions of personality across cultures. Agreeable people are warm and friendly, they're nice, they're polite. You find a lot of them in Canada --
Where there was actually a national contest to come up with a new Canadian slogan and fill in the blank, "As Canadian as ..." I thought the winning entry was going to be, "As Canadian as maple syrup," or, "... ice hockey." But no, Canadians voted for their new national slogan to be -- I kid you not -- "As Canadian as possible under the circumstances."
Now for those of you who are highly agreeable, or maybe slightly Canadian, you get this right away. How could I ever say I'm any one thing when I'm constantly adapting to try to please other people? Disagreeable people do less of it. They're more critical, skeptical, challenging, and far more likely than their peers to go to law school.
That's not a joke, that's actually an empirical fact.
So I always assumed that agreeable people were givers and disagreeable people were takers. But then I gathered the data, and I was stunned to find no correlation between those traits, because it turns out that agreeableness-disagreeableness is your outer veneer: How pleasant is it to interact with you? Whereas giving and taking are more of your inner motives: What are your values? What are your intentions toward others?
If you really want to judge people accurately, you have to get to the moment every consultant in the room is waiting for, and draw a two-by-two.
The agreeable givers are easy to spot: they say yes to everything. The disagreeable takers are also recognized quickly, although you might call them by a slightly different name.
We forget about the other two combinations. There are disagreeable givers in our organizations. There are people who are gruff and tough on the surface but underneath have others' best interests at heart. Or as an engineer put it, "Oh, disagreeable givers -- like somebody with a bad user interface but a great operating system."
But I think the most important thing, if you want to build a culture of successful givers, is to be thoughtful about who you let onto your team. I figured, you want a culture of productive generosity, you should hire a bunch of givers. But I was surprised to discover, actually, that that was not right -- that the negative impact of a taker on a culture is usually double to triple the positive impact of a giver. Think about it this way: one bad apple can spoil a barrel, but one good egg just does not make a dozen. I don't know what that means --
No -- let even one taker into a team, and you will see that the givers will stop helping. They'll say, "I'm surrounded by a bunch of snakes and sharks. Why should I contribute?" Whereas if you let one giver into a team, you don't get an explosion of generosity. More often, people are like, "Great! That person can do all our work." So, effective hiring and screening and team building is not about bringing in the givers; it's about weeding out the takers. If you can do that well, you'll be left with givers and matchers. The givers will be generous because they don't have to worry about the consequences. And the beauty of the matchers is that they follow the norm.
So how do you catch a taker before it's too late? We're actually pretty bad at figuring out who's a taker, especially on first impressions. There's a personality trait that throws us off. It's called agreeableness, one the major dimensions of personality across cultures. Agreeable people are warm and friendly, they're nice, they're polite. You find a lot of them in Canada --
Where there was actually a national contest to come up with a new Canadian slogan and fill in the blank, "As Canadian as ..." I thought the winning entry was going to be, "As Canadian as maple syrup," or, "... ice hockey." But no, Canadians voted for their new national slogan to be -- I kid you not -- "As Canadian as possible under the circumstances."
Now for those of you who are highly agreeable, or maybe slightly Canadian, you get this right away. How could I ever say I'm any one thing when I'm constantly adapting to try to please other people? Disagreeable people do less of it. They're more critical, skeptical, challenging, and far more likely than their peers to go to law school.
That's not a joke, that's actually an empirical fact.
So I always assumed that agreeable people were givers and disagreeable people were takers. But then I gathered the data, and I was stunned to find no correlation between those traits, because it turns out that agreeableness-disagreeableness is your outer veneer: How pleasant is it to interact with you? Whereas giving and taking are more of your inner motives: What are your values? What are your intentions toward others?
If you really want to judge people accurately, you have to get to the moment every consultant in the room is waiting for, and draw a two-by-two.
The agreeable givers are easy to spot: they say yes to everything. The disagreeable takers are also recognized quickly, although you might call them by a slightly different name.
We forget about the other two combinations. There are disagreeable givers in our organizations. There are people who are gruff and tough on the surface but underneath have others' best interests at heart. Or as an engineer put it, "Oh, disagreeable givers -- like somebody with a bad user interface but a great operating system."