Barbie Girl

Mirror Mirror, on the wall

Who’s the fairest of them all?

Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs

If I could dream of one thing, it’d be the smile that you bring…

The Diamond Castle

It’s coming to that time of year again.  Thoughts of snow, whispers of how many days left and that Coca-Cola advert on telly.

Time to think about what to get my daughter for Christmas. She likes Disney Princess shiny stuff, Hello Kitty practical stuff, and Barbie dolls, accessories, costumes, the merchandise list goes on…

So,

Mirror Mirror, on the wall

Who’s the fairest of them all?

Barbie.

Why is Barbie superior to the rest?  Let’s contrast the messages Disney gives out compared to Barbie.

Disney:  You can be a princess.

Barbie:  You can be anything, you’re a Barbie Girl!

In films, Disney’s stories are often scary, weird or just plain outdated. 

If we look at ‘Snow White’ for example, we have a story about jealousy, megalomaniacal power and attempted murder by deception by a person in a position of trust.  Hmm, nice. 

What about Cinderella?  Domestic abuse.  How is she rescued from this?  The Prince fancies her.  Hmm, inspirational.

Rapunzel?  Kidnap. Hmm...

Of course, these aren’t original Disney plots.  They’re fairy tales which were in the public domain that Walt made a considerable amount of money from.  Kudos to him.

So how do Barbie films differ?

Most of the stories are original.  The main characters in the stories overcome challenges.  They do that with the help of friends.  They are moral, have integrity and do the right thing, even if (or especially if) it’s not the best thing for the character themselves.

Barbie is about overcoming fears, working as a team, being honest, keeping promises, loyalty and helping a friend in need. 

There are Barbie princesses in the films, of course.  However, even Barbie princesses learn to be aware of their environment, such as in the Princess and the Popstar/Pauper.  Each Princess takes over responsibility for the economy of their kingdom.  How about that?

In fact in that Pauper film, the Princess marries the man with whom she’s in love, not who her Mother, the Queen, thinks is right.

‘Life in the Dreamhouse’ is an excellent self-deprecating twist on herself, like when she’s asked, as she’s showing everyone her extensive wardrobe of work clothes: “You went to the moon?”  Barbie: “You haven’t?”

The films are funny, self-deprecating, moving and inspirational.  They give the viewer the belief that anything is possible.  All in a very entertaining format.  They have great music too, with catchy melodies and well-thought out lyrics.  For example,

If I could wish for one thing,

It’d be the smile that you bring,

Wherever you go in this world I’ll come along

Together we dream the same dream

Forever I’m here for you, you’re here for me

Two voices, one song

Normally I would have rebelled against the stereotype of buying Barbie for my daughter – but what’s not to like?

The ideas in these films instill the right beliefs into a child.  They're like a double-edged sword. Educational and entertaining. As a parent, if you watch them too, you can even refer to them when talking to your child, when they need advice.

And that, Your Honour, is my excuse for having 14 Barbie DVDs on my bookshelf.

Maybe I'm Amazed...

...At The Way I Speak French, Despite Years of Lessons

“On a vu souvent

Rejaillir le feu

D'un ancien volcan

Qu'on croyait trop vieux.” *

Ne Me Quitte Pas, Jacques Brel

I love learning. This was demonstrated by my choice of a 'weird' range of subjects for A-level. Physics, maths and French. The language was a struggle. I didn't too well at the Irish equivalent, Junior Cert., and really I was way off the standard required.

To shore up the chasm, I hired a tutor. We did all the usual, but really it was just school again. I had imagined that learning would be fun. It wasn't. It was painful, scary, boring, time seemed to slow down and worst of all, it was boring. Despite tuition, I got a D at A-level, and my 6 week working holiday (before university), in France revealed how little I knew.

"There is no such thing as a bad student, only a bad teacher."

I thirsted for an exciting way to learn. One day, I happened to catch a documentary on BBC2. It was about a 'Language Master', Michel Thomas, who claimed to be able to teach a foreign language, such as French, German or Spanish, in its entirety and, produce fluency and confidence in just 3 days' tuition. Not only that, he had taught film-stars and royalty, and even Woody Allen was interviewed explaining how brilliant it all was.

The documentary maker put this to the test by inviting Michel to teach a bunch of post-16 GCSE failures. He was given a week. The result? By the end of the week, not only had their confidence soared to new levels, they were excited at their experience, and they were gushing in their praise for this guru of teaching.

Michel very briefly outlined his method – as he was paranoid about losing it. And in those two minutes, I learnt more grammar than I had in 2 years. So I was amazed by this, but saddened to discover that his fee was a little more than I could cover, age 19. It was $25,000.

Fortunately for me, and many others, Michel released his course in 2001 for a more affordable £60. I did the French course in a week myself. It consisted of 8 CDs and you were effectively a student in the group he was teaching. You just had to pause the recording after every question. That was it! No memorising, mental review, notes, tests or pressure.

There were many 'penny-drop' moments, but mainly I remember laughing out loud at the joy of understanding and producing French. That year at uni, I enrolled for a French course. My tutor was hesitant, as “you've not done French since A-level, and your grade...”. So I offered a compromise – I'll try it for 2 weeks, if I'm not keeping up, I'll do something less taxing. I mentioned I had done some revision...but kept it quiet about what it was!

2 weeks in, my French tutor asked “How many years again has it been since you did French?” and that was that. Her face showed disbelief it had been four years before.

A few months later, I visited France to meet a friend. I found myself playing football in Perpignan, and it was terrific to be able to understand the other players, and receive compliments like "bien-joué".

While there, I popped to Barcelona. I discovered, belatedly, I didn't know a word of Spanish. So I went back home, took Michel's Spanish course, and a month later this time, I spoke Spanish. I went back, and I was greeted as if I was a native. I could ask for what I wanted and say whatever I liked really! It was great.

What Michel did was make me believe that anything was possible. I had seen it for myself. I practically failed at traditional learning, but with a different approach, I could achieve amazing progress. Anyone could.

"In the space of two days, I learnt more than in six years at O-Level."  

BBC journalist on a radio documentary

At the same time as this was going on, I was enduring a hard time trying to understand my maths lecturers. I had finally just figured out maths for myself, and I discovered that I actually liked it. I had discovered another source of subversion, a teacher called Sylvanus P. Thompson, who wrote an excellent maths book. It was from that, and being inspired by Michel, that I thought of tutoring myself, and of course, doing it in a revolutionary way.

Michel believed that the teacher should make himself redundant. The responsibility for the learning was with the teacher, not with the student. How much anxiety does that remove? However, learning would become so enjoyable and easy, that after several hours, confidence and understanding was such that it becomes clear that a teacher is no longer required. Quite the opposite of traditional teaching!

One criticism I had of the course was that the languages he had chosen, were, with retrospect, now he had explained them, very easy. What about exotic languages, like Chinese, or Arabic? How would he teach those? Unfortunately, we never found out, as he died in 2005. However, his publishers approached professional acquaintances of Michel, such as Harold Goodman, and asked them about this. Could Harold do Mandarin?

In 2008, I stumbled on Harold's publication. I was so excited. My personal criticism of Michel had been rebuked. I decided to set myself a ludicrous challenge. Could I learn a language that was totally alien to me, in a month, without notes, and in fact, without being still? I decided I would only listen to it in the car. I had a couple of trips coming up...it would give me time.

To test it worked, I met up with some Chinese friends and asked them how long it would take me to learn Mandarin from scratch. They replied, “Six months, for four hours a day, then you may be able to speak it.”

Knowing the acceleration of Michel's courses, I invited them round for tea in a month, and started the next day.

Within a few weeks, I had done the 'Foundation' course, and was halfway through the 'Advanced'. In one of those moments of serendipity, I bumped into another Chinese friend. We got chatting, she asking me questions in English (naturally), and me replying in Chinese. She knew something was up after she asked 'Wow, why have you decided to learn Chinese?” and I replied “Because I have Chinese friends, and I want to speak to them” in Chinese! I'll never forget her face after I answered her next question.  She nearly fell over when she asked - “How long have you been learning Chinese for?”. Three weeks.

My friends came around. By the end of the evening, I had scared my partner to death and discovered that I had a Beijing accent.

I approach everything in the same way now. I started learning the piano in 2005. After a year or so of 'traditional' teaching, I, of course, thought there must be an inside track. I wondered how a friend of mine could play any instrument by ear... couldn't I do that? The traditional technique seems to be all about being robotic. Slavishly following sheet music, and being unable to improvise. I noticed that pop and rock stars don't seem to have sheet music in front of them. What was going on?

I took the same approach and tried to find a teacher who could expain it á la Michel. There isn't one. But I figured it out as best I could myself. And, without any formal lessons since 2006, I have been described as a 'musician', with 'natural talent'.  That has given me the confidence to upload my first video to YouTube... ahem, cough.

"What you know, you don't forget."

So, the next challenge is the marathon. 

I only have one language qualification. The aforementioned A-level in French fifteen years ago. So...I'm going to prove that Michel's method works. I'm going to enter nine, yes nine, 9(!) International GCSEs over the next eighteen, or so, months. I'm going to be taking:

IGCSE

French

Spanish

Italian

German

Portuguese

Arabic

Mandarin Chinese

Japanese

Russian

between now and June 2014.

Hence the quote from Jacques Brel.  I may be 34, but...

Anything Is Possible.

*One has often seen

Flames light anew

From a dormant volcano

Thought too old

Money (That's What I Want)

"Money, so they say, is the root of all evil today"

Pink Floyd

Where does money come from?

European bailouts, loaning from one to pay others, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, Quantatative Easing, LIBOR, the credit crunch... all these events started me wondering, where does money come from? Does it grow on trees?

I did a little research into where it came from, and how it is created. How banks actually work and why they're in such trouble.

And why we all are.

This is how I thought banks worked. A bit like in 'It's A Wonderful Life'. 

Run On The Bank

You know, where you have a Savings and Loan situation. Some people have money. They put it into a bank to gain interest. To pay this interest, the bank lends the money straight back out again at a higher rate, and takes a nice cut for itself. As long as the loan is repaid, on time, and of course, with interest, all is well.

I thought the credit crunch was where people didn't repay. Actually this wasn't precisely true.

It turns out, this is not really how banks work.

And if you didn't know this already, I'm not sure you're going to believe it. I'm not sure I do.

When you want to borrow money from a bank, it doesn't actually use money they already have deposited with them.

In fact, they create it. Out of thin air. Let's say you decide to borrow £1,000. What the bank does is type the figure into their computer as both an asset and a liability. So the books both read that they owe you £1,000 AND that you owe them £1,000. So these cancel out until you withdraw this £1,000 as cash. This cash is actually secondary money, which other people, including the government, will accept as payment. That's all that matters really. It doesn't matter what you use as long as it's accepted as money.

After you withdraw this £1,000, you now owe it to them, plus interest. The interest is actually where, of course, they make their money. The actual capital is irrelevant. It didn't exist before, and it doesn't really exist now. When you pay back the £1,000, it will cancel out the arrangement and it will cease to exist. The thing that brought this £1,000 into creation is your signature.

So does this matter? After all, what difference does it make what you use? As long as it's accepted as money, by others and the government, to pay taxes, what's the difference?

The only flaw with this idea is the interest part.

For example, let's say you borrow this £1,000, at 10% per year. So, you agree to repay £1,100 after one year. Fine.

But let's imagine that if money is only created by borrowing, that you were the only person who took a loan out ever. The total money in the system would be £1,000. So... where is the £100 going to come from?

Or, let's imagine your friend also borrowed £1,000. So in the whole country's system, there was only £2,000. You have to repay £1,100. You're going to need £100 from your friend (by doing business with him, selling something, whatever) to cover it. Great, you're all paid up. But, now there's only £900 in the system, and he's short. Where's that going to come from?

The problem, as with a lot of things, is time. Time is money! Because our currency is based on debt, the amount that needs to be repaid will always be larger than the sum lent out. Always.

So someone must always be in debt, or be bankrupt, or whatever, for this system to work.     

Why do you think banks where so anxious to loan out so much?  In 2007 alone, they lent out £567bn.  It's like they had a licence to print money.  Actually, they do.  Now I know where that phrase comes from.

How is that a good system?

Actually, it's worse than this.

I haven't mentioned compound interest. A power so scary that it accelerates debt and destroys this crazy system further.

If you borrow £1,000 at 10%, within seven years, you'll owe £2,000. Seven years later, £4,000. Another seven years....£8,000. If there's only £1,000 in the system, where's that £7k going to come from? More borrowing and more debt creation. In order to pay off the original debts... The money supply can only ever grow exponentially which brings its value down. Then there's inflation!

If inflation is 3%, it takes about 20 years for prices to double, all things being equal. Another 20 years to double again. So your savings/pension in 40 years time has to be able to keep up with this. The only way that can happen is if the money supply has grown. The only way for the money supply to grow (as we've seen), is for people to take out loans. With interest due on them.  This is why in Europe, countries are lent more money... there is no other way.  So we have contradictory statements from politicians, such as, 

"In order to reduce the deficit, [money owed by the government], we need to kick-start the economy [people need to pass money based on debt to each other], and the only way to do that is if banks start lending again [create more money and increase the money supply]."  

Me: So... what you're saying is... in order to get out of debt, we need more debt? 

Politician: Yes.  

Me: Okay then...

Scarily, the money supply has grown hugely. In 1997, it was £193bn. Now, it's over 10 times as much at approx £2.1 TRILLION. That's £2,100,000,000,000.

Money created by banks out of thin air

And every single penny of it has interest on it. So scarily, it's actually more than this. And to get an idea of how big a number just that 2.1 trillion is, before interest, if one pound was paid back per second, it would take 4 million YEARS to repay. And that's just the UK economy folks!

The world will always be in debt.

How is that a good system?

So who do we have to blame for all this?  Well, I can name fingers and point names.  

Richard 'Watergate' Nixon, 37th President of the United States, who moved goalposts in 1971.

So if 'money' is just a fiction, what has real value?

Gold.  That may be why the gold price (amongst other reasons) has done this.

500% increase in its value in 10 years

It got up to $1889!  

Shame Gordon Brown sold ours off in 1999 then.  Why?  To bail out the banks.

It's déjà-vu, all over again.

Space Oddity (Part II)

"Houston, we have a problem."

Apollo 13

Is there gravity in space?

Usual answer. No.

Correct answer. Yes.

Students tend to believe there's no gravity in space because they've heard of a phenomenon called 'weightlessness' where astronauts tend to float about in space shuttles. This makes them believe there is an absence of gravity in space. I've seen science textbooks show confusing pictures of this also.

This can be explained by answering the second question in my previous post.

When the space shuttle launches, what path does it take?

Usual answer. Straight up.

Correct answer. Down.

Down? How can it go into space by going down? Maybe that's what you're thinking right now. But, imagine that you take a ball and throw it. It may go 20-30 metres. The reason it doesn't go further is almost purely because of gravity. Gravity brings the ball down to hit the ground, and it won't go much further after that. Imagine now, that you threw the ball a bit harder. It would go that bit further before hitting the ground. Gravity always makes it fall at the same rate, so throwing it harder will get it a bit further before the inevitable happens. 

Imagine you throw a ball a third time. This time though you throw it incredibly quickly, like five miles per second. If you threw it that fast, it would go so far that by the time it came down again, the Earth wouldn't be there for it to fall onto. That is because the Earth is round, and it would curve away at the vital time. You would have thrown the ball over the horizon, which from your point of view, is DOWN.

Incredibly technically complicated schematic of a space launch

This may disagree with your belief of watching a shuttle launch, such as the image in my previous post. However, look at this...

What goes up, must come down

Thrown over the horizon

 Actually the shuttle is like a ball which has been thrown incredibly quickly and falls off the edge of the Earth over the horizon. It falls over, and then falls forever. No more rocket fuel is required. It will continue to fall toward the Earth and always miss. It's a kind of perpetual motion. All satellites in space orbiting the Earth are all falling towards us in this way, but they all miss. So is the Moon. We're doing the same with the Sun. And the Sun and the Solar system is doing the same with the centre of our galaxy.

In fact, the worst thing a shuttle could do would be to launch vertically, as it would exhaust its fuel, start to decelerate, then come to a stop. It would then fall towards the Earth pretty much straight back down the way it came (a bit like Wily Coyote when he realises he's stepped over a cliff) and burn up in the atmosphere.

So why, if all of those things are under the influence of gravity, and there definitely is gravity in space, does it appear that astronauts are weightless?

Because it is due to their point of view. They are effectively in a lift, that is falling towards the Earth. As everything that falls in gravity falls at the same rate, they too are falling at the same rate as the 'lift'.

So, as the lift is falling, there is nothing to push back on their feet where they are standing. Relatively to them though, everything is still, and they are able to 'float'. In fact, if you were stood still by the shuttle, it would rush past you at around 17,500 mph as it falls towards Earth. To them, they are falling at the same rate as the shuttle so they are able to move around. It's a like a very long skydive without any air resistance in a lift that is doing the same thing at the same time.

It is actually BECAUSE of gravity that they are weightless! 

These facts are always interesting to me.  Yet it is very rare I come across a student who realises them.  It seems a shame that something so amazing and beautiful isn't explained to students in school - or that they can get a GCSE in physics without knowing any, er, physics.  

Space Oddity (Part I)

“And all the science, I don’t understand,

It’s just my job 5 days a week.”                                         

Elton John, Rocket Man

While I’m tutoring my students, I tend to unnerve them by suddenly asking:

• Is there gravity in space?

Going up?

 And

• When the space shuttle takes off, what path does it take?* 

Invariably, I get the wrong answers to these questions.  Especially if the student has a GCSE in physics.  Then it’s almost certain they’ll get it wrong.

So why is this?

How do I know they’re going to get these wrong?

Because they are questions that they are never asked.

Students are asked questions where they already have been given the answer in some previous lesson.  Then it’s just a question of whether they remember the answer.  Questions that are different from this in any way completely throw them.

This is because children are not educated, but fed information.  This is taken to be the same thing. 

Another example I saw in a school science textbook was, “Insulin converts glucose into glycogen.”  Test question – “What does insulin convert glucose into?”.  This doesn’t teach what glucose or glycogen are or why this is important, what they do or anything!  It just appears from outside that something is happening, something is being taught, when in fact absolutely nothing is going on. 

Richard Feynman, one of the most highly regarded theoretical physicists of the 20^th century and a Nobel prize winner, used to loathe this kind of education and first became aware of it in Brazil while on a visit there.  He noticed the students all passed the exams, but when they were asked a question that wasn’t the same as the exam, they had no idea of the answer or worse, how to figure it out.  He stated that ‘No physics is being taught in Brazil!’ even though there were many schools and universities churning out ‘physicists’ and almost caused a diplomatic incident.

Thinking differently

It was a theme he found himself returning to in America where he was asked to evaluate high school textbooks.  He found the same thing.  Even the vetting process for the choice of textbooks followed this ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ phenomenon as committee members voted on a book without reading it – which drove him mad. 

However, he was right.  This is what is happening in schools and textbooks in the UK.  Maths and science are taught in this way.  That is why children aren’t able to do these subjects, achieve nationally low pass rates and worse, lose interest in them.  They are not taught why things are, but how to pass an exam on it.

There can be nothing more dull then learning to pass an exam, the details of which mean nothing to you.  And when you ask why things are and show some curiosity, you are shouted down and told the immortal words, ‘It Just Is’.  I once discussed with a maths teacher why a minus times a minus is a plus – because she was complaining that her students were asking her why it was! – and I eventually got her to admit that she didn’t know why.  Of course, IT JUST IS.

So what’s the solution? 

My idea is to use what the students already know.  Use their intuition to teach them concepts.  Then when it has been confirmed they actually do understand the three rules of maths, use inductive learning to figure out all the techniques required to be able to manipulate numbers, algebra, trigonometry and calculus.  Because when you take this approach, it can be seen to be all the same.

Tutoring, this only takes a few days of one-to-one tuition.  I bet it would be more efficient to tutor each child individually for 3 days then to teach them nothing for 10 years.

I’ve had students in year 10 who when they first come to me, can’t multiply two numbers like 23 x 41.  If that’s the result of 10 years of class education, something isn’t working.  Even if they can multiply numbers together, they do it in a horrendously complicated way, either by the misnamed ‘Grid Method’ or by ‘Long’ Multiplication which is almost as bad.  But worse than that, try asking what multiplication is for.  What do we use it for?  They have no idea.  They’ve not been asked that one.  They can just do it.  Maybe.

They’re also not shown how to know if their answer is correct.  They have to ask the teacher ‘Is this right?’.  Instead, they should be able to check easily and quickly whether it is correct.  Why?  So they become independent learners, who use logical thinking skills to solve problems.  That is one of the main reasons to learn maths and science – apart from its applications. 

We could have a world where these subjects are exciting, interesting and spark creativity and new thinking.  Where a child asks…”Well, if that’s true, what about this situation?” and they come up with something new!  It’s time we think different.

I hope this is going to change in schools.

I would hope the students become inspired and energised.

But I think it’s gonna be a long, long time…

*these questions to be answered in Part II...see you then.

Titanium Isn't Bulletproof

“For well you know that it’s a fool, who plays it cool, by making his world a little colder.”  

Paul McCartney, Hey Jude

Properties of Titanium:

• High strength-to-weight ratio
• Ultimate Tensile Strength 434 MPa
• 45% lighter than steel
• Name originates from Titan as in ‘Titanic’

It is NOT bulletproof.*

Neither is the human body. 

Yet we claim to be.  When we go through relationship break-ups, difficult parental disagreements or emotionally trying times, we try to be tough and not show how much it hurt.

We see the hard men at the cinema.  Bruce Willis in well, any film really...shot, bleeding, in pain, tired…but he’s bulletproof to attacks and criticism.  Rocky Balboa…doesn’t matter how hard he gets hit, he gets up again.  Arnie, Keanu Reeves, Tom Cruise.  The list goes on. In literature, we have If by Rudyard Kipling, never breathing a word about his loss.  And heroes in novels, such as by Dick Francis, where it seems the main character is made of iron.

Emotions aren't bullet-proof

We’re indoctrinated into believing this stuff.  That’s one of the reasons, I believe, soldiers suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  They’re convinced that they’re not meant to find war emotional, but like it or not, their gut reacts before the brain.  They mistakenly believe they’re meant to be hard and should ‘man up’. 

Songs do the same thing.  We put them on the iPod – Fighter by Christina Aguilera, Titanium by David Guetta/Sia, Survivor by Destiny’s Child, I Will Survive by every karaoke singer in the world…and er, Bulletproof, by La Roux

But it’s all bluster.  Otherwise why would we even mention it?  Songs like this are deceptive and vengeful.  They are trying to get back at the person who caused the hurt, saying ‘Ah, but actually that didn’t hurt me, you should know.’ 

When actually it did.  (Alanis Morissette is better at this, she admits it hurt.)  Sheryl Crow has an attempt… but comes clean in the end – “It don’t hurt like it did, I can sing my song again…. It hurts worse, who do I kid?”

Criticisms are like bullets.  It doesn’t matter who they are from, they still tear open wounds.  We are not immune to them, we turn them over in our mind and try to figure out first, are they right? And second, why are they being so nasty?

As much as we’d like the criticisms to ricochet off, they certainly don’t.  Even if we give that outward impression. 

I don’t like to criticise people.  I avoid it whenever possible.  I don’t see any value in it.  Yes, there have been times when I have, out of frustration.  But I’m not sure criticism achieves anything.  It certainly has no advantages in education or when I tutor maths.  Before criticising, I try to think ‘What am I trying to achieve?’ and normally criticism has no place in that.

Some people are compulsive criticisers – their brains are hard-wired to it.  There was a car advert a few years ago where this lady was criticising the restaurant she was in, nit-picking about every little thing.  During the car journey she was silent.  As soon as she got out of the car, she restarted. 

Funny.  But there’s no joy in that.  How can there be wonderful, life-affirming, we’re-only-here-once JOY in pointing out what’s wrong with everything?  And how does it make the people you criticise feel?  Are you transmitting joy to them or sucking the life out of them?  Is that really what you’re trying to achieve?  Hope not.

I’m here to experience joy.

Since becoming a father, I’ve noticed that I am more susceptible to crying.  But even before then I would cry at moving films like Mr Holland’s Opus.  At the end especially, where he is made redundant and all his old students surprise him, honour him and perform his symphony.  That has me crying my eyes out.  (although it may have something to do with a teacher being recognised by his students – Freudian, maybe).  Now, I only have to hear the music and I choke up. 

There are many other examples.  Watching the Kelly Holmes 2004 800m and 1500m runs in the Olympic Games has the same effect.  And for some reason I don’t understand, so does BBC Sports Personality of The Year.  I can’t watch Children in Need – just can’t.

If people criticise me, it doesn’t ricochet.  I’m not bulletproof.  I don’t want to be.  I would lose so much.  You can’t have armour on and successfully connect with people.  Paul McCartney said it right:

“Remember, to let her under your skin, THEN you begin, to make it better.”^

Shoot me down, I will fall.  And it is not weakness to admit that.  It is strength. 

I am NOT titanium.

*Kevlar is bulletproof.  It’s UTS is 3,620 MPa.  About 8 times stronger than titanium.  As much as I love you Sia, get your engineering facts right J 

^For Beatles buffs, if you listen carefully, the actual recorded line is:

"Remember, to let her under your skin, CHORD! F*£king H*ll, THEN you begin, to make it better."

Feeling Good

... and The Cheryl Cole Paradigm


“Sleep in peace when day is done, that’s what I mean.”

Nina Simone

“Bye! Take care!”

That’s what my Aunt says to me when I leave her house.  It would always annoy me.  To me, it implied that the world is dangerous and I should be careful, even frightened of it.  I used to admonish her, “You shouldn’t say take care”, I’d moan.  And she looked put out. 

Now I welcome it.  And thank her wholeheartedly.  In fact, to anyone who says it, I respond “Thank you!! You too!”, because, I think now that ‘Take Care’ has another meaning. 

Take care of your appearance.

Take care of your health. 

Take care of your possessions. 

Take care in your work. 

Take care of everything you do.

And it serves as a reminder to do the right thing.

There are three advantages to it, I believe.  One, your life will become richer as your invest your heart into what you are doing.  Two, the world around you will notice that you take care of things and it may well engender their trust.  Three, the things you do will increase in quality.

“In this business, you want to be known as the Master or the Caretaker.  I’m known as ‘The Master’”.  So says the bodywork specialist, at McLaren supercars, whose job it is to make sure that their cars' exterior is perfect.  Do you think he will ever be out of a job with that attitude?

A ‘caretaker’ is seen as a lowly job with a free brown coat.  Actually, being known as the person who takes care is the highest honour with which you could be bestowed.  If you look at successful people, they take care over everything. 

Looking good, feeling good

Someone who reminds me of this is Cheryl Cole.  Yes, she’s pretty attractive and all that.  But she is also a paradigm of perfection.  Never a hair out of place.  You never see her unprepared.  She takes care.  So, people find her attractive.  It’s a virtuous circle.

I took care over a little project recently.  It took me little effort really.  But my project stood out and impressed the person who saw it.  Because I had taken care over it.  That was all.

In the maths books I write, and in my tutoring, I take exceeding care to get every word and nuance correct so the student floats through a world of understanding, pleasure, entertainment and regular penny-drop sensations, which leaves them wanting to continue.

Another phrase is ‘be careful’.  We take it to mean…’watch out!’.  But, literally it says ‘be full of care’.  That is a perfect statement and an audacious goal.  If we did everything in this way, taking care of the result; our homes would be cleaner, tidier, more organised.  As would our lives.

If we take care over every job we do, we will become known as the Caretaker.

We would feel good, and sleep in peace when day is done.

Take care.