Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

While I am not fit to judge goodness, I do admire those who find and exhibit grace and are truly professional in all aspects of their lives, not just in public situations. I'd like to believe G.P. is more than putting on a face to do business; that it is the end rather than the means.

I hope G.P. is a tool that uses us, rather than the other way around.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

i think everyone is looking at this way too hard. the FIRST program is a community, i wouldnt consider equality as a major factor in a community this large. communisim will never work because of the fact that in society, people cannot quite grasp the concept of equality. i believe we should concentrate on opprotunity, because thats one reason we are all here. in a competition, equality would just be boring.

im not here to wage war... just throwing in my idea

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

To address Tim's question, it's first a matter of identifying that there's a problem. Can I perceive something as being a problem, while the person responsible for it sees nothing wrong? Of course; so it's implicit that I'm referring to my own opinion that a problem exists. Having decided that there's something wrong, I will consider that I may not be appropriately qualified to address it. Maybe I've got problems of my own that demand my immediate, undivided attention. If that's so, then so be it—maybe I can enlist other assistance, maybe I'll just decide to forget about it. But that's not an automatic choice.

So, when I do go ahead and offer assistance, it's because I think that I've got something of value to add. Now, if I've established that something is wrong, and further, that I can make a useful contribution, and that I'm not busy with something more important, isn't it a question of "why not assist"? I know, sometimes people want to be left alone in their misery—I can empathize with that. But on the other hand, if they're complaining about it on ChiefDelphi, or look like they're struggling with it in the pits, I'd have to say that it's a safe bet that they're open to the idea of assistance, in some form or another.

As an example, the fact that my car's oil pressure gauge fluctuates for reasons that I don't quite understand does not disqualify me from offering advice on oil pumps. Why? Because despite the apparent lack of competence, I'm actually quite experienced with how oil pumps work—the fact that I have an unresolved (yet related) problem of my own doesn't necessarily prohibit me from applying what knowledge I do have. This is the sort of thing that I take issue with—exemplified in Cody's statement that "[he] definitely won't correct someone else's problems until [he has] fixed all of [his] own". It's too dogmatic, too rigid, and seems to me to support the idea that only the learned masters with no gaps in their knowledge are qualified to make pronouncements about the way things ought to be. Sure, the assistance of a master might be great—but in the absence of such a person, isn't it better to rely on the experience of someone who's at least familiar with the problem, and despite some gaps of knowledge, has a good grasp of what's going on? And even in the presence of a master, it is inconceivable that I might still have something to add? After all, surely we can accept that other perspectives can lead to creative solutions.

Similarly, Genia's example of constructive criticism is quite appropriate. Again, someone who's had their own problems, or who is currently dealing with their own problems might be just the person to make an appropriate observation. If they hold their tongues, will their past mistakes be repeated in others' work? Learning from your own mistakes is good, but learning from someone else's is often better.

Also, if someone doesn't like my proposed solution to a problem, then they're usually under no obligation to follow it. I don't pretend to offer unilaterally correct advice; what I give is presented in good faith, and with some measure of competence, but with no warranty, express or implied.

I realize that imposing myself in a situation, and providing unwanted advice may not endear me to people in general. And for the most part, I would avoid this, to limit conflict. But in certain situations, such as when I'm performing the role of a robot inspector, I feel that it's more important to offer the advice, wanted or not, because it will simplify matters on the whole. On several occasions, I've walked past a pit, and noticed something amiss. Sometimes it was a rule violation, sometimes a safety hazard, sometimes a potential failure mode waiting to happen. Whatever it is, when I'm wearing the robot inspector hat (figuratively :) ), I can either deal with it then and there, and risk the ire of a team that didn't want to hear about it, or deal with it later, as the team undergoes their inspection and finds out that there's a problem, or when someone gets hurt. For everyone's sake, it's easier to find and fix the problem in advance, rather than hope that it will be discovered in time to prevent whatever calamity is imminent.

So, maybe that explains better what I couldn't really convey in the previous, shorter, post. It's not about promoting conflict, or an air of superiority; it's about efficiently solving problems in general, rather than limiting my efforts to only those problems which directly affect me. In so doing, it seems to me that I can make more effective use of my knowledge, and improve other peoples' experiences, rather than just my own.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

Maybe I don't get exactly what this has turned into...

Nobody said that they didn't want to be in FIRST.

All I was originally trying to say can almost be summed up in one example:


Woodie Flowers is the most Graciously Professional guy that I know of, yet he doesn't go around letting every single person know how great he is; he doesn't act the way he does for recognition, He does it because it is the right thing to do.

When someone does something wrong, and then lets you know about it... you shouldn't yell at him because it will make you look better to others, you should quietly guide him in the right direction.

That being said, I have noticed a number of people posting NOT to help the person that is the focus of their post, but to be looked upon as more righteous themselves.
You can see this when someone reprimands someone else openly for doing something wrong, And then Thirty more people say the exact same thing. If it has already been said, then saying it again will only make the person who is the focus feel ganged up upon.
PMing him/her with what you have to say is much less publicly embarrassing to them, and unless you are only posting what you are to get recognition... you should have no problem with it.





NOTE: This thread IS NOT actually about the Soda being smuggled into an arena, but it is about an overall trend Ive been seeing.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

and interesting point, but you gotta start somewhere.

GP is most powerful when you practice it knowing that you dont feel like being gracious or professional right at this moment. If someone on your team screws up something important, at a critical point, you may feel like blowing up in their face, and telling them what an idiot they are, and how they have ruined everything for the whole team. Its perfectly normal to feel that way, and blowing up would be the normal human response.

But if you 'remember your training' and instead you tell yourself 'OK, mistakes and failures have occurred - we are all human - we all make mistakes - this person deserves to be treated with respect as a professional...' and you instead start dealing with the problem, instead of attacking the person

then all that energy gets focused on solving the problem, instead of spewing anger.

Does that change you on the inside? Will you not have the same tendency to want to explode the next time things go wrong? I gotta say no (from my own experience). When something goes wrong and you are blindsided when you are tired or overwhelmed you are still gonna have that knee-jerk reflex desire to blow up.

That is when you have to count to ten, and consciously choose to use GP to handle the situation. I think we have not changed on the inside, we have learned a better way. The underlying emotions and feelings will still always be there.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

Yeah this dude is right. I've been reading this thread for like 5 minutes and it's just one big arguement.

SO ANYWAY...can one of you programmers out there somehow get me more sources on Limewire? It's driving me insane. come on now.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

To answer the question as asked:

We think we are better because that's how we become better.

Choose to think of yourself in a particular way, and you will act to match your expectations. "Being better" is a goal, and a very effective way to attain that goal is to behave as if you were already better.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

I know this thread is growing longer and longer like Rip Van Winkle's beard -
but I've been thinking about Cody's initial post and some afterwards and I have a story about one of my first mentors when I was a teenager. I did a search to see if I have posted this before and nothing came up.
keyword: wheel barrow
keyword: elephant dung

I think I'm safe in thinking that I have not posted this story.

My 9th grade science teacher was a woman who was in her early 50's. (I'm now older than she was at the time of this story. How about t-h-a-t!) She had a wonderful knot of hair that twisted and turned on the back of her head. It was a bun but she made it more like a Celtic knot. Because she could. I think she did it to give us a focus when she was turned to the board, writing.

I was not the most studious student or the brightest. I was average. But for some reason she saw something in me - as she did all of her students - :)
One day she came into the classroom with enormous bandages on both of her knees. I was very concerned because I could see seepage and knew it must be painful. When I asked, she responded that she had decided it was time to learn to ride the bicycle. It was something she had wanted to do and now was a good time. The road that she learned on was gravel and her husband had given her a wee bit too much of a push. Down she went on both knees, badly. She smiled and said she couldn't wait til the next weekend and she could try again.

We had a circus that would visit our town every spring. One day she said that she was going to the circus after school. With a smile she told me that the elephant trainers allowed her to load the elephant dung in her wheel barrow for her to take home to her garden. She had a large garden whose produce always won ribbons at the county fair. She claimed it was the elephant dung that she used in her garden each spring.

I was 15, a teenager and very shy. I had absolutely no idea how on earth I was ever going to be as creative or as funny or as charming as my science teacher but I decided she was my role model. Others have entered my life as I've grown but she was one of the major ones who has shaped and guided me all of these years and continues to. Maybe trying to be more like her when I was 15, 16, 17 - could have been seen as a stretch by my peers and adults around me. But it gave me a roadmap and a path, helping me form myself into the adult I wanted to be. I am not my science teacher but I think sometimes a glimpse of her humor pops out.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

I think the big thing that separates FIRST people from the rest of the world is our selflessness.

Dean Kamen created the FIRST organization, not to make money, but to advance humanity with no benefit to himself. Dean's spirit of the competition is shared with all of the FIRST teams who work to the bone for 6 weeks to be innovative, teach, and problem solve their way into the competition.

Unlike sport atheletes who compete for money, scholarships, and fame, FIRST atheletes only compete for themselves to carve out our technological future. Unlike musicians who compete for notoriety, glory, and contracting deals, FIRST specialists train their hands and their minds to familiarize themselves with engineering so that they can teach and provide engineering technologies in the future. Unlike race car drivers who are friends only with those people who are friends on the track, FIRST members stay friends and make friends on the competition grounds and off.

FIRST people may not be better than anyone else on the individual scale, but FIRST people share a degree of selflessness that is on a far higher level than the average people. There may not be anything other than the FIRST attitude and spirit that separates FIRST people from other people, but that attitude is what will carry our society into the future on the wings of technology and engineering, a future that we can be proud of founding even now while the spirit is still growing in our common culture.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

It's like a pack-a-day chain smoker telling his grandson to never start smoking, or a homeless person coming up to you on the streets telling you to stay in school and get an education. Both of the sources had their problems, and both are now suffering for the rest of their lives because of it. The only thing they are doing by offering advice is to save someone else from the same fate.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

FIRST is not here to correct our morals, and make us "better people". FIRST tries to spread science and technology, and create an atmosphere in which science and technology are common aspirations of the youth.
But, in order for FIRST to succeed in it's goal, it recquires growth. Growth in membership. Growth in teams. Growth in popularity. Growth in publicity. Growth in admiration. Growth in knowledge. Growth awareness. Growth in supporters. Etc etc etc.
In order to grow, FIRST must present a positive image. A portion of that image is a reflection of the behavior and characteristics of the membership of FIRST. So, in some extraordinarily winding and twisted way, FIRST, or rather those who want FIRST to suceed, must present a positive moral image.
A mother will not allow her child to participate in an activity known for it's vulgarity and depravity. A school would never support such an activity. I'm not saying we're perfect. I'm not saying we should be perfect, nor even strive for perfection. I'm just saying that we cannot be terrible.
Think of the NBA. The National Basketball Association was struggling with an image problem. It had the "brawl" between the Pacers and Pistons. It had one of it's superstars charged with sexual assault. The NBA commissioner, David Stern, tried to rehaul the image of his league. The dress code, etc, went into effect. No, the image isn't perfect. No, the NBA's record isn't pristine. But, yes, it was much much better this year.
Whether it was the direct cause of this thread or not, that Mountain Dew was, at least partially, the catalyst for the creation of this thread, at this time. The whole issue has been blown horribly out of proportion. "Smuggling" Mountain Dew into a convention will not scar FIRST's image, who cares. That's not a big deal. If they were smuggling drugs or a corpse or something, then let's talk.
FIRST's message is not to correct morals, but in some ways, it recquires at least decent morals to have its message spread. No, we are not "better people". No, we don't need to be. But we need to be "decent people". It is up to you whether being a decent person includes your efforts to help others "improve" themselves. Everything is in the eyes of the beholder.
This is my opinion, what Cody expressed was his. You must think for yourself, and make your own judgements about how to be a "good" human being. It is all personal preferance.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

Sean said something like what I want to say, but since he took a different spin on it I'll go ahead and post mine.

FIRST was not founded to change our morals and make us into "better" people; that's been said in this thread numerous times. FIRST's primary purpose always has and always should be to inspire students to participate in a career in science and engineering. That is why teams are formed; that is the idea behind the whole program. That's why we are here.

Now, imagine you're a mentor on a rookie team back when the competition was just starting. You're donating all this time and energy to this program that has the potential to so greatly benefit the students. Are you going to only teach them about science and technology, just that and nothing else? Are you going to look the other way if the students for some reason act less-than-maturely or in a way that's distasteful, rude, disrespectful, or harmful? Mentors generally want to help their students learn and grow, and that really isn't contained simply in learning about the robot and growing in your mechanical or programming skills. If the mentors want to help the students grow in those areas, doesn't it often spill over into helping them grow as people? If you have one, chances are you have the other with it whether you realize it or not. That seems like a simple fact of the way FIRST mentors are: they want to see their students grow in every way possible.

To me, that seems like it's at least partly why FIRSTers are expected to be morally upright and generally good people. I did not say better people; I said good people. The FIRST community has created a mini-society where it's not acceptable to be rude, dishonest, or a number of other things. That doesn't mean the FIRST community is better than the rest of society and it doesn't mean those things don't still happen. Of course they do; it's part of human nature to be rude when events aren't going our way. But in FIRST more so than in many other groups, it's just plain less acceptable. It's more expected that you act in a graciously professional way.

In sports, you don't generally cut your opponent any slack, and that's expected and perfectly acceptable to pretty much everyone involved. In FIRST, you often see teams helping out teams that need it, knowing full well they'll be competing against each other later. You see teams who damaged an opponent's robot going over to offer to help fix it after the match. You see teams calling a timeout for an opponent during the finals of a regional, teams that are already down by one match. I was lucky enough to not only see that twice this year, but be on one of the two alliances involved both times, once on each end of it. At Chesapeake when it was first suggested that our alliance call our timeout for our opponent, I remember remarking to our driver that it was "the FIRST way to do it." I doubt you will see that in professional sports, because it's acceptable not to do so. That doesn't mean FIRST is better, but it IS different.

FIRST may not have started out to change the way people act, but it has come to symbolize it in a way for many people. Because it has evolved with the idea that Gracious Professionalism should be practiced in all situations, not because that's its purpose. We as a community are not better, we simply are how we are.

My $.02 (although I think that was at least a nickle's worth; I didn't mean for it to be so long... :o )

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

I take GP as kind of a zen thing. I just let that gracious professionalism flow out when it does, and just let it happen. When we become more worry free, we are less focused on ours and others' flaws, and are more focused on how to improve the things we hold valuable. I think trying too hard to be GP might make you look like a self-righteous prick, and not having any GP might make you look like, well, a regular prick.

The question I ask myself when I come across conflict is this:
"do i need to make a big deal out of this?"
Almost all the time, the answer is no, and I don't let anything get the better of me.

I never saw FIRST as a perfect community and never knew that anyone ever thought it was. Of course we are all humans who invest so much emotion in what we do, that sometimes we lose our composure, and act in ways that are not "FIRST-ish," like cheating, or being disrespectful. But it happens and it just needs to be accepted, and when we accept it, we can fix it.

As long as the FIRST community is majority human, and minority robot, you'll never have a perfect community.

I also never knew that FIRSTers ever considered themselves to be so high and mighty. Sure, we may be looking at the world's future innovators, but that doesn't make anyone more righteous. It's just a career path. FIRSTers aren't superheroes, deities, invincible, or perfect. We just have a lifestyle that is different than many others, we have different priorities, different things we value, and we should take pride in our accomplishments only if it is appropriate.

And different does not mean better. Perhaps I never noticed so much moral arrogance because I never had it myself, nor did I ever seek it out or looked for it. All I ever saw as a student and see now as a mentor is that I'm in a really cool program where we compete with robots and inspire students, where being considerate to others is kind of a default. Now, is that a difficult concept to grasp at all, or one that even implies that we think of ourselves as better? I think not.

The true problem here may just be an epidemic of "butthurt-itis maximus."
My cure: just chill the heck out, have fun, and let the GP flow.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

Haha I didn't even notice the dates! I clicked on it from the posts that show up at the top of the chief delphi page. I thought it was recent, but apparently not! You and I should delete our posts before this thread gets active again and we open up a can of worms.

Re: Why do we think we are better?
 

Nothing wrong with getting some new perspectives on the subject. I know my perspectives have changed a bit since then.