Becoming an expert: is 10,000 hours still the mark?

Becoming an expert: is 10,000 hours still the mark?  

The notion has been circulating for decades: to become an expert, you need to practice for 10,000 hours (and in case you’re wondering just how long that is - and I was – if you practiced two hours a day for nearly 14 years, that would equal 10,000 hours). 

But the notion, like so many, has come under fire, leading to these poignant questions: does this theory apply equally to skills which are physical (e.g., tennis, violin), cognitive (e.g., chess) and social? And how do you account for the fact that some athletes, and chess players, become proficient in far less than 10,000 hours?  Further, is it any type of practice? Or something more specific?

The most recent challenge was logged by a group of psychologists from five universities (Michigan State, Rice, Southern Illinois, the University of Liverpool and Edith Cowman University in Australia). They rebuffed the 10,000-hour claim made popular by Malcolm Gladwell in his 1993 book Outliers. Said the researchers, as quoted by Shaunacy Ferro in a piece for fastcodesign.com:

"The evidence is quite clear that some people do reach an elite level of performance without copious practice, while other people fail to do so despite copious practice."

Both Gladwell and Andrew Ericsson (the Florida State University psychologist whose work generated the 10,000-hour finding) have taken issue with their critiques – Gladwell maintains that the rule applies to “cognitively demanding tasks” (e.g., chess, violin) “and not physical attributes,” according to a Forbes.com article. And Ericsson argues that “his critics had examined too many beginners rather than expert performers,” according to Ferro’s piece.

Practice, these critiques maintain, can only explain one-third of the variation in performance, according to Ferro, who concludes: “. . . practice alone won't make you Yo Yo Ma. It could also have to do with personality, the age you started, intelligence, or something else entirely.”

So what does it take, to become an expert?

Apparently, it’s something called “deliberate practice,” which its author maintains is neither work nor play: 

“Deliberate practice is . . . not just business as usual. . . . Deliberate practice is not work and it is not play. Those activities are important, but they don’t count toward your 10,000 hours. 

Work is where we exercise the skills we already have. . . . [The] performance improvement from time spent at work is minimal compared to time spent in deliberate practice. That fact that you’ve managed a team for 10 years doesn’t automatically make you a world-class manager. Work isn’t deliberate practice.”

So what is deliberate practice? According to expertenough.com: "Deliberate practice is a highly structured activity engaged in with the specific goal of improving performance. Deliberate practice is different from work, play and simple repetition of a task. It requires effort, it has no monetary reward, and it is not inherently enjoyable. When you engage in deliberate practice, improving your performance over time is your goal and motivation."

Daniel Goleman, in his book Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence, quoted Ericsson as saying:

“You don’t get benefits from mechanical repetition, but by adjusting your execution over and over to get closer to your goal.”

So, the question is, in your bid to become more proficient (say, at tennis, golf, or as a performer), how much “deliberate practice” are you putting in?  In other words, is your practice focused on improving?  Or is it more repetitious in nature? 

Think now, for a moment, about the world-class tennis athletes who took the world stage the last two weeks at the French Open in Paris. How many hours have they put in? And how many of those, do you think, involved deliberate practice?

The bottom line: it now seems a touch obvious that proficiency, in any realm, is more a matter of concentration and focus than mere hours.  In his book, Goleman noted:

“After about 50 hours of training – whether in skiing or driving – people get to that ‘good-enough’ performance level, where they can go through the motions more or less effortlessly. They no longer feel the need for concentrated practice, but are content to coast on what they’ve learned. No matter how much more they practice in this bottom-up mode, their improvement will be negligible.”

Or, perhaps, expertise is connected to love. Here’s what wisdomgroup.com had to say:

“The elite don’t just work harder than everybody else. At some point the elites fall in love with practice to the point where they want to do little else.”

##

Conservatives vs. liberals: who takes more risks? Why don’t they see eye to eye?

Conservatives vs. liberals: who takes more risks?  Why don’t they see eye to eye?

In business, who takes more risks – conservatives vs. liberals?  It’s the conservatives, according to a new study out of Ryerson University. Said the researchers:   

“Contrary to the widely held perception that, on average, conservatives are risk-averse and liberals risk-taking, we find that in the financial domain, political conservatives show a higher propensity to take risks. . . . ”

Specifically, the researchers, led by assistant professor Becky Choma, found that “when there is much to gain but also much to lose, political conservatives show a willingness to engage in risky financial activities.” The study abstract added: “[W]ith regard to new business ventures, conservatives were generally willing to take risks unless perceived risk was high and expected benefit was low, whereas liberals were generally unwilling to take risks unless perceived risk was low and expected benefit was high.”

Summarized Eric Dolan, writing for psypost.com: “Conservatives were . . .  more likely to endorse financial uncertainties in high-risk, high-reward business situations . . . .”

In conducting the study, Choma and her colleagues divided risk-taking into five domains: financial, ethical, health, social and recreational.  The study confirmed the notion that conservatives are more risk-averse than liberals in the recreational and ethical domains, explaining: “Liberals tend to be more comfortable than political conservatives with violating social rules and are open to novel and thrill-seeking experiences.”  

Why conservatives and liberals don’t see eye to eye

Biology may be at work, according to a study out of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 

In a series of experiments, researchers monitored physiological reactions and eye movements of study participants who were shown combinations of both pleasant and unpleasant images. According to a UNL study summary: “Conservatives reacted more strongly to, fixated more quickly on, and looked longer at the unpleasant images; liberals had stronger reactions to and looked longer at the pleasant images compared with conservatives.”

Observed lead author Mike Dodd, assistant professor of psychology: "It's been said that conservatives and liberals don't see things in the same way. . . . These findings make that clear -- quite literally."

Co-authors Kevin Smith and John Hibbing, both UNL political scientists, maintain that the study lends credibility to the notion that political leanings are, in part, linked to our biology. 

The UNL report quoted Hibbings, who said: “The results might mean that those on the right are more attuned and attentive to aversive elements in life and are more naturally inclined to confront them. From an evolutionary standpoint, that makes sense.”  The UNL report continued to quote Hibbings, who added: “The results also are consistent with conservatives' support of policies to protect society from perceived external threats (support for increased defense spending or opposition to immigration) and internal ones as well (support for traditional values and being tough on crime).”

The findings, according to Dodd, Smith and Hibbing, might provide a pathway to turn down political polarization in the country (the study was conducted prior to the 2012 presidential election).  Said the UNL report: “Rather than believing those with opposite political views are uninformed or willfully obtuse, the authors said, political tolerance could be enhanced if it was widely understood that political differences are based in part on our physiological and cognitive differences.”

Hibbings offered this final note (as quoted in the UNL report): "When conservatives say that liberals are out of it and just don't get it, from this standpoint, that's true. . . . And when liberals say 'What are (conservatives) so frightened of? Is the world really that dangerous?' Given what each side sees, what they pay attention to, what they physiologically experience -- the answer is both sides are right."

##

Food preference & personality: How strong a link?

Food preference & personality: How strong a link?

Can you trust a man who doesn’t like chocolate?

Will the smell of jasmine improve athletic performance?

What foods are considered aphrodisiacs?

If you prefer coffee over tea, what does that say about you?

Can green apples help ease the pain of migraines?

It’s undeniable, according to researchers and medical professionals – there’s a strong link between food preferences, personality and biology.

One of the foremost experts is Alan Hirsch, M.D, founder and neurological director of the Smell & Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago, and author of “What’s Your Food Sign: How to Use Food Clues to Find Lasting Love.”  In a far-ranging online Q&A, Hirsch revealed the following, based on his Foundation’s more-than-200 research studies: 

·         Aphrodisiacs – Said Hirsch: “For men, a combination of lavender and pumpkin pie, doughnut & black licorice, and pumpkin pie and doughnut; for women, Good & Plenty & cucumber, baby powder, and lavender & pumpkin pie.” Hirsch added: “The greatest inhibition for women is cherry and charcoal barbeque meat.”

One questioner asked Hirsch if she should put pumpkin pie on the Valentine’s table, to which Hirsch replied: “If your aim is to induce sexual arousal, lavender and pumpkin pie increase sexual arousal, but you should also be aware that every single odor that we testing increased sexual arousal in men.”  Later, one questioner asked Hirsch: “My Mom always told me that you can’t trust a guy who doesn’t like chocolate. Any truth?”  Answered Hirsch: “Our studies have suggested that you probably can’t trust any guy.”

·         Cravings – Hirsch explained: “Cravings may indicate underlying changes in mood state. At different times in the menstrual cycle, women crave chocolate especially when they feel mildly dysphoric. Possibly this is because chocolate raises brain serotonin levels, like a mini Prozac.”

·         Chocoholics – Hirsch was asked: “What does it say about someone’s personality if they are a severe chocoholic?” Said Hirsch: “We don’t know because too many people are chocoholics. However, if you prefer dark chocolate, you tend to be more extroverted.” 

·         Coffee vs. Tea – “Those who prefer coffee (over tea) are responsible, ambitious, and aggressive. . . . Tea lovers tend to prefer to be alone and at home,” said Hirsch, who later added: “Green tea lovers are outgoing, flirtatious, are more romantically compatible with those who prefer lemonade or decaf-iced tea.”

What does your coffee say about you?

A host of studies confirms the link between coffee and personality.  One recent observational study (of 1,000 coffee drinkers), led by clinical psychologist Dr. Ramani Durvasula, found a direct link between personality type and coffee preference.  Her findings, in brief, as reported by Emily Waters (in an article at www.psychcentral.com):

·         Black coffee? old school, purist;

·         Latte drinkers? comfort seekers, people pleasers, open book;

·         Frozen/blended coffee drinks? socially bold, trendsetters;

·         Decaf/soy milk/very specifically ordered coffee?  controlling, obsessive, perfectionist;

·         Instant coffee?  laid back, procrastinate, traditional in some ways.

Similar links were found by Judi James and James Moore, in their book “The You Code.” A report at www.hubpages.com summarized their findings: 

·         Black coffee?  Sharp, neat, to the point, minimalists;

·         Espresso? Experienced, exciting, energetic, fast talkers, moody;

·         Cappuccino? cute, loving, warm, passionate, caring, creative, honest, kind, hard working;

·         Latte? super laid back, balm, supportive in a relationship, indecisive;

·         Mocha? romantics, affectionate, compassionate, insightful, can be unreliable;

·         Frappucino? adventurous, make friends easily, often life of the party;

·         Decaf Soy Milk? attention seeker, self-righteous, can be high maintenance.

The Power of Aroma?

At www.scienceofsmell.com, (the web site for Hirsch’s Foundation), several studies are cited which demonstrate the power of aroma.  Here are two examples?  

·         Jasmine Aroma – “Our team has found that individuals’ reaction times are faster when exposed to jasmine aroma than when exposed to no odor at all. The results indicate that jasmine may be useful in enhancing athletic performance and facilitating physical therapy and rehabilitation.”

·         Migraines – “Our research has found that headache patients who find the scent of green apple to be pleasant experience a significant reduction in the severity of their migraines upon inhaling the fragrance.”

##

Want to become more persuasive?

Want to become more persuasive?

Improve your eye contact.

Want to expand your friend circle?  Enhance your chance of getting a promotion? Improve your eye contact.

Learning to use your eyes – not just to see, but to communicate – is a critical life skill (yet one we’re rarely taught). And worries grow that current societal trends – more time glancing at the Smartphone, less time making eye contact with others – may interfere with long-term relationship development (more on that developing story, in future columns).

How important is eye contact?  A legion of studies link eye contact to respect, sincerity, confidence and credibility. And eyes often reveal more to the listener than words or facial expressions. 

In one study, in which verbal and nonverbal signals contradicted one another, people were five times more likely to believe the nonverbal signals. In another study, in which individuals were asked to read emotions from photographs (individuals were shown either the whole face or just the eyes), “seeing the eyes alone produced significantly better performance than seeing the mouth alone, and was as informative as the rest of the face,” according to an article in PsyBlog, at www.spring.org.uk.

Other research findings: 

·         Standing your ground – According to Sue Shellenbarger, in an online piece for the Wall Street Journal: “Prolonged eye contact during a debate or disagreement can signal that you're standing your ground.” On a related note, one executive, after viewing a video of himself in presentations, noticed that he “instinctively . . . would avoid eye contact” when he was uncertain about a topic (subsequent training enabled him to break this habit).

·         Connection time – In groups, it’s recommended that people look directly at another person for about 3-5 seconds, but when it’s one-to-one the recommended time increases to 7-10 seconds. In her article for the Wall Street Journal, Shellenbarger noted: “Adults make eye contact between 30% and 60% of the time in an average conversation, according to the communications-analytics company Quantified Impressions. But the Austin, Texas, company says people should be making eye contact 60% to 70% of the time to create a sense of emotional connection, according to its analysis of 3,000 people speaking to individuals and groups.”

·         Benefits of strong eye contact – A group called Conversation Aid, cited in an article by Michigan State University Extension, explains these major benefits:

a.       “Increased eye contact is associated with credibility and dominance;”

b.      “Lack of contact and blinking are interpreted as submissive;” and

c.       High status people tend to look longer at people they’re talking to, compared with others.  

·         Cultural differences – Not every culture, of course, encourages more eye contact. The PsyBlog article points out that “In many Eastern and some Caribbean cultures, meeting another's eyes can be rude. Asians are more likely than Westerners to regard a person who makes eye contact as angry or unapproachable, says a 2013 study in the online scientific journal PLOS ONE.” And PsyBlog adds: “Westerners do not have the monopoly on high levels of eye contact . . . In some Arab countries people often look much more intently into each other’s eyes than many Westerners would.”

How do I increase my eye contact?

Here are a few key recommendations, crafted by Steven Aitchison, at www.stevenaitchison.co.uk:

1.       Talking to an individual – Aitchison recommends breaking eye contact every 5 seconds or so, and adds: “When breaking the eye contact, don’t look down as this might indicate the ending of your part of the conversation. Instead, look up or to the side as if you’re remembering something.  Try it just now: don’t move your head and think about the first time you started school.  You will notice your eyes might move up or to the side as you try to remember this.  So when your listener sees this they will think you are trying to remember something and keep on listening to you.”

2.       Listening to someone – Naturally, Aitchison cautions against staring (it makes the talker uncomfortable) and therefore recommends “The Triangle” – that is, “look at one eye for about 5 seconds, look at the other eye for 5 seconds and then look at the mouth for 5 seconds and keep on rotating in this way.” He adds: “If you feel you are staring at them, move to their other features such as their lips, their cheeks, their nose and then back to their eyes.”

##

What parenting technique should be dropped from the tool kit?

What parenting technique should be dropped from the tool kit?

The research could not be more clear.  A new book, pulling together four decades of research on this parenting technique, shows that this method, while still widely used, has been linked to a host of negative long-term consequences. Research maintains that this technique slows mental development, interferes with language development, promotes weaker emotional ties between parent and child and increases the risk of aggressive behavior later in life.

The technique is familiar to us all – as children, we probably experienced it; as older parents, we might have used it; as current parents, we might be using it now.  One recent study found that over 50% of parents still use this technique.  Other research, referenced in the book by Murray Straus, Emily Douglas and Rose Anne Medeiros, said that roughly 90% of U.S. parents still use it. 

The technique, of course, is spanking.  And the research, from 32 countries, points in only one direction.  Noted Straus, as quoted at psyblog:

“More than 20 nations now prohibit spanking by parents. There is an emerging consensus that this is a fundamental human right for children. The United Nations is asking all nations to prohibit spanking. Never spanking will not only reduce the risk of delinquency and mental health problems, it also will bring to children the right to be free of physical attacks in the name of discipline, just as wives gained that human right a century and a quarter ago.”

Why is spanking still in vogue?  In 1968, a U.S. national survey found that 94% of U.S. parents believed that spanking is sometimes necessary; that number dropped to 70% in 2010.  But still, 70%?

It’s easy to see why it’s still around. It works. Plain and simple. It stops the undesired behavior, both immediately and, most probably, for the next period of time. But here’s the crazy part: it’s no more effective than the other eight methods of discipline (as outlined in the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory) which include time outs and denial of privileges.  Plus, of course, these other methods aren’t associated with long-term drawbacks.

Author, professor and researcher Michael MacKenize (Columbia University School of Social Work) told the NY Times: “Spanking does make the kid stop. . . . It gives the immediate feedback that it’s working. But the goal is to have kids regulate themselves over time. And in that, spanking fails.” Along these lines, author Kim Oliver, in a piece for psychcentral.com, noted that “the Latin root of discipline means ‘to teach,’ while the Latin root of punishment means ‘to inflict pain’.”

So, why does spanking persist? 

It appears, from all accounts, that parents are relying more on their personal history (e.g., “I was spanked and I turned out OK, so what’s the big deal?”) than the research.   But times are changing.  In their book “The Primordial Violence: Spanking Children, Psychological Development, Violence, and Crime,” Straus and his co-authors point out:

“[Parents] who believe that a good hard spanking is sometimes necessary dismiss the idea that spanking is a form of violence.  Before the largely feminist-based effort to end violence against women, if a husband occasionally slapped his wife, it was considered a family fight, not family violence.” Later the authors add: “. . . the longitudinal studies summarized in Chapter 19 show that the more a child was spanked, the greater the probability that he or she will approve of or engage in violence and other crime later in life.”

Developmental psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff, to the Huffington Post: “There's just no evidence that spanking is good for kids. . . . Spanking models aggression as a way of solving problems, that you can hit people and get what you want."

Added author and Ph.D. Darcia Narvaez, writing for Psychology Today: “Spanking does not convey positive guidance on how to behave in a particular situation . . . ” and “it destroys trust. Children trust their parents just a little less. They build a self-protective shield around themselves in terms of relationships generally. Children increasingly mistrust the motives of others and become more threat reactive. It leads to aggressive expectations—they are ready to aggress first before they are aggressed against.”

##

Sleep: is it normal to wake up in the middle of the night?

Sleep: is it normal to wake up in the middle of the night?

Forget everything you know about sleep.  Doing so just might help you get a full night’s rest.

Let’s start with the notion that human beings need 8 hours of continuous sleep.  We probably don’t.  But thinking that we do can easily trigger sleep anxiety, which on its own can cause a person nightmares.  

Blame Thomas Edison, if you must (or, perhaps, the city of Paris which in 1667 became the first city in the world to light its streets).  Prior to the advent of the light bulb, and the Industrial Revolution, human beings were known to sleep in two segments, known as “first sleep” and “second sleep.”  That is, people would go to bed after sunset, wake up roughly four hours later (for an hour or two, or three), then return to bed for their “second sleep,” of another lengthy duration. 

Sleep psychologist Gregg Jacobs, as quoted in a BBC World Service report, maintains that “Waking up during the night is part of normal human physiology.”  And historian and author Roger Ekirch would quite agree.  The Virginia Tech professor spent over 15 years researching historical sleep patterns and revealed his findings on segmented sleep in a landmark paper, published in 2001 (four years later he authored a book titled “At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past”). 

Ekirch, quoted in the web site www.lifeslittlemysteries.com, said that sometime in the 18^th and 19^th century “language changed and references to segmented sleep fell away. . . . Now people call it insomnia.” By the 1920s, according to the BBC article, “the idea of a first and second sleep had receded entirely from our social consciousness.” The BBC article continued: “[Ekirch] attributes the initial shift to improvements in street lighting, domestic lighting and a surge in coffee houses – which were sometimes open all night. As the night became a place for legitimate activity and as that activity increased, the length of time people could dedicate to rest dwindled.”

The notion that segmented sleep is our natural state is backed by research undertaken 20 years ago by Thomas Wehr, a psychiatrist at the National Institute of Health. Explains an article at www.t-nation.com:

“Wehr did experiments where he kept humans away from artificial light of any kind. After a couple of weeks, they started to fall asleep early – right after the sun went down – and then wake up after midnight. They'd lie awake for an hour or so and then fall back asleep. . . . Deprived of light, the subjects resorted to historical norms, dividing up their sleep into two distinct periods. . . . Wehr also found that this period between the first sleep and the second sleep was the most relaxing time of the day, almost akin to some yogi-like meditation. He confirmed this observation biochemically as he found that subjects were pumping out large amounts of prolactin, the post-orgasm hormone, during this mid-sleep period.”

How much sleep do we need? Is 8 hours the right number?

Not only is the verdict out on this, but one study in particular – collating results from a million subjects – found that people who averaged between 6-7 hours a night ended up living longer than those who grabbed 8 hours (or more).  Given that the U.S., by and large, is a sleep-deprived nation, no one is advocating that people cut back on their sleep, but the notion that you’re getting less than eight a night might again be causing unnecessary sleep anxiety. 

And how about naps?  How effective are they? 

Wrote David Randall, in an article for the New York Times: “The idea that we should sleep in eight-hour chunks is relatively recent. The world’s population sleeps in various and surprising ways. Millions of Chinese workers continue to put their heads on their desks for a nap of an hour or so after lunch, for example, and daytime napping is common from India to Spain.”

Robert Stickgold, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, proposes that sleep — including short naps that include deep sleep — offers our brains the chance to decide what new information to keep and what to toss. Said Stickgold, in an NRP-led roundtable discussion on sleep:

“. . . [W]e've done some studies looking at naps in terms of the memory processing and have been rather stunned, really, by the fact that in almost every experiment that we've tried, an hour-and-a-half nap seems to do as much good for memory processing as an entire night of sleep, and we continue to ponder that and sort of conclude that OK, we just don't get it yet. But in studies where six hours of sleep at night seems not enough to lead to consolidation of memory of a particular task, an-hour-and-a-half nap will. So there's something, at least from the memory perspective, rather magical and unusually efficient about napping as opposed to nocturnal sleep.”

David Dinges, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine undertook a series of studies on the effectiveness of naps, giving volunteers a series of tests on memory, alertness, response time, and other cognitive skills (they also measured biological systems, such as core body temperature and hormone levels). No surprise, Dinges found that longer naps were better, but some cognitive functions benefited more from napping than others.  Said Dinges, as quoted in a NASA article: "To our amazement, working memory performance benefited from the naps, [but] vigilance and basic alertness did not benefit very much," Dinges continued: "Working memory . . . involves focusing attention on one task while holding other tasks in memory ... and is a fundamental ability critical to performing complex work [like piloting a spaceship]. A poor working memory could result in errors."

Concluded Randall, author of Dreamland: Adventures in the Strange Science of Sleep: “Strategic napping . . . could benefit us all. No one argues that sleep is not essential. But freeing ourselves from needlessly rigid and quite possibly outdated ideas about what constitutes a good night’s sleep might help put many of us to rest, in a healthy and productive, if not eight-hour long, block.”

##

Where are you from? (not such a simple question)

Where are you from? (not such a simple question)

“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new sights, but in looking with new eyes.” – Marcel Proust

Give it a try. The next time you walk into Subway on Daniel Island, ask my good friend David where he’s from.  You’ll certainly enjoy his answer, a simple: “Planet Earth.”

Our planet has seen the birth of more than 110 billion people – 7 billion of whom now roam the earth.  I often refer to these 7 billion as “fellow travelers,” given that we travel together through space – same vehicle, same direction, same course. And, by and large, we do the same things – look after our families, look after each other, explore, create, connect.

Nonetheless, we consistently draw lines that separate us from one another – through religion, race, nationality, economics or politics.

Four years ago, NPR host Michele Norris created The Race Card Project “to solicit people’s frank, unfiltered thoughts on race,” according to an article in The Atlantic. Since then, the article explained, “she has received tens of thousands of responses, from people in 63 countries” and one of the most common submissions, Norris explains, “is some formulation of ‘So, where are you really from?’ Adds Norris, as quoted in the Atlantic: “To a lot of people that hits their ear the wrong way. It feels like someone is trying to point out their otherness: ‘You’re quite obviously not American, so where are you from?’”

I must admit, when I hear someone with an accent (whether I’m hopping a cab to the airport or ordering a drink at a corner café), I frequently ask: “Where are you from?” I hope that I’m not offending anyone, and I’m asking out of genuine interest in their story, their background, their life. I view the question as a simple social rejoinder, a way to connect with a fellow traveler.  But for many, I now realize, particularly Americans who (forgive the phrase) don’t “look” American, it’s often not a happy question.

Listen to Teresa Volcheck of Des Moines, Iowa, who shared her thoughts with The Race Card Project: 

“I am a Korean adoptee, raised in central Nebraska. I do not have an accent. I had a Swedish last name growing up and now have a Czech last name. I often get asked, where are you from? I say, ‘Nebraska.’ Then I get, “Really, where are you from?’ I have never self-identified as Korean-American and find it puzzling that people need to know this information. I do not know my biological family. I have a Korean adopted brother and growing up, we were often asked if we were REAL brother and sister (we are not biologically related). Is ‘real’ and ‘biological’ the same? Isn’t family more than just blood relations?”

Or listen to cartoonist Vishavjit Singh:

" ‘Where are you from?’ This is one of the most common questions hurled my way in public. My quick response is: from right here in the U.S. For many this is not a satisfying response, so they prod further. But where are you from really? Okay, I am from all over. Born in Washington, DC, I spent my childhood in India, went to college and graduate school in California, then moved to the East Coast. So you are from India? No, my parents are, but I am American.

“That’s the end of this discourse in just about all instances. The innate urge on the part of many of my fellow Americans to somehow place me firmly in the ‘foreign’ category is amusing and frustrating at the same time. There is no such thing as an American ‘look’, yet the juxtaposition of beard and turban in our contemporary times seems to mark me as the ultimate ‘other’.

“I am a cartoonist, a writer, a costume player, a software engineer, married, turbaned, bearded, American, Sikh -- just to name a few. While all of these identifications are true, they don’t contain the essence of who I am.”

The Great Floating Tribe

In a stirring TED talk, global author Pico Iyer talks about the “great floating tribe,” noting that “the number of people living in countries not their own now comes to 220 million, and that’s an almost unimaginable number.” The “age of movement,” Iyer points out, allows us to now “choose our sense of home, create our sense of community, fashion our sense of self, and in so doing maybe step a little beyond some of the black and white divisions of our grandparents' age. No coincidence that the president of the strongest nation on Earth is half-Kenyan, partly raised in Indonesia, has a Chinese-Canadian brother-in-law.”

Adds Iyer:

“I think the age of movement brings exhilarating new possibilities. Certainly when I'm traveling, especially to the major cities of the world, the typical person I meet today will be, let's say, a half-Korean, half-German young woman living in Paris. And as soon as she meets a half-Thai, half-Canadian young guy from Edinburgh, she recognizes him as kin. She realizes that she probably has much more in common with him than with anybody entirely of Korea or entirely of Germany. So they become friends. They fall in love. They move to New York City. Or Edinburgh.

“And the little girl who arises out of their union will of course be not Korean or German or French or Thai or Scotch or Canadian or even American, but a wonderful and constantly evolving mix of all those places. And potentially, everything about the way that young woman dreams about the world, writes about the world, thinks about the world, could be something different, because it comes out of this almost unprecedented blend of cultures.”

So the next time you ask a fellow traveler “Where are you from?,” be mindful. The question holds great power – to connect, or divide.  It all depends on our intent. 

##