Coffee – or anything, really, that contains caffeine is something that was strictly off limits for me as a kid. I was told that coffee would stunt my growth… and even though I snuck a few cups here and there when I was around 9 or 10, I still ended up around 6 feet 4 inches tall. The good news is — research agrees that the growth stunting impacts of coffee aren’t really a thing.

But that’s not to say that coffee (or caffeine) don’t have an impact on kids. As Dr. Nicole Caldwell, assistant professor of pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio told Live Science, quote:

As far as the FDA goes, there are no current guidelines for caffeine consumption. The Canadian government has some guidelines. For children aged 4-6 years, the maximum recommended intake is 45 milligrams a day — about as much caffeine as found in a 12-ounce Diet Coke. The brains of a child tend to be a little bit more sensitive to caffeine’s effects than the brains of adults. Caffeine can cause them to be hyperactive, which is obvious. But it also can make them nervous, anxious, worsen stomach problems and create sleep problems. Caffeine also constricts blood vessels. It takes 4 milligrams of caffeine per kilogram of body weight to increase blood pressure.

Those effects are enough to give anyone a second thought about taking in a large amount of caffeine as a kid… but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. As US News reported in 2017:

According to a 2014 study in the journal Pediatrics, approximately 73 percent of children consume caffeine on a given day. Most of this caffeine comes from soda. Surprisingly, caffeine consumption isn’t limited to older kids and teens. A 2015 study of Boston toddlers aged 1 to 2 years published in the Journal of Human Lactation found surprising rates of coffee consumption by these youngsters. Among 1-year-olds, 2.5 percent were drinking coffee. By the time children reached the age of 2, more than 15 percent were consuming coffee. Of these 2-year-olds, about 15 percent consumed as much as 4 ounces, or a half cup, of coffee each day.

The other 85 percent of kids, however, likely have their first cup of coffee a little later. So when did you have yours?

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

There are over 50,000 TED and TEDx talks alone, almost entirely available on YouTube. And, full disclosure, I’ve given a TEDx talk myself — about, what else, questions. There’s a lot to be said for the process of thinking through what you would want to talk about, how you would change the world, and how you’d explain it in 18 minutes or less.

As Morra Aarons-Mele wrote in Forbes:

For many would-be change-makers, pursuing TED status is a massive investment of time and money for an uncertain goal. Most speakers train for the talk as if for a marathon, and most pay consultants or dramaturgists thousands for coaching and speechwriting.

Those speeches, be they TEDx or PopTech or Ignite or one of the other hundred types of speeches that follow a similar format, there’s a certain cultural zeitgeist they seem to have embraced.

As Hanna Brooks Olson wrote in Creative Mornings:

Talks also play into a cultural desire and possible need for inspiration, something that is both positive and, as the late Stella Young pointed out in her talk, sometimes misguided. There’s been some research (and much hand-wringing) about the negative impact of social media on our emotions. Dubbed “the Age of Rage” way back in 2011, the digital era has some internet users feels extra-unhappy — which could explain our clamoring for something to offset the negativity. Inspiration is a science, and TED Talks and Creative Mornings lectures have tapped into it by offering information that is both educational and has a feeling of support and community. The messages, even when they’re about extremely grave or sad subjects, feel hopeful, as if there’s a solution to nearly any problem.

This doesn’t mean that an 18 minute speech will fix everything — or giving yourself the challenge of speaking in front of people will fix everything. Either way, there’s a heck of a lot to be said for figuring out what you would want to dig in to and tell the world about.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

When smartphones first came out, less than a decade ago, a two-year replacement cycle had already become a pretty normal thing for carriers, and that is a cycle that carried through to smartphones.

But how long do those phones actually last? In March, TechRepublic reported:

If a recent analysis from Asymco is to be believed, the average lifespan of all Apple products on the market between 2013 and today is four years and three months. Asymco mobile analyst Horace Dediu created a formula for device lifespan based on the number of devices sold versus the number of active devices in use.

And there’s that whole question of what you consider a “replacement-worthy” issue for a cell phone. Is it when it’s slow loading up an app? Or when it loses all battery life? Or how about if it refuses to turn on no matter what?

As the New York Times reported in 2014:

On average, Americans keep their smartphones for about two years before jumping to a new one, according to the NPD Group, a market research firm. Despite their small size, smartphones are expensive, resource-hungry goods, and they deserve a better life cycle than two years of use followed by an eternity in a forgotten desk drawer. The main points are: Use your phone for more than two years, ideally three; when you run into trouble, try to repair, not replace it; and when you’re done with it, trade it in. When you’re looking for a new phone, don’t just consider the latest high-end devices; many people will find last year’s best phone just as useful as the newest one. You might even consider buying a used phone instead of a new one.

The innovation plateau means that for most people, in most cases, the latest and greatest phone won’t be all that much better than the one you’re using now, so there’s less pressure to upgrade. Sure, phones’ microprocessor brains keep getting faster, but for ordinary uses — web browsing, email, Facebook — those gains are difficult to notice, especially when you’re on a spotty mobile network.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

Networking. When you’re looking for a job it seems to come up a lot, but networking is a heck of a lot more than just making connections in hope of finding a good job. Networking can also be one of the most powerful tools in your toolbox no matter what you do. For stay at home parents those connections can be essential for sanity. In professional positions, social connections can help you grow, develop, and find opportunities that might be, but could also extend far beyond, just a job.

In other words, networking is nothing more than creating strong social networks — IRL or digitally.

Ivan Misner, in Entrepreneur Magazine, outlines five different types of organizations:

1: Casual contact networks, usually general business groups that allow many people from various overlapping professions.

2: Strong contact networks: Organizations whose purpose is principally to help members exchange business referrals

3: Community service networks: in the course of giving time and effort to civic causes, you form lasting relationships that broaden and deepen your personal and business networks

4: Professional associations: The primary purpose of a professional association is to exchange information and ideas.

5: Online and social media networks

In all of these types of networks, judging which networks might be worth your time investment could be challenging. Heck, even in my life I could name at least 10 different local and online networks that I could be a part of. So which ones should you invest your time in?

I would argue a good place to start, at least for formal networks, is taking a look at the makeup of the group. What should you look for? One opinion, as quoted in Forbes, is:

Research from IDEO and Stanford University identifies the ideal make-up of a network: “Part pack-rat, part librarian and part Good Samaritan.” The pack rat brings documents and resources collected over a long career that can be tapped to create new ideas and connections; the librarian brings the latest data and pertinent information; the Good Samaritan, though, might be the most integral player—she’s there to help out at every turn. According to IDEO this combination is the best balance of resources, information and good intentions to make a network not just functional, but beneficial to all members.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

Misconceptions can be rough. Really rough, especially when they are something that you’re facing on a regular basis — about yourself or about something else. On first blush, it’s really easy to think that a misconception is something that just needs a single piece of information…but maybe it’s not quite that simple. As Robert Talbert wrote in his blog Casting Out Nines:

[…] a misunderstanding is something like an incorrect interpretation of an idea that otherwise is correctly understood. On the other hand, a misconception is an incorrect formation of a concept at the foundational level. The student has literally conceived the concept incorrectly. A misunderstanding can be cleared up in a single clarifying question or targeted piece of feedback. Clearing up a misconception requires undoing potentially years of layer upon layer of misconceived ideas.

Most of the literature and research I’ve found on how to correct (or at least work on correcting) misconceptions is focused mostly on working with students in classroom settings, where actively correcting misconceptions is not only accepted, but an expected part of the job. The suggestions and research around that, however, seems to fit pretty darn well into any stage of life, not just students and teachers.

The guide from the American Psychological Association outlines, very empathetically and carefully, what can be done. Quote:

[…] knowledge, however, can be erroneous, illogical or misinformed. These erroneous understandings are termed alternative conceptions or misconceptions (or intuitive theories). Alternative conceptions (misconceptions) are not unusual. In fact, they are a normal part of the learning process. Generally, ordinary forms of instruction, such as lectures, labs, discovery learning, or simply reading texts, are not very successful at overcoming student misconceptions.

A few of their suggestions about how to overcome misconceptions include, quote:

Use diverse instruction, wherein you present a few examples that challenge multiple assumptions, rather than a larger number of examples that challenge just one assumption.

Help students “self-repair” their misconceptions. If students engage in a process called “self-explanation,” then conceptual change is more likely. Self-explanation entails prompting students to explain text aloud as they read.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

Ever been at a job that’s just a really, truly bad fit? Or had a bait-and-switch situation where you think you’re being hired for one job, and be assigned a totally different job when you come to work? Or started a job, only to have a round of  layoffs hit you quickly?

These are just a few of the examples that come up on the multitude of job advice websites as reasons why you might choose to not stay at a job for very long. What exactly counts as “not very long” is a whole different question, however. Fortune Magazine suggests that anything less than 18 months is just not socially acceptable. Monster.com writes that anything less than a year is considered a “sudden departure.”

The one thing that most of the advice seems to agree on one thing — that a short tenure at one job isn’t a terrible thing if you have a good reason for leaving. It’s when you have repeated short tenure jobs without a good reason, then it’s a red flag for those who are hiring.

Then again, a “short” tenure at a job has a changing definition. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics in September of 2016 (the most recent date they researched this question), average tenure at a job is 4.2 years, which is down from 4.6 years just two years before that.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

All this week, we’re replaying five episodes about different facets of being in the USA. For more of an explanation on why, see the 4th of July message. Today’s replay is 242: Public office.

This is going to be mostly focused on the United States, but I would love to hear opinions from those of you outside of the USA!

In 2015, Political science professors Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox asked more than 4,000 high school and college students if they would be interested in running for political office in America someday: 89% of them said “no.” While exact comparisons are not available, the researchers also estimate that this is a decline in 20 to 30 percent from previous generations.

Running for office isn’t exactly a popular career option, and there are many reasons why someone might choose to not run for office. The researchers in the study of students guessed it was due to the fact that teens and young adults are constantly getting reinforced messages that the system is dysfunctional. However, there are other, much more easily solvable reasons that may have an impact.

An Observer article from about a year ago examines the reasons that more “New Americans” – immigrants and first generation Americans – don’t run for office. And the answer may be almost as simple as asking those individuals to run.

Of course, the underlying assumptions in that question also must be challenged. And a few individuals interviewed in that Observer article pointed out that not only did nobody ever ask them, but they were actively discouraged from running for office by the established political parties. And so much like starting their own businesses, many new Americans find their political way by forging their own paths.

However, that difficulty of finding non-traditional or enthusiastic candidates may, in fact, be a wall that is breaking itself down. A Guardian article from January of this year points out that there has been a huge surge in women, youth, and non-traditional candidates taking action towards running for one of the over half-million political offices in the USA. Many of them started that path in the days following the 2016 presidential election.

VoteRunLead, a non-partisan political organization that trains future female politicians, normally receives between 30 and 80 applicants for each of its regular webinars.

“In a 48-hour period after the election, we had 1,100 women sign up for our next webinar and we had to close it and start a wait list,” said Erin Vilardi, executive director of VoteRunLead.

Whatever the case may be, it is nearly certain that the choice to run for office is a difficult one. And the Pew Research Center found in 2014 that it’s about 2% of the citizenry of the US that decides to do it. Would you be one of them?

All this week, we’re replaying five episodes about different facets of being in the USA. For more of an explanation on why, see the 4th of July message. Today’s replay is 453: Spending Priorities.

Budgeting is far from fun, at least for many people. It’s where the metaphorical rubber meets the road when it comes to putting your ideals, principles, and priorities into a concrete plan. Usually, the resources identified as available aren’t enough to fulfill all of the priorities and plans that one may have. Which means that tough trade-offs are inevitable.

Most of us are not economists or policy experts. It can be intimidating to get past the mechanics and language of the budget to find the values at its core.

It’s important to note, however, that budgetary dollars are only a part of figuring out priorities. It doesn’t always take a huge budget to create huge impacts. Meals on Wheels, a service that provides meals and company for over 2.4 million seniors a year, does so for a comparatively tiny budget. The New York Times, in March of 2017, even quoted one study that found if all states had increased the number of Meals on Wheels recipients by just 1 percent, states could have saved Medicaid more than $109 million.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

All this week, we’re replaying five episodes about different facets of being in the USA. For more of an explanation on why, see the 4th of July message. Today’s replay is 58: Freedom vs liberty.

In high school debate this particular topic was one that came up often, and was one of my favorite topics. While they’re often used interchangeably, there may be differences between these two words that could have huge impacts on our understanding of governmental limitations.

After all, English, as a language, is great a stealing words from other languages and mashing them up in some very odd ways. The etymology of freedom is Dutch and German, meaning essentially a state of free will, emancipation, deliverance, or state of nature. Liberty, on the other hand, is from a French root that has both the meaning of state of free will, and from the 15th century on, privileges by grant.

In modern governmental theory, the U.S. Supreme Court has delineated the difference between these two ideas more than once. In 1967’s Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that the right to marry a partner of one’s choice was a freedom, and these laws — the ones preventing intermarriage of races — failed to grant the liberty to exercise it.

If you go back to Thomas Jefferson’s writings, he makes the argument that a person’s “natural rights” were to be limited very carefully, quite intentionally using phrases like “freedom of the press” next to “public liberty in law.”

All this week, we’re replaying five episodes about different facets of being in the USA. For more of an explanation on why, see the 4th of July message. Today’s replay is 203, The American Dream.

In 1931, John Turslow Adams presented in his Epic of America the idea of the American Dream, in saying:

“The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.” He went on to say it is not, “… a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

In the 85 years since, the idea of the American Dream has become practically an intoxicant… and one that some say has a nasty hangover. Mr. Adam’s idea of the dream, though, has also been expanded quite significantly.

Sociologist Emily Rosenberg identified five components of The American Dream as it has shown up in countries all around the world. These five components are:

Belief that other nations should replicate America’s development.

Yet ask Americans what the American Dream is, and answers you get are quite different. Frontline asked Americans about their American Dream. Two defined it as:

The American Dream used to be a home in the suburbs, a good job, raising your family. Now we have been relegated to survival mode.

I think at one time the American dream meant having a place to call your own, get a house paid for, have a job you liked, transportation, take a vacation now and then. Those things didn’t seem so out of reach.

And a Brit living in the United States pointed out in Time magazine that the whole idea of the American Dream may be destructive, pointing out that:

we have internalized the idea that we are all exactly where we deserve to be. In this story, success is the result not of luck or privilege, but our own personal qualities, talents and hard work. Similarly, failure can never stem from systemic obstacles or difficult circumstances—the fact that good jobs are increasingly scarce, wages are hitting poverty levels and rents are sky-high—but is simply a mark of personal inadequacy.

Like mean dreams, a little dose of reality may not hurt on a societal level. On an individual level, though, the dream is just as individual.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.