Friday, March 31, 2017

READING SPECIAL....... I Use These 7 Questions To Remember Everything I Read, Do You Have 5 Minutes?

I Use These 7 Questions To Remember Everything I Read, Do You Have 5 Minutes?

Reading is fascinating. But it can also be frustrating if you just cross off your book list without going into depth. Do you often forget what you have just read? Or have you ever spent a lot of time on finishing a book but in the end you couldn’t tell the main ideas of the book clearly?
It is not about your inability to memorize things. But you’re just not active enough in reading.
Reading ineffectively might be frustrating
Reading quickly just for the sake of completing a book is a mistake we easily make. We skim through paragraphs in the hope of absorbing as much information as possible within a short period of time. But then we only focus on the parts we understand and miss out the full picture presented in the book. It is unlikely that we will be able the recall the content after a day or so.
A common question that we usually ask ourselves after reading is whether we like the book or not. While this is also important as reading is supposed to be fun, simply asking this kind of yes-no question cannot make reading meaningful and reflective. Worse still, if we only stick with the books we like, we will limit our exposure to different knowledge.
To practice active reading, generating a list of questions before digging into the content is a good approach. [1] But you might wonder what kinds of questions you should ask and here are some questions that you might want to take a look for reference:

1. If I can get only 3 things from the book, what are they? How will I apply them in daily life?

Some books consists of piles of information that we might feel overwhelmed. Sometimes it is better not to overestimate our abilities to memorise things because we can rarely get more than 3 messages from a book. Keep identifying what information is more useful to you when you read. After all, there’s no point of remembering or jotting down information that you can’t apply in daily life as it is very likely that you will forget it the next day.

2. What are the arguments or suggestions made by the writer?

No one writes without any purposes. Even the book is a novel instead of the practical type, the authors have some purposes in their minds, either to convey messages or to persuade readers. Spending some time to figure out their key points makes us easier to digest the whole piece without missing any important insights.

3. What problems does the writer attempt to solve?

Nearly every book is about problem-solving. Even in a book about literature, there is always a climax in the plot and that’s what the writer attempt to solve. The problem indicated might not be explicit but if we can find it out, we can always learn from it to improve our problem-solving skills.

4. What strategies does the writer use to convey the key ideas in the book?

Reading is one of the good ways to improve our writing skills. We can pay extra attention to the writing style of the writers and how their ideas are presented, such as the diction, rhetorical devices and organisation used, to make our writings more appealing to readers.

5. What do I know about the topic of the book covers? How what the book says is different from what I originally know?

We usually give up reading a book because we find no connection between what we know and what the book talks about. Before reading, it is better for us to do some brainstorming and to recall your previous knowledge related to the topic so that you are ready to explore more.

6. Are there any particular things I do not understand in the book?

It is quite impossible to be know-it-all so it is quite certain that we will encounter with something which seems unfamiliar, or something that we don’t agree on. Skipping those parts is not the best solution for it because this would limit our horizons. Instead, delving into the unfamiliar parts or opposite ideas is the best way to take ourselves to another level.

7. Which part of the book I like or dislike? And why?

Reading a book is not about reading the text only but also reading ourselves. Asking ourselves this question enables us to be reflective learners. Discovering more about our tastes allows us to choose a better reader that fits our preferences.
It might take a longer time for us to read a book if we practice active reading using the above questions. But we can definitely gain a lot more because we wouldn’t rush just to finish a book without digesting the ideas.

http://www.lifehack.org/560549/asking-these-7-questions-can-help-you-get-the-most-from-book?ref=mail&mtype=daily_newsletter&mid=20170323_editor_pick&uid=687414&hash=707e797f7e757e6d794c856d747b7b3a6f7b79&action=click

Thursday, March 30, 2017

TRAVEL SPECIAL ....Helsinki Freezes Over

Helsinki Freezes Over

Snow season in Finland, which goes on till March, is winter wonderland with hail showers, reindeer sleds and ice fishing

Jolly Good Snow
As the plane banked and then rap idly lost altitude, the scenery out side was compelling. It looked like winter wonderland -houses, buildings and grounds draped in snow but sticking out enough to make a splash and contribute to a surreal montage of images. As the plane touched down in Helsinki, the runway was the only dark thing amidst swirling snow and buffeted by a mild shower of hail.As first impressions go, Finland had me quite overwhelmed.
It was a feeling that didn't let up as I headed into the city. Everything was snow-covered; only the roads were clear. From my hotel near West Harbour, I could see that even the sea had partly frozen over. But it was a relatively bright day and so I headed out to see as much as I could considering there's a limited amount of daylight.
Called the daughter of the Baltic, Helsinki has had a rather tumultuous history, first under the Swedish and then the Russians till Finland gained independence in 1917. However, it is the latter whose influence is still seen in the many buildings that dot Helsinki's skyline. Like the Uspenski Cathedral, which stood on a hillock and had distinct Russian architecture with red walls and green domes. Dedicated to Virgin Mary, its interiors and altar were brilliantly gilded and had a plethora of murals and paintings.
Amid Snow Flakes
The most distinctive landmark of the city, the cathedral, built in 1852 in neo-classical style, stood on an elevated ground accessed by a flight of steps. Its impressive green dome, surrounded by smaller ones, was visible from a distance. It was fronted by the sprawling Senate Square in which was the statue of the Russian tsar, Alexander II.
There were other compelling sights to see in Helsinki, including the Temppeliaukio Church or Rock Church, a Lutheran church built into a massive rock.Next, I chose to take a short ferry ride to Suomenlinna, a sea fortress built on six islands. It had tall stone walls, ramparts, tunnels and scores of structures. Built by the Swedish in the mid-18th century as a defence against Russian expansionism, the fortress was now more of a tourist attraction.
Back in the city, I walked along the Esplanade and headed towards Aleksanterinkatu and Kamppi area, the main shopping district which also had a profusion of shops, cafes and restaurants. As night fell, I sat inside a cosy one and watched people hurry by, swathed in thick jackets, woollen caps and pretty scarves. Lilting music filled the air. All of a sudden, tiny flakes of snow gently floated by. Like bringing down the curtains on a perfect day. It seemed rather ephemeral and abiding at the same time.
Santa Land in Saariselka
The world seemed to have gone mono chrome. Everywhere I looked there was whiteness -streets, pavements, roofs, trees, fences, parked vehicles.Even the sky seemed bleached and was pale grey, almost slipping into whiteness. But in Saariselka, a little village in the heart of Lapland in northern Finland, this was what almost seven-eight months of the year looked like. As I groped for words to describe, ethereal came to mind.
This was also the land of the Sami, indigenous people and sole caretakers of reindeer. But before I could set eyes on the animals, I was kitted out in numerous layers of clothing, a thick snow suit, boots, balaclava and helmet. My Sami guide Timo brought out a wicked-looking snowmobile and we set off into the wilderness. As we raced along, bumping and skimming the snow surface, dipping into valleys and scaling hillocks, Timo said we were close to a national park. But it didn't feel that way. Even though we wove our way through thickets and trees, everything was covered in pristine white snow.
Soon we arrived at a little wooden cottage outside which were a handful of reindeer, with bright red neck bands, attached to sleds.“You can meet them later in the night,“ Timo said, and ushered me into the cottage for a hot meal and a soul-warming fire. The wind outside was pricking and numbing the flesh. I would have loved to sit indoors and sip hot chocolate but Timo had other plans. We headed into the area near Urho Kekkonen National Park where an inclined path nearby was ideal for a raucous session on tobogganing. Leaving the trail, we donned teardrop snowshoes and stomped around in the forest.
As night fell, exhausted and a bit numb from the cold, I headed back to my hotel in Saariselka. But my day was far from over. After a delicious three-course dinner with salmon, reindeer and cheesecake, Timo drove us to where we had met the reindeer in the morning.
It was not exactly pitch dark but a strange dull light hung around, just enough to make out the tall trees and reindeer eyes. I sat down awkwardly in the wooden sled attached to them and we gently slid the icy, snowy ground.The rhythmic tinkle of bells around the reindeer and the scratchy sound of the sled as it moved on the ground were the only sound and movement that contrasted starkly with the stillness around. And yet, in my head it felt like I was in Santa's land and Rudolph was just a touch away.
Anita Rao-Kashi

ETM 19MAR17

HAPPINESS SPECIAL..... Five Ways Feeling Good Can Be Bad for You

Five Ways Feeling Good Can Be Bad for You

Recent research suggests that the quest for constant bliss is misguided.  
Like many seekers of happiness, I once aspired to feel good as much as possible. There’s probably a part of everyone that would prefer to avoid life’s more difficult, or even mundane, feelings—and self-help books assure us that we can, if only we adopt the right attitude.
Yet most of us know that perpetual joy is not a practical goal—and recent research is starting to suggest that it may actually be a harmful one. Scientists are discovering that feel-good states can be detrimental to our problem-solving, judgment, morality, and empathy in the moment.
The upshot? Context matters.
On the whole, it’s absolutely beneficial to be someone for whom feeling good comes easy, who can appreciate a good meal, connect warmly with others, and dream up sunny possibilities for the future. But our whole spectrum of different feelings, from anger to elation, evolved for a reason: to help us confront and handle challenges to survival. There are times in life when feeling positive won’t help—and could even hurt.
1. When you’re working on critical reasoning tasks
Research suggests that positive feelings can help us be more productive at work overall and more adept at creative tasks, particularly those that involve brainstorming responses and ideas. But a positive mood isn’t conducive to the best performance on certain analytical tasks. 

In a 1989 study, researchers induced a positive mood in half the participants by either giving them $2 or showing them a funny video. Then, everyone read an editorial they disagreed with—except some editorials contained strong, thoughtful arguments, and others contained weak arguments.
Under time pressure, the amused participants were equally persuaded by the strong and weak arguments, couldn’t remember as many of the points made, and relied on shortcuts more in their evaluations (whether the author was a scholar or not) compared to the control, non-amused group. (When amused participants had more time, these patterns disappeared: They read for longer, and then they were more likely to be persuaded by strong arguments, remembered more details, and didn’t tend to rely on shortcuts.)
In a 1995 study, a group of around 60 undergrads solved syllogisms—logic problems that ask you to deduce conclusions from statements like “All A are B” and “Some B are C.” Again, a group that had been induced to feel amused performed worse. They spent less time working on the syllogisms and drew fewer diagrams to help solve them. They also gave riskier “all” or “none” answers (rather than “some”), perhaps indicating that they were overoptimistic about their problem-solving abilities.
The authors of a different study from 1994 offered this interpretation:
“Happiness is a kind of safety signal, indicating that there is no current need for problem solving….Unhappy people will think more deeply about their social environment (in an effort to solve their problems), whereas happy people can contentedly coast on cruise control, not bothering to think very deeply about surrounding events unless they impinge directly on their well-being.”
A 2000 study complicates the picture a bit, though. Here, students read moral dilemmas and had to pick the best arguments to solve them; their performance was rated more highly if they chose arguments that were more principled and abstract, rather than concrete and simple. In this situation, amused people took longer and performed worse. But this wasn’t always the case: When students imagined themselves in the moral dilemma, or when the moral dilemma was serious and disturbing, involving war or racism, the amused students performed just as well as those in a neutral mood.
In the end, the type and even the content of the task we’re working on matter. For some parts of the work we do, particularly tasks that involve logical reasoning and critical thinking, positive emotions may not be the best helper. In other words, don’t expect yourself to feel joyful proofreading a document or formatting a spreadsheet; serious focus may not be pleasant, but it may be the optimal mood for certain tasks.
2. When you want to judge people fairly and accurately
Cognitive psychologists classify stereotyping as a form of “heuristic processing”: using general knowledge about a group to efficiently make predictions about individual members. In this sense, stereotyping is a kind of superficial thinking—and people in a good mood may be prone to it.
In a 1994 study, participants were asked to make judgments about student misconduct; some had been induced to feel good by remembering and writing about a happy event from their past. The researchers were trying to find out if participants feeling good would make more stereotyped judgments: judging the Latino student guilty of assault or the track-and-field athlete guilty of cheating.
And so they did. (Notably, researchers were able to overcome this bias by telling happy participants that they would be held accountable for their judgments and should be able to justify them—effectively increasing their motivation to make good judgments with external accountability, and eliminating stereotypical reasoning in the process.)
People feeling amused also made more stereotypical judgments in a 2000 study: Here, they were more likely to (incorrectly) identify African-American-sounding names as belonging to criminals or basketball players. They didn’t make the same mistakes with European-sounding names. Participants in a neutral mood weren’t as likely to fall back on stereotypes.
However, other research has shown that white people in a happy mood show less implicit bias toward African-American faces—so, again, the effects may be complex. Perhaps it matters whether we come face to face with the people we’re judging, where a happy mood may help dampen our fear response to unfamiliar faces.
In any case, it’s still true that people who are in a good mood are sometimes more likely to jump to conclusions about others—and less likely to consciously correct for any stereotypical notions they harbor.

3. When you might get taken advantage of

The 2000 study also found that feel-good participants were prone to applying European-American names to politicians—a (theoretically) positive bias.
If feeling good inclines us to see certain people in a positive light, does that mean it might make us more likely to be manipulated? Maybe.
In a 2008 study, nearly 120 students were induced to feel amused, neutral, or sad (by watching a comedy video, a nature documentary, or a film clip about cancer). Then, they watched interrogation videos where other students lied or told the truth about stealing a movie ticket. Overall, the negative-mood group was better at detecting deception than the neutral or positive groups, correctly identifying the liars more often.
Researchers believe this is because a negative mood makes us process information in more detailed, systematic ways, and also makes us more likely to recall other negative information (like when our roommate lied about stealing our Pringles).
People intuitively seem to realize this: When we express high levels of happiness, research suggests, we are perceived as more naive and are more likely to be targets of exploitation than when we express moderate happiness. This explains why we wait for people to be in a good mood before we ask for favors, hoping that they won’t be as critical and careful in considering our request.

4. When there’s temptation to cheat
In some cases, feeling good may also compromise our morality.
In a 2013 study, 90 students were induced to either feel positive or neutral by watching clips from a cartoon or something resembling a screensaver. Then, they were instructed to complete a crossword-puzzle-type task, grade their own work with an answer sheet, and compensate themselves 50 cents for each correct answer. Although the worksheets appeared to be anonymous, invisible ink let the researchers figure out who was honest and who wasn’t—and the amused group stole more money than the neutral one.
In surveys, the amused group reported being more morally disengaged—more apt to come up with justifications for immoral actions without judging themselves harshly. In this case, for example, they might think, “I’m not getting paid enough for this boring experiment, and I could have found more words if I tried harder.”
Interestingly, these effects disappeared when the researchers put mirrors in their workspace, making them more self-aware.
“Although conventional wisdom would suggest that happy people are less likely than unhappy people to be dishonest, our work suggests that anyone who buys into this simplistic cliché might be blindsided by the stealth behind the smile,” the researchers write.
5. When you’re empathizing with suffering
Research suggests that being happier in general makes us kinder and more generous. But people who try to feel good all the time, at all costs, can miss some opportunities to connect with others.
A 2014 study, for example, found that positive people less accurately empathize with certain negative emotions. Over 120 young adults watched four videos, where people described good or bad events in their own lives (e.g., winning a scholarship or having a dispute with a landlord). During the videos, the participants continuously rated how they believed the storyteller was feeling on a scale of one to nine, changing their rating any moment they sensed an emotional shift. Those ratings were compared to the storytellers’ ratings of their own feelings over the course of the video.
In general, positive participants—those who reported experiencing positive emotions more in general—were more confident in their empathic skills but weren’t actually any better at identifying the storytellers’ emotions than other participants.
In fact, when the storyteller was describing a high-intensity negative event, like the death of a parent, positive people were less accurate than their peers. For whatever reason, they seemed unable or unwilling to engage with such difficult emotions.
“It perhaps takes more sacrifice to ‘drop down’ and focus on another person’s high-intensity negative emotions, and this may be particularly difficult to do” for positive people, the researchers explain.
If there’s anyone in your life with inveterate positivity, you’ve probably experienced something similar. When I share my anxiety or sadness with a hyper-positive friend of mine, he usually insists that the situation doesn’t merit despair, or reassures me that everything will turn out okay—neither of which make me feel better (or understood).
Should we give up on feeling good?
Clearly, while feeling good does feel good, it doesn’t always bring us the success and connection we desire. It doesn’t seem ideal in all situations for all outcomes, meaning—as evolutionary psychologists could have already told us—that other, less-blissful feelings serve a purpose.
Indeed, according to a survey of more than 35,000 people, those who reported high levels of positive emotion weren’t as protected against depression as those with high emodiversity—who experienced many positive and negative emotions, from awe and amusement to anger and sadness.And that’s another point worth making: “Feeling good” doesn’t always refer to the same feeling. Much of the research focused on amusement, induced by watching a cartoon or a standup comedian. And none of the studies looked at warmer, more interpersonal feelings like love and compassion.
In a quest for more happiness, I once tracked my mood every hour for a month, hoping to identify the downers in my life and try to eliminate them. But instead, I came away from that experiment a little less concerned about my negative moods—because they never lasted! Each hour brought a new feeling with a different cause, and I realized I didn’t have to stress so much.
Similarly, this research might help you relax about yesterday’s bad mood—and give you a greater appreciation for all sorts of feelings.

By Kira M. Newman 

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/five_ways_feeling_good_can_be_bad_for_you?utm_source=Greater+Good+Science+Center&utm_campaign=f0fcf7463b-GG_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5ae73e326e-f0fcf7463b-51482775

BOOK SPECIAL ....... 5 Books That Will Help You Persuade Anybody of Anything

BOOK SPECIAL 5 Books That Will Help You Persuade Anybody of Anything

An unusual book list that will teach you how to get hordes of followers.



Reading is hot. A recent wave of popular success gurus, including Tai Lopez, Tyler Cowen, and James Altucher, are pumping out videos, newsletters, and articles encouraging their fans to immerse themselves in books to find solutions to their most pressing business problems. They aren't wrong. But when it comes to becoming more persuasive, many businesspeople look in all the wrong pages.
Most of the marketing books and self-help guides that fill airport bookshops are ineffective, because their advice is based on how their authors think the world should be. The books in the list that follows take the opposite tack. The titles it contains are controversial--in fact, many of their recommendations will be perceived as downright offensive. They deal with the parts of human nature we often prefer to hide away in the shadows.
With that said, if you want to get other human beings to do your bidding (in other words, sales), every book on this list is indispensable.

1) Crystallizing Public Opinion, by Edward Bernays
There seems to be a new PR agency popping up every few days, and (it would seem) for good reason. With hundreds of television channels; thousands of magazines and newspapers; and countless blogs, podcasts, and social media platforms, you need someone with connections to get you mentions.
Right?
Edward Bernays, the author of Crystallizing Public Opinion, saw it differently. As Bernays describes in his 1923 masterpiece, the true purpose of public relations should not be to get in the news but to actually create the news. And Bernays would know--he invented the term "public relations." In Crystallizing Public Opinion, the man who got Americans to eat bacon for breakfast lays out a method for molding minds en masse. For close to a hundred years, governments, captains of industry, and advertising giants have been secretly using this book as their bible. Follow their lead.

2) The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, by Gustav Le Bon
The Crowd is the most influential book nobody talks about. First of all, it's old. It sparked Sigmund Freud's ideas about the unconscious and inspired the mass brainwashing techniques of the 20th century's most hypnotic despots. It turns out that the principles and tactics described in this book work as well in business as they do in psychoanalysis and politics. For those who want to learn how to get large numbers of people to fervently follow them and spread the word on their behalf, The Crowd is a must.

3) Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator, by Ryan Holiday
In many ways, Trust Me, I'm Lying is the 21st-century version of Bernays's and Le Bon's masterworks of persuasion. In this book, the former head of marketing at the 
hype-reliant American Apparel reveals how he drummed up extreme visibility by playing the digital media ecosystem. Despite his claims that he wrote the book to soothe his guilty conscience, Holiday devotes the bulk of it to giving us concrete techniques for manipulating the internet press, generating widespread controversy, and turning it all into dollars. For anyone who is long on ideas and short on cash, Trust Me, I'm Lying is the handbook for getting the modern world to pay attention to what you're selling.

4) Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion, by Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson
If Trust Me, I'm Lying is the practical handbook for winning minds and eyeballs, Age of Propaganda is the guide to understanding why it all works so well. By studying a wide range of master persuaders--including advertisers, televangelists, cult leaders, political propagandists, master salespeople, undefeated trial attorneys, and campaign strategists--Pratkanis and Aronson have pinpointed the cognitive distortions and mental pressure points the most influential among us know how to find and use. Backed by contemporary brain science research, Age of Propaganda reveals the real reasons persuasion works and takes down a lot of popular myths in the process.

5) The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads, by Tim Wu
The newest book on our list, The Attention Merchants is an instant classic of persuasion literature. Author Tim Wu wrote the book to bring awareness to a little-discussed economic paradigm that has shaped almost every aspect of our modern world--one in which our attention is bought and sold at a premium. In doing so, he dissects the mechanics of how the most sophisticated attention-getters in the world work their magic. While Wu has framed The Attention Merchants as a cautionary tale, it doubles as an instruction manual for anyone trying to capture attention in the information age. And if you're in business today, that means you.

By Michael Schein

http://www.inc.com/michael-schein/5-books-that-will-help-you-persuade-anybody-of-anything.html

INTERVIEW SPECIAL..... 10 Mistakes Most People Make During a Job Interview (and What to Do Instead)

10 Mistakes Most People Make During a Job Interview (and What to Do Instead)

Learn how to showcase your talents, get the job, and feel more confident.

Interviewing well is a vital component of a successful career and an art that few master. Most people get nervous when they have to face a panel of experts--higher powers--who decide whether you have what it takes to acquire the job you desire.
Facing judgment day isn't easy. Most people try to act--take on roles and attributes that are foreign to who they truly are--and the results are disastrous. As a doctoral student in clinical psychology, I've been fortunate enough to average attending seven interviews each year for the past four years. While I certainly have areas for growth, being interviewed by elite psychologists and therapists--people trained to read and interpret human behavior--has taught me many valuable lessons that I'd like to share.
Here are 10 mistakes most people make when interviewing and how to avoid them:
1. Not putting enough time, energy, and effort into your preparation.
People who don't put effort into researching the company, their mission, and the type of people they hire often fail to get the job. I learned that how prepared I feel in terms of both answering questions about myself and knowing facts about the organization is directly correlated with my performance and level of comfort.
Spend the time you need to build confidence in yourself and increase your knowledge of the company.
2. Failing to maintain awareness of your posture and body language.
As a psychologist in training, I've grown to learn my tendencies: crossing my arms or leaning back when I'm anxious. Now I ensure that my body language is open, grounded, and non-defensive. That behavior shows others that I am comfortable, receptive, and confident, and has the added benefit of sending messages to my brain to remain calm.
Practice becoming more aware of your body and know your tendencies in stressful situations.
3. Talking too much.
Amateurs think that they need to cover every possible bullet point with the interviewer to appear competent. This anxious tendency often works against them, because the interviewer becomes more attuned to their anxiety than the content of their speech.
Silence can be powerful; learn how to pause and know when your answer is good enough.
4. Being afraid to revisit earlier questions and topics.
One thing that psychologists and most interviewers value is the ability to be self-reflective. This skill is correlated with emotional intelligence and conveys that you think about how you affect others. Sometimes it's absolutely appropriate to link your current answer to something you previously stated.
Practice noticing trends and patterns in your messages, and don't be afraid to revisit items--especially when it shows self-reflective skills.
5. Mumbling or rushing your speech instead of thinking first.
Nothing is worse than word vomiting or going mute--especially in group interviews. If you can't handle the pressure of an intense interview, how are you going to handle a chaotic day at work?
Tell your interviewer that you're going to take a second to contemplate your answer--it shows confidence and composure.
6. Not supporting your statements with evidence and examples.
Telling people about yourself and how you work is good, but showing them how and why you work the way you do is better. Give your interviewer a glimpse into what makes you tick by explaining your values and by providing real-life examples. It will make your claims more significant.
Explain the how and the why for each statement you make.
7. Underestimating how much your appearance matters.
Yes, it's a superficial world and you need to take that into account. For example, I'm aware that my beard conveys wisdom and masculinity, my purple shirt shows I'm connected to my femininity and creativity, my glasses say "Hey, I'm smart," and my mala bracelet shows that I'm grounded.
Everything on your body speaks to who you are, so think through the messages you're sending to others.
8. Not preparing meaningful questions to demonstrate competence and curiosity.
The biggest rookie failure of all time is not preparing questions to ask the interviewer. Don't be that person who ends an interview without asking questions that can further your credibility.
Instead, compile a list of questions that highlight your attention to detail and ability to critically dissect information.
9. Failing to explain your value and highlight how you and the company are a great fit.
You're basically trying to establish a romantic relationship with someone who is convinced that they don't need you. When you don't explain why you're a good fit, there's almost no chance that they'll accept your offer to go on a date.
Show what you can bring to the table and why this relationship will be mutually beneficial.
10. Allowing stress and anxiety to ruin your introduction and closing.
Stress and anxiety happen to the best of us, but you need to focus.
Do whatever it takes to find your groove before interviewing, and then be intentional about your first and last impression--make yourself stand out.
http://www.inc.com/matthew-jones/10-mistakes-most-people-make-during-an-interview-and-what-to-do-instead.html


SMARTPHONE SPECIAL .....Don’t Reply Messages Instantly. It Can Seriously Ruin Your Life

Don’t Reply Messages Instantly. It Can Seriously Ruin Your Life
You’ve left the office for a well-deserved lunch break.
Just as you sit down in your favorite diner to enjoy your sandwich and coffee… your cellphone beeps to say you have a new message. You pick up your phone, read the message, and immediately begin to reply (even though it’s nothing important or time-sensitive).
By doing this, you’ve demonstrated a reactive state, where you’ve allowed your lunch break to be disrupted for a little reason.
When this type of behavior becomes habitual – you’ve become a slave to circumstances.
When you’re reactive, you allow your personal happiness to be determined by events outside of your control. And you take actions only based on what has happened.
Successful people on the other hand take actions based on their own plans. They are proactive and take charge of their own lives. They prioritize their work and won’t let people distract them and slow down their progress.
Replying messages instantly seem to be just a small problem. But it’s more serious than you thought. According to a 2014 survey, americans in 25-34 age check their phones 50 times per day. Imagine being interrupted 50 times per day! And we have 24 hours with 16 hours awake each day only. Which means every hour you would be interrupted at least 3 times. What big achievements can you have when you can’t even focus on your own?
So how can you eliminate such habit?
First, do you keep your phone with you at all times?
If yes, try leaving it at home from time to time, or at the very least, switching it to silent mode or just mute the groups. By doing this, you can then decide when you’ll check for messages, rather than being controlled by every message that comes through.
Life is too short to be dictated by endless messages arriving to your devices. Find time to shut off the noise, and instead, use this time to build a new, purpose-filled life.

http://www.lifehack.org/561463/dont-reply-messages-instantly-can-seriously-ruin-your-life?ref=mail&mtype=daily_newsletter&mid=20170317_editor_pick&uid=687414&hash=707e797f7e757e6d794c856d747b7b3a6f7b79&action=click

PHARMA INNOVATION SPECIAL .....The next horizon of innovation for pharma

The next horizon of innovation for pharma

An executive partner at Flagship Pioneering discusses what’s next for the industry, disruptive technologies, and patient care.
What’s next for the pharmaceuticals industry, amid digital disruption and rapid technological advances? McKinsey’s Martin Dewhurst sat down for a wide-ranging conversation with David Epstein of venture firm Flagship Pioneering to explore ways the sector could shift in coming years. In this interview, part of our Biopharma Frontiers series on how the pharmaceutical industry is evolving and how leaders can adapt, Epstein discusses the next horizon of innovation, critical elements of an effective business, and the kind of culture he tries to foster. An edited transcript of their conversation follows.
McKinsey: How do you see the pharmaceutical industry evolving?
David Epstein: If our job is to help people live longer and better lives, as I believe it is, then we’ve never had a better understanding of biology or better tools to affect it than we do today. I’m excited about the possibility of addressing diseases in a much more targeted way, with fewer unwanted effects, and identifying the patients who are most likely to respond well to a given intervention and who will benefit most.
If we can avoid exposing people to side effects when they won’t get benefits from a given treatment, we can take some of the waste out of the healthcare system, not to mention patient discomfort. Studies show the system has enormous inefficiencies at every level, whether it’s in the use of drugs, the way hospitals are run, or how patients go from doctor to doctor. If we can figure out how to customize treatments by selecting the right therapy for individual patients or by combining therapy with digital interventions, there is an opportunity to use the huge amount of money we spend on healthcare more efficiently—and to help make people healthier and happier in the process.
McKinsey: Do you think any of that will happen in the next three to five years?
David Epstein: I think it’s already starting on a small scale with targeted drug therapies, particularly in cancer and immunology. Take Gleevec and Herceptin: at first, few believed that targeted cancer therapy could have much impact, but after those two medicines came out, R&D dollars shifted to targeted treatments and spawned dozens of medications, some of which are true breakthroughs. The first generation of cellular therapies should come to market as early as the end of 2017. And diagnostic tests are increasing, too, with academic institutions and companies doing whole-genome screening.
An opportunity that will take longer to capture is remote monitoring, where patients are cared for in the comfort of their homes rather than in the doctor’s office or at the hospital. That might mean the doctor is seeing the patient via videoconferencing or the patient is wearing a patch to monitor some bodily function in real time. All that will happen, but it will be slow, because the system needs to adapt to address questions such as how you pay for it and how you build the infrastructure to get the quality of data you need.
McKinsey: Over the past decade, the excitement about the next horizon of innovation hasn’t been matched by the rate of delivery of new therapies. Why is that?
David Epstein: It’s always that way. Take antibodies. In the beginning, there was a lot of excitement about all the new druggable targets we were going to have and how they were going to change everything. Then there were one or two, and then nothing, and everybody thought that was it. The same goes for proteins. How many missteps have there been in gene therapy and cell therapy? It takes perseverance.
Most new approaches take more than ten years in our industry. When you see the idea at the beginning, you’re hoping it’s a year or two away, and then it doesn’t arrive. But scientists and companies are continuing to work on it in the meantime, and eventually there it is. If you watched Star Trek as a kid, think how long it took for many of those fictional devices to become real. It took decades after someone first dreamed them up, but now many of them are here in some form or other.
McKinsey: What about industry pipelines over the next five years? Do you think they are getting healthier?
David Epstein: They are much better in general. There are fewer me-too drugs. The challenge for many companies is that, because their top line hasn’t been growing, they can’t figure out how to fund everything in their early pipeline. That may create opportunities for spinout companies or other mechanisms to address the shortfall.
Increasingly more money has gone into venture capital over the past three or four years to capture the opportunity to find new therapeutics in previously dark spaces. In addition, the ability to take these companies public or address the need to supplement pharmaceutical-company pipelines has made the economics attractive. Attracting talent is now sometimes more rate limiting than the discovery and application of new biology and tools.
You also have to look at the external environment and think about what could go wrong. We should always worry when there’s political change. For instance, when payors—which is the government in most parts of the world—come under economic pressure, changes in legislation could disrupt the innovation process. If all of a sudden investors had no hope of being able to take their companies public and make a good return, that money would dry up, as would innovation. If pharma companies saw prices fall so far that their margins came under huge pressure, they would cut costs and reduce R&D as well as other spending. Eventually there would be an industry shakeout, and it would correct itself, but you’d have several years or longer where things slowed down or paused, and that’s an ongoing risk.
Last but not least, what’s fundamental in our industry is intellectual property [IP]. It comes under attack from time to time. If IP were not to hold, it could change everything and reduce all incentives that spur research and development, and therefore reduce progress.
McKinsey: Let’s discuss innovation. Which areas strike you as having the biggest potential?
David Epstein: There are many fertile areas as well as new tools to find new targets. I think we are going to see a series of products addressing liver disease, an area where not much has been available. And right now, the industry is spending a lot of energy and time on degenerative diseases of the brain such as Alzheimer’s. The problem is that we still don’t fully understand the biology of how the mind works or degenerates. If we did, we’d have many additional opportunities to create new interventions. And of course, oncology and autoimmune disease offer a rich opportunity. Thankfully, companies are now beginning to reengage in antibacterial research as well.
On top of that, I think cellular therapies will allow us to treat genetic diseases such as sickle-cell disease, thalassemia, and hematologic cancers. These are all near-term opportunities.
Then there’s all the excitement about the microbiome and its role in human health. We have more to learn, but it could give us a host of new ways to attack disease or identify new targets for small molecules. In two or three years, there will be breakthroughs not just in obvious areas, such as gastrointestinal disease, but around the connection between the mind and the gut, and between heart disease and the gut. Over time, these things will be elucidated, and new approaches will be developed. One day, we may be able to manage the microbiome in a prophylactic way by, say, modifying certain bacteria and giving it to people to prevent arthritis or depression.
McKinsey: That’s the science part, but what about technology innovation? Where do you see digital taking the medical field?
David Epstein: I believe there’s enormous waste in the way we do things. You go to a doctor, he or she makes a diagnosis and sends you home, and there’s little follow-up until you next return. There has to be a more effective way to monitor people over time. Digital allows that possibility. There are some incredible innovations out there—technology that enables a different level of efficiency, joined-up thinking within patient care.
When I was at Novartis, we built a digital-medicine group with teams of experts who worked with the products and the patients who needed them to determine what the digital enhancements should be, as well as to tackle the challenge of communicating with physicians and patients about what’s possible through social media. There’s so much that can be done to improve diagnosis and compliance, and in a lower-cost way. It’s hard to prove that the new approach works, but it certainly seems to have engaged lots of people, including some who had never been engaged before. Regulation is a factor, but pharma has a long way to go to catch up with other industries in this respect.
McKinsey: Patient-centricity is one of the buzzwords we keep hearing, but it’s extremely important. How do you see it playing out?
David Epstein: There are two aspects to this. One is that the pharmaceutical industry dramatically misunderstands what a patient goes through to get diagnosed and treated, so the first thing that’s necessary is to understand this better. With those insights, one can develop drugs with labels that are more likely to meet patients’ needs, commercialize them in a more patient-oriented way, and perform clinical trials more efficiently.
The second thing about patient-centricity is that it’s an enormously powerful tool to motivate your workforce about why we’re here and what we’re doing. Most employees don’t get excited about generating $X of sales each quarter. It’s important because we’re a business, but if people feel someone will live a better life because of what they are doing, it will motivate them to pick up the phone, break a bureaucratic process, or get the team together to have that meeting earlier and make a decision rather than waiting. It makes you more responsive and engaged, so you get innovation across the line more quickly.
Seeing the world through patients’ eyes makes employees feel good about helping people and leaving a legacy they can be proud of. You need to make it real. If you’re sitting in a meeting, you need to ask, “What would patients say if they were watching?”
McKinsey: What do you think will change in the way you move from innovating and developing new therapies to commercializing them?
David Epstein: Clinical trials will be different. Patient data won’t be collected only in the doctor’s office, and we won’t monitor only the standard indicators like heart rate; we’ll also consider quality-of-life measures. Eventually, patient-reported outcomes will routinely be included on drug labels. Trials will be smaller, because there will be a better way of determining which patients are likely to respond from the very beginning.
Unfortunately, the commercialization process isn’t going to change much. You still need to do many of the same things we do now to educate physicians and reach patients, although the social-media component will be bigger.
And payment is starting to move toward paying for outcomes. It won’t be that this therapy costs $X, but rather $X if it works and less—or even zero—if it doesn’t. If you buy a car and it doesn’t go, you take it back and get a new one, or you get your money back. The pharmaceutical industry is moving in the same direction.
McKinsey: This raises the issue of generating real-world-evidence data. What do you see as the pharma company’s role in that?
David Epstein: Healthcare systems and providers are generating data sets and have a huge advantage in controlling the data, and most of these organizations are willing to collaborate with pharma on a given medicine or therapeutic area. We’re going to have to do it together. Otherwise, we’ll both be generating data, and the data sets will say different things because we’ll ask different questions and use different analytic tools.
Some regulators are saying they may even give additional indications based on real-world data sets—or, if not new indications, then a follow-up commitment to getting a first indication to confirm the drug works in a real-life setting.
McKinsey: What advice would you give CEOs managing in today’s environment? How do you balance the long and the short term and be resilient?
David Epstein: Don’t fool yourself that making the quarterly numbers for your shareholders is the be-all and end-all. What really matters is how you create a vision. How do you hire the right people, build collaborative teams that can achieve more together than as individuals, and make a difference in the world? Ultimately, that’s what drives financial success and still more R&D to help future generations.

http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/pharmaceuticals-and-medical-products/our-insights/the-next-horizon-of-innovation-for-pharma?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1703