Newsletter #19: Our civic duty, the 'Next Conversation,' and teachers using AI
Things that made me pay attention.
Foreword: A regular reader of this newsletter quizzed me today.
“Where’s your newsletter?”
I answered, “I got lazy. Also, I’m planning to write one soon as I turn 52 this month.”
My primary trigger for writing is life events. In this case, however, my dear reader prompted me to revisit my writing muse. So here we are.
It was hot that day when I walked to the nearest polling center to vote. The walk to the polling place was a short distance. When I was inside the center, I could see the veranda of my second floor. Elections were THAT close to home.
It took me an hour to vote. Because I had located my precinct through an online search using a government database, I proceeded to the assigned polling center, which was located at a nearby elementary school. About 20 to 30 people were queueing in my polling precinct. I see more inside: new teen voters, old voters, the neighbor’s kid volunteering as a poll watcher. More poll watchers sat in armchairs, occasionally assisting confused voters with the voting process.
Since the government introduced automated counting machines, casting votes has been faster. One only needed to shade the boxes in a specially prepared ballot with all the names of the candidates for whom you needed to vote. This year, we chose 12 Senators, a mayor, a governor, a vice mayor, city councilors, and the party list that is often misunderstood and “abused.” More on why the current party list system is not working for me.
Here’s a confession: I didn’t vote for all 12 senators. I picked only those whom I thought were worthy of that position. I skipped the city councilors. They were either incumbents running again or has-been celebrities gunning for another term. I skipped voting for a governor; no worthy candidate on my list. Then, I had to think hard about the party list I would vote for. My understanding of a party list is that it should be represented by underrepresented communities or groups in society. That is what the 1987 Constitution said. However, today, it serves as a proxy for political dynasties or families seeking to extend or expand their power through the House of Representatives or Congress. It is also becoming an entry point for groups or individuals with vested interests who hope that a seat in Congress will enable them to shape laws to their liking. Examining the party list organization on today’s ballot, I am aware of only one or two who are legitimate representatives. The rest are a joke, supposedly pushing the interests of moms, the youth, the overseas workers, the public transport workers, etc. Put it this way: think of an interest or a movement, then slap a name and register yourself as a party list. The government is not discriminating.
A few days after we voted, the winners were announced. There were big surprises in the Senate seats available. Two opposition candidates emerged in the top 12, while celebrities failed to make it to the top 12. Manny Pacquiao was also unable to garner the necessary votes to continue his Senatorial bid. The top Senatorial candidates’ victory sent a clear message: protect a former President now facing international justice and his daughter, who is facing impeachment.
More than a month after exercising my civic duty, I’m happy and sad. Happy because there was a glimmer of hope when two opposition candidates emerged on top despite the odds being against them. It is unfortunate that many Filipinos still voted for unqualified political candidates with clear loyalties and agendas tied to a former dictator.
I finished "The Next Conversation: Argue Less and Talk More" by Jefferson Fischer in under a month. In a nutshell, this book (or audiobook) is “never about winning—it’s about staying in the conversation.” Written by a lawyer based in Texas, Fischer curates lessons from his life, where arguing is the norm, but conversations are often superficial.
I’m picking up several lessons which are straightforward but worth sharing here:
Winning isn’t the goal—connection is. Fisher says arguing to be right often ruins trust. Instead, focus on staying close and talking more. As a lawyer, his goal was counterintuitive to what he was supposed to do: win. Talking to connect is a difficult thing to do. It takes patience and control.
Simple steps make tough talks easier. He offers a three-part toolkit:
“Say it with control.” Stay calm and breathe before you speak, literally. He devotes a chapter on how to breathe properly before speaking. It’s like meditating.
Say it with confidence. Speak clearly, not loudly. This is often misunderstood. Clearly and not loudly, it couldn’t be clearer.
Say it to connect. Listen and show you care. This reminds me of a Bible verse in James 1:19: “Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger.”
Silence is powerful. If someone insults you, pause for 5–7 seconds. That pause helps cool things down and gives everyone time to think. One thing I learned from him is that silence allows someone to hear back what they said. During the silence, their words would find a way to echo back to them. Less is more.
Pause and uncover the “real” talk. When talks get tense, ask yourself: What’s this really about? Perhaps someone is hurt or scared, not just angry. If you listen hard, you will understand where people are coming from. Avoid attribution errors. Clarify. What did you mean by what you said? I am confused by what you said. Many arguments go haywire because of a simple misunderstanding.
Frame your talk: Before speaking, ask: “What do I want from this conversation? What should we call it?” This keeps the talk transparent and fair. It would be a good idea to write them down as well. I would.
Some quotes that are worth remembering:
“Winning an argument is a losing game.”
“Let your breath be the first word you say.”
“Have something to learn, not something to prove.”
How do we apply the book’s lessons in everyday life?
At home: Before telling your sibling, your partner, or your child you’re upset, think: “What do I want? Do I want to be heard?” Then start with something like, “I want us to play nicer.”
At work: You’re giving tough feedback to a direct report.
Old Reaction: “You need to fix this.”
Better Response: “I want to support your growth. Can we talk about what happened and how we can make this better next time?”
Why it works: This centers connection while still delivering the message.
The most valuable lesson from this book is that combining control, confidence, and connection helps everyone feel safe and heard. The next conversation should help you grow relationships and not ruin them.
When I opened my inbox, I clicked this headline because it made me pay attention: “Teachers Worry About Students Using A.I. But They Love It for Themselves.”
First thought: Ha!
Next thought: “Hmmmm.” What would my co-teachers feel about this?
Here’s another confession: As a part-time teacher, I use A.I. to help summarize long-reads. I also use it to create an outline for a lesson plan. I also use it to review essays, but with careful prompting, because I've discovered that today’s A.I. is prone to hallucinations, tends to be less critical, and produces generic feedback. Mind you, I just use A.I. mainly to verify my critique.
I don’t tell my students NOT to use AI. However, I warn them not to rely solely on this technology for their work in class. I called it “lazy work.” I also do classroom work, including live-tweeting and real-time writing in class. This allows me to gauge their writing level and reading comprehension. And, if they’re listening.
The article made me think about how students would feel when they discover that their teachers are using AI as well. In conversations with friends and work colleagues who were the same age as I am, we all agreed that AI is like our nifty scientific calculators. It’s a tool, not a substitute for thinking or solving a math problem. When Google’s search engine was invented, I recall many teachers saying that this marked the end of fundamental research. It’s another tool that augments research.
In the Atlantic article “What Happens When People Don’t Understand How AI Works,” it’s amusing to read that people perceive AI as sentient. They’re not. Simply, AI is not alive. Some people even believe their AI is a real friend or even has a soul. It’s just a machine making intelligent guesses, or it’s a machine that can string words into sentences through simple prompts or another series of words turned into a question, a command that thousands of computers process.
Here are three practical ways of dealing with AI today:
Don’t believe everything AI says. It can be wrong, silly, or even make things up! Hello, hallucinations!
Always ask a grown-up if you’re unsure. AI is not a friend, a confidant, a lover, a teacher, or a boss. If an app or chatbot says something unusual, talk to someone you trust, such as a real person.
Remember: people > robots. Friends, classmates, and family are far superior to any chatbot. Trust me. That’s how we learned about life and how we found the love of our lives. Talk to people; robots can lie, too.
It’s not wrong to use AI. Remember, it’s a tool, like Google or that nifty scientific calculator. You don’t want it to replace your thinking or your creativity. It is what makes us human.