P2: Leadership and the Value of Second Life in Our First Life

Learning to be a leader who lives from a solid foundation of self-awareness is the greatest benefit I can receive from my liberal university education.  The accelerating evolution of society and culture in the modern world demands that a liberal education teach many skills.  New and innovative techniques are emerging to teach leadership, which increasingly entails a wide variety of skills, such as finding balance between emotional and interpersonal intelligences.  Second Life is one such virtual experiment in leadership and educational enrichment.  My feelings about the program, however, are conflicted.  Though our role model construction and conversations were interesting trial runs, Second Life did not activate enough of my intelligences to be effective leadership training, nor did it motivate me to continue with other SL-oriented pursuits.

            Through writing about my role model in P1, the first of this series of essays, I learned about the type of leader I want to become.  I revisited Ken Wilber’s work and life story, which have been major inspirations for the direction I have taken during the past year or so of my life.   I admire not only his academic work but also the way in which he conducts his own life and his interactions with others.  “Leadership… builds up from a foundation of self-awareness,”[1] a principle exemplified by Ken Wilber’s life.  He has been a contemplative practitioner for several decades and has benefited from several forms of psychotherapy, both of which have increased his personal awareness.  But being a true leader entails that one does not stop with internal reflection, and indeed Wilber does not.  He emphasizes balance, a point that has greatly enriched my life.  I have learned from Wilber that there are many aspects of life worth giving attention, for “to give undue prominence to one is to be unjust to another”[2].  Though he is an intellectual giant, his teachings do not end with the last chapter of any book; they have pragmatic value and reach into the lives of real people in the real world.  By learning from my role model and recognizing that which I admire in him, I can grow toward becoming the leader I want to be.

(This is the Integral SL club. It is the virtual site of my role model's, Ken Wilber's, teachings. I was so excited when I found that he too had experimented with SL.)

Filling the leadership role I envision for myself involves learning from more than a sole exemplar.  It is valuable to recognize what many leaders from various backgrounds and in various domains of life have contributed to improving societies.  By reviewing my fellow classmates’ writings about their respective role models, I have gained insight into what makes an invaluable contributor to the world and an inspiring figure in the lives of others.  Gandhi is such an important historical figure not only because he “tried extremely hard to bring the different people of India together,” but also because he “inspired [other] leaders by ‘…creating resonance and moving [them] with a compelling vision or shared mission’[3]” (Avni Mody).  By reminding people of a greater purpose in life – one that large numbers of people could connect with – Gandhi was able to mobilize a peaceful movement for human rights and unification that would immeasurably improve Indian society.  A true leader, one whose acts will continue to benefit society even after he or she is gone, knows how to empower those around him.  Mary Kay Ash, for example, improved the lives of fellow employees by choosing “to bring morality to the work place and thus empower women to succeed in a balanced manner” (Hannah Chesser).  Both Gandhi and Mary Kay motivated other people by promoting principles they believed necessary to a fulfilling life.  I can learn from them, among many things, strength, certitude, and the courage to proceed with a vision.

(This is the corporeal version of Ken Wilber, although I suppose it could be argued that this physical manifestation is no more real than the digital one.)

But becoming the leader that I want to be involves emulating people close to me as well.  Gandhi and Mary Kay Ash have inspired thousands, but they have not impacted my life in so personal a way as friends and family have.  Danielle’s role model is her father.  His “unending enthusiasm and love for each member of his family” (Danielle Oxford) are sources of utmost admiration.  I aspire to become a leader who shows as much compassion as Danielle’s father does.  Compassion and unconditional love are also qualities I practice by integrating Ken Wilber’s work into my life.  Just as Danielle finds this warmth in her father, I too find these qualities in my mother and father.  The effort they have put into supporting me and guiding me toward my current place in life cannot be overstated.  Their lives inspire me personally, as though I could touch their stories, in a way Ken Wilber, Mahatma Gandhi, and Mary Kay Ash cannot.  Becoming the leader I want to become entails heart-to-heart relationships.  Mass societal movements may be the ones recorded in the history books, but every single one of them begins with an individual relating to others the best way he knows how.

            All of this talk about emulating great leaders has import for our experiment with Second Life because Second Life is a virtual world in which participants can practice being leaders.  Each of us in our class created representations of our role models so that we might better understand them.  By having to then behave and interact as our role models, we were asked to embody their characteristics.  “By actually entering into the object, so to speak, [one can] secure a momentary but complete identification with it” (the sympathetic imagination), which was precisely our practice with our exemplars.  This is important because temporary states can, if they are entered frequently enough, become traits.  That is, by temporarily adopting our role models’ characteristics we can learn to live as they do.  We subject ourselves to a lifestyle we currently only dream of, and with practice and dedication we can make that dream a reality.  This is one method by which Second Life potentially accelerates the formation of leaders.

(My first group chat in Second Life.)

            This process is in accord with the core purpose of a university education, which is to train individuals who will benefit society.  As Peter T. Flawn announced in his annual address to the UT faculty, “public universities exist to serve society,”[4] which means producing people who know how to live and lead in the contemporary, ever-developing world.  Graduates must be fluent in the language of technology and computers and be able to communicate with facility and tolerance.  When they can, “the doorway to rapid, intentional evolution of liberal education opens.”[5]  Second Life is a multimedia program for a multimedia world, an attempt at integrating many necessary skills, such as computer skills, communication skills, leadership abilities, creativity, and discovery learning.  Reaching others through multidimensional means – intellectually, emotionally, visually, aurally – is a skill that must be taught by universities if they are to fulfill their goal of benefiting a society now constituted of people who are “creators and empathizers, pattern recognizers, and meaning makers.”[6] Second Life reality, however, does not translate directly into this life reality, and it will never be able to transcend its virtual limitations.

Because of these limitations, I feel conflicted when I endorse Second Life as a means of embodying the traits exemplified by our role models and necessary for the success of contemporary leaders.  Our experiment was most certainly valid and, in theory, seemed to have great potential.  But I don’t think it was actually that effective.  I was very excited to be Ken Wilber, if only for an hour.  Each of us had to know our role model well enough to converse as he or she would, and I believe we all did.  Unfortunately this didn’t mean that we actually did behave as them.  At the conversations’ start, I strongly intended to speak as Ken Wilber would.  But as the interactions heated up, the mask would melt away, and the puppeteer’s own prejudices would be revealed.  I periodically forgot that I was Ken Wilber.  This, however, did reveal an interesting tidbit about the degree to which I have absorbed my role model’s teachings.  If I were to relive one of the conversations and remember to remain Ken Wilber throughout, I don’t think much of what I said would have changed at all.  Though I had unconsciously fallen out of character, I still managed to quip, “interpersonal relationships are vital to a strong leader… the mind cannot blossom ‘by itself’” (Sprinkles Timeless, Chat), a particularly Wilberesque phrase.  So while Second Life may not have actually forced me to play virtual Ken Wilber, it did show me that Wilber has become a regular part of the way I think and act.

            Desiring to further embrace Ken Wilber’s teachings, I was excited by Second Life’s opportunities to develop virtual intimacy with my role model (odd as that may seem), but I simultaneously felt many frustrations.  I have decided that I am going to meet Ken Wilber, and bizarre experiences such as this provide me with a way to get his attention.  He would be fascinated by this multidimensional experiment.  Designing virtual Ken Wilber in Second Life became fun once I got the hang of it, though it did require a painful amount of time.  I sat for quite a good chunk of time with Ken Wilber’s portrait perched beside my laptop, trying to decipher his facial structure so that I could replicate it. 

Beyond this minor pleasure, however, I did not enjoy much about Second Life.  Flying in SL made me no giddier than sitting does in my first life, and, though the computer coded flowers were of passing attractiveness, I much prefer ones that I can actually smell.  The captions that should have been clear on screen would first appear blurry for several seconds and took an irritating amount of time to load.  I do not like video or computer games in general; hence the aspects of our experiment I enjoyed were ones dealing more with Ken Wilber’s ideas and less with Second Life’s games.

            Our conversations in Second Life were, for the most part, equally as frustrating.  A lack of humanness pervades computer games and interactions, and therefore trying to have a conversation, a necessarily human interaction, was difficult.  Dialogues were less like mutual communication and more like verbal onslaughts.  Interface became unnecessarily competitive as participants hurled words back and forth, trying to shove as much verbiage into their speech bubble as they could manage. 

(If you look closely, you can see the sweat pouring down the computer screen as fingers fly over the keys and the competition bristles.)

It is difficult to listen to what others are saying in this format and understanding is impeded.  Although some intriguing topics were initiated, such as “connect everything to these [basic primitive] drives and you can transcent [sic] cultural boundaries” (LincolnLog Rokocoko, Chat), it was difficult to develop them because of the mayhem of other ideas and the impossibility of speaking directly with one other person.  Multiple participants exercised leadership by trying to direct the conversation, but their attempts were overwhelmed by technological impediments.  Because our topic of discussion was prescribed, wooden conversations were difficult to avoid.  Natural conversations wander, but in Second Life wandering is “not the topic of discussion at hand, so let’s move on” (Heidi Reinard, Chat).  This type of predetermined track created forced discussion that became unpleasant and was only occasionally rewarding.

Furthermore, Second Life was not a positive discovery learning experience.  I had no desire to explore, but that could simply be because computer games in general do not agree with me.  Some people argue that computers can provide interactive experiences.  I am reluctant to agree.  Discovery learning entails hands on experience and sensory intake that I think is impossible in a computer program.  Things in Second Life are prescribed to a degree that I didn’t have to explore.  When I was required to explore, I avoided discovery learning by asking other people for solutions.

Due to my lack of enthusiasm for computer games, I was more motivated to write P1 than I am to write the present one incorporating Second Life.  P1 was motivated by more than just my normal academic drive.  Revisiting Ken Wilber’s work was exciting, and as I did so I could feel the personal benefit I was receiving.  I really embraced the role model paper as a topic that had true value in my own life.  There is intrinsic value in the exploration of that which I admire.  Second Life is not an invigorating subject to write about, and that alone diminishes my desire to do so.  Other factors, such as the increase in my stress levels during discussions, deter me from wanting more to do with Second Life.  I cannot see a direct correlation between Second Life and student motivation to write.  The only reason I am drawing one is because I am in fact writing about Second Life; otherwise SL and motivation seem unrelated. 

            Although Second Life did not motivate me, this SL experiment did exercise certain leadership skills.  It took guidance and assertiveness to keep discussion germane.  But by no means did SL exercise the comprehensive range of skills needed to be an emotionally intelligent leader as proposed by Goleman et al.  I exercised no self-awareness, nor did I apply any emotional intelligence.  In fact, emotion is nearly impossible to convey in this format.  A leader in SL influences a cardboard world that is predictable, safe, and completely intellectual.  I successfully spat out ideas rapid fire, and, though I complain, I did learn some things about myself.  I learned that I strongly dislike this type of competitive, one-sided interaction, and I further confirmed my desire to find a balance of intelligences in my own life and in my interactions with others.  “We should take care not to make the intellect our God.  It has… no personality.  It cannot lead, it can only serve,”[7] and unfortunately it was the only intelligence employed by Second Life.  Ken Wilber’s work has helped me to discern imbalance in environments such as this one, and it is to his work that I return, rather than to the glitches and artificiality of a simulated world.

            A person who has learned leadership through a liberal education will be able to extend his or her knowledge into all domains, even virtual ones such as Second Life.  But this is not true vice-versa.  I don’t think leadership learned in SL (if that is indeed possible) can be effectively extended into larger real world contexts.  As an experiment in a liberal education attempting to produce leaders for the benefit of society, Second Life is an interesting side-note.  For leaders in our forward-racing world, virtual interactions may enhance their leadership capabilities, but they will never match the importance of an emotionally aware and balanced human being.

Word count: 2186

URL: http://www.wileywonka.blogspot.com

Appendix

CHAT 1:  What is a leader?

GROUP 5

You wrote

on Oct 11, 2007 at 9:43 AM

[8:55] part 2

Can't enter parcel, not on access list.

[8:59] Pose Ball: Sprinkles Timeless, say 'Hide' to hide me, or 'Show' to make me show. Or just right-click and sit on me to use me.

[9:00] No room to sit here, try another spot.

[9:01] Pose Ball: Shabootyflonclaya Miklos, say 'Hide' to hide me, or 'Show' to make me show. Or just right-click and sit on me to use me.

[9:03] You: Good morning!

[9:04] Rubiks Okelly: Why, good morning

[9:04] Rubiks Okelly: How are you this fine day

[9:07] You: This is the most perfectly quaint environment for a group of leaders to meet.

[9:07] You: this rocking chair is doing me quite well.

[9:09] You: I think the sympathetic imagination is a vital charcteristic of true leader.

[9:10] You: We must be able to more than empathize with others around, more than project ourselves onto others.

[9:11] You: A leader must know himself well enough to know where he ends and others begin.

[9:11] You: In order to truly relate interpersonally, the individuals must first know themselves.

[9:12] Pose Ball: Heidi Reinard, say 'Hide' to hide me, or 'Show' to make me show. Or just right-click and sit on me to use me.

[9:13] You: By knowing myself, I can know what is not me. I can go beyond myself. I can see others and see from their perspective.

[9:13] You: Seeing through the perspectives of others is the core of being able to relate to others.

[9:13] You: A leader must be able to relate to others.

[9:14] Heidi Reinard: Do we start?

[9:14] You: A leader is not a leader without people who are following. A leader cannot lead followers without developing relationships.

[9:15] You: So a leader has a sense of self.

[9:15] Heidi Reinard: You know who's a leader? Bush. Why? He never checks the facts. Facts are for pansies.

[9:15] You: He derives his ability to relate to others by knowing himself.

[9:16] You: So leaders don't need facts?

[9:16] Heidi Reinard: No.

[9:16] You: Well what type of information is a leader supposed to lead with?

[9:16] Lantz Pichot: Let the fun begin.

[9:16] Heidi Reinard: Intution. I trust my gut. If I never trusted my gut, I wouldn't have this hurnia.

[9:17] Lantz Pichot: Hahaha

[9:17] You: Is intuition not based in the real world? does intuition not have physically demonstrable correlates

[9:17] Lantz Pichot: A leader is supposed to lead with the best interests of those who follow him in mind.

[9:17] Heidi Reinard: I don't care. Don't you throw facts at me.

[9:18] You: So does that mean a leader thinks of others first?

[9:18] Heidi Reinard: No.

[9:18] You: Hmmm..... leaders should care.

[9:18] Lantz Pichot: A leader is an individual. Don't generalize.

[9:18] You: if leaders don't care, what will their followers do?

[9:18] Lantz Pichot: See, man, that's the thing about leaders.

[9:18] Lantz Pichot: You can't make a formula for them.

[9:18] Lantz Pichot: THey're leadres because they're different

[9:18] Lantz Pichot: They're corageous, and they step out

[9:19] You: I agree, the importance of the individual...

[9:19] You: A leader should realize his individuality

[9:19] Lantz Pichot: As far as caring

[9:19] Heidi Reinard: Different people should go to Florida. It's God's dump. Maybe they'll be eaten by bears.

[9:19] Lantz Pichot: that can go either way

[9:19] Heidi Reinard: Bears are the biggest threat to America.

[9:19] Heidi Reinard: Maybe they'll finally serve a purpose.

[9:19] Lantz Pichot: Lady, you're cool.

[9:20] Lantz Pichot: But a little crazy.

[9:20] You: IS there NO HOPE? feed everyone to the bears?

[9:20] Heidi Reinard: Yes

[9:20] Lantz Pichot: The strong survive.

[9:20] Heidi Reinard: Yes

[9:20] Lantz Pichot: Some people eat the bears.

[9:20] You: I dont quite see the value in this pessimism

[9:20] Lantz Pichot: Shit, I'd eat a bear.

[9:20] Heidi Reinard: I'd like you, but those tattoos set me off

[9:21] Lantz Pichot: Yeah, well, tatoos can be a touchy subject, even for the one with them.

[9:21] You: If the strong survive, are the strong leaders? do leaders survive

[9:21] Heidi Reinard: Tattoos are a sign of weakness.

[9:21] Heidi Reinard: Yes.

[9:21] Lantz Pichot: I beg to differ.

[9:21] Lantz Pichot: They can be a sign of dedication.

[9:21] You: leaders survive beyonf their physical lives

[9:21] Heidi Reinard: Leaders are strong. I broke my wrist and, guess what, I survived. I'm a leader.

[9:21] Heidi Reinard: Wrist strong!

[9:22] You: are you sttronger because of your inhury

[9:22] You: injury?

[9:22] Lantz Pichot: Hmph. I've been in jail and gotten in fights. That doesn't make me a leader.

[9:22] You: Yeah, I agree.

[9:22] Heidi Reinard: No, my wrist is weaker. I can never play raquetball again. What are you, gay?

[9:22] Lantz Pichot: It does make me a bit of a badass though.

[9:22] You: Maybe jail has helped you to lead yourself?

[9:22] Lantz Pichot: What?

[9:22] Lantz Pichot: Haha, come on man.

[9:23] Heidi Reinard: Youre probably gay, too.

[9:23] Lantz Pichot: Jail... is a kick in the ass.

[9:23] You: have you learned of yourself through that experience?

[9:23] Heidi Reinard: Come on.

[9:23] Lantz Pichot: You know, a lot of great leaders have been to jail.

[9:23] Heidi Reinard: I haven't

[9:23] Heidi Reinard: George Bush hasn't

[9:23] You: There must have been a leader in jail?

[9:23] Lantz Pichot: I mean I wish I'd gone in for protest or some noble cause.

[9:23] You: BREAK OUT!

[9:23] Heidi Reinard: Karl Rove hasn't.

[9:23] Heidi Reinard: Dick Cheney hasn't.

[9:23] Heidi Reinard: Who are you people?

[9:23] Lantz Pichot: Dick Cheney isn't a leader.

[9:23] You: THat's true, many great leaders stand up for what they believe in

[9:24] You: they get punished for it.

[9:24] Lantz Pichot: I'm Johnny Depp, nice to meet you.

[9:24] Heidi Reinard: You shut your mouth right now, you tattooed hippie!

[9:24] You: Have you been to jail johny?

[9:24] Lantz Pichot: Lady, I'm really just going to pretend I don't hear you.

[9:24] Heidi Reinard: Hey, hey, hey.

[9:24] Heidi Reinard: Come on now.

[9:24] Lantz Pichot: Yeah, man.

[9:24] Lantz Pichot: Have you?

[9:24] Heidi Reinard: Oh, excuse me, I forgot to introduce myself.

[9:25] Lantz Pichot: No one cares.

[9:25] Heidi Reinard: I am the female embodiment of Stephen Colbert.

[9:25] You: No, but I worked in a countryr fried cookin kitchen for a decade

[9:25] Heidi Reinard: It's sexy in and of itself.

[9:25] You: its a little like being in jail washing greece dishes

[9:25] Lantz Pichot: Wow, hahaha.

[9:25] Heidi Reinard: Someone ask me about my past.

[9:25] Lantz Pichot: So how'd that change your personality?

[9:25] Heidi Reinard: Okay, I'll tell you!

[9:25] Heidi Reinard: But first, I must say something...

[9:25] You: Ît really allowed me to focus on my vision.

[9:26] Heidi Reinard: That was all an act.

[9:26] Lantz Pichot: Hahaha, what a looney. I'm listening.

[9:26] Heidi Reinard: I'm a comedian.

[9:26] You: to practice my meditations and to write.

[9:26] You: I really developed a strong community.

[9:26] Heidi Reinard: I'm actually quite a reasonable man. Have you seen my show on Comedy Central?

[9:26] You: we had leaders come through and teach us.

[9:26] Heidi Reinard: No, really. The Colbert Report?

[9:26] Lantz Pichot: Comedians should be careful around me.

[9:26] You: I got to view some of the best spiritual leaders in the world.

[9:26] Heidi Reinard: I find that one can lead through comedy.

[9:26] You: yes

[9:27] Lantz Pichot: But hold on Colbert, let this Sprinkles kid finish.

[9:27] You: comedy is definitely influential

[9:27] Heidi Reinard: Entertainment has a very high value. It can influence so much.

[9:27] Heidi Reinard: Exactly.

[9:27] Heidi Reinard: Oh, sorry.

[9:27] You: I think it is a powerful tool for influencing the masses

[9:27] Lantz Pichot: Sprinkles, that's pretty cool... what're your philosiphies

[9:27] Heidi Reinard: Yes, it is. I just hope I don't have too much influence.

[9:27] You: no no... continue

[9:27] Heidi Reinard: I honestly have no problem making things up.

[9:27] You: I like this idea of influence through comedy

[9:28] You: what can we change with it?

[9:28] Heidi Reinard: People need to undertand that about my show.

[9:28] Lantz Pichot: influence through media is a pretty big deal.

[9:28] Heidi Reinard: But the influence I do hope to have is creating open minds.

[9:28] You: Does influence entail a leadership role?

[9:28] Heidi Reinard: We need to question authority.

[9:28] Heidi Reinard: I think so.

[9:28] Lantz Pichot: Influence is a key opportunity fro a leadership role.

[9:28] You: I think bad influences from the mass media come from a lack of leadership

[9:28] Heidi Reinard: Just as long as people think for themselves. I think a good leader needs to realize that they can't just boss around their "folloers."

[9:29] Lantz Pichot: What do you consider bad?

[9:29] You: we need good strong leaders - with a vision - in the media

[9:29] Lantz Pichot: I could be considered a bad influence.

[9:29] Heidi Reinard: *followers

[9:29] Heidi Reinard: Sorry.

[9:29] Lantz Pichot: I don't give a ****

[9:29] You: hmmm... bad?

[9:29] Heidi Reinard: Why bad?

[9:29] Lantz Pichot: That's the thing, man.

[9:29] Lantz Pichot: There's no such thing as a bad leader.

[9:29] Lantz Pichot: There ar just leaders for different kinds of people.

[9:29] You: do you feel like a bad person? or is your influence bad?

[9:29] Heidi Reinard: What about cult leaders?

[9:30] Lantz Pichot: Nah, I don't think I'm bad at all.

[9:30] Lantz Pichot: It's just that people don't understand.

[9:30] Heidi Reinard: Leaders who lead their followers to crime or death?

[9:30] You: but a leader applied to the wrong type of person is bad

[9:30] You: yes,

[9:30] Heidi Reinard: Mafia, cults, dictatorships...?

[9:30] Lantz Pichot: See, the kids who've always had it easy and have been told to be good little sheep since they were born can't connect with me.

[9:30] You: we have to set some value on leadership

[9:30] You: their must be some bad leaders

[9:31] Lantz Pichot: Mafias teach brotherhood.

[9:31] Heidi Reinard: Haha, then I'd say I can connect with you.

[9:31] You: So you represent the underepresented

[9:31] Lantz Pichot: Can you?

[9:31] Heidi Reinard: Yes.

[9:31] Lantz Pichot: Exactly.

[9:31] Heidi Reinard: I had a rough childhood.

[9:31] Lantz Pichot: So did I.

[9:31] You: and now youre on TV

[9:31] You: both of you

[9:31] Heidi Reinard: But that's not the topic of discussion at hand, so let's move on.

[9:31] Lantz Pichot: Well, wait. I think it's important.

[9:31] You: have you lost touch with those roots?

[9:31] Lantz Pichot: Childhood influences you, right?

[9:31] Heidi Reinard: No. Definitely not.

[9:31] You: did you have a leader when you were a child?

[9:32] Lantz Pichot: We're leaders because we didn't lose touch.

[9:32] Heidi Reinard: Yes, childhood influences.

[9:32] Heidi Reinard: No I have not lost touch with my roots.

[9:32] You: who pulled you out of the dumps?

[9:32] Heidi Reinard: My mother was a great leader.

[9:32] You: what traits did your leaders have?

[9:32] Lantz Pichot: I pulled my own ass outta there.

[9:32] Heidi Reinard: She helped me through so much.

[9:32] You: so you were yor own leader?

[9:32] Heidi Reinard: My father and two of my brothers died in a plane crash in 74.

[9:32] Lantz Pichot: That's tough.

[9:32] You: SO what qualities did she have?

[9:33] You: how did she lead

[9:33] Heidi Reinard: I'm so lucky to have been the one at home with mom. All my other siblings were off at college.

[9:33] Heidi Reinard: She was there for me.

[9:33] Heidi Reinard: She listened, she was just a good person.

[9:33] Lantz Pichot: How many siblings did you have?

[9:33] Heidi Reinard: I'm the youngest of 11.

[9:33] You: WOW

[9:33] Lantz Pichot: Do you think that played a role?

[9:33] Heidi Reinard: Large Irish-Catholic family.

[9:33] Lantz Pichot: In becoming a leader?

[9:33] Heidi Reinard: All my brothers and sisters influenced my comedy.

[9:33] You: So you defintely have a background

[9:34] Heidi Reinard: They're all so much funnier than I am.

[9:34] Heidi Reinard: Pretty much, my comedy is a combination of all of them.

[9:34] You: So you aspired to become like them?

[9:34] You: or just to incorporate them?

[9:34] Lantz Pichot: That's really sweet, man. You're lucky to be close with your family

[9:34] Heidi Reinard: I look up to them, definitely.

[9:34] Heidi Reinard: I am.

[9:34] You: Yes.

[9:34] You: I believe interpersonal relationships are vital to a strong leader.

[9:35] Heidi Reinard: I agree.

[9:35] Lantz Pichot: It's kinda cool how leaders can come from all different walks of life.

[9:35] You: family plays an integral role in developing the individualpersonality.

[9:35] Lantz Pichot: I don't know, I don't think it's necessary.

[9:35] Heidi Reinard: No, it's not necessary, but it certainly helps.

[9:35] You: you think you can become a leader solely on your own?

[9:35] Lantz Pichot: I think you've got to connect with something.</