A Dinner on Etiquette

When I was in college, I learned that in the old days, European people has a set of strict etiquette rules. If one violates the rules, he or she will not be considered as gentleman or lady, and consequently not be accepted in so-called upper class. Last Thursday, the Institute of Optical Science in UofT organized a dinner on continental etiquette. I joined that dinner to have an experience how Victorian people lived.

The dinner is actually a workshop. There was an instructor,who is a certified etiquette counsel, talking throughout the entire dinner. She "teached" us how to act properly from entering a dinner table till leaving the table. I guess only royal family had the luxury to enjoy such dinner for some of the rules only apply to a formal dinner comprising several dishes. Also, from those rules comes a sense of dignity and pride, which suggests royalty. But the royal class are "gone with the wind". For me, those rules are like chains on the body as well as on the mind. Thank goodness I do not live in Victorian times.

For amusement, here is a list of several interesting rules the certified etiquette counsel talked.

• Enter a table from the left of the chair.
• Put the napkin on top the chair during temporary leaving.
• BMW: bread on the left, meal in the middle, water on the right.
• When replying thanks, say my pleasure instead of no problem.
• The rule of eating: SMALL bite.
• Use the leftmost forks and rightmost knives first if multiple sets are provided.
• Never do the clean-up. Call waiters or hostess.
• When leaving the table temporarily, put the forks and knives in 7:20 position; when finishing the dinner, put the forks and knives in 12:00 position.

Websign

It's so true.

Critical Self-assessment 1 cont.

Second of all, research. It is the main reason of my being here. I joined Prof. Geoffrey Ozin's group at the end of September after the supervisor selection period. It is a materials chemistry group which focuses on inorganic nanomaterials. I have been involved in three projects since then, and am still in the process of training on related technical skills. I have taken a chemistry course related to my research; its name is nanochemistry: a chemical approach to nanomaterials. It provides a broad view of current research endeavor on nanoscience, and such a helicopter view is just what I want and need in this beginning period. In summary, either in lab or in class, I am still in the process of training, and I have not yet been able to produce anything creative and novel. In the self-assessments that come afterwards, I should gauge my research performance by how creative my work is, not by how much work I have done.

Thirdly, non-major courses. I took three courses that are not related to my major in this semester: two English courses and one course on entrepreneurial skills. They are pretty informative, and I have summarized important sessions in my previous posts.

As for spare time, gosh, I hardly had any real spare time. But I went to a concert once, visit a distance relative once, chatting in pub, having fun with other group members. Seems not a too dull life.

Silly things and mistakes. I certainly made lots of mistakes. But most of them are about food, and have little worth for recording: wasting food because I store them too long, poor cooking, etc. There are also silly things I have done in getting alone with people. But it seems that I forgot them quickly, and now I cannot recollect any of them. I should keep a list of silly things I have done and update the list more frequently than self-assessing.

So here ends my first self-assessment.

Negotiation Style

I took a course on entrepreneurship here in Toronto, and a recent talk is on negotiation. The speaker is from either a law firm or a consulting firm. During the talk, he mentioned various aspects of negotiation, such as goals, styles, value distribution VS. value creation, dispute resolution (negotiation, mediation, arbitration or litigation). What I found most valuable is the three styles of negotiation he said, which are competitive, accommodating, and avoidance.

People with competitive negotiation style tend to push, push and push until the other part says NO. Accommodating people are often soft, and tend to say "OK" and make concession. Avoidance people will not negotiate at all. The negotiation styles are actually determined by personality. And there is no best style. The most effective negotiators have the style of their own, and are always assertive and empathic.

I have been through a competitive negotiation. It was during the FACES conference, and it was a mock negotiation between the Chinese and US governments on Taiwan issue. Both parties tend to push their lines and want the other party to concede. The negotiation is like a hell, but in the end, we made some deals. Afterwards, when I met people from the negotiation group on trade and economy, I was surprised that the negotiation went so "friendly" because each parties voluntarily make concessions. I had no idea why two negotiation were so different, and I know now that it is just two different style.

The blog entry for that class is here.