<![CDATA[Matt D. Weed - Life]]>Fri, 01 May 2026 12:58:13 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[A Curriculum Vitae Makeover with Jean-luc Doumont]]>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:16:18 GMThttps://www.mattdweed.com/life/a-curriculum-vitae-makeover-with-jean-luc-doumontIn this month’s Optics & Photonics News (OSA, The Optical Society’s monthly magazine), scientific communications expert Jean-luc Doumont analyzed my CV to educate job-hunting members of our community.  His analysis and re-drafting can be seen here, and a written article can be read here.

Jean-luc makes two primary changes: layout, and the ability for it to be read out loud.  His layout changes offer a much better use of space and I happily reformatted my working document to reflect his recommendations.  I am torn, however, about whether or not the change in tone is effective for this type of document.  A reader should be able to digest a CV or resume very quickly (e.g. pass a five or ten second read test).  Syntax aimed at creating complete sentences is impressive to an English scholar but slows the upload of data by a recruiter.

The original CV sacrificed 'read-ability' for access to succinct bullets that begin with the action taken.  The subject of each line is assumed to be the name in big letters at the top of the document.  Simply reading the first three or four words of each line relays an understanding of what I have done in the mind of a recruiter who is pining over a pile of CVs.  Given a relaxed hiring manager with a cup of coffee, a biscuit, and ten minutes, Jean-luc's syntax is indeed much more appealing, I simply do not think this is a realistic audience.

In addition to these major changes, there are numerous gems from Jean-luc that you can read the analysis for (e.g. avoiding US- centricity).  I respect Jean-luc to a high degree and am grateful for this experience.
]]><![CDATA[Mission, Strategy, and Tactics]]>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:29:34 GMThttps://www.mattdweed.com/life/mission-strategy-and-tacticsTwo years ago, as part of a discussion on the evolving role of universities around the world, the topic of organizational missions arose. I have always put quite a lot of stock in the idea of the mission statement so the discussion became fairly heated.  I consider myself a naturally strategic thinker, and therefore find a concise statement of purpose quite appealing.  A well-crafted mission statement can provide a great deal to an organization, especially early in its development and at times of crisis.  It was, and remains my opinion that an organization’s mission statement should be what fundamentally defines that organization.  I wrote the following on my notepad as a thought-seed, and was reminded of it today.
Missions give organizations identity, and should therefore remain
unchanged during the organization’s lifetime.

Strategies however, offer actionable directives and should be
the dynamic interpretation of missions.
I believe these definitions allow for the steady guiding message I see as vital, as well as the adaptation mechanism necessary for survival.  As part of a current volunteer effort, I am helping to draft an organizational charter that outlines the mission and goals of a National Photonics Initiative.  Making the distinction between mission, strategy and tactics has been the major challenge due to the committee setting but it is a great opportunity to explore the challenges inherent in sculpting such an important statement
]]><![CDATA[Why be good?]]>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 19:56:38 GMThttps://www.mattdweed.com/life/why-be-good_ I cannot now remember where this question came into my mind, but it is quite a fundamental one.  The religions of the world provide reasons to behave ‘well’ generally using threats of damnation.  Social morality, normally rooted in some religious establishment uses similar fear based arguments, the golden rule is a primary example and while it is spun toward the positive most of the time, it comes down to the same negative-reinforcement.  Of course in everyday life, morality is dictated by law, which again generally stems from religious backgrounds, but more importantly still is based in fear of punishment.  The question also ties quite directly into the question of the meaning of life.  If one identifies why they should ‘be good’ then it is a simple matter to aim oneself at living in pursuit of bettering themselves and mankind.  There is genetic fear, perhaps the initial origin of morality, that holds us responsible for the future well-being of our progeny.  If we establish a stable community, based on some set of morals, where we may trust each other not to exploit whatever power might develop, then we have secured the future of our genes – biological victory!

More and more, in the modern world of complicated social structures, having children is not desired by some.  If this be the case, what binds them to the evolutionarily based morality?  Very quickly, we find that personal happiness, or perhaps couple-happiness dominates the decision making process, and a detachment from long term problems is likely to result.  What does someone care about global climate change if they have no investment in the next generation?  Taking the discussion back to the application of morals to a life’s work and taking it to the extreme, why bother conducting work aimed at long reaching impact?  We must maintain that even though some members of the community may wish not to supply the next generation, there likely remains a genetic push to ensure the future remains safe for the species.

So why do I feel motivated to do good?  This is a remarkably difficult question to get to the core of.  If I am to reject fear as a moral motivator, there must be a positive-reinforcement to lean on.  By ‘doing good’ in the sense of helping people, being pleasant, and behaving in a selfless fashion, it seems to enable my personal agenda.  While ironic, behaving selflessly in order to achieve selfish goals, it would seem to stand away from the genetic motives and therefore is applicable to anyone.  We have always been able to achieve more as a society and in groups than alone, so perhaps ‘good behavior’ is our mechanism to maintain access to these productive groups.  Whether for personal benefit (wealth, influence, comfort, etc) or for the benefit of future generations (stability, progress, etc), our communities allow and enable us to survive and succeed while our ‘good behavior’ allows us to remain part of the productive community. ]]><![CDATA[What's Wrong?]]>Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:31:28 GMThttps://www.mattdweed.com/life/whats-wrong I was recently engaged in a discussion with two colleagues focused around the question “what’s wrong?”  This question was, given our current socio-political situation, aimed at the US and was inspired by continually slumping property value, an unstable investment landscape, a sense of lost or waning global superiority in the technological arena, and a committee of elected “leadership” who seem unable or unwilling to compromise and achieve solutions.  While the core problem seems to stem from corruption and a broken economic strategy, upon further consideration the motivations for these symptoms all point fundamentally back to the people, not necessarily the system.  It would be naïve for me to claim knowledge about our nation’s core issues, but as a scientist I do feel qualified to speculate as to the cause of our impending loss of technological prowess and how it might apply to the other symptoms.

We were the first, stable, modern government to invest heavily into science & engineering.  Our leadership made it a priority, creating jobs and well-funded programs, and welcomed the best and brightest from around the world to join our efforts toward technological leadership in the WWII era.  This national priority has sustained itself to today, but the glory associated with being a member of the technological community, our race to the moon for example, has been left by the wayside.  There are two sides to this problem, if we indeed decide to classify it as such: (1) America’s scientific establishment has been running out of momentum since the Cold War and (2) other countries have noticed the success of our investments and have worked very hard to catch up.  While it may seem that we simply have an ineffective economic system to sustain our future, this assertion itself helps to point out a more fundamental concern – are we, as citizens of a democratic republic, too dependent and too expectant of our elected leadership and government?  In today’s modern and connected world, the average person has been endowed with an increasingly large amount of power.  Not stand alone power, mind you, but it remains that the responsibility that comes from being a well-connected group of individuals must be felt by each member.

If one person decides they wish to purchase their dream home, even though they cannot afford it yet, this has virtually no impact on the system of housing value or credit/debt stability.  If they default, they’re out of luck, but few else notice.  As soon as our naturally competitive spirit shows itself in mass however, causing a large part of home-buyers to get in over their heads with debt that has been made available by similarly minded but otherwise positioned bankers, the systemic stability comes into doubt.  If one raving lunatic mounts their soapbox to demand things of the government, no one in D.C. will pay attention.  As soon as this person posts to YouTube, or gets on the news, and starts generating even the smallest resonance with others, politicians go on edge so as not to offend or disrupt this disproportionately loud demographic.  The average American, by virtue of our numbers and access to the world, is under-educated, over-empowered, and excessively pandered to by its leadership.

As the same colleague who started this discussion always says: never complain unless you intend to suggest solutions!  Therefore, what can be done?  The full answer is undoubtedly multifaceted, but my simple answer is infrastructure and education.  We, as an international community, need to find a way to better organize and filter media, both social and traditional.  While this can lead pretty quickly to some sort of totalitarian control mechanism, I’d like to think that it will simply be an evolutionary result of information technologies.  This ties into education next because it will become increasingly important to educate ourselves and future generations these best practices with regard to managing the power of connectivity.  Those who learn to manipulate this flattening world most effectively will, after all, certainly control the remainder of the 21st century.

]]>