Intelligence Squared

Psychologist Daniel Goleman shot to fame with his groundbreaking bestseller 'Emotional Intelligence'. The premise of the book, now widely accepted, is that raw intelligence alone is not a sure predictor of success in life. A greater role is played by ‘softer’ skills such as self-control, self-motivation, empathy and good interpersonal relationships. In this exclusive talk for Intelligence Squared, Goleman discusses the themes of his latest book, 'Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence'. Attention, he argues is an underrated asset for high achievers in any field. Incorporating findings from neuroscience, Goleman shows why we need three kinds of focus: inner, for self-awareness; other, for the empathy that builds effective relationships; and outer, for understanding the larger systems in which organisations operate. Those who excel rely on Smart Practices such as mindfulness meditation, focused preparation and positive emotions that help improve habits, add new skills, and sustain excellence.

Cairo. The facts say one thing: the biggest city in Africa and the Middle East and now so chaotic and polluted that most visitors to Egypt prefer to avoid it. This same city also speaks to us of history and humanity – Moses and Jesus, Arab poets and Napoleon’s scholars who were here beside the Nile. It speaks of brilliance, beauty and power, of Europeans looking on in amazement at a Cairo that was the trading partner of Venice and of such importance that the Arabian Nights narrator called it the Mother of the World. More recently, through writers such as Nobel prizewinner Naguib Mahfouz and Alaa Al-Aswany, it has spoken of humour amid hardships, of both compassion and corruption. Having seen Cairo shift and grow over the past twenty-five years, former resident Anthony Sattin examined the streets, the stories and the history of Cairo in an attempt to reconcile the myths with the facts.

Botticelli's Venus. Warhol's Marilyn. Chen Yifei’s Beauties.Historically, the creation of art has been largely the preserve of men. And not a lot has changed. In recent years, the top 100 highest grossing living artists at auction were men, selling predominantly to male buyers. Women run just a quarter of the biggest art museums in the world, earning about a third less than their male counterparts. More women then men graduate from art school, but fast forward a few years and it's the men who are making it big, in the market, the galleries and the museums. So what's going on The art world is a boys' club, that's what.This is the gripe of those who think the system is stitched up against women, but whose fault is it really Perhaps women don’t ‘lean in’ enough, or get sidetracked by motherhood. And while gender imbalance remains a fact, things have improved quite dramatically for women in the art world, especially when compared to the business world and its glass ceilings. From Middle Eastern sheikhas to American museum directors, from Korean gallerists to Japanese conceptual artists, the trajectory is up, not down, which is what really matters.So is the art world a bastion of male privilege and prejudice, or an evolving arena where women are continually breaking the mouldWe were joined by a panel of experts in Hong Kong on 15th March 2015 to debate the motion 'The Art World is a Boys' Club'.Arguing for the motion were Head of Collections, International Art at Tate Modern Frances Morris and Executive Director of the Institute of Contemporary Arts, London Gregor Muir.Arguing against the motion were Publisher of Artforum International Magazine Charles Guarino and Director of Education, Christie's Education, Asia Elaine Kwok.The debate was chaired by Alexandra Munroe, Samsung Senior Curator, Asian Art at the Solomon R Guggenheim Museum.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is the Washington power player who upset the feminist applecart. At the peak of her career — as first female Director of Policy Planning at the US State Department — she turned her back on her dream job with Hillary Clinton in order to spend more time with her teenage sons. How, cried her contemporaries, could she have sacrificed her high-powered career for her family Slaughter’s ensuing article for The Atlantic, ‘Why Women Still Can’t Have It All’, went viral, sparking furious debate about how men and women juggle their working lives. Having it all, Slaughter argued, remained a mirage. Women who managed to be both mothers and top professionals were either ‘superhuman, rich or self-employed’.On January 26, Anne-Marie Slaughter came to the Intelligence Squared stage, together with Amanda Foreman, award-winning historian and presenter of the recent BBC documentary series The Ascent of Woman, which charts the role of women in society over 10,000 years. They were joined by neuroscientist and broadcaster Daniel Glaser and Sky News social affairs editor Afua Hirsch, as they examined what real equality might look like for both men and women. Is gender equality a matter of women ‘leaning in’ harder in their careers Or do we all need to fundamentally rethink the roles we assign ourselves, so that both sexes can break free from traditional gender stereotypes

On November 19th Intelligence Squared hosted the ultimate clash of civilisations: Greece vs Rome. It was also the ultimate clash of intellectual titans. Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and ardent classicist, made the case for Greece; while Mary Beard, Professor of Classics at Cambridge and redoubtable media star, championed Rome.As Boris argued, the Greeks got there first: in literature, history, art and philosophy. The Iliad and the Odyssey are the earliest surviving epic poems, the foundations on which European literature was built. The Greek myths – the tales of Oedipus, Heracles and Persephone, to name but a few – contain the archetypal plot elements of hubris and nemesis on which even Hollywood films depend today.It was in ancient Athens that the birth of democracy took place under the leadership of the great statesman Pericles. And in that political climate with its love of freedom and competition, and passion for argument, the great cultural flourishing of classical Athens occurred: the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides; the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle; and the marble and stone wonders of the Parthenon. Nothing before or since has matched that explosion of talent in a slice of Mediterranean coast smaller than Gloucestershire, with a population the size of Bristol’s.But as Mary Beard reminded us, Greece eventually lost out to Rome. Little Athens, with its loose-knit, short-lived empire, had nothing to rival Rome’s scale. From Hadrian’s Wall to north Africa, from Spain’s Atlantic coast to Babylon, the Romans stamped a permanent legacy on architecture, language, religion and politics.Although nothing can detract from the brilliance of Greek literature, the great Roman writers have an immediacy unmatched by any other ancient culture. Virgil’s epic poem the Aeneid, while invoking Homer, conveys an ambiguity towards war that appeals to modern sensibilities; Catullus’s taut analysis of his own complex emotions and the s

Mired in allegations of sexual abuse, corruption in the Vatican and the first papal resignation in six centuries, the Catholic Church is in crisis. Two thousand years of arcane methods, tired dogma and unpalatable lies have left the papacy crippled and out of touch. The secularised West has lost faith in notions of infallibility, of temporal power and of a world in which gay marriage, abortion and the use of condoms remain outlawed. The Catholic Church stands on the brink of entropy, and no amount of confession can save it. It is beyond redemption.Or is it In the wake of Benedict’s abrupt departure, Pope Francis has emerged as a beacon of hope for downtrodden Catholics worldwide. Finally there’s a leader who can reconcile the principles of the traditional institution with the needs of young church-goers in search of a spiritual path: a man of humility, concerned for those in want and committed to promoting dialogue between faiths and cultures. Moreover, as Catholicism in the West declines, the numbers of the faithful have surged across Africa and Southeast Asia, which as the West slumps into economic decline, must give grounds for optimism. The Catholic Church has come through a hell of a lot worse over the centuries, and with a new captain at the helm it can surely weather the storm. Pope Francis can save it.Speaking for the motion were barrister and human rights expert Dr Ronan McCrea and Colm O’Gorman, an outspoken critic of the Catholic Church.Speaking against the motion were Catholic theologian, priest and author James Alison and former editor of the Catholic Herald Peter Stanford.The debate was chaired by Guardian columnist, author and broadcaster Jonathan Freedland.

Enough is enough. Paris, Sharm El-Sheikh, Istanbul, Jakarta. Isis is the global crucible of terrorism and must be stopped using all means available. After the Paris attacks last November, the US and its allies stepped up the bombing of Isis targets in Syria. Unquestionably, the campaign has had some effect and Isis is not the unstoppable force it seemed to be a year ago. Ramadi was taken by Iraqi forces a few weeks ago, and reports are filtering through of disillusionment and desertion amongst the caliphate’s fighters in Syria. That’s why some experts, such as General John Allen, Obama’s former special envoy to Syria, are calling for the West to finish off the job by deploying its own troops on the ground. After all, no one seriously believes that the war against Isis can be won from the air alone or by using existing local forces. But a judicious and limited use of Western ground forces could crush Isis in its vital nerve centres, after which local troops trained up by the West would take over security, and a political and diplomatic process to find a long-term solution for the region would begin in earnest.But to others such as Ken Livingstone, who took on Gen. Allen in this debate, such a move would be to fall into a trap. Isis wants to entangle the West in another war that will boost its drive to recruit jihadists across the Muslim world. And even if Isis were defeated, no doubt something just as bad would take its place. As many as 15 Syrian-based Islamist groups are reportedly standing ready to fill the vacuum and would happily absorb what’s left of the die-hard Isis jihadis. Let’s also not forget the dangers of mission creep, which embroiled the West in years of conflict and ‘nation-building’ in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, there are no easy or obvious solutions to this complex crisis, but there are better ways to deal with Isis than sending in the troops – such as starving it of its funding from oil and illicit goods. As for terror attack

'Immigrant-bashing, woman-hating, Muslim-smearing, NHS-undermining, gay-baiting'. That’s how one critic has described the Daily Mail. It depicts a world where traditional British values are under siege – from the EU, rising crime, and benefit scroungers – and it assures its readers that they are not alone in their anxieties. It loves nothing more than a good health scare. According to the Mail, almost everything causes cancer (116 items at the last count, including salami, flipflops and chimney sweeping). As for women, they are castigated for trying to ‘have it all’, and any female celebrity who ‘dares to bare’ on the beach is subjected to microscopic scrutiny of her physique. Perhaps most worrying of all is the power the Mail holds over our politicians. 'What would the Mail say' is the question ministers ask themselves when considering any liberal policy that might get a slap-down from the paper. Making the case against the Mail in this debate will be Zoe Williams of the Guardian and the Rev Richard Coles, the former popstar who is now a parish priest and much-loved Radio 4 presenter.On the other side of the argument we have Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne and Roger Alton, former editor of the left-leaning Observer newspaper. As they will point out, the Mail is the UK’s most popular newspaper in print and online. Millions of ‘ordinary’ people read it because it understands and articulates their concerns better than other papers. Mail readers are decent, hardworking people, struggling to pay their bills, ambitious for their children and loyal to their country. Hatred of the Mail comes largely from the liberal elite who sneer at unfashionable types who don’t work at the BBC or the Guardian. The Mail may be hard on immigrants and celebrities, but it has served this country time and again by exposing the wrongdoings of the rich and powerful. And it has a fine track record as a campaigning newspaper, most famously bringing the killers of Stephen

Some people just can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that a relationship is over. Finished. Unsalvageable. David Cameron, for instance. His long awaited speech on Europe has been one big exercise in denial. Yes, we should stay married to Europe, he says, because we can now renegotiate our wedding vows and get the EU to do things our way. Who is he kidding If it were so easy to pick ‘n mix what we want from Brussels, wolfing down all the soft-centred goodies and rejecting the nutty ones, wouldn’t every member state do the same That would be a certain recipe for a 27-speed Europe and why on earth would Brussels agree to that After the euro crisis, Brussels is hell-bent on tightening the rules not loosening them. But do we really want to throw away all we have achieved in the post-war decades – years of painstaking negotiations which have led to a peaceful and prosperous Europe Not only has the EU enhanced trade between its members – to Britain’s benefit as much as the others – it has also provided Europe with a real voice in the world. Of course it’s far from perfect. That’s why it needs to be reformed not rejected. And of course it involves some loss of sovereignty: in a globalised world that’s inevitable. But only political juveniles hanker after a lost world of unfettered sovereignty. Time to be grown up and accept that the EU is our future, warts and all.So which side of the argument should we heed This is the biggest national issue of our time: Britain’s destiny is at stake. In this Intelligence Squared debate from March 2013, our panel of experts debated the motion 'Both Britain and the EU would be happier if they got divorced'.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy came under expert scrutiny in this Intelligence Squared debate from 2010, as influential hawks and doves debated whether the president’s policies have left America looking feeble on the world stage. Historian and academic Simon Schama clashed with General Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the US Army, on the motion 'Obama’s foreign policy is a gift to America's enemies.'Speaking in favour of the motion alongside General Keane were conservative commentator and editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol and Executive foreign editor of the Telegraph Con Coughlin. Joining Simon Schama in arguing against the motion were France's leading philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy and Herbert Wechsler Professor of Federal Jurisprudence at Columbia Law School Philip Bobbitt.The debate was chaired by BBC World News presenter Zeinab Badawi.

In January 2009, a panel of experts came to the Intelligence Squared stage to debate the motion 'The United Nations is terminally paralysed: the democratic world needs a forum of its own'.Speaking for the motion were Radek Sikorski, Foreign Minister of Poland; Robert Kagan, an expert in US National Security and Foreign policy; Denis Macshane MP, former Minister of state at the Foreign and Commonwealth office.Speaking against the motion were Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the United Nations during the Iraq war; Shashi Tharoor, who served 29 years at the UN; and Lord Malloch Brown, former Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations.The debate was chaired by BBC World News presenter Zeinab Badawi.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy came under expert scrutiny in this Intelligence Squared debate from 2010, as influential hawks and doves debated whether the president’s policies have left America looking feeble on the world stage. Historian and academic Simon Schama clashed with General Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the US Army, on the motion 'Obama’s foreign policy is a gift to America's enemies.'Speaking in favour of the motion alongside General Keane were conservative commentator and editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol and Executive foreign editor of the Telegraph Con Coughlin. Joining Simon Schama in arguing against the motion were France's leading philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy and Herbert Wechsler Professor of Federal Jurisprudence at Columbia Law School Philip Bobbitt.The debate was chaired by BBC World News presenter Zeinab Badawi.

We assume that democracy is what every country should have. But what has democracy done for India Easy. It has stimulated corruption on a massive scale, and if you want to get rich in India the most direct way is to run for parliament and reap the payoffs businesses are obliged to make to the local MP. Caste, that Indian curse, becomes more entrenched as politicians exploit caste allegiances to win votes. Bombay may be booming but it’s hardly Shanghai. A country that is striving to be an economic powerhouse is being pulled down by its political system. Democracy is India’s Achilles’ heel.So say the pundits but what would they put in democracy’s place Would they prefer India to be ruled by a Mubarak or an Indian version of the Beijing politburo Democratic politics is always messy and often corrupt but it is the inevitable price of seeking the will of the people, which will always be preferable to the will of the dictator.Speaking in favour of the motion in this debate from September 2011 were Patrick French, writer, historian and author of 'India: A Portrait'; and Suhel Seth, author, columnist and Managing Partner of Counselage India, a strategic brand management and marketing consultancy. Arguing against them were William Dalrymple, an author and historian who has lived in Delhi for 25 years; and Mani Shankar Aiyar, former government minister and member of the Indian National Congress.The debate was chaired by Bridget Kendall, BBC diplomatic correspondent and presenter of The Forum on BBC World Service.

Today’s global art market is reminiscent of a roller coaster - even as it rotates and retrenches - the ride continues to propel, excite and surprise. With a tenfold increase in buyers over the last decade, unprecedented numbers of influencers are playing a part in work being made, seen and sold. Art has inextricably become dominated by the market. Private collectors on museum boards have become the new curators, driving acquisitions and dictating exhibition content. Advisors and dealers are conditioning the next 'hot' artists, who in turn, capitulate to the feeding frenzy, churning out works only to be dropped when the next fad takes hold. Galleries prioritise and promote sales of commercial-friendly paintings, setting their sights on short-term gains while overlooking more genuine forms of artistic production. Or is this just a cynic’s view, swayed by nostalgia for a time when artists, curators and critics were the only intellectual taste-makers Record numbers are being measured not just in sales but in museum attendance, fair appearances, column inches and public programmes. The truth is, art has never been so honest, and so popular. The market is part of the solution, not the problem; there are more places than ever to showcase new talents and more philanthropists eager to nurture the kind of art - video, installation, performance - that can’t be hung at home. Surely, global demand means that art has never enjoyed such buoyant circumstances in which to flourish. So has ‘real’ art been sold out to the market in favour of trophies for billionaires Or are we in fact enjoying an artistic renaissance where art is more accessible and exciting than everArguing for the motion in this debate in Hong Kong were The Art Newspaper editor-at-large and FT art market columnist Georgina Adam and Founder and director of Carlos/Ishikawa, London, Vanessa Carlos. Facing them were Award-winning Pakistani-American artist Shahzia Sikander and London-based art dealer, curator,

What if doctors no longer played God and you became CEO of your own healthWhat if medicine were tailor-made for your own DNAWhat will the world be like when people start living to 150 – or even forever If only the wealthy can afford super-longevity, will the growing gap between rich and poor lead to a new form of social inequalityThese are some of the questions Intelligence Squared explored in The Future of Health: When Death Becomes Optional. Massive change is already under way. New tools, tests and apps are taking healthcare away from the professionals and into the hands of the individual. Wearable devices which monitor our fitness and activities are already ubiquitous. Before long they will be superseded by ‘insideables’ – chips planted just under our skin – and ‘ingestibles’ – tiny sensor pills that we swallow. The plummeting cost of DNA profiling means we will soon be entering the era of truly personalised medicine – the right drug for the right person at the right time – instead of the same drug for everybody.All this means that we will be living longer, healthier lives. Some of the world’s top scientists believe that ageing itself can be treated as a disease, and the race is on to find a ‘cure’. Google and other Silicon Valley giants are pouring billions into longevity research, hoping that they can find the elusive cause of ageing and deactivate it, putting an end to the age-related diseases such as cancer, heart disease and Alzheimers that we tend to die of. If they succeed, the first person to live to 150 may have already been born. And an elite handful of very wealthy tech entrepreneurs have even more ambitious dreams: to make death just another medical problem which technology will sooner or later disrupt.But what will defying ageing and death mean for society What will be the impact on our financial, social and environmental resources when people start living well into their ‘second century’ And what will our democracies lo