Group items tagged

The individual's "good life" is sacrificed for 'success,' as  defined by said "clear and rigid parameters."

This is an excellent point, and while I do not see the psychological effects of different versions of LEGOS actually affecting youth, I do agree with the author that 'career tracking' is becoming more and more prevalent.

This strikes me as the author's key argument. 

It is interesting to see how the author attributes writing clearly and knowing how formulate thoughts to your audience based on the social tendencies of this generation.

Although in our modern society war is a common term, it doesn't physically affect us as much as it would have during past eras such as world wars. Our lives are not perfect, but we have the ability to live a much comfortable life and shape our policies to fulfill that. 

The author really has a clear idea of what is going on. I can personally say that I, like many others, panic when there is no "right" answer to a question. We have grown up in a world full of information. When we don't know the "correct" answer, we "google" it. We lack creativity because we don't have to do as much critical thinking. 

minimalist thinking and ideas transform into what most think to be better more complex ones, but when it comes to something as simple as toys people make it more complex with set instructions but simplify it because it no longer takes creativity and ideas but following direction

even though some college students today have the privilege of higher education they are "under privileged" in other ways but they still have as good if not better ideas to build their life

The things people watch and witness are going to be on their mind and more likely change the things he or she is watching for. For example, a person who has just watched a scary movie is more likely to hear footsteps or feel cool air against their neck even if there is nothing there. 

Exactly. The things that we experience cary through the day. We also like to come up with explinations to make things make more sense or even give them more value. Just as the Greek and Romans did when they told the tales of the Gods who did the things they could not other wise explain. An example being Helios who pulled the sun across the sky by charriot.

I think that this is some sort of sense that is second nature to most people. We like to have order so sometimes someone might go to the extreme and try and find some sort of order in complete chaos.

This is true and I like what mark said above...we are always trying to make order out of chaos...not sure why but that is what we always do,

I agree. I guess that's why there is the saying, "Everything happens for a reason." We like to give reasons and meaning to life, to our everyday living. I think Mark was spot on in his comment. We like feeling in control of many situations in life, especially with the unexplainable. 

I agree with everyone this makes sense. We are always trying to find the meaning in life so we constintly make patterns. I think that this author is correct in asserting that making patterns is natural and important and consequently there may be some truth in conspiracys for certain people.

When i hear random noises, ofter there are certain tones that can make me think of a certain song. I usually turn random sounds into a song. Certain pitches can remind of certain melodies that i know. 

We're all correct and I'm proud of everyone's findings. There's not really much more to be said on this besides that it's true.. How that affects political policy and using it to the advantage of bettering society is what we need to figure out

I think that we like for things to be relatable, we prefer to have things in common than to label it as the complete polar opposite of us, hence we see faces in windows and figures in clouds, and even sounds that make no sense we try to label as intelligible, because we want to have an understanding for our environment. We like patterns, because things remain constant that way, adapting to change is not really our favorite thing to do.

in my english class as well we discussed how humans naturally make patterns to make stuff more simple and nderstand it more even if there is no pattern or relation. its called paradolia and we do it to simplify everything then make and find meaning in it. its a natural response and is seen as beneficial sometimes in order to understand things but can distort reality to make it understandable

I know I have seen this countless times before, with people making connections between things that are completely unrelated. It seems that there is trouble with believing the simple answer, and feel that there needs to be a deeper meaning.

Or perhaps you connect point A with point B because point B holds specific significance to you. Like when people so 9/11 was a conspiracy. Maybe that person was dissatisfied with Bush and in order to justify his dislike for him needs to come up with a patternicity that supports his feeling.

I agree with Edmund. I think much that we decide with our brains has to do with importance/ significance to us. This might explain why people think that certain things are real when they aren't such as a type I error or vice versa with a type II error that believes something is false when it is really real. Humans emotions and feelings I feel make their argument make sense in their heads. 

i beleive that type II error, or a false negative would only make sense if the person had a mental disability. A lot of people who believe in things like UFOs known deep down that they are false. These people choose to not recognize real patterns, and by doing this in turn they are recognizing them.

Ever since I was in pre-school I remember connecting the dots, it's something children have been taught and doing their whole life.

I agree with Shermer's argument. We humans do see things out of certain patterns. Such as finding shapes in the clouds or a monster from your window at night, when it really was a branch in the wind. I find it entertaining when people sell the image of the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast. These patterns fascinate our brains and link to creativity.

Someone who claims they hear things can be because of past experiences that has had a great impact on them. I think experiences can influence what a person believes or doesn't believe. 

Absolutely it can.  People can be easily be molded not matter the circumstance

I believe that the reason we see faces and other things in inanimate and amorphous objects is because either we are either searching way too hard (over analyzing) or just to accustomed to the object we are seeing.  Many of us see faces in random things and I believe that it is due to the fact that we deal with many faces each and every day.  And since we are not all clones, there is room for slight differences and changes so when we come across two spots and a sideways parentheses we associate it with a face.  

I think this is a very interesting article. This article reminds me of the story about a biologist and a businessman. They are walking together. Suddenly, the biologist hears the sound of an extremely rare insect that he hes been looking for a long time. The businessman does not hear anything. Later, the businessman hears a sound of a quarter just hits the ground. And of course, the biologist does not hear it. So i think it is very similar to this article because people can find things that they are interested in easier than things that they never want. By getting interested in something, the brain or our mind will create like a pattern inside, and it keeps telling and seeking from everything around us that might be related of what we are looking for or what we are interested in. 

What it really comes down to is how the brain wants to interpret in coming information. For example, if you are a businessman you'll hear quarters or as in the article if you are a paranormalist you will hear dead people talking to you through the radio. How you interpret information is based according to your personality.

I couldn't comment on the highlight under this, but that's exactly what I thought of when I read this, Pascal's wager. It is true, if the cost of believing something is comparably better than not believing it and risking the consequences that you may be wrong, regardless of whether it is true or not, it may be advantageous to us that we've evolved this way. 

I really like this point. We are socialized at a young age to see things certain ways. Like a kid born and raised in feudal Japan would be a lot different that a kid born today in Britain. Seeing these patterns we are also trained at a primordial level to interpret them independent from what we are taught. Being educated by nature and society are two different things that come together to make our reality.

"pattern-recognition machines": I'm pretty sure we can all think of times when we've heard our named called out somewhere, but really someone just said something that sounded similar to our names. Our brains are constantly on alert, trying to make sense of the world around us. We feel comfortable with things we know, and so we try to fit new experiences into what we already know. This works like schemas. 

I feel as if whether we are making a power point or taking notes off one, more often than not a power point is overwhelming and chalk full of information for us to read and write down instead of listening to what is really being said. That isn't to say that I believe power points are bad and stupid, I simply mean to suggest that individuals do not use the power point in the most effective manner which I think is more accurate than just dismissing the program and its value all together.

More and more we see that some, if not most, classes make it a point to incorporate PowerPoint presentation into the requirements. As much as these presentations are painted in a position light (and this is not to say I am against PowerPoint) they lack the proper execution. When professors add all the information they are going to use in lecture, you see a good amount of students feel that there time is being wasted as all the information needed and being used in lecture is on this presentation, one that they can easily print. We become disengaged when all the information is given to us, yet we have to sit there and pretend we are interested. Can PowerPoints be useful, yes of course they can. But for the most part, they tend to contain too much information, and we tend to get lost in the sea of data.

The author again assumes that everyone misuses power-point which is far from the case. 

Power points largely rely on these factors as well. To any successful presentation there is quality, relevance, and integrity; however, power point allows for creativity and a use of marketing skills to HELP capture the attention of the audience. As seen in the pictures above, Tufte shows a power point and attempts to use it as a "chaotic and incoherent" mess. I find it very interesting that Tufte actually uses a horrible power point and expects the readers of his article to believe it signifies ALL power points. I do agree with him on one issue though, power points being used for young children in grade school is a bit early because young children need to begin with the basic understanding of how to comprehend and truly absorb what they read rather than relying on pictures to create their own narrative.

Power point presentations may cause a distraction from the actual content of a presentation, with all the obnoxious graphic and fonts that take over the screen. But students should be taught how to incorporate power point into their presentations because with today's technological advances, power points are very commonly required. The important thing is to continue teaching the importance of public speaking and essay writing, but also ensuring their knowledge of power point as an additional tool. Power points can also draw the audience in by using few words, making sure not to overwhelm but simply introduce the important information. Giving the audience something to look at other than the presenter also gives your eyes options, keeping you more focused. However, when teachers use power points for their class lectures and fill them with notes that we are expected to know, students spend too much time trying to copy the notes rather than focus on the actual thoughts and words of the professor. I think the more simple the better.

Overall I agree that powerpoints are poorly implemented, yet I think they can be used properly to improve a presentation. I think the major problems with usage today is. -Too much content/Blocks of text -Distraction (especially in classes where everyone is so busy copying the slides down they mis important information) -Presenter relies on the information to remember what the presentation is on (basically being unprepared) -Related to last one losing track of the topic and jumping around to different slides to figure out what you wanted to talk about

This statement is very ture because i believe that powerpoints, while sometimes necessary, are really overused. They should be used for supplementary ideas rather than the centerpiece for the speaker's whole presentation, as that is detrimental to everyone.

Powerpoints are definately too overused in todays society. They should be used as guides to help learning not to convey a specific message to an audience.

I feel that while using imagery and data might in away betray the content of the talk - I believe it is the way in which the presentation is done that truly decides this. One could use the power point simply as a reference to statements made by the speaker, or an outline as the author mentioned. I feel that saying all "slideware" somehow is a problem is kind of hyperbolic.

(I just realized that I posted this as private... but I posted it on time I swear!) I definitely agree with this point. I remember when we used to start using Powerpoints in school back in the elementary days, and it was the plain black and white, and it focused more on information than format. However, starting in high school, it started to be more about whether or not the presentation was aesthetically pleasing. I never would have connected it to commercialism, but now that Tufte has brought it up, they do have striking similarities. 

These graphs aren't coherent nor meaningless, most people are visual learners and looking at these graphs with color and labels helps it to become very clear for someone to understand and remember. 

The culture of poverty, in my opinion, is anything but a defense mechanism.  A lot of people who live with poverty do not have the choice or the ability to get themselves out of it. Most people do not choose to live in poverty. People especially do not choose to live in poverty to purposely show inequality.

i am confused myself on why these twons were different than other unfortunate neighborhoods with school and crime issues. i decided it was the passion of the citizins of this town that took it to another level and could make the change that they wanted in order to benefit everyone.

I'm not really sure how changing the makeup of the park will drive "illegal users" out because "illegal users" normally would carry out their activities during times in which there were no other people around to judge and or prevent their behavior. Changing the park makeup would probably just change the timeslots that illegal users were at that specific park.

I agree but I feel that if a public place such as this one becomes commonly used for legitimate purposes it does have an dissuading affect on criminal use. A criminal is less likely to do the drug deals in the park if they know there a high chance that someone will see them, and if the park is used all day with occasional users at night, it makes it difficult to find a "timeslot" where the location is secure. I'm not fully disagreeing with you, but I am saying there is more to it. 

I agree. I also think that this example connects to the one before in the sense that the community is taking the initiative to fix issues they feel strongly about and make it a better, safer place.  I think it is admirable how the residents cooperate with the police department and I think it will definitely drive the crime rate in the park down 

I find this very interesting as I think that this ia a good strategy. The strategy allows ordinary people voice their opinions about certain situations like the park or the school situations and actually know that their voices and opinions were heard. Where in other cities, when you call or say something and its not in a meeting form to be heard and discussed you may feel like it is just brushed under the rug. I think this is a great strategy like a town meeting in a way as it really is about helping the people and what affects them.

When discussing all the great things a participatory democracy has to offer, we forget that not all neighborhoods are like Harambee and Lakeview. In other neighborhoods it is almost certain that not everybody is going to participate. The results are going to depend on those who do participate, but the results will affect the community as a whole. 

by changing a name of the school offcourse your not going to change the way the students test score will go up, but it will sure motivate kids especially since the majority are black and they name the school HARAMBEE. AND SINCE PEOPLE WERE trying to attempt to advance their programs.

It is true that changing the name will not automatically raise test scores or increase a child's readiness for future instruction. However it will help just a little. I agree with Elliott maybe a simple name change will not only motivate the kids a little more but perhaps the teachers as well.

I agree, with both the staments above along with what the article says about not improving test score etc by simply just changing the name. But it may result in further motivation that in time will benefit and help improve test scores. It is just not going to happen right away, it will take some time. 

Another reason why I feel that the CPD and CPS were so praised was because of their willingness to listen to their constituents. The people of the cities voiced their concerns, and by having the town government listen, they were able to accomplish progress and set a tone and standard for their schools and neighborhoods. 

I agree with Tatiana; in addition to that, every action was for the most part efficient because there was no opposing force, (drug dealers, etc.) backing up there case (needing the money or something).

This relates a lot to the Interest's chapter of what Stone is trying to say. We all can come together with our one specific interest and make an impact. The staff and community in this case, wanted the school to improve so they came up with strategies to make this  effective. Working together helped get their message out for people to see.  

It is obviously a more effective way to get things done by forming group as more people can not only get things done faster, but also get the word out there quicker. The staff and community have set two solid components out to help solve their problem it just takes everyone collaboration to make it happen.

I think the best way to teach is to reach the students on a level they will understand.  If changing the curriculum to gear it towards issues that affect the students then I believe they will be more receptive to the learning environment, this would in turn increase the academics of a school.

It makes sense that the group would be more effective at watching the park than the individual.  along wit hthe reasons that Devon stated there are more eyes on the same park. The more people watching the park, the more chance there is for someone to spot illicit or sketch activity.  These steps should be implemented in more places where there is a high level of illegal activity going on.

This is exactly the idea of democracy, but I think the application falls short in that the "external interventions" view the groups as inhibitors to their plans instead of relying on these groups for guidance in creating the best policies. Elected officials of course want to please their constituents, but I feel the political field is jading when it comes to what is truly important. Instead of the importance of this democracy being fairness and creating the best for the people, the importance lies within who can play the best game and stay in power. The power triangle is upside down with the people having the littlest power in regards to being able to implement what is best for their community.

i think it's great that everyone came together to help rebuild the park. I'm not sure if the police and residents would be able to come to an agreement about solutions for the park. 

I agree with Tori that it is great that everyone is coming together for the sole purpose of the park but in reality not everyone is going to get together.  Here each person participating has a different perspective in which they view the park itself. The policemen and the residents would have different views and so would the non-profit organizations. In the end they all aren't going to come to one conclusion and to agree on everything which can cause problems.

I think the examples of Harambee middle school and the community park are excellent illustrations of how, when you bring government down to more local levels, more is able to be accomplished. Obviously, this won't work for everything, but for many government actions, the closer the decision is to the people it affects, the more relevant and efficient it will be. Local governments are, in general, in a better position to understand the needs of the citizens in that area. Bringing the citizens in on the decisions and giving them more say in how things are done enables local governments to respond to the people's immediate needs and to take into account the complexities of their unique situation. National and state governments are obviously necessary, but I think that government would be far more efficient if more power was given to local governments and the people they represent.

I also agree that it's great to see that they were able to get through the obstacles and improve their school 

The remodeling the park was a good idea. The way to beat the gang problem was spot on. They got rid of their privacy, therefor the gang members left because they had to privacy. This would not work in all areas. A gang filled area might just over take the new park, because the people who live there priorities are different.

Trimming the trees was a smart and affordable way to help people see what was being done in the park. The criminals in the park probably had no idea the city was trimming the trees so they could see what was going on.  

I also feel like this was a wise decision as Jeffrey said, because it was more of an affordable way to open up the park and have it look more accessible. Plus, this would help the crime rate lessen because crimes seem to occur when less people are around than with more. So, this simple action would prevent criminal activity efficiently.

Trimming the trees was a smart and affordable way to help people see what was being done in the park. The criminals in the park probably had no idea the city was trimming the trees so they could see what was going on.  

Trimming the trees was a smart and affordable way to help people see what was being done in the park. The criminals in the park probably had no idea the city was trimming the trees so they could see what was going on.  

This really was an ingenious way to combat the criminal activity that was happening. Trimming trees is not only a cost effective way to handle the situation, but it benefits the residents of the area by beautifying the park and lowering the amount of criminal activity. 

I think it is interesting to say that government cannot make someone change their own specific beliefs and cultures, but can change the culture as a whole.  Can it?  To a certain extent, yes.  But it does not happen instantly.  It takes generations for this change to take place, and government rarely stays committed to something for that long.

It is a life cycle, until someone beat the ODDS(rarely).

I agree with Felecia. If your family and ancestors were poor, there are very chances that you also will be poor. Like she stated above, there needs to be that one person that goes above and beyond the norm and then you can break this cycle. But those cases only happen very rarely, almost miracles.

I think the biggest reason why "poorness" is passed down is because the family has no financial literacy and teaches their children the same techniques they have used to get by in life. If the parents were not knowledgeable with money, they cannot teach their children how to be and thus the children will be in the same financial boat as their parents unless they take it upon themselves to learn from an outside source. Usually being poor is passed down along with being rich and this is not because of the physical money being passed down but because of the ideas, knowledge, and ability to handle money that is either being taught or not being taught. 

It is true that in most cases when the parents are the poor then the sons and daughters are also poor. But Felecia is right that one person needs to take a stand and try their best to fix what has been the main problem  in their family. This takes power and will though, that most people who are poor lack.

in order to have change you need knowledge, motivation and sometimes money which this culture doesn't have a lot of. Hence we see the same repeating pattern.

I don't agree anyone could make the statement that parents transmit it to thier children. I understand that where people live might transmit less opportunities but many parents move here and struggle to give their children a better life. They do everything they can in order to prevent their kids from struggling like they do.

I would agree with this because I would say most parents do everything they can to help their children. If people move it is usually to help their kids and give them opportunities they never had.

Just because your parents are poor, doesn't mean that you will be poor. People still have the opportunities to make a better environment and living situation for themselves. The government may not be able to help but they can find ways to stay stable.

I agree with Kayla because sometimes when the parents are poor, it makes the children work really hard not to be; it can cause them to try to be successful so that they can help support their parents and be able to give to their children the things they didn't get when they were little. I know people who have worked really hard not to be poor so that their children could live the happy life that they never got to. 

totally true, you can change your future however its hard. Some will go to college or do better than their family, but you dont see it very often, its not as easy as it sounds. 

I think that this is a very selfish train of thought, for some people can be very driven and motivated but are unable to to get out of their poverty due to their family needs and society.  It's not fair to discriminate an entire class as a whole when only a percentage of them are actually not future-oriented.

This is incredibly interesting, especially considering society looks down on mental illness.  

this is an interesting statement to make...perhaps it can be considered possible that all of the research did create this kind of illness, which really says something about the human mind

Athenian principals stress policy that is good for democracy, thinking that it will always lead to what is best for the community. Not all nations can work under a typical Athenian democracy though. First of all, Athens was a CITY not a country; the reason why its members were so involved was because they had public meetings in courthouses in which all citizens were allowed to argue and vote and have a say in the city's political agenda. It would be impossible to have something this engaging on a national level, in which every citizen is expected to participate, or else not bother to complain.  Secondly, not all residents of Athens were citizens, and if you were not a citizen (born in Athens and not a foreigner) then you had no say in the politics of Athens. So Athenian democracy did not look out for the best of its community because its community was much larger than those who had a say in its politics; it looked out for its male citizens and the democracy that upheld that type of government.  Thirdly, Athenian citizens were expected to bring a well-formed argument for their proposals to the table if they wanted to be even barely considered in the courts. So yes, you DID have to know your stuff and your opinion WAS discounted if you didn't, because you had no place giving opinions in things you weren't very well educated in. And even then, those who could convince and sway the most people to their side were the ones who had their agendas voted for, even if, on occasion, those agendas were not to the benefit of the "community" of Athens. In fact, Athenian democracy oftentimes lead to the detriment of the city, when people who should have had no say in its policy were allowed to influence and effect change if they could argue well enough. So before we go on putting one version of democracy on a pedestal above another, let's remember there are flaws in every version of every type of government, and not one has proven to be even remotely ideal yet.