Group items tagged

Moist is definiately one of the worst words that we have. I find it interesting that we generally find that monosyllable words more detesting than longer multisyllable words. However, I do not think sword is a bad word. Maybe I think this because I cannot disconnect the meaning of the word. To me, a sword represents nobility, honor, and courage, all of which are positive.

It is very interesting how people dislike certain words just by the way they sound. I know I do it a lot where I will avoid using it or kind of cringe when people say it especially the word moist. I also feel the word moist is highly disliked because of the meaning as well for example when one is walking outside and it lightly starts to rain their clothing could be describes as moist which is a horrible feeling.

This is a topic that I've actually talked about with my sister several times and I always laugh at how she freaks out in response to certain words. I don't really get bothered by much but she absolutely hates the words moist and puss not for their definitions but for the way that they sound. I can't think of any right now on the spot but I feel like typically the words that make me cringe are repulsive due to their definition rather than sound. I don't really like words that end in -shy like mushy or gushy because they just sound gross to me.

The article suggests that there are some words that we dislike only because of what they sound like. But can we completely take away the meaning of the word without being influenced by it? It seems unlikely. We consciously or unconsciously connect a sequence of sounds to some image in our head. Even the article itself suggests that we dont like the word 'moist' because we associate it to a sexual situation. Maybe, then, we could ask a foreign person what she thinks of the word 'moist' without knowing its meaning? But still, she could relate it to another sequence of sounds that means something else in her language. We are biased by what we know already. There's nothing wrong with it; but we are.

Whoa Whoa whoa, whats with all the hate for the word moist. I really don't understand why we hate certain words. I guess i get their reasoning for what the words mean and what they define, but it still weird. Why do we not like words? its completely counter productive for a species to hate the expansion of their own language. well anyways that was my rant. If you haven't guessed by now i dont really have any affiliations with any words, except moist. I like the word moist.

In this article it discusses the effect that some words have on people and the distaste that they have. It discusses how some words when said by people make them feel uncomfortable. In the article it discusses how the word moist has a negative affects on people because it feels weird to say and has an uncomfortable sound. For me personally, I don't personally get too grossed out by words very often but there are certain ones that do make me cringe. Some of these words include ooze and slush. I positively can't stand those words. For me I personally find it really interesting how certain words affect certain people. My question that I have is whether or not we could train ourselves to cringe to certain words or be okay with certain words? Also I want to know whether certain words would have an affect on us in the same gross way even if we did not know the definition of them.

It seems to me that many of these words do have meanings we associate with them that make them so repulsive. The article suggests that a lot of these words, "moist" included, have sexual connotations. Phlegm, mucus, and pus are all words with gross meanings. Other words, though it may not be immediately obvious, might have similar sounds to words with gross or sexual meanings, or we might associate them with some unpleasant experience in our past. This word aversion hypothesis should be tested on people who have never heard the word before/have no prior knowledge of its meaning. I think in Spanish the word "crotch" is actually onomatopoeia for a crunching sound so they probably do not have an aversion to the word.

I think it is weird that we hate words by their sounds. I think that I personally tend to hate words because of their definition, or by the way I perceive it. Honestly when I hear the word moist, I don't hate it, I actually think of moist brownies, which are yummy!! Of course its just my opinion, but i think my point I am trying to get out of here is that I don't think people just hate words because of their sounds, there are also other factors like past experiences/memories and past contexts in which the words were used in

In the article, when he mentioned that people hate words because of their sight, it made me start thinking about words that I don't like to see when reading. I realized that one thing I dislike the look of in a word is when there are multiple tittles (the dots above Is and Js) in a row. It looks very foreign and unnatural to me. For example, "jiggle". But, the multiple tittles isn't "jiggle"'s biggest problem.

I agree with "The [words] evoke nausea and disgust rather than, say, annoyance or moral outrage. And the disgust response is triggered because the word evokes a highly specific and somewhat unusual association with imagery or a scenario that people would typically find disgusting-but don't typically associate with the word." There are many words that just look bad. Porcupine would be one of these words that just look bad.

This article discusses the effect that some words have on people and the distaste that they have towards these certain words. Subconsciously, we as individuals are constantly visualizing images while we have conversations and with each word automatically popping and image into our heads. Some words have negative images connected with them, and as a result could cause one to feel distaste or evoke nausea. For example, the word "vomit" is harsh sounding and automatically puts the image of barf into our minds. Some words when typed seem to look unappealing because of how the letters look together. For example the word "Phlegm" uses letters that just look bad together. As a result, the word phlegm is looked at as unappealing and creepy. There are also negative connotations linked to the word phlegm because of the automatic mental images your mind conjures up.

"Early in the story, there is a brief passage in which the narrator, describing a moment of postcoital amorousness, says, "Everything seemed moist, permeable, sayable."" I really am in a predicament with this article. I agree and disagree at the same time. I can imagine how we dislike a word, but hating a word is a whole different meaning. When you hate a word, to me, you hate the meaning and definition behind it. When you dislike a word, it seems more so that you dislike the sound of the word and the sayablility of the word. So I dont think its right to hate on the word, for you are hating on the definition behind it. So i feel we should use a less INTENSE word like hate to criticize the sayability of the word. "Being grossed out by the word moist is not beyond comprehension. It's squishy-seeming, and, to some, specifically evocative of genital regions and undergarments." This passage mentions its mainly the SOUND, not the word or definition itself, Which brings clarity to the article.

I disagree with the premise of this article, which appears to be that some sounds are inherently distasteful. They're distasteful because they remind us of other words. As someone enrolled in french I don't hate certain words because they just sound wrong, I hate them because they're hard to say. My point being that the context of the word is what makes us shudder or cringe. The context for this cringe may not be so obvious. The example this article often cited was "moist", which stand alone the sound moy-st does not appear to be offensive. In a dirty or uncomfortable context it certainly creates an interesting reaction. As a whole I feel like this article is looking into something that isn't all there, but maybe I am just not personally afflicted with 'word aversion'.

i don't really agree with this article, i don't hate or love any words based just on the way they sound. i like or dislike words based on the meaning. words with sexual connotations we think sound gross but is that because we know the meaning of the word or because the word its self sounds bad. we could just be rating words on how they sound based on their meaning. but one word i do hate more than anything though is Prius something about it gets on my nerves

The premise of this article was a discussion on the idea of word aversion. "Word aversion is marked by strong reactions triggered by the sound, sight, and sometimes even the thought of certain words." This quote was quite thought provoking as it made me really wonder - what is it that makes a word unpleasant? Is it in fact the sound of the word (how it sounds when it it said), the sight of the word (its formation, how the letters look together), the thought of a certain word (the possibly unpleasant images that it brings to mind), or in fact even a combination? My belief is that in most cases, word aversions can be blamed on the human subconscious and the way in which, whether we like it or not, words are connected to certain images. When reviewing many common word aversions, i really couldn't help but notice that the most common ones are usually those to do with bottily fluids such as mucus, pimple, ooze, scab, pus, phlegm and even moist. This is a point also mentioned within the article.- "Many hated words refer to "slimy things, or gross things, or names for garments worn in potentially sexual areas." This would explain why certain word aversions create feelings of disgust, because when the word is heard, it can subconsciously provoke unpleasant images and experiences connected to that word.

I personally dont dislike the word moist. People find words gross because of two things and that if it has a bad connotation to it and that makes us connect it to a bad or a gross words either intentionally or subconsciously. The other reason that i think people think some words are nice and others are bad because of the way it sounds. For example words that roll off the toungue easily will ussualy sound niceer than odd sounding words and when there is a mixture of this leaning towards a bad side or a good side that word will come off as such.

In our society, not only as a national society, but as an international one, words are powerful. Our education systems thrive on words, whether it be the obligatory second language all students are now required to take, or punishment of the improper use of deemed "inappropriate" words, they are none the less, powerful. Some words are titled as beautiful, for me, some of these pretty words are amour, effervescent, enticing, arrivederci, and capricious, however, the list goes on. Now lets take a moment to find some commonalities of these words. All but one of the words begin with a vowel, meaning that the first sound has a softer pronunciation. Two of the five words are from the French and Italian vocabulary. And all of them are two or more syllables. They seem to roll off of the tongue effortlessly. Moist. One of most unappreciated and unliked words in the English dictionary begins with a consonant, is a single syllable, and has a hard ending. So it is possible that the construction of a word, which directly affects the sound of it, plays a huge role on how we categorize pretty and ugly words.

With words that have sexual connotations you never really know what is going on with the word. You really don't think of the word very much (at least for me) you picture it instead. But for pretty words you also picture them so maybe it isn't about the meaning about the word, it is more about the soundings of the words, the harsh sounds or "fuck" and "crotch" and the smooth sounds of "blue" and "leaves" give you a picture. But when it comes to inappropriate words the harsh sounds really turn off the listener.

I think that people dislike words because of the definition and the connotations that they get from hearing it. Not from the sound that they make when we say it out loud. For me, it was kind of difficult to come up with words that i like and dislike because of their meanings. So what i am trying to say is that the words sound is not the only thing that can make us like or dislike it; but it depends on our experiences and the definition of the word itself.

The reason I think that people dislike words is because they usually have an image correlation in their head that they don't particularly like, or because they have a experience that has given a bad connotation to a word this. This correlation people have with words can be intentionally or subconsciously. Because of this people usually choose words that they like or dislike not based on the sound of it but from the image and experience correlation coming from the definition of that word and their experience with it. that is why i don't really agree with this article, i don't hate or love any words based just on the way they sound.

I personal don't usually get offended by "harsh" or mean words. I feel that people dislike them because of the definition that they are given or an image that goes with the word. Also the sound of the words can be a reason too, some bad words are really bad sounding and are not good to hear. There are many words that i like and most of them are because of the meaning that they have, and there are some words that i just like to day because it is fun too or sounds cool to me.

"In essence, we have transferred (not transformed) our physical identity to online spaces and structures" Pg vi. This is a refreshing comment to hear because typically when people talk about the topic of technology, they are talking about how advanced the world has become and how different everything is. As George Siemens states, the foundation has remained the same, there has just been a shift in where information is. My question is: is it really just a transfer if people portray themselves differently through technology? "The newspaper publishes, we consume. The teacher instructs, we learn. The news is broadcast, we listen" Pg viii. In the paragraph where my previous quote was located, George talks about how along with many other things, the education system has remained remarkably unchanged, but I think that school is one thing that is much different. This quote seems a bit outdated, at least for our school. We are taught to challenge the information we gather and the news we are told, not simply absorb it like we have no opinions of our own. "Emotions influence our ability to see knowledge. They act as gatekeepers to our neural network. Logic cannot begin unless emotions are held in balance" Pg 105. I agree with this because I know that this is the reason doctors aren't allowed to operate on their own family members, but are do they always act as inhibitors? Can emotions provide a new perspective rather than just blind people?

"How deep must change penetrate our organizations before we see systemc change?" p. 5 This line made me think about something I had not previously thought about. Once someone goes against the norm, they are considered 'strange' or 'weird' for doing something differently. But, at what point does this new way of doing something become the norm? At what point in time does something go from being weird to being new, modern, and 'better'? My opinion, which may seem like the easy way out, is that it depends on the situation. "To arrive at a true definition of knowledge is to render it useless for diverse implementation." p. 17 I partially agree with this statement. To label knowledge would definitely limit its versatility. But, like a simple word, knowledge can have multiple definitions. "True knowledge" could be applicable in many different situations. "Our mind is a network…an ecology. It adapts to the environment." p. 27 The only thing I have against this statement is that it is not true all of the time. Granted, the mind may try to adapt to the current situation on is in, but without the proper knowledge of how to complete your task, the adaptation of your mind is useless. "The power to speak exists for everyone ..The power to be heard stll pools." p. 64 This is directly related to what I just said regarding the quote before this. It is true that everyone may talk, but that is worthless without knowing how to be heard. In terms of the statement prior to this, the adaptation of our minds is the power to speak whereas its success is the power to be heard.

"The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable" (3) Q: Why do we have such a desire for learning things that are new to us? Most people are uncomfortable with new tasks that they are not comfortable to us. So if we are uncomfortable with these new things then why do we try to do it? "In today's online world, an author can post a series of i deas/writings, and receive critique from colleagues, members of other disciplines, or peers from around the world. " (7) C: With this handy system for global communication data is easier to move around and be revised. In the days of old eg1900s if a document needed to be revised by a person in another region it would need to be shipped or couriered. Before this it would take many months for books or knowledge to get anywhere further than the same region or state. Curiously there were societies on complete other sides of the world but at the same time had the same invention that was fundamental to population growth.

QUOTE: "The categories of human thought are never fixed in any one definite form; they are made, unmade and remade incessantly; they change with places and times." -Emile Durkheim (13) THOUGHT: when i read this it really made me think deeper about knowledge and human thoughts. I feel that what emile Durkheim said was very true and that i could even relate to it. As we learn, expericence, feel, think, get older our thoughts change into different forms. When she said that "the categories of human thought are never fixed in any one definite form" it made me think that thoughts are like the ocean moving, not moving, flowing, changing, and never fixed. Its really hard to explain this because of the depth of this quote but that was the best way to explain my thought of this quote.

"Changes do not manifest themselves significantly in society until they are of sufficient weight and force." pg. 15 After reading this line in the passage it really made me take a step back in think. I have never truly thought about the changes that happen in our society and the journey they have to make to actually make a change. It really made me look at several different elements of businesses, style trends, etc. in life that change certain aspects in society. It amazed me how in some instances, while looking at various different businesses, the journey they had to go through in order to climb their way up and gain a sufficient amount of wait in society before they were able to thrive and cause a change. I feel like this goes for many of the different organizations that are out there such as Invisible Children etc. I say Invisible Children as an example because at first they started off small but after sharing their goal to many different schools and places around the world they grew larger and picked up force finally making it so they were truly heard around the globe. "The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." pg. 15 After reading this I did not specifically have a question that arose in my head, but rather just a spark of curiosity. This sentence made me truly wonder about the human races pursuit for knowledge and how it is the goal of many to collect and maintain as much knowledge as possible. In schooling this is very easy to see. Many students want to be able to gain, grasp and retain as much knowledge that they can in order to thrive in school and give them ease and satisfaction with themselves and what they have done. I guess I do have a question that has popped in to my train of thought. This states that the pursuit of knowledge is a desire of which is not insatiable, but I wonder, will man kind truly never be satisfied? Then again I guess not. The human race is a species of which is usually hard to s

Quote 1: "Knowledge has broken free from its moorings, its shackles." -Back in the day, only rich and high class people were able to learn and become the knowledge holders. Knowledge was really protective and in the quote it says that it was kept in "shackles" which I think is saying that knowledge was really secretive and protective and kept locked away. Today in this day and age, anyone can learn, teach or discover knowledge no matter your class, age or race so the "shackles" on knowledge have been broken off and free of its constraints. Quote 2: "The skills and processes that will make us people of tomorrow are not yet embedded in our educational structures." What are the skills and processes that will make us people of tomorrow? Why is it skills and processes that will make us people of tomorrow? Who are the people of tomorrow? Why can't everyone be themselves to become the people of tomorrow? Shouldn't everyone use their own skills and processes that will make us "the people of tomorrow?"

"Knowledge is not Static" Page 6 -I partly agree and partly disagree with this statement. I think some knowledge can be static. I know what the different colors look like for example and that will never change. Those colors will still look the same. An example of where knowledge isn't static would be in the sciences. There are all kinds of theories that fly around. Scientists discover new things each day and prove other theories wrong. This knowledge is not static and is constantly moving forward. Knowledge is sometimes static and sometimes it isn't. "Knowledge is organization. NOT STRUCTURE." Page 20 -I don't agree with this. Everything needs structure. Knowledge is organized into different categories like history. The history of WWII is organized into one area of knowledge or the the knowledge of physics, but without structure things fall. Structure helps and pulls things together making them whole and making them stand together and strong. Without structure you cannot have something complete for long. If knowledge does not have structure, knowledge falls.

Quote:"In order to understand Beauty, we kill it." and "the categories of human thought are never fixed in any one definite form; they are made, unmade and remade incessantly; they change with places and times. ~Emile Durkheim(13) Thought: The first quote really hit me, it is soo powerful. Because beauty is undefined and not understood by many. And in order to truly understand beauty, Emile thinks that you end up killing all chances of knowing beauty once you try to understand it. Just like the best things in life aren't necessarily things, but the mystery in the world. The second quote i think is an attempt to understand the uncertainty of the world. Since the world is revolving every second, the world is changing by the personalities of people that are roaming earth to the growth of plants around us. Although change is a scary thought it is happening over and over again throughout the day. Thoughts and theories about certain things may be altered by other opinions, but it is also very hard to persuade a stubborn mind.

"The "wisdom of crowds" only works when each member of the collective brings a unique perspective to the space. If we do not permit individuality we end up closing the doors of creativity" Although, assuming more people equals more wisdom isn't necessarily true. It's less about "permitting" individuality and more about the diversity of the crowds. If you bring in a crowd of engineers to collaborate ideas they might have about a poem, they might have similar perspectives. If you have a diverse range of people from different places and lifestyles, that could be an argument for unique perspectives on the poem, or whatever it is. I think permitting individuality would be making that person an individual by putting them among people who are unlike themselves, because an original idea is easily to come by, but a unique idea is much more difficult to come across. We all take inspiration from somewhere, and often times those inspirations overlap, making us similar. Which isn't a bad thing, but in this case, when you want diverse wisdom in crowds, you want to encourage unique perspective. So, in short it's less about 'permitting' individuality (someone will probably be an individual regardless of whether or not you permit it) but rather collecting people from different places so that each perspective is valuable and individual because they are surrounded by people who are unlike them. "Consider an individual who knows of Paris, France. She might be acquainted with alternate terms-city of lights, or famous landmarks and tourist attractions Eiffel Tower. In practice, to visit France is a very different type of knowledge. To dine at L'Absinthe or to view Paris from the Eiffel Tower (sights, sounds, smells) produces a deeper, more contextualized form of knowledge" I think to some extent going somewhere instead of knowing about it definitely changes your knowledge of that place, but in some cases it might not. For example if you read a good book that uses a place you lat

"Knowing Knowledge is directed at two broad audiences: Educators (designers, instructors, and administration) & Business Leaders" (p.IX) I have to agree with the idea that both educators and business leaders are very important in the process of knowledge today, and yet it bothers me to think that they are the MOST important... I believe every single element of our day - and our life - is a step to our personal knowledge, and interaction with the others - our family, our friends, our not-friends - is the most vital source of knowledge. But maybe I have interpreted what Siemens wanted to express wrong ? "It is not "not knowing" that is the problem. It is the lack of doing. . Doing is a form of knowing." (p.124) Not doing, and even most specifically not being interested in knowing, I think is the problem. If you're not curious, knowledge can come to you in the form of information, like Siemens expalins in the first part, and never go beyond simple acquired information. You're creating your own boundaries by not doing as well. These are the real enemies of knowledge. Truly, I think that not knowing is even the key to knowing ; it seems logical if you think of it for a second. No one is born with the knowledge and the fact that there are empty spaces in what you know allows you to fill them up !

"The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." (pg 3) I definitely agreed with this quote, that we, as humans, have this insatiable and ongoing desire of knowledge, that it is built into our species just as the desire for food, water, shelter, and companionship are. It is a sound answer, at least to me, when people question why we must experiment and research and create and discover things that may not actually have a practical application. Even if by understanding we cannot improve, we still wish to understand. I like the word choice of the author here- "insatiable". We can cease to be hungry by eating. We can cease to be thirsting by drinking. But do we cease to be curious by learning? In fact, by learning, we simply open up more doors and more questions and perhaps even further our desire to learn. "The power to speak exists for everyone. The power to be heard still pools. Who are the new oppressed? The oppressed in the digital divide: 1. Those without access to tools of global conversation. 2. Those without skills to contribute to global conversations." (pg 64) I think this quote is very out-of-touch, idealistic, and almost offensive with its blatant failure to acknowledge real oppression and problems in today's world. The power to speak does not exist for everyone. Just because every suburban teenager in America can now take their webcam and post their thoughts to YouTube doesn't mean that we all have this equal power to speak. There are places were the populace holds very little power. Where trying to exercise this apparently universal "power to speak" can have them killed. The standard for oppression has not suddenly changed and become everyone whose Wi-fi is down or who didn't take a basic computer skills course.

"Knowledge itself is strongly relational-it connects to other knowledge. Researchers suggest our brains are actually pained by new information- a disruption that taxes our thinking (it is easier to function from long-term memory than to actively make sense and function in our conscious short-term memory (or working area) of our brain). The more connective a knowledge stream, the more valuable. The more we know of how a society functions…or how computers work, the more holistic our understanding…and as a result, the more complete. It is (obviously) possible to know more if we already possess a large knowledge base. (50)" Knowledge is tied to other knowledge in our brains. That could easily explain why the learning foundation is so important, we tie everything to everything already pre-existing. There should be more focus on that time that busy work in school. One can argue that school is "like real life," but then why aren't all schools put at a standard for "real life toughness?" Again, one can argue that school is required to let kids grow up. I would even agree with that, but why provide busy work when kids can thrive and achieve things that would be harder when they're older? Why not let them gravitate to what they enjoy and let them have a free mind not constricted to society and opinions? "To know today means to be connected. Knowledge moves too fast. for learning to be only a product. We used to acquire knowledge by bringing it close to ourselves. We were said to possess it-to have it exist in our heads. We can no longer seek to possess all needed knowledge personally. We must store it in our friends or within technology. (51)" Are we learning anything? We all can admit to asking friends about homework, losing all of our school knowledge over summer, or asking someone to remind us about something. But why do we do these things? Our brain has the capacity for much more than we use it for, why do we need to use others' brains? Is our education sys

"We are in the early stages of dramatic change- change that wll shake the spaces and structures of our society. Knowledge, the building block of tomorrows riding a tumultuous sea of change. Previously, knowledge served the aims of the economy-creation, producton, and marketing. Today, knowledge is the economy." I agree with this statement. People are dependent on knowledge and the easy access to it that we now have. The world runs on knowledge, and who has it and what holds it. Knowledge is the steel frame underneath the world we live in. And it is changing, and making the world work differently. Knowledge will change, how we see it, understand it, and what is considered our common knowledge will change. Theories will be proven and thrown away, and will change into knowledge. "Knowledge has broken free from its moorings, its shackles." Its true, a long time ago, knowledge wasn't tested or changed, it was just common fact, and the way things where. Only recently we have changed knowledge, and found it more to our advantage. We have looked deeper into things. Long ago knowledge was shackled, stuck one way. The people on planet earth thought that the fact that the earth was flat was common knowledge, and now, we have changed, developed, and seen that the world is indeed a sphere. A long time ago, knowledge belonged to the professionals, the doctors, the teachers, the scientists. Now, it is everyone's for the taking. Having so many people know everything whenever they like may seem good as well, but are there consequences?

"We have always had more access to knowledge than we were able to handle. It has intensified in our generation. Increased global connectedness, socialization, and other factors discussed previously, are accelerating change and knowledge growth. We cannot keep up." (p. 80) I really don't like how the author is implying that growth of knowledge is a bad thing. Whatever the negative effects of global knowledge are, they cannot compare to the impact the good effects have had. The author is not looking at the bigger picture. As individuals, we can only filter the available information to what we need. As a global community, however, we can intake the knowledge in its entirety and use it for the advantage of humanity. The world-wide sharing of knowledge has, not only made the world more innovative as a whole, but it has also created a close-knit sense of community. We have created the "problem", but we have also created the solution. "Does all knowledge change? Is nothing certain?" (p.82) I think that we can never really be sure that what we "know" is fact and that nothing can be truly certain. We used to "know" the world was flat. Today we are "certain" that gravity is what tethers us to our Earth, but who really knows? Knowledge is constantly changing because we can never be truly certain of anything. In all reality, everything is just a theory, whether it be strongly supported or not. Fact is virtually nonexistent, and is only a product of perspective.

"Human existence is a quest to understand." - I really like this quote because it really sums up the meaning of life. All that we are trying to do is to understand. We want to understand anything and everything that we can! Are we disappointed when we don't understand? Is there a limit to how much we can understand? "The value of personal control may reduce diverse experiences beyond our intention." (pg 56) - This is like the personalized bubble that we talked about earlier. We are losing our diversity because information is being personalized for us. We aren't being introduced to the outside world. Thought the internet may seem like it is connecting the world together, it might just be connecting you to people around the world who are just like you. There isn't as much introduction to diversity as we think! "We often learn most through confusion. It is at the point of confusion that we are actively trying to create connections between varying viewpoints and perspectives." (pg 122) - I find this to be very true. I always think about trying to solve a math problem or a new math concept. I sit and think and furrow my brow and am usually on the brink of crying in frustation. I try to connect everything all together and then suddenly... it all clicks. The puzzle comes together after all my confusion and it is the biggest relief! The concepts that I struggle the most with at first are usually the ones that I remember and understand the longest. I think it is the part where we connect everything together.

"Changes do not manifest themselves significantly in society until they are of sufficient weight and force. The building of many small, individual changes requires long periods of time before fundamental change occurs." pg. 3 If it takes many small changes over a long period of time to create a big change then why do people believe that things can change over night? Why do people believe that something big could happen in an hour that would change the course, break the cycle? I believe that this statement is incorrect, I do believe that if people worked together big changes could happen over night, things could change for the better quickly instead of taking several months or years even. "We have created journals, books, libraries, and museums to house knowledge. Most knowledge in these storage structures is in the about and doing levels. Knowing to be, where to find knowledge (in today's environment, knowing how to to navigate knowledge as a process or flow), and knowing to transform are all outside of these container views. Schools, universities, and corporations attempt to serve dissemination processes of knowledge-in-containers. Under the pressure of constat, ongoing change (and being designed to manage products not processes), these organizations are unable to attend to the full array of knowing. For most of us, we find our higher-level understanding through reflection and informal learning, where we engage with knowledge to gain new understanding. The skills and processes that will make us people of tomorrow are not yet embedded in our educational structures. While there are many who are attempting new approches, the vast majority are ensconced in structures, preparing students and employees for a future that will not exist." pg. 10 I think that while we believe we have "contained" knowledge, there is no true way to do it. Knowledge is something that has to be understand by every person. Knowledge gives a person life, it is in no way possible to contain it

Quotation: "Nothing is all -each for a proper concept and proper implementation. When we let go of solutions in advance, and instead embrace a therapy view of functioning, we discover that many of the problems we encounter are solved simply by seeking to understand. When we understand our solutions, but not the problem, we often intensify the situation. Most of our problem-solving is more about enacting a pre-configured solution. We are more about applying solutions than attending to the nature of the concern before us (pg 118)." NOTES: This ought to be common sense. For some things it is, but for others it isn't, and that's just sad. But I agree, when we try to solve the wrong problem we just make everything worse. But I think the difficulty there is that there is no one size fits all way to understand problems. But I also don't think that it problems are necessarily easy to fix once you understand the problem. But they sure are easier to solve! An example: let's say I have been sneezing for three months straight. If I focus only on the symptoms and take dayquill each day instead of trying to understand the problem, I'll never know I have allergies. So I'll never get better and end up feeling terrible. Quotation: "Knowledge possesses different states. Knowledge that has hardened is typically not open for debate (we rarely enter conversations prepared to alter our core beliefs). We are prepared to create constructs to debate knowledge that is malleable (78)." NOTES: Once again, as always, there are things here that I agree with and things that I don't. Maybe people in general don't like to debate about core beliefs, but I do. I enjoy talking about religion, for example. Christianity is within my core beliefs, but I do enjoy debating about it (as do my friends). But it is true that I'm not willing to alter my beliefs while I talk about them. I like talking about both abstract morality (which falls under the malleable knowledge) and functi

"We stand with our feet in two worlds: one in the models and structures that orginated in (and served well) the industrial era, and the second within the emerging processes and functons of knowledge flow in our era today ..Our dual existence is noticed in business, education, and media-we have new tools being used to serve old needs" - page 5 This passage caught my eye because it relates to how public schooling was originally created during he industrial era to produce better factory workers. The author says these "new tools" we have (internet, smartphones, other technology) are still serving an old purpose, and that they'll morph someday into their own thing. My question is this: can new technology go so far with education that it changes the entire structure that schooling has traditionally followed? How dramatically can it change?

"Our relationship to content has to change when content creation accelerates ..We can no longer consume all relevant content items" - page 43 I think this is a major reason that many fields of work are becoming so much more specialized. The more humans learn about the world, the harder it is for someone to maintain expertise in a certain area, so we are subdividing fields of study into more specific fields of study. You don't just have "biologists" now; you have many different types of biologists.

"Knowledge possesses different states…along a continuum. Hard knowledge occurs in fields and eras where change is slow. Through a process of expert validation and acceptance of the public, knowledge acquires solid states. Over the last several decades, more of our knowledge has shifted to soft knowledge. When things change rapidly, many knowledge elements do not have time to harden before they are replaced or amended. Managing hard and soft knowledge (as a continuum, not distinct points) requires different processes." When it comes to knowledge elements always changing or "improving", I must agree. When a new piece of technology comes out, for example phone, Ipod, etc., it doesn't stay out for a long time. Researchers and scientists usually spend their time trying to improve or recreate what they just invented. It gives us, the consumers, no time to get used to the current product. One example would be: the new Ipod comes out and everyone wants to get it, which usually most people do. But there are always some who get it a bit later. Once they get it, say a year later or so, the newest Ipod has just been created. Their Ipod is then out of date. The constant need for improving, or recreating technology is one of the many problems in today's "modern" society.

"How does it happen today? How is knowledge vetted for validity and authenticity? The opinions and views of experts are augmented by trusted networks (like recommender systems in many communities-to validate individuals based on their history and previous activities within a space)" This brought to my mind an earlier topic of discussion that we had in TOK about the validity of experts and caused me to question many things. The quote directly questions how we get our information and how do we know it is correct. It then follows up by saying that the networks who utilize the knowledge gained from these experts validate them as individuals based on their history and previous activities. This gives us reassurance that the information given to us by these networks has gone through some sort of test/filter to make sure it is somewhat accurate and reliable. But then again..do all networks filter their information in this way? I'd hope so, but the reality of this is probably not. Just think, with all the new ways of computing and sharing knowledge, with technology and programs making it easier for anyone to give and edit information on the internet(ehhemm wikepedia) is all this information actually being augmented by 'trusted networks' and even more so, who are these trusted networks and what defines one? "Learning is the equivalent of opening a door to a new way of perceiving and knowing ..An open door leads to corridors of new thought and ways of knowing" This is a really good quote and personally one that i believe strongly in. Learning is an opportunity, an opportunity that opens doors, both physically and mentally. I say physically as learning=education which is schooling and as we all know a good education can get you far in life. In the context of this quote, learning can also open up many doors to a new way of perceiving and knowing and onto new thoughts or 'corridors' of knowing. This is also very true. When you learn something new this can cause you to

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joupert (pg. 14) I completely agree with this statement for two reasons, one being that in an argument, there's never a winner. This is because when two people are arguing, they're both standing up for what they believe in; and since when can you be wrong for what you believe in? It may sound flawed when I say that there's never a winner because in debate tournaments, there's always a winner. However, in a normal argument over beliefs, it's not flawed at all. Another reason why I stand by this statement is because most arguments are healthy, if done in moderation. Arguing with someone exercises your rights and beliefs and is what makes you unique. If no one argued in this world, yeah it would be peaceful, but the world would be a boring place too. In order to progress in life, it's essential that you stand with your beliefs because if you can't even believe in yourself and stand for what you feel is right, then life wouldn't be very interesting.

"...new affordances create a new cycle of change pressures." (pg 70) This is his final step in the system of change and i think it is a brilliant point. however i would argue, because i like to argue with these articles, that you do not need too many steps to get from acceptance and ordinary to change. Take natural changes, it can be completely unpredictable that a natural disaster will happen yet when it does it changes things on its own of no human choice. however to stay relevant enough to what he describes in his article take the example that you give someone pressure to change something. in a class for example we might have to change one persons meaning to interpret something new and the best interpretation gets the best grade. you have not allowed for "new space and development" to open up for all of the ideas because there are so many children in one classroom and there is no time. yet you have added pressure and received change. im in fact sure someone could find an easier way of change. "Our ability to pay attention i s overwhelmed....""...Why is our attention so valuable?" I think he set this up to answer himself, a useful technique, but he does have something behind this. because really we are all straining to learn more in more. in a while he goes on to say its to compete, and come out on top with the information described as most important that we chose to understand and that might have been true 10-20 years ago but the answer is actually changed (refer to first quote). but if he is truly trying to find the reason to why we are so strained for this knowledge i would say it is because it is expected of us. and that expectation has changed by definition to mean consequential if we don't do what is expected. school, life, in conversations, people say they expect us to ... and they really mean that we must and we understand that, thus we do what is expected. and today with all the knowledge library we have built, more than we can know at anyone time, be

"We stand with our feet in two worlds: One in the models and structures that originated in (and served well) the industrial era, and the second within the emerging processes and functions of knowledge flow in our era today." As I read this quote it reminded me of how everything has changed just within the past few decades. Technology has advanced so far that we are able to communicate with some all the across the world in so many ways. While not even a few decades ago our grandparents and parents had just barely began using cell phones to contact family and friends. This quote made me think that if the telephone had not been invented: would we grow closer to the friends around us? If certain technologies like the telephone, computer, TV had not been invented would humans be able survive and become more closely bonded or would the human race start to destroy ourselves? "From an early age, we view 'not knowing as a short coming, rather than a revelation. Perhaps it is in our nature to desire to banish the uncomfortable feelings of not knowing something. We like clear black and white, always true answers." This quote actually made me think of a time that I did not know something. I remember being really irritated because I felt I needed to know yet at the same time, I was worried that when I found out it might make me regret it. For example, you always want to know what your friends or classmates are talking about (even if it is something small) because you are always intrigued by secrets. However if it is like happens to get you in trouble later then you might regret knowing. The second part of the quote where it is talking about black and white answers made me think about right and wrong and how one person's heritage might say it is okay and in fact looked up upon while another would simply look at that action as disgraceful. An example of this would be Americas vs. Japanese tourists. In Japan if they go on any trips pretty much a

"In essence, we have transferred (not transformed) our physical identity to online spaces and structures." How is it that our physical world isn't changing in terms of our surroundings, yet we have transfered online? Shouldn't we be changing our way of life in reality? Life is to short to live in boring spaces, we as a human race need to make our surroundings more interesting, more colorful. Why do classrooms have desks and boring chairs? We could still have desks, but at least have couches and sofas, something to make us comfortable as we work.

"It is designed to mimic the chaotic, complex, but holistic, nature of knowledge (and learning) in today's organizations- an attempt to duplicate knowledge in form, not only content." Wouldn't it be great if we could take information, turn it into knowledge, and then just put it into our head. We wouldn't need tests, we could just know. Also, if there is no definition of knowledge, how do we know if we're knowledgeable about something? Are we knowledgeable, our are we just informed, and well learned?

"Mass meda and education, for example, have been largely designed on a one-way flow model (structure.imposed by heirarchy) ..Heirarches, unlike networks and ecologies, do not permt rapd adaptation to trends outside of estabilshed structure...Structures created by a select few and.imposed on the many" (8) I agree with this quote and believe it to be true in its entirety. There is a lot of hype about the media being brain washing and manipulating but there hasn't been a real justification on how. This quote kind of explains why; media is designed to influence a whole population, but yet only few peoples ideas and opinions go into it. The people that create tabloids and the top 10 beauty products aren't looking out for peoples best interest, they just want to entertain and sell a product. These small hierarchies have a set way of imposing on the public which is hardly ever adapted or changed due to outside causes. For example, clothing stores and other influential businesses for young women and teens haven't changed the qualifications for models or the advertisements they use, even though the percentage of teen eating disorders have risen substantially due to media influence. We advance humanity's potential through knowledge...We advance humanity through emotion (103) I agree with this idea. I feel this quote means that and idea can spark a movement but actually advancing in this movement takes perseverance and heart. Knowing whats right is the easy part but actually going through with doing the right thing is the hard part. For example, during the Civil Rights movement, it was easy for some people to see the discrimination of African American people was unjust, yet many Americans did nothing but sit aside and watch the terror happen. The future of humanity was there in front of us, but little action was taken; America had the knowledge of what was right but many hid their faces in fear. It wasn't long before those stood up and helped changed th

"Human existence is a quest to understand." This quote was extremely interesting to me because I agree with it. Human existence is a quest to understand I believe that humans are capable to help the world and do in some ways, but we mainly harm the earth and cause problems like global warming. I don't quite understand why humans exist when we cause more harm to the world then help. I feel that human existence will always be a quest to understand because there is no answer to it. It is so absurd that we were placed onto earth without a function and reason. Unless there is a reason for human existence and we don't know about it quite yet. Is there a purpose for humans? I also curate about why humans always search for reasons. Is human existence to complex for us to understand? Is there a greater power calling the shots? Do we need to understand everything? "Our ability to pay attention i s overwhelmed....""...Why is our attention so valuable?" I also liked this quote because attention is something everyone struggles with at one time or another. I feel that attention is so valuable because it is something that helps get students good grades, helps one listen, and helps a worker work. Without being able to pay attention nothing would get done, nothing would get taught, and no one would learn. Attention is valuable because it is how things get done. Can things get done without paying attention? The other asked this question so that he could explain it to the audience and how attention is something that people expect out of other people. If someone was unable to pay attention then they would be labeled as unacceptable because it is what we already expect others to have like we expect people to know how to walk. Although some people are better at paying attention then others we all know how to do it and it's value. We as people do what were expected to do ,or try out hardest at least, so we therefore try our best to pay attention.

"The content that we debate is of less significance, because how it is processed is a function of the construction itself." Page 66 I had to read this passage several times to understand what it meant. I was tripped up on it at first. I didn't really understand. But after I looked at it for a while I realized that this passage is about. I can assimilate this passage with news agencys, for example journalists in the field will collect their experiences differently based on their perspective and how they were raised. I think this is why we see the polar opposites of NBC and Fox News for example. They are just gathering information differently. Congress is another place, many pollutions debate different ideas and feelings they have toward different subjects, they debate its self is not important but the way that information in the debate was collected. How can we impart to others that the knowledge of acquisition is more important than the knowledge of how to debate? "We need the voices of both the scientist and the artist. Neither one is necessarily better than the other." Page 108 I don't know about this quote. I don't think I can agree with it. I think that what a scientists has to say helps more with the physical states of life and the artist can help with the spiritual and the mental side of life. I think that personally I can assimilate with the scientist more than the artist because that is the way my brain is wired. I just see myself more in the science field than art. But I think that the arts are just as important but are often looked down upon because they are thought of as not so important. My question is: "How can the arts and sciences both be treated with the same level of respect?

"Learning is the equivalent of opening a door to a new way of perceiving and knowing ..An open door leads to corridors of new thought and ways of knowing" This was my absolute favorite quote of the reading (in fact I screenshotted it for myself to have:)) I think that the reason I liked it so much was because I could relate to it. This class alone has taught me so many new ways of learning that I never even would have imagined before. By knowing now about all of these ways of learning and different topics, perspectives, etc, I have more opportunities to understand and apply them to my life in order to better experience new things. This actually sounds pretty cheesy now that I am rereading it, but it's so true!! Im sure you can relate once you read this article. "In order to understand Beauty, we kill it." Ummmm can you say powerful??? Just the way this quote rolls off of the tongue is remarkable. I mean, I have never heard of putting kill and beauty in the sentence, but the way in which the author puts it in this context is exquisite. Have you ever heard of the quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Because these can go hand in hand (they certainty did for me!). Beauty is the one common ground of society: everything is based on beauty really. Some even say that "beauty is power" but in order to understand beauty we kill it? just this mindset for me takes me a step back to look at the different perspectives this one quote can contain. Ahhhhh this is just such a deep quote!

It is not "not knowing" that is the problem. It is the lack of doing. . Doing is a form of knowing." (p.124) Doing is a way of learning and acquiring the knowledge of a certain subject. Doing is the best way of learning because you can learn from your mistakes. I also believe that doing something gives you more than just information, it gives you many different skills as well. The quote is saying how not doing is why we lack knowledge but it is really because of the lack of interest in a certain topic. Us as humans are driven by what we love so we do what we love. Knowledge in the form of doing is the best way of learning in my eyes.

"The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." pg. 15 This quote makes my mind ponder on how us as humans are driven by the pursuit of knowledge. For example a kid goes surfing because he wants to pursue his dream of gaining the knowledge of what it is like to go surfing. It makes me think about how much effort the human race has gone through. It makes my mind ponder on the fact that when we gain knowledge on a fact, we just want to go farther and investigate the topic to the fullest extent. This quote is saying how we go to our limits and try to pursue knowledge to get the feeling of satisfaction. My real question is "Will we ever be satisfied with our knowledge"? Everyone in our world is trying new things to try and satisfy themselves, so will we ever stop searching for more knowledge?

"Our mind is a network…an ecology. It adapts to the environment." (p. 27) I really like this. It connects more than one subject. It combines psychology and biology. Our mind has to adapt to the world. For example minds were different back in the early 1990's than now in 2012. The world and environment is changing and thoughts and ideas are changing. We have to think differently. People before thought blacks and whites weren't equal, that women shouldn't vote, etc. But no days that is different and we have learned to think this way. "The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." (p.15) This is in interesting quote. It makes me think a lot. I desire to learn more. Not about everything but even life. I want to learn about the world, about people, about sports, love, friendships. You are always trying to learn new things. By reading books or even by experiences. Learning helps you understand things more and to get better at things. We all desire to learn different things. While I desire to learn more about animals another person might desire to learn about cars. A question that I saw that really blew my mind was by Evan Phillipson. He said "Will we ever be satisfied with our knowledge?" and will we? Will we ever stop wanted to learn or not what to learn anymore? When you are a grandpa or grandma will you stop learning?

"We often learn most through confusion. It is at the point of confusion that we are actively trying to create connections between varying viewpoints and perspectives." (p.112) This is my favorite quote. I absolutely agree with this quote. I feel I learn the most when I am confused. Because when I don't understand something I will on my own research it and try to figure it out. I end up learning so much more on what I was confused about. I find out other perspectives on it and understand it. By just saying "I don't get it or I don't understand this" you can get an explanation from someone that can be deeper than what you would have gotten if you understood it off the bat. When I get explained things, because 'I'm confused about it, they try to go deeper to explain every little bit of it. Does other people learn more from confusion? If so how do they deal with it?

"To know today means to be connected. Knowledge moves too fast. for learning to be only a product. We used to acquire knowledge by bringing it close to ourselves. We were said to possess it-to have it exist in our heads. We can no longer seek to possess all needed knowledge personally. We must store it in our friends or within technology. (51)" I agree with this because i think in this current generation there is too much knowledge we are expected to learn in school, social situations and a work place. I believe we are no longer possessing most knowledge but only fragments we posses. I think we are storing this knowledge in a short term memory and in places we can readily find it again. For example we can all admit to loosing most of what we learned last year in school over the course of the summer break. Except for the basics which i believe stick with us. "We have always had more access to knowledge than we were able to handle. It has intensified in our generation. Increased global connectedness, socialization, and other factors discussed previously, are accelerating change and knowledge growth. We cannot keep up." (p. 80) I agree that "We have always had more access to knowledge than we were able to handle. It has intensified in our generation. Increased global connectedness, socialization, and other factors discussed previously, are accelerating change and knowledge growth" but i don't like how this author is insinuating that this excess of knowledge is a bad thing because i think that the bad effects of having excess information like it being harder to find what we need and finding the truth. Does not compare to the good of having this much information like being able to learn from our mistakes , it can provide new things for the future and branch off of new things once thought as excess and unnecessary.I believe that the sharing of knowledge has, made the world more innovative as a whole, and also created a sense of community among the intern

pg. vi "We are able to describe, not define knowledge." Why are we unable to define knowledge? We are able to define what many things are, but why is it hard for us to define knowledge? The answer is scary. We don't truly know knowledge, therefore we can't define it. How do we know what knowledge is? When will we be able to know what is and is not knowledge?

pg. 3 I would have to completely disagree with the statements made on this page. According to the author, many small changes lead to large changes over long periods of time. In fact, many changes have been made within the past 100 years, each one making dramatic impacts on society. 20s- 2-color technicolor in films 30s- 3 strip technicolor and talking pictures 40s- Atomic bomb 50s- Color tv 60s- Traveling to the moon 70s- internet and computers 80s- Nintendo/NES, synthesizers 90s- MP3 players, macs 00s- Ipods, Touch-screen devices

"The categories of human thought are never fixed in any one definite form; they are made, unmade and remade incessantly; they change with places and times." - Emile Durkheim (Sec1:13) Not only thoughts can be thought of, changed and changed again but information and knowledge, too. Information changes all the time. For example, billions of years ago, before Galileo, it was known that the earth was flat. Now we know that the earth is round, thanks to Galileo for rediscovering what the Greek knew. That information changed with time and place and that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. "We are able to describe, not define knowledge." (sec2:vi) Is knowledge indefinable? If knowledge keeps getting bigger, isn't there a endless description of what knowledge is because it changes?

"What happens when all of my information comes only from sources that promote view points I already hold? It's easier to access…and to ignore diverse viewponts" pg. 94 I agree with this statement because if you only get your information from one source then you think that must be correct. If something is repeated enough then our brain assumes it must be. Plus if you think something then you only want to read what says your viewpoint. "Physcal and virtual realtes are blurring." They are most definitely not. Every normal person can tell the difference between real life and virtual life. This is something the media likes to say so they can have a news story and a scapegoat for any violent crimes committed by teens and 20ish year olds. I totally disagree with this statement.

"The power to speak exists for everyone ..The power to be heard stll pools." page 64 I agree with this quote because everyone has the ability to talk to someone to share there information that they have. But without having the proper knowledge to influence people to actually listen to what you have to say, then what is the point of knowing the things that you know. And if you don't figure out how to do this then your knowledge that you spent your whole life figuring out becomes useless because nobody will know what you learned. "In today's online world, an author can post a series of i deas/writings, and receive critique from colleagues, members of other disciplines, or peers from around the world. " page 7 I think that people now days have it so much more easier than people did in the past. We have all these fancy new technologies that allows us to do things that people in the past would proably not even dream about. I am happy that even i have the ability to post something on the internet and get responses from people all around the world.

"Mass media and education for example have been largely designed on a one way flow model.Heirarches,unlike networks and ecologies do not permit rapid adaption to trends outside of established structure. Structure's created by a select few and imposed on the many." Page 10 I completely agree with this statement because it shows how static education can be and there is not much that a education system can do to change it. I do believe however that by adding technology into learning criteria and schools can help put education into the world of adaptation and allow it to progress into the more fast pace technological world of today. I like the quote about structure being created by a select few but imposed on many and this is because I believe our world trust the Internet too much and just because several people wrote about it everyone should believe it because its online. I don't believe this a good way to learn information. It does seem like my beliefs contradict each other but what I mean to say by not trusting everything on the Internet is that everybody should do some research themselves and go through several sources before agreeing to something. Is there is any other way for schools to add in technology in learning other than putting it in the criteria when learning? Why is it that students now a days learn better in technology based learning than adults when they were students?

"For most of us, we find our higher-level understanding through reflection and informal learning, where we engage with knowledge to gain new understandings." (pg.10) -What would the author characterize as informal learning? He makes a good point, but uses a very vague term to prove the validity of his point, so it doesn't sound very reliable. It sounds as though he just made that phrase up in an attempt to seem more intellectual. "The pursuit of knowledge is on going. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." (pg.3) - I totally agree with this! No matter how much human's know, which is a lot, they always want to know more. Weather it be a subject that has just been discovered or new information on a subject that we've known about for hundreds of years. Human's can't stop their hunger for knowledge because of it is power. Some people who can't seek power through social status or natural talent resort to power from knowledge.

"Learnig iss continual ..It.s not an activity that occurs outside of our daily lives" - This line really stuck out to me at how true it is. We really never stop learning. Though we may only learn small things at once with little observations, we are always learning. Now, it is part of our daily lives and how we function as people. Everywhere you go you will probably learn something new, even though it may be a small fact. "A conversation.s an object It is formed and frame worked as negotiated by parties " - All conversations are formed by the participants. If you want a good conversation then you have to try and make it a good conversation. Those who expect a formed conversations without trying are going to have a bad time. In this modern day I notice more and more how lazy people tend to get with conversations. Replying with on word, bad body posture, ect. If conversation is to live then we need to change how we conduct it. Really, you decide if you want a conversation to be good or bad depending on how much effort you put into it.

"Emotions influence our ability to see knowledge. They act as gatekeepers to our neural network. Logic cannot begin unless emotions are held in balance" Pg 105. I completely agree with this. If we mix our emotions with knowledge, what comes out is biased and construed. How many times we done something based off of emotion, not knowledge? It happens to the best of us. Emotions can do one of two things: it can act as a haze to make the knowledge appear jumbled or it can make the knowledge seem clearer. "How deep must change penetrate our organizations before we see systematic change?" p. 5 People who cause change or don't conform are met with opposition. That opposition will always be there and will often times discourage said person. But after a while either the opposition begins to fade, or something stranger occurs. I think that it's not so much "how deep must change penetrate" but is instead how different must the change be for us to notice it.

"Knowledge is the economy. What used to be the means has today become the end." Pg. 3 At first, I accepted this quote. But when I really started thinking about it, I don't think it is true. We don't want knowledge simply for the sake of having knowledge. I do not think acquiring knowledge is the end of the road. Knowledge is still the means. We need knowledge because we want to create, we want to build, we want to understand how the world works so we can work with it or against it. There are reasons why we seek knowledge. If any knowledge is the economy, it is the knowledge of how to categorize, organize, and make knowledge more accessible. Knowledge is incredibly important, yes, but what we do with our knowledge is more important than the knowledge itself. I think this is the way it has always been, and the way it will continue to be. "In order to understand beauty, we kill it. And in the process, we understand more about our nature and less about beauty." Pg. 13 I love this quote…It is so poetic. We take things that are beautiful, and we analyze them over and over again. tainting the world with our humanness. We dissect things. The only way to study the butterfly: capture it and pin it up on a bulletin board under a magnifying glass. But some things become beautiful through understanding. It's just a different kind of beauty. Perhaps the flawed, human kind. How do we define beauty, anyway? It is a human idea, a construct. It means something different for every person. If we do not recognize it as beauty, can we still "kill" it in trying to understand it?

"In each context, one view may be the most appropriate. Paul Boghossian, in his exploration of truth, belief, and facts, rejects the notion that 'all views are equally valid'" (p. 13) Paul Boghossian sounds like he is on the right track. Some views are based on lies and deception, which can be powerful tools against the uninitiated. There are a lot of ways that viewpoints can be corrupted in a way that leaves them no longer valid. Simple misunderstandings or freak personal experiences can change a person's opinion so that it no longer properly encompasses all the parameters, or reflects an opinion, of the real issue. "Unfortunately, education (K-12, higher, and corporate) is built on the model that we can fit what is important into one person's head." (p. 120) I strongly agree with this statement. While there is a lot of general knowledge that everyone needs to know, there should be a lot more specialization when it comes to education. Not everyone needs to know calculus or how many people died in the Battle of Waterloo. It doesn't make sense to try and teach everyone everything. People put more energy and care into things they want to do. When people are forced into learning things that they have no interest in, it's not easy on anyone. The students don't want to learn and the teachers get less joy from teaching. Also, people tend to forget things that don't interest them very quickly. As a result, all the time, energy, and resources spent teaching someone something, can become a total waste within a few years. Furthermore, it is more beneficial for a society to have diversely educated people, creating a well-rounded population, rather than trying to make every person learn everything.

"To arrive at a true definition of knowledge is to render it useless for diverse implementation". (Page 17) I like this a lot because it really made me think if we have actually arrived at a true definition of knowledge. From what I know of, I can't come up with an instance of where we came up with a true definition of something. People all over the world have different definitions on things, so there is no way that something like this could happen. People view knowledge s so many different ways that you really can't define anything to a full extent where there is so more to learn about it. "Yesterday's predictions have become today's reality. And in the course of that makeover, we have become more frenetic, more distracted, more fragmented-in a word, more hyperactive" (pg 69) This quote from Richard has made me view knowledge in different way. Richard has a point, what I think he is saying is that people these days need to slow down. We are always in a rush and like he says are more hyperactive then we used to be. I agree with this, because people are always on the move trying to get where the need to be. I think everyone should take a break and really just try something new. Knowledge is one of the main thinks that has changed with humans, the way we lean now, is way different than it used to be. And knowledge needs to return back to the good old days.