Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ TOK Kailua Class 2014
40More

Word aversion: Hate moist? Slacks? Crevice? Why do people hate words? - Slate Magazine - 39 views

  • sexual connotations that are among the words that elicit this kind of reaction—moist being an obvious one,” he says. “But there are other words like luggage, and pugilist, and hardscrabble, and goose pimple, and squab, and so on, which I guess you could imagine phonic associations between those words and something sexual, but it certainly doesn’t seem obvious.”
    • Casey Doyle
       
      I feel like some gross words not only have sexual connotations, but also are gross sounding to the ear. For example, two words that I hate are crotch and groin (funny how similar they are!). They both are just awful to say, and seem to get stuck in your throat as you try to choke it out. But, they also have gross connotations! I wonder if they were named with a gross sound because they represent a gross meaning!
    • Taylor Brayce
       
      I feel that the word that i dislike the most would have to be "B*tch" i just feel like there is so much hate that is put behind the word when said, even when said with a nice tone. There is always the slight tinge of hate put in there. I really enjoy the word " rendezvous" , it nicely flows off the tongue. When i say it, it makes me happy just by the sound. I have noticed that French and Latin words seem to intrigue me the most.
    • Jamie s
       
      This is so true. I think that people just have sick minds and they take so many things in dirty ways. I dont understand why. I can say something simple and normal but they change it into something sexual.
    • Anna Dunham
       
      Many people hate or dislike certain words for certain reasons, for some reason it might be connected by the context of the first time we heard that word. Many people don't like the word moist, but I do because it reminds my of the cookies that I saw in the move Cinderella Story, where the mother described them as moist. Maybe because others have not heard this word in such a great context as fresh baked cookies creates it to be unpleasant for them when they hear a certain word.
    • Jasmine Baginski
       
      I think that prior knowledge and meanings of certain words definitely affect how we perceive words such as "moist" and other words that can also be determined as sexual. Even words that seem to have no connection to sexual meanings can be made sexual with the context in that they are used. People are just weird like that.
    • Briana Grenert
       
      I really like the word lackadaisical because it flows well, it is interesting and quirky. It is a word that looks like and feels like it means the exact opposite of what it does (Lacking enthusiasm and determination). It's a word tha I can't hold in my mind because it doesn't feel right, and I think that there's something beautiful about that. Of course, that's just me rationalizing (the same reasoning does not hold true for the word pulchritudinous, you see)
  • pimple
    • Briana Grenert
       
      Anatoly Liberman has a very interesting illustration of sound symbolism with the world pimple. In fact, I'd recommend reading that book if you're interested in why some words elicit a visceral reaction. 
  • ...4 more annotations...
    • Zoe Cook
       
      I think it is really hard for us to separate words from their meanings and I think that, even unintentionally, we will always have some aversion to words whose meaning we dislike or find "gross". I think it would be really interesting to see a study in which the participants did not speak the target language and then judged how attractive sounding the words were. I think the results would be at least somewhat different than those studies done about English words with English speakers, who cannot fully disassociate the meaning from the word. On the other hand, maybe we give gross sounding names to gross things. Maybe our language reflects our preferences, instead of our preferences unfairly classifying our language.
  • “Afterwards she said she didn’t mind fu*k, but hated—wait for it—moist. Said it made her a little physically ill. Then I went on to Jackson, read there, and my sister Jane was in the audience—and had the same reaction. To moist.”
    • Cori Cummings
       
      I think the reason why so many people react so much to the word moist is because it's a visual word. The word f**k or any other bad word usually have that same vividly visual affect on people. 
  • “The word meal makes me wince. Doubly so when paired with hot.”
    • Cori Cummings
       
      When paired up with an adjective a the word meal can become a lot easier to visualize, thus creating an individual to crave this "meal". When we hear words we think of an image to fit with what the other person is telling us. For example, "hot meal" we visualize a nice warm meal, which is very comforting and may cause us to 'wince' because we long for that comfort of this type of meal.
  • “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.”
    • Ashley W.
       
      I agree with the idea that people tend to associate their preferences with the meaning of words. More info is found on my wordpress: http://awong014.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/word-aversion/
  •  
    This is an intriguing article about word aversion - and really links Sense Perception with Language as a WOK. I'd like you all to read it and offer a comment or excerpt with comment. Perhaps you found a particular quote or idea thought-provoking, or you can offer a good question. What words to you feel an aversion to? How do you know?
  • ...21 more comments...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    Some words just sound disgusting, and that's why some people hate them. Other words just have meanings that are too strong for common communication. Words that people find nice are ones that flow off the tongue naturally and sound good.
  •  
    I'm not bothered by a lot of these words as much as some people. But maybe that's because I love to say words like "moist" and "fluid" just to watch people cringe >:D But I do understand why people might be disgusted by certain words. Some, like flegm (I hate this one) sound slimy and squishy. Others, like "bitch" and "cunt" sound sharp and stinging, and they attack the listener.
2More

'We will all share more and more: it's unstoppable" - 1 views

  •  
    LJ Rich explains the growing phenomenon of lifelogging and the implications it has for us all. PLEASE WATCH AND COMMENT IF YOU LIKE..THERE ARE A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE ISSUES EMBEDDED INTO THIS. What k.i. questions can YOU think of?
  •  
    I was intrigued by this quote: "the problem isn't technology...it grows on its own..it's it's own beast...the problem is probably our attitude"
446More

Stop Stealing Dreams (the entire manifesto on the web), cleaned up HTML version - Stop ... - 89 views

  • Feel free to read
    • Amy Burvall
       
      We will be reading this and highlighting and annotating with your thoughts. It will help you process the Cheating Scandal presentations as well as prepare you for the upcoming project on Rethinking Education. Please think about issue of knowledge and learning, as Mr. Godin asks the big question: What is School For?
  • Dreams
  • Dreams
    • Haelee Tallett
       
      It was extremely interesting how schools kind of manipulate children to become certain things other than letting children becoming their own person and able to express their creativity and personality.
  • ...208 more annotations...
  • It wasn’t until 1918 that nationwide compulsory education was in place.
    • Jacob Steiner
       
      It's shocking that education (semi) as we know it was established less than 100 years ago. Just a century ago, children took their first steps and went straight to work in the factories.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      It's so close to us !!! It's incredible how fast we're evolving, and yet we have so many points to improve - like child labor all around the world.
    • mary mattingly
       
      i had no idea how much the system has developed since then!
    • Haelee Tallett
       
      It's crazy how only a hundred years ago education was established and how rapidly things are changing.
  • Large-scale education was not developed to motivate kids or to create scholars. It was invented to churn out adults who worked well within the system. Scale was more important than quality, just as it was for most industrialists.
    • Jacob Steiner
       
      It's really interesting that school was not creating for the students' benefits, but to mold these growing children into what they want. I've never thought about the concept of school like this.
    • Casey Doyle
       
      This is sounding like 1984 : its all about training us to obey! It doesn't matter what we're learning to do ,as long as we're learning to do it how we're told to.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Ok, but is there a way we can make it better ? It would be easy to stop going to school and not have all the negative part, but where would we get all the good stuff ?
    • Daniel Leong
       
      Like what I posted in Terrill's, we NEED a wider variety of classes so that we can find a passion. THAT is how we can make school better. Ex: Astronomy, Business, Engineering, Fashion, etc.
    • Daniel Leong
       
      Also, we need more field trips and hands-on experience
  • It’s often difficult to see that when you’re in the middle of it.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      It's so true for so many things !
    • Carly Pate
       
      In school kids don't seem to want to change things and stretch out into their own person because they have been trained to do the opposite, like stay in lines, and stay seated and be quiet. When a student is in the middle of the school system, and used to it, they will not stretch past the boundaries they have knows and grown up with.
  • here is some money
    • Zachary
       
      I think that money is a major problem of public and private schools...BUT if administrators were paid less or completely eliminated from schools. Maybe teachers should just elect other teachers as Principal and Vice prinispal.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Should they be paid more than regular teachers then ?
    • Claire Godenzi
       
      Administrators play a very important role in schools and i feel that eliminating them just to give more money to the teachers would prove more harm than good. On this note, teachers have so much on their plate as it is with grading, planning, and all their other responsibilities, i feel that adding the duties that come with being principle/VP would overload the teachers and eventually become too much for some. Teachers should stick to teaching, administrators to administrating. That's just my view, but i also see where you are coming from Zach, and it is a noteworthy opinion
    • Edward de Vries
       
      I agree that the leader of the school systems need to be elected, and should be more qualified than the normal teachers.
    • Haelee Tallett
       
      I feel that teachers should get a decent amount of money because they are the ones who shape children into success.
  • Our current system of teaching kids to sit in straight rows and obey instructions isn’t a coincidence—it was an investment in our economic future
    • katifarr
       
      I still think kids are an investment in our economic future. If the future isn't educated they can't improve society like every generation has managed to do. You give your children an education and you expect some sort of return on that down payment of sorts. But thankfully a good investment isn't a docile and obedient generation anymore.  
    • mary mattingly
       
      I think that we should rethink this work ethic to be honest, yes it may enforce discipline, but is this really going to be like the "real world"?
  • Is there any question that the first kind of job is worth keeping in our economy?
    • katifarr
       
      Doesn't someone need to do it? Or is technology advanced enough to do it without us? If not how are we supposed to get people to work in factories, because I don't want to and I don't know who would 
  • The method doesn’t matter to me, the outcome does
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Mmm, I don't know... I actually believe the opposite : it's not what you do but the way you do it that counts.
    • Ariana A.
       
      I agree with Iona but at the same time I feel as though what you do does count too. Just not as much as the way you do it...
    • Carly Pate
       
      Both matter. Method is the entire structure and base of the outcome. Its like a painting. There needs to be a method and structure under the beautiful outcome.
  • And yet our schools are churning out kids who are stuck looking for jobs where the boss tells them exactly what to do.
    • Casey Doyle
       
      It's crazy that they tell us that we're going to school so that we can get jobs. We think that we are being trained to have unique skills to do jobs and become irreplaceable workers, but it's really the opposite!
    • mary mattingly
       
      never thought of it like that casey!
    • Jamie s
       
      We learn things that we might not even use for our job or in the real world. In class I get so frustrated over that. Why do we learn things that we dont even use when we grow up?
  • School isn’t nearly as good at this as television is.
    • katifarr
       
      And now that television is becoming increasingly less popular we're probably much less culturally coordinated. Also the internet allows a lot of room for cultivating special interests 
  • we see ever more belief in unfounded theories
    • Zoe Cook
       
      Does he have any proof for this? I find it hard to believe that compulsory education INCREASES our belief in the irrational, especially as scientific study grows in depth and spread as time passes.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Or maybe going more in depth with the scientific studies make people want to step aside and believe there is something else that is less concrete and calculated.
  • It’s worth highlighting
  • The school is supposed to be an underfunded processing facility, barely functioning, with bad behavior, questionable security and most of all, very little learning.
    • danniblack
       
      Our mind has been comprised. We have been trained by movies to think that a normal school is "underfunded processing facility, barely functioning, with bad behavior, questionable security and most of all, very little learning." If we are supposed to "believe" in high school than why do they want us to look at high schools the way we do? 
  • As soon as we associate reading a book with taking a test, we’ve missed the point.
    • Casey Doyle
       
      I feel like school is turning everything that supposed tobe fun into work -- even art for me now is starting to turn into work!
    • Katie Dalgamouni
       
      I agree....I always prefer reading books in English that I normally wouldn't pick up on my own or else it gets ruined for me.
  • What’s the right price to pay for this car?
    • Kelly K
       
      I think that we should courses that will help us prepare for the responsiblities of being an adult. I think that in high school we should learn how to write checks, how to pay taxes, how to purchase houses and cars and how to set up retierment plans, to buy and sell stocks ect.
    • Kelly K
       
      I think that we should courses that will help us prepare for the responsiblities of being an adult. I think that in high school we should learn how to write checks, how to pay taxes, how to purchase houses and cars and how to set up retierment plans, to buy and sell stocks ect.
  • While the internet has allowed many of these changes to happen
    • Terrill Rohr
       
      the internet seems to be the base for everything.
    • David Awesome Cote
       
      even the base for my dreams? i think my wants arent confined to you and your internet terrill.
    • David Awesome Cote
       
      i dont need you and your expectations of the internet terrill. i think my wants are found elsewhere in addition to this idea of an over the world web
  • here are our expectations (very low)…
    • Terrill Rohr
       
      very low expectations set for these schools and they are expected not to thrive. why not invest a little money in them and give them a reason to thrive?
  • The few with passion. The few who care.
    • Terrill Rohr
       
      when students are given something they love they stick with it. where are all the students like that today?
    • Daniel Leong
       
      I think the problem is that schools do not offer as many classes as they can. For instance, how many schools have a robotics course? Or an Astronomy course? Schools are made to teach us the basics. However, they do not offer chances to find a career path, unless the path is in the basic areas. If people wanted to learn more about geology or astronomy or engineering, the have to wait until college or go out on their own. Schools need to offer a wider variety of courses to allow us to explore and to let us find something to stick with.
  • (take kids out of work so we can teach them to become better factory workers as adults
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Mmm... I really think school has evolved. It's basic to say the purpose is the same as a 100 years ago...
    • Ariana A.
       
      I completely agree with this comment. When you do something and you are not fully enthralled with it you tend to lose interest and drop it, but when you have something that you are passionate about you love doing it and you have the longing and drive to do more and excel and do the best you can at it.
    • Claire Godenzi
       
      I completely agree! When you don't have your heart in something, it is often hard to motivate yourself to stick with it. I can definitely relate to this comment
  • If school’s function is to create the workers we need to fuel our economy, we need to change school, because the workers we need have changed as well.
    • Ariana A.
       
      Haven't thought about this before but it makes a lot of sense....definitely sparked my mind for interesting thought processes!
  • The connection revolution is upon us
    • Ariana A.
       
      THis is a clever title. It is true thought with all the new forms of technology that are coming out it changes and creates new ways for us to connect with each other and gather information.
  • We don’t need more of what schools produce when they’re working as designed.
    • Casey Doyle
       
      Its so weird to think that school IS working... it needs to be completely reworked because its goal is not what is needed anymore.
  • mass production
    • Casey Doyle
       
      I feel like an inanimate product. This article makes me so frustrated because I'm already almost done with school and I know that it's too late to save me!
  • proof that his heart was ultimately in the right place, the man who industrialized the public schools he created left us with this admonition, …be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Unfortunately, that part of his curriculum is almost never taught in school.
    • Madeline St John
       
      I wish they taught this in school...people would be so much more proactive
    • Casey Doyle
       
      I like that he doesn't criticize the creator, and he shows that his heart was in the right place. It shows that at the time, school was appropriate, but it just doesn't make sense in modern times.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Yes, he stays pretty objective regarding the author, it's a good thing.
  • pointing out that it was an appropriate method to test only a tiny portion of what is actually taught and should be abandoned
  • would find their calling, then find a mentor, and then learn their craft
  • Jobs were invented before workers were invented
    • Edward de Vries
       
      There is always a need for something that doesn't exist yet
  • not enough
    • Katie Dalgamouni
       
      The more schools get, the more they will want to expand so who decides what is enough? Once they have more teachers and more money they will naturally want more.
  • students leaning forward in their seats, choosing to pay attention
    • Katie Dalgamouni
       
      Sounds like the teacher warned them about this visit because it's very rare to find an entire class "leaning forward in their seats, choosing to pay attention."
  • It’s difficult to generalize about a population this big, but household incomes are less than half of what they are just a mile away, unemployment is significantly higher
    • Cori Cummings
       
      I think most Americans have a negative stereotype towards people who live in Harlem because of the area's characteristics.
  • When we turn school into more than just a finishing school for a factory job, we enable a new generation to achieve things that we were ill-prepared for.
    • Cori Cummings
       
      This is very true. Most parents want this for their kids. They force their child to undergo their dreams, instead of their child following their own dreams. And that's why this generation hasn't really contributed in anything too revolutionary yet. Because they are put into a mindset where everyone succeeds and becomes successful in the same way. Graduating highschool and then graduating college. After that you get a good job, get married and buy a house. If all kids weren't subjected to this type of mindset maybe a child would create something new, something different for our generation.
  • And when we give students the desire to make things, even choices, we create a world filled with makers.
  • When we teach a child to love to learn, the amount of learning will become limitless.
  • the only good reason to teach trig and calculus in high school is to encourage kids to become engineers and scientists.
    • Cori Cummings
       
      That's not a very good reason. Math should honestly stop by the time a student is in 8th grade, by then they should be able to realize weather they enjoy it enough where they would see themselves using it in a future job. If they do then they should take math in highschool, but if they don't it's a waste of time and students shouldn't be obliged to take it. If students must take a math class they should take a math class with material in it that they will actually need. CONSUMER MATH! Why do we barely touch on it when it's the thing we will be using so much when we are adults??
    • Kelly K
       
      I totally agree with you on this! We should decide if we want to contiune a career in math, we should also learn more about consumer math! This is the type of math that will be useful to us and is important to us! We keep learing about these silly math concepts like logs, quadratic functions, matrices ect... that we will never use when we are older, except if you want to be a math teacher or a career in math.
  • A primary output of school should be to produce citizens who often choose the rational path. And that’s going to happen only if we’ve created enough situations for them to practice in.
  • It’s a place where middle school football coaches have their players do push-ups until they faint, but math teachers are scolded for giving too much homework.
  • We’re all going down the drain
    • Kelly K
       
      I totally agree with this, our generation is slowly starting to loose our grammar and English (at least for Americans). I actually tested this out and went to youtube and looked at several popular videos and music videos and I saw at least 4 of the 15 or so comments that appeared on the video were text "slang" (like instead of writing you, it says U). I think cell phones have contributed to this also because when you text, you want to abbreviate and be able to send a quick short message.
  • How do we know that these schools are good
    • Kelly K
       
      This is really interesting. I never really thought of this until just now reading this. Why does everyone say that Harvard, Stanford and all these IVY league and private schools are sooooo goooood!?!? There are many schools around the country that offer the same courses and have the same schools (like pre med, pre law ect.) but what makes Stanford, Harvard and these other schools "so great?" Is it just because famous people have attended that school? What makes these IVY league and famous private schools so popular and have such a good reputation of being this really hard and good school?
    • Kelly K
       
      This is really interesting. I never really thought of this until just now reading this. Why does everyone say that Harvard, Stanford and all these IVY league and private schools are sooooo goooood!?!? There are many schools around the country that offer the same courses and have the same schools (like pre med, pre law ect.) but what makes Stanford, Harvard and these other schools "so great?" Is it just because famous people have attended that school? What makes these IVY league and famous private schools so popular and have such a good reputation of being this really hard and good school?
  • And the flip side of this fear and conformity must be that passion will be destroyed.
    • Zoe Cook
       
      This guy really, really hates conventional schooling. Amplify fear and destroy passion? Is school really that much of an Orwellian dystopia? 
  • 43. How not to teach someone to be a baseball fan
    • Zoe Cook
       
      So we should only be taught and seek information that we are passionate about? Or we should only find the "fun" information? It's easy to make the analogy while talking about baseball, but try to apply it to some actual school subjects. If kids only do what they're passionate about, we'll have a country full of adults, some of which can't multiply and some of which don't know the significance of 1776. 
  • learning is not done to you. Learning is something you choose to do
    • Amy Burvall
       
      what do you all think about this?
    • Iona Unguran
       
      I think that school is just one of the places where you get to learn. It might not be the most important one, but still, we shouldn't take it away. It would be just like closing a good book because it's not the answer to how the universe works.
    • Claire Godenzi
       
      I think that this statement is very true. Even a lesson from the greatest teacher in the world could not make you learn a single thing unless you CHOSE to take the information in and learn it. I fully agree with this quote in that you and only you ultimately have the power to motivate yourself to chose the knowledge you want to learn
    • Casey Doyle
       
      I think that this is true. A stubborn person isn't going to retain the information that you're shoving down their throat! I think that the concept of learning is when you actually hold on to and understand the information presented to you, and you can't force that upon anyone.
    • katifarr
       
      I totally agree with this. If I don't think something is useful or fun I totally tune it out. And if I'm adamantly opposed to learning something I have like a personal boycott by refusing to pay attention to it. I boycott things by daydreaming instead of doing the work, or doing the work wrong on purpose. I hardly ever do this. And when I do it's usually in math. But I haven't done this in years because math is usually like a fun puzzle.
    • Michael Brutsch
       
      I think we all do choose to learn because if we didn't secretly want to learn then we wouldn't be learning, but because we do want to learn even the slightest bit we do learn things in school. We choose to learn. If we didn't, we wouldn't learn.
    • Zachary
       
      I totally agree with this! Learning is what the leaner makes of it. The more effort you put in the more you get out of it. I think learning is a test for real life. Think about it the more you put in to life the more you get out of it. 
    • danniblack
       
      I agree with what is said here. I mean in reality we are really choosing to learn. We could easily sit in the back of the room and choose not to do anything or we could just not go to school at all because then we would be choosing not to learn. With all considered, choosing to learn is really up to all different kinds of situations. It comes down to money, time and whether or not if you want to actually learn at all.
    • Jamie s
       
      I agree with this. We go to school 5 times a week but that doesnt mean I learn everyday. It something you choose. You can choose to learn and take in the information. But you can choose not to pay attention and not learn what the teachers are teaching you
    • Haelee Tallett
       
      I think that this is very accurate because in order for someone to learn something; they need to want to and need to try.
    • Edward de Vries
       
      If a person doesn't like the subject they will get distracted and will not pay attention, leading them to fall behind
    • Kristen Takenaka
       
      I totally agree! You choose to learn, if you are willing to learn, you learn. Learning is not done to you.
    • Katie Dalgamouni
       
      I actually don't fully agree with this comment because in order to get a good grade in school, you have to pay attention to what is being taught so not learning in school isn't really an option. I suppose in hindsight you choose to study and get a good grade so I guess you choose whether or not you want to learn but you don't get to choose what to learn in school.
    • Terrill Rohr
       
      I agree with this statement because people have to choose to learn something. If you are unwilling to learn a new skill then you will never learn it, but if you sit down and you really want to learn then you will not only learn that new skill, but you will learn it faster and have fun doing it.
    • Jordan Gonzales
       
      I think that's completely accurate! If you don't WANT to learn something, you're not going to. That's the bottom line. It's like you put up a barrier so that nothing is absorbed. You might be able to recall the information, or whatever it is, for a test but you won't remember it or be able to use it late on.
  • Often overlooked in the rush to waste time at Facebook and YouTube is the fact that the Internet is the most efficient and powerful information delivery system ever developed.
  • We need students who can learn how to learn, who can discover how to push themselves and are generous enough and honest enough to engage with the outside world to make those dreams happen
  • Instead, our chaotic world is open to the work of passionate individuals, intent on carving their own paths.
  • That’s the new job of school. Not to hand a map to those willing to follow it, but to inculcate leadership and restlessness into a new generation.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      how can we do this better? Ideas, anyone?
    • katifarr
       
      I like having a map sometimes. Or at least some sort of guidelines. Not everyone can be just a big ball of fearlessness and ready to tackle any task that is put in front of them. Sometimes I would like someone to hold my hand and take me through the steps of something. I think being able to lead effectively is a useful skill, but some people are more comfortable or find more pleasure in doing what's put in front of them, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.
    • Zachary
       
      I don't know about this idea... Personally I think of myself as more old fashion. I think that I like lectures more than I like this self taught learning. To me if something works don't change it, don't fix what ain't broke. My grandpa used to say that all the time! I don't think the school system is broken, it just is for the people who care.
    • Madeline St John
       
      I think kids would be more passionate if they had more responsibility (less hand-holding) and if they were given access to all kinds of information (the internet) and given problems to solve--relevant, real-world problems that require thinking.
    • Nichole Bowen
       
      I think that speech classes should be a top priority for schools all over the country. If we want to create leaders, that is the way to do it. Many people have great ideas. The problem is that many people do not know how to get the ideas to the public. Afterall, an idea is hardly an idea if nothing comes out of it.
  • value is not created by increasing the productivity of those manufacturing a good or a service. Value is created by connecting buyers to sellers, producers to consumers, and the passionate to each other.
  • n the connected world, reputation is worth more than test scores. Access to data means that data isn’t the valuable part; the processing is what matters.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      Great knowledge issue stated here! It's not about the info/data...it's about how you access it, interpret it, critique or analyze it, evaluate it, and use it. Are we doing this enough in school?
    • Iona Unguran
       
      It would be hard to study analysis more in depth in school, because we would get influenced by the others, and I don't know how we would make it objective enough.
    • Zachary
       
      I think we do this a lot in school! We do this a lot on standerised tests! Which I think it is a pretty important thing to learn how to interpret graphs because you do that in the real word.
    • danniblack
       
      The answer to this is really a double edged sword. Sometimes we are evaluating and putting our knowledge to work too much. We might end up just doing busy work and it will not help us at all in the long run. While in some classes we barely use the knowledge we learn. We don't really interpret what we are given, we are just doing it to just get it over with. So all in all, I think we need to really do more of this in most of our classes but also take a away a little in other classes.
    • Katie Dalgamouni
       
      I think IB is all about this because we have to do more than just memorize information, we have to apply it to unknown situations as well as make connections to other subjects, units, or even things outside of school.
  • Group projects are the exception in school, but they should be the norm. Figuring out how to leverage the power of the group—whether it is students in the same room or a quick connection to a graphic designer across the sea in Wales—is at the heart of how we are productive today.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      At LJA do you think we do enough collaborative work? What are some major issues that arise with collaborative or "group" projects? Is this a good way to assess your learning?
    • Casey Doyle
       
      I hate group projects because it usually only assesses the knowledge of one or two people in the group. But I know that is it necessary because that's how the real world works. But I think there is a difference between collaboration and group projects - a collaborated work could still be assessed on every individuals contribution? I consider collaboration more where everyone contributes, but that's not always true for group projects.
    • Zoe Cook
       
      I personally don't like collaborative work because I think that, for the most part, it isn't collaborative or a decent assessment of what anyone in the group knows. I think that though teachers often assign groups to prevent people goofing off with their friends, if we were allowed to choose groups, we would work with people who we know well and are willing to split the work evenly with.
    • katifarr
       
      Not everything is collaborative. I like reading alone. I like doing studio work in art alone. I like writing alone. I like thinking alone. I really enjoy doing things alone, and it's really satisfying doing something completely independently. Sure, we should learn how to cooperate with people, but it's not a good way to assess your knowledge, but it's a good way to assess how well you can work with others.
    • Jacob Steiner
       
      The big problem with collaborative work is that there is rarely enough collaboration. The tasks are just split up without discussion, making it less work for everyone. Or, the other case, one member does everything while their group members just latch on and take some of the credit for the work produced. In my opinion, collaborative work is good when it works, but it often doesn't go the way everyone plans.
    • Michael Brutsch
       
      I think we do enough collaborative work. I think sometimes one person does all the work and everybody else gets credit. I don't think this is a very good way of assessing a single person's learning. It doesn't really work that well in my opinion.
    • Zachary
       
      I think it has to much, if school projects with others are done correctly there needs to be something that ensures everyone does a large amount of  work. I hate group projects because I end up doing all the work.
    • Devin
       
      I think in certain subjects like tok or environmental systems, we have enough collaborative work, but in classes like English and Biology we do not. I think group projects is not a good way to assess your learning but rather it teaches you how to deal with a group, and you cannon t assess this accurately unless you see everything that happens in the group which is not possible.
    • Jamie s
       
      I personally like "group projects" because I only see or think about stuff a certain way when others might have another perspective. I think that more than one head is better than one. I dont think it should be the norm because those free loaders wont participate. Some times you should do projects on your own because you cant always work in a group and you should learn to do stuff by yourself. At lja i think we have a good amount of collaborative group work. Group projects by yourself is a better way to assess your learning because the project is all YOUR work. Group projects is a little harder to assess your learning because ts a group so who knows if you actually worked on it.
    • Madeline St John
       
      We do a lot more group work at LJA than we did at any other school that I've been at...When you're working on group projects, it seems like its only beneficial when all the other group members are contributing, which doesn't happen all the time...but I guess in the "real world" this is what working in a job is like. There are always freeloaders and you have to get used to it...so even though it might affect your grade if the other people in your group are freeloading and not accurately represent your personal knowledge the point of the task shouldn't be to get a good grade. but to learn and collaborate and succeed
  • The bottom of the pyramid stores the students, with teachers (middle managers) following instructions from their bosses.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      How can we empower students (and teachers) more? Ideas?
    • Casey Doyle
       
      We should have the power of impeachment or vetoing or some democratic control over the administration of schools!
    • Zoe Cook
       
      Maybe more flexibility in the curriculum, or types of projects and assessments? If teachers are just taught what is being handed down to them, what they aren't interested in, it will undoubtedly have an impact on the amount they are able to interest the students.
    • Michael Brutsch
       
      We can't. There's a system in place for a reason. It keeps things less chaotic.
    • Zachary
       
      I really think to ensure that the administrators don't get in the way they should all be fired. I think that each school should elect a prinicipal and vice principal and they should be elected by the teachers. They should serve a one year term. This would really help get more money to the students and get rid of the the administration that gets in the way.
    • danniblack
       
      A way to empower people is to give them new and important experiences. With new experiences you learn and improve your skills. For example, in a store you have many things: how to work a register, stacking foods, and bagging. With all of these different tasks comes power. Therefore to empower students and/or teachers we need to give them skills and new experiences. 
    • Anna Dunham
       
      We can give the students more independent projects and things that we are passionate about and create responsibilities for the students in a way that they think that they are significant
  • Not what a patron would say to a talented artist, though.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      I like this analogy using the artist/patron. What if we treated all students as artists and teachers/schools acted as patrons or even "masters" in the Renaissance connotation of the word?
    • Zachary
       
      No I really don't like this idea. Like I said above I think you really shouldn't fix something that isn't broken. They only thing I would change about schools is firing the administrators. 
  • the only people who excel are those who have decided to do so. Great doctors or speakers or skiers or writers or musicians are great because somewhere along the way, they made the choice.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      what do you think about this statement?
    • Briana Grenert
       
      I think that people need to be motivated in all they do. If you're not motivated and passionate, you won't excel in that particular field. I don't think you're going to be a famous author if you don't want to be because they won't try. People can be rich by inheritance, but only who actually desire to go places can get there.  I guess you can be dragged along for the ride, but in my idealistic view that doesn't happen. 
    • Zoe Cook
       
      I think that there are many external factors that play into what a person will excel in: parents, teachers, natural ability, resources available, etc. A person can make a choice to try to excel and fail, or perhaps excel without really trying.
    • Casey Doyle
       
      I think it's true. And I think forcing the choice upon us is making even the committed ones hate it! Forcing yes would of course make everyone choose no - maybe we should try reverse psychology instead?
    • katifarr
       
      I feel like a lot of people who are successful are the people who work really hard. Not necessarily the smartest or most talented, but those with the most drive and ambition to be something more than average. I wouldn't call it a "choice" persay, more like a lifestyle or a personality trait.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Unconditionally true ! If you have the will to do it, you're the only one who can stop you.
    • Jacob Steiner
       
      I disagree with this statement. It goes back to the classic "Nature vs. Nurture" argument because some people just aren't gifted enough to have "smart genes" in their DNA. It's not completely up to each person whether they are smart or not. Granted, you do have to persevere and push yourself, but that is not the only criterion of being smart.
    • Michael Brutsch
       
      I think this is semi true. A majority of the people that are the greatest are the greatest because they chose to and worked towards that goal. Some people just can't though like disabled people and it may be impossible for them to do so. Aside from people where it may be impossible for them to be like the greatest speaker example because they are mute. But for everyone else. The greatest ones are the ones who made the choice to be great and to work towards this.
    • danniblack
       
      I do not full agree with this statement for a few reasons. 1) Sometimes people do not decided to excel in something, they just might have the skill. Like when you can sing, you are usually born with the voice to sing with; and your not just deciding that you can sing. 2) I also think you have to look at in the other way too. Some people decide that they want to be really good at something but they can't. No matter what they do, they will never excel in what they want. This is because somethings you cannot teach; somethings just come to someone.
    • Ariana A.
       
      I think that for the most part this statement is completely true. People who believe and want to excel, and put forth the effort to do so will excel. If there is a person who merely just wants to excel yet does nothing to actually excel, well, then they won't. In order to achieve what you would like to achieve and improve where you want to improve, you have to put forth some effort and make the choice to do so.
  • As the industrial age peters out, as the growth fades away, the challenge is this: training creative, independent, and innovative artists is new to us. We can’t use the old tools, because resorting to obedience to teach passion just isn’t going to work.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      given that, how should we change? What would be some interesting new courses? What skills should we teach?
    • Briana Grenert
       
      I think that courses should be more focused on critical thinking skills....and maybe on making connections between disciplines. I think that many of the "traditional school" conventions should remain. 
    • Kelly K
       
      I think that we need some courses that will be helpful for everyone, like economics and maybe a consumer math class (about how to write checks, how you pay for a car, loans, 401 K's; retierment funds, ect....) Because when you become an adult, there are a lot of important responsibilities that come with it and you want to live stress free life and not have to worry about not being able to afford to buy a house, or pay taxes.
    • Jacob Steiner
       
      Passion isn't something you can teach. Passion has to be felt by each person individually. I don't believe we can teach a class, no matter how badly we want to, to students to become passionate about a certain subject.
    • Ariana A.
       
      I feel that in school we should definitely add some new classes or maybe just change the curriculum for certain ones. For example, I really like Cori's idea on adding consumer math to the curriculum because in truth, most of the things we learn in math 90% of us won't use after we graduate schooling. I think that and other skills that would aid us in later life should definitely be added into our curriculum somehow.
    • Allie Ball
       
      I feel like we as students should only learn the skills that will be needed for our future. For example: I want to teach history so why should I have to learn how to find an inverse function? If we let children explore the different careers to find what interests them we can better plan the courses they should take. This can also be a problem because as humans, we tend to change our minds.
    • Edward de Vries
       
      Our school should teach skills that are needed for the future. And have one month where every class is about a different program or skill and then after that month each student studies and learns one of the options. this is better than trying to get a student to be really good at something in a really short time period (design tech).
    • Anna Dunham
       
      I feel that we DEFINITELY need to learn or have courses on the way politics work, we need to non biass information to prepare us to vote and so we will actually be able to understand what the heck the rest of the world is talking about. I also think that we need a economics course, where they teach us how to finance, do taxes, ect.
  • The obligation of the new school is to teach reasonable doubt. Not the unreasonable doubt of the wild-eyed heckler, but the evidence-based doubt of the questioning scientist and the reason-based doubt of the skilled debater.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      this is a bit what TOK is trying to do...critical thinking
  • We can teach kids to engage in poetry, to write poetry, and to demand poetry—or we can take a shortcut and settle for push-pin, YouTube, and LOLcats.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      Hmmmm...create not merely consume
  • Can risk-taking be taught?
    • Amy Burvall
       
      When's the last time you took a big risk? What did you learn? Did someone teach you to take risks?
    • Iona Unguran
       
      I don't know if 'teaching' is the appropriate word. There's a certain combination of what the people around you say, what they do, what you see them doing, that makes you want to take a risk once in a while. No 'risk-takers' lessons.
    • Zoe Cook
       
      I think that risk-taking isn't something that is taught by teachers. I think that the type of parents we have or the type of peer group we have are what determines what types of risks we are willing to take.
    • Jacob Steiner
       
      I don't think that risk-taking can be taught because it's up to the personality of the person. It can be forced that the students take a risk, but schools can't demand that because it's taking a risk.
    • Briana Grenert
       
      I was in Japan. It was dark outside. I was in Machida, in the park across the street from the church where we were staying. We had been playing link tag with a group of Japanese girls, and everyone was heading back to the church. I was bringing up the rear of our group, and I saw two college age joggers sitting on the playground. "Konbanwa," I said. They laughed and responded "hello". I guess my accent gave me away. Later, I was standing outside of the church talking with some shy people. I saw the joggers jogging by. I said "hello" and they laughed, and somehow (I have no idea how) I started a conversation with them. I ended up bringing them into the church and they ended up eating with us and staying until 9:00. Before I brought them in, I didn't know these people. At all. I have no fear of people or strangers, but even I have to admit that that was a big risk. No one single person taught me to take risk--it was a combination of people at church, Pastor Frank, Annelise...a lot of leaders and students from church advocate for audacity.  From that experience I learned that pulling random people off the street is a good idea. 
    • danniblack
       
      I really do not think that risk-taking can be taught to someone. You are either born being an introvert or an extrovert. As an introvert you do not really want to take chances because you are shy. While an extrovert would be willing to take risks because they do not really care what people think of them; they put themselves out there, ready for anything.
    • Allie Ball
       
      I'm not much of a risk taker however I was raised to do so. My father raised me to believe that we must to risks to get what we truly want. I risk something, big or small, everyday. I'm taking a big risk now for a drama project. Everyday is a risk that must be taken.
    • Terrill Rohr
       
      To me, risk taking is not something that someone can teach you. Risk taking is something you do by nature. Risk taking is when you are willing to put your neck on the line and go out there and be different. The last time I took a big risk it ended really well for me. I learned that if you step out and help out other people, not only will they be rewarded but you will to. Not in a physical way, but sometimes in a mental way.
    • Jamie s
       
      Im not sure what. But for risk taking you learn you boundaries. You learn how far you can push yourself. And taking risks can lead to something amazing. Most famous scientists, artists, etc. took risks with their work.
  • Education isn’t a problem until it serves as a buffer from the world and a refuge from the risk of failure.
  • It would be a mistake to say that scientific education doesn’t work. It does work. It creates what we test. Unfortunately, the things we desperately need (and the things that make us happy) aren’t the same things that are easy to test.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      what do you think about this statement? What are some things we need and that make us happy that are virtually impossible to test?
    • Jacob Steiner
       
      I disagree with this statement partially because what makes you happy changes between people. The same thing that makes one person happy doesn't necessarily make someone else happy. What I'm trying to say is that scientific education can make people happy and that is completely testable.
  • The good jobs of the future aren’t going to involve working for giant companies on an assembly line. They all require individuals willing to chart their own path, whether or not they work for someone else.
  • The jobs of the future are in two categories: the downtrodden assemblers of cheap mass goods and the respected creators of the unexpected.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      Will you be a "respected creator of the unexpected"?
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Hopefully ! But it's always been this way, hasn't it ?
    • Briana Grenert
       
      I hope so.
  • few who figure out how to be linchpins and artists. People who are hired because they’re totally worth it, because they offer insight and creativity and innovation that just can’t be found easily.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      Seth's "linchpin" is someone who is indispensable due to the fact that despite whatever title they hold, they rise above the occasion and do more than expected, connect and inspire others, and offer creative solutions
  • n artist is someone who brings new thinking and generosity to his work, who does human work that changes another for the better.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      A bit like Google's 20% time - spend 20% of your work week working on a free-choice project that will make either the world or the company better
  • The only way out is going to be mapped by those able to dream.
  • The Internet is making the role of content gatekeeper unimportant. Redundant. Even wasteful.
  • What we do need is someone to persuade us that we want to learn those things, and someone to push us or encourage us or create a space where we want to learn to do them better.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      Thinking about thinking...how can teachers persuade you why you want to learn something, and then help you to be more self-directed?
    • Zoe Cook
       
      I don't think that there is an easy solution to make someone WANT to learn something if they don't have a natural inclination towards it besides the occasional "fun" activities which either aren't any fun or don't teach very much. The system we have now isn't by any means perfect, but we can't just say "we need someone to persuade us to want to learn" without giving any possible way how.
    • Nichole Bowen
       
      I recently found this article about keeping people's attention in class, and it actually relates very closely to this question. Enjoy! http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-keep-someones-attention-2012-8
    • Amy Burvall
       
      thanks Nichole!
    • Jordan Gonzales
       
      maybe if teachers had to persuade us, more students would have a better idea of what direction they want to go in life after school.
  • I wouldn’t want to live in an uneducated world. I truly believe that education makes humans great, elevates our culture and our economy, and creates the foundation for the engine that drives science which leads to our well being. I’m not criticizing education.
  • No. But I am wondering when we decided that the purpose of school was to cram as much data/trivia/fact into every student as we possibly could.
  • aggressively testing for trivia.
  • Computers changed that. Now the receptionist can’t lose your messages, because they go straight into voice mail. The assembly-line worker can’t drop a tool, because it’s attached to a numerically controlled machine. The telemarketer who interrupts your dinner is unlikely to over-promise, because the pitch is carefully outlined in script form on paper.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      interesting, right?
  • LEGO isn’t the problem, but it is a symptom of something seriously amiss. We’re entering a revolution of ideas while producing a generation that wants instructions instead.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      I agree. And at our house, we throw away all instructions and just make stuff with Legos- no fear of failure or "staying in the lines"
    • Alex Tatum
       
      I agree no matter what it is i NEVER read instructions.
  • Make something different
    • Amy Burvall
       
      love this!
    • Jamie s
       
      Being different is good! Dont follow the crowd. Be unique.
  • Jeremy Gleick, a sophomore at UCLA, has devoted precisely an hour a day to learning something new and unassigned.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      why don't we all try this- even for 1 month!
    • Jamie s
       
      That's really interesting and very detected. You can learn so much more and be more knowledgeable.
  • Available resources and instruction have gone from scarce to abundant in less than a decade, and the only barrier to learning for most young adults in the developed world is now merely the decision to learn.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      Please take advantage of this!
  • Think of the art we haven’t seen, the jobs that haven’t been created, and the productivity that hasn’t been imagined because generations have been persuaded not to dream big.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      whoa. sad 
  • creative jobs lead to more creative jobs. Self-starting, self-reliant, initiative-taking individuals often start new projects that need new workers
    • Amy Burvall
       
      interesting point
  • short and brutish
    • Amy Burvall
       
      love the Hobbes reference.
  • These students are trained to dream small dreams.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      do you agree with this?
    • Allie Ball
       
      Yes. We are told to dream big, but then we constantly have our dreams challenged. We are told to never say "I can't do it," but they say we shouldn't. Dreams are dreams. I think the older we get, the more we forget about the dreams we had when we were little. The silly dreams that we really believed in, with all our hearts. The common mindset is "the older we get, the more serious we become. The smaller our dreams get."
    • Jamie s
       
      Semi. Teachers sometimes shut down your dreams or adults shut down your dreams because they say it is unrealistic. So your dreams become smaller more realistic dreams
    • leah qiu
       
      I don't believe what you dream can be trained. Dreams are the only thing we can keep personal anymore and can be but are not always affect by others.
    • Edward de Vries
       
      most students have small aspirations while those who dream big and can achieve are the ones who will be successful.
    • Terrill Rohr
       
      Students may be trained to "dream small dreams," but we are capable of doing anything we desire. If we want to dream big dreams then we can. Dreaming big is what keeps some people going. It helps them see that light at the end of the tunnel and that there is something that they can reach for. It's a goal that they can set. By dreaming small dreams you are setting yourself back, your holding yourself back from achieving greater things. I agree with this post, but I also think it's wrong.
  • Dreamers don’t have special genes. They find circumstances that amplify their dreams
  • As knowledge becomes networked, the smartest person in the room isn’t the person standing at the front lecturing us, and isn’t the collective wisdom of those in the room. The smartest person in the room is the room itself: the network that joins the people and ideas in the room, and connects to those outside of it
    • Amy Burvall
       
      poignant...what do you think?
  • knowledge is becoming inextricable from—literally unthinkable without—the network that enables it
    • Amy Burvall
       
      great Knowledge Issue..is knowledge changing due to connectivity and data overload?
  • notion that each of us can assemble a network (of people, of data sources, of experiences) that will make us either smart or stupid
    • Amy Burvall
       
      Who is your network is making you smarter? less intelligent?
  • only way for a student to get respect inside the system of school is to earn temporary approval from a teacher he won’t likely see again any time soon
    • Amy Burvall
       
      have you ever felt like this?
    • katifarr
       
      Not really. Because I go to a small school with teachers who genuinely seem to care about the students, I don't feel like I need to strategically win anyone over. The relationships forged with teachers at this school are legitimately enjoyable ones. Although when I went to Kahuku which was a much, much larger school I didn't really care for the teachers because they didn't really seem to be able to differentiate me from anyone else. Although I didn't feel any pressure to earn their approval. They were just doing their job and I was doing mine.
    • Kristen Takenaka
       
      I have felt like this. When you see a teacher once a week, for example, it is easier to please or get some sort of approval because you don't really know the teacher and the teacher doesn't know the student.
  • yet a cable TV–inoculated audience wants everything dumbed down to the Kardashian level.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      what do you think about this?
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Sad but true... I myself spent the afternoon watching people on TV who made me feel so much smarter.
  • If we spend more time training inquisitive humans, we’ll have to give up on the basics, and that will mean nothing but uneducated dolts who don’t even know who Torquemada was.”
    • Amy Burvall
       
      Counterargument: when we sacrifice content to focus on meta (thinking about thinking), what happens? And will it matter?
  • I’m concerned about fact ignorance and history ignorance and vocabulary ignorance. I’m petrified, though, about attitude ignorance.
  • If we teach our students to be passionate, ethical, and inquisitive, I’m confident that the facts will follow.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      do you think he is on the right track...or not?
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Most of the time, yes. But if we really want to improve that, the true answer is how far the student himself is willing to go.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      any thoughts?
    • Allie Ball
       
      I believe yes. We need to be passionate and curious. If we are, then we search for the facts ourselves.
  • Users type “Google” into Bing to get to Google so they can do a search (the very search they could have done in Bing, of course). And then, when they get to Google, one of the most popular terms? Facebook.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      this anecdote cracks me up all the time!
  • They self-describe as Dummies and give up, not for lack of genetic smarts, but for lack of initiative and because of an abundance of fear.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      I find this happens a lot- especially with people dealing with technology..instead of trouble-shooting, people give up and personalize it
  • The bad decisions we see every day aren’t the result of lack of data, or lack of access to data.
  • No, they’re the result of a schooling culture that is creating exactly what it set out to create. Along the way, we teach students to be open to and trusting of marketing messages
    • Amy Burvall
       
      This is the essence of TOK- to get you to question knowledge claims and examine perspectives
  • The way we save the written word, intellectual discourse, and reason is by training kids to care.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      and how do we do that? Is his theory valid?
  • should sell students on why.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      should every course start out with a unit on "Why should we study this?"
    • Ariana A.
       
      YES I do. Every year in basically every class there is also at least one student who asks the teacher, "Why do we have to learn about this? How will this help us in life?" It is because of this that I think units should start out with a brief description of why the students are learning about that particular thing in school. Knowing that we will later use it in life makes us want to pay attention that much more.
  • matters is that motivation is the only way to generate real learning, actual creativity, and the bias for action that is necessary for success.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      so if motivation is the key, should students only learn what they are passionate about? How do we open ourselves up to new passions?
  • contact lenses hooked up to the Internet.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      I want these!
  • skill of memorizing a fact for twelve hours (and then forgetting it) is not only useless, it’s insane.
  • synthesize complex ideas and to invent new concepts is far more useful than drill and practice
    • Amy Burvall
       
      love this....so what would that look like, for example, in one of your courses?
  • What we can’t do, though, is digitize passion. We can’t force the student to want to poke around and discover new insights online.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      good point
  • Find the best homework questions ever devised and create world-class tutorials in how to solve each one
    • Amy Burvall
       
      I think students should do this
  • When we free access to information from the classroom setting, the leverage of the great teacher goes way up
  • Mostly I’ve tried to point out to people that the very things we assumed to be baseline truths were in fact fairly recent inventions and unlikely to last much longer.
    • Justin Merck-Rocha
       
      Not only is this with the internet, but also with television
  • I’m arguing that the connection revolution sets the table for a return of emotional labor. For the first time in a century, we have the opportunity to let digital systems do work while our teachers do labor.
  • Isn’t it interesting that the movies we love about sports always feature the dark horse who dreams, the underdog who comes off the bench and saves the day?
  • In Hansen’s estimation, it’s easy for natural gifts to escape the notice of people who aren’t focused on finding them and amplifying them.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      does any one of you feel this has happened to you?
  • raise a generation of math hackers, literature hackers, music hackers and life hackers?
    • Amy Burvall
       
      interesting thought- create hackers for everything
  • Leadership isn’t something that people hand to you. You don’t do followership for years and then someone anoints you and says, “here.” In fact, it’s a gradual process, one where you take responsibility years before you are given authority.
  • the only thing holding us back is the status quo (and our belief in the permanence of status).
  • School serves a real function when it activates a passion for lifelong learning
  • Your work is worth more than mere congruence to an answer key
  • Fitting in is a short-term strategy, standing out pays off in the long run
  • Will the next generation know more facts than we do, or will it be equipped to connect with data, and turn that data into information and leadership and progress?
    • Amy Burvall
       
      knowledge issue question
  • School is at its best when it gives students the expectation that they will not only dream big, but dream dreams that they can work on every day until they accomplish them—not because they were chosen by a black-box process, but because they worked hard enough to reach them.
  • The challenge is that the connected economy demands people who won’t hide, and it punishes everyone else. Standing out and standing for something are the attributes of a leader, and initiative is now the only posture that generates results.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      think about this please..
  • If the dream is huge, we get applause from our peers and our teachers, but are able to hide out because, of course, the dream is never going to come true
    • Amy Burvall
       
      so...we should dream big but realistically?
  • We need more brave artists, too, and some poets. We need leaders and people passionate enough about their cause to speak up and go through discomfort to accomplish something. Can these skills be taught or amplified?
    • Amy Burvall
       
      can they?
  • reading and writing remain the two skills that are most likely to pay off with exponential results.
  • When we associate reading with homework and tests, is it any wonder we avoid it?
  • The effective writer in the connected revolution can see her ideas spread to a hundred or a million people. Writing (whether in public, now that everyone has a platform, or in private, within organizations) is the tool we use to spread ideas.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      think of every piece of writing you do as if was to be published to the entire world on the Internet
  • Katherine did what so many kids are capable of doing, but aren’t expected to do.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      do what is unexpected of you
  • how to figure things out and make them happen
    • Amy Burvall
       
      be a do-er not a dawdler....
  • Because we can see whom you know and what they think of you, because we can see how you’ve used the leverage the Internet has given you, because we can see if you actually are able to lead and actually are able to solve interesting problems—because of all these things, college means something new now.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      what does college mean now?
  • The definition of “best” is under siege.
  • The more applicants they reject, the higher they rank in U.S. News and other rankings. And thus the rush to game the rankings continues, which is a sign that the marketers in question (the colleges) are getting desperate for more than their fair share. Why bother making your education more useful if you can more easily make it appear to be more useful?
    • Amy Burvall
       
      University marketing system- exposed!
  • we’re about to see significant cracks in old-school schools with mass-market degrees.
  • Back before the digital revolution, access to information was an issue. The size of the library mattered. One reason to go to college was to get access. Today, that access is worth a lot less. The valuable things people take away from college are interactions with great minds (usually professors who actually teach and actually care) and non-class activities that shape them as people.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      great point - status of libraries once extremely important..now, not so much...so how does our perception of these universities change? What can they do for you?
  • Things like gap years, research internships, and entrepreneurial or social ventures after high school are opening doors for students who are eager to discover the new
    • Amy Burvall
       
      are any of you thinking about this?
  • How to be usefully wrong.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      do you know how to be usefully wrong?
  • If failure is not an option, then neither is success.
  • We can (and must) teach these skills, starting with kids who are happy to build towers out of blocks (and watch them fall down) and continuing with the students who would never even consider buying a term paper to avoid an essay in college.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      like we were discussing with the cheating projects
  • It’s essential that the school of the future teach music. The passion of seeing progress, the hard work of practice, the joy and fear of public performance—these are critical skills for our future.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      I've never thought about music courses in that way- maybe they are the key
  • Real learning happens when the student wants (insists!) on acquiring a skill in order to accomplish a goal.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      when has this last happened in your life?
  • When access to information was limited, we needed to load students up with facts. Now, when we have no scarcity of facts or the access to them, we need to load them up with understanding.
  • What if we put 80 percent of that effort into making huge progress in teaching every kid to care, to set goals, to engage, to speak intelligently, to plan, to make good decisions, and to lead?
    • Amy Burvall
       
      hmmm. what do you think about this?
  • Textbooks rarely teach us lessons we long remember. We learn about self-reliance when we get lost in the mall, we learn about public speaking when we have to stand up and give a speech.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      what is a lesson you will never forget and when or how did you learn it?
  • If you could add just one course Neil deGrasse Tyson, astronomer and head of the Museum of Natural History in New York, adds this one: “How to tell when someone else is full of it.” I’d augment that with: “And how to tell when you are.”
    • Amy Burvall
       
      i LOVE this!
  • Other topics that are just like computer programming
    • Amy Burvall
       
      courses built on problem solving...but what about problem finding?
  • Shepard Fairey,
    • Amy Burvall
       
      shout out to one of my favorite self-made street artists
  • And being cared about, connected with, and pushed is the platform we need to do the emotional heavy lifting of committing to learn.
  • our responsibility is to amplify drive, not use lack of talent as a cheap excuse for our failure to nurture dreams
  • Let’s define dumb as being different from stupid. Dumb means you don’t know what you’re supposed to know. Stupid means you know it but make bad choices.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      do you agree with his definitions?
  • Today, dumb is a choice, one that’s made by individuals who choose not to learn. If you don’t know what you need to know, that’s fixable. But first you have to want to fix it.
  • Give me a motivated block builder with a jumbled box of Legos over a memorizing drone any day. If we can’t (or won’t, or don’t want to) win the race to the bottom, perhaps we could seriously invest in the race to the top.
  • Because we’re in such a hurry to drill and practice the techniques on the SAT or Regents exam, we believe we don’t have time to have students spend a week to independently invent the method of completing the square.
  • “what did you figure out today?”
  • Is the memorization and drill and practice of advanced math the best way to sell kids on becoming scientists and engineers? If not, then let’s fix it.
  • Is there a better way to learn than by doing?
  • Davidson doesn’t use term papers in her class—instead, she has created a series of blog assignments as well as a rotating cast of student leaders who interact with each and every post. Her students write more, write more often, and write better than the ones down the hall in the traditional “churn it out” writing class. She is teaching her students how to learn, not how to be perfect.
  • It doesn’t matter if you’re able to do high-level math or analyze memes over time. If you’re unable or unwilling to build bridges between the real world and those symbols, you can’t make an impact on the world.
  • The shift now is this: school used to be a one-shot deal, your own, best chance to be exposed to what happened when and why. School was the place where the books lived and where the experts were accessible.
  • Want to watch a movie? Netflix is a better librarian, with a better library, than any library in the country. The Netflix librarian knows about every movie, knows what you’ve seen and what you’re likely to want to see. If the goal is to connect viewers with movies, Netflix wins.
  • Wikipedia and the huge databanks of information have basically eliminated the library as the best resource for anyone doing amateur research (grade school, middle school, even undergrad)
  • They need a librarian more than ever (to figure out creative ways to find and use data). They need a library not at all.
  • ost-Gutenberg, books are finally abundant, hardly scarce, hardly expensive, hardly worth warehousing. Post-Gutenberg, the scarce resources are knowledge and insight, not access to data.
  • The next library is filled with so many Web terminals that there’s always at least one empty. And the people who run this library don’t view the combination of access to data and connections to peers as a sidelight—it’s the entire point.
  • If we view the purpose of college as a stepping stone, one that helps you jump the line while looking for a good job, then a famous college is the way to go. The line for those good jobs is long, and a significant benefit of a famous college is more than superstition—associating with that fame may get you a better first job.
  • Access to information is not the same as education
  • Stanford University has put up many of their courses online for free, and some have more than 30,000 active students at a time.
    • Amy Burvall
       
      what will happen when all major universities do this?
  • A university delivers four things: Access to information (not perspective or understanding, but access) Accreditation/A scarce degree Membership in a tribe A situation for growth (which is where you’d file perspective and understanding)
  • Given that all the major universities ought to/should/will create a university of the people—giving access to information and great teachers to all (and if they don’t, someone should and will, soon)—which of the other three really matter?
    • Amy Burvall
       
      what do you think?
  • The best way to complain is to make things”  
    • Amy Burvall
       
      one of my favorite quotes
  • if you don’t underestimate me, I won’t underestimate you
    • Briana Grenert
       
      How do you know if you're underestimating someone? How can you purposefully underestimate someone? And why would you do that? Or is Bob Dylan trying to say that only if people estimate him correctly and treat him as deserves can he see their true value? 
  • Higher ed is going to cha
    • Briana Grenert
       
      Ironic because, right now, I am digitally high lighting this document.
  • It’s not surprising that early on, many teachers found support in unions.
    • Zachary
       
      I think that Unions are the worst thing for schools. Unions only get in the way of teaching students. Most of the time Students can't learn because the teacher's unions are holding up the administration because they want more vacation or higher pay. 
  • The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake
    • Iona Unguran
       
      I believe he makes a point here : what's the point of being knowledgeable except for... being knowledgeable ?
  • Obedient
    • Iona Unguran
       
      This guy obviously hasn't read the IB objectives. Obedient ? Is that really the one thing school would teach us ?
  • The current structure, which seeks low-cost uniformity that meets minimum standards, is killing our economy, our culture, and us.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Low cost uniformity ? I feel like he's making it too general... First, 16000 bucks a year doesn't seem so low cost to me, and we can't focus on the schools in Harlem and omit the rest.
  • Our culture has a dreaming problem.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      I have to agree with that; but it might have been this way for ever; and more important, how do we fix "dreaming problems" ?
  • Access to any course, anywhere in the world
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Interesting ! But what about the language it's in ? The idea is kind of limited by that.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      I like the idea, bur language might be the limit...
  • “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”
    • Iona Unguran
       
      I like that quote. It implies many things, and among them the fact that maybe taking other points of view into consideration is the smart thing to do.
  • Is it too risky to do the right thing?
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Sometimes ; but it's still the right thing to do.
  • School needs to put us on the spot.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      I must disagree. I think we're the only ones who can put ourselves 'on the spot'. "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind" [Bob Marley]
  • Harlem is a big place, bigger than most towns in the United States.
  • Dreamers can be impatient, unwilling to become well-rounded, and most of all, hard to fit into existing systems.
    • Jasmine Baginski
       
      I strongly disagree with this statement. Dreamers are willing to do whatever it takes to reach their goals, and therefore they are willing to put in work. To work towards something, a result, may require a lot of patience. A dreamer will find that patience and make their dream a reality. As for being a well-rounded individual, I don't see how chasing dreams affects that area at all.
  • A million movies have trained us about what to expect from a school in East Harlem.
    • Claire Godenzi
       
      It is funny how easily media can create stereotypes about a place/person/thing and how much it influences our views and how we feel about them...
  • help them memorize something that someone else could look up, it’s time wasted
    • Iona Unguran
       
      I like that principle of trying to come up with your own ideas ! But I the meanwhile, learning what other people before you came up with is truly important for that.
  • And yet… most of us wing it. We make the same mistakes that many who came before us do, and we shy away from the hard (but incredibly useful) work of getting better at the things that matter.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Yes, but why give up what's already taught in school ? Why not just add everything together ?
  • Don’t wait for it. Pick yourself. Teach yourself.
    • Iona Unguran
       
      Wha, that's a concrete and interesting solution ! We should remember this.
  • Now that we’ve built an industrial solution to teaching in bulk, we’ve seduced ourselves into believing that the only thing that can be taught is the way to get high SAT scores. We shouldn’t be buying this.
    • Jasmine Baginski
       
      I agree! A good score on an SAT doesn't prove anything but the ability to memorize a bunch of facts; it is not a good indicator as to whether or not the test taker will be able to apply skills to real life situations.
  • It’s diffic
  • ociety is being fundamentally changed by the impact of the internet and the connection economy.
    • danniblack
       
      With the invention of the internet, humans have come to rely on looking something up, rather than finding the information for themselves. The impact of the internet has created a generation of humans that are very lazy; because we are able to do pretty much everything without even getting out of a seat.
  • Mass production desires to produce mass
  • were invented before w
  • g Dreams
  • passionate
    • Nate Hopper
       
      I like this sentence. I think schools should be less robotic about reading books.
  • If this sounds parallel to the notion of factories producing items in bulk, of interchangeable parts, of the notion of measurement and quality, it’s not an accident.
    • Nate Hopper
       
      Reminds me of Pink Floyd. He illustrates the idea of kids going into a factory and coming out all the same in his album "The Wall"
  • “The best way to complain is to make things”  
    • Madeline St John
       
      This quote is pretty awesome and I think its true. People tend to listen more if you actually have some work and creativity in your complaints. Like Banksy, making art about problems in society. I think satire is also a good way to complain about things. It gets people's attention. The point of complaining is to highlight the problem. Then we have to do something about it.
  • values customization
    • Madeline St John
       
      This reminds me of the customization of technology that we have and how people can set their desktop background and bookmark things and have their own accounts on pretty much everything. Everything is customizable and when things are more customizable, people become more attached to them, I think, and value them more. So customizing school could only be a good thing. There is something about everyone learning the same thing, though, that builds community (albeit not a very divers one...).
  • Being surrounded by educated people makes democracy stronger
  • Being surrounded by educated people makes democracy stronger
  • Being surrounded by educated people makes democracy stronger
    • Madeline St John
       
      If people are educated pursue knowledge and think for themselves...yes.
  • If the goal was to raise the standards for rational thought, skeptical investigation, and useful decision making, we’ve failed for most of our citizens.
    • Madeline St John
       
      I think because we are spoon-fed a lot of stuff in school and taught to believe whatever our teachers tell us a lot of people will just end up believing whatever people tell them, even if its tv or a chain email or someone on a web forum.
  • Goal-setting
  • be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.
  • …be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.
  • …be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.
  • …be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.
    • Ashley W.
       
      "Low-wage kids were taking jobs away from hard-working adults." Before, kids would work with a low- wage, and now are receiving education to work for a higher pay. This demonstrates how there are sooo much changes that occur throughout time. Adults used were insensed and intimitated from kids working for a low- wage (child labor) as kids were taking over jobs, but now it is more reliant on education and not age groups.
  • The world has changed, of course. It has changed into a culture fueled by a market that knows how to mass-customize, to find the edges and the weird, and to cater to what the individual demands instead of insisting on conformity.
    • Ashley W.
       
      It is interesting seeing how the world changes so quickly in which everything just sums up to a main topic in which it changed for. While reading this, it sounds rather selfish to see the world change to "cater to what the individual demands."
  • Dreams
  • handy PDF
  • go do your best
    • Kristen Takenaka
       
      In our society, people in stereotypical towns like Harlem, think that the schools are bad and poor. The amount of teachers are low, money to fund the schools is "not enough" and "our expectations are very low". And when society says that, they still want us to believe that the students can do/try their best. How can the students do their best if there is no hope in the schools? Why would they in the first place?
  • To train people to become productive workers.
    • Kristen Takenaka
       
      Schools way back when didn't train people to become workers. Like the TED talk about what is school for?, schools for the past 200 years (?) have been teaching students to become obedient to the teachers. How did schools come to that conclusion, that students have to become "productive workers"?
50More

Knowing Knowledge reading - 96 views

  •  
    DP1 Midterm Reading #1: For this reading (which is a pdf), you will need to copy and paste specific passages into this comment stream (with page #s). When you come across a passage that inspires a question or thought, copy and paste, then write your question or thought. For example: "All Knowledge is Information, but Not all Information is Knowledge" (page vi) My question: What kinds of information could be considered "knowledge" and what do we exclude? or..."Is "information" or access to information/ ability to find and use information MORE important than knowledge in our current tech-based society? ***Each student should write at least 2 questions or comments with references in order for us to have a fulfilling socratic seminar. During the socratic seminar, the inner circle will discuss and the outer circle will tweet while remaining silent (tweet stream will be archived).
  • ...47 more comments...
  •  
    "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.
  •  
    "Mass media and education, for example, have been largely designed on a one-way flow model (structure i mposed by hierarchy). Hierarchies, unlike networks and ecologies, do not permit rapid adaptation to trends outside . of established structure. Structure i s created by a select few and i mposed . on the many." Pg 2 This quote is explaining why the use of new technology has not readically transformed our classrooms and daily lives. By saying that because the media and education are arranged in heirarchies, where the few impose on the many, they are not subject to rapid change and adaptation to new technology. I completely agree with this quote and it has reimforced I belief i had already about this problem. Because the social elite, such as media mongels, already have vast power and influence on society, they fear change or believe there is no reason to adapt. This hesistantion of adaptation is why the media and education have not changed in a 100 years. "Human existence i s a quest to understand." Pg 10 I already believed this statement before i read this and this has reinforced my belief. Humans have an unquestionable thirst for knowledge and our desire to document and learn supports this idea. The intersting thing about knowledge is that we want to learn more and more as our understanding increases. Knowledge and the quest of knowledge is unending to us, we never grow tire of it for it has no end. This desire to understand has existed as long as humans have existed and that is why our existence has been a quest for knowledge and understanding.
  •  
    "Knowledge has to be accessible at the point of need" Pg. 43 This quote can be easily related to libraries and the modern web. In the past years easily accessible has had a change in definition. Libraries used to be considered easily accessible and now they are to far away, In this day in age people want to be able to pull up information directly in front of their eyes with almost no effort. Even though our definition of accessible has changed, the idea has stayed the same since the invention of libraries. "Does all knowledge change? Is nothing certain?" Pg. 82 This idea has become more and more relevant as we uncover new information. Ideas used to be believed with no question and knowledge never used to change. Now that everyone has access from their home it is easier to get new information on topics. If everyone can get to the information then new discoveries will happen much quicker .
46More

DP1 Midterm Reading #2 - 78 views

  •  
    "How the Internet is Changing What We Think We Know" DP1 Midterm Reading #2: For this reading, you will need to copy and paste specific passages into this comment stream. When you come across a passage that inspires a question or thought, copy and paste, then write your question or thought. Example: "I fear that the Internet has already greatly weakened our sense of what is distinctive about knowledge, and why it is worth seeking" What IS distinctive about knowledge? If we have a glut of information, does this make knowledge less valuable?
  • ...43 more comments...
  •  
    "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I disagree with this quote because I believe that technology spits out information but humans have to put it together to form knowledge. I don't think knowledge could be devalued by an abundance of information, I think that with more information there should be more accurate knowledge because that means more perspectives are available. Larry Sanger is making it sound like it's a bad thing to have more knowledgeable people in the world. Sure it's less impressive when people know facts but isn't it better to have an overall more educated society? "In fact, on many online knowledge websites, we often have no names, pictures, or any information at all, about the people that we converse or work with online." Why is this important considering people don't personally know writers of books either? Adding on to my question: we don't always know how biased factual books are either or if all of the sources were cited so why is the internet any less trustworthy?
  •  
    "The Internet is making this old and difficult problem even worse. If we had an abundance of information in, say, the 1970s, the Internet has created a superabundance of information today." Larry Sanger, the author of this article, is talking about the internet with such distaste. He tells us that in the old days, there was already an abundance of information in books and t.v. shows - the only problem was, you had to search through those book and watch all of those shows for the one snippet of information you were looking for. I am disagreeing with what Sanger said in this quote. Although, yes, there may be more information than we know what to do with, but the purpose of the internet is not to inundate us with information; with this invention, we can easily find the one piece of knowledge we needed without having to read a whole book or watch a whole movie. "The more that information piles up on Internet servers around the world, and the easier it is for that information to be found, the less distinctive and attractive that knowledge will appear by comparison." Just because there is more information to be seen, it does not lower the appearance of knowledge. Just because something valuable is surrounded by non-important things, it does not lower the value of the original object (or, in this case, knowledge). Therefore, I am disagreeing with this assertion as well. "The Internet is less a publishing operation than a giant conversation." Couldn't this be beneficial? Isn't this similar to group work or crowdsourcing? People are working together to put out new ideas that others may not have thought of. At the same time, if someone says something that is incorrect, others can correct them and provide truth information which can turn into knowledge if its reader so desires. "But if I then read the news in a few other, more credible sources, then my belief becomes much better justified, and then I can be said to know." But since there is
  •  
    "Information is easy, knowledge is difficult" this was the title and stuck out more then anything in this passage. Have we lost knowledge due to knowledge? now that i think about it everything im learning in school is information, things i go on the web for are just information. Are we losing knowledge? "It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." i do not fully agree to this quote because i feel that most knowledgeable people would not be full of doubt because they are knowledgeable to know they should not feel so much doubt. "But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you. So while information becomes nearly instantaneous and dead simple, knowledge is looking like a doddering old uncle." true.
  •  
    "First, we can make a role for experts in Internet communities. Of course, make the role so that does not conflict with what makes the community work. Don't simply put all the reins of authority in the hands of your experts; doing that would ensure that the project remains a project by and for experts, and of relatively little broader impact. But give them the authority to approve content, for example, or to post reviews, or other modest but useful tasks. My hope is that, when the general public work under the "bottom up" guidance of experts, this will have some good effects." A fitting video response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNTk29zXl4A This contradicts much of what I feel was discussed in the article. One of the points being the anonymity involved in sharing information and knowledge. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog. And no one knows you're an expert, either. It would also diminish the allure that everyone on the internet is essentially equal. I like that the internet is an equal playing field, and for the most part I am not concerned about biased, half-baked, or false knowledge on the internet. I don't venture onto forums, comments section, or discussion boards all too often when looking for information. I don't think being corrupted by conspiracy theories or half truths is something the average internet user encounters often, and when they do, they should know to be somewhat skeptical. And when false facts spread around the internet like "Albert Einstein failed math in highschool!!1" or "marijuana will cure your cold~!", they aren't very important and to anyone who cares to figure it out can find information to contradict this with a google search. " The point is that most of the stuff that you typically find on the Internet is pretty lightweight. It's Info Lite." It really depends. When I go on the internet for amusement I can read books, the news, look at peoples art and learn a language. Or I can go on Facebook (which I don't thi
  •  
    "Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." Although this is only the first line of the reading multiple thoughts came crashing through my thought stream. I mainly want to comment that I agree fully with this quote. The reason is because having information and having knowledge are completely different. Having information is just like simply memorizing facts for a test while having knowledge of something is knowing about the subject on various different levels and somewhat in depth. One question that I have pertaining to this quote is: Should schools start to ensure that children have knowledge on a topic rather than just retain information so that they will have it in the long term? I personally think that this would be a really good idea to integrate into school, especially with high school student because it will aid them greatly in the long run. "On a certain utopian view, no one should be held up as an expert, and no one should be dismissed as a crackpot. All views, from all people, about all subjects, should be considered with equal respect." I find this quote really interesting. I think that it is an interesting perspective to make it so everyone has view and opinions that are viewed equally. But I feel like if that were to be true and everyone thoughts were viewed as being equal what would happen to the title of "expert"? Would there still be experts? What if an idea were so completely and utterly ridiculous? Would we still keep to the utopian view and view it equally as the "better" opinions of the same particular subject?
  •  
    "Google, by the way, was responsible for two thirds of those searches." That is crazy that two thirds of the six millions searches done in December of 2007 were googled! But when I really thought about it, I personally do rely on Google quite a lot, and so do many others. Google is a quick way to search the web about a question or fact and get the answer quickly. What would the internet be like if Google never existed? Would the internet be a completely different? "…superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." I don't necessarily agree with this quote, I mean I can see where he's going with his argument, but I do think that there is solid knowledge that is easy to find, I'm looking more at a medical stand point though. There are really good medical websites like WebMD and Mayo clinic and of course any hospital/doctors websites. In this case, finding the knowledge is easy, but it just might not be as understandable to a normal person who has no background in the medical field.
  •  
    " The sources that are more likely to help you in your quest for knowledge look very boring by comparison. My point here is that the superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." -What if we made Knowledge nicer to look at? Some people prefer cold knowledge over just information even if it looks less "sexy". What if it was easier to find knowledge? In this world where knowledge is so easy to find and all you can find is encyclopedias online about a certain topic then wouldn't people complain about having not enough small bits of information? Do we need a perfect blend of knowledge and information or is one truly better than the other? "Having "information at our fingertips," clearly, sometimes makes us skip the hard thinking that knowledge requires." -I think that even the smallest bits of information can be thought about. It could be something so simple but yet you could pose so many questions and think about it deeply. You may just be looking in the wrong place. The person describing whats happening here is lazy people. There are others on the internet who could write so much about such simple information. There are also huge things about knowledge that make people skip hard thinking as well. It goes both ways.
  •  
    "To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail" - It's cool that we've studied how sites like wolfram alpha does that part for us! Though this article points out that this may not be a good thing - this is making it even easier for us to obtain information by doing the critical thinking for us. Maybe we should be putting more effort into the info we gain so that we may hold it at a higher value and connect it more to the big picture, hence turning it into knowledge. "Before the Internet, we were already awash in information." - I've never thought about this before! It's true, we already did have too much for one person to be able to understand, and then with the internet, information was almost devalued again. "The point is that most of the stuff that you typically find on the Internet is pretty lightweight. It's Info Lite." - I find this kind of scary. Our world is becoming shallower and shallower. We have information, but because we have so much at our finger tips, it would have to really stand out to convince us to explore it further. I wonder what effect this might have on the future? "Being a skeptic, I would actually say that we can't have knowledge about such complex issues, or at least, not very certain knowledge - I'm kind of in the middle about this one. I feel like there is knowledge out there about these complex issues, it just has to be sorted through the opinion. You can have an opinion on something and also have knowledge on it!
  •  
    Quote: "But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you." Thought: You have to think for yourself, so always make sure the knowledge you recieve seems reasonable and don't always let the first information you hear become your knowledge. Make sure you are open minded before you open your mouth to speak what you think. Quote:" If we include a modest role for experts in more of our Internet communities, we'll have better information to begin with, and better role models" Thought: I keep questioning this quote, because how do you define an "expert". If he wants us to have experts release information to society, how are we going to find these experts. So because one guy may have a masters degree in the subject he is considered an "expert" rather than someone who wasn't able to receive a degree but has been studying in the field for far longer than the "expert". I just don't understand how they don't except the knowledge from someone who had experience in the field.
  •  
    "My point here is that the superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." Yes and no... Ok, a nice video summing up the big lines of a History topic will be far more interesting than a heavy web page discussing about it in terribly small characters. But then, what if the content was the same ? Why bother with the web page ? I think it is about the format, at some point, and also about what you decide to do with the information. "The more that we study issues, and justify our beliefs, the more likely our beliefs are to be correct." How I wish this was true ! But I sometimes fell like the more I look after an answer, the harder it is to say if I'm getting closer. For example : I was reading this book about being a vegetarian, hoping it would help me determine whether I should eat meat or not... It only confused me more. So I allow myself to doubt this statement.
  •  
    "My point here is that the superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." Never having really lived without the internet, I can't say I'm extremely qualified to answer to this, but I don't think that the laziness and lack of desire for solid knowledge is something that the internet invented. I think that there are people who will not search for solid knowledge know when they can have Info Lite, and they would not have searched for solid knowledge when it meant doing hours of research in the library. Isn't it better that they at least have some level of knowledge now? In addition, while "true" knowledge may still be difficult to find, I still believe it is easy than it used to be, with this superabundance of information that we can sift through. For this reason, perhaps more people will take this time to find true knowledge. I can see some people ignoring deep knowledge for "Info Lite", but it isn't fair to make that assumption about all people. "Well, I think many of us would actually trust an anonymous person more than we would trust our more eccentric acquaintances." I think that at some point, when the internet was newer, there was a tendency to accept it as an undisputed expert. The internet was an unknown, something new and technological and the people that were posting on it must know what they're talking about. But as we have started using the internet more and more in our everyday lives, as we have realized that we can post absolutely whatever we want on the internet with little to no repercussions, other people can do the same as well. We have learned to be discerning in our acceptance of the facts we find on the internet. "If it's on the internet, it must be true" is said sarcastically every time someone collects an unbelievable fact from the internet.
  •  
    ARTICLE: How the Internet is Changing What We Think We Know: Quotation: "Here you might wonder: if justification, and therefore knowledge, is really so difficult, then why go to all the trouble?" No, I've never wondered. But now that you bring it up, it is a good point. Why bother? For me, I guess I just have a desire to know. I want to understand the people and the world around me. I want to make sense of the chaos. I think that's why we go through all the trouble: because we want to impose the illusion of order upon the chaotic universe. So we create beliefs and support those beliefs so that we can, by extension, support our world view. Quotation: "I've always been personally uncomfortable representing myself online in any other way than how I really am." Online, I'm generally similar to myself. I don't create avatars, really, because I don't play games that require it. As a personality, I usually represent myself as I do in person. If you meet me on Nerdfighteria.org you will find a Star Trek nerd who loves to write but can't spell. I don't pretend to be smarter than I am or any less nerdy. But the problem, of course, is that I don't know if other people are being as honest as I am. How can I know? So I am a little more guarded. But of course all this begs the question: what is your identity? I'm a *generally* consistent person in how I act in different social settings, but many people oscillate even in person ("first life"). Sure, in avatars there is a clear cut line as to how you represent yourself, but what about on a wider context? Just because people reinvent themselves online, does that mean that person that they have become is any less real?
  •  
    "For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier. To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail when it comes to understanding texts. In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Sure, technology is a great time-saver in various ways; it has certainly made research easier, and it will become only more so. But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you. So while information becomes nearly instantaneous and dead simple, knowledge is looking like a doddering old uncle." I feel like this passage is relating our "superabundance" of information to "cheating", as if looking up a quick fact online is like copying someone's homework. But with the growing complexity of our world and how it works, I think we need this "cheating". We can no longer have a full understanding of everything in a certain subject; there's just too much to know. We're gonna need our cheat sheets.
  •  
    "Philosophers since Plato have been saying that knowledge is actually a special kind of belief. It must be true, first of all, and it must also be justified, or have good reasons or evidence to support it." The quote says knowledge must be "true", but that creates problems in many fields where something that is believed to be true is actually false. Any day some discovery could be made which disproves a widely believed fact. This is especially possible in science, where, throughout history, there have been discoveries like this which have toppled hundreds of years of science. The same could happen with our fundamental scientific beliefs. Does that mean they are not "knowledge"?
  •  
    "For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier. To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail when it comes to understanding texts." I disagree that it is harder to find needed data. You just need to know the best place for finding the need information. for the previously mentioned scenario of needing to find the population of France, it would very easy to go to the CIA world fact book. this is a very reliable resource because it is a government service given to the public. "In short, we are reading reams of content written by amateurs, without the benefit of editors, which means we must as it were be our own editors. But many of us, I'm afraid, do not seem to be prepared for the job." this is quite a hyperbole because most of the true scientific information is written by professionals who know what they are talking about. The main things that are written by random Joes are blogs and other needless information. The reason that we are reading "reams of content" by amatuers is that the way the school systems are structured there is very little specialization. When back in the 1800s and earlier a boy would go and become an apprentice at the age of 9 or 10 and he becomes very educated in that one subject and leaves the other knowledge to others.
  •  
    "Now, the Internet is a different sort of knowledge source. The Internet is very different, importantly different, from both face-to-face conversation and from the traditional media. Let's talk about that. The Internet has been called, again, a giant conversation. But it's a very unusual conversation, if so. For one thing, it's not a face-to-face conversation." The internet is an extremely different source of information than getting information from talking to someone face to face. When one is talking to another, one could easily see if they are joking, if they are possibly lying or if they are telling the truth. This gives us, the listener, more confidence of knowing or understanding the information or not. When we look up information on the internet, we cannot see if the internet is stating the truth or not. We cannot read it emotions. When one hears something, they become more aware of the information, but when we read information, we usually skim through and its harder for us to take it more seriously. This why it is better to get information from another person, if it's true or not, than read it on the internet.
  •  
    "It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." Though a bit backwards, the truth in this quote is not easily ignored. Somehow, ignorance is almost always synonymous with being outspoken. Those who are ignorant are ignorant of their own ignorance, and, therefore, think that their opinions are the ones that need to be heard. Knowledgeable people, however, know that there is no true fact; there is only theory. They know that this is how we learn - by constantly doubting what we know. Because they are so full of doubt at their own knowledge, they do not profess them as an ignorant person would. "Easy information devalues hard knowledge." The author continues to say that the easy information on the internet is at fault for the devaluation of knowledge, but the internet is not the first to do so. We have been in a constant war with information vs. knowledge. In schools, students that take tests well are praised for being smart, but, in all reality, they may as well just be good at taking tests. This "knowledge" cannot be carried into the real world. Since the very creation of testing in school, we have valued information storage and testing skills over real knowledge and skills. The internet is certainly not to blame for this very old phenomenon.
  •  
    "For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier...In short, knowledge still requires hard thought." I believe that knowledge will never get easier. Technology does give us an advantage into better understanding what knowledge is, but we will never fully understand what it truly is. Even with all the technology in the world "Knowledge still requires hard thought." Knowledge is meant to be someone that perplexes the human mind and makes you think. "The Internet is less a publishing operation than a giant conversation." It's like everyone is their own boss. There is no one there to watch over you and see everything that you type. They can't edit it before you publish it. What you write is what you write. This is both an advantage and disadvantage. It's an advantage because it means people can write whatever they want to. There is no limit and they can speak their mind, however it is also bad because most people don't think before they do things and that means that they could publish something that they would regret.
  •  
    "Easy information devalues hard knowledge." This statement is flawed. I believe that just because information might be easy to obtain, it doesn't mean that your knowledge of the subject is any less significant. I feel that it doesn't matter where or how you get the information, but more of whether or not you're able to retain it. Because of the internet, it's so easy to gather new information to boost your knowledge, and I found myself disagreeing with a lot of what Larry Sanger had to say, however, when he said the statement listed above, that's when it really struck me hard. I think the internet does not lower your knowledge levels, but instead helps boost it. It's totally possible for people to learn just from the internet, instead of having to go to school. Yeah it might be more difficult, but it's still doable. I do understand that knowledge and information are two very different things, but knowledge can grow off of the information that you discover. Information is the root of all knowledge.
  •  
    "information is easy, knowledge is difficult" This is a quote from the reading and also one of the main ideas that is discussed and explored in the passage. It is very truthful and also very easy for me to analyse as I fully agree with it. This quote caused me to think about the difference between information and knowledge and allowed me to question, to what extent are they different? In my opinion information is easy as it is indeed very easy to find and the take in, especially in this age of the internet where answers can be found by the push of a button. Although this information can be given and pertained, this doesn't necessarily mean that a person takes it in as knowledge. I think that information is only knowledge after it is fully understood and the person is able to apply the information in a number of ways with an in depth understanding of the subject( or whatever the form of the information may be ). That is why knowledge can be refered to as 'difficult', as it takes some sort of hard thought to understand the information that is given to turn it into something the person knows and understands thoroughly. This is when it can become knowledge. The author even says himself "knowledge still requires hard thought". "The Internet is making this old and difficult problem even worse. If we had an abundance of information in, say, the 1970's, the Internet has created a superabundance of information today." I partially disagree with this quote as i do not feel that the internet is making the issue of information worse. In my opinion, i think that it is essentially making the abundance of it better; by organization and computation of this information. Yes, i do agree to note that we have a superabundance of information today, but who says this is necessarily a bad thing? The information has made it substantially easier to access anything that you want, whenever you want, which is very helpful and as far as i can see, in no way creating a problem. It has become a
  •  
    "First, we can make a role for experts in Internet communities. Of course, make the role so that does not conflict with what makes the community work. Don't simply put all the reins of authority in the hands of your experts; doing that would ensure that the project remains a project by and for experts, and of relatively little broader impact. But give them the authority to approve content..." (paragraph 31) i dont know about what you think but it kind of whispers "Big-brother is watching" to me. with this guy being a professional at telling me things like knowing is not knowing and friends are enemies, i feel like they might just start instituting mini-pax, and mini-plenty centers over the internet. and i would not be able to break free. solution number one in his two solutions of plans seems a bit strange. but thats just me. and maybe George Orwell too. "In short, we get knowledge either directly from other people, or indirectly, through various media." would he rather we gain knowledge from non media that is not a person other than ourselves directly? i fail to see the practicality in this guy's ideas and images of what we have become, and how we could improve. because last time i checked my 80% + daily fill of knowledge and my 40%+ lifetime memory of knowledge has been given to me by school, friends or family. i don't know if he is saying that is wrong or if he insinuates that i really mean tv and computer instead of school and family but im not sure he got it right.
  •  
    "It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." I agree with this because you see it every day. Some people can think they are extremely smart in a subject and become very arrogant about it. They will keep saying the information over and over again to try and get more followers but in reality they are only putting people off; especially if they go out and send 15 billion emails or AD's to everyone. They also do not follow all of the facts, they only tell you the good to try and get people to join them. Sometimes they do not even follow the true facts; they shove in their own opinions and will not listen to the voice of another. For example, the political parties, Democrats and Republicans, neither party is willing to listen to the other people's opinions. They believe that their opinion is the only correct opinion. While the people with real knowledge doubt their knowledge because the arrogant people keep shoving their opinions down their throats. " I fear that the Internet has already greatly weakened our sense of what is distinctive about knowledge, and why it is worth seeking." When reading this quote out of the article it actually surprised me that I agreed with the statement. In so many ways the internet has weakened our senses of knowledge. We do not fully consume the researcher that we find; we just use the information and just toss it out of our mind when we finish with it. With the internet as a huge search engine now we do not understand why we have to do the research. We have become so lazy that if we went to a library and had to use encyclopedias we would still not know what to do.Also when I read this it made me question myself: Do I actually understand and process the research I find or do I simply take it in and then let it go?
  •  
    "In short, we are reading reams of content written by amateurs, without the benefit of editors, which means we must as it were be our own editors. But many of us, I'm afraid, do not seem to be prepared for the job." I disagree with this. I feel that we are too dependent on "experts" and what we think is "reliable" information so we completely skip the editing process and just believe what they say to be true. With all the information there is online, I feel it stimulates our brain more to pick and choose our reliable data and to edit the not so reliable data. When editing the looser articles and information into your own words, you're doing exactly that; using your own words, instead of the words from "experts" "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I disagree. I feel that just because there is a mass amount of information on the internet, it does not devalue knowledge. I feel that it doesn't matter where or how you get the information, but more of how you're able to retain it and what you take away from it. Even false information are stepping stones to being knowledgeable about true information. If you read an article saying how pears lead to kidney failure, then realizing and knowing that eating pears don't lead to kidney failure is still knowledge
  •  
    "information is easy, knowledge is difficult" This quote was portrayed in the title and is extremely interesting because getting information is easy now days. We have easy access to the internet, books, and many resources, but knowledge is the difficult thing to master. To receive a book is easy but to understand the book is difficult. Luckily there are teachers and professionals to teach others knowledge, but it is still extremely hard with mentors and teachers. This quote stresses how there is a difference between containing information from resources like article and booklets and actually having knowledge about the topic like understanding what's going on and how it works and why it does the things it does. "I fear that the Internet has already greatly weakened our sense of what is distinctive about knowledge," I agree with the statement because I feel that sometimes people abuse the internet and it underestimate its capabilities and what one can learn and contain knowledge from. I feel that people always look for the easy way out and it is extremely simple to just get information from the internet rather than understanding the material which is why the internet is kind of in a way abused.
  •  
    "In fact, on many online knowledge websites, we often have no names, pictures, or any information at all, about the people that we converse or work with online." I think this is a bit irrelevant to be honest. I mean, at school, we dont know the teachers on the first days of school, but we still trust that everything they know and are sharing with us is correct? Or books, yes we know the name of the author of a book, and if we are lucky, the back flap of the book has a paragraph about the author, but we have no connection what so ever with them! These examples are really no different than the internet which is why I think this opinion does not coincide with mine. "information is easy, knowledge is difficult" So after I read this article, I decided to read through this feed of comments on quotes and the one above mine (haelee's) really hit me. She makes such a valid point about how it is so easy to get information these days, whether it be from the internet, people or books, but knowledge is not the same. Then again, what is the difference between information and knowledge. Some would argue that they are interchangeable.
  •  
    "The point is that most of the stuff that you typically find on the Internet is pretty lightweight." This is not true. Often on the internet I have found scientific journals and even free books online! In fact I have found over 1,250 pages of rescores from government websites and University papers online for my EE. The internet has loads of information, granted it does have pointless web sites such as MEME BASE and Facebook. But the internet has lots of good information and knowledge that is accessible to everyone everywhere. I think that as the internet gets older and its full potential is reached than we will see even heaver weight things. For example the Library of Congress is planning and in the progress of digitizing all of its books for use on the internet. I feel like the author of this article didn't really think about what they were saying before they said it. There is no basis for his argument, you can now buy books on the internet. How can we make search engines smarter to be able to tell if we want a lot of information or not? "To passively absorb information from the Internet, without caring about whether we have good reasons for what we believe, is really to roll the dice" I don't think that is it a role of the dice. I mean maybe if you believe everything you see or hear about on the internet but if you are careful and listen to everything that is said. You just have to be careful about how you interpret the data that you collect from online. The data could be presented you to in a negative light and that would make the subject seem bad! Others may paint a bad thing in good light so it looks good. You just have to be careful of everything you see and hear on the internet. How can we teach children about the dangers but also the advantages of the internet?
  •  
    "Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." It seems that this is a popular quote! When we are given information in school, it is easy to retain and repeat. But when we string information to create concepts and events and the information is given depth, it becomes knowledge. And this knowledge is what we find difficult to comprehend and explain. When we are asked to connect these concepts, it becomes even more difficult. Applying the knowledge is also very difficult. I think one reason why knowledge is so difficult is because in school, people aren't gaining knowledge, just information. They don't know how to make connections with information and form ideas and concepts. Being able to regurgitate facts isn't knowing, despite what people may think otherwise. "On a certain utopian view, no one should be held up as an expert, and no one should be dismissed as a crackpot. All views, from all people, about all subjects, should be considered with equal respect." AMEN BROTHER! Just because someone is put into a category or is labeled, does NOT mean that they do not know anything outside of that category/label. Also, just because someone may be considered an expert does not mean that they're word is final. These labels are misleading. I know a few people who some may write off and overlook because they have a negative label. Yet they are extremely bright, and some of the most insightful people that I know! Dismissing or exalting someone based on a label is no different than judging someone based on a stereotype.
  •  
    "Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." While beginning the reading, this quote really popped out at me making my mind flare up with thoughts. I want to say that i totally agree with this quote because information is just memory but knowledge is way more. When a teacher gives you a test on just information, all you have to do is use your memory even if you don't understand it completely. Knowledge is something that you must understand because when you have knowledge in a field, you can apply your self in many different ways. Knowledge is gained from doing where as information is gained from listening or reading. All and all i totally agree with this quote!
  •  
    "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." The first thing that i want to point out is that i do not agree with this quote. I know that there is a vast amount of information on the internet but i do not believe that devalues it. Everyone retains and understands information differently so i believe that how you retain the info is how valuable it is. Just because there is a vast amount of information doesn't mean that our information is not as valuable. All information is valuable to some extent but its how you use it that really shows how valuable that information is.
  •  
    "Google is a veritable oracle of truth. The problem is recognizing truth, and distinguishing it from falsehood. The ocean of information online contains a huge amount of truth. The difficulty comes in knowing when you've got it." I agree with this. So many people go on Google and expect and rely on it to be correct simply because it comes up. Not everything on Google is the truth. Though, its very hard to weed through the truth and false on Google. Near impossible, actually. So, how can we only have truth on a website like Google? Its hard to know, and sometimes we just have to use our better judgment to pull out the truth that's hidden within the rest of the made up lies that can be found on the internet.
  •  
    "Google, by the way, was responsible for two thirds of those searches." I read over some peoples posts to get other perspectives and Kelly K wrote something pretty amazing. She wrote the question "What if google never existed?" and "What would the world be like without google?" I can't imagine the world without Google. I use Google everyday. How would I research or find things. So many me, like myself, rely on Google. Google helps me find information about anything and everything. I can't even picture life without Google. "Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." I agree with this quote. Finding information and getting information is easy. You can research it or be taught it. But keeping that information and knowing it is hard. To have that information is harder than most people think. How do you keep knowledge? How does your brain store so much? We know so much! How do we keep that all in our brain? Does our brain ever stop taking in knowledge? We live for around 80-90 years. So will there be a point where you can't learn anymore cause your brain is stored up? "Well, I think many of us would actually trust an anonymous person more than we would trust our more eccentric acquaintances." That's so true! We get our knowledge off places like the internet and we just trust that it is reliable. Why do we trust the information? Who taught us to trust it? Why do we trust it? This question blows my mind! I have been getting information off the internet for so long. I never thought that maybe some of that information could be false or unreliable. That never would question my mind. I knew not always to trust websites like Wikipedia but why do we all trust the internet?
  •  
    "It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." I fully agree with this! Ignorant people always have opinions and stuff to say. But i never thought about that knowledgeable people are full of doubt. The knowledgeable will question things. Have doubt in things because it isn't realistic. Even thought they know so much they doubt it. Why do they doubt things?
  •  
    "Google is a veritable oracle of truth. The problem is recognizing truth, and distinguishing it from falsehood. The ocean of information online contains a huge amount of truth. The difficulty comes in knowing when you've got it." I agree with this in the fact that it is hard to find the truth in google because of the excess of information but having an excess of knowledge is good because having this much information lets us be able to do things 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 internet peoples from all different nationalities. "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I disagree with this statement because 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 internet peoples from all different nationalities.
  •  
    " People who care very much about getting their facts right generally consult authoritative sources; they don't usually get their knowledge from casual conversation with friends and relatives." I disagree with this statement because even if you need to get your facts straight does not mean you know everything that ever was or will be. They can still get knowledge from casual conversations and they can always check up on their facts later. "Of course, we are able to spot really daft stuff no matter who it comes from. " I disagree with this statement too, there are tons of people who totally believe the really daft stuff on the internet. One of the things we are always told is don't believe everything you read. Someone has to believe it if it is being told. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
  •  
    For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier. To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail when it comes to understanding texts. In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Even though this should be true, it isn't. With today's millennial, if something is found once, we tend to be quite sure of it. For instance, when people heard that Kony 2012 was a scam, people just believed it and never did any further research. People thought that about 37% of donations going to direct help was bad. Meanwhile, huge organizations such as Susan G. Komen for Breast Cancer only donate about 30% to direct help. Also, IC spends almost 17% on overhead,but the WWF spends somewhere from 20-30% on overhead. Lastly, people complain about the CEO getting $90,000/yr when many major heads get >$500K/yr.
  •  
    For example, let's suppose I read something for the first time on some random blog, such as that Heath Ledger died. Suppose I just uncritically believe this. Well, even if it's true, I don't know that it is true, because random blogs make up stuff all the time. A blog saying something really isn't a good enough reason to believe it. But if I then read the news in a few other, more credible sources, then my belief becomes much better justified, and then I can be said to know. I just have one question. How many sources does one need to go to to officially call it knowledge?
  •  
    "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge" I completely disagree with this quote. I don't understand how Larry Sanger could say this about knowledge. Wouldn't it make sense to say that the more information that we surround ourselves with, the more knowledge we will be able to obtain. Isn't that why teachers and parents always tell children to read as much books as possible, that way we can try to be as intelligent as possible. "Google, by the way, was responsible for two thirds of those searches."' I believe this quote because i use google everyday. It is the main website that i use to search for any information that i need for my life. I wouldn't know what to do if google never existed. And i am happy to say that i am a part of those two thirds people because i think that google is an amazing website to use; it never lets me down.
  •  
    "In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Sure, technology is a great time-saver in various ways; it has certainly made research easier, and it will become only more so. But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you." The internet has made access to information very easy. Almost everything is now has a digital copy on the web. Information and facts are easy to find but knowledge and learning is not easy. No one can learn for you are know your thoughts and what you're thinking. If more information gets put on the internet, will knowledge lose its value because the information is so accessible? "Knowledge matters, and as wonderful a tool for knowledge as the Internet can be, it can also devalue knowledge." Some information is not true information and facts. How do we know what information is true or not? How can we have all this information and very little knowledge processed from the existing infromation?
  •  
    "Now, the Internet is a different sort of knowledge source. The Internet is very different, importantly different, from both face-to-face conversation and from the traditional media" I agree with this statement because like the article stated the Internet is like a conversation of knowledge being passed from one to another but It's a conversation where someone would be a information source and anyone who would want to know that certain information would start a conversation with the source. This shows that everything we do now a days is a short cut and we don't have to do the hard work like back then. I don't think this is a good thing because certain experience is not gained from this but I don't think it's a bad thing either because good experience is also added. Why is it that we naturally resort to non social, Non 1 on 1, over the Internet interact action? Is it nature or nurture that that make us move more towards shortcuts through modern technology?
  •  
    "Google is a veritable oracle of truth. The problem is recognizing truth, and distinguishing it from falsehood." -I agree, Google has a lot of very good information, but if you don't have any background knowledge on the topic you are researching on this search engine, it is likely that you will find bad information. I feel like the only information you don't have to distinguish or be skeptical of these days is in books. People have been focusing on putting information online so much, that there are hardly anyone putting information into books. Partly because anyone can put anything on the internet. Books are much harder to get out to the public. Information put into books to make sure if its reliable or not before allowing it to be published. "Well, I think many of us would actually trust an anonymous person more than we would trust our more eccentric acquaintances." -I think the fact of just having an idea of how reliable some of our acquaintances are really helps us decipher if we can really trust them. People always assume that most everyone is trustable and since you can't actually see or directly talk to this person one of this generation would assume that 'since it's on the internet, its true!" It's very sad, but true. And I hate to say, but I've been one of these people.
  •  
    "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I agree with this whole heartedly. When one can simply Google the answer to a question, why does one need to learn it? With the answer to any question as at the tip of our fingers, knowledge seems less valuable than it did just 20 years ago. "Before the Internet, we were already awash in information." So true. The only difference between now and then is that now we have all the tip of our fingers. Back then you had to search for the answer, and finding it was worthwhile. Why do we get rid of original copies (books) when typically first editions are important? What happens to the world when everything is online? What if the systems crashed? At least with books, they don't just crash. They last many years.
  •  
    "But without knowing who a person is, we are operating without a basic bit of information that we are used to having, in evaluating what people tell us face-to-face." A lot of information that we get when we talk to people face-to-face is lost when we talk to people over the internet. What are these social cues, anyway? How can we adapt them for the internet? People have adapted to expressing themselves in emails and chats by using emoticons to represent their facial expressions. But a lot of people misrepresent themselves on the web. Even with a little thing like emoticons-people overuse them-typing smiley faces left and right, even when they aren't smiling. On websites where the point is to display personal information-like Facebook-people filter it, to put just the good stuff. How ethical is this filtering? How important is it for us to know who are sources are, what they are like as people? How important is privacy on the internet? Can you be credible without revealing a lot about yourself? "First, we can make a role for experts in Internet communities." A lot of things on the internet-people and products included-can seem a lot cooler than they are in real life. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It gives everyone a level playing field for expressing their ideas and it gives everyone a level playing field for expressing their ideas. I think there is a reason we have experts. But when is it right to label someone as an expert? And how much more should we value the opinion of experts over those of others? Could making a place for experts allow people to think less critically about the information they are receiving? Would making a place for experts encourage other users to be more professional, to check their facts?
  •  
    "But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you. So while information becomes nearly instantaneous and dead simple, knowledge is looking like a doddering old uncle." Making the mental work easier really isn't the point. The internet is only supposed to make information acquisition "nearly instantaneous and dead simple". We shouldn't expect something from the internet, or from anything, that it was never meant to supply in the first place. I am not quite sure what to make of the rest, because, frankly, who says "doddering"? I am going to assume that he is trying to say that knowledge now looks old, slow, boring, and sometimes embarrassing, depending on the uncle, compared to the mindless, blazing speed of information acquisition on the internet. However, I don't think that this is going to make a big change in the number of people who take the time to learn, and acquire knowledge, like the doddering old uncle. There will always be those who thrive on learning and discovering. There will also always be those who like taking shortcuts. Knowledge isn't going to be killed off by the internet. It will only benefit knowledge by making it easier for those who desire knowledge to gain it. "In short, we are reading reams of content written by amateurs, without the benefit of editors, which means we must as it were be our own editors. But many of us, I'm afraid, do not seem to be prepared for the job. In my own long experience interacting with Internet users, I find heaps of skepticism and little respect for what others write, regardless of whether it is edited or not." This I agree with. It is really easy to slander something, someone, or an idea on the internet with little, or no, respect or proof. The reverse is also true, though less affective, because it is always easier to destroy something than it is to build it. It is also incredibly easy to fru
  •  
    "I say knowledge is, roughly speaking, justified, true belief." This made me think about what actually is knowledge? And can you actually define it? In my opinion there is no true meaning to what knowledge is. Knowledge can be anything and everything. You can't define this term, because it is just too broad and there are so many different interpretations of it. But what you do know is examples of what you think might be knowledge, but truthfully no one will ever know. "In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Sure, technology is a great time-saver in various ways; it has certainly made research easier, and it will become only more so. But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you". I completely agree with this, the internet does not actually contain knowledge. You can't just read knowledge off of the internet; you get knowledge by interpreting what you have read. Then connecting it to things in life, and making it more than just information. You may think that you gain knowledge form the internet, but in my opinion that is just one step closer to knowledge and being able to interpreted information from the internet.
  •  
    "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge. The more that information piles up on Internet servers around the world, and the easier it is for that information to be found, the less distinctive and attractive that knowledge will appear by comparison." I do not agree with this statement at all. this superabundance of information will only help expand our knowledge and understanding, not devalue it. Sure, with this information comes the ability to quickly access it without the need of memorization, but this does not make the knowledge less appealing to the searcher. they are searching for the information because they want to have more knowledge. Knowledge and the quest for knowledge in unquenchable in us and we will never stop being interested in learning more. "Easy information devalues hard knowledge, I say." I disagree with this statement as it is related to the statement above. I believe more imformation does not devalues knowledge, but makes it even more special to us because the more we know the more we want to know. humans have and always will have a desire for understanding and knowledge and more information leads to more knowledge and understanding. This increased knowledge will only increase our desire for new knowledge.
7More

A Nation of Wimps | Psychology Today - 4 views

  • Behold the wholly sanitized childhood, without skinned knees or the occasional C in history. "Kids need to feel badly sometimes," says child psychologist David Elkind, professor at Tufts University. "We learn through experience and we learn through bad experiences. Through failure we learn how to cope."
  • Although error and experimentation are the true mothers of success, parents are taking pains to remove failure from the equation.
  • With few challenges all their own, kids are unable to forge their creative adaptations to the normal vicissitudes of life
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • These turn out to be the spreading psychic fault lines of 21st-century youth. Whether we want to or not, we're on our way to creating a nation of wimps
  • The mental state of students is now so precarious for so many that, says Steven Hyman, provost of Harvard University and former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, "it is interfering with the core mission of the university."
  •  
    FOR SOME REASON IT'S NOT SHOWING ALL MY ANNOTATIONS, BUT IF YOU OPEN IT UP AND CLICK ON YOUR DIIGOLET TOOL IT SHOULD SHOW HIGHLIGHTS ON EACH PAGE. YOU MIGHT HAVE TO REOPEN THE DIIGOLET TOOL FOR EVER PAGE.
  •  
    FEEL FREE TO COMMENT IN THIS STREAM.
14More

Stephen Wolfram Blog : Latest Perspectives on the Computation Age - 1 views

  • “If I push it to 300 rpm, what will happen?” We understand the query, then run a model of the system, then tell you the answer; say “That wouldn’t be a very good idea”
    • Stig Regan
       
      This could be very useful.
  • And in fact most of the questions we see every day never appear on the web; they’re completely new and fresh.
    • Stig Regan
       
      I do not see how you could verify that as being true.
  • within a few decades we’re going to find that there’s more new technology being created by those methods, than by all existing traditional engineering methods put together
    • Cori Cummings
       
      Completely agree with this!!
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • everything that’s happened with computers over the past 50 years, we haven’t seen anything yet.
    • Cori Cummings
       
      This is only the beginning with technology in computers. It hasn't been long since they've been invented and they are advancing immensely each year! Can't wait to see what they're like a decade from now.
  • exists. Mathematica is the language that Wolfram|Alpha is implemented in. And
  • the point is that in Mathematica, doing something like solving a differential equation is just one command.
    • Cori Cummings
       
      !
  • Because most questions require one not just to have the data, but to compute some specific answer from it.
    • Cori Cummings
       
      Just because a source gives you information doesn't necessarily means it gave you the answer to the question you were looking for. You must assume things using the information to get the answer. Or hope that the source you use gives you the direct answer, which is not so likely.
  • everything that’s happened with computers over the past 50 years, we haven’t seen anything yet.
1More

Forum - So How Should We Think About All Of This...? | The Persuaders | FRONTLINE | PBS - 0 views

  •  
    A forum addressing some major questions about the persuasion industry
1More

Analysis - Persuading The Consumer And The Citizen | The Persuaders | FRONTLINE | PBS - 0 views

  •  
    Narrowcasting - this goes with the PBS video spot we'll see in class

Blurring Lines of Cheating - 1 views

started by mary mattingly on 19 Oct 12 no follow-up yet
1 - 20 of 50 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page