Fully automated luxary communism

Fully automated luxury communism or FALC is aiming towards replacing humans and having machines do the work instead. In Erik Brynjolfsson's view "A world of increasing abundance, even luxury, is not only possible, but likely... Many of the things we consider to be necessities today- phone service, automobiles, Saturdays off- were luxuries of the past." The essence of Brynjolfsson's statement is that our society will continue to technologically advance its inevitable. I agree that our world will continue to technologically advance because of how many technological advances we have as of 2015. Take cellphones, for example, as time has passed they have developed into something so technologically advanced that, as Brynjolfsson points, is something we use to see as a luxury, but in today society is something we need to have. As time passes technology is something that will continue to grow and advance, and the thought of having robots that do the work for us is something I can see happening.

Fully automated luxury communism is the belief that machines take over the work force and do the hard work while employment no longer exists. Bastani says "There is a tendency in capitalism to automate labor, to turn things previously done by humans into automated functions." Meaning everything a person can do a machine built can do better than a human and eventually replace him or her. I agree that everything done by humans has been turned into an automated function because now a days you don't even have to type you just speak and the computer or phone does it for you.

smart, lazy humans

"the robots are coming for our jobs" this is one of the sentence that most caught my attention in the article "fully automated luxury communism", in my opinion, the meaning of this, is that we humans, have advanced in technology so quick that when we expect the least, that same technology that we've created, is going to take control over all the things we use to do, for example, our jobs. Now a days, we see and use technology almost on everything, new computers, new phone, new everything. All of this creations are intent to help us out in our daily basis, in other words, to make our lives easier, but the biggest consequence we are getting out of our hard work, is that we are becoming lazy, and in the future, we are not the ones that are going to control the world, our new machines are.


Another thing that terrifies me, is that humans are going to be useless, we are all going to cut our hours of work to maybe 10-12 per week, because a machine is going to be doing our job, having said this, I do not know where are we going to get the money to sustain our families from, or what is going to happen with our lives; yes maybe we are going to have more free time, but as where I know, humans are not used to that.

 

I Fame

I really believe in this article, we are depending too much on technology, we are lost when the power goes out because even our houses are nothing but technology. Nobody uses gas stoves anymore and that is not good when it comes to power outages, to be able to use anything everyone needs a plug for just 8 hours of life when batteries give you months of life. Our greatest creations will be the end of us, and we need to get back out there and stick with what we know. We can't rely on jammed mechanical pencils we need to rely on wooden pencils, we can't rely on the flashlights on our phones we need to rely actual flashlights. We are advancing so fast that when it comes to needing to use a house phone nobody is going to know how.

Lazy Luxury

The online article discussed the problem with the want for luxury versus the reality of what you already have in life. People are becoming lazy as time goes by and I believe this is because the people who are discovering new ideas and producing new technologies are not thinking about how their decision will impact the newer generations to come up. Robots are becoming more common in the world and they are placed in every available field that is open. A hover board, for example, is making people lazy. People who own one of these is more likely to ride down a ramp or an elevator rather than taking the stairs. They are less likely to get the exercise they need but will continue to use these hover boards because of the temporary fame and praise of the object. In luxury, people will expect more but perform less depending on how they feel about their job. They will let the machines do all the work and sit back until the machine needs to be restocked or a jam has occurred. 

IRobot

Brian Merchant, a senior editor of Motherboard and VICE science and technology channel had a goal in life. In my opinion what Brian Merchant tried doing is just taking away job opportunities for the blue collar workers. In this article it says, "The robots, they say, are coming for our jobs." Knowing that the robots can't work a white collar jobs and the technically speaking most blue collar workers are not as wealthy as the white collar workers. Therefore, if robots do take over our jobs it'll be the blue collar workers. At the the same time it can be helpful, but also it can be a controversy about the robots taking away our jobs. Even though Brian is trying to make our society easier, but he has to be universal and think more outside the box.

Quote Sandwich

Brian Merchant, a senior editor of VICE, wrote an article about Aaron Bastani’s view of work being done by non-humans. Merchant talks about how Bastani and other luxury communist see a post work society, “where machines do the heavy lifting not for the profit but for the people.” (Merchant). In other words, Bastani believes that this technological development of machines working for humans is a perfect vision for a post work society. He believes that replacing humans with machines will reduce the amount of work that is required by humans to do. Although I agree with Bastani up to a point I cannot accept his suggestion that automation will replace wage labor in society, especially those who are hard driven and motivated to work hard their long hours.

Compare and Contrast

The Futile Pursuit of the American Dream by Barbara Ehrenreich and To Work Better, Work Less by Cody Delistraty both represent having similar ideas. For example, Ehrenreich writes in her essay about the American dream and how much people work in order to live out this so called dream. They work long hours and work all the time just to have this certain lifestyle. As is the case with Delistraty in his essay he talks about how some people work long hours just so they can say they work long hours. Some even work these long hours and have theses jobs because it makes people perceive them a certain way. For instance, "Busyness implies hard work, which implies good character, a strong education, and either present or future affluence." Although both authors could agree on that aspect they both have differences as well. For example, in Ehrenreich essay she works undercover to attain this "white collar job" in order to see how it really is, and how it has changed over time. While Delistraty is arguing that for people to work better they must work less. In the end, both authors can agree on some concepts, but both have very ideas or points they are trying to make.

In the essay, The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream, Barbara first discusses how poverty is almost become common and how people who are hardworking and even well educated still have to face this struggle. She talks about her own personal story and how she had to handle being unemployed. Unemployment rates seem to increase daily and it is a constant struggle for anyone. It not only affects the basic standard needs of living but one's pride as well. In the essay, Everything That Rises Must Converge, is about a woman who once was considered wealthy to then becoming poor. She had to adapt to not having the same luxuries or live in the same house and have the same lifestyle. This change, changed her. She wanted to continue to feel as if she was better and above everyone else although she was now in the same economic state as most of the people she encountered.

The pursuit of the American Dream, and  Your lifestyle Has Already Been Designed, go together. Graff Birkenstein the Author of The Pursuit of the American Dream tells us about the struggle of some trying to reach this so called American Dream. Birkenstein has researched and gone undercover through the white and blue collar work force. Birkenstein's first thought of course the white collar work class would be less physically demanding, but also less stressful. This differs a lot from his final thought in his novel "As it turns out, I was wrong on all counts". Graff sees now that the white collar work requires a lot of off the clock work. Now in, Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed we read from David Cain and see how actually our whole life is set up. He explains the normal work day for a 9-5 employee, and the struggles of them. Cain understand the hard work week and what it requires as does Graff, however maybe its because of Graff's explanation on why we do the things we do leads to the unhappiness of the white collar workers. Everyone thinks they get the job they need and work the 9-5 however they don't think about all the extra hours that is required. So in our mindset through our begging of ones life is we go and do what is needed and then all we need to work is a simple 8 hour day. However after reaching the point of getting the job reality kicks in and this invisible curtain is removed from sight. Now the white collar worker sees how much work is actually needed and becomes depressed because we believe our life is going to be designed a certain way due to past accomplishments, however that always inst the case.

compare and contrast

Both The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream by Barbara Ehrenreich and the essay "To Work Better, Work Less" by Cody Delistraty are both very similar in some aspects. For example, both essays talk about the overworking hours just to make in in life. Delistraty says "Some low-income workers are forced to work long hours or multiple jobs just to make ends meet." I personally know people who work long hours just to have food on the table and a roof over their head. Ehrenreich says "...Americas intractable level of poverty...on the chronically low wages offered to nonprofessional workers.". Even though both have a similarity on talking about the high working hours, both essays have a lot of differences. Delistraty's essay is talking about how people work long hours because its more of a culture in the U.S for us to be working long hours to benefit ourselves. But in Enrenreich's essay she is talking about how her experiences going undercover as a college graduate is completely different than what she remembered. Both essays are very powerful and gave me a reality check of the things i could encounter when i graduate from college.

Work Life

I believe that in the essay The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream and To Work Better, Work Less both have similiar comparisons of some points within of working long hours. There are multiple reasons for working long hours and some of us are known to overwork themselves and never have time for leisure time at home. Cody Delistraty, explains why people overwork themselves and some causes of that. He states, “…as focus simply cannot be sustained for much more than 50 hours a week…. Of course, some low-income workers are forced to work long hours or multiple jobs just to make ends meet.” We don’t often choose to want to work long hours although because of needed the money we would do what it ever it takes to get what we need. In the essay The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream by Barbara Ehrenreich she oversees a reasoning why some over work themselves by “overemployment”. She states of another author, Juliet Schor, “stressed-out white-collar employees who put in ten-to twelve-hour-long days at the office, continue to work on their laptops in the evening at home and remain tethered to the office by cell phone even on vacations and holidays.” She stresses that even when one needs or has a day off we are always connected to our job, for the need to be on top to get a higher pay with the current job. No amount of hours are enough to be in the place that they need to be at to have the necessities needed.

Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed (comment)

I agree that we live in a society that leaves us wanting more because my life experience confirms it. In David Cane's view "We've been led into a culture that has been engineered to leave us tired, hiugnry for indulgence, willing to pay a lot for convenience and entertainment, and most importantly, vaguely dissatisfied with our lives so that we continue wanting things we don't have. We buy so much because it always seems like something is still missing." In other words, Cane believes that the society we live in makes people spend money on things we don't need and value materialist things. When we should spend our time enjoying life, and on things that bring meaning to our lives.

Time Consuming

Reading this article by David Cain, he expresses his own real life experience. He mentions a lot of himself. Being away for a really long period of time and coming back to work again is a challenge to get back to the working environment. One of the paragraphs mentioned forty-hour work week. The average is about thirty hours. Myself, I worked twenty three hours and still complained. David says that people who works forty hours a week doesn't quite have the time for social life. “I’ve only been back at work for a few days, but already I’m noticing that the more wholesome activities are quickly dropping out of my life: walking, exercising, reading, meditating, and extra writing.” People need exercise, chill days, and more importantly they need time for themselves.

Money is a Drug

After reading this article and thoroughly thinking about the topic my first thought was, money is a drug. Isn't it? people make money then want to make more money in any way we can. Money can be a negative and positive factor in everyday life. It can give you money to take your family and or friends out to have fun or you can be so worn out from working all day that all you want to do is sit down and then do nothing to just get back up again to go back to work to make more money. Is this really what makes the world go around? The addiction to money? the desire to want more? I believe that we were put not his earth to leave it better than we found it and if money is overtaking that factor then what are we all doing here? I personally agree money is great, but you can't take it with you when you are gone. Even when people leave this earth the memories remain. Memories that you make with the people you love in everyday life. You can not make these memories if you work your fingers to the bone everyday to make money to save that you will never spend. Money is the source to most evil. People kill, sell drugs, and will do unforgivable things for money. But at the end of the day i think the real question is why does money mean so much to all of us?

Who actually thought about it?

Reading this article really opened my eyes to something that I never payed attention or saw. The author talks about people doing all these things like spending money without even really thinking about it. I do all these things and I know everyone around me that works does it too because if we have time and money to spend, we will spend it. Its almost a natural reaction because when people go to hangout with their friends, they spend money like its nothing. The author also said, "While I was abroad I wouldn’t have thought twice about spending the day wandering through a national park or reading my book on the beach for a few hours." Most people don't want to do any of these things after a long day of work and school because they would rather just sleep. Most people would think of that as a waste of time and instead of actually walking around and reading, we would rather go out with friends to go out and eat, resulting is shedding out money.

Time Will Tell

In the text, Your Lifestyle Has Already Been Designed, I noticed that the writer states a lot of reasons why we spend money the way we, Americans, do. We are trying to fill in empty spaces with things we don’t need because the sources are available to us and we have the money to get what we want when we want it. The author talks about how we are also given a lot more time than we need in order to finish a task that could be completed in possibly half of the given time. He states the Parkinson’s Law and says, “the more time you’ve been given to do something, the more time it will take you to do it.” If I am given a week to wash five loads of clothes I would maybe take my time and do one load a day instead of finishing all the clothes in one day even though the task is possible to complete in less than a full day. 

Does one work better, if they work less?

In the Atlantic article by Cody he discusses the unique ways of Parisian people and how they take off for an entire month whereas Americans would rather work overtime. Now there has been many experiments tested around this idea of working less for instance if an individual has homework for several subjects they give themselves a time limit for each subject, so that they won't get tired and find themselves slacking off instead. I also understand why this idea should be past down into the work force since it would benefit the employees, the owners, and the consumers that use the product. Sadly I don't see this idea passing off well in the United States mainly because people in this country don't mind overtime because the extra money especially for those living paycheck to paycheck. Also if employees were to riot for this type of change businesses could easily fire them all and find workers for cheaper through globalization. So yes people do work better if they work less and it can lead you to not working at all.

I disagree with the essay because I too believe as in what the article says "busyness implies hard work, which implies good character, a strong educator, and either present or future affluence." I think if we were to take time off work we would then become lazy and not discipline ourselves. The article suggests that if we were to get technology to do our work for us we can work less but the problem is you would screw yourself over by giving up your job completely to a computer because it can do a faster and efficient job than you. I believe working builds character and working overtime can benefit you to succeed.

I do agree with this essay. A lot of people not only hate their jobs but work too much, and I think that working too much can make you hate your job. Like this quote from the text, "work less, and you'll tend to work better", its stating that taking some time off or working part time can make you enjoy your job more and do better at your job because you are not over worked. If you over work yourself you will tend to become tired or working of course, and start disliking you job even if it is something you've dreamed of doing since you were young. People should work at a moderate paste to continue to enjoy or at least not dread their jobs.

i work a lot

The title of this article: “to work better, work less” is pretty self-explanatory, it talks about how the time you spend working relates to the quality of the work you do; also the productive you are in between those hours. I personally liked Parkinson’s Law which states that work expands to fill the time available for its completion; if one wants to get the work done fast, and get tired quickly, one needs to realize that even if they finish early, they still need to cover the same amount of hours finding something extra to do, this is why, one should work less and work better. In my case, when I am at work, I already know the tasks I have to complete in certain amount of hours, it is my decision to choose a working rate. On the weekends, I work 8 hours shifts, from 1 pm to 7 pm, I start with a lot of energy, but after doing the same thing over and over I get tired and the only thing I have in my mind, is leaving the place and go home and rest.

The article also emphasizes the big percentage of people who overwork shifts without a necessity, and the reasonable explanation for this, is that they feel lost without the structure of work to support their daily lives. This in when one chooses work over everything else, and it is understandable if one really loves their job, and don’t mind spending hours after hours on it, but we also have to make sure that we are doing the best on it and being productive, because when one person spends more than 48 hours a week working, they start causing errors, as professor Anders Ericsson states.

Comment Only

I agree with the values expressed in this article regarding the concept that if people worked less then we would work better and be more productive. Delistraty made an accurate statement that others and myself can often relate to when he mentioned, "working long hours often leads to productivity-killing distractions. I personally find this to be true because at times while I'm at work I tend to get bored and turn to my phone. Social media and text messages quickly catch my attention as my focus is now on that instead of being productive to my duty at work. Another thing Delistraty mentions is that working too much leads to "disengagement at work". I agree with this because after working long hours we tend to lose interest in what we are doing and not being engaged causes productivity to diminish. The amount of time we work affects the quality of work.

Mirror Cells

In the "I feel for you. really" article the author, Albert Nerenberg speaks about how we can mirror the feelings of others like their happiness, anger, sadness, and fear. If he were to have a conversation with the author Robert Wright who wrote "Why Cant We All Just Get Along?" I feel he would agree with Joshua Greene who was also incorporated in Wrights article. They would agree on how humans can mirror the emotions of others, which can explain why when it comes to the trolley experiment no one would push a single person because they could be mirroring the fear of the person they are about to push in front of the trolley. Although they would probably disagree on how Nerenberg say that sociopaths and psychopaths don't posses the same ability because they didn't grow up with the ability to empath with others but Greene thinks that it would be possible to be compassionate for any human. Greene doesn't really mention how people can redevelop the ability to empath or mirror others but nerenberg says it cant be taught but that that it has to be caught in the moment of empathic interaction. They would both believe that it is possible for people to be cooperative but it is still competitive at this moment since there are those who lack that ability to empath with others.

Albert Nerenberg and Robert Wright obviously have their sides on the issues of empathy and morality. Nerenberg sides with the idea of humans being cooperative with the science behind mirror neurons acting as a source for empathy which drives a civilization. Wright suggests that the reason for humans being so competitive is that it was all because of natural selection and the way humans were roughly around the Stone Age. If the two where to sit down and debate about the topic their would be some areas where one would stand their ground. Nerenberg holds a firm belief based off of science that those who have empathy will cooperate with others while those who lack it will not care for others. With Nerenberg's point of view it leans toward the side of humans being cooperative. However Wright suggests that humans have always been competitive because of the way we group ourselves dating back to the time of the first humans. Cooperation as he suggests, is only to a certain degree as people have their own sense of morality which in some cases is such an unbreakable will that they will not change their beliefs. Wright uses the topic of religion as a solid base for this argument. His sides leans towards the fact that because of this we are competitive.

Cooperaive v.s Competitive

The author Albert Nerenberg from the article, “I feel for you. really,” and the text “Why can’t we all just get along? The Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality” by Robert Wright both have different opinions on whether people are cooperative or competitive. Albert Nerenberg thinks we are cooperative because of our Mirror Neurons and Robert Wright would disagree because of our morals we incorporate in our judgements to make us competitive. Albert Nerenberg’s idea of us having Mirror Neurons will make us empathize with others. Such as his example he used of when we watch movies and we feel the way the actors are feeling and will end up crying when they do. By having these mirror neurons we would be more cooperative with one another because we will be able to feel what others are feeling towards the situation and be on their sight of mind. Robert Wright believes that people are more towards being competitive because of us infusing our morals with completing an action. He states that we have a bias from one another due to natural selection. That conflicts with the way towards you feel towards situations because you won’t see what you have done wrong only what the opposing side has done negatively. Such as when the U.S. “coup in Iran, overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a brutally repressive regime that ruled for decades” and the Iranians continue to be suspicious of Americans. The bias you have is not of the whole piece, it’s only your sight of view in which you’re not looking at your blind spots.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

The central argument in this article is about the rationality of human moral judgement and how humans behave when exposed to certain situations. Do people's responses have to do with the emotional parts of their brains, or a more logical thought. For example, Wright mentions Joshua Greene's trolley experiment which will kill five people if not stopped unless a lever is pulled and falls killing only one person instead. Whether people would choose to not kill anyone and let the five people die, or pull the lever and have four people live is the argument. Some people are swayed by an emotional response in their brains because they rather not be blamed for picking one person to die. While the logical reaction people just thought about how they could save more people by killing one. That being said, the central idea of this article deals with why it is people behave the way they do. Some people are more cooperative with others, but others can not seem to get along.

I think the central argument in this article is that we are lacking compassion. Or that we do not see the outcomes to our actions. In the article, Joshua Greene mentions his experiment the Trolley Problem. He says how we would dutifully kill a man by pulling a lever but refuse on the principle to give him a nudge that leads to the same thing. He also mentions how we differ with moral perspectives. Greene calls it the “Tragedy of commonsense morality”, he says how people aren’t selfish per say but they have a different perspective of what a moral society should be. Maybe that is why we are capable of one thing rather than another when they have the same outcome. Greene also talks about empathy, this might also be a factor in how we respond or react to something. It might also depend on diversity and how some might see a person’s value and even our morals. In the article they discuss gay rights to global morals and their value. This is not just based on thing but multiple and it affects numerous things all based on how we act, think, speak, and even act.

In this novel, Everything That Rises Must Converge by Flannery O'Connor was a dark and quiet toned novel. The story begins when Julian and his mother has to go thru this problem. Julian's mother who needs to lose twenty pounds because of her blood pressure issues Julian (her son) has to take her to the hospital every Wednesday night. By reading and looking for context clues it gave me a feeling that Julian didn't want to take his mother to the hospital. On page 274, " The determination to make himself completely numb during the time he would be sacrificed to her pleasure."
At the end of this story Julian mother dies. Her death was very crucial. Julian and his mother was having a discussion which led to an argument. She ended up dying on sight.
I think the moral of this text is that you don't seem to appreciate the people around you until they're dead. Start to appreciate more and be righteous.

Beginning and End

In the text from the short story, Everything That Rises Must Converge by Flannery O’Connor discussed a relationship between an adolescence and his mother. The mother needed to lose weight because of her blood pressure so she begin to take classes. The son took it upon himself to take his mother to classes because he knew she had done so much for him. The lady was getting older and had a hard time of making decisions often. She could not decide on a hat she wanted to wear so her son notified her that everything looked alright. At the end of the short story the lady became weak and could not take anything else. This short story tries to point out events that may go unnoticed until it is too late. The mother tried to talk to her child, but he did not acknowledge her and show her that he had an interest in anything she was trying to tell him. The boy trying to do what he can to make sure she did not annoy him or get in the way showed his feelings towards his mother. He did not notice she was letting go. 

Come together from different directions

"The idea of darkness seemed to sweep him back to her, postponing from moment to moment his entry into the world of guilt and sorrow." Segregation is the main point in this story. Caroline and julian are different yet they become one with each other without knowing it. Caroline was a black woman who  was very thick headed. "she continued to go on as if she has not heard him" Julian was a young boy who was introduced to guilt in this story by the end.

Everything That RIses Must Converge

Reading just from the first few words, readers can see that the setting takes place way back when segregation was still a major problem. There are quite a few lessons that readers can see as they read through the chapter. For one, the son is trying to make his mother mad sitting next to a "negro" that just walked on the bus. To spite her even more, he thinks up plans that will make her have to come in contact with colored people and readers can see that the son and mother don't have that great of a relationship. By the end, he just screams at her and treats her like shes nothing, and when something tragic happens, he then feels the sorrow and guilt of what he did. In a way you can see the lesson is to get off your pedestal and know that you are equal to everyone around you, while the other could be watch what you say before you regret it.

Effective Writing

Building effective paragraphs covered how important it is to have a foundation before and while you are writing your essay. The writer should support the main point and make it stand out by providing evidence throughout the writing. As you write you should stick to the topic and choose a suitable pattern for organization. A Few of the patterns discussed were Description, Process, and Analogy. A Description pattern helps the reader visualize and imagine what is actually going on in the text. There will be details that relate to any of your senses and you will be able to imagine what it is really like and what the writer is trying to explain. The Process pattern is done in chronological order and will explain how something is done step by step. This process will give you instructions on how to do something or put something together. In Analogy, you are able to compare two things that have very little in common. This might be a tree and a dog, or a rock and a bucket. This gives the reader a better understanding on the topic and explains how even the smallest things have something in common. You should always close out with a strong paragraph that will support the main point of the text. Your conclusion does not have to be long it just has to cover the most important points and stick to the topic. 

Who are you?

Who are you? We can answer this question several ways; you can say your gender, race, sexuality, or maybe describe your personality or hobbies, but these tend to be the responses you give when someone asks you this question. But if you ask yourself the same question the response will most likely very different. For in actuality our internal thoughts is how we define ourselves. A Victoria Secret model can be told by every man that she is an exquisite being but the model herself may think otherwise and has a desire to do self harm because she finds herself hideous. Now she of course won't say this out loud in an interview but it is how she truly feels. This only goes to show that there is in fact two types of people in this world, the individuals who listen to their thoughts, good or bad and act upon them. Then there are those who listen but choose to ignore and not act upon them. Our thoughts affect who we are because we are always consciously going between these versions of ourselves . So when asked who you are, the more accurate response would be your thoughts because your thoughts reflect on your behavior.

THINKING DEEPLY THAN YOUR BRAIN

 Do thoughts have a real meaning?, this is the question that “Dark thoughts” emphasizes, it also describes how some people feel that your thoughts can be deep wishes that you just never discovered before, and the way you deal with them.

They give us two examples, the first man, who didn’t know what was happening to him; why was he having all these thoughts about murdering his wife after watching a violent movie. How can we predict that it was one of his deep thoughts, if he was in love with her and have had a sweet five years relationship.


On the psychologist’s perspective, he explains about the automatic negative thoughts, this one makes more sense to me because depending on the day you are having, the way you are thinking may change, and if you contradict yourself you can have better results.
Even though, our brain is the most powerful tool we have, it is also our responsibility to control it, control our thoughts and find a way to deal with them; as the kid from “Locked in man” experienced 11 years without the ability to move and interact with others, even his family was questioning if he was still alive. Through those years, he explains the horrible thoughts he had, but he also emphasized how important is to let go those thoughts that are only going to harm you. He said it was better for him to have blank thoughts than to keep reminding himself how bad he wished to be dead.

Inner Thoughts

I believe inner though is an amazing thing. You are not who you are without that little voice inside your head, your conscience. But something's thoughts will haunt you and you just seem go not be able to think about certain good things. That sure it the hardest part about you being in your head though. We judge ourselves and do not think we know our worth or purpose in life, usually. Everyone has insecurities sadly. But what i strongly believe and go by day by day, is that happiness is a choice and if your inter thoughts bring you down in life just know that you can indeed change that.

In the podcast, S suffers from his thoughts. Not knowing if the thoughts he is having is what he actually wants to do. I believe our thoughts define us to an extant. Meaning like S has thoughts to murder his wife and rape and kill other people, but when given the chance he doesn't take it. S is not a murderer he simply has thoughts that are caused by something else. Which is why I think thoughts define you to an extent. Negative thoughts that most people have everyday for example, "I'm not good enough", "Nobody will ever love me"... is what I think defines us because essentially those thoughts are due to low self - esteem. I guess its where the thought is coming from that defines you.

They Work in unison

I think when it comes to the two hemispheres of the brain they really do work together, because even though the right brain is focused on the now you need the left brain that focuses on the past to help make choices for the now. It is understandable that many wouldn't want the left brain because there may be events in the past that nobody would want to remember or to just pop up in their heads from time to time. What's really happening is that the right hemisphere being the way think in the wouldn't understand how or why you got that way, so that is when the left hemisphere would be the representation of what made your way of thinking changed, they work in unison.

We Are One

Jill Bolte Taylor proposes that we are able to freely choose which side of the brain to work with. The left hemisphere focuses on collecting information and then analyzes the information into great detail essentially making us “one” with ourselves. The right hemisphere focuses on the here and now moment and utilizes all senses to gather information this makes us have a sense of togetherness or as Jill Bolte Taylor puts it “we are one.” I agree with the right hemisphere but I do not agree with the left hemisphere. As human beings we tend to focus on the “here and now” rather than to think things with more detailed thought. As human being the sense of having that togetherness with other people is what makes us human to be able to feel that we all share this earth, we share friendships, and we share experiences all of these are what make us human. The right hemisphere does exactly that it takes in the present moment of what is going on and uses all sense to get a big picture of what exactly is happening whereas the left hemisphere has more of a self-secluded feeling you are yourself you can relate to yourself you are you is how the left hemisphere operates.

Two in one; Brain hemispheres

Many people know the brain is divided into two sections yet dismiss, or not are educated, on that they have different and specific functions that control our body, and without one functioning can make us a completely different person. As Jill Bolte Taylor has informed in her speaking, My Stroke of Insight, the left side of the brain picks out details from our past and present and thinks of the future; the serial processor. The right side of the brain thinks of only the present moment in your surroundings which goes to be the parallel processor. I do agree with Taylor that we do choose which hemisphere of the brain to use because I myself experience it from day to day in my college classes. With having to listen to more lectures each and every day, from specific classes, I sometimes choose to zone out and pay attention to my surroundings more than the professor. As I am in “la la zone” and miss out on amount of information I have to be writing down. Then I snap back to reality and begin receiving and decoding the details that are being spoken. As my own experience I chose to pay attention to the right side of my brain, in la la land, than to my left, in reality.

The Right Hemi

It has become common today to discuss certain topics regarding the brain. For example, in Jill's recent talk discussing her stroke, she points out the differences in the left and right hemispheres of the brain. I agree that the right hemisphere of the brain is more efficient for us, but I cannot agree that the left hemisphere is. 

Jill's theory on the functions and effects of right hemisphere of the brain is extremely useful because she scientifically proves and gives us accurate information based off of her personal experience. The right hemisphere specifically deals with "the now". This is our present moment here in life, everything that we experience NOW is what the right side of our brain deals with. This is the best because although some people would love to anticipate and plan for their future, nothing's better than dealing with our life right now!

Our right hemisphere thinks in pictures, lives through our bodily movements, and takes in all of our five senses. Focusing on this half of the brain, we are all connected together as one through our conscious. 

I believe this is the superior, better half of our brain, because nothing is better than living life in "the now". We get to experience EVERYTHING here in the present as it happens now.  

What Paul Bloom is basically saying in his article is that we are all different when we're around other people. For example, when i am with my friends i act a certain way with them since they would understand more. But if i act the way i act with my friends with my family, 9 times out of 10 they're not going to understand what am i actually doing and just question it. This also helps us by being able to adjust to our surroundings. You're not going to go to a job interview and act the way you do with your friends,because if you do you probably won't get the job. So we would have to be more professional during this environment. I also agree with Bloom when he is stating that we remember our memories than ended up being painful. I know this first hand because if someone would ask me about a painful memory, i could think of thousands in a second. I completely agree with everything he is saying in this article. We probably won't admit that we act different when around different people but in reality, we all do

As it was said in the in the first article, we all have our own way of thinking, its inevitable. Which is why we all express our self's in a different way. Now when it comes down to who we are with at that certain time it may even change again. This isn't being fake but adapting to what we believe is needed. As our life goes on we see what we should act like in certain times, and we proceed to do it. The author couldn't be anymore true when he brought up the comparison of a gangster guy hanging out with his grandma rather then his friends. Now its unlikely that he will act the same around his grandma, but some do. This I wouldn't say is a sign of disrespect but just a kid being him true self and not conforming to what he needs to act like.

In this article the author pitches that everyone has different sides to themselves. I strongly agree with this, because each person has more than one side to them and it can be affected by mood, environment, or people. From personal experience I can say I act differently with certain people, it just depends on how I feel when I am with them. When we feel more at ease with a person we are less likely to be someone else. When we are comfortable with someone we will feel like we can truly be ourselves. Some people feel as if they have to alter or filter who they are based on their surroundings. The article suggests we act this way for control or maybe even for the feeling of acceptance. People can easily feel intimidated and manipulated so they come off as something they're not. I feel like this shouldn't be a result however, I can understand and relate to why some people result to this. The author even uses metaphors to convey that we might settle for some discomfort in order to get what we want.

First Person Plural

In First Person Plural the writer argues that a person has multiple personalities and gives reasons why that is, and I agree because among the examples he gives, I have had first hand experience, and can relate to the situations. For example, when he argues that personality changes when presented in different situations, and mentions that even the most thuggish teenage boy will not behave the same way while with his friends, or with his grandmother. It couldn't be more true because, everyone is like that everyone has different personalities and behaviors according to the situation they are in. I agree because, I have witnessed it first hand with myself. I am not the same around my close friends and family as I am when I meet my new friends parents for the first time. He also adds that when we experience something and in the future are remembering that certain situation we are not the same person when remembering that specific occasion. Which I agree with because, when remembering things that have happened to us, in the past you, realize how much different you were then, then you are now. That being said I agree completely with what the author is saying, and how the smallest things will change our personalities, and we are not the same person we were yesterday or will be tomorrow.

First Person Plural

He argues that each of us contain multiple selves, and I agree because I think you are a different person every day. After reading through this article and comparing it through my personal experience, I pretty much agree with everything he is saying. I like the example he says about the coffee machine. If you set up the coffee the night before and have it set for in the morning you can just make it and go, you would be pleased because you set yourself up to be ready. If you didn’t set up the coffee the night before and have to do it all in the morning you would curse at yourself for not doing it before, and you may not have a good day because you are upset. Another good example he gave was about experimenting about good smells and how that can change how you are. If someone or something smells good you tend to be happier and maybe more polite. But if it was a bad smell you may be judgmental and stay your distance. There were many good examples in this article but this is why I agree that we have multiple selves and how little things can change it every day.

It's Education?

Everyone has a strong opinion on Education. Education sprouts in many different forms depending on the individual and how they respond to it when education comes to mind. I look around everywhere and see so much wrong with this world. Everything just continues to spin round everything and everyone and no one gets a breathe of fresh air. The main source of the problem always trickles down to Education!!!! so how does anyone propose we fix this mediocre problem? i am no genius i would not be able to have a solid first step in the right direction when it comes to fixing our education system but i do have a strong opinion on it. In Finland school is free from Pre-K to getting a masters degree! WOW thats so amazing to me and overwhelming because in america we don't have that? i think its funny how we are the "land of the free" but around every corner we are told what to do thats another problem with our education system! NOTHING and i repeat NOTHING in this world is free, unless of course you are a college student looking at all the free T-Shirts the clubs are giving out to get you to join. Anyways why is education so much? I understand why we pay money... i understand our money pays for the buses to take us to class, the patrolling cops to keeps us safe, water, our teachers salary and many other things we love on campus. Yet when i take a step back is it worth it if people can't make it here? if they have too much money to recieve hefty scholarships but not enough to even pay for a semester at the college of your choice. IT IS TOO MUCH! everyone wants the next generation to have a good education but i think the first step to making sure we can achieve this goal is making sure it is in out reach, this alone would force out Education system to change...

Reforming Education

Robinson and Sahlberg both have a common concept behind education and that it should be changed for the benefit of students and the education system itself, but they each also state their different opinions on why it should be changed. Sahlberg  believes that schools shouldn't be in competition with one another, instead they should be on a balanced level with one another (like in Finland).  Robinson's main view is that our education system today is set up  like the enlightenment era. We have "industrial" characteristics such as our schools being organized by "factory lines". Meaning, we have separate facilities and subjects, kids being educated by age groups, etc. Robinson believes we need to get out of that old time era and teachings and transition over to more of a modern focus for education. Robinson and Sahlberg both share excellent ideas on how we can improve our education system here in the United States.

The Beginning to Their End

Sir Ken Robinson and Pasi Sahlberg decide to have dinner at Olive Garden to discuss their views over the current education system in America. Once seated at their table they order salads, but the salads are left untouched after being served because the conversation at hand is much more important than some dry greenery.

Robinson: "Excellence in education requires equity, not elitism."
Sahlberg: "So, you've read my book Leading Educational Change."
Robinson: "Yes, it was fair work for someone still reasonably new to the educational aspect of things. I must say I was surprised by not only your ideas but your interview at Dwight."

Sahlberg: "Simply speaking the truth, the fact of the matter is the people in America are blind in their ways of conformity, competition, and greed. Take away the burden of competition and make everything equal across the board gets rid of the greed."

Robinson: "Ah but the solution you believe your people found in Finland still holds a form of standardization as well as setting those children up for failure on how the world works. Once an individual leaves school they will look for work, and if we know anything about the work force it is that it's competitive. You must also understand your way of doing things would not easily work on this massive scale simply because the American economy is not fit for it."

Sahlberg: "Our system has its flaws in some aspect but we have at least started somewhere when it comes to the change of our system. There is no more segregation based on academia but an opportunity for diversity in the learning environment. With the standardized tests gone we are no longer putting children in a box but letting them have more expression so that they are more willing to learn."

Robinson: "Now that is something I can agree with, we teach children while they are young to always remember that they are one of a kind but they are just like everybody else. The only thing that truly separates us is our way of thinking. Let us toast to divergent thinking."
Sahlberg and Robinson: "Divergent thinking."
Waiter: "Excuse me gentlemen but sadly Olive Garden is closing for the night."

The two education leaders take their leave of the restaurant to head their separate ways, but before they parted Sahlberg had just one question.

Sahlberg: "If you and I were to take over the education in America, where would we begin?
Robinson: "The government would have to go first, to elicit change their would have to be less obstacles of opposition. Then we can eliminate the current Education Department and start from scratch with a more artistic and hands on approach to learning."
Sahlberg: "I guess Finland and England will be having more interactions when it comes to the take over of the United States."
Robinson: "Yes we shall."

It isn't just a matter of education!

Even tough Robinson and Sahlberg have different ideas on  how education should be, I think at the end of the discussion both can have something in common, they want a better education system for American. After reading the comments of my class mates, I realize we all have different points of view, but I will say that just because there is no private schools in Finland or because education is given to everyone the same way, it doses not mean that its population is going to act like robots, yes they are having a homogenous  education but they still being different from each other in the inside, different ideas and different pathways in life, that is why I like the free school in Fireland, to me is like taking off a extra barrier we have to face in life: money. How many of us are super good at school, have big dreams for the future but they are disappearing because we don't have enough money to pay a expensive college in America; or how many students get tired of working every day to afford one semester in college, a "public college" and they just quit.
To me education is not just a matter of learning different subjects or getting a degree to succeed in life, it is how you take those opportunities day a day to become a better person and to be where you want to be, either in a expensive school with "boring classes" or in a free school where they teach everyone "the same way".

What Robinson and Sahlberg have in common is that they disagree with how the education system in America is being set up. Even if they both have this idea in common they also have a lot of differences. For instance Robinson says that the education system in America is more factory like since they split us up into age group. He also says that the education is based like how it was during the Enlightenment period and the economy of the schools was made in the Industrial Revolution. Basically what Sir Ken Robinson says is that we should let the past be the past and move forward with our education system by helping people become divergent thinkers instead of giving them anesthetics. Pasi Sahlberg, on the other hand, thinks that our problem is that we are competitive when it comes to schools. Especially the private schools, we compete against one another just to make it in. For Sahlberg he says that equality is basically key to the success in Finland since everyone does the same exact things and don't really have much of a choice. Both of these educators have amazing ideas in how to reshape the education system in America, but when we actually think about it a lot of people wont agree with either of them and the plan could possibly fail.

A New Approach to Education

Sir Ken Robinson and Pasi Sahlberg had different yet similar approaches to education. They would definitely have a lot to say and have a heated argument on what is better to reform education, but their common goal for both of them is to improve education. Both have great ideas, and although they're different, they're ideas that could go toward the problem and help out the situation at hand. We just need to get a board and pull out ideas from what they talked about to create this one system that they could both agree on.

Sir Ken Robinson and Pasi Sahlberg both want to improve our education. If these two men would sit down and have a discussion with one another, it probably would be an exciting one. Since they both view education very differently it would be an interesting talk. I think that somehow they would come to an agreement since they both think opposite of each other. Sir Ken Robinson says that in our educational system kids are not focused being because that it’s boring. If the material kids work on was more fun and hands on they would probably learn from it better than to have a teacher up their lecturing to them. Now in Finland they have it where their education system has no cost no matter what type of situation you are in. In America, we cannot do this because it would affect our country’s work force. If everyone was in school then who would be out there working? This could help us in America with like not having to pay for it and stuff but I think that we should change our education system but not exactly like Finland’s.

Robinson vs Sahlberg

If Sir Ken Robinson and Pasi Sahlberg were to sit down and have a conversation about education the two would have different opinions about the issue. Robinson would not agree with the ideas Sahlberg would have to say because his approach on reforming education is the complete opposite of his. For instance, Robinson says education needs to stop being so standardized and factory like. While Sahlberg’s approach is to have everything be exactly the same. Meaning everyone have the same education, equality. Robinson wants education to wake kids up and push for divergent thinking allowing kids to be creative. Although the two have different views on the way education should be taught, they could agree that American education is failing and needs to be changed. Robinson may disagree with the way Finland's education system is set up, but still like some of the things they do. For example, Finland does not have private institutions and if there are none are allowed to charge any fees. They also do not have standardized testing, and grade everyone individually. Likewise, Sahlberg can come to like some of the ideas Robinson, them being, getting kids engaged and pushing divergent thinking, In the end, the two would have very different ideas on the way education should be taught, but can respect each others points of views and ideas.

America vs Finland

There's one common goal for Ken Robinson and Pasi Sahlberg, improving our education. They both have a different structure of getting there but that is the end product they are trying to get at. Ken Robinson has an approach of making education fun for us to learn and giving us a purpose to learning the material being taught. He stresses a point when he says taking medication for ADHD is just a way to numb us down so that we can listen to the boring stuff being taught. If learning was more engaging, there wouldn’t be that problem. That is where divergent thinking and creative teaching methods comes in as a solution to how they might be able to fix the teaching style of America. As for education in Pasi Sahlberg they have a system to where everyone, no matter your economic situation, can all get the same degree with no cost. Cost and size would be at the top of the list of what they would argue on. America is huge and economically we couldn’t afford to have all education free because it would affect the businesses and types of work force available now that everyone has a chance to get the same degree without conflict. Yes it would benefit us tremendously of not having any debt but would it be the best choice as a whole if we try to improve our education exactly as Finland has theirs?

I think if Sir Ken Robinson and Pasi Sahlberg sat down and discussed how they think education should work it would be a very heated argument. I don't think they would really agree on much because the way they see the education system is completely different. Sir Ken Robinson doesn't agree on assembly and Pasi Sahlberg is all for equality. I believe in some aspects they can compromise and come to an agreement. For example, having free tuition like in Finland but still having a creative engaging school the way Sir Ken Robinson describes is the perfect way. If we combine the way Sir Ken Robinson talks about education and the way Pasi Sahlberg is running his education system we might have a decent education system. We might just need to make a few tweaks along the way. In all both have great ideas and good reasons.

A different approach

In Sir Ken Robinson's video, he stresses how we need to change our educational system, for the reason kids are not focused is due to the fact that they are simply bored. The educational system was designed in a different time period. The way people learn, or anything else for that matter, has changed drastically since then. Of course kids are bored, they are in a new generation. They are all about technology, hands on work, etc. He believes approaching an new education system more accustomed to present day will be beneficial and I personally agree. In the article about Finland and their strategy in improving their educational system has been known to be very successful. According to the author, he speaks about how Finland's teachers have certain styles and how they don't have standardized testing and most importantly, how their main focus is equality rather than their educational standards. They believe in treating every individual equally, despite their economical status and ethical background. The article also mentions quite a few times how America is not paying attention and isn't getting the message. I believe America should be trying to improve their educational approach however, it will not be as simple. America is way different and way bigger. We do not have the money and resources to do all that Finland is able to provide. Even though I think Finland's way of education is very successful, it is not exactly the way we can approach it. Both authors have very strong points and make solid cases to where I feel people should take into consideration, maybe we can start to improve our educational systems in America.

For The Future

I would love for them to sit down and discuss their opinions to each other. Maybe like a debate discussion? They would obviously disagree on each other, but they all have the same goal. Sir Ken Robinson mentioned that we needed to raise our standards of education. I do believe that we should raise our education standards, but Pasi Sahlberg thought otherwise. Pasi never mentioned about raising their standards to become more successful. How come? Well they let their kids make their own test, no standardized testing, and they are all going to the exact same school. You don't pick and chose your schools in Finland, maybe you can pick and chose but they will be exactly the same. Watching the Sir Ken video and reading What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success multiple times I kind of got the feeling that people in Finland take big pride in there education. I am not saying that we, Americans don't, just not as much as Finland. I mean, Finland has ranked at the top three in the world and always on the top of the list in the educational side. America just need the ball rolling so we can start a new trend that we can be ranked in the top or the best in the world. Sir Ken and Pasi all have one goal they're trying to reach or notify us. They just want us to become successful so the future can look up at us and follow our foot steps. Maybe one day we can look back and say we were the first generation to get the ball rolling for Americas educational program.

Separate Ideas

Sir Ken Robinson and Pasi Sahlberg have two different ideas when it comes to education reform. Sir Robinson’s argument is that we are still trying to approach education just like we did in the past however, according to him we shouldn’t be doing that we should be approaching it in a way to better suit the students of the present day. On the other side of the argument we have Pasi Sahlberg. He argues that America focuses more on competition and payment rather than focusing on the individual as well as equity and equality. The conversation between the two would possibly be one of the most heated arguments between education reform. Sir Robinson values the way the education system is setup whereas Sahlberg’s suggestion is to focus more on the individual student. The argument would rise out of the fact that Sahlberg wants America to completely overhaul its way of education yet Sir Robinson only focuses on the way it operates and how students should be organized. They both want education reform. How they both want it are entirely different from each other in their own respective ways.

If these two were to sit down and have a conversation with each other , well it would probably be the best  thing to happen to the school systems yet. Obviously they willl disagree on most parts of each other's ideas, however  I believe that they are both open minded enough too resolve on a solid school system. This school system I think would consist of something like Finland where their are no private schools that are personally payed to get into. However in all these schools the circulams would be a lot more interesting and hands on.

Sir Ken VS.Pasi Sahlberg

Sir Ken Robinson, author of Changing Education Paradigms, and Pasi Sahlberg, a Finnish school reformer has similar views on education. Sir Ken believes that the children being educated are being forced to take in information and learn things they don't want to learn. Pasi believes that children benefit not from what circles are bubbled in on a test, but by the information they know in their heads. Ken will agree that students that are forced to learn things they are uninterested in will result in that particular group of students to easily loose focus and drift off. The disagreement will come in place when society begins to label, separate, and teach students differently based on their learning abilities, religion, and economic situations. Pasi will maybe not agree to any type of separation despite the situation and circumstances. Their conversation will cover all concerns on the best learning process and what makes students stay focused for the best possible outcome. Overall, Sir Ken and Pasi Sahlberg Robinson has a strong stand in how students should and shouldn't be educated.

Welcome to our class blog!

This will be our class blog for the semester. You should have already received an invitation for how to join this blog as an author. You can find instructions on TRACS for setting up your account as well as instructions for how to post a blog and how to comment.

On days when a reading has been assigned, you are expected to come to class prepared to engage in a conversation with the text and your peers. To help you prepare for these conversations, I will post reading questions to TRACS under the assignments tab. You will be expected to respond to these questions with either a blog entry or a blog comment. Your assigned peer group’s schedule will dictate whether you are responsible for a full blog entry or only a blog comment. The peer group that has been assigned to lead discussion for the day will responsible for posting that week’s blog entries, while all other peer groups are responsible for responding with blog comments. Though these grades are largely for completion, additional points may be gained by more thorough and thoughtful responses, and points may be deducted for incomplete or sloppy work or for work that shows little to no engagement with the text.

Blog Entries must be a minimum of 200 words. They must be posted by midnight preceding class. Blog comments must be a minimum of 100 words, and they must be posted by class time the day the reading is due. Blog entries and comments will make up a significant portion of the Homework grade. In order to receive full credit for these assignments, blog entries and comments must be posted to the class blog by their deadline as well as printed out in hard copy form to bring to class.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at shilohbooker@txstate.edu.