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.