How would Gladwell respond to the responsibility question from September 15th?
According to the article "The Trouble Withe fries," I believe that Gladwell would respond to the responsibility question by saying that it is the knower's responsibility to know, but also the producer's responsibility to provide the information even if it's "in the tiniest type on the remotest corner of their Web site." The whole article was about how the fries and burgers could be improved for the consumer's health is to "cook fries in oil that isn't so dangerous." In the article, a few healthier alternatives to the dangerous cooking oil our fast food is being fried in, were provided. It was pointed out that when "McDonald's came out with the McLean Deluxe... [it] was a flop, and four years later it was off the market." The reasoning provided was that it flopped because of "the psychological handicap the burger faced...[was that] it was sold as the healthy choice--and who goes to McDonald's for health food?" There, the producer is responsible for providing the knowledge, which they did, though they're marketing skills were not adequate, to sell the burger because, as the article says, who goes to McDonald's for health food? "[McDonald's] should have called it the Burger Supreme or the Monster Burger," and quietly provided the information that it was healthier for the consumer. That way the producer would have done their job, as responsible for making the information available, but it would also be the knowers', the consumers', responsibility to find out what they were eating, if they even wanted to know.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Corn in McDonald's!
Chipotle BBQ Snack Wrap (Grilled):
Four tortilla, grilled chicken breast, shredded chedder/jack cheese, shredded lettuce, chipotle BBQ sauce.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Omnivore's Dilemma
Did any information in the book come as a surprise to you? If so, why do you think that specific piece of knowledge was kept from you? Does the producer of this knowledge have any responsibility? What is your responsibility as a knower?
The only information in the book that came as a surprise to me was how nearly everything is made up of corn. I don't think that this specific piece of knowledge was kept from me, it was just that I didn't see it. The information is all around me, most obviously in the ingredients of what I eat. It wasn't necessary for me to know all the chemical names of things that come from corn, when other obvious names, like corn syrup, corn starch, corn meal, corn oil, etc., were there in front of me. Therefore the producer doesn't really have any responisbility, because the producer has put the information out there. It is the responsibility of the knower, that is to say, my responsibility, to be aware of the information, and acknowledge these things, theses obvious pieces of knowledge that are everywhere. It is my responsibility as a knower, not to be oblivious to the obvious, but to see pieces of knowledge in the world, and know and understand them,not just because it relates to me. It is my responisbility as a knower to actively acknowledge pieces of knowledge in the world that do not necessarily relate to me and my life.
The only information in the book that came as a surprise to me was how nearly everything is made up of corn. I don't think that this specific piece of knowledge was kept from me, it was just that I didn't see it. The information is all around me, most obviously in the ingredients of what I eat. It wasn't necessary for me to know all the chemical names of things that come from corn, when other obvious names, like corn syrup, corn starch, corn meal, corn oil, etc., were there in front of me. Therefore the producer doesn't really have any responisbility, because the producer has put the information out there. It is the responsibility of the knower, that is to say, my responsibility, to be aware of the information, and acknowledge these things, theses obvious pieces of knowledge that are everywhere. It is my responsibility as a knower, not to be oblivious to the obvious, but to see pieces of knowledge in the world, and know and understand them,not just because it relates to me. It is my responisbility as a knower to actively acknowledge pieces of knowledge in the world that do not necessarily relate to me and my life.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
How do we know?
"How do we Know what we Know? What evidence do you have to support your claim?
We know what we know because of everything around us. There are somethings we know automatically, like eating. We're hungry, so we eat. If we don't it hurts our stomachs. That's something that we knew as babies. Other things we know from our parents, what they taught us growing up. We know how to read, and tie our shoes, and use our manners, because of what they taught us as children. We learn things from our teachers, like math, mulitplication, addition, long division, etc. We learn the tools we will need to go on to school and to get a productive job. Teachers also shape who we are, by being kind to us, or mean to us, giving us extra help, or helping us with personal problems, being there for us, when our friends don;t understand, and our parents are the problem, or can't help. Also we learn form our friends. We learn about things from our friends that our parents and teachers won't tell us. An example of this is how to get the most candy at halloween, or more impotantly, how to be a good friend, mostly in their actions, but also in their words. Finally, we know what we know from strangers. People we might never meet, or know, but we see for a minute or two. I know that bad drivers tend to piss other drivers off, from the way that I see strangers drive, but also in the reactions from my parents, especially my dad. Something else that we learn from strangers is manners, and mannerisms. In a restaurant, when you see someone speaking with their mouth full, or chewing with their mouth open, it helps you to learn, by seeing it firsthand, how disgusting it is. Manenrisms you can learn from strangers, as well as people you know. You can see how to walk with confidence, or show that you're angry.
In short, we know what we know, from our genetics, the people around us like our friends/peers and family, and even strangers we may meet for a second or a minute.
We know what we know because of everything around us. There are somethings we know automatically, like eating. We're hungry, so we eat. If we don't it hurts our stomachs. That's something that we knew as babies. Other things we know from our parents, what they taught us growing up. We know how to read, and tie our shoes, and use our manners, because of what they taught us as children. We learn things from our teachers, like math, mulitplication, addition, long division, etc. We learn the tools we will need to go on to school and to get a productive job. Teachers also shape who we are, by being kind to us, or mean to us, giving us extra help, or helping us with personal problems, being there for us, when our friends don;t understand, and our parents are the problem, or can't help. Also we learn form our friends. We learn about things from our friends that our parents and teachers won't tell us. An example of this is how to get the most candy at halloween, or more impotantly, how to be a good friend, mostly in their actions, but also in their words. Finally, we know what we know from strangers. People we might never meet, or know, but we see for a minute or two. I know that bad drivers tend to piss other drivers off, from the way that I see strangers drive, but also in the reactions from my parents, especially my dad. Something else that we learn from strangers is manners, and mannerisms. In a restaurant, when you see someone speaking with their mouth full, or chewing with their mouth open, it helps you to learn, by seeing it firsthand, how disgusting it is. Manenrisms you can learn from strangers, as well as people you know. You can see how to walk with confidence, or show that you're angry.
In short, we know what we know, from our genetics, the people around us like our friends/peers and family, and even strangers we may meet for a second or a minute.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Do Parents Matter?
How would Gladwell respond to the identity question from August 27th? How would Levitt and Dubner respond? Do you agree with their argument? Why or why not?
Gladwell would respond to the identity question from August 27th, by saying that, we are partly our parents, because we recieve their genes, but that we are more our peers, much more than parents. "Whom do they want to please? Are they wearing the kind of clothing that other kids are wearing or the kind that their parents are wearing?" Gladwell would say that our peers affect us much more, in the way we dress, speak, act, make decisions, etc. "Whatever our parents do to us is overshadowed, in the long run, by what our peers do to us...From the very moment that children first meet other children, they take their cues from them."
Levitt and Dubner would respond the August 27th identity question that yes we are our parents, but by our genes, not by the way they parent us. "So it isn't that parents don't matter. Clearly, they matter an awful lot. It's just that by the time most parents pick up a book on parenting technique, it's too late." Who theyare, what kind of education they recieved, when they decided to have children factors in to what kind of person their child will be. "...it's not so much you do as a parent, it's who you are."
In my opinion, both of these argumets are correct. You recieve your genes from your parents, and how they treat/teach you is a part of who you are, but another part of who you are is how you were treated/taught by your peers. For a long time, I was a shy, introverted person because I moved a lot (my dad was in the Air Force), and I was teased by my peers, especially for having red hair, and being bookish, which were both traits I recieved from my parents. However, as I've grown older, I've become more extroverted, particularly after I came to Sturgis, where all the students were new to each other, most everyone, accepted most everyone else. I share some of the same qualities as my peers, whether it's speaking out in class, or reading a book at lunchtime. But they way my parents act around me and the way they teach me still makes up a large part of who I am. I love children, because my mother loves children, although some of my peers and friends don't. I'm more interested in history than most people my age are, because my father has a love of history, that he has shared with me verbally, and genetically. So in the end, I think we are both our parents and are peers, a mix of the two, and other factors, but how evenly these parts are mixed, is based solely on the indivdual in question.
Gladwell would respond to the identity question from August 27th, by saying that, we are partly our parents, because we recieve their genes, but that we are more our peers, much more than parents. "Whom do they want to please? Are they wearing the kind of clothing that other kids are wearing or the kind that their parents are wearing?" Gladwell would say that our peers affect us much more, in the way we dress, speak, act, make decisions, etc. "Whatever our parents do to us is overshadowed, in the long run, by what our peers do to us...From the very moment that children first meet other children, they take their cues from them."
Levitt and Dubner would respond the August 27th identity question that yes we are our parents, but by our genes, not by the way they parent us. "So it isn't that parents don't matter. Clearly, they matter an awful lot. It's just that by the time most parents pick up a book on parenting technique, it's too late." Who theyare, what kind of education they recieved, when they decided to have children factors in to what kind of person their child will be. "...it's not so much you do as a parent, it's who you are."
In my opinion, both of these argumets are correct. You recieve your genes from your parents, and how they treat/teach you is a part of who you are, but another part of who you are is how you were treated/taught by your peers. For a long time, I was a shy, introverted person because I moved a lot (my dad was in the Air Force), and I was teased by my peers, especially for having red hair, and being bookish, which were both traits I recieved from my parents. However, as I've grown older, I've become more extroverted, particularly after I came to Sturgis, where all the students were new to each other, most everyone, accepted most everyone else. I share some of the same qualities as my peers, whether it's speaking out in class, or reading a book at lunchtime. But they way my parents act around me and the way they teach me still makes up a large part of who I am. I love children, because my mother loves children, although some of my peers and friends don't. I'm more interested in history than most people my age are, because my father has a love of history, that he has shared with me verbally, and genetically. So in the end, I think we are both our parents and are peers, a mix of the two, and other factors, but how evenly these parts are mixed, is based solely on the indivdual in question.
Monday, September 1, 2008
First Class
What were your impressions of the first class? Are we our Name, our Family, our Sex, our Nationality or our Location? If not, then what is responsible for our identity? Do we have an identity apart from our community?
My impressions of the first class were that we will be having very deep, interestring conversations, in which we will discuss ideas that my classmates and myself might disagree upon, with each, and that these discussions will change our points of view, and that we will learn new things, and think about things we've never thought about, or have rarely given a thought to before. I think that usually people are very aptly named, and can become their name, but it isn't always a defining factor of one's personality. I think we are our family, from either our genes or the influences tehy have upon us, or both. For example, my sister and I are very different people, but we do have some similar traits, and I wouldn't be who I am today without her. I don't think that we're our sex because I find that what each gender is "supposed" to like doesn't usually happen. I love baseball, to the degree which is normally considered a "guy thing." I know some guys love to shop, which is considered a "girl thing." People are limited to their gender. Gay men and women often act like the oppposite sex, and transgender people change their gender, but may still like things from both genders. I believe our nationality does define us, on a spectrum that is between very little to the person that we are. It can affect the way we dress, the way we speak, even the way we think. It can affect our religion, which is another thing to help define us. Our location also makes up a part, big or small, of who we are, affecting us in the same way our nationality does: in the way we think, speak, and dress. One's identity is linked to their community, or communities. They don't have to be big communities, they can be a community of one, but those around us, and where we live affects {is it affects or effects?} who we are.We don't have to be the same or share the same identity, but I don't think we have an identity apart form our communities.
I am so excited for ToK this year!
My impressions of the first class were that we will be having very deep, interestring conversations, in which we will discuss ideas that my classmates and myself might disagree upon, with each, and that these discussions will change our points of view, and that we will learn new things, and think about things we've never thought about, or have rarely given a thought to before. I think that usually people are very aptly named, and can become their name, but it isn't always a defining factor of one's personality. I think we are our family, from either our genes or the influences tehy have upon us, or both. For example, my sister and I are very different people, but we do have some similar traits, and I wouldn't be who I am today without her. I don't think that we're our sex because I find that what each gender is "supposed" to like doesn't usually happen. I love baseball, to the degree which is normally considered a "guy thing." I know some guys love to shop, which is considered a "girl thing." People are limited to their gender. Gay men and women often act like the oppposite sex, and transgender people change their gender, but may still like things from both genders. I believe our nationality does define us, on a spectrum that is between very little to the person that we are. It can affect the way we dress, the way we speak, even the way we think. It can affect our religion, which is another thing to help define us. Our location also makes up a part, big or small, of who we are, affecting us in the same way our nationality does: in the way we think, speak, and dress. One's identity is linked to their community, or communities. They don't have to be big communities, they can be a community of one, but those around us, and where we live affects {is it affects or effects?} who we are.We don't have to be the same or share the same identity, but I don't think we have an identity apart form our communities.
I am so excited for ToK this year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
