AHS TED Talk Blogging: Dave Meslin

Dave Meslin believes that often the reason people do not contribute to their community is not because of apathy, but rather because of the obstacles that society puts in their way. He concludes that society as whole discourages engagement. He concludes that if engagement in the community is promoted, people will care and not be apathetic.

Meslin makes some excellent points in his talk. Communities should make engagement much more accessible to the average person. Communities should support civilian input as this input can make a community much better as a whole. I personally am not very active in my community but I honestly do not know what opportunities are available. If communities would value the input of civilians more highly, many more people would get involved. Meslin's idea that apathy is often due to the fact that opportunities to help are not well marketed is a good one. Another good point he makes is that media and public space do not encourage making a difference in our communtiy. I think media like TV and magazines should have sections that allow charitable organizations to "advertise". The "unprofitablity" of charities is a huge barrier to getting the word out about their organizations. I personally would be very interested to hear what charitable organizations there are locally as I do not know of many.

The barriers that Meslin considers are very good points, but he does miss a major point--humans are naturally flawed. Everyone is selfish, at least to a degree. This does not mean that no one cares about others and their community, but it does mean that there are many people that are lazy and selfish (even if only a little bit). Hopefully media and communities can get people who ordinarily would not help the community to do so. Sending good messages and "marketing" volunteer opportunities can most definitely increase volunteering.

Meslin's idea of eliminating barriers that society establishes being an antidote to apathy is very good, but he does not realize that there is true selfishness and apathy: no one is perfect.

AHS TED Talk Blogging: Clay Shirky

In his TED Talk, Clay Shirky considers what he sees as what will change the world -- cognitive surplus. He defines cognitive surplus as the free time each of us spends on collaborative projects such as Wikipedia, Ushahidi, and LOLcats. He encourages everyone to spend their time on projects of civic value: projects that benefit humanity.

Shirky does a good job explaining his ideas, but the ideas themselves are not well formed and quite vague. He does not explain the application of his ideas. I agree the cognitive surplus could have large benefits.When many minds come together there can be a huge amount of information available. This can be seen especially on Wikipedia where there is a well written article on almost any topic. I can also see the affect of a large amount of minds thinking together in our class' fishbowls. We learn much more about topics from fishbowls than just thinking on our own. Since the way each person thinks is unique, each person see things in different ways opening up huge possibilities. As Shirky says, "no one person knows what everyone knows." I can see this concept working very well in companies where there could be some sort of collaborative time when employees could work together to develop new product ideas and improving products. Also, this concept could work on wikis that consider ideas to help the poor or war-torn countries. This concept the Shirky brings up is a very good one, but not completely developed.

AHS TED Talk Blogging: Post 3: Dan Pink

In his TED Talk, Dan Pink considers what motivates us. He argues his point in a very logical manner, presenting evidence, interpreting and explaining what it means, and describing the real world application of these conclusions. He explains that through multiple scientific studies that it has been determined that with easy to complete, mechanical, and narrow-minded tasks, a monetary reward increases productivity. On the other hand, with complex, intellectual tasks, the monetary reward decreased productivity. Imposing a monetary reward on such tasks decreased its intrinsic value. No longer is the person doing the task for the joy of it, the challenge, or the end results, they are doing it to earn money which makes the task mundane and tedious.Pink says businesses need to focus on granting its employees independence and focus less on "the carrot and the stick" approach. Pink has passion about this concept (even getting noticeably agitated while he talked) and believes that if businesses will learn for the science of how we are motivated, companies and its employees will be much more productive.

What Pink says indeed has merit and its concepts I can see in myself, but I do not believe he has determined a useful application for his research and conclusions. The concept of autonomy and its affect on work makes a lot of sense. For example, I enjoy reading both fiction and nonfiction books on my own and on my own schedule outside of school very much. I find learning from these books to be fun and engaging, but when forced by the school to read with the punishment of a bad grade and the reward of a good grade, I find myself bored and uninterested. Schools should focus on the joy of learning and less on the grade. This will undoubtedly boost student’s performances. In the workplace however, it is much harder to find ways to incorporate Pink’s ideas. A business cannot stop paying people because than people will stop working. Even though a job may have enjoyable elements, almost everyone would stay at home if they did not get paid for working. Therefore, it is very difficult to focus on the concepts of autonomy, mastery, and purpose in most workplaces due to the necessity of monetary reward. Pink gives the example of Google and other software companies offering days for programmers to work on whatever they want. This concept works great in a creative job where multiple results can equal company earnings, but in a less creative job such as construction jobs, autonomy will get the company nowhere. Overall, Pink has some very valid points, but he has not explained how they can be applied to most businesses.

AHS TED Talk Blogging: Post 2: Patricia Ryan

In her short, yet persuasive TED talk, Patricia Ryan considers how and why English is dominating and the pros and cons of this globalization of language. Ryan presents many impressive statistics like the fact that a language dies every 14 days to support her point of view. She believes that having a global language is important in today's world, but English should not become a barrier to progress and education. The necessity of knowing fluent English prevents many potentially brilliant people who cannot pass language tests from entering universities. She says that ideas can be shared in any language through translation. In addition, she argues that language death is a tragedy. Many words cannot be translated into English or by translating into English they lost part of their meaning. Languages are very precious and unique and should be kept alive.

I agree with Ryan that each language is different, unique, and special in its own way -- some artful, some exact, some emotional. I think many multiple languages should be allowed to thrive and scientific work should be published in multiple languages and then translated into a global language. This allows those who cannot afford to learn English or cannot pass language tests to still share research. In schools, a primary language should remain but secondary language classes are very important as well for students to understand the world and other ways of thinking.

AHS TED Talk Blogging: Post 1: Sir Ken Robinson

In his TED talk, British author Sir Ken Robinson considers education and its undermining of creativity and originality in children. Through his humorous and engaging stories he explains that as a child grows, he becomes less and less creative and original due to the fear of being "wrong". Robinson urges those involved in education to give greater emphasis on the creative arts such as drama and dance.

I agree with Robinson in that other subjects should not automatically be given a higher status than creative arts. Creativity will most certainly become increasingly important in the future. Progress has always required creativity -- people who can invent, design, and think "big-picture"-- and it will most certainly in the future as things only are becoming more advanced and complicated. In my opinion, students need to be encouraged in all areas of education so they can determine where there own skills lie.