Response to Phyllis Rodriguez and Aicha el-Wafi's TEDTalk

One big concept that I took away from this TEDTalk was the fact that the two women considered their bond simply "a friendship", in it's purest form. They used a very simple label to identify their complex connection, and I was amazed at how they were so calm and relaxed about the situation, like two women in a book club together rather than two mothers joined by suffering. I also noticed that during the talk, when Aicha became emotional speaking about how she wanted to make a change in the Muslim world, Phyllis reached out and put a hand on her arm. It was a small gesture, but it spoke volumes to me about how much these two women cared about each other and their cause. I gleaned that their relationship was outrageously understated, and that the respect and love they have for one another is of enormous proportion. They learned from their trials, and listened to their life stories without prejudice-- my favorite statement was "Before we even knew each other's names, we embraced, and wept." It showed how the empathy of two mothers who had lost children had abandoned their bitterness and found common ground. While Phyllis was speaking, she was honest and calm in her delivery of her story. However, she had an air of determination when recounting how she spoke out against the death penalty, conveying how much she cared about the issue. She also sounded sincere in her opinions of Aicha, whom she called a brave woman. Aicha stood with a translator by her side and a tissue in her hand while relating how she immediately noticed another mother, though she was married at 14 and had children at 15 and 16. Aicha was overcome by emotion, for although her son might be evil, she still loves him as her own and doesn't know if he is alive, dead or being tortured. Her tears and tone told the audience of her conflicted feelings and how much sorrow she felt for the whole situation. She regained her strength as she explained how she talks to young Muslim girls, persuading them to wait and not be forced into marriage. The two women spoke in turns, both offering their personal stories and then how they met. There were no Powerpoint slides, and not much laughter until the end when Phyllis made a joke about running out of time, but the audience stayed captivated. Gesticulations were common throughout the talk. I think this TEDTalk could be greatly beneficial to the education system because children should be taught to abandon their differences and find the common ground that they have. How many times has one child been excluded because they aren't the best at sports, or school, or they are anti-social? This resentment begins in elementary school, and fosters anger and sorrow throughout one's whole life. The education system should be designed in order to correlate to a child's particular strengths, so that they may feel accepted and skilled in what they do. For example, to draw on Ken Robinson's TEDTalk-- the choreographer he discussed, who finally felt at home in a school for dance, is a perfect example of someone finding their niche and becoming a master when they might have failed in a "normal" situation. Parents expect their kids to be proficient at a variety of things, and maybe they are, but they probably only truly enjoy one which might be neglected by their parents. Sometimes, a hobby can turn into the greatest talent of all, and society needs to accept that no everyone can fit the left-brained, doctor/professor model...some kids need to find other people that empathize with them, like Phyllis and Aicha.

Response to Dave Meslin's TEDTalk

As I watched Dave Meslin's TEDTalk on "The Antidote to Apathy," I not only was given a completely different perspective on apathy but found multiple connections between his lecture and the concepts from Drive, not to mention other TEDTalks. Meslin began by explaining his opinion of apathy: it is not people's laziness or stupidity, but merely barriers put up by society in order to discourage participation. From this, I took away that Meslin wishes to not only redefine the word "apathy" but also to use his theory of intentional disengagement to upgrade the systems that use it, such as political elections, the media, and city halls. Once I finished this video, I felt annoyed-- Meslin had left me with the feeling that I was being cheated out of certain opportunities. It also made me speculate about how many other people notice when they are being purposefully distracted; any time a person encounters a mountain of fine print or is not given easy access to resources, it is because someone thinks that they aren't worth the time when they very well might be. Meslin was a cool and quiet speaker, but easily kept the audience listening to his intriguing speech. He had no bursts of excitement or emotion, but he spoke with reserved passion and exuded intelligence. His ideas were very well thought out and developed, made obvious by a smooth delivery. In his presentation, Meslin used his Powerpoint slides to fortify his ideas, which were often characterized by large, single words in groups of three. He also outlined his entire speech in a not-too-detailed opening statement, which made it simple to follow along as he addressed his initial purpose and issues. Meslin also grabbed a few laughs, which might have been unintentional, with an "apathetic" mock Nike shoe ad. Along with plain text slides, he added pictures of media examples and also a few photographs as well. His presentation did not involve much movement or flamboyance. One of my favorite points that Meslin makes is that heroes are completely unrealistic in fiction. In books and movies, Meslin says, heroes are chosen by prophecies, or kings, or have lighting bolt-shaped scars emblazoned on their foreheads. In real life, heroes are comprised of three traits= they make a collective effort, they are imperfect, and they are acting voluntarily. This statement struck many notes with me-- I know many teenagers that don't believe they can make a difference, not even a small one. To fortify this opinion, I offer a scene from a 6 team combined skills night at my volleyball club. When the conditioning coach asked who would like to lead a portion of the training, it was a few minutes before anyone even considered volunteering. I believe this happened because every single player in there, young or old, was afraid of messing up. They cared about being there, or else they wouldn't have shown up, but it was their fear of imperfection holding them back. Now consider a comic book character: for example, Superman. Superman always saves the day, gets the girl, flaunts his tights-clad muscles, and somehow keeps all of his hair in order. He is also from another planet. It is trying to live up to these examples that stymies the American youth; similarly, as children, we revere our parents as perfect and then are disappointed when we find their human flaws. Furthermore, the destruction of Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy continue to devastate our sense of perfection. What people need to understand is that acts of heroism are usually imperfect, as Meslin states. The whole world is imperfect, but what may seem flawed to one person can be a vision in another's eye, a la the movie Shallow Hal. A more familiar statement was that heroes must act voluntarily, reaching back to intrinsic motivation. A disdainful hero is not a very inspiring one, and a hero being paid would feel insane amounts of pressure added to emotional guilt and probably perform worse than if driven by their own feelings. When I apply these terms to Arapahoe, I think the heroes of our school are the students and teachers that are doing the probably less-recognized duties. The heroes at AHS are the teachers who work with learning challenged or disabled students for hours at a time, and the students who join Student Council and TSA and Muse because they want to lead the student body, or they love to help the planet, or create art. It is the faculty that spend hours trying to make the education system better for their students because they care about their futures; it is the popular kid that makes friends with the band kid because he doesn't care about stereotypes, and he knows that if he were in his shoes, he'd want a buddy to talk to (empathy!!). My hope is that kids will abandon apathy, and stop ignoring the issues around them, because those issues will not simply dissipate if unrecognized. My hope is that every single student or staff member at Arapahoe will become a hero to someone from now on, whether it be a single person or the whole world.

Response to Clay Shirky's TEDTalk

Clay Shirky's TEDTalk left me with the broad idea of cognitive surplus, which is comprised of human generosity and technology. The reason that these two concepts stuck with me is that they are polar opposites; technology does only what is demanded of itself while generosity goes above and beyond, using prior knowledge and emotion to dedeuce results. This combination could be viewed as a metaphor for right and left brained people; they are sometimes conflicting in definition and action, but when combined they create a unit that far surpasses the capabilities of the two separate halves. In his talk, Shirky differed from other speakers we have observed in class by speaking in a calm, measured tone instead of an excited or jumpy one. He still sounded interested and optimistic, but he wasn't about to come out of his skin like Daniel Pink! Shirky also used sly infusions of humor in his speech, which were not aimed at getting a laugh out of the audience but rather to keep them interested and listening. He also used gestures to accompany his words. In his powerpoint presentation, Shirky displays diagrams and charts in order for us right-brained people to be able to identify visually with the numbers he is presenting. As for the talk's connections to education, one sentence in particular stood out to me: "a stupid creative act is still a creative act." In school, I feel that students are encouraged to only partake in creative activities if they excel at them. Isn't that the idea of grades, to perform mental Social Darwinism and root out those who aren't committed or talented enough? Right now I am in Drawing I, and I can pick out the students who won't be signed up for Drawing II-- they work hard but receive B's and C's on their artwork because a teacher has decided that the standard isn't high enough. What teachers fail to take into account is that sometimes, students have talents in other creative areas that others don't know about. Maybe a person can't draw or paint, but they are amazing at photography, or they can play the piano like nobody's business. They should be allowed to pursue their passion instead of "broadening their horizons", because if they had other interests they would go after those instead. Furthermore, why do we discourage those with no artistic talent from doing art with bad grades? The fact that they stepped outside of their conmfort zone and worked to do something creative is a step towards what our society needs: imagination and innovation. I personally enjoy how my choir's grading is structured: points are given for attendance, behavior, and participation. "Singing talent" is not a grade. Even girls who know they aren't Christina Aguilera can sing their hearts out in choir without a fear of losing points, and they tend to be the most appreciative of the experience out of everyone. In my opinion, our fear of being failed by our lack of natural talent begins in first grade when we are told to color inside the lines. It is coloring outside the lines, and thinking  outside the box, that makes us humans, and makes us unique and beautiful individuals. -Grace M.

Response to Daniel Pink's TEDTalk

I took away a few basic points from Daniel Pink's motivation speech that we watched in class on Tuesday. First, rewards only work for simple, mechanical tasks and fail when applied to anything involving metacognition. Second, intrinsic motivation is the drive of the people of the future. Third, for work to truly be productive, creativity and enjoyment must be dominant portions of the task and the worker must desire ascension in that area. These observations could be extremely useful to anyone who is in the process of deciding on a job or a major, for usually these decisions are driven by monetary gain or social acceptance, which have proved themselves to be failing tactics of motivation. Pink spoke with multitudes of anger, irritation, and incredulity in his voice, mainly directed at the large businesses that are refusing to acknowledge that studies have proved Motivation 2.0 is dying. However, in the middle of his near-rants, he would inflect some humor in order to keep tension out of the air and also to keep himself in check. Pink also spoke in a "real" voice, not monotone drabble or pedantic snark. While presenting, Pink gesticulated emphatically to portray his emotions to the listeners. He also used the strategy of connections, relating actual business situations to those of audience members. In order to back up his points, Pink called upon an abundance of background knowledge and research he had compiled, such as studies, quotes, photos, diagrams, and even concepts. Daniel Pink's speech about motivation that we watched in class today gave me some valuable insight into the flaws of the working world. After he discussed how higher incentives diminished creativity, I thought about how that affects people in school and then in their working lives. In middle school, we had a guest speaker in our Gifted/Talented class who told us, "Pick a job that you would do for the rest of your life...for no pay." After seeing Pink's studies and research, I can't help but agree-- true fulfullment in life is doing something that is gratifying in itself, not just what follows. I believe a person who has truly completed that goal is my dad. I remember asking him if he loved his job, and why. He replied, "Of course I do. I get front row seats to basketball games, I get to watch the sport I love, and I get to talk for 3 hours about what's going on, and teach people new things." I take these words to heart, and I know that whatever I end up doing in life, I will try to make sure that I can only think of positives. I was also drawn into the mention of the three principles of Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose; Mastery the most of all. As a competitor, I never settle for anything less than the best, and I love to win. Mastery, in my opinion, is an extension of pride, so to speak. For example, consider an online game connected to Facebook, in which friends compete to get the highest scores. There is no cash gain, no trophy, not even a notification of the highest scoring person-- merely the chance to be besting a few buddies. This game exists: it is called Robot Unicorn Attack (it's awfully pointless yet painfully addicting), and at least 20 of my friends play it every week. I used to be one of them, and my sole motivation to win was because I could then brag the next day about my superior skills. This game has no value in the world whatsoever, yet teens play for hours on end for a sense of superiority!! I think this is where Mastery is seeded; in those who are not content with being ignored or bested. It is their desire for greatness that prompts them to conquer a skill and be uncontested. Finally, I was fascinated by the idea of companies having days where workers set "personal schedules." This prompted me to think of two aspects of school: timed tests and in-class essays. In math, I am probably the slowest test-taker in the world. However, if I had a chance to work in a different environment or take breaks in between portions, I am pretty sure that I would fare much better on assignments and produce better grades. As for in-class essays, the quiet atmosphere of a room can be very counterproductive, almost suffocating. On the contrary, writing in one's own home provides calm and familiarity, which would greatly benefit all students. Daniel Pink stated that "There is a mismatch between what science knows and business does," and know that business is taking notice, the education system should too. --Grace M.

Response to Sam Richards' TEDTalk

After watching the TEDTalk by Sam Richards about empathy, I have taken away that empathy is not simply a feeling that may be drawn out in certain situations; it is a skill that it can take many long years to perfect. When mastered, empathy can give one the ultimate degree of omniscience, seeing as they can place themselves in any situation and see every side. Empathy could have an enormous impact on the future, as it could help settle disputes and misunderstandings. I also discovered that one of the main barriers of empathy is ignorance. Richards spoke constantly in his speech about how Arab people might misconstrue American actions due to misinformation and generalization. If this is true, then education could be the gateway to an empathetic world. Greatly impactful on these situations are programs like foreign exchange and semester at sea, which allow students to enter new worlds in a friendly atmosphere and to learn customs and normal actions. The next generation should take advantage of these opportunities and make an attempt to unify the world’s cultures. Richards had an extremely emotional way of speaking, emphatically using inflections of anger, hope, incredulity, and persuasiveness. His tempo of speech was quick, for he clearly had a lot to say about the issues he was addressing. Richards’ goal was to convince the audience to allow him to manipulate their minds and place them in the lives of the enemy, working to switch their perspective on the motives of Iraqi insurgents. In his presentation, Richards integrated many pictures and phrases pertaining to his empathy experiment, including shots of soldiers in which the audience member first used their American perspective and then their Iraqi one. He also used animated gestures throughout his speech, which lent to the implication that empathy could have a huge impact on the future. My initial interest in this video was prompted by Daniel Pink himself. He mentioned empathy as a right-brained trait that would therefore be useful soon. However, I don’t think empathy merely applies to the future; I believe that it goes far back in time, back to the beginning of people and understanding one another. For example: the Civil Rights Movement. Today in my Honors U.S. History class, we watched a movie about a third grade teacher who had her class discriminate against one another using the color of their eyes. First, she started with blue-eyed people being superior; then, she switched it to brown-eyed people the next day. The children got a taste of being both on top and on bottom, and, in the process, gained an impressive sense of empathy. The teacher asked them if they thought someone should be judged by their eye color; then she asked if one should be judged by skin color. Fortunately, all of the third graders realized that they would not want to wish their experience as outcasts on anyone, and therefore managed to display sufficient amounts of empathy. A large factor in this experiment was the age of the children. Children older than eight might be too ingrained in their ways, or their parent’s ways, to process the morality issue at hand. Returning to the topic that Richards centered on, the American/Iraqi conflict, one can see that the two worlds are far enough apart in any aspects of life that we cannot imagine being in the other’s shoes. Yet, there is a common ground that any two countries, no matter how drastically different, can agree one, and Richards identified this dream in his TEDTalk—every person on Earth hopes for a better life for themselves and their family. We must understand this need, and recognize the motives of achieving it. A thief who steals food at gunpoint to feed his starving family is far from one who rapes or kidnaps a child, but we still label them both as felonies. Instead of labeling Middle Eastern countries as terrorists or extremists, we should consider them as people with jobs, and families, who go to church and eat food and play sports and do plenty of things that Americans do but refuse to acknowledge. Empathy is not seeing the differences but noticing and appreciating the similarities, rather than judging on what we don’t approve of, or understand. Sam Richard’s insight could be a first step in America ending it’s conflicts with other countries over hatred, which would lead to our country becoming a role model for a world of acceptance. -- Grace M.

Response to Sir Ken Robinson's TEDTalk

From this video, I took away the idea that we, as parents of a future generation, need to teach our children to embrace learning and to never be afraid to speak their mind, right or wrong. I also gleaned that by leaving our education system as it is, America could easily be surpassed by other nations that have similar intelligence but a lower level of empathy and creativity. To become a world power in education, America must find the specialized skills of its population and nurture those talents until we become a force not only of math and science but of every creative aspect. Sir Robinson frequently infuses his speech with humor, adding his own laughs to the audience’s. A similar tactic is Robinson’s use of stories; as Daniel Pink illustrated in A Whole New Mind, using tales that people can relate to in some way help listeners remember key points and information. Robinson also transitions into a serious tone of voice when he wants to be sincere about his speech, causing the audience to take note and perk up. Sir Robinson talks in a relaxed, easy manner, which prompts the audience to feel calm in his presence. His stance is casual and comfortable, giving off no sign of rigidity or tension. He pauses for emphasis at the right times, and also adds in his own chuckles or side comments, thus connecting with the audience. I was particularly fascinated by the mention of Gillian Lynn, the choreographer, and how her school didn’t understand her need to move. When I was in elementary school, my teacher suggested to my parents that I get tested for a learning disorder such as ADD due to my inability to devote full attention to people- I would get caught reading under my desk constantly, fidget with things, and ignore entire lectures. Fortunately, my parents decided that this was “stupid”, as my mother put it, and encouraged me to find parts of the lecture that I was interested in. Now that I think back, I’m angry that my school didn’t understand that a little girl who had just moved away from her friends wanted to dive into a book for an hour. The education system tries to mold kids from a young age into the “perfect” students: obedient children who do all of their homework, sit still and silent in class, and cause no trouble. The issue is that those who cannot quell their inner energy or focus on one subject are excluded, and become outcasts. Their grades drop because they can’t play the game of school, and their level of effort is diminished—they become the dropouts, the disappointments. Another pitfall of the star student is that school becomes a jail, where a child must hold in all of their youthful urges and then, finally, is freed as the bell rings. Learning in its purest form is discovering information that is satisfying or thought-provoking to the learner, and school is trying to force-feed facts into youth from age five. In my opinion, schools should offer basic overviews of subjects and then allow children in 6^th or 7^th grade to choose their top priority, which would become a larger part of their academic life. I know many people who already know what course their life is going to take, and yet are required to take one with no benefit. If I could have an English class for more than an hour every day and only 30 minutes of Math, I’d be far happier going to school. Plus, if kids become curious about another subject, they can go try it out, and learn what they want to, which is the point of education. Sir Robinson’s best point, in my opinion, is the fact that the arts are discouraged as occupations that will not prosper, i.e., a starving artist. I believe that he is right, but that to have a job as a musician, artist, dancer, or actor, that one must have intense drive in addition to talent and a will to set themselves apart from others. Any country in the world can put kids through a strict education system and get results, but by finding the hidden love inside children and enhancing it, America can become a nation of excellence for all citizens. -Grace M.