Kathryn Schulz

“I was wrong.” Most people dread having to admit these words. Failed tests, lost arguments, reprimands from authority…all of these are feared signals of mistakes. Kathryn Schulz has spent five years studying exactly why people believe it is so wrong to be wrong. Her conclusion? Wrongness is a part of being human. While many people theoretically grasp this concept, society has pounded into everyone’s head since they were young children that the only way to find success is to be perfect. In her studies, Schulz has found that when people make mistakes, they equate it to meaning that there is something wrong with them. Thus, in her TED Talk, Schulz explores the benefits of changing our viewpoints to accept mistakes as a part of being human.

Teaching kids from a young age that perfection is necessary for success could almost be considered a form of mind control. Think back to George Orwell’s 1984. Big Brother controlled his subjects by teaching them there was only one way to be. If you did not love Big Brother, if your kids were not in the Spies or Youth League, if you had children for any reason other than for Big Brother, if you read too far into society and the ways of the Party, you were wrong. And if you were wrong, society rejected and then killed you. Society today teaches us that if we don’t succeed in school, conform to our teacher’s or boss’ expectations, or evaluate facts the way society wants us to, we are wrong. If we are wrong, we will never succeed. Granted, this is not nearly as drastic as the 1984 system; no one is killed for disagreeing. However, by telling people what is right and what is unacceptable, society is forming perfect, molded people who are afraid to step outside the norms of society.

In their novels and TED Talks, both Daniel Pink and Sir Ken Robinson addressed the idea that education suffocates children’s unique talents by creating in them a fear of being "wrong." Teachers claim that there is one way and one way only to be right (and thus earn a good grade), and that any other method is incorrect. From day one, students learn to not draw on their tests or argue with the teacher. Robinson stated that the school system teaches children that math and science are far more important than dance or any form of art. In truth, all of these subjects are equally important to society. In fact, Pink advocates the idea that art forms and other right-brained activities will become even more in demand in twenty-first century America. Pink’s and Robinson’s points line up with Schulz’ argument. All three have the same idea that society is trying too hard to push kids in one direction, when society would be better off letting every person blossom in their own individual way, without being constantly told they are wrong.

Imagine how different the world would be if people were not afraid to be wrong. Would people take greater chances? Would you take greater chances? Think of how much more creative and original everyone would be if they weren’t constantly trying to survive in the same cramped world of business and engineering. Human accomplishments would flourish if everyone was allowed to try without fear of being shunned. Another downside to the constant fear of being wrong is that it pushes everyone to assume they are right. When people disagree with them, they push it off by deciding the other person is either ignorant, stupid, or evil. This leads to arguments and a lack of understanding of each other. When empathy is lacking, fighting erupts. If people stopped assuming they were always right and instead embraced the fact that they might make mistakes, too, would there be less war? Could religions, instead of fighting each other for a city or for followers, instead understand each other’s needs and compromise in a way that benefits all? After a war breaks out, winning countries could choose to understand that nations make mistakes and that they do not need to be punished for their errors. After World War I, the Allies were unwilling to forgive Germany for their mistakes. Thus, instead of just reversing the damage that had been done, the Allies demanded Germany be punished for the damaged they had caused. Historians now argue that had Germany not been so harshly punished, Hitler would likely have never risen to power, and World War II may have never occurred. Nothing good stemmed from punishing Germany for not having the same values as the Allies; Germany did not learn to conform and instead it built up more hatred towards Britain and France. Situations only become more violent when people are too afraid to accept the fact that people make mistakes.

As I listened to Schulz speak, several questions popped into my head. For one, who decided what was “right” and what was “wrong?”Most of us have no idea why failing a test is considered so terrible. If we don’t understand the information, does it truly mean we will never succeed? Who decided math is necessary for a full and happy life? Another large question I had: why does everyone interpret events in completely unique ways? If everyone sees everything from a different perspective, is there such a thing as reality or fact? No two people see colors in the same way. No two people taste food in the same way. So why should people be expected to interpret information in the same way? The world needs to come to a greater realization that everyone sees things differently. As Schulz said, the uniqueness of human perspective is what allows us to create such diversity. Twists and turns and differences are what make the world interesting. I believe that God created all of us different and imperfect for a reason. Thus, we need to stop trying to change ourselves to become perfect because society says we should. If God made someone artistic, but not mathematical, they should not be told they are wrong for doodling on their math test.

Even though most of us dread being wrong, we must learn to enjoy, “The world’s ability to shock us,” as Schulz says. No one has ever lived their entire life without slipping up at some point. Mistakes are what humble us and keep our role on Earth in perspective. Wrongness is in the eye of the beholder; if we choose to never let our mistakes define us as bad people, the world will undoubtedly become a happier place.  

More about the speaker and her book: http://beingwrongbook.com/author

In the video above, Kathryn Schulz discusses her book, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error

More about the Treaty of Versaille, signed by Germany after World War I: http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/causes.htm

Full text of George Orwell's 1984: http://www.george-orwell.org/1984
Summary of George Orwell's 1984: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/1984/

Ric Elias

Ric Elias’ TED Talk hooks viewers from the moment they spot the title, which reads, “3 things I learned while my plane crashed.” Shocking, right? Amazingly, Elias was one of the survivors on the airplane piloted by Captain Chesley Sullenberger that crashed into the Hudson River. Though Elias’ presentation was only five minutes long, it carried a strong message.

Elias said he learned three lessons in what he assumed would be his final moments: that everything changes in an instant, that what he regretted most was wasting time on things that did not matter, and that dying was not scary, it was sad. These lessons apply especially to the events that have occurred in my life this past year.

In 2010, the first catastrophe struck in mid-summer when a 12-year-old boy, named Drennen O’Melia, drowned in my neighborhood pool.  Drennen was a talented swimmer on my swim team; he had qualified multiple times for elite swim meets and broken at least one team record. Yet somehow, three feet of water at a birthday party drowned him. I did not know Drennen on a personal level; however, I had seen him at the swim meets and remembered watching him play around with his boisterous friends. At his funeral, it was hard to watch Drennen’s classmates, teammates, teachers, parents, and especially his two young brothers, attempt to cope with his untimely death.

After this event, conditions only worsened. My best friend, who lives three houses down from me and has known me since before Kindergarten, discovered nearly five years ago that her mom had ovarian cancer. Her mom managed to heroically battle the cancer for a much longer time period than many doctors predicted she would. As summer drew to an end, though, we knew she would not last much longer, especially with the cancer creeping into her lungs. Two days before the first day of high school, she was placed into hospice care with a life expectancy of about two weeks. To our shock and bewilderment, she passed a day later, at ten o’clock pm, August 15, 2010. This happened a little over nine hours before my friend and I were scheduled to start high school. The next few weeks were rough; my friend would tear up at random moments and suddenly not be able to survive the school day, and we both cried our eyes out the next weekend at her mother’s funeral. For a long while, I hardly left my friend’s side. Eight months later we are still adjusting to life without her mom; in our community, she was influential.

And now, as I write this post, my grandpa lies dying in a hospice center eighteen hours (by car) from my home. For over twenty-five years, he has battled a constant plague of heart disease. Through multiple surgeries, including one open-heart, he has managed to maintain a decent quality of life. My grandpa was one of those people who always surpassed the life expectancies doctors set for him. In the last few years, though, he has become noticeably weaker. His condition slowly regressed; first he could no longer drive, then he needed a walker, then he couldn’t walk from the back of his house to the front even with a walker, and soon not even from his room to the adjoining bathroom. Last October, when his one kidney failed, dialysis saved his life. Then, in December (three days before Christmas), another surgery saved him from an aneurism on the brink of explosion. Exactly one week ago, a heart attack (his first in twenty-five years of heart disease), brought my grandpa to his knees. Today, he lies, majorly unconscious, in a hospice bed, no more than two days away from death. And I plan my third funeral in the course of one year.

After all of these traumatic experiences, Elias’ words bring a degree of comfort and purpose into my life, as well as additional sadness.  On the one hand, Elias said that dying is not frightening. This comforts me to know that as my friends and family members died, they felt no fear. Elias also points out that we do not realize how important every moment is, how little time we truly have, and how much we need to focus every moment on what really matters to us. He believes in being happy, not right. These statements give me an outlet, a way to direct my emotions and change myself for the better. In memory of the people I love, I can live my life for joy, not superiority. On the other hand, Elias also triggered grief. Elias said that dying is not frightening; rather, it is sad. This statement reminds of my mom’s stories of my grandfather being restless, wanting to constantly stand up and walk around, despite being incapable of doing so. In the past few days, his body has faded while his mind has remained intact; he knows he is dying and cannot stand to stay put, as his body demands he do. With the three things Elias thought of when he thought his life was ending, I wonder what the people I knew thought of when they died. Did my friend’s mother regret not living to see her children grow up? Did the young boy save too many experiences for later; had he lived his life fully? Did my grandpa regret the relationships he had neglected to build? Did any of them feel like they wasted too much time on unimportant things?

When I die, I know I will ask myself these same questions. Now I have begun asking myself if what I am doing is truly important to me, if I am spending too much time on aspects of life that don’t matter and pushing off fun for later. I think everyone, no matter what stage of life they are currently in, should ask themselves these same questions. Death is a part of life; it awaits all of us, and none of us know when it will claim us. We need to live life now, not for the future or because of the past. I know thousands of people throughout history have said the same thing. For me, though, these words truly have meaning now. I have watched (two) too many people die long before their time to ever waste a day of my life for something I know I will not appreciate when I myself am moments away from death.

More about Ric Elias: http://www.redventures.com/executives/ric.php

The video above shows and animated reconstruction of the path of Flight 1549, accompanied by authentic audio tapes.

This video shows original footage of Flight 1549 crashing into the Hudson River.


To read more about Drennen O'Melia: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_15244328
Drennen's Obituary: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/denverpost/obituary.aspx?n=drennen-peter-omelia&pid=143480970&fhid=4377

Clay Shirky

Clay Shirky writes, teaches, and consults thousands of people about the internet. With all of the far-reaching aspects of Internet, it is hard to conceive which topic in this vast realm would be important enough for Shirky to focus on for his TED Talk. Surprisingly for some, this Internet technology was not developed in America; it originated in Kenya in the midst of crisis. Ushahidi, as this Kenyan product was called, consisted of a communal website that anyone could send information t. The website would then automatically organize the information, put it on a map, and publish the post sents in. Shirky believes this is but one example of a concept he calls, “cognitive surplus.” Cognitive surplus is the voluntary sharing of information. Shirky believes that once it becomes a widespread movement, cognitive surplus will allow the world to work together to solve enormous issues no one person could ever figure out with their limited knowledge. In short, we need to share everything we know with each other so we can change the world.

Undoubtedly, this video sparked deep thought. The main point I considered while watching Shirky speak was how this cognitive surplus could be applied to all aspects of our lives. To begin, cognitive surplus could provide an enormously beneficial educational tool. Already, teachers encourage us to share our ideas and learn from each other. However, in a class room setting, students either only get the opportunity to discuss with a few students, or cannot share as much as they know because everyone in the class must have an opportunity to share within a limited time frame. With a website such as Ushahidi, students could report everything they knew and have the opportunity to read the viewpoints of all of their classmates. Another benefit of cognitive surplus to education is it appeals to many learning types. On Ushahidi, visitors can read posts, listen to them on podcasts, or view a map marking the locations described in every post. For use in classrooms, timelines could be added by teachers to be used like a class calendar. Moreover, if a website such as this was used for a class project, all of the articles could be placed strategically on a visual (such as a map or other symbolic picture) and then color-coded based on their main idea. When students try to tackle large problems, communicating with each other and creating a cognitive surplus would not only help them solve the problem faster, but it would also benefit the world if the student’s solutions were at all applicable to everyday life.

The possibilities of cognitive surplus throughout the world are limitless. Websites such as Ushahidi are already used to report the locations and details of crises. This same technology could be used during emergencies to help locate survivors. If a crisis hit, people could be taught to bring their smartphones with them when they took shelter. With 3G networks, survivors could post details about their situation as well as their exact location on a website. Emergency workers from all over the world could then check these posts and send out response teams. Even under a pile of rubble, if one can pull their phone up to their face, they can contact help. This technology would surpass the convenience of calling for assistance because it does not require functional radio towers and users are able to contact aid programs from several countries other than their own (which may already be overwhelmed    

               

Throughout this school year, we have discussed in-depth the consequences of trusting media, and the traps society can fall into if media is not kept in check. Cognitive surplus is a divine way to control the reports of media. If everyone (or any number close to everyone) reported on events they experienced then published their viewpoint for the world to see, media could no longer escape with lies. Countries could not feed their citizens biased information or attempt to block out a certain point of view, because now it would all be on the web. If the government tried to shut down the Internet to block this information input, people would know a dictatorship was attempting to take over. In a time of war, this openness could, however, prove detrimental. One could convincingly argue that government propaganda fueled the success of America during the world wars. Ever since government stopped producing propaganda, America had been notably less successful in the wars it has fought (ie. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). This new source of knowledge would only increase people’s intolerance of biased information. This could be both good and bad; war would be hard to fight when both sides lie and cheat, thereby loosing the support of their citizens, but the difficulty of successful warfare could also lead to greater attempts at diplomacy and peace throughout the world.

Shirky’s discussion triggered several questions for me, as well. For one, I would like to know how he came up with the number one trillion as the combined amount of free time of all the people in the world each year. With the current world population around 6,914,126,061 people, this would means the average person has about 144 hours of free time each year ("U.S."). This number seems relatively small; are only 144 out of the 8,760 hours in a year unscheduled? What exactly did Shirky consider as “free time?” A more pertinent question than this, however, is: How can competition be so great when the world accomplishes more together? By combining our knowledge and our resources, changing the world is a closer goal than it ever has been before. Competition has lead to the formation of brilliant ideas, but these ideas can never become reality without the efforts of many.

Finally, I noticed while watching this video that Shirky greatly resembles another speaker we listened to earlier. Both Shirky and Daniel Pink discussed the subject of instrinsic motivation and how it can produce even better results than extrinsic motivations. Shirky even gave the same example as Pink to support intrinsic motivation being more effective (the number of parents late when picking up their kids in Israel from daycare increased when a fine of ten shekels was added for being late).  Shirky, like Pink, believed creativity was key to the development of cognitive surplus.

Though at first Shirky's argument for cognitive surplus may not seem particularly significant, after a few moments of reflection one realizes that the rise of cognitive surplus may cause great changes in the world.

More about the author: http://www.ted.com/speakers/clay_shirky.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirky

The video above shows Clay Shirky speaking about his book, entitled Here Comes Everybody.

More about congitive surplus and the connection between Daniel Pink and Clay Shirky: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_pink_shirky/

Link to Ushahidi: http://www.ushahidi.com/

Source of World Population:

"U.S. & World Population Clock." Census Bureau Home Page. Web. 24 Apr. 2011. http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html.

Daniel Pink

PowerPoint slides. Author Daniel Pink agrees that they are by far one of the dullest forms of presentation. Yet of all of the TED Talks I have seen so far, Pink has been the only one to utilize a PowerPoint in his speech. Thankfully, Pink used the PowerPoint in an effective, creative, engaging way. Instead of presenting all of his facts on the screen and reading off of it, Pink used the PowerPoint as a tool of enhancement; it displayed pictures of the “candle problem” he spent several minutes discussing. Pink’s ability to use the PowerPoint in a new way represented much of what he stands for; creativity, right-brained thinking, change in society, and reform of business systems. This last point makes up the main argument Pink made in his TED Talk. Pink talked about motivation in humans; how humans work fastest and with the most creativity when they are not being offered extrinsic rewards, such as money. He backed up his argument by explaining the results of several experiments, such as the aforementioned “candle problem.” ­In order to make his reports convincing, Pink used results from experiments conducted by trusted, well-known research centers, such as MIT, London School of Economics, and Carnegie Mellon University. Another major technique of Pink’s was comedy use. Pink initiated his speech by poking fun at himself and laughing at his failed attempt to complete law school (a practice which, one learns from reading his books, greatly conflicts with his beliefs about society and the future of right-brained thinking). At unexpected moments, Pink inserted a funny remark either in his speech or on his PowerPoint. Like in most cases where comedy is effectively used, the humor helped Pink relate to the audience, relieve the severity of his arguments, and summarize his point. Clear body language further helped him convey his enthusiasm, and, at times, frustration, with his topic. Pink used his hands excessively when he became excited, and he walked all around the stage, maintaining a high level of energy. At times he was even almost hysterical with excitement. One aspect of public speaking Pink seemed especially superior in was, well, speaking. Pink fluctuated his voice, becoming louder to make important arguments and softer to make deeper or less important points. He also sped up when he reached exciting moments and paused for emphasis after he stated important facts. Pink’s extraordinary speaking abilities made him positively engaging. His argument was fascinating because he believed it was.

From this video, a viewer takes away many important arguments regarding they ways in which business needs to change. Pink proves that people, when motivated by money or any other form of reward (or punishment), in fact perform tasks slower and more close-mindedly. While this work ethic may be sufficient for twentieth-century, straight-forward jobs that are reduced down to a set process with exact steps, it is hardly efficient or creative enough for the new, high concept jobs of the twenty-first century. Inventors, designers, and any sort of creative thinkers perform far better in non-pressure environments, where they are not motivated by outside forces. If they are instead working because they personally feel the drive to work, they will produce much better results. Pink said when people have autonomy (a feeling that they control their own lives and jobs), mastery (the ability to strive for perfection of their arts), and purpose (a reason beyond personal gain to complete their tasks), they will in the long run be far more content and productive with their jobs. Throughout Pink’s performance, I noticed recurring connections between his speech and his novel, Drive. In fact, several of the lines Pink used in his speech were copied exactly into Drive (“There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does,” was said so many times in both the book and the speech that it could almost be considered Pink’s motto). Pink’s speech was, essentially, a summary of his novel.

Pink’s argument, once it is more widely circulated, will undoubtedly have a huge affect on the American lifestyle. Businesses will soon find they need to amend their systems if they want to survive in the Conceptual Age, an era in which workers need to be self-motivated. For example, as I write this blog, I am under a lot of pressure to make it of good quality so I can achieve an “A” grade in my class. I am extrinsically motivated to complete this assignment; without the threat of a fail, I would never blog about these topics. Thus, my thoughts are random and unorganized, and probably far less profound than they would be if I was blogging on my own time. On average, it takes me three hours to write one of these blog posts. This may not sound like much time to many blogging professionals, but combine it with the pressure of three other large projects, looming finals, two sports with summer tryouts approaching, and family chaos, and suddenly those two hours become precious—preciously wasted, in the minds of many. Workers in the business world express similar attitudes when they are forced to do tasks without inner motivation. Like business, education also needs to change. Students in my class are notorious for being lazy; we get the grades without doing the work. When it comes time for us to face the real world, where grades are nonexistent and it is the work that counts, we will all face imminent failure because of our now well-developed habits of laziness and procrastination. If teachers truly want to prepare us for successful careers, they need to find a new way to engage us in our educations. Grades are no longer an effective motivation. Some students who pour hours of effort into their work receive failing grades, while other kids who do half-way, last-minute jobs on their assignments receive “A”s and “B”s. By junior and especially senior year, students are tired of the school system and the constant pressure. They are asked to perform in classes and on assignments that they hate, and often let their work quality slip in the last years of high school out of frustration. In the end, we as a society will only fall behind; eventually (and I already see this beginning to occur), students will decide that a letter does not, in fact, mean that much to them, and they are no longer willing to push themselves to the breaking point for a lesson they could care less about. If teachers can find a way to harness each student’s inner drive and focus it on bettering their educations, then the United States could gain and enormous advantage over the rest of the world. Eventually, citizens of China and other such countries will become tired of fear serving as their only motivation to succeed, and revolt against the system. While China falls to pieces and its education fails, America will thrive, because its citizens will be learning due to their own desires to achieve.

Though there are kinks in Daniel Pink’s proposed system of business and learning, his speech clearly proves that it is the only way we can continue to succeed as a nation. Like the industrial revolution, this new revolution to push conceptuality and inner purpose promises to bring new levels of prosperity we have not yet even imagined.  

More about Daniel Pink: http://www.danpink.com/

The video above is a discussion, complete with great visual aids, about the concepts Daniel Pink promotes.

Video Source:

TheRSAorg. "RSA Animate - Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 1 Apr. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc.

 

Article about intrinsic motivation: http://giftedkids.about.com/od/glossary/g/intrinsic.htm

 

Dissenting view: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/inmotiv.htm

Oliver Sacks

This TED talk discussed Charles Bonnet syndrome, an ailment affecting only those with severe vision and hearing impairments. Patients with Charles Bonnet have certain portions of their brain (those that control seeing and/or hearing) that sit idly because they are no longer needed. With nothing else to do, these brain sections begin conjuring images or sounds that appear realistic. While people with this syndrome are usually still very sane and do not have their health affected by the syndrome, many people who get the hallucinations deny they have them, due to the assumption that people with hallucinations are crazy. According to Oliver Sacks (who gave the speech), ten percent of blind and/or (severely) hearing impaired people experience Charles Bonnet syndrome, and thus it is fairly common.  The difference between these visions and those of someone losing their mental sanity is that while the hallucinations of an insane person often interact directly with them, Charles Bonnet hallucinations appear like a movie; they are viewed through a screen that separates the person from what they are seeing. Sacks also mentioned in his speech that research on the syndrome has lead to the discovery that certain cells in parts of the brain specifically control the interpretation and creation of one type of object, such as cartoons, eyes, and teeth. Thus, certain cells are causing hallucinations of comic strips, while others create visions of faces with oddly proportioned eyes.  Because the brain is producing these images, it also tries to fit them into context. For example, one older man with Charles Bonnet syndrome envisioned nice young men walking through the door with his granddaughters when they came to visit him. Though his granddaughters had come to visit him, they had not brought any men with them.  The piece I found most fascinating about Sack’s presentation on Charles Bonnet was that people who had these visions were not mentally impaired in any way; their brain was simply compensating for its inactivity. Why did the brain need to find a way for it to exercise itself? In a sense, this proves the point brought up by Daniel Pink in his novel, Drive: people will use more of their brainpower to work faster and harder when they are not doing it for a reward. In other words, it is the nature of humans to want to challenge and utilize their brains. This belief coincides with Sack’s point that Charles Bonnet visions are caused by a brain lacking tasks to spend energy on.

The speaker in this video was unique because he gave his entire speech from a chair. Though this may have been a disadvantage for some, Sacks seemed to have mastered the art of speaking while sitting. The expressions he may have lacked due to his inability to move about the stage were compensated for by hand gestures and upper body movement. Sacks appeared very comfortable up on the stage. Thus, he was able to calmly shift his attention from one side of the audience to another. He also moved his body fairly frequently to ensure he did not appear stiff and boring. Hand gestures greatly helped Sacks throughout his presentation. He used them to illustrate his points and add emphasis to certain lines. Hand gestures, combined with his relaxed motions, helped keep the viewer engaged and interested on his topic.

Sacks used a lot of stories in his speaking to convey his points. His twenty minute presentation regarding Charles Bonnet syndrome began with a story about a patient who had Charles Bonnet. This story lead into several other examples of patients Sacks has worked with. Finally, about three-quarters of the way through the video, Sacks began stating facts. Once viewers had an in-depth understanding of what Charles Bonnet syndrome is and how it affects people, Sacks explained what causes it. This organizational approach allowed viewers to understand his topic on an emotional level before they comprehended all of the whys and hows of the phenomenon. While this tactic engaged listeners from the start, after a few minutes they began wondering what exactly was causing these peoples’ symptoms, and occasionally lost track of the stories because they were so focused on finding out why the disease happened.  Another technique Sacks used was a few instances of comedy. These humorous remarks effectively loosened the tension of Sack’s experiences with hallucinations and kept the audience alert.

Sacks concluded his speech by stating that the research done to understand Charles Bonnet syndrome might also be helpful to discovering more in-depth the workings of our brains. Personally, I can see where this would be very true. Already, scientists researching the syndrome have discovered that certain cells directly control interaction with a specific object. This can be applied to the world and to education to help maximize brain efficiency. For example, if a student knew they needed to create a comic strip as part of an English test the next day, they could locate the “comic strip cells” in their brain, figure out which lobe it was in, and calculate exactly how much sleep they needed to make sure that lobe of the brain was properly rested (since scientists have already discovered which parts of your brain are rested in each period of a ten-hour rest). If certain objects triggered extreme negative reactions in someone, eventually (in the far future) doctors could remove the cells from that person’s brain that controlled their interactions with the troubling object. The research done on Charles Bonnet syndrome could also help scientists understand what the consequences are of letting certain portions of one’s brain go unused for too long. These are just a few of the many ways research on Charles Bonnet syndrome could be applied to bettering our future as a society.

More about Oliver Sacks: http://www.oliversacks.com/
More about Charles Bonnet syndrome: http://www.rnib.org.uk/eyehealth/eyeconditions/conditionsac/Pages/charles_bonnet.aspx
A few results of Charles Bonnet research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16794440

Photo Source:

"Charles Bonnet Syndrome." Lighthouse International. Web. 19 Apr. 2011.   http://www.lighthouse.org/about-low-vision-blindness/vision-disorders/charles-bonnet-syndrome/.

 

A lady with Charles Bonnet syndrome describes her experiences in the video above.

 

Video Source:

MacularDiseaseSoc. "Charles Bonnet Syndrome - Visual Hallucinations." YouTube- Broadcast Yourself. 14 Jan. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5C-0kb-jxo>.

Sir Ken Robinson

For many, education is viewed as the gateway to prosperity and the catalyst of success. But rarely is it considered that education could be squandering the talents that could lead youth to prominence. The latter idea was proposed in a TED talk given by Sir Ken Robinson, an Englishman knighted for his work in rebuilding education. Despite commanding the stage for only twenty minutes, Robinson used effective techniques and persuasive arguments that radically rearranged people's thoughts about the current education system.

Robinson proved he had much speaking experience by applying several effective techniques in his presentation. The deep and consequential arguments he made were illustrated and repeated through stories and metaphors. Before making a point, Robinson often told a personal story that served as an example of the point he was about to make. Not only did these tales relate him to the audience, but they also gently proved his point with a form of evidence even more trustworthy than facts: experience. Metaphors, such as one comparing schools' manipulations of students’ minds to miners that collect only one desired substance and waste many other valuable materials they draw out, created visuals of the messages he conveyed. They solidified and clarified his point by summarizing it with one objective image. Robinson also utilized comedy in his favor. While the subjects he discussed were vital to the future of humans and adept at capturing one's interest, listening to twenty minutes of constant argument eventually leads to loss of focus. Robinson used funny remarks that both pertained to the point and provided relief to allow the brain to relax for a moment. His initial use of comedy also quickly introduced and personified him, helping the audience comprehend who he was, where he came from, and why he made the points he did. Though his style included no use of physical visuals or examples, this hardly heeded his performance because of his skill at creating mental visuals. One technique that did slightly undermine his importance was his use of offensive humor. Though the points he made may have been accurate, they were highly controversial and offensive to certain groups, and thus may have quickly discredited his opinion in the minds of many. Overall, though, he presented well with an appropriate combination of humor, relief, relatability, and strong argument.

These methods of speaking led the listener to concentrate on his main point; education needs to change. Robinson argued that current education concentrates too much on producing one set type of person: a university professor. Instead, schools needed to recognize the diverse range of talents in their students. While english and math are highly valued in what Robinson called the "hierarchy of education," other expression forms such as art, dance, music, and photography were overruled by the decided superiority of the mainstream courses. Thus, schools waste talents by forcing the most creative students to thrive the same classes as the most mathematical students. People confuse intelligence with the ability to survive in school, when in truth only one type of person can survive modern education. Education needs to change to meet the demands of today's times and allow the growth of the artistic and creative students, who may one day make millions off of their abilities to think beyond the social norms.

If Robinson's ideas spread, school will need to change. No longer can schools teach kids that they must be right. Children are afraid to take chances and try new ideas because they fear their teachers will tell them they are wrong. The world is changing, and according to Daniel Pink (author of A Whole New Mind and Drive), becoming the kingdom of right-brained people. If education wants to be capable of providing for this changing society, it must learn to value every talent as much as the next. Personally, as one the people that can survive in the current school system, I must be prepared to see a shift in what is valued in education. In fact, with the way America is beginning to lean towards valuing right-brained thinkers, I must learn to develop the clearly less dominant side of my brain. I do believe that schools should implement more dance, acting, music, and art classes, and allow students to choose to take the classes that will benefit them most in their futures. In order for this to happen most effectively, though, schools will need to either become smaller, more specialized, or sectored, so that every opportunity is available to students pursuing every passion. In short, as the world begins requiring more people with talents in more diverse fields, students and educators must be prepared to see a shift in the systems of schools.

More about Sir Ken Robinson: http://www.principalvoices.com/voices/ken-robinson-bio.html
Another source claiming that creativity is dying: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html

This video contains an interview with Sir Ken Robinson and more information on his view of current education.

Video Source:

AlJazeeraEnglish. "Riz Khan - Schools Killing Creativity? - 10 Sep 08 - Part 1." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 19 Apr. 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAt-3Yk2u80.