Overcoming Adversity

Aimee Mullins explained in her TED talk that when faced with adversity, one must not focus on overcoming it, but embracing it, living with it, and even "dancing" with it. Her wise words truly stuck with me and I completely agree. I believe that the children of the future should be taught to face adversity and manage it. It's something everyone will face throughout a lifetime and the more prepared they are to deal with the effects of it, the more successful they can ultimately be. Parents must not protect their children from adversity's effects but instead give them the experience and knowledge to adequately handle themselves in times of trouble. Adversity teaches people to think past themselves and allows them to realize the struggles that others face. In Dan Pink's novel A Whole New Mind, he explains that through people's difficulty, they can acquire new skills as a result. "But as with a blind person who develops a more acute sense of hearing, a dyslexic's difficulties in one area lead him to acquire outsized ability in others," (Pink). Even though people who struggle with dyslexia have problems memorizing data and writing, they excel in seeing the big picture and problem solving. I believe that certain experiences can open up people's view of the big picture and guide R-directed thinking. Aimee Mullins herself was born without shin bones and therefore uses two prosthetic legs. However, despite her setback in life, she has become a well-known athlete, actor, and fashion model. She believes that conflict is the genesis of creation and that adversity gives us a sense of our own power. I agree completely because when humans are faced with problems, the experience of fighting through teaches them about themselves and the greater world around them. I love how her talk is titled "The Opportunity of Adversity" because it illustrates adversity as something that can create wonders in our lives. It's something that isn't pleasant to deal with in the moment, but afterwards people are left with astounding realizations and euphonies. I think this is because when people must channel their thought and effort into a single goal for a moment in time, afterwards they realize the bigger picture. I also love that she starts off with the definition of the word disabled. A simple black background on the screen behind her display simple whit words. Crippled, helpless, useless, lame, weak, laid-up, done for flash across the screen sending the audience a powerful message. Then she shows the antonyms: healthy, strong, and helpful. I was shocked that the definition would be so blunt and I can't imagine how that would have made Aimee feel. The definitions and her own story better illustrate her point that everyone has the ability to contribute to society like Aimee has done and other inspirational people that have overcome life challenges. Bethany Hamilton and Lance Armstrong come to my mind. Additionally, it strengthens her point that adaptation is humans greatest. I truly believe this to be true. We have the ability to adapt to the world around us despite the mental, physical, and environmental barriers. In my opinion, one of the most powerful things she shared was that when she was 15 years old, she would have traded her prosthetics for flesh legs, but that now she wouldn’t because of the experiences that she has had and the lesson that she has learned along the way.

Works Cited

Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead, 2006. Print.

Cognitive Surplus Changing the World

Clay Shirky's TED talk explained how cognitive surplus will benefit our society as a whole. My mind was opened by many of the concepts he introduced, but I felt overwhelmed. Just as I would begin to grasp the subject he explained, he would move on to the next topic. Many times it was difficult to see how all the topics related. I really wish he would have kept his speech more basic leaving the audience with a single goal to consider. I am going to keep this in mind for my own TED talk. I want my classmates to walk away from my speech being able to summarize my speech in one sentence and feel the power of the goal I am trying to convey. Nevertheless, I understand that Clay supports the idea of cognitive surplus and collaborating as a whole society. Ushahidi, the new program designed to distribute information to the Kenyan society after the disputed presidential election, is the perfect example of a design with civic value. Immediately I thought of Wikipedia because in the same way it is accessible to everyone and is a collaborative website providing information. Based on my knowledge of Wikipedia, I would say it maintains civic value because it has a positive effect on the world. With modern technology and people's intrinsic motivation to learn, create, and share, people can use the Internet to make a vast impact. I would say it is much easier to create an impact today than it would have been even 30 years ago because of people's proximity to computers and access to the web. Also, I think that the world of today is more connected to information and each other because of the Internet. In the case of Wikipedia, people can document information and link it to other information expanding the way people can research and learn. Therefore, we must use it to our advantage to create information and ideas of civil value through cognitive surplus. Through blogging websites online, Steve in America can instantly communicate with people in other countries. I wouldn’t say blogging and chatting websites uphold civic value, but they are certainly a way to share information and gain knowledge by expressing opinions and viewpoints.  One of the points Clay made was that when we collaborate we develop some really great ideas but also many stupid ones. He gave the example of Lolcats (pictures of cats with funny captions) which only impact people who are interested in them. This has a communal impact instead of a world impact. However, this is something that someone created and shared with people so it still has importance. All creations fall into a spectrum of mediocre and good work. But the people who developed them still made a creation that some would find significant.  All great people have their faults just like all great ideas come with a few bad ones, too! I thought it was interesting that Clay showed a graph of the increase in people who showed up late to pick their kids up from daycare after being asked to pay a fine. It showed that when people paid money to the people watching their kids it released the guilt that they felt for coming late so they ended up coming even later. I thought it was interesting that they were more motivated without a fine than with one. I think that guilt plays a role in people's motivation. For example, I know that when I don’t go to church on Sunday’s the guilt that I feel sticks with me throughout the day. Therefore, I feel increased motivation to get up out of bed and attend church and avoid a guilty weekend. The drive is increased when guilt is on the line. I have a better day when I get my homework done early or go for a run in the morning. In this instance, I believe that it’s my intrinsic motivators that drive my actions. Our human nature is to be self-motivated and collaborative beings.

Theory on Carrots and Sticks

In The Surprising Science of Motivation, Dan Pink talks passionately about his opinions of what motivates people to succeed. I love how he introduces the topic by talking about his experience in Law school and ties the theme into his presentation. Through his passionate case, he believes that society should assess the way businesses are run. Based off what motivates people, the main problem at hand is the off set of what scientists know and what businesses do. On the screen behind him, he projects a picture of a candle, a box of tacks, and some matches sitting on a table. He explains that in a certain experiment, scientists asked people to figure out a way to attach the candle to the wall. Many people, like I would probably in the situation, tried to use the matches to melt the side of the candle and stick it to the wall but failed. However, when the materials are arranged differently with the tacks loose on the table and the box empty, the solution appears much more simply. The box can hold the candle and be pinned to the wall by tacks. In his next point, Daniel introduces he idea of continent motivators that involve rewards for completing certain tasks. 'If you do this, then you get that.' Surprisingly, he revealed that these types of motivators aren't useful when solving tasks that involve creativity and out-side the box thinking. Instead, self-drive is what successful people possess in a creative situation where you have to think past the obvious option (candle picture with tacks separated from the box). When tested, the group with money offered to them took longer to complete the task than the group without an incentive. However, he did mention that rewarding for simple tasks proved to be useful. I agree that society should begin to move away from motivating with rewards because I think that once we begin rewarding people, they will only stay motivated if and when they are offered something just as good or better than past rewards. This can become a vicious cycle because motivation can only occur when the reward is increased. The most important message that I think Dan Pink is trying to send is that as society evolves, white collar careers are going to be shifting and becoming more right brained meaning that we should move away from rewarding for tasks and focus more on self-drive. He is saying that in the future, offering a sweeter carrot or sharper stick will not be an effective way to motivate people anymore. The most interesting thing that he brought up was the notion that companies are giving their employees free time to work on their own projects. This time called 'fedex day' or '20 percent time' has been the most beneficial to companies for producing new inventive products. It makes sense that when people are given the time to focus on their own interests they will be more effective employees to the company. I don’t think that this same notion would work for everything though. For me, if given a day to do whatever I wanted, I would sleep-in probably accomplish nothing. However, if students given the freedom to choose a class to take, I think the results would be positive. Kids would be choosing something that interests them and therefore would be more focused and willing to work hard. Even though many people believe self-drive to be a utopian thought, Daniel Pink ensures us that it can be accomplished and I agree. Rewards often decrease people’s creativity and people can become reliant upon them. It’s the 21^st century, we are moving out of the information age and into the conceptual age. No longer will carrots and sticks be the main motivators. Society must adapt to the changes and be open to a whole new mind. 

Death by Donuts

Jamie Oliver's eye-opening TED talk, Teach Every Child About Food, describes the reality of American's poor health and its effect on younger generations. He effectively opened up his talk with a startling statistic that in the time of his presentation, four American's would die from diet related causes. Jamie Oliver relays that more than half of American's are obese and the children of the next generation will live ten years shorter than their parents. He shocks the audience with facts that leave a lasting impression. I agree with his beliefs that food has power in people's lives and therefore children must be educated at young ages to make nutritional decisions. I notice a common underlying theme in solutions to problems society faces. The education of children will shape future generations because they are full of potential and willing to learn. Regardless, in this case, if children had a better understanding of the disadvantages of fatty, sugary foods they would be more likely to make better choices. Jamie introduced Justin, a 12-year-old boy, who weighs 350 pounds and another young girl who held her father in her arms as he died from obesity. The depressing stories show diet related deaths affecting people’s lives and the lives of their loved ones. Although America is one of the most unhealthy countries, the obesity issue is effecting the world on a grand scale. I thought that Jamie made an interesting point by recognizing the fact that as humans we worry about controlling terrorism and homicide, but in reality heart attacks are the number one cause of death by far. That sends such a strong message that people are making poor personal choices and not realizing their colossal effects. After laying a strong foundation with interesting facts, Jamie explains to the audience that a food revolution is necessary for the benefit of the next generation and the country. I completely agree, but it is a hard price to pay. Literally. To improve the quality of food at schools, Jamie estimates an increase of $6,500 to the budget. Money that especially at a time like this, schools cannot afford. However, with increased awareness, small improvements can be made. From my own experience, packing a lunch from home can be healthier, contain fewer calories, and cost much less in the long run! Simple choices like skipping the hot lunch line and fueling up with a turkey sandwich on wheat bread from home will go along way. Jamie makes an extremely valid point, the main problem is the lack of knowledge people have. In day-to-day life, people are bombarded by advertisements of fast food and misleading labeling. Even when people see a "Low-Fat!" product, it can still be packed with sugar and salt. Restaurants serve processed food in large portions packed with additives and preservatives. I see this as a recipe for disaster. I also agree with Jamie's next point, although Americans are faced with a giant problem, obesity is preventable and in the hands of the individual. Changes must occur in the giant chains, at schools and at home. By educating children about nutrition, funding schools to serve fresh, healthy food and spreading the word about eating right on a budget, people can make REAL changes and reverse the trend of increasing obesity rates. You are what you eat!

Tree of the Future: Roots of Literacy, Branches of Creativity

          Watching Ken Robinson's TED talk open my eyes and allowed me to take a new perspective on education.  Through his effective use of relatable stories and humorous antics, he points out the negative impact of schools, teachers, and the teaching methods that he believes harm kids creativity. His laid back and friendly presentation style is easy to listen to and very entertaining. I wish that throughout the presentation he had backed up his opinions with facts and statistics to make his point more dynamic and believable. Sir Robinson explains that people are intrigued by the unpredictability of the future and therefore it is important to educate young children that have ample potential and flourishing creativity. In Ken Robinson's opinion, creativity is just as important as literacy. I agree with his statement because in the same way that A Whole New Mind mentions the left and right sides of the brain functioning as one, children need both literacy and creativity to function in the corporate world and be contributing members to society. The two aspects pair like peanut butter and jelly and create a pleasing result. Additionally, literacy is important to stimulate creativity because only with concrete thoughts and ideas in place can creativity be born. One must have information to exhibit creation. I picture this as a tree. Strong roots, or literate information, must be in place to support the outstretched branches of creativity. Once the building blocks are in place, the creative juices will flow and forever build off each other. However, I disagree with his next point that as kids grow older they grow out of their creativity because of the ways in which they have been taught. In fact, I think that as kids grow older they become more in tune with their creative sides and learn to use them in the world. When I was younger, I always participated in art class but never thought of myself as an artist. As I have grown up, the teachers and classes that I have been in have stretched my abilities and made me think outside the box. The projects that have pushed me have allowed me to see a whole new side of myself that I otherwise my not have noticed. In the exact opposite way that Sir Robinson presented his argument, my creative abilities have been unleashed at school through the influence of my teachers and the projects that they assign. Now, I would consider myself an artist and a creative thinker. Literacy skills and creativity that have been taught at school, create dynamic learners prepared for the future. I agree that creativity is equally important to literacy but I don't agree that schools drive the creativity from blossoming in children. I see schools as the catalyst for breeding creation. They are the "Miracle-Gro" that stimulates the trees growth and allows it to grow faster, stronger, and healthier. In my opinion, schools should put classes like art and music below math, science, English, and history because in those core classes there is room to integrate creativity that will fuel even deeper more meaningful learning and provide literacy and creativity in-sync. I think Ken Robinson makes valid points in his TED talk through his relaxed and entertaining presentation. I think that if he stated a more direct call-to-action at the end of the speech that told the audience what he would like them to do next it would have been more effective. In my opinion, I think society should be reminded of the important effect of creativity in the world but still thrive in the dynamic information that schools can provide to strike a balance… a perfectly crafted peanut butter and jelly sandwich.