1. What is your emotional response upon entering the exhibit? Please explain.
Well before entering the Obey exhibit, I didn't really know what to expect, and upon entering, I stared at all the faces and was confused because I didn't really know what I was supposed to be getting out of it, I felt like I was missing the message supposed to be being conveyed. I continued to feel this confusion and vague frustration throughout the exhibit, especially when images of peace were mixed with images of war and I felt partially like maybe it was sarcasm and trying to make a point, but the other side of me was saying NO, it's either peace or war, pick one! Going through the exhibit, I also felt a bit of anger because I felt like I was being screamed at "Do this, so this! Obey, obey!" and I didn't want to be told what to do... by art. I was scared too (fear) by all the strong images and how it seemed that EVERYONE (music artists and government leaders etc. portrayed in the paintings) was involved in this strange movement and I felt like if I didn't follow, I would be... punished?
2. What is your emotional response upon leaving the exhibit? Please explain.
Upon leaving the exhibit, I felt reflective, thinking about how our society is influenced by art and other forms of propaganda, and about war and peace... I was overwhelmed with all the art and talent and effort put into it, and all the things presented in different forms than I'm used to seeing, such as the giant money bill that said "Under a Lesser God". However, I still felt frustration because I didn't fully understand the exhibit.
3. Does emotion interact with reason, sense, perception and language for you in this exhibit? If so, how?
Totally! Since I thought (reasoned) that since this art looks serious and like it was created for a purpose, I became really frustrated that its purpose and message was not apparent to me. What my senses perceived (well, just my eyes, since we were not allowed to touch) influenced what emotion I felt when looking at the painting; when there were threatening (violent) symbols and such bold colors as red and black with a serious image in the painting, I felt threatened and frightened and sometimes angry, whereas with the green money paintings I just felt more amused and intrigued. Language was a huge impact on my emotions in this exhibit; for one thing, the word "OBEY" written on almost everything and connected with every person and image made me feel overwhelmed and wanting to rebel against this mind-control that was being thrown at us with every painting we looked at. On the other hand, the word "HOPE" on Obama's painting made me feel slightly happy and proud, even if I don't agree with everything that that suggests...
4. Is this an American culture exhibit? How might someone from a non-Western country respond to this exhibit? Why?
I don't think so, because there were many universal symbols and concepts like war and peace presented that were not specific to America, and leaders from other countries were also featured in some paintings. There were many many pictures of Japanese people, and I think there was a picture of Stalin, as well as other people from foreign countries. Someone from a non-Western country could be kind of offended if they thought that their leader/past leader (e.g. Stalin) was being made made fun of or made into a villain by being associated with all this "propaganda" or anti-propaganda, depending on how you look at it. With all the Asian-looking people portrayed holding guns and weapons etc., people from Asian countries might feel either proud and patriotic if they think of it as protecting their country, or they could feel offended and angry because of that portrayal of their country, or because they really had fought in war and weren't proud of that fact.
5. Can one appreciate theatre, music and art using only the rational mind or must Emotion play a role? Explain.
Well, seeing as the point of much art (including music and theatre as art forms) are pretty much created with the purpose of evoking emotion in viewers, I think it is very difficult to view art without feeling some sort of emotion, however minor and subconscious it may be. Part of being human is having emotions, and the reason why people appreciate art so much is because they view it as "beautiful" and "sublime" because of the emotions within us. However, I think it is possible to appreciate certain aspects and details of art with a rational mind, such as thinking about the color schemes and brush patterns and other artistic techniques employed in a piece of art, or the chords and timing used in a song, or the exact facial expression worn by an actor, and appreciating the specific use of these elements to creatively convey a message or present an expression of thought to an audience. But generally, when we see a painting or watch a play or listen to a song, we like it because it's "realistic looking" or "has a good beat" or "was entertaining or funny"; most of us are not critics and go mainly on our emotions to judge things' worth.
"this exhibit made me reflect on the existential properties of midgets in relation to zooplankton and the paradigm they submissivly impose on the universe."
-a quote from a friend who also visited the exhibit :)
Friday, May 29, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
ToK Essay (Fallacies and Enron)
Informal fallacies (e.g. Ad ignorantiam, Hasty Generalization, Circular Reasoning, Special pleading, Ad Hominem, etc.) often are used by man to wiggle one's way out of things or twist the truth to be viewed in a certain light, or, for Enron, make lots of money. The use of fallacies - in particular circular reasoning and 'prop hoc ergo hoc', ad ignorantiam, and ad hominem - in the Enron story will be discussed using the film "Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room" and Gladwell's article "Open Secrets". While common, especially in the Enron story, informal fallacies are never "good" or truly justified, even though we may use them ourselves.
Informal fallacies are often plausible and convincing because of a few different factors. It is easier and less time-consuming to believe a fallacy that someone has told you than to go and do the research and find the real answer out yourself. Also, in Enron's case, the people formulating the fallacies can appear to be so smart and we so ignorant that we naturally trust their authority (as a justification of the "truth"). Many times we assume that government, large corporations, etc. will tell us the truth because that is their job, and if they twist the truth, that is wrong, so obviously they must be telling the truth. If Enron says they are making money, and their books show it, they must be right. However, in Enron's case, this was not the case.
Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling used circular reasoning and the fallacy 'propter hoc ergo hoc' with their accounting books, using mark-to-market accounting to make Enron's money. As Gladwell says, "With mark-to-market accounting, you estimate how much revenue the deal is going to bring in and put that number in your books at the moment you sign the contract." Enron used mark-to-market accounting to say they had money from deals before they actually got it, and then the price of their stock went up on the basis that they were already high and therefore Enron must be making money. Enron's view on these things was: "we made the deal, we WILL make the money, so it's like we already have that money to use, and therefore we're doing well, so therefore stock prices should rise." 'Propter hoc ergo hoc' combined with Enron's circular reasoning to lead to the idea that because they had money in their books, they were making real money and they must be a good, prospering company worthwhile for investment in stocks.
A fallacy not really formulated by the company but rather a product of the circumstances and society/human nature, was how the public avoided questioning Enron because of the fallacy known as "ad ignorantiam". Because the company wasn't actually doing bad then and their books said they were still making money, noone thought there was anything wrong, and because there was nobody waving Enron's false deals in front of the public's face, nobody suspected any false dealing or thought to ask how Enron was making their money, their real money. "We went on the information that was available at the time", said the stock analysts from Wallstreet in the film "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room". The stock analysts trusted the integrity of the company and hence fell prey to the thinking "since there is no evidence of Enron's false dealings, that must mean there is none." Gladwell says, "the prosecution said... Senior executives withheld critical information from investors." Stock analysts, investors, and the like thought (after the fact) that the situation was a 'puzzle' and they were not being told enough and did not know enough, and that was why they hadn't acted and questioned Enron, when in reality they just needed to start asking questions and interpreting the information they had differently.
The "ad hominem" fallacy was used multiple times by different people in the case of Enron. When Jeff Skilling was asked why Enron was the only company that couldn't produce a balance sheet, because he didn't have a good argument to attack the opposing argument, Skilling instead attacked the man, calling him an "asshole". People fall back on this technique when they know they don't have anything valid to say, but it doesn't accomplish anything, as Skilling found out when they brought up his little name-calling episode in court. On the other hand, Skilling used "ad hominem" tactics to boost his own image in Enron ads, and used the support of himself and the other men rather than the goodness of the company itself, emphasizing that they were very smart people, not necessarily that they were making good deals and money. Ken Lay sort of did this too when, on a CNN interview he reiterated the fact multiple times that his father was a Baptist minister from the time Ken was little, implying his own holiness and inability to do wrong. Furthermore, Enron commercials on TV showed Enron representatives shaking hands with representatives from countries like China, emulating the so-called "integrity" with which Enron supposedly treated all its customers. Because they had no real foundation of positive traits and success for their company to stand upon, Enron (owners) used the ad hominem approach to boost themselves up when they had no real integrity to stand upon, and to attack the "askers" when they couldn't tackle the questions.
I don't think the use of informal fallacies is ever justified because it is the responsibility of authoritative figures (e.g. large businesses, politicians, etc.) to present the truth to the public in an understandable and non-misleading manner. I think when the case is very obviously misleading and the "consumer" ought to be aware, it is the viewer/consumer's fault as well. If a campaign gives a really backwards or circularly reasoned example of why you should donate to them and yet you let yourself fall pray to this fallacy, obviously you are to blame for your lack of common sense and logic, as well as the company for their lies or misrepresentation of the truth. As Gladwell says, "Because if you can't find the truth in a —even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it's not just the fault of the propagandist." The implications of this are that it is not fallacy-formulating companies like Enron who are to blame, it is the consumers, who have the responsibility to "do their homework" and research if what those companies saying is correct. This would mean that perhaps Skilling and the rest of his gang shouldn't have been punished and tried in court for "lying" to everyone, it was the investors and such who had been punished for their lack of intelligence and initiative to ask "why". It was their job to "say 'no'" and and ask the questions, and it's not Enron's fault that they didn't do so. However, the counterclaim to this is that A) companies and other figures in society have the responsibility to tell the truth openly and maintain the trust of the public, and B) consumers do not always have the means to ask "why" and to find their own answer, so they should not be blamed. If an uneducated people is being told something that, according to the knowledge they possess (some people have less educational opportunities available to them), does not sound way out of wack, or if something that the average person is not capable of interpreting or researching is told them, and they fall prey to it, that is unjust and I don't think the people should be blamed for their ignorance in their circumstances. Also, if the company/figurehead is presenting the "correct" information, but in a confusing or overwhelming manner that obviously needs the wisdom and interpretation of experts (e.g. Enron's hundreds and hundreds of pages of complex business deals that no one outside the transactions would understand), it is not the fault of the consumers who cannot possibly be experts in every walk of life, prepared to deal with fallacies from whoever deems it necessary for their own success. According to Gladwell's article, the Powers Committee noted that Enron "did not communicate the essence of the transactions in a sufficiently clear fashion to enable a reader of [Enron's] financial statements to understand what was going on." so how could this be the fault of the potential "readers" of Enron's statements? No matter what sort of cause it may be for, or how much the "propagandist" thinks the receiver should be able to filter the propaganda, I think truth is a right of humans, especially coming from figures of authority, or else it will create a world of confusion and mistrust.
On occasion I myself have used some informal fallacies, such as when I sort of "specially pleaded" or held a double standard for myself once I got into Sturgis and the workload became difficult. I thought "since I skipped a grade, I missed a year of education, so I should get more leeway with school and all this stress, etc. And since I'm so young, I shouldn't have to be looking at colleges right now...". I thought that the other kids should be working this hard because they were more developed and could handle it, while I was a year younger so I shouldn't have to deal with all that stress yet. I also often "pull a Jeff Skilling" with an ad hominem attack: when my friends and I get into pretend arguments and I can't think of any come-backs, I'll just say "well, you're stupid!" or something to that effect. I think many people do that because it is human nature not to just take an insult and not say anything, yet if we have nothing valid or intelligent to say, what is left?
Humans do not like to be proven wrong, we like to be in full control and have people view us in the light we want to be portrayed in, so in times of desparation, many people (such as Skilling and Lay when Enron was going down the tubes), resort to informal fallacies to get away with their own mistakes, faults, and lies. While this chronic use of informal fallacies by humanity is never ok and should not be allowed or happening, sadly it is the truth.
Bibliography:
"Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" (HDNet Films)
"Open Secrets", The New Yorker.
Informal fallacies are often plausible and convincing because of a few different factors. It is easier and less time-consuming to believe a fallacy that someone has told you than to go and do the research and find the real answer out yourself. Also, in Enron's case, the people formulating the fallacies can appear to be so smart and we so ignorant that we naturally trust their authority (as a justification of the "truth"). Many times we assume that government, large corporations, etc. will tell us the truth because that is their job, and if they twist the truth, that is wrong, so obviously they must be telling the truth. If Enron says they are making money, and their books show it, they must be right. However, in Enron's case, this was not the case.
Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling used circular reasoning and the fallacy 'propter hoc ergo hoc' with their accounting books, using mark-to-market accounting to make Enron's money. As Gladwell says, "With mark-to-market accounting, you estimate how much revenue the deal is going to bring in and put that number in your books at the moment you sign the contract." Enron used mark-to-market accounting to say they had money from deals before they actually got it, and then the price of their stock went up on the basis that they were already high and therefore Enron must be making money. Enron's view on these things was: "we made the deal, we WILL make the money, so it's like we already have that money to use, and therefore we're doing well, so therefore stock prices should rise." 'Propter hoc ergo hoc' combined with Enron's circular reasoning to lead to the idea that because they had money in their books, they were making real money and they must be a good, prospering company worthwhile for investment in stocks.
A fallacy not really formulated by the company but rather a product of the circumstances and society/human nature, was how the public avoided questioning Enron because of the fallacy known as "ad ignorantiam". Because the company wasn't actually doing bad then and their books said they were still making money, noone thought there was anything wrong, and because there was nobody waving Enron's false deals in front of the public's face, nobody suspected any false dealing or thought to ask how Enron was making their money, their real money. "We went on the information that was available at the time", said the stock analysts from Wallstreet in the film "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room". The stock analysts trusted the integrity of the company and hence fell prey to the thinking "since there is no evidence of Enron's false dealings, that must mean there is none." Gladwell says, "the prosecution said... Senior executives withheld critical information from investors." Stock analysts, investors, and the like thought (after the fact) that the situation was a 'puzzle' and they were not being told enough and did not know enough, and that was why they hadn't acted and questioned Enron, when in reality they just needed to start asking questions and interpreting the information they had differently.
The "ad hominem" fallacy was used multiple times by different people in the case of Enron. When Jeff Skilling was asked why Enron was the only company that couldn't produce a balance sheet, because he didn't have a good argument to attack the opposing argument, Skilling instead attacked the man, calling him an "asshole". People fall back on this technique when they know they don't have anything valid to say, but it doesn't accomplish anything, as Skilling found out when they brought up his little name-calling episode in court. On the other hand, Skilling used "ad hominem" tactics to boost his own image in Enron ads, and used the support of himself and the other men rather than the goodness of the company itself, emphasizing that they were very smart people, not necessarily that they were making good deals and money. Ken Lay sort of did this too when, on a CNN interview he reiterated the fact multiple times that his father was a Baptist minister from the time Ken was little, implying his own holiness and inability to do wrong. Furthermore, Enron commercials on TV showed Enron representatives shaking hands with representatives from countries like China, emulating the so-called "integrity" with which Enron supposedly treated all its customers. Because they had no real foundation of positive traits and success for their company to stand upon, Enron (owners) used the ad hominem approach to boost themselves up when they had no real integrity to stand upon, and to attack the "askers" when they couldn't tackle the questions.
I don't think the use of informal fallacies is ever justified because it is the responsibility of authoritative figures (e.g. large businesses, politicians, etc.) to present the truth to the public in an understandable and non-misleading manner. I think when the case is very obviously misleading and the "consumer" ought to be aware, it is the viewer/consumer's fault as well. If a campaign gives a really backwards or circularly reasoned example of why you should donate to them and yet you let yourself fall pray to this fallacy, obviously you are to blame for your lack of common sense and logic, as well as the company for their lies or misrepresentation of the truth. As Gladwell says, "Because if you can't find the truth in a —even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it's not just the fault of the propagandist." The implications of this are that it is not fallacy-formulating companies like Enron who are to blame, it is the consumers, who have the responsibility to "do their homework" and research if what those companies saying is correct. This would mean that perhaps Skilling and the rest of his gang shouldn't have been punished and tried in court for "lying" to everyone, it was the investors and such who had been punished for their lack of intelligence and initiative to ask "why". It was their job to "say 'no'" and and ask the questions, and it's not Enron's fault that they didn't do so. However, the counterclaim to this is that A) companies and other figures in society have the responsibility to tell the truth openly and maintain the trust of the public, and B) consumers do not always have the means to ask "why" and to find their own answer, so they should not be blamed. If an uneducated people is being told something that, according to the knowledge they possess (some people have less educational opportunities available to them), does not sound way out of wack, or if something that the average person is not capable of interpreting or researching is told them, and they fall prey to it, that is unjust and I don't think the people should be blamed for their ignorance in their circumstances. Also, if the company/figurehead is presenting the "correct" information, but in a confusing or overwhelming manner that obviously needs the wisdom and interpretation of experts (e.g. Enron's hundreds and hundreds of pages of complex business deals that no one outside the transactions would understand), it is not the fault of the consumers who cannot possibly be experts in every walk of life, prepared to deal with fallacies from whoever deems it necessary for their own success. According to Gladwell's article, the Powers Committee noted that Enron "did not communicate the essence of the transactions in a sufficiently clear fashion to enable a reader of [Enron's] financial statements to understand what was going on." so how could this be the fault of the potential "readers" of Enron's statements? No matter what sort of cause it may be for, or how much the "propagandist" thinks the receiver should be able to filter the propaganda, I think truth is a right of humans, especially coming from figures of authority, or else it will create a world of confusion and mistrust.
On occasion I myself have used some informal fallacies, such as when I sort of "specially pleaded" or held a double standard for myself once I got into Sturgis and the workload became difficult. I thought "since I skipped a grade, I missed a year of education, so I should get more leeway with school and all this stress, etc. And since I'm so young, I shouldn't have to be looking at colleges right now...". I thought that the other kids should be working this hard because they were more developed and could handle it, while I was a year younger so I shouldn't have to deal with all that stress yet. I also often "pull a Jeff Skilling" with an ad hominem attack: when my friends and I get into pretend arguments and I can't think of any come-backs, I'll just say "well, you're stupid!" or something to that effect. I think many people do that because it is human nature not to just take an insult and not say anything, yet if we have nothing valid or intelligent to say, what is left?
Humans do not like to be proven wrong, we like to be in full control and have people view us in the light we want to be portrayed in, so in times of desparation, many people (such as Skilling and Lay when Enron was going down the tubes), resort to informal fallacies to get away with their own mistakes, faults, and lies. While this chronic use of informal fallacies by humanity is never ok and should not be allowed or happening, sadly it is the truth.
Bibliography:
"Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" (HDNet Films)
"Open Secrets", The New Yorker.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Enron #3
1. What does Gladwell mean when he says that, 'Puzzles are "transmitter-dependent"; they turn on what we are told. Mysteries are "receiver dependent"; they turn on the skills of the listener.'?
He means that puzzles, which depend on the information and how much of it is given, are dependent on the source of the information, the "transmitter", whereas since mysteries, since we already have the information and just usually cannot interpret or understand it correctly, are more dependent on the skills of the receiver to solve the mystery.
2. Why didn't Enron have to pay taxes on their S.P.E.'s? What would be Enron's defense? Can you name the Illogical Fallacy present?
Enron didn't have to pay taxes because "the I.R.S. doesn't accept mark-to-market accounting; you pay tax on income when you actually receive that income" and since Enron wasn't actually having any real income coming in, the I.R.S. didn't think it was making any money and thus didn't tax it. Enron would probably just say that they "knew" they WOULD make that money for real, and when they did they could pay taxes, but right now they shouldn't have to pay the I.R.S. because they haven't actually attained the money yet.
This fallacy is called Special Pleading/Double Standard, when someone/a party thinks everyone else should have to follow the regulations except for themselves, because they have an excuse.
3. Did Enron try to hide the fact that they weren't paying taxes?
Enron did not try to hide that fact, or really much of anything, they just didn't flash it out in the open, and nobody bothered to ask the questions and actually read Enron's documents and financial statements that would clearly show what they were doing.
4. Why does Gladwell claim that, 'Woodward and Bernstein would never have broken the Enron story.' Why don't you think anyone asked about Enron's financial statements? Is there a fallacy at work here?
Because they were just young kids with no experience, who had the type of energy and persistence necessary for solving a puzzle, when you need to uncover missing information, but this was a mystery that required "experience and insight" to understand the complex financial statements.
Probably the reason nobody asked about Enron's dealings is that there wasn't a lot of evidence yet to show they were sinking themselves, and not a lot of people -if anybody- knew that the money Enron claimed to be making wasn't actually real. To me this seems like the Ad Ignoratium fallacy, where because there was no proof known (UNDERSTOOD) by outsiders, they didn't think to accuse Enron of the real problem.
5. Gladwell claims that, 'Mysteries require that we revisit our list of culprits and be willing to spread the blame a little more broadly. Because if you can't find the truth in a —even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it's not just the fault of the propagandist. It's your fault as well.' Do you agree with the implications of this statement?
I agree to some extent because With puzzles, it can be that the company or whoever the offending party is is hiding information from us that we cannot find out because we are not inside that party (for example, if Enron had NOT reported their financial deals on paper, no one else could report it for them because only Enron has that information), but in the case of a mystery, when we have the information available to us, it is our job to ask questions and actually LOOK at the information and if necessary learn how to read/interpret it. If we don't do this, as no one did at first for Enron, we are partially to blame for the situation at hand. However, I think in areas or situations where people may not be as educated or have as many opportunities open to them to investigate such a thing as Enron's financial documents (for example, living under a strict government where it is illegal to interfere with corrupt companies or whatever), it is not the people's fault if they are not aware or can do nothing to solve the mystery or stop the corruption.
6. What was the advice of the Cornell students to anyone who held Enron stock?
Their advice was "Sell." They believed Enron's stock values were too high because they weren't actually making all their claimed earnings, so the students thought, logically, it would not be wise to hold stock in such a company that really isn't worth all it says it is and will probably go down the tubes soon...
He means that puzzles, which depend on the information and how much of it is given, are dependent on the source of the information, the "transmitter", whereas since mysteries, since we already have the information and just usually cannot interpret or understand it correctly, are more dependent on the skills of the receiver to solve the mystery.
2. Why didn't Enron have to pay taxes on their S.P.E.'s? What would be Enron's defense? Can you name the Illogical Fallacy present?
Enron didn't have to pay taxes because "the I.R.S. doesn't accept mark-to-market accounting; you pay tax on income when you actually receive that income" and since Enron wasn't actually having any real income coming in, the I.R.S. didn't think it was making any money and thus didn't tax it. Enron would probably just say that they "knew" they WOULD make that money for real, and when they did they could pay taxes, but right now they shouldn't have to pay the I.R.S. because they haven't actually attained the money yet.
This fallacy is called Special Pleading/Double Standard, when someone/a party thinks everyone else should have to follow the regulations except for themselves, because they have an excuse.
3. Did Enron try to hide the fact that they weren't paying taxes?
Enron did not try to hide that fact, or really much of anything, they just didn't flash it out in the open, and nobody bothered to ask the questions and actually read Enron's documents and financial statements that would clearly show what they were doing.
4. Why does Gladwell claim that, 'Woodward and Bernstein would never have broken the Enron story.' Why don't you think anyone asked about Enron's financial statements? Is there a fallacy at work here?
Because they were just young kids with no experience, who had the type of energy and persistence necessary for solving a puzzle, when you need to uncover missing information, but this was a mystery that required "experience and insight" to understand the complex financial statements.
Probably the reason nobody asked about Enron's dealings is that there wasn't a lot of evidence yet to show they were sinking themselves, and not a lot of people -if anybody- knew that the money Enron claimed to be making wasn't actually real. To me this seems like the Ad Ignoratium fallacy, where because there was no proof known (UNDERSTOOD) by outsiders, they didn't think to accuse Enron of the real problem.
5. Gladwell claims that, 'Mysteries require that we revisit our list of culprits and be willing to spread the blame a little more broadly. Because if you can't find the truth in a —even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it's not just the fault of the propagandist. It's your fault as well.' Do you agree with the implications of this statement?
I agree to some extent because With puzzles, it can be that the company or whoever the offending party is is hiding information from us that we cannot find out because we are not inside that party (for example, if Enron had NOT reported their financial deals on paper, no one else could report it for them because only Enron has that information), but in the case of a mystery, when we have the information available to us, it is our job to ask questions and actually LOOK at the information and if necessary learn how to read/interpret it. If we don't do this, as no one did at first for Enron, we are partially to blame for the situation at hand. However, I think in areas or situations where people may not be as educated or have as many opportunities open to them to investigate such a thing as Enron's financial documents (for example, living under a strict government where it is illegal to interfere with corrupt companies or whatever), it is not the people's fault if they are not aware or can do nothing to solve the mystery or stop the corruption.
6. What was the advice of the Cornell students to anyone who held Enron stock?
Their advice was "Sell." They believed Enron's stock values were too high because they weren't actually making all their claimed earnings, so the students thought, logically, it would not be wise to hold stock in such a company that really isn't worth all it says it is and will probably go down the tubes soon...
Visiting Seniors Reflection & EE Assignment
Please take a few moments to reflect on the visit by Seniors. What is the ONE PIECE OF ADVICE that you took away from their presentation? What can you do to follow that advice? What might keep you from following the advice?
The presentation wasn't all that surprising to me because I've heard pretty much everything they said before... All the kids in the IB program say do your work on time and just try to find ways to relax. Unfortunately, I am not a good stress-handler at all so those tricks don't usually help me too much, especially in being able to get focused again after taking a break and relaxing. I think I'm too burnt out most of the time to really focus on much, after a full day of school, etc.
The one piece of advice that really got drilled into me from their presentation was to NOT PROCRASTINATE and to just buckle down and do the work on time, following the schedule that the teachers have set to help you. To follow this advice I could waste less time at home talking and whatever else in order to actually get work done... But like I said before, what keeps me from following this advice, even though I give it to myself all the time and convince myself that I will do the work ON TIME, is my stressed nature, already burnt-out ness and inability to focus on schoolwork for more than a bit at a time, and the other activities such as church and homelife that always seem to suck up my time...
The presentation wasn't all that surprising to me because I've heard pretty much everything they said before... All the kids in the IB program say do your work on time and just try to find ways to relax. Unfortunately, I am not a good stress-handler at all so those tricks don't usually help me too much, especially in being able to get focused again after taking a break and relaxing. I think I'm too burnt out most of the time to really focus on much, after a full day of school, etc.
The one piece of advice that really got drilled into me from their presentation was to NOT PROCRASTINATE and to just buckle down and do the work on time, following the schedule that the teachers have set to help you. To follow this advice I could waste less time at home talking and whatever else in order to actually get work done... But like I said before, what keeps me from following this advice, even though I give it to myself all the time and convince myself that I will do the work ON TIME, is my stressed nature, already burnt-out ness and inability to focus on schoolwork for more than a bit at a time, and the other activities such as church and homelife that always seem to suck up my time...
Friday, April 17, 2009
Enron #2
1. How does a Special-Purpose Entity (S.P.E.) work? Why does the "partnership" giving money to your company make a big difference?
A partnership holds a company's leases and borrows money from the bank at a much lower interest rate than the bank would charge the company who's not doing so well if they were to borrow all that money from the bank, then the partnership gives the company the money. This makes a big difference because by the "partnership" giving you the money but paying the interest, much less money is lost to interest (since if you were receiving the money directly, you would be paying a lot higher interest).
2. How did Enron pit "twists into the S.P.E. game?" What does it mean that Enron "didn't always put blue-chip assets into the partnerships"? What was problematic about Enron using its own executives to manage the S.P.E? What was Enron's guarantee?
Enron twisted the "game" by selling "less than sterling assets" and sometimes even selling them to insiders instead of outsiders (so that the property and money was actually staying right within the company). By that phrase, it means that Enron sometimes sold off leases that would not necessarily reliably generate income. What was problematic about Enron using its own executives to manage the S.P.E. was that not only were they receiving all the money from the deal, but the leases were not even in more stable hands than those of Enron (they were still in Enron's hands essentially, so the bank should have still been charging that higher interest). Enron's guarantee was that "if whatever they had to sell declined in value, Enron would make up the difference with its own stock." so in essence they were selling parts of itself, to itself.
3. How did the world come to learn of Enron's use of S.P.E.'s? Is Gladwell correct in claiming that this is another example of a mystery? Explain.
The article says "The public became aware of the nature of these S.P.E.s through the reporting of several of Weil's colleagues at the Wall Street Journal—principally John Emshwiller and Rebecca —starting in the late summer of 2001." And it says they were tipped off the same way as Weil, by reading Enron's own public files.
I think Gladwell is correct in his claim that it's a mystery rather than a puzzle because it wasn't simply that the directors/investors didn't KNOW all the information - much of it was right there for them, but it was so much, so detailed, and so confusing that they couldn't understand it.
4. What is the difference between "scrounged up" and "downloaded?"
"Scrounged up" sounds like much more work had to be done to find these documents that were carefully hidden and covered up by Enron, when the reality is that Enron had these documents in public, all that had to be done to read them was to download them. This is using emotive langauge to make it sound like Enron was trying to hide everything.
5. Why does Gladwell claim that "It scarcely would have helped investors if Enron had made all three million pages public."? Explain what Gladwell means when he says, "But here the rules seem different." Who is Andrew Fastow?
He claims that because who can/will read 3 million pages of confusing S.P.E. info?? Nobody could read that much and digest it enough to understand it and draw an accurate conclusion. By saying the rules are indifferent in this case Gladwell means that the rule of puzzles- the more pieces that are added, the clearer the picture becomes- does not apply here because the more information revealed about the S.P.E.s, the more detailed, complicated, and confusing the situation gets.
Andrew Fastow was Enron's chief financial officer who put together the S.P.E. deals.
6. Why has the "Disclosure Paradigm" become an anachronism?
The idea that the more business information revealed to the public, the better off it is, is no longer correct in this time period because many business transactions, such as Enron's with the S.P.E.s, are so complicated and detailed that the more information included just makes it more confusing and less understandable to the public, so the public would probabaly have a better understanding of what was really going on with just a summary or something.
7. Why did treating the German secret weapon as a mystery prove to be more useful? Specifically, how did the "propaganda analysts" (the batty geniuses) use reason to uncover the Nazi V-1 Rocket?
If they had treated it like a puzzle and been like, "We don't have enough information and we can't really get it" they probably would not have figured it out, but since they treated it like a mystery and like all the information was already there, in the broadcasts, they focused on translating that information and were then able to understand what the Germans were doing/going to do. They used reasoning by listening to the broadcasts to the German people and reasoning that since the German leaders would try to keep the trust of the people, they weren't really lying, and when there was a 10 day period during which the weapon was no longer mentioned, that must mean that there was a delay in development and afterwards, less certainty...
8. How has diagnosing Prostate Cancer transformed from a puzzle to a mystery?
Doctors used to wait for the "missing puzzle piece", the symptoms that would show that the pacient had prostate cancer, the lumps on the gland... But now doctors don't wait for the missing piece/symptoms, the regularly test and examine middle-aged men, but sometimes whether the patient actually has the cancer remains a mystery because sometimes the test results are inconclusive, or the doctors don't agree, or one thing could mean something else, etc.
9. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, how has "the situation facing the intelligence community has turned upside down?"
It says "Now most of the world is open, not closed. Intelligence officers aren't dependent on scraps from spies... In a post-Cold War world of "openly available information," Inman said, "what you need are observers with language ability, with understanding of the religions, cultures of the countries they're observing." Inman thought we needed fewer spies and more slightly batty geniuses."
The situation has changed from a puzzle with not enough pieces to almost a puzzle with too many pieces, so that investigators have lots of information but it is difficult to put it together correctly and come to a conclusion.
10. How does Admiral Bobby R. Inman believe the U.S. should strengthen the U.S. intelligence system? Why was his answer seen as unusual?
His answer was that they should revive the State Department. This was seen as unusual because the State Department was "the one part of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment that isn't considered to be in the intelligence business at all."
11. Gladwell writes: In a post-Cold War world of "openly available information," Inman said, "what you need are observers with language ability, with understanding of the religions, cultures of the countries they're observing." Inman thought we needed fewer spies and more slightly batty geniuses.
Does this curriculum sound familiar?
I know what Inman means, that what they need is not more information or more people to find the information, what they need is more equipped interpreters of the information they already have. They need professionals to solve mysteries, not a bunch of little kids to solve puzzles.
However, I don't specifically remember anyone else having this theory...
A partnership holds a company's leases and borrows money from the bank at a much lower interest rate than the bank would charge the company who's not doing so well if they were to borrow all that money from the bank, then the partnership gives the company the money. This makes a big difference because by the "partnership" giving you the money but paying the interest, much less money is lost to interest (since if you were receiving the money directly, you would be paying a lot higher interest).
2. How did Enron pit "twists into the S.P.E. game?" What does it mean that Enron "didn't always put blue-chip assets into the partnerships"? What was problematic about Enron using its own executives to manage the S.P.E? What was Enron's guarantee?
Enron twisted the "game" by selling "less than sterling assets" and sometimes even selling them to insiders instead of outsiders (so that the property and money was actually staying right within the company). By that phrase, it means that Enron sometimes sold off leases that would not necessarily reliably generate income. What was problematic about Enron using its own executives to manage the S.P.E. was that not only were they receiving all the money from the deal, but the leases were not even in more stable hands than those of Enron (they were still in Enron's hands essentially, so the bank should have still been charging that higher interest). Enron's guarantee was that "if whatever they had to sell declined in value, Enron would make up the difference with its own stock." so in essence they were selling parts of itself, to itself.
3. How did the world come to learn of Enron's use of S.P.E.'s? Is Gladwell correct in claiming that this is another example of a mystery? Explain.
The article says "The public became aware of the nature of these S.P.E.s through the reporting of several of Weil's colleagues at the Wall Street Journal—principally John Emshwiller and Rebecca —starting in the late summer of 2001." And it says they were tipped off the same way as Weil, by reading Enron's own public files.
I think Gladwell is correct in his claim that it's a mystery rather than a puzzle because it wasn't simply that the directors/investors didn't KNOW all the information - much of it was right there for them, but it was so much, so detailed, and so confusing that they couldn't understand it.
4. What is the difference between "scrounged up" and "downloaded?"
"Scrounged up" sounds like much more work had to be done to find these documents that were carefully hidden and covered up by Enron, when the reality is that Enron had these documents in public, all that had to be done to read them was to download them. This is using emotive langauge to make it sound like Enron was trying to hide everything.
5. Why does Gladwell claim that "It scarcely would have helped investors if Enron had made all three million pages public."? Explain what Gladwell means when he says, "But here the rules seem different." Who is Andrew Fastow?
He claims that because who can/will read 3 million pages of confusing S.P.E. info?? Nobody could read that much and digest it enough to understand it and draw an accurate conclusion. By saying the rules are indifferent in this case Gladwell means that the rule of puzzles- the more pieces that are added, the clearer the picture becomes- does not apply here because the more information revealed about the S.P.E.s, the more detailed, complicated, and confusing the situation gets.
Andrew Fastow was Enron's chief financial officer who put together the S.P.E. deals.
6. Why has the "Disclosure Paradigm" become an anachronism?
The idea that the more business information revealed to the public, the better off it is, is no longer correct in this time period because many business transactions, such as Enron's with the S.P.E.s, are so complicated and detailed that the more information included just makes it more confusing and less understandable to the public, so the public would probabaly have a better understanding of what was really going on with just a summary or something.
7. Why did treating the German secret weapon as a mystery prove to be more useful? Specifically, how did the "propaganda analysts" (the batty geniuses) use reason to uncover the Nazi V-1 Rocket?
If they had treated it like a puzzle and been like, "We don't have enough information and we can't really get it" they probably would not have figured it out, but since they treated it like a mystery and like all the information was already there, in the broadcasts, they focused on translating that information and were then able to understand what the Germans were doing/going to do. They used reasoning by listening to the broadcasts to the German people and reasoning that since the German leaders would try to keep the trust of the people, they weren't really lying, and when there was a 10 day period during which the weapon was no longer mentioned, that must mean that there was a delay in development and afterwards, less certainty...
8. How has diagnosing Prostate Cancer transformed from a puzzle to a mystery?
Doctors used to wait for the "missing puzzle piece", the symptoms that would show that the pacient had prostate cancer, the lumps on the gland... But now doctors don't wait for the missing piece/symptoms, the regularly test and examine middle-aged men, but sometimes whether the patient actually has the cancer remains a mystery because sometimes the test results are inconclusive, or the doctors don't agree, or one thing could mean something else, etc.
9. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, how has "the situation facing the intelligence community has turned upside down?"
It says "Now most of the world is open, not closed. Intelligence officers aren't dependent on scraps from spies... In a post-Cold War world of "openly available information," Inman said, "what you need are observers with language ability, with understanding of the religions, cultures of the countries they're observing." Inman thought we needed fewer spies and more slightly batty geniuses."
The situation has changed from a puzzle with not enough pieces to almost a puzzle with too many pieces, so that investigators have lots of information but it is difficult to put it together correctly and come to a conclusion.
10. How does Admiral Bobby R. Inman believe the U.S. should strengthen the U.S. intelligence system? Why was his answer seen as unusual?
His answer was that they should revive the State Department. This was seen as unusual because the State Department was "the one part of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment that isn't considered to be in the intelligence business at all."
11. Gladwell writes: In a post-Cold War world of "openly available information," Inman said, "what you need are observers with language ability, with understanding of the religions, cultures of the countries they're observing." Inman thought we needed fewer spies and more slightly batty geniuses.
Does this curriculum sound familiar?
I know what Inman means, that what they need is not more information or more people to find the information, what they need is more equipped interpreters of the information they already have. They need professionals to solve mysteries, not a bunch of little kids to solve puzzles.
However, I don't specifically remember anyone else having this theory...
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Mr. Andre Reflection
Please take a moment to REFLECT on Mr. Andre's presentation in ToK. Did you learn something new? Did you enjoy his riddles? Why or why not? How do you think the Riddles about Monopoly and the Explorers relate to the story of Spider and Black Deer? This post must be completed by April 15.
His presentation of the possibilities for Mock Exams as a syllogism and the riddles we had to solve using reasoning and logic seemed confusing at first but after they were explained seemed very clear and simple. I did learn something new, that many more "riddles" or problems than we think can be solved by breaking it down into a syllogism or into a series of True/False statements, and that sometimes riddles are much more simple than we think (i.e. the man is just playing monopoly, he has not maxed out on his credit cards and gotten into a severely damaging car accident and now cannot work). I have a really tough time with riddles, and it never occurs to me to separate it into separate parts to see which ones are true and false and hence what are the real possibilities for an answer. I did not necessarily ENJOY the riddles he gave us because I get very frustrated when I can't think of an answer and then I feel very stupid afterward, but I enjoyed it in the sense that the riddles made me think and made me realize that sometimes you have to think outside the box, but not too far, because the answer could be fairly simple... I also liked how they opened my eyes more to HOW we reason, and the process our brains go through, sometimes without us actually realizing it, to reach a conclusion that seems logical to us.
The riddles about Monopoly and the explorers in the ocean relate to the story of the tribespeople trying to answer the riddle about Spider and Black Deer because we see, in trying to answer all 3, that context (what context the person trying to answer the riddle is thinking in terms of) plays a key part in determining what we see as a logical conclusion. Because the Kpelle people were probably used to folklore and their perspective on reality etc. is different than ours, they were thinking not in the hypothetical context we think in when asked a riddle, but what seems the reality to them. Similarly, when asked the riddle about the man who went bankrupt after arriving at a hotel, we do not naturally think in the context of the game Monopoly, so we assume it must be a real man at a real hotel with real money, and something went awfully wrong. When we gear the riddle about the 2 explorers who see a wild animal, our brains automatically think "jungle" and "tiger" or something to that effect, so we would never think "oh, the one moving faster will get killed because the wild animal is a shark who can sense blood movement."
His presentation of the possibilities for Mock Exams as a syllogism and the riddles we had to solve using reasoning and logic seemed confusing at first but after they were explained seemed very clear and simple. I did learn something new, that many more "riddles" or problems than we think can be solved by breaking it down into a syllogism or into a series of True/False statements, and that sometimes riddles are much more simple than we think (i.e. the man is just playing monopoly, he has not maxed out on his credit cards and gotten into a severely damaging car accident and now cannot work). I have a really tough time with riddles, and it never occurs to me to separate it into separate parts to see which ones are true and false and hence what are the real possibilities for an answer. I did not necessarily ENJOY the riddles he gave us because I get very frustrated when I can't think of an answer and then I feel very stupid afterward, but I enjoyed it in the sense that the riddles made me think and made me realize that sometimes you have to think outside the box, but not too far, because the answer could be fairly simple... I also liked how they opened my eyes more to HOW we reason, and the process our brains go through, sometimes without us actually realizing it, to reach a conclusion that seems logical to us.
The riddles about Monopoly and the explorers in the ocean relate to the story of the tribespeople trying to answer the riddle about Spider and Black Deer because we see, in trying to answer all 3, that context (what context the person trying to answer the riddle is thinking in terms of) plays a key part in determining what we see as a logical conclusion. Because the Kpelle people were probably used to folklore and their perspective on reality etc. is different than ours, they were thinking not in the hypothetical context we think in when asked a riddle, but what seems the reality to them. Similarly, when asked the riddle about the man who went bankrupt after arriving at a hotel, we do not naturally think in the context of the game Monopoly, so we assume it must be a real man at a real hotel with real money, and something went awfully wrong. When we gear the riddle about the 2 explorers who see a wild animal, our brains automatically think "jungle" and "tiger" or something to that effect, so we would never think "oh, the one moving faster will get killed because the wild animal is a shark who can sense blood movement."
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Egyptograms
Please post your notes from the Egyptogram lessons. Also, please refelct on the Egyptogram experience. Did you enjoy the exercize? Why or why not?
REASON
1. Apriori knowledge 2. Basic assumptions/premises
- We are not PURE empiricists, rather we use apriori knowledge, we make assumptions, and we infer from past experiences. We are rationalists!
-An assumption/premise has to be followed by a conclusion
-Rational knowledge is DEDUCTION (moving from a general claim to the specific conclusion), whereas induction leads from the specific to the general (i.e. empiric experiences lead to thoughts)
-Deductions are made from a syllogism, which must include 2 premises that lead to a conclusion, 3 terms that occur twice, and a quantifier (ex: 1. All dogs are mammals. 2. Fido is a dog. 3. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.)
-Logic is used to determine whether or not a syllogism is valid, not whether it is true! and just because something is valid, that does not mean it's also true! A statement may be logically valid without being true.
-Plato's version of Truth = public, independent, and eternal
-Truth is a property of statements and is not involved in reasoning and logic.
Ex: All Panthers are Pink. Huey Newton is a panther. Therefore, Huey Newton is pink.
-Context, language, and who is owning the statement also help to make a statement valid or invalid.
The Egyptogram Experience:
This was a little weird for me because I am not one who likes word games and puzzles, and it's hard for my brain to work that way, thinking letters and syllables mean signs and signs mean sounds and letters or syllables, or sometimes a God or.... They have different rules than our language and use their "linguistic symbols to organize experience" a little differently than we do. But I thought this was a good activity to show us how we use apriori knowledge and/or reasoning with language and making meaning, and to open and challenge our brains to accept different ways of writing and reading language, so yes, I enjoyed it.
Notes 4-2-09
Rationalists: Those that believe Reason is the ideal way to achieve knowledge.
Empiricists: "Perception people"
Truth: What IS the case (i.e. property of statements) --> justification of truth: empiricism/perception, authority, reason (logic), language.
"This pen is blue." = deduction because general knowledge of what blue is is used to make this specific deduction.
Reason uses logic -> there is deductive and inductive reasoning
Logic: Does conclusion follow premise?
SYLLOGISMS... rationalists believe using syllogisms preserves truth, they do not CREATE truth!
Ex: All A's are B's; some A's are C's; therefore some B's are C's. -> valid conclusion (logical)
Ex: All A's are B's, all B's are C's, therefore all C's are A's. -> INvalid conclusion (illogical)
Kpelle story reflection:
I was kind of shocked when I read the story about the Kpelle tribe not being able to figure out simple syllogisms, because to us it seems so natural, and I don't usually have to think much about them, I mean, maybe the correct answer, but not HOW to determine it... However I knew from reading stories and books and stuff that non-western tribes often have very different thinking than us and don't perceive hypothetical situations the same as we do. So I don't really know what else to say about the story, it made me think about how we solve logical problems with reasoning and drawing conclusions from premises, and how context plays a role in that process and sometimes has to be "thrown out" to understand the meat or basic meaning of the syllogism within.
REASON
1. Apriori knowledge 2. Basic assumptions/premises
- We are not PURE empiricists, rather we use apriori knowledge, we make assumptions, and we infer from past experiences. We are rationalists!
-An assumption/premise has to be followed by a conclusion
-Rational knowledge is DEDUCTION (moving from a general claim to the specific conclusion), whereas induction leads from the specific to the general (i.e. empiric experiences lead to thoughts)
-Deductions are made from a syllogism, which must include 2 premises that lead to a conclusion, 3 terms that occur twice, and a quantifier (ex: 1. All dogs are mammals. 2. Fido is a dog. 3. Therefore, Fido is a mammal.)
-Logic is used to determine whether or not a syllogism is valid, not whether it is true! and just because something is valid, that does not mean it's also true! A statement may be logically valid without being true.
-Plato's version of Truth = public, independent, and eternal
-Truth is a property of statements and is not involved in reasoning and logic.
Ex: All Panthers are Pink. Huey Newton is a panther. Therefore, Huey Newton is pink.
-Context, language, and who is owning the statement also help to make a statement valid or invalid.
The Egyptogram Experience:
This was a little weird for me because I am not one who likes word games and puzzles, and it's hard for my brain to work that way, thinking letters and syllables mean signs and signs mean sounds and letters or syllables, or sometimes a God or.... They have different rules than our language and use their "linguistic symbols to organize experience" a little differently than we do. But I thought this was a good activity to show us how we use apriori knowledge and/or reasoning with language and making meaning, and to open and challenge our brains to accept different ways of writing and reading language, so yes, I enjoyed it.
Notes 4-2-09
Rationalists: Those that believe Reason is the ideal way to achieve knowledge.
Empiricists: "Perception people"
Truth: What IS the case (i.e. property of statements) --> justification of truth: empiricism/perception, authority, reason (logic), language.
"This pen is blue." = deduction because general knowledge of what blue is is used to make this specific deduction.
Reason uses logic -> there is deductive and inductive reasoning
Logic: Does conclusion follow premise?
SYLLOGISMS... rationalists believe using syllogisms preserves truth, they do not CREATE truth!
Ex: All A's are B's; some A's are C's; therefore some B's are C's. -> valid conclusion (logical)
Ex: All A's are B's, all B's are C's, therefore all C's are A's. -> INvalid conclusion (illogical)
Kpelle story reflection:
I was kind of shocked when I read the story about the Kpelle tribe not being able to figure out simple syllogisms, because to us it seems so natural, and I don't usually have to think much about them, I mean, maybe the correct answer, but not HOW to determine it... However I knew from reading stories and books and stuff that non-western tribes often have very different thinking than us and don't perceive hypothetical situations the same as we do. So I don't really know what else to say about the story, it made me think about how we solve logical problems with reasoning and drawing conclusions from premises, and how context plays a role in that process and sometimes has to be "thrown out" to understand the meat or basic meaning of the syllogism within.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Wild Child Assessment
BORN TO BE WILD (Wild Child version)
On all fours runnin'
come out of the forest
‘cause our knowledge is best.
This boy will communicate,
Doc. Itard will make it happen.
Give the glass to his love embrace
then lock him in the closet
and see Victor explode.
Use hot water and cold,
tuning forks and drum beats;
Victor will perceive.
Now Victor listen to my voice,
and Genie, say it with me now.
Speak the words in a love embrace,
try to be like one of us;
Education is all.
Like a true nature's child
They were born, born to be wild
They could climb so high,
If only they would try...
Born to be wild
Born to be wild
Since I am not much of an artist and really do not have the time or means to film a video this week, I decided to go with the changing of a song's lyrics, and I felt this song was pretty appropriate for the topic, but it turned out to be a bit hard to work with (the set up of things and the syllable counts etc.), so you'll have to forgive me for any awkwardness in the way things are worded or the way it is organized; I would love to write my own song about the Wild Child but I'm not much of a musician either. So for this "song" to be understood, one must think sort of in the abstract sense and understand that more is intended than can actually be said within the confinements of the song structure.
So the answer to the first question, "Why does Dr. Itard want Victor to speak?" is hinted at when the song says "'cause our knowledge is best" and "Speak the words in a love embrace, try to be like one of us; education is all." Dr. Itard was a behavioralist who believed "that man brings nothing with him, that education is all."(Genie, p.73) He was looking to - through training and teaching the Wild child to speak - prove his theory that people are like blank slates, and all language they learn is taught to them (contrary to Chomsky's theory described by Abel that man is born with language sort of inside him and he has only to learn the "vocabulary"). According to Abel, "There are few sharp boundaries between men and animals" and "Human language sets us apart" (Man Is The Measure p.230). In the case of the Wild Child, people barely viewed him as a person because he could not speak, he did not have that one essential element of humanity, so Dr. Itard wanted to change that and 'civilize' Victor so that he could fit into society and meanwhile prove Itard right and make him well-known for this great accomplishment.
The second question is also answered throughout the lyrics of the song, but not in a straightforward way. "Give the glass to his love embrace then lock him in the closet and see Victor explode" refers to Dr. Itard's method of teaching him both justice/reasoning of what is right and wrong, and emotion. In the film Wild Child we saw the Dr. reward Victor for doing well in his lessons, then after doing nothing wrong, Victor was locked in the closet like he had been bad. Victor reasoned that this was uncalled for and unjust, and hence got angry and kicked and screamed and refused to go in the closet; this was Dr. Itard's way of testing Victor's sense of reasoning, justice and emotion. He also used other methods like using a very harsh tone of voice and seeing Victor break down crying, or drawing pictures and words and matching them with objects to teach Victor reasoning, and also the fact that he would receive an object AFTER he asked for it with words, not before. To teach Victor perception he tried to enhance the sensitivity of his "normal" senses that civilized people used, like hearing more instead of sniffing everything and being able to tell the temperature of water and respond to it like normal humans do. To teach Victor language, Dr. Itard tried not only saying words and having Victor feel the vibration of his throat and repeating words/sounds in front of a candle to see the effect the words should make with the breath leaving the mouth, but he also tried having Victor do alphabet puzzles, match objects with their names, and spell our the word "LAIT" in wooden letters, and of course he spoke to/around Victor as much as possible.
On all fours runnin'
come out of the forest
‘cause our knowledge is best.
This boy will communicate,
Doc. Itard will make it happen.
Give the glass to his love embrace
then lock him in the closet
and see Victor explode.
Use hot water and cold,
tuning forks and drum beats;
Victor will perceive.
Now Victor listen to my voice,
and Genie, say it with me now.
Speak the words in a love embrace,
try to be like one of us;
Education is all.
Like a true nature's child
They were born, born to be wild
They could climb so high,
If only they would try...
Born to be wild
Born to be wild
Since I am not much of an artist and really do not have the time or means to film a video this week, I decided to go with the changing of a song's lyrics, and I felt this song was pretty appropriate for the topic, but it turned out to be a bit hard to work with (the set up of things and the syllable counts etc.), so you'll have to forgive me for any awkwardness in the way things are worded or the way it is organized; I would love to write my own song about the Wild Child but I'm not much of a musician either. So for this "song" to be understood, one must think sort of in the abstract sense and understand that more is intended than can actually be said within the confinements of the song structure.
So the answer to the first question, "Why does Dr. Itard want Victor to speak?" is hinted at when the song says "'cause our knowledge is best" and "Speak the words in a love embrace, try to be like one of us; education is all." Dr. Itard was a behavioralist who believed "that man brings nothing with him, that education is all."(Genie, p.73) He was looking to - through training and teaching the Wild child to speak - prove his theory that people are like blank slates, and all language they learn is taught to them (contrary to Chomsky's theory described by Abel that man is born with language sort of inside him and he has only to learn the "vocabulary"). According to Abel, "There are few sharp boundaries between men and animals" and "Human language sets us apart" (Man Is The Measure p.230). In the case of the Wild Child, people barely viewed him as a person because he could not speak, he did not have that one essential element of humanity, so Dr. Itard wanted to change that and 'civilize' Victor so that he could fit into society and meanwhile prove Itard right and make him well-known for this great accomplishment.
The second question is also answered throughout the lyrics of the song, but not in a straightforward way. "Give the glass to his love embrace then lock him in the closet and see Victor explode" refers to Dr. Itard's method of teaching him both justice/reasoning of what is right and wrong, and emotion. In the film Wild Child we saw the Dr. reward Victor for doing well in his lessons, then after doing nothing wrong, Victor was locked in the closet like he had been bad. Victor reasoned that this was uncalled for and unjust, and hence got angry and kicked and screamed and refused to go in the closet; this was Dr. Itard's way of testing Victor's sense of reasoning, justice and emotion. He also used other methods like using a very harsh tone of voice and seeing Victor break down crying, or drawing pictures and words and matching them with objects to teach Victor reasoning, and also the fact that he would receive an object AFTER he asked for it with words, not before. To teach Victor perception he tried to enhance the sensitivity of his "normal" senses that civilized people used, like hearing more instead of sniffing everything and being able to tell the temperature of water and respond to it like normal humans do. To teach Victor language, Dr. Itard tried not only saying words and having Victor feel the vibration of his throat and repeating words/sounds in front of a candle to see the effect the words should make with the breath leaving the mouth, but he also tried having Victor do alphabet puzzles, match objects with their names, and spell our the word "LAIT" in wooden letters, and of course he spoke to/around Victor as much as possible.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Genie #2
Please read the rest of the Genie packet Chapters 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 & 14 and answer the following questions.
1. What was so significant about Chomsky's argument?
Unlike all the other linguists who thought vocabulary was central to language and that the rules of language were all learned, Chomsky argued not only that SYNTAX, not vocabulary, was central to language, but that "we don't learn the inner rules of language... we're born with them."(p.28)
2. What do you make of Chomsky's bird argument on p. 36?
I think he's right in that children raised by birds obviously will not end up flying, because it's not in human nature and because humans cannot. However, after watching the video of the Wild Child who was still mostly crawling on four legs after living by himself for all those years (he didn't learn to walk even though according to Chomsky since it's in our nature we should be able to "learn" to walk ourselves), AND he could not speak, and did not improve with language very much even after months of having the chance to "fill in the vocabulary" from being in civilization with the doctor, etc.
3. Do you agree with Chomsky's claim about the island at the end of Chapter 7? Please explain your answer.
I think this is a hard question because I can imagine isolated children doing both A) developing their own "language" with grunts and different sounds that evolve into word-type forms, or B) staying how we picture cavemen, using solely grunts and other forms of communication (i.e. body language) to communicate, and never having heard or depended on language before, not experiencing the need for it.
4. In Chapter 10, why were Genie's observers pleased to see her hitting other children?
They were pleased because this showed that Genie was learning to turn her anger outward, instead of, during a frenzy, hurting herself and doing other activities to make noise to express her rage. Genie was upset because a new girl was wearing a hospital dress that Genie had worn, so this was probably pleasing to her observers because it also showed that she knew who she was/was aware of what was going on around her; Abel says "the episode was the first indication that genie was developing a sense of self."(p.49)
5. Describe how Genie's language was developing.
Slowly but surely Genie's vocabulary and language skills were improving; she was very curious and eager to know the names of things, but she seemed to understand more than she could produce. since she tested very well for intelligence and comprehension, but "her speech stayed limited to a few short utterances"(p.51). In May her progress was accelerated: her verbalizations became more frequent and "her vocabulary quest became more assertive"(51).
6. After reading Chapter 11, what are the primary differences between the reading and the film?
Whereas it was not shown in the movie, the reading mentions Dr. Itard's use of a Leyden jar on Victor, as well as a much higher level of affection and emotional connection between Dr. Itard and Victor than as displayed in the movie (Abel says "Victor sat before him fondly caressing and kissing the teacher's knees" on p.53 whereas in the movie that was never shown and Victor was seen having many temper tantrums etc.). The reading also divulges that Victor never learned to talk, but in the movie they left it up in the air to the interpretation of the viewers.
7. How did the film, Wild Child, impact the symposium members? What is meant by: "all of us saw in the movie what we were prepared to see to confirm to our own biases."?
The film shocked them and made them even more aware of moral concerns concerning Genie's case and experimenting on her for the sake of science while perhaps limiting her development, and arguably hence, the research itself.
By that quote, Shurley meant that the viewers were "seeing as" - that because their minds were already swayed one way before viewing the film, they perceived the information in the film as they wanted to perceive it; those who thought Genie's development and interests should come first probably noticed the "humanity" of the Wild Boy, his emotions, etc. and the other viewers probably noticed the important discoveries in psychology, linguistics, etc. that were made by experimenting with the Wild Boy and could be made with Genie...
8. What do you think of Dr. Elkind's quote on p. 59? How do you feel about Dr. Freedman's suggestion on p. 59-61
I think Elkind's quote holds some potential truth because if they place So much importance on speech, above Genie's other areas of development like social interactions and returning affection, she could turn out imbalanced... I also feel that Dr. Frredman's suggestion holds some weight; (almost) every child grows up with a mother or guardian to care for them and give them physical attention, which I have heard is greatly beneficial and even necessary for brain development, and that children in orphanages and similar situations suffer from lack of physical contact. Having a constant figure to give one attention and care and physical contact is an important factor in one's development from birth, and I think genie wold prosper from this and be able to advance in other aspects once reaping the emotional, mental, and physical benefits from this type of attention.
9. Why was it important for Itard to teach Victor to "imagine the needs of others (p. 73)"? Does CAS do this? Why or why not?
Imagining the needs of others is part of what any normal human needs to be able to do to function in human society. Other people will not always openly express their needs, and if one cannot imagine that others have specific needs, one will not be able to understand why their own needs are not being met, or why another person is acting a certain way, etc. Understanding and helping the needs of others is part of what makes us "human" and gives us purpose, draws humans together into a society, and more; Dr. Itard wanted to make sure Victor was capable of all this.
CAS does teach us to do this, or at least it does to me, because in Service activities one is called to imagine the needs of our world and the "global issues" we are supposed to be helping; if we cannot see that others have needs we will be viewed as selfish and self-centered, and will never help much in the world. When I went on the trip to Operation Smile I had to "imagine the needs" of the poor children and families there in the hospital, and bring them any supplies I could, and I believe that's part of what CAS tries to teach us.
10. After reading Chapter 14, do you agree that Truffaut's film ending was too optimistic?
I do agree, because I know I left the movie wondering whether Victor would progress and how far, and I was pretty sure that he would, since he HAD come back to the house, and since the doctor said "we shall resume lessons tomorrow", indicating that Victor's progress-making wouldn't be cut short for anything. But in reality, Victor made a little progress after that point but not much, and he never did learn how to speak. However, perhaps it was good the movie didn't show this because it may have discouraged scientists from trying to make more progress with Genie or other cases, and I think it's necessary and beneficial to keep trying, even if it doesn't seem like there will be a break through any time soon.
1. What was so significant about Chomsky's argument?
Unlike all the other linguists who thought vocabulary was central to language and that the rules of language were all learned, Chomsky argued not only that SYNTAX, not vocabulary, was central to language, but that "we don't learn the inner rules of language... we're born with them."(p.28)
2. What do you make of Chomsky's bird argument on p. 36?
I think he's right in that children raised by birds obviously will not end up flying, because it's not in human nature and because humans cannot. However, after watching the video of the Wild Child who was still mostly crawling on four legs after living by himself for all those years (he didn't learn to walk even though according to Chomsky since it's in our nature we should be able to "learn" to walk ourselves), AND he could not speak, and did not improve with language very much even after months of having the chance to "fill in the vocabulary" from being in civilization with the doctor, etc.
3. Do you agree with Chomsky's claim about the island at the end of Chapter 7? Please explain your answer.
I think this is a hard question because I can imagine isolated children doing both A) developing their own "language" with grunts and different sounds that evolve into word-type forms, or B) staying how we picture cavemen, using solely grunts and other forms of communication (i.e. body language) to communicate, and never having heard or depended on language before, not experiencing the need for it.
4. In Chapter 10, why were Genie's observers pleased to see her hitting other children?
They were pleased because this showed that Genie was learning to turn her anger outward, instead of, during a frenzy, hurting herself and doing other activities to make noise to express her rage. Genie was upset because a new girl was wearing a hospital dress that Genie had worn, so this was probably pleasing to her observers because it also showed that she knew who she was/was aware of what was going on around her; Abel says "the episode was the first indication that genie was developing a sense of self."(p.49)
5. Describe how Genie's language was developing.
Slowly but surely Genie's vocabulary and language skills were improving; she was very curious and eager to know the names of things, but she seemed to understand more than she could produce. since she tested very well for intelligence and comprehension, but "her speech stayed limited to a few short utterances"(p.51). In May her progress was accelerated: her verbalizations became more frequent and "her vocabulary quest became more assertive"(51).
6. After reading Chapter 11, what are the primary differences between the reading and the film?
Whereas it was not shown in the movie, the reading mentions Dr. Itard's use of a Leyden jar on Victor, as well as a much higher level of affection and emotional connection between Dr. Itard and Victor than as displayed in the movie (Abel says "Victor sat before him fondly caressing and kissing the teacher's knees" on p.53 whereas in the movie that was never shown and Victor was seen having many temper tantrums etc.). The reading also divulges that Victor never learned to talk, but in the movie they left it up in the air to the interpretation of the viewers.
7. How did the film, Wild Child, impact the symposium members? What is meant by: "all of us saw in the movie what we were prepared to see to confirm to our own biases."?
The film shocked them and made them even more aware of moral concerns concerning Genie's case and experimenting on her for the sake of science while perhaps limiting her development, and arguably hence, the research itself.
By that quote, Shurley meant that the viewers were "seeing as" - that because their minds were already swayed one way before viewing the film, they perceived the information in the film as they wanted to perceive it; those who thought Genie's development and interests should come first probably noticed the "humanity" of the Wild Boy, his emotions, etc. and the other viewers probably noticed the important discoveries in psychology, linguistics, etc. that were made by experimenting with the Wild Boy and could be made with Genie...
8. What do you think of Dr. Elkind's quote on p. 59? How do you feel about Dr. Freedman's suggestion on p. 59-61
I think Elkind's quote holds some potential truth because if they place So much importance on speech, above Genie's other areas of development like social interactions and returning affection, she could turn out imbalanced... I also feel that Dr. Frredman's suggestion holds some weight; (almost) every child grows up with a mother or guardian to care for them and give them physical attention, which I have heard is greatly beneficial and even necessary for brain development, and that children in orphanages and similar situations suffer from lack of physical contact. Having a constant figure to give one attention and care and physical contact is an important factor in one's development from birth, and I think genie wold prosper from this and be able to advance in other aspects once reaping the emotional, mental, and physical benefits from this type of attention.
9. Why was it important for Itard to teach Victor to "imagine the needs of others (p. 73)"? Does CAS do this? Why or why not?
Imagining the needs of others is part of what any normal human needs to be able to do to function in human society. Other people will not always openly express their needs, and if one cannot imagine that others have specific needs, one will not be able to understand why their own needs are not being met, or why another person is acting a certain way, etc. Understanding and helping the needs of others is part of what makes us "human" and gives us purpose, draws humans together into a society, and more; Dr. Itard wanted to make sure Victor was capable of all this.
CAS does teach us to do this, or at least it does to me, because in Service activities one is called to imagine the needs of our world and the "global issues" we are supposed to be helping; if we cannot see that others have needs we will be viewed as selfish and self-centered, and will never help much in the world. When I went on the trip to Operation Smile I had to "imagine the needs" of the poor children and families there in the hospital, and bring them any supplies I could, and I believe that's part of what CAS tries to teach us.
10. After reading Chapter 14, do you agree that Truffaut's film ending was too optimistic?
I do agree, because I know I left the movie wondering whether Victor would progress and how far, and I was pretty sure that he would, since he HAD come back to the house, and since the doctor said "we shall resume lessons tomorrow", indicating that Victor's progress-making wouldn't be cut short for anything. But in reality, Victor made a little progress after that point but not much, and he never did learn how to speak. However, perhaps it was good the movie didn't show this because it may have discouraged scientists from trying to make more progress with Genie or other cases, and I think it's necessary and beneficial to keep trying, even if it doesn't seem like there will be a break through any time soon.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Abel - The Functions of Language
1. The functions of language are cognitive ("language transmits information"), expressive ("when we attend to the words themselves and to their atmosphere"), and performatory ("they are themselves the sole instrument of the action").
2. Each boy in the story has a different interpretation of what the visitor wants him to describe, based solely on the finger pointing and the question "What is this?"
3. "The inscrutability of reference" is the inevitable confusion that comes from trying to get to definitions of language from pointing to things, etc. When someone is trying to learn a new definition, it is hard to know if they are seeing the right characteristics of the situation being referred to in defining it.
4. He means that words that are merely spoken and written down mean nothing, but when applied to a community that has a language and puts a meaning to each word, they mean much more and it is hard to make them mean something else when a meaning has already been assigned.
5. "An animal utters a fixed number of signals, each of which is associated with a specific behavior or situation" whereas humans learn and create language. It isn't restricted to communicating information. They can accommodate to new situations and create "an infinite number of new sentences."
6. Chomsky argues that everyone, regardless of the language spoken, knows certain language structures and thus they were not learned. These innate structures provide a basis for language learning, so every human has the ability to learn language.
7. Abel doesn't agree with Chomsky. He argues language universals don't exist, which is the basis for Chomsky's argument.
8. I don't think an infant with nobody around him and only a radio for a language source would learn to speak. He might be able to parrot things, like phrases that he heard often, but without human interactions to lend meaning to the words, the language would be nothing but sounds.
9. Since Abel says language is a learned skill, it is just another behavior that makes humans unique. Our language is partly instinctual and partly learned.
10. He is talking about the social norms that we all follow by a certain vague instinct. We can tell what is socially acceptable most of the time, but Abel says that we cannot fully express these pressures and feelings of what is "proper."
2. Each boy in the story has a different interpretation of what the visitor wants him to describe, based solely on the finger pointing and the question "What is this?"
3. "The inscrutability of reference" is the inevitable confusion that comes from trying to get to definitions of language from pointing to things, etc. When someone is trying to learn a new definition, it is hard to know if they are seeing the right characteristics of the situation being referred to in defining it.
4. He means that words that are merely spoken and written down mean nothing, but when applied to a community that has a language and puts a meaning to each word, they mean much more and it is hard to make them mean something else when a meaning has already been assigned.
5. "An animal utters a fixed number of signals, each of which is associated with a specific behavior or situation" whereas humans learn and create language. It isn't restricted to communicating information. They can accommodate to new situations and create "an infinite number of new sentences."
6. Chomsky argues that everyone, regardless of the language spoken, knows certain language structures and thus they were not learned. These innate structures provide a basis for language learning, so every human has the ability to learn language.
7. Abel doesn't agree with Chomsky. He argues language universals don't exist, which is the basis for Chomsky's argument.
8. I don't think an infant with nobody around him and only a radio for a language source would learn to speak. He might be able to parrot things, like phrases that he heard often, but without human interactions to lend meaning to the words, the language would be nothing but sounds.
9. Since Abel says language is a learned skill, it is just another behavior that makes humans unique. Our language is partly instinctual and partly learned.
10. He is talking about the social norms that we all follow by a certain vague instinct. We can tell what is socially acceptable most of the time, but Abel says that we cannot fully express these pressures and feelings of what is "proper."
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Genie
After your class has written the in-class essay, please read Chapters 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Genie. I apologize for the disturbing content, but the material is essential for our future discussion of Language. Once you have read these chapters, please answer the following questions and post them to your blog. The answers are due March 4.
1. What was Psamtik's experiment? What did he hope to learn? Did he?
Psamtik's experiment was to take 2 babies from their mothers at birth and place them in the isolation of a hut of a shepherd who would raise them without speaking to them, and then see what language the babies naturally began to speak, the "language of the world". This way Psamtik hoped to learn what the original language of the world was, but he didn't find out because the experiment didn't really work; the babies only said "bekos" which means bread in Phrygian, but all the other scientists since then brought out the problems with this experiment and its results, so clearly Psamtik did not truely find what he was looking for.
2. Rymer claims on pg. 5 that "while his experiment was flawed in fulfilling its declared intention...it embodied both the theological questions and the practical quandaries that still bedevil the discipline." Where did Abel hint at this same concept?
In his chapter and about naming, reference, and meaning, Abel talks about the need for science and metaphysics to make linguistic meaning... But I'm not sure what the connection is or if this is the right one :( I don't really get this question...
3. Why do Linguistics and Astronomy "constitute an unlikely sisterhood"?
Rymer explains that "they are both often constrained to be more observational than experimental-astronomy because its subjects are too distant to be experimented on, linguistics because its subjects are too human." (5-6) In other words, the sciences are similar in that it is hard to experiment and thus test theories on their subjects.
4. Why was the Social Worker concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother?
The worker was concerned because the girl looked in terrible health; she had a "halting gait" and was "unnaturally stooped, hands help up as though resting on an invisible rail." Genie's malnutrition was also showing as she was very skinny and pale, etc., not anything like a normal healthy child. At first the social worker thought Genie had autism, but with more investigation their concerns for the child deepened.
5. Consider the history of Linguistics outlined in Chapter 5. Please explain how the study of language grew from the religious to the biological and finally to the psychological.
Language started out as being supposed to come from God like everything else, then after Descartes proposed the independence of the soul from the body and the mind from the brain, there was a way for science to get in there and explore linguistics without heresy, and then Epicurus felt that language was something of nature, so then biologists started researching the brain and its language... The questions then formed by linguists concerning the relationship of language to man turned into psychology.
1. What was Psamtik's experiment? What did he hope to learn? Did he?
Psamtik's experiment was to take 2 babies from their mothers at birth and place them in the isolation of a hut of a shepherd who would raise them without speaking to them, and then see what language the babies naturally began to speak, the "language of the world". This way Psamtik hoped to learn what the original language of the world was, but he didn't find out because the experiment didn't really work; the babies only said "bekos" which means bread in Phrygian, but all the other scientists since then brought out the problems with this experiment and its results, so clearly Psamtik did not truely find what he was looking for.
2. Rymer claims on pg. 5 that "while his experiment was flawed in fulfilling its declared intention...it embodied both the theological questions and the practical quandaries that still bedevil the discipline." Where did Abel hint at this same concept?
In his chapter and about naming, reference, and meaning, Abel talks about the need for science and metaphysics to make linguistic meaning... But I'm not sure what the connection is or if this is the right one :( I don't really get this question...
3. Why do Linguistics and Astronomy "constitute an unlikely sisterhood"?
Rymer explains that "they are both often constrained to be more observational than experimental-astronomy because its subjects are too distant to be experimented on, linguistics because its subjects are too human." (5-6) In other words, the sciences are similar in that it is hard to experiment and thus test theories on their subjects.
4. Why was the Social Worker concerned about the young girl that came to her Welfare Office with her mother?
The worker was concerned because the girl looked in terrible health; she had a "halting gait" and was "unnaturally stooped, hands help up as though resting on an invisible rail." Genie's malnutrition was also showing as she was very skinny and pale, etc., not anything like a normal healthy child. At first the social worker thought Genie had autism, but with more investigation their concerns for the child deepened.
5. Consider the history of Linguistics outlined in Chapter 5. Please explain how the study of language grew from the religious to the biological and finally to the psychological.
Language started out as being supposed to come from God like everything else, then after Descartes proposed the independence of the soul from the body and the mind from the brain, there was a way for science to get in there and explore linguistics without heresy, and then Epicurus felt that language was something of nature, so then biologists started researching the brain and its language... The questions then formed by linguists concerning the relationship of language to man turned into psychology.
Through Deaf Eyes & Abel In Class Essay
Using the PBS documentary "Through Deaf Eyes" and chapters 7 and 19 of Abel's book Man Is the Measure, specifically Abel's ideas of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, sense, and reference, I will discuss the extent to which the use of Oralism and Sign Language impact the deaf view of reality. One could ask if there is such a thing as reality - since everyone seems to have a different paradigm of the world and a different perspective/opinion of what happens, how do we know which one is correct, which one is the "reality"? One could also ask how I, a hearing person, could attempt to account for how deaf people view reality, but based on what we saw in the film and my general knowledge of deaf people and sign language, I shall attempt to answer this question.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that how we use language affects our perception of the world applies to deaf culture because some people argue that people who only know how to use sign language or who can't hear can't do as much and can't live normal lives, but the deaf people featured in "Through Deaf Eyes" say that they have perfectly functioning and normal lives and can do pretty much as much as a hearing person. One man in the video says that hearing and speaking are not the keys to the universe or to success, the key is knowledge, and reading in order to soak up all that knowledge. He could have this perspective because of his using sign language; because he does not hear and speak but can read and communicate using hand signs, he is of the opinion that hearing and speaking is not what matters, it is simply knowledge, which he obviously feels he can attain through reading and signing only. Another part of Deaf Culture is the will to communicate despite obstacles, and the independence they seem to feel they have from not relying on sounds, which hearing people do not have from their use of hearing and oralism; communication we tend to take for granted, and we rely on sounds much more than we realize. Also, because in sign language one talks with their hands, displaying visual signs to communicate with another viewer, perhaps deaf people using sign language see things more visually and focus on recreating images in life to communicate with others rather than making sounds to refer to images like hearers do. So in the respect of deaf people perceiving the world and humanity and what it takes to thrive differently than hearers do because of their use of sign language and not hearing and oralism, sign language can apparently change thinking a little, but how does it facilitate, extend, direct, or limit thinking?
Relating back to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and how using a certain language changes perspective, oralism and sign language both direct thinking in different ways because oralism trains a person to rely on sounds and repeating taught vocal sounds which are given meaning, whereas, while similar in that not all signs are obviously representative of a larger action or real object and signs have to be taught and given meaning, sign language trains one to use their hands and eyes and visuals, and to read the signs and/or lips of another person. Each "language" in some ways limits speakers to using one medium - either sound or sight and relying on that for communication, although sometimes we accompany speech with hand gestures and read people's faces to sense feeling and expression, etc. Sign language facilitates a more visual train of thoughts and portrayals where many signs are closer to the real idea or action than a sound we make come out of our throat (for example, the word "walk" vs. the hand sign with the fingers 'walking' across the palm). Oralism facilitates, I think, more varied ways of expressing oneself because one can use voice intonation and inflection to convey emotion, and oralism can accompany the other "languages" we normally use with facial expressions and body language, etc. The creation of sign language itself, since speech existed before, was a great extension to thinking because so many people who couldn't hear wouldn't have been able to understand and communicate as well as those who could speak. Another way sign language seems to extend thinking, according to what we saw in the documentary Through Deaf Eyes and what the deaf people in the video said, is that users of this "language" think more optimistically, not of what they and others can't do, but what they can do, all their abilities and strengths. But while these languages can affect ways of thinking for users, their effect on what the deaf people KNOW is not as evident.
The knowledge by practice of deaf people who use signing is different from that of hearers or other users of oralism because they have been practicing or repeating different things (signing vs. speaking) and thus their "know-HOW"s (pieces of personal knowledge) are different, but their "know-THAT"s or impersonal knowledge is not different simply because of their use of either sign language or oralism to communicate. As far as the knowledge that deaf people have being EXPRESSED differently in each "language", I think that is a given; what people know is expressed differently in French than it is in English, and differently in sign language than in speech of any oral language. And while I do not think each language provides a different framework of reality, I do think each provides a different presentation of reality; a deaf user of sign language and a hearing (or deaf) user of oralism both see someone running down the street, and they don't view it as different events happening, they just express the idea of the reality (a person running) in either speech or in hand signs. This is the way languages work, reality is presented/communicated to others in more of one way to another but ultimately the humans usually perceive the same basic reality. I think this also applies when dealing with sense and reference.
Abel explains sense as sort of the real meaning of the word, what it's value or definition is almost, whereas reference is a more specific designation of that meaning, like an example you could point to. The deaf might use signing as a sort of "sense" of what they think is going on, but in order to connect with other users of oralism they would need to use oralism like humans use reference in order to specify; to a an oralist a sign may not mean much, so they have to use a word for the other person to grasp its meaning. Abel's quote on page 68, "Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” shows that deaf users of sign language don't need oral words to understand meaning because meaning is not identical to words, nor is it identical signs, meaning is just communicated through whatever human action holds meaning because it has been ordained so by the speech community, whether that be a sign symbol or a linguistic symbol or any meaningful symbol known between communicators. We hearers use "linguistic symbols to organize experience” (p. 69), but deaf people use sign symbols to organize experience. Essentially these languages are the same (in function and result).
What I have been claiming - that oralism and sign use different approaches to expressing thoughts and may even guide thoughts in a general pattern, but are essentially both languages to communicate the same reality of humans - implies that hearers and other users of oralism who look down on users of sign and vice versa are making a mistake; it is not two different groups of people that, because they communicate using different forms of "speech", view reality totally different. We are all humans developing and using symbols of whatever kind we may to organize the same experience. My claims would also imply that I know about using sign language versus oralism when in fact I do not know a whole lot about it, so a counter-claim might be that people who really use sign language do view reality through "deaf eyes" and because they cannot hear or speak they are missing both a chunk of reality and experiences that are happening all around them (noises), and an aspect of human interaction that is meant to occur (speech). One could use both oralism and sign language and still not know the answer to this question, how our view of reality is affected by our language, because there will always be many other factors impacting our view of reality and clouding our view, and inevitably, we cannot get away from ourselves and how we see things as an individual human.
Through looking at Abel's ideas of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and sense and reference, and the views expressed by the deaf people in "Through Deaf Eyes" we see that the use of oralism or sign language can slightly affect a deaf person's view of reality, but it more affects the way they present the reality in communication than what they understand or know. The core of both sign language and oralism is using designated symbols to refer to pieces of reality, and after all, both the signer and the oralist see the same thing with their eyes, which are still the same.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that how we use language affects our perception of the world applies to deaf culture because some people argue that people who only know how to use sign language or who can't hear can't do as much and can't live normal lives, but the deaf people featured in "Through Deaf Eyes" say that they have perfectly functioning and normal lives and can do pretty much as much as a hearing person. One man in the video says that hearing and speaking are not the keys to the universe or to success, the key is knowledge, and reading in order to soak up all that knowledge. He could have this perspective because of his using sign language; because he does not hear and speak but can read and communicate using hand signs, he is of the opinion that hearing and speaking is not what matters, it is simply knowledge, which he obviously feels he can attain through reading and signing only. Another part of Deaf Culture is the will to communicate despite obstacles, and the independence they seem to feel they have from not relying on sounds, which hearing people do not have from their use of hearing and oralism; communication we tend to take for granted, and we rely on sounds much more than we realize. Also, because in sign language one talks with their hands, displaying visual signs to communicate with another viewer, perhaps deaf people using sign language see things more visually and focus on recreating images in life to communicate with others rather than making sounds to refer to images like hearers do. So in the respect of deaf people perceiving the world and humanity and what it takes to thrive differently than hearers do because of their use of sign language and not hearing and oralism, sign language can apparently change thinking a little, but how does it facilitate, extend, direct, or limit thinking?
Relating back to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and how using a certain language changes perspective, oralism and sign language both direct thinking in different ways because oralism trains a person to rely on sounds and repeating taught vocal sounds which are given meaning, whereas, while similar in that not all signs are obviously representative of a larger action or real object and signs have to be taught and given meaning, sign language trains one to use their hands and eyes and visuals, and to read the signs and/or lips of another person. Each "language" in some ways limits speakers to using one medium - either sound or sight and relying on that for communication, although sometimes we accompany speech with hand gestures and read people's faces to sense feeling and expression, etc. Sign language facilitates a more visual train of thoughts and portrayals where many signs are closer to the real idea or action than a sound we make come out of our throat (for example, the word "walk" vs. the hand sign with the fingers 'walking' across the palm). Oralism facilitates, I think, more varied ways of expressing oneself because one can use voice intonation and inflection to convey emotion, and oralism can accompany the other "languages" we normally use with facial expressions and body language, etc. The creation of sign language itself, since speech existed before, was a great extension to thinking because so many people who couldn't hear wouldn't have been able to understand and communicate as well as those who could speak. Another way sign language seems to extend thinking, according to what we saw in the documentary Through Deaf Eyes and what the deaf people in the video said, is that users of this "language" think more optimistically, not of what they and others can't do, but what they can do, all their abilities and strengths. But while these languages can affect ways of thinking for users, their effect on what the deaf people KNOW is not as evident.
The knowledge by practice of deaf people who use signing is different from that of hearers or other users of oralism because they have been practicing or repeating different things (signing vs. speaking) and thus their "know-HOW"s (pieces of personal knowledge) are different, but their "know-THAT"s or impersonal knowledge is not different simply because of their use of either sign language or oralism to communicate. As far as the knowledge that deaf people have being EXPRESSED differently in each "language", I think that is a given; what people know is expressed differently in French than it is in English, and differently in sign language than in speech of any oral language. And while I do not think each language provides a different framework of reality, I do think each provides a different presentation of reality; a deaf user of sign language and a hearing (or deaf) user of oralism both see someone running down the street, and they don't view it as different events happening, they just express the idea of the reality (a person running) in either speech or in hand signs. This is the way languages work, reality is presented/communicated to others in more of one way to another but ultimately the humans usually perceive the same basic reality. I think this also applies when dealing with sense and reference.
Abel explains sense as sort of the real meaning of the word, what it's value or definition is almost, whereas reference is a more specific designation of that meaning, like an example you could point to. The deaf might use signing as a sort of "sense" of what they think is going on, but in order to connect with other users of oralism they would need to use oralism like humans use reference in order to specify; to a an oralist a sign may not mean much, so they have to use a word for the other person to grasp its meaning. Abel's quote on page 68, "Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” shows that deaf users of sign language don't need oral words to understand meaning because meaning is not identical to words, nor is it identical signs, meaning is just communicated through whatever human action holds meaning because it has been ordained so by the speech community, whether that be a sign symbol or a linguistic symbol or any meaningful symbol known between communicators. We hearers use "linguistic symbols to organize experience” (p. 69), but deaf people use sign symbols to organize experience. Essentially these languages are the same (in function and result).
What I have been claiming - that oralism and sign use different approaches to expressing thoughts and may even guide thoughts in a general pattern, but are essentially both languages to communicate the same reality of humans - implies that hearers and other users of oralism who look down on users of sign and vice versa are making a mistake; it is not two different groups of people that, because they communicate using different forms of "speech", view reality totally different. We are all humans developing and using symbols of whatever kind we may to organize the same experience. My claims would also imply that I know about using sign language versus oralism when in fact I do not know a whole lot about it, so a counter-claim might be that people who really use sign language do view reality through "deaf eyes" and because they cannot hear or speak they are missing both a chunk of reality and experiences that are happening all around them (noises), and an aspect of human interaction that is meant to occur (speech). One could use both oralism and sign language and still not know the answer to this question, how our view of reality is affected by our language, because there will always be many other factors impacting our view of reality and clouding our view, and inevitably, we cannot get away from ourselves and how we see things as an individual human.
Through looking at Abel's ideas of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and sense and reference, and the views expressed by the deaf people in "Through Deaf Eyes" we see that the use of oralism or sign language can slightly affect a deaf person's view of reality, but it more affects the way they present the reality in communication than what they understand or know. The core of both sign language and oralism is using designated symbols to refer to pieces of reality, and after all, both the signer and the oralist see the same thing with their eyes, which are still the same.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Eyak Language
Eyak Language
Please Listen to the NPR stories entitled: Eyak Language & The Sound of Vanishing Languages. How far should we go to preserve a dying language? In your answer, please consider the following questions:
a) What are the arguments on both sides of the debate in promoting a single language?
The benefits of having a single language would be easier communication between businesses/companies, tourists and locals, and leaders and diplomats, which would probably produce more international unity because nations could understand each other better and there would be less of a cultural barrier; at least everyone would have the language in common. A single language would also save time and money not having to hire translators and announce public announcements in several languages, and paper and ink would be saved not having to print labels and instruction manuals in multiple languages. Second Language programs in school would not be necessary, and taxpayers would have less teachers' salaries to pay.
The problems with achieving a single world-wide spoken language would be finding enough teachers, money, and enforcement to teach 6 billion people a language. It would require sooo many English teachers, who could also speak the language of their students (since immersion doesn't really work and some words can only be understood by knowing the connection to the word the learner IS familiar with), and that would cost a lot of money. We would also need some sort of enforcement, since many people would be attached to their languages, would not want to learn ours, and would feel that they were being forced to give up part of their identity as a nation, a people, and as a person. The negative effects of a single language would be less linguistic and intellectual diversity and creativity, and a loss of perspective and information about how different nationalities of humans view the world (through studying different languages and their structures, etc.). Also, translators would be out of a job, and military operations would have less options for coding messages; they couldn't simply use another language that the enemies would have a hard time getting their hands on (but, as someone pointed out in class, nowadays they could just develop their own computer language).
b) How far should we go to save a dying language? What are the financial and cultural implications?
While I think saving a dying language is useful for learning more about that culture, I think that it is too much work for too little outcome. It would have good cultural implications if we saved it, because it would be saving a huge part of many cultures and "identities", but is that really necessary? There are obviously not too many people speaking a language if it is dying, so I don't think too many people would be affected or upset if it were allowed to die, and the money and time it would take to record the whole language and put it in taught classes or something to keep it alive just would not be worth it... There are hundreds of languages dying all the time, and trying to keep them all alive would have huge negative financial implications, spending all that money on old languages when it could be used to save dying PEOPLE. So I think we should just have people who are interested in "saving" a dying language do some research and do a basic recording of the language, and if there are any really useful or untranslatable words in their language, we could maybe add them to English and just expand the one world-wide language.
c) After reading: “Every Teacher is a Language Teacher,” what do think of the I.B. supporting International Mother Language Day?
Since changing the world to a single-language world is obviously not happening right now, and the kids at this school (and other schools all over the world) still have and speak their own languages, I think it's good that the school does recognize and celebrate that fact. As the article says, knowing 2 languages and cultures helps people compare the 2, make distinctions between the 2, and appreciate each more. I think it's good that these children stay connected with their families and heritages, and that each can share their language with other students so that they can all learn from each other. Mother Language Day celebrates diversity and different perspectives, styles, and cultures, and I think that is important in the IB curriculum, since it is an INTERNATIONAL program, and it tries to promote different perspectives and historiography, etc.
Please Listen to the NPR stories entitled: Eyak Language & The Sound of Vanishing Languages. How far should we go to preserve a dying language? In your answer, please consider the following questions:
a) What are the arguments on both sides of the debate in promoting a single language?
The benefits of having a single language would be easier communication between businesses/companies, tourists and locals, and leaders and diplomats, which would probably produce more international unity because nations could understand each other better and there would be less of a cultural barrier; at least everyone would have the language in common. A single language would also save time and money not having to hire translators and announce public announcements in several languages, and paper and ink would be saved not having to print labels and instruction manuals in multiple languages. Second Language programs in school would not be necessary, and taxpayers would have less teachers' salaries to pay.
The problems with achieving a single world-wide spoken language would be finding enough teachers, money, and enforcement to teach 6 billion people a language. It would require sooo many English teachers, who could also speak the language of their students (since immersion doesn't really work and some words can only be understood by knowing the connection to the word the learner IS familiar with), and that would cost a lot of money. We would also need some sort of enforcement, since many people would be attached to their languages, would not want to learn ours, and would feel that they were being forced to give up part of their identity as a nation, a people, and as a person. The negative effects of a single language would be less linguistic and intellectual diversity and creativity, and a loss of perspective and information about how different nationalities of humans view the world (through studying different languages and their structures, etc.). Also, translators would be out of a job, and military operations would have less options for coding messages; they couldn't simply use another language that the enemies would have a hard time getting their hands on (but, as someone pointed out in class, nowadays they could just develop their own computer language).
b) How far should we go to save a dying language? What are the financial and cultural implications?
While I think saving a dying language is useful for learning more about that culture, I think that it is too much work for too little outcome. It would have good cultural implications if we saved it, because it would be saving a huge part of many cultures and "identities", but is that really necessary? There are obviously not too many people speaking a language if it is dying, so I don't think too many people would be affected or upset if it were allowed to die, and the money and time it would take to record the whole language and put it in taught classes or something to keep it alive just would not be worth it... There are hundreds of languages dying all the time, and trying to keep them all alive would have huge negative financial implications, spending all that money on old languages when it could be used to save dying PEOPLE. So I think we should just have people who are interested in "saving" a dying language do some research and do a basic recording of the language, and if there are any really useful or untranslatable words in their language, we could maybe add them to English and just expand the one world-wide language.
c) After reading: “Every Teacher is a Language Teacher,” what do think of the I.B. supporting International Mother Language Day?
Since changing the world to a single-language world is obviously not happening right now, and the kids at this school (and other schools all over the world) still have and speak their own languages, I think it's good that the school does recognize and celebrate that fact. As the article says, knowing 2 languages and cultures helps people compare the 2, make distinctions between the 2, and appreciate each more. I think it's good that these children stay connected with their families and heritages, and that each can share their language with other students so that they can all learn from each other. Mother Language Day celebrates diversity and different perspectives, styles, and cultures, and I think that is important in the IB curriculum, since it is an INTERNATIONAL program, and it tries to promote different perspectives and historiography, etc.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Earth vs. Eyeth
Please read Radicalism in Deaf in the Culture under Language Articles on my blog. Then, answer the following questions.
a) What is the primary argument of the students representing Deaf Culture?
The argument of the students representing Deaf culture is that deafness is not a disability but is "an oppressed minority status akin to race, and also as a unique linguistic culture. " They believe that society treats deaf people wrong, like disabled people, when really they have much to offer and should be educated so that they can communicate effectively.
b) Why would the Deaf Culture students value a President of Gallaudet who spends more time in Eyeth over Earth? Shouldn't a President of a college represent all students?
The Deaf culture students would value a president who spends more time in Eyeth (is more deaf) because that president would better understand Deaf culture since they are forced to use it and become it more than a person who spends more time on Earth and might view the deaf students differently (subconsciously thinking of the students as more disabled, less fortunate, etc.) The students of Deaf culture would probably also feel that a more Eyeth member would be a better symbol for the deaf school, and a show of how deaf people can function just as well as hearing people in positions of power/responsibility.
It is pretty much impossible to represent ALL students or all members of any group, because each individual is different, but I do think that a president should represent the majority of the students (or else most of the school will be unhappy). However, I think just because the president may spend a little more time in Earth than Eyeth (i.e. Fernandes) compared with the students, that does not mean he/she cannot represent them. As long as they still have the same interests and understand what it is like to be deaf and the hardships/abilities one encounters as a deaf person, I think they can represent the students if lines of communication remain open between president and students.
c) What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Deaf person spending too much time in either Eyeth or Earth?
Spending more time in either world will make the person more able or more equipped to communicate with other people in that world, and maybe not quite as easy to communicate with people in the OTHER world (i.e. a deaf person living in Eyeth will probably be able to communicate with/understand other Eyeth members more easily than with an earth member.) I think it would be better to spend some time in both 'worlds' (if possible) because then you would get both perspectives and experiences and be able to communicate with a larger number of people, rather than if you spend too much time in either 'world'. When time is spent in Eyeth, the other senses can be more developed to make up for hearing (i.e. more acute vision), but time spent in Eyeth can also be more dangerous if you cannot see a car coming up behind you or something.
d) What is your opinion of the fight at Galludet? Should Jane K. Fernandes be President of Gallaudet?
I think they are making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be; if noone can determine any specific problems with Fernandes, and the only real problem is that she is not "deaf enough", I think she should be allowed to take presidency if there is not someone clearly more enabled for the job than her. She is still DEAF and can relate to the students, and she does know sign language, she just also knows how to speak and lipread, which I think would be good for the deaf students because it really is helpful in the real world. To be practical, most hearers do not know sign language, and if the deaf culture/community wanted to be respected and viewed as an equal, non-disabled group, I think they would have more luck if they, or at least their leaders, could effectively communicate with the outside world in more ways than one (sign language can be used too, but speaking and lipreading won't hurt to have in the cart).
a) What is the primary argument of the students representing Deaf Culture?
The argument of the students representing Deaf culture is that deafness is not a disability but is "an oppressed minority status akin to race, and also as a unique linguistic culture. " They believe that society treats deaf people wrong, like disabled people, when really they have much to offer and should be educated so that they can communicate effectively.
b) Why would the Deaf Culture students value a President of Gallaudet who spends more time in Eyeth over Earth? Shouldn't a President of a college represent all students?
The Deaf culture students would value a president who spends more time in Eyeth (is more deaf) because that president would better understand Deaf culture since they are forced to use it and become it more than a person who spends more time on Earth and might view the deaf students differently (subconsciously thinking of the students as more disabled, less fortunate, etc.) The students of Deaf culture would probably also feel that a more Eyeth member would be a better symbol for the deaf school, and a show of how deaf people can function just as well as hearing people in positions of power/responsibility.
It is pretty much impossible to represent ALL students or all members of any group, because each individual is different, but I do think that a president should represent the majority of the students (or else most of the school will be unhappy). However, I think just because the president may spend a little more time in Earth than Eyeth (i.e. Fernandes) compared with the students, that does not mean he/she cannot represent them. As long as they still have the same interests and understand what it is like to be deaf and the hardships/abilities one encounters as a deaf person, I think they can represent the students if lines of communication remain open between president and students.
c) What are the advantages and disadvantages of a Deaf person spending too much time in either Eyeth or Earth?
Spending more time in either world will make the person more able or more equipped to communicate with other people in that world, and maybe not quite as easy to communicate with people in the OTHER world (i.e. a deaf person living in Eyeth will probably be able to communicate with/understand other Eyeth members more easily than with an earth member.) I think it would be better to spend some time in both 'worlds' (if possible) because then you would get both perspectives and experiences and be able to communicate with a larger number of people, rather than if you spend too much time in either 'world'. When time is spent in Eyeth, the other senses can be more developed to make up for hearing (i.e. more acute vision), but time spent in Eyeth can also be more dangerous if you cannot see a car coming up behind you or something.
d) What is your opinion of the fight at Galludet? Should Jane K. Fernandes be President of Gallaudet?
I think they are making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be; if noone can determine any specific problems with Fernandes, and the only real problem is that she is not "deaf enough", I think she should be allowed to take presidency if there is not someone clearly more enabled for the job than her. She is still DEAF and can relate to the students, and she does know sign language, she just also knows how to speak and lipread, which I think would be good for the deaf students because it really is helpful in the real world. To be practical, most hearers do not know sign language, and if the deaf culture/community wanted to be respected and viewed as an equal, non-disabled group, I think they would have more luck if they, or at least their leaders, could effectively communicate with the outside world in more ways than one (sign language can be used too, but speaking and lipreading won't hurt to have in the cart).
Monday, January 26, 2009
Linguistic Apartheid (Gaelic in the Irish community)
LAW TO KEEP OUT NON-IRISH SPEAKERS:
-Communication with neighbors
-preservation of language and culture (tradition would be lost?)
-preservation of history (oldest vernacular language in Europe)
"We were here first" (invasion)
"We would lose 'emotion' connected with our language if we lose our language"
-cultural exchanges aren't always positive!
--Implications: historical, cultural, and nationalistic
LET NEW PEOPLE MOVE IN (WHETHER IRISH-SPEAKING OR NOT):
-New people and ideas :)
-boosts economy
-all people should have same rites
-Discrimination
-"EU won't respect us"
-Haven't the Irish been trying to promote Catholic/Irish RITES for decades??
-Preserving culture shouldn't be forced by GOV'T! It's parents' responsibility to teach their kids
-Language does not equal culture ("we can still eat, drink, play, etc 'Irish'")
-Isolated and backward? Would businesses want to move here?
-wouldn't the population be restricted to a certain gene pool that would run out of non-relatives??
--Implications: human rites, economic/financial, genetic
-Communication with neighbors
-preservation of language and culture (tradition would be lost?)
-preservation of history (oldest vernacular language in Europe)
"We were here first" (invasion)
"We would lose 'emotion' connected with our language if we lose our language"
-cultural exchanges aren't always positive!
--Implications: historical, cultural, and nationalistic
LET NEW PEOPLE MOVE IN (WHETHER IRISH-SPEAKING OR NOT):
-New people and ideas :)
-boosts economy
-all people should have same rites
-Discrimination
-"EU won't respect us"
-Haven't the Irish been trying to promote Catholic/Irish RITES for decades??
-Preserving culture shouldn't be forced by GOV'T! It's parents' responsibility to teach their kids
-Language does not equal culture ("we can still eat, drink, play, etc 'Irish'")
-Isolated and backward? Would businesses want to move here?
-wouldn't the population be restricted to a certain gene pool that would run out of non-relatives??
--Implications: human rites, economic/financial, genetic
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Abel ch. 7 questions
Abel: Man is the Measure
Ch. 7: Meaning & Naming
1. How do Mill and Frege disagree with Russell about grammatical sentences and meaning?
Mill and Frege think that "the meaning of a sentence ought to depend only on the meaning of the words that constitute it"(64) whereas Russell thinks that there can be grammatical/"meaningful" sentences without meaning.
2. Abel provides 8 distinguishing features of meaning. Please provide your own example for each.
1. Indication: "Your fever means you have the flu."
2. Cause: "What does this bite out of the cake mean?"
3. Effect: "This means no dessert for you!"
4. Intention: "I meant to show you how much I love you."
5. Explanation: "What does the song mean when it says 'I am a walrus'?"
6. Purpose: "She meant to capture his attention when she dropped her pencil."
7. Implication: "If I get a C, that means I can't go the game tomorrow."
8. Significance: "Did her apology even mean anything?"
3. Why does Abel believe that science and metaphysics is involved in the discussion of linguistic meaning?
He says that not only language and logic are needed for decision, but science and metaphysics also because "We can talk meaningfully about the world only if we take into account what the world is like"(65) because certain sentences, even though grammatically correct (noun, verb, object or whatever rules apply) don't make sense or have no real meaning to our brains because they do not correspond with the way the world really is; Abel uses the example of saying that the clam, the flower, or the rock have hopes for a life after death is meaningless to us vs. a Priest having hopes for the afterlife, since that follows the rules of science (humans can think and hope, but not a rock).
4. Aristotle provided 10 categories that defined “the range of applicability of a term.”(p. 65). Please provide your own example for each.
1. Substance: "My mother is a woman."
2. Quantity: "She is 5'2"."
3. Quality: "She is very kind."
4. Relation: "She is the daughter of Alice."
5. Place: "She is in her room."
6. Action: "She is there at 5:00."
7. Action: "She is typing."
8. Passion: "She is being summoned."
9. Situation or Position: "She is sitting down in the chair."
10. State or Condition: "She is thirsty."
5. How does Abel differentiate between Reference and Naming?
Abel says "Reference is how language bites on to the world" whereas "Naming is the direct application of a word to a thing."(66). Abel says "nothing stands between a thing and its name"(67); naming is the most elementary way in which to refer, and cannot be reduced to, or explained by, a simpler activity. Reference is less specific and is "what the words point to, or designate"(67).
6. On page 66, Abel explains the historical significance of naming. Can you think of any examples he left out? Is there any contemporary example of which Abel would not be aware?
Besides the biblical renaming of Abraham and Sarah by God, and the general tendency of humans to leave out a name when trying to make another human/pet, etc. seem cruel or worthless ("the dumb DOG" instead of "stupid Sam"), I can't really think of anymore examples. A more modern example would be when Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with THAT WOMAN", trying to separate himself from her by leaving her nameless.
7. What is the main function of naming? What doesn’t it do?
The main function of naming is to point something out without describing it; Abel says on p. 67: "A name identifies; it is a tag...; it does not describe."
8. What is the difference between sense and reference?
Reference is more of a targeted meaning, "what the words point to or designate"... there has to be something to point to, which is why the description "the heavenly body farthest from the earth", which we do not KNOW, has no known reference but has sense (which always has the same meaning, but not really; i.e. "I, here" which we KNOW what they mean, the "meaning" just varies depending on the speaker...)
9. How does Abel differentiate between Connotation and Denotation? What about Intension and Extension?
Abel describes Connotation as what anything would have to be to be that word/thing (i.e. "bachelor"= adult unmarried man) whereas Denotation is "all the actual persons you can so designate" (i.e. Jim down the street). Abel differentiates between Intension and Extension in a similar way; He defines Intension as the definition or "what you have in mind" by the term, whereas the Extension "is all the actual bachelors in the world."(68)
10. What does Abel mean when he says: “Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” (p. 68)?
He means that even though we usually need to SAY something (at least when talking about language) to get meaning across, and what we say does communicate meaning, what we mean might not be the exact same as what we say (based on the way we say it, the way our sentences are structured, our word choice, etc.) or our words can communicate more/less than what we intended with our words.
11. What is the connection between names and descriptions? Do you agree with Abel that we use ‘linguistic symbols to organize experience” (p. 69)?
Abel says on p. 69: "Naming and describing may overlap when one uses a name as a description... or a description as a name." We can use certain known people's names to describe another person such as "another Stalin" or "another Hitler", and we can sometimes use descriptions as names such as "King of kings" etc.
I do agree with Abel that we use "linguistic symbols to organize experience" because when we experience something in life, we like to be able to organize it in our minds and others' with words, to communicate it with a linguistic symbol which on its own has no real meaning and is just marks on a paper, but when combined with the connotation of the human experience (which could also be seen as meaningless until given a name/'linguistic symbol'), is something meaningful that we and other humans can comprehend.
12. Why is referential opacity a problem? Be sure to mention his specific examples.
Referential Opacity is a problem because even though 2 names/2 descriptions may refer to the same particular thing, there are certain linguistic contexts in which you cannot substitute one for the other, so it gets confusing when you try to use Name (or description) A which means the same thing as Name B but Name A does not make sense here. Abel uses the example of how even though Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain are the same person, you cannot say "Mark Twain adopted the pen name 'Mark Twain' to conceal his identity." Abel also points out that even though "The number of stated in the United States is fifty" and "Fifty is necessarily less than fifty-one", you cannot say "The number of states in the United States is necessarily less than fifty-one."
13. What is the problem of creating a “subsistent entity”? (p. 70)
If you deny the existence of something, then there had to be something to refer to, (how could we think of it if there were not?) so does it exist or not? Does something have to have a denotation in order for it to have a connotation? Luckily, Russel distinguished between descriptive phrases and names and established that descriptive phrases can be without denotations , for example "The golden mountain."
14. How does Russell differentiate between “descriptive phrases and names” (p.70)?
Russel says that descriptive phrases are different than names because they can have no denotation; Abel adds that "You must have direct acquaintance with something in order to pin a name on it"(71).
15. What is the connection between language and Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description?
Both Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description contribute to the formation of language; knowledge by acquaintance leads to naming (i.e. Adam naming all the animals he saw) and knowledge by description leads, obviously, to descriptive phrases with which to describe and communicate objects, occurrences, etc.
16. What is a word? What is an icon? What is an index?
A word is a device by which one thing can signify something else; it is a conventional symbol used for the purpose of reference. An icon refers to something by "looking a little like it", such as a photograph or a road map. "The index is casually connected with what it refers to", such as smoke is an index of fire, and footprints the index of an animal.
17. Why is it important for philosophers to “clarify thought by clarifying language”? Why are Scientists "offenders” (p. 72)?
It is important for philosophers to do that because if they use ambiguous language, noone knows what they are talking about or what they mean by such phrases as "Being and nothing are one and the same".
Abel says scientists are also "offenders" because they use phrases like "absolute space", "racial unconscious", and "the group mind" which "have no clear denotation or extension; no way appears whereby to correlate them unambiguously with what can be observed."(72)
18. What does Abel mean when he says “Just as meanings are not the same things as words, so meanings are not the same things as operations or methods or uses” (p. 73)?
He means that MEANING is hard to be discerned because just like words can have no/different meaning than intended, there is not a sure way to secure something's meaning through describing its uses or how you arrive at it (operations and/or methods). It is similar to the problems of justifying knowledge (authority can be corrupt, memory and senses can fail us, etc.) in that all of them have certain issues in certain cases. And, life defies our phrases; how can you pinpoint certain meaning of words through simply operations or methods or...anything?
Ch. 7: Meaning & Naming
1. How do Mill and Frege disagree with Russell about grammatical sentences and meaning?
Mill and Frege think that "the meaning of a sentence ought to depend only on the meaning of the words that constitute it"(64) whereas Russell thinks that there can be grammatical/"meaningful" sentences without meaning.
2. Abel provides 8 distinguishing features of meaning. Please provide your own example for each.
1. Indication: "Your fever means you have the flu."
2. Cause: "What does this bite out of the cake mean?"
3. Effect: "This means no dessert for you!"
4. Intention: "I meant to show you how much I love you."
5. Explanation: "What does the song mean when it says 'I am a walrus'?"
6. Purpose: "She meant to capture his attention when she dropped her pencil."
7. Implication: "If I get a C, that means I can't go the game tomorrow."
8. Significance: "Did her apology even mean anything?"
3. Why does Abel believe that science and metaphysics is involved in the discussion of linguistic meaning?
He says that not only language and logic are needed for decision, but science and metaphysics also because "We can talk meaningfully about the world only if we take into account what the world is like"(65) because certain sentences, even though grammatically correct (noun, verb, object or whatever rules apply) don't make sense or have no real meaning to our brains because they do not correspond with the way the world really is; Abel uses the example of saying that the clam, the flower, or the rock have hopes for a life after death is meaningless to us vs. a Priest having hopes for the afterlife, since that follows the rules of science (humans can think and hope, but not a rock).
4. Aristotle provided 10 categories that defined “the range of applicability of a term.”(p. 65). Please provide your own example for each.
1. Substance: "My mother is a woman."
2. Quantity: "She is 5'2"."
3. Quality: "She is very kind."
4. Relation: "She is the daughter of Alice."
5. Place: "She is in her room."
6. Action: "She is there at 5:00."
7. Action: "She is typing."
8. Passion: "She is being summoned."
9. Situation or Position: "She is sitting down in the chair."
10. State or Condition: "She is thirsty."
5. How does Abel differentiate between Reference and Naming?
Abel says "Reference is how language bites on to the world" whereas "Naming is the direct application of a word to a thing."(66). Abel says "nothing stands between a thing and its name"(67); naming is the most elementary way in which to refer, and cannot be reduced to, or explained by, a simpler activity. Reference is less specific and is "what the words point to, or designate"(67).
6. On page 66, Abel explains the historical significance of naming. Can you think of any examples he left out? Is there any contemporary example of which Abel would not be aware?
Besides the biblical renaming of Abraham and Sarah by God, and the general tendency of humans to leave out a name when trying to make another human/pet, etc. seem cruel or worthless ("the dumb DOG" instead of "stupid Sam"), I can't really think of anymore examples. A more modern example would be when Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with THAT WOMAN", trying to separate himself from her by leaving her nameless.
7. What is the main function of naming? What doesn’t it do?
The main function of naming is to point something out without describing it; Abel says on p. 67: "A name identifies; it is a tag...; it does not describe."
8. What is the difference between sense and reference?
Reference is more of a targeted meaning, "what the words point to or designate"... there has to be something to point to, which is why the description "the heavenly body farthest from the earth", which we do not KNOW, has no known reference but has sense (which always has the same meaning, but not really; i.e. "I, here" which we KNOW what they mean, the "meaning" just varies depending on the speaker...)
9. How does Abel differentiate between Connotation and Denotation? What about Intension and Extension?
Abel describes Connotation as what anything would have to be to be that word/thing (i.e. "bachelor"= adult unmarried man) whereas Denotation is "all the actual persons you can so designate" (i.e. Jim down the street). Abel differentiates between Intension and Extension in a similar way; He defines Intension as the definition or "what you have in mind" by the term, whereas the Extension "is all the actual bachelors in the world."(68)
10. What does Abel mean when he says: “Though meanings require words, they are not identical to words.” (p. 68)?
He means that even though we usually need to SAY something (at least when talking about language) to get meaning across, and what we say does communicate meaning, what we mean might not be the exact same as what we say (based on the way we say it, the way our sentences are structured, our word choice, etc.) or our words can communicate more/less than what we intended with our words.
11. What is the connection between names and descriptions? Do you agree with Abel that we use ‘linguistic symbols to organize experience” (p. 69)?
Abel says on p. 69: "Naming and describing may overlap when one uses a name as a description... or a description as a name." We can use certain known people's names to describe another person such as "another Stalin" or "another Hitler", and we can sometimes use descriptions as names such as "King of kings" etc.
I do agree with Abel that we use "linguistic symbols to organize experience" because when we experience something in life, we like to be able to organize it in our minds and others' with words, to communicate it with a linguistic symbol which on its own has no real meaning and is just marks on a paper, but when combined with the connotation of the human experience (which could also be seen as meaningless until given a name/'linguistic symbol'), is something meaningful that we and other humans can comprehend.
12. Why is referential opacity a problem? Be sure to mention his specific examples.
Referential Opacity is a problem because even though 2 names/2 descriptions may refer to the same particular thing, there are certain linguistic contexts in which you cannot substitute one for the other, so it gets confusing when you try to use Name (or description) A which means the same thing as Name B but Name A does not make sense here. Abel uses the example of how even though Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain are the same person, you cannot say "Mark Twain adopted the pen name 'Mark Twain' to conceal his identity." Abel also points out that even though "The number of stated in the United States is fifty" and "Fifty is necessarily less than fifty-one", you cannot say "The number of states in the United States is necessarily less than fifty-one."
13. What is the problem of creating a “subsistent entity”? (p. 70)
If you deny the existence of something, then there had to be something to refer to, (how could we think of it if there were not?) so does it exist or not? Does something have to have a denotation in order for it to have a connotation? Luckily, Russel distinguished between descriptive phrases and names and established that descriptive phrases can be without denotations , for example "The golden mountain."
14. How does Russell differentiate between “descriptive phrases and names” (p.70)?
Russel says that descriptive phrases are different than names because they can have no denotation; Abel adds that "You must have direct acquaintance with something in order to pin a name on it"(71).
15. What is the connection between language and Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description?
Both Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description contribute to the formation of language; knowledge by acquaintance leads to naming (i.e. Adam naming all the animals he saw) and knowledge by description leads, obviously, to descriptive phrases with which to describe and communicate objects, occurrences, etc.
16. What is a word? What is an icon? What is an index?
A word is a device by which one thing can signify something else; it is a conventional symbol used for the purpose of reference. An icon refers to something by "looking a little like it", such as a photograph or a road map. "The index is casually connected with what it refers to", such as smoke is an index of fire, and footprints the index of an animal.
17. Why is it important for philosophers to “clarify thought by clarifying language”? Why are Scientists "offenders” (p. 72)?
It is important for philosophers to do that because if they use ambiguous language, noone knows what they are talking about or what they mean by such phrases as "Being and nothing are one and the same".
Abel says scientists are also "offenders" because they use phrases like "absolute space", "racial unconscious", and "the group mind" which "have no clear denotation or extension; no way appears whereby to correlate them unambiguously with what can be observed."(72)
18. What does Abel mean when he says “Just as meanings are not the same things as words, so meanings are not the same things as operations or methods or uses” (p. 73)?
He means that MEANING is hard to be discerned because just like words can have no/different meaning than intended, there is not a sure way to secure something's meaning through describing its uses or how you arrive at it (operations and/or methods). It is similar to the problems of justifying knowledge (authority can be corrupt, memory and senses can fail us, etc.) in that all of them have certain issues in certain cases. And, life defies our phrases; how can you pinpoint certain meaning of words through simply operations or methods or...anything?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Presentation reflection and "Warspeak" article 1-20-09
1. The class did several things well in the presentation of our TOK topics for the midterm. Some of them that I noticed was the general use of time; most of the kids used their whole 10 minutes and did not run TOO much over the time limit. I also did not see/hear a lot of "BSing" or kids just rambling about nothing, for the most part they all focused on their topic and knew what they were saying (that showed some good preparation). There were also a variety or topics picked, and it was interesting to see how so many current issues can be "TOKized".
2. Some things we could have worked on were our skills/timing with the technology provided, immediate relation of the topic to the applying knowledge problems and terms, use of more specific TOK terms (ex: instead of just saying "the language" specify its "emotive meaning"), and a conclusion being made at the end of each presentation with the presenter's view included.
3. Things I think I did well were communicate the importance of my topic and the relative knowledge problems with justifying our "morality" (is abortion ok??), show both my and other opinions on the topic, and mention a few specific TOK terms of Language such as "emotive meaning".
4. Things I could have improved on were the organization of my presentation (I kind of jumped all over the place once I started talking), focused on a more specific aspect of my issue such as a single abortion campaign, included more about our perception and how that affects our views on abortion, and discussed more of the Pro-Choice view.
Warspeak Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7839075.stm
My article from BBC news about the damage done in Gaza and the necessary repairs shows a mix of vague "warspeak" and some real language that to me does not look like it's trying to cover anything up, but perhaps is trying to engage the interest and sympathy of the reader/public. The meanings of the phrases/words "hold fire", "carried out the attack", and "the offensive", are not very clear as used in this article. "Hamas has said it will hold fire" could mean they won't shoot anyone randomly, or if they are attacked they won't shoot anyone, or they just won't bomb any more areas, or...??? "A...group told the Palestinian news agency, Maan, it had carried out the attack" is also kind of vague in specifying what kind of "attack" and how they "carried it out". They probably wouldn't want to be seen as horrible killers, so instead of saying "after carefully (and gleefully) planning it out, we bombed the heck out of that village and killed all those people" they say "we carried out the attack". The phrase "the aftermath of the offensive" does not specify what "the offensive" was, whether it was an unprovoked attack, a bombing, or what. Honestly, I am not sure why they would word it this way, if that was simply the word that came to mind or if they really hoped to cover up some of the terrible tragedy for some purpose. However, in one part of the article they do say "an Israeli man was shot and seriously wounded" which is semi-graphic and showing at least some of the reality of the situation; they don't just refer to the incident as "a civilian casualty" or something like that.
2. Some things we could have worked on were our skills/timing with the technology provided, immediate relation of the topic to the applying knowledge problems and terms, use of more specific TOK terms (ex: instead of just saying "the language" specify its "emotive meaning"), and a conclusion being made at the end of each presentation with the presenter's view included.
3. Things I think I did well were communicate the importance of my topic and the relative knowledge problems with justifying our "morality" (is abortion ok??), show both my and other opinions on the topic, and mention a few specific TOK terms of Language such as "emotive meaning".
4. Things I could have improved on were the organization of my presentation (I kind of jumped all over the place once I started talking), focused on a more specific aspect of my issue such as a single abortion campaign, included more about our perception and how that affects our views on abortion, and discussed more of the Pro-Choice view.
Warspeak Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7839075.stm
My article from BBC news about the damage done in Gaza and the necessary repairs shows a mix of vague "warspeak" and some real language that to me does not look like it's trying to cover anything up, but perhaps is trying to engage the interest and sympathy of the reader/public. The meanings of the phrases/words "hold fire", "carried out the attack", and "the offensive", are not very clear as used in this article. "Hamas has said it will hold fire" could mean they won't shoot anyone randomly, or if they are attacked they won't shoot anyone, or they just won't bomb any more areas, or...??? "A...group told the Palestinian news agency, Maan, it had carried out the attack" is also kind of vague in specifying what kind of "attack" and how they "carried it out". They probably wouldn't want to be seen as horrible killers, so instead of saying "after carefully (and gleefully) planning it out, we bombed the heck out of that village and killed all those people" they say "we carried out the attack". The phrase "the aftermath of the offensive" does not specify what "the offensive" was, whether it was an unprovoked attack, a bombing, or what. Honestly, I am not sure why they would word it this way, if that was simply the word that came to mind or if they really hoped to cover up some of the terrible tragedy for some purpose. However, in one part of the article they do say "an Israeli man was shot and seriously wounded" which is semi-graphic and showing at least some of the reality of the situation; they don't just refer to the incident as "a civilian casualty" or something like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)