Learning to love to learn.

Today, Stephanie brought up the interesting point that we all could use some work on "learning to learn" which allowed us to decipher the modern education system and its restrictions to our leisure and ultimate fulfillment. It reminds me of a large dilemma my high school came across which was along these lines: obtaining in class for a grade versus the knowledge for the sake of learning. Taking tests and receiving grades are our societies' measuring stick for obtained knowledge in a given subject. However, we have all seen grades lie: depending on variables out of our control (harder or easier teachers, biased tests focused heavily on one part of a subject, getting graded for reasons other than the actual subject such as participation), we may get a grade that does not truly reflect our actual obtainment of the knowledge. In addition, grades have seen to become more important than the actual knowledge since employers will look at your GPA before hiring you. My question: have any of you felt that learning purely for receiving a grade has caused you to care less about the actual knowledge gained but rather more on receiving an A at any cost? What could we do to get back to loving to learn?

Companies or People

In our discussion on Monday, we got on to the idea that companies are different entities than the people that are in charge of them. Although a CEO could enforce their morals, ideas and goals onto the company, it is possible that they could be replaced, while the company still continues on. Take Apple, for example. Even though Steve Jobs is gone, the Apple Company is continuing on with the ideas he put forth. Let’s say, however, that the person who took over after him wanted to add graphics to the outside of the products, going against Jobs’ precedent of simple-looking products. Would this be possible? Would the company allow the CEO to do that? Or would this individual, being the CEO, be able to have jurisdiction to change something like this? In the end, I’m wondering if a company based on the people, or are the people based on the company? Who holds more power in this situation?

I found today's discussion rather strange.  We talked about whether or not a business should be ethical in terms of the environment, and the economy.  In terms of being ethical in the environment, I find it odd that people expect businesses to change but they make no change in their daily routines.  Talking about "going green" and keeping the environment clean would appear to be gaining traction, but I am starting to think that it is all for show.  We make stipulates on others to be green and then some we won't even do the simplest of activities like recycling.  Does this make sense?  It would be different if every one was driving an electric car, was super conscious of how much water they were using, and recycled  everything they could, but we don't do that.  We still consume the products of companies that utilize sweat shops with absolutely deplorable conditions because we are set in our ways on what is an acceptable brand and what is not.  To me, it appears that people are pawning off being ethical onto larger entities so that they can feel good about their lack of it.  We sit around in groups and talk about what should be done, pat ourselves on the back, and call it day.

As we talked in class today about reciprocity, we talked about it where the employee does positive things for the company and the company does positive things for the employee. While this does make sense I was wondering if anyone thought that the employee could do positive things for the company even when the company does not do positive things for them. The only example I could come up with would be if the employee is demoted and for risk of losing his or her job they go above and beyond to positively help the company. I am not sure if this counts as reciprocity or just working out of fear.

Relationships by Judgement

As I mentioned in class today, small talk helps us develop a perception of how comfortable we can be with whoever it is we are having that conversation with. This is why I think that we cannot make the judgements we usually can when the conversations we are having are not in person. Social interactions include sharing a common idea, but the idea is more drawn out and discussed in person than through the internet or on text message. Since we are taking away the suspicion of having to make ourselves and the other person feel welcome, we almost feel more comfortable speaking online to someone since they cannot see how we are reacting. We are ultimately disassociating ourselves physically, which in the end prevents true bonding and honesty on a personal level. When we see people's faces, we feel we need to take responsibility for things. While we can be swayed by tones, looks, etc. in person, it is much more so online since we cannot as easily read other people if we are not seeing them. Judgements are much more limited with relationships formed on the internet, which can ultimately become dangerous.

As we talked about enhancements, we talked about them rather negatively. Whether or not one believes that different enhancements are negative, I believe it is up to the person who is going to have the enhancement to decide that. It is their decision, they are going to have to live with it for the rest of their life, they should have the choice. Also I believe that any enhancement that is going to benefit one, make one's life better, should be seen as a positive thing, even if the enhancement is not necessary. Why should someone have to suffer with bad eyesight if there is an enhancement that is going to help them? Although laser eye surgery could be seen as an unnecessary enhancement, it is going to have a positive impact on someone's life, and why shouldn't that be okay?

Enhancements

Last class we discussed whether or not morality should come into play when considering enhancements to the body. We discussed in particular the discussion of obesity and the way that there may be a frame of mind which judges these people for being "lazy" or incompetent. This judgment comes from the availability in this time period to change the body quite easily, and the impact of media to create imperfect ideas of the body simply by "eating well and working out." We also discussed the concept of unplugging family members or loved ones that have been declared brain dead. I noticed that as we were discussing and answering such dilemmas that along with the question of morality could be the question of empathy.

Do you think that with the option of more convenient enhancements for our body we've begun to lose a sense of empathy for our fellow peers, family members, loved ones, etc.? Do you think that by saying that all "obese" people are lazy if they don't have a predisposed condition for being so is judgmental and lacking empathy, or simply a fact of 21st century life? The same question could be applied to unplugging patients declared brain dead--is this a question of basic empathy or should we be more practical because there are so many enhancements available?