Context + Explanation of Problem + Solution or Promise of Solution Formula Summary

      In this chapter of reading, the formula of context, explanation of problem, and solution ot promise of solution is explained. First, the author explains that the topic of the essay and the problem that will be presented must be given context. In order to do this, a common ground must be created so that the reader understands what is happening and orient them towards the topic. Less context given means that you believe that the audience knows and shares many thoughts with you. On the other hand, more context implies that the reader knows less than you do. Additionally, common ground should usually be given as though the reader has read the same resources as you have, but is in a different class, so possibly interpreted things differently. Then, in the introduction, the author explains how it is necessary to explain the problem, but first must present it in a manner that interrupts the stability of the common ground. In order to do this, the writer must present some condition of incomplete knowledge and then the consequences of this incomplete knowledge. The degree to which these two must be done, depends on the knowledge of the audience. The problem then must be given a solution or a promise of a solution, the final piece in the introduction according the the author. This gives the reader motivation to keep reading in order to understand and to solve their ignorance. According to the author, if all of these parts are effectively used together, the introduction will be successful in intriguing the reader to keep reading.

Predictably Irrational-Chapter 12: Summary & Response

       In chapter 12 of his book, Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely further discusses the circumstances under which people are willing to be dishonest. Ariely describes another experiment he conducted where he put soda in some common refrigerators on a college campus and six one dollar bills in other common refrigerators. Within three days the soda was gone and the money was untouched according to Ariely. Ariely conducts a second experiment involving direct money and tokens that are exchanged for money, which results in people being more dishonest when dealing with the tokens that are directly traded in for money. From this Ariely concludes that dishonesty increases when the material in question is at least a step away from money. Additionally when a medium in not monetary then our ability to rationalize dishonesty increases because this bypasses our conscious usually. Ariely also deduces that the increase in online shopping and the use of credit cards makes it easier for people to be dishonest and steal. Because this use of cash is decreasing in the current day, it is necessary to address this problem, Ariely concludes.
         According to Ariely, cheating is easier when it is one step removed from cash because this is able to bypass our conscious and we are thus able to rationalize it more easily. Ariely gives the example of taking a red pen from work when your daughter needs it being easily rationalized, but stealing the money necessary to buy a red pen from the store would be harder to rationalize. I experience this at work sometimes as well, when I need a paperclip and I'm at work I usually just take one from work rather than buying the two dollar box of paperclips at the  convenience store that is a two minute walk away. This occurs with insurance when people increase the value of individual products that were destroyed in their home for insurance to cover. This happens with investments by people backdating their investments so that when they cash them in they are worth more money. This also occurs in tax return because people write off more things in order to save more money. Ariely's reasons for cheating explain why there is a rise in identity theft because credit cards and such are one step away from money, so they are easier to rationalize stealing them than money ever was before, even though these objects virtually are money in a different form. Companies, such as airlines, legitimately steal from customers by never touching their money, but limiting what they are able to do with their non monetary substance such as miles towards a flight.

Predictably Irrational-Chapter 11: Summary & Response

         In this chapter of Dan Ariely's book, Predictably Irrational, he discussing the honesty of people and the conditions under which they become dishonest. Ariely begins his discussion by analyzing how white collar crimes are much more severe and common in terms of dishonesty and involve much more money than direct robberies that occur. Ariely point out, though, that these white collar crimes are treated much less severely, and wonders why this is. He then discusses a series of experiments he conducted with some of his colleagues to test the dishonesty of people who are generally perceived as honest. The first experiment he conducted came to the conclusion that honest people do cheat when given the opportunity, but once tempted with cheating the risk of being caught is not influential in whether or not people cheat. Ariely states that honesty truly does prevail in most cultures due to the stimulation by reward, but when it is only a little dishonest our superego stays out of the picture and people are dishonest. From the next experiment conducted, the conclusion was that when people are reminded of morality, they are less likely to be dishonest. Ariely then discusses how professionalism is declining in our society. The final experiment Ariely describes is one that resulted in the conclusion that when we are reminded of morality right before, we are more likely to be honest in whatever activity we are performing next. So, Ariely concludes that people will cheat when given the chance, but are less likely to if they are reminded of morality before the opportunity to cheat is given.
         According to Ariely, honesty is the best policy because with honesty there is some sort of reward given to people, which is what they are influenced by to be honest, whether that be a clear conscious or something material. In order to curb dishonesty in our lives we could think about the morality of what we are doing and think of the reward we get for being honest. On a daily basis, students deal with temptations such as cheating in a class in order to get ahead, stealing in order to save money, and lying in order to give a valid excuse for themselves. On a daily basis students will copy homework or cheat on homework, which they rationalize by saying that is saves them time and gives them more time to sleep, which they really need or by saying that they really need to get the answers right otherwise they might do poorly in the class. Additionally students are tempted to steal and rationalize stealing things like utensils and fruit from the dining hall, which they rationalize by saying that they are paying an exorbitant amount of money in order to go to school and eat here, so it's the least the school could do. Another temptation of students is to lie to professors about why they were not in class, which they rationalize by saying that sometimes they just need a break and they cannot afford for their grade to go down just because they were not physically sitting in a room for an hour.

Predictably Irrational: Summary & Response

       In chapter two, The Fallacy of Supply and Demand, of his book, Predictably Irrational, author Dan Ariely presents the results of his studies of arbitrary coherence and anchoring. The first concept Ariely explains is imprinting, a concept brought about by Konrad Lorenz, which is when an initial decision is made and that decision is stuck with. Ariely then explains the term anchoring as giving a certain value to an item, this is the initial value that is given to an item. He then explains arbitrary coherence, which is the concept that although initial prices are arbitrarily assigned, they are established in our minds and will shae present and future prices. Ariely goes on to describe a study done at MIT which showed that once a person is willing to pay a certain price for one product, their willingness to pay for other products is relative to this first price, or the anchor. He cites a study involving being payed to listen to unpleasant sounds, which showed that people remain anchored to initial price, they do not flip flop very easily, that our first decisions resonate over a long period of time and decisions. Ariely next explains the concept of herding where we base our opinions on other people's behaviors and our actions follow theirs. He expands on this by presenting self-herding, which is where we base our future actions off of our initial interaction. Next, Ariely presents that sensitivity to price changes relies on the memory of the past price. This sensitivity can be altered if the product changes along with the price in order to reflect the price change.
        Anchoring is the first encounter we have with the value of something, determining our perception of the price of the product in the future.  Arbitrary coherence is the concept that although initial prices are arbitrarily assigned, they are established in our minds and will shae present and future prices.  By buying this used car and putting in that much work, the student will think that the prices of the other items are probably too  high to be worth it since they got a car for only $3000 and were able to see the work they needed to put in ot get this car. Businesses get consumers to pay higher prices for items anchored in their memories by altering the product in question. They make the product appear to be better through its display, surroundings, advertising, etc. The fallacy of supply and demand is that people base their sensitivity to price changes on past memories, no on the level of demand.

Analysis of Harford Paper Organization

Hartford also stresses the importance of location, stating that location can make a difference in a business's success, or the success of a product in an individual store. A location that is more convenient and isolated from comparable products that cost less will be frequented more often and thus, purchased from more often. The more price insensitive people will stop here, not searching the store for a cheaper option, just stopping for the conveniently placed item. Whenever I visit a grocery store, the prepared food items are always in the same place, right when you walk in. Although you may not have to walk through the food, you always at least walk by it, smelling the ready food, seeing the array of food that requires little to no effort to consume. On the other hand, the ingredients necessary to make a dish are located throughout the store, depending on the dish, requiring you to walk through the entire store in order to get necessary ingredients. More price sensitive people tend to overlook convenience when purchasing a product and try to always find the cheapest option.

In this paragraph I am using the strategy of repeating key words and phrases in order to keep the paragraph on topic. This paragraph is explaining how location has an influence on the success of a product. By repeating terms that have to do with location the paragraph seems cohesive.

Additionally, I used a few transitions in order to create cohesion. I used these transitions to indicate a relationship between location and purchasing levels, as well as two transitions to contrast different types of people and different food locations. This could be improved in the paragraph to create smoother sentence to sentence transitions and reduce the choppiness of the paragraph.

In this paragraph I also use the strategy of presenting advantages and disadvantages. I do this by presenting pros and cons of being price sensitive and insensitive. This paragraph is to describe the benefits of location and how it helps in order to sell products, so by presenting what each location offers it allows the readers to weigh the pros and cons of each option. By extent this also uses the problem/solution strategy by providing two options for different types of situations; one option if you are price sensitive and one if you are price insensitive. Additionally this allows for classification or division as well as compare/contrast. I am comparing and contrasting the two different types of locations. To improve this the pros and cons could be more clearly defined.

Summary: The Believing Game by Peter Elbow

     In his essay entitled The Believing Game: Methodological Believing, author Peter Elbow discusses the power of the tools called, "the doubting game," and , "the believing game." Elbow explains that because they are only tools, they will not make a decision for us, only aid in our decision making process. Elbow defines the doubting game as being as skeptical and analytical as possible in order to discover flaws in reasoning, often seen as synonymous with critical thinking. The believing game on the other hand, is trying to accept and believe new ideas that are possibly not appealing in order to scrutinize them. Elbow goes on to discuss critical thinking and how it has a monopoly in the world of the doubting game and bow the doubting game has a monopoly in people's reasoning. Next, Elbow discusses how believing is what comes first, what comes naturally, and is present until someone is burnt enough and start doubting. The goal of the doubting game is not to reject everything, but as Descartes believed, to doubt everything to find something that survived this doubting; this is also called methodological doubting. This is how scientists test hypotheses, they cannot prove them to be true, they just test it until they reject it and if they fail to reject it then, then they trust it until they can disprove it. Elbow goes on to explain that methodological believing allows us to find flaws in our system by trying to believe another's, it allows us to weigh options we are presented with, and allows us to listen and observe. He also discusses how it helps with reading emersion,  discussions, and writing persuasively, pointing out that collaboration works best with the believing game. Elbow concludes by acknowledging that both the believing game and the doubting game are necessary tools in our lives.

Terms and Definitions - Chapter 2 - Hartford

Terms and Definitions of Harford Chapter 2

Term	Price Sensitive & Insensitive	Unique Target Strategy	Group Target Strategy	Self-incrimination Strategy	Leaks
Definition	Price Sensitive-being aware of prices and want to get the best value for their money and their needs. Price Insensitive-being in a state of not caring about the price that is being paid for something	Evaluate each customer as an individual and charge based on amount willing to pay	Evaluate how much groups are willing to pay based on things such as expected employment status based on age	Getting customers to give themselves away as not caring about the price	When the system is cheated by finding a way around paying the price that a retailer is charging
Example from Chapter	Price sensitive people who shop for items at supermarkets only when they are on sale or there is a coupon for them. Price insensitive people who just buy whatever coffee they see or want, regardless of prices.	Car salesman, realtors, discount cards	Charging child, adult, and elderly admission fees, the elderly and child prices are lower because they are less likely to be employed	Charging a lot for popcorn at movies because people do not want to appear stingy on a date or at a social gathering, so they will pay more for the product	Bringing your own popcorn from home to the movies, rather than paying the outrageous price there.
Your Own Example?	Price sensitive, I compare unit prices of various brands of products to find the cheapest product and size of product by unit price. Price insensitive, when I really need something, but cannot drive to the store, so I just go buy whatever they have at Macs, regardless of price	Going to the market the price changes based on how you are dressed, where you are from, whether or not you make confirmation/seem to be in a rush.	I would get into museums for free in France because I was a student, who are not expected to be making much (if any) money.	The bookstore prices are expensive at IC because everyone wants to have some sort of clothing that represents their school, but don't want to be the ones only with a cheap t-shirt, so they are willing to pay more, especially when shopping in groups.	When I go ice skating I bring my own skates rather than pay to rent the rink skates.

 back of the store - $2.47 6oz -0.41/oz
     at the register - $1.09 2oz. - 0.55/oz
   right when you walk into the store - $2.49 8 oz - 0.31/oz

 after cash register - $0.89 4.2 oz - 0.21/oz

   

The Undercover Economy: Chapter 2 - Summary & Response

In Chapter Two, "What Supermarkets Don't Want You to Know of his book, The Undercover Economist, Tim Hartford explains why stores can get away with charging you what they do and how they go about doing this. He begins this chapter by reiterating that scarcity power does not always equal the ability to charge more; instead there must be a reason for people to want to pay more. Hartford gives the example of the Fair Trade coffee, which made people feel like they were helping other people, so they were willing to pay the extra ten cents or so. He goes on to talk about 'price targeting' where companies figure out the most a customer is willing to pay for a product and charge that. The first way to do this is what Hartford calls 'first degree price discrimination' or the 'unique target' strategy, where each customer is individually evaluated and charged based on amount willing to pay. Examples of this include realtors, car salesmen, and discount cards. The next strategy Hartford describes is called 'Group Target Strategy' which is when certain groups who generally can pay more, are charged more. An example of this would be charging a lower price for the elderly or children and a higher price for adults, who are more likely to be employed. Third, Hartford explains the third method, which is 'self-incrimination' where you get customers to give themselves away as not caring about the price.Hartford gives the examples of popcorn at a movie theater and wine at a restaurant here because if you are on a date, you do not want to seem too stingy so you will pay for the expensive things. Hartford goes on to discuss stores' strategies for making people pay more including not having cheaper options available or obviously presented, keeping similar products of varying prices away from each other, and having a higher 'basic' option. Supermarkets will also have spontaneous sales so that people cannot fully take advantage of the sales because they will not be able to plan for them. Finally, Hartford defines and explains the terms inefficient and efficient. Inefficient situations are when a change can be made to one or more person, leaving them better off, and no on is worse off. On the other hand, an efficient situation is one where a change is made where someone is left better off, but at someone else's expense.

People do not only pay high prices because of supply and demand, but also because of reasons such as feeling like they are making a difference by paying more. This is applicable to things such as fair trade coffee, where you feel like you are contributing to a cause. Sometimes people pay more money because they can and they want the best product, which they rate by price and possibly quality. I have been in athletic stores, especially during October, where everything that is being sold is also being sold in pink for breast cancer awareness month. While some of these products are the same price as their alternate color counterparts, many are more expensive when they are pink. Many of these products boast that they will put all of the proceeds towards breast cancer research or something to that effect, but there are some pink products that are more expensive simply in order to "show your support." Hartford describes three methods through which retailers determine if a customer is price sensitive or not. The first method is  'first degree price discrimination' or the 'unique target' strategy, where each customer is individually evaluated and charged based on amount they are perceived as being willing to pay. For example,  realtors, car salesmen, and discount cards are all guilty of doing this. Another strategy Hartford describes is called 'Group Target Strategy' which is when certain groups who generally can pay more because generally they are working, are charged more. An example of this would be charging a lower price for the elderly or children and a higher price for adults, who are more likely to be employed. Third, Hartford explains the method, 'self-incrimination' where you get customers to give themselves away as not caring about the price.Hartford gives the examples of popcorn at a movie theater and wine at a restaurant here because if you are on a date, you do not want to seem too stingy so you will pay for the expensive things. According to Hartford a grocery basket from an artisan grocery store can cost more than one from a cheaper store because the cheaper store offers cheaper options, possibly lower quality or generic brand, while the artisan store does not. Additionally, the basic at an artisan store are usually different and lean towards more expensive products than at a cheaper store. Retailers get people to shop at their store by offerings good prices, but also by offering good quality, although this is not always enough. In addition, retailers will have random sales on random items in order to get people to shop at their store, but also make money because the sale is so random that it cannot be planned for necessarily.

The Undercover Economist: Chapter 1 - Summary & Response

In his first chapter, "Who Pays for Your Coffee?" of his book The Undercover Economist, Tim Hartford discusses what goes into the price of a cup of coffee. Hartford begins by discussing how part of the success of Starbucks is based on the location of their stores. He then discusses relative scarcity, or the idea that whatever has higher demand has more power. Hartford then discusses 'marginal land," describing it as the land that determines the value of other things, it is neither the worst nor the best, rather what is most available. Hartford describes Ricardo's model for the economy of the three pieces of land that are under control of one landlord, all three of varying qualities. This model, Hartford says, can be applied to most economic situations, but does not take into underlying social practices or patterns always, so it is not all-telling. Next Hartford gives reasons for other reason why the rent for property would be high, in addition to scarcity, this can be due to it being the best so it provides the best, or there may be no alternatives. Then Hartford continues by discussing whether or not we are being ripped off by businesses, which he says yes, sometimes we are because of a company's relative monopoly on something. However, sometimes we are paying more for good service because that is our priority and sometimes we prefer what we know, so we are willing to pay more. He then discusses why rents are what they are, creating rents landlords try to avoid or control competition or try to take other's rewards. Next Hartford discusses the economy involving crime, namely that of gangs. He says that on the drug market competition is made scarce through illegal activity, which is reverted to because selling drugs is illegal anyway, so more crime will not do much and there will not be complaints to the police of being ripped off. Hartford goes on to talk about trade unions and how they are there to bargain collectively, as well as block too much entry into the profession. There are also professions that limit the number of qualified professionals and make the low-cost alternatives illegal. Hartford then explains how our country needs a balance of skilled workers as well as unskilled workers in order to create an effective system, and that immigrants are only a threat to the section of the economy that they are entering. Hartford concludes by discussing what economists should do to make our economy better.

Scarcity power is a term in Hartford's writing that describes that the power in a situation goes to whoever possesses a desired resource, especially when the resource is scarce. Store owners try to take advantage of this scarcity power by being the only shop that offers what they offer, which needs to be something people need, in a convenient area for their target customers. Store owners take advantage of scarcity power they posses by upping prices for their products because they know people need their product and if they are the only place that sells it conveniently, people will be willing to pay more for it to avoid inconvenience. Marginal lands are those lands which determine the value of the other lands, they are not always the worst land though. Marginal lands are the base line for land and changes based on what is available. For example if there is swamp land, uncultivated field, and a field of fertile soil, the best land is the land with fertile soil. But, if there is only swamp land or an uncultivated field, the uncultivated field becomes the best land available and under the highest demand. External factors that drive up prices include lack of competition, convenience, preference, and location. It is possible to apply scarcity power to the job market as well, as Hartford does. But having a college degree (BA or BS) does not give you this power on the job market because today more and more people are going to college, it is something that is almost expected of many people. Having these degrees just puts you into a smaller group of people that is still very large, so you are not a scarce resource usually. Havign higher degrees gives you this power, but even still, weighing the costs and benefits, this still is not beneficial all of the time in the job market, although you do have more scarcity power.

Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument - Summary & Response

In Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument, Stuart Greene argues that writing an effective research paper is like entering a conversation that has already been going on, so you must express understanding of issue and present new opinions. Greene begins by pointing out that arguments are a part of everyday life. He continues on to say that when writing a research paper, you must display your understanding of claims people are making, the questions they raise, and the conflicts they address in the pieces you are reading. Greene explains that while writing an argument, the position you take will depend on which previously stated arguments you also believe and which you want to refute, as well as what new opinions and supporting information you can bring. He then goes into the section entitled Entering the Conversation, where he explains that in order to write a researched argument you must answer all necessary questions about the issue and express what is at stake if things change or stay the same. He then goes onto the section, Identify an Issue, where he expresses the importance of clearly identifying the issue, or tension that exists between two or more conflicting points of view. Greene next moves onto the section, Identify the Situation, where it is necessary to consider how people view the problem. The next step in constructing a research paper is explained by Greene in the section, Frame a Good Question, where you must make sure the question can be answered with the resources available and make sure there is a focus. Then Greene goes onto the section, Framing as a Critical Step for Writing, Reading, and Doing Research, where he expresses the importance of framing in order to enforce clarity and improve critical inquiry abilities. The final section, entitled, Conclusion: Writing Researched Arguments, explains that information researched must be shaped in order to help you to enter the conversation and information must be put in context, so connections must be made. Greene concludes his argument by stating that research is a social process if you can understand inquiry as a way to enter a conversation.

       Framing is a tool used when constructing an argument, or writing a piece in general. It helps to focus the argument and specify what the argument is about and/or is not about. Additionally, framing offers a way to make your position clear. The metaphor of a camera lens is used in Greene’s writing, because with a lens, you can focus on the main parts of the picture, in order to connect them, and blur out the parts that are not important or relevant. Additionally, you are able to control the mood or feeling of the picture by how it is set up, which you can also do in writing.

The Pursuit of Ignorance: Summary & Response

In his TED Talk, The Pursuit of Ignorance, Stuart Firestein argues that in science and other aspects of learning we should abide by ignorance. Firestein begins his talk by explaining that scientists do not sit around going over what they know, they talk about what they do not know, and that is how discoveries are made.  He then goes on to discuss the course he is teaching on ignorance and how ignorance, in the sense he is discussing, is not to be looked at as a negative thing, rather it is a communal lack of knowledge, a lack of things to be drawn on, or predicted.  As he continues, he discusses the idea of ‘conscious ignorance’, from which every advance in science is made and is how the supply of scientific knowledge and facts are growing fast.  He furthers his point by saying that knowing a lot does not make you a scientist and that in the grand scheme of things, ignorance is much larger than knowledge. Firestein reasons this out by explaining that knowledge generates more ignorance, that each discovery produces even more problems or questions to solve. He then goes on to discuss the current method of education and how it is weeding not evaluating through exams as it is supposed to. Evaluating gives people feedback, according to Firestein, it allows for trial and error. Ultimately, evaluation on exams provides students with a sense of curiosity, which, in Firestein’s opinion, is best; evaluation is a link to embracing ignorance.
Firestein says that in order to get students to step outside of their boundaries they have to explore and embrace ignorance. In order to do this, they must be evaluated, which provides feedback and allows for trial and error, not weeding out the students for what they are good at and what they are not. This allows students to see potential in various directions, not just one or none. Students tend to not step outside of the boundaries of facts because the facts are clear, they are not ‘dangerous’ and unknown like ignorance is. In order to get students to pursue ignorance, ignorance has to be presented in a manner that is not intimidating, that invites the student to be unsure and make it ok to not be sure. Students must be put in an environment that asks them to discover, not to memorize. Then the students will be able to pursue ignorance.

The Case for Teaching Ignorance : Summary & Response

Jaime Holmes suggests that it is in fact beneficial to teach about ignorance in her article entitled, The Case for Teaching Ignorance. Holmes begins by mentioning Professor Marlys H. Witte, who says that it is important to realize the limits of knowledge as well as  appreciate and attend to questions just as much as the answers. She goes on to speak of Stuart J. Firestein, a neuroscientist, who believes that scientific facts are not solid or unchangeable, rather they are to be challenged and revised by each generation. Holmes then presents the idea that answers do not just resolve questions, they also create more questions; the more we know, the more we can ask. While bringing up this point, Holmes brings up Michael Smithson’s metaphor of knowledge as an island and the shoreline being the meeting place between knowledge and ignorance, as the island grows so does the shoreline, so as knowledge expands so does the room fro questions to be asked.  Holmes brings up this metaphor throughout her article, once again when she is saying that people feel safer in the middle of the island, where ignorance is furthest away. Holmes goes on to say that agnatology, the study of ignorance, must include emphasis on the unknown, the importance of the relation and interplay between questions and answers, and the psychology of ambiguity. She concludes her article by stating that we must begin to view ignorance as regular and be more curios.
A quote that resonated with me was when Holmes says, “She wanted her students to recognize the limits of knowledge and to appreciate the questions often deserve as much attention as answers.” I agree with Holmes and Witte, who she is referring to, that we cannot focus on just learning what has already been discovered because at some point, we will know everything that has been discovered and we will have nothing else to learn. Additionally, it provoked the importance of questioning and that things are ever changing, so we cannot just accept what we already know because at some point everything will change and we will know very little if we do not appreciate the importance of questions. Questions also are useful as motivation; they make us want to know more because we know that there is potential to know more. Although, if we do not appreciate the questions, the right questions will be harder to know to ask. This quote makes me think about what is important in knowledge, whether the questions are the reason for knowledge, or the answers, and how interdependent the two are.
“…in recent years scholars have made a convincing case that focusing on uncertainty can foster latent curiosity, while emphasizing clarity can convey a warped understanding of knowledge,” says Holmes in her article. This quote challenges my beliefs and assumptions about knowledge and ignorance.  I believe that there is a healthy amount of curiosity for people to have in order to learn and continue to want to learn, but too much curiosity can make you uncertain of everything you know, of your choices. This quote suggests that curiosity is healthy and assurance is not, but I believe that assurance is necessary for people to discover, to confidently carry out their work as well as their life. I believe that it is necessary to emphasize clarity, but also to know that there is more to know, that what is known is clear, but more can be discovered.

Challenging My Belief System

This may seem trivial, but as a seven-year-old child, my bunny being a girl was something I believed for close to two years, something that influenced naming the bunny. When I went to the vet with my bunny for the first time, finding out that it was a boy was hard news. I made the vet double check and triple check to make sure that my bunny was indeed a boy, and not, as the pet store had told me, a girl. When I finally accepted that my bunny was indeed a male, the next crisis came up; his name was Violet, which to me was a girl’s name. I sat there thinking about how to change it (and honestly, how I was going to break the news to my bunny that it had a new name?), because a boy could never be named violet in my seven year old brain. My mother told me that it was ok to leave it, that my male bunny could have whatever name I wanted and he could in fact be named Violet. This was weird to me because as a child I was always told, this is for boys and this is for girls, if not directly, by the media I was exposed to and the subtle nuances that invaded my life. At this point, I was confused; this challenged the idea that there were boy names and girl names and extended to the divide between girls and boys in every other aspect. I thought about this idea of having a boy bunny named Violet, breaking the gendered name barrier, and by the end I figured that it was still the same bunny, he was still a bunny, and like a human, did not deserve to be renamed part way through his life. I decided that he would be Violet the boy rabbit and he would rock it! After this, I became quite the advocate for breaking down these male-female barriers with my peers, getting into arguments about the idea that there is no such thing as a boy color or a girl color. This has continued into my life now because it allows me to let people be who they want to be, without judging them because they don’t follow the script that has been laid out for them based on who they are, where they are from, their gender, etc. My old beliefs are still minutely present in certain situations, but it situations where they are wrong, I am able to easily recognize this. Although this was a hard thing to accept, as a seven year old, in the past 13 years it has helped to shape my beliefs on gender roles.

I Don't Want to Be Right - Summary and Response

In her article, I Don’t Want to Be Right, Maria Konnikova develops the idea that facts and evidence are not able to change people’s minds. She opens by discussing an experiment by Brendan Nyhan, about people’s opinions on vaccinations. Through this experiment, she reports, that facts, science, emotions, and stories fail to opinions, especially when something that is important to someone is confronted and contradicted. Konnikova discusses further experiments throughout the piece to back up her argument. She points out that studies have shown that corrections that are contrary to people’s beliefs do not work; they actually can end up causing a sense of distrust.  Konnikova goes on to say that judgment can be influenced by strongly held beliefs, even when people are aware and accepting of the facts.  Next, she brings up Nyhan who expresses that false beliefs tend to be related to self-identity, not always politics. She continues by discussing a study that showed that self-affirmation helps people to perform better on things such as tests.  Based on her sources, Konnikova suggests that the only way to change beliefs may be to present issues in a broader way, leaving out the political, ideological, and content that causes people to be self-reflective as well as facts and evidence because they are just now effective enough. She also suggests that if leaders of an opinion change, their ‘followers’ are also more likely to change. This is how Konnikova concludes, with the addition that ideology can have a strong influence and should be left to the side when trying to change beliefs.
In their articles, both Konnikova and Mooney share the idea that beliefs are hard, if not impossible to change. They also agree that if we were to try to change people’s beliefs, facts and evidence are not the most convincing way to do so. Furthermore, they both agree that corrections to false beliefs or just contradictions to their beliefs can cause the exact opposite of the intended changing of beliefs and actually cause them to hold on more strongly to their belief and can cause a sense of distrust towards those trying to convince them that they are wrong.  Konnikova offers some more insights, including the self-affirmation theory. The self-affirmation theory says that if a person goes through a series of self-affirming points before a test, then they are likely to do better on the test, the opposite is true as well with doing worse. This helps explain why people change their mind because it explains the role self-reflection has on people’s beliefs; if a belief is seen as threatening to their identity, then they are less likely to believe it or change their mind. On the other hand, if an idea is seen as neutral in regards to thee effect on their identity, they are more likely to be open to facts and evidence and allow their minds to be changed. Self-affirmation can be blamed for people’s inability to change their mind because if the opposite idea threatens their identity they feel threatened and will not change their mind even if there are facts and hard evidence present; it is o threatening to who they are and the confidence they have in their self, that it is not worth throwing that away and accept the facts.

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science : Summary and Response

         In his article, The Science of Why We Don’t Believe in Science, Chris Mooney argues that emotions are inseparable from reasoning and emotions are usually stronger than logical reasoning.
He begins this argument by giving the example of the experiment conducted by Leon Festinger as well as other scientists in which a cult believed they were communicating with aliens. This experiment illustrated the idea of ‘motivated reasoning’ which is reasoning which is not separable from emotions and positive or negative feelings come before conscious thoughts; this is explained to be a human survival skill. In other words, we try to push away or even deny threatening information and pill information we see as friendly closer. Mooney goes on to state that emotions are stronger in our reactions when it is something we care about, explaining the effects of confirmation bias where we weigh more on the information that is consistent with our beliefs as well as disconfirmation bias where we try to disprove information that is unsuitable with our beliefs. Mooney argues that we do such things because things like identity affirmation and self-protection are more important than accuracy.  Next Mooney transitions to the next section, entitled The back-fire effect: Why direct persuasion fails, arguing that people can see all of the details of science, but their beliefs will always prevail, giving examples such as experiments with thoughts on the death penalty and other experiments.  Mooney cites Dan Kahan, a Yale Law School professor, saying that individuals are classified by their cultural values, either individualist or communitarian and their outlooks as either hierarchical or egalitarian, pointing out that conservative republicans tend to be hierarchical individualists and liberal democrats tend to be egalitarian communitarians, using these political separations to give further examples.  Based on these classifications, Mooney states that a group of people can all be given the same information but have different percentages of belief.  Mooney points out that the backfire effect can be triggered by direct attempts to persuade someone of something, causing them to hold their wrong views stronger than ever. In his next section, Climategate: What really happened?, Mooney points out that people are not going to ignore their belief system over a bit of information, especially because they feel that their life will be made harder if they believe something that opposes that of their groups or spectators, trying to keep their social desirability in tact.  Transitioning to the effects of the media, Mooney states that people tend to gravitate towards media that has similar beliefs, and social media is worsening this skew of the information received by people. Next Mooney discusses the effects of education, based on experiments, explaining that increased education tends to make people more likely to deny information that is against their beliefs.  In his next section, Why the vaccine-autism link persists, Mooney discusses more political issues, namely vaccination. He goes on to say that conservatives seem to be more rigid while liberals are more tolerant of ambiguity. Mooney concludes his article by stating that in order to get someone to accept new evidence, it is necessary to present it in such a way that no emotional or defensive reaction results, that in order to gives facts a fighting chance, the solution is to lead with values.


Affect and reason are tools that shape and solidify our belief system by almost instinctively labeling something as positive or negative to us. Our beliefs are also shaped by confirmation bias, where we hold information that supports our beliefs higher, and disconfirmation bias, where we try to disprove information that is not consistent with our beliefs, thus making our beliefs more solidified. If the network is not easily swayed by compelling facts and evidence or reads research to validate  existing views, this suggests that knowledge is based on beliefs, meaning it is relatively closed off to facts if they are facts that go against beliefs, only learning more about that which is believed to be true. In my opinion the only way to change people’s minds on topics such as global warming, abortion, health care, etc. would be for them to actually experience both views playing out, so they can see what will happen, because hypotheticals, however factually based they are, are difficult to use to convince people.  If people cannot be persuaded by arguments and evidence this gives writers a very hard job, a job in which they have to present arguments in such a way that support the readers beliefs while also pushing for the results based on evidence. This leaves citizens of democracy at the hands of whichever political party has the most supporters, regardless of our individual thoughts.  According to Mooney, confirmation bias is worsened by technology and social media because it supplies an endless supply of information that supports our beliefs, rather than exposing us to the many beliefs of the world around us. Mooney says that conservatives are more apt to deny science because they are more authoritarian, denying results of individuals, and based on past political views involving science.  I think that this is because conservatives generally tend to be more religious, tightly bound to their beliefs that they have grown up with, which tend not to include science and deny certain aspects of it.

The Melancholy of Anatomy: Summary and Response

In his essay, The Melancholy Anatomy, essayist Wendell Berry argues that only a small portion of the small amount of information that humans have uncovered can be held as knowledge in an individual. Berry begins by discussing the difference between believing and knowing, saying that people know by evidence and believe by what they feel is true , what they are able to create images of in their mind, what they feel in their hearts, and stories they hear.  HE furthers this discussion by questioning whether there are things that cannot be known without belief, giving the example of religion.  Berry then explains that determining something’s value by the market, having a hatred of highly spiritualized religion, and thinking that it is harmless to miss things is proving to be destructive.  He continues by arguing that in order to preserve integrity we always need to have opposites for each other:  makers for the anatomists (an analogy used throughout the essay) who cut things apart, poets for analysts, arts for sciences, etc.  Berry then discusses people who are considered smart in our world and how they either analyze by breaking things into smaller parts or synthesizer by breaking things apart and then force them together. He then criticizes people for not seeing the complexity and connections that are present in our world.  Berry concludes by expressing that we, as people, have more and more information, but still the same capacity for knowledge, so as certain things enter our knowledge, other things escape our knowledge.

When Berry states, “We have accumulated a massive collection of ‘information’ to which we may have ‘access.’ But this information does not become knowledge by being accessible,” he is trying to say that information is not knowledge (14). By saying this Berry means that just because we have access to certain information does not necessarily mean we know that information. Berry suggests that knowledge is created once a person is able to remember and use information, not just when a person is able to read something and then forget it. The value of this knowledge, Berry suggested, is determined by its value on the market, by what is desired by consumers, and research is done based on the discoveries that will be the most profitable most of the time.  Research in the sciences is based on discovering things for revenge in the military-industrial complex, research here capitalizes on deprivarity.  Science research has moderately constrained our pursuit of knowledge by only pursuing those cases where the advantages outweigh the consequences, by doing that they can ignore other topics and fail to research them further. Additionally, science research mainly capitalizes on people’s fear, weakness, and financial situation.  By the conclusion of his essay, Berry advocates for general criticism, which he argues, will improve the integrity and health of the world.

Too Big to Know: Summaries Revised

Chapter 1 Summary: Before
       To begin the first chapter of his book, Too Big to Know, David Weinberger discusses the DIKW hierarchy.  This hierarchy resembles the structure of a pyramid where data is on the bottom, then information, then knowledge, and on the top, in the smallest portion of the pyramid lies wisdom. Weinberger explains that to get from one level of the pyramid to the next requires the processing of the current level, for example, one must process data to get information. Weinberger then expands on the topic of knowledge, exploring different views throughout time as well as views that have continued to hold true. Specifically, he discusses the view of ancient Athens that in order to for someone to be knowledgeable they must hold opinions that are both true and justifiable. (4) Next Weinberger transitions into a discussion about the evolution of knowledge as a filter. He discusses how knowledge used to be processing and retaining things necessary to our success and filtering out unnecessary information, but now, due to our seemingly endless resources we go through information trying to retain as much as we can about something, rather than just what we need to know.  Weinberger continues by discussing the need to fix our way of filtering in order to avoid the overload of information and how the control of filters is changing from experts to those closer to the general population, who we know. Then Weinberger points out that due to the influx of readily available information there is more good information, but also more bad information, there is more information readily available to prove a point, but also to contest that point. Finally, Weinberger ends the chapter by discussing the new structure of knowledge and its emergence as a wide and populous network rather than a pyramid. Through this chapter, Weinberger explores what knowledge is and its evolution through time as well as the evolution of how knowledge is used and handled.

Chapter 1 Summary: After
To begin the first chapter, entitled Knowledge Overload, of his book, Too Big to Know, David Weinberger discusses how knowledge and how knowledge is handled changes and evolves over time. He begins with the section, Triangular Knowledge, concerning the  DIKW hierarchy, where data is on the bottom, then information, then knowledge, and on the top, in the smallest portion of the pyramid lies wisdom. Weinberger explains that to get from one level of the pyramid to the next requires the processing of the current level, for example, one must process data to get information. Weinberger then expands on the topic of knowledge, exploring different views throughout time as well as views that have continued to hold true. Specifically, he discusses the view of ancient Athens that in order to for someone to be knowledgeable they must hold opinions that are both true and justifiable, something that still seems to be relevant. (4) Next Weinberger transitions into Info Overload as a Way of Life, a discussion about the evolution of knowledge as a filter, how now, due to our seemingly endless resources we go through information trying to retain as much as we can about something, rather than just what we need to know, as people used to do.  Weinberger continues by discussing the need to fix our way of filtering in order to avoid the overload of information and how the control of filters has changed over time; this is discussed in Filtering to the Front. Then Weinberger moves onto The New Institution of Knowledge and points out that due to the influx of readily available information there is more good information, but also more bad information, there is more information readily available to prove a point, but also to contest that point. Finally, Weinberger ends the chapter by discussing the new structure of knowledge and its emergence as a wide and populous network rather than a pyramid. Through this chapter, Weinberger explores what knowledge is and its evolution through time as well as the evolution of how knowledge is used and handled.

Chapter 1 Summary: Explanation 
      While revising my summary I began by writing a new first sentence. Previously my sentence was about a more specific point, so I changed it in order to express the main idea of the whole article, so that the following points I made were clearly in support of the main idea. Additionally, I added the title of both the chapter and the sections within the chapter to the summary. This allowed me to logically progress through the summary as well as provide points of reference. Finally, I reread the summary and eliminated any information that was too specific and unnecessary to summarizing the chapter, which made the summary more concise and straight to the point.



Chapter 2 Summary: Before

In Chapter Two of David Weinberger’s Too Big to Know, he opens the chapter by discussing how humans are built to stop searching for an answer once an answer is reached, so that we may search further for more information. In other words, we do not try to find the same answer four times over, we take the sources word for it, at least when the source is credentialed. Weinberger then goes on to discuss the emergence of facts and how knowledge in today’s world is built on the foundation of facts, but in the ancient world the foundation was, instead analogies, a way in which the ancients were able to draw connections in their world and explain things.  Weinberger also traces the development of facts from being universals to being particulars, leading from deductive reasoning into inductive reasoning, causing scientific theories such as Francis Bacon‘s theory on gases. Next, Weinberger discusses the significance of facts, that, when used, demand trust and backup arguments; he later addresses that there are now so many facts that for virtually every fact in an argument there is a readily available counter fact. Weinberger continues to discuss the evolution of the use of facts when he discusses the 1830s, when Jeremy Bentham convinced Parliament to treat everyone in the society as equals by using facts to construct statistics in order to make decisions for the society. He then moves on to the 1890s-1930s where facts become the way to settle disputes, both local and international through fact-finding missions.  Next, Weinberger discusses different types of facts that emerge through discussing Darwin’s “this is that” method of fact finding versus a service entitled Hunch, which asks questions to discover facts about you in order to use statistics to make suggestions for you. Further down the line the government creates “Data Commons,” which are data made public because they have no reason to be kept secret. Weinberger concludes this chapter by reviewing the phases of facts; he discusses Classic facts which are relatively sparse, painstakingly discovered and used to prove theories, database facts which cover a handful of fields, chosen and organized by a hand full of people, and networked facts which are facts linked to more information about the context of the fact as well as open to a network of disagreement. (38-39) This chapter discusses the emergence and the role that facts play.

Chapter 2 Summary: After
          In Chapter Two of David Weinberger’s Too Big to Know, which is entitled Bottomless Knowledge, Weinberger discusses the evolution, growth, and change in availability of facts. He opens the chapter by discussing how humans are built to stop searching for an answer once a satisfactory answer (usually from a credentialed source) is reached, so that we may search further for more information. Weinberger then goes on to his section entitled A History of Facts and discusses the emergence of facts and how knowledge in today’s world is built on the foundation of facts, but in the ancient world the foundation was built on analogies, a way in which the ancients were able to draw connections in their world and explain things. Weinberger also traces the development of facts from being universals to being particulars, leading from deductive reasoning into inductive reasoning. Next, Weinberger discusses the significance of facts, that, when used, demand trust and backup arguments; he later addresses that there are now so many facts that for virtually every fact in an argument there is a readily available counter fact. Weinberger continues to discuss the evolution of the use of facts when he discusses the 1830s, when Jeremy Bentham convinced Parliament to treat everyone in the society as equals by using facts to construct statistics in order to make decisions for the society. He then moves on to the 1890s-1930s where fact-finding--missions become the way to settle local and international disputes. Next, in Darwin‘s Facts, Weinberger discusses different types of facts that emerge through discussing Darwin’s “this is that” method of fact finding versus a service entitled Hunch, which asks questions to discover facts about you in order to use statistics to make suggestions for you. In the section entitled The Great Unnailing, Weinberger discusses how the government creates “Data Commons,” which are data made public because they have no reason to be kept secret. Weinberger concludes this chapter by reviewing the phases of facts; he discusses Classic facts which are relatively sparse, painstakingly discovered and used to prove theories, database facts which cover a handful of fields, chosen and organized by a hand full of people, and networked facts which are facts linked to more information about the context of the fact as well as open to a network of disagreement. (38-39) This chapter discusses the emergence and the role that facts play in our lives today.

Chapter 2 Summary: Explanation

       In this revision, I needed to fix very similar things as in the first summary. I began by inserting titles of the chapter and sections. I then needed to eliminate a part where what I was saying was not fully neutral. I also needed to get rid of some unnecessary specific examples as well as repetitive reiterations and explanations of points I brought up. Finally, I realized that the main idea of the article was not at the beginning, which caused my summary to seem like a series of points proving nothing in particular, so I changed the first sentence to address the main idea.

Too Big to Know: Chapter 2 - Summary and Response

In Chapter Two of David Weinberger’s Too Big to Know, he opens the chapter by discussing how humans are built to stop searching for an answer once an answer is reached, so that we may search further for more information. In other words, we do not try to find the same answer four times over, we take the sources word for it, at least when the source is credentialed. Weinberger then goes on to discuss the emergence of facts and how knowledge in today’s world is built on the foundation of facts, but in the ancient world the foundation was, instead analogies, a way in which the ancients were able to draw connections in their world and explain things.  Weinberger also traces the development of facts from being universals to being particulars, leading from deductive reasoning into inductive reasoning, causing scientific theories such as Francis Bacon's theory of gases. Next, Weinberger discusses the significance of facts, that, when used, demand trust and backup arguments; he later addresses that there are now so many facts that for virtually every fact in an argument there is a readily available counter fact. Weinberger continues to discuss the evolution of the use of facts when he discusses the 1830s, when Jeremy Bentham convinced Parliament to treat everyone in the society as equals by using facts to construct statistics in order to make decisions for the society. He then moves on to the 1890s-1930s where facts become the way to settle disputes, both local and international through fact-finding missions.  Next, Weinberger discusses different types of facts that emerge through discussing Darwin’s “this is that” method of fact finding versus a service entitled Hunch, which asks questions to discover facts about you in order to use statistics to make suggestions for you. Further down the line the government creates “Data Commons,” which are data made public because they have no reason to be kept secret. Weinberger concludes this chapter by reviewing the phases of facts; he discusses Classic facts which are relatively sparse, painstakingly discovered and used to prove theories, database facts which cover a handful of fields, chosen and organized by a hand full of people, and networked facts which are facts linked to more information about the context of the fact as well as open to a network of disagreement. (38-39) This chapter discusses the emergence and the role that facts play.

In Chapter Two of Too Big to Know, according to Weinberger we are built to put stopping points on our inquisitions once we get an answer, we do this because this opens us up to further inquiries and once we get an answer from a credentialed source we see no reason to cross check as that would take more time, resources, energy, and money in most cases.  Weinberger later moves on to the subject of facts, discussing how “facts” to the ancients meant universals from which there were able to use inductive reasoning to further their knowledge. Weinberger writes that rather than talk about this cat or that cat, they would talk about all cats. (25) This has helped us build knowledge today because we are able to adopt this inductive reasoning, instead of needing to know about or study each individual in  a population, we are able to form generalizations that are applicable to each individual, which I believe helps us to compartmentalize and thus retain our knowledge. Additionally, this idea later developed into facts being specifics, or particulars, which are used to form scientific theories about universals. Weinberger brings up Thomas Robert Mathus’ book in his discussion about facts, starting by describing the initial volume that had very little factual information. He them goes on to discuss how this book seems almost appalling with its generalizations, but them discusses how Mathus implemented facts once they became more accessible and how this changed his piece. Weinberger discusses this book in order to contrast a time when facts were rare and hard to find, to a time where facts were more readily available and how this shifted society from having an objective to a more subjective point of view.  Counter to the progression of the world around him at the time, Charles Dickens was against the implementation of facts; he thought that the implementation of facts would cause the destruction of imagination. While I see where Dickens was coming from, I do not think he took into account the fact that there is room for both facts and imagination in the world and much of imagination seems to be built by using pieces of facts. Weinberger continues his discussion about facts by comparing and contrasting Charles Darwin’s facts with facts generated by Hunch.com. Similarities between the two include that they are both facts and used to predict other things, but while Darwin’s facts are proving a scientific theory, Hunch’s facts are predicting things about the user. Additionally, Darwin’s facts were scarce and took years to discover and years to come together to prove his theory. On the other hand, Hunch’s facts are the result of asking questions, they do not specifically prove anything, they are used to compare to other users to predict what a specific user may like, but not necessarily. As time went on, Weinberger writes that networked facts emerge, providing more and more facts. As he points out, this leads to more facts about the context of a fact, but, as a downfall, this opens up a network of facts to cause disagreements. In other words, facts can no longer solve disagreements as easily as they used to.

Too Big to Know: Chapter 1 - Summary and Response

To begin the first chapter of his book, Too Big to Know, David Weinberger discusses the DIKW hierarchy.  This hierarchy resembles the structure of a pyramid where data is on the bottom, then information, then knowledge, and on the top, in the smallest portion of the pyramid lies wisdom. Weinberger explains that to get from one level of the pyramid to the next requires the processing of the current level, for example, one must process data to get information. Weinberger then expands on the topic of knowledge, exploring different views throughout time as well as views that have continued to hold true. Specifically, he discusses the view of ancient Athens that in order to for someone to be knowledgeable they must hold opinions that are both true and justifiable. (4) Next Weinberger transitions into a discussion about the evolution of knowledge as a filter. He discusses how knowledge used to be processing and retaining things necessary to our success and filtering out unnecessary information, but now, due to our seemingly endless resources we go through information trying to retain as much as we can about something, rather than just what we need to know.  Weinberger continues by discussing the need to fix our way of filtering in order to avoid the overload of information and how the control of filters is changing from experts to those closer to the general population, who we know. Then Weinberger points out that due to the influx of readily available information there is more good information, but also more bad information, there is more information readily available to prove a point, but also to contest that point. Finally, Weinberger ends the chapter by discussing the new structure of knowledge and its emergence as a wide and populous network rather than a pyramid. Through this chapter, Weinberger explores what knowledge is and its evolution through time as well as the evolution of how knowledge is used and handled.

Through this chapter Weinberger expresses that knowledge is a result of a strive to understand, it is our ability to retain and understand information as well as connect it to other things in a network. He discusses how knowledge grows and morphs as resources change; as the internet became readily available, so did information and places to store it. Due to the fact that we are no longer limited by a space as small as a library and we can find seemingly endless articles about a given subject, knowledge has become trying to know all you can rather than just what you need. As Weinberger points out, the old fear about knowledge was that all of the available information would cause a mental breakdown versus now, where the fear is that not enough of the information we need is being received because there is so much out there. I do agree with this point made by Weinberger, today it is hard to tell if you know enough about something, whether enough research was done, whether the correct articles and publications were read, because ultimately there will always be more than a couple of days of research will reveal, whereas when books were all that was available, there seems to be an endpoint, a point where you had to have done enough research. Additionally, in the past, Weinberger points out that, available knowledge was filtered out by the storage capacity of things like a library, a library will not have endless books on one subject, but will rather have a handful of books on that subject. On the other hand, currently the internet doers not filter out information, but rather filters forward information, which Weinberger explains by saying that the most relevant or credentialed or interesting or liked results will be at the beginning of a search, but behind the first page of results lies an ongoing list of more sources that are less relevant, or less credentialed, or less interesting, or less liked by your friends. Nevertheless, as Weinberger points out, these ‘bad’ sources are still out there. Furthermore, Weinberger discusses how the institution of knowledge is changing, how the pyramid structure is giving way to the network structure, which is wider, seemingly boundary-free, and full of not just full-time experts. Weinberger illustrates this with the example of Jack Hidary, who employs people to peer review works. Unlike before, these employees are not a small group of set full-time experts or full-time peer reviewers, rather there is a larger group of part-time experts to choose from.  Through Chapter one of Too Big to Know Weinberger discusses what knowledge is and how various aspects of knowledge, how it is produced, spread, altered, accessed, and applied has changed over time.