The Affect of Fishnet Stockings

According to Courtney Martin, the term feminism is riddled with paradoxes. The three most prevalent being rejecting the past, then promptly reclaiming it, sobering up about our smallness and maintaining faith in our greatness, and finally aiming to succeed wildly and being fulfilled by failing really well.

Addressing the first paradox, I completely agree with it in this situation, but many others as well. Feminists like herself came to a point where they wanted to reinvent themselves. Long gone was the old and matronly protesters of the 1920's and a new modern woman who bubbled with confidence replaced her. But in any walk of life, it is vital to remember where one comes from, and what it has taken to reach the place you stand today. Just as is with children; so many are quick to grow up, and once they have, seek to return to their state of youth. People who have lived the 'American Dream', and turned their rags to riches frequently address the time when they were less fortunate to keep them grounded as they continue their lives, just as was necessary with many feminists as they modernized their look and ideals.

Some times we inflate our own minds with thoughts of greatness and invincibility. Oposingly we are always told to be our own worst critic. As said by Parker Palmer, "We are whiplashed between an arrogant overestimation of ourselves and a servile underestimation of ourselves," (Parker Palmer). These two extremes exist within the human mind, and rarely ever do we seem to find the medium. I personally know that I can either wake up confident one day or hopeless the next, although the majority on the former as we all should. Yet we need that bit of criticism, the tiny bit of negativity to keep our minds on the ground. We need to recognize our capability to do incredible things more often though. Just as Dave Eggers mentioned in his TED talk, some of the kids he dealt with had no idea how great they were and needed to be shown that. Although some children are incapable of showing themselves how good they may be at something, the remainder of the world should not do this to themselves. Feel your strengths, and bring them to your attention, realize the power you hold. However, with all other skills, they become ineffective without the opposite to balance it out. From her talk, I felt Courtney indirectly brought up the theme of balance through the paradoxes, which is vital to our lives.

Again, the balance between success and failure becomes the last factor of defining the word feminism. It is the balance that made the movement, and the balance is what will preserve it and drive it forward in the future.

Although very briefly she addresses the theme of heros, but I personally found it to be one of the most meaningful points in her talk. She said that most of us fail to recognize the heros in our day to day life. Hero's aren't the people who won the Superbowl, or the singer of the Grammy winning song. They are parents, coaches and teachers. The people who make a difference on our own personal levels of community, the firefighters, and police officers. Making changes and touching people's lives and bettering others through themselves is the key, not whether or not they can throw a ball through a hoop. Celebrities are idolized in our society, and I ask why? Why do you care more about them than a teacher who helped a child finally reach his or her proper reading level? Who made the difference that will directly effect the future?

At one point she said, "we don't want one hero, we don't want one face," (Courtney Martin). Why should they settle for one? All members of the movement are heros, through their daily activity they are slowly making the world an even more equal future, for young women worldwide to live in. Each one of them is committed to the cause, and to name one of them as their 'hero' or poster face not only creates an unrealistic image of the group, but undermines their goals of equality between all.

It was a pair of fishnets that convinced Courtney that she could carry the feminist label, and it was her words that convinced me I could wear one too. She said, "It's not man hating,"(Courtney Martin), but rather seeing value in yourself and the other women surrounding you. True heros are under appreciated, so take time to find the ones in your life who make the biggest difference in your life and let them know. I think performing the task of raising a child deserves a medal, recognition for the struggle and triumph the experience is. After seeing this TED talk, my respect for many has been renewed and I feel strength in myself that every little girl should be taught to feel. Balance is essential to every life form on earth, and we are no exception. Our life is a journey to find just the right mix.

Courtney's TED talk and many others like hers can be found at http://www.ted.com/themes/celebrating_tedwomen.html

Obesity is the Answer to Hunger?

Ellen Gustafson spent her TED talk speaking of the change she seeks in the global food system. However she doesn't adress how to make this change, why it is needed, or what would to be fixed by it. I feel as though she left more than a few of my questions unanswered.

She says that America is not properly exporting food systems, and doesn't bother to elaborate on the meaning of this term. So she leaves me curious, what does this mean? How can it be fixed? She also refers to the farming problems in the U.S. and says they were caused by an oil crisis? How could it be possible that our country would allow a decline in the most vital and neccessary of all our industries? We eat, everyday, three times a day, sometimes more. How can the farming system be on the decline with the exponentially increasing popluation? It doesn't seem feasable.

She also spoke of the change that has happened in the food system within the past thirty years, yet again doesn't explain what the change has been, or the influence that it has had over the food system not only in our country but globally either. Her foundation Project 30 has the motive of once again changing the food system in the next thirty years but quickly talks through the goals of the organization and expands little on them. What difference will her foundation make in the food system? She says it will focus on the long term effects of the past change in the food system, so I ask her, what are those long term effects?

There is truth in the words she speaks about increased violence in hungry countries, yet it seems irrelevant to the point she tries to make. It appeared too that most of her information was clumped onto her slides, and she didn't elaborate on what was written there or bother to even mention the information on them at all. She spoke very quickly, showing obvious nervousness, and spoke vaguely throughout her entire presentation which gave me, as an audience member, the impression that she was fairly uneducated on the topic which she spoke about. I also would have liked her to address the link between the problems more, and how they both can be solved by the same solution.

I am in agreeance that a change needs to be made in our food system, as she said, "There are 1 billion people hungry, and 1 billion people obese," (Ellen Gustafson). I think that supporting 3rd world farmers, and giving them the tools necessary to quickly become independent and not only self sustaining but profitable is the answer to this problem. If they can produce food plentiful enough for themselves and people living in their villages hunger will be a thing of the past.

Ellen's TED talk can be found at http://www.ted.com/talks/ellen_gustafson_obesity_hunger_1_global_food_issue.html

Others can be found at ted.com as well

Once Upon a School

Dave Eggers opens his TED talk with a story about educators. He knows many but is not one himself, he is rather a writer. He tells of their struggles with many students, who needed one-on-one time to comprehend their materials. However, with the low teacher to student ratio it would be impossible to give students this opportunity, and if attempted only a single hour of one-on-one instruction would be available to each student per week. 

Students struggled with keeping up with their reading and writing grade level, often in under funded schools. The answer to these problems could all be solved simply with more people to help. Dave knew many writers, like himself who had incredibly flexible schedules, and were willing to help, so he took action. With the purchase and renovation of a retail property into a pirate supply store -in order to pay the rent- these writers now had a location where students would be able to come after school for additional help and tutoring.

Another factor comes into play here, refered to by Clay Shirky as Cognitive Surplus. As described in a previous blog post of mine, Cognitive Surplus is.... It was demonstrated in this situation. There were many writers with free time and willingness to help these struggling students. This Cognitive Surplus sparked exponential growth in the idea, and the organization which grew from 12 to 1400 volunteers. Any free time volunteered was appreciated, and people began coming in more and more often, sometimes directly after work, simply to help the students in need.

The compassion and devotion of these volunteers drove these students to new limits, and far past the old ones they had set for themselves. Students were even given the opportunity to write books, ones that would be published and sold to the outside world. The store grew in popularity once the books were published and sold within it. Inspired by the tremendous success of the store and tutoring, similar organizations opened, like the Brooklyn Superhero Supply.

Since Cognitive Surplus played such a large role in the development of the program I feel that it makes for an even more inspiring story. Hundreds of selfless people with a little extra time put it towards a cause greater than themselves. Knowing that just one or two extra hours of your time a week can make a significant difference in a students education will hopefully inspire more people to get out and help others, no matter the amount of time they are able to commit.

Dave's talk opened my eyes to the devotion that people can have towards local organizations. These people didn't have to take on massive projects to make a world wide difference. They were able to just take what they had, an apply it on a small scale. As more people did the same it grew to become known world wide and inspired others to take part in volunteering locally.

We have talked in my English class about the significance of one-on-one time with instructors. As Dave said, "It's been proven that 35-40 hours a year with one-on-one attention, a student can get one grade higher," (Dave Eggers). Imagine what the world could look like if people shared their knowledge with children more often, on a more personal level. The education system would make leaps and bounds, new discoveries could be made faster and ultimately a greater future would emerge. The children of today are quite literally the future, so investing our time and talents in them is the best of gifts possible to give to the world. The only way to expand human understanding of life is through these forms of Cognitive Surplus, and everyone is able to and should contribute.

I would have preferred the talk to have ended with a challenge rather than a wish. In my mind a wish typically represents unreasonable wanting or hopefulness, yet not always. A challenge to the audience would have ended the talk on a stronger note, igniting the flame of competition. Not that competition should be the driving force behind volunteering, but it would have been a source for the motivation of knowing that someone wants you to better the world for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do.

Website with information on the tutoring organization:
onceuponaschool.org

Dave Eggers TED talk:

Others can be found at ted.com

Replace Your Lawn With a Meadow

Nature Deficit Disorder is the lost connection between humans and nature, according to Dennis vanEngelsdorp. He says that this is the main cause for loosing 30% of the bee colonies over the winter... for the second year in a row. I don't see how it is possible to perform counts accurate enough to report that 30% of the bee colonies have died over the winter, but he says recovery is easy and all that must be done is to split the remainder of the hive and introduce a new queen to the half without one and they will be able to increase their population once again. Yet, where are theses queens coming from? vanEngelsdorp simply states, "in the mail,"(Dennis vanEnglesdorp). What happens to those hives that these queens are being taken from, and what happens when they run out? It appears that it will be an issue that won't even result in being addressed since hive keepers can only afford to repeat this process up to 3 years in a row, since the 'solution' is so costly. It hardly seems like a solution if it is so unsustainable.

1/3 of the food eaten by humans is either directly or indirectly pollinated by bees. If all of them are to die, humans may be able to survive off the other pollinators, such as butterflies and bats. But they too are struggling for life. Bats are dying off at incomprehensible rates, even faster than the bees. What are we to do in a world where pollination ceases in existence? Where do we go from there? No fruits, no vegetables, no plants and the rest of earth on life starts heading down the same path. Education on this topic needs to be spread an a quickened pace if the world seeks to solve the mystery of dying pollinators. Without them life for any of us is impossible.

Dennis relates the topic even further to the audience through talking about the families who survive solely on their hives. These nomadic families move their bees and lives twice a year to give the bees areas to pollinate. With the loss of these bees, thousands of people are loosing not only their livelihood but a special connection they have developed with nature and those sharing the same profession.

Colony Collapse Disorder faces millions of hives world wide. Toxic pesticides are infecting bees upon contact with many crops, and within minutes are killing them. Telephone radiation has also been experimented and shown to alter a bee's navigation system, making it difficult for them to return home to the hive, and dying in the process.

So how can we fix this disconnect between human and nature? A simple solution is Dennis vanEnglesdorp's answer,  make meadows, not lawns. A meadow is an ecosystem teeming with life compared to the starch, desolate areas we use for yards. Lawns are entirely void of life and dissuade the process of it within its parameters. If humans were to step back and give nature the reigns once again a safe and quick recovery is ensured. However it is not a total hands off approach, little things such as planting a pesticide free garden and buying organic at all times possible encourage and aid the recovery of our falling pollinators. 

The Path of Ushahidi or LOLcats

During June of 2010, Clay Shirky opened his TED talk with the story of unrest in Kenya, which occurred in 2007 after the presidential election. The government shut down media output as an attempt to keep the citizens uneducated on the state of the country. One blogger, a woman by the name Ory Okolloh became a necessary source for the people of Kenya to understand where violence was taking place in their own country, due to the lack of media. Her followers supplied her with information as to what was happening in different areas of the country. More comments and information poured in until the point that Ory was incapable of posting all the events due to lack of time. Two of her followers then designed the program Ushahidi. The program took reports from her commenters and aggregated it and then placed it on a map to further simplify the understanding of all the commotion. The program has since become open source and has been successfully launched to track snow removal in Washington D.C. and other various subjects such as after shock from the Haitian earthquake.

He then goes on to say, "Now what Okolloh did would not have been possible without digital technology. What Okolloh did would not have been possible without human generosity," (Clay Shirky). He refers to a situation in which those two circumstances exist as cognitive surplus. Cognitive surplus is composed of the world's ability to volunteer, collaborate and contribute to large projects and free time and talents of the world's population. Media and tools allow the talent to then become material. However he says the world has a total of over a trillion hours of free time. Estimating the population of the planet to be around 6.9 billion that means each person would have around 143 hours of free time a year. Now I am curious what he defines free time as, because I personally know that I have over a half hour of free time per day. Unless he wouldn't refer to that as free time. An experiment of that magnitude seems as though it would become more inaccurate as you applied it to a larger group of people. Never the less, this is what he says.

He begins another story, the one of LOLcats.

These developments are a form of cognitive surplus. Despite their insignificance, they stand on the same level of the Ushahidi program, being defined by the characteristic that their creator did something instead of nothing. However LOLcats are of communal value, they provide use and enjoyment for the participants of the cause. Ushahidi on the other hand is of civic value, providing benefits to not only the participants of the cause, but to all of society. I find the LOLcats to be of very little value, quite honestly, not only does our world have this supposed trillion + hours of free time, they are, in my opinion, wasting it on something such as these. This contrast he poses to the audience I find shocking, and especially effective at opening my mind. Although hard to understand at first his words are starting to penetrate my thoughts, and his speech marks the beginning many what if... thoughts which multiply quickly.

If humans have the growing free time and generosity that Shirky says they do, why aren't they directing it towards projects of more civic value? It's although most people are 90% there, they just have to make a small but different decision to direct their free time and talent towards a cause that would help more people.

In the conclusion of his TED talk I feel although he poses a challenge to me,

"There is a trillion hours a year of participatory value, up for grabs. That will be true year-in and year-out. The number of people who are going to be able to participate in these kinds of projects is going to grow. And we can see that organizations designed around a culture of generosity can achieve incredible effects without an enormous amount of contractual overhead. What's going to make the difference here is what Dean Kamen said, the inventor and entrepreneur. Kamen said,'Free cultures get what they celebrate.' We have got a choice before us. We've got this trillion hours a year. We can use it to crack each other up, and we're going to do that. That we get for free. But we can also celebrate, and support, and reward the people trying to use cognitive surplus to create civic value." (Clay Shirky). Going back to what I previously said about seeking to use more of your time for increasing civic value, I think Shirky asks a hidden question in his words, 'which will you be?'. Will you be a person who uses their free time and creativity as a useless attempt to spread a worthless idea? Or will you take the basic simplicity of what you have naturally been bestowed with, and change the world for the better?

Although unspoken, his words ask me this. Upon hearing this question and visualizing the difference between the two I know that I will try my hardest to be the latter. I understand that every once in awhile everyone seeks out that time specifically for themselves, but I think that society has been taught to always put themselves first. Few people are educated on the unfortunate lives of others, and rarely have that thought pass through their minds. When it is necessary, take care of yourself, but direct free time towards people and causes in need. When specifically directed, all the cognitive surplus could result in a world full of LOLcats, or a magnificent place, full of helpful programs like Ushahidi, where people direct their talent and free time to projects that can provide benefits to all, and positively alter our future.

Clay Shirky's TED talk:

Many others can be found at ted.com

Would a Sweeter Carrot Entice You?

Dan Pink opens his TED talk with the candle problem. Those who complete the challenge will be compensated based on how competitive their time is. You must hang the candle on the wall without having any of the wax drip on the table, simple enough, yet becomes a challenge once most see the design of the situation. They are presented with this scenario.

It takes quite some time, but after some cognitive work, people end up with this as a result after several attempts such as trying to attach it to the wall with tacks or melted wax from the candle itself.

However when presented with this situation people were able to knock up to three minutes off the time it took to solve the puzzle. In fact, those who were offered the compensation during the first trial did even worse when the factor of a prize was added into the equation. There seems to be no logical answer to this. We have lived in a society where people are constantly rewarded for the 'good' they do and quite simply punished for the 'bad' as an effort to encourage better performance. Yet in this situation it didn't work, and there seems to be no reason for it.

In repeated studies, as Dan Pink points out, "that once a task called for rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance," (Daniel Pink). People assume that to improve your performance you must simply be enticed by either a sweeter 'carrot' or sharper 'stick'. However the reward produced the exact opposite effect that it was designed for, it worsened the performance.

When the tacks are in the box, the situation requires more cognitive skill, a right brained approach. However when the tacks were removed and the participants were aware of their reward, the mechanical skill kicked in and improved their performance. Once aware of a reward, the pressure of the 'out of the box' thinking caused the people who were given the situation with the tacks in the box, to perform worse than the other trial. Quite simply put, rewards work for situations requiring mechanical skill, and improve performance, however rewards act in the exact opposite way when applied to cognitive tasks, and prove to have a negative impact on performance.

It has also been found in multiple studies that when given the time to direct themselves in work, people do the most innovative and creative work. In many situations the best improvements for software and other products have been thought of when very little to nothing rode on the outcome of a person's thinking. Autonomy gives people the freedom to persue their interests which ultimately leads to better results.


In 1995 Microsoft began to develop a encyclopedia to be named Encarta, written by experts on each topic and would be entirely free and on the internet for anyone to utilize. A similar encyclopedia also took form that year, also to be published online and free as well. But the difference in this one was that the second encyclopedia would be entirely written by volunteers. No pay, no motivation, yet the idea caught on. The Encarta was discontinued in 2009 while the other encyclopedia, referred to a wikipedia, now stands as the number one online encyclopedia in the world. The results shocked countless economists, it seems implausible that an entirely volunteer based network would ever out perform one made by experts. Yet it did.


Each one of these experiments leads back to intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation in humans, which is Dan Pink's ultimate point. He says, "mastery is the urge to get better at stuff, we like to get better at stuff, this is why people play instruments on the weekend. You have all these people who are acting in ways that seem irrational economically," (Dan Pink). Yet people do this for satisfaction, for entertainment. We are more motivated by what we see as worthwhile, what we enjoy. We seek less reward when we are motivated to do a task intrinsically. Also stated by Dan Pink, "Management is great if you want compliance, but if you want engagement, which is what we want in the workforce today, as people are doing more complicated sophisticated things, self direction is better," (Daniel Pink). When self directed by intrinsic motivation ideas arise that would have remained unthought of, and not only that, people are willing to do the work for little or no compensation because it is done by what drives them.

Doing tasks for ones own sake is the number one motivator and Pink continually refers back to this point one way or another throughout his speech. It is especially effective when he repeats the saying that, "there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does," (Dan Pink). His passion about the topic often spills over as he shouts out to the audience that intrinsic motivators will always overcome extrinsic, but every point he makes is valid.

No one wants to live a life where they are stuck in a position doing work that they don't even like. If the world is able to digest this information it would lead to a future of more innovation and happiness. People must be educated about how humans are motivated and what they personally are motivated by to help the human race progress through the future. With this knowledge in hand I look to follow my interests more because not only will they lead to a better performance from me, but it will also lead to more innovation and creativity which will ultimately aid the world and our race as we enter the uncertain future.

Dan Pink's TED talk:

For those seeking more information on Intrinsic v. Extrinsic motivation :

http://p2pfoundation.net/Intrinsic_vs._Extrinsic_Motivation

Eating Their Death

Today, most Americans will poison themselves. That is considering poison a substance that causes death or injury, and the food eaten by most Americans today is exactly that.

Jamie Oliver opened his TED talk with brutal truth and honesty. He looks out to the audience, and tells all the parents that this world of food that they have surrounded their children with will result in a death ten years earlier than their own. He continues to grasp the attention of the startled audience when he pulls up this chart on the enormous screen behind him. Full of passion and drive, he speaks,“We spend our lives being paranoid about death, murder, homicide, you name it. It’s on the front page of every paper, CNN. Look at homicide at the bottom for God’s sake. Right? Every single one of those in the red is a diet-related disease.” (Jamie Oliver).

From the top: Heart Disease, All Cancers, Stroke, Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease, Accidents, Diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, Influenza and Pneumonia, Kidney Disease, Septicemia, Suicide, Chronic Liver Disease, Hypertension, Parkinson's Disease, Homicide

He proposes a simple solution. Worthwhile and inexpensive; he wants to educate children about food.

Innovation and creativity are vital to our survival as a species, but even more important is health. Without it humans can't even expect to live to a point where they are able to create and make a difference in the world. Jamie alerts the audience to another disturbing statistic,“Fact. Diet-related disease is the biggest killer in the United States, right now, here today,” (Jamie Oliver).  New inventions or improvements in education will do the human race no good if all have already died due to health issues. Jamie pulls a picture of a young 16 year old girl. Severely obese, her doctors don't expect for her to live for six more years. Immediate action needs to be taken to save her life. Many other things in this world are important and must be fixed, but right here and now health must be put as the top priority.

People around the world are eating themselves to death. Jamie believes that with simple education on food this problem can be fixed. He shows this clip during his TED talk, showing the disturbing lack of education on food in America.

The crowds' mouths hung open in astonishment. He quickly tells them how fixable the problem is. Within 2 one hour sessions every child in the room could name each of the vegetables with ease. Knowing what the food is not only makes them more likely to eat it, but also to eat less of the processed foods that they love since they now know the consequences of them.

We won't live to see the future of tomorrow if these health problems aren't fixed today. He brings out a wheel barrel full of sugar cubes, and dumps them on the stage. The milk drank by the children of America contains nearly as much sugar as a soda drink and the amount he dumps on stage represents the amount of sugar consumed through five years of elementary school... from milk only. Something supposed to be good and healthy for humans is nearly as processed and as detrimental to health as a soda. Most students are served two meals a day 180 days out of the year at school. Having a lack of cutlery at school means that most of the food being served is fast food. The big companies must make a change soon for the betterment of society and must hold themselves to a moral standard at which they can supply healthy, decent food to these schools.

Every word spoken during Jamie Oliver's TED talk is drenched in passion, depth and devotion. As a parent, these food issues with children hit home with him. He is almost frantic moving across the stage in a zig zag formation, bursting with the knowledge he wishes to spew out to the people of the world. He is exciting to watch, upbeat and optimistic, yet sobered by the truth and reality of the situation that many other countries, like America, have gotten themselves into.

A drastic change needs to be made  in society immediately, for there is no way to continue life this way. Children must be educated about food and what they choose to put in their bodies. You truly are what you eat, because any nutrient your body requires comes from consuming food, and I doubt we live in a world where everyone wants to be made of disgusting food that is fried and processed beyond recognition.  With simple education not only is obesity preventable, but also the disease caused by it. 

I personally didn't eat any fried or processed foods prior to this and try to eat organic when I can, but this TED talk has shown me that I must do much more. It is my responsibility to spread the knowledge I already have about eating healthy fresh food combined with the new things I have learned from Mr. Oliver to inspire people to take their health into their own hands, and especially to encourage their  kids to do so, since they are the future of this planet. 

By spending a little time teaching children about how food effects their bodies, the world can slowly work to a better more positive future with children living longer, not shorter than their parents, with every generation to come.

Jamie Oliver's inspirational TED talk:

You can also find other TED talks similar to Jamie Oliver's at http://www.ted.com/themes/food_matters.html