Although we as people use symbols every day, our most used and most
important symbol is our language. Written and spoken language is our main
source of communication (though technology is slowly diminishing that),
and without it we would have great confusion. But this unique ability to
communicate so effectively is what sets us apart from all other animals.
Another huge difference between humans and animals is our variety of
culture. And as Steven Pinker claims, our language is shaped by our
culture. This theory has been backed by many anthropologists who have
studied language structure in different communities and even tribes. We
as humans have put labels or words on every thing, idea, and concept, so
naturally we will use these symbols in such a way that expresses what is
important and what’s not so important in our culture. Studying the
language of any culture is a very effective way to learn about how the
people live. Pinker also points out that language is a reflection of
culture, instead of the culture being shaped by the language spoken. I
think it is interesting that the language or symbols we use are
constantly changing as long as our culture and way of life continues to
change and develop.
How can we live without symbols? Without them there is no way to
communicate or represent our thoughts and/or needs. Our language is a
complex set of symbols with a very particular set of rules that allow us
to express anything that we could think of. The words themselves are
symbols with a specific meaning as well as how we deliver the words to
whoever is listening. An example of this would be sarcasm. The literal
meaning of the sentence is usually very far off, if not the complete
opposite of, what the speaker is trying to say. I’m curious to see how
our society will change in future years and the effects it will take on
our language.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Michael Moore's Two Questions
Question 1: How do politicians use and manipulate symbols to control the population and/or get what they want?
Question 2: Humans are creatures that have used symbols for as long as we have been alive. What causes us to use symbols? Why are they so essential to a human society?
Question 2: Humans are creatures that have used symbols for as long as we have been alive. What causes us to use symbols? Why are they so essential to a human society?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Allison Wachtel's Two Questions
1. Can you identify any of the linguistic/rhetorical strategies that Stone mentions in any specific political speeches or philosophies? Which one(s) tend to move you most?
2. Do you think linguistic/rhetorical techniques have a legitimate place in political dialogue, campaigning, etc.? If not, what do you think our political system would look like if only the “trickle-up” theory were employed? Would it be more or less efficient?
2. Do you think linguistic/rhetorical techniques have a legitimate place in political dialogue, campaigning, etc.? If not, what do you think our political system would look like if only the “trickle-up” theory were employed? Would it be more or less efficient?
Symbols in Public Policy
by Allison Wachtel
Linguists generally acknowledge two main theories of language. One, which Steven Pinker spoke about in the assigned video, posits that language is shaped by culture; it is a tool of both the individual and society to communicate content and relationships. The second, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that language can actually dictate culture and thought by raising awareness of what it describes. A common example: the Inuit people have many more words for snow than we do as English speakers. Do they have so many terms for that single subject because of their environment and the subsequent importance of snow in their lives, or does the mere condition of having so many descriptors make them more aware of the different types of snow (thus necessitating those descriptors)?
Political language can be interpreted with similar variation. It seems to me, however, that when the speech in question is political, people tend to view it through both interpretations simultaneously: Either the politician is trying to “impose his/her beliefs” on the audience (the first hypothesis) or he/she is trying to “brainwash” the audience into putting more credence on a subject than it deserves, overlooking the real problems, etc. (the second hypothesis). This kind of reaction is certainly not unjustified; undoubtedly, there are indeed politicians who would love nothing more than for their peers and constituents to forget the substance of their policies and listen only to the language with which they were presented. However, I think it is important to remember the original role of emotion in language. The linguistic and rhetorical devices that Stone, Pinker, and Westin discuss are all intended to elicit some kind of emotional response from the listener – not necessarily to deceive, but to enable. Evolutionarily, emotion enabled us to make decisions (the right ones, hopefully) in dangerous situations where extensive reasoning would have been impossible. Now, they allow us to integrate values and logic in our political decision-making – a notion that might seem questionable on the surface but one that I think we would be reluctant to forsake. Thus, the linguistic and rhetorical techniques that politicians use might actually be marks of human communication at its most efficient.
Linguists generally acknowledge two main theories of language. One, which Steven Pinker spoke about in the assigned video, posits that language is shaped by culture; it is a tool of both the individual and society to communicate content and relationships. The second, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that language can actually dictate culture and thought by raising awareness of what it describes. A common example: the Inuit people have many more words for snow than we do as English speakers. Do they have so many terms for that single subject because of their environment and the subsequent importance of snow in their lives, or does the mere condition of having so many descriptors make them more aware of the different types of snow (thus necessitating those descriptors)?
Political language can be interpreted with similar variation. It seems to me, however, that when the speech in question is political, people tend to view it through both interpretations simultaneously: Either the politician is trying to “impose his/her beliefs” on the audience (the first hypothesis) or he/she is trying to “brainwash” the audience into putting more credence on a subject than it deserves, overlooking the real problems, etc. (the second hypothesis). This kind of reaction is certainly not unjustified; undoubtedly, there are indeed politicians who would love nothing more than for their peers and constituents to forget the substance of their policies and listen only to the language with which they were presented. However, I think it is important to remember the original role of emotion in language. The linguistic and rhetorical devices that Stone, Pinker, and Westin discuss are all intended to elicit some kind of emotional response from the listener – not necessarily to deceive, but to enable. Evolutionarily, emotion enabled us to make decisions (the right ones, hopefully) in dangerous situations where extensive reasoning would have been impossible. Now, they allow us to integrate values and logic in our political decision-making – a notion that might seem questionable on the surface but one that I think we would be reluctant to forsake. Thus, the linguistic and rhetorical techniques that politicians use might actually be marks of human communication at its most efficient.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Which is more important: Liberty or Security?
By Tyler Lee
The first thing that comes to mind for me when discussing the topic of
liberty and security is the US Patriot Act. I feel this is the most
relevant issue when discussing this topic and it is the most recent issue
in this discussion. This act, signed by former President Bush, gives law
enforcement agencies more freedom to search communication records and
financial records, and it gives them more freedom for using “big
brother-like” intelligence gathering. This act was created to “protect
the people” during a time of fear after September 11. The Patriot Act has
helped arrest and detain a few people before they have been able to commit
crimes. It can be said that it has raised security in America and
protected the nation. It can also be said that it has greatly taken away
our liberties. There are many innocent citizens that have been detained
without their constitutional rights, because the Patriot Act allows this
to occur. The act allows the government to tap phone lines, read e-mails,
and survey other forms of communication that would have otherwise been
kept private. In short, it has taken away the privacy of the individual.
The same privacy that our founding fathers made sure to give the citizens
in the Declaration of Independence when they use the word “liberty”.
One can argue that the Patriot Act protects life and builds extra
security. This idea of protecting “life” is also mentioned in the same
line in the Declaration as “liberty”. One must also note the last idea
mentioned in that line is the “pursuit of happiness”. When I think of the
idea of Liberty and Security in relation to the Declaration, I feel it is
important to use the idea of “pursuit of happiness”, to ask the question,
“Does raised security with less liberty, or raised liberty with less
security bring more happiness?” Personally, I think there needs to be a
balance. But there are people who believe in more security and there are
others who believe in more liberty.
Going back to the plan of the founding fathers, I think their idea was
more freedom for the individual. Do I think we are in the same situation
as we were in the 1700’s? No. I do not think that we can compare our
security and freedom then, to what it is now. In relation to freedom, we
had just broken away from the rule of England and were in the state of
mind that we were now free. In the present day, we have lived with the
idea of freedom for a few centuries. Also, I think our nation faces more
threats now than back in our country’s beginning. With the wars occurring
and the more dangerous weapons, security is a big issue that needs to be
covered. Although, I want there to be more freedom, I think it is
something that needs to be sacrificed to protect our safety as a nation,
and as individuals. I do think the Patriot Act is the wrong type of
security but I think America is trying.
In relation to this idea, one idea by Isaiah Berlin stood out to me.
Berlin’s central focus was individual freedom and how to protect it. To
me, it seems like security is the way to protect individual freedom. We
are a nation based on freedom and liberty. If we were to lose a war and
be taken over, we would lose our individual freedom. To protect ourselves
from this negative outcome, we must use security to remain safe. This is a
balance between liberty and security, and it would still protect our
individual freedom.
The first thing that comes to mind for me when discussing the topic of
liberty and security is the US Patriot Act. I feel this is the most
relevant issue when discussing this topic and it is the most recent issue
in this discussion. This act, signed by former President Bush, gives law
enforcement agencies more freedom to search communication records and
financial records, and it gives them more freedom for using “big
brother-like” intelligence gathering. This act was created to “protect
the people” during a time of fear after September 11. The Patriot Act has
helped arrest and detain a few people before they have been able to commit
crimes. It can be said that it has raised security in America and
protected the nation. It can also be said that it has greatly taken away
our liberties. There are many innocent citizens that have been detained
without their constitutional rights, because the Patriot Act allows this
to occur. The act allows the government to tap phone lines, read e-mails,
and survey other forms of communication that would have otherwise been
kept private. In short, it has taken away the privacy of the individual.
The same privacy that our founding fathers made sure to give the citizens
in the Declaration of Independence when they use the word “liberty”.
One can argue that the Patriot Act protects life and builds extra
security. This idea of protecting “life” is also mentioned in the same
line in the Declaration as “liberty”. One must also note the last idea
mentioned in that line is the “pursuit of happiness”. When I think of the
idea of Liberty and Security in relation to the Declaration, I feel it is
important to use the idea of “pursuit of happiness”, to ask the question,
“Does raised security with less liberty, or raised liberty with less
security bring more happiness?” Personally, I think there needs to be a
balance. But there are people who believe in more security and there are
others who believe in more liberty.
Going back to the plan of the founding fathers, I think their idea was
more freedom for the individual. Do I think we are in the same situation
as we were in the 1700’s? No. I do not think that we can compare our
security and freedom then, to what it is now. In relation to freedom, we
had just broken away from the rule of England and were in the state of
mind that we were now free. In the present day, we have lived with the
idea of freedom for a few centuries. Also, I think our nation faces more
threats now than back in our country’s beginning. With the wars occurring
and the more dangerous weapons, security is a big issue that needs to be
covered. Although, I want there to be more freedom, I think it is
something that needs to be sacrificed to protect our safety as a nation,
and as individuals. I do think the Patriot Act is the wrong type of
security but I think America is trying.
In relation to this idea, one idea by Isaiah Berlin stood out to me.
Berlin’s central focus was individual freedom and how to protect it. To
me, it seems like security is the way to protect individual freedom. We
are a nation based on freedom and liberty. If we were to lose a war and
be taken over, we would lose our individual freedom. To protect ourselves
from this negative outcome, we must use security to remain safe. This is a
balance between liberty and security, and it would still protect our
individual freedom.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Two Questions by Mr. Tyler Lee
1. Do you think America's form of liberty is closer to Berlin's idea of Positive Liberty or Negative Liberty? Explain your answer. How do you think America developed into this type of liberty? Do you think it is successful, or should it be changed?
2. Our founding fathers created our nation based on freedom and liberty. Do you think if they were alive now, they would be please with what America's freedom is now, or would they think America has given up too much freedom? Explain with some examples.
2. Our founding fathers created our nation based on freedom and liberty. Do you think if they were alive now, they would be please with what America's freedom is now, or would they think America has given up too much freedom? Explain with some examples.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Giving Up Freedom to Protect Freedom
by Ben Martinez
I know that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to politics and political concepts but when I think about liberty and freedom, and I am sure I am not the only one, I immediately think of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration which declared, as mentioned in the readings, that there exists a certain minimum area of personal freedom which must never be violated. They declared rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights or rights that are so undeniable that no one and especially no government can take them away. Although the founders declared all three to be inalienable, I occasionally wonder when I read that line whether they were intentionally listed in that order. Were they trying to tell us something? For example where they saying: you can limit the pursuit of happiness to ensure liberty and limit liberty to protect life? I don’t think they were but it raises an interesting topic of the balance between security and liberty.
In the readings Isaiah Berlin mentions the limits of freedom. He says that great thinkers have been asserting that if we had unlimited freedom, “because it would entail a state in which all men could boundlessly interfere with all other men; and this kind of 'natural' freedom would lead to social chaos in which men's minimum needs would not be satisfied”. He goes on to say that “they put high value on other goals, such as justice, or happiness, or culture, or security, or varying degrees of equality, they were prepared to curtail freedom in the interests of other values and, indeed, of freedom itself.” They would curtail ‘freedom’ in the interest of ‘freedom’.
Is it ever necessary to give up certain freedoms to preserve others? Before we can answer this question we must first decide what liberty and freedom mean? Well liberty can mean a lot of things, it can be the freedom to do a certain act without fear of danger or harm, it can be the freedom to receive the minimum resources necessary to reach ones own potential, or it can be the freedom to remain unobstructed and pursue your own happiness. This brings us back to the questions at hand; can free action be limited by law? Can it be protected by law? Does this even make sense? If you go with the last definition probably not, however I think that certain rules are necessary to protect free action. Without rules we would be reduced to chaos; however I feel that those rules can and should be instituted in a way that would maximize freedom and limit regulation. In writing our Constitution the founders set up a framework to protect freedom. In reading the preamble you hear: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. It is clear to me that they felt that liberty can be protected by a set of rules.
In closing I would like to end with a quote from Benjamin Franklin which I feel is relevant. The quote says “those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”
I know that I am a bit of a nerd when it comes to politics and political concepts but when I think about liberty and freedom, and I am sure I am not the only one, I immediately think of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration which declared, as mentioned in the readings, that there exists a certain minimum area of personal freedom which must never be violated. They declared rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights or rights that are so undeniable that no one and especially no government can take them away. Although the founders declared all three to be inalienable, I occasionally wonder when I read that line whether they were intentionally listed in that order. Were they trying to tell us something? For example where they saying: you can limit the pursuit of happiness to ensure liberty and limit liberty to protect life? I don’t think they were but it raises an interesting topic of the balance between security and liberty.
In the readings Isaiah Berlin mentions the limits of freedom. He says that great thinkers have been asserting that if we had unlimited freedom, “because it would entail a state in which all men could boundlessly interfere with all other men; and this kind of 'natural' freedom would lead to social chaos in which men's minimum needs would not be satisfied”. He goes on to say that “they put high value on other goals, such as justice, or happiness, or culture, or security, or varying degrees of equality, they were prepared to curtail freedom in the interests of other values and, indeed, of freedom itself.” They would curtail ‘freedom’ in the interest of ‘freedom’.
Is it ever necessary to give up certain freedoms to preserve others? Before we can answer this question we must first decide what liberty and freedom mean? Well liberty can mean a lot of things, it can be the freedom to do a certain act without fear of danger or harm, it can be the freedom to receive the minimum resources necessary to reach ones own potential, or it can be the freedom to remain unobstructed and pursue your own happiness. This brings us back to the questions at hand; can free action be limited by law? Can it be protected by law? Does this even make sense? If you go with the last definition probably not, however I think that certain rules are necessary to protect free action. Without rules we would be reduced to chaos; however I feel that those rules can and should be instituted in a way that would maximize freedom and limit regulation. In writing our Constitution the founders set up a framework to protect freedom. In reading the preamble you hear: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. It is clear to me that they felt that liberty can be protected by a set of rules.
In closing I would like to end with a quote from Benjamin Franklin which I feel is relevant. The quote says “those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”
Ben Martinez two questions
Is it sometimes necessary in order to protect life to sacrifice a little liberty? To what degree have we given up liberty to ensure personal security? Is this a bad thing?
Does positive liberty lead to inevitable horrors as was mentioned in “We will force you to be free”? Does negative liberty just lead to chaos? What are some examples?
Does positive liberty lead to inevitable horrors as was mentioned in “We will force you to be free”? Does negative liberty just lead to chaos? What are some examples?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
What Will our Planet Look Like in 50 Years?
by Scott Bergemann
Humans are unique in the sense that we can adapt within a matter of years. We don’t need reproductive mutation passed on through thousands of generations to develop a useful characteristic. We have technology. Ironically, the blind use of human technology is actually the cause of this potentially disastrous climate change. Ever since the industrial revolution we’ve been hopeless technology addicts. Lately we’ve come to find out that, although our modern technological advances are really fun and make us feel super cool, they aren’t very good for the earth’s health. The earth is obviously pretty sick---Hurricane Katrina, Europe’s heat wave, South Asia’s Tsunami---and scientists predict it is only going to get worse. In fact they have seriously been predicting climate change for the last ten years, and their predictions are daunting. They are predicting warmer temperatures, sea level rises, and even extinctions within the next twenty years. Look out your window right now, and remember it. When you’re old and dying, it’s not going to be the same looking world. I’m not a scientist so I can’t tell you exactly what it will look like, but it won’t be the beautiful place humans have come to know and love. It will sadly be marred by humans. Your children and grandchildren will not enjoy the same luxuries of playing outside on green grass that you did; it will be to dry and water will be much to precious for grass to grow freely, and the air quality would likely be unhealthy for the sensitive lungs of a child.
America has the most resources and influence of any other country on this planet. We have boundless technological capabilities, but it is how we use these capabilities that really counts. Currently we are not doing nearly enough to actually reduce green house gases and harness climate change. You can’t tell me that we have the technology to explore space, but we can’t develop a personal automobile that drives on earth without tarnishing the environment. It’s a bunch of bullshit. The fact is, no one up in Washington cares about the well being of the planet and its people; they care about money and power. The system is so inundated with special interest money---money pumped in by America’s top 1% so they stay at the top---that it is nearly impossible to get environmental interests considered. These wealthy lobbyists, CEO’s, and politicians may know that climate change is coming, but they know their money is going to come a hell of a lot faster. If you take a real, genuine moral high ground in politics, you lose all of your contributions, and you lose your job.
America claims to be the leader in the mitigation of global efforts to reduce green house gases world-wide, but we need a lot less commercials and a lot more action. We have to seat a momentous example, not minor regulations here and there. It is paramount that this reaction to climate change happens on a global scale, and therefore it would take tremendous cooperation and communication between the world’s powers.
It would be easy to isolate America from the rest of the world and not participate in these complex global policy issues. But that is an unrealistic way of thinking. The western countries let the proverbial genie out of the bottle years ago during the glorious industrial revolution, and now these developing countries want to have their wishes of living prosperously granted too. Problem is that we kind of realized what we were doing was uhhhh….BAD! So now we have a huge conflict of global values. Half of the globe has a secure way and means to living so they have half-heartedly moved on to caring for the security of the earth. The other half of the globe is trying to secure the coveted lifestyle we enjoy with no concern for the long-term health of the planet. Who is right? WAR!!!!!!!!!!
Humans are unique in the sense that we can adapt within a matter of years. We don’t need reproductive mutation passed on through thousands of generations to develop a useful characteristic. We have technology. Ironically, the blind use of human technology is actually the cause of this potentially disastrous climate change. Ever since the industrial revolution we’ve been hopeless technology addicts. Lately we’ve come to find out that, although our modern technological advances are really fun and make us feel super cool, they aren’t very good for the earth’s health. The earth is obviously pretty sick---Hurricane Katrina, Europe’s heat wave, South Asia’s Tsunami---and scientists predict it is only going to get worse. In fact they have seriously been predicting climate change for the last ten years, and their predictions are daunting. They are predicting warmer temperatures, sea level rises, and even extinctions within the next twenty years. Look out your window right now, and remember it. When you’re old and dying, it’s not going to be the same looking world. I’m not a scientist so I can’t tell you exactly what it will look like, but it won’t be the beautiful place humans have come to know and love. It will sadly be marred by humans. Your children and grandchildren will not enjoy the same luxuries of playing outside on green grass that you did; it will be to dry and water will be much to precious for grass to grow freely, and the air quality would likely be unhealthy for the sensitive lungs of a child.
America has the most resources and influence of any other country on this planet. We have boundless technological capabilities, but it is how we use these capabilities that really counts. Currently we are not doing nearly enough to actually reduce green house gases and harness climate change. You can’t tell me that we have the technology to explore space, but we can’t develop a personal automobile that drives on earth without tarnishing the environment. It’s a bunch of bullshit. The fact is, no one up in Washington cares about the well being of the planet and its people; they care about money and power. The system is so inundated with special interest money---money pumped in by America’s top 1% so they stay at the top---that it is nearly impossible to get environmental interests considered. These wealthy lobbyists, CEO’s, and politicians may know that climate change is coming, but they know their money is going to come a hell of a lot faster. If you take a real, genuine moral high ground in politics, you lose all of your contributions, and you lose your job.
America claims to be the leader in the mitigation of global efforts to reduce green house gases world-wide, but we need a lot less commercials and a lot more action. We have to seat a momentous example, not minor regulations here and there. It is paramount that this reaction to climate change happens on a global scale, and therefore it would take tremendous cooperation and communication between the world’s powers.
It would be easy to isolate America from the rest of the world and not participate in these complex global policy issues. But that is an unrealistic way of thinking. The western countries let the proverbial genie out of the bottle years ago during the glorious industrial revolution, and now these developing countries want to have their wishes of living prosperously granted too. Problem is that we kind of realized what we were doing was uhhhh….BAD! So now we have a huge conflict of global values. Half of the globe has a secure way and means to living so they have half-heartedly moved on to caring for the security of the earth. The other half of the globe is trying to secure the coveted lifestyle we enjoy with no concern for the long-term health of the planet. Who is right? WAR!!!!!!!!!!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Scott Bergemann's Two Questions
1. Do you think the current American environmental policies and efforts to address climate change have been sufficient in addressing the problem? Do you think politicians view climate change as a serious issue? Should it be a big issue? What further policies do you think should be implemented?
2. Do you think life on this earth (not the cities and cars, but the oceans, lakes, forests, nature etc.) will be any different for you children? Grandchildren? Great grandchildren? Do you think the policies made today will affect the earth looks like in seventy years?
2. Do you think life on this earth (not the cities and cars, but the oceans, lakes, forests, nature etc.) will be any different for you children? Grandchildren? Great grandchildren? Do you think the policies made today will affect the earth looks like in seventy years?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
What is Efficiency? From Dash Kramer
Efficiency is defined as an accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort. In her book, Policy Paradox, Deborah Stone agrees with this definition saying that a company is most efficient when they do an amazing job with what ever budget they may have. He talks about what makes a library efficient. When a library has an array of updated books with what low budget they may have is when they are considered efficient to Stone.
To me this isn’t the case at all. A company is efficient when they complete what goal they set out to do at the beginning of the year. They may achieve this by what ever means necessary. They don’t have to use all of their money or they can use it all and more if need be. A company is efficient when they achieve what they need to by what ever it takes. In the case of a library; to me, it can be efficient if they have to most commonly used books. It does not matter if they use all of their money or that they have a large selection of books but only if they have books that the customers need.
Efficiency to me is almost like a power struggle. Companies look at themselves by how efficient they are and what they accomplish as a company and if they met all of the requirements that were set at the beginning of the year. When the head of your company thinks that another company got better numbers than them and was there for more efficient the head of your company is going to get angry and want to do better in the next term to show that our company is the best. Efficiency is all about power to me when it comes to the big companies, who can do better than the others, there for is the better company.
What they fail to realize and what Stone fails to realize is that companies can be a great and efficient if they meet their set goals and standards and make their customers happy. A company may profit from meeting the quotas but if they really want to make as much money as they can then they need to treat those people the best and put the most time into them, the customer. The customer is the one who is going to keep coming back and putting more money into the company. When you have thousands and maybe even millions of them if you are one of the bigger companies and all of those customers are giving money back to the company from their yearly earnings. This will also help them out in the long run because if they create long lasting positive relationships with their customers then the customers and going to keep coming back and will tell the people that they know about your company which will create even more profit for your company. It is a huge circle that turns and turns and turns and always comes back to you. Companies should have their motto’s as “you get out what you put in.” If companies lived by this then they would make more money than they could e
To me this isn’t the case at all. A company is efficient when they complete what goal they set out to do at the beginning of the year. They may achieve this by what ever means necessary. They don’t have to use all of their money or they can use it all and more if need be. A company is efficient when they achieve what they need to by what ever it takes. In the case of a library; to me, it can be efficient if they have to most commonly used books. It does not matter if they use all of their money or that they have a large selection of books but only if they have books that the customers need.
Efficiency to me is almost like a power struggle. Companies look at themselves by how efficient they are and what they accomplish as a company and if they met all of the requirements that were set at the beginning of the year. When the head of your company thinks that another company got better numbers than them and was there for more efficient the head of your company is going to get angry and want to do better in the next term to show that our company is the best. Efficiency is all about power to me when it comes to the big companies, who can do better than the others, there for is the better company.
What they fail to realize and what Stone fails to realize is that companies can be a great and efficient if they meet their set goals and standards and make their customers happy. A company may profit from meeting the quotas but if they really want to make as much money as they can then they need to treat those people the best and put the most time into them, the customer. The customer is the one who is going to keep coming back and putting more money into the company. When you have thousands and maybe even millions of them if you are one of the bigger companies and all of those customers are giving money back to the company from their yearly earnings. This will also help them out in the long run because if they create long lasting positive relationships with their customers then the customers and going to keep coming back and will tell the people that they know about your company which will create even more profit for your company. It is a huge circle that turns and turns and turns and always comes back to you. Companies should have their motto’s as “you get out what you put in.” If companies lived by this then they would make more money than they could e
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Alexander Daley's Two Questions
1. Does the attachment of a title to a seller's name (such as Ph.D., M.D., etc.) blind a consumer to the fact that the person doing the selling is advertising a good or service, regardless of the quality of the service? Is this an efficient way of going about, for example, finding a doctor for your children?
2. Since we are dependent on sellers, what type of relationship between you and the seller is most beneficial? One of mutual exchange? Fear?
2. Since we are dependent on sellers, what type of relationship between you and the seller is most beneficial? One of mutual exchange? Fear?
Dash Kramer's Two Questions
Do you feel that a "library" or any company/ business is efficient when
they have the most outcome from what budget they may have? and how do you
measure when a business/ company is efficient?
when two parties agree on a deal, should the give and take be an immediate
result or can it be a long-term result and is that still an efficient
deal??
they have the most outcome from what budget they may have? and how do you
measure when a business/ company is efficient?
when two parties agree on a deal, should the give and take be an immediate
result or can it be a long-term result and is that still an efficient
deal??
Teacher Student Relations -- by Alexander Daley
The easiest way to understand an efficient relationship between a consumer and a seller; is to compare that relationship to a student and his or her teacher. Because titles attached to names influence the how we look at one another. In college, students are predominately taught by professors who have achieved the level of Ph.D. in their particular field. We as college students listen to what they have to say and immediately file it in our brains under the heading of: COMPLETE TRUTH. Why do we do this? Because they are "doctors", what they say has to be true, right? Well…maybe. As Stone states, "Any suppliers who sell a combination of services and advice - directly shape the preferences of their consumers." Then again, why listen to Stone? Because she was able to get her words published in a book? For now, we'll proceed with that conclusion.
A medical school friend of mine once asked me this question: "Alexander, what are the similarities and differences between a Ph.D., an M.D., and an R.D.?" When I could not answer he said, "M.D. and R.D. are exactly the same thing, because Medical Doctors are actually Real Doctors. A Ph.D. is not." I told this joke to my grandmother who just recently got her Ph.D., and she did not speak to me for a week. She was insulted for two reasons: First, I minimized the effort she spent on becoming a professor. Second, I undermined the authority of her title. Although I felt bad and eventually apologized, I still agree with my friend. Professors are not "doctors". They cannot prescribe medication or offer medical advice about the human body. They are; however, highly decorated with the title, because of their level of education in their field of study. Needless to say, I no longer tell this joke around the CLU campus, in fear for my grades. Which leads to the question, what type of relationship is best to have with a professor if you are a student?
You cannot have a relationship with a teacher geared toward mutual gain. What you have to say and offer, they have probably heard from countless other students or have studied for themselves first hand. Students may not have anything original to offer, but professors do (or so we are forced to believe). Going back to what I asked before, why do we file what they say under: COMPLETE TRUTH? I should follow this question with: Do you really have a choice? The relationship is one based upon the hierarchy of authority. The relationship is more based on fear of failure than anything else. There exists a subconscious cause and effect fear that usually sounds like, "If I don't listen to them, then I will probably fail the class." Stone also says that there is a measure of pleasure that we derive from watching others in a state of discomfort. Questions and challenges put people in a state of discomfort. Professors asked questions and face us with challenges. But when we answer a question correctly or overcome a challenge, we (as consumers) feel better.
This argument could go on for pages and pages. The bottom line is that both consumers and sellers have to follow what John Nash defined as: Game Theory; in order to have society function efficiently. Doing what is best for oneself, while doing what is best for the collective (or relationship). For whatever their reason (and there are several), students must listen to their teachers to do what is best for themselves and TRUST that what they are being taught is the truth. Likewise, teachers must teach in a way that is best for their students collectively. No doubt, we want to defy authority. We sing about it, write books on it, and sometimes we practice defiance. However, we have to put down the torches and pitchforks, push certain urges aside, and accurately define a relationship. Otherwise efficiency would forfeit to chaos. Then again, why listen to me?
A medical school friend of mine once asked me this question: "Alexander, what are the similarities and differences between a Ph.D., an M.D., and an R.D.?" When I could not answer he said, "M.D. and R.D. are exactly the same thing, because Medical Doctors are actually Real Doctors. A Ph.D. is not." I told this joke to my grandmother who just recently got her Ph.D., and she did not speak to me for a week. She was insulted for two reasons: First, I minimized the effort she spent on becoming a professor. Second, I undermined the authority of her title. Although I felt bad and eventually apologized, I still agree with my friend. Professors are not "doctors". They cannot prescribe medication or offer medical advice about the human body. They are; however, highly decorated with the title, because of their level of education in their field of study. Needless to say, I no longer tell this joke around the CLU campus, in fear for my grades. Which leads to the question, what type of relationship is best to have with a professor if you are a student?
You cannot have a relationship with a teacher geared toward mutual gain. What you have to say and offer, they have probably heard from countless other students or have studied for themselves first hand. Students may not have anything original to offer, but professors do (or so we are forced to believe). Going back to what I asked before, why do we file what they say under: COMPLETE TRUTH? I should follow this question with: Do you really have a choice? The relationship is one based upon the hierarchy of authority. The relationship is more based on fear of failure than anything else. There exists a subconscious cause and effect fear that usually sounds like, "If I don't listen to them, then I will probably fail the class." Stone also says that there is a measure of pleasure that we derive from watching others in a state of discomfort. Questions and challenges put people in a state of discomfort. Professors asked questions and face us with challenges. But when we answer a question correctly or overcome a challenge, we (as consumers) feel better.
This argument could go on for pages and pages. The bottom line is that both consumers and sellers have to follow what John Nash defined as: Game Theory; in order to have society function efficiently. Doing what is best for oneself, while doing what is best for the collective (or relationship). For whatever their reason (and there are several), students must listen to their teachers to do what is best for themselves and TRUST that what they are being taught is the truth. Likewise, teachers must teach in a way that is best for their students collectively. No doubt, we want to defy authority. We sing about it, write books on it, and sometimes we practice defiance. However, we have to put down the torches and pitchforks, push certain urges aside, and accurately define a relationship. Otherwise efficiency would forfeit to chaos. Then again, why listen to me?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)