TED Talk 8

Charles Limb: Your brain on improv

Improvisation: the word everyone fears. Having to quickly think and create something on the spot. Although for some people it is very unnerving, for others it is fun and easy. Charles Limb discusses the theme of improvisation in his TED talk. More specifically, he talks about the research he has done about creativity and how brain activity varies depending on if the person is reciting or improvising. He and his coworkers based their research off of three musical experiments. For all three, they got very accomplished musicians, and tested them in an fMRI scanner, so that they could assess the brain activity during the tests. The first of the three involved having several different jazz musicians individually play both a memorized piece, and then an improvised one. They were put in the scanner laying down with a small keyboard resting on their legs. From this experiment, they learned that there was a big difference between memorizing and improvising. When the person was improvising, it seemed as if there was an odd interaction in the frontal lobe. One part had to turn on, and another huge part had to turn off, so as to not shut out or reject new ideas and impulses that come. After that, Limb and his coworkers realized that music is not always solo; most of the time it is communicative and interactive. The second test involved still putting the musicians in with the keyboard, but this time, they traded back and forth with Limb (who was in the control room) by improvising. They found several interesting results from this experiment. It was noticed that when the musicians were trading back and forth, the language area of their brain lit up. The experimenters realized that music can be seen as expressive communication, because of that trading back and forth. They called this "musical conversation." For the third experiment, they decided to test rappers, because rap now takes the social role that jazz used to. First the rapper had to memorize and recite a rap that had already been written, and then had to improvise after that. Every few seconds there would be a cue word that would keep them on track and guide them what to say next. The results of this test also showed the language area of the brain lit up, but also showed the visual portion lit up, which was interesting because the person had to improvise with their eyes closed. From the results of these three tests, Charles Limb and his fellow workers discovered some secrets of the brain and that it is possible to study creativity just like any other neurological process. He also made the comment that the study of innovativeness is still in its infancy. It will soon flourish, and there is so much that we do not know about our brains. He, and many others are few of the many that have started this study.

There were several quotes in this talk that I took away from this presentation. One was, "Artistic creativity is magical, but it is not magic." Although from an outsider's point of view, it may appear pre-planned or magic, it is not. Improvisation is simply a seemingly magical feat that requires much brainpower. Our bodies and brains are amazing and complex, but there is no "magic" involved. Another quote that I found interesting: "Artistic creativity is a neurological product." This is basically just assuring that creativity and improvisation are results of the brain and the nervous system. Connecting back to the first quote, it is not magic, but rather a fantastic ability of our body. Because of this, it is possible to study these processes. This was part of what intrigued Charles Limb to embark on this study. A third quote that Charles Limb himself said was, "It all goes down to the BRAIN." To me, this was intriguing. Once I started thinking about it, in literal terms, everything does go down to the brain. The brain controls all thoughts, speech, senses, heartbeat, and parts of the body. It knows when something is not right, and it knows how to subconsciously keep the body in sync and working so that we do not have to consciously think about such actions as breathing or digesting. In a metaphorical sense also, everything starts in the brain. Motivation comes from those passions and senses that are felt and known only in the brain. Small ideas originate in the brain and escalate into much bigger ideas. A last quote that caught my attention stated the opinion that, "Science is to catch up to art." I understand what this is conveying. It is saying that art is far ahead, but does not have proof to back up its results. Science is still trying to catch up by doing all the left-brained work to support the right-brained art portion. Eventually it might catch up, but it all has to start with that spark to want to know, which is where the right brain comes in. It was interesting that Charles Limb used so many quotes in his presentation, but it helped to make it more valid.

While watching Charles Limb's TED talk, I had many thoughts and connections. Although his job is ironic because he is a surgeon and a specialist about creativity, it makes sense to me. Everyone needs and uses creativity. Both a surgeon and creativity in the brain are about the body, and involve how the different systems work. I feel like it is more effective and intelligent to know about more than just one small, specialized area. For example with him, it is helpful for him to know about the brain and about surgery in the body. It is important to understand more pieces, so that it is easier to see how they connect and interact. Like Daniel Pink addressed in A Whole New Mind, synthesizing, and putting together the whole picture is an important part of what will make right-brainers successful in the future. It is not enough to just focus on the little details and specific areas anymore. It is beneficial to understand how everything works together to create a symphony. Also, during his presentation, Charles Limb mentioned that he had a lot of questions, and that he was not going to answer many questions, but just keep asking them throughout the presentation. That did not make sense to me because I thought that he answered several questions, such as realizing that creativity is a neurological process, and all the studies that proved which parts of the brain became active during improvisation. I think that part of what he meant was that there will never be an end to the amount of information we can research and understand. There will always continue to be more information, more questions, and probably more answers. But it also made me realize that questioning is not bad. Usually in school, lots of questioning irritates teachers. For me, I know that I usually do not ask about 8 out of 10 that I have. Part of that comes because of previous experience that I have had with teachers getting frustrated or annoyed. Plus, I just do not always feel comfortable in a classroom environment to ask questions because I feel like I am putting a part of me out there that others could criticize. I think asking questions is a very effective way to learn. I am a curious person, and I love to understand why something is a certain way. But since I do not ask most of those questions, I do not usually get them answered and then they disappear after a while. This made me realize all that I could be missing and not learning. Those inspirations and to start learning and researching something come from those questions lingering in the mind. I think why asking questions so effective is because of the motivation it brings. I would not ask a question unless it had something connecting personally to me, or my interests. I think about my personal life, and how when I have a question and get it answered, I am much more likely to remember that question than just a whole chapter of reading from a textbook. Plus, the intrinsic motivation within causes that wonder, and the topic or passion is much more likely be pursued and enjoyed because of the personal connection involved and the motivation to know. In education, I feel like sometimes it is looked down upon to challenge or question something. But like we learned in first semester, challenging the system can be a good, and necessary action, when the system is not beneficial or is harmful. Questioning, in a similar way, constantly keeps at bay the matter of is this working or how could it be better. It is a way to constantly stay in check. In education, I think about all the ways that questions could enhance education. What if education was structured in a way that kids brought and asked questions that they personally really wanted to know, and then got them answered by teachers or by looking it up themselves. I feel like eventually kids would get deeper and deeper into asking questions, and it would get almost addicting. I know that in English, when questions are brought and discussed as a class or group, then many ideas are pooled together to formulate an answer. Many minds are more effective than one. I realize that there could be flaws in this system, such as kids who take it as a joke, or those who would only ask questions about one subject, and so never get a well-rounded education. But still, if there was some way that question could become more of a strongpoint in education, I feel like it would be so much more effective and engaging for students. In the global perspective, there would be more answers, and there would be more questioning, and we would keep each other in check. We would have more solutions to the world, and it would be a happier place because people would be pursuing what they have passion and interest in.

The main topic that Charles Limb talked about, improvisation, really caught my attention. I really hate improvisation, because I really fear having to act on the spot. I am an organized, planned out person who has to think through and plan everything in advance. I love music, but I am more of a sight-reader, and I hate memorizing and improvising. I have to have the music right in front of me to be able to play it in an excellent way. I know that many people thrive off of that, but I just do not understand that. Especially after this presentation, I feel like everyone has the potential and ability to be good at improvisation. But, it uses that communicating language area of the brain. It applies back to what Mrs. Brock taught us. We each may have a bigger inclination towards the right or left brain, but we are not all one or the other. We are both, and some people have to strive harder to develop that side that is not as natural to them. We all have it all in us though, we just have to decide to bring it out. We learn what our strengths and weaknesses are, so that we can improve our weaknesses. Improvisation is magical and miraculous, and we all have it in us. Personally, I know I could strive to develop that more. It would be a great skill to have. If we all were amazing at it though, in education, and world-wide, I feel like that could create chaos. There needs to be order, and balance. If everyone was thriving off of last-minute and improvising everything, no one would know what to expect. I think it is important for everyone to recognize that it is not just a talent that some people were born with that can never be acquired by anyone else. Some people are just naturally more comfortable with it. Individually, in education, and worldwide, improvisation could open new doors to new ideas. Closing off that section of the brain and opening another section, like Charles Limb talked about, might just allow new ideas to come in that could lead to new discoveries or amazing creations. The brain is so miraculous.

Charles Limb made use of several techniques to help enhance his TED talk. The most prominent was probably his knowledge of science and his display of it. He is a surgeon, and he showed that he knew a lot about how the brain worked, and the science of the human body in general. It was fascinating, yet confusing and overwhelming at some times, to listen to him. Sometimes he used words that were way above my head. By using that characteristic, though mind numbing and frustrating, Charles Limb revealed to the audience just how smart he is. He showed that he knows his material and he is not just winging it. An additional strategy he used was use of the screen yet again. Many speakers tend to use this as a primary source for their talks. The same was true of Charles Limb. He projected pictures, videos, and quotes up on the huge screen, so as to make it easier for the audience to see. A visual example always enhances comprehension at least a little. After all, we do learn by examples and visuals. Although this was not as out of the ordinary, it was crucial for his specific presentation. Without the pictures and examples, I personally would have been lost, even more than I was. Because he talked so much about science and the interactions in the brain, showing the actual videos and pictures of the fMRI scanner and the brain activity really helped paint the picture. Another common, but still used skill was humor. He started out by talking about the irony of his profession; he is a surgeon who studies creativity. He said he had never had a patient that asked him to be creative during surgery. Using humor engages the audience and helps them loosen up so they can understand the topic more in depth. Lastly, he started rapping out of the blue. It did relate to his presentation, because he was talking about brain patterns of people who rap, but it was odd. He actually invited the audience to join in with him, but no one did, which confused me. Still, I thought it was a good idea to have something that the audience could do to be involved in the presentation. It probably made them more alert. Plus, the underlying humor of a professional speaker rapping during a TED talk made it even funnier. Charles Limb used several different and similar tactics for his presentation as other speakers.

TED Talk 6

Dave Eggers' wish: Once Upon a School

Once upon a time, I was a 15-year-old girl. I had just started high school in San Francisco. I moved there from a small town in Texas, and I did not have many friends. I spoke little English, though no one else in my family did. I had a hard time in school. I did not understand most of what went on at school. But I still tried. My teachers all said I was too shy. I could not help it. What more could I do? I was getting desperate. One day I was walking down Valencia Street. I saw a sign that said "Free Tutoring". (If anyone needed that, I did). It looked like a pirate store. Although it was odd, I decided to give it a try. Hesitantly I walked in, unsure of what to expect, but desperately hoping someone could help me. At first all I saw were peg legs, eye patches and a list of practical jokes. As I walked further and further in- getting more and more uneasy with each step-it opened up into a vast but homey room. It was a wonderland. There were kids at every table, getting help individually from teachers. It was school, but not really. There was a feel about it that made me feel like I was not different from any other kid that walked in there. Someone quickly asked me what I needed, and then I proceeded to get help from a nice lady who helped me learn more English. Oh, how it helped. At school, I was not falling behind, but rather slowly starting to get ahead. Every day I learned. Every day I grew. I yearned to go back every day to this pirate tutor place. I looked forward to it every day. I loved it. When I went to school everyday I had confidence that I could learn and succeed. And I did. When I went home every night, I had all my homework done, so I was able to help my family more. I taught my younger brother English, and eventually both my parents. Because of that, my brother was successful in school too. Oh, how grateful I am to the thoughtful people who thought up that small shop, 826 Valencia, so that my life could change for the better. I cannot even imagine what my life would have been like otherwise.

********

Dave Eggers is not only a writer, but also a publisher, philanthropist, and an advocate for students and teachers. He has written three books, and has an independent publishing house. It is no surprise that his tutoring lab, 826 Valencia, was a huge success, and even grew, with 6 more chapters throughout the United States.

Once upon a time, Dave Eggers lived in Brooklyn, among many other writers and teachers. After hearing several complaints and concerns from teachers that they could not get enough time 1 on 1 with the students, he decided to do something about it. After moving to San Francisco, he, with others, bought a space on Valencia Street, and named it 826 Valencia. They turned it into a tutoring center, which made "profit" by selling pirate supplies. At first it was hard to get it started, but after it got rolling, it became a huge success. Kids loved it. It felt different from school. They were more successful, and felt more hope. They went home and could spend more time with their families, and that made more happy families. More happy families created happy societies, cities, and world, idealistically. Over time it grew bigger and bigger, and in addition to just tutoring kids after school, it allowed whole classes to come in for fieldtrips, and even went into schools and taught classes and helped the students that would not necessarily come to them. The classes and individual students wrote books. They were eventually published and sold in the pirate store, where they started making money. The kids worked extra hard on these, because they knew that they would be published and put out on a shelf for people to read, and they knew that no one could change their work. It was a success because the store was public, street level, and open. The tutoring center was based off of optimism and success, and made a huge difference to the students that walked in there. It proved the point that school and writing can be fun. It inspired many other shoot-offs, such as a superhero one in Brooklyn, and many others across America. Since then a website, called Once Upon a School, was also created. He then ended his talk with a TED wish: "I wish that you - you personally and every creative individual and organization you know - will find a way to directly engage with a public school in your area and that you'll then tell the story of how you got involved, so that within a year we have 1,000 examples of transformative partnerships." He wants each person to do something they can to help out schools and students wherever they are. There are kids out there who do not know what they can really be. We need to help them see that.

I really enjoyed listening to Dave Eggers' TED talk about his tutoring center. It really intrigued me to hear how he took a simple complaint from a teacher and did something about it, rather than just blowing it off. He found a way to make the world a better place, and he literally did do that. I have never heard of anything like this, especially how they merged it with a pirate store, so that they were able to use that space on Valencia Street for their organization. I loved how it was free, and the kids could feel comfortable coming, and getting help. I am sure many lives were changed and people helped from this, and the off-shoots of this organization. And it all started because of an idea. A creative idea that had the potential to change lives, such as the made-up one above. I know personally that I could do more of this, because although I am in school, and I do lots of activities with my church, I am not very involved in the community, and making lives better. I could definitely strive to work harder to come up with ideas and make them grow into something. This largely relates to education, because of the direct connection to the help it gave students in writing and reading. It was remarkable to me that 1 on 1 time would raise a student's grade up a whole grade. If every community started organizations like this, the world would prosper. Like Dave Eggers said, it would make families, and in turn, communities, cities, and the world happier. Education is such a huge part of our world, and it is emphasized so much. For the kids that struggle, it is a necessity for them to find resources to help them find a way that they can learn just like everyone else. I think these types of organizations are needed more around the world, and if Dave Eggers' wish came true, it would affect the world 100-fold. What a difference one idea makes. And the other part is, that it was non-profit to begin. It all started with intrinsic motivation: that drive to do something for the community, to help others in need. It slowly turned into a small profit, but that was because of the fruits of the labors of many people, and because of the work that all those students made. Even still, the main purpose was not to make money. It was to make a difference.

In his TED talk, Dave Eggers used several techniques that made his talk more intriguing. At first, he started by thanking everyone at TED, which was interesting, because no other person has done the same, that I have seen. Then he proceeded to teach the audience about his organization, in a story-type format. He went through each city he lived in, and the steps that built off each other to eventually get to the final product of 826 Valencia. It was easier to listen to his talk when he talked in this manner, because I could picture the progression. He also used the screen a lot to show pictures of what the inside of the store/tutoring center looked like. That way, it was easier for the audience to picture what he was talking about. If he had just said that they made a pirate supply shop and merged it with a tutoring center, it would sound crazy. But after seeing pictures of it, it was much easier to understand and picture. Another prominent technique that Dave Eggers used was humor. When he got nervous, which is very normal, he would make a joke about it, so it was not as awkward for him or the audience. It made the atmosphere more comfortable and not so stiff. Plus, numerous times during his talk, he made sly jokes that made the audience laugh. He did it in a way that was classy, and did not stray from the topic. He was able to stay on track, but still keep the audience engaged. A last strategy I noticed Dave Eggers using was notes. He had several papers on a stand, and he kept referring to them. I have not seen any other speaker do this during a TED talk, so I was intrigued that he could do that. Although it was not as professional, it was very understandable that he could not remember all that information and the order, especially when he was nervous. At some points, it did distract from the talk, but not often.

TED Talk 7

Eric Whitacre: A virtual choir 2,000 voices strong

Choir. Singing. Melody. Harmony. On tune. Blend. Although the choir that Eric Whitacre talks about in his TED talk is not a traditional choir, it has several matching traits. Eric Whitacre always wanted to be a pop star. Sadly, when he went to college, he found that there was no tutelage or major for that career. He reluctantly decided to join the choir. The second the conductor gave the down beat, his life had changed. All around him were voices singing together, harmony and dissonance. For once in his life he felt that he was a part of something bigger than himself. Now he is a creator of classical music, and conducts. One day, a girl sent him a video of herself singing one of his songs. This triggered the idea for an online "virtual choir". Just to test it out, he sent out one of his songs, with a free download, and a video of himself conducting with piano music so that each person could record themselves, each in a different voice part. There were even auditions for a solo soprano part. Once he got quite a few videos back, he combined them into a video. It has the "appearance" and sound of a normal choir. 185 voices from 12 different countries singing Lux Aurumque:

Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir- 'Lux Aurumque'

After this, he decided he could do more with it. He decided to do it again, but this time make it even better. Many more people responded, including people with more mature voices, and younger participants also. In this song, Sleep, 2,052 different voices were included, from 58 different countries:

Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir 2.0, 'Sleep'

Then Eric Whitacre explained how he felt once he and all of his collaborators created this masterpiece. All the people in this choir felt a certain bond: a connection, even though they did not even physically know each other. He said it was very intimate, and they felt like a family almost.

I took away primarily one concept from this TED talk. THERE ARE NO LIMITS. As someone once said, "Limits exist only in the mind." This video was inspiring because it showed how someone thought of and carried out a new idea, based on their passion. They did not let physical limits get in the way.

Eric Whitacre's TED talk was very interesting to watch. At first I thought that it would be mildly of interest, and once I started watching, I could not stop. I wanted to keep going to see the end product of his virtual choir, and how he accomplished such a feat. Considering my passions, which are similar to his-although I never wanted to be a pop star-I really enjoyed listening to how he still carried out with his dream, even if it was in a different form than he ever thought. He always wanted to be a pop star, but once college hit, that changed. Despite the walls and rocks he came upon, he made it past those and still pursued what he had a passion for. He became a conductor of a virtual choir. I have never heard of a virtual choir before this talk, and it really intrigued me. Yet again, he did not let limits stop him. He jumped over that wall, and that barrier of different race, origin, and location, and found a way to create a connection between singers around the world. I really learned thoroughly from this talk that limits are only in the mind, and that dreams are never just dreams. They can become reality. Although he did not even say anything about limits, or overcoming blocks in the way, that is the message I took away. I also saw another connection: to intrinsic motivation. He did not start this choir for profit, or because someone told him to. He got this amazing idea from a simple video, and he magnified it into something that he was passionate about, and that he was really motivated to accomplish. Plus, all the people who recorded themselves to be in the choir were motivated all on their own. There was not money or a prize involved for contributing to it. They saw this group and decided that it was something they wanted to be a part of. If it had been for profit or because he had to, then it probably would not have been so amazing or delightful. That also connects back to what Clay Shirky talked about I his TED talk: cognitive surplus. Although it is not exactly the same, because it is not exactly a website with lots of smart ideas on it, it is still the concept of people pooling together worldwide on a non-profit project. The results are magnificent. Just imagine if every person grew up to achieve something that they had a passion of, whether it involved left-brained or right-brained thinking, and they created something totally new off of it. The world would make so much more progress! It would be such a more connected, generous society. Ideas would be shooting out like fireworks. Sadly, because everyone has to do a job to earn a living, life is not like this for every person. Although the world is rapidly innovating and progressing, I think it is mostly because of business. Imagine the change that could occur without all the extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation would "make the world spin faster". By this figure of speech I mean that it would be even faster at changing and progressing. The idea of phony limits can be applied to me personally. I am not like Eric Whitacre, in that I do not really think outside the box to find ways to keep pursuing my goals. I have goals, such as graduating highschool and college, and getting married, and having kids. If I have time aside from raising kids, I would be some kind of designer. I am still striving for these goals, yet I have not really come to the place in my life where these are happening. All the time I am preparing for them though, and choices I make now will affect those goals later. Right now, I can think of ways to get to those goals, such as in school, finding new ideas and new ways of doing work. In education in general, this concept can be applied, because teachers could leave education more open so that students would have to learn how to teach themselves and really learn for their own sake. They could encourage students to go beyond limits, and strive for their goals. And on the students' end, they could try harder in school to surpass those limits and reach their goals, getting help from their teachers. In the world, surpassing minimum limits and finding new ways of doing ordinary jobs would be such a great idea. Like I said, it would make the business and social world explode with new ideas. Plus, it would raise people's determination and self-worth feelings, because they would appreciate themselves after accomplishing something hard, and they would realize that it is not as hard as they thought. The world could make more progress without such tight limits, or in reality, limits that people see, but are not really there.

By watching this unique TED talk, I could distinguish a few main techniques that Eric Whitacre used to make his presentation more effective. First of all, he used a lot of visual and especially audio tools. Because his talk was about this choir that he had created, it really lent itself to the video approach. Every time he would mention a song or a part that was in his choir, he would project a short movie of that on the screen. I know for me it was extremely helpful, because if I had not been able to actually see and hear what his virtual choir was like, then it definitely would not have been so interesting and engaging to me. I have not yet seen any other speakers use short videos in their TED talks, which is why it makes the use of this so different. It helps more than just visual learners. It helps the audio learners too, because they can hear the choir and also see it at the same time, after he explains about it. It is a way that helps get the point across to most everyone. Another aspect that made this talk very distinctive was just the way that Eric Whitacre gave it. Just the implied attitude and passion made me feel just as into it as he was. He made it easy to listen to, and even enjoyable. This was more of a light talk, which I liked, because it was not so in depth that I had to constantly be refocusing my mind, but at the same time, it introduced a whole new concept that I had never though of. I could not stop watching it; I had to see what would happen next. Along with that, the topic was very intriguing. For me, I love singing, and I think choirs are very interesting, the way that so many voices can blend and sound as one. He made it interesting to watch by the techniques he used.

- Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir 2.0, 'Sleep'

Eric Whitacre's Virtual Choir 2.0, 'Sleep'

TED Talk 5

Kathryn Schulz: On being wrong

“I'm not wrong…you are!” Does this sound familiar? In her TED talk, Kathryn Schulz addresses that very topic: being wrong. Most people do not want to admit to being wrong. She explains that in the world today, we all try to avoid being wrong, or have to admit to thinking we are wrong. In our world, being wrong and making mistakes are looked down upon. Kathryn Schulz has spent the last 5 years of her life studying and thinking about those situations. She has wondered why we misunderstand the signs around us, how we react when we see those signs, and how that affects the human race. Even though we all seem to understand that as a human race, we are fallible, and that we can make mistakes, when it gets right down to it, in the present, we do not ever want to admit to being wrong. She describes it as each person walking around in a little bubble, and cannot think of anything they are wrong about. The problem is, the present tense is where we live. We go on vacations, vote, and live in the present. Therefore, we never think we are wrong. In her eyes, it is a problem individually and collectively. She goes on to ask some people in the audience how they felt when they were wrong. The responded with answers like: embarrassed, thumbs down, and dreadful. But even though we think this is how it feels to be wrong, in reality, when we are wrong, it does not feel like anything- it feels like we are right. Those feelings are what we feel when we realize that we are wrong. The definition she gives for feeling right is, "your beliefs perfectly reflect reality." She gives the wonderful illustration of the wolf in the Loony Tunes cartoon, where the coyote runs off the cliff, but does not fall until he looks down. This is like us. We feel like we are right until we get the cue, and when we look, we fall, and it is too late. By the time we are about 9, we have been taught that people who make mistakes are stupid dimwits, and that the way to succeed in life is to never make any mistakes. Most of us believe these brainwashing ideas, and so we suck up, and become perfectionists and straight-A students. We do not want to be labeled as “stupid”. She describes how when we get something wrong, we freak out because we think that means that there is something wrong with us. So, in turn, we just keep insisting that we are right, because it makes us feel safe, smart, and virtuous. Then Kathryn relays a story about a woman who went in to get surgery, and when she woke up, she told the doctor that it was on the wrong side of her body. Kathryn Schulz insisted that sometimes it is not good to just act off of our feelings, or our "sense of rightness" because it can be dangerous. When we act this way, we never entertain the idea that we could possibly be wrong, and then huge mistakes can be made. When we feel that we are right, we have to solve a problem-dealing with all the people who disagree with you. Unfortunately, we tend to make 3 assumptions. First, that they are ignorant, because they do not have the same information. Second, that they are idiots, and too stupid to put it all together. And thirdly, that they are evil and just using trying to hurt others by manipulation. In reality, we end up treating each other very horribly. As Kathryn Schulz very strongly emphasized, this is tragic, because the whole point of being human is to mess up. She quoted a very interesting quote by Augustine, which said, "I err, therefore I am." As she explains it, our capacity to be wrong and make mistakes is not a flaw, and it is not something to be embarrassed about or try to overcome: it is part of our nature. It is fundamental to who we are. The miracle of the human mind is that we can see life as it is not , not as it is. We think that everyone should be able to see out the same little window that we do, and we get frustrated when they do not, but the fact is, that is good. If we all did see everything the same way, we would not be different. We need moments of error and surprise for the world to turn 'round. Unlike God, we cannot see what is going to happen or see the whole scheme of things at once. We cannot grasp that, and so we are so obsessed with trying to figure it out. And according to Kathryn Schulz, that is the source of all of our creativity and productivity. But another irony is that we love to be wrong in stories, like when we predict the end of a movie, but it takes an entirely different twist the other way. What we do not realize is that our lives are like this, and we do not see that it is exactly the same. This is life, for good or for bad. We need more innovations, advancements and improvements, because every time there is something new, it is not good enough after a short while; hence, why we keep having more conferences, more stories, and more ideas. To sum up, she makes it very clear that to rediscover wonder, we need to step outside of our little "bubble of rightness", and look out at each other, and the world, and take a step back and say "wow, maybe I am wrong."

From Kathryn Schulz's TED talk, I came away with two main concepts. The first being our natural impulse. We have the desire to always be right. Even though we admit that we can make mistakes, the second we make one, we either do not realize it, or we just do not want to admit it. The second main concept is how much we are mistaken in this area. As a human population in general, we do not understand the purpose or value of being wrong. We need to become satisfied with making mistakes sometimes.

I agree with many points that Kathryn Schulz made, the first of them being the irony of our understanding of being wrong. We recognize that as a whole we are prone to making mistakes and we understand that we are wrong sometimes, but individually, we cannot see that. I think the analogy of the bubble around us is a perfect analogy of this. From my standpoint, I feel that this is partly because of our self-pride. I think that inside, we really do see that we are wrong, we just do not want to admit it openly. Especially in situations when we are with others, we do not want to be wrong. It is sometimes embarrassing, and people feel like they will always be wrong after that. Starting from childhood, when we are taught, and particularly as teenagers, and then even still as adults, we want to feel good about ourselves, and being wrong does not give that feeling. It is also our natural fondness of feeling smart that drives this inclination to cover up. However, I feel like this issue is also brought about by how we are taught as children. Like Kathryn Schulz was saying, by a young age, we have learned that mistakes are bad, and that the only way to succeed is to always be right. These are detrimental false truths, because that guides our every action from then on. In school, work, home life, and everything else, we try to always be right and always succeed. We become overachievers, and do not settle for less than perfect. I feel this in my own life, because I am a perfectionist (which is also just part of who I am), and I will not settle for less than all A's. In sports, I feel like I have to be the best, and when I lose, I tend to get really mad and then I do worse. This can relate to the exact topic that Schulz was making about not admitting our faults. When we just go with our gut instinct all the time and do not let the thought pass our mind that we might be wrong, then we end up making even bigger mistakes. Just like the doctor who performed surgery on the wrong leg and the incident of dumping a whole lot of oil by Mexico, the end result will turn out worse than if we had just admitted to being wrong and redirected in the right path. Another valid point that she discusses, and I agree with is that being wrong is part of being human. Like Kathryn Schulz said, God knows everything that is going on, but we cannot see that in the same way. If he did not intend for us to make mistakes, then he would have made the human race infallible, and we would all be perfect. If we were that way, no one could have new ideas, and so everyone would think and act the same. With new idea comes mistake. It is impossible to be right if there is no wrong. Just as Clay Shirky talked about in his TED talk, it is impossible to get the serious without the throw away. It is not possible to have right without wrong or perfection without mistakes. I also agree with Kathryn Schulz's statement that we need to step outside our little bubble of rightness and really come to see what is out there, and be able to admit to being wrong. No one person is perfect. It is hard to imagine that one could feel so confidently infallible when they look around and see the marvel of nature, of life, and of the mysteries beyond. It is so detailed and individually thought through, but yet so interconnected. How could any one person see all that and not wonder or admit to no knowing everything?

This video connects very deeply to me personally. I am definitely a person who is an overachiever and has to be a perfectionist all the time. I thrive off of getting good grades and I love it when I am right. I love the feeling of having someone praise me for my work. I too feel insufficient, embarrassed, and even confused when I am wrong. I am used to being so correct, or at least thinking that I am, that I sometimes get too wrapped up in it. Learning to be wrong, and not be ashamed of it is something I could really work on. This talk really helped me come to that conclusion, and also realize that I can still be smart by being wrong. I think the problem with this whole idea, is that most of the world is now in a pattern of discarding wrong ideas, and criticizing those who are wrong, that it would be hard to make that switch of not having that attitude any longer. Now that I have heard this, I am definitely going to change my thoughts towards being wrong, but even when I make a mistake, others around me will still disapprove, and see it as a sign of stupidity. This can be applied to education in the same way. The big majority of teachers base their class off of grading-which is primarily getting answers right or wrong. Though I have never thought of it in this way before, this is a serious mistake. Just as Kathryn Schulz said, teaching kids that they need to always be right is horrible, because then they will never make a mistake, and then no progress can be made. Kids learn early that they have to get the right answers in school, and so no matter what, whether they cheat or do it honestly, they will get the right answer. This sends the message to the students that they go to school to learn how to get a good grade by doing what the teacher wants. This can be a good skill in life, but that is definitely not the purpose of education, and it does not teach kids to really work hard to come up with new, creative ideas. For me personally, this is not even an effective way of learning. Getting the answers just to do the worksheet for a grade does not motivate me to learn the material. In the past, I have been OK with that, because honestly, I am motivated by the grades, not by the information. After an entire year of doing worksheets, I usually only remember a few random details from the class. But it is OK, because I got an A! Now, I know that this is not sufficient, and that I need to learn to understand the material, that I can apply in my life once I am out of school. Grades are not an accurate measure of intelligence in the way that it should be measured. I wish, like Kathryn Schulz, that I could help everyone see this concept, and understand that being wrong is a characteristic of human beings, and that it is ok to be wrong. Once something is wrong, then it can be built off of, and made into something better and more successful. Just as I mentioned before, there cannot be anything right unless there is wrong, and similarly, if there is nothing mediocre, then there cannot be anything to compare the stunning ideas to. I think this applies in business, like with inventions and new creations. Everything starts with an idea. When that idea is not a success at first, then it can be learned from, and the mistakes made the first time will not be made again. Also in the world, I feel like this might not be such a huge problem everywhere. In the United States, most people are very fortunate, and we have freedom. In many other places, people live under much more humble circumstances, and that causes them to be much more humble. I think that there are many people in this world who do admit to being wrong, and they use that to learn from their mistakes. If everyone took that example, then the world would be a much more progressive and happy place.

Kathryn Schulz did a very good job of using unusual techniques to engage the audience. One of the main strategies she used was humor. She started out telling a humorous story about a road trip that she took, where she thought that the road sign for picnic area was a Chinese symbol. That made the audience laugh, and a few other times she used jokes to help the audience feel more engaged, like when she said that she had no job competition. Another effective technique she used was that of visuals. Like many other TED talk deliverers, she projected many images on the screen that helped go along with the points she was addressing. For example, she showed the road sign she referenced, and a man walking off a cliff, a graded paper, and some pictures of space. This really helps those visual learners really grasp the meaning more. At one point in her talk, she actually went up to a few of the people sitting in the front row, and asked them a question. Although it does not matter what it was, she made them feel very engaged and like they were part of the presentation. People are always much more engaged when their opinion is included. Plus, then she used that information for the rest of her talk, so she probably did some on the spot improvising. One characteristic of Kathryn Schulz and her talk that made it easier and more realistic was that she was not too advanced in language. With some of the other TED speakers, I felt like I was in a highly scientific college course, and I had no idea what half of the terms meant. With her though, I felt like I understood the majority of what she was conveying, and I think that was an effective technique she used. A similar technique that Schulz used was stories and real life examples. She started with a story of a road trip, and used the dumping of oil in Mexico to prove a point, and then later told two stories, one about a child receiving a C-, and the other about a lady going into surgery. Whatever the point, that story or example made it much more relatable, because story is one of the ways we learn best.

TED Talk 4

Clay Shirky: How cognitive surplus will change the world

Clay Shirky is a writer, lecturer, and consultant on the effects socially and economically of Internet technologies. He is mostly known for his writing, such as his columns and writings in several newspapers. He addresses how technological and social networks shape culture, and how culture shapes our networks. In a book by Chris Anderson, he is called, "a prominent thinker on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies." In his own words: "I study the effects of the internet on society." Clay Shirky is obviously very knowledgeable about technology and its effects.

That knowledge is very apparent after watching his TED talk about cognitive surplus. Clay Shirky defines "cognitive surplus" as the, "ability of the world's population to contribute and volunteer on large and global projects." He gave two main examples of this principle. The first was a website called Ushahidi, which was the result of an Egyptian lawyer's blog about the effects of a heated presidential election. There were too many comments on her blog, so two programmers created a site that combined all the reports and put them onto a map. This tool has now gone global, and has been used for many other purposes, such as tracking snow and the earthquake in Haiti. The other example was Lolcats. Even though it seems like a stupid invention, it is still an invention. The creator has put something out there, and can now build off that and improve off of it. Both of these need two basic ideas: human generosity, and modern tools. He gave a stunning statistic that the world has one trillion free hours to commit to world projects. Even still, it would not be possible without digital technology and the media landscape that is now available in the 21st century. He addresses the fact that we want to get the serious substance, such as Ushahidi, without getting the throwaway substance, like Lolcats; however, media surplus never works that way. The freedom to experiment means the freedom to experiment, and that gives anyone a chance. We as humans like to create, and we like to share. That comes from ancient motivation. The common thread for both of these creations is their source: generosity. If people were not willing to communicate and share ideas, nothing would be possible like this. Then Clay Shirky talks about how even though cognitive surplus is becoming more of a trend in this century, that it is interesting what social science has found about how intrinsic motivation is the greatest driving force. He gives an example about how when daycares put a fine on the parents for late pickup, more of them came late. This is because they got the message that the whole debt to the teachers was repaid in that fine. Before the fine, they had a more generous culture, because the parents felt more guilt and cultural concern that they didn't when they paid a fine. Social constraints were more of a motivation than contractual restraints. Then Shirky goes on to explain the difference between Lolcats and Ushahidi. Lolcats is communal, meaning that it is created by the participants for each other, to make their own lives better. In contrast, Ushahidi is civic, meaning that it is created by participants, but enjoyed by society as a whole. It makes the entire society a better place. The point Clay Shirky was trying to make was that while cracking each other up, we can also use cognitive surplus to change the world with its civic value.

This TED talk was very hard for me to watch. It was very in depth, and it took me a couple times of watching it to get at the point he was trying to make. Now I understand his reasoning, and I agree with it, for the most part. I can see that he is very knowledgable about technology and its effects, and so I took most of what he said very seriously. I really believe in the idea of cognitive surplus, and in the power of the world population working together on one project. Many minds work together better than just one or a few. It brought to mind the example that was used about whether a dictionary produced by Microsoft or one produced by many ordinary people collaborating would become more used and influential. A few years later, it turned out that the one made by many people together became a very popular and used resource: Wikipedia. I feel like it is more beneficial to have more ideas, more minds, and more resources. I think that cognitive surplus is very true, and it definitely is becoming a much bigger idea in this era. It is becoming a great tool. However, I also feel that it could be used for bad. Just like any type of technology, there are pros and cons, and people can use it for good or bad. It could be used for an unworthy cause, which, like Clay Shirky addressed, is just a part of having the freedom to experiment. It was a little hard for me to believe that there are a trillion hours of free time in the world, because I know that people do not all have the tools to contribute, or they need to use that time for a different, maybe even a more important, cause. Later on in the talk, when he talked about the daycare center, I feel like the data was definitely accurate, but I also think that there would have been different results if they had tested with a more emotional motivation. Maybe if one of the teachers of the kids started crying, or if they wouldn't talk to the parents or something more emotionally tied, that there would have been very interesting results. Even though it is not contractual restraint, it is still extrinsic motivation. It would be interesting to test the results on other consequences. I definitely believe the statistics that he relayed about the daycare though. It ties back to Dan Pink and A Whole New Mind, with the intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, and how much better results occur with intrinsic motivation, because people do it because the want to. It reminds me of the example that the two scientists did with the monkeys and the people with the different puzzles. When the people were paid for the puzzles, they did much better in the short term, but once that monetary bribe was taken away, they did not care. They were not compelled to do it on their own, unlike the people who never got paid. The same is true with grades, and kids who are compelled internally to learn and get good grades, and the kids who do it to get the bribe from their parents or whatever. It is interesting that in the world today, we have so much information and studies done about motivation, and we more clearly understand what drives people, yet we do not apply it to our society, for the most part. According to this principle, pretty much every job, except for nonprofit, is done for the money. I just think about what the world would be like if we all did our jobs because we wanted to, and we loved it. It would be such a better place! I think that is the point that both Dan Pink and Clay Shirky are trying to make. The problem is that everyone has to make a living and get money, so people would have to get money one way or another. These issues in society are challenging. They all have pros and cons. It is hard to change the whole flow of society after we have already gotten so deep into a specific pattern. But anything is possible.

Throughout his TED talk, Clay Shirky used a variety of techniques that really enhanced his presentation. For one, he used the screen a lot. He used many visuals that illustrated what he was talking about, but made it easier for the audience to view. That way, he was using audio and visual learning at the same time. Some of the visuals he used were the Lolcats, Ushahidi, and the graphs for the daycare centers. For me, at least, it really helped me visualize more what he was talking about. The statistics about the daycares would not have been nearly as impactful if I wasn't able to see the actual graph. Along with the visuals he used on the screen, he used a lot of examples in general. For almost every point he made, he had an example for it. He used the examples of Ushahidi, Lolcats, the daycare centers, specific statistics (like the number of hours of free time in the world), and even when he talked about how it is impossible to have the serious without the throwaway, he talked about how with the printing press, we had lighthearted novels before scientific journals. These really helped make the whole subject more understandable and valid. I do not think I would have understood half of what he said if it were not for all of the examples and visuals he used. On the same lines with examples, he used a lot of stories. Like Dan Pink stated in A Whole New Mind, we all relate to stories, and we remember them much better. Clay Shirky started his TED talk out with a story! He talked about the lady in Egypt who started the blog, and how it turned into this marvelous open source and it was a main supply of media for the people. Plus, the daycare story made the very good point about intrinsic motivation. Another noticeable strategy he used was the advanced vocabulary and terms in his whole talk. Even though it made it harder to follow the first time around, it made it more meaningful and real the next time. It made me really believe that he knew about this stuff, and that he was not just making it up. It really helped relay his knowledge to the audience. Even aside from all the specific techniques he used, his talk in general was very easy to follow, because it was in a logical sequence.

TED Talk 3

Daniel Pink on the surprising science of motivation

It is common knowledge. If you hold a carrot out, the horse will do what you want it to. If it doesn’t do what you say, you use the stick. In this way, the horse is bound to follow you because it wants the reward but they are afraid of the punishment. The common idea of "carrots and sticks" is used worldwide in businesses and schools. It is called extrinsic motivation. But does it always work?

This is one of the main points that Dan Pink makes in his TED talk about the surprising science of motivation. One of the first statements he made was “I am not telling a story, I am making a case.” He uses evidence to prove his point thoroughly and convincingly. He explains a test with a candle.

The person has to successfully get the candle attached to the wall so that when it is lit it doesn’t drip down onto the table. Probably the first to things people would try to do would be to tack the candle to the wall, or to try to melt the candle to the wall. Neither one works. The solution is to tack the box on the wall and put the candle in it.

It is necessary to think outside of the box to do this. However, if the tacks were not in the box to begin with, it would have been much easier to think of that solution. He relates this metaphor to business. Most jobs in the past have been left-brained, focused work. When they do something well, they get a reward. Those jobs have a simple set of rules and a narrow goal. Those types of jobs usually tend to work with rewards and punishments. But jobs such as the one with the tacks starting in the box do not have the same outcome. They are more complicated, contemplative, thinking jobs. Dan Pink says that it is more effective when there is no external motivation. A reward in these cases narrows possibilities. Most businesses build around the principle of the carrot or stick. He explicitly explains that that does not usually work nowadays, and usually does harm. He uses a variety of studies that show the effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. In pretty much every instance, higher incentives led to worse performance. He goes on to suggest that we need a new system, or method, of motivation: intrinsic. It needs to be built around the motivation to do something because it is important or has meaning. Scientifically, it is proven that humans do certain activities because of their want to become better and better at it, or to be part of something bigger than ourselves. Then Pink talks about an Australian software company that gives its employees 24 hours to do anything that does not relate to their normal job. They have to come up with something new, and present it at a meeting the next day. It promotes creativity and new ideas and development. He explains how when people are not given specifications on when, where or how to do their work, productivity and satisfaction increase. One of the main points Pink emphasizes is the difference between what science knows, and what business does. Based upon science, it would be more effective if everyone did his or her job out of pure desire, but that would be impractical because everyone needs to make a living. Otherwise there would not be any way for everyone to earn money. Pink claims that in a face-off between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, intrinsic would win in a knockout. He is basically trying to make the point that intrinsic motivation will be more relevant, and have a better result. To sum up, Pink summarizes his talk into three main points. The first, that the carrots and sticks method can work sometimes, but not always. Second, that if/then rewards kill creativity. And third, that unseen intrinsic drive is the key.

After watching this TED talk I came away with a better understanding of motivation. There are different ways to be motivated, with some tending to be more effective. I had never thought about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It was fascinating to learn about how the human mind is affected by outside and internal forces. It makes total sense to me that internal motivation would be more effective, because that is what most of our life is based off of. Most of the choices we make are based upon our instinct or feeling, unless there is a reward or punishment involved. I understand about why businesses would use extrinsic motivation. Everyone has to make money. There would be no possible way for everyone to prosper because there would basically not be an economy. America thrives off the economy, and I think it would be very hard, or possibly even impossible, to make that huge change to entirely intrinsic motivation, as Pink suggests. I feel that intrinsic motivation is a much better path. I think that rewards give people the wrong reasons for action. For example, take two average teenagers in high school. One of the teenager's parents tells them that if they get good grades, and only if they get good grades, that they can get their license. The other's, however, make no deal at all, and just encourage good grades, but leave it entirely up to the kid. Getting their license has no connection whatsoever to their grades: they can get it when they turn 16 regardless. One teenager is motivated extrinsically, and the other is motivated intrinsically. Although there probably does not appear to be a big difference, there is an astonishing difference. First of all, they will probably both get good grades. But which teenager will probably end up getting the better grades? The one that does not have any outside motivation will probably do better, because they purely want to do well for their own sake. Plus, they are doing it because they want to. They will probably retain the information better, and those good grades will mean something to them. The kid with the bribe is probably going to still get good grades, but not for the same reason. They want it purely to get their license. This teenager does it to do it, but not for the knowledge or satisfaction. Plus, in the long run, the intrinsically motivated teen will do much better, because they will remember the information, and will have developed good habits and expectations for themselves. The teenager that is extrinsically motivated will probably not remember much, and they will probably expect something every time they do something good. That is a bad expectation to set for life. It goes back to the different ways of learning. Maybe the teenager that got the bribe did not ever get good grades, and so that is why the parents felt like they had to motivate the kid in some way. That kid probably just was not very strong at left-brained thinking, and so always feels like they are less-than. The teenager that gets the good grades out of desire probably is either very good at left-brained thinking, or has set their mind to become good at it. I think that the type of motivation is also partly based off of strengths and weaknesses, and not always just on which one is better. I feel like intrinsic motivation has a much better effect most of the time, but I can also see the pros for using extrinsic motivation.

Daniel Pink used several very unique techniques in his TED talk. I noticed that every time he quoted or used something from a study or person, he would flash it up on the screen behind him. That way, people can read it and understand it more clearly, and it is an effective way to get people to remember. He also used the screen to show pictures that emphasized his topic. Another tactic he used was using hand gestures. He looked really involved in his topic, and it was much more animated when he did that. It was another way to engage the audience. Pink also used quite a bit of outside research and quotations. That really helped add to the validity of his talk, and helped him appear more accurate. The research was primarily taken from universities that are very valid, and taken from scientific studies. One last technique Pink used was that of repetition. By repeating and emphasizing the same point over and over again, he pounded it into people's brains, and got them to remember.

TED Blog 2

Jennifer Lin improvs piano magic

The dictionary defines the word "improvisation" as:

• the practice of acting, singing, talking and reacting, of making and creating, in the moment and in response to the stimulus of one's immediate environment and inner feelings
• the creative activity of immediate musical composition

Jennifer Lin is a 14-year old girl who has an amazing musical ability. She played a total of four. The first was an opening song that was very fast paced and showed off her articulation and talent very well. After she gives a brief explanation, she goes on to play another song, which starts very slow and calm, and then escalates into something much bigger and louder. She really emphasized the low notes and the high melodies. Then after those two songs she gives a brief talk to the audience, about how she composes music. She compares it to making a cartoon also. It is quite fascinating to learn that first she picks the style of song she wants to create (romantic, popular, baroque…). Then she listens to many different composers that made pieces of that genre. That would be similar to picking what type of drawing, and then looking at others'. Next she plans out the entire piece with help from her teachers and instructors. Then the hard part begins-filling it with "musical ideas." Once she has accomplished that, she moves on to polish the piece with final details. Just like in a cartoon, where it is planned out, and then pen and colored pencil are added, and then it is polished to look its best. For both of these activities, both of which she loves, the character, or the original idea is the first sketch. Both of these, to her, require much concentration and focus, which do not always come naturally. Following that short address, she played yet another song. This time, though, she asked a volunteer to pick 5 of 7 cards, each with a letter of the musical alphabet on them. She used those 5 notes to create a melody and then created her own piece around that melody, on the spot. That is real improvisation. At the end, she played an encore piece which was very lively and fast. It reminded me of a bumble bee.

Jennifer Lin used many different ideas to make this presentation very meaningful. First of all, it was not a traditional TED talk. She played the piano for probably at least half of the time. She did talk somewhat, but she was more confident at expressing her feelings or thoughts through her music. Jennifer was also always smiling. That helps the audience feel comfortable and relaxed. She was a very cute girl who always seemed happy. Another technique I noticed about her is just her idea of getting the audience involved, by laughing, or picking the cards and such. She was not the most comfortable speaker, but it was all ok, because she was really able to express a lot through the music.

I really liked watching this TED talk, because it gave me a new appreciation for people who are that good at instruments that they can come up with a song right on the spot. I love music, and I do play the piano, but I could never do that. It really inspires me also to be the best musician that I can be because it is amazing and it is fun. I think it partly related back to the personality type quiz. Introverts love to have quiet, and express their feelings alone, and extroverts just love to get attention. I think that improvisation is important in more than the sense that she used it in, like for music. I really think that improvisation is a skill that most people need to learn. There will always be last minute notices; there will always be instances where change is needed. Singing and acting are two of many ways that one can improvise. It is important in our daily lives because we need to be flexible to change arrangements, and adjust to what works and what is a better choice. It is important to know how to improv to be ready for any given situation, and it releases stress. In education, improv can also be used. It would probably benefit many if world-wide we were more able to improv.