- While watching Heffernan’s talk, one thing that is noticed is how she speaks on the future and the unlearned traits of the world. In her rhetoric argument she talks about how we should use our minds and imaginations to explore the problems of the world and how technology is setting us back in time. I find it interesting how she depicts modern day problems and shows the audience how they were solved by using ingenuity and imaginative solutions. She leaves the audience something to ponder on and every time she asks them a question she answers it. She indicates the talent and potential that could be implemented if we simply use our skills. However, if we hone our abilities we have the power to turn the future into whatever we wish. She notes how many problems the world has today but shows us that we have the potential to accomplish anything. Not only was this an inspirational speech but she tapped into the audiences capacity for improvement and tells them that not only has she seen change happen before but she knows that they are capable of it.
- In Jason Fried’s speech makes an argument on how although offices are created in order for people to come and do work it isn’t the space in which the most productive work is done. He presents his findings on how the best work productivity is never done in the office because there is never enough time to create new ideas or complete tasks well. He provides evidence on this and explains how he asked a group of people where they get the most work done and they all either said at home, in an airplane or even at a coffeeshop but none of them said at work. He compares trying to complete a full day of work to being interrupted in the middle of sleep, you cannot fully complete the task if you are always being stopped halfway. I find it very interesting that he presents this question and then he provides 3 tactics on how to avoid these interruptions and increase productivity within each office.
Draft of Expanding the Canon
Providing equal representation for minorities has always been a growing concern the world has faced much discriminiction and hesitancy over providing opportunities to all races. However, a different form of racial exclusion comes to the surface when we read an article titled “Gifted Ethnic Minority Students and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis”. This article boils down the prejudice encountered in day to day life and centers on discrimination encountereed in the classroom. A study was conducted in order to investigate racial bias against minorities being chosen for gifted education programs. It has been a constant theme of teachers overlooking educated minority students and not being able to depict them from other students. With a general disregard for these students and a lack of representation in these programs, once they reach college, they find themselves falling behind tremendously and taking extra classes to keep up. This article’s main purpose is to highlight the academic differences between minority and regular students and explore the rates of academic success for those involved in the programs. With a school as big and diverse as Syracuse University it is important to allow minorities to take rigorous classes and to be encouraged to join leadership programs. The authors of this article attempted to convey how classroom and educational program diversity can help students with less opportunities excel and be allowed to flourish in these restricting environments. It is important to bring conversations like these to light and help spread awareness on making classrooms more welcoming spaces.
https://journals-sagepub-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/0016986216674556
6/8 discussion
- The presentation Margaret Heffernan gave felt very passionate, her use of strong phrasing and deliberate personal connections helped solidify her point of view and she was able to deliver quite a powerful TEDtalk about a topic I had yet to fully address. Humans worldwide are racing toward the future, although no one can really predict what we are racing to. Heffernan uses experiments conducted in nursing homes, supermarkets, and professional sports teams that provide solid evidence for the ideology that efficiency has become more dangerous than prosperous as we keep pushing ourselves toward the future. Many of the statements made by Heffernan resonated with me, including “What all of these technologies attempt to do is to force-fit a standardized model of a predictable reality onto a world that is infinitely surprising. What gets left out? Anything that can’t be measured — which is just about everything that counts.” Humans can use technology to make many advancements for our race, although when we start to place our own future into the hands of technology to lead us we are giving up the idea that humans and our lives are naturally unpredictable. I believe the statement resonated with the whole audience since it received an applause; it addresses human lives as being the center of attention as they should be, and something our capitalist world isn’t good at doing at all. With all the emotion flowing through the 8 billion people on this planet we must focus on creating a welcoming future, rather than creating the first future we can get to.
- Jason Fried’s approach to the idea of reforming the standard business office system is fueled with the idea that while we are working with efficiency in mind many businesses could be unknowingly slowing down productivity because of interruptions that only occur in the office. He speaks to the audience with a tone of someone who has been in the unproductive office setting that many know, and by listing examples of everyday occurrences he changes the perspective on what is actually helping people work and what only looks like it is helping people work. Fried talks about the question he has asked many people, “where do you go when you really need to get something done?” The answers vary, but all stray from the office; typically, individuals work the most efficiently when they are alone. This idea is completely offensive to the way offices work, they’re designed to be an open environment that is meant to make an organization operate together without physical boundaries separating the workforce, Fried makes this very evident in his statements. Using words like “toxic” and “poisonous” to describe a meeting, but when he breaks his opinion down into the fact that a one-hour meeting with 10 individuals is actually a 10-hour meeting, you can see how his perspective has solid points. When standards are put in place and enforced by a manager, you take away the control someone has on their specific task, forcing a team to stop what they are doing and turn their attention to a meeting only one person has on their mind can completely wipe away the deep workflow people find themselves in when they are left alone.
Unit 1 Assignment Draft
Throughout this unit, we have dived into the specifics of diversity and inclusion in the workplace using numerous readings. While it really opened my eyes, I have still yet to really see how the LGBT community faces these challenges, particularly in sports where not many individuals within that community fit the norm. The article I picked is titled “Between Homohysteria and Inclusivity: Tolerance Towards Sexual Diversity in Sport,” which does a great job at explaining what is currently happening in the industry of sports with this community as well as giving evidence from the study they did. The researchers are Joaquin Piedra, Rafael Garcia-Parez and Alexander G. Channon and the article was published in April of 2017. These researchers are experts in the field and have done numerous studies about homophobia and Homohysteria in all facets. The goal of this particular article is to broaden the knowledge of Individuals who might not know much about it and create a new way of thinking for ones who often neglect people just because of their sexual orientation.
The article begins by stating how there are a small number of openly gay and lesbian people in top flight sports which raises the question about wether sporting or social context makes it easy or difficult for these people to come out. There have been studied about tolerance to towards sexual diversity in sport which is why the researches wanted to write this article in which h they analyze metacognitive profiles of two different cultures, relative to the concept of homohysteria. Ever since sports were created, it has always been very male dominant, but even more specifically a site of hegemonic masculinity. Gender and sexual diversity has always been ignored and the sexual minorities have been stigmatized for quite some time now. In order to understand the complexity of changes in the sport, you must know the broader theory of inclusive masculinity the authors state. This can be defined. as “the fear of being socially perceived as gay.” The fact that in todays society people are still not accepting of this is an issue. From this statement alone, we learn a lot and why this is a great example of diversity and inclsuion. Not only in sports, but in a lot of areas in America, the LGBT community is discriminated against and while it has gotten much better over the years, there are still areas of improvements. One of them is in sports which is why I found an article in the are and I think it would be a great addition to expand the canon. Furthermore, In this article, the authors go on to state a bunch of statics showing how these individuals have been discriminated against and then actually proving how openness on a team is actually very beneficial for not only the individual, but the team as a whole. The authors do a really great job at defining terms that may be new to a lot of people which makes this a really informative article for any type of affiance to read. Whether you know a lot about the topic or know nothing at all and just want to learn about it, it will be very beneficial to everyone. Attached I have a video that explains even in further detail about LGBT inclusion in sports.
Dan discussion week of 6/8
- The Presentation “Why work doesn’t happen at work” by Jason Fried incorporates many good argument techniques. The main purpose of his talk was to speak about how companies are hindering employee productivity by involuntarily creating a distracting workplace. He starts off by discussing a question that he has posed to many people over the years. The Question is “Where do you go when you need to get something done?” This is a powerful question as it forces the audience to think about their own answer. He then makes his point that almost nobody’s answer to the question is “the office”. Jason uses light humor to get the audience laughing through choosing examples that they can relate to. An example of this is his statement that true distractions are the M&M’s (Meetings and Managers) and not often social media. During one part of the presentation, he made the connection that work is like sleep as it happens in phases. He states that just like sleep, people need long hours of uninterrupted time to get meaningful work done. He then engages the audience directly by asking them to raise their hands if they have had 8 hours of uninterrupted time at the office (which of course they have not). The very last thing that Jason did in this 15 minute presentation was make three suggestions to remedy these productivity problems. He placed what he says in the final three minutes of the video. This is the last thing that his audience will remember, and his suggestions will be strong as the audience was very engaged in the discussion at this point.
- I noticed the presenter in the TED Talk “The human skills we need in an unpredictable world” used a few very strong techniques in persuading her audience. Margaret Hefferman initiates her speech by telling a story of a company that attempted to increase efficiency by automatically allocating tasks down to the minute. The point of her story was that this resulted in an inefficient process as the technology could not account for needy customers and other unexpected occurrences. Starting off with an example made it clear for her audience to understand the problem she is addressing. She then made some examples of important “inefficient” company processes such as a vaccine company who is developing many vaccines that could possibly be useful in case of a global pandemic. (Apparently there is not enough of these companies). Another example she provided was how banks are now holding more capital than they have in the past in case of market crashes. Though it is inefficient to hold too much cash, she explains that it is robust and a good safety net in case of economic emergencies. She then leads her audience by posing a question of how do we change our company models of efficiency? She uses examples of how this has been done such as in hospitals in Netherlands where nurses have more responsibility to tend to the needs of the individual patients. After a few more examples she adds in her point that we need to become less dependent on technology that is focusing on efficiency and become more interdependent with each-other. She also makes the powerful point that if we continue to let machines think for us, we will lose our ability to think for ourselves at all.
Unit 1 Summary, Aaron
In the book “What Universities Can be”, Robert Sternberg (a psychologist and psychometrician at Cornell University) devotes a chapter to diversity in higher education. He begins this chapter by saying rather frankly that people learn better and learn more if they are mixed in with people who don’t look and think like them. He says “You cannot be an active concerned citizen if your only concerns are for people you view as like yourself” (Sternberg, 73).
This is an anecdotal claim at this point, and he uses it to identify with the readers because it is sort of a no brainer concept if you think about it. Our social and educational experience can only benefit if we have variety in our peers. Sternberg than uses a few study examples, one being done in rural Kenya. This study pooled Kenyans and asked them to identify herbs that would help heal with different ailments. They all did a great job with this, but when the objective changed and they tested these same people in more academic tests, the results weren’t as good. This study is used to illustrate his point that there are different types of knowledge and intelligence. One group of people (mostly western, white people in this case) can be better at testing and doing well in standardized settings, while the other group of people might not do so well in that area but excels in the area of experiential knowledge, of being able to identify and do things in the real world outside of the classroom. Another example is using Alaskan Yup’ik peoples, who are able to do things like ride a dog sled over vast areas and hunt animals and identify that storms may be on the way by examining their kill. These sorts of things are unimaginable for most students or people who aren’t part of that culture.
This goes further into what Sternberg calls implicit theories of intelligence- folks ideas of what they consider to be smart. The same idea is very prevalent in high school and college testing, where white people who tend to be more affluent do better on these exams and end up in a better situation for college and life afterwards, and minorities who may not do as well on these exams are slighted, yet they excel in other areas of intelligence such as in the social realm.
This chapter from the book has an academic style to it, yet the messaging to the audience could be more broad than someone who is in one of his psychology courses. He uses studies to back up his arguments about diversity and also brings personal experience to identify with the readers easier. What we can take from this chapter is that diversity and inclusion are important to the whole picture of academic life, and we benefit as a whole from participating in it. There is more than one cog in the wheel when it comes to intelligence so it serves us better to include as many of them as we can.
I have included a link for further reading from Forbes that addresses the new changes in college admission testing since the pandemic, and how the lack of using these exams may be helping expand diversity in colleges:http:// https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/04/27/sat-act-policies-may-improve-diversity-at-colleges-and-universities/#4eb2b3f83bd5
j.ctt20d890h.8 This is the link to the pdf file of my article I summarized
Discussion Prompts Week of 6/8
- The first TED Talk I watched was Jason Fried’s talk entitled “Why work doesn’t happen at work.” His rhetoric approach was very effective in proving his point that people daily do work anywhere else besides the office due to numerous reasons. One being that there are many interruptions at the office and many distractions that prohibits you from doing your work. He then states that while there are distractions at home as well, those are all voluntary, the ones at the office are involuntary ands he then goes on to give examples of those distractions which he calls the M and M (managers and meetings). In addition to persuading the audience just using this information, he grabs the audiences attention by asking them questions. This is really effective because it gets the audience involved early and he gets a sense of where the crowd is at. Overall, this is a really interesting Ted Talk because its something that is very relevant today people who work for these managers who are in reality distracting them from doing work. He also gives suggestions on what to do to and this is really effective way of presenting his argument that people don’t often do work in the office.
- The other Ted Talk I watched was Renata Seleci: Our unhealthy obsession with choice. She begins this talk by telling a story about one of her friends who worked at a car dealership and gave a customer a tough decision. She would give the customer a offer for a car that would be perfect for their lifestyle at this moment, but then she goes on to give the customer another offer for another car and goes on to explain how this is going to be the perfect car for you in the future. She gives this example because she stated earlier how the ideology of choice is very successful in opening for a space to think about the future. This is a very effective way at giving evidence because its an anecdote from someone who she knows well to get the audience involved and prove her point about choice. In addition, the speaker uses quotes from famous philosophers to further prove her points. She uses Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard who points out that anxiety is linked to the possibility of possibility. This helps prove her point about anxiety that she started earlier. Overall, the evidence that the speaker uses is effective and informative and keeps the audience intrigued.
Unit 1 Assignment Draft – Dominique
Although we have read about diversity in abilities, we have not read an article specifically targeted at schools. This topic is important to me because my major is inclusive elementary and special education teaching, so it is important for me to understand diversity in the classroom. I believe that this topic is essential for everyone to understand because differences should be accepted and valued in society. In order to expand the canon, I decided to include an article about neurodiversity in the classroom called “Valuing Differences: Neurodiversity in the Classroom” which was published by Phi Delta Kappa International, an organization for educators. This article was written by Barb Rentenbach, Lois Prislovsky and Rachael Gabriel who wrote about their experiences as students and educators. This article is different from the others that we have read because the authors have disabilities, so they are writing using their experiences as people in the neurodiverse community. In this article, the authors list different ways that teachers can help students who have disabilities to succeed. The purpose of this article is to inform educators, and other people who work with those who have disabilities, and also to show them that there are things you can do to help your student or coworker succeed. Some people may believe that the best way to help people who have disabilities is to “fix” or “cure” them. However, people who are neurodiverse need to know that they are valued, accepted. They also may need accommodations that will allow them to succeed. All students should feel welcome and respected in the classroom, and this article explains exactly how to do that. In order to support what I have said, and learn more about neurodiversity, I have decided to include a YouTube video in my post. This video is by a woman named Amythest Schaber who has autism, and her thoughts on neurodiversity. Schaber says, “To put it simply, neurodiversity states that everybody on the planet has a different brain and that’s ok”. I like this video because Schaber has autism, so she has experienced some of the hardships that people with disabilities go through when others do not accept them. This video relates to the article that I chose because it gives a little background by explaining neurodiversity, and the movement that goes along with it.
Draft of Expanding the Canon blog post-Michaela
To expand the canon and add to the discussion of organizational culture and diversity, I choose the article “Disability and employment – overview and highlights” from the “European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology”. This article includes a wealth of knowledge from the authors Katharina Vornholt, Patrizia Villotti, Beate Muschalla, Jana Bauer, Adrienne Colella, Fred Zijlstra, Gemma Van Ruitenbeek, Sjir Uitdewilligen, and Marc Corbière. These authors each add value in their own way, specializing in Social Psychology, neuroscience, psychosomatic rehabilitation, and more. This article, coming from a journal, is intended for a small audience of fellow scholars and people who focus specifically on the topics discussed. The purpose of this article is to outline how things stand in the existing research on disability and employment. It discusses one section of disabled people, those who have mental disabilities. Exploring topics such as the definition of disability, the legality of legislation regarding disability at work that is already in place in Europe and North America, things that enable employees and act as a barrier to employ the disabled. When discussing each topic they use existing facts from other resources and expand on where the research needs to go in the future. In conclusion, they present a solid plan for how research should continue in the field of disability and employment and the authors give suggestions on how things should be put into action. This article adds to the existing knowledge of the class because of its relation to diversity and inclusion. People with disabilities are a group of diversity that we have not discussed yet so this would open people’s eyes to another group that needs to be included. Similar to many of the readings we looked at in the past this text speaks about the inclusion of disabled people in the workplace, how there are low percentages of disabled people that are employed and extremely high levels of unemployment. Bringing awareness to how programs and legislations can be put in place to help incorporate these people, and keep them working mirrors what we have looked at with the inclusion of neurodiverse people and adds other strategies and data regarding organizational culture. It also opens the question of how we can bring the different sections of diversity into the conversation and not forget about certain groups. Another thought is how can each organization cater differently to each diverse group, because as you can see from the article I have chosen, and the past readings that each diverse group has specific accommodations. The existing legislation in “Disability and employment – overview and highlights” can lead as an example of how to implement systematic changes so that all companies must adhere to a set of rules that promote diversity and inclusion. To support my claim and enhance knowledge about disabled people I am using media. The media I have chosen is a ted talk from Elise Roy “When we design for disability, we all benefit”. Elise Roy is deaf and since she is disabled herself she adds a unique perspective. It is connected to the article I choose because as the article outlines research on disability and employment it leaves the question of how do we progress. Elise Roy gives insight on how design thinking and more specifically designed with disability in mind creates inclusion and a better culture for not only those that are disabled but everyone.
Discussion prompts for Week of 6/8
1. When watching Renata Salecl’s TED talk her rhetorical approach stood out to me. She begins this talk about human’s unhealthy obsession with choice by stating a choice that she had to make when preparing. Since it is the first thing she discusses it sets a theme. She connects the topic to herself making it feel relatable. What was interesting was that the choice that she had to make was deciding between three quotes, these quotes were also about choice, giving the audience an example that stays directly on topic, making a clear and concise purpose. As she continues with the talk she uses quotes from philosophers, and psychoanalysts to prove her points, using credited people to back up her argument makes her seem more reliable to the audience. She also gives real-life examples about herself, or her friend’s experience, which allows the audience to connect to their own life. That engages the audience because they can picture themselves in the situations she speaks giving them a better understanding. She also uses language strategically, for example, she addresses the audience as you, making them feel like they are in a conversation. To conclude she goes back to what she talks about when she first begins the speech, the choice she had to make herself. This rounds out and connects all the points she made to one conclusion, it makes the talk feel more whole like there isn’t a cliff hanger or missing piece. Overall her rhetorical approach is convincing and showcases her purpose, that everyone has individual choices but we also need to focus on choices as a society.
2. Margaret Hefferman’s TED talk is a great example of how a speaker works with evidence. One form of evidence she uses is telling real-life stories. She tells these stories to introduce her topic of technology and human skills but she incorporates her own bias and judgment to show what side she is arguing. In the talk there are transitions from the real-life examples to her argument, connecting back between that evidence when she needs support in communicating her purpose. She makes her points more clear by summarizing the credited facts she includes as evidence, for example, she uses a word like “so what that means” to connect her evidence back to her claims. She walks the audience through the argument by using tools like metaphors to give them something to relate her point to. That allows her to talk about a wide variety of topics, such as global warming and company predictions, and still be able to relate it to her argument on efficiency and the unexpected. Evidence from past mentalities is paired with the thought of the future to encourage that her ideas enhance positive change that others should believe in.