What I learned this year

I learned some stuff in english this year. It was pretty cool.

First I found out how to make a website and embed links, a bunch of computer stuff. I learned that truth is different for different people. My values and upbringing are different than yours so my truth is different than yours. Happiness and success are connected. The ultimate success you can achieve is happiness. I learned how important it is to enjoy and cherish your life. "Live deep and suck all the marrow of life" I didn't even have to hide in the woods to figure it out. 

I learned that we definitely need more slacker teachers, (I also learned how to use satire). I learned how to use logical fallacies (If anyone has ever called you a stupidhead bologna face you are a victim of Personal Attack!). I learned how to use sources to back up my arguments. I found out that we are all going to fail in life without weighted grades (yay). I found that a good man is hard to find. I learned that leaders are absolute pigs (Mostly Napoleon but, you know).

I learned that power can be very dangerous and can change a person. No matter how good the leader, there will always be people uncontent. "Ye gods, it doth amaze me" how much one can learn in one year! I realized that dystopias are scary and sad, mostly because of the truth in them. I also saw how much power books, or the knowledge within them hold. "(Books) stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us." I learned that our own thoughts are gifts and our self awareness is crucial.

I learned that there are no perfect utopias, and that there could never be one. I learned that first impressions are really inconsistent and that humans are very judgemental creatures. I learned how to do good firsthand research and work hard.

I learned so much. But the most important thing to me was that I learned how awesome english can be. I have always loved english class but this year was really the best I could imagine. I really love being able to look deeply at things and find hidden meanings. I learned how amazing class discussions can be when everyone is thinking freely and talking about it together. I learned that really cool things happen when we are allowed to just think, and voice our opinions.

I learned how much I love my Quest class and all the people in it. It's a place where I actually fit in. I am going to have a really hard time leaving it all next year. I learned how much of a difference a teacher can make. Because McCallum is kind of amazing. He makes class so much fun, it's somewhere I want to be. I don't even know how to put it into words. Thank you Mr. McCallum.

So, I guess I learned some things. I also learned that I am really cheesy. Sorry.

First Impressions

 The idea that you can tell a lot about a person just by looking at them is very interesting to me. How can you gather so much from just appearance? Does our appearance say more about ourselves than we know? That is why I decided to research: How accurate are our first impressions?

My opinion on the topic before I started my research was mixed, I couldn't decide if I thought that these impressions could be accurate. It seems like our impressions can be right sometimes, but other times they are completely off. 

To start my research I looked up what the main factors are in making first impressions. I found that we make decisions about people within 7 seconds of meeting them. Our impressions are based mostly off of non-verbal cues. Appearance can quickly outweigh anything that you say. I also saw that bad impressions make a much more lasting impression than good. So if you meet someone new who is really mean, it would take a lot of niceness from them to win back a good reputation.

The reason we make first impressions goes back a long time. When ancient humans met new people, they had to decide very quickly if that new person was safe. Our judging instincts now are from survival instincts back then. 

Online sources conflicted on how accurate our impressions are, so I decided to do some of my own testing. I showed a group of test subjects an image of a person and told them to write down their first impressions of that person. I did this twice with two different images of two different people. 

My results were mixed. On the first image less than 1/3 of the assumptions made were accurate. The test subjects described this person as wild, uneducated and a creeper. In reality this person has two design patents and has designed for Master Lock and General Motors. It seemed like everyone was describing the opposite of what this person was really like.

Image 1

Image 2

 On the second image more than 3/4 of the assumptions were correct. She was described as friendly, outgoing and athletic. That was correct. In this round almost everything that was said about her was true.

After the confusingly inconclusive survey, I went to ask some experts on their opinions. Jeff Erickson and Barb Peterson both do job interviews as part of their jobs (in separate businesses). I interviewed them because first impressions play a big role in their jobs. You might only meet a person briefly before deciding if you are going to hire them or not. This makes the first impression you make really important. Both of them told me that they tried not to rely on their first impressions too much. 

"I believe the more time you spend with a person, the more you will get a complete picture of their thoughts, character, ability, etc. "

~Jeff Erickson

"The method I try to follow is - keep an open mind and learn more about the person. There is a lot of truth to 'looks are only skin deep.' "

~Barb Peterson

So, from what I looked at our first impressions can be very inconsistent. We will probably always make first impressions, it's an instinct, and it happens automatically. Even if we can't stop making these impressions, we can stop relying on them so much. If you give people a chance and get to know them, they could be very different from what you originally thought they would be. 

Crogach: Our Utopia

Crogach

Rules

1. No Killing unless for government or military reasons.
2. No Stealing.
3. No Vandalism.
4. No genetic manipulation or cloning.
5. Immigration: First family, then qualified people, then others.
6. Wind and solar power must be used.
7. Be nice, respectful.
8. There are 9 judges in charge, listen to them.
9. Pay must correspond to job.
10. Follow Christian morals, rules.

Our society is centered around Christian ideals, but you don't have to be a Christian to live there. Anyone can be a member of society. As long as you follow the laws you are welcomed. 

Crogach is run by 9 elected judges, each specializing  in a certain area like Internal Affairs and Education. Having several specialists instead of one central leader means that better decisions can be made by people who know their area best. 

Another important concept in this society is independence. We try not to depend on other countries too much, we want to be self sustaining. 

---------------

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a system that generally shows our needs in order of what we go after first, from physiological needs (food, water, what you need to survive) to self actualization. Self actualization is a big way of saying reaching your full potential. It is the highest place on the pyramid. If you have reached self actualization you have a purpose and you are happy.

http://www.costaricantimes.com/the-broken-road-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs/23122

So if self actualization is what everyone should be working for, is there a good way to help make sure everyone can achieve it? Could we ever make a system to help everyone reach self actualization? The concept of getting people out of the physiological stage is easy enough, just provide them with food and shelter. But, as you go farther up the pyramid it gets harder to help people. You can't just give someone self esteem or friends. 

Because everyone is so different, its hard to give everyone self actualization. The concept of self actualization is being happy and content with your life. It takes something different for every person to be happy, so there is not one way to give everyone happiness or self actualization. Not everyone can fit in the same mold like that. 

"Every utopia faces the same problem: What do you do with the people who don't fit in?"

~Margaret Atwood

(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/utopia.html)

This is why making a utopia is so difficult. Everyone has a different idea of what a perfect society would be. Your society might be making one person really happy but there are always more people that are really unhappy with the exact same system. I could make a utopia centered around knowledge and literature, that would be perfect for me, but completely distopian for others.

"All my writing is about the recognition that there is no single reality. But the beauty of it is that you nevertheless go on, walking towards utopia, which may not exist, on a bridge which might end before you reach the other side."

~Marguerite Young

Because utopias are so difficult to create, I actually think it's pretty remarkable how good society is for us right now. Of course, I don't know much about it, but there are so many different factors to consider and so so many people to please, we are just lucky we ended up with what we have.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/utopia.html

Fahrenheit 451 Pt. 2

Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury connects to Divergent by Veronica Roth. In Divergent, people are being controlled. They are forced to mindlessly do what they are told because of a mind-control serum in their blood. In Fahrenheit 451 the people are also mindless, but not because they are directly being forced. There is no serum controlling them, but they are led to have no desire to really do anything or think about anything. 

In both stories there are people that can rise above the control and think for themselves. They are different. Fahrenheit 451 has people like Montag. These people are not content with the "normal" lifestyle. They want to think for themselves, read, and learn. I don't know how these certain people become aware, but few do. In the other book, people who are not influenced by mind-control serum are called Divergent. This includes people like Tris. 

Both of these groups of people are constantly in danger. The government does not want anyone to be different or to know what is going on. Both Tris and Montag are hunted and they are often close to being killed. The two books have many parallels. 

Montag is not happy with the way he is living. But are there some that are happy? Mildred, Montag's wife seems happy. She is content with staying at home. She sits and talks to the tv's that are covering three of their parlor walls. Mildred would rather talk to the fake people on the walls that to her husband. She is a perfect model citizen, very against books and any conversation, law abiding and quite average. And she seems very happy. The only thing that brings her distress is when Montag starts breaking the law and reads books. 

So are these laws actually for the best? If Mildred, and most everyone else can be so perfectly happy when they are distracted from real life, distracted from any worries, why isn't this a utopia? Is thinking really a good thing if it brings so many other unpleasant things with it? 

We need thinking. We need it because, even if it brings some bad things, it also brings good. You can sit and think about whatever you want, choose to think about war and poverty or choose to think about freedom and the miracle of human existence. That the thing, you can choose. Because when thinking is taken away from Montag's world, they aren't just taking their thoughts. They are also taking away freedom and individuality. 

"I just want someone to hear what I have to say. And maybe if I talk long enough. it'll make sense."

Even if you have time to think of bad things, you can't have good without bad. Mildred may think she is happy, but what is there to compare to? Nothing will ever bring her any real emotion. The only thing she can really ever feel is ok. There will be no heart wrenching sadness, but there will also be no glowing joy. The sadness we experience just contributes to make the happiness feel that much better. 

"Stuff your eyes with wonder... Live as is you'd drop dead in ten seconds. See the world. It's more fantastic than any dream made or paid for in factories. Ask no guarantees, ask for no security, there never was such and animal. And if there were, it would be related to the great sloth which hangs upside down all day, sleeping its life away. To hell with that, shake the tree and knock the great sloth down on his ass."

Fahrenheit 451

In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, the world is much different than it is now. Everyone is mindless. They are constantly watching their giant, room-filling TVs, or listening to their earpieces- feeding them constant music or news or just noise. All to distract them from real life.

I think this lifestyle was originally made to make everyone happy. If they are constantly distracted, they have no time to think about anything, let alone anything wrong with the world. In fact, sitting and thinking are almost outlawed. There are no longer porches, gardens, or rocking chairs, all places where people like to think. No one is allowed to talk to one another for the sake of talking, have a real conversation. If you want to converse you are considered an oddity and are kept watch on by the government. All so that you don't think, or discover that there is evil in the world .

"If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names or state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change."

Because the people are being kept from knowledge, they are also kept from books. Owning books is a crime, if you are found in possession of one, the 'firemen' come and burn your house down with the books inside. This makes most people think that books are some great evil, an elusive force that must be kept far away. They think that the books have power, but the power is in the knowledge that the books contain. 

"This is only in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us."

Within the mindless society there are a few that are 'aware'. They don't really go along with everything. They actually think. Montag is one of these people. What I wonder is what makes a person able to resist the messages everywhere telling them to just go with the flow and stop thinking. Are there certain people that are stronger and are able to see through the fake society? Or do they all need help? Montag is aware because Clarisse showed him how to slow down. Clarisse has her family to show her what to think. Does everyone need someone else to help guide them?

But it is dangerous to be like them. The government does what it can to lock them away. When they find someone who owns books, they take that person away. If someone has too many ideas, they might mysteriously disappear. So these people hide. 

"With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual', of course, became the swear word it deserved to be."

Montag is just realizing how to be alive himself, maybe he can still become strong enough to help others think, and be alive too.

Julius Ceasar

Julius Ceasar needed to be killed. At least that's what it seemed like most characters in Julius Ceasar  by William Shakespeare would say. Ceasar was plotted against from the beginning of the story. But why was he so hated?

Many call Ceasar weak. And he was very weak, physically.

Cassius- Ceasar said to me, "Darest thou, Cassius, now
Leap in with me into this angry flood
And swim to yonder point?" Upon the word,
Accoutred as I was, I plunged in
And bade him follow. So indeed he did.
...
But ere we could arrive the point proposed,
Caesar cried, "Help me, Cassius, or I sink!"
...
He had a fever when he was in Spain,
And when the fit was on him, I did mark
How did he shake. 'tis true, this god did shake!
His coward lips did from their color fly,
And that same eye whose bend doth awe the world
Did lose his luster. I did hear him groan,
Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Romans
Mark him and write his speeches in their books-
"Alas" it cried, "give me some drink, Titinius,"
As a sick girl. Ye gods, it doth amaze me
A man of such feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world
And bear the palm alone.
(1.2. 104-133)

Cassius talks about how he had to save Ceasar from drowning. I think this is one of the reasons that Cassius, and some others, may hate him so much. Ceasar is very weak, but he has power, he has the power that Cassius wants. It makes Cassius mad that such a weak man could end up with more power than him, a strong, healthy man.

Cassius- Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Brutus and Ceasar- what should be in that "Ceasar"?
Why should that name be sounded more than yours?
(1.2. 136-144)

Ceasar was also very self centered. He sometimes even referred to himself in the third person. This may have been another factor in why he was disliked. Because such a selfish person should not have control over so many. He would think of himself before he would think of his people. His overconfidence was a source of fear to some.

These growing feathers plucked from Caesar's wing
Will make him fly an ordinary pitch,
Who else would soar above the view of men
And keep us all in servile fearfulness
(1.1. 72-75)

They were afraid of what would happen if Ceasar gained any more confidence. Some were so afraid, and loathfull, they wanted to kill him. But, others thought differently. Some worshipped Ceasar. They had nothing bad to say about him.

Antony- I shall remember,
When Ceasar says 'Do this', it is performed.
(1.2. 12-13)

Antony knew Ceasar better than some and he was loyal to Ceasar. But, even the peasants who didn't know Ceasar idolized him.

Three or four
wenches where I stood cried, "Alas, good
soul!" and forgave him with all their hearts. But
there's no heed to be taken of them. If Ceasar had
stabbed their mothers they would have done no
less.
(1.2. 268-273)

So feelings towards this man are varied greatly at two ends of the spectrum. People seem to feel very strongly about him, either good or bad. They either love or hate him. Want to kill him or would die for him. But, there is one in the middle.

Brutus- It must be by his death, and for my part
I know no personal cause to spurn at him
But for the general. He would be crowned.
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder
And that craves wary walking. Crown him that,
And then I grant we put a sting on him
That at his will he may do danger with.
Th' abuse of greatness is when it disjoins
Remorse from power. And, to speak truth of Ceasar,
I have not known when his affections swayed
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber upward turns his face.
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. So Ceasar may.
Then, lest he may, prevent. And since the quarrel
Will bear no color for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus: that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities.
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg-
Which, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous-
And kill him in the shell.
(2.1. 10-35)

Brutus sees good in Ceasar. Good that will soon disappear. He thinks that too much power changes people, and will change Ceasar for the worse. It will make him look down on everyone, and be a very bad person, and ruler. So they needed to kill Ceasar before that happened.

It is interesting how people can have such conflicting views on the same person. Julius Ceasar is one person but there are infinite ways he is perceived. As a cowered, a leader, a weakling, a hero. And which of these views are right? Maybe all of them, or maybe none.

Animal Farm Readers Notebook

In my opinion, the story A good man is hard to find by Flannery O'Connor connects to Animal Farm. A good man is hard to find showed that a person can have good and bad in them but can never be completely good or completely bad. It is impossible to be 100% good or 100% bad, there must be something else there, even if you can't see it. That's why a good man is so hard to find.

I think the same is true for leaders. There can never be a perfectly good or bad leader. In Animal Farm by George Orwell, Napoleon is the leader for most of the book. He is far from being a perfect leader, he is very selfish. A good leader acts for the people, not for their self. But he isn't a purely bad leader either. He is smart and manipulative, he could have been a better leader if he put his intelligence to use helping the animals, instead of just helping himself.

So Napoleon isn't a perfect leader. But could any of the other animals on the farm have done better? The dogs Bluebell, Jessie, and Pincher are all followers, they do not have their own opinions. Clover the horse, is compassionate to a fault. Benjamin the donkey is old and not very ambitious. The mare, Mollie, is very selfish. And Boxer the horse, though very hardworking, is not extremely smart. So, every animal has a different kind of flaw. A good leader is hard to find, none of these animals, at least on this farm could be a perfect leader.

Throughout the book the animals work very hard to build a windmill for the farm. I kept wondering why this windmill was so important to the animals.

"(The windmill) could be made to operate a dynamo and supply the farm with electrical power.This would light the stalls and warm them in winter."

The Windmill was going to be used to generate electricity. This goes against the general thinking that man-made inventions are bad and shouldn't be used. If wearing mens clothes and sleeping in beds is such a bad thing, shouldn't using their electricity also be bad? Anyway, the animals lived without electricity for a long time and I don't see a great reason why they needed it now.

I don't think that building the windmill would have been such a big deal and a high priority. I think that the windmill could have been a distraction. Napoleon didn't want the animals to figure out how badly he was treating them so he made the animals work even harder. Every second they weren't farming seemed to be taken up by the building of the windmill. If the animals were working they had no time to think about rebelling.

If the animals knew about the real purpose of the windmill, it didn't show. The animals were all very protective of it. I think that another theme in the book is pride. When the windmill was knocked down, the animals were very disappointed.

"They had just noticed this when a cry of despair broke from every animal's throat. A terrible sight had met their eyes. The windmill was in ruins. With one accord they dashed down to the spot. Napoleon, who seldom moved out of a walk, raced ahead of them all. Yes, there it lay, the fruit of all their struggles, levelled to its foundations, the stones they had broken and carried so laboriously scattered all around. Unable at first to speak, they stood gazing mournfully at the littler of fallen stone."

Besides the fact that they worked really hard on the windmill, I think they were also sad because the windmill was a symbol of Animal Farm and what it could accomplish. No matter how bad the farm was doing, they would still be proud because that was their home, and it was probably the first of its kind. The Beasts of England song was another way they showed pride for their farm, like their anthem to be sung at special occasions. Just like we have pride for our towns or schools, the animals have pride for their farm. I think that pride was a major factor in keeping the farm going and uniting the animals.

So, Animal Farm held messages about leaders. That a good leader is hard to find, and that there are no perfect leaders. It also showed how important pride is, and how that alone can keep people (or animals) close.