Part of this course, in addition to writing our own blogs, involves reading other students blogs. The goal is that we will be able to share further ideas in an online forum setting. While I wish I could say that I regularly read everyone’s blog, I admit that, due to the heavy time constraints on an engineer’s schedule. Thus, when I saw that the prompt this week was to write about other student’s blogs, I was a little nervous, as I generally read the blogs in a fairly passive manner. That is, I don’t usually get terribly caught up and opinionated about the point that the student is making.
That being said, however, the blog by Tiffany last week caught my eye. The topic that the class was to consider that week was the question of how putting our writing online affects our writing. Most of us touched on the fact that putting our blogs online gives us a potentially much larger reading audience then just our professor. I discussed how, even if it is likely that people outside of our classes are not reading our blogs, it at least exposes us to some peer review when our classmates read our blogs.
What I didn’t discuss, and what I feel that Tiffany nicely covered was the global effects of posting things online. We live in a very connected society, with programs like Facebook and Twitter allowing us to communicate instantly with people all over the world. In that sense, then, putting something online is fundamentally different, because now a huge number of people can see it. Those, “other people” can include future employers, and we have all heard of stories of people who didn’t get a job because of something they had posted online about themselves.
In a word, posting anything online requires much more discretion and judgment. I appreciated Tiffany’s viewpoint on her Facebook post concerning her argument with her mom. It can be very easy to write something, and then post it, without considering who exactly will be reading it. I have more than once posted a comment or reply to someone, then an instant later realized how ridiculous it was, or how it could be misconstrued. Fortunately, in many cases it is possible to remove the comment, but, on a different side of things, all of us can probably remember sending an e-mail, which, immediately after we sent it, we wished we wouldn’t have. While I am probably doing a poor job of explaining it, my point is that today’s technology allows us to easily post things which can then be nearly instantly read by many, many people. Therefore, we must be absolutely certain that whatever we did or said is a good reflection of ourselves.
I will close by giving a quick example of how I feel I made the exact error I just discuss on this class blog. A few weeks ago we had to write about the topic of alignment, giving specific examples, if possible. I couldn’t think of any “really good” examples, but did have one situation come to mind, which involved another group that I am a part of. Thinking that “only our class is going to read this blog” I wrote about the story. However, I later found out that other people, in fact people from the group that the blog was about, were indeed reading my blog. Now the situation that I explained in the blog offensive or even negative, but I did feel badly about having used it, given my audience. I ended up removing the post, not because it was particularly problematic, but because I do want to be very careful about what I say online.
So, technology is a wonderful tool for communication, but it must be used with discretion. Programs like Facebook are nice because they allow us to stay connected with people. Our blogs are useful because they allow our classmates to read our writing. However, we must remember, that our post on Facebook can be seen by everybody, not just the friend it was intended for. And anyone can read our blogs, so we need to be careful what we write about.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Online Writing
Although I have written reflections (and numerous other pieces of writing) before, this class is unique in that we are required to post our work on the internet in a blog format. This is vastly different compared to my other assignments, because now, instead of only the professor being able to read my work, anyone in the world can. By nature, a blog is a very open and accessible piece of writing, since anyone who has internet access can read it. In theory, because anyone can read and comment on the reflection, this format should lead to open and free discussion of the topics covered.
I believe that this particular format was chosen because, ideally, it very nicely parallels what I perceive to be the nature of the class “Designing for Effective Change”. By that I mean I feel that the purpose of the class is to bring a wide variety of ideas into the discussion, and hear multiple view points on how they all fit together. In class we are encouraged to not only bring our own thoughts and ideas to the table, but to also respond to/comment on/expand upon the ideas of others. In a similar way, putting our reflections online accomplished the same goal, in that we are able to respond to and comment on other peoples reflections.
The question then, is how well have we been able to mimic the class setting online? I feel that there are two important aspects to discuss for that question. The first relates to the fact that, since our writing is posted online, people outside of our class are also able to read our reflections. In that regard, then, the openness of the internet could potentially be used to really share and spread ideas from quite a large group of people. But, while that may be a possibility, that is certainly not how I have observed things play out, in that, to my observation, very few people outside of our class, if any, have commented critically on our writing. This really doesn’t come as a surprise to me. I admit that if I stumbled across the blog of someone writing for a class I 1.) would feel like an outsider, and probably wouldn’t comment and 2.) probably would feel that I didn’t have the time to get involved anyways. My point then is that if we are trying to get feedback and discussion from people outside of our class, I don’t think it is happening.
Due to the conclusion I reached in my previous paragraph, I don’t feel that I am using the blog format to its fullest potential. I write with the expectation that other people in the class will be reading what I say (which is still a marked difference from writing “directly to” the professor), but don’t really expect people outside of our class (other than a few key exceptions, namely friends of mine) to take much interest.
I mentioned that there are two aspects to whether or not the blog mimics the class setting. The first was how people outside of our class responded to the blogs. The second, then, is how well the people in the class carry on the intent of the class outside of class on the internet. By this I mean, do we read each other’s blogs, comment on them, and have open discussion? I am going to be brutally honest and say that I don’t think we (or at least I) do a very good job. While I would love to be able to thoroughly read, think about and comment on everyone’s blog, the truth is that is simply doesn’t happen, due to time constraints. Then again, maybe I don’t want it to happen, because then the class would have no real boundaries. I guess what I am trying to say is, perhaps it is best that only a few people comment on any one blog. Really, an 18 person free for all in the online forum setting would be a mess anyways.
I have shared some fairly scattered and random thoughts just now, and will try to bring them cohesively together. I think that the purpose of putting our writing online is so that others can read it and provide feedback on it. By in large, only people within our class have commented, and in general only a few people comment on any one blog. I was debating whether it would be more beneficial if more people read and commented, and, while I think that it would be marginally better, it don’t feel that the lack thereof means that the blogs are a failure.
The obvious question, then, is how is my writing different if I know that my at least a few of my peers will be reading it? My answer, at least at this point is: not much. The style of writing is different, in that I use a much more conversational tone, but I don’t feel that the content of my papers is any different. I basically view the blog as being my way of expressing my ideas to the class, but I have more time to fully develop and present my whole idea.
Overall then, I would say that writing online has been a new experience for me and learning one, in that my peers are now reading and criticizing my work. However, whereas initially I wondered what it would be like to have random people reading my writing, I feel that that has worn off, because I don’t perceive that random people are reading my blog. So, if anyone is, please comment, so that I know you are there!
I believe that this particular format was chosen because, ideally, it very nicely parallels what I perceive to be the nature of the class “Designing for Effective Change”. By that I mean I feel that the purpose of the class is to bring a wide variety of ideas into the discussion, and hear multiple view points on how they all fit together. In class we are encouraged to not only bring our own thoughts and ideas to the table, but to also respond to/comment on/expand upon the ideas of others. In a similar way, putting our reflections online accomplished the same goal, in that we are able to respond to and comment on other peoples reflections.
The question then, is how well have we been able to mimic the class setting online? I feel that there are two important aspects to discuss for that question. The first relates to the fact that, since our writing is posted online, people outside of our class are also able to read our reflections. In that regard, then, the openness of the internet could potentially be used to really share and spread ideas from quite a large group of people. But, while that may be a possibility, that is certainly not how I have observed things play out, in that, to my observation, very few people outside of our class, if any, have commented critically on our writing. This really doesn’t come as a surprise to me. I admit that if I stumbled across the blog of someone writing for a class I 1.) would feel like an outsider, and probably wouldn’t comment and 2.) probably would feel that I didn’t have the time to get involved anyways. My point then is that if we are trying to get feedback and discussion from people outside of our class, I don’t think it is happening.
Due to the conclusion I reached in my previous paragraph, I don’t feel that I am using the blog format to its fullest potential. I write with the expectation that other people in the class will be reading what I say (which is still a marked difference from writing “directly to” the professor), but don’t really expect people outside of our class (other than a few key exceptions, namely friends of mine) to take much interest.
I mentioned that there are two aspects to whether or not the blog mimics the class setting. The first was how people outside of our class responded to the blogs. The second, then, is how well the people in the class carry on the intent of the class outside of class on the internet. By this I mean, do we read each other’s blogs, comment on them, and have open discussion? I am going to be brutally honest and say that I don’t think we (or at least I) do a very good job. While I would love to be able to thoroughly read, think about and comment on everyone’s blog, the truth is that is simply doesn’t happen, due to time constraints. Then again, maybe I don’t want it to happen, because then the class would have no real boundaries. I guess what I am trying to say is, perhaps it is best that only a few people comment on any one blog. Really, an 18 person free for all in the online forum setting would be a mess anyways.
I have shared some fairly scattered and random thoughts just now, and will try to bring them cohesively together. I think that the purpose of putting our writing online is so that others can read it and provide feedback on it. By in large, only people within our class have commented, and in general only a few people comment on any one blog. I was debating whether it would be more beneficial if more people read and commented, and, while I think that it would be marginally better, it don’t feel that the lack thereof means that the blogs are a failure.
The obvious question, then, is how is my writing different if I know that my at least a few of my peers will be reading it? My answer, at least at this point is: not much. The style of writing is different, in that I use a much more conversational tone, but I don’t feel that the content of my papers is any different. I basically view the blog as being my way of expressing my ideas to the class, but I have more time to fully develop and present my whole idea.
Overall then, I would say that writing online has been a new experience for me and learning one, in that my peers are now reading and criticizing my work. However, whereas initially I wondered what it would be like to have random people reading my writing, I feel that that has worn off, because I don’t perceive that random people are reading my blog. So, if anyone is, please comment, so that I know you are there!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Criticism
Criticism, at its very core, involves one person giving their own interpretation on the quality, or lack thereof, of someone else’s work. When thinking about criticism, two major categories come to mind. The first would be criticism which is purely commentary, usually negative, on someone else’s work. This criticism is not usually intended to be helpful and is simply expresses dislike of the way someone else is doing something. Additionally, the person whose work is in question may not ever even hear the criticism. An example of this would be criticizing the president concerning one of his policies. I would say that we can agree that this type of criticism is not really intended to be constructive, especially given that the president will most likely never hear what we say.
As already alluded to in the previous paragraph, the second category of criticism is constructive criticism, and that is to be the focus of this reflection. As the name suggests, constructive criticism is criticism offered to someone with the intent of helping them improve at something. Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of the critic, giving and receiving beneficial criticism can be quite a challenge. This is because, somewhat by definition, constructive criticism involves telling someone about something that they are doing incorrectly. While part of the criticism will probably involve telling the person about things they are doing correctly as well, there would really be no need for criticism if they were already perfect.
So, if we put ourselves in the perspective of the critic, before we can offer criticism, we must have some standard on which to base it. In my opinion, this is where criticism becomes very tricky. I think it is safe to say that in some cases, like a math problem, there is a well defined right answer, or right way of doing things. In this way offering criticism is relatively simple, as it merely involves showing the person the correct way to do things. Being an engineer, I feel that it would be relatively easy for me to offer criticism to my peers, in that I could sit down with them, check their answers, and if they missed any, show them the method to get to the correct answer.
However, I don’t think that this captures the true essence of criticism. I am not going to be distressed or upset if someone tells me I used the wrong equation; I will just fix the problem and move on. However, if someone tells me I need to do better at work, or become a better writer, I might find the criticism more difficult to accept. Why is this? I think that one explanation is the fact that the criticism is of a much more personal nature. Assuming that I always try to do my best, having someone tell me that I am doing poorly implies that my best isn’t good enough. I think another factor lies in the subjectivity of the criticism. Does the person criticizing my writing just not like my style? Is the manager just being overly picky? Is my choice of clothing really that bad?
What, then, is good criticism? Fundamentally, I would say that it is giving someone advice on how to do better in such a way that they feel compelled and motivated to take your advice. In order to be a good critic, you must have a previous knowledge of the subject on which to base your criticism. If the person being criticized knows that you are knowledgeable about the subject (i.e. aren’t just giving your personal opinion) it gives the criticism more credibility. In most cases, because the lines of goodness and badness aren’t explicitly defined, this knowledge comes from experience in the field. One example would be a manager giving an employee a performance review. Over time, the manager will have seen “good” and “bad” employees and will have a database of qualities on which to base the review. Another example is Professor Arvan’s reviews of our reflections. Being a very avid reader (at least from what I have observed), Prof. Arvan most likely has a very good sense of what “good” and “bad” writing looks like. Unfortunately this still doesn’t eliminate all of the subjectivity that can make criticism hard to accept.
Another major factor in being a good critic is being able to help the person see how they can improve. In the example I already gave about engineering, this would involve making sure the person I was helping understood how to correctly use the equations, where the equations came from, etc. A manager providing criticism to an employee should give specific examples for improvement. A professor grading a paper should give the student specific examples on how their writing could be better. I realize that this is a very left-brained way of thinking about this. Some people might be of the opinion that subtlety is better. That being said, I am describing how I would ideally like to be criticized, whereas someone might have a different opinion.
To summarize, constructive criticism involves helping someone see how they can improve on something. In some instances “right” and “wrong” are explicitly defined, making the criticism fairly straight forward, and in some ways, trivial. In general, though, “right” and “wrong” are less explicitly defined. A good critic then is one who has a deep knowledge of the material in question and can provide objective insight on methods for improvement. Finally, however profound or accurate the criticism may be, it is useless if it isn’t presented in a method which helps the person improve.
As already alluded to in the previous paragraph, the second category of criticism is constructive criticism, and that is to be the focus of this reflection. As the name suggests, constructive criticism is criticism offered to someone with the intent of helping them improve at something. Unfortunately, despite the best intentions of the critic, giving and receiving beneficial criticism can be quite a challenge. This is because, somewhat by definition, constructive criticism involves telling someone about something that they are doing incorrectly. While part of the criticism will probably involve telling the person about things they are doing correctly as well, there would really be no need for criticism if they were already perfect.
So, if we put ourselves in the perspective of the critic, before we can offer criticism, we must have some standard on which to base it. In my opinion, this is where criticism becomes very tricky. I think it is safe to say that in some cases, like a math problem, there is a well defined right answer, or right way of doing things. In this way offering criticism is relatively simple, as it merely involves showing the person the correct way to do things. Being an engineer, I feel that it would be relatively easy for me to offer criticism to my peers, in that I could sit down with them, check their answers, and if they missed any, show them the method to get to the correct answer.
However, I don’t think that this captures the true essence of criticism. I am not going to be distressed or upset if someone tells me I used the wrong equation; I will just fix the problem and move on. However, if someone tells me I need to do better at work, or become a better writer, I might find the criticism more difficult to accept. Why is this? I think that one explanation is the fact that the criticism is of a much more personal nature. Assuming that I always try to do my best, having someone tell me that I am doing poorly implies that my best isn’t good enough. I think another factor lies in the subjectivity of the criticism. Does the person criticizing my writing just not like my style? Is the manager just being overly picky? Is my choice of clothing really that bad?
What, then, is good criticism? Fundamentally, I would say that it is giving someone advice on how to do better in such a way that they feel compelled and motivated to take your advice. In order to be a good critic, you must have a previous knowledge of the subject on which to base your criticism. If the person being criticized knows that you are knowledgeable about the subject (i.e. aren’t just giving your personal opinion) it gives the criticism more credibility. In most cases, because the lines of goodness and badness aren’t explicitly defined, this knowledge comes from experience in the field. One example would be a manager giving an employee a performance review. Over time, the manager will have seen “good” and “bad” employees and will have a database of qualities on which to base the review. Another example is Professor Arvan’s reviews of our reflections. Being a very avid reader (at least from what I have observed), Prof. Arvan most likely has a very good sense of what “good” and “bad” writing looks like. Unfortunately this still doesn’t eliminate all of the subjectivity that can make criticism hard to accept.
Another major factor in being a good critic is being able to help the person see how they can improve. In the example I already gave about engineering, this would involve making sure the person I was helping understood how to correctly use the equations, where the equations came from, etc. A manager providing criticism to an employee should give specific examples for improvement. A professor grading a paper should give the student specific examples on how their writing could be better. I realize that this is a very left-brained way of thinking about this. Some people might be of the opinion that subtlety is better. That being said, I am describing how I would ideally like to be criticized, whereas someone might have a different opinion.
To summarize, constructive criticism involves helping someone see how they can improve on something. In some instances “right” and “wrong” are explicitly defined, making the criticism fairly straight forward, and in some ways, trivial. In general, though, “right” and “wrong” are less explicitly defined. A good critic then is one who has a deep knowledge of the material in question and can provide objective insight on methods for improvement. Finally, however profound or accurate the criticism may be, it is useless if it isn’t presented in a method which helps the person improve.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Social Responsibility, Love and the Bible
We are all individuals, with our own wants, desires, and interests. We love individuality and uniqueness so much, that as a society we joke about the fact that “everyone is unique, just like you!” The point, though, is that our actions have an effect on the people around us. If I do whatever I want, or just live by my rules, then it would seem that I could create a pretty nice situation for myself. Basically, I could try to create a situation where the world revolves around me, as it were.
The problem with this, however, is obvious. If I get to create my own rules, then doesn’t the guy next to me get to create his own rules? And, what if his rules contradict with my rules? Who is correct? Pretty soon we get into a situation where, even though everyone is doing whatever they want, it doesn’t benefit them, because everyone is also doing whatever they want. Thus, instead of a utopia for me, we have created a completely dysfunctional society, where no one is happy. (Unless I happen to be powerful enough to force people to abide by my rules, but that is beside the point!)
My reason for describing this somewhat hypothetical situation is to show that we as people realize that we have some responsibility to each other, because if we all just disregarded each other, then society would be a mess. The example I gave was farfetched, because it assumed that no one cared about anyone but themselves. I think we would all agree that as some fundamental level we all realize that there are certain qualities of life that we are entitled to. That is, we all basically agree that I shouldn’t kill you, steal from you, hurt you, etc.
I guess I this topic can somewhat be boiled down to the fact that we live in a world with limited resources. Therefore, I should not take away the resources that are intrinsically yours, like life, health, happiness, etc. I would say that social responsibility is the manner in which we use the resource that we collectively share. The environment and natural resources are a perfect (and probably over used) example of this, so I will only mention it briefly, so that you know that I am talking about. We all “share the world”, which means, before I go waste resources, or “hog” them, as it were, I should consider how I would feel if you, or everyone, did the same thing. Another, perhaps less obvious example (and maybe not even a good one) would be the resource of time. We have all been given the same 24 hours (give or take a few seconds) for each day. Therefore, I should consider if my actions are causing you to waste your time.
While this might be somewhat of an abstraction, I think that it has an interesting application with respect to traffic, so allow me to digress for a minute. We are a familiar with the situation where we are driving down the interstate and because of road construction two lanes are reduced to one. And, I would say we are all familiar with the fact that the traffic jam happens before the lane reduction. As soon as you reach the part of the road that is one lane, as a general rule, traffics speed up, despite the fact that you are now driving in one lane instead of two.
Why is this? It is because we are all trying to do what is best for ourselves. We have all been annoyed at the person who, when everyone else is merging, flies down the open lane to “get ahead” of everyone. It is this self serving attitude which causes everyone to try to wait until the last possible minute to merge, thus causing a huge traffic jam. If everyone would just merge way out ahead of time then things would actually be better for everyone, because, if you recall, a soon as everyone was down to one lane, traffic speed picked back up. While this isn’t exactly related to social responsibility, it does give an example of how everyone doing their own thing is actually worse for them then if everyone would just do what was better for everyone. (This actually nicely agrees with the free rider problem that we talked about earlier in class.)
Now, where was I!? Oh yes. At a certain level, we are all responsible to each other, and, in general, doing so we make things better overall. Said another way, we should strive to have a society where everyone put’s each other first. Even in strictly mathematical terms this makes sense. If I do what is best for me, and you do what is best for you, then we each only have one person looking out for us. However, if we all do what is best for everyone else, and then we all have everyone but ourselves looking out for us! (This is directly related to the prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone working together creates the best situation, whereas everyone working against each other creates the worst situation. However, everyone wants to be the “one guy” who gets special privileges, by mooching off of other people, which by nature leads to everyone working against each other, and hence the worst possible situation.)
I realize that the principles I just talked about might not be representative of the way we typically think of social responsibility, but I think that the name still fits. I would also like to mention this principle is such a good one that the Bible teaches it many times. It is no wonder, given the explanation I just gave, that the Bible commands us all to love one another. I believe that this is stated very succinctly in Mark 12:31, where is says “Thou shalt love the neighbor as thyself.” The question then becomes, how do we become a society where we love one another. (let me clarify that I don’t mean this in a fluffy “lets love everybody” sense, but rather in the true definition of a serving love, as set forth in 1 Corinthians 13.) The simple, though incredibly difficult answer, is that it starts with me.
The problem with this, however, is obvious. If I get to create my own rules, then doesn’t the guy next to me get to create his own rules? And, what if his rules contradict with my rules? Who is correct? Pretty soon we get into a situation where, even though everyone is doing whatever they want, it doesn’t benefit them, because everyone is also doing whatever they want. Thus, instead of a utopia for me, we have created a completely dysfunctional society, where no one is happy. (Unless I happen to be powerful enough to force people to abide by my rules, but that is beside the point!)
My reason for describing this somewhat hypothetical situation is to show that we as people realize that we have some responsibility to each other, because if we all just disregarded each other, then society would be a mess. The example I gave was farfetched, because it assumed that no one cared about anyone but themselves. I think we would all agree that as some fundamental level we all realize that there are certain qualities of life that we are entitled to. That is, we all basically agree that I shouldn’t kill you, steal from you, hurt you, etc.
I guess I this topic can somewhat be boiled down to the fact that we live in a world with limited resources. Therefore, I should not take away the resources that are intrinsically yours, like life, health, happiness, etc. I would say that social responsibility is the manner in which we use the resource that we collectively share. The environment and natural resources are a perfect (and probably over used) example of this, so I will only mention it briefly, so that you know that I am talking about. We all “share the world”, which means, before I go waste resources, or “hog” them, as it were, I should consider how I would feel if you, or everyone, did the same thing. Another, perhaps less obvious example (and maybe not even a good one) would be the resource of time. We have all been given the same 24 hours (give or take a few seconds) for each day. Therefore, I should consider if my actions are causing you to waste your time.
While this might be somewhat of an abstraction, I think that it has an interesting application with respect to traffic, so allow me to digress for a minute. We are a familiar with the situation where we are driving down the interstate and because of road construction two lanes are reduced to one. And, I would say we are all familiar with the fact that the traffic jam happens before the lane reduction. As soon as you reach the part of the road that is one lane, as a general rule, traffics speed up, despite the fact that you are now driving in one lane instead of two.
Why is this? It is because we are all trying to do what is best for ourselves. We have all been annoyed at the person who, when everyone else is merging, flies down the open lane to “get ahead” of everyone. It is this self serving attitude which causes everyone to try to wait until the last possible minute to merge, thus causing a huge traffic jam. If everyone would just merge way out ahead of time then things would actually be better for everyone, because, if you recall, a soon as everyone was down to one lane, traffic speed picked back up. While this isn’t exactly related to social responsibility, it does give an example of how everyone doing their own thing is actually worse for them then if everyone would just do what was better for everyone. (This actually nicely agrees with the free rider problem that we talked about earlier in class.)
Now, where was I!? Oh yes. At a certain level, we are all responsible to each other, and, in general, doing so we make things better overall. Said another way, we should strive to have a society where everyone put’s each other first. Even in strictly mathematical terms this makes sense. If I do what is best for me, and you do what is best for you, then we each only have one person looking out for us. However, if we all do what is best for everyone else, and then we all have everyone but ourselves looking out for us! (This is directly related to the prisoner’s dilemma. Everyone working together creates the best situation, whereas everyone working against each other creates the worst situation. However, everyone wants to be the “one guy” who gets special privileges, by mooching off of other people, which by nature leads to everyone working against each other, and hence the worst possible situation.)
I realize that the principles I just talked about might not be representative of the way we typically think of social responsibility, but I think that the name still fits. I would also like to mention this principle is such a good one that the Bible teaches it many times. It is no wonder, given the explanation I just gave, that the Bible commands us all to love one another. I believe that this is stated very succinctly in Mark 12:31, where is says “Thou shalt love the neighbor as thyself.” The question then becomes, how do we become a society where we love one another. (let me clarify that I don’t mean this in a fluffy “lets love everybody” sense, but rather in the true definition of a serving love, as set forth in 1 Corinthians 13.) The simple, though incredibly difficult answer, is that it starts with me.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Alignment
The post has been removed to avoid confusion, but I still have a copy of it for my records
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
