Annotated Bibliography

1. Ariely, D. (2008). The Context of Our Character. In Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions (pp. 217-230). New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins.
   
   In chapter 12 of Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational, he discusses how our moral compass can be skewed when we deal with items rather than cash. I am going to replicate an experiment that Ariely uses in his book. His experiment was to get a 6 pack of coke and some cash and leave them both in a college dorm room and see which goes missing. His results were that people were more likely to steal the soda rather than the cash. I am going to differentiate my experiment to see if people are more likely to steal during the week vs. the weekends.
   
2. A. David Redish, Steve Jensen and Adam Johnson (2008). A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, pp 415-437 doi:10.1017/S0140525X0800472X
   
   In the journal article, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, David Redish writes about the neuroscience behind human decision making. He discusses 10 key components as to why people may perform maladaptive behaviors. He describes how the brain and how we are human beings and our conscience is there to help up make the write decisions, even though we have that we still make faulty decisions.
   
3. Gino, F., & Galinsky, A. (2012). Vicarious dishonesty: When psychological closeness creates distance from one’s moral compass. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 15-26. Retrieved April 17, 2015, from Science DIrect.
   In Gino and Galinsky's article they discuss the psychology behind a person mind and how their moral compass is skewed. In the journal they mostly discuss the psychological connectedness someone feels when they are being dishonest. They also bring up the point of how someones moral compass gets altered due to selfishness and selfishness could be a potential reasoning for dishonesty.
   
4. Bloomquist, J. (2010). Lying, cheating, and stealing: A study of categorical misdeeds. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1595-1605. Retrieved April 17, 2015, from Science DIrect.
   
   Bloomquist's study is about how lying cheating and stealing are all connected and people who are willing to do one are more likely to do the other two as well. So if one is willing to lie they are most likely willing to cheat and steal.  This can be incorporated into my paper through the experiment I am going to perform in my dorm with the soda and cash.
   
5. Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters.Diener, Edward; Fraser, Scott C.; Beaman, Arthur L.; Kelem, Roger T.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 33(2), Feb 1976, 178-183.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.33.2.17
   
   In this study the researchers are looking at the variables involved with children stealing Halloween candy. This relates back to my experiment so hopefully there will be a correlation in my expeiment with students stealing the soda just like he correlation of children who steal the candy.
   
6. Niven, K., & Healy, C. (2015). Susceptibility to the ‘Dark Side’of Goal-Setting: Does Moral Justification Influence the Effect of Goals on Unethical Behavior?. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-13.
   
   In this article Niven and Healy discuss how  a persons goal can compromise their ethical behavior. So if their goal is to pay through college they may steal to compensate for that even though they understand that it is morally wrong. Their need and goals subside their ethics and people are more willing to be dishonest. This relates to my essay as I will be discussing peoples morals and how they still cheat and steal. 

Ariely Sources

For this paper I am going to replicate an experiment originally performed by Ariely. In this expeirment I will go into the dorm lounge and place a few sodas in the fridge and some money in a bowl on the table. I will see how much cash and how many sodas are taken each day over the course of a week. I wonder if people will have more incentive to take the money as time continues to past.

The first journal article I chose was, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, here David Redish writes about the science behind human decision making. He discusses 10 key components as to why people may perform maladaptive behaviors. I could use this science in my paper to see what goes on in the brain to make people steal/cheat and then relate it back to my experiment.

Secondly I chose a book called, How We Decide, by Jonah Lehrer. This book basically explains how we make everyday decisions. The three main applications are how we problem solve, make decisions and plan. Its interesting to me that how we decide between what we want and what we need and I think that this correlates nicely with Ariely's ideas when it comes to cheating and stealing. Then I will analyze it further to see how it correlates with my own experiment.

The last source that I decided to use for this project was a book by Sheena Iyengar called, The Art of Choosing. In the book she describes how our choices make up our lives. So what we choose to do or not do makes up who we ware and how we live. So if we chose to cheat/ steal does it affect our whole live or just one decision? I can read further to see how bad decisions influence us and correlate it with Ariely and my experiment to tempt people to steal with soda and money.

Ariely study

I am curious about  Ariely's study in chapter 12. He is curious as to how people are more likely to steal/cheat when it's an item other than cash. 

If I were to develop an experiment to see if people were more likely to steal products rather than cash I would have cash available and another product like candy. Leave it in a room where the subject can take it at anytime without being seen and then after one day, 3 days and a week and see how much is gone at each time period. This will show that if a person has more time to be tempted would they be likely to steal the money too? 

Chapter 12 Ariely

In chapter 12 of Ariely's, Predictability Irrational, he discusses our morals when it comes to stealing. He brings up the idea of how non monetary currencies can affect our perceptions of stealing and our morals. He tests' this idea through an experiment. He uses two separate fridges in a college dorm, in one fridge there was a 6 pack of coke and in the other fridge there was 6 dollar bills. The results was that the soda was all gone and the money was all there. This shows that individuals rather steal/cheat items than cash, maybe it's perceived as less severe to steal a replaceable soda than someones money that they worked for. Another idea that Ariely tested through an experinment is online transactions. His results were that people are also less likely to steal or cheat in person than they do online. This is something very common, when a teacher assigns an online homework assignment the student is a lot more likely to cheat that a hard copy assignment. Ariely concludes by saying people need a certain amount of distance from cash to avoid feeling guilty, so being online or in the form of other items makes it easier for people to steal/cheat.

According to Ariely, cheating is easier when it is one step removed from cash because it make individuals feel less guilty, cash makes us consider our actions more, just like how signing a wavier can make you consider you actions not to cheat. He uses a few examples to explain this, one is it would be easier to steal a pencil but to steal 10 cents to buy the pencil would be more difficult and the person would feel morally wrong. I personally can agree with the example above I have stolen tons of pencils over the course of my years from peers, tables, etc. and I've had tons of pencils stolen from me, it's not a big item that I would get upset over if I don't have. But if I stole cash from someone I would feel so guilty because its someone else's hard earned money and if stole what they worked hours for in an instant I would feel so ashamed. It makes sense that identity theft is on the rise in America is because it is happening online over the internet, people are more likely to steal someones credit card information, or personal files like that than try to physically rob a person and take their files and credit cards. By not seeing the person and having the computer as a sort of mediator it is allows the person to feel less morally wrong. Ariely also provides some example of how companies legitimately steal from their customers. One example is the banks double charging individuals so when they are in debt get charged more. It doesn't look like stealing but it is, people getting charged for purchases they didn't buy.

Ariely's Chapter 11 Predictability Irrational

In chapter eleven of Predictability Irrational Dan Ariely discusses the role of honesty in our society. He states that lying and cheating can disturb our moral compass, what he means by this is that it could affect our emotions and how we go about the world. Ariely brings up to forms of dishonesty, there is white collar theft and robbery theft. White collar theft would be like stealing a pen from the office, while robbery theft is when one is planning their dishonesty to lets say rob a bank. An experiment was performed at Harvard University and a few other universities. What the experiment did was separate students into 3 different groups and allowed them to teach and get away with it. WHat the results showed were that people who knew they would get away with it were more willing to cheat than those who weren't sure if they would get away with it. Another experiment that was performed was to test peoples morality. For this experiment those individuals given the test and were told that they could cheat had to first sign an honor code. The results for this showed that showed that those who signed the code did not cheat, while others who didn't sign the moral code were more likely to cheat. Ariely concludes by stating that we all get the urge to be dishonest but we should acknowledge that and take the path of honesty.

Ariely states that honesty is the best policy because it is what keeps a person sane and if each individual was honest it would make everyones lives run a bit easier. To curb dishonesty in our lives we could be laws taken like honor codes or oaths we sign, this way people feel morally obligated to be honest. When people are reminded of religious values or signing a moral statement they stop cheating completely because it goes against their practices and if they cheat they wouldn't only be lying to one they would be lying to themselves and potentially to God. Students deal with all forms or temptations to be dishonest on a daily basis. Some temptations include, cheating on a test, or borrowing homework or stealing food from the kitchen. Some small transgressions that students may commit and rationalize would be to steal a hair tie from someone who has a lot or stealing a pencil because you know your going to need it in the future. These items are both small and easily replaceable I think thats why people steal it without feeling guilty.

Dan Ariely's TED Talk

Intuition leads to misinterpretation even though its right, in visional illusions its easy to see the mistake, but in cognitive illusions its harder to distinguish. In cognitive situations we feel that we decide our own decisions, but in reality the people who design the form enable your decisions. We simply have an illusion that we make a decision. One example is by adding a third option thats not as attractive to make the other options look better. The options were all inclusive Paris, all inclusive Rome and Rome without coffee. Rome with coffee is superior to Rome without coffee, so people are more willing to buy Rome with coffee because the option includes more like "a better deal." Another example is two have two people attractive Tom attractive Jerry and unattractive Jerry, when this happened viewers were more likely to pick attractive Jerry. But when it was attractive Tom, attractive Jerry, and unattractive Tom viewers were more likely to pick attractive Tom. If I were to repeat that experiment I would create two options for donating money and if I add a third that wasn't a good cause, the people willing to donate would donate more to the good cause. Its interesting how stores, businesses and retailers use this tactic to get individuals to buy their products by having comparable products.

Chapter 2 of Predictability Irrational

In chapter two of Predictability Irrational, Dan Ariely explains pricing and how consumers pay for these prices through an example of pearls. He first brings up this idea of anchoring, anchoring to humans is like imprinting to animals. What anchoring means for pricing is that it is the set amount we are willing to pay, the initial price that we see for an item is what stays in our minds. Another point that he brings up is the idea of behavior and self herding. Behavior herding is when we assume something is good or bad on the based on other peoples experiences with it and self herding is our own previous experience that can determine how we buy an item. The last concept that was brought up were "illogical forces". Illogical forces are what attribute to our emotions and what could skew our buying at overly high prices. Continuing throughout the chapter Ariely provides examples of how not to get influenced by these illogical forces and thus eliminating irrational decision making.

Anchoring is the first price we see on a new item, and we "anchor" that price in our heads so we can compare it to other prices. While arbitrary coherence is when we see a price it is arbitrary and we will use it compare present and future prices. If a college student saved $3000 to buy a used car they would have that price in their head and they would acknowledge don't have the money to spend on extras like electronics and clothes. They would recognize that the money they saved up for a car is worth a lot and was difficult to accumulate, so they wouldn't spend a lot of money on a quick fix like a new electronic or a shopping spree. Retailers and businesses are very aware of anchoring. This is how they get consumers to pay higher prices for products that seem different. One example of this is Starbucks vs. Dunkin' Donuts. Starbucks creates an environment for the consumers to come there over DD because they offer more choices, with special names, and a cool poetic environment. All of these lead to consumers feeling like they are getting extra so they willing to pay for the "extra incentives." Lastly the fallacy that falls behind supply and demand is that they aren't the true driving factors behind market prices. In reality anchoring and arbitrary coherence are what drive market prices up and down.

Elbow- The Believing Game

In Peter Elbow's essay, "The Believing Game- Methodological Believing", he discusses how important it is question certain beliefs. He does this by explaining two ideas, one called the "believing game" and the other called "doubting game." The "believing game" is when we belief every idea brought up to us and the "doubt game" is when we are more skeptical of other ideas and question it. He states that it good to follow the believing game and to accept ideas rather than just to reject them, but to do this with a doubting game lens. This way we acknowledge the new idea as well as analyzing it through critical thinking. He concludes by saying that the methods together create the best way to analyze ideas and beliefs.

Class Activity: IC Book Store

On your blog, provide an example of how a vendor groups products on the shelves, counters, or wall space to get consumers to NOT price match (e.g., during the Oscars, you’ll see popcorn buckets, popcorn kernels, and seasoning salt placed near the cash register at inflated prices). Describe the grouped items, list their prices, and locate the equivalent products elsewhere in the store at the lowest price available. How are the concepts of price sensitivity and price-targeting deliberately used by these vendors to increase sales? What are possible leaks? Include photos of the items and their prices.


At the IC bookstore I observed the store's sweatshirts. In the center of the store they had the name brands, like nike and under armor on sweatshirts with the Ithaca College logo. These brands are a lot more expensive and attract customers. In the back of the store stacked on the racks there was hoodies with the same Ithaca College logo but no name brand on the top of it. The sweatshirt with the name brand cost $64.99 and the other shirt cost only $34.99. The store preciously put the more expensive hoodie in the middle of the store where everybody has to walk by. While the cheaper sweatshirt was placed on the side of the store towards the back. Since the price sensitive buyer has to walk past the more expensive hoodie they may be more likely to buy the more expensive one because its in a more convenient spot and the brand is kind of like an insurance policy for good quality. One possible leak is that there is a store in downtown Ithaca that sells Cornell and Ithaca apparel for a lot cheaper than the book store. The only thing is its out of the way and inconvenient for the customer to go down town when they are already on campus and can get the product right away but for more money.





Professor Silva I tried uploading my photographs many times but they kept freezing my computer, in the end it didn't work.

Harford The Undercover Economist CHapter 2

Summary
In chapter two of The Undercover Economist, Harford discusses the scarcity power that industries have  to make customers pay more.  One example that he uses is Costa Coffee. The Costa Coffee shop is conveniently located near the London Eye, one of England's most popular tourist spots. The owners of the shop overcharge their coffee because consumers are willing to pay it. Tourist especially are more susceptible to pay overpriced items so the company has the convince factor and perfect location.  However consumers have the overall power not to go to Costa Coffee, thus it doesn't give the company all of the scarcity power. Now they have to look at more strategies. The first strategy that Harford addresses is "unique target strategy" which is done when a company observes the individuals. The second, and more efficient strategy, is "group target strategy". Here the company will offer prices to different groups of people. The third and final strategy is called, self-incrimination, this is where companies sell products in different ways and locations. Super markets are using these strategies all time. They sell similar products with different brands, locations and prices and this allows the consumer to have control of some part of their shopping experience. Supermarkets also use tactic called price targeting to see if consumers will pay higher prices, they do this most often with organic foods.

Questions

Harford explains in the chapter supply and demand isn't the only reason why people pay high prices, some other reasons are for convenience and quality. Retailers are very aware of the factors of pricing. I personally have seen prices get marked up do to location. For example my family and I live in a middle class neighborhood and town so when we go to the local grocery store prices are a bit more than they are a town over that is know as less well off. So retailers know the location of where they can overprice customers. Some of the strategies that retailers used to determine who is or isn't price sensitive are unique target, group target and self incrimination. Unique targeting is when its altered to the individual, group targeting is when the group is focused on and self incrimination is when companies sell products that are similar but for different prices. According to Harford grocery basket from stores like Whole Foods or Wegmans are cheaper than stores like Aldo's and Tops because they have more options so more opportunity for cheaper products. Some strategies retailers are using to get consumers to shop at one store over others is by having sales, coupons, and location availability.

Harford Undercover Economist, Chapter 1

Summary In chapter one of Tim Harford's book, The Undercover Economist, he discusses how scarcity and bargaining power impact the economy. He uses an example of farmland to create a connection to one of today most popular resources, coffee. The farmer has to choose between the meadowland where its more expensive but where rich crops could grow or the scrubland where its hard to cultivate but its less expensive.Then there is also another term Harford uses, it called marginal land. The marginal land is place in between being cultivated and no being cultivated. Ultimately the landlord has the power to determine the price of rent for these regions. This concepts correlate directly with coffee shops, coffee shops that are put in the most convenient location and timing will have the most success. So landlords will charge rent more for coffee shops in areas where there will be more product productivity. Even though price is a factor that consumers tend to skew their spending, when individuals are in a rush to work in major cities they tend to become "price blind." Later in the chapter Harford is able to see how scarcity directly creates a bargaining power. This change in balance is the reason why there are sudden rises and falls in prices, its all about supply and demand and who has the power to budge. 

Questions
Scarcity power is when there is a shift in scarcity it follows with a shift in bargaining power. What this means is the more scare a product is the company owner has the power to charge the consumers more, but this role can also switch. When there is more supply and not enough demand the owner will decrease the price to appeal more to the consumers. The way store owners or retailers try to take advantage of their scarcity power is by having prime location and by increasing the prices or having the consumers bargain until the owner settles and gets the highest price. This is what famers do and what coffee shops do. They compete for the meadowlands so they can have the most productivity, but the cost is in the expense the landlord charges for rent.The significance of marginal lands in determine prices of rented property is that it creates competition, so rather than paying high rental prices, consumers will be likely to pay less for a worse location. The downfall to having marginal land rather than a meadowland is that since the location isn't prime they aren't going to make as much productivity as someone who rents out the meadowland for more money. Some external factors that can drive up prices are location, rent, competition and marginal lands. The location specifically can drive up prices because if a store is located in a place where the owner can raise prices and consumers won't care as long as they get the product they demand. This why Starbucks can manage to have such high coffee prices, because they are located in the most convenient locations. In todays job market having a college degree of a (BA or BS) will help to an extent, but since they don't hold much scarcity power because it is more scarce to continue ones degree for a masters or doctorate.

Arguments as Conversations

Summary:
In Stuart Greene's article, Arguments as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Arguments, he discusses ways to improve research, reading and writing in a new way by treating the arguments we use as conversations. By making arguments into conversations it allows for arguments to be portrayed in a simpler way. The three steps that Greene mentions to develop and approach a good argument are to identify an issue, identify the situation, and to frame a good question. Identifying the issue is important because it is used to find the goals and interest that are relevant to others. We learn best from the issues we discuss in our environment. Identifying the situation is important because it allows for relevance and to be more relatable for the reader or the person your having the conversation with. Lastly, framing of a good question is very crucial because it allows the perspective of the argument to advance. Greene finally is able to conclude by stressing the importance of research and how it is used not only to collect information but to create discoveries.

Discussion Question:
Explain the concept of framing. What metaphor underlies it? Why is the concept important for Greene? What does framing allow a writer to do?

The concept of framing is a way for a writer to present their ideas in a way that you can only see the main point of the authors argument. The underlying metaphor is a picture. There can be two types of pictures, one with the center focused and the background blurred or the background focused and the center blurred. This metaphor represent what the author wants you to focus on. It shows both the center and the background but one is given much more attention to, thus taking control of the photo. The concept of framing is important to Greene because it is the final step in how to develop a good argument. Framing is also important to other writers because it allows them to get their argument to be the clear focus while still having other information in their writing.

Intertextuality

Charles Bazerman discusses in his chapter, Intertextuality: How Text Rely on Other Text, this new idea called intertextuality and how its a topic that isn't as recognized as it should be. He states that intertextuality is the relation the texts has to the texts surrounding it. What this means is, our text technically isn't our own, it comes from other texts or words that we've heard or seen before. We use this everyday text in our own writing, to develop an understanding, and to increase our own knowledge. Bazerman uses an article, The Weak Link, as an example. In this example it is evident that this article shows the levels of intertextuality through issues, ideas, quotations, and much more. Bazerman is then able to conclude by saying, "intertextuality is not just a matter of which other texts you refer to, but how you use them, what you use them for, and ultimately how you position yourself as a writer to them to make your own statement."

Ignorance: Lloyd and Firestein

In the lecture given by John Lloyd and the TED Talk given by Stuart Firestein, both scientists come to the conclusion that knowledge generates ignorance. They speak about ignorance not with the usual connotation that it comes with, but ignorance in a sense that it generates more questions about the ideas we don't know. In the beginning of Lloyd's lecture he uses the example of children and how they ask questions contanstly until it comes to a point where theres no answer. Lloyd refers to these as "terminal why" questions. He also discusses that the more knowledge we get the more ignorant we should get and thus leave us to a chance of discovery. Firestein explains similar ideas in his Ted Talk, he says the purpose of knowing a lot of stuff is to generate more questions. He talks about how the education today has what his colleague refers to as the "bulimic method, what he means by this is that we beige information onto students, then have them throw it all up for an exam, leaving the student with no real knowledge or interest on the topic. Therefore, Firestein concluded his argument with a quote from William Yeats and says, "Education is not about filling buckets; its about lighting fires."

In Lloyd's lecture, General Ignorance, he discusses that experts, specialist and institutions are so nervous about admitting ignorance because they hate to admit that they don't know since they are suppose to be the best in their field. But what they don't realize is that ignorance opens the door to a lot more opportunities to gain more insight.  Lloyd then transitions into talking about beliefs and how we can get individuals to deal with ideas that may challenge what they believe. He says the best way to do that is to focus on how their beliefs  and how they do have a validity and not to completely reject it in a way that isn't rude to what they believe. Since information is constantly changing throughout time it means that it is impossible for to know anything, every minute theres new scientific papers being written. In Firestein's Ted Talk he says the best way to get students to step outside the boundaries of facts is to have them evaluate them and ask more questions. He said that the best classrooms are the ones when the students asks the teacher a question and the teacher can't answer it. Students may be more timid and less willing to step outside the boundaries of facts because today students are more willing to accept the facts, learn them for an exam and then forget about it a short while after. Students don't have as much of an incentive to ask more questions and to become more ignorant. Today grades seem to be the only incentive, not knowledge. Some ways we can attempt to have students pursue ignorance is to get rid of the idea of weeding and start evaluating. Weeding is when we test students and let the ones who pass advance and weed out the ones who don't pass. While the better method of evaluating is to have students engage in conversations, collaborate ideas and ask questions. The more questions they ask the more knowledge they obtain and the more ignorant they will become. 

The significance of the "Apology" quotes

1. “The unexamined life is not worth living.” 

The significance of this quote is to show the realization of life. The life a lot of us live now is just going through the steps, we don't take the time to appreciate it. In order for life to have meaning we have to examine the little things, we have to take the time out of our day to reflect and appreciate. If we don't take time time to do this whats the point of living? Theres more to life than just going through the same steps of everyday. 

2. “To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.”

The significance of this quote is to realize that the only knowledge we have is that we don't know anything. What he means by this is that we accept information thats presented to us we don't question it we just accept it. So in reality when we THINK we truly know a lot about the world that surrounds us but we simply don't, it could be all fake researchers, experiments spoon feeding us information.

Emotional Fight or Flight Experience

My perspective as her best friend:
Recently in my college career a friend of mine has had a very new approach to her life. In the past I've never had an issue with individuals who were attracted to people of the same sex, I aways thought, "As long as they were happy then I'm happy for them". The only thing that I would get uncomfortable with would be when I would see a couple of the same sex kiss or produce a public display of affection, and I don't know why but in my head I always saw it as "not normal". However, my parents always taught me to accept everyone for who they are, never to judge where they came from, how they look and even their sexual orientation. So, when my best friend here at IC had a new sexual awakening I was nothing but supportive.  I guess in the time of "fight or flight" I would say I fought rather than fled. I stuck around to listen to how this new experience was for her, I was interested to hear how it developed so quickly and thought a lot about how me and my other friends never noticed the signs. Thinking about it now the signs were all there, but we never  even took that path into consideration. Now that its my best friend who is newly in a gay relationship I don't get weirded out or uncomfortable when I see gay couples show affection, it looks so natural to see two people who mean the world to each other to be happy together. I would want nothing more for my best friend.


Her perspective experiencing the emotional situation:
I grew up in a really conservative and religious town. All my friends were confirmed, as well as myself, and my parents really expressed religious ideals. Throughout high school I was constantly fighting the urge to be honest about the way I felt; I was interested in girls. It wasn't until I came to college that I allowed myself room to explore and be honest with myself. It's a rough transition going from a girl who only dated boys to being a girl in an exclusive relationship with a girl. Bringing the news home to my dad was a terrifying experience, I was worried about what he would think of me and how it would change our relationship. But I didn't walk away from the situation, I embraced it. Being open and honest about myself with the people I love and sharing an exciting and happy new experience with them makes the hardships worth it.

I Don't Want to Be Right

In Maria Konnikova's article, I Don't Want to Be Right, she states that people are more likely to defend their beliefs than accept facts, she continues to talk about the possible techniques to persuade someone to to change their beliefs through facts, science, emotions and stories. A test that was performed were on people who believed that vaccines caused autism in children. The results said that showing the individuals the facts, emotional photographs and stories of the diseases the vaccines prevented caused no one to have a change in believe about vaccines. This test actually backfired and caused individuals to hold on to their beliefs more closely. Later on in the article Konnikova brings up the idea of self-affirmation. Self affirmation creates a low self esteem for the person when they feel their sense of self is threatened by the outside world and this feeling could change their behavior. One example that is used in the article is when women are asked their gender before taking an exam and they perform worse than when the question wasn't asked. This accurately shows how ones belief of themselves or 

of a situation could alter their performance or their judgement even though it may not be true. Konnikova is saying that beliefs,whether they are true or false, are very personal and people will defend their beliefs no matter what facts are provided to contract them. Even though not accepting the facts can be harmful in some situations, like the vaccine, we can't force people to receive it, and it may cause a lot of people to get sick from diseases that could have been eradicated. 

One of the topics that Mooney and Konnikova share is that people hold on to beliefs in a very personal manner. They hold on to them so strongly that they refuse to accept evidential facts that may prove their beliefs wrong. Mooney and Konnikova have acknowledged the idea that you can't change someones belief through facts because it will only result in a backfire. Konnikova uses the example of astrology in her article to explain how strong beliefs are harder persuade. She explains that in todays world if someone say the sun rotates around the earth and someone corrects them they will easily change their belief. However, in the time of Galileo when astronomy represented life, religion and nature it would much more difficult to try and convince them of a different sun-earth relationship.  Konnikova also brings in the idea of self-affirmation, self affirmation is basically when a persons behavior is altered due to a threat of their sense of self. They say we see self affirmation when we are asked to put our gender or ethnicity on exams like SATs and that they really do effect a persons performance. Self affirmation can also cause people to change their minds by placing doubts or second guesses into their heads. In the end, Konnikova explains that the issue of self identity and perception are to blame for the inability to change their mind with evidence is because of the way facts and evidence are perceived by the individual. Ones background and values that they grew up with make up how a person will perceive the information given to them. 

The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

In Chris Mooney's article, The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science, he explains the reason why individuals don't accept specific facts or information is because the information counters what they believe. The examples that he uses to support this statement are peoples views on climate change, on post 9/11 and the correlation between vaccines and autism. All of these different examples have scientific evidence to it. People only respond to the evidence as credential if it justifies their set of beliefs, Mooney refers to this as confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when evidence or arguments agree with ones beliefs. While disconfirmation bias is when evidence or arguments disagree with ones beliefs, so they try to refute the evidence. Sometimes individuals will illustrate  facts to another and expect them to be motivated by the it, this is called "motivated reasoning. Even though this seems logical to prove facts with evidence, motivated reasoning tends to get backfired and the individual will refute what was just said because it disagrees with their beliefs. Mooney ends his article by stating if you want to convince someone of something, don't lead with facts, lead with values.

Our beliefs are something we have developed over the course of our life time. As humans, we become defensive when someone tries to skew our beliefs with facts and evidence. Our basic human survival skill is to "push threatening information away; pull friendly information forward". So when we hear information that concur with our beliefs we tend to understand it, but when it threatens our beliefs we go into the "fight or flight" mode and defend, this is referred to as, "motivated reasoning". According to Mooney confirmation bias is when we, "give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs."and disconfirmation bias is when we, "expend disapproving energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments we find uncongenial." So basically we highlight the evidence that supports our beliefs (confirmation) and discredit the facts that disapprove our beliefs (disconfirmation).  Science has to deal with situations like these in many places, one example is showing evolutionary evidence to a creationist. The creationist will have a counterargument for every fact provided in support of the Theory of Evolution, therefore giving a disconfirmation bias.

Knowledge, according to Weinberger, is the network. However, Mooney is showing that the network can not be convinced by facts or evidence if they go against other preexisting views. This may suggest that our status of knowledge isn't only dependent on facts alone, but on how facts relate to preexisting views and beliefs, this leads to a lot of bias and different opinions. In my opinion, facts are facts and individuals should consider more of an open mind even if it does go against ones views. I may try to change a persons mind regarding global warming by taking their values and start and conclude with that and in the middle explain the facts of how human waste have significant impacts and have caused an increase in global warming. If the individual still doesn't accept the facts there isn't much more to do to persuade them we just have to let them believe what they want. The problem becomes worse when they start to spread their false facts through the media and technology. Confirmation biased is worsened due to the internet because everyone is able to develop sites and even express their own beliefs on their in small pieces. One example of this is with the citizens who believe vaccines and autism are correlated, these individuals with such strong values have developed websites like Age of Autism that show false acquisitions. One of the last things that Mooney talks about are conservatives and how they are more prone to deny the facts of science. Conservatives are known for sticking to the book of the conservative lifestyle so, if they are given new information that contradicts how they've previously lived they take it to offense and deny the scientific facts that contrasts their values. 

Melancholy of Anatomy

In Wendell Berry's essay, Melancholy of Anatomy, Berry compares the human body to the knowledge that is held in the world. The human body and knowledge may not seem comparable, but the similarities between them is that they are both an assembly of parts put together to make something vast. Millions of tiny atoms are brought together and can make up the high functioning human body. The small ideas from everyone throughout time develop to create knowledge. However, Berry also talks about how the worth of the world is determined by the market. What he means by this is that products that are "beneficial" are truly beneficial to only the market who receives income or the government who receives power. The negatives to this greedy and selfish culture that our world is inhabiting is that it doesn't allow us to look at the world as a whole, only as a piece. We need to put all of these pieces back together to create a functioning society as a whole.

In Berry's essay, Melancholy of Anatomy, he writes, “We have accumulated a massive collection of ‘information’ to which we may have ‘access.’ But this information does not become knowledge by being accessible” (14). What he means by this statement is that just because information has become more accessible due to the internet and the network doesn't automatically convert it to be more knowledgeable. The more accessible the information that we have is the more likely we are going to learn invariably and quickly forget the information we just "learned". Therefore, just because we have endless amounts of information doesn't correlate to an endless amount of knowledge. Berry explains that sometimes to understand the future we have to forget the past, take what we have learned and look forward. Berry also develops the idea of a relationship between the market, research and knowledge. We use researchers and scientists to develop ideas and products. These products that claim to be beneficial are really beneficial for whom? They are only benefiting the companies that market them and sell it off as a great product due to the knowledge we trust behind the researcher who created this product. Not only is this with everyday products, but with military industrial products as well. The military industrial complex is founded on the "logic of revenge" this is what war is. The government have scientists produce products to help cause war. Science research doesn't wants us, the citizens, to comprehend all of the knowledge that they and the government hold. They have narrowed our thinking process to keep us occupied from asking questions that involve them. What Berry is advocating for in his conclusion is for us to be thinking more as a whole and taking all of the individual pieces and not just look at those, but to seek what they collectively represent.

Weinberger Chapter 2 Summary and Questions

In chapter two of Weinberger's, Too Big To Know, he illustrates the role and importance of facts throughout history. Weinberger discusses from what the ancients consider facts to what we use today to discover facts. Throughout the chapter, Weinberger is able to view the perspectives of great people of the past like the ancient greeks, Robert Thomas Malthus, Charles Dickens and Charles Darwin. He states that the ancients believed in a balance of their senses and of their bodies, if this was unbalanced they would become ill and possibly pass. Malthuss' opinion on facts were to look at the logical deduction to support his statements. Dickens believed that facts constrain creativity and imagination, it only allows for a black and white no space for gray area. Lastly, Darwin was able to reveal facts through the knowledge of his research and experimental studies.  Later, Weinberger continues to explain that today we have trust in facts. Individuals don't have the time to investigate every single fact that they come upon, so they trust the credentials. The credentials being its publication. However, facts can be used in contrary with other facts. Throughout time facts have evolved, starting with the age of classic facts, to an age of database facts, to an age of networked facts. Knowledge will continue to evolve and facts will continue to serve different purposes.

According to Weinberger we put stopping points on knowledge because there is simply too much knowledge in the world to fully comprehend. Stopping points are the credentials we use to filter out information, so only reliable facts will get published. An encyclopedia is a very reliable source, therefore making it a stopping point. Once information is found in an encyclopedia the reader automatically deems it as a fact. However, when performing research on the internet we look for multiple sources to give us a common answer and then we stop once we deem the fact as credible. During ancient times though these commoners had a different perspective to what facts were. They believed in "humors" and that the body was able to connect with the environment in different ways. Each "humor" or "favor" was sanguine, choleric, melancholic and phlegmatic. Each one of these was a part of a conceptual system of organs, bodily fluids, seasons of the year, astrological signs and treatments. Todays we knows these are false facts, but they help us today to understand the base of knowledge. The point that Weinberger is making by using Malthuss' book is to lead us to understand that facts are the building blocks to knowledge. Malthus first uses over generalizations to attempt to make arguments regarding population and food resources, this was very incredible. Eventually,  Malthus is able to support his claims with statistical evidence and facts, thus making his claim more credible and helps realize that facts build up to knowledge. Another author that Weinberger includes in this chapter is Charles Dickens. Dickens is very skeptical of facts because he believes that they can take away from ones imagination. He continues this by explaining that, "Facts in blue books didn't reveal the truth." By this he means that in order to understand something you have to experience it, not just read about it in a book, thats where it loses its compassion. Other than Dickens point of view on facts there are also other forms of facts. Charles Darwin has developed facts through scientific observations and experiments, thus making his facts a very credible resource. While other facts,  that make come from websites like hunch.com, aren't as valid. They aren't valid because they aren't developed through a scientific approach and tested. Even though these types of facts have their differences they also have a similar goal, to get conclusions. Whether its a credential one or not a conclusion is still obtained. There is a downside with having too many facts, this downside is caused by the internet allowing too many facts in one location. Most of the information is not credible and we can't assume that since its published online thats its as valid as it would be if it was published in a book. In life we have to perform our research, learn facts and not assume the knowledgeable internet to be the house of credibility.

Summary Revision

Before:
In Weinberger's, Too Big To Know, he discusses the value of knowledge, and how in modern times that value has begun to disperse. In the past, information was used to make data more valuable, then knowledge came to make information more valuable. Weinberger states that knowledge is a treasure. In todays society I don't believe that knowledge holds the same respect that it once use to. Its not treasured and seen as sacred because everybody has the ease to obtain and borrow the knowledge. Everything we need to know is accessible through the internet, whether its information about the past, present or future, its all just a couple clicks away. Today we are all writers, we are all editors and we can all get the information we need not through interacting with others or reading a newspaper, but through the internet. The internet is the only thing that is able to hold all of the knowledge the world has to offer, its limitless. This knowledge through the internet is known as a 'network'. Networks enable knowledge to be spread, to grow over time and for individuals to collaborate with one another to create more.


After:
David Weinberger, author of the book, Too Big To Know, argues that knowledge has evolved from its value to it's accessibility. He begins by reflecting how knowledge was cherished in the past. Historically, information was used to make data more valuable and then knowledge was developed to make information more valuable. All knowledge was found in a few places, books, libraries and the mind of experts. These forms of knowledge thus had to be "filtered". Filtering is a term Weinberger uses to explain that only important information was to be used in these knowledgeable places. For example only certain amounts of information could be held in a library regarding one topic, so the most informative was kept while the rest were filtered out. Weinberger then speaks about present day and how knowledge is now looked at and where it is found. Knowledge is still found in some texts, some locations and in some of the minds of others, but the main source of knowledge that is the most accessible is the internet. Todays generation relays on speed and accuracy and the fact that people can just type in a word to google and endless amounts of knowledge comes up regarding the topic that was searched. This new knowledge that is found through the limitless ends of the internet is referred to as a "network". Networks enable knowledge to be spread, to grow over time and for individuals to collaborate with one another to create more.


What needed to be changed in my revision:
After watching the video and reading over the templates placed for the class and I, I learned that I needed to edit my paper by emphasizing the key ideas, using specific terminology and provide a better organized flow of concepts. I did this by stating the thesis in the first or second sentence, by using terms like "reflecting" and "thus" and by keeping it in chronological oder from past to present. I also learned that its best to keep a neutral stance and try not to put my opinion in the summary. The summary should be based on what the author solely wrote and their perspective. Lastly, what I attempted to do in my revised summary that I didn't do well in my first summary was to be clear and not only use the authors terms, but explain their meanings too.

Weinberger's Too Big To Know: Prologue and Chapter 1

In Weinberger's, Too Big To Know, he discusses the value of knowledge, and how in modern times that value has begun to disperse. In the past, information was used to make data more valuable, then knowledge came to make information more valuable. Weinberger states that knowledge is a treasure. In todays society I don't believe that knowledge holds the same respect that it once use to. Its not treasured and seen as sacred because everybody has the ease to obtain and borrow the knowledge. Everything we need to know is accessible through the internet, whether its information about the past, present or future, its all just a couple clicks away. Today we are all writers, we are all editors and we can all get the information we need not through interacting with others or reading a newspaper, but through the internet. The internet is the only thing that is able to hold all of the knowledge the world has to offer, its limitless. This knowledge through the internet is known as a 'network'. Networks enable knowledge to be spread, to grow over time and for individuals to collaborate with one another to create more.

To Weinberger, knowledge is something that ever growing and needs to be withheld in something that is boundary free, this why the internet is the only place where all of the knowledge we have can be and where the knowledge will continue to grow in. Weinberger also explains how in the past we had the urge to know knowledge and today we want to share knowledge. I agree with this statement in the past it was necessary for us to know information and today we want to share want we know or what we've seen on the internet. I personally see this a lot throughout the media. One example is on social media, specifically Facebook. On this cite people are able to share pictures, articles and other information that they feel has a value to them or another person. Knowledge is able to be passed on from one person to another with such ease, and since we are able to share this we can allow it to grow and morph into something else so easily.

Weinberger explains how times differ from the ways in which knowledge was produced, disseminated, altered, accessed, and applied. He states that in the past everything had to go through filters and only what was deemed necessary would get published. But today information doesn't get filtered out, it gets filtered forward, so we have what he calls 'knowledge overload'. We are able to maintain this overload a lot easier with access to the internet, the web provides a single space full of databases and cites for all of us to use in the convince of our home. Knowledge has also evolved through the different forms it comes in. Information used to be solely found in books and from others, but today knowledge is most accessed through the internet. Knowledge is continually changing and even just in my lifespan I've been able to see it. I'm curious to see how much technology continues to enhance throughout the rest of my life.