- Even if the characters actions don't fit into an understandable set of interest or motivation, the story is awesome.
- The moral of the story is great.
- We can all choose what we become.
- It explains how important a parent's approval is in determining a child's future.
- It explains the draw of the military. What it does to a man, both good and bad.
- It shows the power of positive thinking. Adam didn't have a good wife. She was a murdering prostitute, that enjoyed sucking the life out of everyone she came in contact with. But Adam THOUGHT he had a good wife, and so it turned his life around! What if we all woke up in the morning, and thought we were as lucky as he thought he was, even if we are only as lucky as he really was. None of her character traits mattered to him, because he saw in her a culmination of all that was bountiful. He saw her as an Angel. He wasn't seeing her, he was seeing a reflection of himself, or what he wanted to be, or what he thought was beautiful. This helped him get past his bad childhood, and the war.
- It explains how damaging guilt can be to overcome.
- Before resuming the story of Adam Trask and Cathy Ames, Steinbeck speculates on "monstrous changes taking place in the world": the impact of a faceless mass culture on the mind of the individual man or woman. ("When our food and clothing and housing are all born in the complication of mass production, mass method is bound to get into our thinking and to eliminate all other thinking. In our time mass or collective production has entered our economics, politics, and even our religion, so that some nations have substituted the idea collective for the idea God.") "And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about. I understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for that is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost."
John Steinbeck, East of Eden - Make sure you read the whole book. If you only make it through part one, the whole book looks awfully depressing.
- It's cool the way that Mr. Steinbeck describes the way Adam figured his father out. That he realized that his father was not putting all the effort into his children, because he loved them or even cared what happened to them. He was putting all the effort into him and his brother, because his father thought it made him look good. This can get you thinking about parenthood. The very worst parents would be a father that abused his kids (verbally or physically). I don't know if you would put Adam's father into this category. The discipline might have gone to the point that it was abuse, but Mr. Steinbeck does not really tell us that. I think Mr. Trask was more guilty of Neglect, which I would classify as a step above abuse (Adam was also guilty of neglecting his children. On could ask which was worse. Sillus's over involvement, in the form of discipline, for the sake of his own reputation, or Adam's neglect because of his broken heart). Above both of these behaviors, I would put, involvement for the sake of reputation. And above that I would put involvement for the love of your children or concern for their well being.
- The guy from Ireland is awesome.
- This book shows how everything in life comes back to how we want exceptance.
| John Steinbeck does not create believable characters. Reasons to agree -
It doesn't make any sense when Charles confronts Katherine, letting us know that Charles knows about "the fire in her hometown." But then not more than a couple of pages later, Charles tells Adam that Katherine is no good. And when Adam asks her why, he says I don't know! Why not start with the fact that she burned her parents to death? Reasons to disagree -
John Steinbeck is using "Cognitive Dissonance to create tension in us. -
It is not explained to us why Adam went all super-dad when he named the kids, but then went back to ignoring Caleb and Aaron. He discussed the whole "kids need acceptance" and "kids will make their own decisions" story. John Steinbeck wanted to throw out an essay that he wanted to write, and so he just put that essay into Adam's mouth, and then when the essay is done about acceptance, he goes back to being the world's crappiest dad. -
We are not explained why Adam wouldn't have just told his Mom that it was him who was leaving her little gifts. -
Orson Scott Card does a better job of creating more realistic. He does not force characters to make decisions to match the story line. Character act differently within their own moral frame of reference. If John Steinbeck was such a great author, we would know more about why his characters acted a certain way. Things should have worked out better for the guy from Ireland. Things should have worked out better for the guy who committed suicide. What was the point of that? The book is not finished. We need to know what happens to Calab. Some people say that John Steingbeck tried too hard on this book. He over-reached trying too hard to write a book that was critically acclaimed. Reasons to agree The way the book ended, without resolution to the story, seems to be one of the annoying things that critics like, but that don't help the reader. The ending was kind of melodramatic Reasons to disagree How SHALLOW am I! I have to tear down anyone who tries to be deep! Can someone be deep with out being called melodramatic. Why do people try and tear down things that are deep. Some would say that they hate greatness.
What is with the complete segregation of school life from regular life. Why do students feel like they are not a part of the real world? These would not be teacher-centric but organized by students who are interested in similar topics. Individuals could get together to discuss a subject such as calculus, or a book such as Of Mice and Men over a cup of coffee. Education would be improve by supporting those who want to educate themselves. Schools could simply make their space available for these groups or make their computers and broadband capacity available. This could also become a tutoring facilitation website, that allows you to earn a "tutoring credit hour", which you could choose someone to tutor you in a subject of their expertise by tutoring someone a subject of your expertise. To insure quality teaching we would need to use a peer review program similar to E-bay, in which people evaluate your teaching skills. This would affect your cumulative score, which others could use to evaluate when they decide weather or not to use your services. | Reasons to agree: | Reasons to disagree: | -
A good way of really learning something is to try and teach it to someone else. -
Schools have resources such as space, computers, and internet bandwidth that could be used 24 hours a day, by non government educational groups and maybe even for-profit educational companies. The interest of the public is to educate the citizens. Every -
group that is involved in education should be supported and encouraged. -
This could grow to facilitates the sharing of educational resource (like books) sharing groups such as http://mediachest.com. -
This system requires some initiation to get started, however it would eventually govern itself. The easiness in which it runs. The school would simply allow a list to be made which includes four things: -
The individuals contact information -
A list of subjects that an individual could teach -
A list of subjects that an individual would like to learn -
The time and place where the students could meet -
It is completely cost efficient. Reasons to agree -
This system would not need buses, bus drivers, cooks, buildings, administrators, and teachers, teachers unions etc. - This is a good method of learning because of the real world setting in which it takes place
Reasons to agree: - When your public schooling is complete, you never have to sit through an age based curriculum. But in the real world our citizens will need to teach and learn from each other.
- Things learned from a discussion will be remembered longer than things learned form watching an overhead projector.
- In most formal education settings there is little interaction between student and teacher. Usually a teacher lectures, and students try to listen. This system also makes students responsible for their own education, which will prepare them for after high school, where no one is paid to tell them to shut up and pay attention to a lecture on science.
- Too many people believe the transfer of knowledge only happens as a result of structured, complicated curriculum, which relies on textbooks, teachers, classrooms, buildings, busses, buss drivers, cafeterias, pep rallies, and administrators. Learning is and should be kept a very natural and enjoyable process that is shared by like minded individuals.
- Every One is an expert in something, it's just a mater of making sure that you are taught for the same amount of time that you teach, or that you get your "monies worth."
- The school could allow the community to participate. Music instructors could advertise their services on this list. Payment methods would vary.
- Individuals have so much to offer each other. They just need an organized system for teaching each other.
- Good education is just getting people the information they want, the easiest and smoothest way possible.
| -
If public funds are used on the buildings, and computers, someone would have to be there to verify that what is taking place is of an educational nature. Reasons to disagree: -
A lot of what happens in classrooms across the country is of questionable educational value. -
Just because a teacher is not involved does not mean that people are not learning things... on the internet or otherwise. |
| Reasons to agree | Reasons to disagree: | -
Parents who produce good kids help society. -
Parents who produce bad kids harm society. -
Sure, being good is it's own reward, but their should also be an economic reward for to that which is right. -
Being a parent will affect the community that you live in more than anything else. Some parents raise little Hitlers and some parents raise mother Teresas. -
Why should all parents get the same break for having children? -
Parents who raise un-educated children are putting more strain on the governments social network, just like smokers or those who don't use seatbelts put more strain on the health system. -
No child left behind tries to make schools accountable for the progress of children. This may help, because schools do affect kids, but parents affect kids more. -
Most people would cross death valley get a tax break. It's weird. It would probably be good for parents to think about it each time they do their taxes. Of course, they would never admit to themselves that they are spending time with their kids, because they want to get a better tax break, but just thinking about the tax break, would remind them of their responsibility. -
Parents could also get tax breaks for kids with good behavior. -
It's easy to have kids. It's difficult to have good kids. Their should not be a tax break per kid system, like we have now. | -
What about parents of handicapped children (Responce: You can never come up with a system that works 100% of the time, but statistically speaking this would work most of the time. Children's grades are proportional to the time spent by parents with them. It is not 100% correlative, but it is as close as you could hope to get, and worth implementing this idea. |
Polls When we step back and try to compare this web site to other things out there are lots of analogies come to mind. This web site is like a continuous poll that runs 24 hours a day. It is much like a discussion board, but more dynamic. Stock Exchange This web site is a hybrid of many things. It is much like a stock exchange in that it tracks the rise and fall of the popularity of brain stormed solutions, much like the stock exchange tracks the popularity of companies. Like nature my “idea stock exchange” promotes the survival of the fittest. To continue the theme of a stock exchange each position could get an Idea Executive Officer, who is in charge of maintaining the web site. His job would be to drum up support for his cause. Perhaps George Bush would become an IEO for the belief that we should lower taxes. I can see them on CNN talking about their position much like CEO’s talk about their stock, “I think we are going to be doing much better, in the 3rd quarter of this year, after people pay their taxes.” Perhaps the IEO could get paid revenues from advertising on the site for his position. He could make editorial comments or make the categories for additions to his web site to go into.
There are many things that could be done to make this web site better. In the business world a major concern is a monopoly. Perhaps a business only succeed because it succeeds in the past, even though a different company may be better for consumer. It is foreseeable too that on our web site that some ideas will become popular, and stay popular. Much like a business with a monopoly, it may bee seen that it gets preferred treatment, because it is at the top. This could be overcome by having a section, much like the business world that talks about good new ideas.
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Slashdot It seems like slashdot is mimicking the very worst part of conversations, in that every thing that someone says gets heard by everyone else, and then when anyone responds we all have to see the whole ugly mess. Instead of using the:
post
respond
respond
respond
method, I would use the
post
Reasons to agree #1 Reasons to disagree #1
Reasons to agree #2 Reasons to disagree #2
Reasons to agree #3 Reasons to disagree #3
method.
The problem with the way slashdot works now is that progress is never made. A conversation string is recorded, but that is just one of infinite possible conversations that could have taken place with that subject. For instance, someone post something on slashdot, and typically someone will post a reason why they disagree with the original idea, and then someone else will post a reason why they disagree with the second idea. After a few post some good ideas may have been brought up, but there is no way to keep it all organized, except chronologically.
But most people have more than just one reason for believing a conclusion. And just because someone brings up a good reason not to come to that conclusion, the original person probably won't change their mind. How could each of his reasons be evaluated independently.
The way slashdot is currently organized this is impossible. However if they simply let people submit reasons to agree or disagree to an idea, and if they put these in different columns, the whole process of debate would improve. Eventually people could evaluate each reason to agree with or disagree with the idea, and the best reasons would go to the top.
I think that there should be one place where people submit an idea. Fine, slash dot does that. But what I would do differently people posting responces to my post, and then having them tacked on in a continous string, that goes on for ever and never gets any where but away from the regular idea, I don’t know about you but most discussions that I have using the statement-response1-response2-response3 method don’t get anywhere. One of the main problems being that by the time you get to response3 you’ve already changed the subject 3 times.
Global ideas bank This website is pretty good, however I don't like that they have editors, who have to approve a submission, they don't have any way of investing in ideas, and they use the outdated method of thread discussion boards. Foresight Exchange Foresight Exchange www.ideosphere.com/fx/ This page is very similar to what I want to create. However I see some obvious problems: This website is severely limiting itself by focusing on predictions and trying to verify weather or not these predictions will be able to be judged as coming true or not. With the real stock market their is not death to a stock that is based on a certain time. The stock dies if the underlining principles are not sound. And the whole purpose of my website is to implement the virtues of conflict resolution into online stock markets, effectively merging the online stock market with a brand new kind of discussion board. A discussion boards that organizes the best reasons to agree or disagree with a prediction or just a belief. This involves listing the reasons to agree or disagree, the interest of the apposing sides, etc. I also personally hate the navigational structure. It is not intuitive. There aught to be a more intuitive way to browse to the idea.
I think a website that organizes reasons to agree and disagree with an idea into separate columns, and promotes the best ideas to the top of each column, could eventually attain a sort of artificial intelligence. I would make an algorithm that promotes the best ideas by evaluating the following aspects of an idea: -
Quantity of reasons that agree or disagree with the idea: The side with more reasons (to agree or disagree) would get more points than the other side. For example this idea has more reasons to agree than disagree. Just like when you fill out a list of reasons to or not to do certain activities, you tend to choose the side with more reasons to agree. -
Number of people who agree or disagree with the idea: The side with more people who agree should get more points. People could vote for or against ideas. -
The website with better web links. Better is determined by Google rank. There would be a field where you could enter link that "agree" or "disagree" with the idea. The side with better web links would win. Example -
Results of peer evaluations: Their would be forms that people would fill out that asked pointed questions about each idea. You could respond to each question on a scale from 1 to 10. These results would affect the total score for each idea. -
Money. "Follow the money." People could donate money to this website if they believe in it. But a better way of doing it would be to let people donate money towards a specific idea. If you don't like the way this sounds you should read Atlas Shrugged by Ian Rand. I'll just briefly say that money is the only way of measuring someone's blood, sweat, and tears. Money is the only way that someone can pay someone else for their work. Also, it could be used on this website as tug of war analogue. Money could be donated to each side of an idea. -
Experts. Each idea would get more points if it was submitted from the e-mail address of a professor with a degree in the subject mater that is being discussed. For instance if someone said that Abraham Lincoln was an idiot. And someone disagreed, and someone else agreed. If the person that disagreed had a degree in history and the idea was submitted to the history section, then the person who disagreed (the professor) would win. The more prestigious the school, the more points. Prestigious would be ranked by the US News report, or some other un-biased judge. I don't care about you people that say, "The smartest people don't always make the best decisions." We are talking about percentages. Of course the smartest people don't always make the best decisions, but they would tend to make better decisions that stupid or uneducated people. -
Items that agree. People would be able to submit books that they think are important to read to make an educated decision about a certain topic. For instance "The communist manifesto" by Carl Marx and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ian Rand may be considered to be the most important books to read regarding weather or not we should raise taxes. Those that had read those books, should have more say on this idea than those who have not, because this website desided that those books are very important to understand to make a decision about this issue. But the algorithm could go deeper. We are only just beginning to enter the rabit hole. We could let people who have read these books submit essays on them (like book reports in school). The people with a higher "grade" on their essays would get more say in those issues that people have said that those books are important. The goal of the algorithm is to put the best ideas to the top. I don't know which one of these would carry more weight. For instance should experts or web links carry more weight? I think it would be cool if each user could say which things they want to pay attention to. That way if one user respects authorizes, like people with degrees. Eventually this will evolve into a form of artificial intelligence, which we will call 'Collective Intelligence.' People will then be able to say that they have mapped out all possible reasons for agreeing with, or disagreeing with every moral, political, and economic decision. Then when all of these reasons are mapped out, society will get to the work of evaluating the validity of each view. These validities will be traded on a stock market much like the DJI, were if you buy an opinion for cheep (unpopular) and it gains in popularity, then you will be able to sell it at a profit. The only way that AI will truly work to benefit mankind is when its developers combine the advantages of humans and computers.
First let me say explain my concept of a web page that I believe would obtain this merge of the benefits of mankind and computers.
We build this by building a debate forum called the Battle Field of Ideas. You then create a database that manages ideas and reasons for believing them. You then create an algorithm that will allow these ideas fight for survival. Survival of the fittest is what led to the first organic intelligence, and I believe it is what will lead to the first artificial intelligence. __________________________________________________
We should create a computer algorithm that represents an idea's score. This idea organizing algorithm is meant to organize ideas just like Google organizes websites (putting the best at the top). This website will promote quality. The idea score is based on an algorithm that takes into consideration these factors: -
Quantity of reasons that agree or disagree with the idea: The side with more reasons (to agree or disagree) would get more points than the other side. For example this idea has more reasons to agree than disagree. Just like when you fill out a list of reasons to or not to do certain activities, you tend to choose the side with more reasons to agree. -
Number of people who agree or disagree with the idea: The side with more people who agree should get more points. People could vote for or against ideas. -
The website with better web links. Better is determined by Google rank. There would be a field where you could enter link that "agree" or "disagree" with the idea. The side with better web links would win. Example -
Results of peer evaluations: Their would be forms that people would fill out that asked pointed questions about each idea. You could respond to each question on a scale from 1 to 10. These results would affect the total score for each idea. -
Money. "Follow the money." People could donate money to this website if they believe in it. But a better way of doing it would be to let people donate money towards a specific idea. If you don't like the way this sounds you should read Atlas Shrugged by Ian Rand. I'll just briefly say that money is the only way of measuring someone's blood, sweat, and tears. Money is the only way that someone can pay someone else for their work. Also, it could be used on this website as tug of war analogue. Money could be donated to each side of an idea. -
Experts. Each idea would get more points if it was submitted from the e-mail address of a professor with a degree in the subject mater that is being discussed. For instance if someone said that Abraham Lincoln was an idiot. And someone disagreed, and someone else agreed. If the person that disagreed had a degree in history and the idea was submitted to the history section, then the person who disagreed (the professor) would win. The more prestigious the school, the more points. Prestigious would be ranked by the US News report, or some other un-biased judge. I don't care about you people that say, "The smartest people don't always make the best decisions." We are talking about percentages. Of course the smartest people don't always make the best decisions, but they would tend to make better decisions that stupid or uneducated people. -
Items that agree. People would be able to submit books that they think are important to read to make an educated decision about a certain topic. For instance "The communist manifesto" by Carl Marx and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ian Rand may be considered to be the most important books to read regarding weather or not we should raise taxes. Those that had read those books, should have more say on this idea than those who have not, because this website decided that those books are very important to understand to make a decision about this issue. But the algorithm could go deeper. We are only just beginning to enter the rabbit hole. We could let people who have read these books submit essays on them (like book reports in school). The people with a higher "grade" on their essays would get more say in those issues that people have said that those books are important. The goal of the algorithm is to put the best ideas to the top. I don't know which one of these would carry more weight. For instance should experts or web links carry more weight? I think it would be cool if each user could say which things they want to pay attention to. That way if one user respects authorizes, like people with degrees.
Books submitted as reasons to agree with an idea, will support the idea according to the book-algorithm. The book algorithm gives a weight to the ideas that they support or appose, according to the number of books that are sold multiplied by the percentage of people who have read the book, that agree that that books actually supports the idea. For instance if you submit "To Kill a Mockingbird" as a reason to agree that Racism is wrong. Then that book will support that belief proportionally to the number of people who have read that book (the strength of the book) multiplied by the percentage of people who have read that book, that agree that it supports the thesis, namely that racism is wrong. This second step will keep people from submitting popular books, that don't actually support the thesis. People would be able to submit books that they think are important to read to make an educated decision about a certain topic. For instance "The communist manifesto" by Carl Marx and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ian Rand may be considered to be the most important books to read regarding weather or not we should raise taxes. Those that had read those books, should have more say on this idea than those who have not, because this website decided that those books are very important to understand to make a decision about this issue. But the algorithm could go deeper. We are only just beginning to enter the rabbit hole. We could let people who have read these books submit essays on them (like book reports in school). The people with a higher "grade" on their essays would get more say in those issues that people have said that those books are important. The New York Times Best Seller list, or Amazon.com sails records could be accessed by the algorithm. Statisticians will have to argue over weather it should be sales of books per year, or total books sold, or what. But even better than this, would be to allow each user to make this decision. As you tweaked it to you likes, of course different ideas would thrive. This is so cool!
One of my favorite quotes stories is when Chris explained the
sacrement and it weirded everyone out and they stopped following
him. Then he asked his apostles or disciples if they were going
to leave too. And I think it was Peter who said, Were would we
go? You are the only one that has the words of Eternal Life.
I thought that was cool
In humanities classes I have been told that each person has
to find truth for themselves. I think this is true in the sense
that no one can or should tell anyone what to believe, but I
don't think that we should advocate that everyone re-invent the
weal.
There have been great philosophers over the years, who have
pondered all of the great issues. I wonder if I could ever add
anything to what they thought. But I will never know, because
there works are not collected into one great whole.
What I would like to see is all the reasons to agree or
disagree with different ideas from the great thinkers. And, the
present day internet viewers could vote on the ideas, so that
best ideas when to the top.
For instance you would have reasons to believe that there is
a God from Leonardo Di Vinci and reasons to not believe in God
from Michelangelo. I guess they weren't really solly
philosophers, you would also have quotes from philosophers, and
people from out day.
I do not think that each generation should have to re-invent
the wheal. I think that we should collect all of the great or
original writing over time, and have it all cross-referenced,
and indexed, and sorted out into reasons to agree or disagree
with different positions.
|
