Taryn Simon Photographs Secret Sights TED Talk

Taryn Simon's TED Talk vastly differed from any that I have watched so far; she is a photographer who sheds a light on reality of situations that are usually covered up. The majority of her talk was her flipping through her photos and describing the unusual circumstances under which they are taken; she was not very lively or involved, but that did not distract from her talk. She almost needed to be monotonous to be able to absorb the full impact of her pictures. In the end, empathy is what her talk came down to; the little stories allowed me to relate to the situation, but the photographs showed the  raw humanity and irony of certain situations. Simon seemed a bit ill prepared when it came to her TED Talk; she "ummed" her fair share and did not seem at home up on the stage. It felt like the whole thing was her reading a script in front of a huge, attentive audience. She works beautiful with photographs, but speaking motivationally was not her strong suit; her photographs could have played in a slideshow to music with captions of the story and it would have had the same effect as her speaking. If she had used more emotion in her voice, or even displayed the slightest amount of connection, this talk could have been magnificent.

Simon really only details one message: "Our eyes are easily deceived." Near the end, she launches into one of her projects; she photographed men who had been wrongly accused of malicious crimes including rape, murder and robbery. These men had to serve time for crimes that they weren't remotely involved in, for men who were guilty and slid by free of charges. In multiple cases, photographs were given to witnesses in order to to identify their attackers; the victims were drawn to a photograph (of a man similar to their attacker) and that picture was taken and put into another group of photos for the victim to review. They again picked the picture of the person they assumed to be their attacker, but this time the face in the photograph had replaced the face of the actual attacker. Those that were wrongly convicted were then photographed in settings relevant to their arrests; one man accused of kidnapping, raping and murdering woman  was photographed where the crime allegedly occurred. He had never been there. Simon sets out to expose the realities of life through beauty and whimsical imagery. She describes one situation in which Disney World rejects her request to access her subjects: photography threatens fantasy. This shows that in today's world, we rely too much on photography, and not enough on our own memories. Her angle is to show the ironies involved in photography compared to that of reality; it gives a different tone to photography and adds refreshing fact in a sea of obscured truth.

"A picture is worth one thousand words;" it's an accurate statement, but sometimes we don't know the truth behind it. When I was little, I looked at a picture, thinking it was myself. I told my mom, "Wait, I don't remember ever taking a picture in that chair..." She responded, "Maria, that's because it isn't you. It's your sister." My sister and I aren't twins and there is quite an age gap, but the picture was taken at a time where we looked quite similar. It could have been error due to young age, but I don't believe that. My eyes were deceived and I knew no better than to think it was me. It would have never occurred to me that it was actually my sister in the photograph. In society this is an extremely important error to be made. The public is easily persuaded by the photographs placed in TMZ or advertisements or Breaking News Bulletins, and those photographs easily, easily, could be fabricated or tampered with and the public would never know. We believe whatever we see because someone saw it somewhere, and that is proof enough for us. Not everyone goes and checks every backstory on every photograph we see in People Magazine showing how Britney Spears has cellulite or how Gwyneth Paltrow got abs fast! We believe it because someone that we think has authority decided to publish it. But we don't really know if Britney has cellulite, or if someone decided to make it appear that way, no one investigates it either. As Simon says (no pun intended) the picture can replace the memory; when I see Gwyneth Paltrow, I won't think of a person, but the tan fit body and bleach blonde hair of Gwyneth Paltrow. But why does this even matter? We turn humans into objects, fabricate memories, and lose touch with our memories and ourselves. In total, we pretty much lose our human nature by relying too much on photographs. We do not live in photographs, we do not live in the false smiles and photoshopped bodies of Abercrombie adds; we live in reality and it's time to move away from leaning upon pictures as a crutch. The eyes are easily deceived, we cannot trust something fully if it cannot accurately display the situation. Photographs must be supplemented by some other truth. Simon's photographs contrast the relationship between reality and photography. People must take this approach to life, showing both sides of the spectrum and allowing the truth to be shown through imagery. 

Dan Ariely TED Talk: Are we in control of our own decisions?

Dan Ariely's TED Talk details the psychology behind decision-making processes; they are not made personally, but are technically decided by the person who designed what is being decided upon. People do not wake up in the morning and know what they are going to wear, but they decide what to wear by comparing different designs. This leads into Ariely's view of decision-making; people are irrationally predictable, making the same choices in patterns that others find illogical until they study the topic. Decisions are harder to make when the results are equally balanced, but if another decision is thrown into the mix, one choice is made to look more opportunistic than the other. Ariely describes a situation in there are three different choices: an online magazine subscription for $59, a print magazine subscription for $125, and a combo-pack of both for $125 dollars. When he surveyed students at MIT, he found that the combo pack was preferable by over half and the online subscription made up the rest of the total; the print-only subscription was preferable to no one. It seemed pointless to include an option that was not preferable to anyone. So, he surveyed another group of students but eliminated the print-only option; the results showed that the online subscription became more preferable by the majority. The option for print-only made the combo-pack seem like more of a deal than it actually was; Ariely calls this "Decision Illusion," which parallels that of an optical illusion. When the outside distractions are taken away, the viewer is able to see the true value. This is one pattern that Ariely has observed, which proves his theory off irrational predictability.

Ariely shares his interest in human psychology in a way that is completely relatable to the average person. The viewer can tell just how truly ingenious he is, but he “dumbs” it down in a way that does not feel like he is talking down to someone inferior. He describes optical illusions using photographs; he proves that two tables are the same length and two colors on a cube are actually the same color, but then takes the proof away again. He explains that nothing is wrong mentally if, when the proof is taken away, the perception of the illusion returns back to as it was before he showed them as equal. He further explains optical illusions as a metaphor for decision illusions. If he had tried to explain decision illusions without first introducing optical illusions, the concept would have been lost amongst the audience; but, since he used something that the average audience member knew to relate to his subject, he made it relatable and easier to understand. Through out his talk, he used the projector to enhance his ability to explain; decision illusions, greatly related to optical illusions, are not easy to describe without visual effects. He put up two photos of two brothers, and asked which one was more preferable to you specifically. He proceeded to put a distorted photo of each brother in between the two regular photos, and, again, asked which was more preferable. Whichever brother was distorted seemed less preferable to the viewer. This is another example of decision illusions and predictable irrationality illustrated in another way. Ariely uses multiple examples to make one point clear, which, again, allows the situation to become more relatable to the viewer. 

Irrationally predictable are two very powerful words that do not seem like they should be directly next to each other in a sentence, ever: an oxymoron of sorts. I think of irrationality as something being so unreasonable and unpredictable that no one can understand. My view of irrationality, in itself, contradicts the idea of being predictable. Dan Ariely creates a bond between these to concepts that shows how human decisions are not as irrational as we believe they are because, to a degree, he is able to show trends in "irrational" behavior. If further studies were conducted in order to prove his idea, the world would benefit greatly. Every person should know how they think and make decisions; it opens up their ability to understand themselves and then others. Publicizing these studies also would reveal whether someone is actually using their opinions to decide upon something or subconsciously allowing others to make decisions for them; it could easily be adopted by more companies as a marketing strategy, thus improving sales and the economy. But how can someone change these seemingly subliminal behaviors? How can someone change how he or she is persuaded to do something? Simple (in concept, maybe not in practice): way out the pros and cons and eliminate one of the decisions. We cannot change the way we value certain things, but if we change the perspective and quiet down the distractions, we will be able to see life and its decisions in a different light. Schools need to look into this more deeply also. If they can understand why students do what they do, it will be much easier to teach and for them to learn. As a student, I know that I am not always stellar. I would rather lie out in the sun and feel the breeze or laugh and smile with my friends than sit and do my homework inside for hours on end. I know I need to get my homework done; I know I want good grades, but sometimes I could use a little less stress and frustration in my life. My motivation to do these tasks decreases because there is an alternative that seems more pleasurable or rewarding. If a student were given the choice between friends and homework, most would choose friends; but if they look into the long run, it is like comparing friends and a decent education. Then which would they choose? At this point, I am not sure which would be more popular. My point is that students are predictably irrational, and I feel that it is the teacher's job to both focus students in on what really matters and to help keep them on a path to finding what matters. Students, teens especially, lose focus of their goal by facing so many distractions, teachers must teach them how to turn down the volume and consider what they truly are looking at. When this is achieved, they will be able to make choices individually, instead of by what outside forces are trying to pressure them into. In total, decision illusions need to be clarified by students, but teachers must help them learn how to do this first. Reflecting personally, I could use some help in these situations. I get too caught up in the moment and the little details to realize the big picture; with some guidance, I feel like I could become a better student and like I would be able to sort out my priorities in a more efficient manner.

People's decisions are not as irrational as they seem; Dan Ariely's TED Talk enlightened the viewer to show the truth behind decision-making processes. Decision illusions change the perception of choices, but in the end it's all just a trick of the mind.

Dave Egger TED Talk: Once Upon a School

In the past few years, Dave Egger has started a trend by opening a pirate supply store, which doubled as a free tutoring center. Weeks passed and no one came to the store; they could not figure out why people had not come in for any help. Eventually they were able to get students to come in and get the one on one attention they deserved. Egger’s main message became evident within the next few minutes of his talk; children need one-on-one time that schools cannot provide with ever-growing class sizes. Students began to shine due the collaboration with students, interns, volunteers, and staff members and the time they spent learning with others. Classes began to visit on field trips, then tutors were sent into classrooms, and later they were given a classroom at a school; students who would not usually seek help ended up getting the same treatment as anyone. Across the nation, Egger’s movement inspired copy-cat stores which doubled as free tutor centers. These centers changed the students’ motivation and made them not only get their homework done, but actually want to get the work done well.

Egger tended to ramble, to say the least; he seemed a bit nervous and spoke quite fast. He changed focus frequently which gave him an heir of disorganization, but in the end he brought everything back together to form an idea worth spreading. He told little stories of children overcoming seemingly impossible challenges to show the impact one tutoring center made on the typical child. Despite his wordiness, the viewer could tell just how much he loved his topic and the potential it holds in the present and the future. Egger loves what he does and wants others to share his joy, and then share the newfound love with the world, too. He highlights the internal reward of getting active within the community and shows how donation of time and personal connection is far greater than a donation of money.

In the past few years, my class sizes have remained relatively small in comparison to those of my peers; while their classes had 30 or more students, mine stayed within the mid to low 20s. I feel this is unfair; honors and advanced students need attention still, but the average grade level student needs more of a guiding hand. The larger classes tended to be those with larger numbers, which is the exact opposite of what is needed; if these students really do need more help, they will not be able to receive adequate attention from their teachers. Egger sent volunteers and tutors into schools to allow the one-on-one time that they needed; more people need to join this movement in order to help the youth change their motivation and provide better futures for them. Without one-on-one attention, students may never know what they are capable of accomplishing; they need the pressure to do well in combination with wanting to achieve their goal. Not all people are motivated in school, and I think the relationships that are forged between student and teacher (or tutor) can change the way students are motivated. It should start with respect; I have noticed that students who respect their teachers (generally) produce better work. Through out the school year, I have grown much closer to my teachers, and I do homework and projects to the best of my ability both because I want to and because I do not want to disrespect or let my teachers down. If students grow close to their teachers, maybe the same principle will apply to them. They will grow to respect their teachers and tutors enough to build up a new sense of drive and then they will be able to motivate themselves. In society, people should try to create closer relationships with others and their motivation will change too. Spending personal time helping others is much more rewarding than donating money to a cause; it shows that you actually care about the future, in comparison to “caring” about immediate fixes.

Dave Eggers has one wish for schools and people across the globe: "I wish that you- you personally and every creative individual and organization you know- will find a way to directly engage with a public school in your area and that you'll tell your story of how you got involved, so that within a year we have 1,000 examples of transformative partnerships."

Kathryn Schulz TED Talk: Being Wrong

Kathryn Schulz starts off her talk with a little story of a road trip she once took with a friend. The whole way she had been seeing a sign on the side of the road; she finally decided to ask her friend what it meant. Schulz asked the friend, "What is that Chinese character I keep seeing on the side of the road?" The friend was completely befuddled until she realized what Schulz was talking about, and started laughing uncontrollably. What Schulz had been thinking was a Chinese character was actually a picnic area sign. Being wrong feels just the same as being right, and that is the problem behind it. No one knows they are wrong until they realize it, and that is when the earth tumbles down around you and swallows you up; it is not the act of being wrong, but its aftermath. From this point on, she launches into the next main purpose of her talk: the miracle of the human mind is a person does not see the world for what it is, but what it is not. Human beings are set in their ways and want others to think exactly as they do; when they believe they are right, they also believe that they can perfectly reflect reality. When they try to convince others that their view is correct and the others disagree, that person assumes three things about them: they are ignorant, they are idiots, or they are evil because they may know the truth and are secretly plotting to use it against you. Schulz says that these assumptions destroy human nature and cause people to treat one another horribly. Not surprisingly, others' "ignorance," "idiocy," and "evil" are what people thrive on; we love seeing how incompetent another person is because we love surprises and good stories love wrongness. The surprises and mistakes reflect real life and that is why we love them so.

From the get go, Schulz is the most relatable talker I have seen; she is completely at home up on that stage and knows exactly how everything will play out. Simultaneously, she talks as though she is speaking directly to each member of the audience; Schulz even asked a section to respond to a question that she asked, giving live feedback to the entire crowd. She interacted very well and incorporated the crowd's response into what she was talking about, almost using it as a transition into her next point. Through out the entirety of her speech, she subtly mocked both herself and the crowd, getting some laughs and breaking the seriousness of the importance of her message. Story was deeply intertwined within Schulz talk (which is probably why it is so relatable), and, quite frankly, being wrong should not be illustrated in any other medium. It will not be able to capture the essence and humanity behind mistakes.

The topic of her TED Talk already had my interest, and after listening to her speak, my interest has strengthened greatly. Society has a serious problem on their hands; they cannot see that, despite valiant efforts, we cannot try to change another person without some sort of backlash. Look at the United States, look at religion, look at the person sitting next to you in class, look at your parents. Not one of these people will change their view because you think you are right. Schulz said we put too much confidence in the feeling of being right. I believe the feeling of being right is what causes a skewed view of reality; ideas play our well in our heads, but we cannot predict how it will turn out elsewhere. Not realizing this, we try to force our opinions down the throats of others and end up hurting more than helping. What seems right to us may be completely wrong for another person, country, or civilization. And when they reject what we are preaching, they automatically are ignorant and evil idiots. Silly as it sounds, this happens all over the world today via religion and United States roll in other countries. Their intentions are good, but I am not confident that the change will do much good. On the completely unrelated other hand, we have the affects of mistakes on a personal level, meaning how society relates to being wrong. Schulz says that before we even know we are making a mistake, we are in trouble; we just do not realize that we are doing this because it feels exactly like being right. Then we look around and the floodgates break and are engulfed by a flood of emotions: inferiority, devastation, immense embarrassment. But why does this happen? From an early age we are taught that mistakes are associated with stupidity and laziness and that the way to succeed in life is to never make any mistakes. When I was little, I had a tendency to knock over full cups of liquids at almost every meal. This little accident symbolizes the feelings associated with making a mistake. You are a glass of apple juice sitting there on the kitchen table, just an inch or two away from the edge. And you sit there, content and oblivious to the world, knowing only what you have experienced. Then all of the sudden, you feel the blow of an elbow, sending you spiraling through the air with nothing to hold on to, nothing to support the only concept you knew until you smack down on the wood floor. That elbow is reality striking you and you can do nothing about the horrifying descent down to a new and unknown situation. Wrong is where people are comfortable; wrong is where people can hold on to what they believe in and reject what reality has proven. Wrong is where people stay until they have a rude awakening into a scary unknown place. We associate those feelings of fear to be proven wrong with the act of being wrong and forget how content we were when we thought we were right. As society, and as an individual, we need to accept that humans make mistakes and embrace the beauty and growth that may come from them.

Kathryn Schulz greatly illuminated the true meaning behind making mistakes and we are left to deal with these misconceptions in order to change the world.

Clay Shirky TED Talk: How Cognitive Surplus Will Change the World

Clay Shirky’s TED Talk covered a wide array of subjects dealing with the vast amount of information available to everyone through out the world. It all started with Kenya in 2007; they were having political problems, and when the worst of it hit, the government blacked out the media to keep its people in the dark. Lawyer Acola McKnight decided the people deserved the right to know what was going on in their country; little did she know, this act would lead to the creation of Ushahidi, a way to share collective knowledge. Collective knowledge is more than just the average blog post; it is a way in which people connect and insightfully discuss a topic; it allows ideas to be spread and knowledge to build off of another’s idea. Shirky describes how this leads to cognitive surplus, which combines free time and talents with media tools. People are able to create and show their talents, whether it be something as pointless as LOLcats (pictures of cats with random quotations) or as ingenious as Ushahidi. LOLcats show a communal value which is valued by a select few people, but Ushahidi is very different. It has civic value which is important to the world, which explains why so many people are involved in it. Shirky believes that this cognitive surplus is leading to a decline in consuming and an increase of pleasure in creativity. An increase in creativity and satisfaction in sharing can only mean one thing: intrinsic motivation.

Shirky laced his talk with sly humor and valuable purpose. While he was speaking, he easily transitioned from one point to the next by relating to seemingly unrelated topics; Shirky was talking about the important technologies that have emerged due to Ushahidi and cognitive surplus, and as he spoke, pictures of LOLcats started popping up. They showed no association, but it allowed him to transition in a fun way. He put a little randomness into the mix and lightened the mood to keep the audience interested. He also brought up relatable stories to help illustrate the connection between motivation and personal connections. He described how late daycare pick-up was negatively affected by fining because it caused emotion to be taken away from the situation. Money replaced parents’ ability to feel guilty for picking up their child late; it made them feel like the money could replace the time that the daycare workers had lost waiting for them to come. His story telling not only kept the viewers engrossed, but, like Dan Pink concludes, it allows them to hear Shirky’s message in the way they think: through story. Shirky is a very effective speaker and is easily able to keep attention and display his opinions, backing them up with both fact and hypothetical possibilities.

In relation to every day life, cognitive surplus is literally everywhere I look. People take beautiful photographs and edit them to their liking, so they can upload them onto Facebook for all their friends to see. They want the feedback and constructive criticism that the web provides; depending on how many friends or followers they have, hundreds and even thousands of people can see one photograph and all the beauty it may hold. I know that when I hear or see something that I like, I want to either recreate it or create something that will have the same affect on a person as it did on me. The only explanation, as Shirky stated, is an intrinsic drive created by the free time and need to create and share. This again, relates to school; students have lost their motivation to want to create in school. It is strictly assigned, and being the rebels we are, students do not see the point in having to do another stupid art project, another stupid history paper or another stupid position paper. Outside of school, we feel the freedom the web and the exhilaration of appreciation from the complements we receive, but as soon as we enter those school doors, that freedom is shut down. It doesn’t make sense to me why we do this; why we don’t want to shine the way we do at home; why we don’t want to show our potentials to those that most want to see it. I suppose it has to do with the personal connection of school that is absent over Facebook or Twitter or other social networking devices. We are afraid of the personal connection; our fears shut down our ability to be motivated. There is always the looming feeling of “what if the teacher doesn’t like it,” or “what if my peers think I’m dumb,” or a face-to-face dismissal. Computers allow people to show their work, feelings, and abilities with more anonymity, but without the fear of a personal rejection. The motivation is still there, but it is put on hold because of fear or pure arrogance. In the world, cognitive surplus will make enormous impact; if more people are able to obtain the boundless information, learning and creating will never be the same. Pink’s predictions in the threats of Asia, Abundance, and Automation will be evermore possible. Outsourcing and knowledge will be easier to access and technologies will be easier to develop due to the newfound knowledge. Not only could it cause problems, but also it will change how people relate to one another and allow people to build off of one another’s thoughts and ideas. Google Docs already allows people to collaborate on projects, why couldn’t the next step be collaborating on technology itself. The people working on the technology would not be paid and would not necessarily even know each other; their motivation to get it done would be the only obstacle standing in the way. Facebook creates and keeps relationships due to the ability to share with friends. Cognitive surplus already exists globally, but what is next to come has infinite possibilities.

Clay Shirky shares his insight on cognitive surplus and what it will hold for the future through his well thought TED Talk.

Dan Pink TED Talk: The Surprising Science of Motivation

Dan Pink has amazing stage presence, his TED Talk proved exactly the type of person he is and how he wants others to view him. He started out by telling a little story about how he went to law school but never practiced the law; periodically, he would refer to his lawyer side and, generally, live up to the stereotype of what a lawyer is scene as. He was humorous when it was called for, but also blunt and succinct when needed. Pink repeated the key details frequently to help them stick in the viewers mind and keep them from getting lost; at times he even used a screen to flash up quotes, so the viewer could both see and hear what Pink was saying. He effectively covered his topic, covering both broad and more intricate details through small side stories and details.

According to Dan Pink, society needs to rethink how businesses are run; what scientists know and how businesses are run do not match up. They use methods that are based on outdated assumptions; it has been proven that rewards, or carrots and sticks, do not increase productivity for all tasks, but actually dull thought processes and restrict creativity. Pink says that it works for some cases, but not all. He details a scenario in which this principle is extremely true; it is called "The Candle Problem." Those given an incentive narrow their thinking and are so focused on getting the task done, do not think of all the possibilities; however, those not given a chance for a reward are able to think more broadly. Pink believes that those rewarded for their work decrease in productivity and quality, and this concept is supported by scientific studies across the globe. These extrinsically motivated people are easily replaced and less efficient, but the intrinsically motivated are harder to replace and much more efficient. Results-Only Work Environments (ROWE), Atlassian FedEx Days, and Wikipedia provide more than enough evidence for this statement. ROWE workers have no schedules; all that matters is that the work gets done; FedEx Days allow 24 hours for workers to create something new to then share with their co-workers; Wikipedia was created for fun and is now the most successful online encyclopedia. All of these work forces were based on the intrinsic motivation of their workers and have been proven to be more productive than companies using extrinsic motivation.

In relation to the world, productivity clearly would increase and both goods and information would be easier to access for all people if business transitioned from extrinsic rewards to intrinsic motivation. The increase in access will lead to growth in knowledge and abilities, causing even more abundance as described in A Whole New Mind. Pink even says in his TED Talk, rewards work for some tasks, but not all. The tasks that work with rewards are more mechanical and can easily be replaced by machines or outsourced to other countries. An increase in intrinsic motivation would make it more difficult for one's job to be outsourced or taken over by a machine. This "new" motivation is something that needs to be practiced in all stages of life, not just adulthood centered mainly at work; educators need to focus more on what motivates their students than penalizing or rewarding them. In some cases, grades are a label for a person, and they get stuck in a rut believing that their grades show their intelligence. As I said in a previous post, grading has to do with how well a student can mimic what the teacher has set forth. They have no reason to go beyond what the teacher has told them because an "A" is an "A." These students are not motivated from within, they simply will do whatever they must do to get by; but if this changed, those who are truly driven from within would create magnificent works. Teachers need their students to want to succeed for themselves before they can swoop in and stamp a grade on their work. As a student, I would like to have straight A's; it is hard to explain why exactly I want this, seeing that I realize the downfall of grade. To tell the truth, I do not know why I want this, but I know I do. I do not want this because I will be rewarded by my parents or friends or school, but I want it for the unmitigated pleasure from knowing that I can do it. I push my limits both academically and physically because I know my potential and I know I can be better. I push myself, and in the end, I create something to be proud of; it is not important that it is going to be an "A" in the teachers eyes, but that I did my best and feel confident in my work. The grade is to be regarded as a side factor, not the main reason for doing something, and I believe that strongly.

Dan Pink says that what scientists know and how businesses are run do not match up; intrinsic motivation is key to the future and the present. The world must adjust to this fact, or suffer the crash of an outdated system.

Robert Wright TED Talk: The Evolution of Compassion

Robert Wright encompassed many topics throughout his TED talk, detailing the various aspects of compassion from a secular viewpoint. Wright believes that the Golden Rule, or compassion, has been imbedded within human nature and their genes; this being said, he also believes that this natural compassion is selective to those that are closest to them. By this he means that all humans are capable of compassion, but it depends entirely upon their ability to put themselves in the other person's shoes and see their viewpoint. He also stresses the importance of a non-zero-summness*, a situation in which the outcome will equally effect two people. In today's society, the non-zero sum relationship has grown to a point at which people and nations have become dependent on one another. The Golden Rule is the basis of this relationship; do unto others, as you want others to do unto you. On the contrary, a zero-sum means that the situation will play out to have both a single winner and a single loser, meaning their outcome cancel one another out to reach zero. With less zero-sum and more non-zero sum relationships, people are in a way forced to expand their moral compass and realize the humanity within the world.

The talk itself was very scientifically based, which is nice for scientific people. To the typical person watching the talk, it seemed very monotonous and a little boring. His voice did not change very frequently, and he moved rather fast through his points. However, Wright was able to keep the viewer's attention by showing how humans work before moving into his topic of compassion. He narrated the evolution of people in relationship to compassion before he ever started its effects on people and relationships today. Once he moved into compassion and today's relationships, he highlighted certain aspects of which he found most important. Wright backed up his knowledge with the studies of human compassion and their affect on the world. He proved his points with distinct evidence that is both biologically accepted and socially evident. Wright was not the most warm and fuzzy through his talk, but his matter-of-fact attitude and sheer knowledge conveyed his message in an equally effective manner. In contrast to Sir Ken Robinson's TED Talk, Wright did not appear to have quite as much fun as Robinson. Wright was more stiff and rehearsed while Robinson looked as though he was perfectly at home on the stage and was able to relate more deeply to the audience. 

Compassion allows humans to relate to one another deeply, like they are sharing pain or suffering. In society today, I find that compassion and moral imagination are extremely selective. Compassion and moral imagination allow people to experience the other person's point of view, which is immensely important in decision-making processes. This video has opened my eyes to how I respond to other's situations; not everything is about me every waking second of life. By seeing both sides of an argument, both parties can be equally satisfied by the outcome. It has been my recent challenge to try to place myself in the other person's shoes, even if I am heated about the subject at hand; in time, this will help me develop compassion in a true sense. It will also give me the ability to relate to others and I will be able to form new relationships. Within the world, these non-zero relationships have already reached new highs, but their influence on daily life is not stressed to the extent it should be. It is a lofty goal, but if more people were able to understand one another through compassion, then it would be easier to satisfy all people. If a person were able to understand another's problems, it would make for a more peaceful world, but as I said before: it is a lofty goal. Compassion is a fundamental of life, and, practiced in the right way, it could benefit many. Those being schooled need to understand the momentousness of compassion; through it they will find the ability to respect each other for their opinions and relate to their learning. It will help them to grow as people and learn in depth, but it still is a bit of a lofty goal, seeing that many students are driven by spur of the moment emotions and have rather thick skulls. If both the youth and adults of the world are able to connect with others, showing the slightest sign of compassion, the world will function more flowingly. 

Robert Wright's view on the world, and what matters within it, is based upon the human ability to forget themselves for one measly moment and look from the other viewpoint. Humans must grow in moral compass and compassion, expanding upon what is genetically present in all human beings.

*See seventh paragraph