The authors main point in his arguement is that socialization and communication have become the center of succession in life. successful people tend to be more socialy active compared to others who are not. reading and listieining are the center of wisdom.
The validity of the authors point is that people who are more socialy active tend to have a higher success rate in life than humans who are not socialy active
Being socialy active and communicating with friends, neighbors and people around the community increase your happiness.
David Brooks brought to our attention that the emotions we have about certain ideas and situations have a profound impact on our everyday choices. He offers advice as to how we as individuals and a nation can cultivate our emotions so we can better our decision making. Brooks gives some examples of how our unconscious (emotions) has proven to bring about better outcomes in different situations. He shares the statistics of how people are better off graduating high school if they have an intimate relationship with their mother for the first 18 months of their life. He told of how the soldiers searching for mind fields would have a “feeling” and be more often right than wrong. And how animals communicate much more without words
1. David Brooks main argument was to tell the audience that life isn't only about your income status, or what school you attended. Its about what you take from other people, intellectually of course. We all need to open our minds and learn what other people have to offer.
2. Brooks was making a valid argument. So what if you attend the most prestigious school in the country. You can have a well known career, but if you haven't opened yourself to other ideas, it doesn't really matter. Most of our learning in college is life lessons.
1. The author's argument is about socialization and how people talk about what they can do and avoid the problems they have instead of overcoming the problems.
2. The author implies that people tend to work more on what they know what to do instead of learning new things. People tend to follow more on the things that seem easy to them. People should try and learn new things instead of making an excuse not to do new stuff. Society has learn to avoid what is not desired making it bad for the whole society.
1. The author’s argument in the video we watched was there are many different ways of being social. Because different people are raised different ways and taught ways others are not. One person might have parents that raised them to achieve great things and another might not raise them at all in the right path, meaning they are never there for them. 2. The validity of the author point is when he said there are moms out there that are Harvard moms who do everything they can to make sure that there child gets the right education and is a level up on his peers in reading and writing. The author is right also because he said that mostly everyone is a god public speaker but when it comes down to it there not.
1. The author's argument is primarily that human race is social creatures because we all act like animals on what we act, what we think, and what we do on our actions and the author is using metaphor about the human race being like animals rather than normal human beings. Brooks discusses that humanity is a lost cause due to human empathy and greed; therefore, he shows the people that human beings are sometimes violent, emotional, and greedy.
2. I agree with the idea that people are like animal because of our emotions that human beings have in life and also depends on our actions and what the cost is when we finish it. The implications of this argument is that humans are like animal because they get too greedy, too emotional, too violent, and too ruthless in reality.
verbal communication is the best and most common ways of creating understanding though ideas.
I think he's inferring that being social is important and can really affect people without us really knowing.
Most communication is 90 % non verbal meaning most of what me say does not come from words, more like our hand gesters and body language speak more than we do...
Just because someone is speaking and you are looking at them doesnt mean you are listening and recieving what is being said. While ones is talking you can be looking at them dead in there eyes and be thinking oh i forgot to lock my car door are anything, but you are not really recieving are listening. NON Verbal
I suppose an argument is in there somewhere. He presents examples of how we have divided ourselves by having a sense of morality but without a reliable system in place to connect it with a social and political strategy. He seems to promote and argue for a form of New Humanism that in which we presupposes the audiences familiarity or trusts we will form a mosaic with the shards of facts and wit he gives. Trying to draw an implication from this is going to take me longer than I have to write and I guess I need to read more of Hume to see why he favors him over French Enlightenment. I get basic empathy but exactly how he is wanting to apply such things to a workable and pragmatic philosophy in this speech seems vague.
1. The author's argument is primarily that the human species are social creatures rather than rational creatures. Brooks discusses the idea that people tend to sway towards success and over-achieving without building a type of foundation of emotions which is needed to build reason, because the ethos aspect of a person is used to construct morals. A person's success does not match a person's knowledge acquired from someone they love.
2. I agree with the idea that people usually get too involved with things (such as careers, money and success) that are not as important as other things, however, I believe that a balance of striving can be achieved for something like success while still keeping in touch with deeper things, such as your emotions, thoughts, morals and the things you learn from life. Brooks also gave some examples of how people are social animals rather than rational ones by discussing the persona of politicians. He claimed that politicians have an "easier" time with the social aspect of their jobs rather than when it's time to exercise the policy-making portion of it. In a sense, I can see what he means by that, because politicians are so commendable by the way they can persuade people to trust them and rely on them. It always seems like people are really into what a politician says in the beginning and then when it comes down to the policy part of it, they disagree or have a hard time understanding the politician's motives or intentions.
The author argument was about our social skill's as human and the actions that would causes our success and failure.
The author wanted to draw implication to the social policies. He talked about two levels of the mind, one unconscious and the other conscious, and that the first is much more important than the second in determining what we do.
The author made a very valid point about the mind and how it affects us not only emotionally but physically as well. For example when he said that even though a baby had just been born when her mom stuck her tongue out at the baby the baby mimicked her and did the same witch just amazing how our minds work and how we can absorb things from the moment we are born. And also how emotion can affect us for example a relationship with mom and dad can earthier be a good one or a bad one and that has a big effect it in your life.
1. The author's argument is based on the implications of social policy and that there are two levels of the mind, unconscious and conscious.
2. I believe that David Brooks has a reasonable point based on the idea that people need to stop believing they have a conscious control of their emotions. People in the unconscious mind are biased in culture. For people to be successful in life and to gain knowledge, they are relying socially on emotions.
1. I feel that the author's argument was about whether a logical decision comes from being rational or better comes from emotions. He explains certain situations that he felt that would had a better outcome if the decision maker was able to think out of emotion. Thinking out of emotion would let the individual think outside of the box rather than going with the obvious.
2. I feel that the argument is valid and that more individuals should use this method if they would want to make a better decision. Emotions brings about a conscious stream of thoughts.
The authors main point in his arguement is that socialization and communication have become the center of succession in life. successful people tend to be more socialy active compared to others who are not.
ReplyDeletereading and listieining are the center of wisdom.
The validity of the authors point is that people who are more socialy active tend to have a higher success rate in life than humans who are not socialy active
Being socialy active and communicating with friends, neighbors and people around the community increase your happiness.
David Brooks brought to our attention that the emotions we have about certain ideas and situations have a profound impact on our everyday choices. He offers advice as to how we as individuals and a nation can cultivate our emotions so we can better our decision making.
ReplyDeleteBrooks gives some examples of how our unconscious (emotions) has proven to bring about better outcomes in different situations. He shares the statistics of how people are better off graduating high school if they have an intimate relationship with their mother for the first 18 months of their life. He told of how the soldiers searching for mind fields would have a “feeling” and be more often right than wrong. And how animals communicate much more without words
1. David Brooks main argument was to tell the audience that life isn't only about your income status, or what school you attended. Its about what you take from other people, intellectually of course. We all need to open our minds and learn what other people have to offer.
ReplyDelete2. Brooks was making a valid argument. So what if you attend the most prestigious school in the country. You can have a well known career, but if you haven't opened yourself to other ideas, it doesn't really matter. Most of our learning in college is life lessons.
1. The author's argument is about socialization and how people talk about what they can do and avoid the problems they have instead of overcoming the problems.
ReplyDelete2. The author implies that people tend to work more on what they know what to do instead of learning new things. People tend to follow more on the things that seem easy to them. People should try and learn new things instead of making an excuse not to do new stuff. Society has learn to avoid what is not desired making it bad for the whole society.
1. The author’s argument in the video we watched was there are many different ways of being social. Because different people are raised different ways and taught ways others are not. One person might have parents that raised them to achieve great things and another might not raise them at all in the right path, meaning they are never there for them.
ReplyDelete2. The validity of the author point is when he said there are moms out there that are Harvard moms who do everything they can to make sure that there child gets the right education and is a level up on his peers in reading and writing. The author is right also because he said that mostly everyone is a god public speaker but when it comes down to it there not.
1. The author's argument is primarily that human race is social creatures because we all act like animals on what we act, what we think, and what we do on our actions and the author is using metaphor about the human race being like animals rather than normal human beings. Brooks discusses that humanity is a lost cause due to human empathy and greed; therefore, he shows the people that human beings are sometimes violent, emotional, and greedy.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with the idea that people are like animal because of our emotions that human beings have in life and also depends on our actions and what the cost is when we finish it. The implications of this argument is that humans are like animal because they get too greedy, too emotional, too violent, and too ruthless in reality.
verbal communication is the best and most common ways of creating understanding though ideas.
ReplyDeleteI think he's inferring that being social is important and can really affect people without us really knowing.
Most communication is 90 % non verbal meaning most of what me say does not come from words, more like our hand gesters and body language speak more than we do...
Just because someone is speaking and you are looking at them doesnt mean you are listening and recieving what is being said. While ones is talking you can be looking at them dead in there eyes and be thinking oh i forgot to lock my car door are anything, but you are not really recieving are listening. NON Verbal
I suppose an argument is in there somewhere. He presents examples of how we have divided ourselves by having a sense of morality but without a reliable system in place to connect it with a social and political strategy. He seems to promote and argue for a form of New Humanism that in which we presupposes the audiences familiarity or trusts we will form a mosaic with the shards of facts and wit he gives.
ReplyDeleteTrying to draw an implication from this is going to take me longer than I have to write and I guess I need to read more of Hume to see why he favors him over French Enlightenment. I get basic empathy but exactly how he is wanting to apply such things to a workable and pragmatic philosophy in this speech seems vague.
1. The author's argument is primarily that the human species are social creatures rather than rational creatures. Brooks discusses the idea that people tend to sway towards success and over-achieving without building a type of foundation of emotions which is needed to build reason, because the ethos aspect of a person is used to construct morals. A person's success does not match a person's knowledge acquired from someone they love.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with the idea that people usually get too involved with things (such as careers, money and success) that are not as important as other things, however, I believe that a balance of striving can be achieved for something like success while still keeping in touch with deeper things, such as your emotions, thoughts, morals and the things you learn from life. Brooks also gave some examples of how people are social animals rather than rational ones by discussing the persona of politicians. He claimed that politicians have an "easier" time with the social aspect of their jobs rather than when it's time to exercise the policy-making portion of it. In a sense, I can see what he means by that, because politicians are so commendable by the way they can persuade people to trust them and rely on them. It always seems like people are really into what a politician says in the beginning and then when it comes down to the policy part of it, they disagree or have a hard time understanding the politician's motives or intentions.
The author argument was about our social skill's as human and the actions that would causes our success and failure.
ReplyDeleteThe author wanted to draw implication to the social policies. He talked about two levels of the mind, one unconscious and the other conscious, and that the first is much more important than the second in determining what we do.
The author made a very valid point about the mind and how it affects us not only emotionally but physically as well. For example when he said that even though a baby had just been born when her mom stuck her tongue out at the baby the baby mimicked her and did the same witch just amazing how our minds work and how we can absorb things from the moment we are born. And also how emotion can affect us for example a relationship with mom and dad can earthier be a good one or a bad one and that has a big effect it in your life.
ReplyDelete1. The author's argument is based on the implications of social policy and that there are two levels of the mind, unconscious and conscious.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that David Brooks has a reasonable point based on the idea that people need to stop believing they have a conscious control of their emotions. People in the unconscious mind are biased in culture. For people to be successful in life and to gain knowledge, they are relying socially on emotions.
1. I feel that the author's argument was about whether a logical decision comes from being rational or better comes from emotions. He explains certain situations that he felt that would had a better outcome if the decision maker was able to think out of emotion. Thinking out of emotion would let the individual think outside of the box rather than going with the obvious.
ReplyDelete2. I feel that the argument is valid and that more individuals should use this method if they would want to make a better decision. Emotions brings about a conscious stream of thoughts.