- One of the ideas that stood out to me most in this passage was “Despite what we read in the popular press, the only know symptoms of “empty nest syndrome” is increased smiling” (185). What Gilbert is trying to convey is that parents feel more joy and have a happier marriage when there are no children at home to parent. This was shocking to me, because I always hear about how sad parents are when their children go off to college. My parents constantly ask when I am coming home or if I want them to drive up to come to lunch. I would argue that this point is not true, and that parents do not feel happier when their children go off to college. Although it is probably more quiet and relaxed when children are off at school, I believe that there is an added stress to sending your children off. There is a new worry of safety and whether you prepared your child enough to be off on their own when they leave home. If anything, I would argue that a symptom of “empty nest syndrome” would be heightened anxiety and worry. All parents want to see their children leave home and be successful, but I do not agree that becoming an empty nester makes parents happier.
- In Gilbert’s writing “Emerging”, he speaks of the misconceptions of what people think makes them happy. He brings up many ideas of things that people say bring them joy, but in reality they do not. Gilbert made the point that “If you are like most people, then like most people, you don’t know you’re like most people” (190). What he is trying to say is that the average person does not see themselves as average. They see themselves as more extraordinary and different than others. In The Moral Bucket List, Brooks offered a new view on this idea for me. He describes the type of people who make you feel valued. They are “deeply good” and “are not thinking about what wonderful work they are doing. They are not thinking about themselves at all” (1). Brooks was saying that he knew that these people were different and he wished that he was like them. When describing himself he had “not achieved that generosity of spirit, or depth of character” (1). Brooks is saying that he knows he is average. He knows that he is not someone who goes out of their way to make people feel happier. I think that Brooks sees people in a different way than Gilbert. Brooks makes it seem as if most people know that they are not something extraordinary. This does not mean that people do not strive to be special, it just means that people work hard to make themselves stand out as different.
- In Attention Deficit: The Brain of Our Era by Richard Restak, he stresses the idea that new technology is changing the way our brains work. He spend a lot of time talking about how our brains need to be able to think faster and be able to make quick decisions in our new world. Specifically he mentions modern nerves. He states, “The mind was thus a machine”(Restak, 379). What Restak is trying to say is that our brains are working faster and more efficiently. His theory is that this is due to the modern technology that we see today. I think Alexandra Samuel in ‘Plug in Better’: A Manifesto is making the opposite point. She speaks about unplugging from technology and focusing on one task at a time. She sees these multiple tasks and websites as a distraction, opposed to Restak who thinks these “distractions” make us smaller. Samuel argues “growing time online is diminishing both our individual intellects and our collective capacity for connection” (Samuel). She thinks, and I agree, that the growing number of apps and online websites are making us lose brain capacity. Also, I think constant online communication is making youth less capable of face to face conversation.
- In the article Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation by Jean M. Twenge, it talks about the effects of technology on the upcoming generations. She mentions her child and her child’s friends and how they spend time on their phones conversing over snapchat and other social medias. She also mentions how at that age she would hold up the family landline talking on the phone. These are both similar, but I think speaking on the phone is a lot closer to a face to face conversation than sending snapchats back and forth. In referring to her own generation, Twenge states ‘“We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people”’ (Twenge). I agree with her, because when I was younger I did not have a smartphone like other children my age so I learned to converse with people and enjoy talking more than I enjoy spending time on my phone. Matt Richtel’s makes a similar argument in his article Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction. He mentions the use of technology in high schools and how students are not learning any better because they are constantly facing the distractions that computers and ipads provide. He observes that “it is not uncommon for students to send hundreds of text messages a day or spend hours playing video games, and virtually everyone is on Facebook” (Richtel). If schools were to take away technology and not provide it, students would learn not only important information, but also to converse in person. Texting comes in handy when talking to a friend, but when getting a job or talking to adults, you need to know how to speak.
- Before listening to Benjamin Powell’s lecture on sweatshops, I already had a previous knowledge of one particular sweatshop in New England. This sweatshop is the old shoe factory in Haverhill, Ma. My grandmother grew up in the Haverhill area with her 14 brothers and sisters. They all worked in the shops from age 15-18. Powell defends sweatshops like this one for one main reason. Many people do not have a choice of working in the sweatshops. It is their number one option for income to support their family. This was the case for my grandmother and her siblings. To help the family survive, pay for their home, and afford food, my grandmother was removed from school to work. She can attest to the poor conditions that she worked in, but she said it was the only way to live. If she did not work, her family would not have had money and they would have been homeless. People in sweatshops then, and people in sweatshops now, were not forced to work there. This was the only options, no matter how bad the conditions.
- One idea that I took away from the reading is how much peoples opinions on a problem differ. Appiah makes the argument in “The Primacy of Practice” that people argue more when they agree on a topic. He states “This wasn’t a conflict between values. It was a conflict of interest couched in terms of the same values” (56). He is trying to say that even though people can have the same exact values on a issue, they still might support a different side in the overall argument. They may both agree that something is wrong, but for some it can be justified. I can connect this to Powell’s piece on sweatshops. He states that everyone agrees that working conditions are poor, the factories are dangerous, and people are working long hours. The argument in which people differ is whether or not sweatshops should be legal. Some people argue that this is the best option for most people. They support sweatshops because there are worse things that people could be doing. For those who do not approve of sweatshops, they argue that even though it is a job for these people, it is too dangerous of a place for people to work. On both sides, people see the others arguments, but they still disagree.
