Historians Write History

Where is Mao?

First I will briefly explain what the article talked about:

The article mentioned how they have changed the way the History textbooks in Shanghai are written. They wanted to promote a more peaceful version of history with less violence and one that has more relevance to the world we live in today.

Now I'll analyze the article with a TOK perspective:

The article I think relates a lot to what we mentioned in class about the ethical issues. The article mentions that they have decided to completely switch out the the textbook and leave them with the milder version, also leaving out many significant events that happen in History. As the article in some way criticizes the piece, I also would are that this is not the best way to protect kids. History is one of the areas of knowledge we studies in the beginning and it does explain a lot about the way people are and the way a certain group of people act. It lead to their personalities, which affect all of our ways of knowing (as mentioned in a previous post). I feel that it is understandable that the teachers want to protect their students, however i don't think rewriting or diminishing our world events is the way to do so. I personally would make the argument that it is not ethically correct, and present this knowledge question: To what extent is protecting someone actually beneficial?

This also reminds me of another Real Life Situation...

On our English exam we had an article about teachers starting to do 'trigger warnings'. So when something in class will be scary or a shocking look to reality, the teachers have to warn the students and they have the choice of attending school. ONce again it bring us back to my knowledge question. By hiding the truth are we really helping the students. Maybe presently, yes, however in the long run life doesn't come with warnings or sensors and maybe these students will be the ones most hurt in the end.

How Friends Ruin Memory: The Social Conformity Effect

First I will briefly explain what the article talked about:

The article talks about how we as humans always want our stories to sound intriguing and interesting and therefore we may misremember something or we may exaggerate the story so it sounds better. We can also implant memories to believe something happened to us when in fact it happened to someone else, however we heard the story enough to remember it.

Now I'll analyze the article with a TOK perspective:

I won't go too indepth on this idea because I talking about memory a lot befor and whether it is really reliable or not as a way of knowing. I would still argue that memory is not an accurate source and this article justifies my response perfectly. We don't remember things accurately and we can change and adapt our memories, so they don't necessarily tell or say the full truth. However, they do give us an insight of what happened at the times, they just are not always an accurate representation of a series of events. We  as humans want to claim to know things and look well, and therefore we exaggerate things that happened. Relating this to history, I think if we don't have an accurate memory and we don't really have control of what we know or claim to know we will adapt the story. This means that us humans could have easily adapted history and the way things happen to hopefully for in with what we would like to know... in a way relating to cognitive bias.

The Fall of Jonah Lehrer

First I will briefly explain what the article talked about:

The article here talks about an example of plagiarism or even self- plagiarism, describing the case of Jonah Lehrer.

Now I'll analyze the article with a TOK perspective:

In the first article above I talked about ethical issues, and I think this article portrays the same dilemma and rises the same question. Looking at it on both sides: First, I think he was wrong to plagiarize and copy his own work, however if he did write it, it's not plagiarism as it is an original text. Second, I understand that such a well known author did cause a scandal, but was it ethically right for everyone else to get involved and for this to turn into such a public scandal. Relating  this back to the history idea, I think it is interesting that such a well known author did such. However, I also don't think this means his work was inaccurate and therefore think no matter what he writes, it's a viable source.

This also reminds me of another Real Life Situation...

In IB we always learn to cite all our sources, and if we forget the source we are facing that our diploma gets taken away. I understand if we steal a whole essay this would be understandable, but if I forget to cite one source I do not see the harm in that and do not think the diploma should be taken away. However is something okay or not okay, and how do we classify these things? I think there should be punishment but to a certain extents and we therefore raising another knowledge question: To what extent is something acceptable?

Knowledge Questions - Week of April

Good Country Index

How do we decide the factors we chose?
To what extent can we rank things accurately?
When do we know we have enough data?To what extent is the Good Country's Index reliable?

Bad Historian
To what extent can we trust someone's knowledge about history?

Human Science- Amazing Babies:
How can we accurately test knowledge?
To what extent do species affect each other?
What is a fair test?

Stanford prison study

In class we watched a TED talk on the man who created the Stanford Prison study and were given the task of debating whether it was right or wrong. I was given to look at it in a positive light and so here is the evidence I used to support my claim.

Yes

• It was effective as he used very powerful images, and there was clear evidence to the problem
• He gave statistical data
• Related it to other studies and cases
• It was very clear
• He is a primary source, however there was datas to support all his claims
• He talked both about his fault in the experiment, but also the positive aspects of the experiment
• He recognized what he did

Does it apply outside the lab?

• Yes
• We still see this behaviour outside 
• We can see this in the past history how a uniform can change a person and affect their traits
• We see how power affects people and how it can adjust our personalities
• For ex. People who win the lotteries
• People  can do wrong, but that cannot all be based of physiological reasoning
• This idea of uniform, uniform is an identity and it what set you a status, and this is seen through the time and even today. A police officer when in uniform has very high power, but at the end of the day when the uniform comes off they are just one more person among many.

TOK 

In class we discussed the theme of ethical issues and we looked at it from different perspectives. First, the Stanford Prison experiment is a very  debatable issue as yes, we did get a lot of information from it, however it also cost the sanity of a few people. There is it really right to harm so many humans for the sake of a study? In addition, in class we also look at two viewpoint. Deontological view, and utilitarian view. I think deontologists would be against these trials as they are wrongful and present to many issues to make it okay or passable. However a Utilitarian perspective I believe would be the opposite. The prisoners were the minority and therefore that is why they don't really contribute to utilitarianism perspective Therefore, I think a utilitarians would be okay with the experiment because in the long run and with all the information derived from the experiments we were able to learn more about humans, their behaviours and their natural responses to circumstance.

Lastly, a bit of a personal connection, but I feel like this experiment and the guards taking the small roles and the prisoners taking smaller positions, reminded me of Theatre. We have dress rehearsals because a costume or suit changes you and this man proved just so, the suits made the guard feel superior.

Abortion

Deontological Thesis:

In many parts of the world abortion is legal depending on the 
circumstances of the patient.

Utilitarian Thesis:

Should be legal as it makes the patient happy as it allows them to feel free from the duty of a child.


Deontological View:

• They always will state that we must do our duties, and our duties are not choices and decisions. 
• "A ethicist coming from a deontological standpoint would certainly say that abortions are wrong, for two main reasons: it is the duty of a parent to care for their child, not abort it and that we should treat everyone as an ends in themselves, not a means to an ends".
• Once a woman becomes pregnant the parents should be able to take responsibility and protect it. 
• They have 3 views: 
• That even if the baby is unborn it is still a human life
• You should not take a humans life, and 
• that is what abortion is

Utilitarian View:

• They want to agree with the side that makes the most people happy
• Generally they would agree that abortion is okay because it can bring the most happiness to the general public
• The baby as it will not have to suffer through life
• The parents so they don't have to live  and deal with the large responsibility of having a baby 

TOK

In class we discussed both the different views and perspective and therefore in this post I chose an ethical issue and looked at it from both perspectives. However this in some ways reminds me of a class discussion we had about History and Historians. Each person can look at something different have have strong opposing views which will cloud their clear judgment. The same thing applied to the historians that can interpret their finding differently and have different viewpoints on some unanswered or unclear questions that come up in History. These perspectives helpful as it gives us a wider picture of what we are talking about and in addition, it also allows us to look at the unbiased side of the argument. Bias, that was another TOK concept we discussed and it led us to question our knowledge up until now. However these multiple perspectives although alone stand as a very biased article, together they can show a wide array of peroples emmotions or feelsings about a specific topic.

Problems On Human Science

First, we must define what human science is and includes which is: 

• Anthropology
• Economics
• Education
• Geography
• Archaeology
• Law
• Linguistics
• Political Science
• Psychology
• Sociology

So what are the problems that come with human science...

 First, in TOK we often discuss the Ethical Issues that come with different testings. One example we studied thoroughly was the Stanford Prison Experiment. Although this does open much information about human behaviours, and the way they adapt to fit a certain role did this come at a very high cost of human sanity and almost turned into a tortured life for the prisoners during the experiment. It was not only a short term scare but there were long term effects, such as psychological problems and even some injuries or guilt. 

Next, we also studied the treatment of animals and the the ethical problems with animal testing. A large way to study human science is through experimenting. As humans themselves are animals, many scientist refer to animals as a way to test different questions about humans. However they do this because they think and devalue animal lives and believe that the human lives are more valuable to lose. Therefore this way of testing as a result, has led to many companies such, such as Lush, to fight against animal test, and many law and rules to be followed.

Next, we also discussed the problems with testing which is finding out the variables. One of the Knowledge questions we asked and discuss is How do we know which factors to test? With referring to the Human Science topic it is much harder as we have much we can test, much we want to find out and much we want to study. There are an endless possibilities we can test to learn more about the questions we want to answer. It is also extremley difficult because we can't make generalizations about all humans. We all have a different up bringing, a different environment, a different culture as a different way of responding to things. 

Previously we talked about emotions and whether we classify them as intelligence. However I think that as emotions are 'technically' part of the ways of knowing it can also be a great resource into testing some human behaviors and their response to a certain variable or event. 

Lastly, in class we talked a lot about Utilitarian and Deontological viewpoints. In these experimental cases I believe that a deontologists would say that if these test do harm to any species it is not right. However I believe a utilitarian would argue that it is fine as long as the population that is affected is small compared to the amount of people that learn from the results. Especially if the results, make them happier.

Why I don't eat meat

In 4th grade I made the decision to become vegetarian, so I've been following this diet for 7 year now. I had a bestfriend at the time who was also vegetarian and she started showing me all these video of how they kill the animals for the food, I use to eat. I started feeling guilty and terrible to eat these animals. I looked more into it, and what I found was honestly just so shocking to me. 

I am the only person in my house who is vegetarian, so it wasn't like I was following in the footsteps of a family member, it was a decision I chose to make myself and  because it corresponds with my beliefs and ideologies and view on the world and on life. We wouldn't kill a person for meat, but why is it okay that in some countries they eat dog, monkey brain or even the simplest such as the leg of a chicken? If human life is so valued, then why are animal lives so devalued?

I to this day stand by my decision of not only being vegetarian but my views which still remain the same, which is that animals should not be killed for food.

Many questions I have been ask through non-vegetarians are:

What about protein?
I still can get my protein through Tofu, broccoli and various other supplements, meat is not the only option.

Is it difficult?
Surprisingly, no it is not, many restaurants have a special logo on the menu and if there is no vegetarian option, servers are more than happy toto solve something for you.

Is anyone else in your family vegetarian?
No, but they understand my choice and respect it.

Do you miss meat?
I do not but that is because I have no clue of what it tastes like and at first it may be hard but soon after you get used to it very quickly.

TOK

In class we talked and discussed animal rights and some knowledge questions Mr Thomas presented to us. 

To what extent do animals have rights?

This question caused quite a bit of spark with the class but personally, I think animals don't have enough rights. First, there are multiple slaughterhouses, shelters for badly treated animals and this is all because of the cause of humans. However, we do have many laws to protect the animals, such as the types of domestic animals one can own, the volunteer vets that work with the endangered species. However, I do think this is only because humans feel responsible for the killings. We are the cause of the global climate change that's killed hundreds of Polar Bears in Antarctica, or the ones that hunt them for their skin and fur to make furniture and clothes. We humans think of our need primary and as these animals have no way of communicating with us when is it that we really know we are doing our best to give the animals the rights they need.  

How should we determine the proper treatment of animals?

This question n a way is similar to the above one, because there are so many sides and ways of looking at it (which is what a knowledge question is to allow us to do). However, this differs because it talks about a certain criteria. The other day in class we look at the Human Index, and discussed how do we come up with this criteria. However we base it of the needs of the animals, the way they live, the supplies, sources and protection they get. In determining this I feel like we would only know we had done an accurate way of testing our hypothesis if we see a population growth or decrease in a certain species in a controlled environment, however using different variable to test this.

How should we determine our obligations to animals?

This seems to be one of the harder questions to give one response to because every animal has different needs. However I think we would have to determine our obligations to them based on their way of living and how their species wants and needs to grow. We need to ensure that whatever we do to the animals it must not be harmful and must correspond to their natural way of being and behaving. Lastly, we need to keep in consideration that we must keep them secure and avoid them from getting extinct.

How should we determine which animals we take into consideration?

We ourselves are animals, therefore we primarily need to focus on the animals that balance our ecosystem such as bees or shard, because if not we as a species can go extinct. However the same way we take care of the main life suppliers, we need to take care of all animals and I believe we should not rank them rather each animals should have the care provided with the one they need.

What ethical issues are involved in eating meat?

I wrote about this TOK Knowledge question in my rgument to why I'm vegetarian.

Repressed memory Syndrome

Repressed memory Syndrome

She talks about how you can implant false memories in people's mind. This means they can replicate or imagine the situation which was implanted. Loftus, a psychologist who studies false memory drew and made many experiments to study why people misremember information. She began her study after Titarus' case- which was a man who was wrongly convicted of a crime he didn't do, and he went so psychologically crazy he began to believe all the information they had told him. She said there was a test in which they implanted traumatic memories and seeing if they would believe or act upon it. Soon after, most could recall the event and some people even had triggers in their mind. For example she implanted the memory that a person got sick eating a certain food as a child, and now in their adulthood they were starting to turn away from the food or lose their urge to eat it. However, there are ethical issues that come with implanting memories, such as if we should stop or if it's okay to put people under such circumstances. Nonetheless researchers do it because the information they gain out is more valuable than the persons memories at time.

The main point of the video was trying to say that memory is not necessarily reliable. For example psychologist can use false information, and others methods to influence the situations you remember.

TOK + Update - In my previous posts I talked a lot about Emotions and whether they are a trustable sources of knowing something. However now we look at another aspect of the different ways of knowing memory. In this post I explained an example of how memories can be falsified and how they might not be a reliable way of knowing. So why do we consider memory a way of knowing as it can be quite inaccurate? I think this is because memories, whether they happened to us or not can just show how powerful these aspects are in the way we perceive different things that haooened to us in life and how they can affect us. However, although this does change our perception, personally, I would not put memory as a way of knowing as it really does not fit the well rounded criteria for knowing something. Emotions for example are uncontrollable and they are a natural response, they can't be accurate. However as seen in this article memory does not always tell us what happened. Also, I remember in class we talked about the example of the witness' in a crime.Everyone at the location will remember something differently or even wrongfully, as they will make assumptions about what they saw and implant memory.