Unit Four Blog Two

Both of the Youtube videos are advertisements for McDonald's, but they are selling different products to different groups.

The first commercial is selling McDonald's fries to young children. The whole commercial is cartoon like and absurd. The fries are the product mentioned, but the fries are presented to seem fun and exciting. As though the fries and not the ball pit or slide is what would naturally draw a child into the restaurant. The commercial features the Fry Kids who are so rambunctious that ADHD is almost suggested. These little miscreants steal the fries advertised and then run around like the Warner Bros. road runner. In the end Ronald McDonald snatches the fries back after he apparently teleports into a cab and magically summons a cabby hat to wear. Watch the commercial the first time I could not even understand what was going on. There were small furry Muppet knock offs running around and Ronald McDonald was perfectly okay with being robbed and in the end he magically appears when physics says he could not move so fast, and if he can move fast than light why didn't he get the fries back earlier. But that was not the point to a small child the commercial is just like any of the shows they watch. The company know it does not have to convince children of the situation and set up, because according to child psychologist Piaget child under the age of seven have difficulty separating fiction from reality with television programming. So the child truly believes that they brightly colored monsters run around with a real Ronald McDonald chasing after. The child concludes that McDonald’s fries equal fun Technicolor monsters. Suddenly they want to go to McDonalds because that is a fun place. Thereby roping in a new generation of McDonalds customers, because six year olds are convinced McDonalds is fun.

The second commercial is also for McDonalds, but this time the target age group is older. The message is to advertise a new breakfast sandwich. But you do not find that out until 12 or so seconds into the commercial. The beginning might be an unofficial commercial encouraging voting for Obama with the way the word “change” is tossed around. The main premise is that McDonalds is not as scary and icky as some documentaries and new stories may have told you the company is. This sandwich and McDonalds itself is now more young, hip, and in tune with social issues than ever before. The ad has actors of multiple ethnicities and even includes an almost normal looking family, minus the whole McDonalds in bed bit. The whole image screams wholesome, they even go so far as to claim the biscuit the meat product is wedged in between taste like it was homemade. It like McDonalds got a facelift and wants to show off the fresh face at a singles bar they are way too old to be hanging at. The message is how rebellious and cool and outside the box the massive conglomerate has magically become. So now the rebellious, young, noncomformists, skaters, struggling artists, and salarymen-living-for-the-weekend are going to stop by McDonalds because now the company is part of the change our society is egear to embrace.

Unit Four Blog One

An argument is simply trying to convince another party that your perspective is right. Argument occurs on a regular basis with things obviousl things like politics and less obvious ones like choosing restruants. Any time you attempt to persuade or compromise you are arguing. Arguments are subjective usually, the argument comes from an attempt to project an opinion on to some one else, trying to get others to follow your line of thinking. Sometimes there are clear winners; Mark got to pick the restruant but you get to pick the movie. He won the argument about where to eat while you won the argument about what to watch. Sometimes no one wins; Mark and you fought so much about dinner and movie that neither of you feels like being in the same room together let alone going out in public together. In the end as long as there is individual thought there will be arguments.

Unit 3 Blog 2

How Obama Is Using the Science of Change

“ ‘That's exactly what this is about," Thaler says. "If instead of the 30 pages of unintelligible crap that comes with a mortgage, you can upload it with one click to a website that will explain it and help you shop for alternatives, you make it as easy as shopping for a hotel.’ ”
This actually reminds me of glasnost, a principle used when Russia wanted government actions to become more transparent. The transparency fosters trust in difficult or strenuous operations, like Thaler’s example of home buying. The transparency also makes the industry more inviting, helping to bolster an economy.

“Cheap is alluring; easy can be irresistible.”


An appeal to those to lazy, stupid, or apathetic to do it with the word “easy” will undoubtedly boost the “nudge” effect. However, it is highly manipulative. It shows a great deal of condescension toward all parties involved. Those being manipulated are treated like cattle, dehumanized to an extent as numbers not faces, and those organizing these activities have acknowledge that they’re being manipulative, a trait American society views negatively. The whole idea start to finish borrows almost as much from Machiavelli as from Harvard scholars.

“The bully pulpit has limits — Michelle Obama has literally urged us to eat our broccoli, but she can't make it taste like fudge."

It is actually called the “bully pulpit”. That says a lot in and of itself. A bully is someone who uses coercion to control others actions, often inflicting damage emotionally if not physically. The fact that bullies are not tolerated in schools, but that they are to be tolerated from the government floors me. Even a kindergarten knows trying to control others is wrong. And of course there is a certain icky factor to the idea of the President dictating what you can and can’t eat.

In short: This article left me with an urge to bath and leave country. The idea of politicians controlling food intake, personal habits, and economic spending, no matter how subtle it’s suppose to be, sound down right creepy.



Recession Fallout: Fewer Women Having Kids


“the recession may be to blame, as women factor economic anxieties into their decision about having children”

Having a child is a huge life decision factoring in economic issues is part of any responsible parent-to-be’s planning. The better financially prepared a parent is the better chance a child has of getting more opportunities in life.

“TIME's Nancy Gibbs recently estimated that it costs parents an average of $221,000 to raise a child to age 17.”

That is a chunk o’ change, but at the same time children last a lifetime. Will they give you gray hairs and headaches? Of course, but children also give parents a greater involvement and more fulfilled feeling in society and in life. Putting a price on children is good for planning, but no one put a price on a child’s love and growth.

“further widening of the birth rate between wealthier women and the working poor”

This will be interesting to observe. It is one of those fun things to look at after a census. The rich will have few children filling fewer college spots taking fewer six-figure jobs. In a way it will be an opportunity for the middle class to gain little bits of ground here and there.

In short: I understand the reasoning behind the lowered birth rates, but as the article mentions the birth rate fluctuates with the business cycle, so it’s only a matter of time before the number starts creeping up again.

Unit 3 Blog 1

Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen are all people who help the world run. I cannot say that I have ever met anyone who is purely a Connector, Maven or Salesman. People with these special abilities tend to be more than just one. My Uncle Dale for instance has astounding amounts of information about household appliances, cars, and tools. He knows what brand makes the best mid-size trucks, how long the average dishwasher lasts, and what store has the best prices on wrench sets. He also knows how to explain the importance of finishes or engine placement in a way that most people can comprehend. While he is primarily a maven, he does hold a salesman like abilities to communicate his ideas to people. This is why the family calls up Uncle Dale when looking into replacing large appliances or investing in a new tool set. He knows more than other people and he can explain.


In away my uncle’s ability to pass on this information to others who know nothing about these subjects does have similarities to the banking concept of education. My uncle knows everything; most of the family knows nothing. Uncle Dale teaches and the rest of the family learns. My uncle passes on information and because of the faith placed in his opinion he can cause a small tipping point within the family. His word alone can change the behavior of family members in the process purchasing certain items. While the results are not collected for data, there are still clear results. A behavioral scientist could theoretically measure how and to what degree my uncle’s advice was taken into account. The advice would be the independent variable and the measurable response the dependent variable. This data could then be used to determine how my uncle’s advice correlates to actual buying behavior.

The Law of the Few can also be turned into a behavioral science study for such correlation between the perceived value of something like Hush Puppy shoes and the knowledge of fashion designers using them in runway shows.

Unit 2 Blog 2

The Unit 2 reading had been barely introduced to how the tipping point functions in real-life. But Gladwell’s point is clear, and  that point is that a few special people that present information in a memorable way in the right context can change the courses of history. He hopes his readers will “take these ideas and apply them to other puzzling situations and epidemics” (Gladwell 29). The main assumption with this goal is that his work will reach some of those special people who have the ability by his own measure to cause a tipping point. He also assumes that understanding a concept in a book can immediately allow it to be enacted in everyday life. Gladwell’s optimism may spring in part from the well of scientific evidence supporting his argument and the extraordinary real life examples he researched and presents. His proximity to fellow researchers and their work shows that he and those extraordinary few around him can apply these changes. He sees thing from scientist perspective, and in science application is everything. This is science based leading to the conclusion that anybody can apply the “Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, the Power Context” once empowered with information (Gladwell 29). The main implication here being that if every author uses these laws to land on the bestseller list, or if every business uses these laws to a become Fortune 500 company, then no author or business would really have uniquely effective marketing. If everyone is empowered by this information, then no is really empower because the entire playing field has been changed.

Unit 2 Bolg 1

In "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell, the main idea is that "the best way to understand... any number of the other mysterious changes that mark everyday life is to think of them as epidemics". The idea is that all those tiny contributing factors will come to together in one moment to tip the scales quickly. Using Gladwell's theory, any strong change can be measured in a similar fashion to epidemics, whether it is high school drop out rates or Hush Puppies coming back in vogue.




Line 1: "Ideas and products and messages and behaviors spread just like viruses do."

Impact 1: Here Gladwell provides clear everyday application to his idea. It can be used with businesses or crime deterrent. This sentence hints at the contagion like spread of information and actions.



Line 2: "The second distinguishing characteristic of these two examples is that in both cases little changes had big effects."

Impact 2: Recalls the term "everything counts in large amounts". The changes were small but enough of them together change everything. A new concept it seems.



Line 3: "And what can we do to deliberately start and control positive epidemics of our own?"

Impact 3: The exciting idea of being able to start and control positive epidemics has wild business application that could be incredibly useful to real entrepreneurs. It could change the way businesses run advertising campaigns.

Blog 2

Friere and I seem to come from very different places, but I need to address his arguement, so I began with the Strong lines activity.

Line 1: The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world.

Impact 1: Friere seems to believe that telling a student one thing means they cannot learn something contradictory and decide which answer to believe. He feels that if a student happily memorizes their vocabulary words they cannot also go out into the world learn the separate unrelated skill of fishing or picking watermelon.

Line 2: From the outset, his efforts must coincide with those of the students to engage in critical thinking and the quest for mutual humanization.

Impact 2: Any good teacher will try to ensure that the students are on the same page as the teacher. Both educator and student benefit from a mutual understanding and feeling of equality.

Line 3: The more completely the majority adapt to the purposes which the dominant minority prescribe for them (thereby depriving them of the right to their own purposes), the more easily the minority can continue to prescribe.

Impact 3: I have read this line several times but have yet understand Friere full meaning. The minority controls the majority but for what purpose remains unclear. It’s as though the minority have political goals or the power to prescribe simply make the minorities’ lives easier.

Questions: What is the goal of the minority in prescribing to the majority? Is there a solution? If there so, why doesn’t Friere who regards himself as an expert present it? Is finding the solution our task as a critical thinking exercise?

The flaw to Friere's argument lays in the fact that he presents only two ways, the banking system or a democracy styled learning. This is an either-or fallacy; teachers do not simply fall into one of two categories. This idea that all teaching can be boiled down to being oppressing or enlightening is ridiculous. A banking system is not necessarily oppressive and democracy styled learning is not always freeing. The banking system provides structure some students may need or crave; a democratic classroom may move at a slower rate to accommodate more individuals. Schools have a finite amount of time to teach and an almost infinite number of things they are responsible for teaching.

The “Banking Concept” of education in certain places is not only appropriate but necessary. The basics must be taught in order for the student to recall and use them to reason or create comprehensive ideas. Math courses build on each other, so that with out learning geometry a student cannot learn calculus. But that having been said, there comes a point when a student will branch out on their own to discover new principles and push current boundaries. This learning is individual, but it is rooted in all the basic concepts teachers spend hours trying to teach individuals.

Ashleen Tucker Intro DB

Paulo Friere's "The "Banking" Concept of Education" is pretentious, poorly supported, and generalizes. Friere takes no mind to audience; throwing out scientific and vaguely defined terms in an attempt to avoid the tone of a griping high school student. Terms like "conscientização", "critical faculties" and, "raison d’être" can only be deciphered with rereading. If his audience was a group of college deans perhaps Friere's diction would not be so painful but, his intended audience is students of this "banking education". He considers his audience poorly taught yet, expects them to be enticed in by his obscure vocabulary. Friere also shows a borderline obsession with repetition. The words "meekly", "oppression" and, "narration" pop up continually; by the last "oppressed" the word has lost some of its meaning.

Friere also leaves his essay without answering key questions. Teachers play the role of "oppressor" to justify their existence yet, many other roots for justifying existence are readily available and less demanding. The psychology teacher could chose to open a practice instead of teach but, some chose to teach. Friere believes "the majority adapt to the purposes which the dominant minority prescribe for them", as though somewhere someone is standing behind a curtain plotting nefariously to rule the world. What the minority "prescribe" and how that benefits the minority’s want remains undefined. The only clear gains made by the minority are unspecified amounts and types of control. Whether the gain is political, economic, or social cannot be determined. He fails to provide a concrete example of how teachers benefit from this "banking education".

Finally, the “banking education” ignores that most public education is based on a classical education. The first stage is the “Grammar Stage” where kindergarteners to fourth graders learn facts by rote. Friere’s “Banking Concept” and Aristotle’s “Grammar Stage” are one and the same. However, the second stage lasting from fifth to eighth is called the “Logic Stage” where students learn to question why and to actively seek answers. Here in most fifth grade curriculum comes the break away from straight memorization; the student learns how to find answers. The final stage, “Rhetoric Stage”, applies to ninth to twelfth graders who learn to state their own original conclusions elegantly. The Rhetoric Stage utilizes the logical drawing of conclusions in the “Logic Stage” that are based on the initial learn from the “Grammar Stage”. Thus, “Bank” learning is a necessary base to any education.

Friere presents an overstated idea with foggy vocabulary and no concrete examples.



By the end of this semester I would like to improve my critical thinking (especially under time constraints), write better, and read interesting essays.