Introductions

In Introductions and Conclusions, it is stated that introductions consist of contextualizing the background of your issue, stating the problem, and responding to said problem. By setting up an introduction using the Context-Problem-Response formula, it allows for the reader to get really invested in your paper and wish to read more. To start off, the writer has to contextualize their information which is called “common ground” due to the fact that it “establishes a shared understanding between reader and writer about the general issue the writer will address.” (225) Following this the writer must state their problem and convince the reader that their research problem is significant and once it is resolved it will benefit everyone. After stating your problem, it is suggested that the writer ask, “So what?” Following this is the solution. In an introduction the writer can go one of two ways- they can promise that their issue will be solved later on in the essay or explicitly state the main points of what your solution is about. The author makes note that introductions do not necessarily always need all three parts of the Common Ground+Problem+Response set up because it depends on what your reader is familiar with regarding the topic you write about. However, this form allows the reader to find their way through the essay easier, and have them think more deeply about the topic at hand.

Ch. 12 Predictably Irrational Summary and Response

In chapter 12 of Predictably Irrational, author Dan Ariely explains that people will very easily be dishonest and cheat when they are one step removed from cash, or using non-monetary object before cash. Ariely performed another test looking for similar results. He set up three different groups, the first of which was the test group that had five minutes to solve 20 math questions and with each correct answer they received 50 cents. The second group had the same exact rules except after they finished the questions they were allowed to tear of their papers and tell the grader how many they got right for money. This provided an opportunity to be dishonest. The last group had the same conditions as the second group but were telling a grader their answers in exchange for coins that held no value. These coins were then traded in for actual money. Ariely discovered that the last group lied the most out of the control group and the second group  because there was an insertion of a token into the transaction that made the students less honest because they weren’t directly lying for money. This group ‘solved’ 5.9 more problems than the control group that didn't have any options of cheating. This proved that given the chance, people will cheat, but only if it’s a step away from actual money.

According to Ariely, cheating is easier when you're one step removed from cash because it is easier rationalize why we do certain dishonest acts. People who cheat or are dishonest when one step removed from actual money would most likely consider themselves honest people and would never actually want to steal actual money from people. Ariely performed several experiments to see if his theory was accurate, one of which involved putting a six-pack of coke in a college dormitory fridge as well as a plate with six one dollar bills on it. Ariely tested to see how long it would take until all of each item was taken, and soon found out it took less than 72 hours for all of the coke’s to be taken, yet the money was never stolen. Ariely concluded that people rarely cheat or be dishonest with cold hard cash, but they will be dishonest when something is one step removed from money because it is easier to justify. This was shown in his testing example that I stated in my summary. This type of cheating relates directly to insurance fraud. When people report losses in their homes or with their cars they tend to exaggerate their claims by around 10%. For example, Ariely says that if someone owned a 27 inch television they would say that a 32 inch television was stolen from them. People who do this would be very unlikely to steal money directly from their insurance companies but by telling a lie about how grand their product was makes their lying justifiable. The rise of identity theft in America can be explained by Ariely's theory because people are not directly stealing money from people but rather are using a different mode to access these victims money. Ariely also looks into banks and what they are doing with credit card rates and how when people don't pay their bills in full the credit issuer will charge them a higher interest rate and charge interest rate on past purchases. This is an example of a company indirectly stealing from someone.

Ch. 11 of Predictably Irrational- Summary and Response

In Chapter 11 of Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational, he discusses how there are different types of dishonesty, and how we perceive dishonesty differently by who does the dishonest acts and what kind of acts they are. Ariel explain that there is the standard image of dishonesty that appears in the form of crooks circling around a gas station, debating whether or not they should rob it. The second image is that of people who would typically consider themselves to be honest people- these are the people who might take a pen from a conference site or take some extra soda from a drink dispenser. This second group it the one Ariely decided to test to see how prevalent this type of honesty was. his subjects consisted of students from Harvard University. Ariel asked the students to take a test of 50 multiple choice questions in 15 minutes. The students then had to transfer their answers to a scoring sheet (bubble sheet). However, Ariely broke this process up into four groups to test dishonesty. One group twas the group Ariely compared the other three to- these were just students who took the test normally and just transferred their answers to the bubble sheet. The second group had premarked correct answers on their bubble sheet, the third, had premarked answers and and could shred their original worksheet, and the fourth could shred both the original worksheet and the premarked bubble sheet. Ariel’s results showed that each group with the premarked bubble sheet cheated- but only slightly. Even though they were given the chance to cheat more, they chose to play it safe. Ariel claims that there is a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to honesty or dishonesty. Ariel claims that honesty is important to people, but that people’s internal honesty monitor in the Superego is only active when people think about committing big transgressions. Ariely suggests that if people use non-religious benchmarks that make people think about honesty before the take tests, for example, it may reduce the amount of dishonesty we see.

Dan Ariely states that in order to curb dishonesty in our lives we should have reminders of honesty before we do anything important. SO little reminders before people make big decisions can curb dishonesty. Students deal with a great deal of temptation on a daily basis. We deal with the temptation of what Ariely already mentioned, that of cheating, especially in classes where the teachers aren’t as stern or attentive. We also face temptation to skip class for extra time to sleep, hang out with friends, or to catch up on work. There is also temptation from friends to go out and not do work. Students commit small transgressions, like maybe doing an assignment and copying some answers from a friend and rewording them or perhaps lying to their teachers about why their assignments aren’t completed (ex: my computer isn’t working). 

Chapter 2 Summary and Response for Predictably Irrational

In Dan Ariely’s 2008 book, Predictably Irrational, he explains how the first price we see for a good or experience affects how much we are willing to pay in the future. Ariely compares the human brain to that of a gosling which imprints on the first thing it sees after birth. Ariely claims consumers anchor to the first price they see and that arbitrary coherence, or when initial prices shape present and future prices we see, is very present in peoples minds. Both of these were shown in the class experiments Ariely and his colleagues did at MIT where they asked students to use the last two digits of their social security numbers to determine if they would pay that price for a given list of goods. They then asked them to indicate what the maximum amount they would pay for each object was. Their starting number affected their decisions in the future meaning, if they had a lower number at the start they were willing to pay less for items. The same thing happened to the people starting off with higher numbers- they were willing to pay higher prices for the exact same items. Ariely explains how price tags become anchors when the consumer considers buying something at the particular price it is offered at. This affects all future decisions.  Ariely also claims that humans participate in herding and self-herding which happens when the consumer thinks something is good or bad based not heir previous behavior. Ariely shows this in an example of someone who switches from buying Dunkin’ Donuts coffee to slowly becoming a committed Starbucks fan. This shows that anchors can switch over time. In all, Ariely claims that the first choices we make heavily influence the choices we make in the future.

In Dan Ariely’s book, Predictably Irrational, anchoring is described as the first price the consumer sees. Arbitrary coherence is described by Ariely as, “although initial prices are arbitrary, once those prices are established in our minds they will shape not only present prices but also future prices.” (p. 26) As Ariely and his colleagues class experiments show, if you start off paying a higher price, that determines how much you are willing to pay for things in the future (you’ll pay higher prices for items). If you start with lower prices, you will also pay lower prices for certain items. So if a person worked really hard to raise $3,000 for a used car, they would most likely be a more frugal consumer in the future, not only because that student worked hard for their money, but because $3,000 of a car isn’t very expensive. They would stick to their anchor price. Ariely also discusses how it is assumed that consumers willingness to pay is one of the two inputs that determine demand or market prices as they’re also known. But Ariely’s experiments shows that consumers can be easily manipulated which means they really don’t have a good control over what they want and how much they’re willing to pay for various goods and experiences. Also, supply and demand are dependent forces, not independent. Market prices influence how much consumers are wiling to pay for things showing how supply and demand are connected entities. This is the fallacy of supply and demand.

Harford Draft- Organization of Paragraphs

Towards the middle of my essay when I start discussing how Harford’s concepts relate to my question about Wegman’s tomato pasta sauce, I try to bring up the concept of price-sensitivity several times in different paragraphs. This relates to the first strategy, Repeat key Words or Phrases. Because I feel like price-sensitivity is relevant to explaining my question, I connect it several times throughout my explanation of Harford and how it relates to Wegman’s sauce.

    “So how exactly does Wegman’s relate to the ways of the economy? In Tim Harford’s book, The Undercover Economist, Harford explains several key economic terms like price targeting, leaks, and price-sensitivity using familiar businesses strategies. Harford provides an example of Starbucks coffee and the various locations Starbucks chooses to place itself at. Starbucks are typically located in areas where there are many people who need a convenient coffee fix. These consumers, many of whom are in a rush on their way to work, are looking for any cup of coffee that is located where they are headed. If a Starbucks is positioned in a place where consumers are price-blind, or ignore how much an item costs, then they will make a great deal of money. In addition, Starbucks products all cost around the same price to make, but it uses different methods to target their customers who are price-insensitive.  Offering a variety of alternatives to customers, such as various drink sizes or adding whipped cream and different syrups to your drink allows Starbucks to have customers self-incriminate, thus showing if they really care about price or not.
    How exactly does Wegman’s target it’s price-sensitive and insensitive customers though? There are many different brands of pasta sauce that it would seem to be a challenge to get people to buy their organic brands first. As Harford explains with his Starbucks analogy, stores cannot force people to pay prices that they don’t wish to pay. Providing customers an area like an organic section allows Wegman’s to determine who is actually price-sensitive and who isn’t. The prices of classic pasta sauce, while not extraordinarily expensive, still vary tremendously from costing around $1.50 up to around $7.00. So Wegman’s offers a variety of cheap to expensive sauces, but making it easier to fool customers into choosing the more expensive options by altering the location and look of their products.
    Harford also discusses leaks, or potential holes that could negatively impact a company’s marketing schemes. There are several leaks to what Wegman’s does when marketing it’s tomato sauce. As Harford explains, it can be very challenging to get price-insensitive people to avoid buying a cheaper option, specifically when it comes substantial buying decisions. However, Harford expands on this idea further on when he states that supermarkets in particular have specific strategies from avoiding even the most price-insensitive customers from thinking about buying a cheaper option which Harford claims happens often. Supermarkets focus on certain customers who unknowingly self-target by making their value products more unattractive than their more expensive options. As Harford states, “...the packaging is carefully designed to put off customers who are willing to pay more. Even customers who would be willing to pay five times as much for a bottle of lemonade will buy the bargain product unless the supermarket makes some effort to discourage them.” (p.Harford, 51) This is what Wegman’s does when it created it’s cheap, non-organic value pasta sauce. The design as I explained earlier, looked cheaper and less attractive. Their organic sauce however looked clean and fresh- it looked like a product people would actually want to buy.”

I think to fix this section I could possibly incorporate more ideas and terms because I am lacking in that area. If I added more, I would be able to connect these terms to more material. I also think I need to be more specific in my detailing of the prices of the products and by doing so, I could mention these differences throughout my other paragraphs to emphasize my point.


The seventh strategy is to define a concept for the reader. I attempt to do this in various sections of my paper when explaining Tim Harford’s ideas. This can be seen in my paragraphs about price targeting and sensitivity as well as leaks, all of which are terms I think are essential to explaining my research question. In the first paragraph I use Harford’s Starbucks example to to describe how consumers can be price-blind, which I give a definition of, but notied that I do not explain price-insensitivity or self-incrimination. Although it may be easier to understand what they mean because I provided context clues, I never really explain them which is very problematic. I think the details in this paragraph are important because my research is about determining how Legman’s persuades it’s consumers to purchase more expensive organic options, so if I want to have an effective research paper, I need toe explain my terms better so I can convey my point correctly. I also, think these concepts should be explained earlier on in my essay because these definitions do not come until about halfway through after I have described my evidence I collected.

    “So how exactly does Wegman’s relate to the ways of the economy? In Tim Harford’s book, The Undercover Economist, Harford explains several key economic terms like price targeting, leaks, and price-sensitivity using familiar businesses strategies. Harford provides an example of Starbucks coffee and the various locations Starbucks chooses to place itself at. Starbucks are typically located in areas where there are many people who need a convenient coffee fix. These consumers, many of whom are in a rush on their way to work, are looking for any cup of coffee that is located where they are headed. If a Starbucks is positioned in a place where consumers are price-blind, or ignore how much an item costs, then they will make a great deal of money. In addition, Starbucks products all cost around the same price to make, but it uses different methods to target their customers who are price-insensitive.  Offering a variety of alternatives to customers, such as various drink sizes or adding whipped cream and different syrups to your drink allows Starbucks to have customers self-incriminate, thus showing if they really care about price or not.”
   
I do a better job in defining concepts in my paragraph about leaks because I make sure that I provided a clear definition and related it back to my research. I included quotes from Harford himself to support my ideas so the concept is better understood by people who read the paper. Again, this idea could be introduced earlier on in my essay, and perhaps another example of a leak that doesn’t relate to my research could help effectively explain my research.


“Harford also discusses leaks, or potential holes that could negatively impact a company’s marketing schemes. There are several leaks to what Wegman’s does when marketing it’s tomato sauce. As Harford explains, it can be very challenging to get price-insensitive people to avoid buying a cheaper option, specifically when it comes substantial buying decisions. However, Harford expands on this idea further on when he states that supermarkets in particular have specific strategies from avoiding even the most price-insensitive customers from thinking about buying a cheaper option which Harford claims happens often. Supermarkets focus on certain customers who unknowingly self-target by making their value products more unattractive than their more expensive options. As Harford states, “...the packaging is carefully designed to put off customers who are willing to pay more. Even customers who would be willing to pay five times as much for a bottle of lemonade will buy the bargain product unless the supermarket makes some effort to discourage them.” (p.Harford, 51) This is what Wegman’s does when it created it’s cheap, non-organic value pasta sauce. The design as I explained earlier, looked cheaper and less attractive. Their organic sauce however looked clean and fresh- it looked like a product people would actually want to buy.”



I also employ strategy 13 or Spatial Patterns in my essay when describing the layout of Wegman’s. Spatial patterns are used to describe a space you’re discussing in detail. 

    “I decided to do my observations while I did my own shopping so I could get the feel of how a shopper would interpret the area better. On your way inside, Wegman’s effortlessly pushes you to the right side of the store. Most people who go to Wegman’s for their weekly grocery shopping would go this way because produce, meat, and baked goods are all on this side. Once leaving these sections, there is a dairy aisle that leads the consumer into the larger section of the store. The first thing you see as you enter this section is the organic food aisle making it almost impossible to miss. Although it is in plain sight, many people could just walk past it, so how does it differentiate from the rest of the store? Wegman’s already does a great job of leading people to the section, and does an even better job of making it a place the consumer wants to be. Surrounding this area are all enticing things such as fancy teas and yoga mats, and even the labels on the foods are beautiful and eye-catching. This section feels calmer than the rest of the store.”

As you can see I try to utilize this in my third paragraph of my essay when explaining the importance of the organic section in Wegman’s. I try to set up the paragraph as vividly as possible so if someone who had never been to the Ithaca Wegman’s before could visualize the store. I start off by describing walking into the store and how the consumer is encouraged to go to the right because that is where all of the essentials to cooking, such as produce, dairy, and meat, are located. By going this way, the consumer has to eventually pass by the organic section which is right past the dairy section and is very hard to miss because it is a distinctive area. I think this paragraph does a lot what I want it to- it sets up the area where my research will be taking place, and allows the reader to create a strong mental image. However, in the there is a way I could use this strategy could be used more.It was recommended in my feedback on my essay that I should discuss the context of the products and how they communicate quality. I could discuss the types of things this section has and how they look because I do not do that in this section at all.

The Believing Game Summary

In Peter Elbow’s 2008 paper, The Believing Game- Methodological Believing, Elbow discusses the differences and importance of both believing and doubting information. Elbow defines what he calls the doubting game as “…the disciplined practice of trying to be as skeptical and analytic is often called critical thinking and is used to discover weaknesses in ideas, especially ones that appear to be truthful or attract people. Elbow defines the believing game as the practice of attempting to be as welcoming or accepting as possible to ideas we hear. With this method there is no attempt to argue the ideas but an effort to strongly believe them on order to find hidden virtues. Elbow says from early on in life we start out believing everything we hear because our trust in others is strong. As adults, people believe the obvious things, what people they trust say, and what culture tells them to do. This is jeopardized when people are betrayed, which leads to doubt. Elbow mentions Methodological doubting which he believes is central to the definition of the scientific method and is used to try and disprove hypotheses. Elbow further emphasizes however that believing is a tool we also need to use but is seen as tainted with many problems. He claims that the believing game helps people find flaws in their own thinking, choose among positions, and achieve goals that the doubting game neglects. The believing game fills in the gaps that the doubting games misses, and allows people to dwell in an idea in order to understand it better.

IC Bookstore Blog Post

In the IC bookstore, things are positioned very thoughtfully throughout the store. Things are grouped in certain ways that I have never noticed before, but have definitely fallen for. In the back right of the store there are baby clothes with cute phrases and the IC logo. Positioned on the shelf right next to these are stuffed animals wearing the IC logo. Naturally, the store is trying to get into the mind of a consumer who is buying a gift for a baby, and feels that if they're buying clothes, they might also want to buy the baby a toy. Because this is the only section of the store with baby clothes and products, customers cannot price match, so they will automatically buy these things there. There were also things like tattoos and hats for big Ithaca sports events that are placed right near the checkout counter, so if someone sees this and knows there is  big game coming up, especially Cortaca, they'll immediately grab these and buy them. Another example I noticed were these very nice sweaters right in the front of the store on their own separate table with a 25% off sign in the front. These sweaters were very nice, and since it had a discount, people would most likely buy them because the price is reduced, even without checking the prices of other sweaters. The funny thing about these sweaters though, were that there was no price tag attached to them. I think the store believes that since college students love sales, they will automatically purchase the sweaters without thinking twice. When you get to the middle of the store there are some nice Nike and Under Armour products that are extremely expensive. However, these are well known brands that appear to have high quality products, so students will go for them. The sweatshirts are strategically placed near the shorts, leggings, and T-shirts. These items were in the price range of $50-70 which is extremely pricey. The sweatshirts and shorts in the back of the store however were much cheaper (around $30). For people who are price-insensitive won't spend time going to the back of the store to buy the cheaper sweatshirts/shorts/t-shirts. Possible leaks for this is that students will typically be at school for 4 years, so they will eventually explore the entire store and notice the hidden sales racks and cheaper options.

Terms and Definitions of Harford Ch. 2

Terms and Definitions of Harford Chapter 2

Term	Price Sensitive & Insensitive	Unique Target Strategy	Group Target Strategy	Self-incrimination Strategy	Leaks
Definition	Price Sensitive: Someone who is always aware of prices and is frugal Price Insensitive: someone who is not as concerned about price and is willing to spend money for nicer things	Evaluating each customer as an individual and charge them what you think they are willing to pay	Places offer different prices to different groups of people	A strategy companies use that force people into admitting they are not sensitive to price, companies do this by selling things slightly different form one another or putting things in different locations	Holes on marketing schemes that have two potential problems: persuading price-insensitive customers from buying cheaper options, and products leaking from one group to the other if using group targeting
Example from Chapter	Starbucks products basically cost the same, but they are able to add frills and quantities to some items, which makes the price rise, thus finding out who their price-insensitive customers are.	Amazon tailors prices of certain things based on the customers past purchases. This causes prices to rise if they know a customer will definitely buy something.	Walt Disney World offers discounted prices on tickets to locals so that they come more often. They keep the prices for visitors high though because they know that chances are visitors will come only once even if the ticket prices were low.	Starbucks offering things like fair-trade coffee and whipped cream to customers shows who is really price sensitive	Stores have their own "value" options that they provide, but intentionally make them look cheap and undesirable, designed to make people buy the more expensive option
Your Own Example?	I am very much a price-sensitive shopper. It takes lot to persuade me to buy more expensive options at places like a food store. I tend to buy only Wegman's brand for a majority of things, but I am willing to pay a little extra money on things like the bakery area of Wegman's because I know I'm getting quality food from friendly, helpful people.	When my family and I were in the process of making our own personal home gym, we went to get all of the materials we needed at Dick's. The salesman there asked us a lot of questions regarding what we like to do and what our goals are, and kept providing us with more and more items to buy because he was trying to persuade us into thinking that without certain items, we couldn't get a good workout	Cinemopolis offers student discounts for every movie they have, so it encourages students to come more frequently tot heir theater than to Regal which is almost $5 more expensive per movie	At Panera they often ask customrs after they place their order if they would like to spend $1 to buy a freshly baked cookie or brownie. Since $1 doesn't seem that much, I say yes most of the time.	My friends and I don't have HBO (we're not willing to pay a lot of money since we're college students), so we find our favorite HBO shows that have been leaked online so we can watch them for free.

Ch. 2 of The Undercover Economist

In Chapter Two of The Undercover Economist, author Tim Harford explains the mindset behind the way products are priced in stores. Hartford states that businesses that have scarcity power do not have unlimited power because they can’t charge as much money as they want to customers for lack of potential sales. The goal of many businesses is to provide prices that are cheaper for people are thrifty, but also higher prices for those who do not care or focus on how much they spend. Using certain strategies like offering fair trade products, adding frills to typically cheap drinks, and editing location of precepts in a store, can all affect how much customers will pay, claims Harford. This allows for businesses to see who will pay, and how much people will pay, for certain products. There are three strategies to finding what customers will pay for certain products. They are the first degree price discrimination strategy, which focuses on the individual and sensing how much they are willing to pay. The second is offering different prices to members of distinct groups, such as reducing prices for the elderly or children. The last, Harford explains, is the self-incriminating strategy where customers unintentionally reveal how much they would be willing to pay based on the products they purchase. Harford explains that price-targeting is often turned into an art by a variety of companies, and makes it clear that there are hidden price strategies to everything businesses do.





In the second chapter of Tim Hartford’s book, The Undercover Economist, Harford explains that businesses that have scarcity power, do not necessarily have limitless power. Although supply and demand may be a reason why stores can charge high prices and people will pay them, it is not the only reason why people pay high prices. Stores often try to offer less expensive and more expensive options to their customers so that they can appeal to frugal consumers, and those who do not pay attention to price as much. Their goal is to see how much they can charge a customer and still have successful profits. Stores will often offer things like fair trade coffee, which is naturally more expensive, or use fancy wording for products that are basically the same. For example, Harford mentions how almost all of Starbucks products cost the exact same amount to make, but by adding fancier names and more frills, Starbucks is able to charge different prices for their products and “smoke out customers who are less sensitive to price.” (pg. 35) People may also be unaware that there are things that are offered at a cheaper price in a store. Harford mentions that quite often organic foods are placed next to non-organic food that is different. For example, organic bananas may be placed next to non-organic cucumbers, so if you’re in a hurry, and the bananas are the first thing you see, you’re going to pay a higher price for those bananas than you would for non-organic bananas somewhere else in the store. Harford also discusses why certain things that aren’t scarce have such high prices. An example of this I have experienced are sports bras at Victoria’s Secret.The price of a typical sports bra at a store like Target ranges between $10 and $25. But at Victoria’s Secret, bras are around $50 or more. People can get sports bras anywhere, yet Victoria’s Secret seems to be one of the most popular places to purchase one, even though their prices are extreme., because the store is often associated with beauty and style. Another example is Wegman’s. Compared to places like Tops or Walmart, Wegman’s is quite expensive. They don’t offer anything that is particularly scarce or unique at Wegman’s, but what they do offer is a huge variety of options and a enjoyable, comfortable shopping experience. In addition, retailers target certain people in different ways in order to determine who is price sensitive or not. For example, whenever I go shopping, it is clear to retailers that I am young, probably don’t have a ton of money to spend because I am a college student who hasn’t really entered the workforce yet, so I may be hesitant to spend a lot of money at a store. Quite often when I go clothes shopping, people working in sales will explain to me several sales they have going on, and the try their hardest to persuade me to get certain clothing items because they’re good deals. If I was older and looked like I had a wealthier lifestyle, they make push more expensive items on me.
   

Summary and Response of Ch.1 of The Undercover Economist

In the book, The Undercover Economist, author Tim Harford thoughtfully explains the practices and patterns of the economy. Harford first asks the reader to think about why big businesses, such as Starbucks, whose product is relatively simple, can profit so heavily. The main reason for this, states Harford, is the location of said businesses. By placing themselves in busy settings with commuters who are in a time crunch, it allows Starbucks to earn a considerable profit. Harford brings up an economic model published in 1817 by a British economist, David Ricardo, whose goal was to understand what had happened to Britain’s economy during the Napoleonic wars. Hartford uses an example from Ricardo’s book about a wild frontier which has plenty of fertile land available to grow crops, and only a few settlers. Because there are so few settlers, landlords cannot charge a price too high. However, when more and more aspiring farmers start coming to settle on the land, landlords can drive up the price. Once there is almost no land left, the price can skyrocket because settlers are willing to pay whatever they want to get a piece of land. This is an example of bargaining strength and scarcity. Hartford uses this example throughout the entire chapter when describing big businesses and the current economy because this model, although older, still applies today. Economists, according to Harford, see hidden historical patterns that are only obvious when focusing on underlying processes. Harford also addresses people being ripped off by big businesses, and the topic of of competition, two things that are very much present and somewhat inevitable in today’s economy. 

Tim Harford explains thoroughly in his book, The Undercover Economist, that bargaining strength comes through scarcity. Bargaining shifts when relative scarcity shifts from one person to another. The example Harford uses is one from David Ricardo economics book, published in 1817. He explains that as more aspiring farmers come for meadowland, the amount of available meadowland decreases. Due to the fact that the meadowland is the only land that is extremely good for farming, aspiring farmers are willing to pay any price to have a current farmer evicted so they can take their land. But the current farmers want the land too, so they are willing to pay anything to stay on their land. This gives the bargaining power to the landlords because there are so many farmers available, and so little meadowland available. Harford transfers this idea back to current times where businesses want their stores to be in the best possible locations in order to make a high profit. Hartford uses the example of coffee shops. There are so many coffee shops available, and not enough profitable locations, that people are willing to pay a high price to get a location that will benefit them the most. This is how scarcity power works. In addition, many places have a high rent because the best land produces more when compared to the marginal land. The marginal land is the margin between being cultivated and not being cultivated, as Harford explains. Everything is always compared to the marginal land. There are many factors that can drive up prices of land. Harford states that if a product a company is selling is expensive, then the land that product is being sold on will also be expensive. Green belts drive up the prices of land because green belts are broad areas of land around a city that are illegal to develop property on. The rent determined in the city is set by the difference between how productive the city is, and how productive the marginal land is. If you make it illegal to live somewhere, then the price of the places you can live and work will rise because it is the only choice people have. Scarcity power is also related to the current job market. Harford explains that if the country is low on people who have certain skills, or degrees, then they will be paid rightly so for their scarcity value. This is why people with high degrees are paid good money for the degrees and skills they have. It provides you with scarcity power.

Argument as Conversation Summary and Response

In Stuart Greene’s 2001 article, Argument as Conversation: The Role of Inquiry in Writing a Researched Argument, many different suggestions are given regarding how to successfully convey an argument in writing. Greene states that when people sit down to write about a topic of interest to them, they are never actually the first people to write about a certain topic. He quotes a passage from Kenneth Burke which discusses how writing is like entering a parlor where a heated discussion is going on, and has been going on for quite some time. After listening for a while and hearing other points people are making, you decide to enter in your opinion. The discussion grows more heated, but you must eventually leave. This is how Greene sees writing- as a dialogue. He states that in order to enter a conversation, one must understand the topics that have been discussed, identify a problem, find evidence to persuade people to see their way, think about possible objections or opposing views people may have, and notify why this topic is important. In order to convey a point in the best way, Greene says,the writer must know all sides of the argument. In order to have a convincing argument the writer must identify an issue and the situation, states Greene. When the writer has identified these, they must frame a good question to guide their writing. To Greene, framing is an essential part of the writing and researching process, because it allows the writer to organize their thoughts, clearly state their position on a certain topic, inform the reader about the topic, and allows for conversation to stem from it. Framing is essential for the writer to have the reader focus on what they want them to. In the end, Greene states that inquiry and research are extraordinarily important in ultimately changing the way the world sees things.

In the first discussion question, it asks what role Greene thinks reading plays in the kinds of writing students will be asked to do in college. Greene believes that there are different types of reading one can do in school, and the two are very different, but equally important. There is reading as inquiry versus reading as a search or information.  In order to inquire on a deeper level, you must have the information you need. You always want to convey your writing as educated, thoughtful, and accurate, all which come from these two reading processes. In an academic setting, it is expected that your writing will further a scholarly conversation and not copy or state ideas that have been brought up by other people. This is why reading for information, in order to better inquire about a topic, is critical. The second discussion question asks, “Explain the concept of framing. What metaphor underlies it? Why is the concept important for Greene? What does framing allow a writer to do?” Framing is necessary to Greene because it allows the writer to come up with and organize different, and sometimes opposing, views that will ultimately help their argument. He compares framing to photography when he says, “Framing is a metaphor for describing the lens, or perspective, from which writers present they arguments. Writers want us to the see the world in one way as opposed to another, not unlike the way a photographer manipulates a camera lens  to frame a picture.” Framing is essential for getting your audience to focus on one topic rather than another, and getting them to perceive things the way you do. Greene says that there are four things framing allows you to do. Framing encourages the writer to clearly state their position on the topic they are writing about, makes them explain or define certain ideas regarding their topic so the reader is informed, makes your argument appear clearer and allows for conversation, and creates an opportunity for organizing thoughts.

The Case for Teaching Ignorance Summary and Response

Jamie Holmes 2015 article, The Case for Teaching Ignorance, explains the importance of ignorance in learning. Holmes tells the stories of Dr. Marlys H. Witte, a University of Arizona surgery professor, and Dr. Stuart Firestein, a Columbia University professor and neuroscientist, who both longed to teach courses regarding knowledge and ignorance. They wanted to teach students the importance of questions and the limits of knowledge. Holmes uses these story to highlight the importance of curiosity and not knowing the answers to everything. Holmes mentions that Firestein specifically was astonished that his students felt that scientists knew everything because he knew that science is always being revised and questioned- facts aren’t solid things. In addition, Holmes highlights the idea that the more people know, the more questions come about. In his own words he says, “The ever-expanding shoreline, where questions are born of answers, is terrain characterized by vague and conflicting information.” This uncertainty can sometimes confuse and frustrate people, however. He mentions a point made by Gary P. Pisano who explains that once people, particularly businesses, use something that works, they are too afraid to try anything new and uncertain. He calls this “learning mode” which can be a problem. Holmes concludes that although the study of Agnotology is still new, it is extraordinarily significant for fostering curiosity, growth, and knowledge amongst the younger generation.


The Case for Teaching Ignorance highlights some very important ideas in a very short article. A line that really resonated with me was when Jamie Holmes mentions Marlys H. Witte's idea for a new class she wanted to teach titled, Introduction to Medical and Other Ignorance. Holmes mentions that Witte, “wanted her students to recognize the limits of knowledge and to appreciate that questions often deserve as much attention as answers do.” This quote was really important to me because it shows that an educator, someone who is helping to mold the minds of our next generation of doctors, politicians, etc., understands how students typically perceive knowledge, and wanted to change something about it. Rarely do teachers design a class that completely shifts the way we view thinking, hence the negative reaction Witte faced from an official who refused to support her class. Witte did not back down, which I commend, and continued to believe that this class was necessary for understanding knowledge and research in a more thorough way. She understood that classes typically focus only on knowledge, but not how to grow and develop more from what we know. I believe questioning what we know and how we know it is essential in the learning process, and Witte understood that.
    The quote that really felt troublesome was when Holmes quoted Gary P. Pisano who said,, “The center of the island, by contrast, is safe and comforting, which may explain why businesses struggle to stay innovative. When things go well, companies drop out of ‘learning mode.’” While I do not disagree with this quote, I do feel that it applies to more than just businesses. As students, we tend to stick to what is comfortable and familiar- that would be knowledge. Because this goes well, we quite often do not search further and really question what we know, or rather, what we don’t. We learn things, we spit out this information on exams and in papers, and try to apply what we learn in the real world. But do we ever question it? Do we ever look for a deeper meaning? How do we know that we cannot change things or come up with something more accurate? Why do we believe that every bit of knowledge is set in stone? This is a problem. We stick to “learning mode” when we shouldn’t.

Pursuit of Ignorance Summary and Response

In neuroscientist and Columbia professor Stuart Firestein’s Ted Talk, The Pursuit of Ignorance, the idea of science being about knowing everything is discussed. Firestein says there is a common misconception among students, and everyone else who looks at science, that scientists know everything. Science is seen as something that is an efficient mechanism that retrieves and organizes data. What Firestein says is often forgotten about is the ignorance surrounding science. He emphasizes the idea that scientists do not discuss everything that they know, but rather everything that they do not. Science, to Firestein, is about asking questions and acknowledging the gap of knowledge in the scientific community. Science keeps growing, and with that growth comes more people don’t know. There may be a great deal of things the world of science knows, but there is more that they do not know. Firestein states, “Knowledge generates ignorance.” Firestein acknowledges that there is a great deal of ignorance in education. In the age of technology, he says the secondary school system needs to change because facts are so readily available now due to sites like Google and Wikipedia. Firestein believes that educators and scientists jobs are to push students past these boundaries and look outside of the facts. A contributing problem to the lack of interest in doing so, Firestein states, is the current testing system in America. He says that when children are young they are fascinated by science, but as they grow older this curiosity almost vanishes. The reason for this is something Firestein’s colleague calls The Bulimic Method of Education, which involves shoving a huge amount of information down the throats of students and then they throw it back up into tests. In the end, Firestein encourages people to try harder to keep the interest in science alive in the minds of students everywhere, and help them realize no one knows it all.



In Sturart Firestein’s Ted Talk, the Pursuit of Ignorance, he makes several comments about our current education system and the lack of interest in science many students have today. Stuart suggests several things we can do to get students to step outside of the boundaries of facts. He starts off his speech saying that in one of the classes he used to teach, Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience 1, he presented his students with the required text; a 1,414 page book created by three of the top neuroscientists. Firestein said he eventually realized that the way he was presenting this information to his students was causing some problems, particularly making them believe that scientists only collected facts and data, and put them into books. This gave them the impression that scientists know everything. He also accuses the current testing system we have as a main reason for students not wanting to go looking further. Firestein says that because facts are so readily available due to sources like Google and Wikipedia, students don’t search for more. He also credits the current testing system we have in America as a cause for students lack of interest in pursuing science. What educators need to do is edit the way they present information, and emphasize that while there is so much that scientists do know, there is so much more that they don’t. Acknowledging ignorance is important. I agree that knowledge is almost always portrayed as something set in stone, something that everyone knows. It is in the classes where I am asked to question what I know that I learn more, and grow as a student. We need to fuel this curiosity in students, Firestein says, and make them realize how exhilarating the unknown can be.

I Don't Want to Be Right Summary and Response

In Maria Konnikova’s 2014 article, I Don’t Want to be Right, the way people’s beliefs affect the way they interpret information is discussed in detail. Konnikova states that many people have false beliefs, and that people in power have to try and figure out a better way to present information in a way that is less threatening. She claims that people often feel threatened when something that is extraordinarily important to them is contradicted. When people have a strong belief, they will do their best to get rid of the information that question how they view things. However, if people do not feel as strongly about something, they will easily change their viewpoint. She questions why this is so, and discusses a variety of studies that prove her point on how people perceive information. Her conclusion was that people’s views depend on their identity, not how they view politics. She brings up a theory created by Claude Steele which states, “when people feel their sense of self threatened by the outside world, they are strongly motivated to correct the misperception, be it by reasoning away the inconsistency or by modifying their behavior.” Konnikova’s conclusions is that presenting people with constant facts and science will never be effective. However, presenting things in a non-ideological way that removes broader notions, would be more effective. This will be a challenge, Konnikova says, due to the way prominent figures who do not have any medical expertise state their opinion. While it is a work in progress, Konnikova believes that it is possible to change people’s perceptions on things like Climate Change, race, and vaccinations.

Konnikova and Mooney share various ideas regarding the way people perceive facts. Money’s concept of Confirmation and Disconfirmation bias is represented in Konnikova’s article when she mentions that when peoples ideas are threatened, they will naturally discard the information that is contradicting them. Both authors believe that people reject what could undermine their beliefs that are important to them. They also both state that information should be presented to people in different ways so they do not become defensive. Mooney, however, emphasizes doing so with presenting values to people, while Konnikova urges us to stop trying to mention peoples identities and values. Unlike Mooney, Konnikova mentions the self-affirmation theory, something created by Claude Steele. This theory states that, “when people feel their sense of self threatened by the outside world, they are strongly motivated to correct the misperception, be it by reasoning away the inconsistency or by modifying their behavior…Steele proposes an exercise in self-affirmation: either write down or say aloud positive moments from your past that reaffirm your sense of self and are related to the threat in question.” By reminding yourself of good things, we become more broad-minded. It allows people’s attitudes to become more accurate. While both authors make strong points, it is clear that we need to start portraying knowledge and information in a different way because people often feel threatened by things that are unfamiliar and perhaps oppose their ideas.

Belief System Response

Growing up, my parents constantly told me I could be anything and anyone, and that nothing could hold me back. I was raised to be a strong and independent person, which made me believe I could do anything just as well as anyone else, even men, as long as I made an effort. As I got older however, I realized that these views I grew up with, were not universal. This completely shocked me. I had not realized that we lived in a patriarchal society because I grew up a tad sheltered, and this topic was never discussed in my school. I began to realize that women faced some very difficult challenges from society. As I delved more into the subject of sexism in college, I realized I never noticed how often women are misrepresented in the media (or not represented at all), treated inferiorly to men, how common it was for women to feel unsafe or objectified, how women are lacking in STEM/political fields, and how I had even experienced sexism in my life, but never realized it. I also never noticed the sexism that men dealt with. While this was incredibly new and intense information, I began educating myself more about Sexism and Feminism so I could understand them better. I eventually became comfortable with calling myself a Feminist because I believe not only in equality of the sexes, but equality for everyone. I became more vocal about my experiences with sexism (ex: times I have been objectified by men on campus, people telling me I do not understand certain topics as well as men), and how I plan to play a role in changing things for both women and men. We as a society need to stop putting people into a box and reinforcing these ancient, predetermined ideas about who someone should be, what should be important to them, and how they should live their lives. While I still believe that no one can stop me from being happy, successful, ad independent, I acknowledge that there are very sexist views in the world that can be obstacles in the way of peoples success. This feminist view not only opened my eyes to the lack of equality between the sexes, but the lack of equality, and equity, in the world, specifically when it comes to race and disability. I never realized how sheltered I was back in my hometown to so many hugely significant issues, but now I am a vocal proponent of social change and making the world a more equitable place. 

The Melancholy of Anatomy: Summary and Response

The negative aspects of science and capitalism are confronted in Wendell Berry’s 2008 article, The Melancholy of Anatomy. In his article, Berry clearly states that he understands how science can be useful, but feels that it is mostly narrow-minded and damaging to the impressionable public. Berry argues that the vast field of science provides the people with knowledge that is not “adequate to the sustenance of human life or the health of the ecosphere.” (Berry, 11) Berry states that things should not be looked at in parts, but as a whole, and uses several passages forth Bible to support his ideas. He makes statements regarding the role science and the market have on people and the earth. The Industrial Revolution, in Berry’s opinion, has vastly changed the world because science now plays a huge part in our economy. Berry believes scientists capitalize on the innocent, scared, and worried public, as well as the defenseless earth. Once certain areas can provide people with money, that becomes its sole purpose. He believes that humans no longer sympathize with people or other creatures on the planet because materialist and capitalist ways have blinded them. In the end, Berry argues that people need to stop learning a little bit about small parts, and start critiquing the whole. He believes there are too many weaknesses in the current revolution, and that people put science on a pedestal, when in reality they should question it. In Berry’s opinion, scientists have been overcome with greed and profit off of the public’s fears, concerns, and naivety, and this is something that should be amended. 

Wendell Berry makes some very interesting points in his article, some of which I agree with, and others I strongly oppose. On page 14 of his article, Berry says, “We have accumulated a massive collection of ‘information’ to which we may have ‘access.’ But this information does not become knowledge by being accessible.” What Berry is attempting to say is that we so blindly take everything we hear or are able to learn as information, just because it is being presented to us in an accessible way. We never stop to question this information, and think that maybe we do not have as much access to actual important information. We must find a deeper meaning to things. One of the points Berry repeatedly brings up is how markets, research, and knowledge are interconnected. He claims that people who look highly upon science do not realize how negatively it is involved with the Industrial Revolution. This science that Berry says we all emulate, has really committed many wrongdoings, specifically by creating marketable products that range “from refined fuels to nuclear bombs to computers to poisons to pills.” (Berry, 14) He claims science is based on things like greed, fear, and suffering. We instill this fear into the public and profit tremendously off of it. For those scientists who do not involve themselves with these practices, they are often overlooked because they oppose the majority. Berry is making a point regarding how the public believes everything scientists say, and do not question this knowledge. The public is fed information that seems very convincing, so they do not search further and see if there are things they should not believe. In conclusion Berry is advocating that we stop being passive consumers who do not question things, something we were taught to be, and turn ourselves into informed critics who actively search for more answers. By examining how healthy the context is, Berry says we, “would reveal the health of the work.”

The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science: Summary and Response

In the 2012 article, The Science of Why We Don’t Believe In Science, author Chris Mooney discusses how people choose to believe in certain ideas regardless of the information provided to them. Mooney quotes psychologist Leon Festinger in page 1 of his article saying, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” Mooney agrees with the ideas in this quote and makes a point regarding how when people passionately believe something, they will respond negatively to anything that says otherwise. This in turn makes people want to believe in their cause even more, especially when they find evidence and arguments that agree with them. This relates directly to the concept of confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias. Mooney states that people who have strong convictions regarding certain subjects have a natural tendency to support arguments and evidence that support what they so strongly believe in, and find flaws in ideas that oppose their beliefs. Mooney emphasizes that people, particularly Conservatives, act this way regarding significant and controversial topics such as climate change, vaccinations, and the death penalty. Things such as religion, views on morality, and business very powerfully steer people into thinking a certain way. People reject what could undermine what they so strongly believe to be true. People are consumers of information, and since technology plays such a large role in how we acquire it, it is very simple to find information you agree with, or to misinterpret information. Mooney comes to the conclusion that people should start presenting knowledge in friendlier, less argumentative ways, so people do not become defensive. Instead of trying to convince people with facts, everyone should start presenting information with a focus on values.

Mooney explains that all reasoning is connected deeply with emotion, which is called, affect. Our conscious thoughts arise much more slowly than our feelings about certain people or ideas. This is related to our natural fight-or-flight response which makes us push information that alarm us away, while pulling the information we respond favorably to, closer. This connects directly to Confirmation and Disconformation bias. Confirmation Bias says we tend pay more attention to evidence or arguments that support our convictions, while we also spend a great deal of time trying to disprove opposing ideas that we disagree with, which is Disconfirmation Bias. These things have a huge effect on how we perceive important, yet controversial, topics such as vaccinations or climate change. Knowledge is so accessible in today’s society due to the internet, meaning that any views regarding any topic, can be found. There will always be people who misinterpret information or try to disprove it because it contradicts their beliefs. This is because we are now acquiring knowledge not just from professionals, but from people we know personally and trust. I think if we educated people more on these controversial issues at a young age, it could potentially shape the way they view knowledge and make them more aware of how to interpret things. Like Mooney states, we cannot always persuade people through evidence and argument. Perhaps education on certain topics will allow people to make more informed conclusions. This is most definitely a challenge however because of how large of a role exterior influences like religion play in people’s lives. Mooney claims these things play a huge role in how Conservatives view science. He states that if they are not receiving information from a business or religious leader, they will not respond well. Mooney says that Conservatives are focused on, “defending the status quo” (Mooney, 4), and even brings up the fact that researchers believe there are psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. This all may be true, especially the statement Mooney makes about how conservatives tend to listen to big businesses and religious leaders. Religion and Capitalism, while not bad things, can have a huge effect on the mindset of politicians, and steer their decisions in detrimental directions.

Summary and Response to Chapter 2 of Too Big To Know

 In chapter two of David Weinberger’s, Too Big to Know, Weinberger discusses how facts and knowledge have changed drastically over the past several hundred years. Weinberger states that knowledge according to the ancients used to be about universals, and that facts at one point in time, facts could be based on social, political, or astronomical beliefs. However, when the nineteenth century rolled around, Weinberger says things started to change. Theories started to become more of a popular way to collect evidence, and eventually facts moved from the realm of science to the world of politics. Facts started to become the basis of policy and settling international disputes. As time went on, facts became “the elemental truths about the world.” (Weinberger, 31) While facts themselves have changed, the way we acquire them have as well. While knowledge used to take took years and years to collect, analyze, and publish, now knowledge and facts are available at people’s fingertips. Websites like hunch.com, data.gov, and FuelEconomy.gov make an immense amount of facts accessible to anyone in the blink of en eye. Weinberger warns that this fast and simple system is not necessarily perfect. Due to the fact that anyone can access any type of information, Weinberger explains that it is quite easy to be wrong nowadays. There will always be contradicting facts and arguments that make it more of a challenge to prove a point. Weinberger also claims that because there is so much knowledge, people put stopping points to their research, meaning, if they find credentials that they believe are reliable, people will stop searching for answer. Weinberger argues that facts are no longer doing their job because there are no longer elemental truths, and the more facts people acquire, the harder it will be to keep a firm foundation of knowledge.


Weinberger states that there is such an incomprehensible amount of knowledge in the world that once we get an answer we find is believable, we stop searching for more information. This is especially true when we acquire knowledge from trusted sources with credentials, such as almanacs. We automatically assume every fact is accurate, which is not always the case. In ancient times, people actually found the concept of facts to be offensive and wrong. Knowledge was accepted because it was something that was universal and given by God. Facts were the incorrect way to use God's gifts. This concept ultimately changed as time went on, and facts slowly started to become more present in society. A prime example of this are the writings of Thomas Robert Malthus. In 1798, Malthus stated a very well known "fact" regarding population growth and it's relationship to food supply. While Malthus starts off giving us a fairly logical assumption, he quickly backs up his "facts" with his own personal bias' and beliefs. It is so simple to state your own opinion and make it seem true, even though you may not have the statistics and evidence to actually prove your point. Malthus only made generalizations, he never actually looked into and researched his theory. As facts grew in popularity, many people became outspoken against them, particularly Charles Dickens. Dickens felt that facts allowed important social issues, like poverty, to not be viewed as the complex and deep problems that they are. Facts portrayed these huge issues in trivial and unimportant ways. Facts, however, are an essential part of life today. Comparing the work of Charles Darwin and a website like Hunch.com proves how far we've come. Darwin spent years and years trying to perfect facts that he would eventually contribute to science. Hunch answer questions in seconds. Darwin was researching something that was actually significant, while Hunch uncovers and generates facts, many of which are trivial. Charles darwin was guided by a theory and only found facts that were bigger than the individual scale. Neither of these things are the case for Hunch. While both have to do with finding facts, time has completely changed the way we get knowledge. Facts are now completely accessible to the public, meaning that anyone can dispute what you may claim to be a fact with their own acquired knowledge. There is such a vast amount of information available to the world that anything or anyone can be contradicted.

Summary and Response to Chapter 1 of Too Big To Know

 In David Weinberger’s 2011 book, Too Big to Know, Weinberger explains the significance of knowledge in the current internet age. The concept of knowledge has changed significantly over the years, according to Weinberger. Knowledge used to fit into a “perfectly ordered whole” and was considered an object of perfect beauty in the West. As time elapsed, knowledge began to accumulate, forcing the creation of a new way to filter the information into a manageable whole. This idea was harnessed in the Information Age where computers began to take a minuscule amount of filtered knowledge, and provide it to the public. Weinberger explains, however, that these extreme filters excluded many knowledgeable opinions and ideas, which ultimately led to the formation of false beliefs. This was caused by the misconception that there was too much knowledge and that information overload would occur. This belief was wrong, according to Weinberger, because now knowledge is about including everything. Current filters on the internet only remove the amount of clicks people need to get somewhere; not the content that people seek. Weinberger argues that filters are no longer filtering things out, but filtering forward, including opinions and facts from everywhere and everyone. The networks are expanding from professional experts, to people we are familiar with and trust. This, Weinberger states, is problematic because the filters are bringing forward any information, opinions, and “facts” many of which can be inaccurate or ignorant. People now can always be contradicted because it is possible to find any argument online that supports a certain belief. Although filters are not necessarily doing their job, Weinberger argues that the web is a medium big enough to contain all of the knowledge people need, and that has changed the way knowledge is being perceived forever.

In Chapter One of Too Big To Know, Weinberger says knowledge is made up of data that gives us information that eventually has greater value. Knowledge used to, as Weinberger states, "...fit together in a perfectly ordered whole." (3) It was beautiful and without fault. As time went on, there was so much to understand that we started to filter and reduce what we as a people actually need to know. This created a more manageable system. We felt that there was so much information out in the world, that we couldn't possibly store it all in our minds. So we created this exceptional filtering system that filtered things out including concepts that no one would have ever considered, concepts that may contradict things that are false but seen as facts. We now filter things forward, bringing all the knowledge we want to learn into the foreground, making it much easier to get the knowledge we want. Weinberger noted that our brains are not limiting us, but the way we use the media to get past what our brains cannot do. The role of being online- specifically networking-  has vastly changed the way we acquire knowledge. Information has no end because every link you find that is related to your question, directs you somewhere else, and it goes on and on. We live in a society where we need more and more information. The concept of information overload does not hold the same meaning that it had in the past. Anyone can learn whatever they please because there are no boundaries and no need for experts to do things for you. The way we acquire knowledge is ever-changing, and as time goes by, we will see more efficient ways of learning and more information being brought to our attention.