On fourth of July I satyed home chilled and relaxed all day watching TV and thinking about what to write for my essay. This year I didn’t even go out to go see the fireworks on the bay. I was very lazy, since on July 3rd I was partying all day. I went to my nephews 1st birthday party. The party was amazing and got home at 1 midnight. I guess the best thing was the food and getting to see all my cousins. I enjoyed by fun and lazy weekend.
After the long discussion we had in class and now that we’ve talked to to our groups…. we the wolfs…. think that the question that Gladwell is trying to answer is “Do people that work in big groups have more success in innovation and does the method of challenging each other and feeding off each other help toward their goal?”
Gladwell uses the Lunar society as an example. They gathered together on every full moon to eat and discuss new ideas. They challenged each other in what they wanted to do, if one of them did something then the others had to do something better to top that and challenge. By doing so they created competitive atmosphere. By feeding off and challenging each other they were able to become more successful in innovation. Because of the new innovative ideas they to create a new revolution that bettered society.
Gladwell organized his essay in three different parts. He first introduced the S.N.L cast and what they were about, then he gave examples and history of other groups similar to S.N.L, and lastly he explained how being in a tight knit group was like an inside joke because the more you didn’t get it the more you wanted to be in on the joke. This lead to revolution because more and more people started to link on to this innovative group.
These ways helped Gladwell answer his question The first part helped Gladwell introduce his ideas because it was an example of what he was trying to prove. The second part helped him build on what he was talking about by giving us examples of the past that were similar to and connected to today. The last part gave us a new idea that was related to the topic and gave us something new to think about.
Group Think, a confusing essay to read about. There are so many questions this essay can answer. Obviously like the one on the cover “What does “Saturday Night Live” have in common with German Philosophy?” Yet there are other questions like “Does it take a group of people to come up with something? Does German philosophy have an impact on Saturday Night Live? Or “Does one big event lead to another?” you can keep going.
One thing that Gladwell states really well is that innovation is found in groups. Hmm…… That can be really true because there are times when we can accomplish much more when we are with a group of people then when you’re by yourself. For example in sports or in a class experiment. It is always good to have a group of people come up with something.
When it comes to Gladwell writing his essay I think it’s a bit confusing but I think he does a really good job organizing his essay. I think he truly answers his question. I liked how he compares both things since he gives a little about both and how one thing can lead to another
George Orwell being the writer he is changes his style and tone for Shooting an Elephant completely.
Orwell writes his essay as a story. It seems as if he is not trying to prove a thesis, but tells us about his own experience. He writes in the 1st person which makes us the readers relate to what he is telling us. It feels as if he is telling the reader the story and having a conversation with us. This essay has much more description. He is very descriptive when he tells us about how he killed the elephant. At some points his description about the elephant would make me feel uncomfortable. For example when he said, “The thick blood welled out of him like red velvet, but he still did not die”. His good descriptions make me imagine the story in my head. Also all his hyphens and parentheses show his relationship with us. It is as if he is giving us a clear idea of what he is talking about.
The tone of the essay seems as if it is full of agony. Orwell seems in doubt most of the time. He feels the hatred that the people have towards him, so he is forced to kill the elephant, something he does not want to do, so he can be accepted and like by all people.
There is a big difference when it comes to surfing the internet and reading directly out of a book. In my personal experiences when I surf the internet I won’t read complete articles, I just skim through them and look for another article on the related topic. On the other hand when I read directly out of a book I read word for word until I finish. I don’t really think that Google is making us stupid because it gives us information from different sources which I think makes us smarter. What I think Google is doing to us is making us lazy. Google is just feeding us information without working hard for it. On the other hand if we didn’t have Google we would probably get the same information, but it would require more work and time.
In order for me to read something it has to be sports related or an interesting fun novel to read. I can’t read anything that has to do with history or politics. I prefer sports novels since they keep me reading and interested. I usually keep reading until I am tired or I am bored, but usually read from thirty minutes to an hour. In order for me to read it has to be quiet, but I usually read while I listen to my ipod, that way I will be more concentrated.
Hi everyone =)