I thought that it went really well and it was on topic (for the most part). It was really interesting because not everyone agreed on a topic. This caused people to think about why they didn't agree, not just because they don't like it. Everyone was involved and a few people went from the outer circle to the inner circle. The discussion in the inner circle was extremely good! Overall, I think it was great.
Even though I didn't talk that the much, I thought that fishbowl went well for Intro-3. There were really good comments and ideas and there was even some debating which is always interesting. I think that we kind of got off topic and few times but the presenters always did a good job bringing us back to the text. I think that AWNM will be the book that we have the best fishbowls on because there are so many opinions for people to talk about, especially outsourcing and brains.
I think the live blog yesterday, was well worth our time. Solely because, many great discussions were within the blog as well as the fact that many broader topics arose regarding the novel. However, one annoying part was the continous arguing on whether or not outsourcing was good or bad. Many harmful comments were passed in those arguments.
I think that yesterday went alright. I also think that we spent too much time talking about outsourcing rather than what the book was really saying. Sure, outsourcing was a part of the book, but it wasn't very much and I just don't think that we needed to spend as much time on it as we did. And I do give credit to the few people that tried to change the subject, but for the future, it would be nice if everyone payed attention to when someone tries to talk about something else and start talking about it so that the conversation keeps moving and we don't just get stuck on one subject.
I think we had an alright fishbowl... It definitely wasn't our best. But i do think we related it to the real world very well, however, we stayed on those topics a little too long. We should all work on getting the conversation to move along- introduce new ideas, or ask a new question. On the outer circle I think we need to stay on topic with the inner circle more and that way there aren't two different conversations going on. Other than that, it was a good conversation.
Being in the Inner Circle yesterday, I have to say was a little disappointing. There were so many interesting things in the first part of that book, and we didn’t cover half of them. It wasn’t anyone one person’s fault. I’m to blame also, for feeding the unrelated conversations, and for changing the subject. It seemed like we never really talked about the book, we just had random, albeit, interesting conversations about things that semi-pertained to the book. But these conversations were never really that relevant. However, the conversations that we did have were also a little weird. Some people got really defensive, and at times it felt like we were more having a large good group argument, as opposed to having a good, intellectual discussion. I think that for the next fishbowl we need to focus on staying on the book, listening to each other, and really trying to have a great blog discussion.
The fishbowl yesterday was generally good, I think. We had some good conversation about outsourcing and the brain and learned behaviors. I wasn't watching what was happening on the live blog but the inner circle had some good conversation about the aforementioned topics. I thought we were pretty good at staying on topic in the inner circle, but we might have missed a few key points. We tended to focus more on outsourcing and jobs rather than the brain. But I think that everyone had a chance to talk and that we balanced the talking pretty well. No one in my mind stands out as dominating the conversation. There were good and bads of this fishbowl. Next time, we should try to focus more on what the chapter is saying.
I thought it was a great fishbowl. I thought we had really good conversation and that overall most of us should have come out with a better understanding of the chapter and how it relates to ourselves and our world. I thought we expressed alot of different viewpoints and ideas and that the book is alot more meaningful now because of that. Sometimes the flow was bad and the conversation was repetetive and did not move forward as fast as we should have. This was the only major problem but otherwise I think we did a good job.
Although I still find it strange to blog to someone when they are sitting right next to me, I thought the fishbowl went well yesterday. There were many good discussions in the outer circle and really good ones in the inner circle too. There was not much movement from the two circles at first, but as the hour progressed that changed.
One thing that I personally would like to work one, is multitasking. It seems that when I get really into the blog conversation then I can't follow the inner circle conversation, and vice versa.
I thought the fishbowl was really interesting. It was incredible how many different views there were when it came to outsourcing, some people felt that it was a really cool thing, leaving the most interesting jobs for here, and other people felt like it was a bad thing and there weren't enough jobs yet. I noticed that in this fishbowl, it seemed like the inner circle conversation was more balanced, when usually it is a one sided conversation, and only a couple of people would end up talking. Clearly, this topic hits home for almost everyone. One suggestion I have for the next fishbowl is to make sure we don't talk about the same thing for a really lon time, because it seemed like the inner circle got stuck on one topic, and it became redundant, rather than talking about lots of different topics. In the end, I thought the fishbowl went really well and it was cool to have such an interesting topic that everyone has heard about and talked about, because it made for a much better discussion.
I thought yesterday went really well. We had some good discussions in the inner circle. There were a few problems though. I think that we often circled back and re-debated the same things over and over again. I also think that some people got very offensive and defensive about certain things. I observed someone say something that came across slightly offensive, but it was easy to see what they meant that was not mean at all. Yet, despite the slightness of the comment and the obvious intention, some people got very offended because it targeted the right brain or left brain specifically. Then they would go on and get very defensive and attack the other side. The thing we need to remember is that
a. Sometimes it is hard to get across what you mean and if a comment comes across as mean, you should try to understand what the person was trying to say.
b. Any comment that isn't complementary of the right or left brain is not targeting that side of the brain, but simply thinking critically.
c. Most of all, if a person does make a comment against any side of the brain, they are not commenting against you as a person. Just because they may undermine the left brain for example, it does not mean they are undermining you. If the results on your right left brain test came out to one side, that does not mean you ARE that side. So, if someone said "The right brain is stupid and arrogant and useless" they are not calling YOU stupid and arrogant and useless.
The fishbowl yesterday was very interesting. There are a few points that we can work on. One of these would be that we need to stay on topic more often. Usually the class will stray away from topic. We will then all be in agreement over an unrelated topic. I also think that the presenters, especially must work on keeping everyone on topic, and pointing out more details to discuss on. I was definitely not ready to discuss anything. The discussers have to stay on topic.
I think that the inner circle conversation went great, maybe we were missing a few bigger pictures. I still feel like we, including myself, aren't really getting to the essence of what Pink is trying to coommuicate. I think that we are only scratching the surface of the potential his ideas offer. We disect the obvious points but only skim across the major ones. The outercricle conversation pruposed great questions and surveys and I thought that brought alot to the conversation as a whole, the inner and outer. I think as we progress in the book it will raise more questions and introduve things that will force us to think critically.
The fishbowl that we had yesterday had a good lead in of A Whole New Mind and its first three chapters. I thought that the inner circle did well on reflecting everyday life to what the book explains in the first three chapters. Some people did not talk at all though so I think that they should include everyone in the discussing part of it. The outer circle also did a good job in reflecting what the book explains to what is really happening in society today. Overall the fishbowl went well and was on topic.
I thought our fish bowl went well. A lot of people had good ideas and rarely got off topic. The inner circle was very thoughtful, and the outer circle contributed their ideas to the inner circle. The inner circle stayed on one or two subjects a while, there could have been more variety. The outer circle had many small conversations between one or two people. There were a lot of good questions asked on the cover it live, and I found myself thinking for long periods of time.
I disagree with what annes said when she thought we focused too much on the outsourcing of jobs and the future job market. Though she probably thought that we could have discussed more, broader topics, the information that people has seemed really connected and all together I think everyone did really well.
I thought the whole discussion was like poptarts... crazy gooood! Oh and are commercials design to or what is the deal with that?
I think it was good how we expanded to past just the conceptual age and tried to predict based on these conceptual age theories what logically would be next. I think that added and expansive 'application' of our knowledge of conceptual theories. I also liked the discussion about outsourcing and that sort of stuff, relating to other Asian countries we sort of got to think about what it would be like to be a person in on of those countries. I think we should go deeper into that because those people are just trying to feed their familys just like Americans. Its not like that want to steal anything for you. They are just trying to support themselves. I also think we need to discuss the implications that will take affect in our lifetimes a little more than we did in that discussion.
I think the future of this seemed to be the most productive root of this conversation. Today it is hard to see the incoming conceptual age. However if we discuss the future, the theories become more clear.
The fishbowl was yesterday was very beneficial to me. I had a lot of my quesions answered about the first three chapters. I also got the chance to get into heated disscussions with people on the blog. It gave me a chance to defend my opinions, and learn how to better defend them. It also re-enforced to me what statments I believe of Daniel Pink, and which I dissagree with. I came out of the fishbowl understood a lot more than when I went into it. It was also very cool to listen and participate in the inner circle, because we wern't limited just to the text, and I liked the freedom of that. Live blogging has really grown on me in a weird way. At first, I did not like it because it went too fast paced, and now I enjoy it because I found the anti-scroll option! This allows me to go at my own pace since I am pretty slow:) I look forward to our future fishbowls, and especially the one with Daniel Pink. It will be an amazing learning opportunity to speak with him about his views, and his book.
I feel that our fishbowl yesterday was good, but not as good as previous ones. We need to have more people "use their legs" as Smith would put it and hop into the inner circle when they have an idea for everyone to hear. Does anyone feel that we should start looking at the big picture more so? I always feel like I am missing something, like I am on the edge of understanding a really important concept, but just can't quite figure it out. Thats why I am thinking I need to look at the big picture. Last semester having the big idea to relate back to was a big help for me CHALLENGING THE SYSTEM. Then it was easier to connect everything.
I agree with Bridget. It did get quite argumentative in some parts, but it isn't targeted at just one person. It should be taken as an opinion of a person and not an attack.
Our first fishbowl, Intro through Chapter 3, I thought was a very very different kind of fishbowl. I noticed that the conversations were more based on current events and reality rather than literary elements of a book. For some people I could tell it was a shake-up from the familiar, but for me it was fresh and more interesting. Personally I thought we sounded very knowledgeable and thoughtful for students our age, which proves the point that we can make a difference and a change. However it seemed like we got sidetracked easily and it was obvious that some people didn’t know really what to say or which direction to go. I think that will come with time as we do more fishbowls on A Whole New Mind. I liked it, but I feel like we should have gone deeper than just what was written in the book.
The discussion from yesterday seemed to be really focused on the problems of outscourcing and how big of a problem it is. I think that the discussion could of gone in other directions than just outscourcing. There were some very interesting arguments on the cover it live blog that were fun to watch and join in on the arguments. However some people seemed to get really defensive and others seemed to attack others ideas. this was both good and bad. Some lead to good discussions and debates and others lead to a complete fight which isn't the most constructive. I think the main thing that should be fixed for the next fischbowl is all of the repeating and just staying on one topic the entire time.
I was kind of disappointed with the discussion yesterday. I really thought there would be more that other people had to say. I did not pay much attention to the blog, because I was in the inner circle, but what I did have a chance to read of it was much better than our verbal discussion. I really felt that I had more to say about the subject then I had a chance to. Some students’ main contribution was asking question. That is great but I also think everyone should discuss as well. Some questions I thought slightly irrelevant and should maybe not have been discussed for such a length of time. This is a different kind of book than what we have been discussing in the past. It’s real. I think it requires a different style of discussion perhaps to truly be a meaningful conversation. Hopefully that is something we will adapt to.
I thought the discussion went very well. There was never a time where no one had anything to say, and for the most part, the comments were insightful and original because not everyone agreed on each topic. Also, the presenters did a great job of keeping the discussion going and changing the topic once the conversation began to die. There was only one time where everyone seemed to be saying the same thing and that they agreed with the person who had spoken previously. And I think that can be avoided easily by, not saying what you think if it's exactly, or close to what someone else just said. Otherwise, it was a great fishbowl. Nice job everyone.
Like Annasophia said, I also think that we should start to look at the big picture. We talked about outsourcing, but how could this have contributed to the economy in its current state right now? We need to start asking these big-picture questions more often.
This fischbowl was very interesting in my opinion for the most part because there was definitely some conflict and disaggreement between the people in the inner circle, and this was also the first fischbowl discussing a non fiction book. Sometimes there were statements that kept being repeated but at the same time there was a lot of good information brought to the table, and many different perspectives and opinions displayed. And mostly those opinions and thoughts were backed up with information and support. It was exciting in some cases because there was plenty of debate and good quality discussion. I personally liked discussing a non fiction book over a fiction book because there is not really a right or wrong answer to the questions discussed in the fischbowl because its all basically opinions backed up by facts so I thought that was cool.
I agree with peeps who say we need to look at the big picture more. We were focusing on small insignificant details that really don't matter. Although we did get to a few of the the big pictures represented in the book.
I think that the fishbowl yesterday was exciting because a lot of interesting subjects were brought up (for example, outsourcing) and it was nice to see how people’s ideas differed. On the live blog I got into an argument about how the recession will affect the proposed conceptual age. I thought the recession would derail it and my counterpart thought that the recession would help spur on the transition.
In my opinion, yesterday's fishbowl strongly resembled a closed circle. The inner circle, it seemed, essentially were going a continuous cirlce, occassionally stopping to debate. I'm not pronouncing our efforts futile, but I think in the future, more preparation and implications regarding the book should be solidified prior to discussion. Arguing on the LiveBlog was also something that I saw often and I think that we need to be more perspicacious in regards to other opinions and outlooks.
In my opinion, yesterday's fishbowl strongly resembled a closed circle. The inner circle, it seemed, essentially were going a continuous cirlce, occassionally stopping to debate. I'm not pronouncing our efforts futile, but I think in the future, more preparation and implications regarding the book should be solidified prior to discussion. Arguing on the LiveBlog was also something that I saw often and I think that we need to be more perspicacious in regards to other opinions and outlooks.
My thoughts on the intro section of the book are that it is very interesting idea, but based on the rest of the book I would have to say that I don't necessarily agree with the cover. I believe that right brainers will play a huge role in the future, but I also believe that there sudden merge into the would will make the jobs in the US change that much. I feel that we are losing more jobs to people over seas, but that doesn't mean that new jobs will pop up out of no where. The world must slowly be introduced to these new ideas, so it can adjust with more success.
Also from what I can tell the fishbowl went very well.
35 comments:
Here is my reflection:
http://learningandlaptops.blogspot.com/2009/01/awnm-intro-3-fishbowl.html
I thought that it went really well and it was on topic (for the most part). It was really interesting because not everyone agreed on a topic. This caused people to think about why they didn't agree, not just because they don't like it. Everyone was involved and a few people went from the outer circle to the inner circle. The discussion in the inner circle was extremely good! Overall, I think it was great.
Even though I didn't talk that the much, I thought that fishbowl went well for Intro-3. There were really good comments and ideas and there was even some debating which is always interesting. I think that we kind of got off topic and few times but the presenters always did a good job bringing us back to the text. I think that AWNM will be the book that we have the best fishbowls on because there are so many opinions for people to talk about, especially outsourcing and brains.
I think the live blog yesterday, was well worth our time. Solely because, many great discussions were within the blog as well as the fact that many broader topics arose regarding the novel. However, one annoying part was the continous arguing on whether or not outsourcing was good or bad. Many harmful comments were passed in those arguments.
I think that yesterday went alright. I also think that we spent too much time talking about outsourcing rather than what the book was really saying. Sure, outsourcing was a part of the book, but it wasn't very much and I just don't think that we needed to spend as much time on it as we did. And I do give credit to the few people that tried to change the subject, but for the future, it would be nice if everyone payed attention to when someone tries to talk about something else and start talking about it so that the conversation keeps moving and we don't just get stuck on one subject.
I think we had an alright fishbowl... It definitely wasn't our best. But i do think we related it to the real world very well, however, we stayed on those topics a little too long. We should all work on getting the conversation to move along- introduce new ideas, or ask a new question. On the outer circle I think we need to stay on topic with the inner circle more and that way there aren't two different conversations going on. Other than that, it was a good conversation.
Being in the Inner Circle yesterday, I have to say was a little disappointing. There were so many interesting things in the first part of that book, and we didn’t cover half of them. It wasn’t anyone one person’s fault. I’m to blame also, for feeding the unrelated conversations, and for changing the subject. It seemed like we never really talked about the book, we just had random, albeit, interesting conversations about things that semi-pertained to the book. But these conversations were never really that relevant. However, the conversations that we did have were also a little weird. Some people got really defensive, and at times it felt like we were more having a large good group argument, as opposed to having a good, intellectual discussion. I think that for the next fishbowl we need to focus on staying on the book, listening to each other, and really trying to have a great blog discussion.
The fishbowl yesterday was generally good, I think. We had some good conversation about outsourcing and the brain and learned behaviors. I wasn't watching what was happening on the live blog but the inner circle had some good conversation about the aforementioned topics. I thought we were pretty good at staying on topic in the inner circle, but we might have missed a few key points. We tended to focus more on outsourcing and jobs rather than the brain. But I think that everyone had a chance to talk and that we balanced the talking pretty well. No one in my mind stands out as dominating the conversation. There were good and bads of this fishbowl. Next time, we should try to focus more on what the chapter is saying.
I thought it was a great fishbowl. I thought we had really good conversation and that overall most of us should have come out with a better understanding of the chapter and how it relates to ourselves and our world. I thought we expressed alot of different viewpoints and ideas and that the book is alot more meaningful now because of that. Sometimes the flow was bad and the conversation was repetetive and did not move forward as fast as we should have. This was the only major problem but otherwise I think we did a good job.
Although I still find it strange to blog to someone when they are sitting right next to me, I thought the fishbowl went well yesterday. There were many good discussions in the outer circle and really good ones in the inner circle too. There was not much movement from the two circles at first, but as the hour progressed that changed.
One thing that I personally would like to work one, is multitasking. It seems that when I get really into the blog conversation then I can't follow the inner circle conversation, and vice versa.
But overall I felt that the blog went well.
I thought the fishbowl was really interesting. It was incredible how many different views there were when it came to outsourcing, some people felt that it was a really cool thing, leaving the most interesting jobs for here, and other people felt like it was a bad thing and there weren't enough jobs yet. I noticed that in this fishbowl, it seemed like the inner circle conversation was more balanced, when usually it is a one sided conversation, and only a couple of people would end up talking. Clearly, this topic hits home for almost everyone. One suggestion I have for the next fishbowl is to make sure we don't talk about the same thing for a really lon time, because it seemed like the inner circle got stuck on one topic, and it became redundant, rather than talking about lots of different topics. In the end, I thought the fishbowl went really well and it was cool to have such an interesting topic that everyone has heard about and talked about, because it made for a much better discussion.
I thought yesterday went really well. We had some good discussions in the inner circle. There were a few problems though. I think that we often circled back and re-debated the same things over and over again. I also think that some people got very offensive and defensive about certain things. I observed someone say something that came across slightly offensive, but it was easy to see what they meant that was not mean at all. Yet, despite the slightness of the comment and the obvious intention, some people got very offended because it targeted the right brain or left brain specifically. Then they would go on and get very defensive and attack the other side. The thing we need to remember is that
a. Sometimes it is hard to get across what you mean and if a comment comes across as mean, you should try to understand what the person was trying to say.
b. Any comment that isn't complementary of the right or left brain is not targeting that side of the brain, but simply thinking critically.
c. Most of all, if a person does make a comment against any side of the brain, they are not commenting against you as a person. Just because they may undermine the left brain for example, it does not mean they are undermining you. If the results on your right left brain test came out to one side, that does not mean you ARE that side. So, if someone said "The right brain is stupid and arrogant and useless" they are not calling YOU stupid and arrogant and useless.
P.S. I think everyone should read Bridget's comment it will be very helpfull for the people in both inner and outer circles :)
The fishbowl yesterday was very interesting. There are a few points that we can work on. One of these would be that we need to stay on topic more often. Usually the class will stray away from topic. We will then all be in agreement over an unrelated topic. I also think that the presenters, especially must work on keeping everyone on topic, and pointing out more details to discuss on. I was definitely not ready to discuss anything. The discussers have to stay on topic.
I think that the inner circle conversation went great, maybe we were missing a few bigger pictures. I still feel like we, including myself, aren't really getting to the essence of what Pink is trying to coommuicate. I think that we are only scratching the surface of the potential his ideas offer. We disect the obvious points but only skim across the major ones. The outercricle conversation pruposed great questions and surveys and I thought that brought alot to the conversation as a whole, the inner and outer. I think as we progress in the book it will raise more questions and introduve things that will force us to think critically.
The fishbowl that we had yesterday had a good lead in of A Whole New Mind and its first three chapters. I thought that the inner circle did well on reflecting everyday life to what the book explains in the first three chapters. Some people did not talk at all though so I think that they should include everyone in the discussing part of it. The outer circle also did a good job in reflecting what the book explains to what is really happening in society today. Overall the fishbowl went well and was on topic.
I thought our fish bowl went well. A lot of people had good ideas and rarely got off topic. The inner circle was very thoughtful, and the outer circle contributed their ideas to the inner circle. The inner circle stayed on one or two subjects a while, there could have been more variety. The outer circle had many small conversations between one or two people. There were a lot of good questions asked on the cover it live, and I found myself thinking for long periods of time.
I disagree with what annes said when she thought we focused too much on the outsourcing of jobs and the future job market. Though she probably thought that we could have discussed more, broader topics, the information that people has seemed really connected and all together I think everyone did really well.
I thought the whole discussion was like poptarts... crazy gooood! Oh and are commercials design to or what is the deal with that?
I think it was good how we expanded to past just the conceptual age and tried to predict based on these conceptual age theories what logically would be next. I think that added and expansive 'application' of our knowledge of conceptual theories. I also liked the discussion about outsourcing and that sort of stuff, relating to other Asian countries we sort of got to think about what it would be like to be a person in on of those countries. I think we should go deeper into that because those people are just trying to feed their familys just like Americans. Its not like that want to steal anything for you. They are just trying to support themselves. I also think we need to discuss the implications that will take affect in our lifetimes a little more than we did in that discussion.
I think the future of this seemed to be the most productive root of this conversation. Today it is hard to see the incoming conceptual age. However if we discuss the future, the theories become more clear.
The fishbowl was yesterday was very beneficial to me. I had a lot of my quesions answered about the first three chapters. I also got the chance to get into heated disscussions with people on the blog. It gave me a chance to defend my opinions, and learn how to better defend them. It also re-enforced to me what statments I believe of Daniel Pink, and which I dissagree with. I came out of the fishbowl understood a lot more than when I went into it.
It was also very cool to listen and participate in the inner circle, because we wern't limited just to the text, and I liked the freedom of that.
Live blogging has really grown on me in a weird way. At first, I did not like it because it went too fast paced, and now I enjoy it because I found the anti-scroll option! This allows me to go at my own pace since I am pretty slow:) I look forward to our future fishbowls, and especially the one with Daniel Pink. It will be an amazing learning opportunity to speak with him about his views, and his book.
I feel that our fishbowl yesterday was good, but not as good as previous ones. We need to have more people "use their legs" as Smith would put it and hop into the inner circle when they have an idea for everyone to hear. Does anyone feel that we should start looking at the big picture more so? I always feel like I am missing something, like I am on the edge of understanding a really important concept, but just can't quite figure it out. Thats why I am thinking I need to look at the big picture. Last semester having the big idea to relate back to was a big help for me CHALLENGING THE SYSTEM. Then it was easier to connect everything.
I agree with Bridget. It did get quite argumentative in some parts, but it isn't targeted at just one person. It should be taken as an opinion of a person and not an attack.
Our first fishbowl, Intro through Chapter 3, I thought was a very very different kind of fishbowl. I noticed that the conversations were more based on current events and reality rather than literary elements of a book. For some people I could tell it was a shake-up from the familiar, but for me it was fresh and more interesting. Personally I thought we sounded very knowledgeable and thoughtful for students our age, which proves the point that we can make a difference and a change. However it seemed like we got sidetracked easily and it was obvious that some people didn’t know really what to say or which direction to go. I think that will come with time as we do more fishbowls on A Whole New Mind. I liked it, but I feel like we should have gone deeper than just what was written in the book.
The discussion from yesterday seemed to be really focused on the problems of outscourcing and how big of a problem it is. I think that the discussion could of gone in other directions than just outscourcing. There were some very interesting arguments on the cover it live blog that were fun to watch and join in on the arguments. However some people seemed to get really defensive and others seemed to attack others ideas. this was both good and bad. Some lead to good discussions and debates and others lead to a complete fight which isn't the most constructive. I think the main thing that should be fixed for the next fischbowl is all of the repeating and just staying on one topic the entire time.
I was kind of disappointed with the discussion yesterday. I really thought there would be more that other people had to say. I did not pay much attention to the blog, because I was in the inner circle, but what I did have a chance to read of it was much better than our verbal discussion. I really felt that I had more to say about the subject then I had a chance to. Some students’ main contribution was asking question. That is great but I also think everyone should discuss as well. Some questions I thought slightly irrelevant and should maybe not have been discussed for such a length of time. This is a different kind of book than what we have been discussing in the past. It’s real. I think it requires a different style of discussion perhaps to truly be a meaningful conversation. Hopefully that is something we will adapt to.
Does anyone know who Trudy A is? I didn't recognize the name
I thought the discussion went very well. There was never a time where no one had anything to say, and for the most part, the comments were insightful and original because not everyone agreed on each topic. Also, the presenters did a great job of keeping the discussion going and changing the topic once the conversation began to die. There was only one time where everyone seemed to be saying the same thing and that they agreed with the person who had spoken previously. And I think that can be avoided easily by, not saying what you think if it's exactly, or close to what someone else just said. Otherwise, it was a great fishbowl. Nice job everyone.
Like Annasophia said, I also think that we should start to look at the big picture. We talked about outsourcing, but how could this have contributed to the economy in its current state right now? We need to start asking these big-picture questions more often.
This fischbowl was very interesting in my opinion for the most part because there was definitely some conflict and disaggreement between the people in the inner circle, and this was also the first fischbowl discussing a non fiction book. Sometimes there were statements that kept being repeated but at the same time there was a lot of good information brought to the table, and many different perspectives and opinions displayed. And mostly those opinions and thoughts were backed up with information and support. It was exciting in some cases because there was plenty of debate and good quality discussion. I personally liked discussing a non fiction book over a fiction book because there is not really a right or wrong answer to the questions discussed in the fischbowl because its all basically opinions backed up by facts so I thought that was cool.
I agree with peeps who say we need to look at the big picture more. We were focusing on small insignificant details that really don't matter. Although we did get to a few of the the big pictures represented in the book.
So i guess I was joking about the poptarts...
I think that the fishbowl yesterday was exciting because a lot of interesting subjects were brought up (for example, outsourcing) and it was nice to see how people’s ideas differed. On the live blog I got into an argument about how the recession will affect the proposed conceptual age. I thought the recession would derail it and my counterpart thought that the recession would help spur on the transition.
In my opinion, yesterday's fishbowl strongly resembled a closed circle. The inner circle, it seemed, essentially were going a continuous cirlce, occassionally stopping to debate. I'm not pronouncing our efforts futile, but I think in the future, more preparation and implications regarding the book should be solidified prior to discussion. Arguing on the LiveBlog was also something that I saw often and I think that we need to be more perspicacious in regards to other opinions and outlooks.
In my opinion, yesterday's fishbowl strongly resembled a closed circle. The inner circle, it seemed, essentially were going a continuous cirlce, occassionally stopping to debate. I'm not pronouncing our efforts futile, but I think in the future, more preparation and implications regarding the book should be solidified prior to discussion. Arguing on the LiveBlog was also something that I saw often and I think that we need to be more perspicacious in regards to other opinions and outlooks.
My thoughts on the intro section of the book are that it is very interesting idea, but based on the rest of the book I would have to say that I don't necessarily agree with the cover. I believe that right brainers will play a huge role in the future, but I also believe that there sudden merge into the would will make the jobs in the US change that much. I feel that we are losing more jobs to people over seas, but that doesn't mean that new jobs will pop up out of no where. The world must slowly be introduced to these new ideas, so it can adjust with more success.
Also from what I can tell the fishbowl went very well.
Post a Comment