In the field of cognition, the march towards continuity between human and animal has been inexorable — one misconduct case won’t make a difference. True, humanity never runs out of claims of what sets it apart, but it is a rare uniqueness claim that holds up for over a decade. This is why we don’t hear anymore that only humans make tools, imitate, think ahead, have culture, are self-aware, or adopt another’s point of view. – Frans De Waal (2010).
My students studied the question, what is life, last cycle, and through their readings and Socratic dialogue I’ve been trying to approach the question of what is sentience and what distinguishes humanity from other organisms (or robots for that matter).
We’ve found that the lines between us and them are very hard to draw.
Pushing the discussion into questions of morality, primatologist Frans De Waal has a wonderful post on where it comes from, and if there is any clear distinction between humans and other animals. He argues that morality is innate, a product of evolution, and there aren’t clear distinctions.
The full article is a worthy read, with good writing and well constructed arguments. It’s a bit too long for a Socratic Dialogue but might be of interest to the more advanced student, particularly those going through religious, coming-of-age, rites of passage, like preparations for confirmations and Bar Mitzvahs. While De Waal’s evolutionary reasoning has been used to argue against religion, he takes a much more subtle approach:
Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause. – Frans De Waal (2010).
Partially developed residential project in Florida. Image from Google Maps via The Boston Globe's The Big Picture.
Two poignant intersections of the foreclosure crisis and art came to my attention recently. One is the series of aerial photos of Floridian real estate developments that never came to fruition. The other, an article on photographers who document the insides of foreclosed homes.
Both are moving in very different ways. The former in showing unfulfilled potential (although there is a good argument that many areas should never have been developed in the first place), and the latter in illustrating the debris of dreams that were broken.
NPR’s On the Media has a fascinating interview with Paul Reyes, a reporter who’s covered the foreclosure photographers. Reyes points out that while there can be a certain aesthetic that makes for striking photography, the real poignancy, particularly in these examples, comes from knowing the tragic back-story behind the images.
The gingham dog and the calico cat
Side by side on the table sat;
‘Twas half past twelve, and (what do you think!)
Nor one nor t’other had slept a wink!
– From “The Duel” by Eugene Field
Metaphor for the cold war?
Children’s poetry can be simple yet contain intricate, layered meaning. Project Guttenberg has a number of nice poetry collections available. Since they’re free it’s mostly older stuff, but human nature hasn’t changed that much in the last few hundred years.
Mary E. Burt’s 1904 collection, “Poems Every Child Should Know“, contains quite the number of classics like the one excerpted above. I like it a lot because when we talk about themes and issues in texts it is usually better to start with things that are very obvious, with simple language and simple sentence structure, to reduce the cognitive load.
However, just because the language style is simple doesn’t mean we can’t very quickly get to the complex.
So. If we read “The Duel” one morning while during the cycle when we discuss the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction, will students make the connection?
I hope they do, because then we can broaden the context and talk about human nature and the power of the classics.
… offered cooking and garden classes integrated with selected classroom lessons along with improvements in school food and the dining environment. – Rauzon et al. (2010)
The report, which followed 5th and 6th graders into middles school, found that they knew more about nutrition and had greater preferences for fresh fruit and vegetables than students in comparable schools.
The researchers did not go into all of the ancillary benefits of gardening and cooking in the school, because the lessons tie into science and social studies curricula. Of course these benefits should be familiar to the Montessori community since Montessori advocated the erdkinder farm school for adolescents.
Diagram of squash flowers.
The Hershey Montessori School seems to be a good example of what Montessori was aiming for (as is the glimpses we get of child rearing in Mirable). We do a lot ourselves in our little program. I’ve noted before how our greenhouse and bread baking tie into math, science, social studies and art.
Ontology does not recapitulates phylogeny, and my observations are probably just about as accurate, but the psychosocial development of early adolescents, who are just discovering who they are and realizing their place in society and history, parallels the fundamental reorganization of human societies brought about by the emergence of agriculture.
Figure 1. The ultimate vehicle. Produced in round 3 of the capitalisim simulation, this vehicle was carefully designed to match the preferences of the consumer. It earned 5 out of the 10 dollars spent in that round.
Abstract
The power of capitalism lies in the system’s ability to adapt to the needs of people. It does so by giving preferential rewards to those who best meet those needs as expressed in the market. As part his spring Independent Research Project, middle school student, Mr. Ben T., came up with a simulation game that demonstrates this advantage of capitalist systems over a communal systems that pays the same wage irrespective of the output.
Background
In either the fall or the spring term I require students to include some type of original work in their Independent Research Project (IRP). Most often students take this to mean a natural science experiment, but really it’s open to any subject. Last term one of my students, Ben T., came up with a great simulation game to compare capitalism and socialism. With his and his parent’s consent I’m writing it up here because I hope to be able to use it later this year when we study economic systems and other teachers might find it interesting and useful.
Procedure
The simulation was conducted with six students (all 7th graders because the 8th graders were in Spanish class at the time) who represented the producers in the system, and one student, Ben, who represented the consumers.
Simulating Capitalism
In the first stage, representing capitalism, the producers were told that the consumer would like a car or cars (at least a drawing to represent the cars) and the consumer would pay them based on the drawing. The producers were free to work independently or in self-selected teams, but only one pair of students chose to team up.
Producers were given three minutes to draw their cars, which they then brought to “market” and the consumer “bought” their drawings. The consumer had limited funds, 10 “dollars”, and had to decide how much to pay for each drawing. Producers were free to either accept the offered payment and give the drawing to the consumer or keep their drawing.
This procedure was repeated three times, each turn allowed the producers to refine their drawings from the previous round, particularly if it had not sold, or create new drawings. Since all drawings were offered in an open market, everyone could see which drawings sold best and adapt their drawings to the new information.
Simulating Socialism
Socialism was simulated by offering equal pay to all the producers no matter what car/drawing they produced. Otherwise the procedure was the same as for the capitalism simulation: students were told that they could work together or in teams; they brought their production to market; the consumer could take what they liked or reject the product, but everyone was still paid the same.
Assessment
At the end of the simulations consumer students were asked:
How did you change your car in response to the market?
Did it make the car better?
What do you think of a socialist system?
Which [system] do you prefer?
Results
Students showed markedly different behaviors in each simulation, behaviors that were almost stereotypes capitalist and communistic systems.
Capitalism simulation
Producers in the capitalist simulation started with fairly simple cars in the initial round. One production team drew a single car. Another made four cars with flames on the sides, while another went with horns (as in bulls’ horns rather than instruments that made noise) and yet another drew. When brought to market, despite the fact that almost all drawing were paid for, it quickly became obvious that the consumer had a preference for the more “interesting” drawings. The producer who drew six cars with baskets on top got paid the most.
Figure 2. Rocket launchers and shields were an important innovation in Round 2 of the capitalism simulation. It earned 4 of 10 dollars and influence all cars in the subsequent round.
In the second round one innovator came up with the idea of adding a rocket launcher (Figure 2) and was amply rewarded. In response, in the third round, the market responded to this information with enthusiasm, however, all the rocket launchers were trumped by a tank shooting fire out its back with, “Ben 4 Prez!” written on the side (Figure 1).
Figure 3a. Evolution of cars in response to consumer preferences. Example from paired producers: Capitalism. Round 1.Figure 3b. Round 2. This set of producers go with multiple cars.Figure 3c. Round 3. Train and cars with rocket launchers developed in response to the market's favorable response to weaponization in Round 2 (see Figure 2).
The producers responded the the preferences of the consumer. The best example of this was the work of the couple students who decided to pair-up.
Their first car was simple and straightforward and it only garnered one “dollar” (Figure 3a). In the second round they chose to go with quantity, producing a lot of cars (Figure 3b) as that had been a fairly successful strategy of another producer in Round 1. Their reasoning was that since there were two of them they would be able to outproduce the others. By the final round they had developed a train with rocket launchers in addition to a set of cars with rocket launchers (Figure 3c). Again, market pressures had an enormous influence on the final vehicles, but the individual philosophy of the producers also showed through in the vehicle production choices.
[UPDATE 5/17/2012]: The capitalism part of the simulation produces winners and losers, and a good follow-up is to do the distribution of wealth exercise to see just how much wealth is concentrated at the top in the U.S.. The second time I ran the simulation — with a different class — the students were quite put out by the economic disparity that resulted and ended up trying to stage a socialist revolution (which precipitated a counter-revolution from the jailed oligarchs).
Socialism Simulation
Figure 4. Cars produced under conditions of equal pay to all producers regardless of work.
Although three rounds were intended, time constraints limited the socialism simulation to a single round, however the results of that single round were sufficient for students to identify the main challenges with communal rewards for production. The producers decided that they would work together and produced two sets of basic cars (Figure 4). Half of the students did not even contribute, they spent their time just standing around. It was the stereotypical road construction crew scene.
Figure 5. Industrious capitalists very focused on their work.Figure 7. Socialists slacking off.
Survey Responses
All students who responded to the question preferred capitalism, the primary reason being injustice “… cause [during the socialism simulation] some people do nothin’ [and] other people do something.”
Discussion and Conclusion
Using only one consumer reduces the time needed for the simulation but limits students from seeing that markets can be segmented and different producers can fill different niches. It would be very interesting to see the outcome of the same simulation in a larger class.
The small class size also allowed the simulation to take place in less than half an hour. Most of the post processing of the information gained was done by the student who ran the simulation since it was part of his Individual Research Project. While he did a great job presenting his results at the end of the term, when I use this simulation as part of the lesson on economic systems I would like to try doing a group discussion at the end.
I’m also curious to find out how much more the cars would evolve if given a few more rounds. Which brings up an interesting point for consideration. Since some students have already done the simulation, it may very well influence their actions when I do it again this year. It would probably be useful to make sure that there are more than one consumers, or that there consumer has very different preferences compared to Ben T.. A mixed gender pair of students might make the best set of consumers.
Instead of doing the Island of Podiatry in the sandbox, I decided add a practical exercise as part of their Social World test.
Spits, deltas, archipelagos and more.
Half the class, the first to finish the written portion of the test, were instructed, as a group, to create as many physiographic features as they could in the sandbox. Tomorrow, the other half will have to try to identify as many features as they can.
The first group did a very good job. The kids seemed to enjoy working with the sand, and little details, like the difference between a bay and a gulf, quickly became apparent.
It’ll be interesting to see how the other half does with identification. I could not prevent myself from adding a fjord and cirque even though we have not seen them in class. The fjord should at least be recognized as a valley (definitely a steep sided valley), but hopefully this will allow a moment to talk about post-glacial features. Of course, thinking about it, I should probably add a moraine or subsurface ridge to complete the set.
They had just looked through all the civic buildings and zoning options before they took the outside option, so they started with SimCity’s basic introduction to urban planning concepts.
The group chose to locate their city on the ocean, with a river. Previously, when the class had looked up and down the U.S.’s eastern seaboard in Google Maps, we’d noticed that most of the bigger cities, like New York and Charleston were on or near estuaries. (We’d also noticed that most of the cities were protected by some sort of barrier from the direct influence of the oceans.)
[googleMap name=”New York City” description=”NYC on the river and ocean.” width=”480″ height=”400″ mapzoom=”8″ mousewheel=”false”]New York City[/googleMap]
This group gained some significant advantages over just playing the computer game because the sandbox model allowed them create features not built into the game.
In particular, they sculpted an earthen dam with a hydroelectric power plant, that was the centerpiece of their city.
By putting a dam across the estuary they could acquire both fresh water reservoir and hydroelectric power.
It’s probably not unfair to guess that the idea for the dam came primarily from our visit to the Pickwick Landing Hydroelectric Plant last year. I say so because the eight grader who came up with the idea was reminiscing about last year’s immersions for the rest of the day.
The decline and fall of Apocalypse.
The group did a great job, although they did site their landfill upstream of their reservoir. This became a problem because after they presented to the class they turned on the river. We relearned the biblical lesson about not building on the sand. This was not entirely unexpected though; the students had named the city Apocalypse.
The combination of computer simulation and physical model really worked well. So much so that two years from now, when I do this again, I think I’ll require at least one group to do the physical model. But it really worked for them to have at least seen the computer game so I’ll have to build that into the project too.
Renaissance Faire Elf Using Cell Phone. (Image by Zoomar). The caption for the photo is priceless, 'I just want to state for the record that a cell phone at a Renaissance Faire is anachronistic and wrong. Being an Elf, however is 100% historically accurate.'
What are the fundamental needs of life (as we know it)? Energy, water, living space and stable internal conditions. These are physical needs of all organisms from bacteria to plants to mammals. Humans share these needs too, and this was one of the things we talked about in natural world this cycle. However, in social world studies we also discussed how people have psychological needs that, as far as we can tell, are different from those of single celled organisms: celebration, community, entertainment, and, among other things, what my students call understanding, which includes religion and spirituality.
My technophilic students also interjected that we, humans, have a need for electronics.
Electronics? My first thought was that they were being facetious, and they may have well been. But as we talked about all the other needs during our synthesis discussion last Friday I began to realize just how fundamental electronics have become to life as we know it.
Electronics are tied into the way we meet those fundamental physical needs. Organizing shipping and distribution of food requires complex scheduling software and databases. The operation of the pumps that extract our groundwater and deliver it to our houses are controlled by microcontroller. With MRI’s and computerized records our health and well-being (maintaining those stable internal conditions) are increasingly influenced by electronic technology. And in our homes, the elegant knobs and dials of thermostats on furnaces and ovens are giving way to smooth if inelegant digital displays.
Even our understanding of the world we live in, of the effects of global climate change for example, is based predominantly on sophisticated computer models and confirmed by computerized satellite systems (see NCAR for example).
So have we reached the point where electronics are a fundamental need of society, and how long will it be before we as individuals become inseparable from our electronics devices? Are we all cyborgs now? And the ultimate question: Should we be teaching more electronics in middle school?
