I personally feel like the process in getting your license is not that bad and people need to stop overreacting. I also believe that everyone should have to take the permit test no matter if your over age 18 or not because I feel it is important not only knowing how to drive but to know the rules of the road as well.

Teen Drivers

Teenagers face many difficulties with balancing out their schedules and having to also fit in time to get their driver's license. Using our data analyses and conversations in class, how do you feel about the process? What would you do to change it and why?

Limiting TV and Music

I believe that parents should emphasize a limit on how much time children spend watching TV and listening to music because some people cannot concentrate well, for example: Mr. Bowker has to tell people to put away their phones / headphones every day because they can't pay attention to what is being taught. 67.9% of the 15-17 year old kids say they get bored easily, and 71.4% of the 14-16 year old kids get bored easily. Electronics is a huge cause of distraction.

Limiting Music and TV

Even though music and TV can be fun pass-times, they can become a problem when people spend their whole day listening to music and/or watching TV. Approximately 48% of the people who took this survey said they get bored easily, and of the 48% percent who said  that, a majority are of the younger generation. Also, approximately half of the people who took this survey listen to music for more than 3 hours a day. All of this can become a problem because, since they're so used to listening to music or watching TV, they'll become sort of addicted to it that when it comes time to put all that away, they won't be able to. If they're limited to the amount of access they get per day, this might not happen.

Limiting TV/ and music use

In my opinion, teachers, parents, and employers should limit the use of technology if it imposes a problem with concentration. In a recent survey that my A.V.I.D class did, we gathered enough data to say that the younger generation is more easily bored and needs technology to entertain themselves. Although 62% of 15-17 year olds watch less than an hour of T.V a day, i nobody in that group listened to less than an hour. In conclusion, technology is definitely a distraction.  

I believe that teachers, parents, and employers should emphasize a limit on music or tv watching, because for one it takes up a lot of there time, 25% of the people who took our survey listen to more than 5 hours of music a day, 65% of those people get bored easily. Also 25% of the people watch 3-4 hours of tv. 80% of people who enjoy reading say they don't get bored easily, I believe that reading has a correlation to getting bored.

   I believe that parents and teachers do not have to start worrying to much about how many hours of TV and music children watch or listen to. First of all, although more children watched television than liked to read this does not clearly show how it affects their academic success. Also, say student 1 loves to read and student 2 loves to listen to music and they both have a 4.0 then you cannot say that the music academically affects student 2.All in all, this survey did not have enough results to determine any serious negative effects in which parents or teachers would need to worry about.

According to the data from the survey, most responses were from people 24 and older. These responses said they enjoyed reading the most but also watch TV the most. This proves that adults could manage their time more than younger people. Another claim I could make according to the data is how younger people listen to the most music. This is very true because at our school, students are usually wearing headphones. I believe listening to music is a good thing in some cases as to concentrating on schoolwork, but also a distraction in class and in other activities. When the question of "Are you bored easily?" came up, the results were pretty strange because they were 50/50 results. I do believe that the amount of technology that we use should be controlled and limited because that is how addictions start.

Haley Campbell

I believe that parents,teachers,and employers should limit the amount of time certain age groups listen to music or watch TV because eventually they will not want to make time for anything important. Though the data I have does not back up my claim it does show a trend in age groups and how much people enjoy listening to music. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1S5bxCFAZjLAk_FSl4AERujIltVDCd0UR6xNyGtpEM_g/edit#gid=1860054029 . The data shows that more than 25% of people listen to music 5 hours or more a day, now if for example an employer or school is a hindrance to getting in that 5 hours of music in a day  how many people will have trouble with not being able to do so?  eventually the people will lose interest in schoolwork or job assignments and just stop doing work in order to do the things they want like listening to music or watching TV. Therefore I stress that employers,parents,and teachers should limit an amount of time certain age groups can listen to music or watch TV so they can stay on track for whats really important.

Should There be a Limit to TV and/or Music?

Using data to validate your claims, why should parents, teachers and/or employers emphasize a limit for the amount of time that certain age groups spend listening to music or watching TV? Answer this question with a minimum of three claims and then comment on a minimum of two other posts. 

In defense of boredom

In this article,  Rosecrans Baldwin talks about how when people are bored,  they'll put in their headphones,  sometimes even to avoid people. He used his own personal experience to prove his point and I 100% agree with it because even I do this. However, I feel as though he should've used better evidence rather than his own personal experience because this article didn't change my opinion even slightly about wearing headphones and listening to music when I'm bored.

When failure equals success

In this article, the author talks abut how failure important, not only in science but also, in life. If it weren't for failing a few times, science probably wouldn't be as accurate as it is. To prove his point,  the author uses real life examples of replication failure that have happened in the past like Loewi and his experiment. If he hadn't tried time after time we would have inaccurate information about neurotransmision. I agree with the author because in order to succeed and be accurate with your work,  you need to fail and learn from your mistakes.

"When failing equals success"

I believe that in order to succeed you need to fail. When people say that the science field is going down due to experiment failures, I think they're wrong because failing will lead to perseverance and coming up with more ideas. Science is a field that requires failure to come up with solutions or an answer to a problem in the real world.

"In defense of boredom"
I think the author has stated good reasons why boredom is a good thing and a lead to a new way of thinking. People are ignorant about their surroundings and about the sometimes strange human behavior. Personally, I can relate to the example of the earbuds because whenever I'm bored in public I use music as a way to block myself from socializing. I think everyone should stop a habit similar to this one, that intends to not get "bored", and perhaps a new way of thinking will lead to something revolutionary.

1) What claim does the author make in this article?
-It's okay and sometimes necessary to be bored
-Boredom inspires you to go out and do stuff.
-we shouldn't use headphones as much
2) What evidence does the author use to make his or her claims?
-Boredom becomes worse when a situation seems valueless."
-"Quitting headphones is similar. I daydream more. I have more ideas..."

3) Do you agree or disagree with the author's stance? Why or why not?
-I see where the author is coming from as boredom can inspire you, but i don't agree with his ideas on headphones, like he has barely any evidence, but his own personal experience.  

When failing equals success

In the article " When failing equals success," written by Stuart Firestein, the author claims that failing is needed to succeed. Evidence: In the early 20th century controversy raged over how nerves made muscles and glands respond. In 1921 an Austrian biologist, Otto Loewi, tested it, and later succeeded after learning from his failures. I agree with the authors claims in this article because failure plays a huge roll on success, you will need to learn from your failures in order to succeed. 

AVID Weekly

       I enjoyed the "when failing equals success" much more then the first article. I liked that the author actaully used scientific evidence rather than personal experience. I completely agree that the science department is not going down do to failure; failure is just a part of succeeding. "Science would be in a complete crisis if we weren't failing most of the time" is my favorite quote from this article.

When Failing Equals Success

Stuart Firestein states that "without failures there would be no great discoveries." 

I agree with Firestein because how would we learn, without learning what's wrong/incorrect?

Firestein(2016): "science is full of wrong turns, unconsidered outcomes, omissions and, of course, occasional facts."

When failing equals success

"When failing equals success",written by Stuart Firestein he claims that the majority of people start to go crazy when the hear that there was a "replication failure" and start to say things like "science is in trouble". However i do not agree because in order to make things work you have to fail first that is a part of life and nothing is perfect right away.

When failing equals success

I agree with Stuart Firestein in his article, "When failing equals success,"(2016), because he claims that failing is needed to succeed. Some people wonder, "Is science truly in trouble?"(pg.1), I don't agree with who ever says that because how can we get better if we don't fail, we aren't going to be perfect there is no such thing. when you test new theories and experiment with new ideas there's no way you aren't going to fail. Therefore, the failing is needed to succeed, failing shows you tried.

In defense of boredom By Rosecrans Baldwin

1.According to Baldwin pg 1 "That their is a constant within everyone's life, and it is that everyone has a story to share it just requires staying bored long enough to listen."

2. According to Baldwin pg 1 "I know I've often shoved in earbuds to discourage chatty seatmates on a plane. Baldwin statement comes from  Peter Toohey, book Boredom A Lively History.

3. I disagree because being bored sucks, and listening to some people also sucks because some people are annoying.

When failing equals success

I completely agree with the article "When Failing Equals Success" by Stuart Firestein. To sum this article up the author explains that in order to succeed you must fail and its ok to fail. Just because scientist have failed in certain experiments doesn't mean science is doomed for good even scientist mess up sometimes. According to Firestein (2016) "The mistake is to think that any publsihed paper or journal article is the end of the story and a statement of incontrovertible truth. It is a progress report. Dont be fooled." I couldnt agree more too me there is no way you can succeed without failing.  

"When Failing Equals Success" -Stuart Firestein

1) What claim does the author make in this article?
-Physiology can be seasonal and the enzymes are modulated by temperature
-Science would be in a crisis if it weren't failing most of the time.
-Replication failures should be responded without prejudice
-Not everything has to be perfect to be scientific.
-Its okay to fail, but it's not okay not to try
-You must not fool yourself when you fail
2) What evidence does the author use to take his or her claims?
-an example from a early 20th century when a scientist failed and learned.
-Replication failures should not be conflated with scientific part or even the whole of an experiment is not sufficient for indictment of the initial inquiry or its researchers.
3) Do you agree or disagree with the author's stance? Why or why not?
I agree with the author opinion on i do feel how you see your failure has major affect on whether you succeed or not, like people think back allot more on there failures then there successes, and if you don't see your failures as learning point, but rather as like a finishing point. then there's no way you'll  ever learn, meaning you're never succeed.

In defense of boredom

I do not agree with all the claims made in, " In defense of boredom," by Rosecrans Baldwin(2016). He claims that we shouldn't use headphones so much, instead enjoy what's around us. Baldwin believes that without music he enjoys his run, can eavesdrop on other, and can find a resolution with his work day frustration. I think that I do better while listening to music, and a lot of times I solve problems because of music. The only thing I agree with is when Baldwin states, " The trick, perhaps, requires staying bored long enough to listen." (p.1), because if you listen to your thoughts while you are bored you may come up with solutions or understandings

In Defense Of Bordom.

In Defense of Boredom

After reading "In Defense Of Boredom" by Rosecrans Baldwin, Baldwin claims that " not that everyone wearing headphones is actually listening to something, they are just wearing them to be left alone." I have to agree with Baldwin because i have done this myself.

Baldwin says that when he quits wearing headphones, he daydreams, has more ideas, but the volume of everything is increased.

In defense of boredom

In "Defense of boredom" written by Rosecrans Baldwin, the author makes a central claim that headphones are bad and they separate people from their everyday lives and without headphones people start to get bored. As an example, Baldwin claims that he was in the post office and and the man in front of him had his headphones in and did not hear himself shouting into the microphone. Overall, I do not completely agree with the authors claims because just because someone is tuned out with their headphones doesn't mean the headphones are bad its the persons personal preference. However, I do agree with the fact that headphones play a role in the fact that the man went off screaming because he started not to realize he had them in and could not hear himself.

In defense of boredom

In Defense of Boredom

I do not agree with most of the claims Rosecrans Baldwin makes in the article from Avid Weekly titled "In defense of boredom". According to Baldwin (2016) "I couldn't remember the last time id exercised without a constant stream of stimulation, a cranium full of sound.After 15 minutes, I started paying more attention to the trail.My mind shifted to daydreams. Soon I was actually enjoying myself." Its cool and all that he found out he doesn't need headphones to run but thats him. I've tried to run without headphones and to me its just weird, just because he had a great experience running without music doesn't mean everyone will. Just like he enjoys day dreaming I enjoy listening to music not everyone's going to have the same experience. 

In the article " In defense of boredom," the author claims not listening to music is better for boredom, and you should embrace boredom

evidence: "Boredom becomes worse when a situation seems valueless."
               "Quitting headphones is similar. I daydream more. I have more ideas..."

I disagree with the author's stance because I believe that listening to music is better for passing by the time if you are bored. I also think if you are bored, then you have to make use of what you have because your bored only because you don't want to make good use of what your doing.

         AVID Weekly

         In defense of boredom: this article, written by Rosecrans Baldwin, was about unplugging from your headphones and being open to the world. Personally, I didn't agree with this article at all. The author noted that when she didn't have her headphones she was able to listen to her surroundings (people's conversations ect.), but that isn't good; that's being nosey and eavesdropping. Baldwin makes a statement concerning daydreaming, but later criticizes people who wear headphones simply for solitude. I disagree with that section because her claim seemed to be saying that people are unable to daydream in complete silence, when in fact, it makes it easier. I'm not saying that you shouldn't unplug from technology; however, its not fair to say that people are "missing out" or "soundless solitude may come at a cost." 

AVID Weekly: When Failing Equals Success / In Defense of Boredom

After reading both AVID Weekly articles, "When failing equals success" and "In defense of boredom," create a Blogger post for each article.

In each post provide a brief summary of the article, but please answer the following questions:

1) What claim does the author make in this article?
2) What evidence does the author use to make his or her claims?
3) Do you agree or disagree with the author's stance? Why or why not?

After posting, please comment on two other posts (one for each article).