America's Best Employeers

Link to Article

This article covers a survey done by Statista.com where they surveyed more than 20,000 employees throughout the country to find which ones had the best employee satisfcation. They did this by asking questions such as whether they would recommend their employer to a friend or not. The top choice was Google, and when talking about it with their HR chief, Laszlo Block, he said it was because google is in “global competition for the best, most creative minds who are able to create the biggest, most important things [...] That’s why it becomes even more important to create a kind of workplace where those people want to be.” Other companies ranked highly such as LL Bean said that their dedicated workforce of 5,300 is one of their most important tools.

I think an interesting connection between both LL Bean and Google’s mindset is that having good and happy employees leads to a successful company. More companies should realise the strength of having a workforce that doesn’t see their job as just a job, but instead have their employees like the company and want to work for and help it. This is very similar to how Starbucks allows their employees to have health benefits and be able to invest in the company’s stock even without being high ranking employees.

1. Do you think spending extra money to give employees a good workplace worth the money?
2. What are some of the the best ways for companies to give employees a good workplace?

Zoos False Appearances

Zoos claims to be honorable institutions with purposes that give back to the community, but after some research, we learned that zoos are not what they seem.





Caption: https://pbs.twimg.com/

Below is a Q & A questioning the authority zoos hold on their purpose for society from the article, "Zoos: Pitiful Prisons" from the PETA Organization.

Q: Do zoos provide any actual educational purpose for its visitors?

A: Zoos claim to provide educational opportunities, but most visitors spend only a few minutes at each display, seeking entertainment rather than enlightenment. All zoos really do to "educate" their visitors is put a couple facts about the animal on a podium outside of its exhibit. "Over the course of five summers, a curator at the National Zoo followed more than 700 zoo visitors and found that 'it didn’t matter what was on display … people [were] treating the exhibits like wallpaper.' He determined that 'officials should stop kidding themselves about the tremendous educational value of showing an animal behind a glass wall.'" I believe that zoos really have very little educational purpose and just use zoos as an excuse to get money. They should stop worrying about how having some exotic animal will make them more money, and actually inform visitors about the animal and how they can help save the environment. The fact that Zoos are using animals for entertainment is wrong and unjust. They should spend more money on the animals and help them, instead of treating them like prisoners.

Q: Do zoos really help protect endangered species?

A: Zoos also claim that they want to protect species from extinction, which would be very beneficial, however, they do not help protect any endangered species. Zoo officials usually favor exotic or popular animals—who draw crowds and publicity—rather than threatened or endangered local wildlife. "The Chinese government, for example, 'rents' pandas to zoos worldwide for fees of more than $1 million per year, but some question whether the profits are being directed toward panda-conservation efforts at all." Most animals housed in zoos are not endangered, and those who are will likely never be released into natural habitats. Therefore, the only real purpose of most zoos’ research is to find ways to breed and maintain more animals in captivity. I believe that is zoos were demolished and did not exist anymore, the "need for their research" would also be demolished. They need to start treating animals with a little more dignity. Wild animals aren't ours to keep and take control of. They are nature's creatures and nature alone can determine an animals fate.

Q: Is the real reason zoos breed animals to gain more visitors by the attraction of the cute, new born animal?

A: I believe that zoos real reason for breeding animals is to essentially make more money in the long run. Whenever an institution like zoos or aquariums get a baby animal, they advertise for people to come and visit the animal. Therefore, bringing many new visitors and making a bigger profit in the end.But what really happens after these animals are all grown up? Well, "A chimpanzee named Edith is one example of a discarded zoo baby who fell into the wrong hands. Born in the 1960s at the Saint Louis Zoo, Edith was surely a big draw for visitors. But just after her third birthday, she was taken from her family and passed around to at least five different facilities, finally landing at a Texas roadside zoo called the Amarillo Wildlife Refuge (AWR). During an undercover investigation of AWR, PETA found Edith in a filthy, barren concrete pit. She was hairless and had been living on rotten produce and dog food. " I would agree that zoos are cruel and don't care as much for the animals as we thought. Wild animals aren't suppose to be pent up in a small cage to show of their "cuteness". They animals need to be in the wild, roaming free.

Research Question: Does society use animals for their own utilitarianism?

3, 2, 1, FIGHT!

  DO VIDEO GAMES ACTUALLY CAUSE VIOLENCE?

In an article I read from PBS titled; "What Science Actually Knows about Video Games and Violence", psychologists discuss the relationship between video games and violence.  

Source

"So what do we know? Before looking at the science, it’s worth taking a moment to think about how scientists might arrive at something like a conclusive answer: By taking several tens of thousands of people, from children on up to adults, dividing them into groups with comparable socioeconomic, genomic, and behavioral profiles, setting them to play first-person shooters with varying amounts of regularity, then following them for years, routinely conducting psychological tests and tracking their real-world behaviors. The reason why I decided to do this research is because I have been noticing that the kids that I babysit imitate violent games such as Call of Duty and Halo. I remember one day when they told me to play with them and when I asked to how to play, they told me to just run around and shoot other kids and throw grenades. Most of the kids that talk about these games have siblings who are much older. If kids are imitating these violent natures on the playground, will this result in a overall aggressive behavior in general?

"It would be an extremely revealing experiment. It’s also one that nobody has carried out, nor will they. The logistical challenges would be enormous—and even it was possible, it would be hugely unethical, involving the deliberate exposure of potentially vulnerable people to something that might hurt them and others."

Although this is would be the absolute best way to do research to find any correlation between video games and violence, there is a huge problem. There are way too many logistical challenges to be passed in order to get any conclusive results. This is very frustrating because then we have to base the research that does not use the scientific method. 

"Lacking such a study, scientists have studied video game violence in more limited ways. Typically this involves asking small numbers of students to play games for a few minutes, then seeing whether their behavior changes according to laboratory measures of aggression: Whether they react less negatively to violent videos, respond more forcefully to irritation, or are in a generally more aggressive frame of mind—tending to complete, for example, the word “explo_e” as explode rather than explore."

I was kind of skeptical about the method they would explore this topic. However after seeing the ways they will measure kid's reactions to games, I am convinced that this is the best method for studying the matter. Even though it is not as perfect as gathering a bunch of people and testing, this is the second best option. 

“I don’t think we have enough science to suggest that playing video games causes violence in children any more than watching violence on TV,” says Ryan Hall, a psychiatrist at the University of Central Florida, referencing a vast body of scientific literature that has failed to find any strong connection between violent television and corresponding behavior. “There is no indication at this time that violent video games are training killers.”

I knew that there would not be any conclusive evidence between video games and violence. However it is very important to keep in mind that games do have an impact on behavior. Even though playing video games did not make me a violent person, I believe that it made me more confident. Even though video games do not cause violence we should be careful. 

Discussion Question: Can video games be helpful to people?

FUTURE RESEARCH: What effect do video games have on people's personalities? I will look at: http://videogames.procon.org/ 

Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Motivation

When people are told they are extrinsically motivated, they probably get mad.  Doing things only because you want a reward makes you kind of seem selfish.  Everyone strives to be able to say they are intrinsically motivated, because the thought behind this is that people are motivated by their strong morals and values. Kendra Cherry, a psychology expert wrote about the Differences Between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

• Extrinsic Motivation- a form of motivation that comes from outside influences (ie: money, benefits, better grades)
• Intrinsic Motivation- a form of motivation that comes from personal morals and thoughts (ie: personal gratification, happiness)

The truth is, everybody is both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated.  Everyone works harder when they want something, and everyone does things based on morals.  Whether you realize it or not, so do you. Whether you are being told, "If you get all A's, then you can go on spring break with your friends," or you think to yourself, "I'm going to get straight A's so I can feel satisfied with how hard I worked and what I accomplished," you are being motivated.

Extrinsic motivations should be avoided when people are already intrinsically motivated to do something.  Adding an extrinsic motivator can add unnecessary pressure, stress, and eventually can lead to a decision to stop completing the activity altogether.

Source: Getty Images

Extrinsic Criticisms:

It’s easy to lose interest in things, and people who are only extrinsically motivated to do something, stop caring a lot easier.  Once you’ve become used to getting rewarded for something, like maybe $20 for cleaning your room, at first, you’ll put all your clothes away folded nicely, but after a while, you might just want the money and shove all your clothes at the bottom of your closet.

Ways to Make Them Both Work:

Intrinsic motivation works extremely well alongside extrinsic motivation in certain situations.  If someone loves learning about a subject, then get’s an A on a test and their parents take them out to dinner, the student won’t lose the desire to learn about a subject because they liked the subject before they were motivated.  Unexpected external rewards lead to the best and most successful outcomes.

Positive feedback can increase a person’s internal motivation to continue doing what they’re doing, or even work harder at what they’re doing.  When people are told they are exceeding at what they like, or even doing better than others, it will subconsciously boost their want to excel at what they’re doing.

Gang Leader For a Day

Sudhir Venkatesh went from being a graduate student at University of Chicago to being able to lead one of the most violent crack dealing gangs for one day, the Black Kings.  From an excerpt seem in his book Gang Leader For a Day, we get a first hand account of what it is like to take control of a major drug operation.

Gang Leader For a Day

J.T. just sat for a moment, making no move to drive off. "Okay, well, you want to give it a try? If you think it's so easy, you try it."

"I don't think that would be possible. I don't think graduate school is really training me to lead a gang."

"Yeah, but you don't think I need any skills at all to do this. So you should have no problem doing it, right?"

It was true that sometimes his job looked hard. When his gang was warring with another gang, for instance, J.T. had to coordinate his troops and motivate 15-year-old kids to stand out in the open and sell drugs despite the heightened risk of being shot, beat up, or arrested. And it wasn't as though these kids were getting rich for their trouble. The B.K.'s, like most other street gangs, had a small leadership class. J.T. kept only a few officers on his payroll: a treasurer, a couple of "enforcers," a security coordinator, and then a set of lesser-paid "directors" who managed the six-person teams that did the actual street-level selling of crack.

Sudhir joked to J.T., the leader of the Black Kings, that he is seriously overpaid because of how easy his leadership position in the gang seemed to be; however, he soon found out this wasn't the case.  It seems hard enough to have to ignore all morals to even be involved in the drug business, but it seems J.T. doesn't mind.  He even trains fifteen year old boys to mule drugs around and make them a thin profit compared to his.  Besides that, J.T. seems to be quite organized like a legitimate corporation by hiring different people that seemed to have enough knowledge to take on roles like gang treasurer.  There is clearly an established hierarchy here and J.T. is the CEO of it all.

J.T. seemed to appreciate having the ear of an outsider who would listen for hours to his tales of bravado and managerial prowess. He often expressed how hard it was to manage the gang, to keep the drug economy running smoothly, and to deal with the law-abiding tenants who saw him as an adversary. Sometimes he spoke of his job with the same dispassion as if he were the C.E.O. of some widget manufacturer — an attitude that I found not only jarring but, given the violence and destruction his enterprise caused, irresponsible.

He fancied himself a philanthropist as much as a leader. He spoke proudly of quitting his mainstream sales job in downtown Chicago to return to the projects and use his drug profits "to help others." How did he help? He mandated that all his gang members get a high-school diploma and stay off drugs. He gave money to some local youth centers for sports equipment and computers. He willingly loaned out his gang members to Robert Taylor tenant leaders, who deployed them on such tasks as escorting the elderly on errands or beating up a domestic abuser. J.T. could even put a positive spin on the fact that he made money by selling drugs. A drug economy, he told me, was "useful for the community," since it redistributed the drug addicts' money back into the community via the gang's philanthropy.

J.T. seems to be filled with contradiction.  He relies on the immoral activity of drug dealing for him to reap in profits, and even hires fifteen year old employees to do quite risky business.  However, he keeps his employees in check by making sure they graduate high-school and stay off the drugs that they are dealing.  He will throw his employees on the street to make a dangerous transaction but also to help an elderly woman cross the street safely. J.T. is maximizing the efficiency of his labor for top profit.  He even claims that reaping money from drug addicts eventually helps the economy.  When the money is taken from the addicts, his employees spend that money on legitimate business, thus stimulating the economy.

Future research: Read more from this book and also Freakonomics in order to learn: What are the similarities between legitimate and illegitimate business? 

Top 5 Essential Things for Motivation

As much as you want to have that spring break body, McDonald's looks so good.  As much as you want to get an A in your biology class, going to that party with your friends is much more appealing than studying.  As much as people try, everyone struggles to stay motivated.  But once you realize how to stay motivated, it’s easy!  According to the article "What is Motivation" written by Kendra Cherry, a psychology expert, there are 5 essential things you must have to stay motivated.

SOURCE: Getty Images 

1. Desire: a strong feeling of wanting or wishing for something to happen. Having the desire to accomplish something is the first step to becoming motivated.  Deciding that you want to lose weight, or get a job, or even going to college, all derives from one’s personal desire to do so.

2. Activation is the next thing.  Activation is when you initiate behavior that acts on the desire you want to accomplish, like joining the gym to start losing weight.  Activation is important because without actually beginning to work towards your goal, you will lose motivation and eventually give up on what you wanted to succeed at.

3. Persistence is not stopping.  You have to continue to push yourself, and get over the obstacles that pop up, no matter what it is.  Even if it means investing extra time or money, persistence is key.  It could mean investing extra time running so you can finish the race you’re training for, or extra research done for a project so you get the A in the class so you earn your college degree.  In any situation you must persist.

4. Intensity: seen through the work effort you put towards your goal, and how hard you work towards that goal.  You have to actually put effort towards your goal if you want to succeed.  Some people are spoon fed their entire lives, then once they are adults, they just coast through life.  Don’t coast through life.  Have intensity, work hard for your goals.

5. Concentration. If you want to stay motivated to do something, you have to stay concentrated on it.  If something goes wrong, don’t concentrate on how you messed up, or how you forgot something.  Stay concentrated on the outcome you are looking for. If you’re trying to lose weight and you get McDonald’s one day, don’t only think about how bad of a choice you made, concentrate on how you’ll fix it for the next time and still work towards your goals.

FUTURE RESEARCH: How do people motivate others?

Russia Won’t Stop

U.S. Tank in Riga, Latvia (source: www.bbc.com)

“In Russia, we always thought that Russians and Ukrainians were one nation. I think so now, too. - Putin.” According to the Fox News article, U.S. to Train 750 Ukraine Troops as Russian Aggression Continues by Lucas Tomlinson published on March 20, 2015, this is what Russia president, Vladimir Putin, declared on March 18 to “tens of thousands of supporters outside the Kremlin in Moscow.” Moreover, Putin has signed another treaty with South Ossetia in Georgia, yet another separatist group area. He did this to try to broaden Russian influence even more. This is very alarming in my opinion. This is another demonstration of power-hungry Russia trying to expand its influence in Europe.

What steps has Russia taken?

What is even more alarming is that “Putin called his Navy’s Northern Fleet to full combat readiness in exercises in Russia’s Arctic.” This includes fifteen submarines, 76,000 soldiers, and forty-one warships. This move by Putin is no coincidence. This is very dangerous and threatening to the world, including the U.S. because Russia’s Arctic is relatively close to the U.S. (Alaska). Moreover, Russia claims that they will “deploy long-range, nuclear-capable strategic bombers to Crimea and state of the art missiles to Kaliningrad.”

How has the rest of the world reacted?

Russia’s moves are a growing concern for NATO. Recently, it has “scrambled jets Tuesday from Estonia and Lithuania to intercept a group of 11 Russian aircraft.” The U.S. has also has also taken precautionary steps. Starting on March 21, the U.S. Army (European Command) declared that it would send out 600 troops and many Stryker combat vehicles on a 1100-mile convey throughout six different Baltic countries. The U.S. and the rest of the world needs to be very careful in the steps they take. They don’t want to do something that would cause Russia to retaliate in an extreme and devastating way. This situation is very tense, and it would be best if things got resolved soon and peacefully before this becomes an even larger, more dangerous conflict.

Further Research/Questions:
1. Has Russia/the rest of the world retaliated in any more ways?
2. Do other countries have the right or duty to intervene in the conflict?   

Government Vs Businesses; Who Innovates Best?

Soruce; http://www.nasa.gov/

Would it be a good idea to one day have space shuttles branded with "Save money. Live better?" or the flag of the United States? If you've read my last blog post you know about the many technologies that came about because of  NASA’s research. Now comes the question of how this trend will continue. NASA is a government agency, and many people have opinions of how well government run industry really does run. Commonly private corporations will usually create better and better products because they want to beat the competition. While government workers will just do what they have to because it’s not like they are going anywhere. So when it comes to space exploration and flight, the question needs to be examined:

Who can more effectively innovate, government or private industry?

While it’s very well known that the reason business are able to innovate so well because of competition, there have been times when competition between governments led to a great technology increase. I’m talking about none other than the Cold War, and more specifically the Space Race. Russia was already researching rockets and space flight, and after “Russians launched Yuri Garagin not merely into space but into orbit [...] it was seen as a proof that America remained far behind” (Engdahl). One month after this event JFK gave his famous line about putting a man on the moon. This struggle between the US and Russia led to a competition that created the modern space technology. Business aren’t the only ones that can innovate.

Nowadays the Cold War is over, so we must have lost this sense of competition right? Well after some research I have noted that there may be something better than competition for space, and not as nuclear threatening. Cooperation with the ESA (European Space Agency),is NASA’s friendly rival. The first listed objective in the NASA-ESA Agreement , which is also a huge document dedicated to cooperation, is “to provide the basis for cooperation between NASA and ESA in the detailed design, development, operation, and utilization of the permanently inhabited civil international Space Station for peaceful purposes”. Cooperation has led to unification of Europe and North America when it comes to space. Instead of building their own space stations they share one, and lots of developments have been made without worry of being better than the other. It may not lead to faster and more innovation, but it does lead to a safer and more understanding process.

Another pro to government versus private industry is that the government has a larger budget and can afford paying for super expensive space technology without the worries of losing profit. However when it comes down to the numbers things aren't looking so good. The budget for NASA is currently around 17.6 billion dollars. That's a lot of money, but the largest business in the US, Wal-Mart, makes a revenue of 351.3 billion. However the US government has a revenue around 3 trillion, and if the proper steps were taken much more resources could be dedicated to NASA.

Another issue with money is, when in a private company, many is wasted and gone into someone’s or some group’s bank account. If you take a look at the top 10 richest people in America, you have 4 members of the Walton family, the owners of Wal-Mart. Compared to NASA and other government programs where this money is all spent back into the economy and it is all spent, with no one group or  person holding the majority.

Lastly there is one last issue between private industry and government programs. Using the Wal-Mart example one more time, a quick Google search of “Wal-Mart lawsuit” will get you an uncountable amount of results. Private industry has to worry about it’s customers, and it’s reputation. Obviously so does the government, but sending 4 people into space and them accidentally all dying is different when it was done by Wal-Mart compared to NASA. In one they gave their life for the research and progress of their country, and the other they did for their paycheck.

So which is better at having good and efficient innovation? The government or private industry? I believe a government program and continued/expanded funding of NASA will be the only way to go. Less risks taken and full cooperation.

FUTURE RESEARCH: What are the economic gains from space exploration, and what are the costs?