A courageous ascent to Mt. Aragats

On the mid of July, the adventurous employees of Baker Tilly Armenia organized a tour to conquer one of the highest peaks of Armenia and Caucasus - the South summit of Aragats (3879m). Though it is the lowest and from the Lake the nearest of four summits (North – the highest, 4090m; West – 4080m; East – 3916m)  and we could reach it in three and a half hours, but the extreme and emotions were unforgettable. For some of us, who did not have such climbing and hiking experience, those two and a half hours were a strenuous physical challenge; while we had a few persons among us who had a fortune to conquer all four summits, or had reached some of the peaks a few times. Thus, we were steering their course throughout the whole way and we did not need other guides. 

Our tour started at 10:00 a.m. near the charming Qari Lake (Stone Lake) that expands between the four peaks. Weather was windy and the sky over the mountain was cloudy; however, the sun was shining behind the clouds. After the sweltering fervor in Yerevan, the chilly wind of the mountains was quite pleasing. We were walking over stones, rocks, snow, and water; even there were small wild flowers grown up between the stones and surviving in the severe climate of the region. It seemed that we experienced all the seasons of the year: the slopes were snowy; overall, it was windy and a little bit rainy; then, time after time, the sun was shining behind the clouds and overwhelming us with its tender warmth. On our way, we also meet ancient dragons carved near the water sources.

At about 12:30p.m we were on the peak admiring with the beautiful scene surrounding us. We were allured with an inexplicable feeling: it seemed that we had overcome all the intricacies of this life; we felt ourselves victorious.  We were so close to the sky and to the clouds; we could touch the clouds; we were in the clouds… 
This panorama of the irresistible mount Aragats will always stay in our memory.

 

 

A quest for sustainable development.

As I already mentioned in one of my blogs, last year I had a fortune to study a subject called Natural Economics; my lovely instructor was explaining us that we should value the Environment around us. Because of resource over-exploitation, poor policy & management or simply because of people’s approach to using finite resources the humanity is currently close to resource extinction. Moreover, the resulting pollution triggers environmental disasters and crises, which create threat to life … Clearly understanding the true meaning of mentioned, I started to listen to Paul Gilding’s podcast about the earth and our unsustainable approach to the scarce resources. 

Spending 35 years of his life trying to change the world Paul Gilding has a lot of things to teach people. He is an independent writer, activist and adviser on a sustainable economy. Gilding (2012) notes that the earth is full; it is full of the staff that we, the brilliant and creative species ever, have created. According to the Global Footprint Network (2012) we need 50% more Earth to sustain at our current operating level. In financial terms, as Gilding interprets, this means spending 50% more than we earn. The issue is that if we are short of money, we can borrow from our friends, but in this case we cannot borrow natural resources, or maybe we should borrow from our future generation. Nevertheless, we can use resources as long as the interests of future generations are protected. It is impossible to have an infinite growth in a finite planet. So, Gilding advocates taking an action now, because the economy is breaking down and we do not have time to wait – the crisis is inevitable.

In terms of the most important issue and facts discussed Gilding is fair. He precisely defines the problem and highlights the negative consequences of our unaccountable behavior. We indeed need to direct the market forces towards sustainable development in environmentally sound manner. But what I would like to hear is the road that we should pass or possible actions that we need to undertake in order to overcome this situation. While listening to him I did not find an answer to the question of how can transition from present development trends be made towards sustainable development, how can the present life routine be changed to seek a different way? However I liked Gilding's talk very much; it will be great if we could at least acknowledge that we have a problem, which is a common problem, thus needs a worldwide response to be given in order to bravely face the threat.

How do we think of other's thoughts?

 

 "I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

                                       Alan Greenspan

 

 

Recently I watched a very interesting Ted talk about the ability of our brain to read, understand and judge others’ minds. Rebecca Saxe is a researcher and a teacher in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Saxe (2009) presents her research on the discovery of special brain region for thinking about other people’s thoughts. She explains that some of the differences between people, in how we judge others, can be explained by differences in their brain system. She assumes that all people have mind and are interested to know what others want or believe. It reminded me about an American romantic comedy “What women want” directed by Nancy Meyer, Helen Hunt and Mel Gibson. In reality we are not able to hear the thoughts of other people as Mel Gibson does; therefore we try to understand them by moral judgment.

According to Saxe our brain is made up of pieces, brain cells that we share with all other animals, with monkeys, mice, etc. While putting them together in a particular network we get the capacity of the brain to think about minds which is called Right Temporo-Parietal Junction (Right TPJ). It is above and behind our right ear and it is not used for solving any other kinds of logical problems. So, the job of Saxe’s field of cognitive neuroscience is to try to understand how you can put together simple units, simple messages over space and time, in a network, and get that amazing capacity to think about minds. Saxe also notes that although human adults are really good at understanding others’ minds, we weren't always that way; it takes children a long time to reach to that level. Saxe presents her interview made with three to seven year old children and adults showing that children think differently while using Right TPJ. Then she put children into the brain scanner and observed what is going on in their brain as they develop this ability to think about other people's thoughts. So the first thing they saw in children was that the same brain region, the Right TPJ, is being used while children are thinking about other people, but it's not quite like the adult brain, whereas, this brain region is almost completely specialized in the adults.  But of course, people differ from one another in how good they are at thinking of others’ minds, how often they do it and how accurately.

 

So the question was, could differences among adults in how they think about other people's thoughts be explained in terms of differences in this brain region? And Saxe explains that over the course of childhood and even into adolescence, both the cognitive system, our mind's ability to think about other minds, and the brain system that supports it are continuing, slowly, to develop.

Saxe’s research was quite interesting and on point when it comes to other peoples thoughts and brain differences. For me the most amazing part of the speech was the notion of morality in the three to seven year old child during the interview. I noticed two interesting things: First, the event must have a cause and next, one needs a hypothesis to explain the event or the nature of the cause, no matter how irrational that hypothesis is.

Doodlers, unite !

I am sure that all pupils, students and even businesspeople often make masterpieces like in the pictures; the reasons and stimulus are different: the person is just scribbling while thinking of other things, the person is simultaneously drawing the thoughts in her/his mind, the person is sketching a plan for later actions, etc. That process may be helpful, very important or just a waste of time depending on the reason, time and place. However, Sunni Brown claims that it is an efficient way of learning regardless of the circumstance and the reason.

Sunni Brown is co-author of GameStorming: A Playbook for Rule-Breakers, Innovators and Change Makers. She is the leader of the Doodle  Revolution – trying to expose the myth that doodling is an obsession. Sunni states that doodling moves people into higher levels of visual literacy. Her second book, The Doodle Revolution, will be published in 2012. 
Brown (2011) assumes that people are averse to doodling at schools, universities, workplace, and meetings: it is perceived as inappropriate time waster. Maybe the reason is that there is no definite understanding of what is doodling. Brown found out that in 17^th a doodle meant a fool, in 18^th century it became a verb and was understood as to mock, taunt, deride, and nowadays, doodling means making meaningless marks, doing something of little value or just doing nothing.  According to Oxford English Dictionary, to doodle means to do spontaneous marks to help you think. But, again, It is perceived as an inappropriate, not serious practice: they say that a person was caught, discovered while doodling in an important meeting. However, brown assures that doodling is a magic tool to supplement you to learn, remember, and digest the information.

Actually I agree with Brown in some sense, because I use doodling as well when the information is too wordy, messy or difficult to understand and remember.  But I did not exactly catch her idea of encouraging simple scribbling or similar time-wasters during class time. I had an insight that she was just presenting her personal opinion on doodling, because no reference to data sources, surveys or any kind of basis for such claims was presented. However, being more confident in its statements and tying them to real examples, Brown can succeed in her Doodle Revolution, as doodling indeed has great importance when used timely and in the presence of necessity. 

What is the right thing to do?

     Everyday people encounter with the following type of questions that have no definite answers: Is torture ever justified? Would you steal a drug that your child needs to survive? Is it sometimes wrong to tell the truth? Can a lie be justified? How much is one human life worth? Can one decide on a person’s life? 

     Last year I and my classmates were trying to understand the logic of moral judgment and decision making with our instructor of Business Ethics in ATC. Ethics is the feeling of a person about what is right and what is wrong. It is actually a very interesting subject or a philosophy that helps you understand what you already know. I liked the subject very much and I was very glad finding a related podcast in www.ted.com. In his “What is the right thing to do?” talk Michael Sandel explains moral principles to his students of what is right or wrong, good or bad. Michael J. Sandel is a professor at Harvard University, where he has taught political philosophy since 1980. His has published five books and the next will be published in spring 2012. Sandel is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Council on Foreign Relations.

     During this episode Sandel (2009) presented very interesting cases that help students to understand the difference between categorical and consequential moral reasoning. For instance, imagine a situation when you are the driver of a trolley and you have jumped the tracks. Now you have two alternatives: you have to decide whether to kill one person and save the lives of five persons or vice versa. If you will sacrifice that person’s life for the sake of five lives, then this is an example of consequential moral reasoning, which locates morality in the consequences of an act. But if you think that every person has the right to live even if you will save five persons’ life with the well being of their families by killing just one person, then it is an example of categorical moral reasoning, which locates morality in certain duties and rights regardless of consequences. The other scenario was as follows: you are standing on the bridge beside a man and a high-speed trolley is coming  to the direction of five people. You can save the lives of those five people by pushing the man beside you to the trolley. Will you do that? This is a very hard question, because in this case you are just a bystander and you can just not take the responsibility in you. But the moral is the same - sacrifice one life for the sake of five lives.

     Over one hour I was enjoying the video. Sandel's clear pronunciation and pure presentation of the matter were delighting. He describes cases and welcomes students to present their point of view about the morality of the issue. This interactive question-answer procedure helps students to comprehent the material. Approximately one thousand students are sitting in the Harvard’s historic Sanders Theatre and listening to him with great admiration. Therefore it is no surprise that Sandel became one of the most popular teachers in the world due to his undergraduate course on Justice. I also dreamed of taking that course with him and fortunately it is not far from reality. Jutice is the first Harvard course to be made freely available online - www.JusticeHarvard.org - and on public television.