TOK Presentation Reflection

My real TOK presentation was about how we can potentially simplify knowledge about a topic, without sacrificing the main bulk of the information. I even included my own personal experience in BSJ on how topics are reintroduced with more information added to them and sometimes even negating the original information we learned. The jump from Y11 GCSE to Y12 IB Chemistry and Biology is a prime example of this happening and I included that in my presentation. With that I safely secured a 7/10 and I was given the option to redo it in February 2018. In my opinion, I don’t really think I need to redo it as a 7 secures at least 1 extra point to my final grade but a higher score would always be better.

I noticed in my presentation I didn’t mention how my topic links to personal or shared knowledge however that was briefly answered after the presentation when I was asked a question. If I choose to do so again, I’ll have to find a way to incorporate that into my presentation. I also felt my arguments were a bit lacking however there wasn’t much to go on in the first place, making this topic difficult. There was also the risk of being fixated on RLSs which was what I did in the first place. For my TOK essay, I should broaden my view and not focus so much on one aspect of my argument.

7 is an overall decent score that I’m happy with and I’m glad that it isn’t mandatory for me to redo it. I’m probably not going to because that’s just one more thing to stress about in the future. Now, the only thing involving TOK I need to tackle is the essay!

TOK Presentation Reflection

My partner for my TOK presentation was Lipi and together we presented “What determines what rights we should have?” We explained about human rights around the world, animal rights and even about potential robot rights as AI is becoming more and more advanced, it didn’t seem out of the ordinary to me that eventually, robots will develop personalities of their own and even demand their own “person-hood”.

The feedback I got from Mrs. Lautrette was that our presentation lacked focus and didn’t seem to argue anything, and it didn’t state any WOK or AOKs. Assumptions were made about everything with very little research presented to back our claims. It also didn’t present any counter-claims. Because of this, she awarded our presentation a 0.

I will definitely take this into account for my next presentation as there are many ways for me to develop and understand TOK concepts.

Tedx Talks Reflection

Recently, some Year 13 students gave their opinions, concepts and ideas about existing problems that exist in Indonesia and even the world. All the talks were interesting as each of the year 13s explained to us how they dealt with the problem they presented and possible hopes for the future of solving the problem. The talk that piqued my interest was the first one by Wilson – Endless Battle on the Road. He explained about the ever-growing traffic problem in Jakarta especially. I took a liking to this because I’ve lived in Indonesia most of my life and I’ve visited a variety of countries and I can say without a doubt that Indonesia has the worst traffic problem out of every country in the world in terms of it happening on a day to day basis. And I agree with Wilson on the fact that traffic has changed drastically throughout the years, because I’ve experienced it firsthand. But how does this link to TOK? Well I did some digging and I am confident that this talk links to these AOKs and WOKs.

AOK 1: Maths

The idea that Wilson presented to help solve the traffic problem was a drone outfitted with a camera and a program that could predict when it’s safe for the cars to move. Along with his “Green Wave” which was his idea of fixing the absurd traffic light timers, in which I agree on; we need a alter the timers on the traffic lights. He represented this in the form of a graph. If the traffic lights were to switch between red and green at specific intervals then it would be possible for the cars to move between the traffic lights without ever stopping at one.

The idea of maths isn’t far-fetched as Maths provides us with exact details if the calculations are correct. In Maths, the equations are direct with one absolute answer. Wilson needed to use this if he wanted to ensure a possible solution to the problem. However, the solution couldn’t be determined from Maths alone.

AOK 2: Human Sciences

This is involved because traffic jams are ultimately caused by the people in the driver seat. Due to their behaviors can a traffic jam take place and because of the congestion of cars on a single highway, all it takes is a single person to slow down for an entire highway or intersection to be locked down. Using the drone, it could be easier to be predict how people react and make decisions in different types of situations on the road. Because of the congestion, Wilson said that Ahok, the governor has implied that the new MRT system would help solve the problem.

This AOK is essential to determine the solution because we need to know how people behave on the road. Without using this, we would have no way of knowing how to solve the problem. Perhaps by using this, new rules or laws could be made.

WOK used: Reason and Intuition

Reason and intuition is the most prominent WOKs that were used to determine the problem that Wilson presented. They used logic and factual knowledge to figure out and find a potential solution to the problem that they were facing. Logic and facts work hand in hand with Mathematics which is why I believe that these WOKs were the most prominent.

However, despite the efforts that Wilson and his team made, they couldn’t solve the traffic problem. The main reason being that the technology wasn’t advanced enough as Wilson put it, to help put Wilson’s plan in motion. From a currently developing country, that is understandable. That is the limitation of the Math that Wilson presented as well as the fact that we cannot produce, precise, concordant results when dealing with humans. Sometimes using reason and/or intuition without the right facts might draw a fallacious conclusion, which is a limitation of those WOKs.

No doubt it will be a long time before traffic in Jakarta, and all of Indonesia to improve. But this is definitely a step in the right direction.

History vs Maths

Greetings. I’ve always been interested in these two subjects as a personal preference. I also believe in the belief that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But how exactly is History learnt? How exactly is Maths learnt? I would like to take a closer look at this.

Well we all know that History is learning about the past. Events that we weren’t alive for (and admittedly some of those events were much more exciting than stuff we’re seeing today) and an opportunity to learn about those events. As well as learn how was information learnt back then and the people who lived back then. What were they like? Knowledge in history is like a family heirloom. It gets passed from generation to generation and with each passing generation, it deteriorates a bit. Some pieces of knowledge are lost to the ages never to be recovered and the lucky pieces we do get offer amazing insight to what really happened back then. Obviously our main sources of knowledge come from people who were alive when the event took place as some documentaries about the world wars show us. Diary entries and newspaper clippings from the time also give us knowledge. In History we also learn whether information is reliable or not. Some pieces of media have proven to be biased in a certain way, to appeal to a certain audience and ultimately, blocking out true understanding on the topic. Professional historians know this and try to read in between the lines. In Maths however it’s a bit different.

In Maths, there is no need to read in between the lines, no need to find out whether information is reliable. In Maths, the numbers indicate the answer and the answer is absolute. There is no room for debate. For example we all agree that 2+2=4. No one can deny that. Admittedly, this is why Maths is one of my least favourite subjects, because there is no wiggle room so to speak. In Maths, there is a formula that people must follow to complete the equation, and while there are different ways to tackle a question, the result is the same. In History, you can look from several different points of view that each have different answers on topic.

We all have our different perspectives and different opinions on topics. But if there is one thing we cannot argue on, it’s that 2+2=4.