Zur Haupt­na­vi­ga­ti­on sprin­gen [Alt]+[0] Zum Sei­ten­in­halt sprin­gen [Alt]+[1]

Life Hacking – Er­war­tungs­ho­ri­zont

  1. Mo­no­lo­gi­scher Teil

    Erste Auf­ga­be

    • peop­le’s lives can be trea­ted as sys­tems (ana­lo­gy: com­pu­ter tech­no­lo­gy) that can be ha­cked, i.e. you can in­flu­ence this sys­tem from outs­ide in any way you want; while hacking into IT sys­tems usual­ly has a de­struc­tive pur­po­se/ is il­le­gal, in this con­text the in­ten­ti­on of “hacking” is to op­ti­mi­se one’s life with the goal of per­fec­tion (ll. 1-3)
    • howe­ver, alt­hough the ul­ti­ma­te goal is self-im­pro­ve­ment and hap­pi­ness, the aut­hor draws at­ten­ti­on to the fact that at­tempts at hacking one’s life may ac­tual­ly have the op­po­si­te ef­fect:
      • fin­ding love: at­temp­t­ing to "op­ti­mi­se" love by da­ting a great num­ber of can­di­da­tes in order to find the per­fect part­ner, peop­le often do not know where to stop and are ac­tual­ly un­able to find a match be­cau­se there is sim­ply too much choice in the di­gi­tal world (ll. 4-8)
      • ri­gi­di­ty: a re­la­ti­ons­hip is not just about fin­ding so­meo­ne who ful­fils a given set of cri­te­ria and sor­ting out the ones that do not meet them; you need to be able and wil­ling to ne­go­tia­te and com­pro­mi­se (ll. 9-13)
      • op­ti­mi­sing the wrong thing:
        • in­cre­a­sing one’s pro­duc­tivi­ty or achie­ving ma­te­ri­al suc­cess can make one’s life­style more ef­fi­ci­ent, but that does not ne­ces­sa­ri­ly mean that one’s life has chan­ged in a mea­ningful way (ll. 14-17)
        • aban­do­n­ing a con­su­me­rist life­style: si­mi­lar­ly, com­ple­te­ly aban­do­n­ing con­su­me­rist be­ha­viour (job, pos­ses­si­ons, ta­king part in the di­gi­tal word) may not lead to mea­ningful, sa­tis­fac­to­ry chan­ges and the­re­fo­re con­tent­ment in one’s life, eit­her (ll. 18-22)
    • the key to a self-op­ti­mi­sing that leads to true sa­tis­fac­tion seems to be mo­dera­ti­on ins­tead of ri­gi­di­ty (ll. 22-24)

     

    Zwei­te Auf­ga­be
    in­di­vi­du­el­le Schü­le­r­ant­wor­ten, mög­li­che As­pek­te:

    the con­cept of self-im­pro­ve­ment:

    • on the one hand: see­king to be­co­me the best ver­si­on of oneself is key to our in­tel­lec­tu­al, emo­tio­nal, so­ci­al, ... de­ve­lop­ment (e.g. life-long learning); it helps us adapt to chan­ges/ de­ve­lop­ments in our socio-cul­tu­ral en­vi­ron­ment and prevents us from be­co­m­ing dis­so­cia­ted or stuck in old ha­b­its; the­re­fo­re, it is an es­sen­ti­al skill for lea­ding a mea­ningful, sa­tis­fac­to­ry life [+Bei­spie­le aus dem Un­ter­richt]
    • on the other hand: the aut­hor is right when he claims that self-im­pro­ve­ment can have the op­po­si­te ef­fect: it can make us dog­ma­tic and we end up ri­gid­ly obey­ing a given set of rules, cri­te­ria or ideo­lo­gies that ac­tual­ly prevent us from being able to adapt to our sur­roun­dings and open up to peop­le; es­pe­cial­ly when it comes to re­la­ti­ons­hips, see­king per­fec­tion can ac­tual­ly lead to iso­la­ti­on and lack of em­pa­thy [+Bei­spie­le aus dem Un­ter­richt];
    • all in all: at­tempts at self-im­pro­ve­ment should never be re­gard­less of what is going on around us; you should con­stant­ly ques­ti­on if what you chan­ge is ac­tual­ly mea­ningful in the given cir­cum­stan­ces as op­po­sed to ideo­lo­gi­cal and dog­ma­tic; the aut­hor is right when he claims that mo­dera­ti­on is the key [+Bei­spie­le fürmo­dera­ti­on]
    •  

      in the con­text of “the am­bi­gui­ty of be­longing”:

    • the idea of self-im­pro­ve­ment is clo­se­ly lin­ked to the need to be­long: on the one hand, we con­stant­ly try to im­pro­ve our­sel­ves in order to be able to fit in and be app­re­cia­ted or re­spec­ted by others; on the other hand, ac­cor­ding to Mas­low’s hier­ar­chy of needs, crea­ting a sense of be­longing is ne­cessa­ry in order to achie­ve self-ac­tua­li­sa­ti­on
    • so the sup­port by the peop­le around us may help us im­pro­ve our lives, e.g. Walt in Gran To­ri­no helps Thao be­co­me a more ma­tu­re and in­de­pen­dent per­son who learns that he can ac­tual­ly do things; si­mi­lar­ly, Eve­lyn in The Shape of Things makes Adam be­co­me more attrac­tive and thus able to con­form to the ex­pec­ta­ti­ons of main­stream cul­tu­re
    • howe­ver, there is the dan­ger that those chan­ges may lead to a per­son not being true to them­sel­ves any­mo­re; ins­tead of a per­son de­ve­lo­ping their own iden­ti­ty, they may ac­tual­ly lose their iden­ti­ty and ins­tead only try to be the per­son that others ex­pect them to be; though Adam be­co­mes more attrac­tive, he loses his moral in­te­gri­ty by try­ing to be­co­me the sur­face that Eve­lyn needs for her art pro­ject; though Thao be­co­mes more in­de­pen­dent and ac­tive, do the dog, the Gran To­ri­no and the job at the con­struc­tion site re­al­ly re­pre­sent a mea­ningful cour­se in HIS life?
  2. Dia­lo­gi­scher Teil

    Er­wei­te­rung des Um­felds der Auf­ga­be:

    Der erste Im­puls soll die SuS dazu an­hal­ten, das im Text er­läu­ter­te Kon­zept des life hacking auf die be­han­del­ten Texte zum Schwer­punkt­the­ma zu über­tra­gen, so­fern dies nicht schon im Rah­men der zwei­ten Auf­ga­be zum mo­no­lo­gi­schen Teil ge­sche­hen ist.

    Der zwei­te Im­puls soll eine Brü­cke zu wei­te­ren As­pek­ten des Schwer­punkt­the­mas schla­gen, die er­läu­tert und (unter Bezug auf per­sön­li­che Er­fah­run­gen und/oder Un­ter­richts­in­hal­te) il­lus­triert wer­den.

    1. Il­lus­tra­te and com­ment on the idea of life-hacking in The Shape of Things and Gran To­ri­no and re­la­te this to the text.
      in­di­vi­du­el­le Schü­le­r­ant­wor­ten, mög­li­che As­pek­te: siehe oben
    2. Ex­plain and il­lus­tra­te other fac­tors that make the need to be­long am­bi­guous. How do they shape our iden­ti­ty?
      mög­li­che As­pek­te (Bei­spie­le je nach Un­ter­richt/ per­sön­li­cher Er­fah­rung):
      • eth­ni­ci­ty (z. B. Walt and Thao: pre­ju­di­ce/ dis­tan­ce at the be­gin­ning alt­hough they are both lo­ners; learning about the new cul­tu­re/ new va­lues as an en­rich­ment of both their per­so­na­li­ties in the cour­se of the film)
      • age (z. B. Walt and Thao: great age dif­fe­rence, not part of the same peer group, very dif­fe­rent in­te­rests; howe­ver, both pro­fit from Walt’s tu­to­ring Thao (be­longing as the fee­ling of being taken care of and ta­king care of others))
      • fa­mi­ly (z. B. Walt and Thao: Walt dis­li­kes his fa­mi­ly and is ac­tual­ly un­able to es­ta­blish a sense of be­longing with them; Walt and Thao are not re­la­ted/ do not live to­ge­ther; howe­ver, in the end the Lors feel more like fa­mi­ly to Walt than his own sons; it is ac­tual­ly so­meo­ne else’s fa­mi­ly that helps him de­ve­lop a sense of be­longing (blood re­la­ti­ons vs. the fa­mi­ly you choo­se)
      • gen­der (z. B. Sue: “girls go to col­le­ge, boys go to jail”; howe­ver, she also has to face vio­lence/ (ver­bal) abuse by dif­fe­rent gangs; the­re­fo­re vic­tim of male do­mi­nan­ce; on the other hand, she is able to fight back and be­cau­se she is very smart, au­then­tic and strai­ght­for­ward; she is the one to “coach” the male prot­ago­nists (Walt, Thao) and thus es­ta­blis­hes a grea­ter sense of be­longing for her­s­elf and others
      • ...

 

Life Hacking – Er­war­tung: Her­un­ter­la­den [odt][22 KB]

Life Hacking – Er­war­tung: Her­un­ter­la­den [pdf][147 KB]

 

Wei­ter zu AI – Text und Auf­ga­ben