After reading these materials, I have this thought that money is the product that a government standardized and people have accepted and agreed to trust this as an exchanging media. Money itself does not seen to have any value if it is not used on peoples’ need, it is just a form to present value. The characters from the stories view money according to their standard value that have been set and agree by their society. This value of money is all depended on the committees agreeing on the set standard and knowing its ownership and that the owner trusting the society and marks the belongings with a society value.
Our concept of money does not really differ a lot from them, having our value of money as U.S. dollars saved in the bank with the bank, oneself, and maybe others close related knowing this number value is in the bank. It is the same as what the Yap people have in mind, that they have ownership to some valuable stone in their village. The reason we think our concept is different from theirs is that for us the dollars were something that is useful comparing to some useless stone. So we definitely think it is different from this comparison of something valuable with something that is not.
We think the characters’ concept of money is more abstract than ours because we don’t understand their standard of value, such as the fei for Yap people. We do not have the idea of this value in which their society knows and measures with. Therefore, in our view everything they do to inform their society of this value seems abstract to other.
612119d
bluntwriting88
capched
cardinal7218
cfriery
chavanillo
Chris McGee
christianity19
clementine102
comicdub
compiistudent
corinnebuck1219
daphneblake25
dayzur
g903254
gabythefujoshi18
goldin92
gooferious
hailthegreat8
hazelnutlatte123
honeysucklelilac
icedcoffeeislife
imgoingswimming
iwantpopsicle
doorknob9
BabyGoat
jeffbezos123
jets1313
johnwick66
justheretopass
kobebryant32
kowiklinski
l8tersk8ter
aquarela
metro111c
mrmba1
mysterylimbo
nina525
nousernamefound1
nyaj32
oaktree1234
pardonmyfrench13
person345
pomegranate4800
Jessicariccio
rosekyd
rowanrat
rowanstudent24
runnerd4
shadowswife
SmilingDogTheProfWants
sonnypetro29
tcarter101
thecommoncase
wafflesrgud22
wazoo1234
yourfavoriteanon
Counterintuitivity 
Hey, Nana, this is very abstract reasoning on your part, but it seems mostly sound. I do think that when trying to communicate concepts to readers (especially if they’re not already very conversant with the subject matter or the readings you refer to), the best strategy is to tie the concepts to actions or items.
For example, if you want to say that our currency has no value independent of the valuable things it represents, or that it is merely a form for presenting value, readers will have an easier time understanding you if you introduce a cow.
Money is not a cow, you say. Money is valuable and a cow is valuable, but a cow’s value is that it produces milk, and eventually meat, and therefore directly helps a body survive, whereas money has no nutritional value. Its value is only symbolic of someone else’s willingness to trade it for a cow.
You see what I mean? You’re vague also when you refer to the “characters” in the “readings” without indicating in any way who they are or what the readings were about. You may think that in class, when you’re talking to others who in fact did read the same material, you can be vague and take things for granted, but it’s better practice to say enough and to say it clearly enough that a casual reader who stopped by the blog would understand most of what you say, and certainly follow your argument.
Other than that, your writing shows the signs of second language acquisition (maybe English is your fourth language! I don’t mean to underestimate you!) which I can certainly allow, but somewhere other than here I’ll help you recognize those signs and how to eliminate them.
LikeLike