All Wrong But It's All Right Analysis

When people make decisions, they have the power to set a precedent. With deciding what to wear today? Not so much. When choosing how they treat others and their environment on a daily basis, individuals have more power than they may presume. The choices, standing alone, may not seem imperative. However, collectively they often have greater affects. Considering the ability we possess to make decisions and how our perceptions differ from others allows us to better understand basic concepts associated with decision making. Additionally, the impacts of past choices on societies and current opportunities for substantial decisions display the importance of informed choices. The basis of decisiveness is represented through the study of cognition.
Communication, being another area that cognitive science looks toward, proves to be a pivotal aspect of existence and experience. With communication, however, there comes the concept of miscommunication, which Professor George Lipsitz addresses in It’s All Wrong, but It’s All Right. Lipsitz mentions, “Although we can never know the exact dimensions, resonances, or consequences of any act of communication, we nonetheless have to make choices about cultural messages by analyzing their impact on our understanding of the world and our ability to act in it” (404). Overall, considering and interpreting the experiences of others through effective communication can allow individuals to make more informed
In 1941, Los Angeles’ Department of Water and Power diverted tributary streams from Mono Lake in order to sustain the growing human population in the area. As water levels dropped dramatically and salinity increased, Mono Lake lost its’ ability to support its’ once diverse ecosystem. Professor of Engineering, Martha Conklin, spends much of her time researching environmental aspects of water. With regards to environmental conflicts, she questions, “Does conflict just involve humans, or does nature have a voice?” (47) Although LADWP’s decision negatively affected the environment, the environment lacked the opportunity to defend itself. Fortunately, a group of individuals associated with the Mono Lake Committee took it upon themselves to repeal past decisions, with the best interest of the environment in mind. The realization that there were complications with regards to initial stances on the issue is substantial, yet it is even more crucial that actions were taken to establish a more informed position. Restoration of Mono Lake and its’ ecosystem was contemplated for many years, but the State Water Board’s Decision 1631 officially secured a plan in 1994. The decision required a minimum flow for tributary streams and minimum water level for the lake. Though the consequences of previous implications remain prevalent, a revised decision allows for the