I’ll just look that up: lazy or smart thinking?

1 (5)

I often lament that I was born too soon. I love what can be done with information technology and am constantly learning more of its uses. I am in awe of what can be achieved with the aid of digital tools. Unfortunately, some things, because they can be done, are vastly overdone.

I remember being at an education conference in the early 80s, at the time when computers were becoming more common in classrooms and in homes. A presenter at the conference excited us about the wonders of digital technology and its ability to ease our work load. He predicted that computers would be used to do so many of our menial tasks that by the year 2000 we would have so much spare time we wouldn’t know what to do with ourselves.

His prediction, in my opinion, was way off the mark. While the use of computers has greatly enhanced our capabilities and our knowledge, it has also driven us to constantly do more. I notice this particularly with data collection in schools. If it can be quantified, then it must be quantified, analysed and compared. Whether what is being measured is of any value is of no consequence. If it can be done, it will be done.

1985 was the year I first used a computer at school and bought my first computer for home. They were Apple IIe (huge) desktop computers. I can remember how excited I was to be able to program little games using BASIC coding language. There were some good problem solving software programs on floppy disks I used with children at school; and my son played his way through the series of Ultima role playing games.

Back then, the thought of having a computer that could be carried in a pocket was as absurd, to the general population, as having a phone that wasn’t attached to a wall. Fortunately, there were others with imagination and vision who were able to make these things a reality.

I recently read a post on Daniel Willingham’s blog Science and education entitled The brain in your pocket. The brain that he is talking about I carry in my handbag. In fact, I often have two with me, though I’m not convinced that this supports the theory that two brains are better than one.

In the post Willingham shares some observations about our current use of technology to replace thinking. He suggests that, as thinking requires effort, people don’t like to engage it and find ways to avoid it. He referred to this as “miserly thinking”, a term coined by Robyn Dawes in the 1970s.

Two strategies for avoiding thinking include use of:

  • Memory – repeating earlier actions or doing things the way you’ve always done them; such as ordering the same item from a menu or always travelling the same route to work
  • Associations – using strategies that worked in other similar situations.

Willingham then shared this question as a test of miserly thinking:

bat and ball question

He suggested that if you, like many others, answered 10 cents you were using miserly thinking triggered by the word “more”, immediately thinking that subtraction was required and not checking to see if the answer was correct.

He used this to demonstrate a similar effect that use of the internet has had upon thinking in recent years, when answers to many questions are just a motion (click, tap or swipe) away. In more recent years of course nearly everyone is carrying a smartphone in a pocket or handbag, that is, if it’s not grasped firmly in hand. This easy access, he suggests, makes people less reliant on their own memories as they look to the internet for a quick answer.

1 (8)

Research cited by Willingham suggests that a higher use of the internet for answers reduces the ability to solve problems like the bat and ball question shown above. He says thatpeople who are more cognitively miserly are more likely to search information out on their smartphone.” He adds that “The reason is not clear. It may be that low-cognitive-ability people seek information—look up a word meaning, calculate a tip—that high-ability people have in their heads.

He asks the questions:

daniel willingham questions

What do you think?

I love having the “external memory” that I can use to find out what I want to know when I want to know it. Previously I would have had to remember to look it up at some other time. If I didn’t know the right question to ask, or the appropriate term to look under, I may have been left in the dark forever.

I love being able to spell check my work or check a dictionary or thesaurus to confirm that I have used a word correctly. These things enhance my knowledge and improve my skills. I am a bit peeved at the idea that it is those with low cognitive ability who look things up. I thought it was a smart thing to do!

Do these actions make me a miserly thinker and decrease my cognitive skills? I really don’t want to think about that, but I sincerely hope not!

I first became familiar with Willingham’s work through his book Why Don’t Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom. I thought I had mentioned it in a previous post, but if I have, my search feature, upon which I am reliant, couldn’t find it. I’ll have to remember to do so in the future!

Thank you

Thank you for reading. I appreciate your feedback. Please share your thoughts.

 

43 thoughts on “I’ll just look that up: lazy or smart thinking?

  1. Bette A. Stevens

    Grea’t post, Norah. Really got me thinking… X + X + $1.00 = $1.10 solve for X and X = $0.05 cost of ball. Although I love my computer and use Google searches quite a bit, I like to check their facts. Didn’t check this one out, but I am confident in the answer. As a former teacher (retired in 2005) , I insisted my students know their multiplication facts by heart and we bounced to “School House Rock’ often, played multiplication & division games, which most administrators felt to a waste of time. Learning should be fun and purposeful and computers are a great tool to ADD to our mental toolbox. Will share… Thanks for getting me really thinking this morning. 🙂 xo

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Thanks for the enthusiasm of your comment, Bette. I’m pleased that you enjoyed the post, and that it got you thinking.
      I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that “Learning should be fun and purposeful and computers are a great tool to ADD to our mental toolbox.”
      Your way of working out the answer to the problem was succinct. Obviously with such confidence in maths there was no need for you to check any other source!
      Thank you for reading, commenting, and sharing! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Bette A. Stevens

        Math is not one of my favorite subjects, but numbers are critical is helping us navigate through life’s journey. It was so much fun browsing through reader comments after reading your reply and breathing a sigh of relief that my answer to the bat and ball conundrum agreed with two of your readers, who solved the problem in a different way. That’s something our kids need to know too… Oh what fun. Thanks for keeping this reader on her toes, Norrah. Have a wonderful day! 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Norah Post author

          Thank you, Bette. I love maths at the early level. I’d love to love it at more complex levels too but I get lost on the way. Realising that there is not one right way, but many, is an important part of solving maths problems I think. It is good to share different ways of working things out so that other possibilities can be observed. I’m pleased to have you dancing around with maths fun. Thanks for joining in.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
  2. Bec

    Nice post, Nor! I like your recommendation that just because, we maybe should not. It’s good to reflect and think about whether we are making good choices. I don’t know about the idea that computers are bad for how we relate to knowledge. Maybe it’s just a change – outsourcing our memory so our brains are freed up for other things?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Thanks for your comment, Bec. I tend to think it is just a change. I wish it were possible to outsource my memory for personal events. Some I’d like to store offshore. Others I’d like to have ready access to! Our discussions help keep the memories alive. Thank you. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  3. Sacha Black

    Hmm. I get his point. But like you, I’m not sure I 100% agree with it. After all, the fact I look up a word on a phone rather than walking downstairs to reach for a thesaurus doesn’t really make a difference. Its more efficient, ok lazy maybe, but still efficient. AND Irrespective of how I am finding this new word, the point is I am STILL finding and learning a new word…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Exactly! I used the atlas in my handbag at lunchtime today so that a lady I was speaking with could show me where she was from. Thank goodness for Goggle maps! I would have missed the learning opportunity without my “smart” phone!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  4. Annecdotist

    As a psychologist, I should be able to elaborate on these arguments but I’m too much of a cognitive miser.
    But regarding the bat and ball question, isn’t that something you’d have to work out? You need to be able to translate it into the correct equation if you’re going to bring out your phone to look it up, but that isn’t the point, as the calculation is so simple anyone could do in their heads, it’s more about logic.
    It seems useful to be able to look up factual information, but our brains are still performing complex operations that help us make sense of the world.
    I think the sad thing about computers is that, maybe around the late 1980s, kids stopped learning how to program (which is actually a good exercise in logic) because the PCs work differently – although it looks as if that skill might be heading for a revival, at least in the UK.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      There is a big push to teach children to code at the moment. There are amazing programs that can be used to do so. What children can create is far more exciting than what I was able to do in BASIC. There have always been some opportunities for students to code, (e.g. program a little turtle or a bee to move about the floor) but it was very much up to the school to be interested enough to provide the equipment and then to the teacher to feel empowered to teach it. Sadly the school that I was at didn’t prioritize it.
      I would have like the psychologist’s explanation, but respect your choice to be a cognitive miser. We really do have to make choices about where we expend our thinking energy as there are always a range of demands placed upon it. I like your recognition that “our brains are still performing complex operations that help us make sense of the world”. Most of us are fortunate to do much on automatic that we don’t appreciate the effort that is actually involved. It is great to have the reminder. Thank you.

      Like

      Reply
  5. Steven

    I think that there is some element of truth in this idea but I am not completely satisfied with it either. Learning something does tend to start with the analysis and understanding aspect and as you start to become more and more familiar with it, it becomes more a matter of information retrieval rather than derivation. In the bat/ball example, if there was a final sentence saying, “The answer is not what you think”, then I suspect a significantly greater proportion of people would produce the correct answer (because they would be more likely to revert back to derivation). In this way, then it does seem to demonstrate miserly thought. But without this extra prompt, is that the result of insufficient thought or is it the result of being tricked into a learned pathway. I don’t think you can wholeheartedly say it is insufficient thought – it is more like incorrect thought. There is a difference between a lack of thought and a thought resulting in the wrong answer – the thought resulting in the wrong answer involved some degree of calculation but an assumption or the result is false.

    However I don’t see harm in having an external reference provided that it is done for the correct reason. I think valid reasons would include verification and understanding. If there is uncertainty in your answer, then I think the consultation of the external reference is warranted (such as in your example of whether you are using the correct word or in the right context). If there is a complete lack of knowledge on something, then again I see no reason why the external reference shouldn’t be consulted. I suppose another valid reason for the external reference would be where the very nature of the information being sought is lookup-based (not derivable through mental effort), such as city GPS coordinates, phone numbers, etc.

    I suspect where external reference is harmful is where it is used constantly in the situation where one could produce the answer (with trivial mental effort) but outright chooses not to. I guess that does pretty much fit the whole concept of miserly thinking, or at least the intended idea of it.

    Decades ago, we would be able to remember collections of our personal phone numbers. I don’t know how many, but lets say 15. How many phone numbers can we remember today? Still 15? Probably more like 5? How many passwords or pin codes did you have to remember decades ago? Lets be very generous and say 5. How many of those today? Probably more than 15. No, we don’t have to remember the phone numbers of our close friends today, we just have to remember all the various passwords instead. It is all the same, it is just different.

    I propose a counter-observation. Because thinking takes time, people opt to forgo it in lieu of a slightly faster and likely correct result. I refer to is as “optimistic probabilistic referentiality”.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      I love it! Brilliant thinking. You need to trademark that term! Or whatever one does. Write a paper on it so it’s always attributed to you, like “loose parts theory”. Although I think a little more thinking went into your term. It nails it!
      Your observation re phone numbers, pins and passwords is accurate. Add on some where an other-than-email username is required and you increase the number again!
      I enjoy puzzles and working out problems and had no trouble with this bat and ball question. I went for the 10 cents answer but knew it was wrong immediately.
      I like the way you explain that for information to be retrieved, prior learning was required, and that it is more efficient to retrieve than to continue to work out an answer, a bit like reinventing the wheel each time, I suppose.
      I like that you consider the bat and ball question a trick question, intending us to fail. Maybe that miserly thinking in most situations (not those intended to trick) is efficient, freeing the brain for important issues. If we had to re-think or re-work our way through everything, life would become rather tedious I imagine. I know I like to be able to apply what I have learned to new situations to make it easier. Then I can start working on the next step or difficulty. Repetition can be mundane, but it does free up working memory too.
      Looking up something rather than working it out makes me think of some sales assistants who are unable to work out what change is required without the assistance of the electronic calculator. I’m not sure that’s miserly thinking though. I think that’s lack of knowledge, lack of learning how calculate. They would make the error expected in the bat and ball example, which brings us back full circle, I think. I’m not too sure there’s any optimism or probability reference in their inability to calculate!
      Better get that paper out!
      Thank you for adding so much thought and depth to this conversation.

      Like

      Reply
  6. TanGental

    I remember when TVs were the similar demons, saturating the brain with pap and dumbing everything down. I really don’t see why wider and immediate access to all sorts of stuff is a bad thing. My kids use to the max and pick up on loads of things they might have missed back whenever. Me too. So personally i see it as a tool of enhancement but some see it as a brain numbing drug. Time will tell who’s right.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  7. thecontentedcrafter

    Your last paragraph made me chuckle Norah – there’s always the fact that technology will let us down just as memory does from time to time. 🙂 I don’t feel warmly towards Mr W’s thesis. I feel he may be being a tad arrogant about who looks things up on the net – but then his field is one that has always left me a bit cold. And if the ball doesn’t cost 10 cents, what does it cost?

    I use Google and Wikipedia more and more often – but the information is often superficial – so if it is in-depth knowledge I want I have to turn to books and study and thinking. Like Sue Vincent my concern is with the younger generations, especially those kids not suited to the academic formula of modern education. If they are not inspired and if their interest in the world is not awoken what quality of lives do they live? I’m not referring to jobs, careers or earning capacity. I’m referring to passion, interest, talent, ability to express, pride in self, place in society and the ability and interest to want to learn.

    I realise I’ve gone right off your subject matter – it came from my original thought/question that arose as I read your post, that many non-academic school leavers don’t use the web to look things up any way. Technology is games for them and many of the ones I know are still computer illiterate.

    What I should have just said was: When our interest is aroused, we will learn. If it’s information we want the www is ever so handy and much lighter to tote around than an encyclopedia, dictionary and thesaurus. 🙂

    Have a great weekend Norah!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. jennypellett

      I’m glad you asked the question, Pauline! Maths has never been my strong suit – and who cares how much the damn ball cost – neither product can be that good if they’re that cheap! Seriously though, miserly thinking? What is he on about? I use a dictionary every day, give or take – and I mean a real one, not Google. Does that make me miserly? I also use the Internet for all sorts of information I need and I’d say I’m more rounded for that. My 87 year old mother swears by her computer – it’s her link to the world and she’s always emailing me with an interesting fact she’s just discovered by surfing. I think our generation will probably benefit more from this mushrooming technology than our kids and grandkids who lack the base knowledge and motivation to know because it’s readily available at their finger tips.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. thecontentedcrafter

        I suspect you are supposed to ask questions around ‘total cost’ ie separately they cost more. The kind of questions you aren’t allowed to ask in other quizzes designed to make you realise how slow your thinking processes are. It’s all academic cleverness with little base in reality [imo] Ooops, there I go being opinionated again and without knowing what the damn ball costs!
        I suspect your final sentence is spot on Jenny, sadly.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Norah Post author

          Interesting Pauline. I think you’re right. I wonder in how many ‘real life’ situations we would be told the total price and then the difference in cost between the two items. We might be told the total price and the price of one item and need to work out the cost of the other. We need to do this if we buy an item for ourselves and an item for a friend, say, and need to work out how much the friend owes us. That is probably why people think, as you did, 10 cents and $1. It makes sense in everyday applications.
          Steven thought the question set out to trick. I guess he’s right because it probably doesn’t have any real world application.
          I mentioned to him, though, that I have concerns about the inability of many sales assistants to work out totals and change without the assistance of the electronic devices. They have no hope when the power is cut! I’m not sure if this is actual inability or just over reliance. Thanks for keeping the conversation going.

          Like

          Reply
      2. Norah Post author

        I love your response to the quality of the bat and ball, Jenny! That really made me smile. 🙂 If it was only quality you were concerned about, you could make them cost $11 in total with a $10 difference; or even $110 with a $100 difference; or any other numbers too, I’m sure. If the numbers were more different from each other , I think people would be more inclined to work it out rather than jump to what appears to be the correct (though incorrect) answer.
        I agree with you about being more rounded as a result of using a dictionary and the internet. I have found out a lot of interesting things that I wouldn’t have without access to information at my fingertips. (You’ll notice I didn’t say “learned”. I don’t remember it all. If I want to know it again in the future, I can just look it up again!)
        I’m pleased to hear your mother still enjoys looking things up on the internet and sharing what she’s discovered. Computers are definitely an aid to lifelong learning. What a great model of that she is.
        I’m inclined to think that more harm is being done by young people sharing a lot of personal information and nonsense via the internet. It’s not really information overload. It’s nonsense overload. Perhaps those things aren’t as effective a use as your mother’s.
        Thanks for sharing your perspective. I’m pleased you were just as peeved by Willingham’s insinuation as I was!

        Like

        Reply
        1. Steven

          For those still struggling, we are told that:
          Bat + Ball = $1.10 and
          Bat = Ball + $1.00

          These get combined together as such:

          Bat + Ball = $1.10
          (Bat) + Ball = $1.10 : just to group Bat together
          (Ball + $1.00) + Ball = $1.10 : because Bat = Ball + $1.00
          Ball + Ball + $1.00 = $1.10 : rearranging the order a bit
          Ball + Ball + $1.00 – $1.00 = $1.10 – $1.00 : taking one dollar off each side
          Ball + Ball = $0.10
          2 x Ball = $0.10

          So one Ball is $0.05 and since Bat = Ball + $1.00, then a Bat is $1.05

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply
          1. Norah Post author

            Hilarious Steven! (I hope you were trying to amuse, though your mathematical process is entirely correct) I’m sure those who were already confounded remain so. It’s one of the glories of mathematics. Moving too quickly to the abstract when the concept is not fully grounded in the concrete just serves to confuse. I do love your explanation. I couldn’t have done it in so many steps had I tried! But then, I’m not a mathematician. Thanks for your comment. Much appreciated. 🙂

            Like

            Reply
            1. Steven

              Umm, actually I just didn’t want to make it look too much like algebra on a site based on literature, but I’m glad that it tickled your fancy.

              I was fascinated by your next post “Bug me, please!”, in which I think a part of it relates directly to this one. In particular by your graphic of the printable worksheets, which listed the word “subitising” . I didn’t know what it meant and had to look it up. I couldn’t help but think that:

              1. Subitising is a form of the bat/ball problem (but with the wrong answer), and
              2. I had to look it up and didn’t know if that was lazy or smart.

              Liked by 2 people

              Reply
              1. Norah Post author

                I thought it looked exactly like algebra! Maybe it proves I don’t know what algebra looks like! 🙂
                I’m pleased to see I’ve challenged your thinking a little. I’m not sure that I see the connection between subitising and the bat and ball problem. Do you mean that they are similar in that an answer (a number) is arrived at without counting? I guess that is true, but I hope that subitising leads to the correct number. It would be inefficient thinking to have to count every item every time. I noticed this efficiency of thinking with my 6-year old grandson the other day when we were playing a game and he was tallying the points each of us achieved. The last time we played he didn’t know how to tally in groups of five, he simply made strokes for each point and then counted them individually. This time when we played he knew all about tallies and was able to subitise his total of 20 and knew almost as quickly that I had only 13 points (10 and 3 is 13). It is a very efficient skill and involves the automaticity of smart thinking. A bit like looking up things you don’t know and increasing your knowledge base.
                By the way, on which device did you look up the information?
                Thanks for continuing the conversation. I enjoy the exchange of ideas.

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply
                1. Steven

                  I think you’ve got exactly what I meant about the bat/ball and subitising. The brain sees the problem, which looks familiar enough and simplifies by grabbing the answer without doing all those length calculations. But as you have pointed out, in this case the wrong answer is obtained. It is interesting how the example of your grandson shows the progress of this skill and how early the brain begins optimising problems.
                  I looked the word up on an iPad using Google.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  Reply
                  1. Norah Post author

                    Okay. That’s good. I’m pleased I understood what you were getting at. We humans are pretty smart at efficient thinking, if given half a chance, aren’t we? It would seem silly to me to not make use of available strategies and resources. I think the secret is in making it fun and interesting for learners. If learners understand what is going on and can make connections, efficient thinking will develop. If understanding is absent and they don’t have a clue, there is no way that smart thinking can be employed. I think that is more of an issue than whether or not a particular device will be used to seek out information. As you have shown, your mobile device (if not in your pocket) serviced you well when you needed it. Surely realising you didn’t know, and seeking clarity, are both aspects of smart thinking.
                    I think we are all agreed on this. 🙂

                    Like

                    Reply
    2. Norah Post author

      Thanks so much for adding your thinking to the conversation, Pauline. It’s definitely not miserly thinking!
      I agree with you about the non-academics, those who have been turned off learning as I was, who probably don’t use their phones for looking up anything of significance (but who am I to judge what’s significant?) If they did, and took a greater interest in things around them, and world events, then I think that would be a wonderful thing. As I said, I was a bit offended that he thought the less-intelligent would be the ones looking things up. I think those less interested in learning wouldn’t be bothered to do so. Information is much more accessible now and, as you say, I’d rather carry a smart phone than an encyclopedia. Actually, if you’re carrying a smart phone you are carrying an encyclopedia, a dictionary and a thesaurus!
      I hope you’re enjoying the weekend too. I’m pleased I gave you something to think about! I am honoured you’ve returned the favour. 🙂

      Like

      Reply
    3. Norah Post author

      Oh, I forgot to say: the ball cost 5 cents, and the bat $1.05, making the difference in price of $1.00. If the ball cost 10 cents, the bat would cost $1.00 and the difference in price would be only 90 cents. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. thecontentedcrafter

        And then I woke up in the middle of the night and went ‘Oh – right – goddit!!’ It was all clear as a bell and I went right back to sleep fully aware of the fact I am not just a twit but also a very slow twit 🙂 I’ve returned to my fifteen year old relationship with math apparently………..

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply
        1. Norah Post author

          Hilarious! I’m pleased you didn’t bother losing a lot of sleep over it! As Jenny said, at those prices, it just wouldn’t have been worth it!
          Have a good week.

          Like

          Reply
  8. Sue Vincent

    I love the access to knowledge that is available through computers. I was not allowed the internet for years as my partner…quite rightly…claimed that to let me loose on a world full of libraries was to risk losing me to ‘L’ space completely…
    The thing is though that the pre-digital generations already have a habit of learning and memory. I worry that we are losing that ability and mindset with future generations… or are we freeing up our internal drive to use the spare capacity for other things?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Thanks for your comment, Sue. The availability of knowledge is phenomenal, isn’t it?
      I smiled when I got to the reason for your partner not allowing you to use the internet. It’s the best (and worst) reason I’ve yet heard.
      You’ve answered Willingham’s question with one of your own. We’ll never know, I suppose. This query seems to be an extension of the one made about the use of calculators. I think there are times when it’s more efficient to use our own internal drives, and times when an external source is better. Knowing, and choosing, the appropriate tool is what’s important. I guess thinking is involved in that process.
      Thanks for adding to the conversation.

      Like

      Reply
  9. Sarah Brentyn

    Gah! It’s 1:30 am here so…I have gdryjbcf thinking at the moment. 🙂 This is really interesting. I’m honestly not sure. I remember those big computers and floppy disks. Geez, I just got my first “smartphone” 2 years ago. Am I lazy? Hmm. Sometimes. I do like looking things up quickly on my phone. What am I teaching my kids, though? Something as simple as “this is the future” or something more negative like “you don’t need to remember that, you can pull your phone out and look it up”? It is a conundrum. To an extent, I do believe “our current use of technology [is replacing] thinking.”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Oh dear girl, you were up way too late, or way too early, reading my post. I am honoured that you would do so at that time of the night.
      I have only just begun using a phone as a “smart” phone in the last few months, and then not a great deal anyway – just in an emergency when I want to look something up! But I have had an iPad for the past four years and it went almost everywhere with me. It has my Kindle books on it, my audiobooks and my email, and I usually look at Twitter on my iPad and Facebook (if ever I get to it). I also play games (am I allowed to admit that?) on my iPad, as well as look up anything that occurs to me at the time, do my banking blah, blah, blah. It is very heavy though and if I can, I’m thinking about just using my phone, though I do find the smaller screen more tiring for my eyes.
      There is far more information available than any one of us would ever be able to remember. I think it’s wonderful to be able to find out whatever we want to know at the moment we are asking the questions. Unless it’s something we really should be discovering for ourselves, and I am a firm believer in hands-on and real experiences for children. But let’s face it. We can’t all travel into outer space, to the bottom of the ocean, or into a volcano. Vicarious experiences will do me for those!
      Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It was you doing the thinking, I might add, not your device! 🙂

      Like

      Reply

I appreciate your feedback. Please share your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s