Quammen reports on his discoveries using a narrative format. He establishes credibility in the readers by chronologically tracking his progress throughout his investigation of the Tasmanian devils. This format creates both an inviting and captivating structure for a casual audience. Quammen offers his audience a scientific timeline of cancerous research. He further supports his evidence with personal accounts of his data collection. Before reading this article, the average individual would debate the contagiousness of cancer. Quammen empathizes with an average audience by displaying doubt upon first discovering the Tasmanian devils’ facial tumors. With this article Quammen questions the individualistic qualities of cancer. In a similar way Lanier questions the benefits of technological advancement.

In “The First Church of Robotics” Jaron Lanier ponders the consequences of technological advancement. Specifically, Lanier claims the use of artificial intelligence takes away from human kind. Lanier discourages his audience from falling victim to the comforts of artificial intelligence. He points out the simplicity of letting robotics dictate our lives. But instead of supporting a more technological life, Lanier argues against artificial intelligence. He believes incorporating artificial intelligence into everyday life takes away from life itself. His opinion is based on the sense of individualism derived from human decision making. Lanier claims robotics are not as complex as humans are led to believe. They were in fact programmed and created by humans in order to operate similar to humans. Robots are not intelligent and cannot actually think for themselves. Artificial intelligence is merely a concept created to solve a problem or accomplish a task. Lanier encourages a deeper discussion into the future of technology. He believes technology should not make decisions for humankind. Even simple decisions, such as choosing a show on Netflix ought to be based on humanistic desires instead of recommendations from an algorithm. Lanier can accept technology as long as humans do not rely on it. He can accept technology if everyone can accept that their technology is not intelligent. Lanier appears to be fearful of the slippery slope of believing in artificial intelligence.

Quammen questions scientific theory of the past, while Lanier questions scientific theory of the future. Both articles dispute basic scientific principles capable of exceeding a non-specialized audience. However, Quammen uses tangible supporting evidence while Lanier uses his own well thought out opinions based in relatable research. Both articles limit the level of detail throughout their complex subject matter in order to broaden their audience. Both authors aim to educate their audience with unusual subject matter. Quammen and Lanier are driven by research and theory that expands the limit of what is considered commonplace in the scientific world.

Unlike other adopted children, Ouellette is intrigued with why she exists rather than how she exists. She uses her unknown medical history as an opportunity for research of the human self. Ouellette pursues numerous tests to discover who she is, including a brain scan, personality tests, and submitting her DNA to be dissected. Ouellette compares her data to the medical knowledge she researched. With her vast knowledge of genetics, Ouellette is able to anticipate some genetic boundaries of humans. She discusses the various genetic intricacies a person can have. She explains the factors involved for someone having the same color eyes as their parents. She goes on to explain why Mendel’s pea plant model is not an accurate way of determining eye color. This demonstrates the genetic boundaries that coincide with human existence. Each individual has a chance to be born with certain eye colors, however, their genes are not so predictable that they lose their sense of individualism.

Ouellette claims the mental limitations of the self are persuaded by genetics but defined by the individual. The emotional state of an individual can be limited by their genetics. Some people are more prone to being anxious and depressed therefore limiting their likelihood of discovering something about themselves by stepping out of the comfort zone. Yet, these same people may be more likely to survive as their genetic makeup encourages harm avoidance. They do not choose to avoid harm, but instead find themselves avoiding stressful situations more often. This genetic makeup results in a shy and timid person. However, these genetic limitations can be overcome as an individual experiences situations that reshape aspects of their personality. In the case of shyness, Ouellette asserts that genetics provide a predestined road-map and the individual has the choice to follow their destiny or deviate from what is genetically expected of them.

Ouellette illustrates the personal dilemma of living in the moment or planning for the future. She presents a scientific experiment as an example of this difficult decision. In this experiment, young children are given the choice or eating a marshmallow immediately or waiting. Those who wait were to be given a second marshmallow as a reward for their patience. Ouellette uses this experiment to shed light on the limitations of an individual at any age. Her simplistic example parallels the decisions her readers make on a daily basis. Ouellette empathizes with her audience in order to gain their acceptance before diving into the darker aspects of the self. Ouellette claims the future oriented people are often seen as boring due to their inability to enjoy the moment. However, those who pursue immediate satisfaction are more prone to substance abuse as they are only concerned with their current state of mind. Throughout their lives people are subjected to choices that provide immediate results and choices that result in patiently waiting for the desired result.

In The Telegraph article “London 2012 Olympics: Faster. Higher. Longer. Stronger” the authors discuss the physical limitations of the human body. The article presents several Olympic world records and questions their chance of being outdone. Is it a matter of genetic or mental limitations? Does the body physically quit, or does the mind give up? Ouellette encourages further discussion by bringing culture into focus. She presents magazines in Japan which provide horoscopes based on blood type. Ouellette claims some job employers even discriminate based on blood type. With these intense cultural motivations, one can imagine how an Olympic event may be more than a matter of physical genetics. Perhaps the participants are motivated mentally by their cultural impacts, allowing them to momentarily block out their thoughts of quitting or slowing down. Another factor involved in breaking world records could be the participant’s personality. Ouellette explains that characteristic traits are the reason why every individual responds differently to the same situation. She goes further to explain how a person’s temperament is mostly determined by their genes. This would suggest that an aggressive or competitive temperament is a product of genetics of the mind. An athlete with these genetics would be more inclined to push their physical boundaries regardless of their genetic height or weight.

Throughout her writing, Ouellette discovers the boundaries of the self. She investigates the complex inter-working of what makes up a self. Her focus on both mind and body encourages a wider reader base. Ouellette’s personal examples supported by scientific research encourage a broader understanding of why and how human limitations exist.