In “History, men and time” Bloch begins by explaining the difficulty of defining history and the overlap created by the union of two disciplines. An issue that arises when documenting history is the aspect of the human element and how it influences the perception of history and its recording. The human element therefore influences the perception of the story, whether it is “…all politics….it is all sociology [or whether it is]…journalism” (Bloch, p37). The last section of the reading is a historical analysis section in which the author discusses the implications that arise from analyzing the actions of human beings over time and the difficulty of agreeing on the narrative of certain events. On the other hand, Wineburg uses examples to convince himself that, to a certain extent, history can humanize; however, there are many factors that come into play in how you interact with the story. Because prior knowledge influences how information is perceived, it becomes difficult to learn from the past and be able to change. Furthermore, the “humanizing” part of the statement is ambiguous. Humanization can represent a number of characteristics such as the ability to change, empathy, etc. Thus, Rochberg states that "existing beliefs shape the information encountered so that the new conforms to the shape of what is already known." Through examples of experiences, Rochberg is able to defend his statement. The only one capable of detaching himself from existing beliefs was the historian, but even in that case he used his previous training to be able to analyze the work. The example of the scholastic principle was the most interesting. The school principal attends a seminar where she learns the differences between a history textbook and primary sources (Rochberg). Although the principle admits to having learned a lot when asked to do her passage, it resembles a passage from a textbook. This interestingly raises the question of whether textbook language is the best way to teach students. The main difference between Bloche and Rochberg is that Rochberg was able to support his claims using examples that proved his thesis. However, both Bloche and Rochberg discuss the problems that arise with the analysis