Overall you had great posts! They were all very lengthy full with good facts as well as commentary. Length was not a problem at all, so I do not think you should have any problem whatsoever with finding a post to evolve from for your final project!
Your very first post I thought was well-written. It was lengthy, but in a good way. You had some great comments that were backed up with facts. Overall it was interesting. You also had very few grammatical errors! The same thing goes for your second post! I was intrigued with your insight!
The post “Bring Monogamy Back!” on October 12 was also another great post. I felt like you wrote with confidence in what you were writing. Your commentary proved that you knew what you were talking about. There was also hardly any grammar issues! This I think would also be another great post to evolve from, because by how you wrote it seemed as if it was something of your interest and I think that would help you to create a successful essay!
I also thought the post “Material Girl in a Material World” was another post that you seemed to show some interest in. I think it was another great post that was full of good information throughout the entire thing. Also, the post after that, “Immigration and the Economy Weed out the Selfish People” was interesting was well. You took a great approach in how to write it. Both posts overall were overall really well written!
Great job on all of your posts! You are an awesome writer and will have no problem on your final project! Good luck and I hope my critiques have helped somewhat!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Peer Review on Lauren Angulo
For the most part, almost all of your posts had awesome intro paragraphs where you stated the thesis clearly. They weren’t overfilled with information and clearly stated what you were going to be writing about. You also had great titles; they pulled me in and made me interested in what the post would be about. All in all you had great grammar; your posts were not filled with incorrect grammar or anything of that sort! I’d just reread some a few times and you’ll catch just the small errors. There were just a few posts where I noticed some of your thoughts were all clumped into two big paragraphs. I know they’re just blog posts, but I would keep that in mind when writing an essay for your final project!
Your post “A Thousand Thoughts a Day” on September 8 was a great post. Not only was it clearly organized, but your arguments were well backed up with facts from the reading. You did a great job keeping it simple and not overly full of unnecessary information. There weren’t any grammatical errors that I could catch as well. Awesome post!
I thought your post “Technology Within the Family” was a great post also. You had many great points as in to why technology helps gay and lesbian relationships. If you haven’t already, I think this post would be great to turn into an essay as well. You seemed to know exactly what you were talking about; you sounded very confident in your writing.
I also enjoyed your “The Chemistry of Relationships” post on October 13. You organized it well and proved your points in an easy manner. You had TONS of information and you also had enough commentary to go along with it so it wasn’t full of just straight facts. Your concluding also had a lot of insight on the topic, so if you do end up writing about this I’d break up some of your concluding throughout your paper because the commentary you had was great.
I also thought your “A Mallcondo Culture” post on November 3 was another great short essay. I definitely think you could evolve it into something bigger for our final project. Again, like your other posts, it was well put together and organized with facts and commentary.
You are a very good writer and I hope these critiques helped! Good job and good luck on your final project!
Your post “A Thousand Thoughts a Day” on September 8 was a great post. Not only was it clearly organized, but your arguments were well backed up with facts from the reading. You did a great job keeping it simple and not overly full of unnecessary information. There weren’t any grammatical errors that I could catch as well. Awesome post!
I thought your post “Technology Within the Family” was a great post also. You had many great points as in to why technology helps gay and lesbian relationships. If you haven’t already, I think this post would be great to turn into an essay as well. You seemed to know exactly what you were talking about; you sounded very confident in your writing.
I also enjoyed your “The Chemistry of Relationships” post on October 13. You organized it well and proved your points in an easy manner. You had TONS of information and you also had enough commentary to go along with it so it wasn’t full of just straight facts. Your concluding also had a lot of insight on the topic, so if you do end up writing about this I’d break up some of your concluding throughout your paper because the commentary you had was great.
I also thought your “A Mallcondo Culture” post on November 3 was another great short essay. I definitely think you could evolve it into something bigger for our final project. Again, like your other posts, it was well put together and organized with facts and commentary.
You are a very good writer and I hope these critiques helped! Good job and good luck on your final project!
Monday, November 16, 2009
Week 12 Blog Reviews
Group 2 Peer Reviews
Brittany
Both of your posts did not show up again on your blog. They were there, but they just had “…” as the body. You might want to fix that!
Monique
In your “We Need Government Structure!” post, I’d first off, like to 100% agree with you. We were both on the same exact stance on this subject but it was again, really cool to see another person’s insights on the topic. It’s true; the only real logical explanation of having a nation without a government to control what we are able to do, then our crime rates would SKYROCKET! No doubt! So yes, I agree, our laws WERE made for a reason and not in a negative way either! All in all, I also agree and believe that it is good to have a stable nation by having some sort of government structure. This post was well written, you had a lot of good comments and points throughout the entire thing, and I didn’t catch any errors whatsoever!
In your second post for the week, “Finance and Numbers,” I loved your intro paragraph. Not only was it well written, but it was full of facts but still to the point. It clearly introduced the topic for the day. You took a great path on how to construct your post while clearly answering the prompt. Good writings for the week!
Brittany
Both of your posts did not show up again on your blog. They were there, but they just had “…” as the body. You might want to fix that!
Monique
In your “We Need Government Structure!” post, I’d first off, like to 100% agree with you. We were both on the same exact stance on this subject but it was again, really cool to see another person’s insights on the topic. It’s true; the only real logical explanation of having a nation without a government to control what we are able to do, then our crime rates would SKYROCKET! No doubt! So yes, I agree, our laws WERE made for a reason and not in a negative way either! All in all, I also agree and believe that it is good to have a stable nation by having some sort of government structure. This post was well written, you had a lot of good comments and points throughout the entire thing, and I didn’t catch any errors whatsoever!
In your second post for the week, “Finance and Numbers,” I loved your intro paragraph. Not only was it well written, but it was full of facts but still to the point. It clearly introduced the topic for the day. You took a great path on how to construct your post while clearly answering the prompt. Good writings for the week!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
The Development of Finance
Recently, finance has developed into an academic discipline because of mathematics as well as economics and physics. There have several steps in order to create finance into the discipline it is today. Thanks to several economists, their contributions have helped immensely with the reputation of finance.
We all know that money is a huge fascination in today’s society, and without it I honestly do not know where we would be. We always seem to want more; we can never settle with what we have. Although finance has recently become a recognized academic discipline, its roots go back centuries (Chance, Peterson 447). For awhile now, “economists studying finance have taken the body of knowledge about how human beings behave when faced with uncertainty and translated it into mathematical descriptions of the way people obtain and invest funds” (Chance, Peterson 447). So, with the advancement in our technology, finance has increasingly become an empirical science (Chance, Peterson 447).
Alfred Marshall, a professor of political economy at the University of Cambridge, published a book in 1890 (Chance, Peterson 447). He had discussed in his book “how the present value of an anticipated future benefit could be ascertained” (Chance, Peterson 447). The logic behind this was that money in the bank grows a considerable amount when the interest is compounded (Chance, Peterson 447). Similar calculations also apply to the price of stocks. In 1939, economist John Burr Williams argued that the appropriate price for a stock is the present value of all future dividends paid to its owner (Chance, Peterson 447). This opened up other gateways. In 1959, Myron Gordon took Williams’ notion further, “assuming that dividends increase gradually at a constant rate” (Chance, Peterson 447). This is also known as the Gordon model. Many financial analysts still use this model to determine the value of certain stocks (Chance, Peterson 447). As you can see, just a few of these economists have contributed a significant amount in order to recognize finance as an academic discipline.
We all know that money is a huge fascination in today’s society, and without it I honestly do not know where we would be. We always seem to want more; we can never settle with what we have. Although finance has recently become a recognized academic discipline, its roots go back centuries (Chance, Peterson 447). For awhile now, “economists studying finance have taken the body of knowledge about how human beings behave when faced with uncertainty and translated it into mathematical descriptions of the way people obtain and invest funds” (Chance, Peterson 447). So, with the advancement in our technology, finance has increasingly become an empirical science (Chance, Peterson 447).
Alfred Marshall, a professor of political economy at the University of Cambridge, published a book in 1890 (Chance, Peterson 447). He had discussed in his book “how the present value of an anticipated future benefit could be ascertained” (Chance, Peterson 447). The logic behind this was that money in the bank grows a considerable amount when the interest is compounded (Chance, Peterson 447). Similar calculations also apply to the price of stocks. In 1939, economist John Burr Williams argued that the appropriate price for a stock is the present value of all future dividends paid to its owner (Chance, Peterson 447). This opened up other gateways. In 1959, Myron Gordon took Williams’ notion further, “assuming that dividends increase gradually at a constant rate” (Chance, Peterson 447). This is also known as the Gordon model. Many financial analysts still use this model to determine the value of certain stocks (Chance, Peterson 447). As you can see, just a few of these economists have contributed a significant amount in order to recognize finance as an academic discipline.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Big Brother Society
What’s to an institution without rules? I believe the best word to describe that is, chaos. Throughout our lives we have learned to obey and follow a set list of rules in school, family life, as well as with the law and society. However, there are some individuals out there who do disregard all of these rules that are provided in order to have more peaceful surroundings which is why our society enforces such regulations. Without the government, interfering with American’s lives, how safe would we really be? And how far is too far?
In Josh McHugh’s report, “Politics for the Really Cool,” he explains how libertarian Sameer Parekh is using software as his weapon against the government. This is also known as, cryptography. Cryptography comes in handy and efficient for someone who cannot afford to leave around a paper trail (McHugh 436). In other words, if a business man doesn’t want to pay his income taxes, then he can avoid the IRS knocking on his door by using this. To me, this is unfair. I find it absurd that they sell such programs on the internet. While all of us normal, honest Americans are paying our income taxes every year, many individuals keep that cash in their pockets. How greedy can some people be? Walter Wriston, a former chairman of Citibank, wrote in his 1992 book, The Twilight of Sovereignty to the history of cryptography (McHugh 436). He believed that this could potentially cause a weakening of national governments through the power the technology and cryptography. Honestly, why weaken our government? Our government in my eyes is here to protect us and keep everything in working order so we can have a safe and sound sleep every night. I feel like there are several individuals out there who take this the wrong way and feel like our government is “out to get us,” which is completely false. Without a government, we would have no structure in our society whatsoever.
I can see where some individuals get the mindset of our government interfering too much with our everyday lives. A lot of our entertainment in movies and shows are centered on the idea of a “big brother” society. We all have that fear, but who ever said it could get to that point? The only reason there are such revisions in our government is because of certain events, like terrorist attacks. I honestly feel so much better at the end of the day knowing that our government is enforcing laws in order to prevent such tragedies and horror happening again. I can give up a little bit of my own privacy in order to save thousands of lives. Now, if the government happens to increasingly invade my everyday life, then that could be a problem, but for now I do not see that happening in the near future. John McHugh’s article was written well over a decade ago but he actually raised the question of where the 21st century would be at. Well, we’re in the 21st century now and I don’t feel much different. Maybe I would if I was a criminal, but I’m not. All in all, individuals need to realize that our governments sole purpose is to keep our society running safe and smoothly, not to invade our lives.
In Josh McHugh’s report, “Politics for the Really Cool,” he explains how libertarian Sameer Parekh is using software as his weapon against the government. This is also known as, cryptography. Cryptography comes in handy and efficient for someone who cannot afford to leave around a paper trail (McHugh 436). In other words, if a business man doesn’t want to pay his income taxes, then he can avoid the IRS knocking on his door by using this. To me, this is unfair. I find it absurd that they sell such programs on the internet. While all of us normal, honest Americans are paying our income taxes every year, many individuals keep that cash in their pockets. How greedy can some people be? Walter Wriston, a former chairman of Citibank, wrote in his 1992 book, The Twilight of Sovereignty to the history of cryptography (McHugh 436). He believed that this could potentially cause a weakening of national governments through the power the technology and cryptography. Honestly, why weaken our government? Our government in my eyes is here to protect us and keep everything in working order so we can have a safe and sound sleep every night. I feel like there are several individuals out there who take this the wrong way and feel like our government is “out to get us,” which is completely false. Without a government, we would have no structure in our society whatsoever.
I can see where some individuals get the mindset of our government interfering too much with our everyday lives. A lot of our entertainment in movies and shows are centered on the idea of a “big brother” society. We all have that fear, but who ever said it could get to that point? The only reason there are such revisions in our government is because of certain events, like terrorist attacks. I honestly feel so much better at the end of the day knowing that our government is enforcing laws in order to prevent such tragedies and horror happening again. I can give up a little bit of my own privacy in order to save thousands of lives. Now, if the government happens to increasingly invade my everyday life, then that could be a problem, but for now I do not see that happening in the near future. John McHugh’s article was written well over a decade ago but he actually raised the question of where the 21st century would be at. Well, we’re in the 21st century now and I don’t feel much different. Maybe I would if I was a criminal, but I’m not. All in all, individuals need to realize that our governments sole purpose is to keep our society running safe and smoothly, not to invade our lives.
Week 11 Blog Reviews
Group 2 Peer Reviews
Brittany
Both of your posts did not show up on your blog. They were there, but they just had “…” as the body. You might want to fix that!
Monique
Your post about materialism was well put together. Not only did you have a good, lengthy post, but you had some great facts as well as commentary. I really liked how you pointed out how many people might be in debt because of the classification of lower, middle, and upper class. It’s 100% true. Many people tend to want to buy elaborate things in order to “fit in,” causing them to spend money that they do not have. You are also right; unfortunately this cycle will continue to happen in our society no matter what.
I enjoyed your post on Hispanics and our economy. It was interesting to hear the opposite side of what we had read. You had a lot of good insight. I especially liked this part in your last paragraph, “Regardless, of what ethnic background a person comes from should not be used to determine a person citizenship. If they are paying taxes and contributing to our economy than they should be considered American as any other person in North America.” It was definitely a good mind opener! Good job!
Brittany
Both of your posts did not show up on your blog. They were there, but they just had “…” as the body. You might want to fix that!
Monique
Your post about materialism was well put together. Not only did you have a good, lengthy post, but you had some great facts as well as commentary. I really liked how you pointed out how many people might be in debt because of the classification of lower, middle, and upper class. It’s 100% true. Many people tend to want to buy elaborate things in order to “fit in,” causing them to spend money that they do not have. You are also right; unfortunately this cycle will continue to happen in our society no matter what.
I enjoyed your post on Hispanics and our economy. It was interesting to hear the opposite side of what we had read. You had a lot of good insight. I especially liked this part in your last paragraph, “Regardless, of what ethnic background a person comes from should not be used to determine a person citizenship. If they are paying taxes and contributing to our economy than they should be considered American as any other person in North America.” It was definitely a good mind opener! Good job!
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Hungry Economy
America is built upon the foundation of being known as a “melting pot” full of diverse communities. However, although we are all of the same nationality, some ethnic groups have definitely made their way into the American community. Some are more prominent than others. Take for example the Asian American community. Several families from Asia have made the long voyage to America in search of new opportunities as well as an American citizenship. A good amount of them have started up their very own family owned businesses. Although running and starting a business from basically nothing is a difficult task, many of these Asian Americans have flourished with success, ultimately boosting the American economy.
I’m sure many of you have noticed that there is a considerable amount of Asian American operated businesses throughout metropolitan areas. In fact, “Asian and Pacific Islander businesses in the United States totaled about 913,000 in 1997” ("Census Brief" 1). All of these businesses in total “employed more than 2.2 million people and generated $306.9 billion in revenues” ("Census Brief" 1). As you can see, these statistics are pretty shocking. Between “1992 and 1997, the number of businesses owned by Asians and Pacific Islanders increased about four times as fast as the total number of businesses” ("Census Brief" 1). This was way back in 1997, over a decade ago, so one could only imagine the numbers today even with our recent downfall in the economy. Who ever knew that just the category of certain ethnic owned businesses in general could produce so much revenue, thus contributing enormously to our economy?
Not only have Asian Americans taken over the business world by storm, but they have also done it in an extremely smart way. They have targeted metropolitan areas as a solid foundation in starting a business. That is how successful businesses start out; you are bound to get customers regardless. Basing it off the patterns seen in states, more than 1 in 3 Asian and Pacific Islander owned firms could be found in the following metro areas: New York, NY, Honolulu, HI, and Long Beach, Orange County, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, CA ("Census Brief" 1). Orange County alone was dominated by about 45,000 businesses, which employed 135,000 people while generating receipts of $15 billion. As you can see, by choosing a well trafficked area of hungry consumers, businesses will generally pull in a great amount of statistics.
Such Asian American owned businesses ultimately feed the ravenous monster called our economy. Without them, our economy would never be completely satisfied. Many of those owners once had a dream and eventually fulfilled them. Without a dream in the first place, our economy would be severely affected. Thanks to that dream, the monster of our economy can sleep safe and sound at night without having to worry one bit.
Works Cited
"Asian and Pacific Islander-Owned Businesses." Census Brief (2001): 1-2. Web. 5 Nov 2009. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/cenbr01-7.pdf
*Note: I don't know how to format the "Works Cited" properly with the hanging indent because it's on a blog and not Microsoft Word!
I’m sure many of you have noticed that there is a considerable amount of Asian American operated businesses throughout metropolitan areas. In fact, “Asian and Pacific Islander businesses in the United States totaled about 913,000 in 1997” ("Census Brief" 1). All of these businesses in total “employed more than 2.2 million people and generated $306.9 billion in revenues” ("Census Brief" 1). As you can see, these statistics are pretty shocking. Between “1992 and 1997, the number of businesses owned by Asians and Pacific Islanders increased about four times as fast as the total number of businesses” ("Census Brief" 1). This was way back in 1997, over a decade ago, so one could only imagine the numbers today even with our recent downfall in the economy. Who ever knew that just the category of certain ethnic owned businesses in general could produce so much revenue, thus contributing enormously to our economy?
Not only have Asian Americans taken over the business world by storm, but they have also done it in an extremely smart way. They have targeted metropolitan areas as a solid foundation in starting a business. That is how successful businesses start out; you are bound to get customers regardless. Basing it off the patterns seen in states, more than 1 in 3 Asian and Pacific Islander owned firms could be found in the following metro areas: New York, NY, Honolulu, HI, and Long Beach, Orange County, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, CA ("Census Brief" 1). Orange County alone was dominated by about 45,000 businesses, which employed 135,000 people while generating receipts of $15 billion. As you can see, by choosing a well trafficked area of hungry consumers, businesses will generally pull in a great amount of statistics.
Such Asian American owned businesses ultimately feed the ravenous monster called our economy. Without them, our economy would never be completely satisfied. Many of those owners once had a dream and eventually fulfilled them. Without a dream in the first place, our economy would be severely affected. Thanks to that dream, the monster of our economy can sleep safe and sound at night without having to worry one bit.
Works Cited
"Asian and Pacific Islander-Owned Businesses." Census Brief (2001): 1-2. Web. 5 Nov 2009. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/cenbr01-7.pdf
*Note: I don't know how to format the "Works Cited" properly with the hanging indent because it's on a blog and not Microsoft Word!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A Material World
Page 418, Directed Freewrite #1
Imagine a world without material possessions. It’s hard, isn’t it? Without materialism, the world would not be the world as we know it. Slowly but surely, the commercial market has taken over America by storm. Our society has increased its productivity of such things rapidly throughout the past century. In the essay “Two Cheers for Materialism” by James Twitchell, he explains how materialism doesn’t always have negative effects. Although there are always two sides to every argument, I also agree with him. Yes, materialism can truly possess and consume a person so much to a point, but at the same time I believe that our society would not be the society it is today without these material possessions.
Back in the day, the French once described us Americans as “a nation of shopkeepers” (Twitchell 389). Compared to Europe, we seem to consume our time by spending money. In fact, Americans tend to shop three to four times as many hours as Europeans (Twitchell 389). It seems as if we are the only country who does prize itself on consumer products; we are always in a race of who can produce more efficient and advanced technology. However, sooner or later we are going to need to have to “acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that this amoral consumerama has proved potent because human beings love things” (Twitchell 389).
Stanley Lebergott, an economist at Wesleyan University, once argued that most Americans have spent their way to happiness (Twitchell 392). Not only has consumer products provided a sort of temporary happiness to humans, but it also has been blamed for the rise of eating disorders, depression, corruption of politics, and the spread of “affluenza” (Twitchell 390). It has also glorified holidays such as Christmas, or events like birthdays. Without such gifts, what would those holidays be like? I almost want to believe that they wouldn’t exist. Or maybe they would, but they just wouldn’t be that fun. It’s sort of pathetic in a way to think about how much our culture relies on such things, but then again, I could not imagine our life without them.
It’s clearly obvious that we Americans love things as well as live for things. By “things” I mean material possessions. Without such “things” we would not live in the world as we know it. The world would still exist, yes, but what would there be without materialism? Life would be boring; life would be bland. Although there are many negative affects with consumer products, I still believe that there is some good that comes out of it. For instance, without such things, we would not be able to perform everyday tasks such as cleaning our house or keeping in touch with friends with the newest technology. Yes life would be simpler, but it’s 2009, what else do you expect? It’s true, with age things do get better and with time we are able to produce more efficient items in mass quantity in our consumer market. I also believe that such facts of materialism affecting politics, happiness, etc. all just depends on each individual person. We are each our own person, so we are able to withstand and not let materialism consume our lives. I believe we can still enjoy life as we know it, as long as we do not let material things consume us completely. With our knowledge expanding we are creating more and more things in order to make each and every day easier. We should be applauding materialism.
Imagine a world without material possessions. It’s hard, isn’t it? Without materialism, the world would not be the world as we know it. Slowly but surely, the commercial market has taken over America by storm. Our society has increased its productivity of such things rapidly throughout the past century. In the essay “Two Cheers for Materialism” by James Twitchell, he explains how materialism doesn’t always have negative effects. Although there are always two sides to every argument, I also agree with him. Yes, materialism can truly possess and consume a person so much to a point, but at the same time I believe that our society would not be the society it is today without these material possessions.
Back in the day, the French once described us Americans as “a nation of shopkeepers” (Twitchell 389). Compared to Europe, we seem to consume our time by spending money. In fact, Americans tend to shop three to four times as many hours as Europeans (Twitchell 389). It seems as if we are the only country who does prize itself on consumer products; we are always in a race of who can produce more efficient and advanced technology. However, sooner or later we are going to need to have to “acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that this amoral consumerama has proved potent because human beings love things” (Twitchell 389).
Stanley Lebergott, an economist at Wesleyan University, once argued that most Americans have spent their way to happiness (Twitchell 392). Not only has consumer products provided a sort of temporary happiness to humans, but it also has been blamed for the rise of eating disorders, depression, corruption of politics, and the spread of “affluenza” (Twitchell 390). It has also glorified holidays such as Christmas, or events like birthdays. Without such gifts, what would those holidays be like? I almost want to believe that they wouldn’t exist. Or maybe they would, but they just wouldn’t be that fun. It’s sort of pathetic in a way to think about how much our culture relies on such things, but then again, I could not imagine our life without them.
It’s clearly obvious that we Americans love things as well as live for things. By “things” I mean material possessions. Without such “things” we would not live in the world as we know it. The world would still exist, yes, but what would there be without materialism? Life would be boring; life would be bland. Although there are many negative affects with consumer products, I still believe that there is some good that comes out of it. For instance, without such things, we would not be able to perform everyday tasks such as cleaning our house or keeping in touch with friends with the newest technology. Yes life would be simpler, but it’s 2009, what else do you expect? It’s true, with age things do get better and with time we are able to produce more efficient items in mass quantity in our consumer market. I also believe that such facts of materialism affecting politics, happiness, etc. all just depends on each individual person. We are each our own person, so we are able to withstand and not let materialism consume our lives. I believe we can still enjoy life as we know it, as long as we do not let material things consume us completely. With our knowledge expanding we are creating more and more things in order to make each and every day easier. We should be applauding materialism.
Week 10 Blog Reviews
Group 3 Blog Reviews
Brittany
I enjoyed reading your “Clean Lyrics: Making Hip Hop Lame” post. You have probably already noticed that I am also a hip-hop fan. I completely agree with you, hip-hop is lame when it’s edited. I find myself getting mad when I accidentally download the wrong version of a song. You would never think that profanity would really make a difference, but it does, because that’s just how hip-hop artists express themselves. I enjoyed seeing someone write about the same thing, but just with a different perspective.
Wow, your “Crash” story was pretty intense. I’m glad to hear that everything was okay with Nancie and her mom. Your writing was pretty deep and you used a good “eerie” tone like the prompt suggests. Great writing!
Monique
We both had pretty much the same exact views about the music industry, but you still had different points so it was interesting to see what you had to say. Overall, your writing was put together very well, however, I found a few grammatical errors. Nothing too big though because it was a great post and full of information!
I’m sorry to hear about your grandpa! I’m glad to hear he is alright though, but that is completely absurd of Peter Piper Pizza to treat you and your family that way. It’s a shame how some people honestly have no feelings whatsoever. Being a nursing major, it’s frustrating to really hear about how some people can be so rude and have no sympathy, but hey that’s just how the world is I guess! Anyways, your post was great, however you had a few grammatical errors, but nothing too big again. You had an immense amount of good details as well, making it overall a good post. Good job!
Brittany
I enjoyed reading your “Clean Lyrics: Making Hip Hop Lame” post. You have probably already noticed that I am also a hip-hop fan. I completely agree with you, hip-hop is lame when it’s edited. I find myself getting mad when I accidentally download the wrong version of a song. You would never think that profanity would really make a difference, but it does, because that’s just how hip-hop artists express themselves. I enjoyed seeing someone write about the same thing, but just with a different perspective.
Wow, your “Crash” story was pretty intense. I’m glad to hear that everything was okay with Nancie and her mom. Your writing was pretty deep and you used a good “eerie” tone like the prompt suggests. Great writing!
Monique
We both had pretty much the same exact views about the music industry, but you still had different points so it was interesting to see what you had to say. Overall, your writing was put together very well, however, I found a few grammatical errors. Nothing too big though because it was a great post and full of information!
I’m sorry to hear about your grandpa! I’m glad to hear he is alright though, but that is completely absurd of Peter Piper Pizza to treat you and your family that way. It’s a shame how some people honestly have no feelings whatsoever. Being a nursing major, it’s frustrating to really hear about how some people can be so rude and have no sympathy, but hey that’s just how the world is I guess! Anyways, your post was great, however you had a few grammatical errors, but nothing too big again. You had an immense amount of good details as well, making it overall a good post. Good job!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Ahh, the Irony
Directed Freewrite; Page 386
The music industry in America today is absolutely huge. Music has always been a large part of our everyday lives, as well as the media. Without it, I believe that not only would our daily life be bland, but also television shows, movies, etc. In order to conserve our music industry and keep it flowing with mass revenue, many critics tend to defend the sexuality and gender stereotyping in particularly hip-hop and dance music.
Hip-hop and dance music are two types of genres that seem to be extremely popular present day. You cannot go to a club or scan through radio stations and not hear these two types of music. Hip-hop tends to hold a more “hard” attitude with vulgar language and songs consisted with a flurry of information about the artist’s hardships throughout life. Although most hip-hop consists of strong sexual innuendos and statements, as well as derogatory statements and terms used against the opposite sex, I find that many critics tend to defend hip-hop. Yes, you would not want your eight-year old child listening to hip-hop, but that’s not really an issue with critics. I am a huge hip-hop fan and find that most reviews of albums put out by these artists almost always have a great review. For example, about a year ago “The Carter 3” was released by the popular rapper Lil Wayne. The album was stamped with the “parental advisory – explicit content” label and was full of terms degrading women. Despite all this, Lil Wayne managed to win four out of eight nominations at the infamous Grammy Awards this past year. From what I mostly read, many critics doted his album as “artwork and poetic.” Despite all of the vulgarity, critics focused more on how he expressed these inappropriate remarks. The same is applied towards dance music, which is mostly played at clubs because of its high level of sexuality. Although critics are known to be brutally honest, they show their utmost respect to most hip-hop and dance music artists.
Although critics mostly describe hip-hop and dance music as “well-thought of and creative” and even though most of it is about women and sexuality in derogative terms, I think that yes, many women do find both affirmation and power through this. Many popular female artists in fact write a lot about sexuality and gender stereotyping because that seems to be what sells the best. Look at Britney Spears for example, she’s been around for awhile now, and her music has always had some strong references to sexuality and men, especially recently. Her newest song titled “3” is even about sexual relations with two men at the same time. You would think this would change America and her fan’s view about her differently, but in fact it creates more interest. Britney, as well as many other female artists tend to sing about these types of things in order to gain fans as well as power because it sells more. We all know that money is money, no matter how it is earned.
The music industry is pretty simple, but it truly is funny how it works out. What we typically would call “inappropriate” seems to sell ten times more. Our mainstream media is scavengers among sexual relations, scandals and stereotypes that have to deal with celebrities. They typically try to demolish the celebrity they have attacked with these types of stories, however, our music sells more when doing this. If you think about it, our morals tend to go out the door when it comes to music. In my opinion, I think that it’s pretty ironic, actually.
The music industry in America today is absolutely huge. Music has always been a large part of our everyday lives, as well as the media. Without it, I believe that not only would our daily life be bland, but also television shows, movies, etc. In order to conserve our music industry and keep it flowing with mass revenue, many critics tend to defend the sexuality and gender stereotyping in particularly hip-hop and dance music.
Hip-hop and dance music are two types of genres that seem to be extremely popular present day. You cannot go to a club or scan through radio stations and not hear these two types of music. Hip-hop tends to hold a more “hard” attitude with vulgar language and songs consisted with a flurry of information about the artist’s hardships throughout life. Although most hip-hop consists of strong sexual innuendos and statements, as well as derogatory statements and terms used against the opposite sex, I find that many critics tend to defend hip-hop. Yes, you would not want your eight-year old child listening to hip-hop, but that’s not really an issue with critics. I am a huge hip-hop fan and find that most reviews of albums put out by these artists almost always have a great review. For example, about a year ago “The Carter 3” was released by the popular rapper Lil Wayne. The album was stamped with the “parental advisory – explicit content” label and was full of terms degrading women. Despite all this, Lil Wayne managed to win four out of eight nominations at the infamous Grammy Awards this past year. From what I mostly read, many critics doted his album as “artwork and poetic.” Despite all of the vulgarity, critics focused more on how he expressed these inappropriate remarks. The same is applied towards dance music, which is mostly played at clubs because of its high level of sexuality. Although critics are known to be brutally honest, they show their utmost respect to most hip-hop and dance music artists.
Although critics mostly describe hip-hop and dance music as “well-thought of and creative” and even though most of it is about women and sexuality in derogative terms, I think that yes, many women do find both affirmation and power through this. Many popular female artists in fact write a lot about sexuality and gender stereotyping because that seems to be what sells the best. Look at Britney Spears for example, she’s been around for awhile now, and her music has always had some strong references to sexuality and men, especially recently. Her newest song titled “3” is even about sexual relations with two men at the same time. You would think this would change America and her fan’s view about her differently, but in fact it creates more interest. Britney, as well as many other female artists tend to sing about these types of things in order to gain fans as well as power because it sells more. We all know that money is money, no matter how it is earned.
The music industry is pretty simple, but it truly is funny how it works out. What we typically would call “inappropriate” seems to sell ten times more. Our mainstream media is scavengers among sexual relations, scandals and stereotypes that have to deal with celebrities. They typically try to demolish the celebrity they have attacked with these types of stories, however, our music sells more when doing this. If you think about it, our morals tend to go out the door when it comes to music. In my opinion, I think that it’s pretty ironic, actually.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A "Split" Second
It was a dull, lifeless, cold and gloomy morning; sunrise was just around the corner. The bags were all loaded into the truck and we were ready to go. Lindsey and I had a long drive ahead of us from Glendale all the way to Flagstaff, Arizona. It was a quiet morning full of yawns, but we knew what was ahead of us. We had a long day consisting of nothing but snow and our snowboards at the Arizona Snowbowl. The anticipation is what made kept me awake through the drive that seemed to lag on endlessly.
Eventually we made it. The drive was long, but that was in the past now because staring right back at us was a giant snow covered monster. The snow was beautiful; there was even a light drizzle of powder sprinkling onto the nearby trees. It was a beautiful sight, one you see on postcards, but I could not wait to mess it up by shredding down the mountain on my new Burton snowboard. This snowboard was like a newborn child to a newlywed.
After an endless line to load onto the ski lift we were finally up on our way ready to take on any beef with this monstrous mountain. To be able to have a carefree attitude consume your whole body while snowboarding is one of the greatest feelings in the world, especially with a shiny new toy to do it with. Lindsey and I had a few good runs and then decided to take a break. When we got back, the line was completely backed up. About twenty minutes later, we finally loaded onto the chair lift bench, but with another skier. Instantly anxiety took over my body because being a snowboarder on the same chair lift as a skier is always a horrible idea. Right as I boarded off the lift, the skier cut me off and tangled me with his skis. Of course, he managed to untangle himself and make his way down the mountain even though my body was laying in the cold, freezing snow in extreme agony. My brand new snowboard had snapped. If it did not break in half, the fall would not have been as fierce as the one I took because I ultimately dislocated my shoulder. The pain took complete control over my body the instant I hit the ground; it felt as if the trees were closing in over me. Somehow a few short moments after, my shoulder managed to “pop” back into place and I eventually grew enough strength to strap my boots in and start boarding down the mountain. At that point adrenaline was pulsing through my veins uncontrollably. Not only was I in an extreme amount of pain, but I was willingly snowboarding down to the medics rather than being taxied down. Although I was technically disabled, I fought the circumstances and built up enough courage to fight through the pain.
Even though I ended up having to get surgery on my shoulder and was an entire snowboard short, I still believe that I won that day. Not only did I conquer the mountain in ways I never thought possible, but I never developed a fear of falling and still find myself snowboarding every winter. Life throws obstacles at you sometimes, but determining on how you overcome them truly determines your inner strength and character. I definitely now see myself as unstoppable on the mountain!
Eventually we made it. The drive was long, but that was in the past now because staring right back at us was a giant snow covered monster. The snow was beautiful; there was even a light drizzle of powder sprinkling onto the nearby trees. It was a beautiful sight, one you see on postcards, but I could not wait to mess it up by shredding down the mountain on my new Burton snowboard. This snowboard was like a newborn child to a newlywed.
After an endless line to load onto the ski lift we were finally up on our way ready to take on any beef with this monstrous mountain. To be able to have a carefree attitude consume your whole body while snowboarding is one of the greatest feelings in the world, especially with a shiny new toy to do it with. Lindsey and I had a few good runs and then decided to take a break. When we got back, the line was completely backed up. About twenty minutes later, we finally loaded onto the chair lift bench, but with another skier. Instantly anxiety took over my body because being a snowboarder on the same chair lift as a skier is always a horrible idea. Right as I boarded off the lift, the skier cut me off and tangled me with his skis. Of course, he managed to untangle himself and make his way down the mountain even though my body was laying in the cold, freezing snow in extreme agony. My brand new snowboard had snapped. If it did not break in half, the fall would not have been as fierce as the one I took because I ultimately dislocated my shoulder. The pain took complete control over my body the instant I hit the ground; it felt as if the trees were closing in over me. Somehow a few short moments after, my shoulder managed to “pop” back into place and I eventually grew enough strength to strap my boots in and start boarding down the mountain. At that point adrenaline was pulsing through my veins uncontrollably. Not only was I in an extreme amount of pain, but I was willingly snowboarding down to the medics rather than being taxied down. Although I was technically disabled, I fought the circumstances and built up enough courage to fight through the pain.
Even though I ended up having to get surgery on my shoulder and was an entire snowboard short, I still believe that I won that day. Not only did I conquer the mountain in ways I never thought possible, but I never developed a fear of falling and still find myself snowboarding every winter. Life throws obstacles at you sometimes, but determining on how you overcome them truly determines your inner strength and character. I definitely now see myself as unstoppable on the mountain!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
To Be Or Not To Be..
The Gay Side of Nature
Directed Freewrite, Page 340
Homosexuality has been a dominant debate in our society for the past few decades. There have been numerous arguments regarding the acceptance of it as a whole, but the issue is just as hot and two-sided as the arguments about abortion.
One of the most recent prominent arguments is one that Jeffrey Kluger elaborates on in his essay, “The Gay Side of Nature.” He explains how we humans share homosexuality with many other animals (Kluger 337). According to Bruce Bagemihl, a cognitive scientist, “the animal kingdom is a more sexually complex place than most people know – one where couplings routinely take place not just between male-female pairs but also between male-male and female-female ones (Kluger 338). This has definitely raised some eyebrows in communities all across America. If animals have same-sex relationships naturally, then why can’t humans? Even mammals, including bears bring their young into homosexual unions, raising them with their same-sex partner (Kluger 338). Sounds all a bit too familiar, doesn't it? Honestly, it makes sense to have this as a strong backbone and as the first step to realize that our society should truly accept same-sex relationships. After all, it is nature therefore it’s a natural act. It seems like animals have it down pat when it comes to having a bond with the same gender, but unfortunately for them there is no shades of grey and fine lines on whether it’s wrong or right.
There are always two sides to every story, as well as every argument. One who is very religious would disagree strongly with the debate that because animals unite in homosexual unions then it makes it okay for humans as well. Take Christianity for example. In the Bible it states that homosexuality is not a course of nature, but rather a sin so it is deemed unacceptable. Like politics, religion is also another tough subject in which there usually is never an agreement with opposing sides. In my own opinion, I believe that this debate will remain unsettled for quite some time whether or not other living things besides humans live homosexual lifetstyles.
Directed Freewrite, Page 340
Homosexuality has been a dominant debate in our society for the past few decades. There have been numerous arguments regarding the acceptance of it as a whole, but the issue is just as hot and two-sided as the arguments about abortion.
One of the most recent prominent arguments is one that Jeffrey Kluger elaborates on in his essay, “The Gay Side of Nature.” He explains how we humans share homosexuality with many other animals (Kluger 337). According to Bruce Bagemihl, a cognitive scientist, “the animal kingdom is a more sexually complex place than most people know – one where couplings routinely take place not just between male-female pairs but also between male-male and female-female ones (Kluger 338). This has definitely raised some eyebrows in communities all across America. If animals have same-sex relationships naturally, then why can’t humans? Even mammals, including bears bring their young into homosexual unions, raising them with their same-sex partner (Kluger 338). Sounds all a bit too familiar, doesn't it? Honestly, it makes sense to have this as a strong backbone and as the first step to realize that our society should truly accept same-sex relationships. After all, it is nature therefore it’s a natural act. It seems like animals have it down pat when it comes to having a bond with the same gender, but unfortunately for them there is no shades of grey and fine lines on whether it’s wrong or right.
There are always two sides to every story, as well as every argument. One who is very religious would disagree strongly with the debate that because animals unite in homosexual unions then it makes it okay for humans as well. Take Christianity for example. In the Bible it states that homosexuality is not a course of nature, but rather a sin so it is deemed unacceptable. Like politics, religion is also another tough subject in which there usually is never an agreement with opposing sides. In my own opinion, I believe that this debate will remain unsettled for quite some time whether or not other living things besides humans live homosexual lifetstyles.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Happily (N)Ever After?
“After All, Maybe It’s… Biology”
Page 310, #1 – “If we view love and relationships as largely matters of chemistry and biology, what kinds of changes could this view bring about in our beliefs about such seemingly mystical (or at least mysterious, since they involve the human heart) things like falling in love, physical attraction, courtship, and the like? Even more important, in what ways could such changes in beliefs affect our behavior, our cultural traditions, and institutions? Write an essay exploring these questions, ultimately settling on what you believe to be a likely answer or set of answers to them.”
What exactly is love and why is it so mystical? Honestly, I feel like there is more to love than just courtship and a marriage license. Helen E. Fisher’s essay, “After All, Maybe It’s… Biology” opens up numerous pathways as to why we fall in love. I’m not talking about the love we see in movies with infatuated individuals showering their partner with chocolates and roses, but more of how our bodies and minds are functioned and made to love rather than us changing ourselves in order to love.
Our human bodies are wired to love, just like any other animal on this earth. I do not think that many individuals realize this and think of it more as a learned trait. As a society we have a way of thinking that our Prince Charming just comes along one day, we date, get married, and have kids in that white picket fence surrounding our cute little house. But is there more to it than that? What makes us fall in love? More importantly, why do we fall in love? Nature has designed us women and men to work together (Fisher 300). In many cultures, there are several gestures to lure in the opposite sex, and many of them tend to be similar with that of certain animals. In many Western cultures, “men and women often stare intently at potential mates for about two to three seconds during which their pupils may dilate – a sign of extreme interest” (Fisher 300). This gaze triggers a primitive part of the human brain, immediately producing two emotions – approach or retreat (Fisher 300). Not only is our brain functioned to perform like that, but also animals like baboons tend to gaze at each other during courtship as well (Fisher 301). Such facts as these bring up the fact that chemistry and biology play a large role in our “fairy tale” love stories.
Like I said earlier, not many people realize how the human body is made up in order to lure in the opposite sex. We actually have certain odors that trigger infatuation from the opposite sex (Fisher 304). Who even knew that?! The fact that biology and chemistry makes up for why we love can change the perception we have on love completely. Before reading this essay, I always thought love was something that just happened out of nowhere; something you couldn’t stop. Now, that may be true, but now I know how and why we love, thanks to the anatomy of our human bodies. But what if our society only focused on the biology rather than myths and old fairy tales? It would change some cultural traditions. We wouldn’t really make movies about falling in love anymore. That just wouldn’t be our interest because we were just made to love, and how boring is that? It would change courtship and how we date. We wouldn’t consider a guy attractive anymore because of his money and material possessions. If we knew that we were built to love and attract the opposite sex, then why would we need matchmakers and books on love to tell us what to do? Would that really matter anymore? We are animals, even though most of us don’t think of us that way, and we do our have our own natural instincts just like any other animal on this Earth. Instead of living in a world filled with drawn out hearts and candies, it would be more animalistic and to the point. I think we should stick with our mystical and mysterious love lives – to me it sounds more fun and we can always leave it up to our own imaginations.
Page 310, #1 – “If we view love and relationships as largely matters of chemistry and biology, what kinds of changes could this view bring about in our beliefs about such seemingly mystical (or at least mysterious, since they involve the human heart) things like falling in love, physical attraction, courtship, and the like? Even more important, in what ways could such changes in beliefs affect our behavior, our cultural traditions, and institutions? Write an essay exploring these questions, ultimately settling on what you believe to be a likely answer or set of answers to them.”
What exactly is love and why is it so mystical? Honestly, I feel like there is more to love than just courtship and a marriage license. Helen E. Fisher’s essay, “After All, Maybe It’s… Biology” opens up numerous pathways as to why we fall in love. I’m not talking about the love we see in movies with infatuated individuals showering their partner with chocolates and roses, but more of how our bodies and minds are functioned and made to love rather than us changing ourselves in order to love.
Our human bodies are wired to love, just like any other animal on this earth. I do not think that many individuals realize this and think of it more as a learned trait. As a society we have a way of thinking that our Prince Charming just comes along one day, we date, get married, and have kids in that white picket fence surrounding our cute little house. But is there more to it than that? What makes us fall in love? More importantly, why do we fall in love? Nature has designed us women and men to work together (Fisher 300). In many cultures, there are several gestures to lure in the opposite sex, and many of them tend to be similar with that of certain animals. In many Western cultures, “men and women often stare intently at potential mates for about two to three seconds during which their pupils may dilate – a sign of extreme interest” (Fisher 300). This gaze triggers a primitive part of the human brain, immediately producing two emotions – approach or retreat (Fisher 300). Not only is our brain functioned to perform like that, but also animals like baboons tend to gaze at each other during courtship as well (Fisher 301). Such facts as these bring up the fact that chemistry and biology play a large role in our “fairy tale” love stories.
Like I said earlier, not many people realize how the human body is made up in order to lure in the opposite sex. We actually have certain odors that trigger infatuation from the opposite sex (Fisher 304). Who even knew that?! The fact that biology and chemistry makes up for why we love can change the perception we have on love completely. Before reading this essay, I always thought love was something that just happened out of nowhere; something you couldn’t stop. Now, that may be true, but now I know how and why we love, thanks to the anatomy of our human bodies. But what if our society only focused on the biology rather than myths and old fairy tales? It would change some cultural traditions. We wouldn’t really make movies about falling in love anymore. That just wouldn’t be our interest because we were just made to love, and how boring is that? It would change courtship and how we date. We wouldn’t consider a guy attractive anymore because of his money and material possessions. If we knew that we were built to love and attract the opposite sex, then why would we need matchmakers and books on love to tell us what to do? Would that really matter anymore? We are animals, even though most of us don’t think of us that way, and we do our have our own natural instincts just like any other animal on this Earth. Instead of living in a world filled with drawn out hearts and candies, it would be more animalistic and to the point. I think we should stick with our mystical and mysterious love lives – to me it sounds more fun and we can always leave it up to our own imaginations.
Week 7 Blog Reviews
Group 1 Blog Reviews
Aubrie Rach
Your “Is Monogamy the Key?” post was full of information. You had a fulfilling amount of facts as well as commentary. It was also well constructed with perfect manner. Your last paragraph really set across your entire point for the post and was well concluded with a great sense of closure!
I also really enjoyed reading your post about what college you were deciding at the time to go to. Let me just say that you picked the best college, :)! Now back to the academics! I thought your post was well constructed as well. You were able to tell the story and back it up with facts from the reading in a manner that was easy to follow. Great job!
Krista Sigala
I really liked your intro paragraph on your “cheating” blog post. It got straight to the point without any excess facts and commentary. I also like how you introduced what evolutionary psychology was as well because not most people know that off the top of their head.
Your other post “You Aren’t Listening!” was full of information. You did a good job summarizing the reading as well. I also enjoy your vocabulary usage… it’s not just everyday words but more intriguing which makes the writing seem much more professional. Awesome job!
Monique Perez
In your post, “Saving Monogamous Marriages” the citations were a bit off. Professor Patel explained how since we all know what book we are using we should just cite with the author of the actual essay you are basing your post on. So for this case, instead of using the author of the entire book as a whole, use Buss, the author of the essay you evaluated! I was definitely confused at first too when it came to citing our posts! But all in all, the entire post was great. I really like how you pointed out how we all believe in our own fairy tales. Not everything is a fairy tale, and you’re right, we do go into relationships thinking everything is going to perfect when in reality we need to work on them. Great post overall!
First off, I’m so jealous you’re going on vacation soon! Your writing had great information in it, however, I thought it might’ve been a little bit easier to follow if you followed your story with facts from the reading as in to why your spouse did what he did in the argument you guys had. Instead, I almost had to reference back to what the story was about in the previous paragraph. But other than that everything else was amazing and you had great posts!
Aubrie Rach
Your “Is Monogamy the Key?” post was full of information. You had a fulfilling amount of facts as well as commentary. It was also well constructed with perfect manner. Your last paragraph really set across your entire point for the post and was well concluded with a great sense of closure!
I also really enjoyed reading your post about what college you were deciding at the time to go to. Let me just say that you picked the best college, :)! Now back to the academics! I thought your post was well constructed as well. You were able to tell the story and back it up with facts from the reading in a manner that was easy to follow. Great job!
Krista Sigala
I really liked your intro paragraph on your “cheating” blog post. It got straight to the point without any excess facts and commentary. I also like how you introduced what evolutionary psychology was as well because not most people know that off the top of their head.
Your other post “You Aren’t Listening!” was full of information. You did a good job summarizing the reading as well. I also enjoy your vocabulary usage… it’s not just everyday words but more intriguing which makes the writing seem much more professional. Awesome job!
Monique Perez
In your post, “Saving Monogamous Marriages” the citations were a bit off. Professor Patel explained how since we all know what book we are using we should just cite with the author of the actual essay you are basing your post on. So for this case, instead of using the author of the entire book as a whole, use Buss, the author of the essay you evaluated! I was definitely confused at first too when it came to citing our posts! But all in all, the entire post was great. I really like how you pointed out how we all believe in our own fairy tales. Not everything is a fairy tale, and you’re right, we do go into relationships thinking everything is going to perfect when in reality we need to work on them. Great post overall!
First off, I’m so jealous you’re going on vacation soon! Your writing had great information in it, however, I thought it might’ve been a little bit easier to follow if you followed your story with facts from the reading as in to why your spouse did what he did in the argument you guys had. Instead, I almost had to reference back to what the story was about in the previous paragraph. But other than that everything else was amazing and you had great posts!
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Till "Divorce" Do Us Part..
Our Cheating Hearts
Directed Freewrite #2, Page 292 – “On the basis of evolutionary psychology’s insights into human sexual behavior, write an essay arguing that heterosexual, monogamous marriage ought to be either preserved or abolished, drawing on points in Wright’s essay, as well as on your own opinions and ideas, if relevant.”
Until recently the infamous line of “till death do us part” seemed to define almost every marriage. Now, presently, whenever I hear those words, I almost want to say, “Yeah, right.” Although I strongly believe in marriage and that there really is such a thing as “true love,” I can understand why our society is so hesitant about marriage. With divorce rates increasing, it almost seems as if there’s no hope when it comes to exchanging vows.
Robert Wright’s essay points out numerous relevant facts about marriage today and why it is so corrupt. According to evolutionary psychology, it’s natural for both men and women to commit adultery and to suddenly find a spouse unattractive, irritating, and wholly unreasonable (Wright 280). This has always been part of our human nature in the past and presently, but why do we cheat and ruin marriages? We all know that love between a man and woman is a human universal (Wright 284). Evolution has not only invented what we call romantic love, but from the beginning it has also corrupted it, according to Wright (Wright 284).
There are several different factors that have affected monogamy over the years. The lies and images our movies, billboards and magazines produce have shaped the human mind (Wright 286). Males are taught to think that blondes with bigger breasts and tiny bodies are the only type of “pretty.” Images like these flood the male mind with false advertising of finding the perfect girl that our society has created. One of the largest modern obstacles to making monogamy work is economic equality (Wright 286). A man’s social status can help his children later on in life, so it is only natural that women should lust after men with higher statuses (Wright 287). In our society today, a higher status consists of an affluent amount of money and good looks, which rules out thousands of possible compatible men. With all of these bumps in the road of marriage, it almost seems impossible to make a marriage last.
So is there hope despite all of these obstacles? I think so. It takes a strong and smart person to reject what our media feeds our eyes and ears each and every day. One needs to realize that not every woman or every man will have a perfectly tanned and toned body along with a fat wallet. Our society as a whole needs to wake up from this dream we are all living in. Yes, infidelity is natural, but I believe that if you truly love someone, you can stop yourself from doing the dirty deed. Charles Darwin once believed that the human species is the only moral animal species. Yes, we humans are moral, so we do have the capability to decipher right from wrong because we are aware of what is going on around us. We are potentially moral animals, so we should not make up excuses for our actions. It’s not all these outside factors that have corrupted marriage, but it is us who have done so. All in all, monogamous marriage should be saved, but the first step is to realize the monster we have created.
Directed Freewrite #2, Page 292 – “On the basis of evolutionary psychology’s insights into human sexual behavior, write an essay arguing that heterosexual, monogamous marriage ought to be either preserved or abolished, drawing on points in Wright’s essay, as well as on your own opinions and ideas, if relevant.”
Until recently the infamous line of “till death do us part” seemed to define almost every marriage. Now, presently, whenever I hear those words, I almost want to say, “Yeah, right.” Although I strongly believe in marriage and that there really is such a thing as “true love,” I can understand why our society is so hesitant about marriage. With divorce rates increasing, it almost seems as if there’s no hope when it comes to exchanging vows.
Robert Wright’s essay points out numerous relevant facts about marriage today and why it is so corrupt. According to evolutionary psychology, it’s natural for both men and women to commit adultery and to suddenly find a spouse unattractive, irritating, and wholly unreasonable (Wright 280). This has always been part of our human nature in the past and presently, but why do we cheat and ruin marriages? We all know that love between a man and woman is a human universal (Wright 284). Evolution has not only invented what we call romantic love, but from the beginning it has also corrupted it, according to Wright (Wright 284).
There are several different factors that have affected monogamy over the years. The lies and images our movies, billboards and magazines produce have shaped the human mind (Wright 286). Males are taught to think that blondes with bigger breasts and tiny bodies are the only type of “pretty.” Images like these flood the male mind with false advertising of finding the perfect girl that our society has created. One of the largest modern obstacles to making monogamy work is economic equality (Wright 286). A man’s social status can help his children later on in life, so it is only natural that women should lust after men with higher statuses (Wright 287). In our society today, a higher status consists of an affluent amount of money and good looks, which rules out thousands of possible compatible men. With all of these bumps in the road of marriage, it almost seems impossible to make a marriage last.
So is there hope despite all of these obstacles? I think so. It takes a strong and smart person to reject what our media feeds our eyes and ears each and every day. One needs to realize that not every woman or every man will have a perfectly tanned and toned body along with a fat wallet. Our society as a whole needs to wake up from this dream we are all living in. Yes, infidelity is natural, but I believe that if you truly love someone, you can stop yourself from doing the dirty deed. Charles Darwin once believed that the human species is the only moral animal species. Yes, we humans are moral, so we do have the capability to decipher right from wrong because we are aware of what is going on around us. We are potentially moral animals, so we should not make up excuses for our actions. It’s not all these outside factors that have corrupted marriage, but it is us who have done so. All in all, monogamous marriage should be saved, but the first step is to realize the monster we have created.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Just Being a Male Can Be Deceitful.. ;)
Sex, Lies, and Conversation
Directed Freewrite, Page 246 - "Describe a conflict you have experienced in trying to discuss something with a member of the opposite sex (or invent a conflict). Then discuss how your application of some of Tannen's ideas might have helped resolve, or at least explain, the conflict."
Arguments with the opposite sex can almost seem exhausting. Sometimes I feel entrapped as if there’s no easy way out of the issue at hand. About a week ago I found myself in one of these situations and it wasn’t very pretty. However, if I would have read this essay prior, I think I would have found myself in a less messy situation!
Deborah Tannen explains why many women think that men are stubborn when it comes to heated conversations. In order to fully understand why men are so different than us women, there are a few things to consider first. First, the bonds between boys are based less on talking and more on doing things together (Tannen 242). Since they don’t talk as much as girls do, we should probably consider that they don’t know what kind of talk we want. Also, their group of friends are usually larger and are more hierarchal than our friendships with other women (Tannen 242). This might be a reason in why they don’t like listening to our problems, because it might make them feel like they are lower down on the ladder. These are pretty obvious, but I feel as if not that many women consider them a factor in relationships or friendships with men.
These few facts would explain why my guy friend and I got into an argument last week. One of my friends tends to compulsively lie to me and our group of friends. It doesn’t matter how close he is to the individual he’s lying to or whether or not he’ll get caught, we will still find him lying constantly. After awhile, I finally just got fed up with one of his lies and completely caught him off guard by calling him out on it. During the argument, it didn’t seem to be close to resolving anytime soon, and he didn’t consider anything that I had to say. Tannen explains how in her example of boys in tenth grade how they dismissed each other’s problems, while girls typically respond by asking questions and expressing a sense of understanding (Tannen 243). This would explain why he was so dismissive with my allegations, even though he admitted that he was lying. I found this completely frustrating that he wasn’t listening to anything I had to say because he didn’t seem like he was saying much. According to Tannen, men consider overlapping and finishing each other’s sentences like women do as an intrusion and lack of attention (Tannen 243). I wish I would have known this at the time!
We eventually came to a conclusion, but it seemed like a thirty year long war to get to that point. After reading this essay, I can now consider how the other sex works and why arguments tend to be more of epic proportions rather than subtle with another female friend. Thanks to Deborah Tannen I can now maybe find a way to win every argument with the opposite sex, and I’m being dead serious! :)
Directed Freewrite, Page 246 - "Describe a conflict you have experienced in trying to discuss something with a member of the opposite sex (or invent a conflict). Then discuss how your application of some of Tannen's ideas might have helped resolve, or at least explain, the conflict."
Arguments with the opposite sex can almost seem exhausting. Sometimes I feel entrapped as if there’s no easy way out of the issue at hand. About a week ago I found myself in one of these situations and it wasn’t very pretty. However, if I would have read this essay prior, I think I would have found myself in a less messy situation!
Deborah Tannen explains why many women think that men are stubborn when it comes to heated conversations. In order to fully understand why men are so different than us women, there are a few things to consider first. First, the bonds between boys are based less on talking and more on doing things together (Tannen 242). Since they don’t talk as much as girls do, we should probably consider that they don’t know what kind of talk we want. Also, their group of friends are usually larger and are more hierarchal than our friendships with other women (Tannen 242). This might be a reason in why they don’t like listening to our problems, because it might make them feel like they are lower down on the ladder. These are pretty obvious, but I feel as if not that many women consider them a factor in relationships or friendships with men.
These few facts would explain why my guy friend and I got into an argument last week. One of my friends tends to compulsively lie to me and our group of friends. It doesn’t matter how close he is to the individual he’s lying to or whether or not he’ll get caught, we will still find him lying constantly. After awhile, I finally just got fed up with one of his lies and completely caught him off guard by calling him out on it. During the argument, it didn’t seem to be close to resolving anytime soon, and he didn’t consider anything that I had to say. Tannen explains how in her example of boys in tenth grade how they dismissed each other’s problems, while girls typically respond by asking questions and expressing a sense of understanding (Tannen 243). This would explain why he was so dismissive with my allegations, even though he admitted that he was lying. I found this completely frustrating that he wasn’t listening to anything I had to say because he didn’t seem like he was saying much. According to Tannen, men consider overlapping and finishing each other’s sentences like women do as an intrusion and lack of attention (Tannen 243). I wish I would have known this at the time!
We eventually came to a conclusion, but it seemed like a thirty year long war to get to that point. After reading this essay, I can now consider how the other sex works and why arguments tend to be more of epic proportions rather than subtle with another female friend. Thanks to Deborah Tannen I can now maybe find a way to win every argument with the opposite sex, and I’m being dead serious! :)
Week 6 Blog Reviews
Group 1 Blog Reviews
Aubrie Rach
First off, I just want to say that I love the movie Troy! I think this movie was a great choice to compare with the reading we had for that week. You really got into detail and got your points across really clearly. It was an interesting post for me to read and also very easy to follow along with!
I also really enjoyed your second post. It’s true, with new technologies such as Facebook, it really does change the shape of relationships. I remember back in the day I used to get tons of Christmas pictures in the mail from tons of relatives and family friends, but now it’s just like, “Let’s go check their blog or Facebook!”
Good posts, I look forward to reading some more!
Krista Sigala
I just want to say I really like your blog design!
I have never heard of The Descent, but it sounds like a very interesting movie. You got your point across pretty well while also summarizing to the reader what the storyline of the movie was. However, I thought you could’ve compared it a little bit more to the essay we had to read.
For your second post, you’re so right. It’s almost as if I feel “naked” without my cell phone. I’ll be five miles away from home and still turn around to go get it! It’s crazy to see how much society has changed because of the advancement in technology. I loved your closing sentence and I completely agree one-hundred percent - we seem to feed off of new technology like vultures.
Great posts!
Monique Perez
I like how you chose Enough for your comparison. It was definitely a different movie to choose from, but you proved your points very well. You’re right, she ultimately did fight back, unlike many other women in the same types of situations. I also really like how you took your time to summarize the movie, making your post full of information. It wasn’t too short, yet it wasn’t too long either!
We definitely picked the same technology advancement for our second post! Although we wrote about the same subject, we both wrote about different outcomes and what not. It was very interesting to see someone else’s thought about the same subject.
You had great posts full of information. Good jobbb :)
Aubrie Rach
First off, I just want to say that I love the movie Troy! I think this movie was a great choice to compare with the reading we had for that week. You really got into detail and got your points across really clearly. It was an interesting post for me to read and also very easy to follow along with!
I also really enjoyed your second post. It’s true, with new technologies such as Facebook, it really does change the shape of relationships. I remember back in the day I used to get tons of Christmas pictures in the mail from tons of relatives and family friends, but now it’s just like, “Let’s go check their blog or Facebook!”
Good posts, I look forward to reading some more!
Krista Sigala
I just want to say I really like your blog design!
I have never heard of The Descent, but it sounds like a very interesting movie. You got your point across pretty well while also summarizing to the reader what the storyline of the movie was. However, I thought you could’ve compared it a little bit more to the essay we had to read.
For your second post, you’re so right. It’s almost as if I feel “naked” without my cell phone. I’ll be five miles away from home and still turn around to go get it! It’s crazy to see how much society has changed because of the advancement in technology. I loved your closing sentence and I completely agree one-hundred percent - we seem to feed off of new technology like vultures.
Great posts!
Monique Perez
I like how you chose Enough for your comparison. It was definitely a different movie to choose from, but you proved your points very well. You’re right, she ultimately did fight back, unlike many other women in the same types of situations. I also really like how you took your time to summarize the movie, making your post full of information. It wasn’t too short, yet it wasn’t too long either!
We definitely picked the same technology advancement for our second post! Although we wrote about the same subject, we both wrote about different outcomes and what not. It was very interesting to see someone else’s thought about the same subject.
You had great posts full of information. Good jobbb :)
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Cheers to the Future
Capitalism and Gay Identity
Directed Freewrite: Page 236
For me, I found this essay intriguing. It was extremely interesting to actually think about how lesbian and gay individuals weren’t very prominent back in the day. I guess it’s not that they weren’t prominent, but more hidden would be the correct word to use. I never really thought about how the gay community grew so much over the past years until this reading. I thought John D’Emilio hit the subject right on and wrote a very interesting piece. John D’Emilio opened up several topics in this essay. As we all already know, we are all experiencing a shift in our economic and social life due to the rapid growth in our technology. I believe that this shift is just as important as D’Emilio’s discussion about our capitalist economy. Not many people realize how much technology has an impact on our everyday lives, as well as our future. Technology ultimately will contribute changes to the future of American families, communities, etc.
Technology is a great thing. Although America is so set on advancement in technology and new cool things, like upgraded cell phones and touch screen computers, I don’t think many people realize how much it can affect us in ways we wouldn’t really ever consider. Think about it, with technology almost anything seems possible. Today, we are able to switch sexes surgically and create surrogate mothers for couples who are unable to give birth on their own. This is a great advancement in technology, don’t get me wrong! I love seeing couples who have tried for years to be able to finally have a child of their own. I also love seeing individuals who are unhappy in their own body and being able to finally be happy in another body. You also have to look into the future though. I think this goes hand in hand with what D’Emilio was explaining about capitalism. According to him, “capitalism continually weakens the material foundation of family life, [but] on the other [hand], it needs to push men and women into families, at least long enough to reproduce the next generation of workers” (D’Emilio 235). Although this advancement in technology is great, I do believe strongly in D’Emilio’s statement. He’s one hundred percent right. With all of this change, we still do need to remember what the foundation of a family is. It’s a proven fact that with the increase of lesbian and gay individuals, then the birth rate will ultimately decline. If the gay and lesbian community was not as prominent back then, but currently now it is, then what’s in store for the future? I do not want anyone to take this the wrong way because I’m definitely not saying we should stop gay relationships altogether at all, but we should consider this fact for our future!
Ultimately, we cannot escape social and economic structures in our society. We can only learn from them and grow from them. Without change, then America would be one very dull country!
Directed Freewrite: Page 236
For me, I found this essay intriguing. It was extremely interesting to actually think about how lesbian and gay individuals weren’t very prominent back in the day. I guess it’s not that they weren’t prominent, but more hidden would be the correct word to use. I never really thought about how the gay community grew so much over the past years until this reading. I thought John D’Emilio hit the subject right on and wrote a very interesting piece. John D’Emilio opened up several topics in this essay. As we all already know, we are all experiencing a shift in our economic and social life due to the rapid growth in our technology. I believe that this shift is just as important as D’Emilio’s discussion about our capitalist economy. Not many people realize how much technology has an impact on our everyday lives, as well as our future. Technology ultimately will contribute changes to the future of American families, communities, etc.
Technology is a great thing. Although America is so set on advancement in technology and new cool things, like upgraded cell phones and touch screen computers, I don’t think many people realize how much it can affect us in ways we wouldn’t really ever consider. Think about it, with technology almost anything seems possible. Today, we are able to switch sexes surgically and create surrogate mothers for couples who are unable to give birth on their own. This is a great advancement in technology, don’t get me wrong! I love seeing couples who have tried for years to be able to finally have a child of their own. I also love seeing individuals who are unhappy in their own body and being able to finally be happy in another body. You also have to look into the future though. I think this goes hand in hand with what D’Emilio was explaining about capitalism. According to him, “capitalism continually weakens the material foundation of family life, [but] on the other [hand], it needs to push men and women into families, at least long enough to reproduce the next generation of workers” (D’Emilio 235). Although this advancement in technology is great, I do believe strongly in D’Emilio’s statement. He’s one hundred percent right. With all of this change, we still do need to remember what the foundation of a family is. It’s a proven fact that with the increase of lesbian and gay individuals, then the birth rate will ultimately decline. If the gay and lesbian community was not as prominent back then, but currently now it is, then what’s in store for the future? I do not want anyone to take this the wrong way because I’m definitely not saying we should stop gay relationships altogether at all, but we should consider this fact for our future!
Ultimately, we cannot escape social and economic structures in our society. We can only learn from them and grow from them. Without change, then America would be one very dull country!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sorority Sisterhood.. or Sorority Sin?
Real Wild Women/Wild Real Men
The movie Sorority Row is about six girls in a college sorority who are all seeking for their own identities. They are all young, naïve and have distinct personalities separating them from one another. Don’t get me wrong, they still depict the typical sorority girl stereotype of being rich and gorgeous with a hardcore attitude, but you would never see such diverse individuals as friends outside of the sorority. In order for them to truly bond as “sisters” they are brought together surprisingly by a horrible accident late one night. Their personalities are so varied that they must each contribute to the storyline immensely in different ways, which is what makes this movie so intriguing.
The backbone to the storyline sucks in each sorority sister to a bond that they cannot break, even if some of them are unwilling to cooperate. Megan, a very prissy, dramatic individual decides to get back at her boyfriend for cheating on her. She proceeds to “fake” her death in order to freak him out for payback. All the other sisters decide to get in on it and they take her “dead body” to an abandoned part of the desert. Each one of them contributes to the prank that is eventually taken too far. The boyfriend decides to stab Megan to her actual, real death discovering at the same time that she was never dead in the first place. Jessica, the head of Theta Pi, convinces the other sisters to keep it a secret, creating a forced bond between them, until a killer who knows their dark secret comes after them all.
There are a few stereotypes and similar motivations that Jack Boozer has pointed out about certain films. He explains how “heterosexual couples tend to commit crimes out of spontaneous convenience and role-playing” (Boozer 12). Megan and her boyfriend would be a prime example of this typical similarity. Although her boyfriend was not in on the crime originally, the origin of the storyline was based off of Megan impulsively playing a prank on her boyfriend. The end result was the infamous crime of coldblooded murder. You also tend to see quite a few movies with couples who commit crimes out of nowhere. Take for example the movies, Fun with Dick and Jane and Sugar and Spice. These two movies are also about couples who rob banks and stores in order to fulfill their financial needs. In movies where the characters commit serious crimes, they almost always have a significant other, or an accomplice throughout the entire film. It seems to make the storyline more intriguing.
Not only are the sorority stereotypes heavily present in this movie, but there are also a few other female stereotypes that Boozer discusses. Boozer claims the irony in that “the protagonist is increasingly entrapped the more desperately he/she seeks emancipation” (Boozer 209). Cassidy, another sister, is constantly harassed by the other sisters because she does not believe they should keep the murder a secret. Throughout the entire movie she is trying to find a way, but is always sucked in to the sisterhood. But do not let her weakness fool you! We all know the cliches in movies, and she ends up being a significant factor in the ending!
Although this movie is a typical horror movie, it shows how broken female bonds can be mended by even the costliest of crimes. However, one of the more prominent similarities would definitely be gender roles. If the protagonist is a female, then she is almost always a bully with masculine personality features. It’s interesting to ponder the similarities in certain genres of movies; they almost always have more than one aspect in common.
The movie Sorority Row is about six girls in a college sorority who are all seeking for their own identities. They are all young, naïve and have distinct personalities separating them from one another. Don’t get me wrong, they still depict the typical sorority girl stereotype of being rich and gorgeous with a hardcore attitude, but you would never see such diverse individuals as friends outside of the sorority. In order for them to truly bond as “sisters” they are brought together surprisingly by a horrible accident late one night. Their personalities are so varied that they must each contribute to the storyline immensely in different ways, which is what makes this movie so intriguing.
The backbone to the storyline sucks in each sorority sister to a bond that they cannot break, even if some of them are unwilling to cooperate. Megan, a very prissy, dramatic individual decides to get back at her boyfriend for cheating on her. She proceeds to “fake” her death in order to freak him out for payback. All the other sisters decide to get in on it and they take her “dead body” to an abandoned part of the desert. Each one of them contributes to the prank that is eventually taken too far. The boyfriend decides to stab Megan to her actual, real death discovering at the same time that she was never dead in the first place. Jessica, the head of Theta Pi, convinces the other sisters to keep it a secret, creating a forced bond between them, until a killer who knows their dark secret comes after them all.
There are a few stereotypes and similar motivations that Jack Boozer has pointed out about certain films. He explains how “heterosexual couples tend to commit crimes out of spontaneous convenience and role-playing” (Boozer 12). Megan and her boyfriend would be a prime example of this typical similarity. Although her boyfriend was not in on the crime originally, the origin of the storyline was based off of Megan impulsively playing a prank on her boyfriend. The end result was the infamous crime of coldblooded murder. You also tend to see quite a few movies with couples who commit crimes out of nowhere. Take for example the movies, Fun with Dick and Jane and Sugar and Spice. These two movies are also about couples who rob banks and stores in order to fulfill their financial needs. In movies where the characters commit serious crimes, they almost always have a significant other, or an accomplice throughout the entire film. It seems to make the storyline more intriguing.
Not only are the sorority stereotypes heavily present in this movie, but there are also a few other female stereotypes that Boozer discusses. Boozer claims the irony in that “the protagonist is increasingly entrapped the more desperately he/she seeks emancipation” (Boozer 209). Cassidy, another sister, is constantly harassed by the other sisters because she does not believe they should keep the murder a secret. Throughout the entire movie she is trying to find a way, but is always sucked in to the sisterhood. But do not let her weakness fool you! We all know the cliches in movies, and she ends up being a significant factor in the ending!
Although this movie is a typical horror movie, it shows how broken female bonds can be mended by even the costliest of crimes. However, one of the more prominent similarities would definitely be gender roles. If the protagonist is a female, then she is almost always a bully with masculine personality features. It’s interesting to ponder the similarities in certain genres of movies; they almost always have more than one aspect in common.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Week 4 Blog Reviews
Group 2 Blog Reviews
Kayla Smith
In your “Can Machines Think?” post, I’m assuming yours was the summary assignment as well, but I really like how you were able to shorten it up into a very small summary. It kept me more interested and not lost in all the different machine “lingo”!
I’m not particularly an artsy person either, so I was also very hesitant for the Frida Kahlo assignment. Your descriptions were very nice but it was hard to picture it without the picture posted! But I’m glad you enjoyed the painting rather than just doing it for the assignment! That’s what art should be about!
Jessica Tavizon
I found your “So… Can They?” post very interesting! I disagreed with the fact that machines could think, but you put it in an entirely different way which was very cool. You believe that machines can think by tricking us into thinking we’re having an actual full on conversation with them, however, it’s an “empty victory.” I thought that was clever how you put it that way. I never really considered it like that!
I really enjoyed your Frida Kahlo assignment. It’s cool to see that you could actually relate with the painting. It honestly really makes you enjoy the art that much more when you actually can see similarities with the artist and yourself.
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Kayla Smith
In your “Can Machines Think?” post, I’m assuming yours was the summary assignment as well, but I really like how you were able to shorten it up into a very small summary. It kept me more interested and not lost in all the different machine “lingo”!
I’m not particularly an artsy person either, so I was also very hesitant for the Frida Kahlo assignment. Your descriptions were very nice but it was hard to picture it without the picture posted! But I’m glad you enjoyed the painting rather than just doing it for the assignment! That’s what art should be about!
Jessica Tavizon
I found your “So… Can They?” post very interesting! I disagreed with the fact that machines could think, but you put it in an entirely different way which was very cool. You believe that machines can think by tricking us into thinking we’re having an actual full on conversation with them, however, it’s an “empty victory.” I thought that was clever how you put it that way. I never really considered it like that!
I really enjoyed your Frida Kahlo assignment. It’s cool to see that you could actually relate with the painting. It honestly really makes you enjoy the art that much more when you actually can see similarities with the artist and yourself.
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Just an Illusion??
What I Saw in the Water or What the Water Gave Me
Filipacci, Daniel. "Frida Kahlo: What the Water Gave Her." Venetian Red. 10 12 2008. Wordpress.com, Web. 14 Sep 2009. http://venetianred.net/2008/12/10/frida-kahlo-what-the-water-gave-her/In Frida Kahlo’s painting, What I Saw in the Water or What the Water Gave Me, I see very dull colors, nothing too bright. I see the illusion of someone sitting in the bathtub with numerous mini pictures on top of the water. There’s a building burning in a volcano next to what looks like a bird on top of a tree trunk. There’s a lot of brown and dirt around them and the water is very shallow, but murky. I also see a naked woman, two of them next to each other. It almost looks as if there’s a dress floating in the water that belonged to one of the women. Some of the figures are hard to make out, but I observed what looks like different kinds of plant life throughout the entire painting. It looks very earthy. She doesn’t use any vibrant colors so all of these different objects seem to almost flow together as a collage.
The reason why I chose this painting was because it caught my eye. Not because it had bright colors or anything like that, but it was a painting that I have never seen before. Frida Kahlo uses numerous objects and morphs them all into one, which I think symbolizes many different things. I like how she used a bathtub as the main background because whenever I’m taking a relaxing bath, I tend to think many different things at once, so I felt like I instantly related to this picture. I feel like each separate “mini picture” symbolizes something specific. The volcano engulfing the building reminds me of manmade disaster. An example of this would be 9-11, even though this picture was painted in 1938. I do not know what the naked women symbolize, but maybe how women were perceived back then? I think this picture is very intriguing, and you can definitely leave it up to your own imagination, which almost makes me wonder if that was Kahlo’s intentions. I would love to read the background on this painting and find out the meaning to each little piece.
Monday, September 14, 2009
"Soulful" or "Soulless?"
Cog as a Thought Experiment
Page 165 “Philosophy Unit Writing Assignments” – Write a summary of Wright’s essay. Start your summary with a short, objective introduction to the topic engaged by Wright, and state the author’s main point, or his thesis, in your introduction. In the summary that follows, recount what you take to be the key points of Wright’s essay, rephrasing them in your own words and clearly indicating how these key points relate to Wright’s thesis. Imagine that your reading is a peer, is not a philosophy major, and has not read Wright’s essay; thus, since all that the reader will ever know about these ideas will come from you, you may need to simplify and provide explanations for some of the more difficult concepts and terminology that Wright discusses. When the reader has finished reading your summary, he or she should have a thorough understanding of the ideas Wright deals with.
The best chess player in the United States might win a nationwide tournament with no problem, however, he still has his flaws just like any other human. He might choose the wrong move during a game and not realize the mistake he has made until after, when it’s too late. What if that move was against a computer – a computer with no flaws? Does that automatically make man-made intelligence just as good as us humans? Robert Wright clearly states that the better these seemingly soulless machines get at doing things people do, the more plausible it seems that we could be soulless machines too.
This might seem like an interesting topic to the everyday reader but for some reason it does not appeal to many scholars. Philosophers are not theologians, so they simply speak about “consciousness and the mind” rather than the “soul.” Wright points out that as our information advances with technology, philosophers seem to be taking the existence of mind and consciousness less seriously.
A British computer scientist Alan Turing wrote the original question, “Can machines think?” in one of his famous essays. He then proposed the now called “Turing test.” Suppose an interrogator is communicating by a keyboard with accessories that he cannot see. Some of these accessories are people, and some are computers. The interrogator then must guess which is which. The fact that a computer can fool interrogators is the reason why it is said to be able to think. His test was not supposed to answer his question, but to actually replace it. He did add, “I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.” Turing was obviously wrong, because with the century almost over, no machine has consistently passed the infamous Turing test.
The lesson learned from this is that the hardest thing for computers is the “simple” things. Yeah, computers can play a good game of chess, but making small talk is a whole different story. As Marvin Minsky once speculated, “the biggest challenge is giving machines common sense.” In order to pass the Turing test, a computer must have that crucial piece of mind. Even if a computer could pass the test, the debate would still be constant in whether they could still think or not. Nobody ever doubted the machine’s chess skills, but they did doubt whether or not it was a thinking machine. It uses zillions of difficult calculations rather than a quick thought. However, on the other hand, there are many chess programs that work somewhat like us. Although they aren’t good enough to beat chess champion Gary Kasparov, they are good enough to leave the average individual swimming in their own humiliation.
Many people would say that computers cannot think. When they think about this, they don’t just mean our brain functions and how smart we are, but they mean more of what’s within us – like feelings. Could a computer ever feel upset or angry when it loses in a simple game of chess? Can they recognize faces? Can computers actually have experiences like we do every day? These are just a few of the questions of consciousness or mind. As computers keep evolving, some philosophers are taking the issue of computer consciousness more seriously. Some of them, like David Chalmers who is a professor of philosophy at the University of California at Santa Cruz, are using this to argue that consciousness is a much harder puzzle than many other philosophers have previously thought.
Chalmers has a fourth book coming out, which is said to be an “illusion” by the well-known philosopher Daniel Dennett of Tufts University. He claims that consciousness is no longer a mystery. The root of this heated debate between the two goes back to Gilbert Ryle from Oxford University. In 1949 Ryle published a book called The Concept of Mind. It dismissed the idea of a human soul. It also had no enthusiasm for the less supernatural versions of the soul: mind, consciousness, and subjective experience. Some insisted that these did not exist, but others said that they do exist, but it consists simply of just the brain.
Colin McGinn, an author and philosopher, and Chalmers have been called the New Mysterians because they obviously both think that consciousness is mysterious. McGinn goes as far to say that it will always remain that way. There have been a few mysterians insisting that the glory of human experience defies scientific reasoning. The current debate is different, however. The New Mysterians do not doubt the premises of artificial intelligence (AI). They agree that an electronic machine can do everything a human brain can do. But wait – humans have a feeling of heat and pain. According to Chalmers, studying Cog, an AI lab, deepens the question of why we have such feelings. Cog’s story seems to say that you do not need pain in order to function like a human being. So then why do we have such feelings? Of course, it’s possible that Cog could have some sort of consciousness. Consciousness is the central source of life’s meaning. So, it’s always possible that consciousness isn’t extra, but it actually does something in the physical world, like what influences our behaviors.
Chalmers claims that once we know what kinds of data become a part of consciousness, and how it gets it, we still have the question “How does data become a part of consciousness?” remaining. McGinn also questions, “How does the brain ‘turn the water into wine’?” He does not mean that the experiences we have are miracles, but he believes that there is some physical explanation for them. These two questions about consciousness that do not depend on artificial intelligence. Dennett has some answers. He says that if you believe that “the mind is the brain” then consciousness must have a function to you. But to people who do not share Dennett’s beliefs, then these arguments may seem odd. That doesn’t mean Dennett is wrong though. Chalmers believes that a solution to the consciousness puzzle is possible, but it will require recognizing that it is something “over and above the physical.”
Although Turing generally shied away from such questions, he noted that some people might complain that to create machines that can actually think would be creating souls and that job is only done by God. He strongly disagreed and wrote, “Rather we are, in either case, instruments of his will providing mansions for the souls that he creates.”
Page 165 “Philosophy Unit Writing Assignments” – Write a summary of Wright’s essay. Start your summary with a short, objective introduction to the topic engaged by Wright, and state the author’s main point, or his thesis, in your introduction. In the summary that follows, recount what you take to be the key points of Wright’s essay, rephrasing them in your own words and clearly indicating how these key points relate to Wright’s thesis. Imagine that your reading is a peer, is not a philosophy major, and has not read Wright’s essay; thus, since all that the reader will ever know about these ideas will come from you, you may need to simplify and provide explanations for some of the more difficult concepts and terminology that Wright discusses. When the reader has finished reading your summary, he or she should have a thorough understanding of the ideas Wright deals with.
The best chess player in the United States might win a nationwide tournament with no problem, however, he still has his flaws just like any other human. He might choose the wrong move during a game and not realize the mistake he has made until after, when it’s too late. What if that move was against a computer – a computer with no flaws? Does that automatically make man-made intelligence just as good as us humans? Robert Wright clearly states that the better these seemingly soulless machines get at doing things people do, the more plausible it seems that we could be soulless machines too.
This might seem like an interesting topic to the everyday reader but for some reason it does not appeal to many scholars. Philosophers are not theologians, so they simply speak about “consciousness and the mind” rather than the “soul.” Wright points out that as our information advances with technology, philosophers seem to be taking the existence of mind and consciousness less seriously.
A British computer scientist Alan Turing wrote the original question, “Can machines think?” in one of his famous essays. He then proposed the now called “Turing test.” Suppose an interrogator is communicating by a keyboard with accessories that he cannot see. Some of these accessories are people, and some are computers. The interrogator then must guess which is which. The fact that a computer can fool interrogators is the reason why it is said to be able to think. His test was not supposed to answer his question, but to actually replace it. He did add, “I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.” Turing was obviously wrong, because with the century almost over, no machine has consistently passed the infamous Turing test.
The lesson learned from this is that the hardest thing for computers is the “simple” things. Yeah, computers can play a good game of chess, but making small talk is a whole different story. As Marvin Minsky once speculated, “the biggest challenge is giving machines common sense.” In order to pass the Turing test, a computer must have that crucial piece of mind. Even if a computer could pass the test, the debate would still be constant in whether they could still think or not. Nobody ever doubted the machine’s chess skills, but they did doubt whether or not it was a thinking machine. It uses zillions of difficult calculations rather than a quick thought. However, on the other hand, there are many chess programs that work somewhat like us. Although they aren’t good enough to beat chess champion Gary Kasparov, they are good enough to leave the average individual swimming in their own humiliation.
Many people would say that computers cannot think. When they think about this, they don’t just mean our brain functions and how smart we are, but they mean more of what’s within us – like feelings. Could a computer ever feel upset or angry when it loses in a simple game of chess? Can they recognize faces? Can computers actually have experiences like we do every day? These are just a few of the questions of consciousness or mind. As computers keep evolving, some philosophers are taking the issue of computer consciousness more seriously. Some of them, like David Chalmers who is a professor of philosophy at the University of California at Santa Cruz, are using this to argue that consciousness is a much harder puzzle than many other philosophers have previously thought.
Chalmers has a fourth book coming out, which is said to be an “illusion” by the well-known philosopher Daniel Dennett of Tufts University. He claims that consciousness is no longer a mystery. The root of this heated debate between the two goes back to Gilbert Ryle from Oxford University. In 1949 Ryle published a book called The Concept of Mind. It dismissed the idea of a human soul. It also had no enthusiasm for the less supernatural versions of the soul: mind, consciousness, and subjective experience. Some insisted that these did not exist, but others said that they do exist, but it consists simply of just the brain.
Colin McGinn, an author and philosopher, and Chalmers have been called the New Mysterians because they obviously both think that consciousness is mysterious. McGinn goes as far to say that it will always remain that way. There have been a few mysterians insisting that the glory of human experience defies scientific reasoning. The current debate is different, however. The New Mysterians do not doubt the premises of artificial intelligence (AI). They agree that an electronic machine can do everything a human brain can do. But wait – humans have a feeling of heat and pain. According to Chalmers, studying Cog, an AI lab, deepens the question of why we have such feelings. Cog’s story seems to say that you do not need pain in order to function like a human being. So then why do we have such feelings? Of course, it’s possible that Cog could have some sort of consciousness. Consciousness is the central source of life’s meaning. So, it’s always possible that consciousness isn’t extra, but it actually does something in the physical world, like what influences our behaviors.
Chalmers claims that once we know what kinds of data become a part of consciousness, and how it gets it, we still have the question “How does data become a part of consciousness?” remaining. McGinn also questions, “How does the brain ‘turn the water into wine’?” He does not mean that the experiences we have are miracles, but he believes that there is some physical explanation for them. These two questions about consciousness that do not depend on artificial intelligence. Dennett has some answers. He says that if you believe that “the mind is the brain” then consciousness must have a function to you. But to people who do not share Dennett’s beliefs, then these arguments may seem odd. That doesn’t mean Dennett is wrong though. Chalmers believes that a solution to the consciousness puzzle is possible, but it will require recognizing that it is something “over and above the physical.”
Although Turing generally shied away from such questions, he noted that some people might complain that to create machines that can actually think would be creating souls and that job is only done by God. He strongly disagreed and wrote, “Rather we are, in either case, instruments of his will providing mansions for the souls that he creates.”
Week 3 Blog Reviews
Group 2 Blog Reviews
Kayla Smith
I really enjoyed reading your writings this past week, especially the one title “Class Discussion” for September 10th. I completely agree with you, because I also totally disagree with Marvin Minsky. I mean, it was a pretty interesting essay to read, but the brain really is more complex than we even know. And yes, biological features like consciousness cannot just be placed into a machine – this seems impossible!
Good posts :)
Jessica Tavizon
I also really enjoyed reading your post on Marvin Minksy’s essay. You proved a great point – humans are the ones who created machines in the first place. So true, we are the ones placing that information into the computer, therefore not making it a genuine functioning machine. I thought that was a great point.
Your other post, on Robert M. Hazen’s “The Great Unknown” I really found interesting. Your example about Jack and Jill was a great way to explain your point. I honestly do not think that science can fully explain why we feel such emotions in our hearts. It seems that nowadays we need science in order to explain EVERYTHING. Why can’t we just stick to the simple answers, like we feel those emotions because we are human??
Good posts :)
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Oh, and I wanted to let you guys know, I have classes pretty much all day on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so my posts usually are posted a day or so earlier than the due date. I just thought I’d let you guys know in case it was confusing to figure out which posts you needed to read!
Kayla Smith
I really enjoyed reading your writings this past week, especially the one title “Class Discussion” for September 10th. I completely agree with you, because I also totally disagree with Marvin Minsky. I mean, it was a pretty interesting essay to read, but the brain really is more complex than we even know. And yes, biological features like consciousness cannot just be placed into a machine – this seems impossible!
Good posts :)
Jessica Tavizon
I also really enjoyed reading your post on Marvin Minksy’s essay. You proved a great point – humans are the ones who created machines in the first place. So true, we are the ones placing that information into the computer, therefore not making it a genuine functioning machine. I thought that was a great point.
Your other post, on Robert M. Hazen’s “The Great Unknown” I really found interesting. Your example about Jack and Jill was a great way to explain your point. I honestly do not think that science can fully explain why we feel such emotions in our hearts. It seems that nowadays we need science in order to explain EVERYTHING. Why can’t we just stick to the simple answers, like we feel those emotions because we are human??
Good posts :)
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Oh, and I wanted to let you guys know, I have classes pretty much all day on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so my posts usually are posted a day or so earlier than the due date. I just thought I’d let you guys know in case it was confusing to figure out which posts you needed to read!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Screwdriver, hard drive......... brain?
I Process Therefore I Am
Page 109 “Directed Freewrite” – In what ways will machines surpass the human brain, in the view of Minsky? In his view, do these areas of superiority make advanced computers "smarter" than human beings? Discuss your own reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with Minsky's position on this point.
I found this essay very interesting. For one, robots have always been a big part of our entertainment. Think about movies like I-Robot. It’s always about crazy robots that are as capable as any human being is at tasks and everyday life. And two, it’s just amazing to think about how much our technology has advanced even in just the nineteen years I’ve been alive. I mean, in the 90’s I would have never considered the possibility of a robot with a consciousness and similar brain functions as a human. With technology today, I believe it’s possible. I mean, anything is possible, right?!
The fact that “computers can perform a broad range of tasks that involve reasoning, learning, planning and other functions usually associated with human intelligence” opens up numerous pathways and arguments (Davidson 116). First off, considering that computers are capable of so many things, it’s a given that robots should be successful in fully functioning. Second off, this brings up the question, “does that make these machines intelligent?” (Davidson 116). There are quite a few people who agree that it does make robots intelligent, but “some scientists and philosophers argue that mechanical intelligence is not the same as mind” (Davidson 116). Igor Aleksander and Marvin Minsky disagree with those scientists and philosophers – they believe “that machines could be conscious, [and] possibly even more conscious than humans” (Davidson 116). But what makes these computers conscious?
In the human brain, neurons are connected in complex networks where input from nerve cells of the eye generate patterns of activity in particular centers of the brain (Davidson 117). Wisard, the first large-scale neural network built by Aleksander and others, had a quarter of a million artificial neurons (Davidson 117). This demonstrates that neural networks could be trained very quickly in order to perform certain tasks, like a human (Davidson 117). Neural networks cannot be programmed, but they can be learned (Davidson 117). According to Minsky, “the human brain has only very limited records of what it has been doing recently. A machine could be vastly more conscious than a person because we didn’t evolve for that” (Davidson 120). In his eyes, he honestly believes that a manmade computer is not only more capable of what a human can do, but can also have a conscious. This seems a bit absurd to me, but who knows what we are eventually capable of creating.
All in all, I would have to mostly disagree with Marvin Minksy. I believe that the only way advanced computers can be smarter than a human being, is by being able to calculate numbers and figures that we would not be able to do on our own. Other than that, I do not think a robot is as competent. An artificial brain may be as close to a human brain as possible, but still, it can malfunction just like any other computer. Also, Minksy seemed to be stuck on common sense. Common sense seems more like a learned trait based off of your personality and environment rather than something you can artificially create. With that said, humans are definitely the superior race in this argument!
Page 109 “Directed Freewrite” – In what ways will machines surpass the human brain, in the view of Minsky? In his view, do these areas of superiority make advanced computers "smarter" than human beings? Discuss your own reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with Minsky's position on this point.
I found this essay very interesting. For one, robots have always been a big part of our entertainment. Think about movies like I-Robot. It’s always about crazy robots that are as capable as any human being is at tasks and everyday life. And two, it’s just amazing to think about how much our technology has advanced even in just the nineteen years I’ve been alive. I mean, in the 90’s I would have never considered the possibility of a robot with a consciousness and similar brain functions as a human. With technology today, I believe it’s possible. I mean, anything is possible, right?!
The fact that “computers can perform a broad range of tasks that involve reasoning, learning, planning and other functions usually associated with human intelligence” opens up numerous pathways and arguments (Davidson 116). First off, considering that computers are capable of so many things, it’s a given that robots should be successful in fully functioning. Second off, this brings up the question, “does that make these machines intelligent?” (Davidson 116). There are quite a few people who agree that it does make robots intelligent, but “some scientists and philosophers argue that mechanical intelligence is not the same as mind” (Davidson 116). Igor Aleksander and Marvin Minsky disagree with those scientists and philosophers – they believe “that machines could be conscious, [and] possibly even more conscious than humans” (Davidson 116). But what makes these computers conscious?
In the human brain, neurons are connected in complex networks where input from nerve cells of the eye generate patterns of activity in particular centers of the brain (Davidson 117). Wisard, the first large-scale neural network built by Aleksander and others, had a quarter of a million artificial neurons (Davidson 117). This demonstrates that neural networks could be trained very quickly in order to perform certain tasks, like a human (Davidson 117). Neural networks cannot be programmed, but they can be learned (Davidson 117). According to Minsky, “the human brain has only very limited records of what it has been doing recently. A machine could be vastly more conscious than a person because we didn’t evolve for that” (Davidson 120). In his eyes, he honestly believes that a manmade computer is not only more capable of what a human can do, but can also have a conscious. This seems a bit absurd to me, but who knows what we are eventually capable of creating.
All in all, I would have to mostly disagree with Marvin Minksy. I believe that the only way advanced computers can be smarter than a human being, is by being able to calculate numbers and figures that we would not be able to do on our own. Other than that, I do not think a robot is as competent. An artificial brain may be as close to a human brain as possible, but still, it can malfunction just like any other computer. Also, Minksy seemed to be stuck on common sense. Common sense seems more like a learned trait based off of your personality and environment rather than something you can artificially create. With that said, humans are definitely the superior race in this argument!
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Week 2 Blog Reviews
Group 2 Blog Reviews
Kayla Smith
While reading your “Do You Need God to Be Good” post, I couldn’t help but agree with you about how our society is quickly to judge based off of stereotypes. My view is pretty much the same as yours – I believe that we can be good without God because of our own individual morals. Actions do matter the most in the end compared to ideas and that’s what breaks the stereotype of say, an atheist. The thoughts in an atheist’s mind might be different from a devout Christian, but the most important thing to consider is that just because they do not believe in a God does not mean they would follow through with the action of stealing.
I also agree with you on your other post about “The Individual Self.” The two classrooms do differ mostly because of the lack of the face to face action. We cannot judge someone the same exact way in both classroom settings because we are presented certain things in different ways.
Overall, your posts were very interesting to read, but I did think that they lacked a bit of length. I never thought I'd say this for a class, but I want to read more!! I also look forward to reading some more of your posts! :)
Jessica Tavizon
Your post “Yes, We Can!” brought me a lot of different insight on the concept of “Can We Be Good Without God?” Growing up in a pretty religious family myself, I do seem to have the bias thinking that people who do not attend church regularly generally live “bad lifestyles.” But when doing this assignment, I did not stop to think that different people might have different definitions and perceptions of “good.” But in the end, we all do have different backgrounds and morals – so yes, we can be good without God!
I really enjoyed reading your “My ‘Self’” post. Your intro paragraph was very interesting and definitely caught my attention. I never really thought about it, but we really do change how we interact with customers at work, or how we answer the phone. At my work, I could be having the most horrible day, but the customer would not know that because of my “fake” smile and cheerful voice. Whenever I do answer the phone, I change my voice to be friendly and inviting. Besides all of that, talking with friends, or in class I act pretty much “normal.” I don’t have to change my voice, wording of sentences, or watch my actions carefully like I do at work. I feel like we all can agree on that – which is what really opened up my eyes.
Good job! I look forward to reading some more of your posts!
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Kayla Smith
While reading your “Do You Need God to Be Good” post, I couldn’t help but agree with you about how our society is quickly to judge based off of stereotypes. My view is pretty much the same as yours – I believe that we can be good without God because of our own individual morals. Actions do matter the most in the end compared to ideas and that’s what breaks the stereotype of say, an atheist. The thoughts in an atheist’s mind might be different from a devout Christian, but the most important thing to consider is that just because they do not believe in a God does not mean they would follow through with the action of stealing.
I also agree with you on your other post about “The Individual Self.” The two classrooms do differ mostly because of the lack of the face to face action. We cannot judge someone the same exact way in both classroom settings because we are presented certain things in different ways.
Overall, your posts were very interesting to read, but I did think that they lacked a bit of length. I never thought I'd say this for a class, but I want to read more!! I also look forward to reading some more of your posts! :)
Jessica Tavizon
Your post “Yes, We Can!” brought me a lot of different insight on the concept of “Can We Be Good Without God?” Growing up in a pretty religious family myself, I do seem to have the bias thinking that people who do not attend church regularly generally live “bad lifestyles.” But when doing this assignment, I did not stop to think that different people might have different definitions and perceptions of “good.” But in the end, we all do have different backgrounds and morals – so yes, we can be good without God!
I really enjoyed reading your “My ‘Self’” post. Your intro paragraph was very interesting and definitely caught my attention. I never really thought about it, but we really do change how we interact with customers at work, or how we answer the phone. At my work, I could be having the most horrible day, but the customer would not know that because of my “fake” smile and cheerful voice. Whenever I do answer the phone, I change my voice to be friendly and inviting. Besides all of that, talking with friends, or in class I act pretty much “normal.” I don’t have to change my voice, wording of sentences, or watch my actions carefully like I do at work. I feel like we all can agree on that – which is what really opened up my eyes.
Good job! I look forward to reading some more of your posts!
Unfortunately, Erin Lyng did not have any assignments posted for me to read.
Monday, September 7, 2009
There's More to Thinking Than You.. Think
Why Neuroscience May Be Able to Explain Consciousness
Page 109 “Directed Freewrite” – Read over this brief essay, and write down the main points in the essay, but in a more conversational and less academic tone. Use everyday words to explain some of the “fifty-cent words” here, and express the points in this article in a way that your fifteen-year-old sibling (or cousin) could understand.
In the piece, “Why Neuroscience May Be Able to Explain Consciousness”, Francis Crick, a biologist, and Cristof Koch, a professor, speak about how they disagree with David J. Chalmers view. Instead, they both insist that by understanding the brain scientifically will ultimately answer questions about our consciousness.
Francis Crick and Cristof Koch believe that right now, the best approach to explaining consciousness is to solely concentrate on finding the processes in our brain that are the most responsible for consciousness. By locating specific neurons (messengers in our brain) in the cerebral cortex (a certain segment of our brain) that only deal with consciousness, we might come across what David J. Chalmers calls the big problem: a full understanding of a subjective experience that makes these processes occur.
Unfortunately, Crick and Koch are not as enthusiastic as Chalmers was about this early stage. They see Chalmers’ “big problem” being broken down into a few questions. Questions like: Why do we experience anything at all? What leads us to a particular conscious experience? Why are some of our experiences private from others? They believe they have an answer to the last question and an idea about the first two, having to deal with a phenomenon known as “explicit neuronal representation.”
The best way to define Francis Crick and Cristof Koch’s definition of “explicit” is by providing an example. When we look at another persons’ face cells in our eyes fire rapidly, like the pixels on a television screen, in order to create a representation of their face. At the same time, these cells respond to many other features of the image we are looking at, such as shadows, lines, and uneven lighting. An individual can also lose these visuals from a stroke or other brain trauma, which is called “prosopagnosia.” Prosopagnosia is the individual’s inability to recognize certain and familiar faces consciously, or on their own. There are many other parts that can be damaged which lead to other deficiencies.
At each stage visual information we receive is reencoded, or retransmitted in a different way. Cells in our eyes respond to light and the neurons in the visual area of our brain are best at responding to lines or edges that we see. Neurons higher up respond to faces and other objects that we find familiar. On top of those neurons, there are some that function our pre-motor and motor structures in the brain, where they actually fire the neurons that create actions such as speaking, or our reflexes and movement.
In order for us to describe a visual experience, the information has to be transmitted to a certain part of the brain that deals with motor output. After that, it then becomes available for us to speak about. This process always involves reencoding the information.
It’s not possible to convey with words and ideas the exact nature of an experience we’ve had. However, it is possible to distinguish the difference between our own subjective experiences (knowing the difference between red and orange). This is all possible because a difference in a high-level visual area in our brain will still be associated with a difference in our motor stages. What Crick and Koch get form this is that we can never explain to other people the true nature of any of our own experiences, only its relation to other ones.
The other two questions are much more difficult. Crick and Koch prefer an alternative approach, which involves the concept of “meaning.” Meaning derives the linkage among representations with others spread throughout the brain and spinal system in a network that is similar to a dictionary. The more diverse that these connections are, the richer the meaning is. Of course, groups of neurons can take on new functions, or jobs, which allow our brain to learn new categories like new faces.
Chalmers suspects that information is the key concept, which might be true. It would be very useful to try to determine what a neural network must have in order to generate a meaning. It’s possible that some exercises can suggest meaning. The big problem of consciousness might just appear in an entirely new way, or it might just disappear someday.
Page 109 “Directed Freewrite” – Read over this brief essay, and write down the main points in the essay, but in a more conversational and less academic tone. Use everyday words to explain some of the “fifty-cent words” here, and express the points in this article in a way that your fifteen-year-old sibling (or cousin) could understand.
In the piece, “Why Neuroscience May Be Able to Explain Consciousness”, Francis Crick, a biologist, and Cristof Koch, a professor, speak about how they disagree with David J. Chalmers view. Instead, they both insist that by understanding the brain scientifically will ultimately answer questions about our consciousness.
Francis Crick and Cristof Koch believe that right now, the best approach to explaining consciousness is to solely concentrate on finding the processes in our brain that are the most responsible for consciousness. By locating specific neurons (messengers in our brain) in the cerebral cortex (a certain segment of our brain) that only deal with consciousness, we might come across what David J. Chalmers calls the big problem: a full understanding of a subjective experience that makes these processes occur.
Unfortunately, Crick and Koch are not as enthusiastic as Chalmers was about this early stage. They see Chalmers’ “big problem” being broken down into a few questions. Questions like: Why do we experience anything at all? What leads us to a particular conscious experience? Why are some of our experiences private from others? They believe they have an answer to the last question and an idea about the first two, having to deal with a phenomenon known as “explicit neuronal representation.”
The best way to define Francis Crick and Cristof Koch’s definition of “explicit” is by providing an example. When we look at another persons’ face cells in our eyes fire rapidly, like the pixels on a television screen, in order to create a representation of their face. At the same time, these cells respond to many other features of the image we are looking at, such as shadows, lines, and uneven lighting. An individual can also lose these visuals from a stroke or other brain trauma, which is called “prosopagnosia.” Prosopagnosia is the individual’s inability to recognize certain and familiar faces consciously, or on their own. There are many other parts that can be damaged which lead to other deficiencies.
At each stage visual information we receive is reencoded, or retransmitted in a different way. Cells in our eyes respond to light and the neurons in the visual area of our brain are best at responding to lines or edges that we see. Neurons higher up respond to faces and other objects that we find familiar. On top of those neurons, there are some that function our pre-motor and motor structures in the brain, where they actually fire the neurons that create actions such as speaking, or our reflexes and movement.
In order for us to describe a visual experience, the information has to be transmitted to a certain part of the brain that deals with motor output. After that, it then becomes available for us to speak about. This process always involves reencoding the information.
It’s not possible to convey with words and ideas the exact nature of an experience we’ve had. However, it is possible to distinguish the difference between our own subjective experiences (knowing the difference between red and orange). This is all possible because a difference in a high-level visual area in our brain will still be associated with a difference in our motor stages. What Crick and Koch get form this is that we can never explain to other people the true nature of any of our own experiences, only its relation to other ones.
The other two questions are much more difficult. Crick and Koch prefer an alternative approach, which involves the concept of “meaning.” Meaning derives the linkage among representations with others spread throughout the brain and spinal system in a network that is similar to a dictionary. The more diverse that these connections are, the richer the meaning is. Of course, groups of neurons can take on new functions, or jobs, which allow our brain to learn new categories like new faces.
Chalmers suspects that information is the key concept, which might be true. It would be very useful to try to determine what a neural network must have in order to generate a meaning. It’s possible that some exercises can suggest meaning. The big problem of consciousness might just appear in an entirely new way, or it might just disappear someday.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
A World In Perfect Order.. or Not?
Can we be Good Without God?
One question that seems to come up frequently to this day is does religion and crime go hand in hand? In other words, can we be good without God? Now, there are quite a few other things that do not fall under the category of crime, such as, lying to your parents and pre-marital sex. Other actions that are not considered a crime in our judicial system depend on each individual’s morals. But do morals coincide with crime and religion? Does God, or any other religious figure, have such an impact on how we live our lives honestly?
Ask any individual who regularly goes to church and has a strong belief in God, and they will instantly answer, “We are better because we believe in God.” According to Christianity we are supposed to “Fear God.” Now, that does not mean we are to literally fear God as to where we do not believe in Him, but for an unbeliever, by fearing God, you fear the judgment of Him and eternal separation of Him, which would also be known as hell. However, if you are a strong believer in God, then your fear of Him would be in honor of Him. Because of this, many Christians, or any other religion that follows God, know about sin. Every person in this world sins, whether they know it or not; we are not perfect. Fortunately we are forgiven of our sins. So, from the viewpoint of any strong believer in God, they would tell you, “Yes, we are good because we believe in God; we are supposed to try not to live our lives in sin.” But what if God never existed in the first place? What if the world never saw religion? Can we still be good?
Without God, we would never know of sin in the first place. Although we would not have a Godly figure guiding us throughout our lives, we are still born with our own morals, personality, and beliefs. With religion now, we still fight wars and see numerous unthinkable crimes on the news every day. A very religious person would probably not be able to see a world in order without God, but if we never knew what religion was, then how would we ever know in the first place? Every single individual in this world is different. So yes, without God, there still could be crime on the streets, but I do not necessarily believe that every single person would be corrupt. According to a recent study in which “researchers asked students about their religious affiliation and their willingness to cheat on a test”, they came to find out that the majority of one group resisted cheating, and that was atheists (Conyers, Harvey 63). This study opened up my eyes instantly. Most religious individuals would be astounded by this study because of their opinion on atheists. That study just shows that each person is their own. By that, I mean that although they do not believe in God, they still have morals. They may not be religious based morals, but they are still morals linked to their unique selves proving that we can be good without God. We can live honestly because each of us is one of a kind with our own separate morals, beliefs, and personalities.
There are plenty of criminals present day who regularly attended church prior to being locked up for life and there are plenty of others who have never stepped foot in a Sunday service once in their entire lives. I could never imagine a world without God, but I do realize that every person on this earth is different from each other. So yes, I do believe that we can be good without God.
One question that seems to come up frequently to this day is does religion and crime go hand in hand? In other words, can we be good without God? Now, there are quite a few other things that do not fall under the category of crime, such as, lying to your parents and pre-marital sex. Other actions that are not considered a crime in our judicial system depend on each individual’s morals. But do morals coincide with crime and religion? Does God, or any other religious figure, have such an impact on how we live our lives honestly?
Ask any individual who regularly goes to church and has a strong belief in God, and they will instantly answer, “We are better because we believe in God.” According to Christianity we are supposed to “Fear God.” Now, that does not mean we are to literally fear God as to where we do not believe in Him, but for an unbeliever, by fearing God, you fear the judgment of Him and eternal separation of Him, which would also be known as hell. However, if you are a strong believer in God, then your fear of Him would be in honor of Him. Because of this, many Christians, or any other religion that follows God, know about sin. Every person in this world sins, whether they know it or not; we are not perfect. Fortunately we are forgiven of our sins. So, from the viewpoint of any strong believer in God, they would tell you, “Yes, we are good because we believe in God; we are supposed to try not to live our lives in sin.” But what if God never existed in the first place? What if the world never saw religion? Can we still be good?
Without God, we would never know of sin in the first place. Although we would not have a Godly figure guiding us throughout our lives, we are still born with our own morals, personality, and beliefs. With religion now, we still fight wars and see numerous unthinkable crimes on the news every day. A very religious person would probably not be able to see a world in order without God, but if we never knew what religion was, then how would we ever know in the first place? Every single individual in this world is different. So yes, without God, there still could be crime on the streets, but I do not necessarily believe that every single person would be corrupt. According to a recent study in which “researchers asked students about their religious affiliation and their willingness to cheat on a test”, they came to find out that the majority of one group resisted cheating, and that was atheists (Conyers, Harvey 63). This study opened up my eyes instantly. Most religious individuals would be astounded by this study because of their opinion on atheists. That study just shows that each person is their own. By that, I mean that although they do not believe in God, they still have morals. They may not be religious based morals, but they are still morals linked to their unique selves proving that we can be good without God. We can live honestly because each of us is one of a kind with our own separate morals, beliefs, and personalities.
There are plenty of criminals present day who regularly attended church prior to being locked up for life and there are plenty of others who have never stepped foot in a Sunday service once in their entire lives. I could never imagine a world without God, but I do realize that every person on this earth is different from each other. So yes, I do believe that we can be good without God.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Strangers on the Other Side of the Computer Screen
Social Psychology - The Individual Self
As a student in an online class, I feel as if the concept of "self" is a little less present than it would be in a traditional classroom. Don't get me wrong, you are still the same person regardless of how you take a college course, however, your classmates may perceive your idea of "yourself" differently than how you would. I believe that your own perception of yourself does not change depending on your environment because you know yourself better than anyone else. But, I do think that if you change the environment around you, then there becomes a vast difference between how your classmates identify you.
According to Charles Horton Cooley, "primary groups are the 'spheres of intimate association and cooperation' that are 'fundamental in forming the social nature and ideals of the individual'" (Cooley 37). In other words, we need "intimate face-to-face association and cooperation" (Cooley 37). By being enrolled in an online class we lack the face-to-face contact. Instead, we rely heavily on an individual’s grammar, presentation on their blogs, and organization. First impressions do make all the difference, but they are distinguished in diverse ways in the two very different types of classrooms. In a traditional classroom we have the advantage of observing how a student dresses and carries themselves, to whether they are shy and sit in the back, as well as their body language. A student online may be the shyest person out of the entire class, but their peers would never know unless they said so. All in all, I do not think we are necessarily strangers in either classroom, but I feel as if in an online classroom an individual whose shy might act a little more outgoing than they usually would because they do not have to speak in front of a large classroom. In an online classroom you can become what you want to be. This might not be the case for everybody, and I’m definitely not saying that’s my case, but I can see why different people prefer different types of classroom settings over another. Whether it’s online or in person, each classroom format solely depends on one’s personality.
Although I am all for online classes, after reading Kenneth Gergen’s essay about the dissolution of self, I find myself surprisingly agreeing with him. I never really took time to think about how an online class affects the process of social saturation. A century ago we did not have the technology that we do today, which means that the social relationships back then were confined to the distance of an easy walk (Gergen 51). The face-to-face community is vanishing into the pages of history thanks to new technological developments (Gergen 51). Instead of using old fashioned mail by horse which took from days to weeks, we now have a local mailman picking up our mail, or even easier, we have e-mail or cell phones. Everyday life has become easier; we don’t have to work for things that we normally would’ve back in the day. By being enrolled in an online class, we lose face-to-face contact with the teacher and our peers; therefore we are contributing to the process of social saturation. Although I agree with Gergen that we might be increasingly saturating our relationships as time progresses and technology advances, I do not feel as if we are cheating ourselves of a good education.
Whether we are strangers or not in a traditional or online classroom we can still learn and relay the same information, but in the end it all just depends on YOU.
As a student in an online class, I feel as if the concept of "self" is a little less present than it would be in a traditional classroom. Don't get me wrong, you are still the same person regardless of how you take a college course, however, your classmates may perceive your idea of "yourself" differently than how you would. I believe that your own perception of yourself does not change depending on your environment because you know yourself better than anyone else. But, I do think that if you change the environment around you, then there becomes a vast difference between how your classmates identify you.
According to Charles Horton Cooley, "primary groups are the 'spheres of intimate association and cooperation' that are 'fundamental in forming the social nature and ideals of the individual'" (Cooley 37). In other words, we need "intimate face-to-face association and cooperation" (Cooley 37). By being enrolled in an online class we lack the face-to-face contact. Instead, we rely heavily on an individual’s grammar, presentation on their blogs, and organization. First impressions do make all the difference, but they are distinguished in diverse ways in the two very different types of classrooms. In a traditional classroom we have the advantage of observing how a student dresses and carries themselves, to whether they are shy and sit in the back, as well as their body language. A student online may be the shyest person out of the entire class, but their peers would never know unless they said so. All in all, I do not think we are necessarily strangers in either classroom, but I feel as if in an online classroom an individual whose shy might act a little more outgoing than they usually would because they do not have to speak in front of a large classroom. In an online classroom you can become what you want to be. This might not be the case for everybody, and I’m definitely not saying that’s my case, but I can see why different people prefer different types of classroom settings over another. Whether it’s online or in person, each classroom format solely depends on one’s personality.
Although I am all for online classes, after reading Kenneth Gergen’s essay about the dissolution of self, I find myself surprisingly agreeing with him. I never really took time to think about how an online class affects the process of social saturation. A century ago we did not have the technology that we do today, which means that the social relationships back then were confined to the distance of an easy walk (Gergen 51). The face-to-face community is vanishing into the pages of history thanks to new technological developments (Gergen 51). Instead of using old fashioned mail by horse which took from days to weeks, we now have a local mailman picking up our mail, or even easier, we have e-mail or cell phones. Everyday life has become easier; we don’t have to work for things that we normally would’ve back in the day. By being enrolled in an online class, we lose face-to-face contact with the teacher and our peers; therefore we are contributing to the process of social saturation. Although I agree with Gergen that we might be increasingly saturating our relationships as time progresses and technology advances, I do not feel as if we are cheating ourselves of a good education.
Whether we are strangers or not in a traditional or online classroom we can still learn and relay the same information, but in the end it all just depends on YOU.
Monday, August 24, 2009
An Introduction..
.JPG)
Hi! My name is Jade Arneson. I’m 19 years old and a full-time student at ASU. I currently attend both the main and downtown campus, however, mostly downtown. I am majoring in nursing and minoring in African and African American studies. The reason for my minor is because of my passion, which is the child that I sponsor who resides in Kenya. His name is Emmanuel and I have been in contact with him for over a year now. After I graduate and receive my degree I hope to take a trip to Africa to help out medically and to also meet him. I know the minor is focused on African Americans as well, but I thought it would be interesting to educate myself about the African culture and background. After that, I plan on returning back to school after I get my BSN to either receive my Masters or Doctorates. I have a lot of schooling ahead of me, but I don't mind at all because I know that all of my hard work and time will pay off in the end... and that's what helps me get up and going each and every day.I am an Arizona native. I grew up on the west side of Arizona, mainly the Peoria/Glendale area. I graduated from Mountain Ridge High School in 2008. I played volleyball competitively for about six years for school and club, until I recently had to get surgery on my shoulder. For me, either watching or playing sports is a must… I absolutely love sports! (The picture above is of my two friends and I at a football game during the fall of 2008. I'm on the left!).
I love my family - they are always there for me when I need them the most, even if we do have our ups and downs. Without them, I don't know what I'd do; I'd be lost. (To the right is a picture of some of my family and I vacationing in Cabo San Lucas this past summer).I am overall a very outgoing and fun individual. Over the past few years I feel as though I have grown as an individual. I finally have goals set for the future and am fulfilling them which gives me a sense of success. I love the simple things in life that make you happy and get you through each day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
