Critical Response Blog #10 11-15-07

Being that this is my last blog, I've decided to reflect on this whole blogging experience. Before this class, I had never written a blog and am not sure if I had ever read one. I am not going to lie, I was a little skeptical on the idea. I thought blogs were just places for people to vent on when they had a bad day or a place to share really good news; I guess I never really associated blogs with intellectual thinking. But once I started writing my blog responses, I started to see some positive things coming out of it. Normally when I read a book, I can stay focused on it and am not easily distracted; I also seem to have a knack for understanding the text while continuing to read at the fast pace that I do. However, there were times while reading the assignments for this class, I seemed to struggle with that task. I would catch myself drifting off and just simply reading the words on the page, making no attempt to understand the meaning of them. I then realized that I needed to pay attention to what I was reading or I wouldn't be able to write my blog. Knowing that I had to write a blog, helped me focus my thoughts and pick out key points that I could relate to and write about. Especially being that these books aren't leisure reading books, it was nice to have some type of guideline for my thoughts.

As the semester went on, I found blogging easier and easier to do. I noticed that while I was reading, I would pick out topics that struck me as something that I could blog about. I also starting bringing in aspects of my life into my blogs to help make a better connection to the reading. I brought in my own experiences with video games, which were quite plentiful, and I even made a connection back to the lead singer of my favorite band. I never thought that that would ever happen, but it was actually pretty cool. Overall, I think that this experience with blogging has been a positive one. It wasn't as difficult or annoying as I thought it was going to be and I believe that in the long run it made me a better writer.

Critical Response #9 11-8-07

The section that my group was assigned to read was Chapter 7: Aspects of the Self. This chapter talked about how people have used internet based games called MUDs to help them figure out who they are and what their identity is, or to help them try and change the person that they are into a person that they would like to be. I thought that Turkle addressed the use of MUDs as a type of therapy in an unique way. She presented different cases of people who used MUDs to help them conquer a character flaw or get over a tramatic incident in their past. One example was about a boy named Stewart, who really didn't have many friends, had a heart disorder, and didn't have a really good relationship with his parents. Turkle described how in the MUD, his avatar gained friends that were from foreign countries, had respect from his fellow player, and even courted and married a fellow avatar. She leads you to believe that playing on this MUD has helped Stewart overcome his social anxieties, but she was doing exactly that leading you on. Come to find out, playing on the MUD, according to Stewart only made his life worse and increased his social isolation. However, once Turkle described the type of person that Stewart was, you realized that it wasn't the game that made things worse, it was his unwillingness to change. It brings up the question of whether or not, these games can be therapeutic or if they just make the problem worse. I believe that the MUDs can be therapeutic, if the person playing them is willing to make a change. Having someone to talk to that you never have to see face to face can be easier than talking to someone face to face; it takes away the anxiety and frees up inhibitions. But if the player is only playing to boss people around and fish for compliments to make themselves feel better for the moment, then nothing positive is going to come from playing.

I have never actually played a video game where you can create your character and wander around a virtual world, interacting freely with other people, so I can't relate fully to how therapeutic they can be. However, I do play role-playing games quite often and can say from personal experience that they help me deal with stress, but I dont think they have helped me change my identity or get over a tramatic event, they are more of a stress relief. Sure they may help me take out my anger in a way that doesn't harm anyone and I may sometimes wish that I was like the characters that I play as, but it has never made me consider changing my identity. As many other people do, there are certain things about my personality that I would like to change, but I don't think that playing a video game would help with that. I believe that it would be something that I would have to decide to do on my own and something that I would try out in the real world. I think an identity change can only happen when it is practiced in the real world. Changing your identity in a game is only a temporary thing and just shows in a way that the person doesn't have the courage to attempt that change in their real life.

Research Report Abstract

Prescription drug abuse is becoming a major problem in society today, so in my research report, I have decided to look at the who is abusing prescription drugs, and why. College students and high school students seem to be the age groups that abuse prescription drugs the most, and they abuse prescription drugs mainly because they get addicted to medication they were initially prescribed to cure an ailment, such as anxiety medication or pain killers. I chose to conduct an online survey consisting of 7 questions of college students from Central Michigan and other universities. Prescription drug abuse is just as big of problem as any other drug problem and needs to be addressed in the age groups it most affects.

Critical Response #8 11-1-07

For this blog, I have decided to talk about Sherry Turkle's discussion of identity in video games. Turkle talked about different people who play MUDs and what their identities were in these games. Some of the people that she talked to said that they have four different characters in four different games that represented either different sides of their personalities or people that they wish they could be. That didn't come as a shock to me because I think we all have sides of ourselves that we don't share with people, but wish every now and then that we could. But by being able to create a character on a game that is nothing like you, it gives people a chance to let that side of their personality come out. No one has to know who is playing that character, which spares the creator from judgements from other people. In a society like ours, where there is so much emphasis placed on beauty and other superficial factors, a lot of people are labeled as outcasts because they don't fit the "mold". But through video games, they have a chance to be one of the people who fit that mold, they don't have to be an outcast anymore. That fact, I believe, has a lot to do with why people flock to the games, where you can create an avatar and leave the outcast persona behind.

While I was reading the section on MUDS and video games in general, it made me think of the lead singer of my favorite band, Breaking Benjamin. Ben, the lead singer, is a self-proclaimed hardcore gamer and in an interview that he did, he was asked why he liked to play video games so much. He answered by saying that he really enjoys the idea of going to a totally different world, where there are no rules; you can totally immerse yourself in it and leave your life behind for a little while. As I thought about this quote and the things that Turkle was saying, it clicked in my head that being able to immerse myself in another world and leaving my life behind is one of the main reasons I started playing video games in the first place. There have been a countless number of times where I have had a bad day or a stressful day, and the first thing I do is turn on my PlayStation to try and just get away from it all. I don't have problems that don't have solutions and I don't have to deal with people that anger me. I think that having the ability to immerse ourself in another appeals to a lot of people and it provides a getaway for people who lives might not be the greatest thing in the world. Its an outlet that I think a lot of people enjoy and would be lost without it.

Critical Response Blog #7 10-23-07

For this week, I decided to write about the bias and objectivity in the news. Its hard these days to find any news broadcast or article that tells it the story from both sides, that just presents the facts. It can be seen with coverage of the war, coverage of the presidential election, or coverage of the entertainment world. It seems that the news reporters or journalists have the final say on who is portrayed as a hero or the enemy, who is the favorite, or who is a train wreck and who is a success story. As viewers, we may feel informed after watching the evening news, but in reality we are only hearing one side of the story.
For the past couple of the years, it seems that you can't turn on the TV or read the newspaper without hearing some mention of the war in Iraq. We are either being told the death count for the day, or that there are discussions being held to pull the troops out. However, its been so long since we first invaded, that I'm not sure if the majority of Americans still know why we are over there. We removed Saddam from the picture and most people thought that was the only reason we were over there, so the question remains why are we still there? And I don't know if we will ever get a straight forward answer. The media always gives the answer that will please the majority of the audience and keep them content. We will never hear the other side of the story watching our news programs because they won't show America in as good of a light as our news does. Its all about making sure that no matter what the real reason is, the American soldiers are the heroes and they are doing what is right. Being that we live in America and they are our soldiers, it is almost impossible to avoid bias when reporting about it, but it sometimes seem that the bias leaks over into bias about the Iraqi people. It goes from just the US being portrayed as the good guys to the US being portrayed as the good guys and all the Iraqi people are the bad guys. Bias is expected when discussing national matters, but there is a line between being bias and being degrading to other people and some news broadcasts cross that line.

To me, it also seems that the media defines what is trendy and popular in our culture today. Radio stations only play certain songs by popular artists and celebrities are only photographed in the clothes that are "cool". The media basically makes a statement that if you don't listen to this music or dress that way, you aren't cool. I take offense to this because I don't dress the way celebrities do because its not my style and it doesn't fit my personality and I think my music choices are just fine even if they aren't mainstream. My favorite band, Breaking Benjamin, isn't the most popular rock band out there, they are moderately popular. If you like rock music as a genre, then you have probably heard of them, but if you only listen to mainstream radio, you have no idea who they are. But because they aren't mainstream, they aren't played on the radio very often, they aren't performing at awards shows, and they get to do very many TV appearances, which limits their exposure to the masses. I honestly don't think the media should have as big of a say in popular culture as they do. People should make choices for themselves, instead of doing something because E! news said it would make them cool.

Research Paper Blog

For my research paper, I am researching the topic of prescription drug abuse. Some of the questions that I want to answer with my research are what age group abuses prescription drugs the most and why, what are some of the consequences, and what treatments are out there for this addiction. I plan on mostly using statistical data to show the different trends and scientific journals to show some of the proven consequences of prescription drug abuse. The method of research I will be using is analysis. I don't think enough would admit to abusing prescription drugs on a survey or interview for it to be an effective method and I don't think that people are going to let me sit and watch them abuse prescription drugs and they aren't going to do it out in the open. That leaves analysis as the best method for conducting research. Since I'm not directly dealing with people face to face, I don't have to worry too much about ethical considerations there, but when writing my paper, I'll have to watch how I word things so i don't generalize and say that everyone who takes prescription drugs abuses them.

Critical Response #6 10-18-07

Now that I have finished reading Steven Johnson's, I can honestly say that I felt that I got more out of this book than I got out of Neil Postman's "Technopoly". I felt that I could connect to Johnson more than I could Postman, so it was easier for me to read the book and actually think about it rather than just reading the words on the page. A big part of why I was able to connect so much better to Johnson was because the examples of movies, TV shows, games etc., that he used to prove and explain his points, were things that I was familiar with, so I could pull up that reference in my head and know exactly what he was talking about. With Postman, half the time I had no idea who or what he was talking about. He brought so many different people that I had a hard time keeping them straight in my head. Johnson had two or three examples and stuck with those examples throughout the whole section. Another thing that I liked better with Johnson was that he used language that anyone could understand, he literally wrote it in plain English. At points while reading Postman, I felt like I was trying to feed a book in a foreign language. All of this favoritism toward Johnson could simply be stemming from the fact that I enjoy playing video games, watching movies, and being on the Internet, so I enjoy reading about those activities a lot more than reading about technopolies.
Speaking of reading about activities that I like to do, in the last few pages, Johnson talks about how people today don't feel that they have time to sit down and read a good novel and completely immerse themselves in it and I completely agree with that. However, Johnson seems to put all the blame on other technologies, such as video game systems and the computer, for why people don't have time to read anymore. I'll admit that that is part of the problem, but I don't think it is the whole problem. People just don't have enough hours in the day to be able to sit down and read a book. Most adults are working more than 40 hours a week to try to support their families and kids today are encouraged to get involved with sports and extracurricular activities or to at least go outside and play, that they don't have time to read a book. I can sympathize with this because as a child, I loved to read and I still do, but ever since I started college, I don't have time. Between going to classes, doing all of my homework, studying for tests, and trying to have some semblance of a social life, there is no extra time to squeeze in a book. And it could easily be argued that I could be reading a book instead of playing my playstation, but a game I can quit anytime and next time just pick up where I left off. It's different with a book, once I stop there is no justing picking up where I left off, I have to reimmerse myself in the book and get back in the story and remember what is going on. If I had the time to read, I'm positive I would take advantage of it, as I'm sure all the other people who miss reading would.

Critical Response #5 10-11-07

After reading the second 60 or so pages in Steven Johnson's book "Everything Bad Is Good For You", I found that I am agreeing with his standpoints and arguments more and more. As I talked about in my previous blog, I totally 100% agreed with his stance on video games and that hasn't really changed with the new material that he presented in the section we had to read. I agreed with the points he made about the complex story lines in TV and movies and I also agreed with him on his reasoning for why reality TV is so addicting.
When it comes to sitting down and watching TV, unless I am hooked from the very beginning, I have a hard time making through the whole show without getting distracted. I believe there are a lot of people that have that same problem, which is what makes TV shows with a complex plot line very appealing and successful. Some of my favorite shows, like CSI Las Vegas and Grey's Anatomy, don't even come close to following a simple straightforward storyline. CSI, for example, usually has at least two different crimes being solved in one episode, plus you have the story lines that exist between the characters that exists throughout the whole season. In my opinion, having that much going keeps the reader involved and keeps the show from getting stale and repetitive. Johnson states that "complexity has another, equally important, side-effect: the episodes often grow more entertaining on a second or third viewing." This is especially evident in a show like CSI. Everything will click for the characters just in time to solve the case, but it doesn't always click that fast for the audience. Whether it be because of a missed detail about the crime or the explanation of what happened wasn't in terms us non-forensic scientists could understand, sometimes things just don't add up the first time around. So when the episode is watched the second time around, the viewer can pick up details that they may have missed and then everything will click for them. The complex story lines in many of today's hit shows keeps the reader entranced and keeps them coming back week after week, which i guess is the overall goal of creating when creating a TV series.
Another point that Johnson made that I agreed with was that one of the reason why so many people watch reality TV shows is because of the unscripted emotional response that comes out in these shows. When a contestant gets voted off the island or the bachelor leaves them standing without a rose, the emotion that is shown by those people is real, at least until they remember they are on TV then it just gets overdramatic. Johnson says that reality TV challenges our emotional intelligence, challenging us to connect with the emotions that are being showed, which most of the time are the depressing and sad emotions. And as disturbing as it is, the majority of viewers turn in to see the disappoint and the misery that the contestants are going through. Sure seeing them win and seeing the joy is good to see and makes you all warm and fuzzy inside, but its the pain and anguish that makes for the good TV. I believe that has a lot to do with seeing these people on TV competing for love or money are actually real people just like us, that it could just as easily be us there instead of them. A lot of people criticize reality for not having any intellectual value, which most of the time they are right, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still serve a purpose. Shows like Survivor and the Amazing Race, in a way allows for the viewer to experience something that they will not get to do in their lifetime, through the contestants on the show. Through the contestants, the viewers are surviving on a deserted island, and they are traveling around Europe not knowing where they will be the next day. I think that because it provides that outlet for the viewer it serves more purpose and is more important to our society than most people give it credit for.

Critical Response #4 10-4-07

So, for my blog this week I decided to write about the section of Steven Johnson's "Everything Bad is Good For You" where he talks about video games. I found this section to be very interesting, it definately didn't go the way I thought it would. It seems today that any article written about video games pretty much bashes them and claims that they are a menace to society. Being a gamer myself, I put my guard up and was ready to just let whatever negative things Johnson had to say about video games roll off my back and not take it to heart. I was pleasantly surprised when Johnson, in a sense, defended video games and the people that play them. I am by no means a hard-core gamer, but I play my fair share of games and can hold my own in a game. Johnson made a couple of points that I really liked and agreed with, which made it very easy for me to relate to him.

The first point that Johnson made that I really liked was his point about how frustrating games can be and how people may think you are having fun, when you really aren't. I am big of the Final Fantasy series for the Playstation and really enjoy the storylines, the gameplay, and the overall appeal of the game. However, as fun as these games are, they also frustate the hell out of me. They are quite complicated games that require at least 70 hours to beat and 100% concentration, but when you finally beat it, its an overwhelming sense of accomplishment. Johnson brings up that reward feeling as the reason why people continue to play these overly frustrating games. He talks about how real life is full of rewards and how people thrive off that urge to be rewarded. Video games are no different, they include many different levels of rewards. You can get a reward for simply figuring out a puzzle or beating a level or finally beating a boss that killed you numerous time or you can get the ultimate reward and feeling of accomplishment by finally beating the game. I still to this day remember how proud I was of myself when I beat Final Fantasy X for the first time and that was over two years ago. The final boss kicked the crap out of me so many times and I was so frustrated and angry, but then one time, it all clicked and I figured out the strategy to beat him and I succeeded. I'm pretty sure I told everyone that I had beaten and took great pleasure in hearing all the congratulations, which was my reward. So I can definately connect and relate to Johnson when he says that one of the big appeals of video games and why people continue to play them, although at times they may be more frustrating than fun, is the fact that the end reward is greater than the frustration.

I was also in complete agreement with Johnson on how playing a game requires a very organized, almost list-like, way of thinking, and if you don't play video games than you really don't understand it. Johnson talks about how gamers have to develop the skill needed to "focus on immediate problems while still maintaining a long distance view." If you just focus on the the long term goal, you miss half the game and may not even be able to acheive that goal because of something you missed a long time ago. He then proceeds to say that it is different from reading a book, because in a book everything is already laid out for you and events occur to move the story along, while in a game, the player has to complete tasks in order to move the story along and sometimes decisions that are made can affect the outcome of the game. One requires planning to get the desired outcome while the other only prompts the reader to try and figure out what the outcome will be. Playing the Final Fantasy games truly does require organized thinking in order to complete the game. When I first started playing, I couldn't remember half the missions that I had to complete, I literally had to write them down on a piece of paper. I couldn't believe that people could remember all this stuff. But as I gained more experience, I learned how to organize my thought process and get everything accomplished. My friends still don't understand how I do it or why but like Johnson said, they don't play video games, so they wouldn't understand.

Critical Response #3 9-19-07

So this time around, I have decided to blog about the critical analysis paper and kind of try to get my thoughts organized and such. For my topic, I have decided to write about our nation's new found addiction with caffeine and the potential harm it can cause. I also want to address the advertisement aspect and the role that it has played in the addiction. I am going to use two articles for my paper and will be taking the same stance on both. The stance that I plan on taking is that the two articles were very effective in conveying to the readers just how popular caffiene drinks have become and the dangers that go along with it, but there were a couple of things that could have been added or discussed more to make the articles even stronger.
The first point that I plan to address is the author's use of rhetorical strategies such as ethos and pathos. Both articles use statistics in them concerning dietary facts about the eneregy drinks and statements given by doctors about different cases they have had concerning overdoses on caffiene. By including these things in their articles, they are increasing their ethos with the reader. One of the articles used pathos really well. The author presented real life situations that teenagers had experienced, such as overdosing, and while this may not appeal to the teenagers, it will definately appeal to the parents.
The second point I want to discuss is the health issues that come along with drinking massive amounts of caffeine. I want to include this in my paper because I am a health fitness major so it interests me and it is also good information to share with the public because a lot of people on a college campus do drink energy drinks like they are water. The third point that I am going to talk about is how i felt that both articles could have made their arguments a lot stronger if they really would have gone more in depth with how much effect the media and advertisement has on this new trend. It was briefly mentioned in both articles, but not enough to really be bothered with. In this paragraph, to show how it would have strengthened their article I plan on discussing the effect of media and advertising.
Somehow I plan on integrating Postman into this paper, I just really haven't found what I want to use yet, but once I find what I want to use, that will be another point/paragraph of my paper.

Critical Response #2 9/12/07

I decided to write my second critical response on chapter six in Neil Postman's "Technopoly" which dealt with technology and its relationship with the field of medicine. I thought that Postman made some valid points in this chapter, but there were also points that I disagreed with.
The second paragraph on page 103 discusses some of the positive advances that have happened in the field of medicine. For example, he talks about doctors now being able to remove cataracts with lasers and using laparscopes to guide a surgeon's instrument through a tiny little hole in order to remove a person's gallbladder without having to cut their abdomen wide open. These are all wonderful advancements that allow doctors to make life better for their patients. And while these are all great and wonderful technological advances, Postman makes a very valid statment following these examples. He says, "..will ask how many laparoscopic cholecytectomies are performed because of the exsistence of the technology" (103). I believe that for as many people who actually need to have a surgery, there are just as many people who don't it, but have it done simply because the technology and means are available to have it done. Some people are just overly cautious and need to make sure that nothing is wrong with them for their own sanity; others are just hypochondriacs who run to the hospital and demand tests or treatments for every cough, sneeze, ache, or pain. I believe that this contributes to the statistic that Postman used earlier in the chapter about America having more surgeries than England.
On that same note, I don't believe that advances in medical technology are alone to blame for America's outragous statistics in the number of surgeries performed, prescriptions given, and x-ray use etc. Postman says that because the physicians have these technologies they are using them on everyone whether they are needed or not. I disagree with that statement because I think it has more to do with patients demanding that they have these tests run on them. If the doctor refuses, they run the risk of being sued by the patient. It is just the type of society that we live in, it's one where we constantly blame other people and except things in return for their "mistakes". I think it was a hasty assumption on Postman's part to say that we abuse our technology and rely on it to do everything for us just because the statistics say so.
The biggest thing that I disagreed with Postman on was his view on the relationship between a physician and his patient. Postman basically says that the relationship has been destroyed because of all the technology now in use. I believe that the relationship still exists. There are many people who have a close friendly relationship with their family physician and pregnant women certainly develop a relationship with their OB/GYN during their pregnancy. Just because the technology has advanced doesn't mean that relationship ceases to exist. I also think that people are healthier now a days, so they don't need to go the doctor as often which could cause the relationship between doctor and patient to not be so apparent to everyone else. Outside of the hospital setting, you could look at place like a rehabilitation clinic. I plan on majoring in physical therapy and in that field of work, a definant relationship exists with the patient even though machines have been created to assist the patient with their rehabilitation. The patient still needs the physical therapist there for guidance, instruction, and support and that need establishes and promotes the relationship.

First Blog Post 9/4/07

The quote that I chose to discuss from Neil Postman's Technopoly is found on page 11. "It is to be expected that the winners will encourage the losers to be enthusiastic about computer technology. That is the way of winners, and so they sometimes tell the losers that with personal computers the average person can balance a checkbook more neatly, keep better track of recipes, and make more logical shopping lists" I found it quite interesting that Postman divided everyone into two categories, you were either a winner or a loser, there was nothing in between. There are people, myself included, that understand and know how to use technology, but don't try to force it onto other people. But going by his definition of winners and losers, those people would all be considered losers which is kind of a harsh statement. However, I will agree with him that there are people in the world, his so called "losers", who will do something just because someone who said they were qualified, the "winners", said it was the right thing to do.

Another thing that caught my eye was the fact that the whole section that Postman wrote on winners and losers in regards to technology, he never referred to a famous work or author like he did many other times in the first four chapters. By not giving any citations or evidence to back up this claim, it leads the reader to believe that the whole section is his opinion, how he believes technology divides people. Throughout the first four chapters, Postman uses famous works by people such as Aristotle, Galileo, and Copernicus, who are all considered to be credible authors, to back up his theories on the relationship between technology and culture. By doing this, he builds up his ethos and starts to convince the reader that he knows what he is talking about and has credible sources to back him up. But the section on winners and losers threatens that credibility, which I thought was a strange move.

All in all, I thought that this particular section was quite unique mostly because of the way it was approached by Postman and the potential effect it could have on the reader. Not everyone is going to appreciate being called a loser and that could possibly cause the reader to quit reading. I don't think Postman thought of that consequence when he wrote that section, but he probably should have.