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.