My Future Career in Blogging

Blogging is so different from in class participation, not necessarily in a good way though. Blogging definitely has its benefits but there are also things that blogging doesn't work for. For increasing participation blogging is good. It is easier to get your "voice" heard through blogging because you don't need to compete with other people as in a class setting. This makes it so that even shyer people can express their feelings when in class that might be a problem. Blogging is also helpful because in class its not efficient to pull out a laptop and start researching. It would detract from class time so blogging lets students get their ideas down after researching them out of class. However, blogging has negative aspects. After class is over, most students, I am generalizing my experience here but I feel as though it's fairly accurate, forget about what they wanted to say in class or what was even talked about in class. It is not until those topics are revisited that you can remember what was said in class but at that point there is a significantly lower level of interest in the topic. Since blogging happens after class is over, there's hardly any enthusiasm for the subject. Also, because blogging is on the internet, there is a significant productivity drop while doing it. With distractions like Facebook and everything else on the internet, it is hard to remember to blog or to keep on track while blogging. That is more of a problem with the students themselves, but for me it was major issue this semester.

After evaluating these pros and cons, I will probably not blog in the future. It does help somewhat to bridge the gap between informal class discussion and more formal writing, since there is slightly more research involved in blog posts, but it doesn't work for me very well. Apart from the distractions of the internet, blogging doesn't work for me because it isn't always available. I get many ideas randomly and it's easier to write them down or even put them in my phone than to get to a computer and blog them. There is a mobile app for blogger that I got on my iTouch but it was really poorly made, the keyboard wouldn't flip sideways making it impossible to type, so I hardly even used it after downloading it. Finally, what I have to say really isn't that important and when I do feel particularly narcissistic I can just use Facebook. Blogging is just not for me.

The problems of online activism

One of the main issues presented in the readings was that online movements are not hierarchical and so they don't accomplish anything. Well this isn't the case in all movements but there are cases where there is a lack of hierarchy and problems do occur. One online activist group, or "hacktivist" group, is Anonymous. This leaderless group is, well, anonymous and they focus their efforts on an array of issues. The problem with this is that while there is occasionally a concentrated effort toward one particular cause, as they did for the SOPA and Megaupload issues, many of their causes are much smaller and diluted. The group focuses too many issues around the world which makes it so that no individual movement receives too much attention and nothing happens.

Another trend of online activism seems to be interest. When an issue surfaces there is a huge surge of interest for the issue but soon there is little talk of the issue again except for a few dedicated people. The attention span of the internet is short and it is impossible to fix all problems in that window.

Axe Commercial Logical Fallacies

Since coming to college I haven't watched much TV which means I haven't watched many commercials. But while watching an episode of The Daily Show the other day this delightful advertising came up and it's clear that ads haven't changed much. In this particular commercial a guy troubled with a dandruff problem also has a more daunting problem, his dandruff apparently turns girls to dust. Luckily he finds Axe Anti-Dandruff shampoo which not only cures his dandruff problem but also makes 3 attractive women show up and start touching him suggestively. Then the slogan "Lose the flakes, Get the Girls" is shown.

The problem with this advertisement is that the arguments it presents aren't logical, which is shocking really. Even in the case that immediately after every man used this product 3 women did show up out of nowhere it would still prove nothing. To say that after using this product women will come to you and it is because of the product is a Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. It is very possible that the product itself is not what is causing women to pop out of nowhere, it could simply be that you are ridding yourself of an unpleasant smell by showering and washing your hair. This could be done with any other product, even one that didn't treat dandruff, so this product may not be what's causing all those women to appear every time you shower.

There is also another fallacy in the commercial. The commercial's slogan suggests a False Dichotomy. The fallacy is set up by the ad as follows: you either use the shampoo and rid yourself of dandruff and "get the girls" or you don't use the shampoo and don't "get the girls." It allows for no middle ground for where a guy with dandruff but who let's say has a really nice personality or is super rich CAN "get" a girl. Dandruff and "getting" girls are not mutually exclusive as this advertisement presents.

Other logical fallacies present:

• Slippery Slope: If you don't use the product you will have dandruff and women will start turning into dust around you.
• Stirring Symbols: Look attractive women, now buy our product.
• Oversimplification: The only reason why women around you are turning to dust is because of your dandruff. This completely ignores the possibility that the women around you are vampires and are being subject to the sun's rays.

The good feeling the Internet gives us

As with so many people on Facebook at the time of the Kony 2012 video became viral, I too watched, liked, and even shared the video. The reason I did it was not because everyone else was doing it, but because it felt right. The editors made the video so heart wrenching that it felt like I was at fault for what was happening and if I didn't share the video I was accepting blame. After I shared I felt like a better person.

Soon enough everyone knew about the video. People were outraged and one of my more activist floor mates decided he wanted to go to Africa and kill Kony himself (it took some time to talk him out of it). But the buzz died down as soon as it started and people began criticizing the organization and nothing really happened. That doesn't mean that the video failed however. The video served it's purpose. So often in this country do we forget about other parts of the world. I usually even forget about the east coast. It was the video's intent to remind us that there is stuff happening in other parts of the world that we are ignoring. The video could have been more successful if the events that followed hadn't occurred (most notably the maker of the video slapping the ground naked...) and if the big demonstration day had been closer to the day it went viral. It is hard to plan though when a video will become famous. I'm still interested to see if the huge demonstration does still happen on the 20th. Even if it doesn't, the video probably encouraged at least 1 person to actually care enough to become more invested in the issue and maybe even plan a trip to Africa. That is more effective than nothing.

Wikipedia

After seeing what happens behind the scenes at wikipedia (the talk page that I had never cares about before) I'm still just as likely to use it as before. Factually wikipedia is very accurate and that is what is most important for me. If I then care to learn more about the opinions contributing to the topic, the talk page is a great way to discover opposing viewpoints. The discussion may not always be civil or productive but the honesty and the rawness is interesting because it shows how interested people are. It is also pretty easy to tell, based on grammar and logical arguments, who is educated and probably trustworthy (not that all educated people are trustworthy but they tend to be more than uneducated people). I probably won't contribute to the discussion myself unless I come across an error or a statement that contradicts my opinion or knowledge. It seems pretty easy to join the discussion and although it seems hostile sometimes it should be manageable.

Professionals vs the community

Through high school I was very active on an online video game forum. This was when I first noticed people's tendency to hate wrong information on the internet. People would correct each other over and over and a topic that was left unsolved would always be active until THE right answer was found or the argument turned into a slew of insults. During this time I also noticed tension between the opinions of the members of the forum. Some members believed that the best "strategy" for the game was that which the professional players were using with no possible deviation (or only minor deviations in the right situation) from that strategy. Others believed that strategies they had tried in their games would be useful and they would try to figure out other strategies that should work either mathematically or rationally. These two viewpoints would often conflict with the former side usually saying that if the strategy was good enough the professionals would already be using it. That reasoning doesn't make complete sense though. Professionals, or experts, although very knowledgeable can't know everything. The collaboration between people can sometimes come up with new insights. Bias is also greatly reduced when a large number of people teach compared to one person.

I find communal acquisition more useful than authoritative acquisition usually. In a philosophy class for example, there are multiple points of view for any subject. Although the teacher will try to be objective and present each side equally, it is usually very clear which side the teacher likes the best. The students then don't worry about learning why that side is better for their own reasons but rather why the teacher thinks that side is better so that they can appease the teacher. The same happens in math classes where a particular approach to solving a problem is preferred by the teacher and that is the one that is learned by the students instead of exploration of other methods. Bias can never be completely removed but communal knowledge can greatly reduce it which is what makes communal knowledge so valuable.

What would an apology accomplish?

For this offense I believe an apology would accomplish a lot. For the headline writer especially, a good apology might decide whether he gets another job in the same field as he was working before. As such an unpopular figure currently no company in their right mind will hire him and let him start writing headlines again. After proving his remorse however he could maybe be trusted. For the man who said the racial slur on air, an apology might help restore his image slightly although at the same time a bad apology might further hurt his image. The apology he did issue contained the phrase "My wife is Asian" which was not appreciated by many Asian people. ESPN has the most to gain from an apology. As an entire organization they need to make it clear that this behavior is unacceptable from their employees. They are supposed to be the "worldwide leader in sports" and as so racism can't be a part of their company. Treating the situation well might even inspire admiration and make them more likable than they were before.

ESPN's racist bluders

This scandal involves 2 incidents in which a "racist phrase" was both published and said over the air by ESPN employees. The phrase, "Chink in the Armor," was used to describe a loss for the New York Knicks after the uprising of Jeremy Lin's  fame. The men who said and published the phrase have maintained that they did not mean the phrase in any racist or negative way. Regardless, the company apologized for the statements and released their apology on their website found here. The issue is whether the statement deserved apology, by whom the apology should have been given, and whether the actions taken by ESPN were reasonable and satisfactory. The accompanying video found on that website makes the case for the side that argues that ESPN acted too quickly and the measures they took were too severe while also discussing the over sensitivity of race in America.

Critical Thinking

Important aspects of critical thinking are synthesizing, applying, and evaluating. These skills are important because in order to think critically you need to be able to come up with a wide array of ideas and then apply them to whatever problem or scenario is at hand and finally evaluate which one is the best. Evaluation is the most important of these three because it is what leads to the final result. It is easy to come up with a lot of ideas, they just will probably not all be good ideas. Evaluating which one is the best idea, without bias, will give the best result.

Another crucial part of critical thinking that the readings mentioned is that it has to be self driven and self disciplined. There is no point in knowing how to think critically if you don't force yourself do it and make sure you do it at the utmost quality. For really smart people, from my experience, this is a problem because they're used to always being right and just trust themselves to be right all the time and so although they do know how to think critically they don't always practice it. Practicing critical thinking, and having the drive to do it is what we should probably be teaching students in college but as a student, I know checking my work is boring so I don't know how well that would be received.

Hotel California

I chose "Hotel California" as my song for this essay mostly because I've loved the song since I was a little kid. I don't know when I first heard the song but I do remember my uncle frequently playing it in car rides with my cousins through L.A. living our own California Dream. Back then I didn't know the lyrics to the song, well besides the chorus, and I certainly didn't know what the lyrics actually meant or even what the song was about. I simply liked it because it sounded good. Although I still like how it sounds, it has a very unique style that's not found in many other songs, I've learned more of the lyrics and like the message I think it's trying to convey. When this essay was assigned I immediately thought of this song and how it would be fun, somewhat, to go dive deeper into the lyrics and get a better understanding about what the song is trying to say.

California Dream

The California Dream, aside from the aspirations of fame and fortune, is a search for adventure and excitement. People don't simply want to go to California to get rich. Although wealth was the primary reason people first began migrating to California, it later did not become as important as it was. As cited in our readings, many people who moved to California were not particularly poor. What did attract them to California was the warm weather, the pretty lights, and basically the escape from the monotony of their homes in the Midwest. Winters in the Midwest are hard and dull. Making snow men and snow angels is fun but only for so long. It would be much more fun to be at the beach in the middle of January instead of wearing 5 layers and sitting by the fire. This year-round excitement is what many people wanted.

That is only one aspect to the California Dream however. The more well known "California Dream" is the hope of fame and fortune. Whether this is the "dream" that attracted the majority of people to California is debatable but it is certainly the better documented one. It is more interesting and exciting to read about rags to riches stories or horror stories of failure and depression. Nearly no one would want to read a story about meager living...