Starting out with writing this paper was a daunting task to say the least. Yet, the four step process of inquiry proposal, annotated bibliography, final research paper, and now E-portfolio project was a unique and new way to me to develop my once small inquiry into a full blown research paper and website. At the very beginning I was set on wanting to write about the Kardashians, however my group did not seem to think that was a practical topic and pushed me in the direction of taking a broader view of celebrities in general. Then decided I wanted to have psychology relate to my topic, and that is how I discovered Celebrity Worship Syndrome. My writing process for this paper was primarily focused on finding sources because I knew that would be the most difficult part of the paper. Another component of my writing process was going to the Peer Writing Center and having the students there give me constructive feedback about what was and was not working, as well as helping me with my grammar. My final, polished version is working well because I have made the changes that you have suggested, I added instructions for interpreting the y-axis and I reemphasized that it is vital to reconsider and reevaluate how we admire celebrities and how that might affect our thinking.
0 Comments
The chart titled “Football And Basketball Have Fewer Tossups” is a graph drawn from data complied over the past 10 years regarding pregame betting in favor of the home team in four pro major sports. Along the bottom, the graph measures the probability of the home team winning and is measured in percent. Every twenty-five percent there is a mark, and they are all equal and start at zero, unlike some graphs. On the y-axis, it again starts at zero but it only goes up to 4%. This technique is called truncation and was a major component in Chapter 7’s: “Persuasion or Manipulation” article. Truncation works because “it emphasizes an idea by cutting down empty ranges” this increases the physical distance between values, making change look more dramatic than it really is (Berinato 8). Creators of this graph rely on individuals to not look closely at it and not realize that the information only has to do with four percent of games, and not all games like they make it out to seem. The article that gives background on the graph states “the league (NFL), on average, artificially narrows the curve in the chart above.” It is absolutely absurd for them to be pointing out the flaws in the NFL’s chart when theirs only includes four percent of games when they make it out to seem like it encompasses all games. I think they point out a flaw in the NFL’s system to establish their own credit for catching it and informing the reader about it, hoping the reader wont realize that they aren't being straight with them either. The creators of the graph also try to play off of logos by making MLB have the fewest tossups because they play so many games a year there is a better chance that they will win more than they loose. Ethos depends on the individual looking at the graph and their sports preferences, the graph creators can not really count on everyone to feel a certain way about a specific sport. This chart is horrible, if it had a proper y-axis it would be much better but even the title is deceiving to what it actually shows. If I were to correct it I would make the y-axis out of 100% and clarify what the graph actually represents.
I selected this piece of writing so if desired, it could be compared to an almost equally as terrible graph found in the “Are Celebrities Taking Over Television?” article reflection. I still stand by my opinion that this graph is horribly misleading and it is sad that companies, news stations, and a myriad of other entities get away with deceiving their viewers. First off, this graph only reflects 4% of games in each of the four sports being tested, but the only way to know that is to look at the y-axis and interpret the graph on your own. Secondly, the creators of this graph, Sports Insights, points out the inaccuracies in the NFL’s graphs to make theirs look more credible. It is honestly incredible that completely misleading graphs and charts like this one, go unnoticed that they are completely deceptive, by the majority of individuals who view them. My question currently is “What is so alluring about the Kardashian family and why are so many individuals obsessed with their every move?” This article revolves around my topic by addressing how celebrities have flooded the media with their scandals and other mishaps. It states “87% (of the public) says celebrity scandals receive too much news coverage” (Pew). It goes on to compare different age groups and who they blame for all of the tabloid news coverage. Almost half of the people under 30 blame the public’s appetite for scandalous news. The article goes on to talk about the news and the public’s interest not being in sync. It displays a graph of individuals who followed the story most closely (in blue), and the percent of the news coverage devoted to the story (orange). The two categories at first glance appear to be significantly different. For example, the “situation in Iraq” has 25% of the population, who replied to this survey, were closely following this story, while only 3% of the news was covering it. This could be caused by the fact that they weren’t over covering the topic so people were interested in following it. They may have even been compelled to go on and research the topic after hearing the story being aired, verses getting annoyed that that story was all the television stations were broadcasting about. When I first see this graph I immediately notice that the graph’s bars do not add up to 100%. I feel like if they don't have enough data to add up to 100% then they should make an “other” category or something to signify that this does not include everyone. Currently the graph only represents 67% of the populations interests and 29% of the new’s coverage. Another thing I dislike about this graph is that it is hard to visualize since they are two separate entities. If they were to overlap, say the orange on top of the blue, it would be much easier to judge the percent differences without having to do the math. I also think the truncation should be either noted or taken out because right now it looks like 90% where it is only 25% (blue bar on the situation Iraq) and 50% where its actually 12% (blue/orange bars on 2008 campaign).
http://www.people-press.org/2007/08/02/public-blames-media-for-too-much-celebrity-coverage/ I chose this piece of writing because it was one of the many steps that I took to get to my final research paper question. In regards to the graph, I still think it is very deceiving and misguides anyone who briefly glances at it. The bars do not even equal 100%! Secondly, I still agree with the written portion of the article in the fact that there is an absurd amount of celebrity scandals in the news. However, that is the information that sells and makes the television networks the most money. As contradicting as that sounds, it is the truth. Even though people complain about all of the celebrity coverage, they still watch it. Obviously I cannot speak for everyone, but if the general consensus was extremely against celebrity coverage in the media like the article makes it out to be, then it would be logical to stop airing it. Carr’s meaning behind "There is a callousness to grandiose futurism,” is that people who prefer using technology over human workers, are typically hiding their disrespect for labor (227). He goes on to explain that with robots or other technological advances, which would replace human labor, would free up the time of the laborer to do other things that he/she prefers. Carr explains that “The whole of modern society, has been organized as ‘a laboring society,’ where working for pay, and then spending that pay, is the way people define themselves and measure their worth” (227). But, this new way would allow individuals to be liberated from their “toil and trouble” (228). However, Carr feels that, “surely nothing could be worse,” than if that (technology taking over human jobs) were to actually occur (228). Carr makes use of Robert Frost in his argument by citing Frost’s sonnet, “Mowing,” by explaining “Frost is telling us with characteristic delicacy that working with a tool is never just a practical matter” (221). This is because it “always entails moral choices and has moral consequences” (222). This is due to humanized technology can be used for bad just as much as it can be for good. When we possess the tool we take on the responsibility associated with its use. Secondly, the more practice a user gets the better they become at using it, thus tightening the bond between the two. Therefore, “the feeling of physical and ethical entanglement doesn’t have to go away as technologies become more complex” (223). On the other hand, the bond between tool and user is weakened as automation occurs, because the systems ask so little of us. They cause us to no longer feel that the tool is a part of ourselves. Similarly, technology is becoming so advanced that even if the original tool was still in use somewhere, “no one would be around to hear it” (222). This is because robotic workers are currently being developed. I chose this piece of writing because it takes on a similar viewpoint to the other articles I have chosen to reflect on. The author, Nicholas Carr, introduces the fact that human workers are currently being replaced by technology. He explains that this would liberate people from their responsibility to produce an income if no one had a job anymore. Carr believes that “surely nothing could be worse,” and I could not agree more. Earning an income teaches life skills and essential values that overall shape our society as a whole. It would be an absolutely horrendous catastrophe if all human jobs were replaced by technology. Carr starts off chapter three with a tragic story about “pilot error” sending a small plane to the ground, killing everyone aboard. He continues to list different incidence (i.e. Pierre-Cedric Bonin & David Robert) where similar events have occurred focusing mainly on facts. He uses stasis theory to provide the reader with a persuasive argument against over automation in areas of the workforce. He begins to shift his focus from previous avoidable plane crashes to how different agencies across the World have been switching work from human to machine. This saves corporations millions of dollars but it also leads to potential mechanical error. On page 50 he states, “the new generation of autopilots would dispose of the necessity for carrying navigators, radio operators, and flight engineers.” This sad fact is becoming more relevant by the day and makes us question if we are headed in the right direction, since clearly the pilots who were flying the plane did not question it. Carr uses pathos throughout the chapter, tugging at our hearts regrind all of the innocent passengers who lost their lives. He also focuses on logos that once you are not forced to do as much work (i.e. fly a plane), you're skills and decision making can deteriorate over time. So, for the Marvin Renslow and Rebecca Shaw, they were not prepared for their engine stalling, and actually they did the opposite of what they should have done. This proves Carr’s point that human error can be a consequence of over automation. He concludes with more logos, explaining, “the mounting evidence of an erosion of skills, a dulling of perceptions, and a slowing of reactions should give us all pause” (63). He expands on this by stating that as we live our lives make sure our technology does not begin to cage us in, much like a cockpit can.
I selected this interesting piece of writing because it deals with people being replaced by automation. The author, Nicholas Carr, begins by telling us a tragic story of a salvageable plane malfunction, but the pilot's failure to be prepared and well educated on what to do when the engine stalls, caused the plane to crash and everyone to die. If they would have not be totally reliant on automation, they could have fixed the engine and continued on with their flight. I stand by my stance that the world is becoming too focused on automation because of situations like the plane crash that could have been avoided. Richtel’s argument consists of the problems that arise from an over use of technology and how it changes our behavior patterns. He gives the example of the Campbell family, who go on a trip to Camel at one point and do not even go out to dinner one night because the entire family is on their electronics. Mr. Campbell is the worst, spending hours upon hours online working and playing video games. However, what I thought was interesting was that Mrs. Campbell recognized her husbands problems, yet has begun to fall into the electronic obsession trap. She recognizes that, “she is less focused and has trouble completing projects” (488). Yet, she states in regards to ignoring her devices, “it’s like a diet- you have good intentions in the morning and then you’re like ‘there went that’” (488). Dewey’s article centers around the false feelings connections that we make when we use technology to communicate. She uses the example of Skyping, and not realizing that her comfort zone and ability to end the conversation whenever she wanted was really what made the conversations and situation work so well. Once she went to meet the person in real life, it felt awkward because of the accommodations she previously had, but hadn’t realized, were no longer there. She expresses, “In real life, Will stared off at nothing while I talked. In real life, he had no questions about the drive or my work” (520). It is clear that the real life situation feels awkward for both Dewey and Will because there is not a computer screen that are separated by hundreds of miles. Where these two articles intersect is where they both find fault in technology in conjunction to interaction with other humans. It is also clear it affects their social interaction patters since Dewey stopped seeking attention from men in real life, and the Campbells would have been content to sit in a room on their electronics all day. Dewey is trying to explain how Skyping or other video chatting service can make you feel like you are with the person but in actuality its completely different than actually sitting in a room with them. She claims that 90% of human communication is nonverbal but with the pixilated and only semi body shot of the individual you are speaking too, its noting like actually talking to them in person. It can feel like you are since the person is virtually right there but to put it in perspective two individuals would need to sit in box with only one third of their bodies showing with a different backgrounds and something to make their faces pixilated to really compare the two situations in real life. Secondly, she gives no data to back up her statistic so theres no way to check if thats true or not without doing research on my own, however, I find her overall article to be persuasive because you commonly hear these types of stories on the news and such.
I chose this unique piece of writing because it focuses on the reality of virtual relationships. I still agree with what the author, Richtel, is saying, however, I’m skeptical about her statistics’ credibility, since no data is given to support her percentage claims. What I would add to this blog would be a personal observation that is similar to the Skyping story. I Snapchat all of the time, it is my main form of communication with my friends. I prefer it over texting because you are able to get an idea of their emotions that you are not able to see through text, which is similar to why two people in the story prefered to Skype. Likewise, I can have long meaningful conversations with my friends over Snapchat. However, when I’m with them in real life, for example at dinner, none of us have the ability to instantaneously end the conversation, and disappear whenever we want like we do when we are just Snapchatting, and consequently the conversations are sometimes less significant. The article “Passengers” begins with Nicholas Carr’s story about when he got his license and was given a stick shift car to drive. He explained how he struggled to learn how to use all of the gears and pedals. His friends would make fun of him for his untimely gear changes and such and he eventually went on to wreck the car. He then got another car, this time it was an automatic transmission, making him feel like a new man at first. He now had a spare hand for his beverage and one to drive with. After a few months of this new luxury, Carr began to miss all of the control he had over his previous car. Yeah, this one was great and more efficient but it made him feel “underutilized” (8). He explains that this situation is very similar to the advancements of the technological world. Every profession has adapted to incorporate the use of a computer to make their lives easier. Yet, this makes us reliant on them so when they disfunction we are in a disarray. Secondly, there have been extreme technological developments so much that Google has cars that can now drive themselves. It’s honestly mind blowing. Side note, when I was very little I used to think my parents were the only people who actually drove cars and that everyone else just rode while the car was driven for them. Sometimes I didn't even realize anyone was in the car. I wish I could explain why I failed to see the diver but for a very long time I thought that. Anyway, back to the article, these automatic cars supposedly have the ability to drive themselves and not need stoplights or any other form of traffic control because they are so smart that they would communicate to all the other cars and make a precise plan of where they would be at a specific time and every car would calculate that like .000000000000000001 seconds. Its crazy really. From how I interpreted the article, it made it sound like these automatic cars were not going to get into wrecks. However, if one were too I think it would be the company who's uncharge of its action’s fault. This is because it controls its moves and ultimately could or at least should be able to intervene and stop the collision from happening. I think Carr’s tone is more against than for this new technological era but my interpretation of his view was not drastically one way or another. One time he’s talking about the automatic cars and says “how will it feel to become, truly, a passenger in my own car?” (14). Similarly, he mentions not liking not being in control anymore after getting a car with an automatic transmission. However like these two, most of his statements are pretty flat. In his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he more aggressive and adamant about how technology is ruining and changing the way we live our lives. For example, we have much shorter attention spans and only read things to find the answers.
I chose this piece of writing because we had an in depth class discussion about it and because I personally have a quirky connection to it. First, I still stand by my opinion that it should be the car company's fault if one of these self driven cars were to malfunction and get into a wreck. Additionally, after the class discussion I came to the conclusion that these cars should be able to be intervened by the passenger if it was to malfunction. This potentially lifesaving addition to the car could prevent a wreck from happening, and other unknown conceivably critical scenarios. In the article “Google Makes Us All Dumber: The Neuroscience of Search Engines,” Ian Leslie argues that the way we use technology has the potential to make us process information slower. He stresses the importance of individuals working together with technology and focusing on keeping curiosity a component of the relationship. He gives the example of a study done with young children that tests how many and what type of questions they ask to their caregiver. Some children would simply reply “Why?/How?,” others would ask longer, more complex questions, but those who's parents would reply back “I don’t know, what do you think?” were the ones who's children continued to ask questions. Leslie continues to go on and state, “questioning, it turns out, is contagious” (500). Additionally, Leslie explains the “information gap” and how its relevant to society as a whole. Essentially, it is where you know enough, but don't know everything, so you are driven to know more. This desire to learn is imperative for individuals to not become lazy and just Google everything. He gave the example of if someone only knows three state capitals they will pat themselves on the back for knowing those three and not strive to know the other forty seven. Verses, a person who knows forty seven is going to be driven to learn the last three capitals that he/she does not know. The latter is the information gap that we all need to strive to possess. I believe that “Google Makes Us All Dumber” is more persuasive than “Is Google Making Us Stupid” because it tries to show you an abundance of hard evidence showing the ramifications of using Google to store everyday knowledge. In reference to the two article’s tones, “Is Google Making Us Stupid” is more relaxed and just relaying the information where as “Google Makes Us All Dumber” is more passionate and intense. I find both articles to hold some weight, but I think “Is Google Making Us Stupid” is more realistic since it just addresses our need to continue to ask questions and learn information rather than rely on Google for it. Whereas the other was more extreme in its views and actions.
I selected this particular piece of writing because it compares an article I addressed in another reflection, to another article with a similar argument. I still agree with my stance that “Google Makes Us All Dumber” is more persuasive. The article provides hard evidence that the “Information Gap” is an actual thing and works “when you know enough, but you don’t know everything, so you are driven to know more” (lion1997). However, it is also a lot more extreme in its call to action, and in its overall viewpoint on the matter that the internet causing us to lose our curiosity. In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Kairos plays a prominent role in casting Carr’s argument; that the internet is causing our brains to change how they function. Society has begun to question this claim, and it is becoming a growing source of concern. However, Carr’s ability to tie present day google all the way back in time to when Socrates feared over the development of writing, causes the importance of this issue to show. Socrates was troubled that individuals would begin to rely on written work as a substitute for knowledge that they used to cary in their heads. The same argument can be said for the creation of the internet. The audience, college students, will relate to the topic because their lives revolve around the internet. In short, Kairos is writing the right thing at the right time.
Carr’s argument surrounds the fear that when individuals make the internet their primary source of information, it begins to affect their ability to read and process thoughts the way they used to. When individuals pick efficiency, it causes the brain to have a shorter attention span. It also causes our knowledge to be “spread wide and thin,” because it is so easy to connect to a network with infinite information, at the touch of a button (Carr 8). The writer provides a well researched account of how the internet is designed to make browsing efficient, fast, and optimized for profit. He states “It’s in their (Google and other companies) economic interest to drive us to distraction” which causes our brains to process in another way (Carr 7). Overall, Carr presents an effective argument that may not be agreed upon by the younger generations. We, Millennials, have grown up with our brains functioning this way and do not know any different, therefore it is hard for us to fathom a different way of life and imagine why you would ever want to live in a time before the internet. I chose this piece of writing because it ties into the majority of my ten artifacts’ overarching topic of technology. I still agree with half of my stance on the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?.” Essentially, I agree with the writer that ever since the internet was created, we have begun to rely on it more and more as a substitute for knowledge. However, after rereading my comparison of Socrates who lived in 339 B.C. and his fear of written work being used as a substitute for knowledge previously carried in their heads, to the creation of the internet and this same fear of relying on it as a substitution is realistically farfetched. They are the same principal but seeing as Socrates died 2,354 years ago, the credibility of this claim plummets. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |