These are a collection of short writings that analyzed what we discussed in class. We shared our opinion based of the knowledge we were informed on.
Analyze Baldwin's quote: "The story of the Negro in America, is the story of America. It is not a pretty story."
I this quote “the story of the Negro in America, is the story of America. It's not a pretty story.” The first part of this quote can be broken down as that black people are a vital part of the American identity. In Baldwin’s work he stated that with our the large slave population that America would never have been a success and that it was the blacks people that kept America on its feet, they just were never given the credit. This goes in to show how blacks lives play a vital role in american identity and history. When it says “is the story of America” to me I interpreted that as how in America there exists a systematic racist way of life imposed on minorities like black people from birth. This in term shows how the story of America is one of racism designed to hold a whole population at bay and in the dark. Baldwin sums this up in this quote from My Dungeon Shook, “You were born where you were born and faced the future that you faced because you were black and for no other reason. The limits of your ambition were thus expected to be set forever.” Additionally he adds this quote towards the end of the paragraph that sums up this idea of systematic racism designed to oppress very well, “You were born into a society which spelled out with brutal clarity, and in many ways as possible, that you were a worthless human being. You were not expected to inspire to excellence: but expected to make peace with mediocrity.” This I think sums up what the negroes story and struggle has been in America, the faced and still face a country whose layout is designed to see them fail. Baldwin also gives the example of this “innocent country set you down in a ghetto in which, in fact it intended that you should perish.” This further shows how from the very start blacks in America are setup to fail from the moment they were born. When he says innocent country he is referring to ignorance not necessarily innocence. Baldwin is saying how white America is ignorant to what is happening to blacks and minorities and choses to be blind and not see what is happening.
Semantics/Fighting Words
1. In class we discussed how "[b]y definition, terrorism is a concept or category that describes human actions... To war against terrorism, therefore, is to war against a classification, a description, a word." How is going to war against a concept/description/word problematic in terms of identifying what success looks like and how to achieve it? Feel free to discuss not only the "War on Terrorism" but also the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty" in your answer if you would like.
In the article It talked about how we use war like language in the US. It gives examples of how we use words like “battle”, “defend”, “bomb”, or use the term “war”. Just like the doublespeak articles we read we are becoming desensitised to the language we use and losing the context and meaning these words one had. This article also said how our generation is the first that has yet to experience a full blown war like Vietnam. This continued the idea that we are being to become desensitized to war because it's so far off in the distance. Also because there has been no draft for a while young americans were not forced to fight in these wars bringing us farther away from them. In paragraph 5 it talks about the gulf war and makes this statement “we watched replays of laser guided missiles entering bunker windows, but seldom were exposed to the sights of actual human collateral.” This further gives credence to the idea that we as Americans are being desensitised to war. Now when we talk about the “war on terrorism”, like the prompt states terrorism is a concept, and idea and aspect of humanity. When politicians say they are fighting the War on Terrorism they are basically fighting an idea that has existed since humanity was created. The article demonstrates how this “war on terrorism” is changing how we fight and define wars. In paragraph 16 it states that “the war on terrorism. No longer involving specific battles or well defined goals, this war began to look similar to other drawn-out wars which my generation is familiar with.” What this statement tells us is that these conceptual wars don't have one threat or enemy to take out but applies to a huge part of the world's population. The same goes for the “war on drugs” another one of these conceptual wars that don't target one threat or have goals or a foreseeable end. The “war on drugs is another big one of these conceptual wars in the US after the “war on terrorism.” In the article it talks about how the Reagan foundation started the just say no campaign. The criticism for this was that telling a drug addict to just say no was like telling a manic depressive to just cheer up. It also states how this war is far from being won by stating how people can buy and use drugs with relative ease. This goes on to give this example in paragraph 19 “there will be no Normandy or Hiroshima, no crucial turning point or day of victory when all the potheads and speed freeks finally surrender. These wars will have no surrender signing no nation surrendering to another. These wars are Ideas, concepts, and aspects of society; you can't fight that. These wars as stated in the article are metaphors and that we are “racing towards a finish line that doesn't exist.” What this tells us is that these “wars” will never end. We will always be fighting terrorism in the world and we will always have drugs on the streets so America is dumping out money into a war that is fighting an idea a concept that will never not be a part of humanity. In my opinion we are wasting our time.
2. In 2001, President Bush said about our country's response to the attacks on 9/11: "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." Think about all 3 parts of that quote, and discuss the ways in which it frames the discussion of our "War on Terror". How might Muslims in general, and Muslims who believe they are "estesh'hads" and their apologists in particular, interpret Bush's quote?
When I looked up the meaning of the world crusade it means to, lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue. Its other meaning is a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. The first thing I get is America is going to war over the muslim religion. The simple worlds “this crusade” signifies to muslims that America is going to fight a war to rid their religion. Think about what hearing that must sound like to someone who is muslim. In a country that explicitly says in its constitution that religion and government are not supposed to mix calling the war on terrorism a crusade throws that out the window. Saying that in my opinion gives out the message that we as Americans are going out to fight the muslim religion. As to how a marder or the muslim equivalent would feel that a country just declared a war on your religion and entire belief system, I would be pretty mad. MAny people who don’t know the meaning of the word would probably give it no thought, myself included. I like many others probably didn't know the meaning in this context and brushed it off. But when i took 30 second to look it up I saw what it actually means and I was shocked. As for the last part of this quote about how the”war on terrorism” is going to take a while. This connects to what I talked about in the previous prompt about how these conceptual wars can be won. Bush just admitted to that in that simple statement. He admitted that America has committed to fighting a part of humanity that has and always will be present, to fighting a war that can't be won.
In the article It talked about how we use war like language in the US. It gives examples of how we use words like “battle”, “defend”, “bomb”, or use the term “war”. Just like the doublespeak articles we read we are becoming desensitised to the language we use and losing the context and meaning these words one had. This article also said how our generation is the first that has yet to experience a full blown war like Vietnam. This continued the idea that we are being to become desensitized to war because it's so far off in the distance. Also because there has been no draft for a while young americans were not forced to fight in these wars bringing us farther away from them. In paragraph 5 it talks about the gulf war and makes this statement “we watched replays of laser guided missiles entering bunker windows, but seldom were exposed to the sights of actual human collateral.” This further gives credence to the idea that we as Americans are being desensitised to war. Now when we talk about the “war on terrorism”, like the prompt states terrorism is a concept, and idea and aspect of humanity. When politicians say they are fighting the War on Terrorism they are basically fighting an idea that has existed since humanity was created. The article demonstrates how this “war on terrorism” is changing how we fight and define wars. In paragraph 16 it states that “the war on terrorism. No longer involving specific battles or well defined goals, this war began to look similar to other drawn-out wars which my generation is familiar with.” What this statement tells us is that these conceptual wars don't have one threat or enemy to take out but applies to a huge part of the world's population. The same goes for the “war on drugs” another one of these conceptual wars that don't target one threat or have goals or a foreseeable end. The “war on drugs is another big one of these conceptual wars in the US after the “war on terrorism.” In the article it talks about how the Reagan foundation started the just say no campaign. The criticism for this was that telling a drug addict to just say no was like telling a manic depressive to just cheer up. It also states how this war is far from being won by stating how people can buy and use drugs with relative ease. This goes on to give this example in paragraph 19 “there will be no Normandy or Hiroshima, no crucial turning point or day of victory when all the potheads and speed freeks finally surrender. These wars will have no surrender signing no nation surrendering to another. These wars are Ideas, concepts, and aspects of society; you can't fight that. These wars as stated in the article are metaphors and that we are “racing towards a finish line that doesn't exist.” What this tells us is that these “wars” will never end. We will always be fighting terrorism in the world and we will always have drugs on the streets so America is dumping out money into a war that is fighting an idea a concept that will never not be a part of humanity. In my opinion we are wasting our time.
2. In 2001, President Bush said about our country's response to the attacks on 9/11: "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." Think about all 3 parts of that quote, and discuss the ways in which it frames the discussion of our "War on Terror". How might Muslims in general, and Muslims who believe they are "estesh'hads" and their apologists in particular, interpret Bush's quote?
When I looked up the meaning of the world crusade it means to, lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue. Its other meaning is a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. The first thing I get is America is going to war over the muslim religion. The simple worlds “this crusade” signifies to muslims that America is going to fight a war to rid their religion. Think about what hearing that must sound like to someone who is muslim. In a country that explicitly says in its constitution that religion and government are not supposed to mix calling the war on terrorism a crusade throws that out the window. Saying that in my opinion gives out the message that we as Americans are going out to fight the muslim religion. As to how a marder or the muslim equivalent would feel that a country just declared a war on your religion and entire belief system, I would be pretty mad. MAny people who don’t know the meaning of the word would probably give it no thought, myself included. I like many others probably didn't know the meaning in this context and brushed it off. But when i took 30 second to look it up I saw what it actually means and I was shocked. As for the last part of this quote about how the”war on terrorism” is going to take a while. This connects to what I talked about in the previous prompt about how these conceptual wars can be won. Bush just admitted to that in that simple statement. He admitted that America has committed to fighting a part of humanity that has and always will be present, to fighting a war that can't be won.
EO/Immigration
DACA and DAPA are two immigration programs that were established by President Obama through Executive Orders. As the Pew Research Center article states, the programs "are on hold because of a legal challenge by 26 states." That legal challenge was decided last year.
Briefly describe what the DACA and DAPA programs are, why the Obama administration believed them to be legal Executive Orders, why they were challenged by 26 states, and what the court's' decision was in the state's' legal challenge.
This is not an opinion writing assignment. Save analyses that include your personal interpretations and ideas for their own paragraph at the end.
DACA means Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and DAPA means Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. According to wikipedia and the ICE government website DAPA is a planned policy that gives deferred action status to certain illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010. They must have children who are either citizens or legal residents. Deferred action means that it is not a full legal status like a citizenship. It comes with a three-year work permit that must be renewed and gives exemption from deportation. This program was created by former president Barack Obama in november of 2014. DACA is similar but a little different in that it deals with the children of immigrants not the parents. It was put into action also by former president Barack Obama in June of 2012. It allows undocumented immigrants to the United States who came to America as children to receive a renewable two-year period safe from deportation and eligibility for a work permit. However to apply for this program you had to enter the United States before your sixteenth birthday. This would also have to be before June of 2007. You had to be enrolled in school, high school graduate, and or be honorably discharged from the military. Additionally you would have to be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. You couldn't have committed any felonies or any three other misdemeanors that would pose a threat to the United States of America.
The DAPA act was first talked about on June 15, 2012 President Obama made a speech. This speech talked about the supreme court case Plyler v. Doe, a case that supreme court ruled that public schools could not charge tuition to immigrant students attending their school. This was meant to replace the Dream Act which failed to be effective and only applied to a small group of eligible immigrants. The general republican response was that this was an abuse of executive power. It was denounced by almost all republicans in congress who voted to have its funding removed. The problem was that congress couldn't defund the program because it was entirely funded by its own application fees. The DAPA was created after congress was ready to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. However, it was never voted on. President Obama stated he would fix the immigration system without congress because he felt like it couldn't wait. His administration began then to construct a new executive order. On November 20, 2014 Obama announced DAPA. This kept about half of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US.
In December of 2014 Texas and 25 other states all that have republican governors sewed the government in the case United States v. Texas. They wanted to stop the expansion of DAPA and DACA so during the process of court they were suspended. Judge Jerry Edwin Smith also joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas had a standing because of the cost of issuing driver's licenses to aliens, and additionally that President Obama’s order violated the Administrative Procedure Act. On January 19, 2016 the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. The Court took a strange step of asking for information regarding the new constitutional question of whether DAPA violates the Take Care Clause. On June 23, 2016 the Supreme Court announced it had tied 4-4 in a decision that read, “The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court.” The ruling made it go to the lower court which blocked the program. The case could reach the Supreme Court again after Judge Hanen has held a trial.
I feel like DAPA and DACA were constitutional and legal programs because supreme court couldn't make a decision. This shows that there was a good amount of evidence for each argument so it could go either way as far as I am concerned. I believe in something called the poverty cycle, it is a cycle that exists in our world not just in America but through our humanity. This keeps the poor, poor and uneducated because they have no money to afford education and because they are uneducated they can't get good jobs so they stay poor. But why I support these acts is because the people it affects are those that are already living in the US and contributing to our society and economy. It allows kids to to get educated and get better jobs to break the poverty cycle that just goes on and on for so many families. There is also the argument that there are so many immigrants in the us already that getting rid of all 11 million would be to difficult or costly so why not let these people contribute to our society. A great example is in the Vice news video we watched in class. This story showed a woman and her mother and her son the migrated to the US illegally and were working cleaning schools and getting paid under the table a very low amount. But thanks to these 2 acts she was able to work in a good job at a law firm and she could support her family and was able to get educated losing these acts she and her family would be forced to leave the US and or she would lose her job because she could no longer work there legally. He even said that she would have to go back to a cleaning job getting paid almost nothing bringing her and her family back in the the poverty cycle. By turning these people away it will only make them more desperate to come back and willing to risk more to make it across the border. Increasing the border guarding will only make it more dangerous for people to cross leading to more deaths and more people thrown in jail. All that will do is keep the cycle running and I believe these acts can help stop it and create better lives for us all. They could have ended the poverty cycle one and for all.
Briefly describe what the DACA and DAPA programs are, why the Obama administration believed them to be legal Executive Orders, why they were challenged by 26 states, and what the court's' decision was in the state's' legal challenge.
This is not an opinion writing assignment. Save analyses that include your personal interpretations and ideas for their own paragraph at the end.
DACA means Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and DAPA means Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. According to wikipedia and the ICE government website DAPA is a planned policy that gives deferred action status to certain illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010. They must have children who are either citizens or legal residents. Deferred action means that it is not a full legal status like a citizenship. It comes with a three-year work permit that must be renewed and gives exemption from deportation. This program was created by former president Barack Obama in november of 2014. DACA is similar but a little different in that it deals with the children of immigrants not the parents. It was put into action also by former president Barack Obama in June of 2012. It allows undocumented immigrants to the United States who came to America as children to receive a renewable two-year period safe from deportation and eligibility for a work permit. However to apply for this program you had to enter the United States before your sixteenth birthday. This would also have to be before June of 2007. You had to be enrolled in school, high school graduate, and or be honorably discharged from the military. Additionally you would have to be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. You couldn't have committed any felonies or any three other misdemeanors that would pose a threat to the United States of America.
The DAPA act was first talked about on June 15, 2012 President Obama made a speech. This speech talked about the supreme court case Plyler v. Doe, a case that supreme court ruled that public schools could not charge tuition to immigrant students attending their school. This was meant to replace the Dream Act which failed to be effective and only applied to a small group of eligible immigrants. The general republican response was that this was an abuse of executive power. It was denounced by almost all republicans in congress who voted to have its funding removed. The problem was that congress couldn't defund the program because it was entirely funded by its own application fees. The DAPA was created after congress was ready to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. However, it was never voted on. President Obama stated he would fix the immigration system without congress because he felt like it couldn't wait. His administration began then to construct a new executive order. On November 20, 2014 Obama announced DAPA. This kept about half of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US.
In December of 2014 Texas and 25 other states all that have republican governors sewed the government in the case United States v. Texas. They wanted to stop the expansion of DAPA and DACA so during the process of court they were suspended. Judge Jerry Edwin Smith also joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas had a standing because of the cost of issuing driver's licenses to aliens, and additionally that President Obama’s order violated the Administrative Procedure Act. On January 19, 2016 the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. The Court took a strange step of asking for information regarding the new constitutional question of whether DAPA violates the Take Care Clause. On June 23, 2016 the Supreme Court announced it had tied 4-4 in a decision that read, “The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court.” The ruling made it go to the lower court which blocked the program. The case could reach the Supreme Court again after Judge Hanen has held a trial.
I feel like DAPA and DACA were constitutional and legal programs because supreme court couldn't make a decision. This shows that there was a good amount of evidence for each argument so it could go either way as far as I am concerned. I believe in something called the poverty cycle, it is a cycle that exists in our world not just in America but through our humanity. This keeps the poor, poor and uneducated because they have no money to afford education and because they are uneducated they can't get good jobs so they stay poor. But why I support these acts is because the people it affects are those that are already living in the US and contributing to our society and economy. It allows kids to to get educated and get better jobs to break the poverty cycle that just goes on and on for so many families. There is also the argument that there are so many immigrants in the us already that getting rid of all 11 million would be to difficult or costly so why not let these people contribute to our society. A great example is in the Vice news video we watched in class. This story showed a woman and her mother and her son the migrated to the US illegally and were working cleaning schools and getting paid under the table a very low amount. But thanks to these 2 acts she was able to work in a good job at a law firm and she could support her family and was able to get educated losing these acts she and her family would be forced to leave the US and or she would lose her job because she could no longer work there legally. He even said that she would have to go back to a cleaning job getting paid almost nothing bringing her and her family back in the the poverty cycle. By turning these people away it will only make them more desperate to come back and willing to risk more to make it across the border. Increasing the border guarding will only make it more dangerous for people to cross leading to more deaths and more people thrown in jail. All that will do is keep the cycle running and I believe these acts can help stop it and create better lives for us all. They could have ended the poverty cycle one and for all.
Dehumanizing Language/Immigration Ban
1. What are some of the ways in which the first article ("Dehumanizing People and Emphasizing War") cites as examples of language used to dehumanize groups of people? What are some examples of the ways in which this has been happening in the last 15 years? (Larger context: how language is used and why)
In most cases I found the language was used to cover up the true meanings of the words or mislead ad cover up to the public what was happening in wars, A great example of this is during the Vietnam war the US government called killing civilians by accident, regrettable by-products. They also called the forced evacuation and killing of the Vietnamese civilians, “pacification.” This language that hides its true meaning is done on purpose by the government and military so that to the public eye it justifies what is happening. The words take all the emotion out of the words and replace it with a meaningless phrase which they can set to mean anything as to keep the truth hidden without ever lieing. Further examples are given towards the end of the article that compare this type of language to that used by Hitlar in Natzi Grmany. Hitler referred to “moral obstacles” that must be removed this is referring to the Jews of course. The way this is said does no justice to what this phrase is actually referring to. It like the vietnam eaple is referring to the murdering of hundreds of thousands of people in a way that can be accepted by the public. Additonaly something that I found was that in Natzi Germany Hitlar referd to jews as a parasite or a microorganism, basicly he didn't think they were real people. This gave the view to people that the suffering of the jews didn't matter because the were not real people. This justified killing them as something that was ok to do.
2. In the second article, a tweet from Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) read "We bomb your country, creating a humanitarian nightmare, then lock you inside. That's a horror movie, not a foreign policy." What does this mean to you? Do you agree/disagree with his sentiment. Explain. (Larger context: Post 9/11 foreign policy)
I totally agree with this statement because of how true it is. There are countless examples of how America gets involved with other countries problems to “help” but In fact they do the opposite and what they do is for Americans it's not the place they are fighting on. The countless wars in the middle east are a great example of this. How we go in a big strong America to help the people but really we are just going to hunt for Bin Laden. Or in many older wars just trying to fight our own fears of communism. I would classify Americas new main focus of fier is on terrorism. Out leaders justify out raids and bombings of Middle east countries because we are killing the terrorists we think are there, think not know. This idea of justifying the bombings by saying how we are ridding the world of terrorism is just a cover up so the government doesn't embarrass themselves or get exposed to the public. This idea ties directly to the idea of double speak we discussed earlier. Politicians use the words we are ridding the world of terrorism to cover up the fact that that includes bombing and destroying the entire country which they reside in. It keeps the public in the dark and believing that this is actually a good thing that the government is doing. The second part of the statement was about how the countries we bomb we now force to stay out. This was very interesting to me because in the article on the first page this was said “The countries that have produced and supported the greatest number of anti-U.S. terrorists - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE - are excluded from the banlist because the tyrannical regimes that run those countries are close US allies.” In addition to this statement there is another that states how the middle eastern countries that were banned like Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen all have not produced any terrorists that the government and Trum fear so greatly. They are killing and destroying a country that has nothing to do with terrorism. Also Trump is said to have hotels in Saudi Arabia so he wouldn't want to negatively affect his business which is from what I understand is illegal as president of the USA. He put his own self interests before that of millions of people.
In most cases I found the language was used to cover up the true meanings of the words or mislead ad cover up to the public what was happening in wars, A great example of this is during the Vietnam war the US government called killing civilians by accident, regrettable by-products. They also called the forced evacuation and killing of the Vietnamese civilians, “pacification.” This language that hides its true meaning is done on purpose by the government and military so that to the public eye it justifies what is happening. The words take all the emotion out of the words and replace it with a meaningless phrase which they can set to mean anything as to keep the truth hidden without ever lieing. Further examples are given towards the end of the article that compare this type of language to that used by Hitlar in Natzi Grmany. Hitler referred to “moral obstacles” that must be removed this is referring to the Jews of course. The way this is said does no justice to what this phrase is actually referring to. It like the vietnam eaple is referring to the murdering of hundreds of thousands of people in a way that can be accepted by the public. Additonaly something that I found was that in Natzi Germany Hitlar referd to jews as a parasite or a microorganism, basicly he didn't think they were real people. This gave the view to people that the suffering of the jews didn't matter because the were not real people. This justified killing them as something that was ok to do.
2. In the second article, a tweet from Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) read "We bomb your country, creating a humanitarian nightmare, then lock you inside. That's a horror movie, not a foreign policy." What does this mean to you? Do you agree/disagree with his sentiment. Explain. (Larger context: Post 9/11 foreign policy)
I totally agree with this statement because of how true it is. There are countless examples of how America gets involved with other countries problems to “help” but In fact they do the opposite and what they do is for Americans it's not the place they are fighting on. The countless wars in the middle east are a great example of this. How we go in a big strong America to help the people but really we are just going to hunt for Bin Laden. Or in many older wars just trying to fight our own fears of communism. I would classify Americas new main focus of fier is on terrorism. Out leaders justify out raids and bombings of Middle east countries because we are killing the terrorists we think are there, think not know. This idea of justifying the bombings by saying how we are ridding the world of terrorism is just a cover up so the government doesn't embarrass themselves or get exposed to the public. This idea ties directly to the idea of double speak we discussed earlier. Politicians use the words we are ridding the world of terrorism to cover up the fact that that includes bombing and destroying the entire country which they reside in. It keeps the public in the dark and believing that this is actually a good thing that the government is doing. The second part of the statement was about how the countries we bomb we now force to stay out. This was very interesting to me because in the article on the first page this was said “The countries that have produced and supported the greatest number of anti-U.S. terrorists - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE - are excluded from the banlist because the tyrannical regimes that run those countries are close US allies.” In addition to this statement there is another that states how the middle eastern countries that were banned like Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen all have not produced any terrorists that the government and Trum fear so greatly. They are killing and destroying a country that has nothing to do with terrorism. Also Trump is said to have hotels in Saudi Arabia so he wouldn't want to negatively affect his business which is from what I understand is illegal as president of the USA. He put his own self interests before that of millions of people.
Language/Doublespeak/Euphamisms
1.With the videos we watched in class in mind, summarize the "Doublespeak" article and share your thoughts on the power language. / Why is it important to understand the ways in which language is used? (about a page)
The article introduces itself by telling the reader who the author is and what certification the author has. In this case it is William Lutz an english professor at Rutgers University, which is located in New Jersey. It is in this first part that Lutz introduces the idea of Doublespeak. He doesn't really give light as to its meaning until page two paragraph two where he states “Doublespeak is a language which pretends to communicate but does not. It is language that makes the bad seem good and the, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant seem attractive, or at least manageable.” This tells us that this article is going to be all about proving this statement and how and where these aspects show up in our lives. He begins to prove this in the 3rd paragraph with the statement, “There are no slums or ghettos, just the ‘inner city’ or ‘substandard housing.’” this is an example of how doublespeak manipulates words to cover up the harsh reality and make it more acceptable to the public's ears. Lutz goes into more detail about the different types of doublespeak that are used by giving 4 examples. The first type of doublespeak is called euphemism, it’s language designed to avoid harsh or distasteful reality. He also states that it is meant to mislead or deceive the people that hear it. The second type is jargon or “language of a specific trade or group that helps its members communicate”. They use unfamiliar terms to describe things but when the use the terms when talking to others to deceive or confuse them then this becomed doublespeak. The third form of doublespeak is called Gobbledy gook. It is overly complex language meant to confuse and overwhelm an audience. Lutz claims this is more effective when done rapidly. The fourth type is inferred language that makes ordinary things sound better and more amazing than they actually are. In the text we were given the example of car mechanics becoming automotive experts. The article then goes on to talk about the fact that double speak is not just careless mesed up language but something that is carefully and cunningly designed to mislead and change your view and judgement. It is in fact very smart and clever, not in a good way. Lutz then goes on and gives more examples of doublespeak in things like government giving the example that the Pentagon instead of calling it killing the enemy they call it servicing the target. Near the end of the paragraph he follows up with this fact “meanwhile the Department of Energy wants to establish a ‘monitored retrievable storage site’ a place once known as a dump for spent nuclear fuel.” This helps prove what Lutz is trying to say about how governments and big corporations use doublespeak to confuse us about the true meaning of statements. Then he makes the connection to the outside world showing that it's not just us in America that do this the whole world does it too. He gives a few examples from Japan, Canada, and Russia. The most notable for me was that of the Russian one where people were expected to show officials “normal gratitude” which basicly means to bribe them. He ends off the article by talking about the idea of the double speak of death. This is said to make murder respectable and make lies sound truthful and make things seem solid and under control even if they are not. He gives examples one of of which was peasants driven from their land and homes with nothing their land stolen this was said to be called transfer of population. He ends by telling the reader how we should not laugh off doublespeak because it affects all our lives every day and we should watch out and take it seriously.
These examples discussed in the article were further shown through a video we watched on doublespeak by George Carlin. He spoke in front of a group of washington journalists where he gave examples on how doublespeak manipulates language. One of the big examples he starts off with was his example of shell shock. Carlin tells us that in the first world war the term shell shock was created to describe soldiers whose nervous systems were stretched to the breaking point. He talks how by world war II the same term was called battle fatigue. Then be the Korean war it was called operational exhaustion. And finally by the time the Vietnam war rolls around the term turns into what we know to day as post traumatic stress disorder. He then talks about how this language is deprived of all humanity and emotion. His examples show us that the language that we now use confuses us to the actual meaning of the word or phrase. Like the examples shown in Lutz’s article about Gobbledygook, Carlin gave a few examples that I think really highlight this point. The first being toilet paper becoming bathroom tissue, the second one being how monkey bars went on to be called pipe frame exercise units. These are very light examples but they do the job of showing how this idea is incorporated into our everyday language not just through politics.
After reading and reviewing this article and watching the videos it has really opened my eyes to the huge mount of deception in our lives. I didn't really think about it till it was brought up in a way like this. To me that was just how people talked, it was always like that and I knew no different. This further demonstrate how good it is at making people think differently than its actual meaning. Doublespeak made me think that was actually the way people were supposed to talk so much so I didn't even know it existed. This idea is incredibly powerful and dangerous if used in the wrong ways you can get people to believe and approve anything as long as you say it with the right combination of words. It is important for us all to understand how this language works so that we know what's really being said so that we can stop being mislead by the very people we elect to serve, lead, and protect us.
2.How does Doublespeak affect our ability to participate in our democracy? (about a 1/2 page)
The one big way I see it affecting our democracy in the united states is that because doublespeak is purposely meant to confuse us for one we don't know what any politician's true intentions might be because they craft their words to in many cases mean nothing at all like shown in the videos we watched in class. So essentially we have no clue what these politicians are going to do when they are elected. This same confusion could and probably does cause us to vote on laws that are made to sound like one thing but in reality do a completely different thing. I found this really evident when I voted for the first time this year. Even though I researched a lot of the propositions before hand I still got confused as to what some of them actually were trying to do because they were loaded with confusing words meant to get you to chose them. The biggest thing it affects in my opinion is our ability to vote accurately it especially makes voting less important because so many people will be swayed by doublespeak used on the ballot or coming from politicians. Because we many not understand what we are voting for it makes our votes less valid. Additionally if done right it allows politicians to get what they want all by just saying it in the right words. And the fact that the government uses this language to cover themselves from things like murdering people doesn't help out democracy either. My point is if we as americans don't understand what we are really voting for than what is the point?
The article introduces itself by telling the reader who the author is and what certification the author has. In this case it is William Lutz an english professor at Rutgers University, which is located in New Jersey. It is in this first part that Lutz introduces the idea of Doublespeak. He doesn't really give light as to its meaning until page two paragraph two where he states “Doublespeak is a language which pretends to communicate but does not. It is language that makes the bad seem good and the, the negative seem positive, the unpleasant seem attractive, or at least manageable.” This tells us that this article is going to be all about proving this statement and how and where these aspects show up in our lives. He begins to prove this in the 3rd paragraph with the statement, “There are no slums or ghettos, just the ‘inner city’ or ‘substandard housing.’” this is an example of how doublespeak manipulates words to cover up the harsh reality and make it more acceptable to the public's ears. Lutz goes into more detail about the different types of doublespeak that are used by giving 4 examples. The first type of doublespeak is called euphemism, it’s language designed to avoid harsh or distasteful reality. He also states that it is meant to mislead or deceive the people that hear it. The second type is jargon or “language of a specific trade or group that helps its members communicate”. They use unfamiliar terms to describe things but when the use the terms when talking to others to deceive or confuse them then this becomed doublespeak. The third form of doublespeak is called Gobbledy gook. It is overly complex language meant to confuse and overwhelm an audience. Lutz claims this is more effective when done rapidly. The fourth type is inferred language that makes ordinary things sound better and more amazing than they actually are. In the text we were given the example of car mechanics becoming automotive experts. The article then goes on to talk about the fact that double speak is not just careless mesed up language but something that is carefully and cunningly designed to mislead and change your view and judgement. It is in fact very smart and clever, not in a good way. Lutz then goes on and gives more examples of doublespeak in things like government giving the example that the Pentagon instead of calling it killing the enemy they call it servicing the target. Near the end of the paragraph he follows up with this fact “meanwhile the Department of Energy wants to establish a ‘monitored retrievable storage site’ a place once known as a dump for spent nuclear fuel.” This helps prove what Lutz is trying to say about how governments and big corporations use doublespeak to confuse us about the true meaning of statements. Then he makes the connection to the outside world showing that it's not just us in America that do this the whole world does it too. He gives a few examples from Japan, Canada, and Russia. The most notable for me was that of the Russian one where people were expected to show officials “normal gratitude” which basicly means to bribe them. He ends off the article by talking about the idea of the double speak of death. This is said to make murder respectable and make lies sound truthful and make things seem solid and under control even if they are not. He gives examples one of of which was peasants driven from their land and homes with nothing their land stolen this was said to be called transfer of population. He ends by telling the reader how we should not laugh off doublespeak because it affects all our lives every day and we should watch out and take it seriously.
These examples discussed in the article were further shown through a video we watched on doublespeak by George Carlin. He spoke in front of a group of washington journalists where he gave examples on how doublespeak manipulates language. One of the big examples he starts off with was his example of shell shock. Carlin tells us that in the first world war the term shell shock was created to describe soldiers whose nervous systems were stretched to the breaking point. He talks how by world war II the same term was called battle fatigue. Then be the Korean war it was called operational exhaustion. And finally by the time the Vietnam war rolls around the term turns into what we know to day as post traumatic stress disorder. He then talks about how this language is deprived of all humanity and emotion. His examples show us that the language that we now use confuses us to the actual meaning of the word or phrase. Like the examples shown in Lutz’s article about Gobbledygook, Carlin gave a few examples that I think really highlight this point. The first being toilet paper becoming bathroom tissue, the second one being how monkey bars went on to be called pipe frame exercise units. These are very light examples but they do the job of showing how this idea is incorporated into our everyday language not just through politics.
After reading and reviewing this article and watching the videos it has really opened my eyes to the huge mount of deception in our lives. I didn't really think about it till it was brought up in a way like this. To me that was just how people talked, it was always like that and I knew no different. This further demonstrate how good it is at making people think differently than its actual meaning. Doublespeak made me think that was actually the way people were supposed to talk so much so I didn't even know it existed. This idea is incredibly powerful and dangerous if used in the wrong ways you can get people to believe and approve anything as long as you say it with the right combination of words. It is important for us all to understand how this language works so that we know what's really being said so that we can stop being mislead by the very people we elect to serve, lead, and protect us.
2.How does Doublespeak affect our ability to participate in our democracy? (about a 1/2 page)
The one big way I see it affecting our democracy in the united states is that because doublespeak is purposely meant to confuse us for one we don't know what any politician's true intentions might be because they craft their words to in many cases mean nothing at all like shown in the videos we watched in class. So essentially we have no clue what these politicians are going to do when they are elected. This same confusion could and probably does cause us to vote on laws that are made to sound like one thing but in reality do a completely different thing. I found this really evident when I voted for the first time this year. Even though I researched a lot of the propositions before hand I still got confused as to what some of them actually were trying to do because they were loaded with confusing words meant to get you to chose them. The biggest thing it affects in my opinion is our ability to vote accurately it especially makes voting less important because so many people will be swayed by doublespeak used on the ballot or coming from politicians. Because we many not understand what we are voting for it makes our votes less valid. Additionally if done right it allows politicians to get what they want all by just saying it in the right words. And the fact that the government uses this language to cover themselves from things like murdering people doesn't help out democracy either. My point is if we as americans don't understand what we are really voting for than what is the point?
TED: Isaac Lidsky: What reality are you creating for yourself?
How is the backward swimming fish connected to our "Beyond Feelings" readings?
I think the main connection I see between what he said and the readings we have been doing is the idea of how each of us each interprets our own unique view of the world. Each person creates their own reality filled with there emotions, beliefs, and views. The backwards swimming fish represents an example of a person's belief or reality they have created for themselves. This idea was demonstrated in the ‘What Is Truth” reading we did. On page 35 this quote stood out, “Even when our perception is initially flawless, our memory often distorts the data. We forget details, and when later attempting to recall what happened we resort to imagination to fill the blanks.” This shows two things, one that this proves that as humans that what we see and what we get our of that information is different. Seeing something is only a moment in time and doesn't have much influence on our beliefs or our reality. And two that a memory will always be there and constantly influences you, this showed that what you saw and what you end up remembering are 2 different things there for proving that we understand the world we live in and believe in it in a very different way than the world actually is. These readings back up what Mr. Lidsky said about how each of us builds our own reality. Because our memory is so influenced by our imagination and being that memories is the main way we believe in the world it gives credence to the fact that each of us each builds our own unique reality.
Identify and discuss at least one link between the advice he gave and the habits of critical thinking.
I think one of the good connections I saw in these 2 reading was in the “What Is Critical Thinking?” chapter was on page 21 in the section describing the different characteristics of critical thinkers. The 3rd one said that critical thinkers “Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patent with complexity, and are ready to invest time to overcome confusion.” This sounds very similar to what Mr. Lidsky talked about. The critical thinking article talked about the willingness to overcome confusion. To me this sounds like trying to perceive your reality in a more accurate way and understanding and looking past the imagend parts of your reality that your brain fills in for you. As I talked about, because Mr. Lidsky does not have sight to give information to his brain less is up to the brain to be filled in with imagenation. He experiences a more accurate reality than most of us might. He also mentions the ability to be able to look past those imaginary parts of our reality. This would imply that if he is able to look past the confusion of our world and understand it it makes him a very good critical thinker according to the book.
How has Mr. Lidsky's loss of sight changed his reality?
Like I talked about in the 1st question I think how we see the world is based on our memories. Because our brains fill in our memory mostly with imagination what we see and what we remember is very different. Elizabeth Loftus’s study in the “What Is Truth” section proves this idea. Because Mr. Lidsky lost his sight he no longer has images that his mind fills with imagenation. In my opinion this would make it so more of his memories are a lot more accurate because less information is processed. I think because less of his reality is affected by the brain's imagination that his reality is closer to what happens in the real world. It could give him a very unique perspective with a lot of his more recent memories making him to remember and perceive the world in a more accurate way. In his speech he talks about the importance of sight in the brain. He said it takes up 1/3 of your brain and about 2/3 of all is processing power. This was to help explain why sight is seen as believing. He ends this statement by saying “But make no mistake about it: sight is an illusion.” Because he has lost the sight it means he loses the illusions about reality that come with it allowing him to understand the world in a more accurate way.
Tell me about the most important/interesting/favorite thing he said in this talk?
To me the most interesting thing that he said in his speech was close to the end that really wraps up the point I was trying to show through out all these questions he states “your fears, your critics, your heroes, your villains -- they are your excuses, rationalizations shortcuts, justifications, your surrender. They are fictions you perceive as reality. Choose to see through them. Choose to let them go. You are the creator of your reality. With that empowerment comes responsibility.” This I think wraps up most of what Mr. Lidsky is trying to say in this speech. What he means is that all these things that hold us back are out reasons we chose not to be successful. He wants people to see past these limitations as he has and see and perceive the world as it actually is and ignore the negative parts of your reality that your mind creates. He shows us that we can create our own reality and therefore create our own lives.
I think the main connection I see between what he said and the readings we have been doing is the idea of how each of us each interprets our own unique view of the world. Each person creates their own reality filled with there emotions, beliefs, and views. The backwards swimming fish represents an example of a person's belief or reality they have created for themselves. This idea was demonstrated in the ‘What Is Truth” reading we did. On page 35 this quote stood out, “Even when our perception is initially flawless, our memory often distorts the data. We forget details, and when later attempting to recall what happened we resort to imagination to fill the blanks.” This shows two things, one that this proves that as humans that what we see and what we get our of that information is different. Seeing something is only a moment in time and doesn't have much influence on our beliefs or our reality. And two that a memory will always be there and constantly influences you, this showed that what you saw and what you end up remembering are 2 different things there for proving that we understand the world we live in and believe in it in a very different way than the world actually is. These readings back up what Mr. Lidsky said about how each of us builds our own reality. Because our memory is so influenced by our imagination and being that memories is the main way we believe in the world it gives credence to the fact that each of us each builds our own unique reality.
Identify and discuss at least one link between the advice he gave and the habits of critical thinking.
I think one of the good connections I saw in these 2 reading was in the “What Is Critical Thinking?” chapter was on page 21 in the section describing the different characteristics of critical thinkers. The 3rd one said that critical thinkers “Strive for understanding, keep curiosity alive, remain patent with complexity, and are ready to invest time to overcome confusion.” This sounds very similar to what Mr. Lidsky talked about. The critical thinking article talked about the willingness to overcome confusion. To me this sounds like trying to perceive your reality in a more accurate way and understanding and looking past the imagend parts of your reality that your brain fills in for you. As I talked about, because Mr. Lidsky does not have sight to give information to his brain less is up to the brain to be filled in with imagenation. He experiences a more accurate reality than most of us might. He also mentions the ability to be able to look past those imaginary parts of our reality. This would imply that if he is able to look past the confusion of our world and understand it it makes him a very good critical thinker according to the book.
How has Mr. Lidsky's loss of sight changed his reality?
Like I talked about in the 1st question I think how we see the world is based on our memories. Because our brains fill in our memory mostly with imagination what we see and what we remember is very different. Elizabeth Loftus’s study in the “What Is Truth” section proves this idea. Because Mr. Lidsky lost his sight he no longer has images that his mind fills with imagenation. In my opinion this would make it so more of his memories are a lot more accurate because less information is processed. I think because less of his reality is affected by the brain's imagination that his reality is closer to what happens in the real world. It could give him a very unique perspective with a lot of his more recent memories making him to remember and perceive the world in a more accurate way. In his speech he talks about the importance of sight in the brain. He said it takes up 1/3 of your brain and about 2/3 of all is processing power. This was to help explain why sight is seen as believing. He ends this statement by saying “But make no mistake about it: sight is an illusion.” Because he has lost the sight it means he loses the illusions about reality that come with it allowing him to understand the world in a more accurate way.
Tell me about the most important/interesting/favorite thing he said in this talk?
To me the most interesting thing that he said in his speech was close to the end that really wraps up the point I was trying to show through out all these questions he states “your fears, your critics, your heroes, your villains -- they are your excuses, rationalizations shortcuts, justifications, your surrender. They are fictions you perceive as reality. Choose to see through them. Choose to let them go. You are the creator of your reality. With that empowerment comes responsibility.” This I think wraps up most of what Mr. Lidsky is trying to say in this speech. What he means is that all these things that hold us back are out reasons we chose not to be successful. He wants people to see past these limitations as he has and see and perceive the world as it actually is and ignore the negative parts of your reality that your mind creates. He shows us that we can create our own reality and therefore create our own lives.
Analysis/Reflection of "The Good and the Bad of Escaping to Virtual Reality"
1. On 6th page of this reading, the author mentions "digital natives, whose perception of a healthy social life has been shaped by platforms like Facebook and Gchat." (and SnapChat, and Instagram, etc., etc.) You are a digital native (i.e. you've been raised in the age of "social media" and thus a high level of "connectivity"). Do you feel that this has inhibited/hurt or expanded/helped your reality and your relationships with other people. Explain.
We come in an odd generation that is just before devices like smart phones hit . As a little kid I didn't have tablets and iphones. Now the newer generations like my younger brothers have be born in a world where there has always been this technology easily accessible to them. That is all they know and a world without phones and tablets would be strange to them. I see 5 year olds with iphones and I didn’t even get a smartphone until last year. I was raised by my parents shielded from things like TV video games and phones. As kid I never watched cartoons, never played video games, and never used cell phones. As kid I was upset and often angry at my parents for not letting me do these things but now I see some of the reasons why they did it. In doing so I did lose some conversations because I didn't know anything about TV or video games so I didn't fit in that sense. But what I gained was a more memorable childhood that was filled with awesome experiences rather than time in front of the tv. However now I am guilty of using my phone and computer a lot to watch youtube. I watch it alot because I never watched tv now I replaced it with youtube. I don't know many that watch tv alot like they used to because of the internet. I think that things like social media has hurt my interactions with friends or loved ones at all in fat in some many cases it has helped my keep in contact with my parents back in Italy through whatsapp. And through Instagram they can see my photos I post as I continue to explore my passion for photography. The only 2 social media apps I use are Instagram and snapchat. Both I use all the time but it never affects my interactions with my friends. I only think in extreme cases that social media can be a bad thing.
2. This article addresses the concept of escapism with respect to virtual reality and social media and asks the question "can virtual escapism ever be used for good?" Yesterday's reading mentioned treating PTSD and treating Invisible Limb Syndrome. This reading mentions visiting remote destinations around the world. Share and discuss 2 ideas (not already mentioned in yesterday's or today's readings) for which VR worlds could be used for good.
I think VR in the medical field would be very valuable because it would allow doctors to practice on virtual patents and learn how to treat certain difficult cases. Doctors could show their patients what's wrong with the bodys in a virtual world where that can educate patients on what their procedure will look like and what will happen. People could be educated on first aid and the proper procedures to help by doing it in a virtual world where it is ok to mess up.It would get good real life exsprences in a virtual world for new doctors, nurses, and ER staff. It would be a safer learning environment so that they could gain valuable experience that only comes by doing. The big thing I see that stems from this is VR to train people how to do certain jobs. The 2nd thing that comes up is VR being used in the military. Soldiers could train in combat and learn how to fight and gain experience before they ever touched the ground on deployment. I think it would be great for teaching people to fight and defend themselves. That way if you made a mistake you wouldn't get killed or hurt others. It would also be a way of evaluating how they would react to combat in the real world.In the hopes of keeping our troops safer, The other main implication for this tech is teaching people how to do dangerous jobs like those in construction industry so that more accidents could be avoided. It would give lots of experience in a short time so you would have more experienced workers that would be less likely to mess up.
We come in an odd generation that is just before devices like smart phones hit . As a little kid I didn't have tablets and iphones. Now the newer generations like my younger brothers have be born in a world where there has always been this technology easily accessible to them. That is all they know and a world without phones and tablets would be strange to them. I see 5 year olds with iphones and I didn’t even get a smartphone until last year. I was raised by my parents shielded from things like TV video games and phones. As kid I never watched cartoons, never played video games, and never used cell phones. As kid I was upset and often angry at my parents for not letting me do these things but now I see some of the reasons why they did it. In doing so I did lose some conversations because I didn't know anything about TV or video games so I didn't fit in that sense. But what I gained was a more memorable childhood that was filled with awesome experiences rather than time in front of the tv. However now I am guilty of using my phone and computer a lot to watch youtube. I watch it alot because I never watched tv now I replaced it with youtube. I don't know many that watch tv alot like they used to because of the internet. I think that things like social media has hurt my interactions with friends or loved ones at all in fat in some many cases it has helped my keep in contact with my parents back in Italy through whatsapp. And through Instagram they can see my photos I post as I continue to explore my passion for photography. The only 2 social media apps I use are Instagram and snapchat. Both I use all the time but it never affects my interactions with my friends. I only think in extreme cases that social media can be a bad thing.
2. This article addresses the concept of escapism with respect to virtual reality and social media and asks the question "can virtual escapism ever be used for good?" Yesterday's reading mentioned treating PTSD and treating Invisible Limb Syndrome. This reading mentions visiting remote destinations around the world. Share and discuss 2 ideas (not already mentioned in yesterday's or today's readings) for which VR worlds could be used for good.
I think VR in the medical field would be very valuable because it would allow doctors to practice on virtual patents and learn how to treat certain difficult cases. Doctors could show their patients what's wrong with the bodys in a virtual world where that can educate patients on what their procedure will look like and what will happen. People could be educated on first aid and the proper procedures to help by doing it in a virtual world where it is ok to mess up.It would get good real life exsprences in a virtual world for new doctors, nurses, and ER staff. It would be a safer learning environment so that they could gain valuable experience that only comes by doing. The big thing I see that stems from this is VR to train people how to do certain jobs. The 2nd thing that comes up is VR being used in the military. Soldiers could train in combat and learn how to fight and gain experience before they ever touched the ground on deployment. I think it would be great for teaching people to fight and defend themselves. That way if you made a mistake you wouldn't get killed or hurt others. It would also be a way of evaluating how they would react to combat in the real world.In the hopes of keeping our troops safer, The other main implication for this tech is teaching people how to do dangerous jobs like those in construction industry so that more accidents could be avoided. It would give lots of experience in a short time so you would have more experienced workers that would be less likely to mess up.
Analysis/Reflection of "Psychological Implications of Virtual Reality"
1. What are 2 positive implications mentioned in the article that most interest you? Discuss the impact of these implications. (ex. Why do they interest you? What is the potential of developing these uses of VR?
One of the uses that this article talked about was the use of VR in education. I do not think this would entirely replace education as we know it but would be an amazing tool to help teachers and professors show their students what they are teaching in the real world. Imagine a biology teacher able to take his or her students inside the anatomy of an animal. Students being able to go back to a lecture and actually be there again. I think it would prove very effective for students because it would show them what teachers are talking about versus just telling it to them which is how education is today. Engineering and architectural students could go inside their designs and look for flaws and understand how the things they design look and would work in the real world. I think if it was done right it would be an effective tool to help students learn. The 2nd use that this article talked about was VR for recreational use beyond just gaming. This article talked about the potential for people to use it to destress after a long day and or use it to watch movies or VR experiences with your friends. This right now sounds cool but just imagine if everyone had this at there acsess people instead of going to the movies would just go to the VR cinema instead. It to me sounds like a further way of disconnecting us from the world the way smartphones have already. I feel it would be so easy to get lost in the VR world like so many books and movies talk about. With moderation VR could be a great tool for us that could help people de stress and create a whole new way of entertainment. But it could also be a big mistake we just have to be careful.
2. Discuss 2 things in the article that made you raise your "bullshit" flag? (i.e. What are two things mentioned in the article that you don't believe or is based on an assumption that you don't believe.) Defend your difference of opinion.
The first thing that kinda raised a red flag for me was in the studies part of the article where it talked about how scientists supposedly put rats into VR to test and demonstrate the importance of place cells. These are described as “neurons which we use in order to create virtual maps of the world around us.” Contrary to my original beliefs that this was not real when I looked it up Place Cells are a real thing or believed to be real at least. The author didn't say much about the study or share how they put rats in virtual reality. This gives a red flag to me because the author just states how he or she doesn't know how they put them into VR just after stating a statistic about the study you would think that if they know the stats of the the study they would know enough to tell you how they performed the study. This leads me to believe that this study is fake or just not a trustworthy accurate study. The 2nd thing that made me wonder a bit was in the Importance of Prediction paragraph. It didn't really explain the reasoning behind the things the author said about the brain and prediction. In the paragraph is said how one of the main purposes of the brain is to predict what is going to happen to help us avoid danger. It also states how our sense of presence is based on cause and effect and how that helps make the VR world seem more real. These statements in my opinion are not backed up. The paragraph makes no reference to a study or source where the information came from which make me wonder if it is true?
One of the uses that this article talked about was the use of VR in education. I do not think this would entirely replace education as we know it but would be an amazing tool to help teachers and professors show their students what they are teaching in the real world. Imagine a biology teacher able to take his or her students inside the anatomy of an animal. Students being able to go back to a lecture and actually be there again. I think it would prove very effective for students because it would show them what teachers are talking about versus just telling it to them which is how education is today. Engineering and architectural students could go inside their designs and look for flaws and understand how the things they design look and would work in the real world. I think if it was done right it would be an effective tool to help students learn. The 2nd use that this article talked about was VR for recreational use beyond just gaming. This article talked about the potential for people to use it to destress after a long day and or use it to watch movies or VR experiences with your friends. This right now sounds cool but just imagine if everyone had this at there acsess people instead of going to the movies would just go to the VR cinema instead. It to me sounds like a further way of disconnecting us from the world the way smartphones have already. I feel it would be so easy to get lost in the VR world like so many books and movies talk about. With moderation VR could be a great tool for us that could help people de stress and create a whole new way of entertainment. But it could also be a big mistake we just have to be careful.
2. Discuss 2 things in the article that made you raise your "bullshit" flag? (i.e. What are two things mentioned in the article that you don't believe or is based on an assumption that you don't believe.) Defend your difference of opinion.
The first thing that kinda raised a red flag for me was in the studies part of the article where it talked about how scientists supposedly put rats into VR to test and demonstrate the importance of place cells. These are described as “neurons which we use in order to create virtual maps of the world around us.” Contrary to my original beliefs that this was not real when I looked it up Place Cells are a real thing or believed to be real at least. The author didn't say much about the study or share how they put rats in virtual reality. This gives a red flag to me because the author just states how he or she doesn't know how they put them into VR just after stating a statistic about the study you would think that if they know the stats of the the study they would know enough to tell you how they performed the study. This leads me to believe that this study is fake or just not a trustworthy accurate study. The 2nd thing that made me wonder a bit was in the Importance of Prediction paragraph. It didn't really explain the reasoning behind the things the author said about the brain and prediction. In the paragraph is said how one of the main purposes of the brain is to predict what is going to happen to help us avoid danger. It also states how our sense of presence is based on cause and effect and how that helps make the VR world seem more real. These statements in my opinion are not backed up. The paragraph makes no reference to a study or source where the information came from which make me wonder if it is true?
Diagnostic Writing
- "What would you say to someone who thinks education doesn't matter, or that college is a waste of time and money? "