Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Social Relativity
This is more or less a generalization of what I am currently writing a paper on. There is a maxim somewhere which states that"the observer perturbs the observed merely by observing it." While this applies in mathematical principle to quantum mechanics, it can also be applied to real life. Our locations dictates that we have certain experiences, ideas, inclinations, and lenses. For example, a kid raised in New York will have a different opinion of what corn is than someone who grew up on a farm in the breadbasket of the US. To one, it would be a potential source of new fuel and something his mom occasionally would make him eat. To the other, it would be a way of life - it puts bread on the table in his house by being one of the primary sources of income for his family.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Bigger, Faster, Stronger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cYWfq--Nw
I had to get that out of my system.
On a slightly more serious note, the ad taps a very serious contemporary social issue. As highlighted by Barry Bonds and the (relatively) recent rash of steroid scandals experienced by the rest of the MLB, baseball is now infamous for having steroid users to make themselves more competitive in their respective sports. However, the ad maintains an interestingly neutral position by showing the prevalence of steroids in three easily recognizable American pasttimes - baseball, wrestling, and boxing. All three of these are rooted deep in American history, and all have had their dealings with steroids - battles which rage today. The boxer resembles Rocky, an American classic boxer whose past is dubious at best. The wrestler is a generic, beefy wrestler of the WWE or RAW variety, often accused of steroid use. The baseball player, as mentioned, has a long history of steroid abuse. Among the three generic athletes is a man in a suit - presumably a manager - who is way okay with the steroid use, presumably because the steroids enable huge profits due to increased performance of the athletes who use them. With this established, the ad begs the question - literally - of whether or not the use of performance-enhancing drugs is legal, ethical, or allowable in sports. Without the steroids, sports would be less interesting, but more legitimate. With steroids, the question of what, exactly, is a level playing ground is a serious question. Again, the movie poses an interesting question, but supplies no specific answer: if everyone is enhancing themselves, is it good for the whole sport? If so, should they be encouraged, rather than shunned, by the general public? It's an interesting thought which is left up to the viewer to decide.
I had to get that out of my system.
On a slightly more serious note, the ad taps a very serious contemporary social issue. As highlighted by Barry Bonds and the (relatively) recent rash of steroid scandals experienced by the rest of the MLB, baseball is now infamous for having steroid users to make themselves more competitive in their respective sports. However, the ad maintains an interestingly neutral position by showing the prevalence of steroids in three easily recognizable American pasttimes - baseball, wrestling, and boxing. All three of these are rooted deep in American history, and all have had their dealings with steroids - battles which rage today. The boxer resembles Rocky, an American classic boxer whose past is dubious at best. The wrestler is a generic, beefy wrestler of the WWE or RAW variety, often accused of steroid use. The baseball player, as mentioned, has a long history of steroid abuse. Among the three generic athletes is a man in a suit - presumably a manager - who is way okay with the steroid use, presumably because the steroids enable huge profits due to increased performance of the athletes who use them. With this established, the ad begs the question - literally - of whether or not the use of performance-enhancing drugs is legal, ethical, or allowable in sports. Without the steroids, sports would be less interesting, but more legitimate. With steroids, the question of what, exactly, is a level playing ground is a serious question. Again, the movie poses an interesting question, but supplies no specific answer: if everyone is enhancing themselves, is it good for the whole sport? If so, should they be encouraged, rather than shunned, by the general public? It's an interesting thought which is left up to the viewer to decide.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Note-taking
Note-taking, though something of a bother, is really the only way to organize information and condense a source into something more of a reference card of relevant topics. For me, the easiest way to take notes is to put the citation of a source on one side of a notecard (if I"m using a physical book for a source) andthen put information on the other side. Information, in my case, is a quick synopsis of key points, people, and other relevant snippets which let me know what I need when I'm writing a paper. For example, if I've got three books on closely related topics and have difficulty remembering which one discussed a particular topic or had a particular quote, I could reference my notecards and see what makes those three books different - and thereby figure out where I need to go to pull the information I need.
Online, it is much easier to take notes. All you have to do is copy the hyperlink and write a quick annotation - or better yet, download it and write an annotation in some way to make it stand out - italicized, distinct font, etc. The MLA citations can be found later, once the paper is done.
Online, it is much easier to take notes. All you have to do is copy the hyperlink and write a quick annotation - or better yet, download it and write an annotation in some way to make it stand out - italicized, distinct font, etc. The MLA citations can be found later, once the paper is done.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Stereotypes
Stereotypes are bad, m'kay?
More or less, the stereotypes inherent in the media - through advertising, televised sports, print stories, etc. - are self-perpetuating and idealized. In sports, stereotypes are applied to players of various sports. For example, golfers are expected to look like Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus. While these two personas are wildly different, they have become the expected profile of all golfers. Similarly, football players are typically stereotyped as large, brutish men of low intelligence. Stereotypes can be misleading, however: there are, in fact, a wide range of levels of intelligence and physical prowess.
More or less, the stereotypes inherent in the media - through advertising, televised sports, print stories, etc. - are self-perpetuating and idealized. In sports, stereotypes are applied to players of various sports. For example, golfers are expected to look like Tiger Woods or Jack Nicklaus. While these two personas are wildly different, they have become the expected profile of all golfers. Similarly, football players are typically stereotyped as large, brutish men of low intelligence. Stereotypes can be misleading, however: there are, in fact, a wide range of levels of intelligence and physical prowess.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Chapter 5
So basically, chapter 5 gives you the lowdown on researching. It breaks everything down into incremental steps and offers tips to improve your researching because, as we all know, researching sucks. It is rarely on your topic, you sometimes have to make crazy assumptions and cross-references to validate your sources and tie them together into something resembling a cohesive, cognitive sentence. However, Chapter 5 has the solution!
1) Don't be dumb
Chapter 5 agrees with this basic rule. Don't use dumb sources. For example, if you're writing about nuclear fission, you would probably go to a nuclear physics website, interview a physics teacher at Clemson, or otherwise find a good source. Don't use a government conspiracy theory website talking about how someone thinks that radiation made him big toe smaller or something like that - relative, factual, credible sources only. This excludes Wikipedia, for some reason. However...
2) Start with Wiki.
Don't cite Wiki. Citing Wiki falls under rule 1. However, going to Wiki's sources and citing them is a wonderful idea (after credibility is established, of course. See rule 1.)
3) Visualize it.
If you are swimming in an ocean of information and don't see a way out, find an iceberg. Or rather, the tip. The tip can be your research topic. However, since only ~30% of an iceberg shows above water, it would be wise to find out what's underneath the tip. Break down your topic into base components, then search for backup for your components in various media - the internet, the library, personal interviews, anything. As always, check rule 1.
4)Narrow your search.
Stay on topic. If, say, you're writing about the physics of fusion, it is a great idea to write about the LHC in the aspects which are relative to your topic. The fact that they may have exceeded the speed of light is cool, but not relative to your topic. Make sure that whatever you are expending energy on by writing down - research, paper, phone numbers - is actually worth your time and effort, and that it will come to a good conclusion later. IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
5)
1) Don't be dumb
Chapter 5 agrees with this basic rule. Don't use dumb sources. For example, if you're writing about nuclear fission, you would probably go to a nuclear physics website, interview a physics teacher at Clemson, or otherwise find a good source. Don't use a government conspiracy theory website talking about how someone thinks that radiation made him big toe smaller or something like that - relative, factual, credible sources only. This excludes Wikipedia, for some reason. However...
2) Start with Wiki.
Don't cite Wiki. Citing Wiki falls under rule 1. However, going to Wiki's sources and citing them is a wonderful idea (after credibility is established, of course. See rule 1.)
3) Visualize it.
If you are swimming in an ocean of information and don't see a way out, find an iceberg. Or rather, the tip. The tip can be your research topic. However, since only ~30% of an iceberg shows above water, it would be wise to find out what's underneath the tip. Break down your topic into base components, then search for backup for your components in various media - the internet, the library, personal interviews, anything. As always, check rule 1.
4)Narrow your search.
Stay on topic. If, say, you're writing about the physics of fusion, it is a great idea to write about the LHC in the aspects which are relative to your topic. The fact that they may have exceeded the speed of light is cool, but not relative to your topic. Make sure that whatever you are expending energy on by writing down - research, paper, phone numbers - is actually worth your time and effort, and that it will come to a good conclusion later. IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
5)
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Real or Fake?
It's not just a question about plastic surgery now.
Avatars are virtual representations of ourselves - rather, we assume them to be. In this sense, "we" is assumed to be the majority of internet users. However, in reality, an avatar doesn't know what it is, and there are no limitations in creating a profile/avatar. While it may have some kind of comical role in some situations, in other situations it can be disturbing, and in yet others it can be almost therapeutic. However, all false avatars are examples of deception, which is why I don't agree with anything but an honest portrayal of the self.
Avatars are, as far as other members of an online community know, a portrayal of the self. When that self is not a true self, then it leads to mistrust in the community and a wariness of unknown characters. A lack of true self can also result in a disastrous first meeting of the two characters in real life - for example, a pedophile could masquerade as a 14-year-old boy on Facebook and try to get unknowing girls to come and hang out, then use them as he/she saw fit when they got to the location. This is the extreme negative end of the spectrum. The other end, however, can be just as powerful. Remember when I said before that the avatar is the only knowledge others on the community have of us? Well that can play a huge role in the lives of social outcasts, misfits, or the physically disfigured. In the gaming world, a man with no legs can be an Olympic triathlete, a Beverly Hills woman can be a die-hard NASCAR fan, and I could be, say, a girl who is a prospect for the US women's soccer team.
Avatars are virtual representations of ourselves - rather, we assume them to be. In this sense, "we" is assumed to be the majority of internet users. However, in reality, an avatar doesn't know what it is, and there are no limitations in creating a profile/avatar. While it may have some kind of comical role in some situations, in other situations it can be disturbing, and in yet others it can be almost therapeutic. However, all false avatars are examples of deception, which is why I don't agree with anything but an honest portrayal of the self.
Avatars are, as far as other members of an online community know, a portrayal of the self. When that self is not a true self, then it leads to mistrust in the community and a wariness of unknown characters. A lack of true self can also result in a disastrous first meeting of the two characters in real life - for example, a pedophile could masquerade as a 14-year-old boy on Facebook and try to get unknowing girls to come and hang out, then use them as he/she saw fit when they got to the location. This is the extreme negative end of the spectrum. The other end, however, can be just as powerful. Remember when I said before that the avatar is the only knowledge others on the community have of us? Well that can play a huge role in the lives of social outcasts, misfits, or the physically disfigured. In the gaming world, a man with no legs can be an Olympic triathlete, a Beverly Hills woman can be a die-hard NASCAR fan, and I could be, say, a girl who is a prospect for the US women's soccer team.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Fat is an Advertising Issue
Orbach is right.
The advertising industry has created this monster of unattainable beauty and products which can get you closer. They set out to make money, and have realized their goal - they have developed a huge market base with a physical need for their product. In essence, they are selling a drug - however, this drug is far more addicting than cocaine or marijuana. Rather than sell a substance, they are selling sexiness and acceptance, they are selling the all-american girl lifestyle.
Any situation where the word "victim" is an apt description of one of the parties is a situation that few want to be associated with, especially if they are a large company which is trying to keep up a good reputation. However, the advertising industry has done just that - they have made victims out of every modicum of insecurity in every female in the world which has regular access to them. Jealousy of the better-looking women has, in all probability, been around as long as there have been two or more women on the same continent. However, the advertising industry, with its computer retouching, ridiculous model standards, professional makeup artists and enhancement in one form or another, creates an unattainable standard for beauty, and says anyone less than this is just "average" or "mediocre". However, the beauty companies go on to say, even the average or mediocre can become beautiful with the help of their newest, latest, greatest product.
They're trying to make money, just like the rest of us. It's sad to say that this is not a non-respectable way to make a living. However, it would seem to me that it would be better for self-esteems of women everywhere - and promote public relations and increase market base - if the companies tried to appeal to everyone's individuality, as Orbach said.
The advertising industry has created this monster of unattainable beauty and products which can get you closer. They set out to make money, and have realized their goal - they have developed a huge market base with a physical need for their product. In essence, they are selling a drug - however, this drug is far more addicting than cocaine or marijuana. Rather than sell a substance, they are selling sexiness and acceptance, they are selling the all-american girl lifestyle.
Any situation where the word "victim" is an apt description of one of the parties is a situation that few want to be associated with, especially if they are a large company which is trying to keep up a good reputation. However, the advertising industry has done just that - they have made victims out of every modicum of insecurity in every female in the world which has regular access to them. Jealousy of the better-looking women has, in all probability, been around as long as there have been two or more women on the same continent. However, the advertising industry, with its computer retouching, ridiculous model standards, professional makeup artists and enhancement in one form or another, creates an unattainable standard for beauty, and says anyone less than this is just "average" or "mediocre". However, the beauty companies go on to say, even the average or mediocre can become beautiful with the help of their newest, latest, greatest product.
They're trying to make money, just like the rest of us. It's sad to say that this is not a non-respectable way to make a living. However, it would seem to me that it would be better for self-esteems of women everywhere - and promote public relations and increase market base - if the companies tried to appeal to everyone's individuality, as Orbach said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)