In-Class Writing: Rising tution costs in WA state
The solution that the students seemed to present at UW, although their intention and reasoning is understandable, does not actually seem realistic because it only deals with cutting high-paid staff salaries in half. This however, doesn’t serve as a legitimate option to solve the problem. The solution here seems to come out of resentment which is understandable. This issue is one that is extremely frustrating because it seems that there is no solution that will really make everyone happy. What’s even scarier is wondering if all of this education that my family and I are paying for is going to be worth it in the end.
In-Class Writing: Letter to solve problem
To the manager of Gambradellas:
Last night my family and I had an extremely unpleasant experience at your restaurant. I am a frequent diner at your location and enjoy your menu as well as your service, which is why I feel the need to write this letter to you; not only should drawing your attention to this issue be beneficial to your business, but should hopefully be beneficial to your continued services which I once enjoyed.
One of your waiters was extremely rude to myself and my guests, causing a scene that embarrassed us and created an uncomfortable environment for those around us as well. What I had expected to be a normal, pleasant evening, was quite the opposite from beginning to end. I am not sure how you normally handle these situations, but my advice to you is to take serious consideration into continuing with this employee; their actions were inexcusable and the customer should never feel the way your waiter made my guests and I feel last night-- the customer, as they say, is always right.
I enjoy your restaurant and would like to continue doing so; please take my suggestions into consideration as they are from a loyal customer.
Ashley Johnson
Last night my family and I had an extremely unpleasant experience at your restaurant. I am a frequent diner at your location and enjoy your menu as well as your service, which is why I feel the need to write this letter to you; not only should drawing your attention to this issue be beneficial to your business, but should hopefully be beneficial to your continued services which I once enjoyed.
One of your waiters was extremely rude to myself and my guests, causing a scene that embarrassed us and created an uncomfortable environment for those around us as well. What I had expected to be a normal, pleasant evening, was quite the opposite from beginning to end. I am not sure how you normally handle these situations, but my advice to you is to take serious consideration into continuing with this employee; their actions were inexcusable and the customer should never feel the way your waiter made my guests and I feel last night-- the customer, as they say, is always right.
I enjoy your restaurant and would like to continue doing so; please take my suggestions into consideration as they are from a loyal customer.
Ashley Johnson
Thank You, Video Games (Weekly Writing 8)
I am the sister of an avid video gamer who has seen her brother spend hours immersed in the world of video games, and I am the girlfriend of one who has experienced the effects of the habit forming activity and have felt that my boyfriend is cheating on me with his XBOX 360. Needless to say, I am curious as to why these games are so appealing to their users and if their effects are as serious as I, a non-gamer and completely uninformed subject believes them to be.
What I have found has been to my surprise. The more seriously discussed issues have been violence in video games and their effect on the player. Are violent games making my kid-brother more aggressive? Is this why he seems irritable and more ready to jump at my throat in arguments than he normally is? Do video games subconsciously make my boyfriend insensitive to pain and violence? If so, how can I remain with such a monster?
Thankfully, video game violence is not to blame for these sort of behaviors among its consumers and my sibling and beau are not going to be the next school shooters. Video game violence seems to be one of the major scapegoats in the media for tragedies such as these, when society should be considering more important questions, or even the simple fact that there are several things that contribute to driving a person to engage in such horrendous activities. To blame video games is unrealistic; what is interesting is that recent studies have shown that gamers actually utilize games for cathartic purposes, in such ways to actually release aggression and stress they may have, not nurture and add to it. So, if this is the case, I guess should actually be thanking video games for allowing what may have been even worse personal attacks from my brother to come upon them.
What I have found has been to my surprise. The more seriously discussed issues have been violence in video games and their effect on the player. Are violent games making my kid-brother more aggressive? Is this why he seems irritable and more ready to jump at my throat in arguments than he normally is? Do video games subconsciously make my boyfriend insensitive to pain and violence? If so, how can I remain with such a monster?
Thankfully, video game violence is not to blame for these sort of behaviors among its consumers and my sibling and beau are not going to be the next school shooters. Video game violence seems to be one of the major scapegoats in the media for tragedies such as these, when society should be considering more important questions, or even the simple fact that there are several things that contribute to driving a person to engage in such horrendous activities. To blame video games is unrealistic; what is interesting is that recent studies have shown that gamers actually utilize games for cathartic purposes, in such ways to actually release aggression and stress they may have, not nurture and add to it. So, if this is the case, I guess should actually be thanking video games for allowing what may have been even worse personal attacks from my brother to come upon them.
The Onion: Marriage
The news report from the Onion News Network mocks the current issue of same-sex marriage. While it makes fun of some of the things same-sex couples might say ("we didn't choose to be this way, we can't help it), the skit ultimately seems to be making a stab at opponents of same sex marriage in the way they subliminally have the audience compare love-less marriages with same-sex marriages. What I ended up gathering from this was that at least same-sex married couples love each other right? At least their relationship means something, whereas loveless couples relationships are meaningless.
SPEAK UP or ELSE
"SPEAK UP or ELSE" sums it all up for what this ad campaign against reckless driving is trying to accomplish. If you don't take all precautions to reckless driving, you WILL face the consquences. They outline tips for safe driving, using the fear-factor to get their audience to participate in their suggestions. Their messages seem to attempt to appeal to a young audience with humor, but seems to be outshined by their persistance of adding in fear. This is a serious issue that deals with young people dying in car accidents due to reckless driving, which may be why the creators of the campaign decided try and instill fear in their audience by using shocking statistics and images. Their campaign is based around a cause-effect relationship that deals with what they characterize as dumb and foolish mistakes such as not wearing your seatbelt and the detrimental effects these mistakes can... and how they seem to put it... WILL have.
In-Class Writing 3.4.10 Guilty Pleasure
Dear Mom and Dad-
For me, my guilty pleasure seems to be reality television. When I watch tv, I usually do so to find some sort of escape from what's going on in my real world. So, in choosing what I want to watch, it seems to subconsciously be something that I can mindlessly take in and laugh about. I am not saying that I don't enjoy more education or thought-provoking things to watch, but at times it's nice to sit back and see the sort of things people do to get the rest of the world's attention on tv-- and it seems to work! The effects these sorts of shows have on myself and the rest of their audience's perception of "reality," since most of these "reality" shows are not exactly real. For me, it has caused a sort of obsession that I actually can't wait to experience at the end of my long day. It's not that I am obsessed with these people's lives-- I know don't necessarily agree with these "trashy" shows that I consume myself with, but in a way I think their main purpose for myself is based on humor; as vicious as it may sound, reality television allows me to laugh at people's lives and partially invest in them without having to deal with the repercussions of intruding in on people's lives in which you already know in REAL life.
For me, my guilty pleasure seems to be reality television. When I watch tv, I usually do so to find some sort of escape from what's going on in my real world. So, in choosing what I want to watch, it seems to subconsciously be something that I can mindlessly take in and laugh about. I am not saying that I don't enjoy more education or thought-provoking things to watch, but at times it's nice to sit back and see the sort of things people do to get the rest of the world's attention on tv-- and it seems to work! The effects these sorts of shows have on myself and the rest of their audience's perception of "reality," since most of these "reality" shows are not exactly real. For me, it has caused a sort of obsession that I actually can't wait to experience at the end of my long day. It's not that I am obsessed with these people's lives-- I know don't necessarily agree with these "trashy" shows that I consume myself with, but in a way I think their main purpose for myself is based on humor; as vicious as it may sound, reality television allows me to laugh at people's lives and partially invest in them without having to deal with the repercussions of intruding in on people's lives in which you already know in REAL life.
Weekly Writing Seven
Although I did not include this as part of my essay, I feel that I have some personal experience with the effects of video games, being the sister and girlfriend of active gamers. In identifying Good Sense, Good Will, and Good Character, it is important to realize that my goal is to become aware of the effects of video games. Whether or not they are good or bad, it seems only rational to have some idea as to how they are effecting you. My good character comes from the fact that I have personally dealt with some of what I think are the negative effects of video games; although my specific issue is whether or not violent video games are harmful, I have witnessed my brother and boyfriend spend a significant amount of time playing games which takes away from their social life and productive life in general. My good will arises in the fact that I simply want to make people aware if there are any negative or harmful effects so that they can take this into consideration when playing the game or when dealing with someone that they know.
I visited a blog for parents who have opinions on the issue. A trend seemed to be that parent’s need to hold more responsibility on what their kids are playing. For example, an “M” rated video game, one blogger wrote, could be compared as the equivalent of a “R” rated movie. In which case, kids under 17 are not even allowed to attend without parental consent and should give parent’s some idea of what sort of things the game consists of. This idea in itself acknowledges the notion that violence in games does in fact promote harmful behavior in that fact they are discussing monitoring what their child or teen sees. On the other hand, opponents of the idea say that violence and aggression have been around longer than video games have, so why should they be to blame for violent behavior that has existed without the games’ aid? In the former argument, parent’s simply see the need to protect their children from any harmful outcomes their child may experience due to something they can prevent. Their arguments are effective because they are personal. The latter argument however seems to make the audience think that to even question this idea is nonsense. They attempt to base their argument on common sense and rationale.
I visited a blog for parents who have opinions on the issue. A trend seemed to be that parent’s need to hold more responsibility on what their kids are playing. For example, an “M” rated video game, one blogger wrote, could be compared as the equivalent of a “R” rated movie. In which case, kids under 17 are not even allowed to attend without parental consent and should give parent’s some idea of what sort of things the game consists of. This idea in itself acknowledges the notion that violence in games does in fact promote harmful behavior in that fact they are discussing monitoring what their child or teen sees. On the other hand, opponents of the idea say that violence and aggression have been around longer than video games have, so why should they be to blame for violent behavior that has existed without the games’ aid? In the former argument, parent’s simply see the need to protect their children from any harmful outcomes their child may experience due to something they can prevent. Their arguments are effective because they are personal. The latter argument however seems to make the audience think that to even question this idea is nonsense. They attempt to base their argument on common sense and rationale.
Major Analysis Project
Ashley Johnson
Major Analysis Project:
Are Violent Video Games the Cause of Violent Behavior?
The prominent attitude among the media is that video games are responsible for school shootings, low test scores, obesity and laziness. Like television and movies, video games have become a controversial issue, largely including debates surrounding their use of graphic violence, biased gender roles, and portrayal of criminal behavior. Along with this, video games have been studied for addiction and aggression among their players. At the same time, several research shows that video games are not to blame for these problems, and several groups argue that the video game industry has simply become an easy scapegoat for the modern day problems within society. Research on this side of the issue shows that video games actually benefit the player, providing for them useful skills and qualities, and makes the statement that it’s easy to criticize something you know nothing about. So, the question is, are video games the cause of violent behavior?
The debate over violent video games such as Resident Evil, Mortal Combat and God of War has grown largely since it began in 1999 after two students from Columbine high school in Littleton, Colorado planned and executed a shooting, killing 13 and injuring 24, and finally killing themselves. The issue became so large that it was even brought to the US Senate in 2000; this brought forth laws banning or restricting the sale of violent video games and enforcing rating upon them in several US states. The question is, are these video games really what’s to blame for violent behavior among adolescents and even adults? Or are we using them as a way of denying what’s really the case?
To better understand what is being examined in this essay, it is important to know what is meant by violence and aggression. We will define violence as an extreme form of aggression, such as physical assault and murder. All violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence. Aggression is behavior intended to harm another individual who is motivated to avoid that harm. If is not an affect, emotion, or aggressive thought, plan or wish. This definition excludes accidental acts that lead to harm, such as losing control of an auto and accidentally killing a pedestrian, but includes behaviors intended to harm even if the attempt fails, such as when a bullet fired from a gun misses a human target. (Anderson and Bushman 354)
Using these exact definitions, Craig Anderson, Nicholas Carnagey and Brad Bushman review the research that has been accumulating slowly since the mid-1980s and argue that experimental studies prove that playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior in children and adults, but what seems to be a more original argument, and what no published study has ever actually examined before, is whether exposure to violent video games decreases physiological responsiveness to real life violence. Their experiment analyzes the physiological effects of heart rate and Galvanic Skin Response to violence in video games in relation to violence in real life. They argue that because video game violence occurs within a context in which rewards are granted, and exciting music is played, repetition of play in this context desensitizes the player due to repeated exposure to unrealistic outcomes of violence. They specifically point out that desensitized people are less likely to notice aggressive events, perceive fewer or less severe injuries, feel less sympathy towards violence victims, and have less negative attitudes towards violence.
To test their hypothesis the authors gathered a vast 257 subjects. First, they obtained each player’s heart rate and measured their Galvanic Skin Response as baseline measures, finding about 66 bpm for heart rate, which is relaxed. They instructed half of the subjects to play violent video games for 20 minutes, and the other half to play non-violent video games for 20 minutes. Because there is a lot of correlational research on this topic-- one could argue that violent video games make kids violent-- but could also argue that people that are already violent are drawn to violent video games-- the authors decided experimental research which provided equally exciting violent and non-violent games, demanding high involvement from the players was the only way to obtain accurate results. So, half of the players played violent games which were Mortal Combat, Duke Nukem, Carmageddon, and Future Cop. The non-violent games consisted of Glider Pro, 3D Pinball, 3D Munch Man, and Tetra Madness. After each half of the subjects were finished with their 20 minutes of playing time, their heart rates were expected to go up equally. Next, all 257 subjects were exposed to real-life violence-- shootings, court room outbursts, prison and police confrontation. There heart rate and Galvic Skin Response was measured while watching the real-life violence-- note that these were not actors, but it was real. The results showed that after playing the games, the players of both violent and non-violent games heart rates went up equally, and while watching the real violence, the people who played the non-violent game experienced a significant increase in heart rate, while the players of the violent game did not. This also happened with the Galvanic Skin Response measurements; those who played the non-violent video game experienced sweaty palms and changes in their Galvanic Skin Response, while the other half did not. These results seem to support their hypothesis.
The next text that will be examined is Big Ideas: Are video games good for you? by Akela Talamasca who claims that video games are not harmful; they are actively good for you. In his article, the author notes that video games are said to train hand eye coordination. More importantly, they the player to engage in problem solving which helps them outside of the game. Talamasca argues that people who play video games have a knack for exploring and trying things on their own. He uses the game “Civilization” as an example of how players can learn more factual information from game playing than they may learn in the classroom. He acknowledges the fact that nothing is like first-hand experience, but a lot of protocol can be absorbed through play-- repetition keeps skills fresh. Rehearsing actions in the mind makes the body become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life. Having said all of this, the author argues that the most profound way that video games are helpful to players is in their cathartic properties; video games allow the player to take out their aggression and stress and release it in the game. He attempts to establish credibility by quoting the current Karmapa Lama in India Trinley Dorje, a spiritual leader of one of the largest sects of Tibetan Buddhism, who plays violent video games for just this reason. He quotes Dorje, who says, “So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards. The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skillful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."
In his final point, the author responds to critics who say video games are the blame for violent behavior, saying that games are tools, and are no more accountable for the actions of the people who use them than any other tool is-- for example, you don’t blame the hammer for the alcoholism of the carpenter, of the drill for the abuse of the craftsman. He says that our responsibility is to use our tools to benefit all, and not to blame our personal shortcomings or faults on them. He says doing so does disservice to the actual intentions of the game designers, who “merely wanted to bring something enjoyable to the world.”
What is perhaps the most persuasive about this article is the author’s voice-- he is confident and sarcastic, yet is easy to relate to although he is describing something I myself don’t particularly know much about, which is an exact point he uses in developing his argument-- it is easy to criticize something you know nothing about.
Chandramita Bora‘s article Harmful Effects of Video Games can be considered a response to Talamusca‘s article, as both authors seem to use similar arguments to make different points. Bora argues that video games do contribute to violent behavior, saying that video games are perhaps the most significant source of entertainment for adolescents since the 70s, and that they have greater adverse effects on children than television and movies because they demand active participation of the player, effecting their behavior and psychology. While Talamusca argued that repetition keeps the players skills fresh and suggested it was a beneficial aspect of video game play, Bora agrees the repetition is the key to improved learning, so violent video game play is effective in instilling aggressive behavior in young children. Another point the author makes is that violence and aggression depicted in games, if practiced in the real world, can lead to serious injuries and even death. The author does take into consideration the idea that games can be used properly in improving hand-eye coordination, problem solving, logic, and quick thinking. She makes the final point that parents should play an important role to ensure that video games do not lead to any of these harmful effects. They can do this by limiting the amount of time played and by taking into account the rating of video games when purchasing them.
In 1993 a popular first-person shooter game called Doom was released, becoming a target for critics. It created fears among society that such games would teach kids to kill. In the years after its release, the Doom helped video gaming grow into a multibillion dollar industry. Along with this, came the school shootings in Paducah, Kentucky; Springfield , Illinois; and Littleton Colorado. In all three, media and press accounts emphasized that the shooters loved Doom, making it seem that the critic’s predictions about violent video games were proving to be true. (Sternheimer 13) However in the last text that will be analyzed, Karen Sternheimer, from the University of Southern California write that homicide arrests are down 77% since 1993. She also notes that school shootings are extremely rare, even during the 1990s when fears of violence were high, students had less than a 7 in 10 million chance of being killed at school. Sternheimer argues that society feels the need to find an alternative explanation for what seems unexplainable-- “the white, middle-class school shooter.” She argues that it is politicians and moral crusaders who create “folk devils,” which she defines as individuals or groups defined as evil and immoral; folk devils allow us to channel our blame and fear. However, as more violent games are being created and more people are playing the, crime rates are dropping, so the correlation between the two isn’t there.
Opponents of violent video games, or those who argue their harmful effects, seem to have one thing in common; the safety of the gamer and of society. Looking into whether or not violent video games desensitize a person’s physiological effects on real life violence can perhaps explain reasons for a person to even being able to commit a violent act; if there is no emotion or feeling involved, that’s a large weight off their shoulders and out of the way in feelings of guilt and anxiety. Others like Bora, who acknowledges the fact that video games in general can help the player obtain beneficial skills, would also say that the repetition that involves acquiring these skills is harmful when it comes to violence in video games because it can subconsciously become a normal for the player.
On the other hand, video games are seen to be not only a good source of learning and absorbing useful information in a fun way, but as an outlet for the exact actions opponents fear; video games allow the player to liberate stress, and even aggression. In this sense, the game is actually lessening the likelihood of aggression in the real world because it is letting you release it in the game. Statistics even show that the fears of sky-rocketing violent crime rates have not proven to succeed in light of the rapidly growing game industry.
It is important to know whether or not violent video games are harmful as a player, and as someone who doesn’t play for a few reasons. For one thing, if you are an avid video game player and enjoy the violence that they offer, it seems logical that you would want to know whether or not your love of games has harmful effects on you; similar to reasons people want to know what’s in their food for health reasons. However, not all gamers necessarily want or care to know this-- if violence in video games does has harmful effects, the gamer is probably subconscious to it, or is playing it because it interests them. It is also important to know the effects these games are having on players because society may actually be blaming innocent factors, in which case video game representatives are entitled to deny repeated allegations against their products. It seems that the most important focus should be on keeping people safe, and if violent video games are developing significant forms of aggression and violence among their players then people must be made aware of this. However if they are not, then critics must stop falsely accusing something, which may in part be because they don’t understand it.
Works Cited
Sternheimer, Karen. (2007). Do video games kill?. Contexts, 6. Retrieved from http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/ctx.2007.6.1.13
Carnagey, Nicholas L., Anderson, Craig A., & Bushman, Brad J. (2006). The Effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real life violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/07CAB.pdf
Talamasca, Akela. (2009). Big ideas: are video games good for you?. BigDownload.com, Retrieved from http://news.bigdownload.com/2009/09/23/big-ideas-are-video-games-good-for-you/
*Bigdownload.com is a large site for gamers who can visit to learn about breaking news in the game world, video games old and new and all their details, and the different genres within the gaming world.
Bora, Chandramita. (2009). Harmful effects of video games. Buzzle.com, Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/harmful-effects-of-video-games.html
*“Buzzle.com is comprised of a dynamic network of authors and content contributors who we proudly refer to as our Intelligent Life on the Web. As subject experts, our authors and content contributors create an informative, yet comfortable place for finding information about everything from animals to tourism. With current news in our What’s the Buzz? section, thousands of interesting categories, endless entertainment from our Escape Hatch, an interactive online community, and thought-provoking polls, Buzzle.com offers a medium through which to share knowledge of the world.”
Grossman, Dave, & Degaetano, Gloria. (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill: a call to action against tv, movie, and video game violence. New York: Crown Publishers.
Goldstein, Jeffrey H. (1998). Why we Watch: the attractions of violent entertainment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Major Analysis Project:
Are Violent Video Games the Cause of Violent Behavior?
The prominent attitude among the media is that video games are responsible for school shootings, low test scores, obesity and laziness. Like television and movies, video games have become a controversial issue, largely including debates surrounding their use of graphic violence, biased gender roles, and portrayal of criminal behavior. Along with this, video games have been studied for addiction and aggression among their players. At the same time, several research shows that video games are not to blame for these problems, and several groups argue that the video game industry has simply become an easy scapegoat for the modern day problems within society. Research on this side of the issue shows that video games actually benefit the player, providing for them useful skills and qualities, and makes the statement that it’s easy to criticize something you know nothing about. So, the question is, are video games the cause of violent behavior?
The debate over violent video games such as Resident Evil, Mortal Combat and God of War has grown largely since it began in 1999 after two students from Columbine high school in Littleton, Colorado planned and executed a shooting, killing 13 and injuring 24, and finally killing themselves. The issue became so large that it was even brought to the US Senate in 2000; this brought forth laws banning or restricting the sale of violent video games and enforcing rating upon them in several US states. The question is, are these video games really what’s to blame for violent behavior among adolescents and even adults? Or are we using them as a way of denying what’s really the case?
To better understand what is being examined in this essay, it is important to know what is meant by violence and aggression. We will define violence as an extreme form of aggression, such as physical assault and murder. All violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence. Aggression is behavior intended to harm another individual who is motivated to avoid that harm. If is not an affect, emotion, or aggressive thought, plan or wish. This definition excludes accidental acts that lead to harm, such as losing control of an auto and accidentally killing a pedestrian, but includes behaviors intended to harm even if the attempt fails, such as when a bullet fired from a gun misses a human target. (Anderson and Bushman 354)
Using these exact definitions, Craig Anderson, Nicholas Carnagey and Brad Bushman review the research that has been accumulating slowly since the mid-1980s and argue that experimental studies prove that playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior in children and adults, but what seems to be a more original argument, and what no published study has ever actually examined before, is whether exposure to violent video games decreases physiological responsiveness to real life violence. Their experiment analyzes the physiological effects of heart rate and Galvanic Skin Response to violence in video games in relation to violence in real life. They argue that because video game violence occurs within a context in which rewards are granted, and exciting music is played, repetition of play in this context desensitizes the player due to repeated exposure to unrealistic outcomes of violence. They specifically point out that desensitized people are less likely to notice aggressive events, perceive fewer or less severe injuries, feel less sympathy towards violence victims, and have less negative attitudes towards violence.
To test their hypothesis the authors gathered a vast 257 subjects. First, they obtained each player’s heart rate and measured their Galvanic Skin Response as baseline measures, finding about 66 bpm for heart rate, which is relaxed. They instructed half of the subjects to play violent video games for 20 minutes, and the other half to play non-violent video games for 20 minutes. Because there is a lot of correlational research on this topic-- one could argue that violent video games make kids violent-- but could also argue that people that are already violent are drawn to violent video games-- the authors decided experimental research which provided equally exciting violent and non-violent games, demanding high involvement from the players was the only way to obtain accurate results. So, half of the players played violent games which were Mortal Combat, Duke Nukem, Carmageddon, and Future Cop. The non-violent games consisted of Glider Pro, 3D Pinball, 3D Munch Man, and Tetra Madness. After each half of the subjects were finished with their 20 minutes of playing time, their heart rates were expected to go up equally. Next, all 257 subjects were exposed to real-life violence-- shootings, court room outbursts, prison and police confrontation. There heart rate and Galvic Skin Response was measured while watching the real-life violence-- note that these were not actors, but it was real. The results showed that after playing the games, the players of both violent and non-violent games heart rates went up equally, and while watching the real violence, the people who played the non-violent game experienced a significant increase in heart rate, while the players of the violent game did not. This also happened with the Galvanic Skin Response measurements; those who played the non-violent video game experienced sweaty palms and changes in their Galvanic Skin Response, while the other half did not. These results seem to support their hypothesis.
The next text that will be examined is Big Ideas: Are video games good for you? by Akela Talamasca who claims that video games are not harmful; they are actively good for you. In his article, the author notes that video games are said to train hand eye coordination. More importantly, they the player to engage in problem solving which helps them outside of the game. Talamasca argues that people who play video games have a knack for exploring and trying things on their own. He uses the game “Civilization” as an example of how players can learn more factual information from game playing than they may learn in the classroom. He acknowledges the fact that nothing is like first-hand experience, but a lot of protocol can be absorbed through play-- repetition keeps skills fresh. Rehearsing actions in the mind makes the body become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life. Having said all of this, the author argues that the most profound way that video games are helpful to players is in their cathartic properties; video games allow the player to take out their aggression and stress and release it in the game. He attempts to establish credibility by quoting the current Karmapa Lama in India Trinley Dorje, a spiritual leader of one of the largest sects of Tibetan Buddhism, who plays violent video games for just this reason. He quotes Dorje, who says, “So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards. The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skillful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."
In his final point, the author responds to critics who say video games are the blame for violent behavior, saying that games are tools, and are no more accountable for the actions of the people who use them than any other tool is-- for example, you don’t blame the hammer for the alcoholism of the carpenter, of the drill for the abuse of the craftsman. He says that our responsibility is to use our tools to benefit all, and not to blame our personal shortcomings or faults on them. He says doing so does disservice to the actual intentions of the game designers, who “merely wanted to bring something enjoyable to the world.”
What is perhaps the most persuasive about this article is the author’s voice-- he is confident and sarcastic, yet is easy to relate to although he is describing something I myself don’t particularly know much about, which is an exact point he uses in developing his argument-- it is easy to criticize something you know nothing about.
Chandramita Bora‘s article Harmful Effects of Video Games can be considered a response to Talamusca‘s article, as both authors seem to use similar arguments to make different points. Bora argues that video games do contribute to violent behavior, saying that video games are perhaps the most significant source of entertainment for adolescents since the 70s, and that they have greater adverse effects on children than television and movies because they demand active participation of the player, effecting their behavior and psychology. While Talamusca argued that repetition keeps the players skills fresh and suggested it was a beneficial aspect of video game play, Bora agrees the repetition is the key to improved learning, so violent video game play is effective in instilling aggressive behavior in young children. Another point the author makes is that violence and aggression depicted in games, if practiced in the real world, can lead to serious injuries and even death. The author does take into consideration the idea that games can be used properly in improving hand-eye coordination, problem solving, logic, and quick thinking. She makes the final point that parents should play an important role to ensure that video games do not lead to any of these harmful effects. They can do this by limiting the amount of time played and by taking into account the rating of video games when purchasing them.
In 1993 a popular first-person shooter game called Doom was released, becoming a target for critics. It created fears among society that such games would teach kids to kill. In the years after its release, the Doom helped video gaming grow into a multibillion dollar industry. Along with this, came the school shootings in Paducah, Kentucky; Springfield , Illinois; and Littleton Colorado. In all three, media and press accounts emphasized that the shooters loved Doom, making it seem that the critic’s predictions about violent video games were proving to be true. (Sternheimer 13) However in the last text that will be analyzed, Karen Sternheimer, from the University of Southern California write that homicide arrests are down 77% since 1993. She also notes that school shootings are extremely rare, even during the 1990s when fears of violence were high, students had less than a 7 in 10 million chance of being killed at school. Sternheimer argues that society feels the need to find an alternative explanation for what seems unexplainable-- “the white, middle-class school shooter.” She argues that it is politicians and moral crusaders who create “folk devils,” which she defines as individuals or groups defined as evil and immoral; folk devils allow us to channel our blame and fear. However, as more violent games are being created and more people are playing the, crime rates are dropping, so the correlation between the two isn’t there.
Opponents of violent video games, or those who argue their harmful effects, seem to have one thing in common; the safety of the gamer and of society. Looking into whether or not violent video games desensitize a person’s physiological effects on real life violence can perhaps explain reasons for a person to even being able to commit a violent act; if there is no emotion or feeling involved, that’s a large weight off their shoulders and out of the way in feelings of guilt and anxiety. Others like Bora, who acknowledges the fact that video games in general can help the player obtain beneficial skills, would also say that the repetition that involves acquiring these skills is harmful when it comes to violence in video games because it can subconsciously become a normal for the player.
On the other hand, video games are seen to be not only a good source of learning and absorbing useful information in a fun way, but as an outlet for the exact actions opponents fear; video games allow the player to liberate stress, and even aggression. In this sense, the game is actually lessening the likelihood of aggression in the real world because it is letting you release it in the game. Statistics even show that the fears of sky-rocketing violent crime rates have not proven to succeed in light of the rapidly growing game industry.
It is important to know whether or not violent video games are harmful as a player, and as someone who doesn’t play for a few reasons. For one thing, if you are an avid video game player and enjoy the violence that they offer, it seems logical that you would want to know whether or not your love of games has harmful effects on you; similar to reasons people want to know what’s in their food for health reasons. However, not all gamers necessarily want or care to know this-- if violence in video games does has harmful effects, the gamer is probably subconscious to it, or is playing it because it interests them. It is also important to know the effects these games are having on players because society may actually be blaming innocent factors, in which case video game representatives are entitled to deny repeated allegations against their products. It seems that the most important focus should be on keeping people safe, and if violent video games are developing significant forms of aggression and violence among their players then people must be made aware of this. However if they are not, then critics must stop falsely accusing something, which may in part be because they don’t understand it.
Works Cited
Sternheimer, Karen. (2007). Do video games kill?. Contexts, 6. Retrieved from http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/ctx.2007.6.1.13
Carnagey, Nicholas L., Anderson, Craig A., & Bushman, Brad J. (2006). The Effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real life violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/07CAB.pdf
Talamasca, Akela. (2009). Big ideas: are video games good for you?. BigDownload.com, Retrieved from http://news.bigdownload.com/2009/09/23/big-ideas-are-video-games-good-for-you/
*Bigdownload.com is a large site for gamers who can visit to learn about breaking news in the game world, video games old and new and all their details, and the different genres within the gaming world.
Bora, Chandramita. (2009). Harmful effects of video games. Buzzle.com, Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/harmful-effects-of-video-games.html
*“Buzzle.com is comprised of a dynamic network of authors and content contributors who we proudly refer to as our Intelligent Life on the Web. As subject experts, our authors and content contributors create an informative, yet comfortable place for finding information about everything from animals to tourism. With current news in our What’s the Buzz? section, thousands of interesting categories, endless entertainment from our Escape Hatch, an interactive online community, and thought-provoking polls, Buzzle.com offers a medium through which to share knowledge of the world.”
Grossman, Dave, & Degaetano, Gloria. (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill: a call to action against tv, movie, and video game violence. New York: Crown Publishers.
Goldstein, Jeffrey H. (1998). Why we Watch: the attractions of violent entertainment. New York: Oxford University Press.
2010 Winter Olympic Ski Jump
The IOC says, "from a medical point of view" women should not be allowed to jump; also, that there were not enough sanctioned events, or even a women's championship that made the sport high-profile enough to take to the Olympics. In response to these arguments, proponents of the sport's integration into the Olympics say that a WOMAN holds the overall record of ski jumping, and that now there are nearly a hundred women competing in FIS-sanctioned ski competitions-- including a world championship level which was included in 2009.
One quote from the article which really caught my attention made by member of the IOC Dick Pound, directed towards supporters of women's right to be able to jump in the Olympics was "If in the meantime you're making all kinds of allegations about the IOC and how it's discriminating on the basis of gender," he warned, "the IOC may say, 'Oh yeah, I remember them. They're the ones that embarrassed us and caused us a lot of trouble of trouble in Vancouver, maybe they should wait another four years or eight years.'" This quote to me came off as the IOC being very aware of their power in creating the Olympic schedule in which the quote seems to hold over the women striving to compete.
One quote from the article which really caught my attention made by member of the IOC Dick Pound, directed towards supporters of women's right to be able to jump in the Olympics was "If in the meantime you're making all kinds of allegations about the IOC and how it's discriminating on the basis of gender," he warned, "the IOC may say, 'Oh yeah, I remember them. They're the ones that embarrassed us and caused us a lot of trouble of trouble in Vancouver, maybe they should wait another four years or eight years.'" This quote to me came off as the IOC being very aware of their power in creating the Olympic schedule in which the quote seems to hold over the women striving to compete.
Debate Team Response
As far as who I would have voted for, I would have to say that my vote would side with Nick's argument. However, I think that Chris did an excellent job of forming his points and stressing equality, which shed a positive light on his argument. I would like to focus on the delivery styles between the two, because I think that they were very different, and important when expressing arguments to a live audience. Although I liked Nick's argument better than Chris's, this was partially due to existing bias, and I ultimately think that Chris did a better job of making himself heard. For example, Nick was extremely rushed and impersonal, and while he was probably focused on getting as much information out within his set time limit as possible, it was at times difficult to absorb all of his points because he was talking so fast. Chris on the other hand, spoke very calmly, although he had a few "ums" in there, he was much easier to listen to because he made it seem like he was having a conversation with you. I especially liked the fact that he would use a little bit of humor to make a stab Nick's speech and grab attention from the audience.
I think they both did a great job of responding to one another and picking out specific points from each argument and integrating them in their own.
I think they both did a great job of responding to one another and picking out specific points from each argument and integrating them in their own.
Movie Review: Valentines Day
What day would be more appropriate to watch "Valentines Day" than on February 14th, the day itself? Those were my thoughts as a entered the theater on Sunday, expecting to see a film that would make laugh and leave me feeling "all mushy inside." While the film does deliver a star-studded cast, it doesn't do much else.
The film follows various characters, single and attached, young and old, faithful and unfaithful, throughout the events of the "most romantic day of the year," making it seem like several romantic comedies packed into one. The trailers and cast were deceiving, because "Valentines Day" portrayed these actors at their worst; with such a cast you expect exceptional acting and a great movie but instead it seemed like the bait to reel the audience in and not much else.
What I can say positively about the film is that it does a good job of setting up its scene. The appropriate use of the colors red and pink is seen throughout the film on subtle use of clothing, flowers, painted walls, or accessories create a consistent setting that make it appealing to the audience's eye.
The film has potential; it explores different levels of love ranging from the kind that is shared between best friends, old couples, high school sweet hearts, and when we mistake love for lust, or simply don't get it in return-- but doesn't go deep enough to draw any emotion from the audience.
The film follows various characters, single and attached, young and old, faithful and unfaithful, throughout the events of the "most romantic day of the year," making it seem like several romantic comedies packed into one. The trailers and cast were deceiving, because "Valentines Day" portrayed these actors at their worst; with such a cast you expect exceptional acting and a great movie but instead it seemed like the bait to reel the audience in and not much else.
What I can say positively about the film is that it does a good job of setting up its scene. The appropriate use of the colors red and pink is seen throughout the film on subtle use of clothing, flowers, painted walls, or accessories create a consistent setting that make it appealing to the audience's eye.
The film has potential; it explores different levels of love ranging from the kind that is shared between best friends, old couples, high school sweet hearts, and when we mistake love for lust, or simply don't get it in return-- but doesn't go deep enough to draw any emotion from the audience.
"I Will Never Know Why" Susan Klebold
Whenever anyone brings up the events that occurred on April 20, 1999 my initial thoughts go to the students that were killed, the ones that were injured, their families, and disturbing thoughts that must have been going through the killers' minds. I overlooked the fact that there were two more sets of parents who lost children that day, and live with something else that the other parent's do not-- their sons were responsible for killing and injuring several people, inflicting unfathomable pain on numerous families; did they do something wrong in raising their child? Could things have gone differently?
Susan Klebold finally addresses these questions, and what I feel throughout the essay is her sense of being a mother-- she speaks as a mother throughout the text, noting that her initial thoughts when she received the panicked message from her husband were for her sons, and later in the article stating that "though others were suffering, my thoughts focused on the safety of my own child."
Before reading the essay, I expected her to spend the majority of the time defending her son's actions, finding a way to redeem the both of them through her words. This was not the case; in fact, where she could have avoided using such descriptive words for her son's actions such as "horror" and "anguish," saying she will forever be haunted. I think that as a mother in this situation, she was taking the opportunity to address every side of the situation-- the victims and their families, her ignorance as a mother, her son as a child and as her own, and her son as the Columbine shooter. She recognizes that this could have been avoided, but goes forward in using her story to draw awareness to others, in hopes of not letting it happen again.
I understand where people's frustrations come from, but I still think that teenagers have the ability to manipulate their parents who give them unconditional love. What parent wants to admit their child is suicidal let alone a killer? It is hard for me to criticize someone that I can't even imagine relating to, especially when they wait 10 years to finally voice their emotions.
Susan Klebold finally addresses these questions, and what I feel throughout the essay is her sense of being a mother-- she speaks as a mother throughout the text, noting that her initial thoughts when she received the panicked message from her husband were for her sons, and later in the article stating that "though others were suffering, my thoughts focused on the safety of my own child."
Before reading the essay, I expected her to spend the majority of the time defending her son's actions, finding a way to redeem the both of them through her words. This was not the case; in fact, where she could have avoided using such descriptive words for her son's actions such as "horror" and "anguish," saying she will forever be haunted. I think that as a mother in this situation, she was taking the opportunity to address every side of the situation-- the victims and their families, her ignorance as a mother, her son as a child and as her own, and her son as the Columbine shooter. She recognizes that this could have been avoided, but goes forward in using her story to draw awareness to others, in hopes of not letting it happen again.
I understand where people's frustrations come from, but I still think that teenagers have the ability to manipulate their parents who give them unconditional love. What parent wants to admit their child is suicidal let alone a killer? It is hard for me to criticize someone that I can't even imagine relating to, especially when they wait 10 years to finally voice their emotions.
Hook-Up Culture
I completely agree with this article. I don't think that it pertains to everyone, but I do see that sex is no longer something that is always shared with someone you "love." The media feeds us ways of promiscuity through so many different channels, whether it's music, television, movies, or risque ads, and this is something that continues to ad to the lessening of the value of sex. At the same time, I think there are men and women, boys and girls out there that might have had "meaningless sex" experiences, but realize there's something more and just want to feel even for one night, that someone wants them. Grimes describes this in the fourth paragraph, where he says "You are special. A partner does not let the world see, she lets you see."
Valentines Day
A man wearing a green coat and a cap that said "Honolulu" on it approached us in front of the restaurant. It was the four of us, using Valentines Day as an excuse to go on a double date with close friends. The man was confident yet nervous-- almost like a secret admirer coming out to his loved one on Valentines Day. He told us that he was a struggling poet, new to Seattle and wanted to know if we would listen to two of his poems. Our first thoughts were, how can you say no to someone who just wants you to listen to their words? But inevitably, and partly due to the teethless and homeless man across the street selling "kissing lessons" for $45, you couldn't help but think to yourself, "all this guy wants is some extra change." But we listened, and he impressed us. His first poem was about a peaceworld where we all lived in harmony; before he recited his second, he made each couple hold eachother-- in the middle of the street-- and stare into each other's eyes. My first reaction was nervous laughter and then a quick "no...!" It's interesting how even on the most "romantic" day of the year, it was hard for me to publicly show my affection for a loved one. After some hesitation, we finally went along with what he wanted, but I was giggling almost the entire time. After his poem he had us kiss. Then he asked for spare change. I appreciated what he did though. If he really is following his dreams, he has to start somewhere.
Rough Draft MAP
Introduction:
Like television and movies, video games have become a controversial issue, largely including debates surrounding their use of graphic violence, biased gender roles, and portrayal of criminal behavior. Along with this, video games have also been studied for addiction and aggression among their players. At the same time, several research shows that video games are not to blame for these problems, and several groups argue that the video game industry has become an easy scapegoat for the modern day problems within society. Research on this side of the issue shows that video games actually benefit the player, providing for them useful skills and qualities. Controversies for the effects of video game playing vary, and may depend on the game and the psychology of the player.
Body:
Why do people like video games? They allow for an escape, provide challenging tasks that enhance the mind, are an outlet for stress and aggression relief.
[ include interviews from Professor Chris Paul, Seattle U gamers, close friends, brother]
Chris Paul is an expert on the subject, so his input will provide substantial evidence of the negatives and positives of video games.
For the other groups, I want to see what other reasons they have for playing video games, choosing people that I don’t know versus people that I do will allow me to see how their answers differ based on their relationship with me and if they are embarrassed or open about the issue.
Two Competing arguments:
Big Ideas: Are video games good for you?
Posted Sep 23rd 2009 3:00PM by Akela Talamasca
Video games are not harmful; they are actively good for you. Video games are said to train hand eye coordination. More importantly, they allow to play to engage in problem solving which helps them outside of the game. The author argues that people who play video games have a knack for exploring and trying things on their own. He uses the game “Civilization” as an example of how players can learn factual information from game playing than they may learn in the classroom. He acknowledges the fact that nothing is like first-hand experience, but a lot of protocol can be absorbed through play-- repetition keeps skills fresh. Rehearsing actions in the mind makes the body become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life. Having said all of this, the author argues that the most profound way that video games are helpful to players is in their cathartic properties; video games allow the player to take out their aggression and stress and release it in the game. He attempts to establish credibility by quoting the current Karmapa Lama in India Trinley Dorje, a spiritual leader of one of the largest sects of Tibetan Buddhism, who plays violent video games for just this reason. He quotes Dorje, who says, “"So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards. The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skilful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."
In his final point, the author responds to critics who say video games are the blame for violent behavior, saying that games are tools, and are no more accountable for the actions of the people who use them than any other tool is-- for example, you don’t blame the hammer for the alcoholism of the carpenter, of the drill for the abuse of the craftsman. He says that our responsibility is to use our tools to benefit all, and not to blame our personal shortcomings or faults on them. He says doing so does disservice to the actual intentions of the game designers, who “merely wanted to bring something enjoyable to the world.”
Harmful Effects of Video Games
By Chandramita Bora
Published: 6/29/2009
In another recent article that argues for the harmful effects of video games, the author writes that video games do in fact contribute to violent behavior. The author says that video games are perhaps the most significant source of entertainment for adolescents since the 70s, and that they have greater adverse effects on children than television and movies because they demand active participation of the player, effecting their behavior and psychology. While the other author argued that repetition keeps the players skills fresh and suggested it was a beneficial aspect of video game play, this author agrees the repetition is the key to improved learning, so its violent video game play is effective in instilling aggressive behavior in young children. Another point the author makes is that violence and aggression depicted in games if practiced in the real world can lead to serious injuries and even death. She says that it is believed that video game playing may reduce a child’s empathy or desire to help others, impact their academic performance, lead to obesity due to decreased physical activity, and social isolation because they spend less and less time interacting. Along with this, it skews the players idea of gender roles because women are often portrayed as a victim or weaker person. The author does take into consideration the idea that games can be used properly in improving hand-eye coordination, problem solving, logic, and quick thinking. She makes the final point that parents should play an important role to ensure that video games do not lead to any of these harmful effects. They can do this by limiting the amount of time played and by taking into account the rating of video games when purchasing them.
Another article, “Understanding Online Gaming Addiction and Treatment Issues for Adolescents,” by Kimberly Young, studies the effects of video games in terms of addiction. Young compares the addiction to video games to addition to alcohol or drugs-- she outlines classic signs like lying about game use, losing interest in other activities, withdrawing from family ad friends, and using it unhealthily as a psychological escape. More interestingly, she studies the negative impact gaming has on the player’s friends and family.
The different values or audiences the authors seem to appeal to vary; the first author’s values are obviously directed towards the benefits video games have on player and appear to strategically respond to negative posits towards the issue. In this sense, it seems that he is speaking to opponents of video games, especially in his second paragraph where he says, “It is easy to demonize something you know nothing about.” He also tries to be credible with his argument by using the Karmapa Lama as a video game icon, telling his audience you don’t have to take his word for it, but just look at the facts. The author evaluates the object in terms of what the player actually gains from it, yet doesn’t really look at any of the negative effects that other research has shown to have had on gamers. The only thing he does say about the other side of the issue is that video games should NOT be to blame for school shootings and adolescent aggression. Towards the end of his essay, the author calls video games “tools.” While I think he could have been on to something here, he instead takes it very literally and compares them to actual tools, such as a hammer or drill. The point he was trying to make was that video games are tools we use for our mind, or to release aggression. But his comparisons are unclear.
The second author’s values center around the health of a player. They outline potential effects that video games can have on people, but don’t necessarily show any factual or specific cases for their argument. Although I feel I have seen some of the effects they pointed out first-hand, I am unsure if what I am seeing is actually the case, or if its as the first author puts it, “something I know nothing about.” One thing that was interesting was how these authors took the same argument that the first one had made, and turned it around-- the suggestion that rehearsing actions in the mind causes the body to become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life was a good skill for author 1, but the second author argued that this repetition is the key to instilling aggression on children. It seems that it would have to depend on the game.
Other things to explore:
Columbine/ other school shootings or acts of violence that have been blamed on video games by the media
Like television and movies, video games have become a controversial issue, largely including debates surrounding their use of graphic violence, biased gender roles, and portrayal of criminal behavior. Along with this, video games have also been studied for addiction and aggression among their players. At the same time, several research shows that video games are not to blame for these problems, and several groups argue that the video game industry has become an easy scapegoat for the modern day problems within society. Research on this side of the issue shows that video games actually benefit the player, providing for them useful skills and qualities. Controversies for the effects of video game playing vary, and may depend on the game and the psychology of the player.
Body:
Why do people like video games? They allow for an escape, provide challenging tasks that enhance the mind, are an outlet for stress and aggression relief.
[ include interviews from Professor Chris Paul, Seattle U gamers, close friends, brother]
Chris Paul is an expert on the subject, so his input will provide substantial evidence of the negatives and positives of video games.
For the other groups, I want to see what other reasons they have for playing video games, choosing people that I don’t know versus people that I do will allow me to see how their answers differ based on their relationship with me and if they are embarrassed or open about the issue.
Two Competing arguments:
Big Ideas: Are video games good for you?
Posted Sep 23rd 2009 3:00PM by Akela Talamasca
Video games are not harmful; they are actively good for you. Video games are said to train hand eye coordination. More importantly, they allow to play to engage in problem solving which helps them outside of the game. The author argues that people who play video games have a knack for exploring and trying things on their own. He uses the game “Civilization” as an example of how players can learn factual information from game playing than they may learn in the classroom. He acknowledges the fact that nothing is like first-hand experience, but a lot of protocol can be absorbed through play-- repetition keeps skills fresh. Rehearsing actions in the mind makes the body become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life. Having said all of this, the author argues that the most profound way that video games are helpful to players is in their cathartic properties; video games allow the player to take out their aggression and stress and release it in the game. He attempts to establish credibility by quoting the current Karmapa Lama in India Trinley Dorje, a spiritual leader of one of the largest sects of Tibetan Buddhism, who plays violent video games for just this reason. He quotes Dorje, who says, “"So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards. The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skilful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."
In his final point, the author responds to critics who say video games are the blame for violent behavior, saying that games are tools, and are no more accountable for the actions of the people who use them than any other tool is-- for example, you don’t blame the hammer for the alcoholism of the carpenter, of the drill for the abuse of the craftsman. He says that our responsibility is to use our tools to benefit all, and not to blame our personal shortcomings or faults on them. He says doing so does disservice to the actual intentions of the game designers, who “merely wanted to bring something enjoyable to the world.”
Harmful Effects of Video Games
By Chandramita Bora
Published: 6/29/2009
In another recent article that argues for the harmful effects of video games, the author writes that video games do in fact contribute to violent behavior. The author says that video games are perhaps the most significant source of entertainment for adolescents since the 70s, and that they have greater adverse effects on children than television and movies because they demand active participation of the player, effecting their behavior and psychology. While the other author argued that repetition keeps the players skills fresh and suggested it was a beneficial aspect of video game play, this author agrees the repetition is the key to improved learning, so its violent video game play is effective in instilling aggressive behavior in young children. Another point the author makes is that violence and aggression depicted in games if practiced in the real world can lead to serious injuries and even death. She says that it is believed that video game playing may reduce a child’s empathy or desire to help others, impact their academic performance, lead to obesity due to decreased physical activity, and social isolation because they spend less and less time interacting. Along with this, it skews the players idea of gender roles because women are often portrayed as a victim or weaker person. The author does take into consideration the idea that games can be used properly in improving hand-eye coordination, problem solving, logic, and quick thinking. She makes the final point that parents should play an important role to ensure that video games do not lead to any of these harmful effects. They can do this by limiting the amount of time played and by taking into account the rating of video games when purchasing them.
Another article, “Understanding Online Gaming Addiction and Treatment Issues for Adolescents,” by Kimberly Young, studies the effects of video games in terms of addiction. Young compares the addiction to video games to addition to alcohol or drugs-- she outlines classic signs like lying about game use, losing interest in other activities, withdrawing from family ad friends, and using it unhealthily as a psychological escape. More interestingly, she studies the negative impact gaming has on the player’s friends and family.
The different values or audiences the authors seem to appeal to vary; the first author’s values are obviously directed towards the benefits video games have on player and appear to strategically respond to negative posits towards the issue. In this sense, it seems that he is speaking to opponents of video games, especially in his second paragraph where he says, “It is easy to demonize something you know nothing about.” He also tries to be credible with his argument by using the Karmapa Lama as a video game icon, telling his audience you don’t have to take his word for it, but just look at the facts. The author evaluates the object in terms of what the player actually gains from it, yet doesn’t really look at any of the negative effects that other research has shown to have had on gamers. The only thing he does say about the other side of the issue is that video games should NOT be to blame for school shootings and adolescent aggression. Towards the end of his essay, the author calls video games “tools.” While I think he could have been on to something here, he instead takes it very literally and compares them to actual tools, such as a hammer or drill. The point he was trying to make was that video games are tools we use for our mind, or to release aggression. But his comparisons are unclear.
The second author’s values center around the health of a player. They outline potential effects that video games can have on people, but don’t necessarily show any factual or specific cases for their argument. Although I feel I have seen some of the effects they pointed out first-hand, I am unsure if what I am seeing is actually the case, or if its as the first author puts it, “something I know nothing about.” One thing that was interesting was how these authors took the same argument that the first one had made, and turned it around-- the suggestion that rehearsing actions in the mind causes the body to become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life was a good skill for author 1, but the second author argued that this repetition is the key to instilling aggression on children. It seems that it would have to depend on the game.
Other things to explore:
Columbine/ other school shootings or acts of violence that have been blamed on video games by the media
Weekly Writing 5
The different values or audiences the authors seem to appeal to vary; the first author’s values are obviously directed towards the benefits video games have on player and appear to strategically respond to negative posits towards the issue. In this sense, it seems that he is speaking to opponents of video games, especially in his second paragraph where he says, “It is easy to demonize something you know nothing about.” He also tries to be credible with his argument by using the Karmapa Lama as a video game icon, telling his audience you don’t have to take his word for it, but just look at the facts. The author evaluates the object in terms of what the player actually gains from it, yet doesn’t really look at any of the negative effects that other research has shown to have had on gamers. The only thing he does say about the other side of the issue is that video games should NOT be to blame for school shootings and adolescent aggression. Towards the end of his essay, the author calls video games “tools.” While I think he could have been on to something here, he instead takes it very literally and compares them to actual tools, such as a hammer or drill. The point he was trying to make was that video games are tools we use for our mind, or to release aggression. But his comparisons are unclear.
The second author’s values center around the health of a player. They outline potential effects that video games can have on people, but don’t necessarily show any factual or specific cases for their argument. Although I feel I have seen some of the effects they pointed out first-hand, I am unsure if what I am seeing is actually the case, or if its as the first author puts it, “something I know nothing about.” One thing that was interesting was how these authors took the same argument that the first one had made, and turned it around-- the suggestion that rehearsing actions in the mind causes the body to become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life was a good skill for author 1, but the second author argued that this repetition is the key to instilling aggression on children. It seems that it would have to depend on the game.
The second author’s values center around the health of a player. They outline potential effects that video games can have on people, but don’t necessarily show any factual or specific cases for their argument. Although I feel I have seen some of the effects they pointed out first-hand, I am unsure if what I am seeing is actually the case, or if its as the first author puts it, “something I know nothing about.” One thing that was interesting was how these authors took the same argument that the first one had made, and turned it around-- the suggestion that rehearsing actions in the mind causes the body to become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life was a good skill for author 1, but the second author argued that this repetition is the key to instilling aggression on children. It seems that it would have to depend on the game.
Weekly Writing 4
Big Ideas: Are video games good for you?
Posted Sep 23rd 2009 3:00PM by Akela Talamasca
Video games are not harmful; they are actively good for you. Video games are said to train hand eye coordination. More importantly, they allow to play to engage in problem solving which helps them outside of the game. The author argues that people who play video games have a knack for exploring and trying things on their own. He uses the game “Civilization” as an example of how players can learn factual information from game playing than they may learn in the classroom. He acknowledges the fact that nothing is like first-hand experience, but a lot of protocol can be absorbed through play-- repetition keeps skills fresh. Rehearsing actions in the mind makes the body become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life. Having said all of this, the author argues that the most profound way that video games are helpful to players is in their cathartic properties; video games allow the player to take out their aggression and stress and release it in the game. He attempts to establish credibility by quoting the current Karmapa Lama in India Trinley Dorje, a spiritual leader of one of the largest sects of Tibetan Buddhism, who plays violent video games for just this reason. He quotes Dorje, who says, “"So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards. The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skilful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."
In his final point, the author responds to critics who say video games are the blame for violent behavior, saying that games are tools, and are no more accountable for the actions of the people who use them than any other tool is-- for example, you don’t blame the hammer for the alcoholism of the carpenter, of the drill for the abuse of the craftsman. He says that our responsibility is to use our tools to benefit all, and not to blame our personal shortcomings or faults on them. He says doing so does disservice to the actual intentions of the game designers, who “merely wanted to bring something enjoyable to the world.”
Harmful Effects of Video Games
By Chandramita Bora
Published: 6/29/2009
In another recent article that argues for the harmful effects of video games, the author writes that video games do in fact contribute to violent behavior. The author says that video games are perhaps the most significant source of entertainment for adolescents since the 70s, and that they have greater adverse effects on children than television and movies because they demand active participation of the player, effecting their behavior and psychology. While the other author argued that repetition keeps the players skills fresh and suggested it was a beneficial aspect of video game play, this author agrees the repetition is the key to improved learning, so its violent video game play is effective in instilling aggressive behavior in young children. Another point the author makes is that violence and aggression depicted in games if practiced in the real world can lead to serious injuries and even death. She says that it is believed that video game playing may reduce a child’s empathy or desire to help others, impact their academic performance, lead to obesity due to decreased physical activity, and social isolation because they spend less and less time interacting. Along with this, it skews the players idea of gender roles because women are often portrayed as a victim or weaker person. The author does take into consideration the idea that games can be used properly in improving hand-eye coordination, problem solving, logic, and quick thinking. She makes the final point that parents should play an important role to ensure that video games do not lead to any of these harmful effects. They can do this by limiting the amount of time played and by taking into account the rating of video games when purchasing them.
Posted Sep 23rd 2009 3:00PM by Akela Talamasca
Video games are not harmful; they are actively good for you. Video games are said to train hand eye coordination. More importantly, they allow to play to engage in problem solving which helps them outside of the game. The author argues that people who play video games have a knack for exploring and trying things on their own. He uses the game “Civilization” as an example of how players can learn factual information from game playing than they may learn in the classroom. He acknowledges the fact that nothing is like first-hand experience, but a lot of protocol can be absorbed through play-- repetition keeps skills fresh. Rehearsing actions in the mind makes the body become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life. Having said all of this, the author argues that the most profound way that video games are helpful to players is in their cathartic properties; video games allow the player to take out their aggression and stress and release it in the game. He attempts to establish credibility by quoting the current Karmapa Lama in India Trinley Dorje, a spiritual leader of one of the largest sects of Tibetan Buddhism, who plays violent video games for just this reason. He quotes Dorje, who says, “"So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards. The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skilful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."
In his final point, the author responds to critics who say video games are the blame for violent behavior, saying that games are tools, and are no more accountable for the actions of the people who use them than any other tool is-- for example, you don’t blame the hammer for the alcoholism of the carpenter, of the drill for the abuse of the craftsman. He says that our responsibility is to use our tools to benefit all, and not to blame our personal shortcomings or faults on them. He says doing so does disservice to the actual intentions of the game designers, who “merely wanted to bring something enjoyable to the world.”
Harmful Effects of Video Games
By Chandramita Bora
Published: 6/29/2009
In another recent article that argues for the harmful effects of video games, the author writes that video games do in fact contribute to violent behavior. The author says that video games are perhaps the most significant source of entertainment for adolescents since the 70s, and that they have greater adverse effects on children than television and movies because they demand active participation of the player, effecting their behavior and psychology. While the other author argued that repetition keeps the players skills fresh and suggested it was a beneficial aspect of video game play, this author agrees the repetition is the key to improved learning, so its violent video game play is effective in instilling aggressive behavior in young children. Another point the author makes is that violence and aggression depicted in games if practiced in the real world can lead to serious injuries and even death. She says that it is believed that video game playing may reduce a child’s empathy or desire to help others, impact their academic performance, lead to obesity due to decreased physical activity, and social isolation because they spend less and less time interacting. Along with this, it skews the players idea of gender roles because women are often portrayed as a victim or weaker person. The author does take into consideration the idea that games can be used properly in improving hand-eye coordination, problem solving, logic, and quick thinking. She makes the final point that parents should play an important role to ensure that video games do not lead to any of these harmful effects. They can do this by limiting the amount of time played and by taking into account the rating of video games when purchasing them.
Think B4 You Speak
The "Think B4 You Speak" website creates awareness to its viewers in a fun and hip way. They do a good job with the design of the page which first grabs attention with its bright yellow background. What I think gained them the most credibility was the section where people could post true testimonies of when they have been affected by things like "that's so gay." This allowed viewers to see the reality-- not only this, but statistics provided information on what sort of things victims of the messages are doing, which ranged from skipping school to suicide.
The information they provide on their website is great-- having said this, I think that there are better, perhaps more successful ways of getting their message across. I myself am not really sure how do go about doing this, but I do think they have a good starting point. Using celebrities as their spokesperson was a good strategy, but I am wondering how they chose their celebs? Maybe using a person with a comedic background gave the campaign a lighter feel or made it more open to talk about because the two women seem approachable.
The information they provide on their website is great-- having said this, I think that there are better, perhaps more successful ways of getting their message across. I myself am not really sure how do go about doing this, but I do think they have a good starting point. Using celebrities as their spokesperson was a good strategy, but I am wondering how they chose their celebs? Maybe using a person with a comedic background gave the campaign a lighter feel or made it more open to talk about because the two women seem approachable.
The Aesthetic Imperative
In her article Virginia Postrel makes the claim that the 21st century demands aesthetically pleasing everything. She argues that we want our normal everyday devices, such as cell phones or vacuum cleaners to "sparkle." She says that we are in a new age of aesthetics, where we are acknowledging and accepting, and that the issue now is not that style is used its what style is used.
At one point in her article she states that we subconsciously enjoy the affects of aesthetics that bring out certain pleasing emotions, but don't want to feel manipulated as consumers. A critic she quotes called aesthetics "the power of provocative surfaces which speaks to the eye's mind, overshadowing matters of quality or substance."
I do agree that aesthetically pleasing visuals are what gain attention and are becoming what consumers are looking for. I think that this is because in a world where we have so much, sometimes the only things we can do to alter what we already have is to change how it looks. For example, she makes the point that our values haven't changed, we want the sparkling cell phone but want it to function first. Although it does seem like functions of cell phones seem to be changing daily-- what was once a device used to only make calls is now a small and portable computer-- what seems to draw attention to consumers is what the phone looks like, or what color case they can accessorize it with.
In the beginning of her essay Postrel also seems to be describing a fast-pace, always on the go, wealthy, and almost superficial society that does not relate to the whole world or the United States. I don't think it's a bad thing to go for what looks or makes you feel good, but I also don't think that the way she describes society in her first paragraph pertains to America as a whole. There are many people who get what they can, not what they want because it looks good to them. The iMac owner she quotes in the last part of her essay argues that we buy things ultimately because of how they look, which I believe is partially true, but we also buy things based on what we can afford... There are some people that might not be able to keep up with what is aesthetically pleasing, but I do like when the iMac owner says we get things are a reflection of our personality, and taste-- I think it is possible to do this even if you don't own the latest gadget.
At one point in her article she states that we subconsciously enjoy the affects of aesthetics that bring out certain pleasing emotions, but don't want to feel manipulated as consumers. A critic she quotes called aesthetics "the power of provocative surfaces which speaks to the eye's mind, overshadowing matters of quality or substance."
I do agree that aesthetically pleasing visuals are what gain attention and are becoming what consumers are looking for. I think that this is because in a world where we have so much, sometimes the only things we can do to alter what we already have is to change how it looks. For example, she makes the point that our values haven't changed, we want the sparkling cell phone but want it to function first. Although it does seem like functions of cell phones seem to be changing daily-- what was once a device used to only make calls is now a small and portable computer-- what seems to draw attention to consumers is what the phone looks like, or what color case they can accessorize it with.
In the beginning of her essay Postrel also seems to be describing a fast-pace, always on the go, wealthy, and almost superficial society that does not relate to the whole world or the United States. I don't think it's a bad thing to go for what looks or makes you feel good, but I also don't think that the way she describes society in her first paragraph pertains to America as a whole. There are many people who get what they can, not what they want because it looks good to them. The iMac owner she quotes in the last part of her essay argues that we buy things ultimately because of how they look, which I believe is partially true, but we also buy things based on what we can afford... There are some people that might not be able to keep up with what is aesthetically pleasing, but I do like when the iMac owner says we get things are a reflection of our personality, and taste-- I think it is possible to do this even if you don't own the latest gadget.
Westboro Baptist Church
The values of WBC adhere very literally to the words of the Bible, which makes their actions seem extreme in today's society. They condemn ALL forms of sin, which include fornication, adultery, and sodomy. They state in their mission that God's sovereignty must be placed upon all men. They commit to the 5 points of Calvinism, which is interesting to me because one of the points describes "Limited Atonement," which means that they belief Jesus Christ died on the cross for "many, but not all." It seems contradicting to me that they believe this yet still insist on infringing and imposing their beliefs on other people's lives. If they don't believe there is hope for everyone, then why would they be so persistent and outspoken? One of their many signs reads "America is doomed," which seems to be a possible reflection of this "Limited Atonement" belief, but their intentions still seem puzzling to me.
My personal values reflect the world we live in today; with so much diversity, so much consistent change, it is simply impossible for there to be universal agreement on basically anything. I think that for the must part, all people seek happiness, or as we saw in the rank order of terminal values, a world at peace. A world at peace requires acceptance. Certain cultures, or groups that people belong to, are ultimately going to believe that their way is the right way, it is part of ethnocentrism. This becomes a problem when you believe your way is the ONLY way, which is why I think it would be extremely difficult to even begin to have a conversation with a member of the WBC; their values and beliefs are extremely narrow minded, and probably not easily altered. I don't believe that what they say or do is morally right-- but at the same time, they don't believe what I say or do it either. It is easy for me to look at their website in complete shock, just as it is easy for them to create a website in the hopes of gaining viewers and followers. The problem lies with the way they make themselves known, or at least in the way they inflict their beliefs onto people who have no interest in what they have to say.
My personal values reflect the world we live in today; with so much diversity, so much consistent change, it is simply impossible for there to be universal agreement on basically anything. I think that for the must part, all people seek happiness, or as we saw in the rank order of terminal values, a world at peace. A world at peace requires acceptance. Certain cultures, or groups that people belong to, are ultimately going to believe that their way is the right way, it is part of ethnocentrism. This becomes a problem when you believe your way is the ONLY way, which is why I think it would be extremely difficult to even begin to have a conversation with a member of the WBC; their values and beliefs are extremely narrow minded, and probably not easily altered. I don't believe that what they say or do is morally right-- but at the same time, they don't believe what I say or do it either. It is easy for me to look at their website in complete shock, just as it is easy for them to create a website in the hopes of gaining viewers and followers. The problem lies with the way they make themselves known, or at least in the way they inflict their beliefs onto people who have no interest in what they have to say.
Jerry Brewer, "Fanatomy"
In his article "Fanatomy: As a sports town, we're underrated," Jerry Brewer makes the claim that as sports fans, the people of Seattle are viewed as "fair weather fans, dispassionate, and unknowledgable," to name a few. Brewer argues that Seattle fans actually are passionate, saying that Qwest field has been said to have one of the loudest stadiums in the NFL, the Storm has the best home-court advantage, and noting the Sounders success in its first season. Brewer did acknowledge dropped attendance figures for the Mariners and UW football in recent seasons where they have not done well; during the last portion of his essay he makes the argument that Seattle as a pro-sports city, is still very young. It seems like he is saying that generations and years of ties and connections will only get stronger, making the fan base more passionate and devoted. One last point he makes to appeal to readers of the Seattle Times, is that Seattle sports fans are a reflection of the city, saying "Seattle's true sporting reputation figures to be in step with its identity as a quirky, creative, liberal, educated and understated city." Here Brewer is complimenting Seattle residents and subtly responding to the criticizers.
Weekly Writing #3
Doctor Assisted Suicide
In discussions of Doctor Assisted Suicide, one controversial issue has been that patients who undergo an enormous amount of irreversible pain should be able to decide whether or not they want to continue doing so in a fight for their lives. Supporters of Doctor Assisted Suicide, which has been passed in only a few states, also suggest that the name should be changed to “Death with Dignity,” and also point out the interest of costs this policy would save hospitals and families. On the other hand, the opposing side of Doctor Assisted Suicide argues similarly to the way Pro-Life supporters do in that every human being has a chance to live, and killing them unnaturally is inhumane and immoral.
In discussions of Doctor Assisted Suicide, one controversial issue has been that patients who undergo an enormous amount of irreversible pain should be able to decide whether or not they want to continue doing so in a fight for their lives. Supporters of Doctor Assisted Suicide, which has been passed in only a few states, also suggest that the name should be changed to “Death with Dignity,” and also point out the interest of costs this policy would save hospitals and families. On the other hand, the opposing side of Doctor Assisted Suicide argues similarly to the way Pro-Life supporters do in that every human being has a chance to live, and killing them unnaturally is inhumane and immoral.
Communal Living
Different communal living spaces have different sets of rules in relation to who is living in the area and who has more "power" over the area. For example, living in a house with my parents, they call all the shots and decisions about who comes in and what is done with the space is ultimately up to them; it's their house. On the other hand, living with a roommate in college is different-- equal. At least in the dorms it is because you are both paying the same amount to live there. In off-campus housing, roommates may split things differently depending on how much rent each one is playing.
One of the most important things about living with someone else seems to be, in my experience, privacy. You should always respect the other person's space and things. There should always be some sort of between who gets what, and who pays for what, or who cleans what, otherwise resentment will arise out of the person who feels like they are doing more than the other. There should be some discussion as to what sort of furnishing and decorations the house or apartment will get, or mutual understanding of what the other likes. To be honest though, my roommate and I will take anything we can get.
Because we are in school and have jobs, respecting one another's time and sleep is important as well. For example, inviting friends over the night before your roommate has a big test probably isn't the best idea. Living in a communal area comes down to BALANCE. It doesn't always work out, but hopefully if you treat someone the way you would want them to treat you, they will do the same.
One of the most important things about living with someone else seems to be, in my experience, privacy. You should always respect the other person's space and things. There should always be some sort of between who gets what, and who pays for what, or who cleans what, otherwise resentment will arise out of the person who feels like they are doing more than the other. There should be some discussion as to what sort of furnishing and decorations the house or apartment will get, or mutual understanding of what the other likes. To be honest though, my roommate and I will take anything we can get.
Because we are in school and have jobs, respecting one another's time and sleep is important as well. For example, inviting friends over the night before your roommate has a big test probably isn't the best idea. Living in a communal area comes down to BALANCE. It doesn't always work out, but hopefully if you treat someone the way you would want them to treat you, they will do the same.
SU Responds to Haitian Tragedy
As a Jesuit University, one of Seattle U's missions is a commitment to the poor. In response to the tragic earthquake in Haiti, the University's President, Fr. Sundborg has called the students of Seattle University to come together and respond spiritually, humanly, and educationally.
On January 14, he asked students to integrate the reality of this disaster into the course of our studies, searching for ways of answering the questions why, where and how to go from here. He encouraged students to offer their generosity and personal sacrifice, and to pray that the victims of he earthquake can be placed in the hands of God.
Sean Bray, the Social Justice Minister in Campus Ministry has accepted the position of point person of the university in order to coordinate SU's response. He is open to Seattle University students for any suggestions or requests they may have for him during this time. Along with this, the University is seeking to join with Gonzaga in further efforts to "act as Jesuit Universities."
Four Sunday masses will be dedicated to the tragedy, where their full tithes will be given to Catholic Relief Services and Jesuit Refugee Service for their work with the people of Haiti.
Along with this, any students, faculty, staff, or friends who are personally suffering from the earthquake are encouraged to contact Sean Bray, or reach out to CAPS for counseling. Along with this, current SU students, staff and alumni have created a website for donations, sent a water system from SU's own Wes Lauer, and have created group meetings where further action can be discussed.
On January 14, he asked students to integrate the reality of this disaster into the course of our studies, searching for ways of answering the questions why, where and how to go from here. He encouraged students to offer their generosity and personal sacrifice, and to pray that the victims of he earthquake can be placed in the hands of God.
Sean Bray, the Social Justice Minister in Campus Ministry has accepted the position of point person of the university in order to coordinate SU's response. He is open to Seattle University students for any suggestions or requests they may have for him during this time. Along with this, the University is seeking to join with Gonzaga in further efforts to "act as Jesuit Universities."
Four Sunday masses will be dedicated to the tragedy, where their full tithes will be given to Catholic Relief Services and Jesuit Refugee Service for their work with the people of Haiti.
Along with this, any students, faculty, staff, or friends who are personally suffering from the earthquake are encouraged to contact Sean Bray, or reach out to CAPS for counseling. Along with this, current SU students, staff and alumni have created a website for donations, sent a water system from SU's own Wes Lauer, and have created group meetings where further action can be discussed.
Letter to a Friend
My boyfriend Davey and I moved here at the same time 2 and half years ago from Alaska. He is two years older than I am, but we graduated from the same high school. He went to the University in Alaska for a couple years and ended up basically failing due to excessive lack of effort. When we moved here, I came to SU and he started classes at SCCC down the street. He has now completed two years of community college here in Seattle with outstanding grades and is an extremely hard worker in and out of the classroom. He was supposed to apply to SU for winter quarter but missed the deadline-- I am convinced it is because he is scared to fail.
Dear Davey,
I want to write you this letter not to nag or to keep reminding you to do something that you don't want to do, but because I think you have the potential to do great things with your life, and going to Seattle U is something that I do believe you want. I want to begin with telling you how proud I am of where you are; I have seen what you have accomplished-- you got yourself out the rut you were in in Fairbanks and are now a straight A student. Not only this, but you have established a life for yourself here in Seattle that is all thanks to no one but you. You come from a great family who would gladly help you in times of financial need, but you choose to fix your own problems and work for what you have.
Seattle U would be lucky to have you in their business school-- not only are you a hard worker, but the way you engage yourself in the classroom and put yourself out their for your peers and professors is exactly the type of student any university could ask for.
I know that this is not enough, so there are a few things I would like you to consider when you're convincing yourself that you aren't going to get in to this school:
Your grades are excellent; Seattle U requires a 2.5 GPA minimum, think you can handle that? Your dad is SU alumni-- I know he didn't graduate from here, but it's definitely something to flaunt. You work for the school, possibly making it easier for you to get a recommendation from someone closer to home. I heard from someone that SU automatically grants $10,000 to transfer students from the area. Most importantly, don't be afraid to fail. If you don't apply, you will never know, and it will probably be something that will linger in your mind because I think that you too, are aware of your capabilities.
Ashley
Dear Davey,
I want to write you this letter not to nag or to keep reminding you to do something that you don't want to do, but because I think you have the potential to do great things with your life, and going to Seattle U is something that I do believe you want. I want to begin with telling you how proud I am of where you are; I have seen what you have accomplished-- you got yourself out the rut you were in in Fairbanks and are now a straight A student. Not only this, but you have established a life for yourself here in Seattle that is all thanks to no one but you. You come from a great family who would gladly help you in times of financial need, but you choose to fix your own problems and work for what you have.
Seattle U would be lucky to have you in their business school-- not only are you a hard worker, but the way you engage yourself in the classroom and put yourself out their for your peers and professors is exactly the type of student any university could ask for.
I know that this is not enough, so there are a few things I would like you to consider when you're convincing yourself that you aren't going to get in to this school:
Your grades are excellent; Seattle U requires a 2.5 GPA minimum, think you can handle that? Your dad is SU alumni-- I know he didn't graduate from here, but it's definitely something to flaunt. You work for the school, possibly making it easier for you to get a recommendation from someone closer to home. I heard from someone that SU automatically grants $10,000 to transfer students from the area. Most importantly, don't be afraid to fail. If you don't apply, you will never know, and it will probably be something that will linger in your mind because I think that you too, are aware of your capabilities.
Ashley
Weekly Writing Assignment #2
Jay Leno had great talent as a stand-up comedian, but he is now a comic that is viewed by his peers as greedy, and successful only because he did anything he could do to get where he is at, even if it was at the expense of other comics, such as Conan O’Brien or David Letterman, or dumbing down his material to appear to a broader audience. The reputation that Jay Leno once had as a brilliant comic has now plummeted and is something he will never have again amongst his peers.
The author believes that Jay Leno has selfishly gained the stature that he has, and that he has deservingly lost respect amongst other comic writers and undeservingly gained the competitive spot on “The Tonight Show.” The author makes the point that Leno used to be a brilliant comic who did everything right, and that it is now apparent that he “dumbs down” his material only to reach a broader audience and not necessarily to be entertaining. He makes the argument that Leno is not being his true comedic self, where more clever, smart, devoted, and deserving comics are and are being left in the dark.
Halfway through the essay the author makes the argument that Jay Leno has “dumbed down” his material in order to reach the largest audience possible. Yet later, he goes on to say that Leno’s “Jaywalking” bit is condescending to average people walking the streets. I find these arguments interesting in the sense that, throughout the entire essay, the author seems to talk about all comic writers besides Jay Leno as brilliant and as attaining far beyond the level of humor as “normal” people. I feel that this notion in itself is condescending and that the author is being contradicting in his arguments.
All I know about the author, Nathan Rabin, is that he is the head writer of the A.V Club, the entertainment section of the Onion, and the author of “The Big Rewind: A Memoir Brought to You by Pop Culture.” While I agree with the idea that Leno is not what he used to be and that Conan O’brien is hilariously talented, I think the bias in this article is extremely evident. He almost seems like the condescending person that he himself is describing.
The author believes that Jay Leno has selfishly gained the stature that he has, and that he has deservingly lost respect amongst other comic writers and undeservingly gained the competitive spot on “The Tonight Show.” The author makes the point that Leno used to be a brilliant comic who did everything right, and that it is now apparent that he “dumbs down” his material only to reach a broader audience and not necessarily to be entertaining. He makes the argument that Leno is not being his true comedic self, where more clever, smart, devoted, and deserving comics are and are being left in the dark.
Halfway through the essay the author makes the argument that Jay Leno has “dumbed down” his material in order to reach the largest audience possible. Yet later, he goes on to say that Leno’s “Jaywalking” bit is condescending to average people walking the streets. I find these arguments interesting in the sense that, throughout the entire essay, the author seems to talk about all comic writers besides Jay Leno as brilliant and as attaining far beyond the level of humor as “normal” people. I feel that this notion in itself is condescending and that the author is being contradicting in his arguments.
All I know about the author, Nathan Rabin, is that he is the head writer of the A.V Club, the entertainment section of the Onion, and the author of “The Big Rewind: A Memoir Brought to You by Pop Culture.” While I agree with the idea that Leno is not what he used to be and that Conan O’brien is hilariously talented, I think the bias in this article is extremely evident. He almost seems like the condescending person that he himself is describing.
Weekly Writing Assignment #1
Ashley Johnson
Weekly Writing Assignment #1
Michelle Obama’s Democratic National Convention Keynote Address does several things to appeal to the audience’s emotions and make her speech relatable to the everyday life of an American, which is why I think the rhetorical tenant context is one she uses very well.
She uses her own personal experiences to draw images out to the audiences of things they can imagine themselves doing; she elaborates on her relationship with her brother, who happened to introduce her; she talks about her relationship with her dad and the sacrifices he made for their family; and she ends with addressing “the man she fell in love with,” and what he has done for his family, and what he will do for the country.
One of my favorite parts of the speech was when she was discussing our blessings that have been “hard-won” by those who came before her. Her use of imagery in this section really allows the audience to feel what she is saying and she the people she is describing.
She uses the good-night kiss as a way of depicting what families work for to allow a present and a future for their children, saying “People who work the day shift, then kiss their kids good night and head out for the night shift without disappointment, without regret. See, that good-night kiss is a reminder of everything they're working for.”
She makes dreams tangible things that grow when she describes “People like Hillary Clinton -- who put those 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling so that our daughters and our sons can dream a little bigger and aim a little higher.”
She uses this imagery again in the main focus of her speech, which is to appeal to her audience, and the context she is in. She appeals to the audiences emotions and relates to them in describing a thread that connects our hearts, making us one nation that loves their country; “the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope. And you see, that is why I love this country.”
That is where I believe Michelle Obama was most successful in her speech; her use of rhetoric in order to create images in the audiences’ mind was consistent throughout the whole speech. Her words were aimed towards these people she was describing, fitting the context.
Weekly Writing Assignment #1
Michelle Obama’s Democratic National Convention Keynote Address does several things to appeal to the audience’s emotions and make her speech relatable to the everyday life of an American, which is why I think the rhetorical tenant context is one she uses very well.
She uses her own personal experiences to draw images out to the audiences of things they can imagine themselves doing; she elaborates on her relationship with her brother, who happened to introduce her; she talks about her relationship with her dad and the sacrifices he made for their family; and she ends with addressing “the man she fell in love with,” and what he has done for his family, and what he will do for the country.
One of my favorite parts of the speech was when she was discussing our blessings that have been “hard-won” by those who came before her. Her use of imagery in this section really allows the audience to feel what she is saying and she the people she is describing.
She uses the good-night kiss as a way of depicting what families work for to allow a present and a future for their children, saying “People who work the day shift, then kiss their kids good night and head out for the night shift without disappointment, without regret. See, that good-night kiss is a reminder of everything they're working for.”
She makes dreams tangible things that grow when she describes “People like Hillary Clinton -- who put those 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling so that our daughters and our sons can dream a little bigger and aim a little higher.”
She uses this imagery again in the main focus of her speech, which is to appeal to her audience, and the context she is in. She appeals to the audiences emotions and relates to them in describing a thread that connects our hearts, making us one nation that loves their country; “the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope. And you see, that is why I love this country.”
That is where I believe Michelle Obama was most successful in her speech; her use of rhetoric in order to create images in the audiences’ mind was consistent throughout the whole speech. Her words were aimed towards these people she was describing, fitting the context.
First Exercise CMJR 320
It seems that the argument about rhetoric being made in the Course Description is that it is a tool that can be used through different channels in such a way that persuades public opinion and policy. Because these arguments take many different forms, the idea that we will be analyzing several different articles suggests that there are several different strategies that are used in rhetoric in order to promote a way of thinking.
The use of rhetoric is a tool we all have; the way we utilize it is what gives it that power and influence.
The use of rhetoric is a tool we all have; the way we utilize it is what gives it that power and influence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)