Alan Sanders, director of behavior genetics at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, has suggested that 40% sexuality is determined by genes. Although just a suggestion, this would leave another 60% up for grabs. If assumed that the other 60% is environmental, or at least some of it is environmental, then that would pose the idea that sexuality is not an argument of one or the other, but rather a combination of the two. Both perspectives would be compromised and then forced to accept at least some of the other. I personally accept the idea of a combination when it comes to sexual choice. There are too many variables people encounter to just have one determinant in their preference. Even though this argument has no definitive answer, it is a conversation that has yet to leave the mainstream media. Homosexuality is a well-established co-culture of the United States. They live in society with everyone else, and expect to be treated as such. Whether biology is the main cause or environmental effects reign true, homosexuals would agree that their sexual preference is not a choice, but rather what feels 'correct' in their lifestyle. Sexuality is dynamic. Sexuality is also historic. Based on the person and their background, sexual preference is different for everyone.
http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/research.html
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
Body paragraph(s)
As science continues to advance, there is new evidence about homosexuality and its relation to the mind and body. Many scientists believe genetics has a large role in determining sexuality. This means that genes from either the father or mother, or both, determine whether or not an individual is gay. Supporters of this claim are often in favor of the belief that sexuality is inborn. In other words, heredity and genetics determines sexuality, an individual does not choose their own beliefs. Many studies have been done to try and observe a families genetic history, and most of the studies found the same thing; if there is such thing as a gay gene, then it is linked maternally. Heterosexual women would be a carrier of the gene and if received by a male offspring, they have the possibility of becoming gay. Studies have also linked the genetics between gay brothers. In the region of the X chromosome, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute in Washington D.C. observed that more than 66% of brothers had a similar genetic make up. This region, also known as Xq28, has not pointed out a specific gene in which the homosexuality trait is located, but there is overwhelming evidence that genetics has a large role in sexuality. As recent as 2006, studies have been done to support that claim that genetics and the X chromosome may be the main cause for sexuality. Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles, observed that "'when we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked.'" (2). Whereas the DSM used to view sexuality as a disease, everyday, researchers are getting closer and closer to proving that it is linked genetically.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
http://drdeborahserani.blogspot.com/2006/05/genetics-and-sexuality-gay-gene.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html
Of course, not everyone is a supporter of genetics. Environmentally, sexuality can change based on experiences and knowledge. Some believe that homosexuals opt to be gay, that there truly is a choice in their sexuality. There are 2 common environmental beliefs. Jean Foucault believes that sexuality is nothing more than the depth of desire, that superficial tastes and preferences determine preference (20). David Halperin not only disagrees with Foucault, but believes that homosexuality is deeper than superficial tastes and a psychological condition (20). Environmentalists that agree with Foucault also commonly accept individuals should not be broken up into categories, but that homosexuality is not always equal and influenced by 'superficial' tastes. He also supports the notion that homosexuality has not always been around, but was created "because we made it so'" (18). Supporters of Halperin believe the opposite, they believe that there are 3 different sexuality groups, heterosexual, gay men, and lesbians, and that homosexuality is an equal and symmetrical relationship level. Halperin also supports the idea that homosexuality is an accident, that it came around through error. Another reason many people support the environmental viewpoint is because of religion. Homosexuality is not openly accepted in all religions, and therefore receives negative connotations from these organizations. Homosexuality is seen as wrong and in many cases, a sin. Another famous environmental supporting theory is made by the famous Sigmund Freud. Freud suggested the possibility of innate sexuality, in other words the belief that humans are all born bisexually. Psychological development, both environmental and biological, develop your monosexuality. Homosexuality still elicits many questions that have not yet been solved, but environmental causes may answer a great deal of them. Although neither genetics nor environmental causes have been 100% proven, both seem to have an input on an individual.
Up until now, we have been talking about researchers, psychologists, and scientists. To fully understand what an individual is feeling, you must ask them and get inside of their head. Most gays agree on one thing; they feel that being either homosexual or bisexual was not a choice, but an inborn characteristic that they cannot change. Most homosexuals are proud of who they are. They are offended when you do not accept them as anyone else, for they believe that they are no different. Many homosexuals just want the same rights as heterosexuals have, and are in a constant battle for the fight against government and social discrimination. Jennifer Baumgardner expresses her opinion in an article of Bitch magazine. Jennifer is a feminist that writes journalism for both Ms. and the Nation. She is also a published author and has a son. She believes in certain morals such as self-identity and purity. She also emphasizes that homosexuals are very different in nature and there are no tell tale signs of sexuality. As she says, she doesn't believe that she looks gay, nor are her hair and fashion choices classically gay (51). You cannot characterize someone as gay, no matter how feminine or masculine, the clothes they wear, the people they are around, none of which are telltale signs. She finishes with saying, "I'm much more interested in art around these topics than the labels put on them, which I don't think convey much at all" (95). The labels commonly associated with homosexuality are often found offensive and misleading. These generalizations are often wrong and have little or nothing to do with deciding a person's sexuality. During my research, not a single article portrayed sexuality as being linked to acceptance, popularity, or peer pressure. Though some characteristics are common among certain groups, no specific traits have been tied to homosexuality. As Jennifer states, she wants to make sure her "self-worth remain[s] intact" (50). Everyone has a different appeal and the characteristics involved do not determine sexual preference.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
http://drdeborahserani.blogspot.com/2006/05/genetics-and-sexuality-gay-gene.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html
Of course, not everyone is a supporter of genetics. Environmentally, sexuality can change based on experiences and knowledge. Some believe that homosexuals opt to be gay, that there truly is a choice in their sexuality. There are 2 common environmental beliefs. Jean Foucault believes that sexuality is nothing more than the depth of desire, that superficial tastes and preferences determine preference (20). David Halperin not only disagrees with Foucault, but believes that homosexuality is deeper than superficial tastes and a psychological condition (20). Environmentalists that agree with Foucault also commonly accept individuals should not be broken up into categories, but that homosexuality is not always equal and influenced by 'superficial' tastes. He also supports the notion that homosexuality has not always been around, but was created "because we made it so'" (18). Supporters of Halperin believe the opposite, they believe that there are 3 different sexuality groups, heterosexual, gay men, and lesbians, and that homosexuality is an equal and symmetrical relationship level. Halperin also supports the idea that homosexuality is an accident, that it came around through error. Another reason many people support the environmental viewpoint is because of religion. Homosexuality is not openly accepted in all religions, and therefore receives negative connotations from these organizations. Homosexuality is seen as wrong and in many cases, a sin. Another famous environmental supporting theory is made by the famous Sigmund Freud. Freud suggested the possibility of innate sexuality, in other words the belief that humans are all born bisexually. Psychological development, both environmental and biological, develop your monosexuality. Homosexuality still elicits many questions that have not yet been solved, but environmental causes may answer a great deal of them. Although neither genetics nor environmental causes have been 100% proven, both seem to have an input on an individual.
Up until now, we have been talking about researchers, psychologists, and scientists. To fully understand what an individual is feeling, you must ask them and get inside of their head. Most gays agree on one thing; they feel that being either homosexual or bisexual was not a choice, but an inborn characteristic that they cannot change. Most homosexuals are proud of who they are. They are offended when you do not accept them as anyone else, for they believe that they are no different. Many homosexuals just want the same rights as heterosexuals have, and are in a constant battle for the fight against government and social discrimination. Jennifer Baumgardner expresses her opinion in an article of Bitch magazine. Jennifer is a feminist that writes journalism for both Ms. and the Nation. She is also a published author and has a son. She believes in certain morals such as self-identity and purity. She also emphasizes that homosexuals are very different in nature and there are no tell tale signs of sexuality. As she says, she doesn't believe that she looks gay, nor are her hair and fashion choices classically gay (51). You cannot characterize someone as gay, no matter how feminine or masculine, the clothes they wear, the people they are around, none of which are telltale signs. She finishes with saying, "I'm much more interested in art around these topics than the labels put on them, which I don't think convey much at all" (95). The labels commonly associated with homosexuality are often found offensive and misleading. These generalizations are often wrong and have little or nothing to do with deciding a person's sexuality. During my research, not a single article portrayed sexuality as being linked to acceptance, popularity, or peer pressure. Though some characteristics are common among certain groups, no specific traits have been tied to homosexuality. As Jennifer states, she wants to make sure her "self-worth remain[s] intact" (50). Everyone has a different appeal and the characteristics involved do not determine sexual preference.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Introductory Paragraph
My goal is the introduction.
As history has shown us, the only certain thing is change. There was a change when slavery was abolished, and a change when women got the right to vote. This same type of change is also seen today, with actions such as gay marriage. And all of this change is eventually understood and accepted because all people deserve equal rights, but the difference between now and then is the root of sexuality. Gender and race have always been large issues, but sexuality has only recently become a mainstream argument. Gays are now searching for new laws to be passed on their behalf, and most of all, want to be treated as equals. Between religion, science, and the government, homosexuality has become a new topic for debate in the United States. Of course the biggest interest to mainstream media related to the topic is what causes this change in sexuality. Between religion, science, and the government, homosexuality has become a new topic for debate in the United States. Many scientists argue that genetics is the main determinant for homosexuality, and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, biology probably has a large part to do with sexuality. On the other hand, the environment of an individual may also change a person's preference. Because both arguments have such great evidence, many would agree that sexuality is a combination of both.
I finished drafting my introduction. I need to move onto my first main body paragraph about biology.
As history has shown us, the only certain thing is change. There was a change when slavery was abolished, and a change when women got the right to vote. This same type of change is also seen today, with actions such as gay marriage. And all of this change is eventually understood and accepted because all people deserve equal rights, but the difference between now and then is the root of sexuality. Gender and race have always been large issues, but sexuality has only recently become a mainstream argument. Gays are now searching for new laws to be passed on their behalf, and most of all, want to be treated as equals. Between religion, science, and the government, homosexuality has become a new topic for debate in the United States. Of course the biggest interest to mainstream media related to the topic is what causes this change in sexuality. Between religion, science, and the government, homosexuality has become a new topic for debate in the United States. Many scientists argue that genetics is the main determinant for homosexuality, and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, biology probably has a large part to do with sexuality. On the other hand, the environment of an individual may also change a person's preference. Because both arguments have such great evidence, many would agree that sexuality is a combination of both.
I finished drafting my introduction. I need to move onto my first main body paragraph about biology.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Hey Magellan, it's exploring time!
Many scientists argue that genetics is the main determinant for homosexuality, and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, biology probably has a large part to do with sexuality. On the other hand, the environment of an individual may also change a person's preference. Because both arguments have such great evidence, many would agree that sexuality is a combination of both.
Biological
More and more evidence is being found support the claim that genetics is a main factor in sexual preference. In other animal species, tests have determined that sexuality can be decided by altering the nervous system. This argument sides with the idea of inborn sexuality, that sexuality is handed down from your parents DNA. Some scientists have suggested that even an infection, possibly early on in life, could be a determinant for sexuality. Other claims have to do with the size of the brain, or certain areas have slight mutations.
Environmental
There are many factors outside of direct science that can a person to change their sexuality. If environmental effects are proven true, supporters of the claim that sexuality is a choice will win the argument. One of the biggest environmental effects is religion, and the acceptance of individuals based on sexuality. Most religions of the world, and many of mainstream America, view homosexuality as a sin or negative action.
Gay's Views
Most individuals that are gay claim that they did not make the choice to be gay, but simply feel as if they are born differently from everyone else. Gay's also emphasize how others treat them more so than the issue of why they are gay. Many individuals are afraid to be themselves because of what homosexuality will classify them as. First hand accounts show homosexuals as powerful individuals that have the ability to make change. Many gays also believe that sexuality is a caused by a number of reasons, both environmental and biological.
My Views
I agree that more likely than not, sexuality is determined by many factors. I also believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that sexual preference should not hinder an individual, whether it be socially, politically, or any other issue. The ethics behind both arguments is what fuels the fire in this argument.
Biological
More and more evidence is being found support the claim that genetics is a main factor in sexual preference. In other animal species, tests have determined that sexuality can be decided by altering the nervous system. This argument sides with the idea of inborn sexuality, that sexuality is handed down from your parents DNA. Some scientists have suggested that even an infection, possibly early on in life, could be a determinant for sexuality. Other claims have to do with the size of the brain, or certain areas have slight mutations.
Environmental
There are many factors outside of direct science that can a person to change their sexuality. If environmental effects are proven true, supporters of the claim that sexuality is a choice will win the argument. One of the biggest environmental effects is religion, and the acceptance of individuals based on sexuality. Most religions of the world, and many of mainstream America, view homosexuality as a sin or negative action.
Gay's Views
Most individuals that are gay claim that they did not make the choice to be gay, but simply feel as if they are born differently from everyone else. Gay's also emphasize how others treat them more so than the issue of why they are gay. Many individuals are afraid to be themselves because of what homosexuality will classify them as. First hand accounts show homosexuals as powerful individuals that have the ability to make change. Many gays also believe that sexuality is a caused by a number of reasons, both environmental and biological.
My Views
I agree that more likely than not, sexuality is determined by many factors. I also believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and that sexual preference should not hinder an individual, whether it be socially, politically, or any other issue. The ethics behind both arguments is what fuels the fire in this argument.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Annotated Bibliography
Kosslyn, Stephen M. & Rosenberg, Robin S. "Sexual Orientation: More Than a Choice." Fundamentals of Psychology in Context (2007): 324-326.
There is evidence that male homosexuals have different brain structures than male heterosexuals. Studies show the hypothalamus may be different between the 2 types of sexuality. There is also evidence that women differ in certain parts of the neural system depending on sexuality. This article does not portray sexuality as a choice, but more so a biological difference.
Murphy, Timothy F. (Fall 2000). Now What? The Latest Theory of Homosexuality. Newsletter on Philosophy and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues, 00. 7/11/07, from http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/publications/newsletters/v00n1/lgbt/04.asp
In this article, Timothy Murphy introduces the idea that homosexuality could be caused be a microbial infection. If true, this theory would challenge the argument that homosexuality is genetically influenced. Murphy believes that if homosexuality is caused by a microbe, "that research could re-pathologize homosexuality and open the door to methods of prevention and treatment" (13). The research so far is not enough to support the claim, but it is a surprise to both scientists and social structures.
Daly, Meg. (2007, Fall). Bi-Rite. Bitch, 37, 48-51, 95.
In this article, Meg Daly interviews Jennifer Baumgardner, a feminist and author about bisexuality. She strongly believes that labels bring the homosexual and bisexual community down. She emphasises the purity of a relationship, no matter the sexuality involved. She also states that some women are afraid of being catagorized as lesbian and therefore have trouble being accepting of who they are or standing up for their sexuality. It is important to understand Jennifer's views because she is a first account of a modern day bisexual. She is a very good symbol of the gay community, for she has taken the criticism and anger very well, and lets what others say brush off her shoulder.
Morrison, Suzanne. (November 7th, 2007). Further Evidence that Genetics has a Role in Determining Sexual Orientation in Men. McMaster University. November 12, 2007 from http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/main/news/news_2007/sexual_orientation_genetics.html
Sandra Witelson, a doctor at McMaster University, has found new evidence that the size of the posterior corpus callosum may be related to sexuality. The callosum is larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual. What makes the information important is the idea that sexuality could be controlled biologically. The researchers were able to predict sexuality in 95 percent of their test subjects.
White, Jamie. (October 15, 2007). Scientists Alter Sexual Orientation in Worms. November 12, 2007 from http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=101207-1#Media_Contacts
University of Utah professors Jamie White and Erik Jorgensen have found a way to alter the sexual preference in nematode worms. Through altering the nervous system that is directly connected to the brain, they were able to control the sexuality of female worms to make them think and act like males. Although not conclusive in humans, “‘it raises the possibility that sexual preference is wired in the brain,’" Jorgensen says. The ethics are substantial if ever found to be the case in humans, for sexual preference could be altered by surgery.
There is evidence that male homosexuals have different brain structures than male heterosexuals. Studies show the hypothalamus may be different between the 2 types of sexuality. There is also evidence that women differ in certain parts of the neural system depending on sexuality. This article does not portray sexuality as a choice, but more so a biological difference.
Murphy, Timothy F. (Fall 2000). Now What? The Latest Theory of Homosexuality. Newsletter on Philosophy and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues, 00. 7/11/07, from http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/publications/newsletters/v00n1/lgbt/04.asp
In this article, Timothy Murphy introduces the idea that homosexuality could be caused be a microbial infection. If true, this theory would challenge the argument that homosexuality is genetically influenced. Murphy believes that if homosexuality is caused by a microbe, "that research could re-pathologize homosexuality and open the door to methods of prevention and treatment" (13). The research so far is not enough to support the claim, but it is a surprise to both scientists and social structures.
Daly, Meg. (2007, Fall). Bi-Rite. Bitch, 37, 48-51, 95.
In this article, Meg Daly interviews Jennifer Baumgardner, a feminist and author about bisexuality. She strongly believes that labels bring the homosexual and bisexual community down. She emphasises the purity of a relationship, no matter the sexuality involved. She also states that some women are afraid of being catagorized as lesbian and therefore have trouble being accepting of who they are or standing up for their sexuality. It is important to understand Jennifer's views because she is a first account of a modern day bisexual. She is a very good symbol of the gay community, for she has taken the criticism and anger very well, and lets what others say brush off her shoulder.
Morrison, Suzanne. (November 7th, 2007). Further Evidence that Genetics has a Role in Determining Sexual Orientation in Men. McMaster University. November 12, 2007 from http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/main/news/news_2007/sexual_orientation_genetics.html
Sandra Witelson, a doctor at McMaster University, has found new evidence that the size of the posterior corpus callosum may be related to sexuality. The callosum is larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual. What makes the information important is the idea that sexuality could be controlled biologically. The researchers were able to predict sexuality in 95 percent of their test subjects.
White, Jamie. (October 15, 2007). Scientists Alter Sexual Orientation in Worms. November 12, 2007 from http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=101207-1#Media_Contacts
University of Utah professors Jamie White and Erik Jorgensen have found a way to alter the sexual preference in nematode worms. Through altering the nervous system that is directly connected to the brain, they were able to control the sexuality of female worms to make them think and act like males. Although not conclusive in humans, “‘it raises the possibility that sexual preference is wired in the brain,’" Jorgensen says. The ethics are substantial if ever found to be the case in humans, for sexual preference could be altered by surgery.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Rolls 4 Re Surch Righting
Synthesizer of Current Best Thinking on a Problem.
What is the current view of experts on the causes of bisexuality/homosexuality?
What is the current view of experts on the solution/acceptance of bisexuality/homosexuality?
What is the current view of experts on the causes of bisexuality/homosexuality?
What is the current view of experts on the solution/acceptance of bisexuality/homosexuality?
How is your topic research so far? It is wonderful, thank you for asking.
So far I have been a little disappointed in finding sources that focus on the "both" issue involved with bisexuality and more so had luck with "either/or." The genetics and bisexuality is very interesting though, and leading me to a lot of interesting conclusions so far. It seems like most articles have to do with someone coming out or the issue of inborn/choice. I hope I can find more articles about why and how people embrace their bisexuality and what makes them bisexual.
Overall my research is interesting on how today's culture effects bisexuality, and how bisexuality effects culture.
The focus needs to continue to be maintained as to what causes this choice in modern society and if it can be "cured," as seeing that many individuals see it as a disease or deformity.
Overall my research is interesting on how today's culture effects bisexuality, and how bisexuality effects culture.
The focus needs to continue to be maintained as to what causes this choice in modern society and if it can be "cured," as seeing that many individuals see it as a disease or deformity.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI
http://www.glbtss.colostate.edu/faqs/might-be-bisexual.asp
http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=19110
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-544.htm
http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research/The_Genetics_of_Bisexuality.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=19110
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-544.htm
http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research/The_Genetics_of_Bisexuality.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
Monday, October 22, 2007
Secruos Laitnetop
Ask.com has showed some particularly good results for websites that show both sides on the issue of sexuality. I have a friend at DePaul University who is gay who might be able to help me understand his views on sexuality. I know he would be willing to complete a survey or list of questions. I have yet to visit the library, but I am sure that they have books related to sexuality and how culture may effect a persons decision to be gay, staight, or bisexual. The key terms are...
Sexuality
Bisexual
Genetics
Choice vs. Inborn (in terms of bisexuality, both)
It is important to remember that bisexuality is not either/or but a combination of both to create an acceptance of loving man and woman compared to man OR woman. Another important issue that can be remembered is that bisexuality has a long history. As far back as Ancient Greece, and possibly further back, there has been illustrations of sex between men and woman alike. This is not a new issue, just one that is still not fully understood. Genetics play another important role involved in sexuality. Scientists have descovered many chromasomal variants between gay, straight, and bisexual. Religion can also play a role in what is seen as acceptable. Many individuals make decisions based on their religion or even how they will be viewed by their community. Is bisexuality determined by genetics, religion, hormones, choice, social factors, or could it be a combination of all of these and more?
Sexuality
Bisexual
Genetics
Choice vs. Inborn (in terms of bisexuality, both)
It is important to remember that bisexuality is not either/or but a combination of both to create an acceptance of loving man and woman compared to man OR woman. Another important issue that can be remembered is that bisexuality has a long history. As far back as Ancient Greece, and possibly further back, there has been illustrations of sex between men and woman alike. This is not a new issue, just one that is still not fully understood. Genetics play another important role involved in sexuality. Scientists have descovered many chromasomal variants between gay, straight, and bisexual. Religion can also play a role in what is seen as acceptable. Many individuals make decisions based on their religion or even how they will be viewed by their community. Is bisexuality determined by genetics, religion, hormones, choice, social factors, or could it be a combination of all of these and more?
Friday, October 19, 2007
Research Topic Audience
An essay about this topic can be read by anyone. I think any person interested in sexuality or sexual preference would find this paper interesting.
The purpose of this paper is to educate readers the argument of bisexuality and sexuality. It will help the reader understand whether or not genetics are involved in the decision making process of sexuality.
The purpose of this paper is to educate readers the argument of bisexuality and sexuality. It will help the reader understand whether or not genetics are involved in the decision making process of sexuality.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
1. Do people choose to be bisexual or is it inborn?
2. One of my friends is bisexual. Plus, I have heard from certain people that are bi that it is inborn and from others that it is their choice.
3. I think that some people choose to do it, but for certain individuals it is inborn and they feel as if they don't have a choice.
4.The reason I am interested about this topic is because I don't know much about it other than maybe seeing an episode of Oprah focused on it. I am also interested in how genetics may be connected to bisexuality.
5. I think one major aspect will be biology. The other will be religion/morals.
6. I might be able to interview someone who is bisexual.
Do people choose to be bisexual or is it inborn?
2. One of my friends is bisexual. Plus, I have heard from certain people that are bi that it is inborn and from others that it is their choice.
3. I think that some people choose to do it, but for certain individuals it is inborn and they feel as if they don't have a choice.
4.The reason I am interested about this topic is because I don't know much about it other than maybe seeing an episode of Oprah focused on it. I am also interested in how genetics may be connected to bisexuality.
5. I think one major aspect will be biology. The other will be religion/morals.
6. I might be able to interview someone who is bisexual.
Do people choose to be bisexual or is it inborn?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Answer these questions three.
Should unapproved drugs be made available as a last resort to patients with conditions for which conventional treatments are known to be ineffective?
Do firearms have an impact on the suicide rate in the United States?
Does the Internet make markets more competitive?
Do people choose to be bisexual or is it inborn?
Do firearms have an impact on the suicide rate in the United States?
Does the Internet make markets more competitive?
Do people choose to be bisexual or is it inborn?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Title
Tyler Matz
9/18/07
English 106-03
Dr. O’Rourke
Behind the Music: Should Downloading Music Be Free?
Sure, downloading music without paying for it is illegal, but everybody does it! Most people see not paying for music like a white lie, something not to be talked about and no difficulties will ever arise from it. Plus, do the artists really need you to pay $.99 for every song? According to Professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee, recent statistics have shown that file-sharing programs have yet to affect the music industry negatively. But just because the industry hasn’t shown a large fluctuation yet doesn’t discard the argument of whether or not file sharing is right or wrong. Legally, it is a basic copyright infringement and not debatable in the judicial system. Artists have the right to charge money for their music, or give it out completely free. So does file-sharing violate the law and steal money from recording artists, or does it have a positive effect on the outcome of records sold?
In most studies, file-sharing programs have been found to benefit the record industry. According to Oberholzer-Gee’s studies, “file sharing actually boosts sales.” Popular songs that are downloaded frequently actually have seen an increase in record sales. A study in 2002, according to David McGuire, showed that people who use file-sharing programs are “75 percent more likely than average online music fans to spend more money on music.” This is because most users rip music only as a sample, to tell whether they like the CD. After being able to sample and test the new music, users are more likely to purchase the record from a store or sister downloading site.
On the other hand, music that is less mainstream has lost sales. For albums that appeal to a smaller audience, “the Internet may contribute to declining sales” (McGuire). This is a major issue with many people who are involved in the underground or new age music scene. As an artist or band tries to make a name for itself, it is hard to find profits from a recording if listeners are able to download their music illegally. Not to mention, “the singles market has been virtually annihilated” (Boorstin 16). Now that users frequently download popular radio singles, the industry for album singles has literally fallen apart. It has become impossible for record companies to sell singles in recent years, and that is a contributing factor why total music business sales has decreased.
Believe it or not, technology has actually induced a scare in the music world prior to the Internet. Now a common source of entertainment, broadcast in HD, and streaming new music, the radio produced similar concerns when it first entered the airwaves. The radio became a way for record companies to introduce new and exciting music and influence the listener to purchase the music they are listening to. Now that large companies control radio, as Boorstin says, “there is a perception that new music has no chance unless it is backed by a major label that already has a good relationship with the stations, and has the obvious widespread appeal needed by a corporation spanning many markets.” Since the radio has been accepted as a widespread technological breakthrough, the exact opposite of what was hypothesized has actually happened. The radio is now used more so as a device to help filter, control, and ultimately boost sales for the music industry. The same opportunity is presented with file sharing programs. New bands have the ability to easily spread their music for absolutely no cost. File sharing also promotes certain singles and genres of music. Individuals become engaged in the music and respect the artists through file sharing, just as they have learned to do with the radio.
Now even though units of merchandise and dollars of merchandise shipped have seen a large decline in recent years, there are many reasons for the decrease. Boorstin believes that people think “CD prices are too high.” He believes that part of the decline in recent music business sales is from markups in compact disc pricing. This could be another reason that users are turning to file-sharing programs, because they do not want to spend $18 on a CD unless they know they like it.
9/18/07
English 106-03
Dr. O’Rourke
Behind the Music: Should Downloading Music Be Free?
Sure, downloading music without paying for it is illegal, but everybody does it! Most people see not paying for music like a white lie, something not to be talked about and no difficulties will ever arise from it. Plus, do the artists really need you to pay $.99 for every song? According to Professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee, recent statistics have shown that file-sharing programs have yet to affect the music industry negatively. But just because the industry hasn’t shown a large fluctuation yet doesn’t discard the argument of whether or not file sharing is right or wrong. Legally, it is a basic copyright infringement and not debatable in the judicial system. Artists have the right to charge money for their music, or give it out completely free. So does file-sharing violate the law and steal money from recording artists, or does it have a positive effect on the outcome of records sold?
In most studies, file-sharing programs have been found to benefit the record industry. According to Oberholzer-Gee’s studies, “file sharing actually boosts sales.” Popular songs that are downloaded frequently actually have seen an increase in record sales. A study in 2002, according to David McGuire, showed that people who use file-sharing programs are “75 percent more likely than average online music fans to spend more money on music.” This is because most users rip music only as a sample, to tell whether they like the CD. After being able to sample and test the new music, users are more likely to purchase the record from a store or sister downloading site.
On the other hand, music that is less mainstream has lost sales. For albums that appeal to a smaller audience, “the Internet may contribute to declining sales” (McGuire). This is a major issue with many people who are involved in the underground or new age music scene. As an artist or band tries to make a name for itself, it is hard to find profits from a recording if listeners are able to download their music illegally. Not to mention, “the singles market has been virtually annihilated” (Boorstin 16). Now that users frequently download popular radio singles, the industry for album singles has literally fallen apart. It has become impossible for record companies to sell singles in recent years, and that is a contributing factor why total music business sales has decreased.
Believe it or not, technology has actually induced a scare in the music world prior to the Internet. Now a common source of entertainment, broadcast in HD, and streaming new music, the radio produced similar concerns when it first entered the airwaves. The radio became a way for record companies to introduce new and exciting music and influence the listener to purchase the music they are listening to. Now that large companies control radio, as Boorstin says, “there is a perception that new music has no chance unless it is backed by a major label that already has a good relationship with the stations, and has the obvious widespread appeal needed by a corporation spanning many markets.” Since the radio has been accepted as a widespread technological breakthrough, the exact opposite of what was hypothesized has actually happened. The radio is now used more so as a device to help filter, control, and ultimately boost sales for the music industry. The same opportunity is presented with file sharing programs. New bands have the ability to easily spread their music for absolutely no cost. File sharing also promotes certain singles and genres of music. Individuals become engaged in the music and respect the artists through file sharing, just as they have learned to do with the radio.
Now even though units of merchandise and dollars of merchandise shipped have seen a large decline in recent years, there are many reasons for the decrease. Boorstin believes that people think “CD prices are too high.” He believes that part of the decline in recent music business sales is from markups in compact disc pricing. This could be another reason that users are turning to file-sharing programs, because they do not want to spend $18 on a CD unless they know they like it.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Some people like it ROUGH!
This is a rough, very rough copy of my sythesis paper.
Sure, downloading music without paying for it is illegal, but everybody does it! Most people see not paying for music like a white lie, something not to be talked about and no difficulties will ever arise from it. Plus, do the artists really need you to pay $.99 for every song? According to Professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee, recent statistics have shown that file sharing programs have yet to affect the music industry negatively. But just because the industry hasn’t shown a large fluctuation yet doesn’t discard the argument of whether or not file sharing is right or wrong. Legally, it is a basic copyright infringement and not debatable in the judicial system. Artists have the right to charge money for their music, or give it out completely free.
In most studies, file sharing programs have actually benefited the record industry. According to Oberholzer-Gee’s studies, “file sharing actually boosts sales.” Popular songs that are downloaded frequently actually have seen an increase in record sales. A study in 2002, conducted by Jupiter, showed that people who use file sharing programs are “75 percent more likely than average online music fans to spend more money on music.”
On the other hand, music that is less mainstream has lost sales. For albums that appeal to a smaller audience, “the Internet may contribute to declining sales” (McGuire). Not to mention, “the singles market has been virtually annihilated” (Boorstin 16).
Believe it or not, technology has actually induced a scare into the music world previously to the internet. Now a common source of entertainment, broadcast in HD, and streaming new music, the radio produced similar concerns when it first entered the airwaves. The radio became a way for record companies to introduce new and exciting music and influence the listener to purchase the music they are listening to. Now that large companies control radio, as Boorstin says, “there is a perception that new music has no chance unless it is backed by a major label that already has a good relationship with the stations, and has the obvious widespread appeal needed by a corporation spanning many markets.” Since the radio has been accepted as a widespread technological breakthrough, the exact opposite of what was hypothesized has actually happened. The radio is now used more so as a device to help filter, control, and ultimately boost sales for the music industry. The same opportunity is presented with file sharing programs. New bands have the ability to easily spread their music for absolutely no cost. File sharing also promotes certain singles and genres of music. Individuals become engaged in the music and respect the artists through file sharing, just as they have learned to do with the radio.
Now even though units of merchandise and dollars of merchandise shipped have seen a large decline in recent years, there are many reasons for the decrease.
Sure, downloading music without paying for it is illegal, but everybody does it! Most people see not paying for music like a white lie, something not to be talked about and no difficulties will ever arise from it. Plus, do the artists really need you to pay $.99 for every song? According to Professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee, recent statistics have shown that file sharing programs have yet to affect the music industry negatively. But just because the industry hasn’t shown a large fluctuation yet doesn’t discard the argument of whether or not file sharing is right or wrong. Legally, it is a basic copyright infringement and not debatable in the judicial system. Artists have the right to charge money for their music, or give it out completely free.
In most studies, file sharing programs have actually benefited the record industry. According to Oberholzer-Gee’s studies, “file sharing actually boosts sales.” Popular songs that are downloaded frequently actually have seen an increase in record sales. A study in 2002, conducted by Jupiter, showed that people who use file sharing programs are “75 percent more likely than average online music fans to spend more money on music.”
On the other hand, music that is less mainstream has lost sales. For albums that appeal to a smaller audience, “the Internet may contribute to declining sales” (McGuire). Not to mention, “the singles market has been virtually annihilated” (Boorstin 16).
Believe it or not, technology has actually induced a scare into the music world previously to the internet. Now a common source of entertainment, broadcast in HD, and streaming new music, the radio produced similar concerns when it first entered the airwaves. The radio became a way for record companies to introduce new and exciting music and influence the listener to purchase the music they are listening to. Now that large companies control radio, as Boorstin says, “there is a perception that new music has no chance unless it is backed by a major label that already has a good relationship with the stations, and has the obvious widespread appeal needed by a corporation spanning many markets.” Since the radio has been accepted as a widespread technological breakthrough, the exact opposite of what was hypothesized has actually happened. The radio is now used more so as a device to help filter, control, and ultimately boost sales for the music industry. The same opportunity is presented with file sharing programs. New bands have the ability to easily spread their music for absolutely no cost. File sharing also promotes certain singles and genres of music. Individuals become engaged in the music and respect the artists through file sharing, just as they have learned to do with the radio.
Now even though units of merchandise and dollars of merchandise shipped have seen a large decline in recent years, there are many reasons for the decrease.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Summary? Indeed.
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/boorstin-thesis.pdf
Many people believe that file sharing has completely changed the face of the music industry, and much of the entertainment business for that matter. Many people are also correct. The apparent change is not arguable, but what the change has done for the music industry certainly is. Eric S. Boorstin, a student of Princeton University, shows both arguments in his essay Music Sales in the Age of File Sharing. Boorstin gives a brief introduction of the music industry and the technology involved. File sharing, now a common part of Internet society, is a fairly new program that allows users to swap program files; most often these files are shared without any fees. As early as 1999, Napster had created a program specifically designed to chare music. Within a year, the record companies began lawsuits of copyright infringement. Nowadays, most programs associated with file sharing either cost money or are illegal. But was it necessarily bad that the file sharing program came about legally, or did it only wreck the music industry? Statistics support both sides. Some believe that file sharing increases popularity and makes it easier to get music to the general public. It is also a way to cheaply distribute songs, instead of handing out cds. Since these programs became readily available, the "singles" market has ceased to exist. And not only has the "singles" market died, but "total album shipments and total sale of music products peaked in 1999 and declined through 2003." But Boorstin also argues that the entire economy has been down in recent years, especially since September 11th, 2001. He also contests that the real dollar amount spent on music merchandise had a greated decline from 1978 to 1982 than it has since 1999. There is also the issue of music genres and a gradual change in popularity. More than ever, adults over the age of 35 have reported that they are less interested in current music than ever before. Boorstin also states that as music has become more portable, cassettes and cds have continuelly declined in demand. Overall, Boorstin shows both side of the argument, stating mostly statistics and quotations from other people's opinions.
Many people believe that file sharing has completely changed the face of the music industry, and much of the entertainment business for that matter. Many people are also correct. The apparent change is not arguable, but what the change has done for the music industry certainly is. Eric S. Boorstin, a student of Princeton University, shows both arguments in his essay Music Sales in the Age of File Sharing. Boorstin gives a brief introduction of the music industry and the technology involved. File sharing, now a common part of Internet society, is a fairly new program that allows users to swap program files; most often these files are shared without any fees. As early as 1999, Napster had created a program specifically designed to chare music. Within a year, the record companies began lawsuits of copyright infringement. Nowadays, most programs associated with file sharing either cost money or are illegal. But was it necessarily bad that the file sharing program came about legally, or did it only wreck the music industry? Statistics support both sides. Some believe that file sharing increases popularity and makes it easier to get music to the general public. It is also a way to cheaply distribute songs, instead of handing out cds. Since these programs became readily available, the "singles" market has ceased to exist. And not only has the "singles" market died, but "total album shipments and total sale of music products peaked in 1999 and declined through 2003." But Boorstin also argues that the entire economy has been down in recent years, especially since September 11th, 2001. He also contests that the real dollar amount spent on music merchandise had a greated decline from 1978 to 1982 than it has since 1999. There is also the issue of music genres and a gradual change in popularity. More than ever, adults over the age of 35 have reported that they are less interested in current music than ever before. Boorstin also states that as music has become more portable, cassettes and cds have continuelly declined in demand. Overall, Boorstin shows both side of the argument, stating mostly statistics and quotations from other people's opinions.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Some sources...
http://tecom.cox.smu.edu/esnir/SnirRecordIndustry.pdf
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/boorstin-thesis.pdf
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/800000/792707/p107-bhattacharjee.html?key1=792707&key2=2485521911&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE,ACM&CFID=37162275&CFTOKEN=94392876
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/boorstin-thesis.pdf
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/800000/792707/p107-bhattacharjee.html?key1=792707&key2=2485521911&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE,ACM&CFID=37162275&CFTOKEN=94392876
Sunday, September 30, 2007
In other words, metacommentary.
As technology continues to advance, computers become more and more apart of everyones' lives. Computer provide fast information in a convenient and easy process. Stoll believes that a computer cannot replace books or a convincing teacher. Ohman also believes that computers are overrated for the classroom, but takes a separate viewpoint of Stoll. Ohman focuses more so on the business aspect and the industry forcing the sale of computers on school systems.
Stoll tells us that computers feed the user nonsense and entertainment instead of providing an alternative research method. He is convinced that computer are no more helpful than the nonsense involved in filmstrips. He sees both technological advancements "of dubious educational value." In other words, he believes learning does not take place through technology but through interaction of student and teacher. If computers took over completely, then the institution of school and interaction between students would be lost. Stoll also presents the idea that plagarism is easier with computers. It shows students to use a "copy-and-paste attitude" when approaching research and papers. Stoll cannot accept the new wave, or should I say, present wave of technology, because he believes teachers are the only adequete way to get information to the youth. Richard Ohman feels the same way as Stoll does about computers, but not for the same reasons. He believes the integration of the computer is due to "expansionism on the part of capital." More or less, technology is being pushed onto schools across the country due to the profit in big business. The consumer continues to comply with technological demands, and big businesses around the world profit from a so-called 'school necessity.' Consumers are being tricked into buying what they believe helps, when in reality households are spending too much money on an unsubstantial technology. He shares Stoll's opinion that computers are more of a distraction in class than a benefit.
Unfortunately for these two gentlemen, computers are going to be apart of schooling from here on out. And whether you hate it or love it, everyone should learn to embrace it. Essentially, I am arguing that society has accepted the computer as a academic advancement. Computers, for the expenses and confusion that they cause, truly do have benefits in a students work environment. Internet and email makes communication extremely simple. Not only can a student contact their teacher at any time, but parents have the opportunity to contact an elementary school teacher when necessary. Computers also ready students for the real world. Even more important, most jobs in the world today are becoming computer-based and a student should understand the technology necessary for their life. These are life skills that should be developed early on. Information has also become more readily available due to the advancement of the internet. Students are able to cite sources much more easily than sitting in a library and searching through hundreds of books. Computers may be a distraction, but either way they are here to stay.
Stoll tells us that computers feed the user nonsense and entertainment instead of providing an alternative research method. He is convinced that computer are no more helpful than the nonsense involved in filmstrips. He sees both technological advancements "of dubious educational value." In other words, he believes learning does not take place through technology but through interaction of student and teacher. If computers took over completely, then the institution of school and interaction between students would be lost. Stoll also presents the idea that plagarism is easier with computers. It shows students to use a "copy-and-paste attitude" when approaching research and papers. Stoll cannot accept the new wave, or should I say, present wave of technology, because he believes teachers are the only adequete way to get information to the youth. Richard Ohman feels the same way as Stoll does about computers, but not for the same reasons. He believes the integration of the computer is due to "expansionism on the part of capital." More or less, technology is being pushed onto schools across the country due to the profit in big business. The consumer continues to comply with technological demands, and big businesses around the world profit from a so-called 'school necessity.' Consumers are being tricked into buying what they believe helps, when in reality households are spending too much money on an unsubstantial technology. He shares Stoll's opinion that computers are more of a distraction in class than a benefit.
Unfortunately for these two gentlemen, computers are going to be apart of schooling from here on out. And whether you hate it or love it, everyone should learn to embrace it. Essentially, I am arguing that society has accepted the computer as a academic advancement. Computers, for the expenses and confusion that they cause, truly do have benefits in a students work environment. Internet and email makes communication extremely simple. Not only can a student contact their teacher at any time, but parents have the opportunity to contact an elementary school teacher when necessary. Computers also ready students for the real world. Even more important, most jobs in the world today are becoming computer-based and a student should understand the technology necessary for their life. These are life skills that should be developed early on. Information has also become more readily available due to the advancement of the internet. Students are able to cite sources much more easily than sitting in a library and searching through hundreds of books. Computers may be a distraction, but either way they are here to stay.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
So what?! Who cares?!?! (Not I said the fly)
...but through interaction of student and teacher.
Who cares?
If computers took over completely, then the institution of school and interaction between students would be lost.
The consumer continues to comply with technological demands, and big businesses around the world profit from a so-called 'school necessity.'
So what?
Consumers are being tricked into buying what they believe helps, when in reality households are spending too much money on an unsubstantial technology.
Who cares?
If computers took over completely, then the institution of school and interaction between students would be lost.
The consumer continues to comply with technological demands, and big businesses around the world profit from a so-called 'school necessity.'
So what?
Consumers are being tricked into buying what they believe helps, when in reality households are spending too much money on an unsubstantial technology.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Synthesis
As technology continues to advance, computers become more and more apart of everyones' lives. Computer provide fast information in a convenient and easy process. Stoll believes that a computer cannot replace books or a convincing teacher. Ohman also believes that computers are overrated for the classroom, but takes a separate viewpoint of Stoll. Ohman focuses more so on the business aspect and the industry forcing the sale of computers on school systems.
Stoll tells us that computers feed the user nonsense and entertainment instead of providing an alternative research method. He is convinced that computer are no more helpful than the nonsense involved in filmstrips. He sees both technological advancements "of dubious educational value." He believes learning does not take place through technology but through interaction of student and teacher. Stoll also presents the idea that plagarism is easier with computers. It shows students to use a "copy-and-paste attitude" when approaching research and papers. Stoll cannot accept the new wave, or should I say, present wave of technology, because he believes teachers are the only adequete way to get information to the youth. Richard Ohman feels the same way as Stoll does about computers, but not for the same reasons. He believes the integration of the computer is due to "expansionism on the part of capital." More or less, technology is being pushed onto schools across the country due to the profit in big business. The consumer continues to comply with technological demands, and big businesses around the world profit from a so-called 'school necessity.' He shares Stoll's opinion that computers are more of a distraction in class than a benefit.
Unfortunately for these two gentlemen, computers are going to be apart of schooling from here on out. And whether you hate it or love it, everyone should learn to embrace it. Computers, for the expenses and confusion that they cause, truly do have benefits in a students work environment. Internet and email makes communication extremely simple. Not only can a student contact their teacher at any time, but parents have the opportunity to contact an elementary school teacher when necessary. Computers also ready students for the real world. Most jobs in the world today are becoming computer-based and a student should understand the technology necessary for their life. These are life skills that should be developed early on. Information has also become more readily available due to the advancement of the internet. Students are able to cite sources much more easily than sitting in a library and searching through hundreds of books. Computers may be a distraction, but either way they are here to stay.
Stoll tells us that computers feed the user nonsense and entertainment instead of providing an alternative research method. He is convinced that computer are no more helpful than the nonsense involved in filmstrips. He sees both technological advancements "of dubious educational value." He believes learning does not take place through technology but through interaction of student and teacher. Stoll also presents the idea that plagarism is easier with computers. It shows students to use a "copy-and-paste attitude" when approaching research and papers. Stoll cannot accept the new wave, or should I say, present wave of technology, because he believes teachers are the only adequete way to get information to the youth. Richard Ohman feels the same way as Stoll does about computers, but not for the same reasons. He believes the integration of the computer is due to "expansionism on the part of capital." More or less, technology is being pushed onto schools across the country due to the profit in big business. The consumer continues to comply with technological demands, and big businesses around the world profit from a so-called 'school necessity.' He shares Stoll's opinion that computers are more of a distraction in class than a benefit.
Unfortunately for these two gentlemen, computers are going to be apart of schooling from here on out. And whether you hate it or love it, everyone should learn to embrace it. Computers, for the expenses and confusion that they cause, truly do have benefits in a students work environment. Internet and email makes communication extremely simple. Not only can a student contact their teacher at any time, but parents have the opportunity to contact an elementary school teacher when necessary. Computers also ready students for the real world. Most jobs in the world today are becoming computer-based and a student should understand the technology necessary for their life. These are life skills that should be developed early on. Information has also become more readily available due to the advancement of the internet. Students are able to cite sources much more easily than sitting in a library and searching through hundreds of books. Computers may be a distraction, but either way they are here to stay.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Un oracion
Sythesis statement
Both Ohmann and Stoll believe that computers do not advance learning in the classroom.
Outline
Computers are good:
-They offer fast and simple communication outside of the classroom
-Keep up with the real world and jobs using technological advancements
-Research is readily available and easy to access on internet
Computers are bad:
-Do not allow for information to be presented with emotion
-Plagiarism is a bigger issue when using computers
-Big businesses are changing schools for monetary purposes
Stoll and Ohmann make similar arguments, but they do have different points. They are easily relatable and passages from both can be used almost interchangeably. Ohmann clearly focuses more on the business aspect. Stoll thinks that technology in the classroom is a hindrance. They both then find share the belief that technology is inevitable but teachers will and should put it off as long as possible.
Both Ohmann and Stoll believe that computers do not advance learning in the classroom.
Outline
Computers are good:
-They offer fast and simple communication outside of the classroom
-Keep up with the real world and jobs using technological advancements
-Research is readily available and easy to access on internet
Computers are bad:
-Do not allow for information to be presented with emotion
-Plagiarism is a bigger issue when using computers
-Big businesses are changing schools for monetary purposes
Stoll and Ohmann make similar arguments, but they do have different points. They are easily relatable and passages from both can be used almost interchangeably. Ohmann clearly focuses more on the business aspect. Stoll thinks that technology in the classroom is a hindrance. They both then find share the belief that technology is inevitable but teachers will and should put it off as long as possible.
Kompuders and Teknolidgy
As America continues to find new advancements in technology, the question is posed on whether it is necessary to have teachers and the classic classroom setting. This article sides with teachers over technology. Computers are able to present information in new and exciting ways, instead of the old black and white text with pictures in the corners of the textbook. Computers also allow students and teachers to communicate much more easily than the past. Computers also open negatives, such as an easy ability to plagarize work. So far, studies have shown that computers haven't actually helped studying and test scores. Ohmann believes that teachers will just be confused with the technology and do anything in their power to work around it.
I think that technology should be embraced, but Ohmann makes a good point. Teachers are completely necessary to learning. Even if all the same information can be presented on the computer that can be in the classroom, you will never get the first hand experience from the teacher. On a computer, you cannot get the emotion and importance of certain subjects unless a real person teaches you.
I think that technology should be embraced, but Ohmann makes a good point. Teachers are completely necessary to learning. Even if all the same information can be presented on the computer that can be in the classroom, you will never get the first hand experience from the teacher. On a computer, you cannot get the emotion and importance of certain subjects unless a real person teaches you.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Hidden Intellectualism
In his article "Hidden Intellectualism," Gerald Graff criticizes those that do not put value into "street smarts." Graff insists that knowledge goes far beyond academic learning and continues into the everyday world.
As a child, Graff always looked for a happy medium between brawn and brain. As Graff describes, he felt "the need to prove I was smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well." In a culture that values sports and entertainment, Gerald knew he would face ridicule if academic subjects became his main point of interest. Gerald believes that academic knowledge can be a hindrance to social life and continues to argue that sports are a much better topic to be interested in. Because football and baseball statistics became his center of interest, sports became the topic of conversation between him and his friends. Instead of talking about chemistry, Graff found himself in arguments about who should be the next MVP. Little did Graff realize, conversation with his friends helped develop analysis, summaries, generalizations, and "other intellectualizing operations."
After coming to an understanding of what these conversations helped Graff establish, the idea that "the sports world was more compelling than school because it was more intellectual than school, not less" began to surface in his mind. Graff then pleads the reader to take interesting topics unrelated to school and look at them "through academic eyes." In other wards, Graff essentially conveys the idea of taking street smart topics and turning them into intellectual debates. His stance portrays a culture that incorporates common subjects to be discussed and viewed in different ways.
Graff's theory of street smarts is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of social life being excluded from academic situations, but this is not to say that street smarts is more important than academic knowledge. When Graff contests that subjects should be seen through "academic eyes," he has truly struck on an important idea. Incorporating both social and academic importance's can open a new world of opportunity to the student. If scholars are given the option to write research topics of interest, then not only will they be able to attain the benefits of knowledge in the classroom but also learn about subjects related to their social lives. When I took senior composition in high school, my first reaction to writing and eight-page research paper was dread and fear. No one in their right mind wants to put together an essay of strung together facts and slight opinions, especially when they have to keep the reader interested through out the entire process. Then I learned that the paper was on a topic of our own choice. Immediately, my opinion changed for the positive and I imagines all of the opportunities of writing about something I enjoyed. Needless to say, my paper was eleven pages long and one of the most well constructed articles on music that I could have written.
Even though Graff finds a way to utilize schoolwork and social activities, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that social toughness outweighs classroom understand. I can accept that the two are on a n equal playing field, but the importance of academic knowledge should continued to be stressed on the youth. When it comes to career success, there is no argument that ACT scores and GPA can affect the outcome of your life. Whether it be a radio commercial or television advertisement, everyone has heard the saying that 'on average, people who get a college degree make a million more dollars than people who don't.' The emphasis is evident, but for a purpose. Graff minimizes the importance of grades. The reality behind the situation is simple; if you get good grades, you can get into a good school and then a good job. Seemingly, the best of both worlds would be to get high marks in school and still enjoy the material that is being presented to you, but if the opportunities are not presented to enjoy schoolwork, then you shouldn't succumb to failure. Some ideas are important to grasp, whether they have the student shouting from the rooftops in enjoyment or frustration. Just because Graff's idea of "academic eyes" does not pertain to every subject, the important thing is that we remember to incorporate it when we can, but strive to understand what is mandatory.
As a child, Graff always looked for a happy medium between brawn and brain. As Graff describes, he felt "the need to prove I was smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well." In a culture that values sports and entertainment, Gerald knew he would face ridicule if academic subjects became his main point of interest. Gerald believes that academic knowledge can be a hindrance to social life and continues to argue that sports are a much better topic to be interested in. Because football and baseball statistics became his center of interest, sports became the topic of conversation between him and his friends. Instead of talking about chemistry, Graff found himself in arguments about who should be the next MVP. Little did Graff realize, conversation with his friends helped develop analysis, summaries, generalizations, and "other intellectualizing operations."
After coming to an understanding of what these conversations helped Graff establish, the idea that "the sports world was more compelling than school because it was more intellectual than school, not less" began to surface in his mind. Graff then pleads the reader to take interesting topics unrelated to school and look at them "through academic eyes." In other wards, Graff essentially conveys the idea of taking street smart topics and turning them into intellectual debates. His stance portrays a culture that incorporates common subjects to be discussed and viewed in different ways.
Graff's theory of street smarts is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of social life being excluded from academic situations, but this is not to say that street smarts is more important than academic knowledge. When Graff contests that subjects should be seen through "academic eyes," he has truly struck on an important idea. Incorporating both social and academic importance's can open a new world of opportunity to the student. If scholars are given the option to write research topics of interest, then not only will they be able to attain the benefits of knowledge in the classroom but also learn about subjects related to their social lives. When I took senior composition in high school, my first reaction to writing and eight-page research paper was dread and fear. No one in their right mind wants to put together an essay of strung together facts and slight opinions, especially when they have to keep the reader interested through out the entire process. Then I learned that the paper was on a topic of our own choice. Immediately, my opinion changed for the positive and I imagines all of the opportunities of writing about something I enjoyed. Needless to say, my paper was eleven pages long and one of the most well constructed articles on music that I could have written.
Even though Graff finds a way to utilize schoolwork and social activities, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that social toughness outweighs classroom understand. I can accept that the two are on a n equal playing field, but the importance of academic knowledge should continued to be stressed on the youth. When it comes to career success, there is no argument that ACT scores and GPA can affect the outcome of your life. Whether it be a radio commercial or television advertisement, everyone has heard the saying that 'on average, people who get a college degree make a million more dollars than people who don't.' The emphasis is evident, but for a purpose. Graff minimizes the importance of grades. The reality behind the situation is simple; if you get good grades, you can get into a good school and then a good job. Seemingly, the best of both worlds would be to get high marks in school and still enjoy the material that is being presented to you, but if the opportunities are not presented to enjoy schoolwork, then you shouldn't succumb to failure. Some ideas are important to grasp, whether they have the student shouting from the rooftops in enjoyment or frustration. Just because Graff's idea of "academic eyes" does not pertain to every subject, the important thing is that we remember to incorporate it when we can, but strive to understand what is mandatory.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Hidden Intellectualism Summary
In Gerald Graff's Hidden Intellectualism, Graff attests that intellect does not only exist in the scholarly form of thinking. Graff insists that knowledge can also take the form of "street smarts."
Graff uses his own experiences in his childhood to help form his argument. Graff tells about his disinterest in traditional academic subjects, and further elaborates on his love of sports. Growing up in Chicago, Graff suggests academic knowledge is a hindrance in social life, as anti-intellectualism ran rampant during his childhood, as it does today. Graff describes a saddening story of growing up torn "between the need to prove I was smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well." An intolerance of superiority amongst the youth caused a sort of internal conflict of brain versus brawn. As Graff aged, the "brawn" side of this heated debate was victorious. Little did he know, conversation with his friends helped develop analysis, arguments, generalizations, summaries and "other intellectualizing operations."
Due to the conversations involving his friends, Graff believes that "street smarts" overpower "book smarts" for the fact that both community and culture thirst more for sports and entertainment than for academic subjects. Subjects delegated in schoolwork were topics of isolation amoung pupils, opposed to batting averages and winning percentages during the major league baseball playoffs being a common article for discussion. Graff pleads the reader to take interesting topics that may be unrelated to school and look at them "through academic eyes." In otherwards, Graff essentially conveys the idea of taking street smart topics and turning them into intellectual debates. His stance portrays a culture that encorporates common subjects that can be discussed and viewed in different ways.
Graff uses his own experiences in his childhood to help form his argument. Graff tells about his disinterest in traditional academic subjects, and further elaborates on his love of sports. Growing up in Chicago, Graff suggests academic knowledge is a hindrance in social life, as anti-intellectualism ran rampant during his childhood, as it does today. Graff describes a saddening story of growing up torn "between the need to prove I was smart and the fear of a beating if I proved it too well." An intolerance of superiority amongst the youth caused a sort of internal conflict of brain versus brawn. As Graff aged, the "brawn" side of this heated debate was victorious. Little did he know, conversation with his friends helped develop analysis, arguments, generalizations, summaries and "other intellectualizing operations."
Due to the conversations involving his friends, Graff believes that "street smarts" overpower "book smarts" for the fact that both community and culture thirst more for sports and entertainment than for academic subjects. Subjects delegated in schoolwork were topics of isolation amoung pupils, opposed to batting averages and winning percentages during the major league baseball playoffs being a common article for discussion. Graff pleads the reader to take interesting topics that may be unrelated to school and look at them "through academic eyes." In otherwards, Graff essentially conveys the idea of taking street smart topics and turning them into intellectual debates. His stance portrays a culture that encorporates common subjects that can be discussed and viewed in different ways.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Pg. 38 Exercise 2
In today's society, fast food has become somewhat of a norm. It's easy, convenient, and for the price, most would argue that it could hold its own in a taste test. I know that when I was employed at Abercrombie and Fitch, we only had a half hour for a meal break. Not many employees took it upon themselves to make a brown bag lunch, nor did we have a place to store anything outside of a bottled drink. So, as many of the others did, I would indulge myself at a fast food restaurant in the mall, knowing that I would have time to finish my food and that it wouldn't burn a hole in my pocket. But as time went one, I started to notice that it was harder and harder to keep the physical attributes of an Abercrombie associate while continuing to eat at fast food places. So I began to look for alternatives, and found that it is all up to the individual to stay away from high calorie meals. I made a rather drastic decision of becoming a vegetarian. I noticed that many of the places I was eating at offered salads, vegetable entrees, and low fat yogurts or desserts. For the longest time, a number one from McDonalds (the famous big mac) with a large fry and coke suited my hunger more than I could ask for. I never bothered to notice the option of a salad or mixed bowl of fruit only a menu over from the value meals. As I became more contientous of my weight, I began noticing that many of the places I was eating at had other options; options I decided to ignore over and over again. Now, eating a salad from McDonalds can become bland and monotonous after a little while, so I looked for other options. For about the same price, if not cheaper, frozen lean cuisine and Jewel's pasta salad were great alternatives to the Manderin Orange Chicken Salad without the chicken. Without any help from my parents, friends, or even David Zinczenko, I managed to change how I ate for the same amount of money, completely unpersuaded from the fast food industry.
In today's society, fast food has become somewhat of a norm. It's easy, convenient, and for the price, most would argue that it could hold its own in a taste test. I know that when I was employed at Abercrombie and Fitch, we only had a half hour for a meal break. Not many employees took it upon themselves to make a brown bag lunch, nor did we have a place to store anything outside of a bottled drink. So, as many of the others did, I would indulge myself at a fast food restaurant in the mall, knowing that I would have time to finish my food and that it wouldn't burn a hole in my pocket. As the time went on, a little bit of pudge appeared around my stomach and my rather loose fitting jeans became snug in the waste in thighs. I could not come to a conclusion on how this might be happening. Then I saw the correlation between my new employment and the weight increase. Since Abercrombie and Fitch has never had a claim against them about their cologne increasing the fat tissue of ones body, I figured it must be the fast food I was eating that was doing it to me. So right then and there, I vowed to pull away from the corporations that manufactured tasteless burgers and laskluster pizza. Immediately, the results showed that I was right. I went back to my weight, saw an increase in my track abilities, and found working out at the gym much easier. But who's fault was it that I began putting on weight so readily? None other than my own. No one forced me to eat at a fast food restaurant during my breaks, I choose that for myself. When I decided to stop eating there, I lost the weight I had put on. Just because the company made it convenient to eat there doesn't mean the blame should be taken off of myself. All of the lawsuites and complaints made against corporations in the food industry are rediculous. Most places promise a food for cheap that tastes good; for most companies, they deliver a product that is fairly cheap and tastes good. I don't remember a promise of low calorie meals or fat burning options. It must be within ourselves to create a physical appearance we are proud of. If we don't succeed, then we must try another option. That is what America is all about, a place of opportunities and options, and if satisfaction is not granted, then it should be our own motive to make things better that changes it.
In the both essays, I established free will and the betterment of self through our own choices. In the first essay, I show how my choices created an environment free from fast food. In my second essay, I comply with Zinczenko and agree that fast food has the ability to increase calorie intake. I go on to disagree with it being the companies fault and relate back to the idea of free will to make our own choices. Overall, I hold the idea of making your own choices, but the essays are very different. One essay shows the alternatives to fast food and the other put the blame on fast food, but both held a central idea. The arguments are strong in both situations, but hold a different relevance.
In today's society, fast food has become somewhat of a norm. It's easy, convenient, and for the price, most would argue that it could hold its own in a taste test. I know that when I was employed at Abercrombie and Fitch, we only had a half hour for a meal break. Not many employees took it upon themselves to make a brown bag lunch, nor did we have a place to store anything outside of a bottled drink. So, as many of the others did, I would indulge myself at a fast food restaurant in the mall, knowing that I would have time to finish my food and that it wouldn't burn a hole in my pocket. As the time went on, a little bit of pudge appeared around my stomach and my rather loose fitting jeans became snug in the waste in thighs. I could not come to a conclusion on how this might be happening. Then I saw the correlation between my new employment and the weight increase. Since Abercrombie and Fitch has never had a claim against them about their cologne increasing the fat tissue of ones body, I figured it must be the fast food I was eating that was doing it to me. So right then and there, I vowed to pull away from the corporations that manufactured tasteless burgers and laskluster pizza. Immediately, the results showed that I was right. I went back to my weight, saw an increase in my track abilities, and found working out at the gym much easier. But who's fault was it that I began putting on weight so readily? None other than my own. No one forced me to eat at a fast food restaurant during my breaks, I choose that for myself. When I decided to stop eating there, I lost the weight I had put on. Just because the company made it convenient to eat there doesn't mean the blame should be taken off of myself. All of the lawsuites and complaints made against corporations in the food industry are rediculous. Most places promise a food for cheap that tastes good; for most companies, they deliver a product that is fairly cheap and tastes good. I don't remember a promise of low calorie meals or fat burning options. It must be within ourselves to create a physical appearance we are proud of. If we don't succeed, then we must try another option. That is what America is all about, a place of opportunities and options, and if satisfaction is not granted, then it should be our own motive to make things better that changes it.
In the both essays, I established free will and the betterment of self through our own choices. In the first essay, I show how my choices created an environment free from fast food. In my second essay, I comply with Zinczenko and agree that fast food has the ability to increase calorie intake. I go on to disagree with it being the companies fault and relate back to the idea of free will to make our own choices. Overall, I hold the idea of making your own choices, but the essays are very different. One essay shows the alternatives to fast food and the other put the blame on fast food, but both held a central idea. The arguments are strong in both situations, but hold a different relevance.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/health_department_closes_perfectly
No one minds eating at a restaurant that is filled with vermin and has traces of E. Coli on the counter tops. At least that is what The Onion tries to argue in an article about the closure of Burrito Max, a Mexican restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. They talk about the violations of health code and numerous possibilities for disease, but still debate with the FDA about how delicious the food was. The onion feels that no matter the quality of the food, it is the response of the customers and taste that should determine whether or not a business stays open.
I disagree with The Onion and think that health codes are completely necessary. The knowledge of disease and sanitation has greatly increased over the years and should set a guideline for todays restaurants, just as it already has.
No one minds eating at a restaurant that is filled with vermin and has traces of E. Coli on the counter tops. At least that is what The Onion tries to argue in an article about the closure of Burrito Max, a Mexican restaurant in Columbus, Ohio. They talk about the violations of health code and numerous possibilities for disease, but still debate with the FDA about how delicious the food was. The onion feels that no matter the quality of the food, it is the response of the customers and taste that should determine whether or not a business stays open.
I disagree with The Onion and think that health codes are completely necessary. The knowledge of disease and sanitation has greatly increased over the years and should set a guideline for todays restaurants, just as it already has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
