Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Education leading into Thought Experiment #3

Okay, this week's blog…is different. It just so happens that this English class ties heavily to my English 301 class. This class allows for online discussion on the readings and lectures we have had in class. Within the class, we are allowed to sit in a circle providing more discussion, conversation, debate, and learning to occur amongst the students and the faculty. The key is all the online conversing we are doing. In my English 301 class, we have reviewed a debate disputing whether online literacy truly benefits the young student generation. The debate itself is extensive and has taken the question of online literacy from various angles. Even so, I would like to share the essay that was due in my class yesterday, the 8th of March, with the rest of the online world. I feel that examining my essay and claim even further will help guide me into my third though experiment. Also…I had this English paper due yesterday and another five page History paper, which I had not even started at the time, due today and my brain is like mush and mashed potatoes and scrambled eggs on crack while sizzling on a frying pan.

College Education at the Frontlines of a Literacy Debate

According to the College Board website, the average cost of tuition for the 2009-10 school year for a four-year public institution is $7,020, a 6.5% increase from the year prior. This amount is for tuition alone without the consideration of the price of textbooks, school supplies, food, and perhaps the possibility of renting an apartment, dorm, or house. Taking into account the amount of money it takes to go through college, the question that ensues is: are students receiving the best form of education they paid for? In order to receive some type of answer, we would need to understand how receiving an education has evolved and look into the latest debate revolving around the future of student education. I have looked into multiple articles and videos contributed by university professors, experts, researchers and reporters discussing the idea of a "literacy revolution" occurring within the field of education involving the use of digital technology. Technology and the Internet have played a major role in the discussion of future education because of their popular usage by students. Much of the debate has been credited to answering the underlying question of whether or not the literacy structure and usage of technology is positively affecting the lives of the young generation of today, but as I have noticed, the debate has not contributed a proposed resolution both sides can agree on. Nevertheless, comprehending contradicting sides of the debate will be key to understanding the more affective form of education students can obtain, thus making greater use of the amount of time and money they paid to receive an education.
One might think that students do not have much say over issues that concern their college education, the reason being because students do not know what is best for them. A college professor at Kansas State University and 2008 U.S. Professor of the Year for Doctoral and Research Universities, Michael Wesch, tried to reveal what students thought about college and their education by having his students express themselves in front of a video camera. Wesch's highly popular and talked about video, "A Vision of Students Today," reveals the truth about students’ college experiences, from fitting 26.5 hours worth of tasks into one day to paying for hundred dollar textbooks that have never been opened. After viewing Wesch's video, I could not help but look into the structure of education I have received since coming to college. I must admit that my grades have fallen since attending Western Washington University, and I threw most of the blame at myself although I studied, took notes during class, and met with professors. After further investigation about the existing form of education today and reading articles about the literacy revolution, I have reached a theory. It is my belief that the literacy debate is currently at a standstill where neither side is proposing a useful resolution meanwhile students are not receiving the best form of education possible when the more affective methodologies exist, thus negatively influencing student grade point averages and outlooks on college education.
In the midst of the literacy revolution and the debate between the pros and cons of digital technology, I have noticed a pattern of researchers and experts forgetting the students who are being highly considered in this dispute. As I have observed the education and student life that surrounds me, I propose that technology is here to stay among us in society as every classroom I walk into has a computer setup for the teacher, and students bringing in laptops into the classroom. Teachers should be instructing students instead to affectively use the sources before them by incorporating online discussion outside the classroom. We should begin to recognize that as technology is evolving as each day goes by, and teachers are finding ways to relate and educate their students by adding technology and its literary practices into the classroom, than our educational method and approach should evolve along with technology. As professor of education at Stanford, Michael L. Kamil puts it, "Students are going to grow up having to be highly competent on the Internet…There's no reason to make them discover how to be highly competent if we can teach them" (Rich 9). The issue with the majority of educational systems today is that they are not willing to move past what once was and what now is. Teachers are educating students in a manner that does not relate with them or lacks student interest, when the world has created several methods of learning that educators do not take advantage of.
Most institutions have been built since the 18-1900s with some intention to have classrooms organized by having students facing the direction of the teacher; this form of teaching is called lecturing. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, between 1997 and 2007, college enrollment increased from 14.5 million to 18.2 million in the United States. The numbers suggest that approximately 2 million more students will be included in the amount in roughly eight years. While the number of enrolled college students increases, teachers and students need to rethink the most popular learning method of today: lecture. As students walk into some of their college classes of 100+ students, they do not seem to be receiving the best educational experience they paid for. The National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science has presented a pyramid that demonstrates the average retention rates in an average student. The figure to the below proposes that less than ten percent of information is retained in a lecture style class, meanwhile fifty percent is held through discussion and ninety percent through students teaching others what they have learned. The Learning Pyramid implies that lecturing to students is not an affective learning method; therefore, educational practices should be more open to try a different route by pursuing discourse among students about course material, which could easily occur online. Consequently, due to the rising enrollment numbers, students could be and are receiving a "quantity" form of education instead of the "quality", unless the education system prepares itself with educational methods that are under dispute.
Before heading into the oppositions of the debate, one must first review the main principle in question. Within the article "On the New Literacy", Clive Thompson investigates a classroom approach a professor at Stanford University named Andrea Lunsford has researched. Lunsford is quoted saying, "I think we are in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since Greek civilization" (2). Many authors speak about a revolution occurring, however, few explain what the revolution entails. Understanding the change of lifestyles and writing since the introduction and usage of the Internet will portray how the literacy revolution began. Thompson states, "before the Internet came along, most Americans never wrote anything, ever, that wasn't a school assignment" (2). Currently, online writing occurs daily amongst today’s generation on social websites such as Facebook and Blogger (two sites that allow anyone to join in the community and display whatever the member feels like displaying on a global network); however, before the internet was open for usage in homes, writing was mostly being done to receive a grade.
Within large lecture classes, most professors grade students for the class by simply giving them several multiple-choice exams throughout the quarter. This testing method can be daunting as the majority of exams are 50+ questions, several pages long, and with a lot of text. In the mid to late 1800s, writing and composition tied into testing to serve a balance between speech and writing in the educational system. Harvard University acted as a role model to the rest of higher education as their composition course idea to prevent failed entrance writing exams spawned all over the United States (Yancey 3). Accordingly, "composition tended to take on the colors of the time, primarily (1) its identification as a rudimentary skill and (2) its predominant role in the testing of students" (Yancey 3). Even so, testing students based off lecture and readings from textbooks is extremely illogical since at least 10% of the amount of information will retain with the student through that learning style, according to the Learning Pyramid presented earlier. This could provoke students to cram information into their brains only for a test. Educational practices should push towards methods that will allow students to retain most of the information even after a test in order to give students a higher chance to succeed academically.
Since the installation of the Internet, writing takes place outside the classroom without receiving an evaluation. In today's digital world, social networking sites, weblogs, chat rooms, e-mails, publishing, texting, have all surpassed the limit of writing people can achieve. "Such writing is what Deborah Brandt has called self-sponsored writing: a writing that belongs to the writer, not to an institution, with the result that people want to compose and do – on the page and on the screen and on the network – to each other" (Yancey 4). People write their thoughts and feelings almost daily on the internet for the world to comment back, consequently forming conversations. It would then feel only natural for people to continue the conversation from their classrooms to the online network if directed properly by a facilitator. In large lecture classes, not everyone within the classroom is given the opportunity to speak and display opinion. Converging the everyday classroom discourse to an online platform would mean for a combination of receiving an evaluation by professors and furthermore allowing every student to express opinion, thought, and perspective on an online forum. Nowadays, the digital literacy debate has shaped itself into thinking whether writing on the internet serves as writing at all.
The literacy revolution is being disputed as both a positive and a negative for the learner today. A revolution is defined as an overthrow of government or as a dramatic change in ideas or practice. Currently, we have two sides of the debate arguing whether digital media is beneficial for students and their education. It is important to understand the issues people have with digital literacy and technology to receive a just outlook on the debate and therefore offer more of my proposition. In Frontline's website video, digital_nation: life on the virtual frontier, we are narrated by Douglas Rushkoff through the positive, but mostly negative effects of digital technology in students' lives, for instance: face-to-face communication being replaced by simple-minded wording through text messages, the loss of strong essay writing skills, and people becoming horrible multitaskers. In the Bronx, a principal by the name of Jason Levy has been able to incorporate technology and drastically change the pessimistic direction his school was heading. By incorporating laptops and online discussions into the educational system, Levy has been able to drop violence rates significantly, and increase daily attendance by over ninety percent, reading test scores by thirty percent and math test scores by almost forty percent. However, the school was criticized for the belief that revealing students to so much technology would transform them into lower, less capable human beings. Principal Levy was quick to respond by stating, "The world has changed, but education has not." An accurate claim to make, but serves better as a question: why has education not changed? Perhaps it is because the educational system has been too lenient on criticizing their teaching practices. I am not stating that their needs to be an overthrow of classrooms and teachers, and education should only occur online, no. I am stating that if we are to give students a better learning experience where they are gaining knowledge, contributing to the classroom, and receiving their money’s worth, students need to obtain a balance of learning from their professors and the opportunity to discuss and learn amongst each other.
The best examples I can give of the types of discussions students can participate in I have been subliminally presenting the reader throughout the discussion of the literacy debate. Wesch and Rushkoff made videos, Yancey wrote a report, and Rich wrote an article. These are a few examples of the many blog posts, articles, and videos, all of which can be found online, written by accredited professors, reporters, and researchers such as Henry Jenkins, Marc Prensky, Claudia Wallis, and Sherry Turkle. If discussions like this can occur online, than it is possible for discussions to occur among the students as they learn and grow together, uploading claims and arguments with the intention of having them be commented or criticized upon by an audience. Educational methods should flow across the digital network for students who naturally spend some part of their time and energy at their computer; it only makes sense for some of their education to take place in digital reality as well. It is crucial for teachers to educate their students on how to converse online because in doing so, the majority of students will feel more inclined to display their thoughts and discuss with each other and the facilitator online, retaining information and receiving a more affective educational experience than through lecture. Instead of arguing which route is better, we need realize that technology surrounds us so let us use it for our advantage. The more we debate about the existence of digital technology, the more students are receiving an education that could be far more affective if action had taken place. Our educators should be willing to move with the times to give the students what they want and need in today's demanding world for a college education: an overall improved learning experience.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

What Becomes of the Broken Hearted?



I have never had a blog before, but I feel like there are some aspects that I understand about it. I feel like the point of blogs are to display your thoughts, so, as so many people have done so before me, I will do the same. Recently, my girlfriend and I broke up. It was not over a fight, or because of someone cheating on the other, we mutually broke up because we both felt that it was the right thing for us to do at the time. I will admit that it was not easy as we do care for each other very much and our attraction and compatibility came very naturally as well. However, she was willing to put more into the relationship than I was, because I simply do not understand the concept of love. It seems very robotic, I know, but I guess it started when my parents started fighting and there was a divorce scare when I was 17. Everything that I thought love was kind of came tumbling down as every fight grew worse and worse. It just was not a good time for me to be in the relationship, and she very much understood that. She is very special, so I am thankful that when we get time alone from each other to get ourselves back on our own feet, we will still try to be friends.

It's weird, but thinking about all this breaking up stuff sparked an idea in my brain. This idea of parasites connecting to our lives has driven me through a loop inside our classroom. We are parasites. We feed off situations and we react accordingly. Of course, there are thousands of different reactions. What I am saying is that our emotion, our instincts, our plan of action, all falls upon what happens next. If we hear music, we dance or tap out feet. If someone says something funny, we laugh or giggle. If someone dies, we are sad and maybe cry. If we lose a game or are called a bad name, we get upset or angry…maybe furious. We react to situations, and our reactions spark other reactions. We are a never-ending chain of constant action to reaction, situations sparking our emotions.

When my girlfriend and I broke up, I was upset because we both cared for each other but we also knew it was for the best. The situation called for me to be upset therefore I reacted to the situation, as a parasite would react to its host. The parasite feeds off the situation at hand. And it is not only verbal communication of the reaction, it could also be body language, facial expressions, any form of expression the body is able to produce.

Tonight at rugby practice, I was mentally distraught because of the break up and with issues between my parents; yet, I focused my energies into anger, aggression, and energy for the practice. I was focused on what I was doing because my anger was fueling my body to perform well. This situation can call for this reaction or different ones. In class, we viewed the beginning clip from a film called Slackers where a man speaks about how in his dreams, he can see the realities of the paths in life that he did not choose. He explained it like when Dorothy meets the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. The Scarecrow points in multiple directions, but they choose one specific path. The man was stating how in his dreams he could see the outcomes of the other paths he did not choose in his life. I focused the way I did because, in my life, I have chosen and built my personality around focusing all my bad energies and using them in the situation that they can properly be applied to. Anger  Rugby. On the other hand, someone different could have just been distraught, losing focus, and thus having a bad practice.

We are all very different in that all our past situations and reactions in life, whether they be sharing your snack during lunch with someone without food, or being the class bully, or beating up the class bully, or learning valuable lessons, shape who we are today. We are all parasites in the sense that we have grown up reacting and learning from our environment and situations. I hope that we will learn to look at the world through different eyes. Sometimes we need to take a step back and look at the paths that are laid before us. We can be so easily manipulated by television, social networking sites, politics, that we react at first emotion. Let us begin to analyze the world around us and learn from our past.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Religion vs. Faith vs. Parasites

I have had this issue with religion and faith come into my life for the past year and it has helped me to realize that, and I fear to say it, everything can be considered a parasite. At least almost everything. Religion is a huge parasite as well. This topic has broken down into several different topics that can spread into their own blog posts, but for this one, I will try my best to contain my thoughts into one.

History:
Since I was little, I almost spent every Sunday at church with my mother. It was not until about senior year of high school when attending church every Sunday was not pushed so often. I always considered myself a Roman Catholic. When I was around 12-15 years old, I would not go to bed without praying to God first. It usually was a random 5-minute conversation to myself, but I did it every night. My ex-girlfriend asked me one day why I am Catholic. I had no real answer. I first said because it was what my family expected of me and it was normal within my family so that's it. However, I realized that that answer did not explain why I was Catholic. She kept pushing it and pushing it and it made me feel uncomfortable, closed, in a tight space, to the point where I began to get frustrated for not having a ready answer. The question itself was good and needed, but the method in which she pushed to get an answer was not. It ended with me hearing a lot of shit come out of her mouth and me storming out the room. That relationship did not end well…but I did receive a lot after it was over. I questioned why I was Catholic. What are my reasons for being Catholic? When was it ever my decision to be Catholic or not? And from all the questioning and trying to answer, I found out that I have no answer for why I'm Catholic although I do believe in a God, in Jesus, in La Virgen de Guadalupe, and that will take me into the following.

Religion vs. Faith:
I believe having faith in a God is completely different from having religion. Who said you had to be a dedicated Catholic in order to believe in God, right? Well…I am sure someone has said that but I do not believe it. Religion is a fucked up parasite, let us be honest. It has killed and been the excuse to take over more and more land, or territory, for power. It is a manipulative tool that will benefit some and not others. Although religion has been a beneficial tool for followers, it has also caused a lot of damage. I do not comprehend than why we must have something so corrupted at times in order to believe in a higher power that is supposedly forgiving and understanding. I believe in some things that are incorporated in Catholicism: the Bible, the saints, Jesus, and God. I do not need to attend an institution such as Church to believe in thus things. That is my faith. I believe in a God. I believe God is fucked up too, a person or thing that does not explain why things happen to us, but I believe parts of the world have benefited from a God as well. Complicated subject.

Blogging:
Being so connected to the online world and displaying my thoughts on religion and my past life has made me think how trusting I am of the digital world. Occurrences that have happened because of my ex-girlfriend are things I would not want many people to know about. Nevertheless, in order for the reader to understand what I am writing or why I think the way I do, it seems somewhat crucial to know what happened. Maybe I am not so trustworthy. I would not display such a story that is so private to my family and I on something called the World Wide Web. The idea is tempting but it is now when I ask, 'why is it so tempting to display something so private for the world to see?' Hmmm…I really do not know.

Now:
I never fully recovered in the past year from what happened between my ex and I and the aftermath, however, the recovery process has thickened my usage of critical analysis and strengthened my mind. I have questioned the existence of God and his purpose. I have gone from once asking for help, to cursing the idea of a God, to believing in a God and hating it, to believing and at a 'now what?' stage. It has put my family through struggle, especially with my mother, the upholder of religion and God in the family. We have had conversations filled with tears and all the "good" stuff. Religion and faith are parasites...so what? (…to be continued…)

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

THE PARASITES VS. BIOSHOCK

The end.
I am somewhat drawing a blank for this week's blog honestly. I do not know whether it is me trying to avoid it, or me just not producing good thoughts at the moment, but the blog is due in 3 hours and a half so might as well try to carve up some masterpiece in the time being.
For our class we are reading Michel Serres The Parasite, and I have found several ties to it lately. The book itself is rather a unusual read for me, but I can see in the direction that Serres is trying to portray humanity as its own parasite, feeding off the environment and others.
The first connection I want to make relating to some of Serres quotes about the parasite to comes from a video game I recently finished named Bioshock. The game has you play as a man who discovers an underwater city once filled with geniuses and scientists, now going crazy because of corruption and super-powered drugs. A man named Andrew Ryan, who wanted to avoid the control of government, industry, and religion and let people have their liberty when it came to the things they built and invented, built the city called Rapture. However, smugglers and a con artist who wanted to take advantage of the inventions and sell them for money corrupted the city. Some smugglers wanted to incorporate religion into the city as well, Andrew Ryan was not a fan of this idea and neither were some of the people of Rapture. You try to fight your way through the crazy inhabitants of Rapture and machines they have invented. Of course, the plot and enemies you face are a lot more various and descriptive than I can portray, but that is the plain jist of it. The point of me bringing this up was because of the quotes Andrew Ryan states throughout the game according to his definition of a parasite. Both Serres and Ryan sound very similar in their language of describing their definitions of the parasite.
For example:
Andrew Ryan: On the surface, the Parasite expects the doctor to heal them for free, the farmer to feed them out of charity. How little they differ from the pervert who prowls the streets, looking for a victim he can ravish for his grotesque amusement.
Michael Serres: The flow goes one way, never the other. I call this semiconduction, this valve, this single arrow, this relation without a reversal of direction, "parasitic." If the "guest" is a farmer, I consider him to be a parasite in the economic sense. La Fontaine explains this to me further on. What does man give to the cow, to the tree, to the steer, who give him milk, warmth, shelter, work, and food? What does he give? Death.
Andrew Ryan: What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?' A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?' A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '
Michael Serres: His objection, it seems to me, is the following: every parasitic animal lives, eats, and multiplies within the body of its host. Men, whom I call parasites, are never, as far as we know, inside another animal. Except the great beast, the 666, the Leviathan. Back to beasts of prey, back to hunting, and so forth.
Their vocabulary and ideas toward parasites, although different perspectives, relate when it comes to their ideas of man, and as you can notice about the last two quotes, relate to religious beings as well. It was interesting to see the ties in both contexts. What was also interesting was the game's character named Fontaine who was someone who came to Rapture to build his own industry. The Parasite shows traces of Serres' connections with La Fontaine. It was a coincidental relevance to the contexts.
Too really sidetrack, there's something else on my mind. It's funny. I had a rugby game this weekend in which I got cleated across the face…and now have a scar. I have noticed that this has been really distracting in my life because of all the attention the scar is receiving. It is a parasite on its own, and its popularity is growing and growing as people are starting to pay less and less attention to me. Funny right? But it's not all bad. I have a wicked story to tell, and if it does scar, I get a lot of attention. Kind of like it actually…so does that mean I'm a parasite enjoying the attention? Maybe. What makes me so different than the scar on my face?

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Thought Experiment OutTakes...

This blog is to relinquish all my thoughts to the paper. In this case, the keyboard is mightier than the soul, so therefore, I give to you my thoughts.

IDENTITY.

NARRATION.

In E.T.A. Hoffmann’s book, The Life and Opinions of Tomcat Murr, we are tossed back and forth through two different narrators, Murr and Kreisler, who interrupt each other multiple times. In my last blog on Laughter, I took this whole tangent about whether or not laughter was good for us, whether it was healthy or not. However, my mind is taking me towards a different tangent this week which will only provide further evidence to my claim that conversations and questions can continue on and on and on…FOR DAYS as I will so reluctantly admit.

Laughter can be considered a great interrupter. Period. Where to go with it now Heavy D? Hmmm…

Laughter can be used differently depending on the context we are displaying ourselves in at the time. Period. Hmmm…

Who the hell are we? Period. Hmmm…

You talking to me? You talking to ME?...There ain't no one else here so you must be talking to ME. Period. Hmmm…

Why do we switch our attitudes, emotions, responses, depending on whether we are online, or off?

Let us start there.

I have this idea in my head, and it just keeps growing and growing and growing. When we actually see ourselves, and I mean in the mirror and not in a photo on the computer, we are seeing the REAL US. Our selves. When we walk around and have conversation, laughter is sometimes used to continue the conversation, thus causing the conversation to continue. On the contrary, fake laughter could also be used to get away from the conversation we are having. It can be used as a building step to tell someone, 'Hey! I'm comfortable! You are a funny person! Let's continue talking!' or 'You are really not that funny, I am just going to laugh so that you don't feel bad, and start to say, 'oh look at the time…' and try and slip out of here…' Nevertheless, real laughter is hard to fake, as we've discussed in class. When we laugh, we can usually tell people without using words whether the laugh was real or not. We, most of the time, cannot hide the truth.

Now we can move into the Digital world. The world of not real laughter, but laughter texted, typed, symbolized through a screen of technology. It is within this screen
where fake laughter is easier to hide. Why?

Joke: Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because the only element he understood was the element of surprise.

HAHAHAHA! LOL!

Was that real laughter? Take under consideration that this was the first time I have seen this joke and think Chuck Norris has a hidden fist in his beard. The truth is, it is hard to know whether it was real or not. And that is the point.
Laughter is becoming to be used very differently through digital technology nowadays, and it seems to be taking a new meaning. As we have touched base before, laughter can be used to end a conversation through text using 'LOL'. It is beginning to become the end of conversation. It is a growing trend to use 'LOL' or 'HAHA' as a way to say, 'I have nothing else to say…' Why do we manipulate laughter's intent this way?

Laughter is also known for its interruptions. Lecture hall, teacher makes a "joke", student alone laughs obnoxiously, the rest of the students laugh at her laugh moments later. OR. Someone says a funny joke, everyone laughs, one person has a funny laugh that is actually funnier than the joke. Interruptions that occur in laughter.

Now what…I have been taught that if I have run out of things to write, to write whatever is on my mind. That is what I am doing now unfortunately.

I was just told that talking to yourself is the first symptom. Thanks Ashley for pointing out the obvious.

"How many people have longboards with green wheels?! I don’t remember that guy having a beard. Then I later realized that EVERYONE who has a longboard has green wheels!" -Ashley

Thanks Ashley. You sparked a random idea, but it works.

Murr and Kreisler. Two separate identities sharing the same space in a book. We all can say we have different identities when it comes to our online/digital and real world personalities. We can hide behind a screen and display our real emotions, thoughts, etc. through a screen because no one is looking directly at our real skin. Instead, they are looking at the skin of our Facebook pages, Blogs, Twitter pages, MySpace pages, e-mails, and so forth. It is harder to hide fake laughter in the real world, but behind a screen, who can tell? We are creating our alter egos…

Brain is being downloaded to new thought stream…L...o…a…d…i…n…g…

Two identities: Murr and Kreisler. I recently I had a retreat with my RA staff in which we discussed about personal issues. Basically, it was a tear fest. And I cried first and had to leave. Who knew I would end up being the emotional one? Anyways, I had this idea that I told my staff. Me being Mexican-American, I think in both cultures. I was born in Seattle and have two Mexican parents who were born in Mexico. I am a first generation kid, growing up with white kids and growing up in a traditional Mexican household with Spanish being the primary language, Mexican food like posole, menudo, tacos, burritos, (yum…), and a sister who is 6 years older and going through her own shit too. She was born in Mexico as well. Culturally, I have had to answer from two contexts, my American side, and my Mexican side. Rarely do I answer as both. It is normally one or the other. I notice that I tend to censor myself when I am in classes or speaking with professors or on campus in general. That can be considered my American self, or westernized self. When I take on my Mexican persona, my emotion, passion, opinions, thoughts, instant reactions, are revealed more often, and my attitude that I received from my parents and sister goes along with it. This can compare to the difference in identities online and off.

Questions to further the discussion:

Why do we censor ourselves in the real world?

Are these different identities necessary for us to have?

In a time where technology is becoming the "must have" in order to "fit" in or feel accepted society, are we all doomed to hiding our real selves and displaying them on a screen?

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

This whole crazy thing about Laughter...

I find this whole idea of parasites extremely funny. Here, we have this movie called Shivers, the film we started the class with, it begins the idea within our classroom of whether or not the parasites were evil, or good, and if good, would they be considered a symbiote and not a parasite? This very idea drives me a little crazy, trying to make a justifiable claim as to whether or not it is to our advantage or to our dismay.

On my blog, you will find connections about laughter all over the page. Why? The answer could be simply, because I like to laugh, or I could take you down this path of connections and linear relations and networks all of which intermingle around the idea of laughter. Is laughter contagious? Is it good for your health? Are there any downsides to laughter? These questions could all be answered so quickly and easily, however could follow the other path and drive itself into conversations and debates about which answer is right. I love to debate and argue.

Let’s go into some analysis, shall we? Is laughter contagious? I believe that the majority opinion is ‘yes’, right? We have all experienced those moments of just hearing someone’s unique laugh in the middle of a lecture at an awkward moment and the rest of the class joining in with laughter. Then there is the idea of the ‘laugh track’ heard for the first time in 1950 on “The Hank McCune Show”. The reason why the laugh track was invented was to make up for the lack of a studio audience, and although it made up for the audience, it proved that people were more likely to laugh if the laugh track accompanied whatever the viewer was watching and/or listening. However, this laugh track could be applied almost anywhere and either A) receive laughter from viewers, B) be misunderstood or read differently and therefore, received with an unintended response away from the original purpose (but sometimes still funny), or C) carry no emotion whatsoever.

For example:

Taxi Driver with a Laugh Track
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl5JNj2XW0A
In this clip, De Niro plays an intense ex-soldier who is forced to leave the military and gets a job as a taxi driver in the city. Although this scene was complete improv on De Niro’s part, the clip was still used in the film and has been stapled into our culture for years! People who don’t even know the movie will still use the phrase! Add a laugh track to this scene and you get the expected result: laughter.

The Shining gets a laugh track
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a0AaQF15rc

The Dark Knight with a Laugh Track- Better audio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p1kjOU1O_g
In these two very intense scenes, we have characters who display the opposite emotion of joy or happiness and yet, we still might get a kick out of it. Either that or we feel like the laugh track is extremely inappropriate. However, the emotions the makers of each film intended for the audience to feel are not of joy, but of stress or fear. Yet, you add a laugh track and these two scenes steer away from the anticipated emotions. People’s emotions and thoughts have been manipulated to feel the opposite.

Failed Sitcoms – Let’s Dump Dave!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leyWS_Kpxx8
In this old sitcom clip, someone added a laugh track to this clip, but the overall outcome is still not so funny (at least in my opinion). That’s the thing, the continuation or suddenness of laughter can overwhelm us and cause us to respond to it with laughter as well.

We cannot further this discussion about whether laughter was contagious without commenting on the 1962 laughter epidemic in Tanzania. What started as three girls laughing at a boarding school in an African village multiplied to 95 out of the 159 students laughing. Symptoms tied into the laughter epidemic were crying and laughter, thus, the school had to be closed and re-opened. The epidemic spread to nearby villages and by the end of it, 2 ½ years later, more than 1,000 people had been afflicted by the laughter epidemic. Now, it turns out that the epidemic was caused by either mass psychogenic illness, or mass hysteria, brought on by stress. On that note, this would be the perfect time to bring up whether laughter is good for your health. See? Questions that can continue and spread into more and more conversations or debates, just like a parasite, but is continuing this constant flow of conversation good for you?

My opinion is, of course! Just this past Friday, the 1 PM Parasites class had some Face 2 Face (F2F) time and, if people were paying attention, we call bettered from the conversation. We continued, topic after topic, to test our will to question other people’s statements, and even question our own! Whether we like it or not, conversations like the one this class had on Friday will only make us stronger, more knowledgeable people. Why? Because we can question everything, question each other, and if you are strongly opinionated towards one thing or another, your relationship with such topic grows stronger as well.

We debated about this idea of technology and its proper uses, and its considered “downsides” commented by people in the class. First, check out this clip:
Kaplan University Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e50YBu14j3U
Here is my opinion towards that, as I wrap up this whole soapbox thing that I am trying to do, whether we like it or not, the times are changing. We have generations who have been introduced to the television, generations who were born with the television, generations who were introduced to computers and mobile phones, and generations who were born with the great advancements in computers and mobile phones. And now, after decades of dominance, it seems like the television is losing its grasp on its viewers. It is becoming no longer the primary, but maybe the secondary SCREEN that people decide to go spend their time with. Times are indeed changing, and educators are going to be up for a big task, educating generations that are accustomed to using technology for practically anything. Moreover, technology is also a resourceful tool to publish your own writing and research, or show the world your art, music, or whatever. Educators must be prepared to move from using old methods that worked for them, to discovering new methods to captivate their students and keep them attentive and as participators. Technology has spread and is contagious just like laughter. (AH-HA!) The question we should ask ourselves individually is, ‘Is technology good for ME, or not?’