extra blog

I cannot remember what our extra credit blog could be about or when it was due so hope this is suffice.

I enjoyed the this class, it was a nice change from all of my very structured science classes! As much as I love concrete answers, I have always enjoyed classes and material that make one think in abstract ways. I feel that this class pushed us in that direction and I am grateful. The concept of identity is so abstract in my mind that it is almost not worth talking about. People could talk and talk in circles about identity and authenticity but that is the point of circles, they never end. We are all too inclined to believe that we are a product of ourselves and nothing and no one else. Many of us believe that we do what we want because we want to when we want to... but frankly I think this is bullshit. Stereotypes wouldn't exist if people didn't constantly fit the bill. I am not saying that I agree with the notion or that people cannot stray from the beaten path but when people are brave enough to be different, they are inevitably following a path that other brave souls have undoubtedly walked before. I think the concept of identity is very tricky and I think trying to establish one is even more and daunting.I often struggle with finding my "self." Of course I want to be distinct I want to be someone who is different from the rest admirable even but I am not sure if that makes me entirely uniquely or merely someone who isn't content being easily labeled. Nonetheless, people will find a way to label me because that is partially what identity is, a label that other people can attach to you. And labels suck...unless you like your label.

final project-questions

I think the biggest obstacle for me is going to be coming up with a specific research question. I tend to get off topic pretty easily so I am worried that once I settle on a question, that I will inevitably stray away from it. I am also worried that I won't ask good insightful questions and that I won't be able to take the answers and use them properly throughout my paper. Speaking of paper, I don't feel entirely confident in writing a paper because I feel that you are really encouraging us to try a different medium but I am not a very creative person and I really do not think that I could pull off a video; nor do I know how I would even formulate an argument through a video.

You said that I can use the Merchants of Cool documentary...do I still need all my other scholarly sources or can that count as one of them?

Am I allowed, seeing that I already mentioned my tendency to get off topic and because I feel I am being a little too ambitious with the whole thing, allowed to examine "cool" from a broader perspective and address more narrow points throughout my paper?

Klosterman Group

1. Klosterman talks about how he'd prefer to ask questions rather than answer questions. Answering questions requires that a person be somewhat engaged with their own thoughts and sort of "know them selves." Asking is much easier because one can avoid being misunderstood. With respect identity, talking is a portrayal of oneself (accurate or not).

2. Why do people feel compelled to answer questions in the first place?

3. Basically, people talk just to talk. Morris mentions that if people are expected to talk, they do. It is exactly as Klosterman says, "something instead of nothing."

4. To an extent, you can trust an interviewee and to some extent you can't. Morris says that self-deception makes the world go round. People are generally going to try and put out what they think is true even if it is not. They create a narrative that they honestly believe in and therefore the interviewee is being dishonest with themselves first and then the rest of us as a consequence. People are constantly giving their view and position on the world and from another perspective the world appears very different. So this is why we are not usually the best informants of ourselves because we can easily deceive our self. At the same time other people will see the version of you they want.

5. Klosterman says that when interviewed people want to do two things: say something interesting and be perceived in the way that will be likable. Morris and Klosterman claim however that rarely can the both of these be accomplished, usually one is accomplished at the sacrifice of the other. Being interviewed allows the interviewee to become misunderstood and misrepresented. So if people were truly reasonable, they would indeed avoid interviews and avoid this dilemma altogether.

Something instead of nothing

I enjoyed Klosterman's article "Something Instead of Nothing." He brings to mind questions that I am not so sure I would ever think to consider myself but indeed they are still interesting. Why do any of us feel compelled to answer a question? I definitely agree with Morris's statement that if people are expected to talk, "they do talk." This seems to make a lot of sense to me. I find that I often do many things simply because there is an often unspoken assumption that I am expected to (i.e. showing up for class). I also really liked the connection Klosterman made with Heath's statements; we do not necessarily answer questions because we are flattered by the attention but because we "feel as though we deserve to be. . ." possibly because the millions of us who aren't famous feel we are unheard and of course we value our own opinions. I feel like this all the time! I typically like answering questions in classes because I get to state aloud my thoughts and opinions and people (usually a teacher) have to at least pretend to be interested. Which brings to mind another point: people are more willing talk if they feel that the interviewer is genuinely interested in their story. I think that this is sort of a giving but actually seeing it helped me realize that when I conduct interviews for our final paper, I am going to have to be really attentive and sincere. I think I am going to learn that is much easier for me to be the interviewee than it is to be the interviewer. Yes, as the interviewer I don't have the burden of being misqouted or misunderstood in a personally detrimental way that maybe the interviewee does but I have an obligation to ask interesting questions that provoke interesting answers and interesting consequences. I am worried I won't be so good at this whole process but as Klosterman says, "It's something instead of nothing."

Simpson's Coolhunt - In Class.

Homer was just basically trying to find a way that he could be cool, but according to the article, in order to be cool you must be instinctively cool. In the Simpsons episode, we learned that if you don't care if you're cool or not, you aren't cool. And, if you have to be told that you're cool, you're not cool. This is the same idea portrayed in the article. The "cool" kids that Baysie and DeeDee sought after were just cool - they didn't try to be cool, and they didn't have to be told they were cool.

Homer finally realized that what was cool when he was young isn't cool anymore - he was made fun of for being his version of "cool." This coincides with the fact that the word "cool" is very, very subjective, and what it defines is ever changing.

in class-powerpoint

I somewhat agree with Tufte on his strong belief that Powerpoint has corrupt the way people present information or try and sell a point. The fact that it is even called "power point" can lead one to believe that the person presenting something has "dominance over the auidence." I personally believe that the audience is the biggest factor when it comes to presenting things, if they aren't engaged and interested in what is being presented making things "dance in color" won't help the speaker have a more profound impact. Content is crucial in anything. Professor say all the time that it is quality not quantity and that they can tell when a student is completely bullshitting them. So if a power point presentation becomes the basis of what one is trying to present and if there is little content and thought involved, then the audience will lose focus quickly and the presenter might as well just take a seat and let the auidence read the slides themselves. As Tufte says, "rather than supplementing a presentation, it [powerpoint] has become a substitute for it." Provide me (the audience)an outline, but speak thouroughly and have substance or I am no longer with you.

cool hunters

I absolutely loved this article. I found it very interesting and truthful. The fact is, cool cannot be manufactured it can only be observed, as rule two of cool states. Cool is all about setting some sort of trend, making a statement and then spreading the word. The article mentions how cool has its "innovators" then its "early followers" (the group of people that others look up to) then more followers as they see the "sophisticated" or highly respected (in their opinion) group doing it, and so. The problem, once the rest of the population starts catching onto something, it just isn't cool anymore. I like the idea that you have to find "cool people first and cool things after" because "cool people are a constant" and cool things are indeed a variable. There will always be that guy or girl doing something out of the ordinary. Whether it is a clothing choice, a music choice, how they choose to spend their leisure time, etc. someone is always testing the waters and pushing the boundaries of what it means to be cool. It is like the example of the Joe Regular in a coffee shop where everyone there has blue hair. Now this probably isn't one's typical impression of "coffee-shop goers" but if this is the trend that has caught on and this is what people are doing, well then it is no longer so outrageous and innovative to have blue hair and in fact, the Joe Regular becomes the "cool kid" because he is set apart now from his peers. This is what I like about cool. It is doing something other people aren't doing. Another example from my own life and our culture today: leggings. Maybe leggings were cool in the beginning, that is how all things start; a small group of people are trying out new ideas (or maybe reviving old ideas) and slowly people start to catch on and companies work to market the ideas (thanks to their coolhunters) and then there is this big explosion of a trend, in this case "the legging explosion." Point is, leggings are not cool anymore because everbody is doing it. Most would argue that if everyone is doing it then it probably is cool, but really it is just mainstream marketing selling what was cool yesterday, today. Truly cool people will tell you that most people are just "running after their friends" and are not really cool themselves because, as the cool hunters say, "if the [non-cool] tried to attain it [cool] then it would no longer be cool."

Google stupid questions

1. Carr's mind has changed based on technology and how we have come to view technology. He mentions how he and his friends can no longer sit and read lengthy material they just skim through things because technology, namely the Internet has made access to information so easy and quick. 2. The Internet has allowed mass amounts of information to be easily accessible and all in one spot. New ideas, revisions of old ideas, etc. show that information is constantly changing. The Internet allows things to be updated nonstop. There is also a constant flow of ideas from person to person on the Internet because we have access to so much of each other's stuff. 3. Carr mentions a study from the University of London about online research habits. The study showed that the Internet has created a "new way of reading" including "power browsing." He also mentions The New York Times now has short snippets of the news for it's readers; alluding to the fact the a popular piece of media (NY Times) had to recognize and conform to the way people now read & think in order to remain appealing to thier audience. 4. Carr is worried that we will automatically start to automatically rely on the mass amounts of information the Internet and Google provides to us. He mentions how we will become like "pancakes," wide and flat. So essentially, we will have a wide knowledge base full of mass amounts of facts and whatnot but we will be flat, meaning that we will have no depth to our thoughts. Carr suggests that our intelligence will become "artificial intelligence" which is what Google wants to do with the Internet.

Carr article

I enjoyed this article very much and it really got me thinking about the impact the Internet has on our way of thinking. Carr mentions, as do other writers he talks with, about the difficulties of delving into a long book, reading lengthy newspaper articles, journals, etc. and I connected instantly! In high school, when I didn't spend nearly as much time researching and having to find lots of information that wasn't provided in print for me already, I would read books all of the time for pure joy. I would also read the newspaper and think a lot about current events and my stance on them. Since I started college though, I spend a lot more time on the Internet browsing the web for information. So now, as much as I want to enjoy books and the newspaper for pure enjoyment and contemplation, I just cannot. I get bored so easily and I find myself skimming newspaper articles and books and completely missing the point or deeper meaning/implications. I become so frustrated with myself, but thanks to Carr and his essay, I have now been provided with a scapegoat: the Internet itself. The Internet will never go away. Life could never go back to the way is was even just a couple decade ago, but before my time and the next generation and thereafter will only know how to access information through the Internet. I'm sure one day books won't even be published anymore because they are so easily accessible online. But that isn't even the saddest part, the saddest part is that books and most written material will become so straightforward and easy to access that people will stop challenging themselves to dig deeper and find more meaning and answers (to questions they probably aren't even asking because deep thinking will be diminished). There was a mention in the text about how deep reading and deep thought were "indistinguishable" and I agree with that very much so. Our incessant need to be stimulated all the time is ridiculous. My little brother will be playing on the computer and will have to wait a whole 3o seconds for something to load...but of course he can't sit there and do nothing, he actually gets up and turns the T.V on! It disgusts me to see these kinds of things. I am a thinker, I like to sit and ponder life's big questions, the injustice in the world, the imbalance between the rich and the poor, etc. it is all something I like to think about and discuss. Yet the Internet has taken this away from me to some extent, because people just want hard facts quick and easy. We don't want to sit around and talk or read about things we think have no real answer or that would take too long to answer/fix in the first place. Just because we are filled with lots of random information "like a computer" doesn't make us smart or intellectual or philosophical or whatever, it just means that we are a machine filled with lots of codes. The Internet is doing to our thinking what McDonald's did to dinner...ruining it.

Billy Sim

1. We don't necessarily realize who we are exactly or what it is that we have to do until it is brought to our attention. Whether through other people or, in this case, through a video game that "SIMulates" reality. He attempted to construct a character that adequately represented him in real life...but like Klosterman says, nobody truly knows himself.

2. We feel that it contrasts with "Slumming" in that Klosterman's Sim's character was only happy if Klosterman was buying things for him. His happiness was soley based off of the purchases he made. In "Slumming," these rich people already had all these nice things but they wanted to live a less luxuorious life and they took to the streets abandoning all thier possessions. They thought this would make them happier.

3. Children definitely become computer/Internet literate very quickly, which is beneficial in our technologically-centered world. However, we agree that children do think more like computers. Everything on a computer is systematic and everything is all already there. They lose imagination in a sense. Once they leave the computer and are forced to do homework on paper, write in journals, or just play with toys they do not know exactly what to do because they have been confined to following certain rules a machine creates for them.

klosterman's SIMs

I never owned any of the Sims games and I have never played them either. I suppose I had actually never really known the premise of the game until I read this article. I had no idea that the Sims was basically "a video game where you do all the things you would normally do in real life if you weren't playing a game." The game seems to me to be a mirror of our actual life and all its mundaneness (i.e. bathroom breaks and eating).
Klosterman suggests that some believe the Sims gives the gamers a view into other people's lives...the good and the bad. However, Klosterman says that for him (and he suspects many others) it was the opposite: "I don't care about anyone's peephole but my own." This made me think about my Facebook assertion that people love participating in social networks because we are informally invited to "creep" on anyone who accepts our friend request. But when I think about it, I spend way more time on Facebook "creeping" on myself. I just want to know what other people see when they interact with me so I look at my own photos and page mostly. I know how vain that sounds but I cannot in any way act as if it isn't.
Klosterman's mentioning about road construction and how it will always exist, that "there will never be a day when it's all fixed" really struck me because I have actually thought the same thing before! We are constantly doing something to expand and reach more people and see and do more things. Our whole life, as the Sims creator says, is "an ongoing strategy problem." We have to fit so much into our daily routines just so we can feel alive. But are we really living? "Even free people are eternally enslaved by the process of living." Such powerful words. Life will always inforce some sort of constraint on us, whether it be time, money, the basic need to eat, etc. there will always be something keeping us from doing something else.
My favorite part is when Klosterman grants his Sims character free will. Wouldn't it be nice if free will were that easy to obtain.

final draft of me

The other day I was on the phone speaking to my grandmother. She was asking if my brother (now a senior in high school) had chosen a college yet and what major he was thinking about. I told her I wasn't exactly sure but they he was in the process of deciding. She proceeded to tell me how lucky we are and that going to college was the best decision we could make; "If I had made better decisions maybe I'd be someone else, but no, I just work at Walmart." Those words make me think, if my grandmother could go back and "revise" her life, I am most certain that she would.
So I do not think that there is a "final draft" of who we are. Things change everyday. We meet new people, we experience new things, we go new places, everything around us is changing right before our eyes so how is it possible for us to remain the same? We have to change, we have to adapt, our life is in constant "revision." I hope throughout my life that I have critiqued and made edits to myself and that I have allowed myself to be subject to other's opinions and views so that I can hopefully be the best version of the "me" I want to be by the time I reach my final days.
But who is to say whether or not I will. There is no "final draft." Things can always get better. Just like in class when we turn in a final draft we have the opportunity to revise it once more. And so in life we have the chance, if we seek out opportunities and choose to change, to constantly revise who we are.

slumming

"No one is easier to ignore than the homeless." I really liked that quote from this week's reading. I think that it rings very true. There are times when I have been walking around a city, I will see a homeless person and the people I am with will say "just ignore them." We pay absolutely no attention to these individuals who seem to hold no significance in our life and for that matter in society's "life" either.
All these rich and famous people attend banquets and dinners, writing checks and donating money, supporting foundations and causes that most likely hold little meaning to them. These events are just another way for the rich to hangout and network, for the rich to appear compassionate. They have millions of dollars so writing a check for a couple thousand dollars is nothing. Their life is luxurious to the utmost yet for some "globe-trotting is just the chance to feel bored more places, faster." So the characters in the readind choose to "hide in the open" and play homeless.
They experience all the things they couldn't before. The freedom to do as they please right in the public eye, without people judging them or the media critizing/humiliating them. When you are homeless, nobody cares what you do. The rest of society just places thier preconcieved stereotypical notions of the homeless on you....assuming that they even see you or take the time to think of you at all.
Homeless people are taken advantage of and murdered all of the time. The sad truth is that most of these individuals were invisible to the rest of society anyways, so thier absense is easily filled by the next guy in dingy clothes with a brown paper bag sitting on a park bench. In light of the Academy Awards just being on, I look at these famous people and admire and envy them. These people, the rich and famous, are far more unrealistic than the homeless are though. I have never been walking through Columbus and stumbled upon Brad Pitt, but I see the homeless all the time. So maybe the wrong group of people are being "seen" as invisible.

evan ratliff-vanish

I enjoyed this story about Evan Ratliff's "vanishing act." I think you have to admire a guy who was willing to give up the comfort of his previous life (which I am assuming he was fond of) to try and start a new life, simply for the sake of testing out modern technology and its link to the individual. We all cherish our privacy and some of us freak out a bit when we hear about "government tapping" and what not. But realistically, millions of us are associated and connected to social networking sites, online banking accounts, email, etc. No matter how private we think something may be, someone somewhere has the ability to obtain our information.
I was kind of frustrated with some of the comments people left about Evan's story. Some critized him for staying so connected to the Internet and his social networking sites but I think these readers missed the point. Others also commented on how he should have just holed up in a cabin in the woods somewhere; again, missing the point. I believe Evan wanted to test one's ability to "disappear" and start a new life while still being able to enjoy and take part in our fast paced digital world. I also think he wanted to keep doing all the things he was accostumed to and enjoyed doing while seeing if he could simultaneously vanish.
I mean, how many people really want to disappear and have no real connection with reality for the rest of thier life? That just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense in my opinion. I admire Evan for his valiant attempt. I know that I would not have been able to last half as long as he did; I would have made numerous mistakes along the way and I would have always been looking over my shoulder. I think that is the scariest part about disappearing, you will always feel unsure that you have completely covered your tracks. I cannot even imagine how terrified criminals must feel on a daily basis! I also want to mention one thing: if one wants to be found, I think they will be in only a matter of time.

Do you call yourself a writer?

I suppose in the simplest since, yes, I would call myself a writer. Meaning that I do indeed write often (either because I have to for academic reasons or because I choose too). But I would never tell or profess to others that I am a "writer." To me, when I think of someone being a writer I think of individuals who write novels, plays, poems, journals,etc. with the intent of having their work published for a mass audience to read.
I guess I tend to only claim to be what I think I know I am really good at. I do not like to overestimate my abilities (and often times I'd say I actually underestimate myself) because that can only lead to embarrassment, and who really enjoys being embarrassed? Writing, to me, is a very personal thing, and should I say to others "yes, I am a writer" then they would most likely assume that I am very talented at writing...but if I let them read something I wrote and they highly disapporved, I would then be inclined to think less of my abilities. I am all for corrective criticism but it feels less like a personal attack if to others I am not perceived as a true "writer."
I also don't think I have the credentials to be called a "writer," at least not by other peoples' standards. I don't have an English degree or anything like that (and I am not pursuing one), I have never written for a newspaper or anything either, so I do not think that others would agree if I called myself a writer.
Obviously (and sadly) I am putting a lot of emphasis on what other people would think of me if I were to call myself a writer. Being one who cares about what other people think isn't something I am fond of but the world is full of judgemental eyes and claiming to be something that I may not be, puts me at the center of all those judgemental stares.

Literacy and Voice Questions - In Class

1. Well, of course in order to be literate you need to be able to understand what you read and write. However, being "technologically and digitally" literate involves a lot more. If someone doesn't know how to use a computer, they might be considered to be stupid by some people, but they might be brilliant in other areas.

In order to be able to text, you need to be able to to understand "text speak" like "idk", "idc", "ttyl", "omg", and all of the other crazy things people come up with to save time and energy.

Not only should you have a basic grasp on that, but to be technologically literate you should be able to operate and maneuver around a computer. So much of our lives are connected with the Internet that you almost have to be able to understand how it works.

4. So many people use other people's words and ideas on Facebook instead of coming up with our own way of saying how we feel. People post videos, lyrics, movie quotes, or quotes from other people (scholars) who actually can put together their own ideas.

It is difficult to create an original voice just for yourself.

We do think it is possible to use your own voice, but it isn't easy, and it isn't common.

5. People definitely view other people's voices as more authentic than others - and sometimes more authentic than our own. By using someone else's words, we are deeming their thoughts more credible than our own, so we use them in order to appear theway we want to Facebook or on other sites.

6. It is really hard to get around using something from someone. Pretty much everything we say has come from something else. No idea is completely original - chances are, someone has thought about the same thing before. Not to mention, it is must more convenient to copy and paste a chorus that explains how you feel instead of making your own "status."

why write?

I write because I have a lot going on in my head. If I were to just leave it all there, jumbled together, the confusing mess it is, I would never know exactly what I was thinking or feeling. Writing for me can be liberating. Writing can free the mind from all the questions and concerns it has. It's like when people tell you to write a letter to that someone you are mad at or whatever, but don't give the letter to them, just throw it away. The act of physically writing it down, putting everything out there on the table, discovering new emotions and questions along the way, is enough that actually sending the letter to that someone is no longer necessary.
I think that is a great example of writing's liberating capabilities. Sometimes I even avoid writing because I know that along the way I will put something down that maybe I don't want to deal with at the moment. That is the beauty about writing, everything you feel/want to say is already in your head you just haven't discovered what it means or maybe you just didn't have the courage to address it, but writing forces you to. Writing is very powerful that way.
Plus, sometimes saying things aloud just isn't enough to get people to understand your point, see your side, know how you feel, etc. Writing for me can be far more structured and thought out than spoken word. Sometimes I get flustered or I just can't come up with the right thing to say, so writing allows me to take my time and devise meaningful and clear thoughts.

Why I write

"I write entirely to find out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see and what it means." I love this quote by Didion. I think this quote rings very true to most writers (and when I say "writers" I mean anyone who feels compelled to put words onto paper). I know that when I choose to write, maybe in a journal for example, it is a process that unfolds as I am actually writing. I discover what it is I really want to say, what I truly feel, what I think I understand and what I still feel unsure about.

If you've yet to create a picture in your mind, full of images and words and actions then you can't possibly write meaningful, passionate work. Everything will just be useless words designed to make the reader happy when indeed writing is really "the act of saying I," so the writer has to have an image in their mind already in order to create the voice of "I." That is waht Didion is saying, that we have to have a story in our mind about the way we think things should be except that the image in our mind is incomplete and so we write to uncover the answers/meanings of our mind. If we already knew the answers, we would have no business writing in the first place.

That voice of "I" is exactly what Johnny Cash talks about in his interview. He was told he was a "song stylist" becasue he took another singer's song and made it his own. He stayed true to himself. Cash heard the song with his ears one way and in his mind another and so he sang it in a way that would make it unique to him. Cash had no way of knowing how acceptable his way would be until he actually put it out there.

Obama's Edits - Response.

We think that Obama's edits helped the speech sound more personable. He made it apply to everyone - Democrats and Republicans. We think that he wanted to help his audience feel a sense of unity. Some worked with Ted Kennedy and knew what he stood for, and Obama's goal was to simply remind them of that. The matter was something that both Republicans and Democrats agreed on and worked together toward.

The blogger says pretty much the same thing:

"He drew individuals, members of Congress generally, and the American people as active agents into a joint national project of compassion and positive action."

Obama also spoke in first person throughout his speech saying things like, "I know," "us" and "we" making himself sound credible and relatable.

He thinks that through Obama's edits, he gave his audience a sense of "YEAH! We can do this!" Obama mentioned that hard work should pay off and the blogger felt that Obama gave a feeling of hope when he said, "the government has to step in and deliver on that promise."

So as a group, we agree with the blogger.

Thoughts and Questions on A&P

1. We have decided that the end feels more frustrating than anything else. Sammy now has to find another job on his own, and start over somewhere else. When he said, "I quit," I'm sure he felt liberated and relieved that he was finally done with that place, but once he got outside and looked back I feel like he regretted his decision.

3. This story really shows Sammy's personality, and therefore, his identity. Throughout the story we get to read his thoughts and see what he's thinking. He ends up quitting his job because he was upset that his boss embarrassed the girls in the store. I feel like he wanted to impress them and be the person they might want him to be, but it didn't work. Once he got outside of the store, he realized that he now has to find a new identity and a new place of work because he just threw his job away for a girl he will probably never see again.

5. As a group, we have decided that we would not have made the same decision. Even though he tried to be the hero, it didn't work out for him. It was a stupid decision that he couldn't take back. Keeping a job and trying to keep your boss happy (even when they are stupid) is a little more important than a scantily clad girl and her friends. They shouldn't have been going around town in just their bikinis anyway - it was in the 1960's, for goodness sake. Hahahahah.