Diagnostic Writing
Some people choose not to pursue higher education which is totally fine, it is only when these people try to put their ideologies on others that it becomes a problem. I would also agree vice versa that people who are college bound should definitely encourage others but never force decisions.
I would say to the person who isn’t interested in traditional education to live their life to the fullest. Obviously they know what is best for themselves and they know what works for them and what doesn’t. It is also argued that money is wasted on college. I don’t necessarily believe that for every case. I think as individuals all raised from different backgrounds we all have different ambitions and ways to accomplish these set ambitions. Some choose to go to school some don’t; a lot of people fall somewhere in between.
A lot of times community college is ruled out possibly because of stigma or maybe millennials are just “too perfect” to attend. I believe community college is the most equitable educational choice after high school. Chances are that there is one near you so you don’t have to go far from where you’re comfortable being. In addition, community college courses are a fraction of the cost of university classes making them an ideal choice from a socioeconomic standpoint.
You could make the argument that it is a waste of time to go to college because there is no guarantee you will be hired into the field of your choice. I believe that that is a valid reason to not go to college. On the other hand some people go to school to study things that they absolutely love. They don’t do it for future capital just out of pure enjoyment. In conclusion, college isn’t for everyone but don’t let others make that decision for you.
I would say to the person who isn’t interested in traditional education to live their life to the fullest. Obviously they know what is best for themselves and they know what works for them and what doesn’t. It is also argued that money is wasted on college. I don’t necessarily believe that for every case. I think as individuals all raised from different backgrounds we all have different ambitions and ways to accomplish these set ambitions. Some choose to go to school some don’t; a lot of people fall somewhere in between.
A lot of times community college is ruled out possibly because of stigma or maybe millennials are just “too perfect” to attend. I believe community college is the most equitable educational choice after high school. Chances are that there is one near you so you don’t have to go far from where you’re comfortable being. In addition, community college courses are a fraction of the cost of university classes making them an ideal choice from a socioeconomic standpoint.
You could make the argument that it is a waste of time to go to college because there is no guarantee you will be hired into the field of your choice. I believe that that is a valid reason to not go to college. On the other hand some people go to school to study things that they absolutely love. They don’t do it for future capital just out of pure enjoyment. In conclusion, college isn’t for everyone but don’t let others make that decision for you.
Digital Natives
On 6th page of this reading, the author mentions "digital natives, whose perception of a healthy social life has been shaped by platforms like Facebook and Gchat." (and SnapChat, and Instagram, etc., etc.) You are a digital native (i.e. you've been raised in the age of "social media" and thus a high level of "connectivity"). Do you feel that this has inhibited/hurt or expanded/helped your reality and your relationships with other people. Explain.
As a Virtual Native, I believe I receive many good benefits as well as negative things. On the positive I think I have better spatial reasoning skills and patience for new programs that I learn. Growing up in a digital age I can adapt to new technology quickly since i’ve grown up around so many different programs. I think people haven’t reached a complex line where/when it is appropriate and not to use your cellphone and social media applications. I believe some people use social media to acquire attention without having to physically socialize. You can post a still photo of yourself and reap attention. I’m not saying it’s bad to promote yourself; I would just be really careful with how much you rely on that to get you through the day.
This article addresses the concept of escapism with respect to virtual reality and social media and asks the question "can virtual escapism ever be used for good?" Yesterday's reading mentioned treating PTSD and treating Invisible Limb Syndrome. This reading mentions visiting remote destinations around the world. Share and discuss 2 ideas (not already mentioned in yesterday's or today's readings) for which VR worlds could be used for good.
I know very little about this condition but it seems very uncomfortable. It is an undesirable disorder that affects people with missing limbs. Their mind cannot comprehend that the limb is gone so they still feel pain in it. The article talks about the good that virtual reality programs can do for people that suffer from PLS. Since VR is all about a different reality than the one you’re in. A reality where you can have a limb that was taken from you. I believe the impact of VR on people with PLS can be analyzed even further than what was achieved in this article. It does pave a good path for future conversations about it.
The other thing that caught my attention is how much of a modern discovery VR has been lately. In the article it talks about one of the most popular VR mediums; the Oculus Rift. This company got its start up money from Kickstarter and was endorsed by Mark Zuckerberg. In my mind it’s astounding how Oculus came into existence do to so many new inventions and people.
As a Virtual Native, I believe I receive many good benefits as well as negative things. On the positive I think I have better spatial reasoning skills and patience for new programs that I learn. Growing up in a digital age I can adapt to new technology quickly since i’ve grown up around so many different programs. I think people haven’t reached a complex line where/when it is appropriate and not to use your cellphone and social media applications. I believe some people use social media to acquire attention without having to physically socialize. You can post a still photo of yourself and reap attention. I’m not saying it’s bad to promote yourself; I would just be really careful with how much you rely on that to get you through the day.
This article addresses the concept of escapism with respect to virtual reality and social media and asks the question "can virtual escapism ever be used for good?" Yesterday's reading mentioned treating PTSD and treating Invisible Limb Syndrome. This reading mentions visiting remote destinations around the world. Share and discuss 2 ideas (not already mentioned in yesterday's or today's readings) for which VR worlds could be used for good.
I know very little about this condition but it seems very uncomfortable. It is an undesirable disorder that affects people with missing limbs. Their mind cannot comprehend that the limb is gone so they still feel pain in it. The article talks about the good that virtual reality programs can do for people that suffer from PLS. Since VR is all about a different reality than the one you’re in. A reality where you can have a limb that was taken from you. I believe the impact of VR on people with PLS can be analyzed even further than what was achieved in this article. It does pave a good path for future conversations about it.
The other thing that caught my attention is how much of a modern discovery VR has been lately. In the article it talks about one of the most popular VR mediums; the Oculus Rift. This company got its start up money from Kickstarter and was endorsed by Mark Zuckerberg. In my mind it’s astounding how Oculus came into existence do to so many new inventions and people.
Psychological Implications of Virtual Reality
One thing from “Psychological Implications of Virtual Reality” that really stuck with me was the research on Phantom Limb Syndrome. I know very little about this condition but it seems very uncomfortable. It is an undesirable disorder that affects people with missing limbs. Their mind cannot comprehend that the limb is gone so they still feel pain in it. The article talks about the good that virtual reality programs can do for people that suffer from PLS. Since VR is all about a different reality than the one you’re in. A reality where you can have a limb that was taken from you. I believe the impact of VR on people with PLS can be analyzed even further than what was achieved in this article. It does pave a good path for future conversations about it.
The other thing that caught my attention is how much of a modern discovery VR has been lately. In the article it talks about one of the most popular VR mediums; the Oculus Rift. This company got its start up money from Kickstarter and was endorsed by Mark Zuckerberg. In my mind it’s astounding how Oculus came into existence do to so many new inventions and people.
There were 2 things in the article that I didn’t agree with. The first was in the studies chapter talking about rats in virtual reality. I had a hard time understanding or believing that they could accurately test VR on such small animals. If they had more evidence I may have considered it. The other thing was replacing real experiences with virtual reality ones. The example given is about visiting the Coliseum in rome. The argument is that if someone is unable to go they should experience the VR version. In my opinion that would just make me sad. If I was physically unable to go somewhere I wouldn’t liked to be teased like that.
In conclusion, virtual reality has come a long way and still isn’t even close to its potential. We need to wait patiently to see what comes next.
The other thing that caught my attention is how much of a modern discovery VR has been lately. In the article it talks about one of the most popular VR mediums; the Oculus Rift. This company got its start up money from Kickstarter and was endorsed by Mark Zuckerberg. In my mind it’s astounding how Oculus came into existence do to so many new inventions and people.
There were 2 things in the article that I didn’t agree with. The first was in the studies chapter talking about rats in virtual reality. I had a hard time understanding or believing that they could accurately test VR on such small animals. If they had more evidence I may have considered it. The other thing was replacing real experiences with virtual reality ones. The example given is about visiting the Coliseum in rome. The argument is that if someone is unable to go they should experience the VR version. In my opinion that would just make me sad. If I was physically unable to go somewhere I wouldn’t liked to be teased like that.
In conclusion, virtual reality has come a long way and still isn’t even close to its potential. We need to wait patiently to see what comes next.
Language/Doublespeak
1.With the videos we watched in class in mind, summarize the "Doublespeak" article and share your thoughts on the power language. / Why is it important to understand the ways in which language is used? (about a page)
2.How does Doublespeak affect our ability to participate in our democracy? (about a 1/2 page)
Double speak is a way for someone to tell something to someone else without giving them the full scope on what is going on. You could wonder why people would do this. Wouldn’t you want the person you’re talking to to understand what you’re saying? The magic of double speak is that the people that use it are in some ways suppressors of information. As inferred from the text, politicians use doublespeak in order to delegate important facts that aren’t popular. They have to do this to stay in favor of the people. I personally believe that politicians have the worst intentions all the time; I think a good example of this is the pure existence of doublespeak. It is meant to keep people in the dark.
I really enjoy the origin of the term doublespeak; coming from one of my favorite books 1984 by George Orwell. This is a good example of the power of language. A term that was invented in a fiction novel has become a mainstream word. I believe that this book has been popularized and recognized all around the world as a political statement. It is so important because even after it came out it is still very relevant in modern times. For example, this election season it is really important to pay attention to the new people in power because they can make huge changes really fast.
2.How does Doublespeak affect our ability to participate in our democracy? (about a 1/2 page)
Double speak is a way for someone to tell something to someone else without giving them the full scope on what is going on. You could wonder why people would do this. Wouldn’t you want the person you’re talking to to understand what you’re saying? The magic of double speak is that the people that use it are in some ways suppressors of information. As inferred from the text, politicians use doublespeak in order to delegate important facts that aren’t popular. They have to do this to stay in favor of the people. I personally believe that politicians have the worst intentions all the time; I think a good example of this is the pure existence of doublespeak. It is meant to keep people in the dark.
I really enjoy the origin of the term doublespeak; coming from one of my favorite books 1984 by George Orwell. This is a good example of the power of language. A term that was invented in a fiction novel has become a mainstream word. I believe that this book has been popularized and recognized all around the world as a political statement. It is so important because even after it came out it is still very relevant in modern times. For example, this election season it is really important to pay attention to the new people in power because they can make huge changes really fast.
Issac Lidsky
As implied from the TED talk What Reality Are You Creating For Yourself by Isaac Lidsky, the fish swimming backwards story played into the idea that people perceive obstacles differently because everyone comes from different places. I believe the connection into the beyond feelings reading is that we all have this idea that Virtual Reality technology can only go so far but that is just ourselves setting limitations. The people who truly believe in the future VR holds have experienced technology different than people who oppose it.
In the reading referring to the Oculus Rift, the author talks about people past, present and future expectations for virtual reality. This is where the role of prior experience plays into the article because people's opinion’s differ from their exposure to programs like the Oculus Rift and even more basic apps like Google Cardboard provide an ideaspace for the future of what Virtual Reality can accomplish.
“A hill appears steeper if you’ve just exercised, and a landmark appears farther away if you’re wearing a heavy backpack.”(Lidsky 2). This quote is what got me to understand what he was trying to get across in his talk. Depending on your prior situation it will impact your choices in the future. This is a crucial part of critical thinking; being able to remove yourself from the situation you’re in and think about the different paths you could take from that particular moment. This is critical thinking to me because he is talking about removing himself from his gut feeling and used a critical thought process to make decisions.
Mr. Lidsky’s loss of sight seems to have given him a reality not too different than his past. He was a harvard graduate at the age of 19 so that it is inferred that he has a lot of determination. When he lost his sight it didn’t seem to phase him in his business work ethics. I believe he would even be qualified to do this TED talk without being blind. His loss of eyesight seems to have brought maybe some humility to his life. I could imagine being such a young success could impact your development through adolescents.
Something to consider that I derived from the text is that different people have different ideas on what critical thinking is. Since critical thinking isn’t formally taught in school systems there is no concrete way adolescents develop the skill. Therefore, when learning it people develop their own narratives about it. This is where and interesting discussion begins. Everyone’s critical thinking process differs slightly due to the reasons just explained; the real question is what is a definition everyone can agree on. One could make the argument that critical thinking is carefully going over all aspects of a situation while someone else could say it’s using other people’s perspectives to come to a conclusion.
What I derived from the TED talk from Isaac Lidsky was even after going blind he kept up with what he was doing. He thought critically and realized that his everyday life would become a little more complicated without eye sight he didn’t see it as a barrier just a speed bump if that makes sense; something he had to overcome but labeling it as a barrier can be misleading. People will think it’s impossible to accomplish the things he did but he did them nonetheless.
In the reading referring to the Oculus Rift, the author talks about people past, present and future expectations for virtual reality. This is where the role of prior experience plays into the article because people's opinion’s differ from their exposure to programs like the Oculus Rift and even more basic apps like Google Cardboard provide an ideaspace for the future of what Virtual Reality can accomplish.
“A hill appears steeper if you’ve just exercised, and a landmark appears farther away if you’re wearing a heavy backpack.”(Lidsky 2). This quote is what got me to understand what he was trying to get across in his talk. Depending on your prior situation it will impact your choices in the future. This is a crucial part of critical thinking; being able to remove yourself from the situation you’re in and think about the different paths you could take from that particular moment. This is critical thinking to me because he is talking about removing himself from his gut feeling and used a critical thought process to make decisions.
Mr. Lidsky’s loss of sight seems to have given him a reality not too different than his past. He was a harvard graduate at the age of 19 so that it is inferred that he has a lot of determination. When he lost his sight it didn’t seem to phase him in his business work ethics. I believe he would even be qualified to do this TED talk without being blind. His loss of eyesight seems to have brought maybe some humility to his life. I could imagine being such a young success could impact your development through adolescents.
Something to consider that I derived from the text is that different people have different ideas on what critical thinking is. Since critical thinking isn’t formally taught in school systems there is no concrete way adolescents develop the skill. Therefore, when learning it people develop their own narratives about it. This is where and interesting discussion begins. Everyone’s critical thinking process differs slightly due to the reasons just explained; the real question is what is a definition everyone can agree on. One could make the argument that critical thinking is carefully going over all aspects of a situation while someone else could say it’s using other people’s perspectives to come to a conclusion.
What I derived from the TED talk from Isaac Lidsky was even after going blind he kept up with what he was doing. He thought critically and realized that his everyday life would become a little more complicated without eye sight he didn’t see it as a barrier just a speed bump if that makes sense; something he had to overcome but labeling it as a barrier can be misleading. People will think it’s impossible to accomplish the things he did but he did them nonetheless.
Dehumanizing Language/Immigration Ban
A way that author Haig A. Bosmajian cites an example for language dehumanizing a group of people was using Adolf Hitler and his political values and beliefs that ended up turning an entire nation against the people who followed the jewish faith. “Jews were labeled “Parasites” or “Disease”; Hitler talked of the “demon of Communism” this metaphoric language was essential for dehumanizing the “enemy”. As expressed in this quote using descriptive adjectives referring to the group you’re trying to oppress aids to the image you create in people’s heads. When you describe someone or something (in this case Jews and Communism) as parasitic you can imagine that idea you create isn’t a good one. Religions and economic structures like Judaism and Communism aren’t even inherently bad at all, in fact, both Judaism and Communism promote a more compassionate society through sharing wealth and passing down knowledge to create a more peaceful world. Ronald Reagan describes Marxism as a “Virus” (Bosmajian 2). This was a period where Communist nations were forming in Asia and Regan was using scare tactics on our nation to get people to fear Communism. I would make the argument that political leaders got scared that people were questioning the different forms of markets. This prompted them to turn against a certain system that was untested purely out of fear that is was new and put a negative twist on it using dehumanizing speech. It could also be implied from the text that politicians at the time were trying to cover the fact that capitalism was and continues to be a flawed system.
In the last 15 years I would say people in positions of power have been careless with their choice in language referring to sensitive topics like U.S./Muslim relations. Innocent immigrants from war-torn countries are being denied freedom into a nation that’s morals are based in freedom from religious persecution. That is wrong and it hurts to see people with torn biases based on what they’ve heard.
I believe what Chris Murphy was trying to get across in this tweet was why would the U.S. bomb these nations (some are already fighting in civil wars) then close access to our country for the specific nations we destroyed. I agree with Chris Murphy’s explanation of the new laws that are being passed; It’s flat out bullying other nations and is creating a literal nightmare for civilians in these parts. Living in a post 9/11 society has limited people’s empathy and sympathy for people of the Islamic faith.
In the last 15 years I would say people in positions of power have been careless with their choice in language referring to sensitive topics like U.S./Muslim relations. Innocent immigrants from war-torn countries are being denied freedom into a nation that’s morals are based in freedom from religious persecution. That is wrong and it hurts to see people with torn biases based on what they’ve heard.
I believe what Chris Murphy was trying to get across in this tweet was why would the U.S. bomb these nations (some are already fighting in civil wars) then close access to our country for the specific nations we destroyed. I agree with Chris Murphy’s explanation of the new laws that are being passed; It’s flat out bullying other nations and is creating a literal nightmare for civilians in these parts. Living in a post 9/11 society has limited people’s empathy and sympathy for people of the Islamic faith.
DACA DAPA
DACA and DAPA are two immigration programs established through executive orders from President Obama. DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is a renewable form that defers your deportation for up to 2 years. DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) grants a deferred action from deportation for parents of U.S. citizens for 2 years. President Obama issued these actions in November of 2014 for DAPA and June of 2012 for DACA; in efforts to keep immigrant families together and to allow a more reasonable place to start applying for citizenship than policies prior. In Barack Obama’s presidency he passed many executive order bills that favored immigrants in rough situations. He believed that as a nation that is founded on the concept of freedom and civil liberties immigrants should get a fair chance to become citizens of the United States. 26 states like Texas, Arizona, Nebraska etc opposed. When the case was tried in the Supreme Court the vote came out 4-4; a tie that left the vote unsettled. Even with the tie in the Supreme Court the Executive Order was still law and people could still apply for it. States opposed to it tended to cut its funding due to the fact that they couldn’t stop the law. States that were for it like California did more for the order by making DACA and DAPA recipients eligible for a driver’s licences. This makes it easier for immigrants on deferred action to take care of their families and to work. DAPA recipients in California can apply for Medi-cal if they can prove they pay federal taxes. This is a huge step for immigrants especially in such a large state like California; with all the people applying for these programs the state is now making taxes off of the deferred citizens.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Parents_of_Americans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Semantics/Fighting Words
Terrorism is a general concept that most people understand; at the same time declaring war on it is problematic because even though the general idea is the same, everyone has an internalized definition to it. This can cause problems because the population has a different definition to terrorism than the state does. When it comes to dealing with the terrorism issue the government is the one making all the decisions in regards on how we go about getting rid of the issue. It would be assumed that the people learn about what their government is doing through traditional news sources (newspapers and news television). Depending on the opinion of the news source the “War on Terror” could instil xenophobic/islamophobic thoughts in the viewer's head. There needs to be a more concrete concept of the fight against extremists that are a threat to our population.
For example, creating a more concise definition of who/what we're fighting. This option would prove to be hard to accomplish trying to get the U.S’s. two party system to agree on exactly what our role in this fight is. Only when we get both sides of the media to cover the reality of the situation going on, will we start to make progress towards figuring the best choice of action as the fight progresses.
During President Bush’s address after the 9/11 attacks he was quoted saying "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." If you break this quote up and analyze each section you can see where “War on Terror” became an attack on islam. In the beginning of the quote he references it to being a “crusade”. The definition of a Crusade is a religious war; something that the war on terror should have nothing to do with. By misusing the word crusade he implied that this war is based on religious conflict. Then he finished the quote by saying “this war on terrorism, is going to take a while”. He never specifies how long or anything he leaves it very vague on what exactly is going to happen during this war. This is the way that I think it could have been interpreted in the ways I just went over by the Estesh'hads.
For example, creating a more concise definition of who/what we're fighting. This option would prove to be hard to accomplish trying to get the U.S’s. two party system to agree on exactly what our role in this fight is. Only when we get both sides of the media to cover the reality of the situation going on, will we start to make progress towards figuring the best choice of action as the fight progresses.
During President Bush’s address after the 9/11 attacks he was quoted saying "This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." If you break this quote up and analyze each section you can see where “War on Terror” became an attack on islam. In the beginning of the quote he references it to being a “crusade”. The definition of a Crusade is a religious war; something that the war on terror should have nothing to do with. By misusing the word crusade he implied that this war is based on religious conflict. Then he finished the quote by saying “this war on terrorism, is going to take a while”. He never specifies how long or anything he leaves it very vague on what exactly is going to happen during this war. This is the way that I think it could have been interpreted in the ways I just went over by the Estesh'hads.