30 September 2010- Page 292 #2

Marriage: Essential to Children

Marriage is an institution that has been in place, according to creationists, since the beginning of time. Wright says, “. . . love between man and woman is a human universal” (Wright 284). Across all nations, cultures, and tongues, the desire to be with someone has always been there. During different times in history, there have been different takes on this institution. People have practiced polygamy, going both ways; one man with multiple women, and one woman with multiple men. In today’s society the ideals of marriage are now constantly being debated about for a different kind of marriage ever seen before; a homosexual marriage. Upon looking into this fundamental institution and patterns over time, heterosexual, monogamous marriage should be preserved if we want more, overall functional families, specifically that relating to the well-being of children.

No matter what the social norm may be marriage ought to be with one person, of the opposite gender, for the due sake of their protégé. In evolutionary psychology, results show that men and women have difficulties staying together; that people tend to cheat on one another when needs are not being fulfilled. According to Buss, mating is about sexual selection and competition (Buss 263). Men are content with flings and short-term relationships while a woman is interested in “. . . selection a man who would be willing to commit to a long-term relationship” (267). How can these opposites co-exist? And what does this mean in the terms of offspring? The divorce rate is high in our time; people divorce, court others, and remarry; sadly, this has become the social norm. When dependents are involved, the question of parenthood becomes central to this and essential to evolutionary psychology. The points previously stated about marriage become insignificant and negligible in comparison.

Whenever there are two imperfect people, there will be an imperfect marriage, Buss says, “Conflict in mating is the norm and not the exception” (262). There will be conflict in marriage no matter what, whether it is a polygamous marriage, a homosexual marriage, or a heterosexual marriage. The key point to be made is that although these conflicts may exist, immensely more vast conflicts will arise if there is any other form of marriage than between one man and one woman. The implications for children who are not offspring into this type of marriage are potentially damaging and advert completely from evolutionary psychology.  Wright says “. . . one of the ‘most obvious’ Darwinian predictions is that stepparents will ‘tend to care less profoundly for children than natural parents’” (Wright 288). When this happens “It massively wastes the most precious evolutionary resource: love” (289).

“Daly and Wilson found that an American child living with one or more substitute parents was about 100 times as likely to be fatally abused as a child living with biological parents” (289). Another study shows that in the 1980s, “. . . a child age two or younger was 70 times a likely to be killed by a parent if living with a stepparent and a natural parent than if living with two natural parents” (289). This does not mean that children do not get abused by biological parents as well, but these statistics show the greater normalcy of it in homes where children do not live with the mother and father that produced them.

A heterosexual, monogamous marriage can first and foremost produce offspring. These offspring can then be raised, nurtured, and loved by the parents that produced them. They have a more sure sense of identity and grow up more likely in a home of love, not of abuse. No, marriage and people are not perfect and there are exceptions to all the rules. However, a heterosexual, monogamous marriage is in congruency with evolution and evolutionary psychology and preserves “the most precious evolutionary resource: love” (289).

Works Cited

Buss, David. "The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating." Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed.Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 261-277.

Wright, Robert. "Our Cheating Hearts." Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed.Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 278-291.

28 September 2010-Page 246: Directed Freewrite

Female Misunderstanding  

 One morning I dragged myself out of bed, to what I knew would be a tumultuous morning. I had a million things to do before I needed to leave to get to class and work for the day. I was in complete disarray. I was trying to get myself ready, get breakfast on the table, do unfinished homework, answer necessary emails, do some housework, and the list goes on and on. When I got married to my husband we had previously talked about helping one another out when the other one seemed overwhelmed. I needed to hastily get out the door, but the dishes still needed done and the trash taken out.

    Before leaving, however, I decided to ask my husband if he could do those things since he did not need to leave until later in the day. “Craig,” I said, “could you please do the dishes and take out the trash before you leave today?” He was staring at the computer screen and did not utter a single response. I left out the door, thinking to myself, “Great, now I am just going to have to do those things when I get back because he did not even listen to me.”

     When I got home later that evening, the dishes were done, the trash had been taken out, and above and beyond; he had started dinner.

     In her essay “Sex, Lies, and Conversation,” Tannen gives an example of a couple where a boyfriend laid down and closed his eyes to fully listen to what his girlfriend was saying, but she misinterpreted it as him not listening (Tannen 242). I had not even realized that my husband had minimized all of his web pages of homework in order to fully and explicitly listen to what I was saying until later that evening when I asked him about it. Tannen goes on to say that, “. . . at every age, the girls and women faced each other directly, their eyes anchored on each other’s faces” (242). It would have been beneficial for me to have taken in to account that males do not make direct eye contact when they are communicating, but that does not mean they are not listening.

   Another point that Tannen makes is that “. . . women make more listener-noises” (243). With my husband, I was waiting for anything, an “okay” or “uhuh,” but when I got nothing, I immediately took that as him not listening. There is such a vast difference in the ways that males and females communicate. Had I applied the principles and ideas that are presented in this essay, I could have completely avoided the frustration I felt with him all that day.

Work Cited

Tannen, Deborah. "Sex, Lies, and Conversation" Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions.Ed.Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 240-245.

Week 6 Blog Reviews

Amity Conolly

21 September 2010

The Hangover:

     In this piece I felt you did an overall great summary of the movie and hitting the high points. I felt maybe you should have gone into a little more depth with the characters just to give the reader a better idea of a “wild real man.” I did like how you brought up social ideals in relation to Alan, and also our concept of Vegas and its significance.

     There were a few grammatical errors that I noticed, just to point out to you for future reference. This sentence in your first paragraph, “Alan, the future brother-in-law, who is slightly mentally off and has feminine qualities” is a fragment not a complete sentence.  Also, later in your post there are two sentences that really need to be combined into one to form a complete thought, “This is the ever dreaded trip for a bride. But the most anticipated trip for the groom and his groomsmen.” Just keep an eye out for this in future writing and I think it will really help!

23 September 2010

Screen Time and Family Time:

   I really enjoyed reading the ideals you presented in this post. I liked how you talked about both the negatives and the positives of technology, and how you specifically used the computer as that example. I liked your personal examples that you used from your personal life to exemplify the point you were trying to make. A piece of advice I would give to you would be to make sure you have a conclusion. Bring it all back together in the end. Also, it is probably your computer’s fault, but indent your second paragraph. Overall, great job! J

Mark Bak

21 September 2010

Good job on incorporating a quote from the text into your analysis. A suggestion I have is that you should focus on one main idea. Initially, I thought you were going to be writing about one movie, but by the end you were writing about another movie; try to make it more fluid. To do this, maybe you should write in paragraphs with a beginning, middle, and an end to what you want to say.

23 September 2010

I found what you had to say very interesting and a different perspective I had not taken. I like how you used a real life example to talk about the difficulties for lesbians to have an acceptable identity in today’s society. Again, I would suggest that you write in paragraphs, it may make your posts longer and take more time, but I feel you could more fully develop and discuss your ideas. Good work! J

23 September 2010: Directed Freewrite

Emergence

In D’Emilio’s stirring essay entitled “Capitalism and Gay Identity,” he contends that gay and lesbian identity is directly linked to capitalism, “Their emergence is associated with the relations of capitalism” (227).  Before capitalism, families depended on one another for survival. Parents needed to procreate in order to be able to sustain life. With the shift in the economy to capitalism from this time, the necessity of being in a heterosexual relationship shifted as well. Males and females could not be in homosexual relationship because that meant putting their well being at risk, however, “These patters of living could evolve because capitalism allowed individuals to survive beyond the confines of the family” (230). The movement into capitalism allowed for independence, for individuals to begin to make their own living, and ultimately for gays and lesbians to fully emerge into their identities.

Since that time there has only been further emergence of the homosexual identity due to the technological advances in relation to our economy. Technology runs our lives. When people return from work or school, they more than likely do not first and foremost consider spending time with their family. Rather, the family disperses to use different forms of technology. One person may be playing a game or surfing the internet on the computer, one family member could be watching television, all this while another family member may be chatting on their Bluetooth . Dinner now is easily accessible. No longer does a mother prepare a meal and the family sits down together to eat it. Progression in technology allows us easy access to food. Strong family ties are no longer a feature of today’s society.

But what does this have to do with gay and lesbian emergence?  Everything. A further breaking down of the family means more of an opportunity for independence and a formation of a person identity. A child is no longer primarily governed by their parents, with all of the technological distractions; it can be argued that children are beginning to raise themselves. Whether it is the capitalist movement or an advancement of technology, we see a further disintegration of the family which means that there is more of an open opportunity and accessibility to homosexual relationships.

Capitalism is still fully flourishing in the United States, but technological advances also allow relationships to no longer be confined by space or distance. Business meeting are now conducted via satellite or video conference. We now have the internet directly through our phones, which allows limitless access at any time. We have email, myspace, facebook, and twitter, which all allocate instant communication with anyone, anywhere in the world. With the internet, one is sure to find others that are just like him or herself and that person has the ability to connect with them. Online dating has become a norm, for both hetero and homosexual couples alike.

Just as we saw a shift then, we are seeing an even greater shift now. The basis for this shift is a shift away from the basic unit of the family. Technology further drives away the need for dependence on others for a source of living and nurture. Technology puts each person in their own world and allows them to form their own identity; it also allows easy access for relationships. As the individual instead of the collective is more and more emphasized in society, we will see further emergence from gays and lesbians.

Work Cited

D’Emilio, John. “Capitalism and Gay Identity.” Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 225-236.

Real Wild Women/ Wild Real Men 21 September 2010

Hello Professor and Classmates,
I have the flu and I feel absolutely terrible. Today I am just going to "miss class" and not do my blog post.
Thank you,
Jessica

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Hillary Cummings:

Summary of Wright’s Essay

            This was a very good summary of the essay. I liked how you wrote so if someone had never read it, they would still get all of the main points by simply reading your summary. I thought you did an exceptional job in your organization of the post. It was fluid and touched base with every point found in the essay. You put things more simple than found in the essay, which readers are sure to appreciate.

P.S. Loved the picture J

Frida Kahlo

            In your description of the painting I found your sentences to be a bit choppy. They were all really short little sentences just stating a quick fact. I think by re-working these and adding more adjectives you could make it more fluid. I also found your interpretation of the symbolic meaning of the painting very interesting. I did the same painting and interpreted it very differently, but I still saw valid reasoning behind your points you made. I feel you presented a good argument of what you thought the painting symbolized. Good work.

Armando Teran Jr.

Thinking Machines Take Two

            Overall, this was a good summary. It was concise, but I feel you touched on all the major points that could be found in the essay. I liked how you quoted from the essay several instances and I compliment you on making them transition in smoothly. Your last sentence of the summary was strong and I liked how it was your opinion and it was supported by research from the text. One more thing, in you first paragraph, make sure you add a question mark when you quote Wright. It should look like: “Can machines think?” (Wright 141).

Wounded Deer

This is a good basic description of what you saw. I felt you described everything that was in the painting very well. Be careful with words that sound the same, but are spelled different and have different meanings. “Dear” and “deer” have two different meanings. “Dear” is a term of endearment to someone, such as a sweetheart or beloved one. “Deer” refers to an animal. There were a few times that you went back and forth between these two words. This happens to a lot of people; I just wanted you to be aware of it for future reference. You should have also interpreted what you thought it meant, I think you could have had some interesting ideas! Great job overall! J

Jordan Fluegel

Philosophy- Thinking Machines Take Two

            I thought the opening paragraph was a bit shaky and confusing. After that, however, you went nicely into the paper. The rest of the paper was well organized and highlighted the main points of the essay. Your last paragraph was nicely written as well. Just a suggestion, be careful of quoting things in your essays. Make sure you do in text citations and also that you underline or italicize things that need to be. I noticed a few places where this needed to be done.

Frida Kahlo

            I love the way you repainted what you saw with words. I thought you did an exceptional job on describing the painting. It was fluid, detailed, and gave the reader a clear idea of what it looks like without him or her actually having to see the painting. Your interpretation of the painting was very well done. I like the way you showed how each aspect of the painting is symbolic and what you believe it is symbolic of. Your post on this was my favorite one and the most well written one. Well done! 

"Roots" by Frida Kahlo

Page 199 #1 (9 September 2010)

Literal Description of Piece:


     Upon first gazing at this painting, one’s eyes are immediately captivated by a woman, lying on her side, bound in plant life, or roots. The vividness of the green contrasting with the vibrant orange of the woman’s dress causes this initial drawing of attention. From their one begins to pay attention to detail. The face of the woman can be recognized of that of Kahlo, indicating this is a self portrait. Looking further upon the leaves, one notices where the veins in them run, is blood; a deep red blood that was initially missed because it was not as prominent as the other colors. Although at first it went unnoticed, the foliage is stemming directly from her heart. Gazing into the background of this scene is a desert. There are many hues of brown blended together creating a rather desolate wasteland.

Symbolic Description of Piece:

                                                                    Barren Roots

     Drawing from classical art, artists tried to make their art as mimetic as possible. That is to say they depicted their art to exactness of the model. Art was considered beautiful and well done the closer it resembled the actuality of the object. Following this time, however, was the renaissance period where art changed. Artists depicted the emotions of things and symbolism of ideas, not exactness. This led to interesting facial expressions, props, proportions, and colors. Kahlo’s art resembles that of the renaissance time period and it is clear that she elicits from it. In her painting “Roots” she is depicting many things symbolically.

     This is a self portrait of Kahlo entangled about in roots, coming out of her heart, and flowing with blood. One must also take into consideration the barren, desert background in which she lies. Vapid, is the fact that this painting has something to do with her because it is clearly a painting of her. Moving to the roots, one notices they stem from within her. Roots are often associated with one’s family, heritage, or culture. Although Kahlo has roots from her family, the roots die with her.

     The blood denotes a literal blood from her. This would be descendents that could come from her, namely children. Her blood would literally run through her kids and her “roots” could continue to another generation. Her roots stop with her because she has no children and has not succeeded in having any. Thus, we see her trapped in a “barren” desert (something that cannot produce life) strangled by her own roots. Clearly she is signifying this barrenness of children and her inner notions of how she is feeling about her own roots.

     When initially looking at this piece, one might think it rather strange to see a woman in a barren desert, entangled in bloody roots. However, upon deeper observation it is lucid that there are many parallels between the painting and her life. She is expressing her emotions and her circumstances through her art, something renaissance artists did, and successfully creates a masterpiece.


                                                                  Work Cited

Kahlo, Frida. Roots. 1943.Sotheby. fridapaintings.com . Web. 9 September 2010.

Page #165, Discussion #1 (7 September 2010)

Human Capabilities Unknown to a Machine

            Wright opens his piece talking about the epic face off between a computer and a human in a game of chess. He uses this to show that this match “became an icon in musings on the meaning of dignity and human life” (Wright 140). He is presenting to us here and throughout the article, the question of whether or not machines, made by man, can think. He continues in presenting to the reader different arguments people have made over time about whether or not machines will ever have the capability to ever think or not. He makes points for both sides, but comes to the conclusion that machines will never reach human capabilities.

            One way machine will never reach human capabilities is because they will never feel. It cannot be programmed into a machine to feel emotions. He says, “After all, consciousness- the existence of pleasure and pain, love and grief- is fairly central to the source of life’s meaning?” (144). He is stating that even though a machine might be able to perform tasks, it can never truly have meaning to its life in the way a human does. It might be able to go through certain motions, or be programmed with intelligence beyond most human capability, but it will never have the emotional participle that undoubtedly blueprints a human. He also says that there are several limitations to a robot or machine, they can never have human experiences (145), something that is vital to being a human.

            A robot might be able to strategize in a game of chess, but what about street smarts? What about something as simple as knowing when or when not to laugh? When or when not to cross a street. One of “the biggest challenge is giving machines common sense” (141). No one can program these things into a machine because they are too variable. It is something that refers back to what was stated previously, experience.

Overall, Wright comes to the conclusion that although robots and machines will technologically advance over time, they will never reach a pinnacle point of being able to match human capabilities. They might be far superior in intellect due to programming, but there are essential pieces that make a human being, that try as they may, scientist will never be able to instill into a piece of machinery.

Work Cited       

Wright, Robert. “Can Machines Think? Maybe So, as Deep Blue’s Chess Prowess Suggests.” Academic       Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 139-146.

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Hilary Cummings

8/31

I really enjoyed reading this post. At first I was not exactly sure whether I like the idea of you incorporating the idea of the movie Inception, but the more I read, the more I liked it. I liked how you tied in what is current in today’s world with your argument. I like your distinction between what you believe is a thought and what you believe is an idea. I liked the examples you used to back up your argument. I think this is a great piece to work on further for the rough draft of our first essay that is due next week. Just a small grammatical error, in you last sentence you left off and apostrophe on one of the times you use “people’s” because it is possessive. Nicely done.

9/2

This is a good, concise response to a question. I feel you could have formulated and expounded on your ideas more to make a stronger and more definitive argument of why you agree with Minsky. I thought your summary of what he had to say was well written, but you needed to back up more why you agree with him, as well as adding you own reasons why and not just merely agreeing with him. Like a said, it is a good short answer to a question, it could just use more expounding.

Armando Teran Jr.

8/31

Your first paragraph in this response is extremely powerful. I felt you had a definitive argument about what you had to say. You contradict yourself, however, at one point you say that you believe a thought and an idea are the same thing, and then later you say how they are different. Take one side and argue for it and you will have a stronger piece that is fluid with one idea.

9/2

I enjoyed your summary of Minsky’s ideals pertaining to robots. I felt you used his quotes effectively and they flowed nicely and smoothly into your paper and worked in agreement with what you had to say. I also liked your use of a semi-colon at the end of paragraph two; I found it very effective. There were just a few grammatical errors. Make sure you put a comma before the word “but” when you use it. There were a few incidents when you did not do this. Great job overall.

Jordon Fluegel

8/31

You have very good ideas and opinions. I agree with what you have to say about a thought and an idea. I felt like you just answered the question, however, instead of putting it into an essay format and arguing for your point. You have a lot to say about what you think and I feel that it would be effective if you argued for your point over the course of three or more paragraphs. This would put validity behind what you are saying.

9/2

I really enjoyed reading this piece. You had a clear summary of what the article was about and I like how you articulated upon it in your next paragraph. I like how you agree with what he says, you don’t just say “I agree,” but rather you add ideas of your own to why you agree with him. I felt you used and excellent example to prove this. Good work.

Can Computers Think? Page 122 #3 (2 September 2010)

Governing Rules

Primarily, it is necessary to establish exactly what Minsky’s viewpoint is. Davidson says that Minsky believes in a “top-down” approach which means “imitating human intelligence by programming computers to process information by manipulation symbols that represented knowledge and rules” (Davidson 116). Minsky believes in building robots in such a manner that they exist and are governed by a set of rules that has been programmed into them. One might argue that this then does not constitute consciousness, but it can also be argued that it is the only way a robot can function adequately and sufficiently
Let’s look at something we should all be familiar with, yet does not have the breadth of a robot, the calculator. No one sat there for a profoundly large amount of time and entered in every single calculation that he or she could think of. It would be humanly impossible given the vast amount of calculations that are possible. Instead a calculator is governed by rules. Humans type in a function and using the rules programmed into it, it in return gives an answer in accordance with these rules. People, who have ever taken an algebra class, were likely told by the teacher that in some given problems, they must use the parenthesis correctly or they would get an incorrect answer. Once again, it is because a calculator is governed by rules. These rules in it tell it that certain entries produce certain results. Calculators have been around for an extremely long time now and will continue to be forever to come. Thus, this method works.
In comparing this to Minsky’s idea of robots, his ideals are the most plausible. My reasoning behind agreeing with Minsky is because I feel the only way a robot can be efficient is through a set of rules. The way for a robot to reach its full potential and aspirations is to be programmed. Minsky thinks that this can eventually make computers smarter than human beings in the aspects that they are programmed for. A calculator is smarter than a human being. Not many people can make that many vast amounts of calculations in such a short amount of time. Thus it is conceivable to believe that a programmed robot can be smarter than a human. When thinking about the concept of robots, it makes sense to me to have them governed by a set of rules programmed into them. Then again, I also think if people really want to create human intelligence, they should just go have a kid.
Work Cited
Davidson, Clive. "I Process Therefore I Am" Academic Communities/Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 115-122.

*Note: I know my work cited is incorrect, but I could not get it to format correctly on here.I also could not get it to tab or center things. Trust me, it is bugging me like crazy!