Scientific Writing

I found this week’s readings very intriguing even though I am not a science person. In fact, the only science I was ever good at was biology and I think that’s because my lab partner was too scared to dissect anything, so I had to do it all. But I don’t think that my personal interest or feelings towards science affects my perception of the importance of advances in science and technology. I think that Lisa Dellwo hit on this a little bit in her blog Why Scientists (Should) Blog.

Dellwo talks about people not understanding what a scientist is and what they do. I don’t know the true definition of a scientist but I know that what they do is important. Most of the advances we have in our society originate from a scientific standpoint. Yet, most people still don’t make scientific and technological advancements important either in their personal life or on the news, as Dellwo also pointed out. In an interview Dellwo had with Rick MacPherson, interim executive director and conservation programs director at the Coral Reef Alliance, he said this about the public’s negative comments on science blogs: “the negative commenters are evidence that the general public doesn’t understand the evidence-based nature of science. People don’t understand how science works; it’s not a democratic process. . . . not opinions.” To me, this quote shows that scientific research is not driven by the process of discourse but rather by need and necessity. MacPherson stated that science is evidence based and because of this, I think that scientific research might be instigated by conversations but I don’t think it driven by them.

Bouncing off of the idea of research and the driving force behind it, the other article we read Will We Ever … Talk to Dolphins goes into the methodology behind researching into interspecies communication. The article dove into past interspecies communication researching methods, what worked, and what didn’t work. For the prompt this week, I don’t think any other information on the article is important but that fact that there is an article our there is more important to address.

The fact that both readings for this week were available online to anyone shows that scientists do communicate with us “non-science folk.” They tell us things that we might not understand without intense and lengthy explanations so that we can know what new things are being research and discovered in the scientific community. I would say that this is somewhat a responsibility, to make known this information, but I think that it is more of a courtesy. These scientists aren’t required to give any information of what they are doing to the public, yet they do. They want people to be informed and make their decisions on issues based on the facts rather than out of ignorance.

Spirituality

As someone who is Roman Catholic, born and raised, I find that all of the readings play a part in my everyday life. After I read Brother Hayes’s account of his own spirituality and call to the brotherhood, it made me kind of jealous. Not jealous because he’s a brother, but because of his closeness with his faith. Brother Hayes said that “something was happening that was far beyond what [he] could understand at that point, but [he] no longer felt quite as frightened. God was in control.” I believe that all Christians aspire to not only live a life of faith, but to have that feeling that God is guiding them in some way. The lack of these experiences among lay people, I think, is the reason that religious autobiographies aren’t popular. People feel either feel like bad Christians or jealous over the fact that someone else had the experience that they desire. On the other hand, spiritual self-help books lay out the foundations for these people so that they can work on themselves, become better people of faith, and essentially feel that closeness with their religion and God.

Each person has their own desires within their religion, such as Brother Hayes, but when a person feels slighted by their religion what are their options? This question was brought up in the blog Courage and the Church. I am a very spiritual person and I will be the first to admit that I ask controversial faith based questions to better understand my faith. However, I think that Julia, the young woman who wrote this piece, isn’t trying to better understand Catholicism, rather she seems to want to tear it down a little bit. She asks fellows Catholics to question the validity of certain religious political positions, and if they should walk away because they don’t agree. To me, a person who’s been going to private school since Kindergarten, it seems to be something that someone who doesn’t know all the facts would write. There are options within the Church but she doesn’t acknowledge them. It’s scary because the power that this blog has is immense, primarily because it’s on the internet.

 Religion can be a very personal thing, while the internet is a very public thing. In the post New Models for the Church in a New Media World by Jim Rice, he says that “in our globally connected time, our very metaphors are changing, and this could be an opportunity for deeper insights that draw us closer to God and to one another.” Being able to connect with a fellow Christian half way around is a powerful thing and I understand Rice’s examples, but the meaning of the word “Catholic” is universal. In my religion, we believe that our faith connects us and transcendent these types of mediums (the internet). Like I said, I understand Rice’s examples but I don’t need a Facebook status or Tweet to make me feel connected to or empathy for my brothers and sisters in Christ around the world.

These three examples, autobiographies, blogs, and the use of the internet, are all ways that can foster growth in people’s spirituality. I firmly believe that there is a place on the internet for writing about spirituality. Today more than ever people are turning their back on the concept of organized religion and focusing on their personal relationship with God and the growth of their own spirituality. The internet provides that outlet for people seeking these desires and in turn, gives them a place to educate others on their own journey.

Movie Review: The Iron Lady

I don't talk about details in the movie, just an overview. I don't want to spoil the movie for those of you who wanted to see it but haven't yet.

The Iron Lady, which came out in January 2012, was one of the highest anticipated movies of the year. Meryl Streep, who plays Margaret Thatcher the first female Prime Minister of England, embodied the former Prime Minister flawlessly. Although Streep would go on to win an Oscar for her performance, it is too bad that her amazing portrayal could not upgrade the movie as a whole. Feeling duped by the trailers, the movie portrays a different side of Thatcher’s life. Most thought that the movie would be about how Thatcher became Prime Minister and the importance of her being the first female to hold that position in England. No one could have foreseen the direction that director Phyllida Lloyd was going to take.

The movie starts with a scene in a small English convenient store where an old woman is buying a carton of milk. Underneath all the make-up you can slightly notice that the old woman is Meryl Streep, but if you could not notice it, you might think that you walked into the wrong movie. It takes about 5 or 10 minutes for you to realize that one, you’re in the right movie theater, and two, that the movie is going to be very different than you might have thought. The movie portrays a Margaret Thatcher that is old, frail, and senile; bouncing back and forth from the present to the past with hallucinations thrown in here and there.  As the movie progresses you can kind of understand how the movie will play out because most of the flashbacks involve Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister.

However, the main focus of the movie is more about Thatcher dealing with the death of her husband, who makes frequent visits to her during the movie, and the lack of control that she has over her life as an old woman. I didn’t see that portrayed in the movie trailer, nor did I expect that to be the main focus of the movie. Although her flashbacks mainly involve her time in Parliament, even they were connected to her husband in some way. Yes you learn a little about her life but it focuses on the love and loss that being Prime Minister brought to her family. What made her husband fall in love with her was also the thing that tore them apart, her political ambitions.

This movie makes you want to travel to England and give Margret Thatcher a big hug. The movie wasn’t what I thought it was going to be and although I think it would have been better as a movie about her becoming Prime Minister, the movie was not as bad as most people think it might be. It shows the very personal side of a once very powerful and influential woman.

Being a history major I had to write a review about the Iron Lady. The readings this week stressed the importance of honesty and allowing one’s thoughts about a movie not overshadow the movie itself. It is important when critiquing to explain how you feel about something, just saying that you didn’t like something doesn’t suffice. As a person who doesn’t really look at reviews for movies, the website Rotten Tomatoes, just like the websites we dealt with about music reviews, allow people to see multiple views on a movie instead of focusing on big name critics, who, with The Iron Lady, didn’t enjoy the movie for what it was.

Multimedia and the Reviewing Genre

Although I know nothing about critiquing and reviewing, I will attempt my best at this week's prompt. Reviewing is something that everyone does on a daily basis. From the taste of food to a hairstyle, everyone has something to say. Today we live in a society that has the capabilities of getting information out to the public at lightning fast speed. When I think of reviews I think of two things … 1) blogs and 2) critics who think they know everything about everything. I am not a person who relays on other opinions. Although they are important to know and understand, opinions are personal and don’t match person to person. I think this is one reason why when choosing what movie to see or show to watch, I pay no attention to what others say about them. However, the readings for this week showed me that today, critiquing is very much like blogging.  The websites Metacritics, Pitchforlk, and Gorilla vs. Bear are more forums for discussions than telling people what to think, like, and potentially buy. Also these websites show off the advantages of technology to the critiquing genre.

 The use of technology, I think, has a great effect on the process of reviewing. Taking it directly from the prompt, immediacy and relevancy, I think, are affected the most by this. When talking about relevancy, the thought that comes into my mind is “right now.” Immediacy can have the same description, but they are different. When reviewing, I think that it would be important to get the critiques to a wide array of people as fast as possible. When thinking about relevancy however, I am conflicted. Relevancy can be personal … what one person sees as relevant another might not. Technology plays a huge role in reviewing today because of the immense audience reached and the capability to get ideas and thoughts to the public fast. Allowing a forum for many different interpretations is also an advantage of multimedia. A mixture of critiques from multiple sources is always better than just one persons opinion.

In a previous post I talked about my thoughts on blogs and the advantages and disadvantages of them.  However, a blog that is totally about personal opinion (review) can’t really have disadvantages. Blogs and critics who think they know everything about everything can be very different forums for discussion, but I think that they do hold similar genre characteristics. The one that stands out the most however would be the immense honesty of a reviewer on film, music, or television. I know that Ron loves Foster the People and considering it's the only band that I know that could be sondiered indie, I decided to look at this review on Metacritics. One user said this, "for a first album, it's really good! ''Torches'' offers catchy tunes that many people will fall in love with. The song that stands out the most is '' Pumped Up Kicks '', the chorus is just amazing. It's rare that all of the songs (in a single album) can be this much fun to listen to and can bring you a happy feeling." http://www.metacritic.com/music/torches/user-reviews Even if people are annoyed by the radios over playing of the song, I think that this users explanation is quite true. Being candid and open is a huge thing that I noticed about the reviews on Metacritics. Being a very blunt person myself, I think that this is most important. I see reviewing as a genre looking much like a blog. As I stated before, one of the things I think of when I hear the word review I think of blogs. It’s a forum of discussion that can be personal, non-academic, and very opinionated ... which I like.

Political Writing

Politics is definitely a subject that requires massive interest. I don’t follow the news too much and although I know about our nation’s history, I don’t know too much about politics. For me, the word politics always has a bad connotation. I’ve grown up hearing the phrase “it’s nothing but politics” to describe school, sports, and even friendships. I’m not sure about public schools, but it seems that private schools are more political … in my sense of the word. I find it both funny and sad that I associate politics with these examples rather than with government, especially with my educational area of interest. But even when I encounter politics in my studies I am neither intrigued nor disgusted by it. I think that I am down the middle on this one … politics is something that will always be there but right now, I choose only to acknowledge its existence and engage only when I have the knowledge to do so.

I think one of the major factors that push me towards the middle is seeing how politics divide people and the idea that one side is absolutely correct and the other wrong. I made this comment to Ron before and I meant it, every opinion and perspective is important to me. I don’t like the idea of sitting wholly on one side’s idea because of loyalties, for me this is a part of politics or “playing the game” as I always say.  

 On the Monkey Cage blog, Political Scientist Josh Putnam was quoted saying this about Ron Paul: “They will stick around and be very regimented in making sure that their supporters gobble up as many of those delegate slots to the next round of this process [as they can]. And that very greatly increases their chances of pushing folks through to the national convention.” This is an example of “playing the game” in politics.

I think that it is important to mix the prompts this week because for me they go together like cheddar cheese and apple (it’s a delicious combo if you’ve never tried it!). Political writing most definitely is a genre of its own. As Ron so nicely reminded us, Dirk argued that “knowing what a genre is used for can help people accomplish goals.” With so many people indifferent right now as to who they should support in the next Presidential election, many relay the facts but also plug in their own feelings or agendas for a particular position or person. Steve Clemons of The Washington Note said this, “I know that Senator Hagel who now co-chairs the President's Intelligence Advisory Board won't run for President -- but while my powder is still dry in this next election, I like the idea of people writing him in.” The next paragraph informed us of why Hagel would make a great Presidential candidate, but to and for whom?

I am one of these confused, indifferent people out there. And like so many others, I have no idea who to trust and who to count on for the facts. Everything and everyone has an agenda and it’s important to remember that when reading news, especially political articles and blogs.

Wikipedia

              Wikipedia … it is the source of information that almost everyone goes to when they need a quick jolt of information before class, or clarification on a subject or term.  Most students would advocate for Wikipedia, saying that the information provided is quite accurate and it is a one-stop-shop for multiple subjects and topics. I am one of those students that use Wikipedia, but I also understand the extent of its purpose in the academic world. Now that might be Dr. Selby rubbing off on me, but as a history major I am taught to mainly rely on primary sources and always use University Press books. So where does Wikipedia fit for me? Is there a balance between educational and social (Wikipedia) sources in the academic world? – Now I called Wikipedia a social source because of its ability to have multiple non-academic authors that are not basing their input on an educational level, that’s obviously my opinion.

As Ron stated in this particular prompt, most academics denounce the use of Wikipedia, mainly because of its lack of academic support. The creators of the website obviously aren’t stupid, look how massive Wikipedia has become. They support their creation but realize that everything has a downfall. Thus, they allow users to openly defend and critique Wikipedia. For me, it seemed that there was an argument and counter argument on every aspect of the website.

Pro: Wikipedia has almost no bureaucracy; one might say it has none at all. But it isn't total anarchy.

Con: Despite claims to the opposite, Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, full of rules described as "policies" and "guidelines" with a hierarchy aimed at enforcing these…

I hated reading through the pros and cons because it is not my personality to dwell on things like this. Much like how I deal with people, if I don’t get a good vibe from something I usually never use it or go back. So for me, it seems silly to be so for or against something like Wikipedia. Also, half of the things they were talking about I couldn’t even grasp … technical mumbo-jumbo is not my strong point. As for critiques, I don’t think that posting the article helps or hurts the website.

                I think for most people, the general idea of how Wikipedia works is all that is important to them. It doesn’t matter if there is bureaucracy or not, how editing works, how fast articles are edited, who gets banned, how fast they are banned, and, my personal favorite, if it’s ran by nerds or not. These critiques just seem so unnecessary to me.  

According to Michael Gorman, “what is the use of blinding speed and complete convenience (of the internet) if the results are inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading?” This quote tells a lot about how I view Wikipedia based on the fact that is self-regulating and collaborative. Although it is convenient, the average person doesn’t who contributes to the information. When researching, specifically for a paper or scholarly work it is important to know the who, what, when, and where of the information. Wikipedia doesn’t give you that. I believe, as I said before, that this is the main reason why professors tell students not to use the website or rely on it.

 I have been taught however, to use Wikipedia as a launching pad for research; to take the information provided and back it up with scholarly works as I research other materials. This method has served me well thus far and I hope other students, and Wikipedia users, take the time to make sure the information is correct. Would you believe everything a stranger on the side of the road told you? I know I sure wouldn’t.

Social Media and Technology

            In the reading Living and Learning Social Media, Danah Boyd says that "it's critical to realize that just because young folks pick up a technology before you do doesn't inherently mean that they understand it better than you do.” I wanted to start my blog with this quote because out of all the readings this statement hit me the most.  It really sums up the annoying assumption that adults my age, yes, I said adults, face when dealing with relatives, professors, and cranky old people who have yet to fully adapt to our technology driven society.

            With that being said, I can also fully say that even people in my own generation have yet to cross-over into the abyss of Facebook, Twitter, or anything like that. Kudos to them for being extremely individualistic! I think that the misconception that people my age, 21, are technology whiz geniuses comes from the fact that we grew up with social media. Just like Boyd says in her lecture, “today's teens are growing up in a world where social media is everywhere.” If we know nothing different, then we cannot help but be good at adapting to new technologies.

            But is just adapting to new technologies enough? It might be good enough for me, but according to Douglas Rushkoff, a novelist and computer guru, no, it is not. He claims that the social media sites we all love so much are using us. Our inability to understand software allows us to not fully use Facebook, Twitter, or whatever. Now, I think that I have a good hold on my Facebook and I bounce back pretty quickly to the changes and modifications, so why understand software? I do not know how to read software, if that is even what you do with it, and, much like Rushkoff predicted, I do not care know. All I care about is that fact that I understand what I use social media for. It is not rocket science, it is just Facebook.

            I think I have made it clear that my generation can hold its own it comes to technology, but not because we are smarter or more crafty. Trust me, I wish it was. It is because we wake up to it; we eat, breath, and sleep with it. But, and I will let my history training show a little, older adults need to remember that it is bad to assume and generalize. I might be able to get through social media sites but that does not mean that I know everything there is to know about everything technological. I understand Rushkoff's concerns that one day, we will be answering to robots and, well ... basically the move I Robot comes true because of our snooty attitude towards understanding software. But what can I say, we are American. We are good at dealing with things after they become detrimental problems.