Jake Perrone
Ger Xiong
1. In his essay “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff tries to show that schools need to concentrate on more than just book smarts, and start to tap into students that are very street smart.
2. One of his first points is that schools tend to look at street smarts as a non-intellectual matter. This may cause the students to not do as well because they are not working on topics that interest them. His second point is that book smart people tend to form cliques with similar people, while street smart people tend to have the ability to connect with anyone they choose to.
3. Gerald Graff would agree with Steven Johnson’s article ”Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” because it talks about all these shows and how they teach you interesting things about life. This goes hand in hand with street smarts being a good thing because these things are not always going to be able to be found in books. In the show All in the Family and Rhoda they tackle complex social issues; Graff would agree and begin to argue that a person with less street smarts would be in a less likely issue to tackle that successfully, because they are too focused on their intelligence and not able to connect with people as easily. Graff would agree with Amy Goldwasser’s article “What’s the Matter with Kids Today?” Graff would agree, because he tries to defend how street smarts are so important in today’s society, and her article tries to show how the internet and other new forms of entertainment are providing a source for children to learn more appealing information.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Morgan Marcotte
Matt Stanley
Watching TV Makes You Smarter
Although watching television can be undeniably enjoyable, it can also have intellectual benefits for people who tune in daily. Johnson claims that television in the twenty-first century has become complex through popular demand and watching television develops the mind in various ways. He describes what he calls the “Sleeper Curve,” which comes from viewers wanting more and more complicated plotlines in the shows they watch. In Dana Stevens’ article, Thinking Outside the Idiot Box, she claims that shows such as 24 have complicated plotlines whose purpose is not to get the reader involved but to make them come back next week, and that no intellectual value is involved. Johnson, however, would claim that these complicated plotlines are actually beneficial. They involve the viewer to “work” for the answer to questions throughout the plot; when they figure out a complicated situation in a show such as 24, they in turn feel clever and intelligent.
Johnson also points out that shows and movies can convey a subliminal message to the viewer. For example, the movie The Day After Tomorrow shows that society today is making headway towards another ice age, and basically gives a warning to the viewer. Johnson might agree with Douglas Rushkoff when he says that shows such as the Simpsons are helpful because they make complicated moral dilemmas more simplified so that the average person can understand them better.
Television overall enlightens the general public by providing entertainment through which they are able to learn more about the world and also able to improve cognitive abilities.
Matt Stanley
Watching TV Makes You Smarter
Although watching television can be undeniably enjoyable, it can also have intellectual benefits for people who tune in daily. Johnson claims that television in the twenty-first century has become complex through popular demand and watching television develops the mind in various ways. He describes what he calls the “Sleeper Curve,” which comes from viewers wanting more and more complicated plotlines in the shows they watch. In Dana Stevens’ article, Thinking Outside the Idiot Box, she claims that shows such as 24 have complicated plotlines whose purpose is not to get the reader involved but to make them come back next week, and that no intellectual value is involved. Johnson, however, would claim that these complicated plotlines are actually beneficial. They involve the viewer to “work” for the answer to questions throughout the plot; when they figure out a complicated situation in a show such as 24, they in turn feel clever and intelligent.
Johnson also points out that shows and movies can convey a subliminal message to the viewer. For example, the movie The Day After Tomorrow shows that society today is making headway towards another ice age, and basically gives a warning to the viewer. Johnson might agree with Douglas Rushkoff when he says that shows such as the Simpsons are helpful because they make complicated moral dilemmas more simplified so that the average person can understand them better.
Television overall enlightens the general public by providing entertainment through which they are able to learn more about the world and also able to improve cognitive abilities.
Saba and Jeremy's PA7 #4
Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence
Douglas Rushkoff
1. Rushkoff encourages us to question the ways institutional forces are presented to us through the media and urge us to see the fickle nature of our own responses.
2. T.V. programmers have to be extremely creative these days due to the remote control. Previously, viewers were too lazy to get up and change the channel if the program didn't interest them, now, people can flip through multiple channels in seconds.
Real events can have much less impact than constructed ones if the intentions are revealed.
The generational divide plays a large role in the type of influence that television plays on it's audience.
The Simpson's uses satire of many current events in their programming to help people view the situation in a different perspective.
Media is a "feeding machine" that takes media culture, changes it, and spits it out again with a spin.
3. In Peacock's essay she mentions we must distinguish between multiple forms of comedy and Rushkoff agrees with this notion that individuals should recognize between different types of television programming.
While Johnson believes that sophisticated television makes us smarter, Rushkoff would add that this is limited by the type of programming that the network wants to display and how critically we analyze the programming.
Douglas Rushkoff
1. Rushkoff encourages us to question the ways institutional forces are presented to us through the media and urge us to see the fickle nature of our own responses.
2. T.V. programmers have to be extremely creative these days due to the remote control. Previously, viewers were too lazy to get up and change the channel if the program didn't interest them, now, people can flip through multiple channels in seconds.
Real events can have much less impact than constructed ones if the intentions are revealed.
The generational divide plays a large role in the type of influence that television plays on it's audience.
The Simpson's uses satire of many current events in their programming to help people view the situation in a different perspective.
Media is a "feeding machine" that takes media culture, changes it, and spits it out again with a spin.
3. In Peacock's essay she mentions we must distinguish between multiple forms of comedy and Rushkoff agrees with this notion that individuals should recognize between different types of television programming.
While Johnson believes that sophisticated television makes us smarter, Rushkoff would add that this is limited by the type of programming that the network wants to display and how critically we analyze the programming.
Group #9 Where Will Reality Televions End?
Jim Roush
Nicole Boyd
Today’s reality shows are similar to the games shows of the 1960’s-1980’s in that, this game show era was the rage. Family Feud, The Newlywed Game, $10,000 Pyramid and the likes of them, ran almost non-stop in an attempt to amuse our society. Today, author and TV commentator George Will implies that, reality TV seems to have taken over this role for today’s TV watching generation. With the ever-increasing outragousness of the reality show, one must ask the question, "where will it end?"
TV producers are, in their opinion, just giving the people what they want. This would be supported by the fact that ratings are the determining factor as to what makes the cut. Advertisers are also a driving force in determining what drives what stays on TV, as they are the financial sponsors of the shows that they think people want to watch, and associate that show with the products they are selling.
There is so much reality television that is confrontational, that people are becoming desensitized to the violence. Shows such as The Family Guy are taken too far and push the limits of comedy and really push the limits of what society will accept as decent and/or acceptable. The problem with this is that, the more that this envelop is pushed, the more tolerant society may become of it, which may continue to gnaw away at our culture as we know it.
Where will it end, sitting in your livingroom watching a show where constestants play Russian Roulette with a real bullet? This rhetorical question is asked by Will, and we agree that there will be a point where our society must find an acceptable balance between preserving decency and protecting 1st Amendment rights.
George Will, would definitely have a strong negative point of view for the article "Are 24, Family Guy and Grand Theft Auto Actually Good For You?" These shows are attempting to pave new ground for outrageousness in an effort to stand-out from their other prime-time competitors.
Nicole Boyd
Today’s reality shows are similar to the games shows of the 1960’s-1980’s in that, this game show era was the rage. Family Feud, The Newlywed Game, $10,000 Pyramid and the likes of them, ran almost non-stop in an attempt to amuse our society. Today, author and TV commentator George Will implies that, reality TV seems to have taken over this role for today’s TV watching generation. With the ever-increasing outragousness of the reality show, one must ask the question, "where will it end?"
TV producers are, in their opinion, just giving the people what they want. This would be supported by the fact that ratings are the determining factor as to what makes the cut. Advertisers are also a driving force in determining what drives what stays on TV, as they are the financial sponsors of the shows that they think people want to watch, and associate that show with the products they are selling.
There is so much reality television that is confrontational, that people are becoming desensitized to the violence. Shows such as The Family Guy are taken too far and push the limits of comedy and really push the limits of what society will accept as decent and/or acceptable. The problem with this is that, the more that this envelop is pushed, the more tolerant society may become of it, which may continue to gnaw away at our culture as we know it.
Where will it end, sitting in your livingroom watching a show where constestants play Russian Roulette with a real bullet? This rhetorical question is asked by Will, and we agree that there will be a point where our society must find an acceptable balance between preserving decency and protecting 1st Amendment rights.
George Will, would definitely have a strong negative point of view for the article "Are 24, Family Guy and Grand Theft Auto Actually Good For You?" These shows are attempting to pave new ground for outrageousness in an effort to stand-out from their other prime-time competitors.
What's the Matter with Kids Today? Amy Goldwasser
Group #3
Phong Vang
Patrick Enyart
1.
The main idea of this reading is that the internet has expanded kids' minds when it comes to school and themselves. Kids tend to know know more than the previous generation because they have easier access to information by using the internet.
2.
Teengers are writing more and spending about 16.7 hours per week on the internet writing and reading, which Amy sees as educational.
People think the internet is a bad thing, but it really isn't because it's causing kids to write and read more than they normally would.
By having the internet, teenagers have unlimited access to any information from all over the world. They could use this for educational purposes and to do better in school.
Teenagers can use the internet to easily get connected to social networks, like facebook and myspace and there they can learn about new things going on around them.
3.
Watching TV Makes You Smarter.
Amy Goldwasser would agree with Steven Johnson because they both would argue that media will only help people become smarter, not dumber. Johnson uses a tool he calls the "sleeper curve," which he defines as "to be able to keep up with entertainment (like 24), you have to pay attention, make inferences, track shifting social relationships." All of those will have you thinking more than you normally would and in the end you'll feel smarter, just from watching TV. Goldwasser would say that the education you learn from the internet is what you will have written and what you will read from just being on the internet.
Family Guy and Freud
Amy would disagree with this because it poisons the minds of children. It has an excess of offensive jokes that could teach kids bad behavior.
Phong Vang
Patrick Enyart
1.
The main idea of this reading is that the internet has expanded kids' minds when it comes to school and themselves. Kids tend to know know more than the previous generation because they have easier access to information by using the internet.
2.
Teengers are writing more and spending about 16.7 hours per week on the internet writing and reading, which Amy sees as educational.
People think the internet is a bad thing, but it really isn't because it's causing kids to write and read more than they normally would.
By having the internet, teenagers have unlimited access to any information from all over the world. They could use this for educational purposes and to do better in school.
Teenagers can use the internet to easily get connected to social networks, like facebook and myspace and there they can learn about new things going on around them.
3.
Watching TV Makes You Smarter.
Amy Goldwasser would agree with Steven Johnson because they both would argue that media will only help people become smarter, not dumber. Johnson uses a tool he calls the "sleeper curve," which he defines as "to be able to keep up with entertainment (like 24), you have to pay attention, make inferences, track shifting social relationships." All of those will have you thinking more than you normally would and in the end you'll feel smarter, just from watching TV. Goldwasser would say that the education you learn from the internet is what you will have written and what you will read from just being on the internet.
Family Guy and Freud
Amy would disagree with this because it poisons the minds of children. It has an excess of offensive jokes that could teach kids bad behavior.
No 2 Dana Stevens
Adam Gorz
Dana Oslin
Dana Stevens argues that watching TV doesn’t make you any smarter but at the same time its not going to make you any dumber. According to Stevens, “the medium seems neither like a brain-liquefying poison nor a salutary tonic.” but instead TV is dismissive of major controversies such as the torture of prisoners or how it portrays Muslims. Stevens argues against Johnson’s claim that TV is a tool for brain enhancement by saying “that it is hilariously bogus.”
Dana Oslin
Dana Stevens argues that watching TV doesn’t make you any smarter but at the same time its not going to make you any dumber. According to Stevens, “the medium seems neither like a brain-liquefying poison nor a salutary tonic.” but instead TV is dismissive of major controversies such as the torture of prisoners or how it portrays Muslims. Stevens argues against Johnson’s claim that TV is a tool for brain enhancement by saying “that it is hilariously bogus.”
Family Guy and Freud Groupt #5
Barbara Licht
Patrick Schultz
The author is suggesting that we should be associating the relationship of TV and our unconscious which she refers to Sigmund Freuds book Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. This should not matter whether you are watching a show such as Family Guy or the evening news broadcast.
Antonia Peacocke says that some may think the show Family Guy "takes pleasure"(261) in the sometimes offensive humor however, it portrays a similarity to the American culture of today. It is also stated in the reading from Rushkoff that "our critical eyes and our unwillingness to be programmed by the programmers make for an entirely new relationship with the shows we watch "(263). While Dana Stevens says that viewers who watch shows like Family Guy are "rats in a behaviorist's maze"(231), the viewers are much more sophisticated than that. The viewers are actually learning more about culture because it is placed in a way that makes learning fun.
Patrick Schultz
The author is suggesting that we should be associating the relationship of TV and our unconscious which she refers to Sigmund Freuds book Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. This should not matter whether you are watching a show such as Family Guy or the evening news broadcast.
Antonia Peacocke says that some may think the show Family Guy "takes pleasure"(261) in the sometimes offensive humor however, it portrays a similarity to the American culture of today. It is also stated in the reading from Rushkoff that "our critical eyes and our unwillingness to be programmed by the programmers make for an entirely new relationship with the shows we watch "(263). While Dana Stevens says that viewers who watch shows like Family Guy are "rats in a behaviorist's maze"(231), the viewers are much more sophisticated than that. The viewers are actually learning more about culture because it is placed in a way that makes learning fun.
Roz Chast PA#7 Group #7
Theresa Tegdesch
Nick Sampson
Today’s modern technology is inhibiting our ability to advance communication between each other in a healthy manner. In “The I.M. of Romeo and Juliet” they illustrate that the classic story of Romeo and Juliet would never have turned out the way it did based on less actual physical interaction. The type of language sent through the internet isn’t always the way that you would say things in reality. Not to mention that in the translation of text a lot can be lost in the context. It shows also that relationships cannot develop either. The feelings of love cannot be conveyed completely without an actual interaction where chemistry between people can happen.
Roz Chast would agree with Amy Goldwasser in the fact that she says “the internet is melting their brains,” and “Kids today – we’re telling you! – don’t read, don’t write, don’t care about anything farther in front of them than their iPtods.” They both realize that the internet is crushing our personal interaction and ability to move forward as a culture.
Sherry Turkle believes also that “It is good to come together physically, but it is more important to stay tethered to the people who define one’s virtual identity, the identity that counts.” By virtual identity she doesn’t mean internet identity. It should be clear she means our personality and what makes us who we are in person.
In conclusion we believe that many agree with the thoughts of the image created by Roz Cast. That the internet isn’t a way to always have personal communication and that the only way to really get to be with someone or to know someone is by being with them physically and not just digitally.
Nick Sampson
Today’s modern technology is inhibiting our ability to advance communication between each other in a healthy manner. In “The I.M. of Romeo and Juliet” they illustrate that the classic story of Romeo and Juliet would never have turned out the way it did based on less actual physical interaction. The type of language sent through the internet isn’t always the way that you would say things in reality. Not to mention that in the translation of text a lot can be lost in the context. It shows also that relationships cannot develop either. The feelings of love cannot be conveyed completely without an actual interaction where chemistry between people can happen.
Roz Chast would agree with Amy Goldwasser in the fact that she says “the internet is melting their brains,” and “Kids today – we’re telling you! – don’t read, don’t write, don’t care about anything farther in front of them than their iPtods.” They both realize that the internet is crushing our personal interaction and ability to move forward as a culture.
Sherry Turkle believes also that “It is good to come together physically, but it is more important to stay tethered to the people who define one’s virtual identity, the identity that counts.” By virtual identity she doesn’t mean internet identity. It should be clear she means our personality and what makes us who we are in person.
In conclusion we believe that many agree with the thoughts of the image created by Roz Cast. That the internet isn’t a way to always have personal communication and that the only way to really get to be with someone or to know someone is by being with them physically and not just digitally.
Me Against the Media PA #8
Hanna Hudson
Palee Xiong
In the article Me Against the Media, by Naomi Rockler-Gladen, she makes a very strong arguement reviewing the effects of advertisement on younger generations. She also concentrates on how easily people in this age group are willing to brush off the responsibility of the impact to their parents or elders. Another issue with (what she refferred to as), Generation Y, was that they thought they were immune to the advertizing industries because of their individualism. I think Naomi comes back with a great point that just because advertising does not neccessarily effect the individual, it does effect society as a whole. In comparison to the steven Johnson article, TV Makes You Smarter, we think that Naomi would disagree with his statements. In the sense that along with TV comes advertising, which in this case, Naomi does not think is the healthiest type of entertainment for younger minds. Also in the Amy Goldwasser article titled, What's the Matter with Kids Today?, we think that Naomi would agree that people of a younger generation have different ways of learning than older generations. But this would also apply to the things that effect them as far as advertising as well.
Palee Xiong
In the article Me Against the Media, by Naomi Rockler-Gladen, she makes a very strong arguement reviewing the effects of advertisement on younger generations. She also concentrates on how easily people in this age group are willing to brush off the responsibility of the impact to their parents or elders. Another issue with (what she refferred to as), Generation Y, was that they thought they were immune to the advertizing industries because of their individualism. I think Naomi comes back with a great point that just because advertising does not neccessarily effect the individual, it does effect society as a whole. In comparison to the steven Johnson article, TV Makes You Smarter, we think that Naomi would disagree with his statements. In the sense that along with TV comes advertising, which in this case, Naomi does not think is the healthiest type of entertainment for younger minds. Also in the Amy Goldwasser article titled, What's the Matter with Kids Today?, we think that Naomi would agree that people of a younger generation have different ways of learning than older generations. But this would also apply to the things that effect them as far as advertising as well.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)