wsuv

Video Games

2004-07-29T18:29:00.000-07:00

After watching the movie about the "dangers" of video games, I became even more convinced that people would do anything in an attempt to prove their point. I say that because I thought that the producers, in order to justify their opinion didn't represent the whole spectrum of video games, but rather insisted on selecting those examples that were the extreme of the extremes in video game violence, racism, and so on, and tried to portray them as the only video games on the market. They could have presented a more balanced picture, with the mentioning of such docile games as Mario Brothers, Sims, and others of this genre.

That's not to say that video games don't contain their fair share of bigotry, misogyny, and general intolerance. However, to listen to the creators of the film, it seems that anyone who has ever played a violent video game will follow the footsteps of Ted Bundy, or the Columbine killers.
Something else that this film does is provide misinformation about the games that it covered. In most of the games that were covered, a player can have the choice of being any color or gender that he/she wants. I feel that such a variety allows to further the goal of equality in society as well as video games. Sure, some stereotypes, Kingpin for one, are followed. However, any stereotype does represent some truth.  Kingpin represents such an "ideal". Because the game occurs within particular neighborhoods, with majority of them being populated by one race/ethnicity, I feel that it should not be offensive to assume that the people participating within that game would be of a specific race/ethnicity - "life imitates art." I'm not saying that participation of a particular race/ethnicity in such activities in real life is a good thing, I'm just stating the facts.

Another fact that I found about the movie was its depiction of males as overly-aggressive individuals. I agree that it is true to some extent, but I also feel that in some instances the gender roles are reversed. As an example I look at the fact that women attend sports that are inherently violent.  If anyone has ever been to a hockey game, he can probably attest to the fact that women make up about half of all of the attendees at these games. And what I especially find amusing/ironic, is the fact that women really become thrilled when two or more hockey players get into a fight, often cheering them on.

Overall I think that the video game influence on the minds of people, especially kids, is almost nill. And I say almost because there is always that one case that defies logic. A kid can already have some minor or much more serious mental problems. Playing a video game, especially a violent one would probably just confuse the kid and make him do something stupid. So essentially the video game would serve as a crutch that assists in pushing the kids over-the-edge. Otherwise, there hasn't been an empirical strong research presented that would disprove my theory.

I see video games as just a way to escape from the daily hassle and realities of life.  It should not serve as something that would replace your reality, but rather enhance it, or make it more enjoyable. It should also be the parent's responsibility, along with the manufacturer's to keep kids from purchasing games not rated for their age.

Identity

2004-07-22T10:27:00.000-07:00

I feel that identity is a combination of many factors. I think that gender is one of the first things that is identifiable about a person. Gender gives us an opportunity to be identified as male or female, thus automatically separating us from someone else. As we grow up, we take on more and more of the traits and characteristics of that gender, thus drawing the line between them. With someone who's sexuality is not the norm, this line becomes more blurred. He/She would physically identify with their gender, but they would not necessarily take on the characteristics of that gender. Second is someone's cultural heritage- race/ethnicity. This particular trait/characteristic allows you to identify yourself as belonging to a certain group or not. When you do belong to that group, you tend to learn that group's norms, and traditions, thus slowly taking on that group's identity more and more. We continue to build our identity through our cultural/family surroundings and through the experiences that happen to us through out our life time, whether in our culture or in someone else's. In the end, most of us choose to represent ourselves in the way that subscribes to the norm of the culture that we live in, as long as we're capable of doing so, by having norms that are similar to that culture.

As far as "reality" shows go, I feel that most of the people on them try to be themselves as much as possible under the conditions of the show. One has to realize that these shows aren't "real" in the sense that we're used to. Sure the people are typically not actors, and there is no script (for the most part - unless producers suggest that participants do certain things to liven up the show). However, after each show is taped, it is viewed and edited. The producer's main job is to put on a show that has a compelling story line. Most of these shows really don't have one. So the producers resort to "cutting and pasting" clips from the show to produce a "real" life drama, or a situation that would entertain the viewers. So realistically, the only "real" thing that is left over is the fact that participants aren't actors/or acting (for the most part). Everything else is put together in the editing room. The answer to the "are we actors" question is rough tough to construct. On a certain level we are, because we do have control over some things in our lives through careful planning and preparation. On the other hand, we're at the mercy of the unknown. Even with careful planning and readiness, something might still happen that we were not prepared for - like leaving home 4 hours prior to your flight leaving, with only 45 minutes separating your home and the airport, but not being able to make the flight because you have an overturned gas tanker and a few cars burning and blocking the road, backing up traffic for 35 miles. Even though it seemed that you could control something as simple as getting to the airport on time, because of a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence you weren't able to do so. I would have to say that we can't really qualify as actors, but rather as the ultimate reality stars.

Artificial Life

2004-07-12T14:30:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, the definition that best describes the meaning of "Artificial Life" is the one presented by Webster. It describes "Artificial Life" as a "men-made creation based on a natural model". In other words its something that's not a result of a natural process of biology.

Some my argue that "A.L's" would be just as human as the rest of us. In theory they could walk, talk, recognize different emotional states of being, maybe even feel pain. I however tend to disagree with that argument. Sure, visually they might resemble a human being, and they might even act as such. However, in my belief what makes us human is not our physic, but rather the so-called spirituality - not in the religious sense - but rather in the ability of us as humans to have that certain "it", whether its our conscience, or our ability to connnect with others on a certain level that can only be explained through an understanding of what it is like to be human. I feel that these things are a direct result of us being the product of nature - DNA - to be precise.
One could probably teach an "A.L" what emotions one should have during a certain situation, it could even be feasible that it could be taught to feel pain, you can even have a chip that would allow "A.L" to learn as they continue existing, but you still won't be able to replicate the full scope of entangibles that come along with being a human.

I found the road to defining "Artificial Life" pretty tough, seeing how the only examples that you have to go on are ones from movies and not real life. In the future we might be able to create very sophisticated "Artificial Life" forms, but I still feel that, short of cloning, we would not be able to replicate those things that make us human through a machine.

Mid-term

2004-07-07T13:14:00.000-07:00

In the thesis for my paper I attempted to argue that Washington State University sufficiently represents the "norm" as well as supports diversity.
The definition of the "norm" - i.e. the audience of the website - that I created were English speaking individuals between 18 and 25 years of age, with either a high-school diploma or an equivalent, from middle class families, of Caucasian descent.
I based my research on 4 parameters: Demographic, Education Level, Access to the Internet, and Socioeconomic.

For part one of the paper I presented a description/layout of the WSU website.
As I continued navigating the site I began to notice that there was an imbalance in visual representation of minorities (excluding women) as compared to caucasians. However, after looking at enrollment statistics for the past year I came to a conclusion that because the minority representation at WSU only consists of around 20 percent of all of the students, its not alarming that the ratio of visual representation is around 3 to 1 in favor of the caucasian students. More interesting was the fact that those 40 years of age and up were not represented at all as part of the students, even though large sums of individual of that age group attend WSU and its other campuses.
Another reason for saying that the WSU website represented minorities was the fact that it devoted multiple links to "culture specific" websites of minority organizations that existed at the WSU campus.
Granted, WSU doesn't represent all of the world's cultures, however it does a good job, at least for the amount of minorities attending WSU, of making sure that these groups feel comfortable and are able to fully participate in the educational process.

I do feel that the WSU site is culture specific, requiring the user to be able to understand things like "admissions", "financial aid", and so forth. Therefore it does make assumptions that the person that is looking at the site speaks English. However, if an individual is looking at the site, then he/she must be interested in attending a University. In order to do so (at least in U.S.) one must have at least a basic knoweldge of the English language. So therefore if an individual is interested enough, he/she will do everything that they have to in order to attend this university.

Because of the nature of this topic anyone with an opinion on it can attempt to refute my argument. One can categorize the "norm" as something completely different. Someone else can bring in examples of other schools that might have the same ratio, but might have more visual representation on their sites. Another can attempt to twist the enrollment statistics. As long as everyone tries to have a point of view on this topic there always will be different opinions and argument will always arise about who is right and who is wrong.

Some of the sources that I used: http://elab.vanderbilt.edu/research/papers/html/manuscripts/race/science.html - Vanderbilt University research.

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/generalinfo.asp?listing =1023693<ID=1
Princetonreview statistics for WSU.

www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411019
Urban Institute

My conclusion is, because of the fact that the ratio is the way it is and because of the effort of WSU to make sure that minorities are able to feel comfortable at the school through being able to congregate by starting clubs and centers, it is my opinion that WSU gives equal representation to the "norm" and minorities.

Is Brasher's argument valid?

2004-06-28T14:47:00.000-07:00

In comparing the arguments presented by Brasher and Hate.com I found that the argument is the same in both cases. The only difference being the fact that the arguments were presented from different perspectives.

I feel that Brasher makes a good argument in asserting that the spread of the internet has and will contribute to an increase in people's participation in religioius activities, whether in an on-line "reality" or otherwise (out of the millions of people that visit these websites, at least one or two (statistically speaking) are bound to change their mind about something.) However, I feel that her opinion represents a rather utopian view when addressing the influence of cyberspace on an individual's faith. "If current trends in on-line religion continue, the heavy reliance on image that on-line religion encourages could lead to a direct competition between religion and mass-mediated entertainment as people seek provocative, inspiring images to anchor their lives." (Brasher, p.20) I agree that it would be rather ignorant for one to say that the amount of on-line information that pertains to religion in one form or another would not influence a single individual to become a more involved practitioner. However, I feel that her view of cyberspace as the next great frontier in religious influence is a far reach. It is a good tool to learn about different religions and differences and similarities among them, but it is not, and should not serve as a substitute for interaction that one receives when he/she is united in person with those of similar religious views and ideas. The foundation of religious continuity across centuries has been the ability of people to gather together and be able to interact and exchange their views face-to-face (even though the biblical scrolls have existed for centuries, it is not their existence but rather the use of them by the people to pass on its message from one to another that has allowed the religious "spirit" to live on). It is in my belief what has allowed religion (in any form) to continue being such a strong influence on the people of the world 'till this day. The internet, although still allowing for the exchange of ideas, restricts real human interaction, rather relying on keyboard strokes to do the talking.

As far as Hate.com goes, I feel that it is informative, but I also feel that it tries a bit too hard to scare people. Granted, there are individuals (groups) out there that have a rather twisted view of reality, but they only represent a miniscule percentage of our population. Even though there are plenty individuals that look at these websites, it doesn't guarantee that they will be influenced by this ideology and "turn" to the "other side". I feel that in order for that to happen, a person has to be predisposed for that kind of thinking already, and that they would have "turned" whether they would have looked at the website(s) or read a book promoting the same type of ideology. If you were to go on a Muslim/Chrisitian/Judaic website which staunchly defended and promoted its views as being the right ones, would you as an individual immediately become its strongest believer and supporter? Probably not, unless, previously to going on the website, you had thought about the possibility of becoming involved in a particular religion.

Eng-471

2004-06-21T14:08:00.000-07:00

I think this class will talk about different aspects of digital communication, focusing mainly on the relationships between humans and digital technology (i.e. internet). In this class I will learn how to make and post blogs.