Even Roger Wears a Rolex

Unfortunately I missed the class discussion on Thursday about Media(ted) arti(facts). However, I can’t stop thinking about how many things in our everyday lives are mediated. In my opinion, the definition of a Media(ted) artifacts are facts or objects that the media portrays in a way which the consumer is tricked into thinking facts are true, but are actually “artificial”. By true, I mean believing the claims that the producer boasts about are true.

For example, this morning I woke up and read the November issue of the ESPN magazine. I turned the cover page and there was a two page spread of Roger Federer on the red clay of the French Open, with a sparkling Rolex on his wrist. Not like he was posing of modeling, he was in mid-swing backhand. A quote under the picture in large white font read, “Roger wears one”

Rolex Watch Company prides themselves on being the best quality watch in the world, and who’s to argue? Marketing and advertising campaigns are meant to deceive the reader into really believing what is said, in this case the reader may walk away believing Rolex is the best watch in the world. This is obviously not true, because I am not a material person, and a watch is a watch and it tells time. But to some, a watch is not a watch, and quality matters. Not to say Rolex has this affect all the time, as I do not know much about the Rolex Watch Company, but sometimes objects are advertised so well on the market, they have a lasting affect in which even the replicas can sell for close to as much. For example, Jordan shoes, even the fakes can sell for $100 even $200 because the vintage Jordans are so valuable because the advertising and reputation values them to be.

Regardless if it is a Rolex, Jordan shoes, or TV shows all of these things are advertised on the market and cause the consumer to value them at much higher value than they really are. Jordan shoes are just a bunch of leather and other material sewn together, and Rolex is a bunch of higher quality metal constructed together. And TV shows such as Jersey shore are a bunch of people acting to a script, but the reality of Jersey Shore and the crowd that it draws automatically makes other reality television shows realistic.

Here a Bonus, There a Bonus

Nerf guns are, admittedly, a lot of fun to play around with. Despite everything we may say against it while talking about it in class, we know that we’re still going to point them at friends and bombard them with darts. There are a few things that come to mind, however, now that I look back at my Nerf gun that I didn’t really think of before.

When I first considered getting a Nerf gun, it was when my family visited me and took me to Target. My basic thought was “Hey, I need a Nerf gun for Humans vs Zombies. Let’s get one.” It was supposed to be simple. Of course, it didn’t turn out that way when the aisle was full of all the different types that the company had made. It took me a minute to look through all of them. Each had their own name that made me think of names of real gun models. And, of course, each box was emphasizing the good points of their product. They were all in competition with themselves.

I began to weigh the pros and cons of each. The big ones looked intimidating. The small ones seemed more practical. Each had something attached that made it “better” than the rest. Even the darts were different, from whistlers to suction cup ends. At that point, I started to feel overwhelmed and completely stupid. All I had wanted was something that would shoot Styrofoam darts at people who were pretending to be zombies. Instead, I had managed to stumble upon something that probably had a devoted fandom that knew the products as well as I knew Batman. (And I am quite the fan of Batman.) I basically gave up at that point, told myself I’ll ask my friends if they had any idea what was a good Nerf gun, and left.

The marketing strategy that Nerf had to convince people to buy their products had managed to backfire on me. The main point of the features of what made the gun “special” than the rest was to convince someone that they needed this toy to be superior to their other friends. It might even convince them to own multiple Nerf guns. If I hadn’t just given up in trying figuring out which one to get, I probably would have gotten one of the bigger ones. They had more, so the quick conclusion is that they’ll work better.

Well, it wasn’t the case. I won one of the big guns during a raffle. The rest of my friends had rented out the smaller, cheaper ones for Humans vs Zombies. We tested them both. If anything, the bigger gun was more of a hassle because it was bulkier. The longer barrel had improved accuracy, but it was such a small difference that it didn’t matter. In the end, I had chosen to strip away all of the extra parts and stick with the part that did what I needed: shoot Styrofoam bullets at my friends pretending to be zombies.

There’s a reason why the saying “less is more” is so valid. How many times have we agreed to get something that is over the basic just because it looks cooler and we could? Basic edition vs limited edition with features we’ll probably never touch. We’ll probably choose the flashier version. It just makes us feel good for that one instance to have something better than the rest. It’s one thing to get something because you know that you’ll use the bonus stuff. It’s another to get something with bonus stuff just because you can.

There’s always the nagging voice in the back of your head, telling you that you might possibly need the bonus stuff later on. You just don’t know when. Sometimes that voice is right: you’ll find a use to make all of the added stuff useful. But how often is that the case? Most of the time, you just feel good because you got more for your money. The question then becomes will you have actually used the “more” to make something enjoyable, or was it just instant gratification?

All I wanted was a basic Nerf gun. With the one I got, I manage to KISS (Keep It Simple, Sweetie/Stupid).

The Manipulative Nature of Games

For my media[ted] art(i)FACT, I brought in the rankings sheet of online turn-based strategy game that I used to play when I was in high school. To get a better understanding, the game plays a lot like chess; there is a board with spaces and 10 pieces on each side of the board. It differs from chess where each player chooses from about thirty different pieces and the pieces have different health, armor, and attack and defense points. The person who kills all the other person's pieces first wins. Even after two years of not playing, I am still please to check the website and see my username ranked as #2. It's this very video game that dictated a lot of my decisions in high school, as well as the decisions of many other the online users that I interacted with on a daily basis.

The game is manipulative, no doubt. It is purposefully trying to hook you in and make you abuse it as much as I actually did. When you first start playing the game, players are separated into two groups: greys and golds. The grey players (i.e. the standard, non-paying member) had limited pieces, could only stay in the lobby for a couple of minutes before being disconnected, and had their username and in-game chat text read in a grey color. The gold players (i.e. the $5-a-month paying member) had the all the grey units plus special gold-only units, the ability to stay in the lobby, the ability to make clans (which are like exclusive "fraternities" within the game), have access to an all-gold server, and have their name and in-game chat text read in a gold color. Obviously, once you get hooked onto the game (which is very easy), you need a gold account in order to stay competitive and relevant.

I was hooked and manipulated. Fortunately, I was good enough that the clan I was in would pay for me to have a gold account. Nonetheless, thousands of people every month would be pay to have this better "gold" status, which dictated much of the game politics.

It's not just this game that has this manipulative nature. It's all games. It's Halo 3, where you pay $50 for the game, $12 a month to play online, and $10 every 2 months when Halo comes out with new maps that you have to buy in order to continue to play online.

It's not even just video games. Think about all the casinos in the world! The casinos are obviously making the majority of the money, but many people get hooked and manipulated by the thought of winning-- and even better, winning real money. Many people have an gambling problem, and it's due to this manipulative nature of games-- the drive to win, in no matter what you do!

"It's just a game." Yeah right.

Parkside Whispering Pines

The item that I brought for class on Thursday was a free miniature golf pass for a course in Rochester, NY (of which, I keep around four in my wallet). Thinking of items we were to bring in, I immediately considered something that is essentially used by a company to increase its business. Looking inside my wallet, I was immediately reminded of the cards which I carry to increase its magnitude.

Analyzing the business practices of Parkside Miniature Golf, the deal they offer seems like a good one. As a result of getting a hole in one on the last hole, you are rewarded with a free game of golf. And with the slacker employees that they hire and merely a reliance on honesty, the free game cards are passed off rather quickly. The cards also seem to go because of the surprising simplicity of the 18th hole.

Yet, this practice of handing off miniature golf cards in exchange for a hole in one is a manipulation practice for the racketeers of Parkside Whispering Pines. Commonly, a group attends these miniature golf courses looking to have fun in a social setting. Of course, if you are just mini-golfing by yourself, that's cool too. Although I would have enough free passes to cover all of my friends, I doubt I would give them my passes. Therefore, out of the four people that are going to play golf, only one has a free pass. I ignore the inordinately high prices but my friends are forced to pay them. I'll suggest mini-golfing as an activity because I have the free pass. However, my friends continue to keep the course in business.

Meanwhile, the cost of keeping up a mini-golf course is practically nothing, perhaps taxes are the only thing that the course needs to pay. Therefore, they are able to profit through enticing consumers with free passes to continue to come back to the course.

Furthermore, on my ticket there is also an add for the diner located next door. Given a free pass and after a round of golf when I'm usually famished, the diner becomes a beacon of sustenance for my withering body. The free pass thus influences me to go the diner as well.

"For a limited time only"

For my media(ted) art(i)FACT, I brought in a 2-Disc Limited Edition version of Pirates of the Caribbean 3. Now I needed no motivation to buy this movie partly because it was a gift and partly because I love all the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and want to own them just on principle, but the “only available for a short time” gag has gotten me before. I loved Disney movies when I was a kid and sometimes I enjoy watching them again but that does not mean that I want to own all of them. But every time they take a movie out of the “Disney Vault” and claim that they are going to lock it up again soon, I have the urge to buy it. (This is how I ended up with both Sleeping Beauty and Beauty and the Beast, each of which I have watched exactly once.) I always ask myself, “what if I want it later and I can’t get it?”

Limiting the availability of a product is a great way to manipulate consumers. It makes the product appear special and more valuable and makes the consumer take into consideration whether they might want it not just right now but at some point in their lives. I would not have gotten those Disney movies when I did, if I had known I would be able to get them any time I wanted.

Sales use the same concept. Certain products cost less, but only for a limited time. This causes many consumers to stock up on items they might not have otherwise gotten because they feel they are getting “more for their money.” With Thanksgiving coming up, Black Friday is a perfect example of the effectiveness of this tactic. Tens of thousands of people get up ridiculously early and flood stores, trampling each other and generally acting crazy because this is the one day of the year that they can buy products at a drastically reduced price.

I had never realized quite how much power the retail industry has over the way we spend our time and money.

Sports and Choices

Since we all got to briefly present and discuss each of our mediated artifacts, I thought this would be a good chance to talk about the other object that I had considered bringing: a soccer ball. I decided against bringing this to class because I didn’t especially feel like carrying it around all day, but I think that it represents the pressures and choices that a lot of people our age make.

A soccer ball can represent the choice we make to become involved in sports. I know that when I was in kindergarten, I started playing soccer because my older sister played, and I loved to do everything she did. I found that I did actually love it, but later I also realized that I loved running. My decision to get involved in running was also influenced by someone else; the track coach who was looking for more members of the track team. My decision to join sports was not just my own, but I continued playing because I loved the feeling of a great workout, and having a close team of friends that enjoyed the same things I did.

People join sports for many reasons, although it’s often a decision that is influenced by some external force. Many people join sports because their parents want them to, some do it to make friends, some just love the sport, and others do it for all of these reasons. The external pressures to make certain decisions are not necessarily dictated by other people; hometown is also a major factor in the sports opportunities for athletes. Certain areas tend to have superior sports programs than others, for example high school soccer programs in New York and California tend to be better than those in Idaho. On such a large scale, the area you live in may dictate what sport you are pressured to join. If you live in Utah, you’re probably more likely to become a skier than if you live in Hawaii. Even on a smaller scale, the athletic opportunities can vary from city to suburb. The other night, I asked my friend, who plays squash, why she had joined squash. She told me that she grew up in a neighborhood that had squash courts at the country club down the road, so since her family had a membership and it was so accessible, she gravitated to that sport. I on the other hand, had hardly heard of squash before coming to college; I hadn’t realized that it could be a varsity sport at high schools or colleges. Growing up in the city, squash wasn’t a popular sport, and even now I wouldn’t even know where to find the nearest squash court.

This ties in an even larger, broader pressure in deciding the sports we play: socio-economic status. Although it would be nice to have the chance to play any sport, realistically, few have that opportunity. Not everyone can afford sports equipment, and although equipment prices vary (running is probably a lot cheaper than horseback riding), people’s opportunities are often very limited by socio-economic status. Equipment price or membership fees aren’t the only monetary pressure that potential athletes face. In high school, a lot of my classmates needed to have after school jobs, but still wanted to join a sports team. Practice flexibility limited their choices; track practice could be completed at alternative hours, although soccer practice couldn’t. The sports options these students had were limited because of their need for employment, while students of a higher socio-economic status did not have these limitations.

Can i has internetz?

In reply to Kristy's mediated artifact presentation on the internet and online identities, I have a few anecdotes to share about being on the "extreme" side of having online aliases.

#1 FANFICTION
As most of you probably know from my previous blog posts, I used to write fanfiction for anime and video games. At first I was virtually (haha, pun) a nobody on the site when using the third person, but once I switched to the second-person, reader-insert, which was in demand, my popularity rose to the point where I was suddenly being some readers addressed as -sama. -sama is a Japanese honorific that indicates a high level of respect and in the site I was on, it was an unofficial honor. It was cute. Until I started getting emails from readers that wanted to be friends on facebook. Or when readers started linking me to fanart they drew for my fanfiction (fan-fan-work?). But what hit my tolerance for internet creeping: when readers found and contacted me on other websites asking me if I were so-and-so on the fanfiction site.

But in the position of having (-insert obnoxious stats sharing-) :
-"favorited" by over 40 users
-stories "favorited"over 300 times
-over 700 reviews (comments, usually positive)
-an average of over 1,500 hits per chapter per story (hits being chapter views); one one-shot even had near 3,000 hits on its own.

I couldn't just be just "another" "regular" fan. I had to act with a purpose. I never outlined my stories and wrote chapters in one sitting, but to fulfill their image of an "authoress" I assured that there were drafts and conclusions already planned. I had to put in more research reviewing game scripts to make sure that there were no plot holes. I had to reread mangas to analyze characters to portray them as accurately as possible. Soon, writing fanfiction felt like an obligation to the reader. When I announced that I would be on hiatus because of college applications and later that I was moving on from my fanfiction writing, some readers wished me good luck and other expressed their sympathy in that "the real world" was interfering with the online reality we shared. To some readers, it hadn't even occurred to them that I was even a few years younger than them and had was a separate person IRL.

And as a quick tip I picked up: HOW TO GET POPULAR ON ANIME FANFICTION SITES FAST: ROMANCE, DRAMA, HUMOR, AND A NICE DOSE OF SEXUAL INNUENDOS/TENSIONS. I'm telling you... fangirls can get... pretty demanding. (I was once message if I would write a sex scene. I couldn't bring myself to even try, but if I did, I'm sure it would have added another few hundred hits.)

#2 BETTER OFF AS A GUY (THE AMANDA PROJECT AND SABASTIAN; GAIAONLINE)

In my sophomore year of high school, one of classmates was promoting her mother's recently published work, the Amanda Project. It was an interactive mystery, and readers were encouraged to go online and participate in how the story would unfold (quite literally as elements on the online forums would be integrated in later books). Many of my classmates made an account while it was a fad in my grade, and I decided to jump the bandwagon. On a whim, I decided to register as a male. Lo and behold, Sebastian, a male who liked occasional chick flicks, action movies, comics, rock and electronic music, and was single. The only thing that wasn't "true" was my gender. I wrote a couple of blog posts using my voice and girls adored how I was so well-written, romantic, and not a stereotypical "dude."

It was amusing UNTIL I started receiving messages from girls asking me if I lived in X and attended Y school because I reminded them of somebody they knew. OR when girls linked me to their facebooks and expressed their interests in being a friend. Some were even more straightforward and asked me if I would be interested in dating them (internet dates, idk). To some of them, I represented the "perfect boyfriend." The only lie I made up was that I played bass (I can't play instruments for my life) and was in a band; I only did so that I could share a poem under the guise of "lyrics." It only amped my fictional sex appeal. So, lesson learned, I dumped the site and broke some hearts.

But even before the whole fiasco on the Amanda Project, I had a second account on Gaia (a "mule") that was a male since I wanted to get male-items to sell on my female account. If you clicked on the avatar's profile it would have led to an empty page with only one friend, my main account. The usernames were literally Silent Departures and Silence Departed. It was OBVIOUS. Yet, I posted under the male account and posed as a twin with my best friend who also had a male account. We had our avatars resemble each others and we trolled around. Suddenly, we were getting in "bro-chats" in where other guys asked about which female video game characters we thought were the hottest and pursued by females who though it was "cool" that we were twins. It made for a great ongoing joke between my friends, but once I started getting hit on by other users, who according their profiles were as young as 13, I called quits and even posted on my profile that it was just a second account.

So, I've learned my lesson: the internet's a scary place.

What's your sign? Does it matter?

My mediated artifact is the horoscope section from Seventeen Magazine. With respect to advertisement, the page is clearly targeted towards teenage girls (if the title of the magazine did not give it away). The color scheme is an assortment of reds and oranges and the “genres” are: girl talk, hot parties, flirty fun, crazy drama and amazing makeover. These are many of the themes found in stereotypical teenage girl movies like Clueless (shocker). In addition, the horoscopes themselves are written for a heterosexual female because the “cutie” who is going to start flirting with you around the 15th is explicitly stated to be a guy. Also, the issues presented in each of the signs are mostly related to “girl” problems. For example, “Ever since your BFF started dating one guy seriously, you’ve been so jealous,” and “You and cutie outside your circle have been texting like crazy, and the messages are getting flirty! But when he doesn’t reply at the start of the month, you’ll begin to doubt your bond.” In the media, girls are presented as more jealous, nit picky, and insecure about dating situations and these horoscopes are re-enforcing those stereotypes. But, can I really complain? The horoscope section is usually the first thing I read when I get a new magazine, so clearly the writers have done something right. The double sword of stereotypes is that even though they are overly simplified, they do hold some value of truth. So, although I am poking fun at my own gender a bit, I do enjoy those movies and fall into the trap of what I am “supposed” to like.

I think there is some truth to horoscopes in the sense that your sign can reveal parts of your personality. But, the ones found online and in magazines have become horribly cliched and manipulated by the media to target a specific demographic (women) and play off of their insecurities. They don’t reveal any personality traits, they just make up vague events that can be interpreted so broadly that many of the horoscopes do come true. For Leo this month, a friend is complaining and by mid-month you are energized to help her. Well, who doesn’t have a friend that complains? Especially in October when midterms are coming up (and remember this magazine is for highschool/college women). And, as a friend, you should support and energize him/her. So, the Leo horoscope is able to apply to just about anyone.

However, not only do horoscopes mediate me, but I also mediate it. There have been times when I’ve manipulated my own life so that it fits with the horoscope given (disclaimer: this was at an earlier and more naive time in my life). So, if my horoscope of the day said, “Be adventurous! The rewards will pay off,” in the next decision I made I would strongly consider taking the adventurous route.

Are you a Boy? Or are you a Girl?

Most of the people I know have some experience with the Pokemon video game series. My own was mainly gained over the shoulder of my brother, although I inherited the Crystal version second-hand after my brothers had moved on to different games. To a certain extent, I view Pokemon like Harry Potter, as a staple of my generation's childhood. Pokemon affects even people who don't get into it themselves, just through some good ol' cultural osmosis.

So when every game since the one I started on has pretty much opened up by asking the player to choose their gender, one might say that there is a lot of cultural weight behind this set-up.

My mediated artifact was a screenshot of a playthrough Pokemon, asking the player if they are a boy or if they are a girl. This single decision affects how the character's sprite looks for the duration of the game, and at least in Crystal is pretty much the only question that will allow the player to determine their character's identity.

This particular question buys into a binary gender system, seeming to only acknowledge two different genders. In real life, of course, there are people who can't quite so neatly identify themselves, sometimes feeling male, sometimes feeling female, or feeling androgynous or simply confused. Furthermore, even people who can fit their self-identified gender to the binary system have a range of feminine and masculine traits (if we can even clearly define what is "masculine" and what is "feminine") and are not all uniform in their expression of gender.

Unfortunately, this game limits gender expression to two possible sprites. While understandable that video game designers can't supply an infinite number of options for the player, the phrasing of the question does indeed exert pressure on children to fit themselves to a very limited perspective of gender.

The gender question is one of the first in the game, and is the question that determines the most attributes of the player-character. This seems almost to imply that the most important characteristic of a person is gender. After all, why aren't the video game designers giving people different options in terms of the personalities of their sprites, or their family backgrounds, or other possible attributes? Presumably unintentionally, the game has prioritized gender as the characteristic people care about the most.

Media representations can affect not only how other people view certain segments of the population, but also how those people view themselves. Models in fashion magazines exert pressure on the idea of who can be considered beautiful; the lack of representation of certain ethnic groups in early television programming gave them a view of themselves as "outsiders"; and now, I have to simultaneously applaud the efforts to include female representation in storylines and cringe at the assumptions that the media makes in order to do so.

I look back fondly at games like Pokemon and am glad that I was lucky enough to be born in an era of such entertaining cultural staples. However, sometimes, I have to wonder what fingerprints these games have left on my perspective of the world... and whether or not I really want them there.

Our class on others' minds!

Here's that message I told you about... the email I received from a parent of one of my students from last semester: 

"You may recall me as the father of the student who blogged about your class. I spend a great deal of time thinking on this subject and its relation to CNF, that fuzzy place what led O’Brien to title The Things They Carried “A Fiction”, as a distinct class from memoir and novel.

Anyway, here’s something I came across on Maud Newton’s blog and just cribbed straight  onto ToulouseStreet.net, that you might find interesting as a handout if you teach this class again. Or not. It just put me immediately in mind of your class and our exchange and since I had your email, I thought I’d send it along."

http://toulousestreet.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/memory-imagination/

Clearly our discussions are thought provoking and potentially far reaching. So keep it up!

A Deterioration of Truth

As most people have probably heard, a scandal at Penn State University has been all over the media for the past week. An important part of the scandal took place back in 2002. The scandal involves Penn State’s Division I football coach Joe Paterno failing to report to the police incidents of sexual harassment by his former assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, of various younger boys. Paterno apparently reported the incident to his superiors, who barred Sandusky from bringing boys back to the football locker room. This incident, finally uncovered, illustrates how easily truth can be manipulated.

Everyone is reporting different stories to the media. McQueary, the man who originally informed Paterno about Sandusky’ s actions, said he reported the incident in detail to Paterno. Paterno claims he heard it was just something of a sexual nature. Eventually, the story is diluted to the point where an act of rape became just “horsing around” (pennlive.com). The tricky thing about this scandal is that it is all based on hearsay. It is one man’s word against another man’s word; determining the truth in this situation will prove to be quite difficult. With all the conflicting stories, clearly some people are lying.

It is interesting how the truth of a situation also depends upon who is voicing this truth. Technically, Paterno did nothing wrong by following procedure and reporting the incident to officials above him. So then why is everyone holding him responsible for covering up this heinous crime? Records show that there was a new janitor who, a couple years earlier, witnessed Sandusky sexually abusing a child in the locker room. Yet, no one is holding the janitor responsible for not reporting what he saw to the police. People are speculating that the reason for pinning responsibility on Paterno, and not the new janitor, is because Paterno was the only person from whom the police would believe this hideous truth. It was likely the new janitor could have reported the incident, but Penn State would have quickly covered up the incident by challenging the validity of a janitor and quickly firing him. Because Paterno was the most powerful man at PSU, police would have accepted the truth from him.

The implications stemming from this incident clearly illustrate the malleability of truth. As we see with this PSU scandal, too often the truth can get diluted when it is constantly retold. Not only does the truth change with every additional person who spreads it, but it also contains less and less value as it is spread, because such hearsay lacks credibility. Additionally, the same truth can carry different weight, depending on who is voicing it and how much power that person has. It is often said “with great power comes great responsibility”. This responsibility can sometimes be a burden, when it requires the revealing of a heavy truth, but it is necessary, because the power behind a person is sometimes what renders the truth to be credible.

While the legal culpability of Joe Paterno is uncertain; however, it is very clear that he failed in his duty, and therefore hurt many, by failing to speak out in the name of truth.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html

media[ted] artiFACT

Phiten Necklaces. What.A.Scam. For those unfamiliar with this wonderful product, it is a nylon band that is coated in a titanium metal solution. The company’s website claims that "micro sized titanium spheres, as well as carbonized titanium" in the necklace are designed to "stabilize the flow of electric current and increase your body's energy level." What they don’t tell you is that they have absolutely no scientific research to back up these claims.

What they do have are professional athletes on their side. These iconic sports figure, mostly baseball players, have turned the Phiten into a must have fashion statement. Its like the trickle down effect; one player decides to try it and then all of a sudden the entire MLB has them. And from there, all the little kids who look up to those athletes get them. Players who wear Phitens have generally good feelings about them; some say that they “have a little more energy with it” (Endy Chavez) while others say they aren’t as sore and heal faster from injury while wearing it. There is no evidence that supports these claims with regard to the necklace itself. It’s all in their minds. If someone tells you a necklace is going to make you feel and play better and you believe it, your going to play and feel better whether it actually works or not. So in fact you are conned into paying $23 for a psychological boost.

Aura

Both Aura and House of Danger are alike in the sense that they are different breed of books that we have not read in class before. The plot in Aura is a difficult one to follow and I am still questioning its purpose. I stayed away from the Spanish form of the book because Spanish literature tends to always make me connect it to my personal experiences. I can also say the Spanish form of the text has a sort of passion within the words that I always find missing in English literature.

House of Danger, although is targeted to a younger audience, I found it extremely dry compared to Aura. Both texts were written in a simplistic manner but I found their use of second person completely different. I found Aura to be able to omit a spark the words just flowed natural from one to another. Once I picked up the book it was hard for me to put it down, before I had realized it I was already at the end of it. Yet I was mystified by what it had presented to me.

House of Danger tried to imitate this but it failed naturally due to the format the book is presented. The story did not flow naturally, even if we disregard the constant page jumping. I disliked how the story went of in multiple tangents it accomplished to make leave in a state of perplexity but not anywhere near the way Aura had accomplished it.

The more time I dwell in the stories of both books I find it that Aura demands much of my attention. I also had a fun time creating a chapter for that book. I just found myself merging into that style of second person. I tried to make my story flow naturally try to adapt to the second person make it flow to the speed of Aura. Although the story itself gave me Goosebumps, the style attracted me. It is the closest I have seen an English translation try to infuse the passion that comes naturally into Spanish literature.

A Flawed Education?

A couple of weeks ago, in my Physical Chemistry class, we were told that most of the ideas we learned in General Chemistry were wrong. I quote my Professor, “So… we lied to you.”

The explanation? The “correct” idea is too complicated for an introductory course. This was actually in context of what’s called hybrid atomic orbital. It was thought to be correct by chemists a few years ago because it explained the shape of a molecule very well. But based on empirical evidences and quantum mechanics, it has since then been refuted. However, most general chemistry textbooks still use this model to explain molecular shapes in intro courses.

Following this revelation, the class discussed whether it was the right thing to do. Did we feel manipulated? If I’d decided not to pursue Chemistry any further after the intro course, I would have spent my life with a flawed idea about how molecules bind. Ok, I doubt this would have any serious ramification… but I did feel like this was pretty ironic since this flawed concept was supposed to “educate” me. Wouldn’t I rather think that I don’t know how something happens than believe that I do when, in fact, I don’t?

I don’t know if it’s just me but I feel like this has been a recurring theme in my education. As I learn more and more, I have to abandon what I previously believed in and put my faith on a new, improved idea knowing that next semester, I’ll probably have to renew my faith again. So, how far do I have to go before I really know?

But then I realized that it’s not just the academic system that works like this. It’s also how the process of human knowledge in general works. Science comes from humans trying to explain things they observe in nature. It is a constant process of discovery. It’s also a constant process of rectifying previously held notions. Nature is complicated, down to and especially at, the most fundamental levels. We might never pin down the actual facts, the “absolute truth.” But as we go deeper, our understanding gets successively better, or so we hope. We have witnessed many times in history how wrong we’ve been, how we thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolves around it. As we learn more, we come up with a new theory knowing that it might just as easily be refuted. We never know whether what we know is accurate or is just another manipulation of the “truth” that helps us explain what we see. And yet we never stop trying.

It’s human nature, our irrepressible curiosity that keeps us searching. It’s the same reason the fear of having my ideas challenged won’t stop me from taking a new course. The only way to not feel deceived time and again is to be aware of these manipulations. It’s about knowing that no matter what I learn, I shouldn’t accept it absolute and no matter how much I know, I’ll never really know. To me, that’s a humbling thought.

Free Will

In my philosophy class, we recently had a debate about whether or not free will exists. Though I do not necessarily agree with the argument against free will, it seems relevant to this class so I will attempt to explain it here. Sorry if I confuse anyone; I spend a lot of time in philosophy being confused.

The strongest argument against free will, in my opinion, is made by the philosopher Schopenhauer. His claim is that every single action we perform is caused by a motive that is stronger than any motives we may have to produce other actions. For example, in his essay "Every Existence Presupposes and Essence" Schopenhauer gives the example of a man who has just finished his work day and now ponders his options for what to do. He could go to the club, go to the theater, visit a friend, run off into the wilderness and never return, etc., but he decides to go home to his wife, because behind this action lies the strongest motivation. He could never have made any other decision, because his essence (his 'self', the part of his being that could not change without him being a different person) is such that given all of his life experience, in the situation where he has finished his work day, he will always be more motivated to return home to his wife than to do anything else.

Now, suppose that somebody explains this to the man, and in order to prove that person wrong he decides to run away instead of going home. In this instance, the motivation to prove his free will is what drives the man, and he still cannot escape that his actions are all determined by potentially predictable motivations.

Thus, Schopenhauer claims that free will does not exist. Given certain situations with certain past experiences, and individual will always make the same choice (and therefore is not really making a choice) because it is in their essence to do so. According to Schopenhauer, to argue for the existence of free will is to argue that actions can happen without motivations, that effects can happen without causes, that a person can exist without having an essence. Since this is (or seems) impossible, then choice does not exist. It is an illusion.

This was the first reading that my philosophy professor assigned to the class on the topic of free will. This itself was manipulative because when we read the following readings that argued for free will, we could just refute them by applying Schopenhauer's argument. Arguing on the pro-free will side in the debate was quite tricky.

Because this is not a philosophy class, and we're discussing manipulation rather than lack thereof, I won't get into the arguments for free will. Is that manipulative?

The Manipulation of College

Our discussion the other day about whether we seriously considered going to college or if it was simple matter of what was expected of us got me thinking not only about the choice of college itself but the pressures and the way we are manipulated on campus.

Whether or not we chose to go to college or if we were persuaded to by our parents or just expected to is a personal matter. But obviously we all did well in school up until the end of high school otherwise we would not be at Hamilton. Whether we had outside pressures or pressures from ourselves, we still pushed ourselves one way or another to get to where we are now. School, teachers, parents, family, friends, or even our own mind can be just as manipulating as advertisements when it comes to our decision-making.

None of us are seniors, but coming from a private high school that thought highly of their alums I know that as soon as it hits senior year we will be asked to give money all the time: for the senior gift and then general donations. There is the phonathon which is where the college hires students to call alums and talk about how wonderful life on the hill is ask for donations. These are all ways in which the college manipulates us to give back, and after we spend a large fortune on tuition, one would think they would be donating to us.

Another way in which we are manipulated on this campus is the idea of the open curriculum. Yes, this campus has a lot more freedom when it comes to choosing classes than most liberal arts colleges, but there is a bit of allusion. We do have core requirements with our QSR class, three mandatory physical education classes and of course the three writing intensives. If someone is not athletic or is more of a science major, these are hard to complete, not to mention they can get in the way of picking the classes we want because we have to be mindful. It is a manipulation, but things could be far worse.

Limited Choices in Designing a CYOA

Ironically for my computer science final project I have decided to design a “choose your own adventure” type game. While I haven’t come up with the story yet, I do know that players will be given two choices for every event/obstacle they face. Players will also be able to collect items and gold along the way as they complete certain tasks.

Even though it would seem like I have the ultimate choice in creating the game the way I want it to be, even I the designer have my choices limited. While I would love to give the player more than two options to decide on for each scenario, I simply cannot. To do so would take an exorbitant amount of time because each choice would branch out into three more choices, and into three more choices, and so on until there would be too many possibilities for me to have time to design.

Not only is my choice limited by time, but it is also limited by the program itself. While I would love to make the story long and have many different possible endings, Visual Basic (what I am designing the project in) would probably get very “angry” at me for having too many forms (basically different screens). If I did one thing that VB didn’t “like” or add one too many forms then my entire game could pretty much self-implode and ruin what I had coded/designed. If that didn’t happen it would be likely that my program would run really slowly and make it not worth playing.

When I spoke to my computer science professor he agreed that I had to make it short. While it would be neat if it was longer he confirmed that it would likely cause problems with my project and could ultimately ruin it. So my story is only going to have a few different endings and a limited number of choices for the user. My choice on how to design this project is not really my choice but a combination of a bunch of other factors that I cannot control.

(P.S. being able to control time would solve a lot of problems.)

College means having more freedom, right?

I’m sure everyone has heard from friends or family that during college, you have a great deal of freedom. So much freedom that you won’t even know what to do with yourself. But I’m starting to see that there are certain aspects of college that are decided or expected. As a result, the things we do are not our personal choices. For example, in terms of classes, we have no control over what time and days of the week classes are scheduled, the building your class is in, who is teaching the class and how they teach that class, the books you purchase for that class, the workload, and deadlines. Because we are conditioned by our parents to do really well in school and work hard for a better future, we oblige to these factors. The pressure to do well in school from them and ourselves hinders the freedom we supposedly have in college. We may not want to do that ten-page paper, but we comply anyways because not doing it means a bad grade (i.e. a zero). And bad grades are deemed as unacceptable and do not fit into the way we were conditioned by our parents. So we take every bit of power to get through that paper.

Additionally, one of the other freedoms in college is the lack of curfew. You can stay out and go to bed whenever you want, right? Although you might like to stay up to 3 a.m. every night watching TV or drinking, you probably won’t because you have class the next day. In order to participate to the best of your abilities and do well in class, you need to be sober and attentive. Not every aspect of college provides freedom but even if it did it wouldn't matter; the external pressures we face prevent us from committing the personal choices.