"Semantic Contagion"

The concept that I will bring with me the most prominently from this class will be "semantic contagion." When we think about who we are as people, we are always choosing from a range of options and there is a limit to the kinds of ways that we identify ourselves and our goals. I think it's really fascinating to think about how the circulation of an idea can change the way that an entire group of people views themselves and I think that it is something worth thinking about. Apotemnophilia will go along with this as a useful bit of cocktail chatter that will stop all the people I know who are really into body modification dead in their tracks -- because regardless of whether someone thinks that its a mental disorder in a psychological sense, it's the sort of thing that makes you stop because it's pretty wacky. The concept of "semantic contagion" and apotemnophilia also illustrates the ways in which studies and discursive constructions work to construct reality. Remember that article we read with the very limited study about a possible neurological cause? According to the wikipedia page, apotemnophilia is a neurological disorder.

I think that the debates and discussions we had about apotemnophilia really illustrated another concept that we touched on throughout the class -- which is the limits of human agency. We tend to view ourselves as able and willing to make choices and as "free." We don't often think about how we came to view ourselves that way or the ways in which the choices we make about who we are and what we want to become are always already mediated by economic factors, discursive factors, and cultural norms and developments. It's a useful thing to consider even though it gets a little unsettling sometimes.

The Final Countdown

I’m going to walk away from this class with more than a couple of things to think about. I like the idea that science can be broken down along a number of axes, which we’ve done extensively in our work. Normally, I’m only focused on the facts, which in my case are generally numbers. So, it’s particularly interesting to map out how these facts have come to be, and what they might mean to various factions. More importantly, it’s interesting to see how these factions use the facts to their advantage.

Latour’s seeing devices and black boxes are also intriguing to me. They are both used extensively in my other studies, so seeing how they operate from an observer’s perspective is thought provoking. Being able to accurately measure things is a large-ish part of what I do in a scientific capacity. In a way, engineering is kind of like making the seeing devices and promptly black boxing them. Sometimes simply figuring out how to measure things accurately is challenging enough, let alone actually measuring them and using the data productively. Thinking about this stuff definitely solidifies for me the idea that an engineer is only as good as their tools, but it makes me question the accuracy of our tools. So how do we make better tools?

I’m also going to walk away from this class with a heightened awareness of the economics of science: Does he who pays determine what the science should say? Because we still get to do science regardless of the source of funding, do we, as scientists, even care? If we do care, how do we reconcile the fact that money does influence and modify our work? If we don’t, should we at least be conscious of how our work will influence society at large?

These are just a few of the things that came to mind when I thought about my experience here this semester. Given the sheer amount of ground we covered here, there are months or years worth of material that I think would be interesting and worthwhile to discus. I think I will come away from this class with more questions than answers. This is in no way a gripe; it’s very much a good thing.

To aid you in your transition to summer and to indulge your life-long love of 80's butt-rock:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw

Social media as battle-ground

Last post ever: One of the most interesting things we covered this semester (to me) was our extensive coverage of social media outlets-and how they can effect the public. After reading Shae's post below (Not my final post, but my show-and-tell stuff in case any of you are interested in hackers.) I watched several videos involving the Westboro Baptist Church, and their publicized responses to pressing issues. These ignorant people are given a voice that is able to be broadcasted through millions of households everyday, with little consideration of how it may amplify the cultural stigma's we've tried so hard to break down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM&feature=related

I found this to be especially relevant due to the fact that they are using social media to get there message across, which seems to be the evolution of standard Christian preaching. Now, rather than small demographics being subject to the preachings of WBC, the entire world is able to see who they are, what they're about, and what they're doing. To me, this alone is degrading to the American people, other countries will make connections with political republican figures like GW Bush, and associate this craziness with an exaggerated population of America, assuming they represent an entire ideology, rather than a few crazy, misinformed, extremists.

To further this argument, the noble hero in our online, social media fiasco, is non-other than a "Hacker" from oversea's (judging by his accent). The voice of 'Anonymous' in the clip above, is the voice of someone that (whether we realize it or not) we rely on. This 'hacker' has done what thousands have done before, which is to take a stand against the this Christian ideology after it has been tainted and abused and recomposed by an ignorant few.

This is a crusade of biblical purporting, this is our 'modern day' fight for influence, between the free & those enslaved by their own ignorance. It took movements like this to re-evaluate the Catholic church's power in Europe, during times of genocide and full-scale exterminations in the name of God, it took the few, intelligent citizens to revolt and reject the bs they are selling. This guy seems to have done that.-----So in some sort of conclusion, I think it's interesting to see where our smaller battles now lie. This ideological conflict has taken place over the web, the 'anonymous' guy's retaliation took place over the web, and now they're arguing about it over the web. This is where the battle is shifting, easier to personally communicate between entities, and definitely less bloodshed, so maybe this is a good thing?

Last Post

Of all things we covered in class, the element of it I believe stuck with me the most came from State of Fear, of all places. If you had told me at the beginning of the semester that I was going to claim a Michael Crichton novel to be the facet of this class that impacted me that most, I would have laughed, and then would have been seriously concerned over my future state of being.

But it wasn’t actually the novel itself that got to me – the plot and characters were all typical to the genre. The novel became of such importance because it demonstrated the power that is found in how one frames issues, a topic that can was proved to be important in each unit of this class. The novel drove home the fact that even facts, meaning hard concrete pieces of information that we trust to be correct, can be transformed into “facts”. Even things we believe to be unquestionable can be altered to fit a particular side of an argument. Before I would have considered this only something that opinions had the power to do. But through a look into State of Fear, as well as food advertising – be in HFCS or PETA, and Glenn Beck, it became totally apparent that rhetoric and presentation matter.

In the last week of class we had a discussion a bit like this, and presented the question of whether one can really twist “facts” to their advantage. The argument was brought up that 2 + 2 will always equal 4, and no one will dispute that claim. So yes, there are certain truths that are indisputable. But the difference between this and the “facts” presented by Michael Crichton are vast. A fact such as an easy math problem is simply to comprehend by all. It does not need representation or explanation. When you bring these two necessities in to the problem, and have a fact that is not so easy to stomach, all of a sudden these are needed. That is what Crichton, as one example as when this was applied in our class, took advantage of. Facts become “facts” when they are confusing, and unfortunately for us in today’s world, most facts come from specialists, and are things that need to be spelled out for us. Especially when it comes to science. There is a reason that I took this class when I was in the mood for something “science-y” rather than a class in the BIO department. I just don’t get hard science. Even when I try, it goes one ear and out the other. I am one of those people that necessitate the explanation to comprehend the issue. And that’s a little unsettling to me.

I don’t think it’s possible to leave all one’s opinions at the door before explaining an issue, even if that issue is fact. The presentation of that fact matters, which is influenced by the person doing the presenting and the ideas that they stand for. It will influence the rhetoric that they use to explain it to me. It will have an impact on how they angle the issue, and thus it will then impact the impression that it leaves on me.

In a way, this all goes back to Descartes, as well. While this is not a split between mind and body, it is a split within a person that science has forced us to make. It’s a more modern day split that I don’t think is any more possible that separating the body from the mind, either. But this one is forcing to split between presenting fact and emotional attachments to those facts. People, like Michael Crichton exemplified when writing State of Fear, cannot have one without the other. They are constantly going to influence each other and it is naïve to think that one is above that.

have a good summer, everyone! 

Not my final post, but my show-and-tell stuff in case any of you are interested in hackers.

In light of the end of the semester, before completing the final blog I thought I’d put up the stuff I was looking at for the final show and tell. I was thinking about how technology affects us all, and going back to the question of whether or not people should be free to choose – in this case, whether or not technology should be available to all or if some should be restricted, and what that would do to our society if technology WERE restricted. I came across some crazy stuff about hackers, and this group called Anonymous, so I thought I’d post this and see what anybody has to say about this / how people feel about this.

HACKERS OR VIGILANTES?

Scary thought: IN TODAYS WORLD IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT AND FIND A GAP YOU CAN LITERALLY STEAL THE IDENTITY OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WITHOUT LEAVING YOUR HOME.

I’m sure you all heard about the Playstation network crashes.

But basically it means that any information people had up on this network, including credit card numbers, bank account information, personal information such as full names, addresses, and e-mail addresses, were up for grabs to these hackers.

What did Playstation have to say about this?

“When a data breach occurs, it is essential that customers be immediately notified about whether and to what extent their personal and financial information has been compromised,” Blumenthal wrote Tuesday, dinging Sony for what he labeled a “troubling lack of notification from Sony about the nature of the data breach.”

What’s a little upsetting is the advice they had for customers was to change their passwords and that they would regain control of their system “soon”. HOWEVER, there is no possible way for customers to find out what their previous passwords were if they had forgotten them. Once signed on, a customer would rarely find themselves needing to sign back in, and therefore could easily forget their password. Wow.

Going with the hacker theme, there is of course the group Anonymous, a more or less “community” of online hackers who target government groups, groups overseas, and are responsible for aiding in the leaking of vital information that the group feels should be made public. Real quick info about this group: Wikipedia says about Anonymous (the group)

“After a series of controversial, widely-publicized protests and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks by Anonymous in 2008, incidents linked to its cadre members have increased.^[6] In consideration of its capabilities, Anonymous has been posited by CNN to be one of the three major successors to WikiLeaks.”

And in society today, with the incredible importance of the internet, this is not just an innocent, albeit annoying, prank. Hacking has become something serious, and is now used as a way to strike out non-violently:

Hal Turner raid

Main article: Hal Turner

According to white supremacist radio host Hal Turner, in December 2006 and January 2007 individuals who identified themselves as Anonymous took Turner's website offline, costing him thousands of dollars in bandwidth bills. As a result, Turner sued 4chan, eBaum's World, 7chan, and other websites for copyright infringement. He lost his plea for an injunction, however, and failed to receive letters from the court, which caused the lawsuit to lapse

Despite labels given to this cyber-hacker group including “viral terrorists,” this group does actual good that goes beyond spreading information that was otherwise concealed, or causing people to more or less be forced out of the public spotlight:

Chris Forcand arrest

On December 7, 2007, the Canada-based Toronto Sun newspaper published a report on the arrest of the alleged Internet predator Chris Forcand.^[23] Forcand, 53, was charged with two counts of luring a child under the age of 14, attempt to invite sexual touching, attempted exposure, possessing a dangerous weapon, and carrying a concealed weapon.^[24] The report stated that Forcand was already being tracked by "cyber-vigilantes who seek to out anyone who presents with a sexual interest in children" before police investigations commenced.^[23]

A Global Television Network report identified the group responsible for Forcand's arrest as a "self-described Internet vigilante group called Anonymous" who contacted the police after some members were "propositioned" by Forcand with "disgusting photos of himself." The report also stated that this is the first time a suspected Internet predator was arrested by the police as a result of Internet vigilantism.^[25]

Here is an example of both an incidence of hacking, and a nice little interview with a member from Anonymous. And also a little hilarious rant by a crazy woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM&feature=related

“Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church Website During Live Confrontation”

Freedom of speech, equality, and a few final thoughts

This weekend, I found myself wrapped up in a conversation that a bit like the one we had on the last days of class, about the issues of trying to have both equality between people and the freedom of speech. This topic came up in a discussion (in a Facebook chat, of all places) with Emma, one of my friends from high school, about Youtube. “Unfortunately Youtube makes it harder to put extremists in a bubble. Which is another reason why I really hate Youtube. Honestly, I think Youtube is a horrible invention,” she said. While I still have lot of faith in Youtube, Emma makes a good point. She mentioned how small groups like the West Boro Baptist Church are able to reach an audience they never would have otherwise and get a lot of (in Emma’s opinion, undue) attention. I brought up the issue of equality and freedom of speech, as this had come up before in a discussion about our Facebook friends talking about Osama Bin Ladin in their status updates. I mentioned the struggle between equality and freedom of speech and how it’s rather hard to have both. Emma replied back, “I think so, too. But at the same time, I think freedom of speech is misunderstood to think to have equality we must love instead of tolerate.”

Emma went on to explain that in order to have equality, one must except hate as part of the deal. I thought Emma made a good point, but at the same time, I was having a hard time dealing with what she was saying. Do we see really see equality as more about loving all people than tolerating? Is there a difference? Should there be a difference? I admit, I can sometimes be a bit too Rousseauist, especially with a Catholic background mixed in there, and think that the world would just be a better place if we all got along. I realize, especially after this class, that this is not quite true. Personally, I can’t see the world being a better place if I liked someone like Michael Crichton or Glenn Beck; in fact, my intense dislike of them has taught me more than liking them ever would. Honestly, I’ve learned a lot from the things I hate and also, in some ways, have mitigated that hate (I do at least understand where Glenn Beck is coming from, even if I will disagree with him for the rest of my life). I do, however, tolerate Beck and feel he has the right to say what he says (even though I really, really wish he didn’t). The West Boro Baptist Church really complicates things, though. One could argue that if perfect freedom of speech is perfect equality, that everyone gets to say what they want, no matter how hate-filled it is, then I should just let West Boro Baptist Church say their spiel and ignore them. But it’s not that easy. Emma says extremists should be put in a bubble – but does that really work? Even Emma, who believes in this idea of equal hate, dislikes the idea of Youtube which allows for this equality. Nothing is simple, it seems.

While I’m still floundering around, trying to understand this funny little space I inhabit between Rousseau’s Romanticism and a sort of Hobbesian realism, this class has given me a better foundation for that understanding. It’s begun to clear up the complexities I have in studying psychology, using Facebook and Youtube, and investigating science in general. As I’ve said before, I definitely have more questions than answers, but they’re better questions than what I started out with. I’ve begun to see topics from our class everywhere – in the news, in other classes, on Twitter – and I definitely feel like the ideas we discussed in this class are going to stick with me for a long time.

What is your “Soma” of choice?

Over the course of this semester and out of all the topics discussed I feel the lingering effects of how The Brave New World’s soma medication for escaping the hassles of life lingered throughout our final conversations. I see how people willingly and readily take their own form of soma through many of the topics discussed and debated over. When I say take soma, I mean that we all have a way to explain how to escape from the bounds of any given topics by offering our own personal knowledge to them. I feel that the over all theme of all the topics discussed have been centered around how to explain, get through, and deal with life as we know it. Our first topics covered this though how to deal with the body you have and what you can do to it, then we moved to who we are and what we are capable of as humans and then what we accept as truth via the machines, concepts and discoveries that man has contributed to science.

As we passed through the Age of Anxiety I came to the realization that even if we don’t take anti anxiety medications most of the discussion topics, no matter how broad, always can bring each and every one of us back to our own drug of choice. For me it is the psychology of why people do it and what could contribute or be hiding under the surface of any scientific or cultural phenomenon. It is probably why I chose to focus my last post on how and why we sort out all of these issues in our own ways. For others it is in belief of the Hippocratic oath and the trust the science will prevail to keep doing great things for society. I see in others how the human rights of all emerge within every topic and that with science removed we are all Cartesian’s capable of seeking and getting to our own truths. What is amazing is everyone is taking his or her own different drugs at the same time. Some meld better then others, like when being vegetarian for the sake of animals helps you reconsider the human treatment of those who are producing your lettuce. Other ‘drugs’ have the potential of canceling each other out; like animal rights and drug development testing on animal for the sake of human treatment advances.

If anything I have learned that the drugs I choose to be on to rationalize and work through the inner working of the science and culture world work for me. I like to know I have the capability to see a bit of my drug working in all many of seemingly unrelated topics. I must question however if it is the drugs effects on me to see what it is telling me to see. To have me see everyone taking their own drugs and know that they are prescribing to one or the other maybe limits my capability of getting into the mental dimension others or in. But over all I like my drug and I think you like your too! My over all grasp is that all the drugs made this class fun, informative and really solidified the one I choose to be on. I hope it did the same for you. Or as my mom told me once about LSD, “you need to be prepared with a “spiritual guider” for that experience”; I hope that you were able to take your drug of choice and be guided by some of the others in class to reach a new understanding of why you take the drugs you do. I know I have.