The Men in Glee

This assignment was somewhat difficult for me accomplish because I am not much of a movie watcher. I’ve been racking my brain throughout the day trying to think of a film I have seen that portrays characters that present “Real Wild Women” or “Real Wild Men.” Unfortunately, I was unable to recall any. As a substitute, I will examine some of the characters in the television comedy “Glee” as they relate to the essay “Masculinity and Marginality in Rob Ray and Braveheart.”

“Glee” is a show about a group of high school “misfits” that belong to the glee club at McKinley High School. Although the club was once the pride and joy of the school, it is now an object of ridicule for the ever popular jocks and “cheerios” (cheerleaders). William Schuester, a former member of the glee club when it was at its prime, is a Spanish teacher at the high school who has decided to take on the heavy task of restoring the club to its old glory days. One of the club’s members is Kurt Hummel, a well-dressed soprano that is always getting thrown in the garbage can by the football team for his affiliation with Glee and his sexual orientation.

Mr. Schuester is the kind of man ever woman dreams of marrying. He is hard-working, faithful, talented, and dedicated to accomplishing whatever he sets his sights on. However, he is constantly being brought down by his wife who completely takes him for granted. In his essay, James R. Keller writes, “What entitles a man to be a leader of men is his willingness and capacity to satisfy a woman” (Keller 221). Everything Will does is ultimately for the happiness of his wife. When she finds out that she is pregnant, Will is willing to sacrifice the job that he loves to become an accountant and provide a better income for his family. He wants his wife to have her dream home but is unable to afford it, so he gets a second job where he is paid minimum wage to be able to meet the expense of the mortgage. Just as William Wallace in the movie Braveheart, Will has his share of romantic moments with his wife and is also disposed to fight for her honor at any cost (Keller 221).

Kurt’s character is depicted as the stereotypical gay high school student. He refuses to come “out of the closet” even though everyone knows his true sexual orientation. His mother dies when he was very young leaving his father to care for him. After joining the football team to please his dad, Kurt realizes that he can be whoever he wants to be: Glee soprano extraordinaire or high school football kicker and it gives him the push to tell his dad that he is gay. Although he always secretly knew, he was glad that Kurt was able to come clean. "The contest between brawn and effeminacy is settled in favor of brawn" because although his dad excepts Kurt and still loves him, he would still prefer him to be straight rather than gay (Keller 219).

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Jade: You did a really great job summarizing Wright’s essay! If I hadn’t read the article beforehand, your summary would’ve given me a better indication of what it was about! My only suggestion would be to shorten the length of your post just a little. You went into a lot of detail (which was really well written!) but since it was a summary, you could’ve just gone through the main ideas :)

Your Frida Kahlo post was great! The picture you decided to write about was intriguing. I liked how you could relate to the painting because it made you think of how you like to reflect on a number of things while you’re relaxing. I too would like to know more about the background behind the painting. Awesome writing!

Kayla: I really enjoyed reading your summary! The points you chose to talk about truly captured the essence of what the article was about. Your concluding paragraph was really well-written. It left me thinking, which is always one of an author’s goals: to leave the reader with something to ponder over.

I’m not sure if you did this on purpose or not, but I thought it was a great idea to leave out the portrait of Frida Kahlo’s that you wrote about. As you were describing the images within the painting, I could clearly picture everything in my head, and I was able to appreciate your explanation much more than if I was actually able to see the drawing for myself. The last statement you wrote was powerful. Amazing posts this week Kayla!

Erin did not have any posts for me to comment on.

The Two Fridas

In this self-portrait, we see that Frida herself is the main focus of the picture. Interestingly enough, she has painted herself not once but twice. The Frida on the right depicts her Mexican side; she is wearing a traditional Tejuana outfit. On the left, she is wearing a European influenced dress with a high collar. The two Fridas are holding hands and there is an opening in each of their chests, exposing their hearts. The Frida on the right’s heart is complete while the Frida on the left’s heart appears to be incomplete. Both hearts are connected by a vein that begins at the Frida on the right’s hand and ends with the Frida on the left’s hand, being cut by a pair of scissors. In the background, dark storm clouds are present.

This portrait was created not long after Frida’s divorce from Diego Rivera. The hearts that are being revealed show Kahlo’s vulnerability, as one is usually weakened in a relationship when they put themselves out there. The Frida’s heart on the right remains intact, most likely symbolizing the woman she was when she and Diego were first married. The Frida’s heart on the left is brokem—this is the modernized Frida that Diego left for her younger sister, Christina. One end of the vein is connected to a small picture of Diego, which is where Frida’s heart lies; the heart that was once whole and is now shattered. Kahlo is trying to cut the vein, hoping that this will end all ties to Diego and stop the pain. The clouds in the backdrop no doubt represent her tortured soul after learning of her husband’s affair.

After reading the description for this painting, I automatically felt a connection with Kahlo. While I have never been married, I have felt the angst of being cheated on. I really cared for and admired this person, just as I’m sure Frida loved and esteemed her husband. I also felt that the best way to get rid of my misery was to cut every connection I had to this person. It was tremendously difficult to tell my family what had happened, so I often felt that I was all alone in the world, with no one to stand beside me but myself. I can truly appreciate how Kahlo must have felt and respect her for the amazing artist she is.

“The Two Fridas.” Frida Kahlo Fans. Web. 17 Sept. 2009.

http://www.fridakahlofans.com/c0290.htm

So... Can They?

In his essay, “Can Machines Think? Maybe So, As Deep Blue’s Chess Prowess Suggests,” Robert Wright explores the idea that the more potent machines become in dominating tasks that used to be completed solely by human beings, the closer we come as a society to be regarded as “soulless machines.” Furthermore, Wright suggests that the more in-depth researchers investigate the competence of computers, the greater mystery consciousness becomes, which brings us to the question: “Can machines think?”

One method that was created to measure a computer’s ability to “think” was the Turing test. In this test, a person is asked to communicate via keyboard with others. For the purpose of this scenario, we will refer to this person as Bob. The catch, however, is that there might not necessarily be a human on the other side of the keyboard—it could either be a person or a computer. It is Bob’s task to successfully determine if he is conversing with a fellow homo sapien or a machine. If Bob is stumped, then we can safely assume that the computer was able to come up with adequate dialogue to pass as a human, or can we? Wright notes that in those rare cases when a computer was able to trick the human performing the interrogation, the discussion that resulted was less than stimulating (Wright 141). This goes to show that while it may be possible for a computer to “think,” it lacks a critical human characteristic: common sense.

Wright also brings up the ever burning question, “The lights are on, but is anyone home?” Early on in his essay, Wright relates the story of Garry Kasparov and his chess match against IBM computer, Deep Blue. Kasparov managed to slip by Deep Blue’s intellect to be crowned the victor; notice the words “slip by.” Kasparov lost the first game (Wright 142). Can you imagine the flood of emotions that he must have felt and the thoughts that must have crossed his mind? I can envision his sullen face looking troubled. He must have been thinking, “If only I had made a different move, then I would have won! Now, I’m one step closer to defeat. How could I have let this happen?” Deep Blue, on the other hand, could not have had the same experience as Kasparov, because it does not have the capability of feeling things. Once the first game had been won, there was no celebrating for Deep Blue. The “lights are on,” but Deep Blue (or any other computer for that matter) isn’t really home, because it isn’t conscious of what it’s like to feel emotions.

So, can machines think? In a sense, I believe they can. They can “think” enough to trick a person into believing that they are having a conversation with another human being, and they can also almost beat a human being at a game of chess. But although they can accomplish these feats, without the ability of truly knowing for themselves what they are doing, this triumph is an empty victory.

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Jade: First off, I thought your post title: “Screwdriver, hard drive…….. brain?” went really well with the topic that was being discussed. As I’ve said before, I love the witty titles you come up with! I am also nineteen years old and I can remember long ago in the 90’s when simple computers that ran Windows 95 were seen as the next big thing, and now look at how far we’ve come! It is simply amazing! You brought up an excellent point when you mentioned that although an artificial brain can be made to closely resemble a human brain, it still has the risk of malfunctioning, this making humans superior. I hadn’t thought of it that way! Superb writing!

Kayla: I too think that we share similar views on most of the prompts that we have had to write about, which is always exciting for me because I look forward to what you have to say on the matter! I completely agree with you that Minsky just barley graced the surface on what consciousness really is. It is so much more than just being able to store vast amounts of information with the click of a button! Great post!

Amisha had mentioned citations in her blog post yesterday, and I was noticing that your citations are just a little bit off, so I hope you don’t mind if I help you correct them! When citing an author’s work, just make sure that the period is outside of the parenthesis. I’ll take an example from your post on the 10^th: “Consciousness is being aware of what is happening in the world and in one’s mind” (Minsky). Other than that, keep up the great writing!

Erin did not have any posts for me to comment on.

Artificial Intelligence is NOT the New Human

“I Process Therefore I Am” -Clive Davidson

Class Discussion #3

Marvin Minsky, the director of the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in Massachusetts, has devoted his life’s work to creating an imitation of “human intelligence by programming computers to process information by manipulating symbols that [represent] knowledge and rules” (Davidson 116). It is his belief that in order to successfully create a machine that can “think” for itself, researchers should concentrate less on mimicking models of the human brain. His studies in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has progressed immensely, so much so that Minsky actually believes such machines programmed with AI will one day have the capacity to outshine the inner workings of the human mind by having a greater ability to be conscious of everything its ever done. “‘A machine could be vastly more conscious than a person because we didn’t evolve for that’” (Davidson 120).

However, this doesn’t mean that Minsky feels as though a machine’s aptitude for retaining information will make it smarter than the human population. On the contrary, he knows that “‘…it would be easy [for a machine] to be extremely conscious—but that doesn’t mean [the machine] would know what to do with it’”” (Davidson 120). What purpose does it serve then, if it is able to recall hundreds of records and information at the click of a mouse, but that data is not being put to good use? In addition, although a machine would have higher levels of consciousness that we as human beings cannot even begin to fathom, it would still lack other areas that are critical to intellect, such as an imagination. A machine would never be able to come up with ideas of its very own, a trait that is unique to humans.

I don’t agree with Mr. Minsky’s idea that machines can be more conscious than a genuine person. His definition of consciousness is “‘being aware of what is happening in the world and in one’s mind’” (Davidson 120). While a machine might be aware of what is going on in the world and what has been processed in its “mind,” it is only because someone, an actual being, placed that information within the machine. Perhaps at some point in the history of technological advances, machines containing AI will be able to “replace” humans. But let’s not forget that a human was the one that built the machine in the first place.

What IS Consciousness?

"The Great Unknown" -Robert M. Hazen

Class Discussion #2

Is the study of consciousness scientific? To a certain extent, I believe it is. The author, Robert Hazen, argues that “For a question to be scientific, it must be answerable through a reproducible process of observation, experiment, and theory” (Hazen 94). Scientists are able, by means of an fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine, to study brain activity. For example, when asked to speak, a color change in the fMRI scans would be present mainly in the frontal lobe of the brain, because that is where voluntary motor functions and speech are located. If it is already possible to study brain activity, I believe it is only a matter of time before scientists are able to better understand consciousness by means of equipment such as an fMRI machine. Then, it will be no problem to observe a patient, conduct experiments, and develop new theories.

On the other hand, there are certain aspects of consciousness I don’t believe science will ever be able to explain; emotions, for instance. Imagine if you will a young teenage couple named Jack and Jill. The duo is head-over-heels in love with each other. However, as the weeks begin to pass, Jack realizes that he no longer feels the same way about Jill, and decides to end their relationship. After he works up enough courage and tells Jill the truth, her emotions vary from feeling sheer bliss, to being completely incredulous, to utterly devastated, to untamed rage, all within a few short minutes of each other. What triggered all of those sentiments to pass through her mind so quickly? Was it a nerve that sparked and sent the message to her brain? If so, then why does her heart ache? There is certainly a correlation between our emotions and what we feel in our hearts, and I don’t think it’s something scientists will ever be able to clarify.

According to Dictionary.com, a reductionist is someone that believes“every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.” A skeptic is one “who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.” While there are valid arguments for each side, I fall somewhere in between the reductionist and the skeptic camp. I know that there must be a way to measure consciousness scientifically, but I also admit that there are things science just can’t explain. In addition, “…Scholars cannot even agree on what exactly [the term ‘consciousness’] means” (Hazen 95). Philosophers have been debating the same issue for centuries. Until a comprehensible definition is set, who’s to say what consciousness really is.

Week 2 Blog Reviews

Jade: In your “Strangers on the Other Side of the Computer Screen” post, I found it quite amusing that you and I both wrote in regards to that "one person in class who might be extremely shy but we would never know it unless s/he told us.” It’s almost as if we wrote that part of our blogs together :) I guess great minds really DO think alike!

Your argument of how changing the environment around you can change how others see you is intriguing. I had never thought of it that way! I agree that you are who you are no matter WHERE you are, but it hadn’t crossed my mind that putting yourself in a different setting can affect how you are perceived by others. It definitely made me wonder how others think of me in this class, and if I am making inaccurate assumptions about some of my classmates.

I really enjoyed reading your post “A World In Perfect Order.. or Not?” The quality of your writing reflects the effort that you no doubt put into it. You clearly defended your case that we CAN be good without good with examples from the text and your personal experiences. I look forward to reading more of your posts! You certainly have a way with words!

As a side note: Can I just say, I love the title of your blog and blog posts! They’re so clever!

Kayla: In your post “Online Interaction,” I also feel that meeting someone through their blog and their blog posts gives off an entirely different impression of them than if we had met through a traditional classroom setting. I’ve never taken an online class before and to be truthful, I’m a little disappointed that I decided to take THIS particular class online because there are so many girls who share my major. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE the format of this class, but it would’ve been nice to interact with these girls and share insights about our classes, why we chose our major, etc.

After reading “Do You Need God to Be Good,” I noticed that we have a lot of the same beliefs when it comes to religion and crime. I agree that it is not our ideas that matter, it is our actions. If we don’t act on what we say we believe in, then the words we speak cannot be necessarily trusted. Indeed, we are all human and subject to fault, but not if we are consciously saying something and acting in opposition to what we said.

Overall, I really enjoy your writing! You have a clear way of expressing yourself, and I look forward to seeing you develop your voice throughout the rest of the class!

Erin didn't have any posts for me to comment on :'(

Yes, We Can!

I have been brought up in a devout Latter Day Saint household. From the tender age of four until my most recent age of nineteen, I cannot remember a time I ever saw my parents drink alcohol or smoke a cigarette. As a family, we attend church every Sunday and hold active callings. We provide service in our community and basically strive to be the best we can be. To think that there might be a correlation between religion and crime is definitely a radical concept that honestly through me for a loop. I’ve always made the assumption that those who attend church regularly are generally “good,” while those who do not are more susceptible to leading “bad” lives. However, Lisa Conyers and Philip Harvey had this to say on the matter: “Surprisingly, recent research suggests that a religious person is more likely to commit a crime than a non-religious person. One can even argue that the more religious the society, the more likely it is to have high crime rates” (Conyers, Harvey 63).

Can we be good without God? That all depends on what your definition of “good” is. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word “good” as having “a favorable character or tendency.” Can a person that has a tendency to tell a few little white lies from time to time still be considered “good,” even though that tendency is not constructive? Even without a clear way of classifying what is necessarily “good,” I believe that the human population can in fact be good if no God existed. God is a great source that many people turn to in times of need and hardship, but those people can just as easily seek the council of a trusted family member or friend. If someone wants to turn his/her life around for the better, s/he doesn’t need God to do it. All s/he needs is the desire to be good and the perseverance to follow through with that desire.

"Religion alone, many researchers agree, does not determine personal moral behavior” (Conyers, Harvey 63). There are many other factors besides religion that contribute to a person’s ethics, such as their economic background, childhood upbringing, and class standing in society. Any one of these reasons, in addition to religion, could be the cause of crime in our world, but they are never mentioned. Can we be good without God? Yes, we can!

My "Self"

The anecdote written at the beginning of Chapter Two was something I experienced today with one of my former co-workers, Jon. He works at the New Student Orientation office, and one of his many duties is to answer the telephone and assist the person on the other line with whatever questions or doubts they might have about enrolling at ASU. Our conversation was light and giddy, as we were discussing the upcoming premiere of the new season of “Glee” which we have been eagerly anticipating all summer. In the middle of one of our laughing fits, the phone rang, and it didn’t take Jon more than two seconds to stand up straight and tall and change the tone of his voice to have a more professional quality.

I don’t believe that we can ever truly know each other if we have never met at least once in person. In the scenario above with Jon, the person speaking to him on the phone might have an idea of who he is because of the way he answered the phone, but if that person ever MET him, s/he might be surprised to find that his voice sounds exceptionally different in person than it does through the telephone. In addition, we can develop our own voice and style by the way we write in our blogs, but it’s one thing to imagine a person’s voice as you read about him/her and another thing entirely to actually HEAR them speak. When I meet someone for the first time, I am generally timid and soft-spoken. However, when I am writing, I like to use exclamation marks and emoticons to better express myself. To some I might come across as extroverted, when in reality, I am usually shy around those I have just met.

In “The Presentation of Self,” Erving Goffman had this to say: “The expressiveness of the individual (and therefore his capacity to give impressions) appears to involve two radically different kinds of sign activity: the expression that he gives, and the expression that he gives off” (Goffman 43). To be able to know someone, it is just as important to be aware of the verbal cues (expression one gives) as it is to be aware of the nonverbal cues (expression one gives off). I could be talking to any one of you face to face, and although your voice might be calm and steady, by paying attention to your wandering eyes and crossed arms, I might be able to guess that something is bothering you.

This doesn’t mean that I believe after sixteen weeks of commenting on each other’s blog posts and revising/ editing each other’s papers that we are complete strangers. I just think that to really know each other, our relationships have to be more than virtual ones.

Just Jess :D

Hello my fellow bloggers!

As I said before, my name is Jess! I am a sophomore majoring in Speech and Hearing Sciences, and I am considering a minor in either Dance or Family and Human Development.

I love being a Sun Devil! I used to attend classes at the West Campus but now I am strictly a Tempe student. This past summer, I worked as a Student Orientation Leader (SOL) and had the opportunity to help run orientation programs at each of ASU’s four campuses. It was a great job that allowed me to connect with incoming freshmen, make long-lasting friends, and show off my Sun Devil pride, not to mention: HAVING TONS OF FUN!!

I LOVE to travel! Last Christmas, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to take a one week trip to London! It was AMAZING! I was able to ride inside the London Eye, climb to the very top of St. Paul’s Cathedral, and walk where some of the world’s greatest tennis players have left their blood, sweat, and tears on Centre Court in the hope of winning one of the year’s Grand Slam Tournaments: WIMBLEDON!! For all of you avid tennis fans out there, I’m sure you can appreciate how big that was for me!!! =D

My family is a HUGE part of my life! I have 3 brothers and 2 sisters, so I like to think of us as the Hispanic version of the Brady Bunch! :) I ADORE my nieces and nephews! They are the little brothers and sisters I never had! When I have down time, I'm usually hanging out with them at Peter Piper Pizza or planning a karaoke tournament for us at my house!!

"La tribu" (the tribe) getting ready for an Easter egg hunt from oldest to youngest (minus my six month old niece).