netvibes

http://www.netvibes.com/petealan#general

essay 4

Pete Carper

Dr. Mulliken

Engl 1114

28 Nov 2011

Effects of Violent Video Games

            Today video games are becoming more and more popular.  Since technology has increased since the Mario Brothers days, video games are becoming increasingly life like.  This has sparked the debate on how violent video games can adversely affect the thought process of the teens and young adults playing them. One argument is that violent video games can have positive affects on the people that play them, by providing an outlet for them to explore a violent character. Another argument which opposes the first view, says that violent video games such as Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto can alter the way a person would normally behave in a public setting. I agree with the first argument   because violent video games have become more and more popular among teens in todays market, youth violence in reality has actually started to decrease.

            On February 11, 2009 CBS published an article titled “Can a video game lead to Murder?” In this article, Rebecca Leung told the devastating story of how an eighteen year old male shot and killed three men, two of them being cops. In the article Leung argues that the main reason why the boy killed these men is because he had played the popular game Grand Theft Auto non-stop for months. In this game people are encouraged to do violent acts to get what they want. For instance, in the game if you see a car you like you should steal it and then try and avoid the cops or even kill them. Although Leung made a very compelling case as to why violent video games should not be played by teens, at the end of the article she reveals why the boy really committed the violent murders. Leung tells the story of how the boy was not raised in a good home and was bounced around in different foster homes. In the boy’s life, he had been abused many times by many different people. This is the reason the boy acted out in the way that he did, not because of the video game he had been playing. This article is just one of many that argue against teens being allowed to play violent video games. Although some of the stories in the articles that are told are tragic, none of them present a clear indication that the violent acts were committed because of a violent video game that was being played. This argument does however lead to the conclusion that teens that are brought up in a violent community are more predisposed to seek out violent entertainment such as popular, violent video games which is exactly what the boy did in this story.

            Today video games are making record sales, with some of the more popular titles like Call of Duty, selling upwards of ten million copies. These sales are leading to more and more adults and teens playing them. Ever since the release of the first commercial video game, Pong, it has been proven that the more violent and graphic the game the more popular it will become.  For example, in 1976 the first violent video game was released. The game was called Death Race and prompted players to drive a car and hit as many pedestrians as they could in order to win the game. This game sparked media frenzy and its sales increased tenfold in spite of the controversy.  From the early 90’s to the late 2000’s video games have almost quadrupled in sales. During that same period of time, crimes caused by minors have fallen over fifty percent. This fact alone should almost eliminate all arguments against violent video games because it is clear that the video games do not have any correlation to youth committing acts of violence in public.

In 2004, Muir Hazel wrote an article telling all the readers about the side effects of the violent video games kids are playing. In this article, Hazel raises the question; is there any scientific data to prove that bloody and graphic video games can increase a child or young adults aggressiveness?  Hazel says that although many tests have been done they do not adequately represent what actually happens to a child’s brain as they are playing violent games. For instance, two scientists conducted one experiment over this matter. For their experiment they asked a group of students to play a certain video game that contained violence. Then the scientists asked another group to play a different video game that did not contain any violence. The two scientists agreed that the test showed that the violent video game increased the aggression of the students who were playing it. However, Jeffry Goldstein, a psychologist said that the answer to this complex question is definitely not a simple cause and effect type answer. Goldstein warns that there may be many different things that cause the one group to be more aggressive than the other. Goldstein says, “What's more, the experiments that purport to recreate gaming in the lab and measure aggression fail on both counts. Playing a game because a researcher tells you to does not mimic patterns of voluntary gaming. And blasting with noise is not the same thing as a real intent to injure someone.”

Some scientists and researchers believe that their data is enough to prove that legislature needs to write new laws regarding minors and video games.  Although their tests do prove that people playing violent video games have increased arousal and aggression, it is because the comparative groups game is not as exciting compared to the game with violence.  When a person is playing a game that increases their aggression levels it is only temporary.  That temporary form of aggression does not at all mean that that same person is going to go out and hurt someone.  Again, it is an underlying issue in that person that would want to make them go do acts of violence.

            In some stories that have been aired on television and published in newspapers people will argue that because the criminal seemed to act out a certain scenario in their game of choice it is the video games fault.  Like in the case where the boy murdered two cops, people argued that criminal acted out a part of Grand Theft Auto, because in that game people are encouraged to kill cops. Jeffery Goldstein says the violence does not occur because of the video games. Although the violent games might affect the type of violence that is committed, it does not cause it to happen. With or without violent video games in our society we will still have violence.

         In my lifetime I have owned and played many different types of games, some violent, some not. I have played them from the time I was six years old, when I got my first Sega Genesis, so I feel as though I have a certain degree of understanding on this issue. When I am playing video games I am only playing for fun and I do not care if I am the best at any of the games I have owned. So I feel as though my opinion will speak for most other people in this situation. Playing video games for me is just a fun thing to do to just relax and not have to worry about anything else in that moment. Even though I play violent video games almost on a weekly basis, it does not mean that I am a violent person. All it means is that it is fun to see what it would be like to be a particularly violent character.  The violence for me stops when I turn the game off. I am not going to go shoot a cop or steal a car because my character did in Grand Theft Auto. I know that everything I saw in the game was not real and it was not at all based on what should be done in real life.

The fact is that people are going to commit violent crimes in every society, even the ones with no video games to play. So the criminals in our culture were going to commit the crimes anyway, but it is not because of something they saw on a video game. It is simply because of underlying issue that they have. These few people are the kind of people that need the help of a psychiatrist. These few people should not be able to ruin the fun for everyone else just because they cannot handle what they saw in a video game.

           

        

        

              

           

           

           

           

           

           

Works Cited

            Olson, Cheryl. "It's Preverse, but Its Also Pretend." New York Times (2004). Print.

"Video Games." ProCon.org - Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http: Hazel, Muir. "The Violent Games People Play." New Scientist (2005). Print.//procon.org>.

mind map

essay 3

Pete Carper

Professor Mulliken

Engl 1113

1 Nov. 2011

Selling Organs

            Many people today feel as though there is an urgent matter in the world today. The problem is that there are to many people that are waiting for someone to donate them an organ. Lewis Smith claims that today there are more than eight thousand people on a transplant waiting list hoping for a miracle. Smith continues by saying that of those eight thousand people, five hundred die every year because of the lack of people willing to donate to them. An M.D. by the name of Lewis Burrows argues that many doctors and surgeons and other medical professionals are now asking for the government to consider legalizing a market for organ transplantation, believing that it would dramatically increase a patient’s chance of receiving an organ in time to possibly save their life. On the other hand, some people argue that an organ market would only pressure financially unstable people to come and alleviate some of their money problems by selling the organs they can live without.  Despite the few that would disagree, Smith argues that most people feel that the country would be much better off if a market for organs was created.

            In September of 2004 Lewis Burrows M.D. wrote an article titled “Selling Organs for Transplantation.”  This article was published in The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine. In the article Burrows argues for the position that there should be a legal market for organ transplantation.  He also states that people should be allowed to sell one of their organs for financial gain because surgeries are relatively safe now. Burrows states “The number and rate of donations have reached a plateau and leveled off following the enforcement of lower speed limits for automobiles and the introduction of seat belt laws”  (251). In January of 2011 a journalist named Lewis Smith wrote an article titled, “Sale of Human Organs Should be legalized, say Surgeons.” In this article Lewis also advocates for the position that it should be legal for people to sell their organs to people in need of them.  Smith argues that if it were legal for people to sell their organs it would mean that donors are paid like everyone else that is involved in the transplantation process. Smith states “"If someone wants to alleviate a financial problem why shouldn't he do that? It's his choice" (Smith).

When comparing the articles, “Selling Organs for Transplantation” by Burrows and “Sale of Human Organs Should be legalized, say Surgeons” by Smith, we can see that they use different types of ethos in their arguments. In the article by Burrows we read that he has been a qualified M.D. for over twenty years and during this position he was offered a job as surgeon. Burrows’s job would be to transplant kidneys, which would include over two hundred surgeries every year. The foreign doctor that was offering him this position proposed that they should bring donor-recipient pairs from his country to the hospital where Burrows worked to perform the surgeries. These surgeries would pay the kidney donor almost two thousand dollars for their kidney, and that amount of money would drastically affect that donor’s life for the better. Even though Burrows was offered a very good amount of money he rejected the offer. After reading this we can see that Lewis Burrows has proper authority to make claims about how the idea of selling organs is ethically right. That authority comes from the fact that he has knowledge and experience in handling this in his own life.

            In the article that Lewis Smith writes you do not get the impression that he has authority to talk about this certain subject. In fact you learn nothing about his background, because he does not mention himself at all throughout the article. Smith often quotes other people like doctors and other medical professionals. For example Smith says “Recent medical advances now make it reasonable to allow a kidney market and perhaps the sale of liver donations, although other body parts remain too risky.”  This is false ethos, because Smith obviously does not have any experience in this certain area.  Although Smith does not effectively claim authority in his article, he does however establish credibility. To start the article, Smith tells his readers the story of the people all over the world that are on a transplant waiting list. By telling us the story and by backing it up with facts, Smith grabs the readers’ attention and makes them want to continue reading the article.

The argument of pathos in both of these articles is very similar.  At the beginning of Smith’s article he states the sad fact that there are almost eight thousand people on an organ transplantation waiting list in the UK alone. Smith says that if more organs do not become more readily available soon, more than five hundred of these patients will die every year. This example is Smith’s argument of pathos. He uses this story to draw certain emotions, like sadness and sympathy from the reader so they are more emotionally invested in the story and willing to listen to what Smith has to say.  Similarly at the beginning of Burrows’s article he tells the same sad and jaw-dropping facts. Burrows argues that the fact is that most of the patients waiting on an organ transplantation will likely not receive one in time due to the lack of organ donations. These facts that Burrows brings up draw many emotions from the reader, such as sadness. Burrows wants to get people to know how drastic the problem is and provide them with a sense of urgency to help.

Although both of these articles have some arguments of ethos and also some arguments of pathos, their main arguments are made from logos. They both present their readers with good evidence and reasons to believe what they have to say in their article. For example, in Smith’s article he talks about one big reason for creating a market for organ transplantation is the current problem in the black market. The black market for organs creates many problems, one of them being that a lot of the surgeries are botched because they are not performed by capable surgeons, says Smith.  He also claims that if the government created a market for organs then it would virtually wipe out the need for patients to look to the black market for help. This argument of logos is specifically using the argument of using reason and common sense. Smith is saying that there is a problem in the world and there is a solution and if you use your common sense you should agree.

Although Smith makes this sound argument and presents good facts to back it up, he commits at least one logical fallacy. He presents the facts and basically says that either the government creates a market for organs or hundreds of people will turn to the black market and will probably die. Smith presents it as though these are the only two possible outcomes. This argument leads to an either/or logical fallacy. It is making the readers think that this is the only possible solution to fixing the problem of organ shortage. In reality it is not, as Burrows suggest one of the other ways of solving this problem is to adopt a “presumed consent” in which families of the deceased have the choice of opting out of donating their loved ones organs. Burrows says if they do not opt out then the organs can be used for transplantation. This method has been adopted by a few countries such as Spain and Africa, Burrow claims, and has doubled the donation rate in those countries. However, Smith fails to consider all of the possible solutions and presents his article as though there are two outcomes to the problem.

One of the arguments of logos that Burrows uses in his article is when he tells the story of when he personally dealt with selling organs. This argument is using Burrows personal testimony of when he experienced this issue. This story that Burrow tells lets the reader logically assume that what he is saying is not made up or distorted, but it is the truth.  This is very solid argument that he makes and does not clearly lead into any logical fallacies.

The different ethos in these different articles is probably due to fact that the authors are reaching out to two different groups of people. Since his article is published in a medical journal, Burrows is reaching out to medical professionals and other like-minded people. Burrows’s audience is likely to have knowledge in health care and will be more critical of his statements than the average reader. On the other hand Smith’s article is published in a British newspaper’s online website called The Independent. Since Smith’s article is published in a newspaper, it is generally geared more towards the average reader. Since the majority of the audience is not a part of the medical profession, we can see that the article is explained in a more common vernacular.

In the two articles, Lewis and Burrows make use of some of the same writing techniques like using arguments of pathos to draw the readers in and connect them to what they are saying. Although the articles make the same basic claims, the two arguments of ethos are very different.  The arguments are probably different because of who is writing the articles and who the specific audience is. These articles present a very scary and real problem in our world today. They challenge us to think about different solutions to the problem of organ shortage. Although the two authors come from very different backgrounds it is very intriguing to see how they present there arguments in similar ways to make the reader feel what they want.   

Works Cited

Burrows, Lewis. "Selling Organs for Transplantation." The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine (2004): 251-54. Print.

Smith, Lewis. "Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legalized, Say Surgeons." The Independent 5 Jan. 2005. Print.

           

essay 2

Pete Carper

Dr. Mulliken

Engl 1113

11 Oct. 2011

Job Outlook

            In his article “Are Jobs Obsolete?”, Douglas Rushkoff, a writer who primarily focuses on the future of the American economy, argues that technology is replacing jobs. This article is featured on CNN’s online website where it is viewed by a very large number of fans and critiques every day. Rushkoff’s audience is comprised of mostly an older generation with substantial incomes. With that information, we can logically come to the conclusion that most of these people are well educated with a college degree or even higher.

Rushkoff says that because technology is becoming more advanced and user-friendly businesses like the U.S. Postal Service, a corporation employing over 600,000 people, are now in danger of being shut down. Rushkoff explains that since it is becoming significantly easier to send things electronically like emails, bills, and other forms of communication, “people are sending 22% fewer pieces of mail than they did just four years ago.” Unfortunately, Rushkoff explains that the U.S. Postal Service is not the only company in danger. EZpasses are now rendering toll collectors obsolete and this is costing many employees their jobs. These facts that Rushkoff is bringing up are arguments of logos. Rushkoff is connecting the EZ passes and Postal Service to people being put out of work.

Rushkoff uses pathos in a very specific way in he beginning of this article. He tactfully brings up the story about the U.S. Postal Service to make people sympathize for others that might be out of a job. Rushkoff uses this example about the Postal Service to make you more emotionally connected to the story. Instead of just starting off by telling you the facts, Rushkoff uses this story to get the readers interested in the subject matter. Rushkoff knows that you are far more likely to care about the subject matter if you have a story to relate to.         

Rushkoff argues that people have worked from the beginning of time but the idea of jobs was only created when the idea of the corporation came about. When people worked in the Renaissance era they only worked for themselves; creating goods and selling them to other people. Rushkoff says since technology has become smarter and more efficient, there are not very many jobs needed to run this equipment. Rushkoff argues, “We need to change our ideas: its not about jobs, its about productivity.” He suggests that instead of making products as a job, we can now have jobs that exchange information-based products. Rushkoff continues by saying we don’t have to rely on big companies to have a job because technology is allowing us to create our own work.  This information is another way Rushkoff uses logos. He rhetorically compares renaissance era to newer corporations and says that because the work environment is changing we must change with it.        

Next Rushkoff asks the question, “Since when is unemployment a problem?” Most people, according to Rushkoff, do not actually want jobs. People simply want the money and the benefits they provide. Instead of having productivity as a goal, we are now making employment the goal. Rushkoff states that employment is the goal because America is not in need of more stuff: it is able to feed and shelter everyone in it. Employment is the goal because it is a way to distinguish who deserves that stuff. Rushkoff uses logos to create this argument. He provides a theory, which is well constructed and makes sense and to back that theory up he provides specific examples. Rushkoff’s uses the example of America being a productive nation. He says that America is so productive and efficient that it could feed and shelter everyone in it with only a fraction of the population actually working.

Finally at the end of this article, Rushkoff presents his own opinion on how we can change the problem at hand. His suggestion for a solution is to change our whole viewpoint on jobs. Rushkoff says, people usually think of jobs as going to work for a company to create a product and then sell it to customers. He says that instead of that kind of job we are now able to take full advantage of the digital age. We are now able to sell and exchange information-based products. Rushkoff says, “This work is not so much employment as it is creative activity.”

Rushkoff’s arguments are effective through the use of ethos.  As Rushkoff writes this article, he seems as though he has his readers, who are generally the middle class, in mind. He is giving them advice and solutions that he feels will help them. As you read Rushkoff’s article he makes it very easy to understand his arguments because he presents them in a clear and understandable way. Instead of lying or exaggerating the facts, Rushkoff presents the facts and leaves it up to his readers to agree or disagree with him. Rushkoff educates his audience on the current economic state and his readers decide what they want to believe.    

Rushkoff starts off by defining the problem for his readers by describing the issue of limited jobs. He concludes his argument with his own opinion and suggestions. Rushkoff writes this article in a very simple way that is very effective at educating the readers. The one thing seemingly lacking in this article is proper use of pathos. Rushkoff could have added more emotional appeals to catch the audience’s attention. By using this technique, he may have made his argument stronger. In this article, Rushkoff presents the facts in a way that lets the readers know he is well informed and knowledgeable.

                                                                

                                                                 Works Cited

Rushkoff, Douglas. "Are Jobs Obsolete?" Cnn.com. 7 Sept. 2011. Web. 3 Oct. 2011

           

web presence

I think that my presence on the web is a good one I do not have much stuff on the web that people other than my friends and family can easily view. Basically all i have is my facebook and twitter accounts. On these accounts i really do not post very many things, and when i do they are mostly for positive. I do not just post things to make people mad or try and get likes or comments. I do not think it is smart for people to just post things on the internet without thinking about them first. People are just to willy nillie with all of their information on the internet these days. I am not interested in getting raped by a crazy freak. That is just not my style. People really should be more careful on the internet. They can do this by making their facebook private. they should take their phone numbers off of their page and they should definately take off where they live if they have information available to anyone other than the people that they know.

response to tanners blog

http://davishall-304.blogspot.com/
online rape? holy crud that is crazy to think about. i had absolutely no idea that that was an actual thing. I actually do not think i have even heard of such a thing. All i know is if someone online raped me, i would not be a happy camper at all. I do not know how they would even do it though.  They would have to be a very smart and creepy person to be willing to try and rape some virtually. All i can do is pray that this kind of thing never ever ever ever happens to someone in my family or is my friend.

a rape in cyberspace

Well to begin this blog post i will begin by telling you that i am going to be talking about a rape in cyberspace. This blog post was written by julian dibbell. First off i would like to say that i do not believe that cyber rape is not an issue today. Although yes technology is beginning to overwhelm our society, i do not believe that there are a lot of people that are going to commit such acts as this perverse hanus person did. How many times have you even ever herd of such a thing happening? probably not very many. For me this is the first time i am even hearing about this illegid issue. Although i am not trying to make light of this terrible deed that took place, i feel as though this author is making to much commotion about it because it only happens once every now and then. Its like when people make a big dea about shark attacks, they are really not that bg of a deal becasue they rarely happen. People are more likely to die from a cocunut hitting htem on the head than being killed by a shark. This type of harassment does not warrant all of this commotion. People should not get their panties in a bunch when they are reading about this types of things. I hate when people act like these kinds of things are the end of the world, and they will never be able to get on the internet again without being scared for their life.

my google

When I google my name several things come up. The first thing you see that comes up on the google results is my blogging profile. When you click on this link, you can definitely see that it is my profile, and it is what i am writing on this current moment. The second thing that comes up is a facebook profile, of some random guy that lives in Ohio. Although he has the exact same name as me, it is definitely not my facebook profile. The third link that comes up is my basketball profile that is located on max reps. It is what my high school basketball team used to keep track of stats and see what other teams looked like on paper. On this website you can see that i was pretty good at basketball and that i played for 3 seasons at Wright Christian Academy. With all of this information, if soeone were to google my name they would assume that i am a college student that likes to blog (or has to) that played basketball. All of these things are things that make impressions on all sorts of different kinds of people. I think that are pretty good things though, and would likely make a good first impression on anyone that was just happening to google me for some reason. One of the reasons that all of this info is good, is because i am a model citizen who does not really do anything wrong. I am the perfect person.

bitching to just bitch

Now a days it seems like commonplace to whine about any and everything in your life that has gone wrong to any and everyone that will listen to you. I can not stand when people put status' on facebook about how horrible there day was because there laptop broke or something very petty like that. Its even worse to me when people will indulge there whiny and bitchy attidudes by commenting and saying how sorry they feel for them. It is just ridiculousness that people can actually view their lives as horrible because of one minute detail going wrong. For example one of my friends last week put on facebook that their day was horrible, and when someone asked them what was wrong they said that their head had been hurting all day. Seriously? what the eff. It pisses me off because people are in other countries trying to get enough food and water for their family for the day and we can consider a bad day having a minor injury. This attitude seems like it is all over our country these days. The attitude that we need everything to be perfect in our life and if it is not there is something wrong and we have the right to complain about it. I wish people would take a few minutes and actually think about all the stuff we have compared to less fortunate people, and be thankful for what we do have and not always look at what we don't have. 

logical fallacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4LWJ1l6onU&feature=related
In this video that is promoting Ron Paul, there are several logical fallacies being committed. First off in the video Ron Paul is being praised as the best candidate for the upcoming presidential election of 2012. He is being portrayed in a light that only makes him look like a political genius. The video only lets people that love and support him share their opinion. One of the first fallacies i came across when I was watching this youtube video on facebook in the library was false ethos. The people that were talking and commentating on Ron Paul's capability to run this country effectively were not people that were experts on politics. The people were just your every day Joe giving their opinions on a certain issue.
The second logical fallacy that was committed was a bandwagon fallacy. The people were saying that because all of the people that knew what they were talking about in politics like Ron Paul that you should like him to, and also that you as an American citizen should go vote for him in the upcoming election. That is a logical fallacy because not everyone agrees with what Ron Paul is saying. Some people might believe in the war in Iraq and want to vote for a candidate that would more likely stick it out in the war and leave our troops over there. But if we leave the troops over there most people think that it would be basically like giving up the war. So thus they would not want to vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming election in 2012.

12 angry men

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8trhBy2DLE

In this clip of the movie 12 angry men, the men are arguing over whether or not the boy killed his father or not. At his point in time there is only one of the 12 men who actually believes that the boy is innocent. After corralling about why the man thinks the boy is innocent, one man stands up asks the question about the knife. The knife that was used to stab the father. One of the other men starts to tell all the facts that had been brought up in court about the knife. About how the boy claimed to go the movies during the time when his father was killed. And how the bought a unique knife in a shop during that time. The people want you to believe that the boy is innocent are saying that there is only one knife like that in the world. But the one man disproves that theory by bringing a knife that was exactly like the knife that was found in the chest of the dead father.
The argument that is being made is that of logos. Logically there are some gaps in the prosecutions theory. There is a reason to doubt that the boy killed his father. The man that is trying to prove the boys innocence in the jury then pokes big gaps in the whole argument one at a time, and s.lowly is starting to turn everyone else on his side. He does this very cleverly and tastefully and brilliantly.

infoshphere influence

I feel like today you can not even step into a room without seeing a piece of technology. From someone's new iphone, to a new 3D television. I am being influenced from all this technology everyday, in many different ways. Now a days I can pull up any website on my phone or laptop and find new information that has been put on the internet. That information would not have been put into my head if it was not for technology. I can go to ESPN.com and find the latest news on any sports team in the country. Or I can go to CNN.com and find the latest articles on the upcoming presidential candidates. All this information is flooding my mind everyday, and widely affects the decisions i make throughout the day.
Today, as much as I would like to admit it, I am very dependant on technology. I could not get through any of my classes with out my laptop. I need  it for everyday, from writing papers, to checking homework that is due the next day. I do not thinks the technology itself defines a person or helps attribute to their personal identity but rather the information the person learns from them. This information shapes our way of thinking, and influences our every day life. I feel like almost every person is somewhat dependent on technology. Many of the skills that people used to have to learn like learning directions are now not necessary. They have become obsolete because a new program or app on the phone can do the same job more efficiently, with out any knowledge of the actual subject.

Virtual potrayal

Today millions of people have facebooks. Almost anyone you know you can look up their name and see information about them. That information is so accessible and easy to find, that people need to be careful on how they portray themselves. If for example you become facebook friends with a girl you would like to date and she see's on your profile that you have been updating status after status after status things that discriminate against women, i don't think she will likely want to date you. People should be careful of what people can see on the internet. You want to try and paint a good picture of yourself so that people do not get the wrong impression of you. So if you apply for a job and the employer looks you up on facebook and all he or she sees are pictures of you partying every weekend. That will likely not portray a hard working and responsible employee that he or she would likely be looking for. That employer would likely not want to hire you because he knows you are not mature and responsible, and that is all by looking at one thing on the internet. You could ruin your chances for a job all by the way you portray yourself on the internet. Instead of having bad pictures on the internet of yourself, make sure that there are none. Let it be full of good pictures that paint the picture that you are an outstanding citizen and you deserve to be dated and or hired for the job you are applying for. 

Essay 1

Pete Carper

Dr. Mulliken

Engl 1113

6 Sept. 2011

Today’s World of Technology

            In the first chapter of Ben Agger’s book, “The Virtual Self: A Contemporary Sociology”, Agger begins to talk about the relationship between what sociologists call social structure and people’s everyday lives.  The purpose of this book is not to complain about sociology, but rather to argue that people can find sociology that is good in places that are surprising. Agger’s main goal in writing this book and more specifically this chapter is to apprise people about their virtual selves. People who are living in postmodern worlds, this idea is very different from previous generations.  For example now we are able to send an email that will instantly be received by whomever we wish, but when our grandparents were kids they did not have this useful tool at their disposal. In this chapter Agger talks about the positive ways that information technologies could be used to challenge the big companies that control power and wealth. Agger says that the same technology can be used to make the citizens operating them submissive and less likely to search for the truth.

            Ben Agger wrote this chapter to help educate people about sociology and its relationship with technology. Agger says that today people are becoming more and more virtual, “I view technology as a dense set of social relations defining the uses of machinery, electronics, media” (6).  This statement means that there are a myriad of ways that we relate virtually, whether it is through email or online dating web sites. No matter the use they are all telling us how to operate and interpret the technology and information we are given. Ben Agger say’s “we need to think

Carper 2

sociologically on the ground of our experience, which is what Neil Young does as he explores the intersection of his world and his self” (7).

            In this chapter Ben Agger talks about social structures he say’s “Structures are things you can’t easily see or discern. But they make their presence felt” (40). Agger says to help you, “think of religion and churches, economy and money, and now think of the Internet and other electronic connections that altar the distinction between self and society, inside and outside” (40). All of these things, Agger argues, give you clear guides to help you see what the connection is between social and self. For example religion is self because no one can make you believe anything you don’t want to, but the church is the social gathering that encourages and growth within religion.

            Agger believes that the Internet and other technologies can and should encourage people to join together and help fight existing positions of power, wealth, and information. Agger says that more often than not, these technologies that are supposed to be helping us, by making our life easier by having information and entertainment at our fingertips, are really just making us take the information we get for face value, instead of being able to critically think and analyze the problem. Agger suggests that it is possible that all of the information we have at our fingertips it is making us less able to think for ourselves. Agger gives the example of internet searches, instead of having to answer questions for ourselves and having to investigate for the truth. We can just type our question into the computer and we will usually have the answers we are looking for. Agger says that on the other hand these technologies are empowering people. The technologies are enabling us to become more active members in society. People that

Carper 3

ordinarily would just read the news are now becoming authors and bloggers that are working for a better world.

            Ben Agger believes that there is a huge potential for our virtual selves. We have the ability to put our thoughts on display for the entire world to see if we wish. We have the power to take on some of the bigger problems in the world, like the problems that are going on in government, by joining together virtually. All of these things should be bringing us closer together, but in a lot of cases they are doing the exact opposite. With all of the information on hand at any moment, it is making us less able to think for ourselves and make us more dependent on technology to get us through the day.

Carper 4

Works Cited

Agger, Ben. "Everyday Life in Our Wired World." The Virtual Self: A Contemporary Sociology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. 1-41. Print.