Marriage Will Fight

Robert Wright has a very strong and determined opinion about monogamous relationships and for the most part on how they do not exist.  Example after example shows men and women’s inability to stay faithful to one another due to our nature and reproductive tendencies.  A great deal of argument with a large amount of support makes his claims very accurate and leaves little hope for the few who want to believe in marriage and the good old phrase “till death do us part”. As clear and evident as each study is, and how remarkable and understanding Robert Wrights’ points of view are the abolishment of marriage is out of the question.

            There were a few meaningful sections that gave a breath of life to the idea of marriage.  A great example is given through the male and female figures working together to support and protect the child. “The genetic payoff of having two parents committed to a child’s welfare seems to be the central reason men and women can fall into swoons over one another” (Wright 281). This is what possibly holds the relationship together and is a strong enough bond to make things last.  Sadly this is somewhat unreasonable to be the sole reason for a couple to fight through an unhappy relationship but it is definitely enough to create the building blocks to have a stable foundation to work upon.

            The second and most pronounced support to bring hope back into marriage is the position of moral behavior. We as humans have the power to know what is right and what is wrong.  Yes the urges to mate with multiple partners and spread the seeds of life are out there but people have the moral feelings to fight for a family and loved ones. Robert Wright himself states a counter argument to the entire bases of his writing saying, “We at least have the capacity to lead an examined life: self-awareness, memory, foresight and judgment” (291). As human beings we can adapt and adjust unlike any other animal, and although our tendencies may point to a cheating relationship there is still a good chance that marriage is better than creating a whole new system only to fail because of “evolutionary psychology” and the so called need to mate with everyone.

Week 6 Blog Reviews

Tesha: I think the Bird Cage was a great example to start out with, I had not thought about that one but it was a great movie to touch on.  The movie that you did pick to talk about I have not seen but through your descriptions and passion about the movie you did a great job of letting me know how strong the main character was and how it related to real women. I also agree that the 9/23 reading was a little confusing and that’s somewhat why I took a different approach to it.  I feel like you did a great job of summing it all up though and I agree with you on the gays and lesbians being around longer than the 1700s.

Darien: You portray a very strong voice in your writing and it is a pleasure to read. I thought it was a good touch to add the personal effect when mentioning your uncle. I feel like you bounced around a little bit and talked a lot about the internet and didn’t fully tie it to the homosexual scene, but overall you had a lot of great points and I could tell you got a great deal of information from the reading. I’m looking forward to reading more and hearing your opinions on the many readings to come.

Directed Freewrite p246

Sex, Lies, and Conversation was absolutely one of my favorite readings so far.  Each experiment that was explained revealed so much information about the opposite sexes and led to great conclusions as to why communication is so difficult.  There were also a few facts that I never really thought of myself and really enjoyed when that light bulb went off and I understood exactly what the writer was talking about. For example, in the final paragraphs of the article it states that men feel the need to talk in public to verify their intelligence while women are the opposite and are afraid to sound silly or make a wrong statement.  This is then switched in the home when women feel safe and comfortable so they talk freely and men have no need to be masculine or prove anything so they say less.

The scenario that I feel somewhat relates to this reading is when in a previous relationship I decided it was time to talk about what was really going on between us.  It was at the stage when we had been dating for a while but had not put a label on it and to some degree this had been bothering me.  I sat him down and asked that one tough question “is this going anywhere?” And to my surprise, he replied what do you mean and where is this coming from? I had been thinking about this and talking to my friends for days about what he was thinking, what I should do, where this is all going, what he wants, what is best for us, and so much more and he on the other hand thought there was absolutely nothing wrong and we were on track to the perfect relationship with him completely happy.

Exactly like the reading had stated, women need reassurance and to talk through things, to feel comfortable with how the relationship is progressing while men just go with the flow and know that what is happening is right.  I jumped to conclusions assuming that we had issues because we didn’t talk about where we were going but I should have known that we were happy and that good things were to come from our time together. I’m not saying I was completely out of the ball park with my assumptions, the man could have reinforced the relationship a bit more and the “talk” would never had to of happened.

Changing Families

Families are dramatically changing throughout the years.  I feel that in the beginning the usual relationship was between a man and a woman who were happy with their two children, a stay at home mom and a working dad.  Slowly this has changed.  The first switch in my opinion was women trying to fight for their place in the work field.  They thought that it was demeaning to be forced to stay at home with the children.  This caused an uproar of economic challenges and I believe soon led to the boom divorces in a America and the changing of family dynamics everywhere.

These divorces are what brought along the single parent complex.  There now seems to be much larger families with many children that are struggling to make ends meet because they do not have a strong support from both parents. There is also another side to this with the mixing of families causing step brothers, sisters and parents.  Today this is not a big deal. This has become the common family. The likely hood of having a “normal” family that consists of a birth mother and father and all full blood related siblings is hard to find now a days.  

There have been so many changes in these past years but to push things even further in the family dynamic flip, we have introduced gay and lesbian couples who want to start a family. I believe there is nothing wrong with this but many will disagree.  As they live happily together I do not see the harm in them having children to take care of and raise as their own.  Many homosexual couples decide to adopt a child and that is a perfectly fine, if anything it is a great help for the many children who need a home in this world. I’m not sure what the economic standing on gay and lesbian relationships is for this generation but it is how they feel comfortable and wish to live their life.

Real Wild Women/ Wild Real Men

I tired to think of a movie that was sufficient enough to define abnormal gender cultures and there wasn't one that stood out enough to write an entire blog on so I will touch on a few that I feel made an impact on me.  The first is an extreme example that I'm not too sure if many people have seen. It is the Rocky Horror Picture Show.  This movie was about a random house in the middle of no where that is full of transvestites.  A couple is lost and stumbles on this place and are trapped there for the night.  Through out the movie the main character ends up seducing the man and women in the film making an awkward comedy scenary but also questioning the norms of human sexuality. 
The second movie that I think made an impact on society was GI Joe.  A women put into the army where she must stand her ground and act as manly as possibly.  She shaves her head to fit in and remidies any sign of special treatment because she doesn't want to be seen only for her gender but her skills and determination.  She pushes herself harder than anyone at the bootcamp and endures much critisism from the other soldiers.  No one thought a women could endure what a man could but she proved them wrong and didn't give up even through all of her extra challenges.
Both of these movies have taken the norms of sexuality to an extreme. One is clearly more controversial but the filmmaker was indeed trying to put a lighter edge on the film. It was a comedy to cancel out the awkward feeling of homosexuality but it was blunt and to the point.  Men were dressed in womens clothing and women were there for a mere shock factor. On the other side of films was the strong women in a serious movie that demands respect for herself and women around the world without giving into the societal views that everyone is used to.

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Connor White:

I think you did a great job of explaining the art work without giving into the emotional side of it. I realized I had a hard time writing about the details without exerting some feeling behind what I was seeing.  Your interpretation was also very good. I did not have the same initial reaction to the picture so it was nice to see another opinion.  I also like the way you compared the readings of previous weeks to the most recent one, it was a good way to help describe the writings.

Amber Crouch:

I really enjoyed reading your section of impressionistic details of the painting. You did a great job of explaining the key points of the painting without going into too much detail and then had a very interesting take on what it all represented. I also liked your older post when you touched on if the computer can feel excitement for a win and how just because they can beat a game doesn’t mean they have consciousness or are really thinking.

Mary Bak:

I’m not sure if I missed your September 7th blog post or if it just isn’t there but I did see the picture description and found it all very sad. I liked your explanation of the picture noting that the baby face was not actually on the baby but above it and it was nice to read about some of the back ground information of the painting.  The story of your friend is very sad and I hope things have become easier and it is interesting to see what you pulled from the picture because of your life experiences.

Kahlo, Frida. Roots. 1943.Sotheby. fridapaintings.com . Web. 9 September 2010. 

Objective Description:
There really is not a wide range of color in this picture, but rather filled with earthy tones that fill the nature scenery. Orange stands out on the woman’s dress as she lies in the middle of the painting on the rough looking ground. It seems to be a very dry desert that lacks plant life but has a bold grey tone that reveals its texture. The little shrubbery is in disregard to the many vines that seem to be growing out of the woman’s body. There is an array of greens with beautiful detailed leaves. There seems to be a hole in the woman’s chest where the plant is growing out of but also shows the earth and dry ground behind her. On the very top of the painting there is a dim blue sky above the hilly land. This woman that I speak of is indeed Frida herself, with the dark long hair and thick connected eyebrows. She has a distinct look that is unforgettable as she stares with a blank but somewhat angered expression.
Impressionistic Description:
The bright orange is a magnet for the eyes, I feel drawn to that portion of the painting and my focus is held there through the many vines and leaves. I feel like the dry dirt represents sadness and loss of hope but deep inside of Frida lays growth and new beginnings. There are massive hills that seem to go on forever and in my opinion that ties with the theme of hopelessness. There are troubles in the world but at some point there is a glimmer of optimism where things could change and new times can begin. The expression on her face is so morose yet determined to look deep into the observer. This intense painting can be viewed by many peopke and interpreted in many ways but as I look at it I see good things to come out of a sad reality.

Sumerization

As hard as I tried and as many times as I read that philosophy paper I was still very lost. I came to the conclusion that there was a couple of main points to this argument. In the beginning there seems to be a prominent focus on roboticists being somewhat equal to philosophers. What does this mean exactly? I’m not too sure. There is a slight switch to explaining the difference between the two professions and how their methods could each be improved. The philosophy approach is simple in thought that all things are held to the fullest capacity, a battery never dies or sets on a movie never fail, but through robotics you have an image and once it fails you aim to perfect it.


All though the beginning was a decently understandable read the next few sections were more confusing. Sentience is brought to the picture. This is the awareness of the surroundings, of the world of everything around you. There is a brief discussion of who exactly contains this sentiment and whether many creatures have just adapted to their surroundings or actually hold this so called sentience. This in my opinion slowly ties back into the beginning about robots and if they will ever have the capability to have a sentient mind.

Roboticists keep testing and exploring their ideas. They think they have come up the perfect creations but want to go further, thus causing imperfections. Does this really tie into the philosophical studies of the world and life around us? Again I must say that even what I just wrote probably makes no sense but is truly all I could really take from this intellectual writing.

week 3 blog reviews

Mary Bak:
I thought the idea to add the dictionary definition was a great touch to your writing! You had a good take on where ideas come from, you made it simple and to the point. Hopefully you’re right with the idea that the smaller robots can help save lives. I completely agree with you on the notion that it is completely insane with how technology has evolved. It blows my mind each time I really think about all the advancements in the world. Who knows what will really come in the future.

Connor White:
You had great examples to back up your arguments in both of your writings. I feel like you could have possibly edited the writing a little bit but I enjoyed reading both of them and hearing different opinions on the topics. I liked how you gave both scientific examples of hearing aids, larger ideas of planes, and natural takes with the lions for the “Is smaller better?” question. I also thought your statement about an idea being a thought but a thought not being an idea was a really cleaver way to look at that blog post.

Amber Crouch:
You again did a great job using examples from the readings and it really helped make your points clear. I completely agree with your writing on the machines being smarter, how can they ever be smarter than humans if we are the ones creating them? I think I actually used the same example about them being able to hold more information but that doesn’t make them smarter in any way. Lastly I love how you used the neurons firing in the brain in your “thoughts and ideas writing” it completely makes me think of all of our speech and hearing classes.

Machines Vs. The Human Brain (p122 CLass Discusion #3)

Minsky has devoted his life to artificial intelligence and has come to many bold conclusions by doing so. In his point of view, machines have a better connection to consciousness. This is proven through their ability to recall the smallest details and retrieve information that a human brain would have easily lost. This is not saying that the machine is at all smarter than the human but it is indeed saying it has a few attributes that are beneficial and as humans we lack. Another key point that stood out to me, and I am sure Minksy has been proud to note, is the machines ability to learn. Humans learn through repetition as do machines and after finding out that a machine could perfect facial recognition in only 20 minutes there are machines in hundreds of businesses which are probably creating fewer jobs for people everywhere.


I cannot fully say that I agree with Minsky, but I do see where he is coming from. The human brain is not capable of holding nearly as many facts as a machine, let alone be able to retrieve the information. Machines are quick and can pick up information before we are even done reading the same task. Taking symbols and relating them to knowledge and then using that knowledge to fix a problem or finish a job is absolutely baffling. I guess I can say that I do believe that machines are easily going to outsmart humans in the future but for now there is work to be done.

There is a deeper side to this argument that includes emotions and also the act of planning. Planning was vaguely mention in the reading and stated that it does not have the ability to think about the end result to really do the job effectively. Humans have a major advantage with being able to plan but I am also unsure if I can ever picture a machine being able to emotionally make a decision or understand a thought process without it being a job that it has been told to do. We will always surpass the machines in logic and future ideas, which have nothing to do with the brain capacity and our inability to recall hundreds of thousands of irrelevant facts.