Final Essay!!!

No Need For Monogamous, Heterosexual Relationships

            In a society that has an extremely high divorce rate, heterosexual, monogamous marriages are hard to come by. There are two factors that affect divorce. Both society and evolution are affecting the length, reasons, intensity, and cause of our relationships. If evolution plays such a large part can we change the outcome? We, as humans, can’t solely decide the fate of our own relationships and need to rely on evolution to point us in the right direction. Even evolutionary psychologists believe we can’t decide our fate.

            According to Wright, “Humans are designed to fall in love… they aren’t designed to stay there.” (Wright 280) However, this is not exactly true. Just look at people around you. Have you never seen that adorable older couple, still in love with each other? Sure they may argue, bicker, fight, and disagree but that doesn’t mean they don’t love each other anymore. Many couples are able to work through their disagreements. According to Wright, “The human mind was designed for the purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation; feelings of lust, no less that the sex organs, are here because they aided reproduction directly.” (Wright 280) The whole reason we feel lust is in order to reproduce. In evolutionary psychology, it doesn’t matter if you’re in a monogamous relationship, as long as you are spreading your genes (HelloLife).

            In America divorce rates are outrageous. Few couples get married and stay together their entire lives. Here are a few statistics and graphs to help spread light on this topic. In 2000 there were 58 million couples who were married, but divorced. People between 25 and 39 make up over sixty percent of all divorces. In 1998 the divorce rate to marriages was exactly 50% (see image 2) (Project America, Social Issues). The 1980’s had the highest divorce rates of any decade (see image 1) (Vanmann). Surprisingly, America is not the country with the highest divorce rates. America falls behind the Soviet Union in places such as Russia (see image 3). Lithuania, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Poland are also very high on the list of divorce rates (Project America, International). This evidence supports evolutionary psychology in the fact that there is no need for monogamous, heterosexual relationships. Even with divorce rates being as high as they are, we are still an extremely overpopulated country.

Image 1:

   (Vannman) 

Image 2:

 (Project America, Social Issues)

Image 3:

 (Project America, International)

            When it comes to evolutionary psychology, there is no need for monogamous relationships. The whole point of being human and having sex organs is so that we can reproduce and make sure our species doesn’t go extinct (HelloLife). So in this sense, heterosexual, monogamous marriage doesn’t matter as long as you are having children. Today, we are a species who no longer depends on evolution to make sure we have children. Many couples are together long enough to have children and, in some cases, raise them. After children have left the “nest”, or are old enough to thrive on their own, many couples end up separating. They no longer have a need to be together, their job is finished. This isn’t always the case, but it is a very popular trend occurring within couples.  

            As the human species we no longer need to worry about spreading our genes. Now we are worried about finding our soul mates. In the sense of evolutionary psychology, no, we do not need monogamous, heterosexual relationships. We only need to find mates to reproduce with in order to make sure we spread our genes (HelloLife). In the sense of humans today, we don’t need monogamous relationships. Instead, we need to fulfill our wants and needs, whether it is through monogamous relationships or just quick courtships. We aren’t as worried about spreading genes but about making ourselves happy.

Works Cited

"International: Health Care: Marriage and Divorce Rate." Project America. Project America, 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. <http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=349>.

"Social Issues: Marriage and Divorce." Project America. Project America, 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. <http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=139>.

"The Male Biological Need for Sex Explore Your Health." HelloLife™ - Matching Your Commitment to a Healthy Lifestyle. 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. <http://www.hellolife.net/explore/shrinkage-dysfunction/the-male-biological-need-for-sex/>.

Vannman, Reeve. "Divoce Rates." Sociology 441: Stratification. University of Maryland, 8 Oct. 1999. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. <http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/divorce.html>.

Wright, Robert. "Our Cheating Hearts." Academic Communities/ Disciplinary Conventions. Ed. Bonnie Beedles and Michael Petracca. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001. 278-291.

Final Project Peer Reviews - Hillary and Jacqueline

Jacqueline:

I’ve loved reading your blog. I feel that you have soo many strong entries that you can choose from, so I’ve picked three of my favorites to help you choose. The first one I really liked was “Brave New World”. I liked this blog a lot because it was different from your others. This one was full of research and was very strong, even though there wasn’t much voice. I think that for the final project this could be a great start and there is so much that you can elaborate on.

Another really strong blog you had was “Corporations and Creativity”. This was another entry that was well researched and I feel would be a great start to your final project. You could talk about how the music industry affects the economy and what the difference is between the music industries in the US and other countries. This would give you a lot of things to write about and your entry is already set up so that you can add these paragraphs in without changing your paper.

Lastly, I really liked your “Animal Anomalies” entry. I feel like your entry was full of so much information and that there was even more you could write about. This is one of those blogs that can be expanded so much more. I couldn’t stop reading this blog and it was one that really stuck with me the whole time I read the rest of your entries. I feel like this could become and extremely strong and well written paper if you decided to go this route. Good luck on your last paper!!! I hope choosing a topic isn’t too difficult for you.

Hillary:

I really enjoyed reading your blog. You are such a creative writer and I hope you do well on your final paper. I read all of your blogs and it was really hard to choose just a few favorites. My first favorite was your “German Influence” entry. This was a really well written and strong entry. Your transitions were great and I felt like you did so much research. I also think this entry, if you decide to use for your paper, would be pretty easy to expand on. There is a lot of information on German Immigration and the affect Germans had/have on the US. I really liked this entry.

My second favorite entry was “The Joys of a Consumer”. This was such a horrible story but it was so well written! I couldn’t stop laughing at the end. Your voice shone through the entire time and I loved the pictures. I really really liked this entry and it could be turned into a great paper. You could go into more detail about what happened at the ER. What you and your boyfriend are doing now, like if he broke up with you over the whole incident. Haha. I really liked this entry and it would be an awesome paper.

Lastly, I really liked your “Animal Homosexuality” entry. This entry was really strong and well written. I felt it was laid out nicely and it was an easy read. It was very informative and at the same time I feel that, if needed, you could expand on it. It was so hard choosing just three but I feel that any three of these entries could become a great paper. Good luck!!

Week 12 Blog Reviews

Rick:

In your “Which Is Better” blog, I really liked your introduction. It was strong and to the point. Immediately I knew where you stood on the topic and where your argument was going to go. I thought your transitions were smooth and this blog was really strong. It was a really well written entry.

In your “It’s Just Finance” blog I felt that your transitions could have been a little smoother. Your entry kind of jumped around from one topic to another but I liked how you really understood the reading and you were able to summarize the main points and explain it really well, but also with your own opinions thrown in there. I have really enjoyed reading your blog this semester!

Justin:

Your “443 freewrite” blog was really well written. Your transitions were very smooth and your opinion and voice jumped right out. I love that you throw in facts from the reading as well as your own opinions in a smooth manner. I feel like you could definitely elaborate more on this topic and even do your paper on it, if you wanted to.

Your “455 freewrite”, all I can say is wow! I don’t know what you are studying, but you know A LOT about finances it seems like. All the science and math behind it and everything. This was an awesome entry. I read the article but I felt like you covered soo much more than what was in the reading. Your transitions are very smooth (awesome!) and your opinions are still very strong. You have great writing and I’m glad I was able to read your blog.

Good luck on your papers!!!

Finances!

            Finance is the study of money and how it is invested, acquired, and saved. You would think that with money being around for as long as it has, that finance would be right there with it. Strangely, finance emerged around World War II, but its roots go back centuries. Back then bankers were “moneychangers” and they even had financers. So where did finance come from and why is it so popular today?

            The main scientific characteristics of finances came from the calculations of risk. Now it has become a science that demands different experiments and equations that account for objectives, accuracy, repeatability, and many other factors. Both then and now “versions” of finance derived from different equations stemming from many different men. One of the most popular models used in finance is called the Gordon model. This model helps to determine the value of stocks which, in this day, is extremely important, especially to big businesses. Another popular model is the capital asset pricing model which helps determine the returns on securities through time valve of money and any risks associated. Both of these models have helped to determine the price of stocks which is used by big businesses and stock brokers all over the nation (Peterson 447).

            Even though financing is centuries old, most of the calculating progress has been very recent. One man, Louis Bachelier, was the first to address the problem of assigning different prices to different options. Bachelier eventually developed a model that, even though was unrealistic, helped to develop another model that was more precise. This model was developed by Einstein and Norbert Wiener after refining the Bachelier model. The equation called Brownian motion was extremely important when it came to relation option pricing. The equation was very complicated but included volality, shift in price, shift in time, and the rise/fall of the price. Together three men helped develop the model which is now commonly used to help determine prices of stocks.

            Finance is a very difficult subject. It includes money, prices, fluctuations, chance, and many more unpredictable things. However many men have made a name for themselves by helping to come up with equations to determine ways to put a price on future objects. These men have changed the way many people see money and I think they have changed the way the stock business runs. These men have “carved a niche for themselves” when it comes to finances, and I’m sure many people thank them.

How Much is Too Much?

            What is libertarianism? According to David Boaz, "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.” (Boaz 1998) Libertarians make up about one-third of the political parties in the United States, and Arizona is one of the states that is Libertarian. People who believe in the Liberal view of politics and government believe that the government has no right intruding in their personal space and they try to do whatever they can to make sure their privacy is just that. Some Liberals believe that there shouldn’t be a ruling government and that they should be able to do as they please. Others believe that the government should control everything and without the government we wouldn’t have anything. I believe that I lie right in the middle of that spectrum. I believe that we need a government to help maintain rules and regulations, but I don’t think I need a government like in 1984 where they are watching every single thing I do.

            Sameer Parekh is one of those Liberals who isn’t very fond of the government. He helps to traffic cryptography into the United States and to different places all over the world. He believes that by using cryptography it will keep the government from prying into our privacy. Big businesses and banks use cryptography to keep con-men from hurting their business or stealing money. Sameer also believes that cryptography will be really useful to people who can’t afford to leave a paper trail behind, like those who want to cheat taxes. Money transfers will be untraceable, papers encrypted will be impossible to decode, money on the internet will be safe from the government, and people will be able to do what they want as long as what they are doing is encrypted (McHugh 436).  

            The only problem is, not only good people will get their hands on this cryptography. Sameer boasts that money transfers will be untraceable. What if a little girl is kidnapped and money is transferred to the kidnappers from the parents? With this cryptography, there would be no way police would be able to trace the kidnappers and they could get away with the money and the child. Terrorists would be able to use this new technology to plan new attacks and the government wouldn’t be able to pick up any red flags because they wouldn’t be able to decrypt the messages sent back and forth. Sure, this new technology can be used for privacy, but put into the wrong hands it can become very dangerous very quickly.

            I believe that we need to government to help keep and maintain laws. Sure nobody likes to pay taxes, but without those taxes many of the luxuries we have would be gone. Imagine a world without any sort of government. There would be no rules, no laws, and all chaos. Murderers would get off scot free, nobody would be working, theft would be an everyday thing for everybody. This is a not a world I want to live in. On the other hand, imagine a world where everything you do is monitored, videotaped, and you are being controlled by a high government. If you stole something the government would know right away. If you were planning on trying to overthrow them, they would be able to find out through your emails or phone calls. I don’t want to live in a world like this either. In order for our country to run smoothly we need a balance. We need a government who will enforce rules but not invade our privacy.

           

Works Cited

Boaz, David (1998). Libertarianism - A Primer. Free Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-684-84768-X.             http://www.libertarianism.org/ex-1.html. Retrieved 26 Sep 2010.

Week 11 Blog Reviews

Rick:

Your “Are They Good or Bad For Us” blog was great. I liked that it was full of research and a lot of details. You really showed me about the history Germans have on the US. I wanted to know why you picked Germans; if it is because you are German or just because you wanted too. I also think this blog was just a little short. You didn’t really have an intro, body and conclusion. The whole thing just ran together as one paragraph.

On the other hand, your “Cost of Materialism” blog was really really good. I liked that you included a lot of voice and opinion, as well as a lot of quotes and material from the book to help back up and support your argument. This was a really well written blog and your intro was really strong.

Justin:

I liked that in your 418 freewrite, you stated your opinion right away. Your were very adamant and you didn’t just say “Twitchell is wrong”. You went on to describe why you don’t agree with him and what you do agree with. This blog was very well written and nicely laid out. I really like that your blogs are full of voice and opinions.

I also really liked your 426 Freewrite. You obviously did a lot of research and it shows throughout the entire blog. I think that you could do your next paper on this topic because I can see a lot of places where you are able to expand and go more in depth. Not only does your research shine through your blog but your voice and opinion does as well. I love your style of writing and can’t wait to read more.

Irish and Proud of It

             My great-great-grandparents emigrated from Ireland in the late 19^th century. My grandparents told me they immigrated due to the fact that their religious beliefs were being prejudiced and the war overpopulated much of Ireland. They wanted to come to America to have freedom to follow their religious views, and they thought there would be more job opportunities.  Apparently, my great-great-grandparents weren’t the only people with this mindset. Between 1820 and 1860, Irish made up more than one-third of the immigrants and by the 1950’s Irish people were one-fifth of all foreign born population. Most Irish immigrants helped build canals and railroads and, because of these developments, American cities began to expand (Handlin). Not only did the Irish help expand American cities, they also helped bring religion with them.

            When Irish immigrants began to settle down they formed tight-knit communities. Many Irish immigrants were Catholics, so when the immigrated to America they brought along their Catholic views. Many of the earliest Catholic churches were built by and run by Irish immigrants. St. Patrick’s Day was also brought around when Irish immigrated to America. Many American’s viewed this day as a separation of Irish and American’s, but this day actually helped to bond Irish immigrants from all over America (Hirschmann). Unfortunately, not all American’s saw the immigrants as “worthy” people, and they weren’t afraid to express their opinions.

            Immigration has caused a lot of fights, arguments, and protests. After the Irish started immigrating to the United States, many Americans rebelled. The most popular form of rebellion was the burning of Irish-Catholic churches. American’s thought this was the one thing the Irish cared about most, it was one of their main reasons for immigration. Priests were also attacked and convents were destroyed. Also, with the great influx of immigrants, many believed that the immigrants caused the depression. Over 3.5 million immigrants immigrated in the 1800’s to the United States. This amount of people overwhelmed the United States and definitely could have threw them into a depression. But Irish weren’t the only immigrants in that time period, so the blame cannot be completely put on them.

            I am very proud to be Irish. My relatives may have helped to expand cities and bring water to different parts of the country. They may have also played a part in building Catholic churches, and maybe even part of some of the first St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. I feel like my ancestors for Ireland played an extravangant role in helping to build the United States.

Works Cited:

            Handlin, Oscar. A Pictorial History of Immigration. New York: Crown Publishers, 1972

            Hirschmann, Charles. "The Impact of Immigration on American Society: Looking Backward to the Future." Border Battles. 28 July 2006. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.       <http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/Hirschman/>.

Week 10 Blog Reviews

Justin:

Your traumatic freewrite was just that! I loved the voice and the story telling. It was really great. When I got to the end of the story my mouth dropped! It was such an unexpected ending and I sat there stunned for a moment. It was so great and you conveyed the emotions of those involved extremely well. This was a great blog.

Your 386 Directed Freewrite was also amazing. Your intro was very strong and I knew immediately what your blog was going to be about. I also agree with you that I don’t think women should be stereotyped. I don’t think anybody should be stereotyped and I am really glad that you portrayed your own opinions. Great job!

Rick:

All I can say is Oh My God!!! Your traumatic freewrite was so shocking! I loved your story telling, I was glued (sorry no pun intended) to your story the whole time. I couldn’t stop reading it because I wanted to know why your backpack was stuck! I loved that you kept me waiting to the very end to find out what it was. That is so horrible though, I can’t believe your story. I hope you bought a better backpack!

In your Is It What They Say It Is? blog I felt your intro could have been a little more specific.  I felt like you jumped right into your argument instead of preparing the essay. I agree with your blog completely. I think this music is totally degrading to women and I am actually glad to see that you feel the same way. You made a very compelling argument and your conclusion was very strong!

Can't Buy Me Love

            Materialism. One word that can mean so many different things to people. So is it good or bad, right or wrong, helping America or ruining it? According to James Twitchell, materialism has made this country what it is today. Materialism makes us happier and without our possessions we would be sad, lonely, depressed people. On the other hand, there are people who believe the opposite. Materials don’t make us happy, people make us happy. So who is right? It all depends on the person.

            According to James Twitchell, buying things is our source of meaning and happiness. As a culture, the whole world spends most of its time making new things to sell. Sadly, this has made American’s materialists. In the United States, we have more than four times as much stuff as people in Europe do. Why is this? Well, Twitchell believes that in every culture people buy, steal, collect, exchange, and hoard things. Most of the things that we do buy have absolutely no use to us; we just want them to make us feel happy (Twitchell 389).

            Twitchell also believes that commercialism isn’t the problem. It is only covering the more complex things that are hiding under the commercialism.  He said that if you asked teens today what democracy means they would say, “Democracy is the right to buy anything you want.” He also goes on to state that, “Freedom’s just another word for lots of things to buy.” (Twitchell 391) So did he completely take this out of context? From what I’m reading, when asked what teens think democracy means they could have said that democracy, to them, means freedom and that to Twitchell freedom means the ability to buy anything you want.

            Another thing that upset me was Twitchell stated that, “spiritualism is more likely a substitute when objects are scarce. When we have few things we make the next world holy.” (Twitchell 392) This completely threw me for a loop. I consider myself and religious and spiritual person. Does this mean I’m not happy and that I don’t have enough things? If I had more things would I still be a religious and spiritual person? To me this made absolutely no sense at all. He also stated that if we had fewer choices that we would be happier. I have to argue against that. My sister when to a private Christian school where they had to wear uniforms every day, and going from a public school to her new school was very difficult for her. She no longer got to choose what she wanted to wear to school. There was so self expression in her outfit and she looked like everybody else. According to Twitchell, this should have made her happier! She no longer had to choose from an array of clothing and she knew that nobody would be dressed better than her. I don’t know about you, but my self-expression makes me happier than my lack of choices.

            “Can’t buy me love” was one of the most infamous lyrics! In my opinion this is true! In Twitchell’s opinion, you can buy love and happiness and lack of spirituality. Sure, American’s are materialistic; I’m not arguing there. What I am arguing is the fact that one man believes that our materials make us happy, less anxious, determine who we are, and that debt is actually good for us. What makes us happy is knowing that we have choices, that we are able to buy and spend and do what we want with our money, even if that means saving it. How anybody can understand where Twitchell comes from is beyond me.

Corrupted Sounds A Lot Like Corporation

            Who is your favorite artist? Michael Jackson, Elvis, Linkin Park, maybe even 3Oh!3?? Every single one of these artists has been, or is, owned by one of the six major music corporations. The six major music corporations are: Capitol-EMI, CBS, MCA, PolyGram, RCA, and Warner. Each one of these corporations is controlling a portion of the music industry, and slowly destroying it. If you thought that an artist is discovered based off of their musical abilities and that the public makes them popular, you are in for a major shock. The music industry is not, in fact, about music. The music industry is all about profit, and if an artist is not helping to make a profit than they are cut. If music is for the consumers then why isn’t it what we want?

            The Six owned over 80% of the market in the U.S. by 1974 (Miller 367). When records were thrown out a replaced by CD’s , which was all thanks to the Six. Now, the Six are trying a new technology. DVD’s are their newest invention, and by doing this they are making us consumers choose between an old technology or spend money on this new technology. Unfortunately, now the music business is all commercial. The music industry is focused on profit more than the consumers and all they are worried about is making a quick return. They don’t want a musician who is going to take a while to catch on. They want an artist who will catch the public’s attention and be the next “big thing” (Miller 368). Have you noticed the newest trend? Young males with all about the same voice, same music style, same looks, and same attitudes are all over the radio. This is what the Six had planned! They want the next big thing, so first there was Taio Cruz, then came Jason Derulo, and who knows what’s next. Only the Six can decide.

            There are so many things that the Six could do to take the focus off of the profit and move their attention over to the public. They could go out and find something new and exciting, instead of finding duplicates of what is already popular. They could also take surveys of what the consumers are looking for. What music do they enjoy the most? Lastly, the Six can stop making new technology! I am so tired of having to replace my old technology for new technology. I remember when I had cassette tapes, then those were replaced by CD’s, and now I have an IPod. You don’t see people walking around with cassette players or CD players, instead you see them walking around with their IPods full of their favorite music. With IPods, we get to decide what we listen to, instead of listening to the radio which is only playing what the Six wants us to hear.

            The Six should focus their attention on the public instead of the profits that accompany the music industry. If the music corporations were more focused on us I think there would be more music that we like and enjoy. There would also be newer music styles. I feel like on my favorite stations I hear the same exact style of music over and over. What if the Six went out and found something new and tried that out. Then WE could decide if we liked them or not. This would make the music industry more diverse and, eventually, about us instead of the profit.          

Accidents Happen

            Car accidents happen every day. They can be the minor bumper accidents to the five car pile-up, very tragic. Most people have either been involved in a car accident or know someone who has been. I, unfortunately, can say I am one of those people. I have been involved in two car accidents in my entire twenty-one year long life. One of them was not my fault while the other was in fact my fault. Either way, they were both extremely terrifying and I hope to never go through it again.

            I was leaving my high school, getting ready to go home. It was only eleven thirty because I had the privilege of getting out of school early.  I was almost home when my mom called me. “Hey Tasha, what are you doing?” Of course my response was, “Ugh. I’m almost home. Why??” “Well do you think you can go to your sister’s school? They need me to sign something and said you could go ahead and do it.” “Of course!”, I said. I am the “good” child, so I will do anything for my mom. So I turned around and headed to my sister’s Christian school which was fifteen minutes away.

            Once I arrived I walked into the front office and explained my story. I told them I was there to sign paperwork for my mother and was in a hurry. I wanted to go home! They told me they had no idea what I was talking about, and something that should have taken two minutes ended up taking fifteen minutes. They called my mother; she talked to someone who talked to someone else and so on. Finally they figured it out and I signed the papers and was on my way.

            Driving home I decided to take a short cut and headed down Indian School to Miller. I was already in a bad mood because I had to turn around, so I was very excited to get home. The lunch hour traffic had arrived and Indian School was very busy. I was stopped at the light at Miller, behind a lot of traffic, and all I needed to do was turn left. So I snuck into the left turn lane, just like I’ve seen hundreds of people do, and I started to drive up to the light. Just then, out of nowhere, came a car. She had crossed across traffic and was also turning into the lane I was turning into and we collided.

            I was freaking out! Should I run?? Did she see my license plate?? Is it my fault?? What a bitch! How did she not see me?? Oh my god my mom is going to kill me! Everything was running through my mind. I pulled in behind her into the CVS parking lot. There I called my mom who called the police and told me to stay put. The girl, on the other hand wanted to exchange insurance policies and leave. I told her my mom called the police and we need to stay put otherwise we will get in trouble and it would be a hit and run. She agreed and we waited, not so patiently.

            The officer showed up the same time my mom did and I began bawling!!!! All the fear and emotions built up and the sight of my mom just made them explode. I was so happy to see her and have her help me figure out this mess. Her and I talked to the cop and explained my story. The cop informed me that it was both of our faults. I shouldn’t have entered the left lane early and she shouldn’t have cut across traffic. I was cited for driving in a two way left turn lane and had to go to driving school.

            I was so relieved to find out that I wasn’t going to jail! I had just gotten my license and was so excited to start driving. After my accident it took me six months to drive to Indian School. I was terrified I would get into another car accident and I didn’t want to relive the memories. This was one of the scariest things that has ever happened to me and I never want to experience it again.

Week 8 Blog Reviews

Darien:

Wow! Your “Mother Nature’s Open Mind” entry was amazing! The introduction was so strong. It would make a great thesis for your paper if you decided to choose that topic. Your entry was so strong and full of examples from the text, which I really liked! You also included your opinion. This was one of the best essays you have written so far. This was such a great entry. Good job!

April:

I thought your “Homosexuality in Human and Animal Society” entry was very strong. You had a lot of supporting facts from the text and really showed your point of view. I wish your opinion paragraph was a little longer. I feel that I only know a little bit about your opinion and why. I felt you could have just gone a little more in-depth with your opinion.

Ok, your “Chemical Connection” entry was AWESOME! Your intro was the best I have seen so far! Your story drew me right in and I didn’t want to stop reading. You should do something like this for your paper. It’s a great attention grabber, and you are really good at it. Your opinions came through strongly and your argument was strong as well. This was a really good entry!

Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom

            So what is the big deal about homosexuality? Why do we have to label it and then follow those labels? Is it an exclusively human behavior or is it found in the animal world as well? There are so many questions that can be asked about homosexuality and what its purpose is, but in the end it doesn’t matter! As long as it makes the two people involved happy that’s all that matters. To answer one of the questions: no, homosexuality is not exclusively a human behavior. It is found all over the animal world.

            I love the intro to Kluger’s essay. “Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Human beings – a lot of them anyway – like to do it too.” (Kluger 337). After reading his essay, this is, in fact, very true. Homosexual behavior is not something that human beings explore. Kluger explained that bonobos, giraffes, dolphins, elephants, rodents, penguins, and many other animals explore homosexuality. Homosexual relations in the animal world also consist of both men-men and women-women, which can last for years. Plus, many of these species stay in homosexual relationships for 5, 10, or even 15 years! Many homosexual animals, such as bears, actually raise young in homosexual relationships. This sounds a lot like homosexual relationships we see between humans, whether man-man or woman-woman.  

            So, can we use animal examples of homosexuality as a way to support homosexuality? Why not? This just proves that humans aren’t the only species experimenting with same-sex sex. We think of ourselves as an experimental species. We try drugs, alcohol, same-sex relations, and thrill seeking; anything we  can that will give us an extra “high”. Other animal species aren’t really like that, and to see them forming homosexual relationships shows me that it is a naturally occurring thing that happens, not something humans decided to try. Not to say if animals are doing it then it must be alright, but I think this example of homosexuality really does prove that it’s a natural feeling.

            Now, someone who doesn’t believe in homosexuality can argue this to death. They could say “Well, animals don’t have sophisticated brains and thoughts. Hell, they throw their own poop. So how can we compare ourselves and our feelings to animals?!?!?” I can kind of agree, but animals don’t do as many stupid things as humans do, and animals don’t do things because they feel like it. Many animals do things due to their needs, thoughts, feelings, and their environment. I feel that homosexuality is a naturally occurring feeling that happens in all species, and we should embrace it, not shun it!

Women's Sexual Desires

I chose to do my blog on the writing assignment for page 311 #3. I wanted to do some research and see what I could find on sex and chemistry, and I found a lot of articles. One article that caught my eye was called Women’s Sexual Desire: A Feminists Critique. I wanted to see how other women perceive women’s sexual desires and what this article was all about.

In this article they talk about how male models are used as the “standard” for sexual desire. Women’s sexuality is compared to men’s and I think that is unfair. As most of us women know, sexually, men act differently then women. Most women want love and compassion, while most men want sex and someone to take home for a one-night stand. Now, I’m not saying ALL men and women are like this. There are some women who want one-night stands, and there are some men who want a companion that they can share secrets and feelings with. The one thing that the article does agree on is that sexual desires are very spontaneous, whether it is a man or woman.

Another thing the article talks about is what they called the “linear model of sexual desire”. This model shows phases of sexual desire and that there is only one correct way to experience sexual response. But, the author argues that this model is different for women. Women don’t always experience sexual desire as the precursor to sexual arousal, but men commonly do. They were also able to prove this in focus groups containing both men and women.

The thing about sexual desires is that is it confusing!!!!! There is no one-way to experience sexual desires and they differ, not only from men and women, but from woman to woman. Sexual desires are both part of the brain, heart, and chemistry. It involves many different “parts” working together to form a sexual desire. I think sexual desire is a very confusing topic, especially when it gets down to the chemistry level. I don’t know how it works, and I don’t really care to know how it works, just as long as it does!

Wood, Jill M., Patricia B. Koch, and Phyllis K. Masfield. "Women's Sexual Desire: A Feminist Critique." The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. 22 Nov. 2005. Web. 05 Oct. 2010. <http://www.sexscience.org/publications/index.php?category_id=439&subcategory_id=1846>.

Week 7 Blog Reviews

April:

I loved your essay on monogamous marriage. Your introduction was so strong and drew me in immediately! Your conclusion was also incredibly strong. I agree with you when you said that even though there is the urge to spread seeds, we know what is right and wrong. I though your entry was just a little short and though maybe you could have gone in depth with some examples from the book. I thought you could have used a paragraph to talk about Wrights examples and about evolutionary psychology views. Other than that your entry was amazing! Very strong!

Darien:

After reading your He said, She said, they said What? Essay I was impressed! I love your word choice and your essay was very organized. I thought your intro was a little long and not exactly strong. I felt you led right into the differences between males and females instead of forming a strong intro. Your essay ended very strong and was well supported with examples. I loved reading this essay because I felt like we had the same opinions!

Your second essay, monogamy, infidelity, and present society was also extremely strong. This intro was great! It was very strong and I knew exactly what you were going to be talking about. I loved your opinions throughout the essay and I agreed with you completely. I don’t think monogamous relationships should be abolished and if men had more responsibilities after divorce I think it would lessen the amount of divorces we have. Great job on both of your essays. I really love your writing style. 

Do we need monogamous, heterosexual relationships????

            In a society that has a 50% divorce rate, heterosexual, monogamous marriages are hard to come by. Why is this? Why do ½ of the marriages fail? Is it due to evolution or the influences of society? Actually, the answer is both. Both society and evolution are affecting the length, reasons, intensity, and cause of our relationships. So if evolution plays a part. How can we change the outcome? Can we? Yes we can!

            “Humans are designed to fall in love… they aren’t designed to stay there.” (Wright 280) This isn’t true! Have you never seen that adorable older couple, still in love with each other? Sure they may argue, bicker, fight, and disagree but that doesn’t mean they don’t love each other anymore. Many couples are able to work through their disagreements. According to Wright, “The human mind was designed for the purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation; feelings of lust, no less that the sex organs, are here because they aided reproduction directly.” (Wright 280) The whole reason we feel lust is in order to reproduce. In evolutionary psychology, it doesn’t matter if you’re in a monogamous relationship, as long as you are spreading your genes.

            When it comes to evolutionary psychology, there is no need for monogamous relationships. The whole point of being human and having sex organs is so that we can reproduce and make sure our species doesn’t go extinct. So in this sense, heterosexual, monogamous marriage doesn’t matter as long as you are having children. I don’t agree with the fact that we don’t need marriages, as long as we are having children. We are a species who no longer depends on evolution to make sure we have children. We are such an over populated world that having children now is for the couple, not the world. To me, we need to have marriage and monogamous relationships because love is something special that two people share. It’s not about making sure there are enough humans on this planet, because there are PLENTY!!!

As the human species we no longer need to worry about spreading our genes. Now we are worried about finding our soul mates. In the sense of evolutionary psychology, no we do not need monogamous, heterosexual relationships. We only need to find mates to reproduce with in order to make sure we spread our genes. In the sense of humans today, we need monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual. We aren’t as worried about spreading genes and making sure there are enough humans on this world so that our species doesn’t go extinct. Now we are worried about finding love, and that is all that we really need. 

Why Isn't He Listening?!?!?!

            I chose to write my blog on the Directed Freewrite on page 246. The article “Sex, Lies, and Conversation” by Deborah Tannen was amazing!!! I have been married for four month, but before that we had been dating for three years. I noticed myself agreeing to everything she was talking about. The fact that men don’t like to talk, unless in public, and that men tend to look at something else while having a conversation are all true. All of these things would drive me NUTS!!!! I would try to talk to my husband and he would look away from me, and I thought he wasn’t listening. After reading this essay though, I have a new understanding as to why men do what they do during conversations (Tannen 243).

            There is one topic that my husband and I can NEVER agree on, and that is that age old question: “What’s for dinner?” I HATE asking this question because the response I always get is “I don’t know, what are you in the mood for?” I feel like I never get a straight up answer. He tends to brush it off if I don’t answer back immediately, and then he is back to his computer. Every once in a while he will try to strike up the topic again and ask if I’ve decided on anything, and this can usually lead to an argument. Most of the time I eventually cave in a just decide what’s for dinner and he usually goes along with it. If he doesn’t, I tell him he should have decided before I did. This doesn’t play out too well.

            After reading this essay I can see that our conflict is pretty normal. When I ask him something and he replies with a quick answer and then jumps onto the computer, it doesn’t mean he isn’t listening but it’s what guys do. He may still be listening to me and I get upset over nothing. He also doesn’t talk a lot because he doesn’t have anything to prove, and feels comfortable with me deciding. Both of these things I don’t think I would have learned without reading this essay. This essay really helped put into perspective why a guy acts a certain way during conversations. Now when I ask him what is for dinner and he responds with a short answer, I can tell him to stop being such a guy!!!!!

Unit 2 Blog Reviews 9/21 -9/27

Darien:

I love your writing. You have so much voice throughout your essay and it makes it enjoyable to read. The length of your blog was perfect. You were able to convey all your thoughts and idea’s perfectly and it wasn’t too long. Your writing style is incredible. Your transitions are very smooth and your word choice is excellent. I only read your Thursday blog because I didn’t see your Real Wild Women/Men blog anywhere. Maybe I missed it, but so far just reading your one essay gave me great insight into your writing styles. I really can’t wait to read more of your blogs and see how our opinions differ!

April:

I really liked your Changing Families entry. I agree with you completely, especially when you talked about the first changes in families. I agree that the first drastic change began when women were starting to find jobs. I am glad you pointed that out in your essay, because I didn’t think about adding that to mine. Your transitions are extremely smooth. It really makes your entries easy to read. I also liked your Real Wild Women/Men blog. I loved the Rocky Horror Picture Show and that is a GREAT example of Wild Men. Your essays are filled with opinions and it is great to see you being so open and honest. I can’t wait to read more!!!

Gay Society and Capitalism

            I will try to do the best I can at answering the question, but it was a little confusing to me. John D’Emilio wrote an essay about how capitalism has “constructed” the gay/lesbian identity. There are many questions that we must ask ourselves before we can determine whether or not this is true. Has gay/lesbian identity been around forever, or has it emerged with the beginning of capitalism? Has this change in identity affected our families, identities, and economic status? Just because men and women have found comfort in the same sex, does that mean that our entire future has changed? D’Emilio has answered these questions in his essay.

            According to D’Emilio, gay/lesbian identity hasn’t been around forever. Instead it emerged as capitalism emerged. So, are the two things tied together? D’Emilio believes so (D’Emilio 227). The way he explains this is that capitalism expanded with the expansion of wage labor. In the early 1700’s, women depended on men for money. Men owned land, and their wives worked with crops for food that came off that land. During this time, it was almost impossible for a woman to live on her own because she had no way of getting money or essentials. As wage labor became popular, more women were able to support themselves. Still, men were more likely to get jobs and also made more than women, but this was still an improvement. Because of this, women were able to explore without having to be in a marriage, and the same with men. More men and women were expressing themselves sexually with others of the same sex, and they were able too. By then sex wasn’t just to procreate, it started to become a thing that helped bring people closer together and it became a form of expression (D’Emilio 228-231).

            Because women no longer relied on men, due to capitalism, D’Emilio believes that capitalism is what started homosexuality. More men and women were getting paid to work, allowing them to live on their own. Also, women were now able to survive without being dependant on males, and the need for children diminished. Many of these things have changed our economic structure. Just think, if capitalism had never been established, us women would still be on farms owned by our husbands, taking care of our seven children. We would be farming, sewing, cooking, and not getting paid to do any of the hard work we put in. When capitalism finally emerged, it allowed women to get paying jobs and, therefore, didn’t need men. This gave women the chance to experiment with other women and men were able to experiment with other men. So I agree with D’Emilio when he says that capitalism may have been the start of homosexual societies, but I don’t agree with the fact that homosexuals weren’t around before the 1700’s.

           

Women Empowerment

            When I think of movies with “Real Wild Women” or “Real Wild Men”, many movies come to mind. For example, The Birdcage with Robin Williams or Sleeping with the Enemy with Julia Roberts. Both of these movies have really captured societies views on what men and women should be and act like, and they have turned that on its side. They show the story of two gay men and their lives trying to run from police and stay as “normal” as possible, or a woman who is haunted by her husbands need for control. But none of these compare to the movie that I think really captures real women. The movie I am thinking about shows women empowerment and desire. It shows a woman doing something many think is impossible. The movie that I think captures real women is Enough with Jennifer Lopez.

            This movie is incredible. It is about a woman, Jennifer Lopez, who marries this really amazing guy. They have a little girl, Gracie, and seem to have the perfect lives. One day she finds out he is cheating on her and confronts him, but to her surprise all he says is that “It’s better this way. Now I don’t have to go sneaking around pretending I’m going to work.” Of course this enrages her and she argues with him about how she is the one staying home and taking care of the family and house, and how dare he cheat on her. His response is by hitting her and telling her “See what happens when you upset me.” This movie play on the “weak woman, stronger man” point of view. That men are the ones with the power and women have no power at all. This movie turns that all around though. By the end of the movie, Lopez has taken self-defense classes and has learned many different skills that she could use to defend herself against her husband, and that is exactly what she does. She defends herself and saves her and her daughter from any more violence from him, making this truly a happy ending.

            I love this movie because it isn’t just about a woman in an abusive relationship. It’s about a woman who was in an abusive relationship, but decided to do something about it. Not many movies show this side of women, and that is why I really enjoyed this movie. Of course, society has this mindset that men are stronger than women, and therefore are in control but this movie really dissolves this view. The filmmakers did choose a man who was bigger and tough looking, compared to Jennifer Lopez who is a smaller girl and doesn’t look like she could win a fight against a teddy bear. But I think they did this on purpose! They wanted to show that just because she is smaller than her husband doesn’t mean she can beat the crap out of him

            This movie is a great example of real women, because not all women will stand to be in an abusive relationship. Many will take control of the situation in any way possible. Sure, the filmmakers chose very stereotype men and women to play the main characters, but I think this was to get their point across. If you 

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Katie:

Your Can Machines Think? essay was really incredible. If I hadn’t have read that essay I would still be able to understand what Wright was talking about because you explained it so well. I also loved your opinions in there. They were very strong and you backed them up with nice, strong facts. I think your flow was very smooth and you had a strong argument to go off of. This was a well thought out essay.

Then I read your essay on Frida’s painting. I was so impressed!! I skipped right over the painting and read your description and you described it PERFECTLY! I scrolled back up and what I had imagined, by your description, was exactly what I saw. I love how you really understood the painting and the meanings for everything that was shown (the sun and moon and the two different shells). You can tell that you really understood the work of art you were looking at. Great job!

Lauren:

I liked your Robotic Beings Rule the World essay, but I would add more to the essay. Since the assignment was to summarize the essay for someone who has never read it before, I would have added more of a summary in the intro. After reading your essay it was clear what your opinion is, and that’s great, but if I hadn’t have read the essay before I wouldn’t understand what it is about.

On the other hand, your description of Frida’s painting was phenomenal. Without looking at the painting I was able to picture every detail that you described. My favorite thing was that as you described the painting you added your interpretation. I really loved seeing how you interpreted the painting and what your thoughts were about why Frida drew what she drew. This was a well thought out essay.

Jackie:

I thought your Can Machines Think? essay was a little unorganized. I felt you jumped from one idea to the next very quickly without any kind of transition. I didn’t get a sense of what the essay really talked about, even though that’s what the assignment was. But I was able to tell what your point of view was on this topic. Next time, I would maybe make an outline and try to organize all your thoughts into related groups. For example, with an essay all about computers, the last paragraph really threw me off when you introduced the topic of God. I would try to stick to one main idea in each essay.

I’m speechless after reading your essay on Frida Kahlo’s Broken Column. I wasn’t able to see the picture, but I didn’t need to!! You described everything so vividly that it would be near impossible to not be able to picture this piece of art. Your descriptions were incredible and your interpretations were outstanding. This is by far, one of my favorite blogs that you have posted so far. This was written so well and you had great smooth transitions. Great job on this essay!!!

My Grandparents, My Parents, and I

After looking through many of Frida Kahlo’s paintings, one really stood out to me. The painting My Grandparents, My Parents, and I is a busy, intricate painting. The largest figure, off center, is a lady in a white dress. The lady has a fetus in her hand with an umbilical cord disappearing under her dress. On the right of the lady, directly in the center of the painting, is a middle aged gentleman dressed in a suite. The lady’s arm is resting on his shoulder. In front of the man is a tiny child. The child is naked, holding a ribbon which flows under the man and woman. This ribbon then flows under the woman leads to another man and woman that are located in the top left corner of the painting. Both the man and the woman are older and dark skinned. Under the man and woman is a desert scene with mountains and cacti. On the opposite side of the painting, top right corner, is another couple. This couple is connected to the man in the center of the painting by a ribbon. Both the man and the woman are older with lighter colored skin. With all of these different elements there is a lot to look at.

I was really drawn to this painting because it had some deeper meaning. The man and woman in the center of the painting, I assume, are Frida’s parents. Connected to the mother is a fetus, Frida, with the umbilical cord still attached. In front of the parents is Frida as an infant. She is holding a ribbon which symbolizes a blood line. This blood line flows from Frida’s mother to her grandparents on her mother side. I can guess that these two are from Mexico because of the desert scene that lies below them. Coming from the dad is another blood line that flows to Frida’s grandparents on her father’s side. I would guess they were from America or Europe because of their light colored skin. As a whole, this painting represents Frida’s family. It shows her parents and grandparents, and how each grandparent is related.

I really liked this painting because there was a lot to it, and at first glance it seems confusing, but if you look closer it is pretty simple. I loved the way she represented her family. It wasn’t really like a family tree; instead it was very artistic. The way the ribbon flowed from grandparents to parents and that Frida was the one holding the ribbon was genius.


Works Cited:
Kahlo, Frida. My Grandparents, My Parents, and I. 1936. The Museum of Modern Art, New York.         About.com: Art History. Web. 08 September 2010

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Lauren:
I loved your Directed Freewrite essay. I am very impressed! I tried to do my essay on that and couldn’t answer ANY of the questions. I love the sentence “an idea is a thought taken for a walk”. That was such a good image and very powerful. I could picture this little tiny thing and as the “walk” progressed, it got bigger and bigger. This essay really showed me how creative you are. I loved reading it and wanted more! Please keep up your creativeness; it’s so much fun to read!


Jackie:
I really liked your Are We Smarter Than a Robot essay. I thought it was well constructed and laid out. Your paragraphs were strong and full of opinions. My favorite part of your essay was your second paragraph where you were talking about the difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence. I agree with you completely that AI will only surpass us once it supersets our intelligence. I also agree with you that the human brain won’t ever be duplicated by a machine. I love your strong opinions and can’t wait to see how much we agree and disagree in the following units.


Katie:
I loved your What is Consciousness essay. You and I had different views on this one, which is why I really liked reading your essay. I believe that the study of consciousness is scientific while you don’t, which was really cool. I liked that we had different viewpoints because I really wanted to read why you thought otherwise. I agree with you when you said that it is amazing that this day in age scientists still can’t decide on a definition. You would think by now they would be able to. I thought your essay was a little shorted and needed just a little more, but what you had was great. Your opinion definitely shined and I was really impressed. I can’t wait to see what other viewpoints we disagree on.

Can Computers Think?

Robert Wright is an incredibly intelligent man who wrote an essay called “Can Machines Think? Maybe So, As Deep Blue’s Chess Prowess Suggests”. This essay is an argument about whether or not machines can think. Throughout this essay Robert Wright shows many opinions based on different facts, observations, and experiments. In the end though, it is difficult to determine whether a machine can think. There are many tests it has to pass and not only that, but do pleasure, pain, love and grief play a part in thinking? If so then machines cannot think, because they cannot feel love and pain. All of these questions were address by Wright in his essay.

According to Wright, it is difficult to say whether machines can think. He used the example of the IBM computer, Deep Blue, which was a chess champion. Garry Kasparov, a world chess champion, decided to try to beat IBM in a chess competition to prove that computers can’t outsmart humans. Wright argued that “if we vest the honor of our species in some quintessentially human feat and then defy a machine to perform it, shouldn’t it be something the average human can do? Play a mediocre game of Trivial Pursuit, say?” (Wright 140) I agree with Wright, sure a computer can whoop my butt at chess, but could it beat me at a game of Sorry or Life? Chess is a very mathematical game that not even many humans can successfully play. So why not have a computer try to beat us at games that many of us are good at? Computers have the hardest time with simple things. They can’t recognize jokes, make small talk, and can’t recognize faces. All of these things are fairly easy for us to do, which makes me question the reasoning behind some scientists. Sure a computer can play chess, but if it can’t even make small talk, like most humans can, then can it really be said to think?

Another reason Wright doesn’t believe machines are like humans is because they don’t have souls, feelings, consciousness, senses, or love. All of these things influence our behavior and how we think and act. Without these things, we would be acting like machines, not humans, which is why machines aren’t like humans. Wright uses the Turing example to prove that machines can’t think like humans. The Turing test is a test in which there is an interrogator who communicates by keyboard. Some of the “entities” are people while others are computers and the interrogator has to decide which is which. If the computer can fool the interrogator, than it is believed that it can think. To this day, no machine has passed the Turning test, so therefore no machine has been proven to be able to “think”.

Just because a computer can play chess and do hundreds of calculations in just seconds, doesn’t mean it is able to think. This just proves that it is, indeed, a machine. A calculator can do calculations quicker than I can, that doesn’t mean it can think for itself. I think scientists want to believe that they have made something that can think on its own and be a model of a human, but right now it doesn’t seem possible. We, as humans, use our feelings to help us think and make decisions. Without feelings we would be acting soulless. We wouldn’t have any reasoning to why we did things. Computers are the same way, they don’t have feelings, and therefore can’t think like a human can and reason the way we can. Maybe eventually computers will be able to think, but so far it hasn’t.

Have we been outsmarted by computers?

Can a computer be smarter than us? This seems to be a question straight from a sc-fi movie. You know, the ones where humans build a computer (machine) and try to make it “ the most sophisticated thing man-kind has ever seen!” Then by the end of the movie the computer has taken over and we are all dead. It’s cheesy, stupid and unrealistic. Or is it? It is possible for a machine to be smarter than humans? According to Minsky, it is.

            Forever scientists, mechanics, brainiacs, and computer geeks have been experimenting with machines. They all want to make a “robot” that can think and reason on it’s own. They have already come up with Wisard, which is the “first large-scale neural network” (Davidson 117). Wisard learned how to recognize face is less than 20 seconds. Does this make Wisard smarter than humans? Computers have also been made to understand language. Minsky argues tat his design is able to comprehend semantics. This is a key development for humans. Does this make his design smarter than humans?

            The answer to all of these questions is no. Even though a computer may understand semantics and even though it can do jobs faster than same of us doesn’t make it smarter than humans. Computers are built by us, set up by us, trained by us, and used by us. This makes human beings more advanced, and smarter, than the machines we build. Computers are built to help make some of our jobs easier. Whether it is recognizing cheating in casinos, fighting wars in Iraq, or giving us tasty beverages, we use machines to help us. This means that we are the ones who have to train the computer. We have to know what we want the computer to do before we can even build it. This means that no, the computer is not smarter than us. We are smarter than it because we are using it to help us.

            Computers can’t think on their own. They may be able to learn, but they can only learn what is taught to them. If we teacher a computer to pick out faces, that is what it will be good at. If we try to throw a baseball at the computer, it’s not going to catch it, and I doubt it will ever learn to catch it. Computers are not like the computers we see in Smart House, they don’t just learn by watching and can outsmart us. There isn’t one mega machine that will dominate the world because by watching humans it can talk, think, reason, drive a car, shoot a gun, and build a bomb. There is no way this will ever happen. In the end we will always outsmart the computers.

            Aleksander even says “AI people have taken theses linguistic strings and tried to present them in a computer in an unambiguous way, and have run into trouble. Very small changes in a sentence represent things that are completely different in the real world. They are unable to deal with this.” (Davidson 119) This just proves that a computer may be able to understand semantics, but even just changing around a sentence a tiny bit can confuse the computer. We are obviously the move-advanced species, and we always will be. I can’t ever see a world where computers are the alpha males, while we are running around doing what computers tell us to do. It just won’t happen.

Week 2 Blog Reviews

Lauren Spencer:

I love reading your posts. You have such great voice throughout your blog and you have some of the cleanest transitions I have seen. I also love how you always state your opinion, but that it doesn’t come off as rude or snotty. You really are a great writer and you make me believe what you are saying through your posts.

Jacqueline Pridgett

I love your blog. You have some amazing metaphors that make me laugh and really keep me interested! I agree completely with your Good without God post. You were very straightforward with what you believe and I agree. There can be people who are good and don’t believe in God and also the other way around. I also really liked your getting to know you post. It is so true that you are more likely to show your true self when you are online and are able to think about what you want to say, instead of being put on the spot. I can’t wait to read more of your posts.

Katie Kosturik

I really liked the intro to your Good without God post. You are so right, there really is no yes or no answer to the question. I liked the way your broke down the question to help us understand just exactly was being asked. You also have some really smooth transitions and great thesis sentences. You have a lot of opinions and it’s a really good thing. I can’t wait to read more of your posts and see what else is on your mind. 

What is consciousness?

           Is the study of consciousness scientific? Without a clear definition are we able to determine this?  In my opinion, yes the study of consciousness is scientific. I think the study of consciousness is scientific just because of the word “study”. In order to study something you have to have a hypothesis, then you have to observe, maybe gather data, analyze that data, and then come up with a conclusion. This sounds a lot like the scientific method. This, to me, makes it scientific.

            According to the text, many scientists don’t believe the study of consciousness is scientific. It also says “For the time being, scholars cannot even agree on what exactly the question means, much less imagine the form an answer might take.” (Beedles, 95) Just because they don’t know what the question is exactly asking, doesn’t mean they haven’t already made a hypothesis. Just taking that first step in coming up with a hypothesis makes it scientific.

            I think most, if not all aspects of consciousness are scientific. The definition of consciousness is: “an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation, awareness: having knowledge of” (https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:consciousness&sa=X&ei=TyZ9TMOfA42-sAOOwNiCBw&ved=0CBYQkAE) With this being the definition I am going off of, then most parts of the study of consciousness are scientific. Being aware of yourself if not a scientific matter. I think this is more psychological then scientific. The same as being aware of your situation, I think it is more psychological then scientific. I do think, though, that being in an alert cognitive state is scientific. In order to tell if you are in an aware cognitive state, you have to run medical procedures which will tell you , in the end, if you are indeed in an aware cognitive state. This makes it a scientific procedure.

            The study of consciousness is a very difficult topic because no scholar has yet to come up with what exactly the term means. This makes it almost impossible for there to be an exact definition. Without an exact definition there is no way to conclude whether or not consciousness is in fact a scientific study. I used what I thought to be the definition of consciousness and I have concluded that yes, consciousness is a scientific study. I think then that this places me in the theoretical camp because I am going strictly off theory and nothing more. 

Good Without God??

Can we be good without God? To me, that seems like a huge matter of opinion. Do you believe in God? What do you mean “be good”? Does that mean taking out the trash so my husband doesn’t have to? Following traffic laws? Or does it mean something much deeper? Does it mean doing good to thy neighbor and relatives, never committing a crime, going to church, recycling? I think this has to be determined before we can go any farther. To me, being good means all of these. To be good means to follow the rules, be considerate, try to do the best you can, and above all make sure you are happy. With this being my definition of “being good”, now we can answer the main question. Can you be good without God? I think so.

            According to Conyers and Harvey, “recent research suggests that a religious person is more likely to commit a crime than a non religious person.” (Beedles, 63) If the United States is one of the most religious countries, than that makes sense. Say 1 out of every five people doesn’t believe in God. That means if one of those four commits a crime, then they just justified that statistic. If anything, religious people may be more violent because if you believe in something so strongly, you are more willing to fight to defend it. There are hate crimes based on religious reasons all of the time. There are many reasons why it may seem that religious people are more likely to commit crimes.

Belief in God doesn’t control the way you act. I believe the reasons we do what we do are due to various reasons. We may do something because we wanted to, needed to, or because it felt like the right thing to do, not just because of our religion. Religion also doesn’t determine whether or not you will “be good”, your family, environment, and society all have different effects on the way you act. Just because you go to church doesn’t mean you are a perfect angel who had never done anything wrong, and just because you don’t go to church doesn’t make you an unstable person who is going to run out and commit felonies. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Belief in God may help you make decisions. It may lead you in the right direction, but it could very well lead you in the wrong direction. I don’t know how many times I have seen a person grow up in a VERY religious family. They always went to church, never cussed, always said prayer, and never disobeyed. The second they left and were out on their own, everything changed. They were now cussing, they never go to church, they are breaking all sorts of rules. Their religion didn’t turn them bad; the tight hold their parents had on them let them experience life at a much later age. Religion is no way to determine if a person will “be good” or not, you have to look at the whole picture.