My Thoughts

2004-03-12T06:22:00.000-08:00

My final blog entry (not the reflection letter- that's below)

It's 6:23 in the morning, and I've pulled my first all-nighter finishing the research hypertext. I can see the dawn coming outside the window. Maybe I'll stay up for the sunrise- I don't have any classes today, so I can sleep late. Anyways, this is the point in the quarter where I've just finished the biggest assignment I had to do, and I suddenly see things completely differently. The reaction letter two entries below this one represents me when I was still sick, stressed out, and uncertain how I could possibly get everything done. Now, I have a series of smaller assignments left to do, plus exams, but on the whole I'm feeling better.

I said earlier that I thought the blog was just a gimmick, a chore to do on Thursday nights. But I remember having fun with it when I first created it, when it was the only work I had to do. Somehow I thought, ten entries, that's easy. I'm sure I'll post multiple times every week. Then the work started pouring in, and somehow it seemed nerdy to go post on my writing class blog after spending the day doing other kinds of work. So these weekly blog posts became the thing I was required to do, and I stopped enjoying them. Once everything's done, I'll start looking back through other people's blogs- they probably have a lot of interesting stuff to say.

Well, that's my early-morning entry. I wonder if it'll make any sense later today.

2004-03-11T21:02:00.000-08:00

I know my class reflection letter was supposed to be my final entry, but I still owe two more posts. I know it's pretty late, but here are my final thoughts for the quarter.

We had to peer review each other's research hypertexts last week, and I was assigned Spring's, from the other class. She wrote about the role of religion in science fiction movies, a topic that, as an agnostic, I'd never really thought about. I remember seeing the final Matrix film and being dumbfounded at the end when Neo was in front of a great big flaming cross. It seemed to jump out of nowhere, and the sudden outright religious symbolism seemed out of place. After reading her analysis of the trilogy, I realize that Neo had been compared to Jesus at a lot of points- he would always be shown in the cross pose during martial arts scenes, everybody said "Jesus Christ!" when he was referred to, and even his original name "Thomas Anderson" was religiously symbolic. The whole trilogy can pretty much be seen as a big religious allegory. I guess religious messages are abstract and universal enough that they can be expressed in all sorts of forms- even in worlds we'd think of as areligious, such as the one pictured in the Matrix.

2004-03-09T20:03:00.000-08:00

Class Reflection Letter

In PWR 1, Dr. Heredia taught me to be simple, precise, and direct, a skill I’m still working on at the end of this quarter, but which has still helped my writing a lot. PWR 2 showed me that the very same marks of good writing carry over to web pages and presentations. This class has introduced me to electronic and oral rhetoric, useful skills I’m sure to encounter again in my years at Stanford.

The first two weeks were fun and discussion-oriented, and I was really looking forward to discussing the electronic issues from the readings. In the third week, I realized that PWR is PWR, and I’d have to spend a lot of time on projects, some of which by nature are hard to make fun. I was disappointed when the readings were cut for the rest of the quarter- I’d been looking forward to some of them. But on the whole, I was still able to enjoy my experience in PWR 2.

After I struggled last quarter to do a research paper on a topic I cared nothing about (bilingual education), I was careful to pick a topic that would keep me interested throughout the term. The research proposal was a good way to get me started thinking about the topic of gender swapping. I quickly got started on my research, and found several interesting sources. I’d planned out my schedule for the project, and at that point, I was in very good shape.

I really learned a lot from my proposal presentation. I had never used Power Point before, and I tried to figure out how to assemble a presentation based on good and bad professors I’ve had. It turned out very well organized and to the point, and I think I made a strong argument within the 5 minutes allotted. I was really enthusiastic about my proposed experience of signing onto a MUD as a female. Working with Ben (my OCT) was valuable- he showed me exactly how my unconscious movements interfered with my message, and I resolved to work on that for my second presentation. Unfortunately, there was too much going on at the time of my second presentation, so I didn’t get to practice nonverbal communication as much as I’d hoped- but I still know it’s something to watch out for in the future.

Unfortunately, there were too many other things going on, and that hope didn’t become reality. I couldn’t find time in my schedule to create a feminine identity, and when I realized I wasn’t going to do that part, my project turned into an ordinary, boring research paper. I think I have a pretty strong argument and my writing is more or less coherent, but I still feel like I could have done something by way of interviews or personal experience.

When I was taking this course, I set myself the goal of learning to make a web page. Learning to use Dreamweaver sounded like fun. Unfortunately, by the time I started with Dreamweaver, it was already crunch time for the quarter, and there were several major assignments due every week. I pretty much threw together a basic web page from the text I’d written out in Word. I know the content is more important than the design, but I feel like I let the opportunity of using Dreamweaver go to waste.

I don’t think I got so much out of the blog assignment. I am pretty sure the only individual who reads my blog regularly is Christine, and the topics are all course-related, so it seemed more like a weekly status report than a blog. This assignment quickly became my Thursday night chore- just get something down onto the computer.

All in all, though, I think it’s been a pretty valuable course. I’ve learned how to give an effective Power Point presentation, which I imagine I’ll have to do a lot in the future, and I’ve learned the very basics of web design, a skill hopefully I can build upon in the near future. And, of course, if I ever meet FabulousHotBabe99 online, I’ll know to be very wary.

2004-03-09T05:32:00.000-08:00

(deleted)

2004-03-08T22:39:00.000-08:00

I was just reading Tina's research hypertext on mind enhancing drugs, and it started me thinking about a world where smart pills are universally available. At first, it seemed like a bad thing- if we just popped pills to become smart, then would we become focused on abilities that aren't really our own? Wouldn't it be like basketball players using fork lifts? But now that I've thought about it, I think such a society might actually work out.

Of course, if the pills are not universally affordable, that would be terrible. If they're restricted to the upper middle class, then we'll have a permanent subclass who will never be able to rise above to get the pills. And if they're restricted by the government, then the smartest people will be the ones best able to navigate the black market, opening the possibility of hyperintelligent organized crime.

But if they're universally available, things could still turn out well. Our worry is that kids will blow off studying for the SATs and just pop some pills the morning of, since they can just gain those abilities automatically. But if everyone can instantly acquire these abilities, they simply won't be what differentiates Al from Bob. Intelligence is highly valued in our society, because it is one of the major limiting factors to any given person's advancement. But if everyone's intelligence can be augmented at will, then it simply won't be the limiting factor, paving the way for other things such as personal skills, energy, and drive. You could even argue that such a system would be fairer than an intelligence-based meritocracy. We usually think of our own intelligence in relation to other people's- if everyone else is smarter, that means fewer opportunities for me. But if intelligence is no longer a limiting factor, then people will no longer be "competing" for brains, and the issue will be moot. If people are no longer limited by intelligence, then everyone would benefit from society's greater productive capacity.

2004-03-01T17:44:00.000-08:00

On Wednesday, I'm giving my presentation on the research I've done on gender swapping online. What's surprised me most is how little controversy there is surrounding it. When I first began my research, I read the story of the "Cross-Dressing Psychiatrist," a man who went onto chat rooms and carried out e-mail correspondence under a feminine identity. He got carried away, formed close relationships, and violated people's trust, and it seemed like gender swapping was a dangerous thing. However, since that happened back in 1985, it's been hard to find any examples of outrage over gender swapping. Google searches for things like "Gender swapping is wrong" or "Gender swapping is bad" turned up no results. What does this mean? First of all, it means that since 1985, people have learned to live with the possibility of gender deception and would no longer give sensitive personal information to a stranger online. The other possible explanation is that, while some people probably are victims of gender swapping, it'll be harder for them to find sympathy, because of the "Fool me once..." line of reasoning. If you were gullible enough to put your trust in an online stranger, that's something you should have watched out for. I gave my first presentation a relatively heavy tone, because I thought it would turn out to be a controversial issue, but now that I was proven wrong, I'm going to lighten it up for Wednesday.

2004-02-12T21:42:00.000-08:00

I'm doing a paper for my seminar on the SATs and the politics of intelligence. I was looking today at the College Board web page to see how they're selling the exam, and their rhetoric is quite interesting. What exactly does it test? Well, the SAT was originally the Scholastic Aptitude Test, and later became the Scholastic Achievement Test, once they realized testing acquired skills was more politically correct than testing innate abilities. Now it doesn't even stand for anything, I'm assuming because they can't even pinpoint anything that the test measures.

What is the purpose of the test? On one hand, they try to make it sound like a valid measure of something or other. They continually stress how it is "correlated" with freshman grades in college (even though U of C's study found it only explains 11% of the variation and is essentially useless as a predictive factor). Presumably, if it is "correlated" with freshman grades, there is supposed to be an underlying factor (intelligence? knowledge?) that causes the variation in both grades and SAT scores. However, they glibly refrain from mentioning that factor because it would be impolitic, and merely imply that it exists.

The beauty of a web page format (This is where I tie it in to e-Rhetorics) is that they can sell contradictory information to different groups of people. In the handbook for college admissions officers, they make it sound like the test only measures "skills" you learn in school. (Of course, aside from some well-chosen buzzwords, they leave it ambiguous what these skills are. I thought their euphemism for math ability, "data literacy" was especially deceptive- literacy is something everybody is taught in school, whereas things like "quantitative comparisons" are not.) They also tell the college admissions officers that the test is meant to be racially and economically balanced.

The students, however, get a different story: a $30 test prep program sold by the test makers themselves. In it, they can find "more than 600 practice questions, explanations, and key strategies." Also, for the low price of only $445, teachers can buy the materials they need to start an SAT prep course at their schools. How can a test possibly measure intelligence or achievement if you can boost your score by doing 600 practice questions? And how can it be economically balanced if the test makers force you to pay $30 to find out the "key strategies?" If they cared as much as they claim about fairness, they would post the key strategies for free on their web site.

Hence, the web page format allows them to simultaneously sell their test's validity to the college admissions people and sell their test prep products to nervous students. Because admissions officers have no reason to visit the students section and the students have no reason to visit the admissions section, they can send contradictory messages. The test accurates measures academic ability, yet it also measures the amount you are willing to spend for the strategies.

2004-02-05T23:00:00.000-08:00

I was just finishing the "visual map" assignment for writing class. We had to diagram a web site on MOOs in education using a brainstorming program called Inspiration. I don't think much of Inspiration to begin with- if I can diagram my thoughts using pencil and paper, why constrain myself to the bubbles the computer spits onto the screen? The web site itself, as you'll see if you click there, was also pretty ineffective. If I'd come across it doing a research paper, I would have totally skipped over it. The first page seems kind of random, and gives no clue as to the overall structure. The arrows seem to point in random directions every step of the way, and give no sense of heirarchy. I might have read some of it if the content were any good, but the first few ideas I saw were plain silly. They could have given some indication on the index page what you could expect from the site, but they decided they had to make it as confusing as possible. Well, that's my rant for today.

2004-01-30T11:52:00.000-08:00

First, I thought I’d mention a few funny sites I stumbled upon: the Penguin Game, the Taiko heads, and the bike horn guy. Man, I wish I had that kind of talent.

So I’ve sometimes wondered what it would be like to be able to live without sleep. If I could just stay awake all day, every day, and never feel tired. I’m somewhat of an insomniac, and once I get on a late sleep schedule, it’s really hard for me to move it back. All-nighters are pretty dangerous for me- if I stay up all night on Sunday, I’ll be tired the entire week. Well anyways, I wish the Uberman Sleep Schedule were actually practical. Then I could sleep for 3 hours every day and feel great. The idea is that out of the 9 hours you sleep, only a few are “REM” sleep, which is supposedly the most important. I think deep sleep definitely has a purpose, though, and I don’t see how you can give it up.

I’d been wondering for a while why Bush would order a full-scale invasion of Iraq, but give North Korea nothing but hollow threats, when they already have nuclear weapons. Maybe it has something to do with how the Washington Times, the nation’s leading conservative newspaper, is owned by a North Korean. Sun Myung Moon, the leader of the Unification Church, also known as the Moonies Cult, was trained by the Korean intelligence agency in mind control techniques. He started his cult in North Korea, and it quickly became the largest nonstandard religion in the U.S. They recruit unsuspecting college students, lure them in with promises of a better life, and then take all their money and force them to work backbreaking labor for almost no reward. They’ve become incredibly rich, making huge contributions to the Republican party, and most notably owning the Washington Post, the newspaper George W. Bush reads every day when he wakes up in the morning. Moon was present at Bush the Elder’s inauguration and supposedly credits himself with getting him elected President. I don’t think that our foreign policy is by any means determined by North Korea, but they clearly have a lot of influence with the conservative base. Search for North Korea on washingtontimes.com: you'll find a very different take from the other newspapers.

2004-01-24T22:07:00.000-08:00

Sorry it's been so long. So much has been happening.

I'm taking a seminar on the Nature/Nurture debate, and our last reading was on the political implications. I've always assumed the days of the Inquisition were over, and that "heretics" like Galileo wouldn't be punished for their beliefs. But apparently evolutionary psychologists have been branded as Nazis simply for publishing academic findings. One of the hot button areas that Steven Pinker mentions in The Blank Slate is sociobiology, the idea that love, aggression, parenting, altruism, and just about everything else we do can be explained in terms of our evolutionary history. Most Americans have accepted the fact that we have evolved from apes, but I can understand why most of us wouldn't be comfortable applying evolutionary concepts to society. As much as we "know" we are descended from apes, we still like to keep a certain degree of separation whenever we think about ourselves. And then, the idea that different individuals are genetically different from each other - although we all "know" it - can be disturbing because of the possibility of a genetically superior elite. So scientists who apply biological principles to humans, even if they are only searching for facts, are treading on dangerous grounds. They've been called racist and elitist, and in one case wrongly accused of sponsoring a genocide. This really got to me because I've always thought of academia (especially the sciences) as something cut off from politics. It's a scary thought that, if I go into academia, I might be tarred and feathered for simply trying to discover the truth.

I was just reading another student's blog entry on file sharing online. That's an issue that, this past summer, made me realize how easy it is for powerful people to control the politicians, the court, and the media. File sharing as a concept is pretty innocuous- people downloading music. Of course, it's not a clear-cut issue, and the ethics of file sharing can be argued strongly from both sides. But because of its powerful standing, the Record Industry Association of America has been able to frame the issue as "theft" and even the more vicious-sounding "piracy." It doesn't matter how powerful the arguments and statistics are on the file sharers' side. Nobody is willing to get up in public and defend "piracy." So how exactly has the RIAA kept its stranglehold on the public debate?

Most obviously, the have all the high-powered lawyers. Every time you buy a CD, part of the money goes into the pockets of an RIAA lawyer who may someday sue you. When they sued a 13-year-old in an underprivileged housing district for billions of dollars, imagine her situation. Her family can't possibly afford a lawyer, so they have to agree to the "reasonable" $2000 fine. If any of the hundreds of individuals sued do choose to fight the lawsuit in court, they will face the leviathan's full fury with the potential of falling billions of dollars into debt. And, of course, as part of the agreement, all of the RIAA's victims have to make a statement "admitting" their wrongdoing, and refrain from ever talking about the issue.

Why won't the government do anything to end this abusive practice? Because the record industry owns Congress. They donate a huge amount to campaigns, and the few voices like Norm Coleman who try to take action are completely drowned out. Extremists like Orrin Hatch propose bills to allow the RIAA to distribute viruses disguised as MP3s or hand out jail sentences for downloading music, so that their campaign funds can keep flowing in. The rest will be content to keep denouncing "theft."

Isn't this exactly the sort of thing the media is supposed to expose? The trouble is, most of the major news organizations are part of conglomerates that also include record companies. Thus, they will downplay the evils of suing 13 year olds for billions of dollars and focus on the immorality of the act. It's hard for the record industry to make the public feel sorry for their losses when they continue to exploit the artists who give us our music. But when we see courts favoring the record industry, people "admitting" their wrongdoing, politicians denouncing theft, and newspapers favoring the record industry, all our major sources of information on the issue are telling us exactly what the RIAA wants us to hear. The issue will always be framed in terms of theft and piracy, and because of that, the record industry will always have a firm grip on the public opinion. The powerful can always get their message across.

2004-01-20T12:35:00.000-08:00

Sorry I haven't written in a while. Because Blogger's service won't seem to let me upload pictures, I'll try to move this Blog to Stanford's server. In the meantime, you'll have to put up with just text.

2004-01-14T19:54:00.000-08:00

Hello, everyone. I’m creating this blog as an assignment for Christine Alfano’s E-Rhetorics class at Stanford. I will mainly post my daily musings, plus the required weekly post on course-related topics. Because I get bored reading about what other people ate for dinner and who they hung out with at the mall, I’ll try not to deluge you with personal happenings unless I really think you’ll be interested.

So where does Gallant Gallstone come from? In Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, a writer envisions the Gallant Gallstone as a way to mock free will- the gallstone proudly proclaims its freedom until the person destroys it by taking castor oil. Rand believes fully in free will, since a greedy capitalist oligarchy makes no sense otherwise. You should check out her book if you have a… relatively large… amount of time on your hands. A lot of her ideas are interesting, even if unconvincing. If you check out my previous blog, you’ll see I like to think about free will, and I’ll by happy to argue against any doubters. Anyways, that’s where I got the name from.

Now for the required part of the post. We read Ted Gup’s essay “The End of Serendipity.” He reminisces about how he loved to peruse the encyclopedia as a child, and how he learned about so many topics that way because everything was arranged alphabetically, and hence effectively random. He complains that we go online now and simply Google whatever we want to know, and don’t encounter any extra information. I personally think exactly the opposite is true. I never used to read the encyclopedia as a kid, and I usually only read books I either am interested in to begin with, or that multiple people recommend to me. Online, it’s the opposite. Sometimes I’ll be reading one site, and I’ll follow a link to something else semi-related but enticing. If I’d been reading the same article in a print newspaper that I’d found online, I never would have followed the link to News Futures. It’s an interesting idea- gambling to predict future events- and I never would have come across it without the randomness of the Internet.