“Everyone is Getting Married, Why Aren’t You?”

It seems like every time I get on Facebook one of my friends has gotten engaged. They post their pictures, with bright smiles while showing off their shiny new rings. My sister keeps telling me, soon all my friends will be posting massive amounts baby pictures. Does this make me depressed? Sometimes, however, I usually forget about it in the next two seconds when I scroll down and watch the latest cat video.

Surprisingly, after reading, John Bohannon’s article, “Will Facebook Make You Sad? Depends How You Use It,” I learned grazing over all these pictures may not be healthy. Bohannon’s argument states that depression grows when people passively use Facebook, “Just browsing through photographs of other people’s happy moments, reading people’s conversations, and not contributing anything.”

This makes sense, because, in all honesty, I’m probably only great friends with 10% of my friends on Facebook. Of course I’ll “like” and comment on my best friend’s engagement pictures or my brother’s awesome, new job. But, when a distant friend from high school, that I haven’t seen in 6 years, posts her wedding pictures, I probably won’t comment. Her getting married doesn’t affect me in anyway. Yet, her pictures have the ability to set a standard in my life.

Johann Hari’s and Julie Beck’s articles talk about the importance and power of human connection.

Hari claims, “The opposite of addiction is not sobriety. It is human connection.”

Beck claims “Your friends can protect you from depression and help you recover from it.”

Having real friends, who understand you, love you, and will stick with you under whatever circumstances is essential to living a healthy life. I share a connection with my real friends. However, when I look over a distant friend’s engagement pictures, it’s like looking through a life/fashion magazine. The headline reads, “Everyone is Getting Married, Why Aren’t You?” It’s a depressing reality. Maybe I should take Peggy Drexler’s suggestion and simply unfollow my “magazine friends.”

Coffee & Productivity

Coffee, the ultimate productivity agent. Coffee is the go too for businessmen and college students alike. The world has an obsession with this brown liquefied bean. Why is it so attractive?

My favorite quote in the readings related to productivity is,

“The obvious and time-tested solution is to drink vast quantities of coffee” (Steven Poole).

It’s a time tested solution! I decided to do some research and see if coffee shows up in any other productivity websites. 

• “If you’re creating a product, work on it while drinking your morning cup of coffee.” http://www.timemanagementchef.com/productivity-tips/

• “At the end of the day create a task list for the following morning so you can get to it and tackle it as soon as the coffee kicks in.” http://www.inc.com/oscar-raymundo/how-to-maximize-the-two-most-productive-hours-of-the-day.html

• “Along with a few trips to the coffee maker to keep you alert and productive.” http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/8331-most-productive-work-time.html

• Even John Mayer says, “I like to go to a coffee shop first thing and try to do high-value tasks such as planning and reading before I jump into the emails and meetings.” http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/ask-the-entrepreneurs-the-most-productive-hours-the-day.html

Coffee:

1. It helps you stay more alert
2. It gets the creative juices flowing
3. It helps you learn new things faster

https://redbooth.com/blog/coffee-and-productivity-at-work

It’s the American Dream beverage. Work, work work, do whatever it takes to succeed. Multitasking is essential in this world. No time for breaks. America treats coffee as a pick me up. Quality is less important. Our speed reading becomes fantastic. We write papers faster. It is instant gratification to the means of productivity in one cup. Our brains have to sort so much information, why not drink coffee to help keep some sanity?

Unfortunately, as most coffeeholics know, the caffeine wears out. Soon we are left cold and slightly depressed. Productivity ebbs away. We are left with our wandering thoughts and impatience for our next cup of joe.

The Minority

There comes a point in every class, when the teacher, all of a sudden, asks a difficult question. Complete silence and complete panic follows. It feels as if time has stopped. Everyone looks anywhere, but at the teacher. Who is going to speak up? Who is going to be the brave sole to voice their opinion first? Regardless of the question, the person who raises their hand first holds the power to set class opinion. Even if they answer wrong, the rest of the class will start to question their thoughts. The rest of the class thinks,

“Will these folks frown, argue, or curse my stubbornness? Worse yet, will they snicker or laugh at me If I say what I really think, will they turn away in contempt or kick me out of the group?” (Noelle-Nuemann  374).

So we stay silent.

Is this right? Most would say no, especially, if the answer is wrong. But sometimes the answers are not so clear cut. Sometimes, they are opinion based.  Personally, I don’t like causing disagreements. I don’t like arguing. Do I have an opinion about Gay Marriage, McDonalds, and Donald Trump? Of course! But I won’t share that in fear of being part of the minority.

In the first reading, Elizabeth Noelle-Nuemann, also talks about the power and influence of TV. She talks about television’s “All-surrounding presence, its single point of view, and the constant repetition of its message. These factors override selective exposure, therefore biasing a whole nation's judgment on the prevailing opinion” (375).

TV shows and movies shape our worldview. This isn’t surprising to me. Movies like, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, The Sound of Music, and Grease influenced previous generations while Avengers, Game of Thrones, and even Mean Girls influence our opinions today.

Should the media be setting public opinion? Should Kim Kardashian be the new role model for girls? Hollywood holds power because we buy into it. We want to be like famous people because, of course, they are happy, right? Why is Hollywood the standard? I don’t think it’s healthy. Maybe it’s just me. Maybe I’m the minority.

Guardians, Gatekeepers, and Spin Doctors

After reading our agenda setting readings, I instantly thought of this video.

My sister showed me this video last spring. Derren Brown primed these two men by subtlety providing the details for the “Animal Heaven” advertisement on the drive to the office. I remember being amazed by the power of subliminal messages. Brown expertly wielded this power to show how advertisements unconsciously get ingrained in our minds for a short period. Essentially, one person, through advertising, can decide what your brain takes in. In politics, they call these people agenda setters. Agenda setters, just like Derren Brown, tell the public what to think about.

In the first reading, Agenda-Setting Function, McCombs and Shaw call agenda setters: news editors, guardians, gatekeepers, decision makers, media handlers, and spin doctors. That is a lot of varied definitions for one job. Additionally, having my news edited by a spin doctor does not sound comforting.

In the second reading, Craig Timberg says, “Search engines have the potential to profoundly influence voters without them noticing the impact.” I find this even more frightening. Ads influence your thoughts while an algorithm influences your vote.

Is this right? Microsoft and Yahoo say no, but Google says, “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning.” But this begs the question, what is relevant? Doesn’t that depend on the person? A Republican would say every fetus is a life. A Democrat would say a woman’s right to choose is important. Both stances are relevant to their individual platforms.

Google is Derren Brown. Throughout our day Google shows us ads and gives us “relevant” news. Intentionally or unintentionally Google creates its own agenda through subliminal messages. 

What's in the Well Water?

In the reading, Veronika Decides to Die, the story about the king and the well caught my attention. I thought the story was a great example of how societies evolve in thinking. “They think they’re normal because they all do the same thing” (Veronika Decides to Die). What an eye opening statement! For example, what was normal 50 years ago? The Beatles, bright colors, Twiggy, and VW Beetle are all common things you might see.

A question that came to mind was, can one person change the poisoned water back to the original or maybe into a different water entirely?

I decided to think of some instances where one person did change the well water.

•          Martin Luther King, Jr.
•          Margaret Sanger
•          Jesus
•          Charles Darwin

These people had an impact on the world. Unfortunately, the problem with this thinking is that all my scenarios assume the population is already drinking “mad water.”

The original sustenance of the well water depends on your own convictions and how you frame the situation. Personally, I believe sometimes the well water becomes polluted, like with Hitler and sometimes the water gets purified like with Martin Luther King. How you personally frame the water is very important to societal evolution.

Additionally, society possesses the power to frame our worldview. The article about Robin William’s suicide is a great example. “Genie, you’re free” communicates to the population that suicide is liberating and acceptable. One day will assisted suicide for all ages be permissible? How does this view of suicide relate to geriatric termination of life support?

Overall, I think time provides an ever changing potion to our water supply.