Terrifying spectre of complete comfort

There is a solution to all of the problems listed in the various articles for this week's reading.

Get off of the internet.

The fact remains that google, amazon, or facebook can't retrieve information that you don't willfully give them. That's why you "agree" to their terms of service when you create an account, and the document is 600 pages long, so you don't read it. You are pseudo-participating in their surveillance for the purposes of their advertising and marketing interests.

That's the way it works in America. The media perpetuates a "keep up with the Joneses" mindset, so that everyone wants the latest phone, the nicest car, the "best" of this and that, etc. and makes it readily available through the racket of credit purchases. They don't care what you buy, as long as you don't pay all at once, and they bleed you with interest.

"We buy things we don't need and can't afford to impress people we don't care about."- Dave Ramsey

The trade-off of this consumer culture that we so eagerly participate in, is the benefit of "comfort". We just want to be "comfortable" even if it means giving up any semblance of privacy or choice in the matter. To me, the idea of drones bringing you products before you even ordered them is absolutely terrifying, but to many it seems "wonderfully convenient".

My solution is simple. Don't put any personal information on the internet, pay only cash, don't live beyond your means, don't use GPS, etc. etc. etc. I may sound like a weirdo or a hermit or a conspiracy theorist, in fact many of my friends and family call me these and more, but it really is becoming the only way to avoid the dangers of these corporate titans having a stranglehold on a life that could truly be called "yours".

More Does Not Equal Better

Reading the articles on attention, productivity, and instant gratification bring to mind the effects of burgeoning technology that I feel are negative.

For example, in the article from The New York Times, Levitin states that, "According to a 2011 study, on a typical day, we take in the equivalent of about 174 newspapers’ worth of information". I imagine a person reading a HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FOUR newspapers and wonder what, if any, percentage of that information they would be able to retain and recall.

So, is more really better? 

Poole states, "Productivity, of course, is the religion of an age that conceives of itself as accelerating, though in our time it is usually defined in a philistine way, as consisting of sheer volume rather than quality of work output." This is exactly how I feel about the "information-age" culture. We think of ourselves as "Smarter Faster Better" simply based on quantity rather than quantity. Simply put, more does not equal better; the quality is inherently diluted.

This self-importance, thinking of ourselves as "Smarter Faster Better", or at the very least, earnestly striving to be so, is what leads to a culture that is more concerned with feeling better rather than being better. 

This relates to the Fortune article on millennials taking less money for "higher quality of work-life". This can be seen two different ways, as can anything. An optimist would say that it is a positive thing that young people care less about money, which is a fabrication of society, and more about affecting positive social change. However, it is also a symptom of a culture that has, as said before, come to be more concerned with people's feelings instead of achievement and striving for excellence.

Many of the immigrants that came to the United States in the past few centuries, did so in order to escape a situation where they were not free to pursue the things that, because of our liberties, we now take for granted. They worked in order to put food on the table and a roof over the head. The money was the outcome of the work. So, needless to say, when great men and women build a country where, for a greater majority than most of the world, food and shelter are readily available, the mere opportunity of work for money is taken for granted and people begin to want work that "more closely aligns with their values or passions or improves their work-life balance"(Chew), forsaking money in the process. This is a far cry from the people who built this country, doing whatever was necessary to make money so they could put food on the table, stay in this land, and avoid going back to a worse place.

Because things are easier, the opportunities and luxuries we have a taken for granted, as well as the work required to attain them, and we become obsessed with ourselves, and how we feel about things, and forsake the pursuit of excellence in the process. More does not equal better.

Buying the War response

According to the documentary, the American public "bought" the war that the government was selling through its advertising campaign in mass media, mainly newspapers and television talk shows.

Because of the fear that resulted from the horror of September 11, 2001, the media was largely unwilling to go "out on a limb" and question the government's messages; they did not want to appear contrarian or anti-patriotic.

This reminds me of the culture of "P.C. police" today being similar to "patriotism police" in the early 2000s. The message is different, but the methods are similar. Anyone dissenting from the popular viewpoint is threatened and villified, even though they may just be exercising scrutiny and critical thought.

 Overall though, the problem is that someone owns and controls the media networks. They are, as one interviewee said, "huge international conglomerates". As another speaker said, "The front page is a billboard for what the editors are telling you are the most important stories of the day". The reason they are doing this is because their boss has told them to make certain stories a priority.

So, the key thing to remember when analyzing any media is that whoever wrote the story has a boss, who has a boss, who has a boss, etc. and there is rarely room for individual critical thought in mass media. The agenda is being pushed. No need for critical thought. Just pick a side. Because if we, the masses, are busy fighting with each other, we won't have time to question the things we see in the media.

Denying our legacy

With regard to the articles on enclothed cognition, or how what we wear affects not only how others see us, but how we feel about ourselves, it seems pretty simple to understand. It's natural to feel more prepared for whatever the task is if one is wearing the appropriate uniform, or any attire that breeds confidence and positivity. This is nothing new; ancient civilizations had uniforms and task-specific attire that was worn. It is part of our legacy that we still hold onto, psychologically. Because despite all of the cognitive evolution we undergo, we are still just animals.

That's why the concept of processed food being less healthy than natural food makes a lot of sense. After all, animals in the wild don't have manufacturing plants for mass-produced food. Part of this is because they haven't evolved to the level of human beings in able to be capable of such a task, as well as having limited, if any, concept of currency. Part of the reason is also that animals, probably due to their limited cognitive ability for philosophy, simply accept things "the way they are".

That brings to mind the article on gender roles/threats to masculinity. For example, the article said that "being the breadwinner has been a linchpin of masculinity for decades". Decades? This is something that is in our DNA as human beings, from the time when the male's sole responsibility was to conquer and kill the food for his family. "Bringing home the bacon" so to speak. To say that this is only a "decades-old" concept is arbitrary and shortsighted. Also, the article says that "cooking has become a more acceptable form of housework for men in the last fifteen years". This number also seems extremely arbitrary. Where the did the writer come up with fifteen years?

The writer also says that many men will "symbolically reinforce their masculinity by doing less housework" when their wife earns more money. Perhaps they are just lazy? Couldn't that be why they earn less money and do less housework?

Lastly, the writer claims that masculinity can be "redefined" in order to promote equal rights for LGBT individuals. While this is a noble cause, and worth pursuing, I don't understand what it has to do with masculinity, either traditionally or with an evolved mindset. It implies that all LGBT individuals, inherently, do not possess or desire traditional masculine qualities which is a generalization, and therefore a flawed argument.

Apparently you ain't parents

With regard to the topic of video games having an effect on violent behavior, I think that the role of parenting is often undervalued.

The article (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/what-science-knows-about-video-games-and-violence/) on pbs.org stated that in order to study the results of video game violence on personality/psychology, researchers would have to "(take) several tens of thousands of people, from children on up to adults, dividing them into groups with comparable socioeconomic, genomic, and behavioral profiles, setting them to play first-person shooters with varying amounts of regularity, then following them for years, routinely conducting psychological tests and tracking their real-world behaviors."

The part that sticks out to me is "following them for years". You can't determine a person's proclivity toward violence, and whether it is due to video games, in one hour/one day/etc. You have to actually know the person, which is where parenting comes in.

I think that the more troubling aspect of the effects of video games, is that one of the biggest reasons video games are such a profitable industry is because they are something for parents to give their kids so they don't have to deal with them, much less teach them philosophical and moral lessons. "Just get 'em something so they can sit in front of the tv without bothering me."

Many people have children before they are ready to deal with the enormous commitment it takes to properly raise and teach a human being right from wrong, etc. So, video games are a welcome distraction to avoid the amount of effort it takes to do so.

This can be related to the fixed mindset/growth mindset TED talk that was shown in class. The speaker said that the human brain is malleable, and I tend to agree.

A human being is like a sculpture, and the amount of wisdom and guidance and assurance that a parent bestows upon their child is like the formation of the material of the sculpture. If you use poor materials, you will have a poor sculpture. The trial and error, good times, bad times, and sometimes brutal ass-kicking that life gives you is the formation of the sculpture. It takes both of these processes to create a life that is worthwhile and meaningful.