So with absolutely zero inspiration running through my mind, I'm choosing a topic this week that is completely unrelated to my previous entries. This is simply a topic that has always bothered me and tends to draw some attention when I mention to others that I down right refuse to take them: pain killers.
The situation is usually sparked by something simple: I have a headache, my back hurts, so on and so forth and someone will offer me some Advil. I am one of the few people I know who, no matter how much pain I'm in, will refuse to take a pain killer. This bewilders most.
For starters, pain killers do not CURE anything. All they do is simply block the pain receptors that tell you you're feeling something. Your body is producing this pain for a reason; it's trying to signal something to you. Try listening to this pain, tracking it, and decoding the source of the problem. I'm a person with chronic headaches and if I chose to just numb the pain on every onset, I would never be able to effectively trace the source of the pain. However, if I choose to just take notes of the intensity and onset, I can begin to figure out what is exactly causing the pain and actually target some treatment to the root of the problem, ceasing the headaches. I can actually cure the problem, instead of just ignoring it. Imagine that.
Secondly, our society has become far too reliant on pain killers. A couple months ago, I severely injured my knee and went to the emergency room to get some help. Upon the doctor's haste, I was quickly written a prescription for Vicodin. That was it. No examination, nothing. A week later, when the pain persisted, I went to another doctor to see if I could actually get some real attention. This one actually took a closer look at my knee and turns out, I needed surgery. He was astonished that the other doctor just sent me away with pain killers. This was not something that should have ever been dealt with by numbing, which is what the pain killers were doing. Even doctors have become too familiar with pain killers; far too many send their patients away with a prescription for a heavy pain killer thinking that it effective addresses the problem.
Thirdly, pain killers cause addiction. When our bodies become accustomed to a little pill that makes all the pain go away, it gets upset when you stop taking it. Our bodies have the ability to create its own pain upon withdrawal in order to receive more of the medication that it craves. When we take too many pain killers, our bodies will become addicted, and I don't think I need to expand on the dangers of drug addiction. Common knowledge. Now granted, it takes a lot of pill popping for this to occur, but it still happens.
This is why I refuse to take pain killers. It's awful in the short run, but in the long run, I'm healthier.
End rant.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Practical Writing II
Ok, after reading what I wrote on my last post, I feel like I didn't really get my point across.
I wasn't necessarily saying that English course DON'T all together implement practical writing in their courses, but more so that this should be the emphasis and as of now, it is not. After all, when we go into our careers and use writing in the real world, it's not going to be to construct a character analysis. Let's be honest, after college, that kind of writing won't be relevant...unless you become a teacher or professor of this topic. But getting back to the point, I think it's odd that most English courses emphasize this type of writing, but not practical writing. Granted, I come from a smaller high school where the only English courses offered consisted of your basic 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade English class or AP Lit and AP Lang. We didn't have any interesting writing classes; they simply taught us how to write a formal essay and so far, with my one semester of college, this is still the case. Maybe I'm basing my conclusion off of too narrow of evidence, but I feel like, for the most part, writing courses aren't emphasizing practical writing enough. I do agree that it's important to learn how to write formal essays. It teaches us how to think in a different, more in depth manner, but at the same time schools (at least in my case) are failing to help students use these writing they have established and transfer them to real life situations. So I'm not claiming that schools are all together disregarding practical writing, but they are definitely not emphasizing it enough. Personally, I think a shift in this emphasis would be worthwhile.
I wasn't necessarily saying that English course DON'T all together implement practical writing in their courses, but more so that this should be the emphasis and as of now, it is not. After all, when we go into our careers and use writing in the real world, it's not going to be to construct a character analysis. Let's be honest, after college, that kind of writing won't be relevant...unless you become a teacher or professor of this topic. But getting back to the point, I think it's odd that most English courses emphasize this type of writing, but not practical writing. Granted, I come from a smaller high school where the only English courses offered consisted of your basic 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade English class or AP Lit and AP Lang. We didn't have any interesting writing classes; they simply taught us how to write a formal essay and so far, with my one semester of college, this is still the case. Maybe I'm basing my conclusion off of too narrow of evidence, but I feel like, for the most part, writing courses aren't emphasizing practical writing enough. I do agree that it's important to learn how to write formal essays. It teaches us how to think in a different, more in depth manner, but at the same time schools (at least in my case) are failing to help students use these writing they have established and transfer them to real life situations. So I'm not claiming that schools are all together disregarding practical writing, but they are definitely not emphasizing it enough. Personally, I think a shift in this emphasis would be worthwhile.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Practical Writing
So in high school and into college, we learn all of these new writing styles: research papers, argumentative essays, persuasive essays, character analysis, and so on, but when we get into the real world of writing, do we actually apply what it is that we have learned?
I started to think about this issue when I was reviewing some of my old high school essays. Example number one was a character analysis of Tom Buchanan from The Great Gatsby. Example number two was a college admission essay. This was actually an assignment for a class; the teacher told us to pick a college we were going to apply to and write an essay on the prompt they require and she would edit for us (and grade it) so we could use it for our future benefit. Now looking at these two pieces of writing, they were both great (if I do say so myself) and were graded accordingly, but the point that I'm trying to make is where the emphasis was placed. In high school, there is so much emphasis on writing essays like example number one, but real life writing is hardly ever touched on. I mean, honestly, when am I ever going to be required to write a character analysis in my career? Probably never; I can't think of a single example. Yet this was so heavily emphasized in high school. It's interesting to think that this is where importance is placed, whereas pieces of writing like a college admission essay, that have practical value, where just brushed passed. I got my A on this paper (and in the end actually received a scholarship offer from the school I submitted it to based solely on this essay) but it's actual writing approach or style is something we were never taught how to do. I just knew how to construct it. It's a curious thought. Maybe we should add a writing style to the high school requirement list: practical lifestyle writing. I think for the most part, most English classes give at least some assignments that cover this, but I'm not sure if anyone has ever defined it and I can almost guarantee that it's not emphasized more than the former styles. But maybe this is something the school systems should consider changing?
I started to think about this issue when I was reviewing some of my old high school essays. Example number one was a character analysis of Tom Buchanan from The Great Gatsby. Example number two was a college admission essay. This was actually an assignment for a class; the teacher told us to pick a college we were going to apply to and write an essay on the prompt they require and she would edit for us (and grade it) so we could use it for our future benefit. Now looking at these two pieces of writing, they were both great (if I do say so myself) and were graded accordingly, but the point that I'm trying to make is where the emphasis was placed. In high school, there is so much emphasis on writing essays like example number one, but real life writing is hardly ever touched on. I mean, honestly, when am I ever going to be required to write a character analysis in my career? Probably never; I can't think of a single example. Yet this was so heavily emphasized in high school. It's interesting to think that this is where importance is placed, whereas pieces of writing like a college admission essay, that have practical value, where just brushed passed. I got my A on this paper (and in the end actually received a scholarship offer from the school I submitted it to based solely on this essay) but it's actual writing approach or style is something we were never taught how to do. I just knew how to construct it. It's a curious thought. Maybe we should add a writing style to the high school requirement list: practical lifestyle writing. I think for the most part, most English classes give at least some assignments that cover this, but I'm not sure if anyone has ever defined it and I can almost guarantee that it's not emphasized more than the former styles. But maybe this is something the school systems should consider changing?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Education System Flaws
So our class discussion this week has been about how the grading system we currently use in the educational system is flawed, which I completely agree with. But that's not what I want to focus on because I don't think that's the only thing that's flawed. Before reading the rest, I recommend that you watch this video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html It's about 20 minutes long, but you can start at 3 minutes and it really is worth a watch. Basically, the speech focuses on how our current education system kills creativity and is biased towards math, English, and science. Why don't we have classes in public education for dance? Isn't being artistically advanced just as important as being able to solve a mathematical equation? Who decided that one was more necessary than the other? As children, we really aren't given the decision to choose a career path, to be honest. If that we were, then course work in public school would be FAR more broad. The narrow path it is on now steers children into academic careers- ones that promise prosperity and are in high demand fields. It really isn't fair to those who have a passion for the arts, because there just isn't enough career options our there in that field. But this is the society that we have created.
Another problem is the fact that academics are becoming inflated. At one point in history, a high school diploma could get you a high ranking job; then one day you needed a B.A., then a Master's Degree, and now any stable job that promises prosperity requires a PhD. What's next? At the rate we're going, the demand will be some sort of degree that will take half our lives to obtain. This isn't the direction we need to be going. Values need to be rethought, and the education system needs a redesign.
And now I sound like a political candidate. O boy...
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Communication Beyond Language: Music
Staying on the note of communication, I want to look more in depth to language and how we can communicate more effectively even without language, specifically by looking at music.
An official definition of language: communication that combines symbols in rule-based ways to create meaning. My definition: words or signs that tell someone what you're thinking. Now not to contradict myself, but the other day I realized that there are elements out there, other than words or signs, that can enhance what we want to communicate. There are probably other elements, but the one that sticks out to me is music. I began thinking about this over the past weekend when I went to Chicago to visit my friend, Cecelia Erholtz. She attends Columbia College, a private performing arts college, and is a vocal jazz major. Being a singer/songwriter, she was playing me one of her newest song and, as always, her music evoked deep emotions and conveyed a powerful message. I then asked her how she managed to do this with each of her songs. Being the meek person she is, she just responded, "I don't know, I just write down words that I'm feeling and then pick up my guitar and it works, I guess." I then asked to see her journal so that I could read the words and possibly figure out for myself how she makes her songs so powerful. Now, to my surprise, when I just read the words, I did not feel nearly the same level of power that I did from the song. I then asked her to just play the song without the words. This also had a surprising effect on me, but opposite from the former. I felt a much stronger emotion from the melody of the guitar than I did from the poetry of the words. The melody that she played communicated more than the words did. Which brings me to my point, we have the power to communicate in forms other than by words; we can communicate by music: guitar chords, piano keys, drum beats, etc. It really is a powerful concept when you think about it. The fact that a beat can penetrate to our emotions and communicate a feeling just as much, and sometimes more than words can.
I'm sure almost everyone can relate to what I'm talking about here in almost any genre of music, not just Cecelia's music. Although to give a specific example, I recommend "This year's love" by David Gray. He writes about a simple concept that we can all grasp: hope, love, despair, but the way the melody combines with the words really enhances the meaning. It really is a beautiful concept.
An official definition of language: communication that combines symbols in rule-based ways to create meaning. My definition: words or signs that tell someone what you're thinking. Now not to contradict myself, but the other day I realized that there are elements out there, other than words or signs, that can enhance what we want to communicate. There are probably other elements, but the one that sticks out to me is music. I began thinking about this over the past weekend when I went to Chicago to visit my friend, Cecelia Erholtz. She attends Columbia College, a private performing arts college, and is a vocal jazz major. Being a singer/songwriter, she was playing me one of her newest song and, as always, her music evoked deep emotions and conveyed a powerful message. I then asked her how she managed to do this with each of her songs. Being the meek person she is, she just responded, "I don't know, I just write down words that I'm feeling and then pick up my guitar and it works, I guess." I then asked to see her journal so that I could read the words and possibly figure out for myself how she makes her songs so powerful. Now, to my surprise, when I just read the words, I did not feel nearly the same level of power that I did from the song. I then asked her to just play the song without the words. This also had a surprising effect on me, but opposite from the former. I felt a much stronger emotion from the melody of the guitar than I did from the poetry of the words. The melody that she played communicated more than the words did. Which brings me to my point, we have the power to communicate in forms other than by words; we can communicate by music: guitar chords, piano keys, drum beats, etc. It really is a powerful concept when you think about it. The fact that a beat can penetrate to our emotions and communicate a feeling just as much, and sometimes more than words can.
I'm sure almost everyone can relate to what I'm talking about here in almost any genre of music, not just Cecelia's music. Although to give a specific example, I recommend "This year's love" by David Gray. He writes about a simple concept that we can all grasp: hope, love, despair, but the way the melody combines with the words really enhances the meaning. It really is a beautiful concept.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Power of Communication
During our class, several ideas about the power of communication have been brought up, ranging from the stick figure drawing on the first day, to Derrida's piece, and even some of my own observations. The drawing on the first day consisted of two people on either sides of a wall and what would happen if they tried to communicate? Seemingly boring at first, but what if they have different meanings for certain words (i.e. what if one person says dog, but to the other person, a dog is really a tree) are they still communicating the same thing? Personally, I believe that they are. They have no way to know whether or not they are on the same level, since they cannot see the others vision. They can only rely on words.
Going off on a tangent, this makes me think of they types of communication that we rely on now and how they are effecting our relationships. Technology has had a major impact on our modern communication. We now use a combination of texting, email, online chatting, and phone calls to communicate more than actual face-to-face interaction. Problem? Only 7% of communication is actually the words we speak. 55% is body language and 38% is intonation. So because texting, email, etc only allow us to use the 7%, we have to be EXTREMELY careful that the words we choose are conveying the exact message that we want. 7% leaves a lot of interpretation room that could result in a misunderstood message. I often observe this in my text message conversations. I will sit with a single message for an average of at least one minute contemplating different word choices to make sure that I am conveying my message appropriately. I try to avoid awkward confrontation whenever possible!
The overall message that I'm trying to get across here is that our words have power. And how we choose to use that could make things ugly, or empower us. Choose your words wisely!
Going off on a tangent, this makes me think of they types of communication that we rely on now and how they are effecting our relationships. Technology has had a major impact on our modern communication. We now use a combination of texting, email, online chatting, and phone calls to communicate more than actual face-to-face interaction. Problem? Only 7% of communication is actually the words we speak. 55% is body language and 38% is intonation. So because texting, email, etc only allow us to use the 7%, we have to be EXTREMELY careful that the words we choose are conveying the exact message that we want. 7% leaves a lot of interpretation room that could result in a misunderstood message. I often observe this in my text message conversations. I will sit with a single message for an average of at least one minute contemplating different word choices to make sure that I am conveying my message appropriately. I try to avoid awkward confrontation whenever possible!
The overall message that I'm trying to get across here is that our words have power. And how we choose to use that could make things ugly, or empower us. Choose your words wisely!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Introduction 9/22/10
Well this is my first blog post for Writ 1301 at the U of M. Exciting. I'm not entirely sure what I should include in my weekly posts, but I'm going to give my best effort in staying on track to what we talk about in class.
This week's reading was on the topic of computer communication. The piece we read was entitled "The Computer as a Communication Device" written by J.C.R. LIcklider and Robert W. Taylor. It was written in the 60's and basically predicted what advantages/disadvantages a computer world would bring.
The authors were pretty accurate in their predictions. They proposed one idea that hasn't completely come about, but still has possibilities (although I'm not sure if it's something that I like the idea of). This idea is entitled OLIVER. An OLIVER is basically a mechanical secretary that will, "Take notes (or refrain from taking notes) on what you do, what you read, what you buy and where you buy it. It will know who your friends are, your mere acquaintances. It will know your value structure, who is prestigious in your eyes, for whom you will do what with what priority, and who can have access to which of your personal files. It will know your organization's rules pertaining to proprietary information and the government's rules relating to security classification." For me, the first few parts sound plausible (and handy!) because those are all measurable sets of data. However, when it comes to differentiating friends from acquaintances, understanding value structure, prestige, and priority, I'm not sure if that part is plausible. These are all concepts and that are interpreted individually and I don't see how it would be possible for a machine to be able to grasp such a concept and interpret it exactly how my mind would. And I'm also not sure if I would want a machine to become that powerful.
It's the common "robots taking over the world" fear. I don't see computers as ever having as much or more power than the human mind. Maybe when it comes to mathematics or configuring problems like that, but when it comes to philosophy, reasoning, and pure thinking, it's just not a concept a machine could efficiently achieve. For example, I often use dictionary.com to look up synonyms for words to enhance my papers. Now, although the computer knows more words than my brain, it is up to ME and MY reasoning to pick the one that fits the best and why. Computers can feed the information, but nothing can replace the expansive thinking of the human mind.
And with that, I conclude.
Haylee Daggett
This week's reading was on the topic of computer communication. The piece we read was entitled "The Computer as a Communication Device" written by J.C.R. LIcklider and Robert W. Taylor. It was written in the 60's and basically predicted what advantages/disadvantages a computer world would bring.
The authors were pretty accurate in their predictions. They proposed one idea that hasn't completely come about, but still has possibilities (although I'm not sure if it's something that I like the idea of). This idea is entitled OLIVER. An OLIVER is basically a mechanical secretary that will, "Take notes (or refrain from taking notes) on what you do, what you read, what you buy and where you buy it. It will know who your friends are, your mere acquaintances. It will know your value structure, who is prestigious in your eyes, for whom you will do what with what priority, and who can have access to which of your personal files. It will know your organization's rules pertaining to proprietary information and the government's rules relating to security classification." For me, the first few parts sound plausible (and handy!) because those are all measurable sets of data. However, when it comes to differentiating friends from acquaintances, understanding value structure, prestige, and priority, I'm not sure if that part is plausible. These are all concepts and that are interpreted individually and I don't see how it would be possible for a machine to be able to grasp such a concept and interpret it exactly how my mind would. And I'm also not sure if I would want a machine to become that powerful.
It's the common "robots taking over the world" fear. I don't see computers as ever having as much or more power than the human mind. Maybe when it comes to mathematics or configuring problems like that, but when it comes to philosophy, reasoning, and pure thinking, it's just not a concept a machine could efficiently achieve. For example, I often use dictionary.com to look up synonyms for words to enhance my papers. Now, although the computer knows more words than my brain, it is up to ME and MY reasoning to pick the one that fits the best and why. Computers can feed the information, but nothing can replace the expansive thinking of the human mind.
And with that, I conclude.
Haylee Daggett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)