Be it Resolved that: In all medical decisions (sexual, psychiatric, cosmetic' and so on) the individual/patient should be free to choose.

Be it Resolved that: In all medical decisions (sexual, psychiatric, cosmetic' and so on) the individual/patient should be free to choose.

Affirmative.

We had this debate in the beginning of the year and it boggles my mind that people would put all their trust in others' hands to believe that they would do what is most 'ethical'. What is 'ethical' have changed depending on what we have come to understand what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Historically, it was no question that it was ethical to sterilize women of color. Doctors who participated in this monstrous act would consider what they are doing to be 'correct' or 'ethical'.

As a woman of color, I deserve and should be able to make all my medical decisions.

There may be extreme cases, like the amputation cases we discussed earlier in this course. If a person went to the doctor and wanted their leg cut off, should the doctor do it?

Well if you think about it, if the doctor doesn't do it the safe way for them. They will do it elsewhere, or worse, by themselves. In the end, if they really want it they will get it done.

Blog Post #6

During winter break, I participated in a global health seminar in Thailand where I was introduced to the social determinants of health. In this blog post, I would like to share my observations that support the following statement from the assignment: From any 'eating / food event,' closely read, we should be able to infer just about anything about a society / culture.

The learning outcome of my study abroad experience was to make us become aware of the complex network that contributes to our level of health. During one of our assignments, our professors sent us on a scavenger hunt to look to identify how a social determinant contributes to the overall health of the community. My group and I visited a local school to see what kind of food was available to the students. We noticed that the food was not coming from a franchised restaurant chain, instead, it was coming from locals who believe it or not, use locally grown and unprocessed ingredients to cook the food they sold. Another observation was that there was not a lot of fast food vendors surrounding the school.

When we returned to the United States, our professors asked us to use the same social determinant of health and compare it to what we saw in Thailand. One drastic comparison was the availability of processed food on campus. Although there is an abundance of food available, the majority tends to be highly processed. Its no wonder why we have the freshmen 15! It's not that students choose to eat unhealthy, it more than they are placed in an environment that lacks alternative choice. 

oops

How has social media has altered the way people see themselves?

With noses constantly turned towards screens, it’s not had to see how many have
become influenced by the images that flash in front of them. In the rapid evolution
of our society today, advances in technology have dictated the course of human
interactions. Face-to-face interactions are often pushed aside for text messaging,
snapchat, etc., and it has also affected the way that people view themselves. What has been lost and sacrificed in the name of convenience and expediency?

Although technology has provided a platform for people to connect, it is
important to recognize the potential consequences of living within a
media-saturated culture. Technology is typically the space where consumers absorb
and interpret information that influence the way that people view themselves, their
self-worth,  their bodies, and others. With social media, only the highlight reels are
being broadcasted. Since we’re only getting the highlight reels, it is really easy to
compare them to our lives, even we don’t know what else is going on behind their
screen.

As much as I hate to admit it, I’m always on some sort of social media platform,
and I’ll attest how difficult it is to not compare yourself to others.How can her
stomach be that small if she still eats like that? Why is it our makeup looks so different
even though we’re using the same products? Questions that I know that I am not alone
in asking, but how can I not. A part of my self identity is built on the social and
cultural context that I live in.

There has been a shift from being internally to externally driven. Popular culture has
manifested portraits of who it wants people to be, whether people like to admit it or not.
Hitting the core of our basic need to feel good about ourselves, accepted, and attractive,
media tells us what we should believe about ourselves. Social media has cause people
to move away from expressing their own identities and towards constructing facades
based on the opinions of others. People often make decisions on where to go, what to eat,
or what to wear based on the images that they have found on the explore page of their
instagram feed. People are unconsciously shaping their lives around the actions of others.

It is really hard for me whether this is a problem or not. Like, it is an obvious
problem, but the problem is on a spectrum of extremes. It really depends on the way
that people use the platform and how people let it influence them. There are sixteen
year olds out their flaunting their $800 shoes while sitting in their Range Rovers,
but there are also people who are using their social media to effect change in their
communities. It’s really easy for me to jeer at all of these preteens who wear revealing
or really expensive clothes, or paint their faces with more makeup than I’ll ever
where, but what gives me the right to when that is all they know.
____________________________________

Do we really choose what we eat?

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of overweight people in the United States. So much so that it is being called the obesity epidemic. A part of this problem is an increase in food intake. American’s like things bigger. Large food portions have also been glamorized by many restaurants that allow patrons to partake in wild food challenges. So the solution would seem easy, if people are eating more to gain more weight, then they should start eating less if they want to lose weight. Unfortunately we all know that it is not that easy. Despite the array of diets, health clubs, drugs, and devices out there to help facilitate weight loss, once people are done are done with their treatment, most will return to their free environments where the loss weight will most likely return. 

Having free will means that people are able to choose what foods they eat and how
much they eat. I think that everyone has free will, however over time people who gain

excessive amounts of weight are no longer eating for survival, but they’re just eating to eat.
Their brains have become wired to their bodies. There come a point where their free
will is no longer there.

People will start off binge eating occasionally, when they’re bored, or have guest over, but it
eventually will manifest into something uncontrollable. They’ll no longer have control of
their hunger or what they consume, and often times it’s the fatty fried stuff that will
settle their stomachs.

Blogs On Top Of Blogs

Blog #3

I grew up in a shaman Hmong household. Shamans believe that the body and mind are separate, but somehow connected in order for us to live. When I was younger, I believed that when I was sick, it was because there was something wrong with my soul and a shaman had to contact my spirit and figure out what was wrong. I believed this was the only way to treat my sickness. As I got older, I started to question my religious belief because of my new-found interest in science. For something to be legit, you need facts to back it up. Science would not be science without the evidence. To treat a sickness, there are medications that can be taken. There are tests that can be done to figure out what is wrong with the body. Yet, I thought the only way to cure me of my sickness was for a stranger to come and call my spirit from another realm home. Did I only get better because I tricked myself into believing the ritual done by the shaman worked? Is it just the placebo affect working?

Blog #6

In the United States, over one third of adults are obese. Working at McDonald’s all throughout high school showed me how badly society eats. McDonald’s, along with other fast food chains in America are contributing to this high percentage of obesity. These fast food chains are known for providing a meal for a cheap price. McDonald’s currently has their $1, $2, and $3 menu, containing drinks, burgers, chicken sandwiches, and nuggets. As someone who doesn’t have money to spare, I would choose a $1 burger over going to the grocery store and cooking my own meal. It’s cheap and convenient. These fast food chains are aware that because they advertise something for only a few bucks, they’re going to attract customers. Yet, they don’t provide healthier options. Why sell a burger for a few bucks when you can offer a salad for the same?

Blog #9

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2O5MGpfKTc

Tomi Lahren… I hate that I love watching her. Tomi Lahren was known for her segment on TheBlaze, which is a conservative network. She captures the viewers’ attention through her angry, biting tone. Tomi doesn’t present news in an unbiased way. She presents the news and gives her commentary, usually criticizing liberals. In a tweet, she made the comment of the Black Lives Matter movement was the “new KKK”. Her logic in this is that the BLM protest and deliberately target white people, the same thing the KKK does to black people. She equates these two groups, yet the KKK’s narrative is white supremacy and the BLM’s narrative is equality of black people. She displays information in a hateful way, providing only information supporting her view point. Those who watch her segments with no prior knowledge on the issue she’s discussing side with her because she’s a pretty, young, white millennial.

Blog #10

It's difficult to say whether YouTube is good or bad because it does allow people to showcase their talents and we can use YouTube for educational purposes, such as learning how to memorize the 20 amino acids, but there are videos out there harming the youtubers who create the content as well as the viewers. YouTube is a platform that has allowed people to make a living. Being YouTube famous is what most kids want these days. With that, parents are supporting and allowing their kids to create content for YouTube, whether it’s music, skits, or tutorials. This is a great way for kids to express themselves, but are their parents setting them up for failure? What happens when YouTube no longer becomes available? Will kids have the skills to survive in the real world? Are their parents embodying them with false hope? Not everyone can be Justin Bieber who was lucky enough to be discovered on YouTube by Usher.

Patients and the right to choose

For my group's debate in this class, we had to argue for the patient's right to choose in all medical decisions. This issue is one that revolves around the dilemma of complete patient freedom or letting the doctors, who know what the best treatment would be for the patient, make the decision for them. Personally, I believe this is a very straightforward decision. The medical field is a patient-oriented field, and it has always been this way. Ultimately, it makes sense that a patient should have the rights to full freedom over their own body. Freedom is an extremely important right that is granted to every citizen of this country, and I feel that the right to freedom over your own body is one of the most sacred freedoms at all.

Before this class, I never really thought about this debate, simply because I had never considered the alternative of the doctors making the final decision. After going through the debate and writing this blog post, I can safely say that my initial belief was verified by the research we did.

Doc, I Don't Feel So Good.

This class was gave a much needed startle to my mind, which has been slowly inculcated into a ridgid disciplinary science thinking pattern. Broadly, the topics that have stayed with me are the discussions on apotemnophilia and Stigmata. As someone who loves neuroscience and likes to see data supporting something, these topics really threw me off. My first thought was that those conditions weren’t conditions at all, but really symptoms of a psychiatric disorder. I must admit that I do still believe the superior right parietal lobe has something to do with apotemnophilia and somatoparaphrenia, however I now see the effects of semantic contagion. Semantic contagion fascinates me. Something that may be false for the originator is adopted and becomes real for a follower/consumer. One person's symptom may become another’s diagnosis.

I also see how market conditioning and FDA coercion gave us HSDD. I have always loved the idea that science is free of things like politics and money, that discoveries and work are just unraveling the complexity of the body or world. Now, I see the sneaking influence of outside entities, from online chat rooms to pink washing Cindy. I can see that our work in science may for a few minutes be pure and neutral, and that after legitimation and commercialization happens. At that point our work may be in the hands of people who use it for ill gain. In some ways it makes me want to pursue a degree in law on top of things so I can deal with people like Cindy.

The reason I picked the title of “Doc, I don’t feel good” is due to how this class has changed my conception of what is “real.” What is not real for me may be real for a patient. What is real to me and what is truth and reality to me may not be real, truth, or reality to a patient. Sickness, beliefs, belief of sickness, all combine to make it so I and a patient may live in two separate worlds. Worlds that need to be bridged. I think that in some ways this class has helped me to think in more abstract terms. I will still love my MEG and fMRI, but I will be open to hearing about conditions I would before have said just need DBS. I will also try not to have a notion of I know what you need (insert brand name) when I hear that someone doesn’t feel so good.

Warning: Unknown Side Effects

What are 'they' really selling? This has been a question that we have entertained in many different facets this semester. Whether it is animal rights, GMOs, pharmaceuticals, technology, media, or any other entity trying to sell itself to us or us to it, they all play in the game. Before this class, I knew that media and brands were obviously all trying to sell us their products for a profit. However, after a culmination of emotions from irritation to excitement and curiosity evoked during our discussions, I have finally come to terms with the dark truth. Behind every advertisement, click-bait on Facebook, and must-run on a news channel, there is an ulterior message being implied. Some are moderate views and others are doused in outdated, heteronormative ideals. Why does this concept bother me? Well, it seems self evident, but if I must...

As was one of the group debates on if media was ruining democracy, there are further implications to these platforms that we know, love, and use every day. The thing that bothers me is not that it is taking place, but rather how imbedded it is in our society and how unbelievably difficult it would be to remove these problems like advertisements from the sites we are using. Why? Well because of the society we live in of course. At the end of the day, these companies are trying to make a profit and that profit comes from their product: us. Whether on a news channel, Tinder, or the highly contested Facebook, these businesses appear to be that they are selling us a service. However, the real money making part (as we all learned and know) is the consumer and our information.

Before this class, I knew there was targeted advertising. I knew that there were some platforms that had skewed views such as Fox being hard republican or specific audiences such as Tinder and younger adults. Yet, I never realized to what extent this infiltrated our system. The problem is so interwoven into the facets of peoples lives that they are simply just a mirror of who we are and what values we deem acceptable. If they, the advertisements, click-bait, and news, are approaching things with certain values, it is because the public is accepting it and saying it is okay. To make enough people bother to change it is the difficult and quite irritating issue at hand. Again, why? Because these advertisements and other contributors aren't going to go away, but the content they are providing to us can change. The challenging part is if we, as a society, are willing to change it.

Thank you to everyone in this class who has said things to provoke me to question my surroundings and the things that I see everyday. Thank you for helping me realize that just because it is "normal" doesn't mean it is the best way, it is simply the accepted way. And thank you Robin and Brendan for taking us on this journey of, if I be so bold to say, enlightenment. This is the most memorable class I have had at the U yet.  Thank you.

Defenders of Reality (and the Republic)

I am reading a new book “The People vs. Democracy” in which Yascha Mounk argues that Liberal Democracy is decomposing into illiberal democracy and undemocratic liberalism. After reading the introduction, I can't tell which of these governmental bastards scares me more, thought I want to focus on undemocratic liberalism and semantic contagion for a few minutes.

We all know by now that money means power. We see it with regulatory capture, with all of the problems of Cindy Whitehead, Farm Bill’s, and lord knows Google and the rest of Big Tech. These are some of the forces at work in our democracy. Government, with its alphabet soup of agencies that are connected to what Jefferson called “popular sovereignty” are increasingly unresponsive to the people. Can anyone name the SEC director? I sure can't. The European Union is the pinnacle of this kind of technocratic rule, and the people of Greece are rightfully pissed about it when their pensions are unilaterally cut to pay back investors who want some kind of return on the sovereign greek debt they bought. This kind of governance, where no one is really oppressed for illiberal reasons, scares the shit out of me.

Okay, back to semantic contagion. I am persuaded by Carl Elliott and co. that ideas spread when you give them voice. I think “incel” culture is a good example of this process, where ideas gain legitimation just by being articulated and brought into the public sphere. I present Exhibit A: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/opinion/incels-sex-robots-redistribution.html. Problematic ideas have never found it easier to gain traction, using twitter trolls, bots, reddit, and the pages of the paper of record to advance their (often) toxic ideas. It feels like the Overton window has never been more flighty, or prone to the whims of a few hundred thousand retweets. This kind of epistemology, where Emerson Spartz is finally toppled by someone equally brilliant at capturing out attention, but with ideas much more vile than listicles and the rest of the nonsense we see on the internet, also scares the shit out of me.

So where do they come together? It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me that the powers that be will see a need to curtail ideas at the fringe, and that people who have the fringe ideas will see a need to challenge the authority of the powers that be. Liberal and undemocratic bureaucracies seem to be on a collision course with democratic (in the very literal sense) and illiberal forces of the internet. I am not sure who might prevail, but I know that liberal democracy will be caught in the middle.

So here we are, caught in a vice of semantic contagion, and the power of moneyed interests. What is a common person who believes in reality, but has an inkling for all the ways people seek to manipulate us, to do? In short, we need to resist both, and resist urges from both sides to throw in with the technocrats or the trolls. Neither cause is fully just, and it is only through patient, inconvenient, contant learning, questioning, and public action that we can loose the vice and reclaim some civic identity and cohesion. My biggest takeaway from Science and Culture is that this is hard. It takes work. It takes learning to be comfortable with the grey in the middle, and tension between powerful ideas. It takes being willing to be wrong. It takes vulnerability and compassion, but also implacable determination to not be deceived. I believe in reality, but the reality I believe in takes constant, active work and interpretation to make it one worth living in. So let's all saddle up: the republic, our fellow citizens, and reality itself demand it.

Opioids and the Golden Triangle

I think something that has really intrigued me this year and this class has been revolving around opioids. President Trump decided to focus on the opioid crisis. Opioids usage has been an issue in America. As we learned in class, it can be over prescribed and be sold/ put in the wrong hands. As I looked up just now, over 52,000 deaths annually are related to an overdose of opioids. But not only that, but a group did their background report on the Golden Triangle. I never realized a huge sum of our opioids are coming from the Golden Triangle in southeast Asia. And also how sketchy/illegal this business is.

The reason I am so intrigued by the talk of opioids is because I'm doing my nursing clinical rotations at the Veteran's hospital here in Minneapolis. I've talked to a lot of vets who served in the Vietnam war (same place as that golden triangle) and used heroine in Vietnam. They returned back to America, a country who did not accept or take care of them, with crippling mental health issues and a new found addiction to opioids. The VA offers this opioid program helping veterans with their addiction and possibly titrating them off opioids. In addition, I've had dozens of patients who use hydrocodone or oxycodone around the clock for pain. 

Opioids are serious business. As a future health care provider, potentially working with veterans in the future, it is important to remember the drawbacks to using opioids. Sure, it is beneficial to patients with cancer, but overall, we need to evaluate how critical opioids are. Are there other pain medications we can prescribe to patients? What about integrative health options like essential oils? How can we better take care of our veterans when they return home from war so we don't have a huge sum of vets with opioid addicitions? 

Question Everything

My take away message of this course is to question the validity and the limitations of information that is presented to us. One of the major topics that we considered during this course was the idea that our understanding of reality comes from an episteme. More specifically, the area of epistemology that interests me the most of this course is the idea that scientific facts are considered valid because they are "scientific". The example that I would like to use comes from one of the poster presentations. One of the groups presented a study that analyzed the contents of a water sample. At first, I was shocked by the results of the findings. That was until I realized that the concentration of the drugs found in the water was very small in comparison to the concentration that is needed to create some medicinal effect. Another argument was that small amounts of these drugs can over time produce changes in our bodies over time with the example of a hormone when found in small concentration can cause disorders of the uterus. This also seemed shocking, but we did not consider that different amounts of each drug can produce drastically different effects in the body. My counterexample would be ibuprofen and diphenhydramine. A typical dose of ibuprofen is around 200mg whereas a typical dose of diphenhydramine is 25mg. Both doses will create some medicinal effect, but different amount of each drug is needed. This is because the therapeutic dose and the lethal dose of drugs can vary greatly. When scientific information is presented to us, it is important to consider the evidence based on the methods used. We sometimes think that scientific evidence is inherently true. It also seemed that we were scared of having impure water to be hazardous, but my counterexample to that would be fluorinated water that we all drink in Minnesota. So my take away from this class is to question the validity of information that is presented to us and to also try to map out a thought process to make sense of the world we live in.

How do I shape my identity?

For this blog, I’m going talk about the many things that can influence or construct our identities that I didn’t really consider in the same way before this class. I think just about every unit ties in to our desires, how others view us, and how we view ourselves. From addiction, to the biological and cultural aspects of mental illness, to technology and digital media, to food, to corporate control and consumerism, I never thought about how much these things impact who we are and how we live.

Something I found very interesting and most terrifying is how companies can collect data on us online from what we share and do online. I think the internet shapes who we are in a lot of different ways. It can be used as a marketing took to target consumers, use data to target a certain population to think a certain way, but can also just change the way we think by how we can also freely use it to access information. The more we learn, think, and hear different ideas (hopefully accurate information) we are forming new views and beliefs about the world. This 100% changes who we are and how we think. This can be seen in Economix (one of my favorite texts of the course). You can't explain economics without a history, social, political, and cultural background.

The biggest thing I will take from this class is probably a greater awareness of how we are targeted as consumers and as a product and how through this process are identity is being changed or targeted. I’ve already become way more investigative and aware of the information I share online and who has access to it. As I grow up, I think I will more easily be able to recognize how different marketing schemes are used to get me to buy, use, and believe a certain thing/way.

All in all, you’ve convinced me! Science, politics, and culture are extremely important in many ways and are constantly interconnected. Can they act separately? Yes, but do they more often act together and on each other? Maybe... most definitely.

My Take as a Questioner about Reality

The largest takeaway from this class has truly been an eye-opening reminder to take steps back from the reality we're engaged in OFTEN. While this might be considered something very obvious and assumed that we all do, I'm afraid many of us (myself included) just don't, frankly. "Eye opening" in that we've seen time and time again through the countless examples and illustrations we've explored that there are both morsels of truth and falsity in every single one of them and that when it comes down to it, we each hold an individual responsibility to take everything with a grain of salt and make what we will of it.

The poem by Wallace Stevens that Dr. Robin read for us last week completely captivated me. For me, it didn't tie up loose ends for me, but instead showed that all those loose ends are connected by the same question of how and whether we should question reality. This poem, along with everything we've learned thus far in the course equipped me with a perpetual tool that I can and will use to help me navigate through my life and the way I perceive it.

I wonder, have I lived a skeleton's life,
As a questioner about reality,

A countryman of all the bones in the world?
Now, here, the warmth I had forgotten becomes

Part of the major reality, part of
An appreciation of a reality;

And thus an elevation, as if I lived
With something I could touch, touch every way.

The poem bears the question of whether, questioners of reality are mere skeletons—not actually experiencing the substance of our lives and are instead too focused on doubting it, maybe taking it too slowly for how fast it moves.

I like to think that one of our greatest gifts and abilities as humans is the ability to question—to think for ourselves. At any given point I think there is a binary at work: the external reality imposed upon us without much realization, if any, and the fuzzy reality we determine ourselves. A lot of times, in various contexts, both realities can look identical, thus reinforcing the fuzzy existence of that second self-constructed reality. This happens because as impressionable beings, we adopt and adapt to our predominant culture, surroundings, and modes of existence. TO QUESTION is to give power to ourselves in breaking from an external reality, giving us power to determine our own reality and making something meaningful and authentic for ourselves—to actualize and nurture individuality that is often lost in heavy, subconscious participation in an overbearing system of hybrids and oversimplifications, likewise, over-complications of things in our lives. I think the key is to strike a balance so as to not question to the point that every day feels like an existential crisis, but also giving yourself room to have unexplainable things happen and room to process it peacefully.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"

 I hate when people discuss gun control and defend the NRA "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well, cars don't kill people yet tens of thousands die in car accidents every year. There would be even more people dying on the road if we didn't have regulations like seat belts, no texting and driving, and no drinking and driving. You have to go to drivers education classes and pass a written and physical driving exam. So, why don't we have more regulation for who can access a gun?

I really enjoyed the section Robin read to us in class from Bruno Latour:

"You are different with a gun in hand; the gun is different with you holding it. You are another subject because you hold the gun; the gun is another object because it has entered into a relationship with you, The gun is no longer the gun-in-the-armory or the gun-in-the-drawer or the gun-in-the-pocket, but the gun-in-your-hand, aimed at someone who is screaming."

I think this really encapsulates the argument I, and many other liberals, are trying to make. Guns in the drawer/armory/pocket do not kill people, but guns in the hand of someone do.

"A good citizen becomes a criminal, a bad guy becomes a worse guy; a silent gun becomes a fired gun, a new gun becomes a used gun, a sporting gun becomes a weapon... neither subject nor object (nor their goals) is fixed."

Today's social and political positions scare me, if I'm being honest. I think as Americans, it's great to have free speech and free thinking. I think it's important to have more than one party, differing opinions, etc because that is how we keep our individuality and avoid a totalitarian state. But how do we balance the right to have an opinion and something as controversial as gun control? In my mind, it is hard for me to see how an issue resulting with innocent deaths could be controversial, but I know a lot of people really value their freedom to own a gun. I think increased regulation is a simple and effective solution. Obviously there will still be criminals and it would be naive of me to think gun regulation would get rid of crime. However, the school shootings in the past few decades should not have occurred, but they did because we are allowing people who shouldn't have guns, to have guns.  America is so concerned with being "free" that we are prioritizing the freedom of gun owners over the freedom of children going to school every day.

What I take away from this is a more philosophical perspective of the gun control issue. Today the argument seems to be "People kill people" vs "Guns kill people", but the issue is so much more complex. I shared this excerpt on Facebook for that reason, I think people everywhere, on both sides of the controversy need to read this in order to deepen their understanding of what is really going on.

A New Epidemic: Internet Addiction

There were so many interesting subjects and concepts discussed in this class, and all of them were very intriguing.  But one that really stands out is the internet and it's possible addiction epidemic. On the last day of poster presentations, one group talked about how YouTube and how it's grown in popularity over the past 13 years (I believe they said it came out in 2005). The example of that woman that shot up YouTube headquarters because she was unhappy with the website (over money...? Likes??) was ridiculous and so scary but it made this problem very real. A website, a non-human entity made up of pixels and other things I don't understand, caused a woman so much rage that she felt the need to shoot innocent people and commit suicide. This could become a problem. With all the new technology and websites popping up, there are many different platforms that people are a part of that dictate how people should look and behave. You can become famous from the internet and that seems to be what everyone wants, fame. People do outrageous things to gain attention and approval from strangers, people they will probably never even see in person.

This brings about the worry for future generations. I had to severely cut down the time my son spent watching TV and playing games on my phone because I believe he was becoming addicted. He couldn't go to bed without one or the other, and at that point he had only gotten it for an hour a day! Now he gets to either watch TV OR play on my phone, never both in one day and only for 30 minutes.

This has the potential to do some serious damage in the near future. The internet is addictive and we should be aware of this problem and try to get it under control before it's too late.

Medication and Social Media

One of the topics that got my most attention is the whole medication advertising in social media and to how it can explicitly be offered to. One of the groups that presented talked about Benadryl and how it is being advertised to consumers due to its colors and the images presented. I honestly never took much noticed about the whole medication drill to how it is advertised or the reason why it made me get my attention the most to consume it. There are many types of products that are presented to consumers through social media, for example, if you are watching a youtube video you might have an ad that comes up showing you any type of product that could get your attention and possibly consume it. I never knew the reason why such ads would come up in certain videos, but thanks to classmates I know why, all of this comes down related to your interests based on what you have watched or the information that you provide in such websites. Now looking at it, social media has taken over us and how it can automatically find your interest and show you those without the need of looking for them. This can include websites such as dating websites, games, etc. Now with using one website account, it can transfer our information (info that we think it is only at our eyes to see) to others websites without us actually knowing, when we make the click to proceeding to whatever we want to go see.

This class has brought me so many concepts that have been eye-opening for me and how I see the world now. There are many things that can be talked about and so many issues that are present but don't really put much attention. I enjoyed being in this class with so many smart classmates and being talked about so many topics. Thanks to both Robin and Brendan for allowing us to hear both of you guys in presentations. It was such an honor being part of this course.

Social Media

Something that will forever intrigue me is our society’s use of social media to relay important information to the public. I think many public figures have used the likes of Twitter to tweet about their politics and preach their ideals onto their followers. I will continue to feel as though this type of technology is unprofessional, especially since we have people like the President tweeting the worst things and Kanye is back on Twitter, and he is already up to no good. Technology is something that is always developing and expanding, it’s easy for people of all ages to be subjected to the tyranny of social media. It’s also easy for young, malleable minds to be influenced by the idiotic things posted on social media by influencers such as Kanye. There is so much else to say on the topic, but this is an important point that the young minds of the future are exposed to all kinds opinions. I just hope they are creating their own and that social media doesn’t persuade younger people the wrong way.