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 Some are moderate views and others are doused in outdated, heteronormative ideals.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.
Saturday, May 5, 2018
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.
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.
Friday, May 4, 2018
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 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.
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,
As a questioner about reality,
A countryman of all the bones in the world?
Now, here, the warmth I had forgotten becomes
Now, here, the warmth I had forgotten becomes
Part of the major reality, part of
An appreciation of a reality;
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.With something I could touch, touch every way.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)