IMS 103 Assignment Blog

I think we have switched from thinking of minds as printing presses to thinking of minds as computers; I think this was a natural switch given the increase in technology. Today, printing presses are obsolete in the minds of most people (they do exist, but people don’t think about them) while computers are constantly on the minds of many people. The implications of such a switch are that people are likely to believe that their minds are like computer memory – somewhat changeable, rather than etched in stone like content from a printing press. I don’t have any scientific data to back up my claim, but I personally think that people change their minds much more in modern times than they did in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

The “mind = printing press” metaphor hides that minds can be changed. When I think of what is created with a printing press, I think of permanent intellectual property – not able to be easily changed. The metaphor highlights the ability of a mind to make mistakes when printing (remembering) something, just like when a printing press’s operator made mistakes in laying out the type, resulting in mistakes on the finished product.

The “mind = computer” metaphor highlights that people now think of their minds as machines. Matteo Ricci’s “mind palace” idea is a decent example of this. A mind palace is a structure built in the mind that helps the individual remember things by association – IE, remembering that you have soccer practice by placing a soccer ball in a room of your palace.

The printing press metaphor helped us to understand that minds are able to hold information and that minds are capable of sometimes holding wrong information (mistakes in “printing” to the mind).
the rest is coming, having technical difficulties with posting right now. 

Brain = washing machine
Depression = broken washing machine
Blue moods = scratchy radio music
Hysteria = process of archaeological dig

These metaphors have consequences of actions. In “brain = washing machine” “depression = broken washing machine,” implied is the idea that depression is something you usually can’t avoid or predict happening and it usually is not your fault. But when you’ve diagnosed the problem and fixed the machine, the machine works better; like when depression is diagnosed and treated. In “blue moods = scratchy radio music” implied is the idea that there isn’t a big problem, but that you just need to adjust your way of thinking – go from thinking positively to negatively, like turning a dial in your mind. In “hysteria = process of an archaeological dig” implied is that there’s a step-by-step process for diagnosing and realizing the causes of hysteria.

On one hand, these metaphors are helpful for explaining emotions that are normally hard to explain, but on the other, they also cloud the understanding of the underlying emotion.

 In The Three Faces of Eve, Eve, played by Joanne Woodward, is described as having an illness known as Multiple Personality Disorder. If she had been ill in Early Modern England (1500-1700), she would have been described as possessed by the devil. Read the account of a woman's possession, "A True and most dreadfull Discourse." What's the difference between thinking about a person's unusual behavior as a disease (strange actions = illness) and thinking about it as a spiritual problem (strange actions = possession)? Write about the consequences of each metaphorical equation: do we treat Eve differently than we do Margaret Cooper? do we hold them accountable in different ways? Would Ian Hacking say that the writer of "A True and Most Dreadfull Discourse" is wrong and the writer of The Three Faces of Eve is right about what truly afflicts these women? If not, why not?

The difference in thinking about a person’s unusual behavior as an illness versus thinking of it as a spiritual problem is that a person doesn’t consciously decide to be ill. Illness happens to you, you can’t control when it strikes (as I so well know!). Yet it’s more plausible to believe that a person would believe to be possessed, or believe to have a spiritual problem.

It’s hard to say how we treat Eve differently from Margaret Cooper, as we haven’t seen The Three Faces of Eve yet. However, I would say that for Eve, since she has multiple personality disorder, we would treat her as if she’s sick with something she can’t control. She can’t decide to be better – she’ll need medicine and psychiatric counseling to start recovering. For treating Margaret, it would be likely that she would be told she’s faking it, or that she just needs to decide to get over it. That’s the feeling you get when you hear “possession” or “spiritual problem,” because the patient has decided to allow herself to be affected.

Again, as we haven’t seen The Three Faces of Eve, it’s hard to say what Ian Hacking would say about truly affects Eve. I shall revist this assignment after watching the clips in class, so that I can make the most of my thoughts.

Collect from any source (conversation, print, television) uses of technological metaphors for human beings or human interactions. How might these metaphors affect the way we think and feel? How might they affect public policy? Jot down the metaphors you encounter and any thoughts you have about their effects. Bring your notes to class.

“A monkey could do this.”
This metaphor comes from when a task is so simple that people say, “A monkey could do this,” implying that the task doesn’t require much brainpower. I’ve said this in my programming classes, when the labs being done are so simple they feel like they’re killing off brain cells from drudgery, rather than making new ones. This metaphor affects people because sometimes, when a person is very good at doing what they’re referring to as monkey-capable, they give others the impression that something might be easier than it really is. As for affecting public policy, political talkers have sometimes referred to George Bush as a monkey. While I might agree with this view, I think that it doesn’t give foreign nations a good image of the US to see people referring to their President as doing such a bad job that a monkey could handle running the nation.

“He/she is a machine!”
I often tease my boyfriend and tell him he’s a programming machine. Because of where he works (Electronic Arts) it’s not uncommon for him to spend 10-12 hours a day programming. I feel that he understands things in a very technical way, whereas I understand things in a more organic way, so when I ask him for help sometimes, I feel as if his programming machine brain switched on (because of the complexity and completeness of his response). Personally, his acting like a machine can make me feel less intelligent than I am, and will often frustrate me when I don’t understand one of his explanations completely. As for affecting public policy…I don’t think this metaphor really affects public policy in any way.

“Join the Party! (become a Mac user)”
Apple uses, “join the party” as a reason for PC users to switch to Macs, telling them that they’ll become part of a large base of fanboys and fangirls, and be instantly popular for having a Mac computer. The metaphor here is that “Mac = popular.” For someone that doesn’t own a Mac, they often see Apple users as cliquish and devoted to praising Apple, yet if/when they make the switch, they too join the clique. Macs are often seen on TV shows and movies, thus extending the notion of them making a person popular if they own a Mac. From being a Mac owner myself, I agree that owning one makes you feel superior to a smug PC user who “won’t touch it because there’s only one button on the mouse” – people who don’t understand the full power of the Macintosh platform. I almost always get stares or comments when I use my iBook in a public place, and it’s often a conversation starter. As with the previous metaphor, I don’t think that this metaphor affects public policy. 

Usually, in ordinary speech, we metaphorically equate anger with fire or dynamite. “He just exploded with rage.” What aspects of anger are highlighted or hidden by the “anger = dynamite” metaphor? Blake offers another metaphor for anger in his poem “A Poison Tree.” What is it? What aspects of anger does Blake’s new metaphor highlight or hide? If Blake’s metaphor informed are ordinary language, what kinds of sentences would we ordinarily say? Write a few.

Aspects of anger that are highlighted by the “anger = dynamite” metaphor that anger is instantaneous, destructive, and anger is expressed via brute force.

Blake expresses anger as a tree in his poem. Anger as a tree is passive, grows much more slowly than anger as dynamite, it’s more possible to control the anger. Blake suggests that anger has to be cultivated to grow. I know I’ve “cultivated” my anger when I hold grudges.

Ordinary sentences we would say if Blake’s anger as a tree metaphor were ordinary language:

• My anger is blossoming.
• My anger is growing.
• My anger is cold.

How must you redefine the word "technology" if, like Goody, you see writing as a technology? (You'll need to expand the dictionary definition!) Do you agree that the definition of "technology" should be expanded to include writing and/or other means for thinking, or do you see new technologies as new gadgets only? Can you imagine a circumstance, perhaps when you are thinking through a problem or trying to decide what road to take in your life, that might make you want to rely upon this expanded definition?

Well, let’s start with the some dictionary definitions (from dictionary.com):

Main Entry: tech·nol·o·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -gies
1 : the science of the application of knowledge to practical purposes : applied science
2 : a scientific method of achieving a practical purpose —tech·no·log·i·cal /"tek-n&-'läj-i-k&l/ also tech·no·log·ic /-ik/ adjective

<jargon definition> Marketing term for “software”, “hardware”, “protocol” or something else that’s too technical to name or explain.

I think that the jargon definition (second) is the one most people think of these days, rather than the more correct definition (first). I see and hear many people using “technology” to describe something they don’t understand. I believe that’s the wrong way to use the word.

I do see writing as a technology. Writing is something that has evolved over centuries and is still evolving today. Writing is used to solve problems, to communicate, to entertain…many of the same things that today’s technological gadgets are used for. I also see reading as a technology, because reading is used for the same things writing is: solving problems, communication, and entertainment.

I think the word “technology” must be redefined as: “applying knowledge to practical purposes, communication or entertainment.”

I have a pretty good example of using this refined definition – I’ve been using writing to communicate with department heads, professors, game industry professionals, friends, and family to get advice on exactly what route to use to be able to achieve my dream of working in the gaming industry. Writing emails is often my only way to communicate with people on the other coast, because they’re more convenient than phone calls.

1) In Anne Sexton’s poem, “Cinderella,” are the images of what happens when Cinderella wishes for things good images of desirable events? (Remember to notice any scatological imagery).

In stanza 5: “Whenever she wishes for anything the dove / would drop it like an egg upon the ground.”

In stanza 7: “The bird dropped down a golden dress / and delicate little slippers. / Rather a large package for a simple bird.”

In stanza 9: “and the white dove picked their eyes out. / Two hollow spots were left / like soup spoons.”

The descriptions of what the dove does/gives Cinderella don’t make good pictures in the reader’s mind, I believe. I think the quote from stanza 7 is another scatological comparison: “rather a large package.”

2) Is the image of what happens to Cinderella after she marries the Prince, the image of their lives together that appears in the last short stanza – is that a good image, a picture of a state to be desired? (Would you want to end up that way?) What’s wrong with this picture of “living happily ever after?”

I don’t believe that Sexton’s image of “happily ever after” is a good image. To me, the tone is very negative – Cinderella might have found her dream man, but they don’t do anything. It’s as if their lives are static after they met each other – “like two dolls in a museum case” and “their darling smile pasted on for eternity” fit here.

To me, this is not an outcome to be desired. I want my life to continue after I marry, not be stuck at the moment of happiness.

3) Do you think women and men today slice off parts of their bodies to fit into “Cinderella’s shoe?”

Yes, I most certainly do think that women and men try to change their bodies and personalities to be “something” that another person is searching for. Cosmetic surgery is a great example of this – many women get breast implants because they believe it will make them more desirable to men, and thus more likely of meeting their “prince charming.”

I think men do this more in a mental than physical sense, as they’ll try often to impress women by saying they are managers or executives where they work, when they’re really just grunts.

4) How do advertisers convince people that they should buy things, according to Sut Jhally?

“Fundamentally, advertising talks to us as individuals and addresses us about how we can become happy. The answers it provides are all oriented to the marketplace, through the purchases of goods and services.”

5) What is the commodity-image system that Jhally describes in his article?

The commodity-image system is advertisers using “representations of people who ‘stand for’ reigning social values such as family structure, status differentiation, and hierarchical authority (2).”

“The image-system of the marketplace reflects our desires and dreams, yet we have only the pleasure of the images to sustain us in our actual experiences with the goods (3)”.

“In short, the advertising image-system constantly propels us toward things as means to satisfaction. In the sense that every ad says it is better to buy than not to buy, we can best regard advertising as a propaganda system for commodities (4).”

I chose 4 box covers from video games and 1 Victoria’s Secret ad that present an exaggerated ideal of how women should look. Each girl pictured has a terrific body, big breasts (especially Lara Croft), long hair, and tan skin. The games I picked, Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball, Dead or Alive 4, Final Fantasy X-2, and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, are popular with males. Victoria’s Secret catalogs are popular with male adolescents who can’t buy Playboy or Maxim.

What expectations regulating people’s behavior or ideas informing their tastes do these ads convey?

I think the game ads portray women as sexual objects – they are designed to be sexy and appealing to men, to entice males into buying the game. The Victoria’s Secret ad is also geared towards males, to encourage them to buy sexy lingerie for their girlfriends/wives. These ads aren’t made to appeal to women, because traditionally, women aren’t the ones buying these types of items. Advertising like these ads show what advertisers think of male and female buying habits.

Do these expectations or ideas affect people’s sense of self – that is, of who they are?

I believe that images like these can affect a woman’s sense of self, because they’re a continual reminder of what many males think is sexy. An interesting question here is to wonder if males would find images of scantily clad women sexy if such images weren’t marketed to them as something that a guy should see as sexy. I’ve heard of homosexual males saying that they felt odd when growing up, because they didn’t find images like these sexy, when they were told by media/advertising that they should.

            At some time in their life, every person comes to realize that they are unique from everyone else. For some people, it’s a just something they come to see as a benefit; but for other people, especially a character like Frankenstein’s monster, it’s a hideous understanding.

          Shelley’s monster comes to the realization that he is different from all others from his first minute alive – Victor runs away in fear from what he has created, leaving the poor monster to fend for himself. The monster knows instinctively that he is different from every other human being; yet his interactions with other people and reading classical books also hammer the point home. The monster says, “I cannot describe to you the agony that these reflections inflicted upon me; I tried to dispel them, but sorrow only increased with knowledge. Oh, that I had forever remained in my native wood, nor known nor felt beyond the sensations of hunger, thirst, and heat! (101, Shelley)” In part, the monster feels uniquely differently from all individuals because he was created with technology; yet, his use of technologies (reading, talking) also contribute to his sense of difference as they’re just another way for him to see how he is different.

          I believe that reading books and viewing movies/television can contribute to making people feel different and excluded from others. I think that a great example of this is the Hollywood stereotype for women – all the pretty girls are super skinny, blonde, tan, etc. A lot of normal young teenage girls feel that they are unattractive or don’t fit in because they don’t meet this stereotype that’s been popularized by media; and a number of them even develop eating disorders and low self-esteem.

          In Great Expectations, the first evidence of Pip’s self-awareness comes when, “My first vivid and broad impression of the identity of things, seems to me to have been gained on a memorable raw afternoon towards evening” (Chapter 1, Dickens). Dickens goes on to describe Pip’s situation – his parents are dead and buried as are his infant brothers, “the distant savage lair from which the wind was rushing was the sea, and that small bundle of shivers growing afraid of it all and beginning to cry, was Pip (Chapter 1, Dickens).” It’s at this time that Pip meets Magwitch the convict. Near the end of the excerpt, the convict says, “You’d be but a fierce young hound indeed, if at your time of life you could help to hunt a wretched varmint, hunted as near death and dunghill as this poor wretched varmint is! (Chapter 3, Dickens)” Part of Pip’s awareness is his want to help others and see the best in others no matter what their situation; and the convict’s comment sums this up perfectly.

I don’t think that Pip’s moment of self awareness is comparable to that of Frankenstein’s monster. The monster is utterly inhuman, without any other being like him in the world. Pip is a human, albeit an orphaned one and many others share his fate.

The website for my project: clicky