Gerald Graff

In "Hidden Intellectualism", Gerald Graff argues that being street smart is just as important as being academically smart, if not, more. Graff states, “I believe that street smarts beat out book smarts in our culture not because they satisfy an intellectual thirst more thoroughly than school culture, which seems pale and unreal.” Being street smart gives individuals infinite amount of opportunities to learn anything that sparks interest to them and the information they learn have practical applications in life. On the other hand, the information students learn in school is limited to the curriculum given by the school or teacher. The syllabus is stated clearly and strictly with no room for adjustments. If students are uninterested in what is on the syllabus, they will have little motivation to work hard. Also, what is taught in school typically does not have practical applications in the real world.

           

            Graff uses personal experience to support his claim. He writes how reading and arguing about sports, which is something he is interested in, taught him to create solid arguments that is backed with evidence and support. By using his personal experience to support the thesis, he becomes a somewhat credible author. It is true that if people argue with others more often, they will naturally become better at arguing. This goes with any skills; the more you practice, the better you get. However, I doubt that reading sports magazine provided Graff with knowledge of creating concrete arguments.

Graff also advocates for teachers to allow students to write academic reports on magazines but he does not take in consideration the fact that magazines are simply written for entertainment; there are no intellectual values to them. Of course magazines can teach readers how to become more fit or stylish or even wealthy but they do not provide readers with deeper knowledge. Knowledge that can be found in books such as teaching readers to think for themselves or to search for their meanings in life are not found in magazines. Also, the stories in books have many interpretations to them and every reader can come up with their own meaning whereas magazine articles are straight-forward and concise and do not give room for interpretation.

I do agree with Graff’s point that students should be allowed to read stuff that they are fascinated by. However, that does not mean they should do academic reports on magazines and stop reading books altogether. Students should still read books but be given permission to select books from a genre they enjoy or a book that completely captivates them. 

Orenstein and Pinker

            In Peggy Orenstein’s essay "I Tweet, Therefore I am", she theorizes that social media causes individuals to lose their identity. People are becoming more invested in their social profile and they are able to manipulate the way others perceive them by carefully selecting the photos and statuses they share with others. This nitpicking process turn the person into her ideal self but in the end, she is just deceiving herself and the people around her. This obsession with hiding behind a façade of perfection leads people to being unable to gain a conception of who they really are. Orenstein was able to use the rhetoric of ethos, or credibility. Orenstein can be trusted because she explains her own personal experience with social media. She also referenced the sociologist Erving Goffman who argued that in every aspect of our life, we are all just actors in a play. I do agree with Orenstein to an extent; social media makes it easier for people to be ‘fake’ as people are basically hiding behind their computer screen and not thinking of the consequences to their actions. However, even before social media, we have always been actors in our everyday interactions. It is difficult to achieve self-awareness and many people go through life wondering who they really are.

            In "Mind Over Mass Media", Steven Pinker argues that technology is not making society dumber but rather, it is the only thing keeping society smart. Pinker believes that technology provides people with quick and accessible information with the touch of a finger. Books are no longer perceived as necessary since technology is much more convenient and not as heavy.

Pinker attempts to use logic in his essay but ultimately, fails. For example, Pinker writes, “These days scientists are never far from their e-mail, rarely touch paper and cannot lecture without PowerPoint…discoveries are multiplying like fruit flies…philosophy, history, and cultural criticism, are likewise flourishing.” Pinker mentions that scientists are relying on technology more but it seems as though the reason scientists use technology is for conveniency. E-mail makes it convenient for scientist to stay in contact with other scientists and PowerPoints makes it convenient for scientists to convey their ideas but none of the applications used are actually making the scientist ‘smarter’ or influencing the rate of discoveries. There may a positive correlation between scientists using technology more and the number of discoveries but correlation does not mean causation. Technology is simply making communication easier and allowing scientists to share their ideas amongst each other at a more advantageous pace. Pinker then states ‘examples’ of how technology is making society smarter yet his examples are so broad and generalized, it hard to agree with his argument. He only states that technology is making people smart but does not go in-depth with specific examples of how. He does not give readers specific cases in which technology has helped science, philosophy, history ‘flourish’.

            I do not agree with Pinker’s thesis. I do not believe that technology is the only thing keeping us smart. Technology is not making us dumber or smarter, it is just making information more accessible to us and it is whether or not we use the information to become smarter or misuse it and become dumber. But, that is on the individual and is the individual’s responsibility, not technology’s. Also, before technology, people were able to obtain knowledge from books and modern society still has the opportunity to do so. One part of Pinker’s thesis that I do agree with is that the individual should develop self-control strategies to not let technology dominate their lives.  

The Food Dilemma

David Zinczenko is having lunch at the Hunter cafeteria preparing to give a presentation to the student body. Radley Balko is sitting a table by himself. Zinczenko approaches Balko and asks if he can sit down.

Z: Excuse me, is the seat next to you free?

B: Yes. Please help yourself.

Z: Thank you! Can you believe how crowded this place is?

B: Trust me, it was worse before. I can’t wait for my presentation later this afternoon. I heard that I’m going to be speaking against some loser who thinks that the government is making us fat. Ha! Can you believe that? I bet he’s just some obese and lazy sloth who just wants to freeload off the rest of us hardworking citizens.

Z: Well. Why do you feel that way? Maybe, the ‘loser’ has some point in his argument? How can people choose to eat better when they don’t have options in the first place? I remember growing up, my mother was a divorcee and she worked long-hours just so we could pay the monthly bills. My mom couldn’t afford to feed me healthy food, as it is more expensive. McDonalds, on the other hand, was convenient and inexpensive.

B: You always a choice. What you put in your mouth is your decision. The government does not force fatty food down your throat, you do. Why should the rest of us have to help those people who have no self control over their diet when we need the money ourselves? It’s not fair for people who actually try to eat and maintain a healthy lifestyle to have to pay for the harebrained decisions of others!

Z: How can I have a choice if I can’t afford any other food? Should I just starve myself then since I can’t eat fast food, which just so happens to be my only option? Yes, it may not seem fair that society is becoming more socialistic but it’s not always about you. If you actually have a choice to eat healthy, that would mean that you can afford healthy food and if you can do that, can’t you spare a few extra dollars a month to help those who can’t? Have you ever realized that these people are not as fortunate as you are and don't actually have the ability to choose healthy food over fast food? It is the government's fault for not being able to provide healthy alternatives for struggling families. Also, you do realize that the ‘healthy’ food that is available is also filled with chemicals and is barely a step up from fast food. Well, I’ve got to be going now. I look forward to continuing our conversation this afternoon. By the way, do you even lift?

Zinczenko leaves a speechless Balko sitting in the packed student cafeteria.

Thesis: What an individual eats is definitely their decision and they should take responsibility for what they put in their mouths. However, the individual who enjoys eating fast food cannot be held entirely in blame since the fast-food corporations created this addictive and fatty food with the desire of captivating people with their chemicals. Also, some people don’t necessarily have the resources to go out and buy ‘healthy’ alternatives since organic foods are more expensive and harder to obtain. The government should intervene by providing actual healthy alternatives that is within budget and to stop the use of pesticides and hormones, which people then ingest into their bodies. Both authors make valid arguments however, exercise should also be put in consideration. Those who can only afford fast food can hit the gym and still maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Vacancy - Extra Credit Dialogue

As I was on the train, heading home from a tiresome day at school, I overheard a small exchange between two people. This short conversation would have been inconsequential to others nearby but it inspired me. 

"Excuse me, is this seat taken?", asked a tall, slim middle-aged man wearing a blue sweatshirt that seemed a size too big.
"Yes, it's taken," replies the young woman wearing a similarly over-sized sweatshirt, but in black. 

To others on the train, this conservation would have been a normal occurrence; a person simply looking for a seat. However, it was not the question that intrigued me, it was the answer. The man got off the train after a few stops and soon after, the woman got off as well. During the train ride to destinations, no one sat down next to the woman; the seat was left vacant the whole time until she arrived at her destination. I started reflecting on the conversation and behavior I had just witnessed on a grander scale. 

The conversation reminded me of how protected everyone is. We are afraid to let people in; in fear that they will only do harm to us and cause us pain. The woman was not only afraid to let the man sit next to her, but to have someone so close to her. We stay enclosed, not allowing others to see our vulnerability. 

This dialogue taught me that the best kinds of kind of dialogues can be simple. They can be short, simple and direct. The dialogue must in the way provide readers with information not otherwise stated. However, a dialogue should also have an underlying message and readers should be given the ability to reflect upon the dialogue and interpret it their way. A good dialogue, as good description, should give readers part of the story but leave readers filling in the rest themselves. 

Shooting an Elephant - George Orwell

*Due Monday, September 23*

            After reading Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, I thought about the idea of status and role. Orwell’s status in the little village in Burma was that of an imperial officer, and being of this status, Orwell was naturally associated with the British Empire, forcing the villagers to be belligerent towards him. Ascribed to his status as imperial officer, Orwell’s role was to enforce the rules and to maintain dominance and superiority over the villagers. When it was up to Orwell to shoot the elephant, it was his opportunity to demonstrate his status as superior. Orwell’s decision was well made; even though, he had to shoot an overall harmless animal and possibly worsen the financial situation of the owner, if Orwell did not shoot the animal, the villagers would have viewed Orwell and his fellow officers as weak and see through their façade. Villagers will realize the officers are not actually superior and this may spark rebellion. By shooting the elephant, Orwell was able to maintain his status and role as an imperial officer.

            Orwell’s narrative made use of many forms of figurative language, such as similes and metaphors and he also incorporated descriptive words relating to the five senses. Orwell uses a simile when describing the condition of the Indian’s back: “The friction of the great beast’s foot had stripped the skin from his back as neatly as one skins a rabbit.” Not only does Orwell incorporate a simile into this sentence by comparing the bare back of the man to that of a shaved rabbit, he also provides imagery and sensory words. Readers can picture the forcibly removed skin of the man’s back and can feel the pain the man must have felt prior to his death. Orwell continues to advance towards the elephant and spots the elephant eating grass. Orwell metaphorically compares the mood around the elephant to being grandmotherly: “I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have.” After the elephant’s rampage ended, the air or mood occupying the elephant becomes befitting of a grandmother; it is now calm, protective and harmless. After shooting the elephant, Orwell describes the flow of the elephant’s blood as, “The thick blood welled out of him like red velvet.” Orwell uses a simile to compare the elephant’s blood to red velvet, which is also descriptive. It portrays to the readers an image of the elephant’s fresh and velvety red blood flowing out of its body. Orwell utilizes metaphor, similes and description to fully share his experience with readers.

            Orwell places emphasis on the fact that he does not desire to shoot the animal but as previously stated, Orwell has a status and reputation to uphold. He currently has the reputation as a brutal, dominating, imperial officer and in order to uphold this reputation, he has no choice but to shoot the elephant. Not only did his status impact his decision, but the fact that there was a crowd of over two thousand Burmese villagers surrounding him, all wanting him to shoot the elephant made it difficult for him to escape crowd pressure.

            Imperialism is the act of dominating another country’s affair and economy through diplomacy or military force. Orwell makes it clear that he dislikes imperialism and the features of imperialism by stating, “I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing.” Orwell uses the anecdote of shooting an elephant to demonstrate his view on imperialism. Orwell is adamantly against shooting the elephant but due to extenuating circumstances, he has no choice but to kill, or dominate, the animal. Orwell’s shooting the elephant shows his dominance over the animal as the animal’s life is in his hands similar to how British imperialist have dominance and control over the Burmese and their daily lives. Orwell’s internal unwillingness to shoot the animal reveals his disapproval of imperialism as he does not believe in the idea of domination. 

My Sanctuary - Descriptive

Entering this place is as though you have just stepped through the secret wardrobe. Once in, you are transported to a magical land of fluorescent lighting and fresh air immediately greets your body. As you venture through, you will notice the scattered gears of imagination at work. You will also notice the crackling sounds of pages turning, squeaking of chairs being pulled and pushed, and laughter of young children stomping up and down the stairs. Amidst all these noise and chaos, there is a certain silence. A silence of your own. 

Soon enough, you have gotten through the wild sea and picked a peaceful island of your own. As you clumsily pull out your chair, so you would not obliterate the silence of others haven, you realize that does not matter. For they are on their own enclaves are far away and no outside intrusion will dispel them.

You finally sit down on the hard, wooden seat, knowing that many before you have sat there as well as they float on to their own shelters. You gently snatch out that favorite book of yours that you have kept hidden in the secret compartment of your bag. You quickly turn to the page which your bookmark has saved for you, not wanting to waste any precious time. You look once more into those clear, fluorescent bulbs, letting the light shine on your face as you prepare yourself for your journey. You are now ready to dive into your book, your island, your sanctuary. 

This is my sanctuary. The place I can go to escape reality even, if it's just for an infinitesimal amount of time out of my hectic day. This is my library. 

Back to the Lake (Chapter 4) Writing Prompt

*Due Monday, September 16*
Option 1

A good narrative entails a purpose, or the reason why the narrative was written. Through the purpose of a narrative, readers are able to gain insight into the author’s mind and it also allows the author to reflect upon his own experiences and understand himself better. Along with having a purpose, a good narrative should also have a plot, chronology, and a consistent point of view. Good narratives should make use of sensory words in order to engage the readers and make the story come alive.

After reading Jeff Gremmels’ narrative "The Clinic", I felt inspired as I am fascinated by the human psyche. It was interesting to see the way Gremmels handled the patient, a young boy. He chose the easy route of looking for a physiological explanation to the boy's unexplainable symptoms, ignoring the option of venturing into the human psyche. If the patient's ailment had been physiological, Gremmels could have just prescribed medication for the him. However, since the truth about the parental abuse was revealed, it was clear that the remedy would have to involve more than mere pills and cough syrup. Although anti-depressants and therapy sessions exist for victims of mental abuse, they can never be fully treated, partly due to the high chance of relapse. I find it fascinating how much harder it is to treat a psychological disorder than a bodily disorder.

As a writer, I enjoyed Gremmels' use of metaphors and descriptive language. When Gremmels writes, "The knots refused to give," in a way he was speaking for himself and the boy. The boy was pained from self-mutilation and his step-father's abuse which manifested itself in the form of a stomach-ache. As the boy endures his stay in the doctor's office, his stomach-ache which can be described as a knot in his stomach remains. In the case of Gremmels, he is nervous and worried which causes the knot in his stomach since he is unable to diagnose the boy. I also like Gremmels inclusion of the boy's poem which shows the boy's true feelings that has been kept hidden from everyone.

"The Clinic" is both Gremmels and his patient’s story. It is Gremmels story as it changes his perspective in approaching cases. Gremmels learns that rather than immediately seeking an answer, it is better to fully understand the cause of the problem. The narrative begins with Gremmels’ inexperience as a second-year medical student but as the narrative ends, it shows Gremmels’ willingness to learn. It is also the patient’s story as it reveals to readers the fear and anxieties the boy must have felt while being abused by his stepfather. It also reveals the boy’s loneliness and hopelessness; the boy was unable to tell anyone of the abuse, including his own mother and felt as though there was nothing he could do about the abuse. The poem written by the boy further reveals his sense of hopelessness and shows how depressed and defeated the boy was.     

Gremmels purpose for writing this narrative was to demonstrate that no matter how much you learn from lectures and textbooks, those terms and definitions are not always practical in dealing with actual patients. Gremmels reveals his purpose in his last line, “Years of lectures, labs, and research could not match the education I received in five days with this single boy.” It does not matter how well a person performs on exams, it is the person’s approach to client’s cases that matter. The person must also be open to learning from their patients and learning from their mistakes.

Gremmels chose medical detective as the genre for his story since being a doctor is similar to being a detective. The doctor, like the detective, has a case to solve and to solve the case, they must gather clues ranging from visible clues such as the U-umlaut bruises on the boy’s body or verbal clues such as the information provided by the boy’s mother. The doctor and detective then compiled the clues they have obtained and examine them and thought difficulty, are able to come up with a solution. Since this is in the case of a doctor, it would be make sense to place the story in a medical detective genre.