Okay. So I'm pretty good at creative writing. I'm not going to lie. But am I good at research writing? I probably could be if I felt like it.
Ow. That sounds really bad... So what, I'll leave it.
Anyways, let's go through the sources I chose and see if they're really okay or not. The 2008 article may be from 2008, but that doesn't mean it's like, bad. In fact, I see it's datedness as a helpful glimpse into a time when the internet was young and the relationship between comedy and identity was only beginning to really sprout. It gets really in depth about not only the celebrity response to the writer's strike, but internet humor as a whole. I didn't really focus on its statements about internet humor as a whole in my critical review. That's kind of a big miss. Whoops.
The TEDx video serves as an interesting addition because it provides a distinct definition of how humor is created, while still stating that humor works on a individual basis as a verbal asterick. This was a great source to use in my opinion because it provides a nice starting point for my analyses of humor as it relates to identity.
The third source I used, the Wall Street Journal essay, was a little different in its message. It was much more opinionated and actually made an argument as opposed to explaining a phemonmena. I thought it would be a good idea to include this source because it makes inferences based on literal science about the effect humor has on people. In the video I talk about how it relates to me specifically but I forgot to mention how internet humor is increasingly becoming a part of social identity, possibly even out of dare I say: necessity!!
If you couldn't tell earlier, I don't like boring writing, so I was very happy with the feedback that my neighbors wanted to keep reading. They also stated that my strength is in the way I argue my points. However, because this is "research writing" I was told that my summaries of my sources were dispropportionatly weaker than my critical responses to them. I don't want people to be confused about what I'm even responding to, so I have to make sure to be more thorough with my summaries so as to not jump the gun.
*Unit 1*
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
2/18 Comedy and Health and Easy Mac Oh MY!!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304256404579449180386537694 If you wanna see the article.
*Unit 1*
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
2/9 THE TIMES OF 2008!!!?!?
So I read this NY Times article titled "Sidelined by Strike, Comedy goes Online" by Dave Itzkoff.
This article is from freaking 2008. Why so old? Well there was a major Writers’ Guild strike so television was really sucking. Then all of a sudden, these actors and entertainers are making their own web content and posting their work online. The article records this phenomenon and provides examples as well.
I can barely remember the internet in 2008. However, I remember what is wasn’t. “Youtubers” definitely didn’t have the same societal standing they do now, if they existed at all. That’s why this article is interesting in its relation to the internet, humor, and identity.
When the celebrities took to the web to express themselves during the strike, producing content while TV production was suspended, they demonstrated that the internet could be used as a tool for the branding of the self. Having three friends who have created their own comedy web series, it is interesting to me how simple comedy has become to pull off on the internet. The content is exposed to such a wide audience; someone is bound to enjoy it. And because everyone is capable of humor under the right circumstances, the massive community that is the internet is becoming increasingly aware that every human is capable of doing funny things, both intentional and unintentional: and that’s pretty dope.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/arts/television/10itzk.html?_r=0 Dis link.
*Unit 1*
This article is from freaking 2008. Why so old? Well there was a major Writers’ Guild strike so television was really sucking. Then all of a sudden, these actors and entertainers are making their own web content and posting their work online. The article records this phenomenon and provides examples as well.
I can barely remember the internet in 2008. However, I remember what is wasn’t. “Youtubers” definitely didn’t have the same societal standing they do now, if they existed at all. That’s why this article is interesting in its relation to the internet, humor, and identity.
When the celebrities took to the web to express themselves during the strike, producing content while TV production was suspended, they demonstrated that the internet could be used as a tool for the branding of the self. Having three friends who have created their own comedy web series, it is interesting to me how simple comedy has become to pull off on the internet. The content is exposed to such a wide audience; someone is bound to enjoy it. And because everyone is capable of humor under the right circumstances, the massive community that is the internet is becoming increasingly aware that every human is capable of doing funny things, both intentional and unintentional: and that’s pretty dope.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/arts/television/10itzk.html?_r=0 Dis link.
*Unit 1*
2/9 TED LEARNS HOW TO TALK WOW!
Ok so I watched this TEDx video that talked about why things are funny lol. The dude in the video's name is Peter Macgraw and he works for HURL (The Humor Research Lab). He basically states that humor is created by “benign violations”. What did he mean by that? Well he stated that everything that is humorous is a violation of some kind, and by “violation” I’m pretty sure he means a violation of what is expected.
He also stated that these violations must be benign. If the humor is too extreme, it might not be seen as humorous. The opposite is also true. If there seems to be no violation then everything seems to be in order, and the joke falls flat.
Lastly, the dude concludes his argument by stating that everybody is funny under the correct circumstances. What you see as an extreme violation, I might laugh at because I see it at a benign violation, while someone else might see it as simply benign.
I actually agree a lot with this TED talk. I’ve never thought of humor this way before, but when I think of every time I’ve made someone laugh, I was always violating an expectation in an endearing way. I also like how the fact that humor is subjective was included in the TED talk. Different people laugh at different things so audience is important. This explains why I present myself the way I do on Facebook. It explains why 90 percent of my profile pictures are deliberately unflattering. It explains why I prefer typing “HEEERBERT BRUTHDYYYY!!!” instead of “Happy Birthday!” on the walls of my friends. Interesting stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSgG5V-R3U There's a link fer ya.
*Unit 1*
He also stated that these violations must be benign. If the humor is too extreme, it might not be seen as humorous. The opposite is also true. If there seems to be no violation then everything seems to be in order, and the joke falls flat.
Lastly, the dude concludes his argument by stating that everybody is funny under the correct circumstances. What you see as an extreme violation, I might laugh at because I see it at a benign violation, while someone else might see it as simply benign.
I actually agree a lot with this TED talk. I’ve never thought of humor this way before, but when I think of every time I’ve made someone laugh, I was always violating an expectation in an endearing way. I also like how the fact that humor is subjective was included in the TED talk. Different people laugh at different things so audience is important. This explains why I present myself the way I do on Facebook. It explains why 90 percent of my profile pictures are deliberately unflattering. It explains why I prefer typing “HEEERBERT BRUTHDYYYY!!!” instead of “Happy Birthday!” on the walls of my friends. Interesting stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSgG5V-R3U There's a link fer ya.
*Unit 1*
2/9 TEARING DOWN TURKLE
“We live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection” – Shelly Turkle
OK hun. First of all, you’re writing in the opinion section of the Sunday Review so I’m not really expecting you to look on all sides to begin with. You claim that the little devices we have don’t only change what we do but who we are. Yes. That is true. But so did the big devices as well. That is the very nature of technology. It changes what we do, making life more convenient. However Turkle, you claim that we sacrifice too much for this convenience. I’m intrigued.
Next Turkle talks about the customization of our involvement in “real life” in which we can “log out” of real life by checking Facebook. She talks about the “tribe of one” that everyone is choosing to become as a result. That’s not a bad thing at all! If anything, the way people use technology should inspire them to share with the world! That’s what it inspires me to do at least!
But Turkle isn’t really talking about me. She is talking about the people who only consume technology and make no contributions to the Web. For the ones who are contributing, be it art or writing or videos, technology is very much an extension of real life. The original work that we are capable of sharing on allows us to connect to so many new people and that’s wonderful. It is unfortunate that Turkle only has the balls to bash connection as a negative. It’s not.
I do agree with the idea that connection can’t replace a real face-to-face interaction. Technology hasn’t gotten good enough to replace the five senses all at once. Technology can’t capture the uncensored in-between moments that are what makes us human. Those who don’t realize that are simply stifling their humanity and need to go outside and talk to the person at the bus station about the weather RIGHT NOW.
Connection can provide real companionship on an arguably equal level with face-to-face conversation. But this is true only if the one trying to make the connection is not attempting to imitate a face-to-face relationship but is instead advancing one of the face-to-face relationships that they already have in their life. Technology is not the problem Turkle. It’s how people choose to use it that can cause issues.
OK hun. First of all, you’re writing in the opinion section of the Sunday Review so I’m not really expecting you to look on all sides to begin with. You claim that the little devices we have don’t only change what we do but who we are. Yes. That is true. But so did the big devices as well. That is the very nature of technology. It changes what we do, making life more convenient. However Turkle, you claim that we sacrifice too much for this convenience. I’m intrigued.
Next Turkle talks about the customization of our involvement in “real life” in which we can “log out” of real life by checking Facebook. She talks about the “tribe of one” that everyone is choosing to become as a result. That’s not a bad thing at all! If anything, the way people use technology should inspire them to share with the world! That’s what it inspires me to do at least!
But Turkle isn’t really talking about me. She is talking about the people who only consume technology and make no contributions to the Web. For the ones who are contributing, be it art or writing or videos, technology is very much an extension of real life. The original work that we are capable of sharing on allows us to connect to so many new people and that’s wonderful. It is unfortunate that Turkle only has the balls to bash connection as a negative. It’s not.
I do agree with the idea that connection can’t replace a real face-to-face interaction. Technology hasn’t gotten good enough to replace the five senses all at once. Technology can’t capture the uncensored in-between moments that are what makes us human. Those who don’t realize that are simply stifling their humanity and need to go outside and talk to the person at the bus station about the weather RIGHT NOW.
Connection can provide real companionship on an arguably equal level with face-to-face conversation. But this is true only if the one trying to make the connection is not attempting to imitate a face-to-face relationship but is instead advancing one of the face-to-face relationships that they already have in their life. Technology is not the problem Turkle. It’s how people choose to use it that can cause issues.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
2/4 AM I EVIL!?!?!?
Luckily not.
Alright,
so I took this quiz on bbc.com titled “How Dark is Your Personality” and the
result I got was “Infrequently Vile”. This answer means that I put others
before myself like 80 percent of the time. Out of the three criteria:
Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy, my strongest evil attribute is
my narcissism. This surprised me a little because I always saw myself as more
Machiavellian character. However, my score was similar so I guess that’s okay.
At least I’m not a psychopath.
I got seven
of my friends to take the quiz as well. Five of them got “infrequently vile” as
well. The other two are “moderately nefarious”.
I think it’s because they scored significantly higher in the psychopath category.
I think this quiz was definitely interesting because it was a healthy reminder
that my friends are just as if not more narcissistic as I am. I wish I had a
larger base of people to compare my result with. I kind of expected all of us
to get the same answer because we all hang out together.
Maybe it
would have been a better idea to pull from different friend groups for the
study. Perhaps the answers would have varied more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)