Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Research 2: Chapter four of "O'Gormans E-Crit"

“What does this have to do with intelligence” (O’Gorman 72)? This question which is asked by O’Gorman in chapter four of E-Crit, refers to the retro game, Police Trainer. This is a game in which “the player takes aim at the targets using a frighteningly realistic handgun attached to the machine by a cable” (72). “The galleries are organized into such categories as ‘Speed’, ‘Marksmanship’, and ‘Intelligence’" (72). People typically get the impression that video games, television, and pretty much anything that has to do with entertainment media, does not expand our cognitive skills. O’Gorman looks into the concept of cognition developed by digital media and also by the typical scholarly ways of gaining knowledge or intelligence.

O’Gorman raises the question; “what if television, playing video games, and surfing the Web are actually good for you” (72)? There is this stereotypical idea that video games, television, and even computers just make people dumber and that this media are just wastes of time, time in which people could be using this moment to read a book or a journal in print. Learning is not meant to be fun is it? There is this misconception that its not and that to be intelligent, one must learn in the traditional ways that our ancestors did, not to mention that our writings must be done in print and not via the computer. To further explore this issue, O’Gorman uses several of Ulric Neisser’s thoughts, including Neisser’s opinions of the ‘Flynn effect’. The ‘Flynn effect’ is “a title given to identify the steady increase in IQ scores since the first tests were administered” (O’Gorman 72). Neisser cleverly makes the point that the “rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures” (73). This is an important fact to know because there is now visual evidence that there are other ways of learning than by just the traditional scholarly work required in most institutions.

O’Gorman is not ruling out the fact that traditional educational practices are important, but rather he is trying to demonstrate that there is more to learning than just one single way. I feel that O’Gorman wants educators to realize that visual media doesn’t replace other means of teaching. It just enhances and expands on what is already being absorbed in ones mind. Why accept just one way of learning when there are other modes in which to learn, and if there are multiple educational tools and ‘games’ that build cognitive skills, then why not use them? Yes, our ancestors may sometimes have a better sense of theoretical concepts from the past, but digital media and visual tests can build better skills of ‘praxis’. I can use some most of the skills that were obtained from digital media for more practical purposes. Why not be practical in various ways? Theoretical concepts are essential in the learning process, but what good are they if practical concepts are not utilized? They are both essential and compliment each other in utilizing scholarly skills.

This research reminds me of a time when I was much younger, when a friend of the family had a son that was in a very serious car accident. The person was an adult and his brain was seriously affected by the accident. His doctor told him to play video games, not to just help his hand-eye coordination but to also aid in stimulating his brain. I loaned him my Nintendo games by the request of his mother and she did say that they helped slightly in dexterity and reflexes. It has been years since then, so I am not aware of how he is doing now or if he has recovered anymore since then. My point with this is that, if old-fashioned video games such as the Nintendo games can aid in the recoveries and stimulations of damaged brains, there has to be some truth to them being more than just senseless wastes of time and they can be used further by exercising the brain.

Speaking of sense, I find it interesting how O’Gorman views sense and nonsense. “Susan Stewart characterizes nonsense as a strikingly intertextual mode of discourse, one which cannot occur without transgression, without contraband, without a little help of the bricoleur’s hand” (O’Gorman 81-2). From this part of the chapter, I feel as if O’Gorman is making the point, as well as Susan Stewart, that nonsense does not have to necessarily have a negative context to it. I think they are merely saying that without sense there can be no nonsense and vice versa. A traditional educator may feel like hypertext is nonsense in the scholarly atmosphere and may feel as though it may have no place in the educational system. This is an example of somebody using ‘nonsense’ as a negative term rather than using it as another positive mode of cognition. When somebody says to me, “that’s nonsense”. I do not think that what I said is wrong, rather I think that what I said is not what he or she wants me to say or what he or she wants to hear.

Some traditional educators may think that writing electronically is nonsense, but they are not open to new ideas of building cognitive skills, therefore believing the electronic word is nonsense. I believe that our brains sometimes cannot fathom how much these new innovations of learning actually make sense and that is why we call it nonsense. I may be reaching here, but can something make so much sense, that it becomes nonsense? I feel that it can.



O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit Digital Media Critical Theory and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2006.

Research 2: Chapter four of O'Gormans E-Crit

“What does this have to do with intelligence” (O’Gorman 72)? This question which is asked by O’Gorman in chapter four of E-Crit, refers to the retro game, Police Trainer. This is a game in which “the player takes aim at the targets using a frighteningly realistic handgun attached to the machine by a cable” (72). “The galleries are organized into such categories as ‘Speed’, ‘Marksmanship’, and ‘Intelligence’” (72). People typically get the impression that video games, television, and pretty much anything that has to do with entertainment media, does not expand our cognitive skills. O’Gorman looks into the concept of cognition developed by digital media and also by the typical scholarly ways of gaining knowledge or intelligence.

O’Gorman raises the question; “what if television, playing video games, and surfing the Web are actually good for you” (72)? There is this stereotypical idea that video games, television, and even computers just make people dumber and that this media are just wastes of time, time in which people could be using this moment to read a book or a journal in print. Learning is not meant to be fun is it? There is this misconception that its not and that to be intelligent, one must learn in the traditional ways that our ancestors did, not to mention that our writings must be done in print and not via the computer. To further explore this issue, O’Gorman uses several of Ulric Neisser’s thoughts, including Neisser’s opinions of the ‘Flynn effect’. The ‘Flynn effect’ is “a title given to identify the steady increase in IQ scores since the first tests were administered” (O’Gorman 72). Neisser cleverly makes the point that the “rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures” (73). This is an important fact to know because there is now visual evidence that there are other ways of learning than by just the traditional scholarly work required in most institutions.

O’Gorman is not ruling out the fact that traditional educational practices are important, but rather he is trying to demonstrate that there is more to learning than just one single way. I feel that O’Gorman wants educators to realize that visual media doesn’t replace other means of teaching. It just enhances and expands on what is already being absorbed in ones mind. Why accept just one way of learning when there are other modes in which to learn, and if there are multiple educational tools and ‘games’ that build cognitive skills, then why not use them? Yes, our ancestors may sometimes have a better sense of theoretical concepts from the past, but digital media and visual tests can build better skills of ‘praxis’. I can use some most of the skills that were obtained from digital media for more practical purposes. Why not be practical in various ways? Theoretical concepts are essential in the learning process, but what good are they if practical concepts are not utilized? They are both essential and compliment each other in utilizing scholarly skills.

This research reminds me of a time when I was much younger, when a friend of the family had a son that was in a very serious car accident. The person was an adult and his brain was seriously affected by the accident. His doctor told him to play video games, not to just help his hand-eye coordination but to also aid in stimulating his brain. I loaned him my Nintendo games by the request of his mother and she did say that they helped slightly in dexterity and reflexes. It has been years since then, so I am not aware of how he is doing now or if he has recovered anymore since then. My point with this is that, if old-fashioned video games such as the Nintendo games can aid in the recoveries and stimulations of damaged brains, there has to be some truth to them being more than just senseless wastes of time that could be used further by exercising the brain.Speaking of sense, I find it interesting how O’Gorman views sense and nonsense. “Susan Stewart characterizes nonsense as a strikingly intertextual mode of discourse, one which cannot occur without transgression, without contraband, without a little help of the bricoleur’s hand” (O’Gorman 81-2). From this part of the chapter, I feel as if O’Gorman is making the point, as well as Susan Stewart, that nonsense does not have to necessarily have a negative context to it. I think they are merely saying that without sense there can be no nonsense and vice versa. A traditional educator may feel like hypertext is nonsense in the scholarly atmosphere and may feel as though it may have no place in the educational system. This is an example of somebody using ‘nonsense’ as a negative term rather than using it as another positive mode of cognition. When somebody says, “that’s nonsense”. I do not think that what I said is wrong, rather I think that what I said is not what he or she wants me to say or what he or she wants to hear. Some traditional educators may think that writing electronically is nonsense, buy they are not open to new ideas of building cognitive skills, therefore believing the electronic word is nonsense. I believe that our brains sometimes cannot fathom how much these new innovations of learning actually make sense and that is why we call it nonsense. I may be reaching here, but can something make so much sense, that it becomes nonsense? I feel that it can.



O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit Digital Media Critical Theory and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2006.

Research 2: Chapter four of O'Gormans E-Crit

“What does this have to do with intelligence” (O’Gorman 72)? This question which is asked by O’Gorman in chapter four of E-Crit, refers to the retro game, Police Trainer. This is a game in which “the player takes aim at the targets using a frighteningly realistic handgun attached to the machine by a cable” (72). “The galleries are organized into such categories as ‘Speed’, ‘Marksmanship’, and ‘Intelligence’” (72). People typically get the impression that video games, television, and pretty much anything that has to do with entertainment media, does not expand our cognitive skills. O’Gorman looks into the concept of cognition developed by digital media and also by the typical scholarly ways of gaining knowledge or intelligence.

O’Gorman raises the question; “what if television, playing video games, and surfing the Web are actually good for you” (72)? There is this stereotypical idea that video games, television, and even computers just make people dumber and that this media are just wastes of time, time in which people could be using this moment to read a book or a journal in print. Learning is not meant to be fun is it? There is this misconception that its not and that to be intelligent, one must learn in the traditional ways that our ancestors did, not to mention that our writings must be done in print and not via the computer. To further explore this issue, O’Gorman uses several of Ulric Neisser’s thoughts, including Neisser’s opinions of the ‘Flynn effect’. The ‘Flynn effect’ is “a title given to identify the steady increase in IQ scores since the first tests were administered” (O’Gorman 72). Neisser cleverly makes the point that the “rate of gain on standard broad-spectrum IQ tests amounts to three IQ points per decade, and it is even higher on certain specialized measures” (73). This is an important fact to know because there is now visual evidence that there are other ways of learning than by just the traditional scholarly work required in most institutions.

O’Gorman is not ruling out the fact that traditional educational practices are important, but rather he is trying to demonstrate that there is more to learning than just one single way. I feel that O’Gorman wants educators to realize that visual media doesn’t replace other means of teaching. It just enhances and expands on what is already being absorbed in ones mind. Why accept just one way of learning when there are other modes in which to learn, and if there are multiple educational tools and ‘games’ that build cognitive skills, then why not use them? Yes, our ancestors may sometimes have a better sense of theoretical concepts from the past, but digital media and visual tests can build better skills of ‘praxis’. I can use some most of the skills that were obtained from digital media for more practical purposes. Why not be practical in various ways? Theoretical concepts are essential in the learning process, but what good are they if practical concepts are not utilized? They are both essential and compliment each other in utilizing scholarly skills.

This research reminds me of a time when I was much younger, when a friend of the family had a son that was in a very serious car accident. The person was an adult and his brain was seriously affected by the accident. His doctor told him to play video games, not to just help his hand-eye coordination but to also aid in stimulating his brain. I loaned him my Nintendo games by the request of his mother and she did say that they helped slightly in dexterity and reflexes. It has been years since then, so I am not aware of how he is doing now or if he has recovered anymore since then. My point with this is that, if old-fashioned video games such as the Nintendo games can aid in the recoveries and stimulations of damaged brains, there has to be some truth to them being more than just senseless wastes of time that could be used further by exercising the brain.Speaking of sense, I find it interesting how O’Gorman views sense and nonsense. “Susan Stewart characterizes nonsense as a strikingly intertextual mode of discourse, one which cannot occur without transgression, without contraband, without a little help of the bricoleur’s hand” (O’Gorman 81-2). From this part of the chapter, I feel as if O’Gorman is making the point, as well as Susan Stewart, that nonsense does not have to necessarily have a negative context to it. I think they are merely saying that without sense there can be no nonsense and vice versa. A traditional educator may feel like hypertext is nonsense in the scholarly atmosphere and may feel as though it may have no place in the educational system. This is an example of somebody using ‘nonsense’ as a negative term rather than using it as another positive mode of cognition. When somebody says, “that’s nonsense”. I do not think that what I said is wrong, rather I think that what I said is not what he or she wants me to say or what he or she wants to hear. Some traditional educators may think that writing electronically is nonsense, buy they are not open to new ideas of building cognitive skills, therefore believing the electronic word is nonsense. I believe that our brains sometimes cannot fathom how much these new innovations of learning actually make sense and that is why we call it nonsense. I may be reaching here, but can something make so much sense, that it becomes nonsense? I feel that it can.



O'Gorman, Marcel. E-Crit Digital Media Critical Theory and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2006.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Cyborgs Impact on Society

It wasn't until this class, that I realized how significant Cyborgology is to our society. I always imagined cyborgs as being these unnatural type creatures on movies and television. A huge fad in the Xbox gamer’s world is Halo. The main character and hero in this game is a cyborg. The main character in the game is a cyborg. Until recently I have not given much thought to anything other than those things as being cyborgs. I thought of cyborgs as things in my imagination created by entertainment sources. While having tunnel-vision, I did not realize all of the cybernetic occurrences that are taking place around me . I did not correlate them with the prosthetics, implants, and other technological advances that our culture benefits from.

We are developing more advanced ways of creating artificial body parts or implants in the real life. A cyborg is “the melding of the organic and the machinic, or the engineering of a union between separate organic systems” (Gray, Mentor, and Figueraa-Sarriera 2). I find it interesting how people, including myself, will buy futuristic games that have these cyborgs and feel as if it is an escape from real life. Yes, we may not be taking over the world, I hope not, but we do share some of the same technological advances that the games do. Just surviving in real life is a game in itself. Like we mentioned in class, there are games that we sometimes have to play, such as college, if we want to graduate or win. Life is like a game that we have to play if we want to survive, and if that means us taking advantage of our technological progress to repair our bodies, then playing the game becomes a little easier and I am always for making life a little easier than it has to be. We have developed into these cyborgs over time so, what will we evolve to next?

Gray, Chris Hables, Seven Mentor, and Heidi J. Figueroa-Sarriera. "Constructing the Know ledge of Cybernetic Organisms." Cyborgology

Friday, February 2, 2007

Media and its Influence on the Criminal Justice System

The Fargason case was much publicized throughout the state of Georgia, and the media had an immense impact on this local murder case. At this time, Charles Fargason, Teresa’s ex-husband, believed without a doubt, that Teresa would never kill their child. Shortly after believing this, Charles called for an immediate press conference. He used this media to voice his support of his wife, a suspected murderer. Surprisingly, Charles changed his mind about Teresa’s innocence and expressed to the public that he believed Teresa was responsible for Taylor’s death. Ultimately, the press conference in itself can shape people's opinions of the case. The public watches a sad father publicly admit that he believes his ex-wife killed their child. Viewers have the tendency to sympathize with one person and convict the other. The press conference sets the tone for the whole case. The media was at his convenience to relay his message to the public, therefore influencing opinions. This information and further information pertaining to the case can be found in the Macon Telegraph archives.

The media played a big role in reporting new evidence that was found in the case. While this is an important role that the news reporters have, it is also an influential tactic in how the media portrays the evidence. For example, reporters can use different words and tones in a report that can steer the viewer to a definite viewpoint. It can also be argued that the entertainment industry likes drama and controversy. If this industry can present new factual evidence in which the tone depicts drama, it will, and the viewers are sometimes sucked into the hype. If the story is not dramatic or interesting, people are not going to watch. This is why the media thrives on controversy. I am writing this paper because I was intrigued by the case, because it is a controversial one.

Almost everywhere you looked, there were news reports on press conferences and new evidence. The local people of central Georgia could even get tickets to observe the trial as an audience. This just emphasizes the point that this murder case turned into a show. Like a movie, the audience went ahead and made up their minds about the case, based on what was seen through the media. The public already made their minds up and may have perceived Teresa Fargason as the antagonist and Charles Fargason as the protagonist as if the case is that of a movie or a novel.

Ed Papazian has found that “the average household in the United States has a television turned on for almost eight hours a day” (McNeely 3). Ed Papazian has also found that a substantial amount of television being viewed by our country: “the average individual watch[es] it for approximately four hours a day” (McNeely 3). With that many hours of viewing, the media has become deeply influential in our culture. “Television penetrates almost 99 percent of the population” (McNeely 3). This can shape the opinions in our society. “ Research has suggested that a majority of people in the United States receive much of their impressions and knowledge of the criminal justice system through the media, especially through entertainment television viewing” (McNeely 3). For instance, big news channels such as CNN and Fox have reputations of shaping people’s opinions from one extreme to another. This can be compared to a news program reporting on a specific case, in which the reporters subtly force their opinions on the viewers. Most people do not have a good understanding of the criminal justice system for the reason that they do not have first-hand experience. Most citizens have never been convicted of a crime. Also, many citizens only have direct contact with the criminal justice system through jury duty. It can be argued that people suppose that they have a good understanding of the criminal justice system due to the media’s approach to presenting the news. “Most members of the population actually have few opportunities for direct interaction with the criminal justice system” (McNeely 2). The only interaction is through the media therefore, resulting in the media having much influence over the way people believe about any given issues.

The media does take part in an important role in today’s culture. It is heavily relied on because it is a great source for information. A lot of the information that we as a society retain, is from all the media outlets. The point is not to express that the media is not crucial for the society, but rather to demonstrate how the media can sometimes twist around specific aspects of cases or even politics for its own personal gain, without the consideration of the influential behaviors it holds. Is television coverage and constant updates about cases and worldly news important? Yes, it sure is, however, people are sometimes influenced unnecessarily in ways that they should not be.

Works Cited

McNeely, Connie. “Perceptions of The Criminal Justice System: Television Imagery and Public Knowledge in the United States.” Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture 1070-8286(1995) 1-20. 28 Jan 2007 <http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol3is1/perceptions.html.>

Post, Audrey. “Slain girl’s dad believes child’s mom was involved.” The Macon Telegraph 28 September 1991, 1A.