2.3 Joey Griffin

final project 2.mp3: http://www.divshare.com/download/16401797-b96

2.1 Joey Griffin

Obesity is a major problem in the world today, but even barring all of that health stuff, nobody wants to be fat, and most people in the world, given the choice, would choose to lose a little weight. In a world so concerned with image and body weight, it is no surprise that sociologists have started to look into little ways that the normal person can use to lower his/her weight. While there has been many studies in the past on the subject of bedroom TV’s being linked to higher BMI’s in children, this is the first study specifically done to study that relationship in adults. In the article “Removing the Bedroom Television Set: A Possible Method for Decreasing Television Viewing Time in Overweight and Obese Adults” they explore this relationship, among other things, while basing their research upon the hypothesis that taking the TV out of the bedroom will result in a net decrease in total BMI and an increase in sleep time. To make sure their study was legitimate, the scientists had the study preapproved by the University of Vermont’s Committee on Human Research in the Behavioral Sciences. The experiment was then ready to begin. Subjects were required to log in with their specific ID every time they wanted to watch TV so accurate measurements could be made. Other things, such as their BMI, and total sleep time were also recorded. After 3 weeks, all the data was collected and analyzed by a team of trained scientists. The results, in summary, did not support the hypothesis. Unlike similar studies done in children which linked and increase in average BMI to a bedroom TV, no such link was found in adults. So go ahead, enjoy those bedroom TV’s guilt free!

Unit 3 Ryan Brady

Feeder 3.2 Ryan Brady

Ray Johnson, Untitled

Vanishing Point: Flash Forward

Converging Territories

Beneath the Veil

Norman Rockwell: His Call to Action (feeder 3.2)

Caravaggio's "The Sacrifice of Isaac"

"The Garden of Earthly Delights"

Caravaggio's Violent Ways

Having taken an introductory art history class last semester, I am somewhat familiar with some of the famous artists of the last several centuries. I remember studying a particular Italian artist named Caravaggio for a few classes. I searched through several scholarly journals and found a particularly interesting article regarding the depiction of violence in Caravaggio’s paintings. The author claims that Caravaggio’s paintings are implicitly violent and this is a result of the time period he lived in. He does this in countering several points of other art historians, that in turn end up leading the audience to agree with his overall thesis.

Originally our author entertains the idea of Caravaggio’s paintings not being violent at heart, but are actually works representative of the Catholic counter culture of his time. He agrees this idea has some merit due to the revolution in classically accepted thinking due to the Renaissance, and he can also see that the violence at times seems to be accepted willingly by the subjects, as if a sign of a sacrifice for a greater cause. This idea seems quickly undermined, though, by the fact that paintings supporting the church were usually done on much larger scales so they could be hung in churches. I believe that our author is correct here, since Caravaggio was anything but a religious man, and so I doubt this would truly affect the subjects of his artwork. Refuting this point, though, allows us to look into another theory surrounding the reason violence is so present in Caravaggio’s paintings, that builds off the fact that the public was very widely exposed to violent scenes and works of art, that was briefly mentioned before.

After disproving the theory of a catholic influence, our author entertains the idea of Caravaggio’s violent paintings being a result of the huge popularity of public executions at the time. This theory somewhat plays off of the first theory, in the sense that opposing the church was a punishable crime in Caravaggio’s time. As mentioned before, people were willing to be executed for opposing the church, and many others were eager to watch. Our author even agrees that some of the initial popularity of Caravaggio’s art spawns from the public’s unusual interest in this phenomena, but concedes that Caravaggio’s own interest in executions is much deeper and knowledgeable than a general civilian’s. This seems very clear from some of the crimes that Caravaggio has been linked to in his time, leading me to believe our author’s point. Although, Caravaggio’s personal interest in violence helps lead us to our third and final theory of Caravaggio’s violent paintings.

The final, and maybe most plausible, theory is that Caravaggio’s paintings depicted a personal disposition for violence. Many of Caravaggio’s biographers agree that he was a quarreler, and often carried a sword in search of a confrontation. Many biographers also agree that Caravaggio was accused and actually convicted of murdering an early rival, a crime he was sentenced to jail for. This seems to paint a picture of a disturbed and violent artist, who was as interested in fighting as he was painting. I agree that this is the most plausible reason for Caravaggio’s paintings to be so violent, and this is the actual reason for it in my opinion. I see Caravaggio as a man completely enshrouded in darkness, which comes to life in his paintings. We will see though, that our author does not completely agree.

While Caravaggio’s background depicts a very clear penchant for violence, our author does not believe this theory explains Caravaggio’s violent pictures entirely. He believes that Caravaggio’s violent past may have helped him visualize and illustrate violence more clearly, but it was a small part of his violent art it seems. The author believes that the real reason Caravaggio’s paintings are so violent is because he is personifying the poetry of his time.


As Caravaggio moved throughout Europe painting masterpieces, his artistic peers were writing very gruesome poems all over the continents. This is not to say that theses poems were unpopular, at the these types of works were what made poets famous, but they did help shift the public’s already disturbing interests more towards gruesome. As civilians became more exposed to and interested in violence, demand for violent artwork of all forms was increased. This unusual interest encouraged and allowed Caravaggio to paint what he was actually interested in, violence. This, according to our author, is the true motivating factor to Caravaggio’s violent pieces of art.

MC Escher's Mind

It was the twentieth century artist MC Escher who once said “Are you sure that floor can’t be a ceiling?” This quote brilliantly illustrates how Escher would tackle the impossible and challenge the absurd. His art was very mathematical and illusionist that required a mind capable of very abstract thinking. His work is appealing to the eye because it presents a dream like state in some place other than reality. In the article “The Sly Hand of MC Escher”, published in Art New England, the author makes the claim that MC Escher’s work “deserves a respect not always applied to other masters of art”. In this post I will explain how the author makes this claim and expound on how I agree with his points.

The author first turns to a piece called “Impossible Reality” drawn by Escher. This depicts a castle in which men are at the top talking through a stair case that is an optical illusion. It is sometimes referred to as a never ending stair case as the top of the stairs are connected to the bottom and if you follow them around they keep going on forever in a circle. At first the viewer does not realize this illusion but upon further examination it is obvious. I think that this piece is a prime example of Escher’s ability to trick the mind and make the viewer feel at home in an impossible state. The title itself is an oxymoron and is an example of the cleverness of Escher’s mind.

The author then says how Escher’s work has been inspiration for many pop culture works of art today. Many graphic artists re make Escher’s ideas and his work has even inspired movies such as “The Invisible Man”. The scene where his head is unraveling like a ribbon is a direct emulation of Escher’s “Rind” which depicts his wife’s face unraveling like a ribbon. His work is also the decoration for many products in today’s market.

The author describes how Escher mastered the “concepts of tessellation
(the division of a plane into equal parts) and "metamorphosis," his optical merging of birds, fish, reptiles, insects, and human figures into mind-bending scenes that defied logic yet ascending and Descending, lithograph, were nonetheless perfectly logical.” This drawing depicts white lizards slowly transforming into black lizards. It is great. I think that is surely a great example of Escher’s genius in his mathematical and pioneer form of art.

MC Escher said “I walk around in mysteries, so I draw them to figure them out.” I think this perfectly illustrates his passion for drawing situations that were impossible and making them seem realistic. I think that the author is correct in saying that he deserves a certain respect different than other artists because he is one of a kind and a pioneer in his illusionist art work. His art work will continue to be some of my favorite, not because it’s controversial, but because I think his art contains the essence of what art is: The process of figuring out and expressing your mind and the world around you.

Works Cited
Starger, S. "The Sly Hand of MC Escher." Art New England 31.6 (2010): 10. Web. 28 Nov 2011.

Norman Rockwell's Rhetorical Impact on the Civil Rights

I remember in high school my teacher handing out political cartoons every week in class, but when I looked at them, it was for maybe 30 seconds, and then I began to do something else. After reading Victoria Gallagher & Kenneth S. Zagacki’s “Visibility and Rhetoric: The Power of Visual Images in Norman Rockwell’s Depictions of Civil Rights” I wish I had taken more time to appreciate what these pictures evoked and made visible for me.

Scholars around the world agree that throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s, visual and media related arts were what influenced the rate that social activists could make a difference for social change. People like Norman Rockwell and Martin Luther King, Jr impacted the world through their strong and loud statements they made through art. “As Laurie Norton Moffatt puts it, Rockwell appeared to share with the publishers of the Saturday Evening Post ‘‘a morality based on popular values and patriotism, a morality that yearns above all for goodness to trump evil.’’ Rockwell painted pictures of that displayed the American Dream perfectly. Pictures of family, sporting events, holidays, and American ideals were painted for the Saturday Evening Post and shown to the world for everyone to see.

However, during the 1960’s Rockwell’s job with the Saturday Evening Post would end because he decide he wanted to impact the civil rights act and begin to drawl striking pictures of segregation and racial conflict. The Saturday Evening Post disagreed and wouldn’t allow colored people on the cover, so Norman Rockwell took his work to the magazine called Look. Gallagher and Zagacki speak of three figures published in Look done by Rockwell. These pictures are a few examples of how loudly Rockwell’s work spoke Rhetorically for the Civil Rights movement. However, Gallagher and Zagacki explain that the Rhetorical Critics of this era focused mainly on civil rights leaders and speeches, and how Rockwell’s work was never recognize for the same effect. Rockwell’s work speaks rhetorically by presenting a visual form of the attitudes, arguments, and ideas in the form of a picture. Through rhetorical evaluation of his work, we can “articulate and to shape public knowledge through offering interpretive and evaluative versions of who does what to whom, when, and where. “ Where Martin Luther King, Jr presented arguments through speech, Rockwell presented arguments through his art that demonstrated the value every individual holds. Most white rhetorical author depicted black people through images that made them inferior or different classes of beings, where as Rockwell steered away from pictures of peaceful patriotic Americana, and dove into a dramatic style to impact social change.

Gallagher and Zagacki came up with three reasons for why Norman Rockwell’s work achieves rhetorical significance. First, how avoids caricatures, to display the black culture in their real form, the same as whites. Second, he displayed the large array of obstacles and confrontation that black people in America dealt with. Lastly, his paintings were displayed during the heart of Civil Rights period where his paintings highlighted the disharmony of the American Society.

Norman Rockwell’s Civil Rights paintings were extremely significant to those who viewed them. The bold pictures printed in every magazine, and newspaper were filled with such great detail and thought that his pictures spoke a thousand words. They removed people from their limited ideals of the world and compelled them to see the world in a different light. The rhetorical power that is withheld in every painting of Norma Rockwell is truly significant. His artwork influenced the growth of America by providing realistic ideas through his loud work, which forced Americans to listen.

Work cited
Gallagher, Victoria, and Kenneth Zagacki. "Visibility And Rhetoric: The Power Of Visual Images In Norman Rockwell's Depictions Of Civil Rights." Quarterly Journal Of Speech 91.2 (2005): 175-200. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.

The Unbroken Lines of Jackson Pollock

In the mid to late 1940’s Jackson Pollock emerged as a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement. After being introduced to the use of liquid paint, Pollock implemented a dripping technique on a horizontally oriented canvas that was unfamiliar to many. Pollock’s implementation of horizontality and gravity as mediums in a majority of his works are considered by many as his greatest contribution to the history of art. 

While attempting to produce long, flowing and unbroken lines Pollock encountered several problems characteristic of easel painting. Pollock was inconvenienced by the continual need to reload his paint brush and the dragging of his hand caused by his strokes against the canvas. After his continued frustration, and implementation of new painting techniques such as squeezing paint directly on to the canvas, Pollock adopted a new method of painting unknown to many. By pouring the pigments on to a flat horizontal canvas Pollock was able to create the long lines he so desired and was no longer required to continually re-administer paint on to his brush. Pouring the paint through the air allowed Pollock to retain more paint on his sticks and trowels, work with fewer interruptions and introduce gravity as a participant in the painting process.

 To some, Pollock’s positioning of his canvas horizontally on the floor was a drastic change from the customs set by painters of the past. Rosalind Krauss, an American art critic and theorist, saw Pollock’s employment of horizontality as a medium as an extreme regression from the intellectuality and knowledge that stems from man’s erect vertical posture. Krauss further argued that the positioning of the canvas on the ground and the pouring of paint was representative of the corporeal acts of defecation and urination. When asked about the unique orientation of his canvas, Pollock did not find it to be unusual, as Orientals have been employing the same technique for hundreds of years prior to himself. Pollock did not implement a horizontal canvas to add deeper meaning to his works but rather he saw this method of painting as the most effective way to achieve his desired results. After completion Pollock’s works were always presented and viewed vertically against a wall, further strengthening the argument that Pollock’s horizontal orientation of the canvas during the painting process had no significant meaning.

 In order to fully understand the effects of Pollock’s unique positioning of his canvas further investigation of his reliance on gravity as a medium is needed. Using pouring as his preferred method of distributing the paint on to the canvas had great consequences on his style of painting, namely transforming his process from a two dimensional to a three dimensional affair. While other artists inevitably had to come in contact with their artwork, Pollock, using his pouring technique, was free to maneuver his sticks in three dimensional space. By doing so, Pollock severed the physical connection between the painter and the painting itself, and truly transformed painting into a three dimensional process.

 However, Pollock also inadvertently sacrificed many luxuries that are available to more traditional painters. Pollock no longer had the ability to suspend his painting at will, as he could no longer interrupt his movements while working through the air. Surprisingly though, Pollack was able adapt this difficulty to his advantage. By pouring the pigment through the air, the canvas recorded not only the volume of paint used but also the velocity at which the pigment was dispensed. In choosing this technique in which the canvas registers nearly all changes in motion or pace, Pollock created a unique relationship with his audience, where the viewer could infer how the effects on the canvas were formed by the artist. Pollock’s paintings amplified the physicality of his process and made it evident to his viewing audience.

 Pollock’s painting process was highly dependent on the use of sufficiently malleable materials that could be effectively manipulated through space. If the viscosity of the paint that he was using was too low, the paint would not form distinct lines on the canvas, resulting in small scattered puddles of watery paint. Conversely, if the paint was too thick, the paint would not be pliable enough and would fall onto the canvas in lumps. In his work, Pollack used both a pouring method, which produced the long unbroken lines, and a dripping method, which allowed Pollack to produce individual dots on the canvas. In order, to accommodate for these two different techniques of paint distribution, Pollack often adjusted the physical consistency of his paints. When pouring, Pollack would increase the volume of paint on his brush and would move the brush at a rate based upon the type of effect he was trying to achieve. To drip, Pollack would decrease the overall volume of the paint on his brush and would move the brush quickly after a sufficient dot was produced. Although discrete droplets appear in many of Pollack’s works, their visual impact is subordinate to that of the linear tracks of paint. Therefore, of the two methods, it was pouring not dripping that provided Pollack’s abstractions with their distinctive character. By fine-tuning the physical qualities of his paint as well as carefully controlling the dispensing process, Pollack was able to produce some of the most vivid evocations of motion in the history of painting.

Works Cited
Cernuschi, Claude, and Andrzej Herczynski. "The Subversion of Gravity in Jackson Pollock's Abstractions." The Art Bulletin 90.4 (2008): 616-39. Art Full Text. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.

Sit Up Straight To Get A's (Part II)

Does Water Make it Better?: Results

Computer Usage Results

Behavioral Conditioning (Part 2)

Can Self Modification Experiments Work?

Since we are performing our own self-modification experiments, I thought it would be interesting to investigate the efficacy of these types of experiments. In the article entitled “Effectiveness of a College-Level Self-Management Course on Successful Behavior Change” the authors investigated several studies having to do with these types of experiments. The main hypothesis that they based their study around was the theory that if a self management course was high in intensity, then the desired behavior modification was likely to happen. They used three separate groups of students, totaling 84 in all, to carry out their experiment.

 In order to conduct studies, scientists often need to create sub-groups within the total subject pool in order to measure one variables affect on the other. In this study, three groups were made to fulfill this requirement. First, the researchers bunched 26 students into what they labeled “Experimental Group I” which they deemed would be a high intensity group. These students were enrolled in a three hour course entitled “Self Directed Behavior” in which they would work closely with the professor and their peers to analyze their behavior management. The researchers then put 36 students into another group entitled “Experimental Group II” which they used as a low intensity group. These students were enrolled in a course entitled “Behavior Therapy” in which they still worked with the professor on their behavior modification, but there were significantly less assignments and projects given. The remaining 22 students were put into a “Control Group.” These students they were not enrolled in a self management course.

 In an attempt to dispel confounding variables, the researchers asked the same professor to teach these Self-Management courses. The researchers also made sure that the length of the course was the same for both groups, and the amount of credits received were the same, in order to keep the incentives similar. Once all the variables were identified and controlled to the extent the researchers desired, they began the experiment.

Over the three month period, the students in the two self-management courses completed several assignments to help them stop an undesirable habit. Some students hoped to stop biting their nails, other students tried to stop smoking, while even more students hoped to lose weight. Whatever the habit, students completed several assessments to determine the progress they made along the way. The students in the high intensity course were also asked to complete presentations on their progress every two or three weeks, to further the importance placed on the behavior modification.

Since the researchers were able to control each variable so well, the results ended up being clear and precise. Within the high intensity-low intensity dynamic, the ability for students to recognize their progress was very obvious. There was a distinct difference in the ability of the high intensity students to modify their behavior compared to the low intensity students. There was also a large gap between the students taking a behavior modification course’s ability to affect their behavior when compared to the students who were attempting to modify behavior on their own.

Sit Up Straight To Get A's

Stop Checking Facebook!

Homework before video games?

Does water make it better?

Behavioral Conditioning (Part 1)

Athletes Drinking Motives

Over 1,700 deaths a year are due to alcohol consumption among college students with another 600,000 assaults. Would you believe that intercollegiate athletes are more at risk to experience negative consequences compared to your average Joe? Results have proven that student-athletes in fact do. Matthew Martens and Jessica Martin explore the reasoning behind this, and the factors that might motivate an athlete to drink so heavily.
Research has shown that intercollegiate student athletes are more prone to suffering from consequences and regrets as a result to heavy drinking. With several different studies taken nation wide, results have revealed that college athletes consume more alcoholic drinks per week than non-student athletes. As a student athlete I can say for myself that there is absolutely no time to drink during the week between the practices, meetings, and classes I never have time to drink, and neither do my teammates. Because of this student athletes cram their partying in. This is called “binge” drinking where heavy amounts of alcohol are consumed in a very short period of time. Two national studies have proved that intercollegiate athletes are more suitable to experience costly actions. Consequences such as getting into trouble with the law, regretting something they have done, and engaging in sexual activity. In order for researchers to truly understand why athletes drink so much, they studied the factors of being an athlete and what motivate athletes to drink heavier than a non-student athlete. Martens developed the ADS (Athletes Drinking Scale), which is exclusively for athletes and their motives to drink. They figured that the baggage that came with being a student athlete would create different motives for them to drink, and the ADS was created to find them.
They discovered three factors that measured these motives. The first subscale was Positive reinforcement meaning that athletes feel that after a game they should go out their team because they have worked all week and now its time for them to celebrate. The second subscale is the team/group factor where wanting to fit in with your team or pressure from your teammates. And finally Sports-Related Coping where an athlete may feel that alcohol might help them cope with their performance or the stress and pressures that come with being a student-athlete. Although all of this research was promising, they went deeper, wanting to discover if motives for athletes were stronger during their competitive season or off-season. They figured that although intercollegiate athletes train all year, they are more likely to spend more time with their coaches and teammates during their competitive season. Thus resulting in more stress and pressures from your sport and teammates that present Martens three subscale motives. However, other studies showed that athletes consume less alcohol during their competitive season than their off-season. Martens concluded that although their level of alcohol consumption decreases, their athlete-specific motives increase during the competitive season more so than their off-season.
Through this study, Martens and Martin wanted to find if their ADS could have constant factors in each season. Their findings showed that the ADS could be consistently used throughout an athlete’s competitive season as well as their off-season. Next, they wanted to discover if the subscales differed at all throughout each season. The result proved at the three subscale motives increased dramatically from athletes off to in season. Lastly, they studied the subscale motives for the ADS and whether the competitive season would increase these motives more than there off-season would. The alcohol consumption scores were associated with alcohol-related motives matching the ADS subscales, but one season did not rate higher than the other.
Throughout this article, Martens and Martin confirmed that their tool of the Athlete Drinking Scale is in fact successful. They also found that athletes drinking-motivations increase during their actual competitive season, and that it is a result from the environment of their teammates, coaches and pressures that come with the competitive season. As an athlete reading this, I had very little controversy in these researchers findings.

MARTENS, MATTHEW P., and JESSICA L. MARTIN. "College Athletes’ Drinking Motives And Competitive Seasonal Status: Additional Examination Of The Athlete Drinking Scale."Addiction Research & Theory 18.1 (2010): 23-32. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.

Sit Up Straight

Recently students of high school level education and above have experienced difficulty maintaining concentration in their classes. As students have easy access to numerous distractions through cell phones, laptops and tablet PC’s, it is no surprise that concentration is a growing problem among students nationwide. Students have even resorted to often dangerous methods including prescription drugs, like Vyvanse, Adderall and Strattera, to help remedy their lack of attention. The results of a recent study, however, may provide some relief to these struggling scholars. An experiment conducted by Japanese researchers found a positive correlation between correct posture and improved academic writing. According to this study sitting with good posture allows students to increase their academic performance and remain attentive. The study suggests, rather than relying on external influences to increase concentration, students should instead improve their academic performances through conscious alterations of their posture.

The experiment was conducted in two second grade Japanese public elementary schools. The participants of the study consisted of sixty-five students divided nearly evenly among two classrooms, Class A and Class B. Preliminary data was collected regarding the number of students who initially presented good posture in each class. The results of this observation showed that only 42.1% of students in Class A and 29.5% of students in Class B demonstrated good posture. The teachers of each class implemented an intervention package designed to improve the posture of the student’s. The teachers conducted this posture clinic everyday during the morning sessions ten minutes before the first period classes began. Appropriate posture for this experiment was defined as feet flat on the floor, buttocks in contact with the chair seat, back straight, and forward body direction.

Throughout the day, in both Math and Japanese language classes observers monitored and recorded the posture of the students, in order to determine the effects of the intervention in academic situations. The observers, after viewing a student’s posture immediately gave the student an attractive sticker, if they displayed good posture or offered the student corrections and a less attractive sticker if they displayed poor posture. The use of two separate stickers offered the students added incentive to use appropriate posture. To ensure the observations were reliable, two teachers and three observers were trained to observe a child’s sitting posture accurately. These monitors learned to evaluate sitting posture after watching several training videos regarding the components of appropriate sitting posture.

The actual study, determining the relation between correct posture and academic writing was conducted throughout the day. As a method of collecting data, students were asked, on several occasions each day, to copy short Japanese sentences from a handout. To assess the effect of good posture on writing performance and productivity, the researchers counted the number of Japanese characters written by the children. Throughout the duration of the study, no praise or feedback was given to the students regarding their writing, so as to not corrupt the possible improvements due to appropriate posture with task-specific reinforcement.

After the posture intervention in both Class A and Class B, data was again collected regarding the number of students who presented good posture in each of the classes. The results showed that 86.6% of students in class A and 93.4% of students in class B demonstrated good posture after the intervention package was implemented. When compared to the preliminary baseline data collected, the number of students presenting appropriate posture after the intervention is much greater. Also the mean number of characters written by the students increased from 57.2 characters in the baseline results to 64.5 characters after the intervention.

The results of this study demonstrated the effectiveness of a classroom based behavioral intervention package for increasing children’s appropriate sitting posture in elementary classrooms. The amount of the children’s writing task increased as their posture improved. This suggests that appropriate posture is important for improved academic performance.

Works Cited:

Noda W., Tanaka-Matsumi J.

Effect of a classroom-based behavioral intervention package on the improvement of children's sitting posture in Japan

(2009) Behavior Modification, 33 (2), pp. 263-273.

How much are you controlling?

Imagine a situation in which your friend is bothering you with how much she hates her chemistry professor, who you will have next semester. Imagine you had not met this professor yet, however, based on the information you already have, would you like or dislike her? Naturally most people’s first inclination would be to have a sense of dread towards having this teacher next semester. Why does this happen? After all you don’t know anything about this professor. Researchers at the University of Trier in Germany recently published a psychological study titled “The Role of Evaluative Conditioning in Attitude Formation”. In this post, I will summarize the methods and conclusions of this study.

In social psychology, it is widely known that the attitudes of other people can persuade one’s thoughts and even actions. This is illustrated in a famous study by Solomon Asch published in the 1950’s, where he asked participants to say which of three lines drawn on a notecard was the longest. He would go down a line of 10 participants and each would give their answer. The answer in this case is very obvious and takes no skill or critical thinking. The trick was that the first 9 participants were actually part of the study and purposefully all answered with the same wrong answer. Asch found that in most cases, the final participant who was the real participant would incorrectly answer the question to conform with the others even though they knew that it was incorrect.

The difference that the current study is trying to impose is that the influence of attitudes can also be affected by Evaluative Conditioning or also known as “Classical Conditioning” Classical conditioning is a simple psychological idea made famous by Ivan Pavlov. I'm sure most everybody has heard of Pavlov’s dogs. This type of conditioning is a way that influences ones behavior. It involves pairing a stimulus such as a bell to a response such as food. After you ring a bell and present food along with it so many times, every time the bell rings, you will start expecting food. That is classical conditioning at is simplest level. In the current study, the subjects will be presented a neutral human face. Then one group will presented a mad face directly afterward. And the other group would be presented a sad face. Later when the same subjects are presented with a neutral face, the people in the mad group rate the neutral face as being mad and vice versa with the sad group. This is supposed to illustrate how other people’s attitudes can effect your own attitude. But in this case instead of conforming, the mechanism of influence is a type of classical conditioning.

So then according to this study, the previous case presented in the introduction about the chemistry professor would be a influence by the mechanism of conditioning rather than conformity. This study suggests that our friends negative thoughts and emotions are paired with the chemistry teacher thus to produce a conditioned negative attitude towards the thought of our chemistry teacher. This is not good because negative attitudes can also be known to affect productivity and or effective learning. So it is crazy to think that the fact that your friend talking about how they hate their chemistry teacher could in fact effect your performance in your class next semester and cause you to do more poorly than you should have. How selfish of her right? But what can you do, this all happens naturally as a part of human instinct that has evolved to keep us alive. This idea of behavior modification through conditioning is a sort of grim idea in the sense that we may not have full control over our behavior and thus not have full control over our future. Maybe we should pay attention to our lives more closely to make sure we are seeing things through our own eyes and behaving not on the behalf of others.

When Disaster Strikes

Elizabeth Burchenal

I remember sitting in my Geology 105 Natural Disasters course freshmen year. I ended up with a D+ in this class. Somewhere between plate shifts and fault movements I took a wrong turn and never fully understood the complexity of our earth’s movements. However, one thing I did remember was that a natural disaster is defined as “any event or force of nature that has catastrophic consequences”. With the growth and technology of this world, we should be able control these disasters. ”This is not a Drill” argues that the human race is capable of preventing natural disasters while Cortney Streets “Responder Funding” article claims that equipment lists will somehow protect us.
Nature’s “This is not a Drill” argued that we have overconfidence in our natural disaster prevention system. The author claimed that, regrettably, natural and man-made disasters will always occur, however we are not doing a sufficient enough job looking into ways to prevent them and rebound from them. The first claim refers to the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico where 4 million barrels of oil spilled into the ocean. According to the article, petroleum industries are moving their rigs to deep water locations. These companies are not researching or investing enough money and time into creating methods to avoid or prevent disaster from occurring in these parts of the world. Simple things such as compiling more research could prevent such catastrophic and damaging events. Another claim that was discussed was the lack of deterrence from Japan. Japan is familiar with earthquakes; seismic charts and records prove that they are prevalent. Unfortunately, because Sendai (the largest city in the Tohoku region where the earthquake hit) had shown no recent activity on these charts, they did not stress improving their hazard prevention methods for these scenarios. References of how the Fukushima Daiichi, a nuclear power plant located in Japan effected by the earthquake, could have created a plan in case their back up generators failed. This article argues that our carelessness is an issue that needs to be fixed.
In contrary, in an article about Responder Funding from Domestic Preparedness, the author claims that there have been huge improvements towards our countries Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). To improve awareness of natural disasters and acts of terrorism, the FEMA have released 16 new grants throughout our country. This means that they are providing funding for state and local emergency response systems. To prove that they are funding and providing methods of prevention they show their extensive Authorized Equipment List (AEL) and the 21 different categories that is included within it. This list includes authorized equipment such as Terrorism Incident Prevention, Cyber security Enhancement equipment, and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Operational Search and Rescue Enhancement Equipment. This article mentions the many ways in which Federal Emergency Management Agency has taken initiative into prevention from disaster striking in our country. Unfortunately, simply compiling a list isn’t going to solve the problem. Actions need to be taken in order to improve our security.
After finding my roots with my traumatizing Geology 105 class, I remembered how completely devastating a natural disaster could be. After reading two different sides regarding our countries preparedness, I found that the Nature article was not only more convincing, but had stronger claims and reasons. Although different government agencies have taken many steps into preventing disaster throughout our country, there are moments of carelessness that cause catastrophic damage. After learning about all of the deaths and damages caused from my Geology course, it became clear that we must adapt to these events and try and learn from them. In “This is not a Drill” there are concrete examples of how we did a poor job in the manufacturing and investigating of different projects, which in turn became flawed and caused extraordinary crisis. Inevitably, disasters are going to arise, therefore we must use the equipment and resources we have to improve on our prevention and response plans, because in the end talk is cheap when thousands of lives are at risk.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7342/full/472135b.html

http://www.domesticpreparedness.com/commentary/viewpoint/Responder_Funding%3A_FEMA_%26_Other_Federal_Preparedness_Grants/

NASA Space Program: Success or Failure?

In “Up and Away” the author is claiming that the NASA Space Shuttle Program does not live up to its hype and the millions of dollars put into it. The author states that NASA made “outrageous claims” in regards to the potential the Space Shuttle Program had. However these claims were never met, but instead brought disaster with the loss of two space shuttles. But how could one claim that our Space Shuttle Program has brought nothing but disaster? For all I know, the moon could still be a mystery to me. NASA’s Space Shuttle Program was a success because it propelled our country into becoming a dominant superpower, and furthered our scientific knowledge.
The author of “Up and Away” states that the Space Shuttle Program was never about science, and that its main purpose was to build a machine to make quick and fast trips into space. “Up and Away” even admits that the “space shuttle is probably the most recognized symbol of science and technology for a generation.” These are two very contradictory statements. Nature also mentions the Nixon-era and how they weren’t resourceful enough, when in fact, “President Nixon announced that NASA would proceed with the development of a reusable Space Shuttle system. The final design was less costly to build and less technically ambitious than earlier fully reusable designs”(Exploration of Space). The author also claimed that “The program never flew close to the 50 missions per year originally envisaged, and the cost per flight was always well above the estimates (Nature).” Although the Space Shuttle Program never flew 50 times a year as planned they sent a total of 135 flights into space. Of those flights NASA only had five space shuttles that flew into space, this meant that NASA was using Space shuttles over 20 years old. Although millions of dollars were put into these shuttles, they did a fantastic job of preserving them and using them time and again. These flights consisted of carrying over three million pounds of cargo and more than 600 flight members, whom conducted several hundred experiments, and helped repair many satellites and telescopes.
In many ways, the United States is looked at as the strongest country in the world. For America, NASA has been an important factor in why we’re deemed a global superpower. On July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong took the first step on the moon. Although many believe this is insignificant, without the Space Shuttle Program, feats such as this would seem impossible. Nature claims that telescopes, landers and rovers could teach us more about space than a Space Shuttle could. These projects of course do not require an astronaut, but a Space Shuttle would. Although NASA has created astonishing technology, it is hard to believe that machines are replacing humans. Machines do not have the capability to problem solve, or react to different factors that might occur. On a typical mission, astronauts are traveling at such high speeds that they see a sunrise and sunset every 45 minutes! Monitoring space would be most highly productive when seen through the eyes of an astronaut. As Edward Murrow said a satellite has no conscience.
The Space Shuttle Program has given our civilization the ability to see things, that without it, we could only dream of. Nature makes accusations that NASA is stumbling over different projects that they have been working on over the years. This may be true, but these projects are high profile and, naturally, will take time to develop. “NASA's space shuttle is unlike any other spacecraft ever built. The craft was designed to streak into space as a rocket but return as a glider, utilizing an aerodynamic winged shape to descend through the atmosphere and touch down on a runway much like a commercial airplane. (National Geographic)” Projects such as this are difficult and take immense planning and efficient execution. One thing I do agree that Nature says is that the possibilities for space science have never been greater. So why not attack these possibilities with everything NASA is made of? Why deem this program a failure when the Space Shuttle Program has brought nothing but discovery and understanding to this country.
As a student, one thing I do everyday is learn about our history and all of the failures and successes of this country. It is both morally and scientifically wrong to see our Space Shuttle Program regarded as “falling short”. Without space travel, our country would not be the dominant force it is today. We would not be able to see the earth from afar, nor would we know what lies thousands of miles away from us. Space would be a mystery, and science would be suffering greatly.

Work Cited:
Unknown, . "Space Shuttle Program."National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct 2011. .

Unknown, . "Up and Away." Nature. (2011): n. page. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. .

Unknown, . "Space Shuttle History."Century Of Flight. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct 2011. .

Image by: Kenny Miller

Evidence, Does It Go Over The Limit?

In Nature’s article, Over the Limit, an anonymous author tells the story of a European policy that turned its back on scientific evidence and the repercussions thereof. As he proceeds to support the policy and the reasons they made it, he extrapolates the idea that evidence is not the only basis a policy should be made on and comes up with the claim that “when setting policies, there are limits to the role that evidence can have.” I, respectfully, disagree with his claim and his reasons and will explain why.


    The law in question was put into place in Europe in 2011 when the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided that men could not be charged more than women for auto insurance. This goes against mounds of scientific evidence that explicitly states that men are more likely to wreck their cars then women, and is aimed at reducing sexual discrimination. While the intention of the law is good, admirable in fact, the fact that they ignored such conclusive scientific evidence is causing much controversy. The author stands up for this law and attempts to explain his reasoning behind it, and behind his support of it.


In the article, he says that although evidence is a strong factor in policy-making, it should not be the only one, and that it “is important to distinguish between policies that ignore the evidence and those that consider it but do not give it the deciding vote.” He later says it is up to the scientists to present the evidence and its up to the politicians to decide when to ignore it, and while that is true, he also seems to be supporting the fact that sometimes it is not only acceptable to ignore scientific evidence, but it is also the ‘right’ thing to do, as evidenced by his comment about the “drive in Europe to reverse practices that survive as a legacy of centuries of inequality and discrimination against women is right to trump the cold logic of the statistics.” He says that there are other relevant factors that politicians must consider and that evidence shouldn’t always get the deciding factor, but all of these appeals have very specific flaws that I will point out.


When he says that it is ‘right’ for politicians to ignore scientific evidence I am trying hard to find where exactly he got his definition of right, because if by right, he means foolish, selfish, and short-sighted, then maybe my entire argument is nothing but semantics. In his own article he specifically says that “It is legitimate, if short-sighted, to acknowledge that man-made global warming is real but argue that policies to cut emissions are too expensive to pursue.” So it is legitimate (and ‘right’ if you transfer over the property he so graciously extended to the law in Europe) for a policy that is so short-sighted that it is all but ignoring an international disaster just waiting for us around the door. I don’t think so. Even in some of his lesser claims, he has nothing to back them up. He says that it is important to distinguish between policies that ignore scientific evidence and those that consider it, but don’t give it the deciding vote. I answer that claim with a question. Why? The outcome is the same, so why is there a difference? An ignorant policy still gets put in place. The outcome is the same, so what is the difference? I argue none (now I know that it makes a difference when you are trying to decide who to vote for, but we are only focusing on the validity of the policies put in place, and not the politicians behind them).


Another thing that the author fails to see is that the term ‘scientific evidence’ is a lot more encompassing then he seems to believe. He seems to want to limit it to only empirical evidence on limited subjects. What he doesn’t seem to get is that evidence can be present in all of the other ‘factors’ he claims that should supersede evidence such as “social, economic and political factors.” Evidence is not limited solely to the natural sciences, but can be present in all of the above, so turning your back on ‘evidence’ means turning your back on all things logical. This is not ‘right’ for any reason.


So if evidence is as encompassing as I believe it to be, then it only leads to one logical conclusion. Evidence is the only thing to rightfully base policy upon, and this is why I disagree with the article on hand, allow me to explain. Assuming it is wrong to ignore evidence in policy making would seem like that would be all you would need to make the claim I just made there, but the author has rightly pointed out several other factors that may influence policy making. If evidence were so limited, then it would be impossible to run a country only making policies on such a limited scale, but add in my other premise and you will see how it opens up the possibilities to a great extent. You can now make policies based on economic evidence, which was once considered an ‘other’ factor, allowing evidence to be the basis for ALL policies.


While the logic leading up to my claim is unbreakable (I hope) the premises are the ones you could argue against. This means any opposition to my claim would either argue that ignoring evidence in policy making is not wrong, or that evidence is not as encompassing as I had once thought. One may say, you don’t decide whats right or wrong, how can you claim that one policy is better than another? My answer to that would be that for length’s sake I am assuming that selfish, short-sighted policies are wrong, and to try to argue that would involve an ethics essay and entrance into an age old debate that would not simply go well in a blog such as this.


To attack the other premise, one would simply have to find a ‘relevant’ factor in policy making and show that there is no scientific evidence in that area whatsoever. Do that, and my entire post will be shut down and be irrelevant trash, but I doubt you will be able to do such a thing. The gathering of scientific evidence is done mainly for one reason only. to find out information, so you can do something better in the future. This, or to make better choices in the future. And what ‘choices’ are more in the open and have the most interest other than policies? Scientists gather information all the time to help future policy makers and I highly doubt that you can find a relevant area where there has been no research in.


All of this leads me to confidently say that evidence is the only relevant basis for policy making and that the author of “Over the Limit” was wrong in his article.

Works Cited:
"Over the Limit." Nature. 9 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7337/full/471136a.html>.

Are Vaccinations Dangerous?

Parents across the country make the decision each year to vaccinate their children. You, I and children for years to come will be most likely be vaccinated without much thought. Vaccination has never been a large debate, but there is growing evidence linking vaccines to certain childhood problems. This link is beginning to bring about a very important debate surrounding the chemical dangers associated with childhood vaccination.  Certain risks associated with immunizing children are evident, and I believe mandatory childhood vaccines should be repealed because of the serious risks and side effects.

Every year, millions of children across the country are vaccinated for preventable diseases such as measles and polio. Generally between the ages of 6 months to 6 years old, children will have several different vaccination appointments to immunize them from these illnesses. As the author stated in the article “The Wrong Message on Vaccines,” many of these appointments go very smoothly, with only about 0.05% of all recipients of vaccinations experiencing side effects. In modern medicine, a 0.05% chance of side effects might seem small. This small amount, though, can add up quickly. With tens of millions of children receiving vaccines every year, 0.05% equates to over 500,000 affected children each year (Blaylock).  Researchers have determined that the main cause of these complications is related to the Mercury that is in many vaccines (Blaylock).

For those who don’t know, Mercury is a naturally occurring element found in air, water, and soil, that in its purest form is referred to as Quicksilver (Medicinenet).  Many vaccines contain Mercury in the form of a preservative named, Thimerosal, which is 50% Mercury by weight (Vaccine Safety and Availability).  Over the past decade a lot of debate has been created surrounding the potential toxicity of Thimerosal.  With some effects of Thimerosal still unclear, the FDA has begun working with vaccine manufacturers to remove Thimerosal from vaccines, proving there really is some innate danger to these vaccinations (Vaccine Safety and Availability). The largest effects seen from Thimerosal have been seen in infants and children under the age of six, illustrating the increased danger mandatory childhood vaccinations causes (Vaccine Safety and Availability). Problems caused by the Thimerosal and more specifically the Mercury in it, have been linked to various developmental problems in the brain and kidneys.

At this point, it may yet be clear how real some of the dangers of vaccinations are. Yes, the side effects sound serious, but with only a fraction of a percent of people experiencing this side effect, this won’t happen to anyone you or I might know, right? Well just understand this: For every 100,000 people in the United States, 50 will experience vaccine related complications; alternatively, per every 100,000 people in the U.S., 11.4 will die in a car accident (FARS Data Tables). Imagine, if you will, all the money and time spent on preventing fatal crashes in our nation. All of the “click-it-or-ticket” commercials you see on T.V. and all of the money it took to create those. We see these things every week, sometimes every day, but imagine if you saw vaccine warnings five times as frequently as that. Every hour of T.V. would almost certainly include some sort of PSA talking about vaccines, and millions of dollars would be spent warning against them. It would seem odd though, to have the government recommending vaccines, and at the same time also warning against their dangers. This presents a very interesting conflict of interests.

Within his article, the main observation that Blaylock illuminates is the tendency for politicians to be backed by large companies, and large pharmaceutical companies are not excluded from this trend. Blaylock argues that vaccines are not being investigated completely because if there were to be serious dangers associated with vaccines, pharmaceutical companies would lose billions of dollars (Blaylock). As many people know, politicians claim to do what’s best for their constituents but this is not always true, and Blaylock’s argument is that the vaccination problem is another unfortunate result. Blaylock explains that in order to put themselves in the best position for re-election, politicians listen to their donors more than their constituents when making political decisions. In this example of political tom foolery, the hundreds of thousands of children each year are falling prey.

This debate is unfortunately not easily settled today. Without concrete answers from researchers, which rarely if ever happens, it is hard to determine the true innate risks to vaccination. Yes, Thimerosal is present in many vaccines today, but is that reason enough to stop the millions of vaccinations done each year? I would say yes, but I am obviously not in a decision to make this change happen. This decision will be up to all of us, me, you, parents, teachers, neighbors, and family members. Everyone will have to come together and take a look at the facts to decide what is best for our nation’s health, and until then, many children may be taking unnecessary risks with these unknown toxins.

 Works Cited

1. Blaylock, Russell. "The Truth Behind the Vaccine Cover Up (Part 1 of 5)." Mercola.com. Mercola, 22 009 2004. Web. 3 Oct 2011.

2. "FARS Data Tables." Data Resource Website. National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, 2007. Web.

3. "Mercury Poisoning." MedicineNet n. pag. Medicienet. Web. 4 Oct 2011.

4. "Thimerosal in Vaccines." Vaccine Safety and Availability 31 003 2010. n. pag. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Web. 4 Oct 2011.

Speciesism & Animal Liberation

Every year millions of animals undergo testing by scientific researchers. The author of an article from the scientific journal Nature, entitled “Call to Curb Lab Tests with Dogs”, argues that scientific testing on dogs is cruel and should be reduced and lesser rodent species should be used for testing when applicable. However, I argue that testing on all animals should cease, as it is a form of speciesism.

In the Nature article, the author starts off by presenting the idea of how testing the effects of medical drugs on dogs is bad and is something that most people will agree should not happen. This seems to make sense. After all no one wants to see “man’s best friend” be injected with a lethal disease and suffer as the doctors try different drugs to see if they work. Usually drugs will not work and the animal will innocently be killed as a result. Then the author proceeds to describe the current regulations of dog testing and how they are wrong. She provides evidence from credible scientists who are the ones in the field of research yet they still are against using dogs for testing. I agreed completely with this article until it moved to what the action taken should be. After stating that dog testing is bad, and that it should not be done, the author suggests that the regulations be changed in order to limit the number of dogs used in laboratory studies. One way of doing this she suggests is to use animals of the rodent species whenever possible instead of dogs. This is what does not make sense to me. Although the author has attempted ot make a kind gesture at regulating animal testing, she has made a claim that is ultimately speciesist and wrong.

The problem is, a large percent of the population in America does not even know what Speciesism is. To prove that fact, the word itself is not recognized by spell check in google documents as a real word. To understand why all animal testing is bad, you must first understand speciesism. Speciesism refers to the widely held belief that the human species is inherently superior to other species and so has rights or privileges that are denied to other sentient animals. Most human beings are speciesists. “We take an active part in and allow our taxes to pay for practices that require the sacrifice of the most important interests of members of other species in order to promote the most trivial interests of our own”. (Singer, 9) We as humans understood and have worked to proudly abolish, racism, sexism, and homophobia, yet speciesism still widely exists without problems. The claim made by the author of the Nature article that other rodent species should be used instead of dogs is a perfect example of speciesism. She speaks of rodents as lesser to not only humans but even dogs in this case. This could be related to a man saying, “instead of doing testing on black men, let’s do tests on white females. That will be better.” Any human being would immediately say that this statement is blatantly racist or sexist and would have a problem with it.

Now, you might be thinking in objection, “how could the testing of rats be as bad as testing on an adult human? We physically have a higher mental ability, and for us to undergo an experiment that involves horrible suffering, we will be affected more because we have social relationships, and we are aware of everything else we could be.” So then let us assume that this is true. I would then ask you if you would be ok with using a mentally retarded orphan child that’s mental cognition has stopped progressing at the level of a rat. Mentally the child and the rat are the same. Would you then consider performing this experiment on the child? Or does it automatically seem wrong and cruel? Most of us would be appalled at this thought. So what if I were to go even further to say that the child is in fact completely unaware of their existence in reality and is in a vegetative state. With this, the mental capacity of the child is now lesser than that of the rats. So according to the counter argument made before, you should use the child. Yet most of us would still say no to the child and yes to the rat. It seems that the only reasoning here that the child should not be used, is that it is a human being and this is a direct discrimination of species, thus speciesism. In the words of Peter Singer, a well known philosopher, “ To avoid Speciesism, we must allow that beings who are similar in all relevant respects have a similar right to life --- and mere membership in our own biological species can not be a morally relevant criterion for this right. (Singer 19)

Unfortunately speciesism has existed forever. There have been dozens of experiments done with animals in the military, psychology, pharmacology, and cosmetics that produce the worst possible suffering in animals imaginable. One such study was a study performed by the US military in 1987. The goal of the study was to observe the effects that large amounts of radiation exposure had on pilots in War. Their means to doing this was to use Monkeys and strap them into a pilot’s chair. They were first trained through electrical shocks to maneuver a joystick as thus simulating flying an airplane. Then they were exposed within an enclosed room to large amounts of radiation everyday. The scientists observed their ability to complete tasks with the joystick simulating airplane flight after each exposure. The monkeys were said to be vomiting up to 5 times in thirty minutes while completing the tasks. Their hair would fall out. Their eye sight would deteriorate. All of which continued until either they died or the scientist was satisfied with their results. Surely if the monkey was to be replaced with a child of the same mental capacity, we would not allow it. So then why do we let such things happen with animals just because they are not human.

Another possible counter argument you might have is that “well the experimentation on animals is a bad thing sure, but it is justified by the results obtained becuase it furthers science and mankind.” Ironically, experiments done that inflict suffering to animals, a large majority of them provide no applicable results. But sure there is no doubt in saying that there are some advances in knowledge that would not have been obtained through animal experimentation. Though “even if valuable discoveries were made using animals, we cannot say how successful medical research would have been if it had been compelled from the outset to develop alternative methods of investigation. Some discoveries would probably have been delayed, or perhaps not made at all, but many false leads would also not have been pursued, and it is possible that medicine would have developed in a very different and more efficacious direction emphasizing healthy living rather than cure”(Singer 92) That quote from Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation portrays perfectly the possibility of not using animals for testing. He also then goes on to further argue how the results are not a justifiable claim to animal testing. He states “there is nothing sacred about the right to pursue knowledge. We already accept many restrictions on scientific enterprise. We do not believe that scientists have a general right to perform painful or lethal experiment on human beings without their consent although there are many cases in which such experiments would advance knowledge far more rapidly than any other method.” (singer 92) He says this to show the reader that if we aren’t doing this to humans, than why are we doing it to animals because they are of different species.

In conclusion, I find the argument made by the Nature article to be a form of speciesism and that instead of dog testing be regulated or replaced with rats, we should abolish all forms of animal testing allowed. I have presented two counter arguments to my claim and provided further explanation of why that counter argument is wrong. I believe that the discrimination of animals if widely overlooked and should become a liberating movement as was racism, or sexism. In the words of Peter Singer “to stop them we must change the policies of our government, and we must change our own lives, even to the extent of changing our diet. If these officially promoted and almost universally accepted forms of speciesism can be abolished, abolition of the other speciesist practices cannot be far behind.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 2nd. Australia: Pimlico, 1995. Print.