Whats Up with Marriage?

The decision I made based from evolutionary psychology insights is heterosexual, monogamous marriage should be abolished.  There seems to be no real need for this. It seems in Wright’s article that people tend to want things that go against marriage. Wright explains this well when he talks about both men and women’s mindset when it comes to having sex. He explains that men “are more inclined toward the casual fling” (Wright pg 282) meaning that men are open to having sex with little regard for how they know the other person. If men are open to doing this then there is no reason for them to married, as marriage will prevent them from doing what they want unless they want to be called a cheat. Women seemed to be concerned with how their children turned out. They want a mate to have “good genes and much to invest” (Wright pg 283) I see this as a women being more concerned over how their kids turns out than who they are with.

Another reason for their being no need for heterosexual, monogamous marriage is that humans tend to have a short interest in partners, I think this goes along with who they are attracted too, and people changing their minds. Of course this doesn’t apply to all humans there are plenty of instances when humans get married, grow old together and die together. But now with half marriages ending in divorce, it shows that things were not as good as they once were.  Wrights idea concerning people and falling in love is “they aren’t designed to stay there”(Wright pg 280). Marriages seem to make it harder for people to get out of what may end up being a mistake. Even there are things such as divorce, it could be made easier than that.

If marriage were to be abolished I would suggest having a system where there was no form of partnership. Women would be only allowed to be impregnated twice in five year time period once the five years is up they can have two more and the process repeats itself. If they have more than two within those five year it would be punishable by fine and jail time. While men are only allowed to impregnate a women twice per every five years, if they are found to have fathered more than two unborn/born children they would be punished by fine and jail time. Both the father and mother would be required to provide half of the child’s upbringing, whether it is through raising them or providing money, failure to follow this would also result in punishment. This system may seem communistic, but it would allow men and women to fill their desire for many partners to choose from, whether it’s because they just want to have sex or they want the best genes for their children.

Conflicts: Men vs Women

Pg 246.

My mother and I over the summer had a conflict over my interest in becoming one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I had became interested this past spring semester after talking to several of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Part of the reason for this conflict was my negligence to tell anyone in my family that I was even meeting with them much less my intention on joining. I waited to tell both my parents, until I came home for the summer, this was over two months after I started becoming interested. Neither of my parents were very happy in my new interest. The conflict I had with my mother was a little different from the one I had with my father. I think a lot of it can be connected to the problems that men and women have when they have a conversation.

The biggest problem my mother and I had in discussing this conflict was how much either one of us was willing to talk about it. My mom was very concerned and regularly wanted to discuss what I had been doing. I on the other had tried to shy away from that topic of conversation. A reason for this is I did not think of it as a very big deal and was willing to jump from subject to subject with little regard for the seriousness of the first topic.  To help solve this problem I should have been more open to the idea that my mother, being a woman prefers to keep within one topic of conversation. I could have been more willing to listen and make it obvious that I was listening to what my mother had to say. I also could have made an effort not to just talk about whatever topic was on my mind.  In reality if I done those things we probably would have been able to get this issue resolved a lot quicker

Another way in which my making an effort to talk when my mother wanted to, and making an effort to keep the same conversation topic would have helped is like Tannen explains: conversation to my women is what helps build relationships and helps keep them strong. I could have put more effort into building our relationship through conversation. What I did instead was I thought that our relationship could be built just through being together and doing whatever came to mind. I can kind of relate to the male version of relationship building which is doing things together. Although I also see a problem in it as I don’t see how it could change the conflict me and mother had. The only thing I think it could do is help us forget that we have a conflict between us.

Week 6 Blog Reviews

Morgan Paulson-In your post from the 23rd I was impressed with your connection to the reading and your own personal experience. I think it was a really good way in showing the difference in changes in time, as your grandfathers brother had to wait to until recently to come out, I’m assuming he knew about his sexuality when he was young and was afraid of how people would react, now that people are more accepting it was easier for him to come out. I also really like your explanation of how capitalism changed the way people lived their lives. I liked the terms “survival” and “emotional “fulfillment” in describing what life was about and what it is now. One thing I would suggest with this post is working your quotes into your sentences. I find it kind of boring if you say something and then say the author said this and here is the authors quote to prove it. Most likely when people do this the quote will say basically the same thing as what the writer just said, and I don’t believe it’s necessary.

Lauren Spencer- In you post from the 21^st, I liked your description of the characters. From your description I could really understand why used this movie as an example of wild real men and real wild women. I think especially the character played by Cate Blanchett was a good choice. In a way your description of her reminded me of the Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon character descriptions from the reading. The one complaint I have about your blog is I think you focused on the plot of the movie a little too much, your explanation of how the characters were wild real men and real wild women seemed to take a backseat to the plot. In your post from the 23^rd, I thought you had a good point when you mentioned how American values are changing, and this is leading to a change in what is accepted. I was a little confused as you pointed out that acceptance of homosexuality has gone along with technological changes. I wasn’t sure if you meant if technology has brought America to be more liberal. If it has, how has it done that? Otherwise I thought your essay was well written. I thought this especially with one of the parts where you talked about technology, it was the part where you used technology to show how much something can change. I thought this was a good example of something that changed over time similar to how views on homosexuality changed over time.

The New Ideal American Family

I think one of John D’Emillios’ best suggestions for how the capitalist economy is changing what is considered the ideal American family is the idea that with the capitalist economy people are getting more opportunities without having worry about who they are. With more opportunities for homosexuals there will be more reason for them to be who they really are and be together with whomever they want to be with. How this would goes against the ideal American family, besides the fact that both would be of the same sex, is they would most likely not have any kids. This isn’t impossible and the ones that do have kids whether it’s through adoption,  a previous relationship or some other way, this would go even further from the ideal American family as instead of growing with a mom and dad a child grows up with either two moms or two dads.

Also the ideal American family was seen as close together and had good relationships. What I think this is supposed to mean is the husband works and the wife stays home and takes care of the house and kids. With the capitalist economy, there is more opportunity for everyone specifically the women who once stayed at home.  With more and more women working and less staying home, the tight nit family starts to dissolve.  With a family starting to not have as strong of ties as they once did things such as divorces come up. With divorce being rare just a few decades ago and now a rate of about 50% of marriages ending divorce, divorce isn’t so shocking of a thing because of the capitalist economy. With the old ideal American family the man seemed to always appear as the big strong independent person and the wife was lost without him. Now women are seen as just as much independent as men and it has been proven they are perfectly capable of raising a family. They have been able to prove this more often now because of things such as divorce that force them to take care of the children by themselves, or another way which is something that is becoming more common and that is illegitimate children.

All together this is widely accepted, people are getting more and more use to the idea of same sex couples. Of course there are a good few who refuse to acknowledge relationships between people of the same sex. It seems as of now there is no ideal American family, because of the difference in wants and of course the new opportunities that the capitalist government offers. Especially the new opportunities for women and homosexuals. In the end John D’Emilio makes a good assumption in thinking that there is a connection between the capitalist economy and its helping shape things such as what people think of homosexuals.

A Real Movie with Real Men and Women

The first movie that came to my mind that presents wild real men is Mr. Mom. Although this film is a lot less violent and a lot less about sexuality than the films mentioned in the reading I believe these films shows males and females going outside the realm of what is considered normal for them. The film is about a man played by Michael Keaton who works at a car manufacture. He and his wife have several kids, whom his wife stays at home with.  Eventually he is laid off. His wife finds a job before him, because she found a job first he has to stay home and take care of the kids. The movies goes with Beedles explanation of what society does and that is assign gender roles Beedles says “ biological functions of men and women have been the source of many behavioral characteristics that we ascribe to the gender.(Beedles pg 203) The movie has Michael Keaton’s character in some more feminist situations. He is seen wearing an apron cooking for his kids, something that is mostly associated with women. He also does things such as gossip with the other neighborhood moms, and doing workouts on the television. Also you could make an argument that the wife is an example of real wild women. She is a woman who was able to become the breadwinner of her family after her husband was laid off, something that is done in real life more than people realize.

            Although this is forced on Michael Keaton, and it’s hard to call it an example of wild real men at first, he soon grows into the role of being a stay at home dad. This movie was made in the 80’s so possibly it was made easier as Beadles says “the quaint and antiquated notion that women are generally passive and dependent- have been challenged by women( and some men) in the past thirty years or so.” (Beedles pg 203) If this movie was made in the fifty’s or sixty’s I think it would have been seen as a lot less realistic, it may not have been possible for this movie to have been made during those times for the reason it really only has been a few decades since it has become less taboo, like the article says. While Michael Keaton is doing something that he grows into and has the right to do, it is still seen by most of the world today as funny, as he is doing what is traditional seen as something a women should be doing. He is able to keep his masculinity as even though his doing what seen as abnormal for a straight man, he does things such as threatening to punch his former boss after his former boss talks down to his son. This comes up later as the boss does it again at the end of the film and promptly punched by Michael Keaton. This was after his boss offers him his job back, which he accepted. The film really tried to hint that Michael Keatons masculinity helped him get out of the slump he was in.

            The character of the wife is good example of wild real women, as I said before because she able to take the role of breadwinner after her husband is laid off. The job she takes is a high one in a well known company. She is able to make a presentation for a commercial that is so welled received from her bosses they want her to help direct the commercial. During the time she is helping with her commercial, one of her bosses makes advances on her. She does not respond well to this and eventually punches her boss in the nose and quits. This is example of a woman going against the idea of them being “passive and dependent”. (Beedles pg 203)

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Amara Villa-Rodriguez- In your post from the 9^th I really liked your interpretation of why Frida’s head was put on a deer. When I first looked at the painting I understood the setting and had an idea of what the arrows represented, but I wasn’t sure of her choice of the deer, with your interpretation I have a better understanding of the painting as a whole. In your post from the 7^th I liked your introduction a lot. In the first part of the paragraph I thought you did a job in introducing the topic as you explained how long the topic has been debated. In the second half of the introduction I liked the fact that you use part of what would be the beginning of your summary and you connected to the thesis.

Amity Connolly- The post from the 9^th was done very well especially your description of the painting. I was also impressed with your ability to connect things seen in the painting to things that were said in the readings.  In your post from the 7^th I was very entertained. I like a lot how you didn’t just summarize what the author said. You made the article a lot more interesting as I could relate to it a little bit and it was writin in a unique way. If I had any complaints it would be it didn’t have much from the article, but it was still very well written.

Sandra Barocio- There were no posts.

The Bus

The Bus.

In this painting there are six people sitting on a bus. The first one is of a woman who is wearing a white dress.  She is wearing black shoes and has a woven basket. The next person is a man, he wearing blue overalls over his white shirt and orange tie. He is holding a wrench in his right hand. The next person is a women. She has something under her clothes.  She is wearing an orange top and a yellow skirt. She has a bag by her feet. Next her is little boy who is knelling on the bench. He is wearing is a white and orange hat, a blue shirt and white pants. He is looking out the window. Next to the boy is a man. He is wearing a black suit with a gray and black hat. In the man’s right is a bag. Next to the man is a woman. She is wearing a purple dress with pantyhose. She is wearing an orange scarf. All six people are sitting on a bench in wooden bus. Behind the passengers is green field with a few trees and a walking path. Right next to the walking path is two buildings one red, the other tan. The tan building has smoke towers, with smoke coming out of them.

I found this painting to be rather disappointing as this painting seemed to be displaying stereotypes of several different ethnicity's. The first women who appears to be of Asian descent, is dressed nicely, with her hands in her lap. The next person is man of African descent.  He is stereotyped by the way he is dressed and what is hinted as his occupation. The man while having what appears to be a button down shirt and a tie, is also wearing overalls. He is also carrying a wrench. He is a stereotyping people of African descent, as those with more blue collars jobs and those who are not as nicely dressed. The third person seems to be a Hispanic woman. The woman is dressed in what appears to be a Latin influenced dress. The kid next to her appears to be hers. She also appears to have a kid under clothes, possibly breast feeding. The bag she has appears to be pretty ratty, a sign of not much money.  The boy is looking out the window and kneeling on the bench. I think this is showing kids to have a little less patience and being curious. The next person is a Caucasian man. This man is well dressed. He is wearing a suit and a hat. He has a bag in his right hand, it can be assumed that this bag has money in it. This man is portraying Caucasians as people with a little bit more money and can afford to dress nicely.. The last person is another lady who appears to be Asian. She like the first is well kept along with being well mannered as she has her hands in her lap.

Works Citied

Kahlo, Frida. The Bus. 1929. Dalores Olmedo Foundation, Mexico City, Mexico, Taos School of Art. Web. 9 September 2010

Do You Think a Machine Can Think?

Page 165 # 1

This essay explores whether or not computers can think. Robert Wright goes into several examples and opinions when he tries to determine whether or not computers can think. The thesis of Robert Wright’s essay is from what a machine can do, does that mean it can think. Throughout his essay he gives good arguments for both sides, there is no clear cut answer as to whether computers can indeed think or not. He really leaves it up to the reader to make up their own mind.
The first example he goes into is Garry Kasparov and the difficulty he had when he played a computer named Deep Blue. All this example really answers is whether or not the computer is good at playing chess. Its ability to play chess came from its ability to make calculations quickly. Would a computer be able to play a game where there aren’t no calculations that can help them win? The article then tells how it’s been questioned for a while whether machines conscious or not. This question came up after Wright noted that Kasparov didn’t look happy after he lost the first game, Wright questioned whether Deep Blue would have felt a similar way.
Wright goes on to explain why maybe machines don’t have feelings. He uses the opinion of someone named Chalmers. Chalmers believes that most of consciousness is still unknown. Daniel Dennett is on the other side of fence of consciousness; he believes that most of all that was misunderstood about consciousness is now known. What started this debate is a man named Gilbert Ryle’s work titled “The Concept of Mind”. This described a person as a machine and how it is soulless. Wright is in the middle of this debate, he doesn’t see the difference between the two arguments. Dennett states in his book that he believe that one day we will all be machines. Chalmers and a man named McGinn are among a group of philosophers who are called the New Mysterians. This new group thinks that scientific research and artificial intelligence just give more reasons to go back to the old questions that they had about consciousness and not just disregard them. Chalmers goes on to describe Cog, a robot in the works at M.I.T. This robot will one day have skin that can feel when it is touched. It’s possible that Cog does indeed have a conscious, nether Dennett nor Chalmers disagreed. Wright then brings up the fact that there may actually be a need for consciousness. Chalmers wrote a book on this titled “Consciousness Explained”. Dennett prefers a model called pandemonium. In this model our brains creates several theories about the world. Those theories who become the favored become conscious. This model is well developed and it can be shown on computers. Chalmers questions this by asking how does information turn into an individual experience.
In his book Chalmers puts out a theory. He suggests that consciousness isn’t actually physical. He suggests that maybe information is a special kind of matter. Chalmers thinks that eventually new consciousness will come about. Wright concludes with the idea that souls could be created with machines, and this may not be what was intended by whatever created us. This was rebutted with the argument that it is essentially the same things as having babies.

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Amare Villa-Roriguez- In your blog from 8/31 on consciousness, I thought you did a good job in picking a quote from Hazen, and then explaining the quote, I had much better understanding of what the quote was about after reading your explanation. I also think that you explained well, why we probably won’t be able to understand the human conscious scientifically. In your response to the articles about machines, I think your use of the word awareness is spot on with what the word consciousness was supposed to mean in the article. Overall, I think in both posts you made it easy to understand what both articles were about.
Amity Connolly- In your blog from the 31st I really liked the end to your definition of consciousness. I definitely agree with the need of being able to remember what they have done, to be defined as conscious. I also liked your idea of how our consciousness makes us unique, I agree with it and I think it puts it in good perception why the human conscious is so hard to study. I thought your blog from September 2nd was very well written. It flowed very well and I thought your descriptions were well done as it gave me a better idea on what the article was about, from when I read it.
Sandra Barocio- I didn't see any blogs.

Will the Machines surpass the Humans?

In the view of Minsky, the way in which machines surpass the human brain is they have the ability to remember any information they’ve previously encountered. They have the ability to look back at everything that has ever happened to them. Humans can’t do that. Instead some memories will be kept while others are lost. What this really means is that machines can be more conscious than human brains. According to Minsky just because machines can be more conscious than humans, this does not mean that machines are smarter than humans. He defends this by explaining how just because someone has something doesn’t mean they will be able to use it.
I do agree with Minsky on his stance about how just because machines can be more conscious than humans this doesn’t make them smarter than humans. My reason for agreeing with him is his suggestion of how the machines are not as aware of how to use what that know compared to humans. I believe humans are a lot better at adapting then machines are. I think a good example of this is solving a math problem. A machine has to have itself programmed specifically on how to do math by the programmer. A human can look up how to do it themselves and learn it without help from another person. Also a machine has to be told specifically when there would be change and human can figure it out by themselves beforehand.
I think the fact that humans have the ability to tell when there is problem and are able to look up ways to solve it on their own is another reason their smarter. They don’t to be told specifically what the problem is and what specifically what has to be done. Humans have an ability to adapt much quicker I believe as humans can predict when something will change. Machines will work until there is absolute need for change. I think it’s natural for humans to try and figure out the problem with what they already know. If it turns out they don’t have enough information they can look it up. It may be easier for a machine to happen to know something because of their ability to recall things from memory, but I don’t believe it would be as easy for them to look up whatever their trying to solve, they would need help from human in finding new information.