Nathan+Cuklanz+Journals

// I chose to post this essay because like the subjects of psychology and sociology and found Barash’s essay to be very interesting. However, Barash makes a large generalization, as most sociologists do, and I attempt to refute it. // When Moe Hits Larry…  I found the essay “When Moe Hits Larry…” to be very thought provoking. I had no idea that humans pass off violence to another person because it is a physiological need. When one animal attacks another, the victim becomes very stressed and frustrated. It needs to release that stress on another organism, not matter what it is, so that it no longer carries that burden. If it is not released, the animal may experience things like ulcers and high levels of stress. This means that passing off anger and pain to someone else is a physiological mechanism animals use to maintain good health. This I agree with.  However, Barash’s claim that the Iraq war and Bosnian genocide can be blamed on this physiological need is absolutely ridiculous. When entire governments ponder enormous actions such as these, they do more than use their gut instinct. They don’t bomb a country just because it “feels right.” I feel that Barash’s findings can only be applied the actions of very small groups of people. An entire country does not pass on their anger to another country. This phenomenon applies to person to person relationships, not country to country.  Overall, I found Barash’s article to be particularly interesting. I never thought that maybe we inflict violence on others to “fix” the violence that was put on ourselves.

// I chose this journal entry because it was written on a topic that I have an opinion on. I really didn’t like Burris’s essay and highlight why in this journal. // Burris Burris’s essay, “Here’s to Looking at Reality, Kid: Why Films Should Carry Warnings about the Hazards of Smoking”, was mainly about the dangers of smoking scenes in film. She starts with an anecdotal introduction. Burris tells the story of Humphrey Bogart and uses his actions as an example of cigarette advertising in the movies. His famous scene in __Casablanca__ is a perfect example of how smoking can be held in such high esteem, and it was very persuasive. Other persuasive examples included the prevalence of cigarettes in __Titanic__, __License to Kill__, __Superman II__, __Die Hard__, and __My Best Friend’s Wedding__. All of these examples showed me that Burris’s thesis was valid; modern films do promote cigarette smoking regularly and should include warnings about its dangers. However, I found one of Burris’s main points to be very weak, and it took away from the validity of the essay. She claims that the difference between gun shooting and cigarette smoking in the movies is that people know gun shooting is dangerous but are oblivious to the dangers of smoking, and that is the reason why there needs to be warnings in movies. I find this point to be very untrue. People know that smoking kills just as much as they know shooting guns can kill. We are not as ignorant as Ms. Burris likes to think. By the time we are old enough to understand the movies we are watching, we have already been hammered with anti-smoking lectures and propaganda. A huge smoking warning in the middle of a scene is not needed. We already know. If someone chooses to smoke, it is because they want to ignore the dangers and the warnings at the expense of being cool, not because they were brainwashed by Humphrey Bogart.

//For this journal, we were told to write about what we do in our free time and argue whether it is addictive or not. I chose to write mine on the subject of the essay it was modeled off of, “Cookies or Heroin.” I enjoyed writing this journal and arguing the points made in “Cookies or Heroin.” // My Free Time  Whenever I have free time, I find myself relaxing in front of a TV set. It’s where I go to get away from the deadlines and the papers and the exams. It takes me off into another world where I can forget about my troubles. I thoroughly enjoy watching TV, but that does not mean I’m addicted.  The idea that TV is an addictive substance is absolutely ridiculous. I watch TV because I want to, not because I have to. I watch it because I’m bored and I don’t have anything better to do at the time. If something came up, I could easily turn it off. But why sit around and twiddle my thumbs when I could be entertained? A drug and a television set are two completely different things that cannot even be compared. A drug is physically addicting. Addicts need the drug. They crave the drug. If they don’t get the drug, they crash. I don’t need to watch TV. I don’t crave a TV. If I’m not watching TV, it probably means I’m doing something more exciting.  However, even though TV is not addictive, it can lower a person’s productivity. The purpose of a TV is to entertain when there is nothing else entertaining around. The problem with this is that entertainment and productivity do not go hand in hand. If I am given the choice between watching TV and filling out college applications, I will choose to watch TV because it entertains. Filling out college applications would be more productive, but I would much rather be thrilled by a TV set than stressed by college. This means that the problem does not lie with television.  The real problem is this: as a society, many people choose to be entertained instead of choosing to be productive. To put it bluntly, people are lazy. If people wanted to get things done, everyone would always have something to do and boredom would cease to exist. The television problem would be solved. However, this is not the case. People don’t want to work. They want to be entertained. They aren’t addicted; they just don’t have anything better to do. So while TV may lower a person’s productivity, it is not because they are addicted. It is because they believe watching television is more fun than doing something important. It is this state of mind that keeps them glued to the set. If something more “important” (entertaining) came along, they would turn it off. But until then, want to remain entertained. Television may make me less productive, but it is my choice to watch it. I am that one that decides to put off my applications to a later date. I am the one that decides that entertainment is more enjoyable than being productive. It is laziness, but laziness is my problem. Blaming the television won’t solve anything.