The author of the article says that it is misguided to compare video games to drugs because simply videogames arent drugs in the sense that they are not ingested. Neuroscientists say that the same areas of the brain that are used when reacting to a drug like methamphetamine, are used when playing videogames. However, these areas are used for any activity that may have pleasure in it, like when eating your favorite food or playing a sport you love.
Dopamine is a chemical your brain releases when it feels pleasure. Dopamine is used for everything, and is why videogames cant be compared to drugs because they release dopamine. Drugs just release a higher amount of dopamine than videogames.
One thing that i think is blasphemous is the fact that only 1% of gamers could be considered addicts according to Neuroscience. I think that this is the one thing that would push gaming addiction out of the picture of being an actual disorder. The "addicts" only experience more than moderate gameplay. I think that this does not consider anyone an addict. There are people in the world who run a lot more than others and running is not considered as an addiction by any means. I think that the entire idea of a videogame addiction is blasphemous.
They say that the risk of treating videogames as an addiction would be that we are criminalizing normal behavior. To expand, i think that this would cause a lot of drawback, especially from the gaming community. The gaming community is a very fragile one, and likes to be pleased. An example is the sub-community of players who play the series "Call Of Duty," and the release of its latest title Infinite Warfare did not settle well with a major part of the community and the sales were down by 70% on the expected sales. Just a simple example on a major series of videogames could show that the backlash on treating videogames as an addiction could be a direct attack to most gamers.
The author does mention at the end of the article that balancing exercise is important when playing videogames. They say that indulging in the past as being better than the present while the better past never existed is not good. I think that embracing videogaming as a regular activity is a major step forward in accepting it as a society. If you think about it, everyone is a gamer. Everyone has at least one or two games they play on their mobile device. Gaming is a worldwide community and it gives everyone a place to be in and belong. Yes there are some people that are much better than others at videogames but that is one of the things that pushes the community to get better because everyone wants to get better and be the best one. I think gaming is a constantly evolving community and is one of the most important ones going forward into the future because it extends to such a wide range of people. I dont think that tampering with the foundation of gaming is a good thing especially by suggesting some are addicted to it would settle well with the community.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Monday, March 6, 2017
Staying with Social Media: Title or Bust?
After reading the articles, i am on the side that social media will not affect my goals in the future, whether they include college or not. Mainly, i think that simply using social media will not make you one in a crowd, because everyone uses it. You are not the only person using it. Because it is so widely used, there will be no criticism to using it. Either thats the case or not, im not planning on going to college so it really cant affect my college plans if there isnt any.
After reading both articles, i have decided upon myself that neither were more persuasive in their articles. Both were using sentence structures and words i was not very familiar to, and thus led to me not being able to understand either article beyond the central point of the article. I think to decide which is more persuasive you have to be able to understand the article completely.
Before reading this article, i believed that the use of social media has no affect over a person's ability to get a job or their ability to get tasks done. I think this mainly because although i do have some social media accounts, i do not post in them and i am more of the person to comment and watch what others post. Although i could find something to say, i choose not to because i do not like to post everything i do on Facebook, and not be a like chaser. Even reading the articles, i am solid in my stance that social media has no hold or affect on anybodies professional life or job.
Heres the social media that i use:
-Facebook
-Snapchat
-Youtube
-rarely Tumblr
Honestly, i am not active that much on any of these platforms except youtube, because i watch a lot of videos. Given that i have an inactive presence on these platforms, i strongly believe that this will not affect an employer's view of me. There are few posts for them to go through, and the few posts there are, are not even from the current time rather from months ago.
After reading both articles, i have decided upon myself that neither were more persuasive in their articles. Both were using sentence structures and words i was not very familiar to, and thus led to me not being able to understand either article beyond the central point of the article. I think to decide which is more persuasive you have to be able to understand the article completely.
Before reading this article, i believed that the use of social media has no affect over a person's ability to get a job or their ability to get tasks done. I think this mainly because although i do have some social media accounts, i do not post in them and i am more of the person to comment and watch what others post. Although i could find something to say, i choose not to because i do not like to post everything i do on Facebook, and not be a like chaser. Even reading the articles, i am solid in my stance that social media has no hold or affect on anybodies professional life or job.
Heres the social media that i use:
-Snapchat
-Youtube
-rarely Tumblr
Honestly, i am not active that much on any of these platforms except youtube, because i watch a lot of videos. Given that i have an inactive presence on these platforms, i strongly believe that this will not affect an employer's view of me. There are few posts for them to go through, and the few posts there are, are not even from the current time rather from months ago.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
How To Make Americas Robots Great Again
Whether you like it or not, robots are here and they are here to stay. From the time they were created, industrial robots have made their way into factories and are making stuff that we use everyday. But the fact is this: we can't make them go away nor will they go away ever, just because of the advantages they bring, such as not having to pay the robot and the robot can do the work without getting tired.
Factories are still making a lot of stuff, contrary to whatever Trump says; the US set a new record for production in 2016, with production increased by 85% over 1987, which is an incredible jump. However, there is a line to pay attention to in the blog I read; Thanks to automation, we now make 85 percent more goods than we did in 1987, but with only two-thirds the number of workers. This should be frightening to everybody because if we get more done with robots and less people, whats to say our entire workforce will eventually be replaced by robots, based on the sole comparison of robots to production? Personally I am scared for the future for jobs.
China is the worlds leading producer of robots. This only became the fact in 2013, because china invested billions of dollars into the production of robots. However, China has a new goal (They always do, no racial though) They want to be the leading producer in robots used for factories, and experts in the field that is generalized into the subject of robotics say that it could be a decade away. Honestly, I don't care what country leads the world in amount of robots produced, but what does scare me is the competition to do so, and with so many robots on the markets, there could be a dramatic drop in how many people have jobs.
According to the article, if the US does not invest heavily into robots, the plan Trump has to resurge the economy will backfire, because we will be buying them from China. They say that the US needs to embrace the robots to truly get the most out of them, because we have not cried out for them, they will not be as effective in our country. The reason why China believes putting billions of dollars into robots is that with time, the robots will get better and will be on par with other countries.
Some of the difficulties that China has had in trying to grow the robot industry is that the robots that most of the companies are creating are not very good. Ultimately, China is expected to catch up with Germany and Japan in about 10 years because of the amount of money they are putting into it and that the creators will get better at making them. I do not think that this would be a great thing for global economies, because there would be a more liquified market to buy the robots from and will ultimately lead them to be cheaper and better, and give other countries the ability to buy more to create more products that those countries can't buy because of the low priced robots. Too much?
There are some advantages to robotics in america over china. One of them is that some of the best people in the business live in america. America has a nature that allows it to easily build new, huge companies, and we also are ahead in more advanced robotic technology. Either way, none of these can make our robotics programs grow immensely without the help of funds. However, is it really the best idea? Do we need these new robots? The answer is simply: No. We don't need these new robots, because we are doing fine as it is. Don't fix what ain't broke. How have we survived as a human race and a society before these robots were created? A saying I like to say is that hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times, and simply we don't need hard times right now. Yes, another depression is on its way and soon, but it does not need to be hastened by robots.
Trumps presidential campaign is to bring jobs "back to America." Yeah, right. So what he brings all the factories back, so what he brings the jobs "back," so what? There is nothing that says the companies can't buy more robots, which they will, to save money. You don't have to give any benefits to the robots that includes health care, dental care, and even retirement funds, which is a less of a headache for the company. Honestly, a push into the robotic department won't help either. Yes, it would create jobs in that department, but at the same time eliminate the jobs it created in manual labor departments. What I think will happen is that these people would then lose a job, live on welfare, then be called on for doing so. Trump even calls the people on welfare lazy, and with the president having this view, americans would be more outspoken about the topic. An example would be like the wall on the Mexican border, as even kids in Highschools would not allow their Hispanic classmates into the school forming a "wall" standing side to side. Any view that the president has will be carried by his respective party, and by looking at the voting statistics, most black and hispanic people voted against Trump giving us the perspective of the lower classes and even the middle class to not like Trump and his views. Ultimately, there is no way to stop the decrease in jobs, unless the allowance of robots in factories and companies is forbidden entirely.
Overall, robots just aren't a good thing to society. There are many people that don't like them for the fact that robotic experts are trying to give the robots AI, which allows them to think for themselves. Even the creation of jobs by robotics would delete other jobs, and destroy an economy Trump promises to rejuvenate. In 5 years, we could see the robot as the main employee in EVERY factory in america, and with the way things are going, we could see robots that can walk and run, and be aware of their surroundings. I mean, look at some of the cars being produced today. China will probably develop the most robots just on how much money they put into robotics. Everybody has their own opinion, and theres mine.
There are some advantages to robotics in america over china. One of them is that some of the best people in the business live in america. America has a nature that allows it to easily build new, huge companies, and we also are ahead in more advanced robotic technology. Either way, none of these can make our robotics programs grow immensely without the help of funds. However, is it really the best idea? Do we need these new robots? The answer is simply: No. We don't need these new robots, because we are doing fine as it is. Don't fix what ain't broke. How have we survived as a human race and a society before these robots were created? A saying I like to say is that hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times, and simply we don't need hard times right now. Yes, another depression is on its way and soon, but it does not need to be hastened by robots.
Trumps presidential campaign is to bring jobs "back to America." Yeah, right. So what he brings all the factories back, so what he brings the jobs "back," so what? There is nothing that says the companies can't buy more robots, which they will, to save money. You don't have to give any benefits to the robots that includes health care, dental care, and even retirement funds, which is a less of a headache for the company. Honestly, a push into the robotic department won't help either. Yes, it would create jobs in that department, but at the same time eliminate the jobs it created in manual labor departments. What I think will happen is that these people would then lose a job, live on welfare, then be called on for doing so. Trump even calls the people on welfare lazy, and with the president having this view, americans would be more outspoken about the topic. An example would be like the wall on the Mexican border, as even kids in Highschools would not allow their Hispanic classmates into the school forming a "wall" standing side to side. Any view that the president has will be carried by his respective party, and by looking at the voting statistics, most black and hispanic people voted against Trump giving us the perspective of the lower classes and even the middle class to not like Trump and his views. Ultimately, there is no way to stop the decrease in jobs, unless the allowance of robots in factories and companies is forbidden entirely.
Overall, robots just aren't a good thing to society. There are many people that don't like them for the fact that robotic experts are trying to give the robots AI, which allows them to think for themselves. Even the creation of jobs by robotics would delete other jobs, and destroy an economy Trump promises to rejuvenate. In 5 years, we could see the robot as the main employee in EVERY factory in america, and with the way things are going, we could see robots that can walk and run, and be aware of their surroundings. I mean, look at some of the cars being produced today. China will probably develop the most robots just on how much money they put into robotics. Everybody has their own opinion, and theres mine.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Leave Your Laptops At The Door
In the blog that I read, Mr. Rosenblum, students need listening and communicating to be professionally successful. He also says that the technology kills human empathy. While I was reading his comments on how the laptops prevent this, i thought to myself how even if we dont realize it it is happening to us as well. We are getting caught up in what is going on in the outside world we fail to see what is in front of us.
He banned the use of laptops in the classroom so that the students are engaged in the learning and are focused. The effect of banning laptops caused the teacher to be able to see the students and know whether or not they are understanding what he is saying and are getting more out of the learning. They also went deeper, further, and faster into the material. I think this is more of an advantage to the teacher as they are able to teach better and not worry about the students not paying attention.
Taking notes be hand, according to Rosenblum, increases test scores by 1.7% and it helps with remembering what you wrote down. Personally i take all of my notes by hand and it just feels naturally to me because as I am writing down the notes that the teacher is giving us, I feel like i understand what the words say better and as i'm writing it i can think about it and summarize it myself in a way i can understand.
Kelly McGonigal is a psychologist and lecturer at Stanford University. She says that if a phone is present at a table, even when the person is not using it, it is distracting enough to reduce empathy between two people and reduce rapport. I think this affects today's youth because we are not forced to have a conversation with someone while we are out eating somewhere with someone, and i think that affects us down in a personal way because when you get older and start getting serious with someone and you meet their parents out for dinner, you are unable to create a connection with them.
When students object to his rule, he simply says to them that you can't always get what you want, but you get what you need. I think that a lot of younger people in this generation are handed things that they ask for even when they didn't do anything to earn it themselves, and I think that takes out the motive to work hard out of many people. Of course it cant be entirely blamed on the children as the parents do have a say in whether they get them these things or not.
He banned the use of laptops in the classroom so that the students are engaged in the learning and are focused. The effect of banning laptops caused the teacher to be able to see the students and know whether or not they are understanding what he is saying and are getting more out of the learning. They also went deeper, further, and faster into the material. I think this is more of an advantage to the teacher as they are able to teach better and not worry about the students not paying attention.
Taking notes be hand, according to Rosenblum, increases test scores by 1.7% and it helps with remembering what you wrote down. Personally i take all of my notes by hand and it just feels naturally to me because as I am writing down the notes that the teacher is giving us, I feel like i understand what the words say better and as i'm writing it i can think about it and summarize it myself in a way i can understand.
Kelly McGonigal is a psychologist and lecturer at Stanford University. She says that if a phone is present at a table, even when the person is not using it, it is distracting enough to reduce empathy between two people and reduce rapport. I think this affects today's youth because we are not forced to have a conversation with someone while we are out eating somewhere with someone, and i think that affects us down in a personal way because when you get older and start getting serious with someone and you meet their parents out for dinner, you are unable to create a connection with them.
When students object to his rule, he simply says to them that you can't always get what you want, but you get what you need. I think that a lot of younger people in this generation are handed things that they ask for even when they didn't do anything to earn it themselves, and I think that takes out the motive to work hard out of many people. Of course it cant be entirely blamed on the children as the parents do have a say in whether they get them these things or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)