Experiment- Findings, Reflection, and Interesting "Prickles"

               My experiment has focused on limiting cell phone use in order to strengthen my ability to focus and complete assigned tasks.  Thus far, I have completed two different methods in an attempt to reach my goal of only using my phone during breaks in my work.  The first method was to place my phone in a location which was out of my sight.  I chose to place it in my desk drawer, which although within reach, was still not visible.  I definitely noticed improvements in my work habits, since I thought about my phone a lot less often now that I couldn’t see it whenever my eyes drifted away from my work.  Although I was a bit concerned about missing important messages or calls, I ended up not missing anything important.  The main reason for this was because I told myself that I could not check my phone until I finished the task at hand.  This motivated me to finish my work quickly and then check my phone, so not only did I check my phone, but I also finished my work in a productive manner.  The method used here is similar to guiding a dog with a treat.  Only once the dog finishes the race, competition, or task can the dog get the treat, and only once I finish with a certain segment of my work can I check my phone.

               Although the first method seemed to be fairly effective, I felt as if I needed to have further motivation to stay away from my phone, so I created a second method.  I brought my phone out onto my desk, so it was visible, but with several days of mental control preventing me from looking at it, I thought I would be okay.  For the most part I was fine and was not distracted by my phone, but in case I were to get distracted, I set up a punishment system.  For each time I looked at my phone unnecessarily, I forced myself to do fifteen push-ups.  This added motivation seems to be fairly effective, and it seems that I have nearly reached my new goal of not being distracted by my phone.  Initially, I set out to avoid using my phone in an excessive and distractive manner, but as I completed the experiment, I realized that using my phone wasn’t necessarily the problem, but being distracted by it when I wasn’t using it was the main concern.  It appears I have addressed this concern, and there is a good amount of research showing that this problem is not only an issue for me, but many people experience this issue.  In an experiment (which was published in Social Psychology), two groups of students were tested, with one of the groups having their cell phones on the desks and the other group had their cell phone out of sight.  The group which had the cell phone out of sight performed significantly better than the other group, and the difference was most notably during more difficult problems.  I believe this correlates directly to my issue, and I think the experiment I have performed has helped me to be stronger mentally to avoid distraction caused by my cell phone. 

Inequality: Can Social Media Resolve Social Divisions?

Danah Boyd, the author of “Inequality: Can Social Media Resolve Social Divisions?” approaches the topic in a couple of different manners.  Primarily, Boyd uses her own experiences to convey the message that the internet will not and is not helping to quell the inequalities which exists across the country, but especially among youth.  Boyd discusses all of the abnormalities or signs of division which she notices while talking with teenagers about their daily lives and more specifically their social media accounts.  All of these informal interviews can be considered Boyd’s fieldwork which is used to ultimately come to her conclusion regarding the topic. 

In order to further strengthen her argument, Boyd goes beyond fieldwork by bringing in outside information.  One of the first instances of this comes when she alludes to the Atlantic Telegraph Company and the resulting assumptions that the telegraph will bridge cultural divides across the world.  These references, which oftentimes include other works of literature strongly support Boyd’s argument by provided a level of authority or proof.  The author becomes much more respected when she brings in outside information to back up her opinions and fieldwork.  For example, she mentions the works of a linguist, psychologist, and a philosopher to strengthen her argument.  The secondary research which Boyd completed not only strengthens her argument, but it also shows a wide variety of approaches to the issue.  Embracing the complexity of the issue through these various opinions of experts, combined with her own fieldwork results in a solid and well-formed article. 

As well-formed as the article is with the fieldwork and secondary research, the article would not be complete or nearly as interesting if Boyd did not personally reflect on her discoveries.  She presents the reader with a strong opinion that we do not live in a postracial society, and that, in fact, segregation and inequality is alive and well in society.  Her opinion is voiced following the discovery of this inequality, first seen with Keke in Los Angeles.  Rather than simply stating facts, Boyd allows the reader to have insight into her thoughts, as seen in a particular statement, “What struck me as I talked with teens about how race and class operated in their communities was their acceptance of norms they understood to be deeply problematic” (303).  Overall, the combinations of personal reflection, fieldwork, and secondary research resulted in a solid and convincing piece of literature.       

Consider the Lobster

David Foster Wallace travels to Maine for the Maine Lobster Festival, but he writes relatively little about the festival itself, and more about the people and the possible ethical issues involved with cooking lobsters.  In addition to the information he gives, either from his own experiences or from experts, Wallace gives the reader insight into his personal reactions to the information.  One of the primary ways in which Wallace reflects, is by asking questions.  For example, he repeatedly asks questions regarding whether or not it is right to boil a creature alive.  He continues to ask further questions which allow the reader to think about the material in the same way that Wallace is thinking about the information. 

In addition to asking rhetorical questions, Wallace also utilizing footnotes very effectively to voice his opinions and reflections on various information mentioned in the reading.  He is able to add his own take in these footnotes, without taking away from the main part of the reading.  Although Wallace never comes to a decisive conclusion (in the footnotes or main portion of the passage), he does present the reader with enough information and a small insight on how he feels.  For example, while talking about the possibilities of pain reception in lobsters, he states, “I for one can detect a marked upswing in mood as I contemplate this latter possibility” (Wallace 14).  This reflection gives the reader a generalized idea of how Wallace feels, without specifically or explicitly stated his opinion.  This creates a much better relationship between Wallace and his audience.  Since he reflects on a variety of facts and statements, rather than jumping to conclusions and then backing up his opinions, his audience is much more likely to be interested in what he has to say.  In fact, Wallace even leaves the reader with several questions to answer.  These questions obviously were of much interest to Wallace, showing his reflection and thoughts once again.  In addition to showing Wallace’s interest, the rhetorical questions to close out the article also invite the reader to consider the same reflections that Wallace himself has made regarding the Maine Lobster Festival and the treatment of lobsters for consumption.  

Shipping Out

               David Foster Wallace recounts his journey, for the first time, on a luxury cruise.  He begins writing a generalized summary regarding all of his unique experiences, for good or bad (mostly bad).  Additionally, he discusses the propaganda which is used to lure people onto the cruises.  Wallace includes specific quotes and examples which enforce his claims.  He is sure to add his own opinion on what all of this means, even dissecting individual advertisements.  This analysis gives the reader a unique perspective as to what Wallace thinks with regards to his trip.  Then, Wallace goes on to tell the story as it happened chronologically.  He only stops to add his own personal reactions to these experiences.  For example, Wallace includes descriptions of many specific shirts or sunglasses or other items, which he then expands upon to show that all of these “Nadirits” (as he called them) are typical American tourists.  He continues to write about how these people and their touristy actions negatively affect, primarily through embarrassment, Wallace.

               Regardless of what the specific situation was, Wallace always related it back to himself and how it affected him, whether positively or negatively.  Without these connections being drawn, it would make it difficult for the reader to relate to the writing.  Instead of the writing being a simple summary of Wallace’s cruise, he was able to make it into something interesting for many readers by showing his reactions to the various situations on the cruise.  Whether it be the curiosity regarding the cleaning of Room 1009 or the cruise which pulls up next to Nadir, Wallace is able to write about his feelings to make it not just any event, but a meaningful event.  There are many more areas in which the reader is able to relate to Wallace since he expands on his experiences, as opposed to if this article were simply a summary of his cruise.  In addition to Wallace’s reflections benefitting the readers by creating a more interesting article, his reflections also help Wallace.  As the author, Wallace benefits greatly by his reflections because they created meaning, which is seen in the conclusion of the article.  Wallace is able to closely relate the hypnotist’s works with his own feelings that he wrote about early on, regarding everything that went on throughout the cruise.   

Experiment

               In the world today, it seems as if everyone is looking down at their smart phone, regardless of what they are doing.  These smart phones seem to consume our everyday lives, and I see it as a major problem.  Personally, I realize that my phone consumes much of my daily life.  I realize that these devices can be and are quite useful, but much of the time I spend on my phone is completed unnecessary.  It has become a habit for me and other people to “check” our phones for no particular reason.  Sure, we may go on Twitter or Instagram or Facebook, but we only do this because that’s all we can think of doing.  Rarely do I unlock my phone to intentionally check one of these forms of social media.  The only times I will purposefully use my phone is to respond to a text message or to make or receive a call.  Every other time, checking my phone is simply something I do because I have nothing else to do. 

               In an attempt to combat my slightly excessive phone use (although I use it a lot less than some other people), I will try to use my phone only when absolutely necessary.  I am not trying to avoid people trying to get in contact with me, but I would like to make sure that my phone is not the foremost thing on my mind at all hours of the day.  When my phone vibrates or rings, I will try to finish the current task at hand prior to addressing the notification on my phone.  Overall, the goal is for me to become less dependent on my phone.  This will mean that while I am waiting in a classroom for a class to start, I will not aimlessly spend time on my phone, but I will instead use the time productively. 

               In order to encourage myself to complete this experiment I will need to set mental goals for myself.  I believe that it will not be easy to ignore the constant buzzing emitted by my phone, but if I begin to show signs of failure, I will need to rethink my strategy to continue the experiment.  In no ways will I stop the experiment over the next few weeks, but I may need to readdress my strategies.   

The Unitasker

The author who calls himself the Unitasker, A.J. Jacobs, partakes in an excruciating experiment for many various reasons.  Most of all, he is motivated to focus better after a dangerous car accident caused by multitasking.  This would be considered his main exigence for performing this experiment.  The accident allowed him to think further about his life and his daily actions.  Aside from his personal motivation, he is also interested in giving the audience an idea of what it is like to focus on one thing at a time.  His purpose is to take the audience on an adventure to hopefully learn the same very important things that he learned throughout his experiment.  In the context of this specific chapter, the audience would likely be the same people who are interested in A.J. Jacobs’ books or interested in life experiments in general.  It is very possible that the readers are reading the chapter while participating in another activity, whether it be exercising, eating, or talking.  In this particular scenario, the audience could be a group of multitaskers.

               This experiment is one of many for A.J. Jacobs so it is likely that the reader would have a good reason to believe what he or she is reading.  Jacobs builds up credibility or ethos through conducting multiple different experiments in his life and presenting them in this book.  Also, A.J. Jacobs is a fairly well-known author who has written many different works, including many articles published in Esquire.  The moment that people see a name they recognize when reading a piece of literature, they give the author a distinct level of credibility.  Additionally, the mention of the horrific car accident which triggered this experiment gives the audience a firm reason to believe that Jacobs is writing with a solid purpose.  Once again, this adds to his ethos and makes the experiment more meaningful for the audience. 

               Although Jacobs does include brief instances of statistical research, much of his information comes from his own personal accounts.  For example, he brings up a study regarding Baboons and a UCLA study relating to multitasking.  All of this support intertwined within the timeline of Jacobs’ experiment helps create a strong argument.  Structurally, the chapter is very solid and Jacobs even ends with a coda (written on a typewriter), which relays the results of the experiment back to the reader so the reader can learn what Jacobs has learned.  

Aldous Huxley's Three Directions and a Dinner Conversation

A.J. Jacobs’ article, “The Overly Documented Life” fits Aldous Huxley’s three directions flawlessly.  First of all, his writing is completely personal, with the entire story focusing on his own life.  Although Jacobs includes some factual information in the introduction, the majority of the article includes personal experiences regarding the use of a small camera called a Looxcie.  The article focuses on the author and his own interactions with other people, especially with regards to his lifelogging.  Therefore, it is written entirely in first person, in order to give the reader a more personal perspective. 

Jacobs starts off by writing about the historical background regarding the human memory.  In contrast to the remainder of the article, the introduction is quite objective.  This fits into another one of Huxley’s three directions.  Finally, the universal or poetic aspect of the article fits into Huxley’s last remaining direction.  In this case, the universal aspect is seen through the common struggle to remember past events.  Jacobs discusses many events, such as marital quarrels or misplacing items, which help create a universal atmosphere for all readers.  He is able to create this atmosphere, because all of the circumstances are experienced by everyone in their everyday life.  Even though Jacobs is writing in an autobiographical manner, he still is able to connect to all readers in an abstract fashion through the introduction of relatable circumstances.    

In addition to Jacobs’ inquiry driven article fitting Aldous Huxley’s three directions, his writing also exhibits the dinner conversation model.  Jacobs, as the head of the dinner table, invites many guests to add to his personal quest in lifelogging.  His guests include people such as his wife, many friends, and even a random guy in a bathroom.  All of these guests add a different perspective and viewpoint with regards to Jacobs’ filming adventure.  Some people support the idea of filming everything, while others severely critique his lifelogging.  Regardless of their opinions, the guests bring up new ideas and ask further questions, sometimes returning to the original problem.  Returning to the original question, which is “How can lifelogging benefit daily life” is a primary characteristic of the dinner conversation model, which is fully encompassed by this article.  

Bibliographic Sources- Source Two

Navratilova, Martina (Martina). “Battle Over Pay For College Athletes Is Getting Started                       like Olympics used to be- everyone made$ except the athletes.” 22 Aug. 2015,                       11:13 p.m. Tweet.

            The author of this tweet is Martina Navratilova, one of the greatest female tennis players of all-time, is able to express her feelings regarding the argument between those who support paying college athletes, and those who do not support paying the athletes.  Her primary claim, or complaint is that everyone involved college athletics is receiving financial compensation, except for the players themselves.  She compares this to the Olympics (in which she participated) where the players do not get paid a significant amount, but everyone else does get paid quite well.  As a form of evidence, Navratilova includes a link to a Huffington Post article, which discusses many attempts to grant athletes the privilege of being paid.  In addition to having strong credibility, or ethos, since she is a well-known athlete, the Huffington Post article also adds some level of authority.

Since the author was a very prominent athlete, it is likely that much of her following base (especially on a form of social media such as twitter) is also interested in sports.  Her audience likely influenced her decision to post this tweet.  This means that there would have been a much smaller chance of her posting a tweet which would denounce paying college athletes.  Navratilova would not want to lose any fans or supporters by going against what many of her followers believe.  Although the argument is limited in length (by Twitter’s rules), there is still a clear purpose.  It is unlikely that she would have been willing to write much more than she did, and the reader likely would not have wanted to read much more.  If she did want to write more, Navratilova could have expressed her opinion somewhere other than twitter.  She wants all of her followers to realize (in a brief, easy to read format) that there is plenty of money to go around, but college athletes are still not being paid.  Although paying college athletes would have no real benefit for Navratilova, she still feels the need to spread her opinion because she was once an Olympic athlete who was not being paid sufficiently (at least in her opinion).  She is able to draw a close and somewhat unlikely connection between these two examples, while presenting an arguably brief and effective argument to her followers.   

“Battle Over Pay For College Athletes Is Getting Started- like Olympics used to be- everyone made$ except the athletes” (Navratilova)

Bibliographic Sources- Source One

Majerol, Veronica. "Should college athletes be paid? two recent rulings may                      change the face of college sports." New York Times Upfront 15 Sept. 2014:                 14+. Biography in Context. Web. 2 Sept. 2015.

Recently, several changes have been made which could have a potential impact on the debate over whether college athletes should be paid.  In 2014, a federal judge ruled that athletes in high level football and basketball programs are entitled to receive money if they are used in video games or television broadcasts.  The author provides arguments from both sides of the story, including the NCAA (not supporting paying athletes) and athletes and a college professor (largely in support of compensation for college athletes).  The author also brings up a few statistics, including the amount of revenue the NCAA generates from ‘March Madness’ each year ($800 million) and the amount of Alumni donations Texas A&M received after Johnny Manziel won the Heisman Trophy ($740 million).  Overall, the author does not come to a clear conclusion, although she does end with a quote favoring compensation for college athletes. 

The author is presenting her argument to a wide audience, since it is in the New York Times, but the title will likely attract the attention of those concern with sports.  Although the author presents both sides of the argument, she seems to have a slight tendency to support the athletes.  She presents slightly more pro-athlete arguments than anti-athlete arguments and ultimately ends the article with a strong pro-athlete quote.  This is understandable, since she is writing to sports fans, who most likely support compensation for college athletes.  Generally speaking though, Majerol’s main goal is to present the information in an unbiased fashion.  She uses the facts (especially the recent court decision) to present mostly other people’s arguments.  She is likely unable to present her personal opinion in this article because of oversight from the New York Times.  I do not believe that this is an editorial in which Majerol is free to voice her true opinion.  Nonetheless, she is still able to convey and present information.  If anything, the oversight and censorship helped her to publish a primarily unbiased article.

“At the same time, the NCAA and its member universities benefit enormously from popular athletes, who bring in millions of dollars in TV revenues and memorabilia sales, increase alumni donations, and attract new students.” (paragraph 8)

“The NCAA takes in about $800 million in revenue a year from the 'March Madness' men's basketball tournament.” (paragraph 16)