Love, Home Sapien Style

Historically monogamy is a new thing for humans. Humans are, and always will be evolved animals. The human male is designed to be able to impregnate many, and his sexual urges and drives are geared toward that goal. However, studies have shown that women also have the desire and drive to mate with more than one person as the drive is to find the most acceptable gene donor and protector or provider for their offspring. By sampling a large cross-section of their potential mates the human female is "filtering out" the less desirable to the more desirable who shows the strongest of the traits she is attempting to have passed to her offspring. Contrary to the teachings of modern monogamous relationships, humans were not meant to be monogamous, we were meant to use selective process for breeding based upon genetic variables which each is attracted to. The "love" factor is an emotional response which has been attached to the sexual nature in an effort to make humans into something they were never meant to be. As can be evidenced in the fact that polyamorous relationships and marriages are just as healthy and loving as are monogamous ones. 

Human Beings are probably more biologically configured for polygamy. Considering that women typically ovulate about once a month, and typically reach infertility in what we consider to be "middle-aged," while men continuously "produce" sperm throughout their lives.“The human mind was designed for the purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation; feelings of lust, no less that the sex organs, are here because they aided reproduction directly” (Wright 280). The benefit of polygamy, would be an increase of chance in spreading ones genes. According to evolutionary psychologists, polygamy can be determined by weighing of the males testicles. By looking at the great apes our nearest cousin, there seems to be a direct relationship between sexual promiscuity and the size of male sexual organs. Chimps are very promiscuous and 'competition is fierce', and their organs are very big compared to their body size. Gorillas on the other hand have very small genitals in comparison, leaving human beings somewhere in the middle.

Overall humans are not a monogamous species. It's only been the past several thousand years we've tried to become one. Monogamy was just not in the best interest of survival of our species and therefore we really are not hardwired for it. Men are programmed to impregnant as many women as possible, women to be a little more monogamous, but, highly superficial. They are designed to go for bread winners of the bunch, and all of this is about biology, designed to keep the human line going. However, many people today do maintain monogamy, whether it's for personal beliefs or conforming to current cultural beliefs. 

He Said/She Said

Having conversations with the opposite sex can at times be very difficult. Many people probably find it frustrating to start conversations or keep them going with the opposite sex. Males and females are different. This is not a new idea. No matter how old we are, we still get confused and frustrated in attempts to interact with the opposite sex. Men and women are raised in different cultures and have difficulty in communicating with the opposite sex. In Deborah Tannen's Sex, Lies, and Conversions, she explains why there are often time conflicts in a discussions between males and females. She goes into details as to how we differ, why we differ, and how we can overcome our differences in communicating so that we can have healthier and better relationships with each other.

One night I was watching a program were a girl was unset with her roommates, who were in relationships, who were sleeping in the same bed with on another. She felt uncomfortable with the idea of her roommates sleeping in the same bed together. I tell my friend about this scenario and he says, "There's nothing wrong with that, they're only friends." He had no problem with the idea of two people from the opposite sex, with girlfriend/boyfriend, sharing a bed. We then had an argument on whether or not it was appropriate for a boy and a girl, who calm their just friends to sleep in the same bed with one another.

According to Tannen, males and females perceive the world differently. Guys tend to see themselves in a hierarchal pattern. They live in a social order, life is often seen as a contest, and conversations are for status. Meanwhile, women tend to see themselves has a community and seek intimacy and understanding. Therefore, conversations are for supporting and consensus. There are few misunderstandings and sparks fly when males talk to males and females talk to females. The reason, according to Tannen, is we understand the world and language of our gender.

Week 6 Blog Reviews

Justin

Directed Freewrite:

Your post was well written and had great voice. But, there are a few thing I would suggest. Your transitions from paragraph to paragraph were a bit disjointed, you leaped from one idea to the other. You gave the audience a lot of questions but no real answers. Other than that you had some great ideas and combined them well with the author's main points from the article.

Real Wild Men:

Training Day was a great example of a Real Wild Men. You described Denzel Washington's character in the film extremely well. Your thoughts were well organized and clear. You gave great examples from the film to support your ideas  and thoughts. From you're writing I could tell that you understood the movie and the reading well. 

Armando

Capitalism and Identity:

I really liked this post. It shows in you're writing that you really understood the article by John D'Emilio. You had great voice and smooth transitions throughout your essay which made it enjoyable to read. You conveyed your thoughts and idea's extremely well.

Real Wild Women/Wild Men:

Your thoughts in this post were clear which made it easy to read. You described the show, Jersey Shore, perfectly. Jersey Shore is the best worst show on television right now. The characters on that show are so likable, but for some reason I can't stop watching. The one thing that I would suggest is to give more specific examples from the show, to show how their Real Wild Women and Men.

Hidden Histories

In John D'Emilio, Capitalism and Gay Identity he suggests that the emergence of the modern homosexual identity is connected with capitalism. The free-labor system specifically allowed large numbers of men and women to call themselves gay, to see themselves as part of a community of similar men and women, and to organize politically on the basis of that identity. D'Emilio also states that the importance of the family as an economic unit was diminished by the expansion of the system of free labor. 

As wage-labor spread, some were able to free themselves from economic dependency on the family, and able to set up alternative kinds of households. Over time, the family gradually lost its status as a unit of production.

In conclusion, this reduction of the economic importance of the family made it possible for sexuality to be freed from the obligations of procreation. D'Emilio also mentioned that the increase in the institution of wage labor, managed to diminish the family's importance as an economic unit, and transformed the family into what is now an affective unit providing sexual and emotional satisfaction and happiness. 

"Real Wild Women"

The movie Kill Bill I think shows an extreme idea of "Real Wild Women." The lead character, played by Uma Thurman, was a member of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, lead by her lover Bill. When Thurman's character realizes she is pregnant with Bill's child, she decides to escape her life as a killer. She flees to Texas, met a man, and on the day of they're wedding is gunned down by an angry and jealous Bill. Four years later, Uma Thurman's character wakes from the coma, and discovers that the life and baby she longed for are gone. She then sets out on a revenge mission to kill each member of the squad, especially Bill.  

In Kill Bill, the women are both the heroes and the villains."Female road outlaws have usually been represented either as innocent girlfriends and wives, who stand by their man and suggest the hope of peaceful family alternatives, or as a femme fatale, who betray the male protagonist and the family ideal out of greed" (Boozer). I think that Kill Bill actually represents both of Boozer's female gender roles. The main roles are filled by women with traditional gender expectations and stereotypes. The Bride (Uma Thurman) is pregnant and is thus poised to take on the traditional roles of wife and mother. It is when she is prevented from doing so, by her attack, that she becomes enraged and heartless, as if taking on the role of a mother and wife is what would have made her happy and complete. O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) is the head of Tokyo organized crime, in a reversal of traditional Japanese sex roles. Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) plays the traditional housewife and mother role, but is likewise strong and self-assertive, protecting her home and family in the way that a husband might, with violence and physical strength. Despite some of the reversals, the film bears an apparent underlying conventional view on gender and sex roles. 

I think Quentin Tarantino, the writer and director of the film, portrayed his characters as being independent, strong, and a bit feminist in its gender ambiguity. Uma Thurman's character behavior ranges from stereotypical female, as a blushing bride, to a masculine satire as a sword wielding assassin. 

Blog Reviews- Essay 1

Tasha

Your Introduction paragraph was very entertaining. The story you provided in the beginning of your essay was a great way to get your audience attention. It has a good voice and word usage. The only thing that I would say about your intro is that it's a bit short. You could add a little more to the story in the beginning to make it longer. 

Your Body paragraphs, I thought they were very well written. They were structured well, had a great voice and word usage. I like that your essay flows so well, your transitions are spot on. It made reading your essay nice and easy to read. I like that you stated your opinion in areas that were needed, like clarifying an issue for the audience or answering a questions. Your essay had great personality, which made it enjoyable to read. 

Your Conclusion was good. It tied up all the loose ends and provided closure to the audience, it was a great way to end an essay. You didn't provide a work cited, so I cannot tell whether or not your citations were done correctly. Don't forget to provide a Work Cited page for your final draft. 

Katie

Your Introduction was well written. I liked your word usage and the way you used questions to set up your introduction.You provided a connection with your audience by giving your personal views of consciousness, which lead into your thesis statement. Your thesis was clear and well thought out and transitioned nicely into the first body paragraph. 

Your Body paragraphs were well written. They were organized, straightforward, and displayed great voice. Your transitions to the different paragraphs were great, everything flowed smoothly. It made your essay engaging to the audience. Your citations were also used very well, they flowed nicely through the body paragraphs. 

Your Conclusion was good. It wrapped up the essay very nicely. You provided closure to the audience and gave them some things to think about as well. Your Work Cited looks good everything looks like its formated correctly. I would look over them again just to make sure. 

Week 4 Blog Reviews

Lauren Spencer

Lauren I really enjoyed reading your Robotic Beings Rule the World post. You had some great views on the subject, but there were a few things missing from your post. There could have been more to the summary. If I did not read Wright's writing, I don't think I would have understood your post. At time your ideas were a bit disorganized, which mad it hard to read.

Your describtion of Frida's painting, Cristina My Sister, was really well written. I enjoyed reading this post it had amazing details. Your description of the painting was very clear, I could picture every thing your discussed perfectly in my head. I also liked reading your interpretation on the painting as well. You had a great understanding of this particular piece and it was joy to read. 

Tasha Cerimeli

Tasha, on your Can Computers think blog, I believe was some of your best work. Your summary on the reading was really well written. Your post was really well put together and it had great transitions. The flow of the essay, also made reading your work delightful. Your post also had a really nice voice to it as well. 

While describing Kahlo's My Grandparents, My Parents, and I, you also did an outstanding job. The details you provided for the artwork were so clear and amazing, you really helped me understand the different dynamics to the painting. The only thing that you didn't include in this post was your interpretation of the painting, I think I would have enjoyed hearing your thought on this particular piece. 

Katie Kosturik

Katie, in your Can Machines Think blog, I think you did a great job summarizing Wright's writing. If I had not read his essay I would have still understood his concepts and ideas, you explained his writing so well. I also found your opinions on the subject familiar to that of my own. I do not believe machines will be capable of thinking on the same level as humans. I also liked the way you backed up your opinions with facts from the reading, it made you're writing flow very well. 

In your description of Diego and Frida, I felt that you had a great understanding of what the painting represented. I know I would have had a difficult time describing the different aspects of the painting, and you illustrated it with ease. You gave good, clear details, and your interpretation of the artwork was very impressive. I really enjoyed reading your work this week. 

The Broken Column

Frida Kahlo was a unique, ingenious Mexican painter. Frida was a Mexican women who was proud of her culture, and fueled world interest in Mexican artwork. Many of Kahlo's paintings are beautiful, one-of-a-kind images that take the viewer on a wonderful journey. So when it came time to select a piece of her artworks, and give a description, it was hard to pick just one. But this one image in particular just grabbed my attention. This exceptional piece of artwork by Kahlo is called The Broken Column. 

This painting, by the title of it, sounds dark and ominous, but there is something very beautiful and sad about it. In this painting, Frida is naked and the surface of her skin is punctured with sharp nails. Metal nails pierce her face, breasts, and torso, along with some of her upper thigh, which is hidden. In this illustration she peers to be in a constant state of pain and suffering. Her upper thigh is also cloaked around a white cotton cloth. In the center of her body, there is a missing section of flesh, exposing her spinal column. The column looks shattered or broken, like its on the verge of collapsing into rubble. In this painting, it looks as if Kahlo is being held together by a cloth harness or corset, which envelopes around her upper body. On her face there are luminous tears drops, that flow from her eyes as she stands alone. In the background she seems to be in some sort of wasteland or desert, isolated from the rest of the world. At the view of the horizon its clear of any sign of life or hope. 

I found myself infatuated with The Broken Column, because it is so different from anything I have ever seen. The colors used in this artwork are dull and plain, but the way Frida Kahlo used these colors make this image vibrant and full of life. In this particular piece of artwork, you can feel the pain Frida must have felt painting it. Her artwork is so honest and raw, she does not feel the need to censor herself. I really admire that aspect of Kahlo's artwork.

Work Cited

Kahlo, Frida. The Broken Column. 1944. Dolores Olmedo Foundation, Mexico City. ArtyFactory.com. Web. 9 Sept. 2010.

Can Machines Think?

In Robert Wright's article, Can Machines Think? Maybe So As Deep Blue's Chess Prowess Suggests," Wright introduces the article with a chess match played between, a man, Kasparov and Deep Blue, a machine. The match between Kasparov and Deep Blue was an illustration of human beings defending their dignity from computers. "The better these seemingly soulless machines get at doing things people do, the more plausible it seems that we could be soulless machines too" (Beedles 140). The more technology advances the more inadequate humans become? I don't believe this to be true. I think its more like, computers are learning new tasks because humans are programming them to do so. 

Wright explores the idea of human consciousness being put into a machine. That one day a machine will be able to do everything a human brain can and more. "Cog will someday have 'skin' a synthetic membrane sensitive to contact. Upon touching an object, the skin will send a data pocket to the 'brain" (Beedles 143). In his writing, Wright direct his attention to the fact that many scientists are working hard at developing this consciousness, he describes this as the Turing Test. Scientists are exploring these tests to program a computer to evolve into something that thinks, feels and forms ideas.

In this article, Wright found it difficult to define what exactly is consciousness. Consciousness is such a complex topic to research, everyone has their on opinion on the subject. Some believe consciousness consists of just the brain, and others believe consciousness develops from the expansion of technology. But is this new technology right? Wright states that religion plays a big part in consciousness. Many people believe that this idea of consciousness in machines, is going against God. "God could have created the world phyically exactly like this one, but with no consciousness at all. And it would have worked just as well. But our universe isn't like that. Our universe has consciousness" (Beedles 144). Many believe God created consciousness, and if he did, he can take it away.

Week 3 Blog Reviews

Lauren Spencer:

I liked reading your essay Robots!!! Your blog post was well-organized and nice to read. Your essay provided a nice voice that was intelligent but also easy to read, if that makes sense. On this subject we shared a lot the same viewpoints. Computers are capable of performing impossible tasks humans could never do, but they will never be at the same conscious level has humans. You have great opinions and execute them very well, I always look forward to reading your essays.

Katie Kosturik:

I really like your blog Can Computers Outsmart Humans? Your essay had amazing voice and was very well structured. I really liked how you started the first paragraph by stating the views of Minksy and then stated your opinion on the subject. In the second paragraph, you provided the reader with the other side of the argument. I found your blog very interesting, can't wait to read more.

Tasha Cerimeli:

I enjoyed reading your Have We Been Outsmarted By Computers essay. Your paragraphs were well thought out and structured really well. Your essay was full of clear and strong opinions. Many of which I agree with. Machines are built, programmed, and used by us, so we must be the most advanced of the two. I also liked the way you started off your essay, with a little story about machines man-kind built taking over the world. It grabbed my attention and made me want to read more. I look forward to reading more of your essay. 

Are We Smarter Than a Robot?

Artificial Intelligence is a concept that would make possible our most remote dreams. Marvin Minsky believed that one day machines could have the capability of surpassing the human brain. Minsky has this theory that artificial intelligence has the potential to model human intelligence, and make those machines exhibit thoughts and even have free will. The key to artificial intelligence is when computers are designed with common sense, consciousness or self awareness. Minsky and other like him, believe they would soon be able to program machines to simulate many forms of human reasoning. Machines would be able to embody this theory and manipulate knowledge in the form of symbolic logic. Minsky is not suggesting that machines or robots will be smarter than human, they have the capability to imitate human intelligence.

I think that human intelligence and artificial intelligence currently operate in different worlds. Artificial Intelligence can only surpass human intelligence when it becomes a superset of human intelligence. I don't expect this to happen. Computers will not be able to process thought like humans and other living animal. In order for a machine to function like a human it would have to have vast amount of consciousness. A computer would have to process variables simultaneously and decide the best deviation for a given situation to be able to achieve this, instead of every movement being programmed with variables that only change when something is accomplished. For man to make a machine that emulates a brain, they would have to reproduce a number of variables. The computer inside the robot will need to process variables, including speech, which will prompt it to be angry, then apply it to the action. But a person actions and memories are constantly evolving from experiences, unlike a robot, which are just programmed functions. 

I believe it will be possible to achieve a certain degree of human-like qualities, but never the same as the human brain. One reason that supports this is that computers process data using binary numbers, but human thoughts (and brain) are so abstract and undefined, it wouuld be almost impossible are it to emulate its functions. Human intelligence is a completely different dimension than that of artificial intelligence.