TOW #19 - “Hollywood Needs to Fix Itself”

     In lieu of the Oscars tonight, I’ve decided to write my TOW about one. Recently, many people have been upset over the fact that the Oscars are white-dominated. Most people blame the fact that most Academy members are white and male, and the author agrees. However, the author, Slate writer Aisha Harris, argues that the problem is not just in the Academy members but in the Hollywood industry itself, which I agree with. The real problem is the issue of diversity in the entertainment industry, not just within the awards.

     Harris writes, “How many nonwhite and/or female studio execs are deciding which projects deserve to be greenlit? How many talented up and coming writers and directors of color are being sought after and mentored by more established directors, writers and producers? Where are the adventurous casting agents who don’t automatically assume that a character written of nonspecified background has to be white?” Here, Harris is getting to the root of the matter. Of course awards are going to reflect the industry, so in order to have more diverse awards ceremonies (that are still fair), there needs to be a change at the root of the matter. It’s not enough to just change the surface of the problem.
     Just making the members of the Academy more diverse is like affirmative action. It may change the end results (like who wins and who gets accepted), but it doesn’t actually address the root of the problem. The film industry will still be white dominated, and there is still an education and economic gap. It’s much more difficult to fix the root of the problem, but that’s what needs to be done in order to make a difference in the world.

TOW #18 - The Joy of Psyching Myself Out

     This week, I've decided to read an editorial piece published by the New York Times called "The Joy of Psyching Myself Out". The author, Maria Konnikova, is an ex-psychologist turned author. In her piece, she discusses the underlying misconceptions behind writing and the scientific pursuit of the mind and how, despite their differences, they both require exact-ivity and creativity. Additionally, separating the creativity from the world of physiology is not only unwarranted but also downright destructive. To emulate this, Konnikova utilizes concrete examples and employs parallel structure to add factual support and a sense of convictions and passion.

     In order to make the argument that the freedom to explore is crucial to scientific discovery, Konnikova talks about the revolutionary psychoanalysis Sigmund Frued. She first gives background on his methods of studying and researching- and how he relies on creativity to come up with his hypothesis. Because of his willingness to think abstractly, he was able to achieve success. This creativity made him  “a breed of psychologist that hardly exists anymore: someone who saw the world as both writer and psychologist, and for whom there was no conflict between the two.” That boundary melding allowed him to posit the existence of cognitive mechanisms that wouldn’t be empirically proved for decades.

     Konnikova also utilizes parallel structure to end the editorial on a powerful note. At the end, she refers to the reasons why she left the field of phycology; saying, “ I left psychology behind because I found its structural demands overly hampering…most new inquiries never happened — in a sense, it meant that objectivity was more an ideal than a reality. Each study was selected for a reason other than intrinsic interest.” Then, immediately following this claim, she declares, “I became a writer to pursue that intrinsic interest. But I do so having never quite left the thinking of the psychologist behind” and foes onto talk about the merits. This structure revolving around the word intrinsic interest and the comparison of pros and cons leaves the reader with an underlying feeling of torn interest. It is up to them to derive their own opinion through the information presented oh so jumbled and befuddled by Konnnikova.

TOW #17 - Logo Baby (visual)

     The baby depicted in this image is covered with logos of various prevalent companies in today’s culture. The maker of this image (uncredited) is most likely arguing that we are influenced by the media and advertisements around us now more so than ever, even from the moment we are born. In this way, today’s kids are more products of advertising and the media than ever before.

     This claim definitely applies to many aspects of today’s world. Nowadays, all you have to do to keep a kid busy is give them an iPad. With the Internet at their fingertips, they are now so much more connected to the rest of the world than we were at their age. Although they have more resources, they are also exposed to the media and commercials more often. In this way, they are molded by and made a product of the media from a very young age.
     For example, my younger sisters got their first iPhones in elementary school, while I got mine in eighth grade. Today, they are so much more in touch with pop culture than I am. My youngest sister is obsessed with Snapchat, Instagram, and Musical.ly. Whenever she’s bored and standing around waiting, she whips and nae naes. It’s kind of embarrassing that she knows more about pop culture than her teenage sister, but it makes sense since she’s been using her iPhone from such a young age.
     However, this does not apply to all people of the world. There are still many people without access to advanced technology or Internet. Although the picture makes a great statement about developed countries like the one we live in, not everybody can relate to it.
     Overall, the maker of the image’s claim that today’s kids are exposed to technology and the media at a very young age and that this exposure makes them a product of pop culture has merit but cannot be applied to the entire younger generation since there are still many people without access to technology that we have so readily.