Summary/Analysis Update

I'm going to be honest.. I'm not confident in my analysis at all.  I feel confident about my summary portion because I know how to do that.  I’m not as secure in my analysis skills because I never really thought I was good at it.  I always thought I managed to give the illusion I knew what I was doing when I used big words in the analysis.  So either the big words distracted my teachers into thinking I was good at analysis or they saw what I couldn’t see.  Well, if I’m going back honesty, I never really thought I was a good writer either.  So maybe I’m just being overly critical of myself and I need to rein in the perfectionist in me.  Or maybe I’m legitimate in my fears of being horrible at rhetorical analysis.  I guess only time will tell.

I have been working on my analysis for give or take a few weeks and I don't think I've gotten better. One of the problems could be the article I chose to analyze. I picked a scientific article with a lot of big words I need google to understand. That's fine for summary, but it makes analysis all the more difficult. How can I analyze what they saying when I don't even understand what they are saying in the first place? It could be a full lot of nonsense for all I know. To me, the big words could be an appeal to ethos. Ethos is credibility and what is more credible than using words people need google to understand? Anyway, I'm going to continue working on it. The student sample is helping me with formatting because I was having a hard time trying to figure out where to work in the analysis with the summary. I know I'll get there eventually, it's just a matter of getting to the finish line with a draft I'm confident in.

Acrophobia

The article I chose to summarize was Deconstructing Acrophobia: Physiological and Psychological Precursors to Developing a Fear of Heights Carlos M. Coelho, Ph.D and Guy Wallis, Ph.D. I wanted to research about fear of heights, or acrophobia, because of the documentary I watched, Man on Wire. The documentary was about a man who willing walked a tight rope between the Twin Towers in New York. He was completely unafraid of the height he would be walking at, so it made me more curious about people who have a fear of heights.

I have a fear of heights myself, so I was interested in learning about others who share my fear. The article by Coelho and Wallis was the first one I clicked on and it immediately caught my attention. The article studied the factors that could lead a person to developing a fear of heights. I continued reading because I wanted to see if I agreed with what they were saying. And, I did. Two of the factors they were studying was vision and balance. When I'm at a height that makes me anxious my vision gets blurry and I feel unsteady. I can't see the ground beneath me so I have no clue how high up I am plus I think of scenarios of me falling to my death. So, yeah. My imagination is a very vivid place. Anyway, back on topic. I agreed with everything the scientists said and they provided factual evidence so I couldn't argue with them. Including data tables makes it pretty hard to say they made everything up. Plus they used big words so I knew I could trust them.

The Reality of Reality TV

Reality TV has become a permanent fixture in popular culture.  Either you love it or you hate it, you can't deny the fact that our society has become obsessed.  Our obsession has grown to the point where a good portion of the television shows on right now are reality shows.  Networks know we watch them so they keep making them.  One of the most popular reality shows on TV right now is The Bachelor franchise (yes, franchise because this one show has multiple spin-off series i.e The Bachelorette, Bachelor in Paradise, etc.).  And I'll admit it, I watch every single one of the shows involved in that franchise.  They're completely ridiculous and frustrating, but I love them so much.  As I'm watching these shows, I'm questioning how "real" they actually are.

The question of how "real" it actually is starts with the premise of the shows.  The Bachelor is about one man dating 30 women in the hopes of finding his wife.  The Bachelorette is basically the same except the gender roles are switched.  And my personal favorite, Bachelor in Paradise, is when all the unstable cast aways from previous seasons all go to Mexico in the hopes of, you guessed it, finding love.  Most the couples that do find "love" on the show, don't last in the real world.  The majority break up a few months into their relationship and only a handful of the couples actually make it down the aisle.  The point is, the shows track record for successful relationships is terrible. The latest couples from the franchise who happen to still be together are in engagement limbo.  They're either going to get married or appear on People magazine with a rip down the middle.  The question is now why doesn't it work out?

The contestants are in the Bachelor "bubble" for 2 months with no contact to the real world.  Their phones are taken away so all they can do is focus on the "relationships".  The dates these people go on are out of a fairytale.  They go on extravagant dates in planes and boats with random hot tubs put in the middle of nowhere.  The point is, these are not the type of dates one has in the real world.  When they get out of the "bubble", it is a shock to their system when all they have is each other and Netflix.  When that time comes, the "winner" may realize they fell in love with the fairytale as opposed to the person.  That's just my thoughts on the matter.  I'm not a relationship expert, but I am a TV expert.  I know a good show when I see it and this franchise is full of good shows.  It's like watching a slow moving train wreck and I can't look away.  I have fallen way too deep into the Bachelor hole so even if its not as real as it wants people to think it is, I'm still going to sit on the couch every Monday and watch the Bachelor (but not until May because the season ended... WHYYY!).

Ambiguity

Ambiguity is the quality of being open to more than one interpretation of something.  It usually leads to doubtfulness and uncertainty since it has a different meaning to different people.

In the documentary Urbanized, director Gary Hustwit shows ambiguity by showcasing Bogota's interpretation of a "perfect city."  The documentary features a tour of the city given by the mayor of Bogota.  The city features a bike lane that is separated from the main road by cars in the mud.  The safety of pedestrians on bikes is a priority for Bogota and it is a feature that adds to their interpretation of a perfect city.  This is an example of ambiguity because not every city as the same definition of what a perfect city is like.  For some people a bike lane could be an important feature in their definition, but for others it is not.