Week 15:To Data or Not to Data

Well, it's only taken me 16 weeks to figure it out, but I finally realize this class is really the study of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong. 

This collection left me mad as heck with readings 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. But no worries: it was pretty much all wiped off the table with the second article. I'll cover the depressing stuff first.

Starting with The Atlantic's Facebook/numbers article: I've always known in the back of my mind that Facebook was using numbers and buttons to influence my behavior. I'm not too proud--or smart enough--to deny that the likes don't matter to me. I enjoy the validation. I want  to see who cares about my posts. And now with the emoticons "reaction" buttons, well, bring it on, Facebook. But it's still shocking to read the article, to see all the facts about Facebook's outright intrusion on my life right before my eyes. We're being played. I feel like the numbers and likes are just a great big psychological experiment. And one day somebody (Zuckerberg, maybe?) is going to say, "Just kidding!"

The WSJ article about social bias in data was upsetting. I hadn't heard about the photo tagging disaster on Flickr. I'm back to the argument I've made all along: why are we trusting technology, software with tasks that technology and software really don't need to be managing? What in the world is the importance of the tags, really? It's one thing to want to add those for your (the user) own way-finding and memory-saving purposes. It's a whole other ball game to have software do it and make this kind of appalling error. It's embarrassing and altogether unnecessary. But here's the thing that's so hard to swallow: maybe it's our own bias that's really to blame?!? There goes my argument for letting the human manage his tagging himself. It's an ugly circle. 

It was the same thought I had when reading about test prep companies charging based on geography, resulting in race-based price gouging. The people are failable, here, clearly. And it's because they're trusting the software implicitly, it appears. 

The "Hypocrisy of the Internet Journalist" was one of the most dystopian pieces of...collegiate reading...ever. I felt defeated and demoralized and scandalized. But what am I going to do about it? What's the author's goal here? "You're screwed, but I don't have any answers for you (evil laugh). Have a good life though!"

In "Metrics have a powerful influence on journalists' morale," I thought: wow, conflict of interest. I'm now meant to worry about journalists getting high traffic to their stories to feel good? When and where will we stop feeding the need to validate our existence at every turn, with praise and encouraging words? 

Reading "The Promise of Big Data," I felt hopeful all over again. On the one hand, obviously, I'm worrying about All The Data and how it's being used to predict my next trip to the bathroom. Next thing I know, I'm thinking, oh, this is great! All The Data might save us all. It's incredibly confusing. Good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, I tell you. 

Week 14: Overloaded

I remember the multitasking test came up earlier in the semester, and the link to the test was shared then. I was intrigued, so I tried it out. And proceeded to "fail" miserably within about the first few minutes. I wasn't surprised, not really, but it did annoy me a little. I thought I could do multiple things at a time while still staying on task. I'm a mom for crying out loud! I'm unstoppable when it comes to doing multiple things at once. But I was kidding myself--it's not who I am. I'm too much of a detail person. I need to make sure I'm doing a task well and thoroughly, and I'm pretty sure that mindset takes me straight out of the running for Multitasker Extraordinaire. Let's frame it like this: what percentage of that two percent of multitaskers are perfectionists, too?

Regarding "7 Things You Need to Stop Doing to be More Productive," perhaps this ought to be mandatory prep material for, say, middle schoolers, so that by the time they get to high school, and ultimately college, they'd be more productive in general. Think about it: we're taught from about high school on that we should drill and drill and cram and pack in as much studying and writing and reading and theorizing as we can, so that we can Learn It All. What I took away from this reading is that maybe that's not the smartest approach. (And good grief, the sleeping/napping stats...if only I could find away to get those hours in, to actually take naps. How much better would I be at life, at grad school, at work, parenting, life-ing, ETC.?)  I liked all the tips in the article, but the one I'm most interested in incorporating into my life is saying "I don't" vs. "I can't." Powerful stuff. The body double (No. 3) theory also hit super close to home. That is, having someone with you when facing a dull or difficult task helps you to get things done (provided you're a distractable person...like me).

I loved the article about faking cultural literacy so much that I read it twice. It's so incredibly spot on. With all the information and news and shows and movies and celebs and politics, and all of it woven together by social media and hipsters and our friends...how can we NOT fake it sometimes? I do have conversations where I find myself running to the internet after to catch up on something I either thought I knew or that I actually knew nothing about at all and pretended my way through, all in an effort to not look like some bumbling, ill-informed dumbo. In reality, maybe my comrades were faking, too.

The "Death by Information Overload" article said: "...people took an average of nearly 25 minutes to return to a work task after an email interruption." Reading that made me want to cry from: relief, commiseration/shared trauma, empathy, ALL of it, because it's so real and so true! According to the author, people use interruptions  as opportunities to do other things, like texting or surfing the internet. Yep, this was a key point for me. Too many emails are only part of the problem. They're an invitation to distract yourself, right? To take away from the work/task at hand. It legitimizes the intent to (want to) mess around. "Oh, was just checking my email, but while I'm here..."

I found the author's mention of email sorting software interesting. I'm skeptical, though. It's not human, it's not me. How can it possibly prioritize my workload via algorithms? Has anyone tried this and it actually been effective?

Overall, lots of great stats/facts in this article, but what I liked, too, was the author's point that for all the fretting we're doing over being overloaded, this isn't really a new problem. It's been around at just about every intersection where something new is introduced, from movable type, to the copier, to the internet. Humanity will continue to whine that we're being inundated...

Here's the thing, though. I don't feel overwhelmed by media. I feel overwhelmed by all the things I'm not doing while I'm using media. Like interacting with my husband and kids and family. I'm so distracted by the sparkly information on the shiny internet that I've forgotten how to focus on the humanity. It's really quite tragic.

Something I can't not share. I don't know if it was the subject matter in this week's readings, or if I simply have a lot going on in this moment in time, but I was ridiculously distracted (by/with my homework). I thought it was a crazy twist of fate that I repeatedly found myself "chasing squirrels" (have you seen the movie Up? It's me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSUXXzN26zg) both while I was reading and while I was typing my thoughts here. There were at least a dozen separate times where I took 10/15/20/5 minute breaks to do 100 other things and then had the hardest time coming back to the task of my classwork. Weird, right? :)

Week 12, privacy not included.

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also keep it from yourself.”

I thought this was a fitting quote and summary for this week’s readings, as they all center on our privacy (or lack of) while we’re using the internet or milling about the world.

The article I spent the most time digesting, “The Death of Privacy,” made some provocative points. I think it’s interesting to ponder that the loss of our collective privacy has taken place over time, mostly without us realizing. It’s been a gradual evolution of us sharing All the Details. But not all of us share all. And many share only the pretty things (myself included). That makes me wonder: who am I, who are they, and what’s real? I digress, though. I think pretty much all of us accept that we’re being watched and tracked by someone, somewhere. So why are we bothered? We expect, we demand that search engines (Google), give us what we’re looking, so do we expect they won’t use that information, our habits, to make our next search a better experience?

(Aside: I was surprised to learn privacy law is so new. It makes sense, but I had no idea just the same.)

Regarding the Pew Research article, “Americans’ Views about Data Collection and Security,” I think this isn’t a new concern, per say. We long ago knew our credit card companies and retailers participated in such practices, that they partnered to share our habits (shop here, and I’ll mail you this catalog for eternity...). It’s more in our face, is all, due to social media and our look-at-me lifestyle and algorithms that make us realize more startlingly that these platforms are sharing data across the board, so that no matter where we check in, they know where we’ve been…and what we’re likely to do next.

The stat about people thinking they were entitled to privacy at work was mind-boggling. It’s work, not your home. It’s someone else’s network/platform. How and why would we ever have the expectation we’d have privacy there? It’s equivalent to thinking you can go to someone's house and say, search for porn, and hope they’d be cool with it.

Pew Research also collected people’s thoughts about surveillance cameras. I ask: why do we need to avoid them? What’s the privacy violation? I get that public surveillance is prevalent. They protect a business’ bottom line and they protect consumers and they protect private citizens. To be honest, I don’t think about them that much. I think we’re probably safer and better for having them because they can be used to track and stop criminals.

If I’m being naive here, I look forward to being told why, but I’m going to throw this out there: I don’t see why all of this is such a big deal, to be monitored at work, for companies or organizations to save data about my shopping habit, to have cameras follow me. Do I like being tracked and marketed to across platforms? Not especially. In some instances I’ve been alarmed by it. It’s life, though. There are laws. I’m going to go ahead and follow them.

One thought about the Poynter article about The Intercept. I think it’s great that one company has found a way to protect its users’ privacy, but how does what one company is doing affect change at all companies? I don’t think this is going to start a trend. I don’t even think it’ll be a blip on the radar. Companies have to want to respect our privacy, and it’s not looking like we’re headed in that direction anytime soon.

A final note: I find it intriguing there are companies being created to protect us from the companies tracking our moves. It feels…full of irony. What data are these track blocker companies using to analyze their consumer’s behavior? What are they doing about the information they’re collecting about us in the process? I’m too jaded to believe someone when they say they’re keeping my data private. Sadly, it’s not the world we live in anymore.

Week 11: Relationships in the digital age

My observation about the entire collection of articles for this week is that they felt uncomfortably awkward. Very real-life, and maybe a little intimate. What I feel generally is that we live in a connected world and we'll never be able to truly disconnect from anything. While that's not always bad--I like that I can grab my phone and search for anything (and anyone!) I want--but I miss the old days. Maybe 20 years ago, and more, when we weren’t carrying devices around like the ball and chain they’ve become. I might’ve pinned by a phone or two waiting for a call, but I LIVED my life, and it was noticeably more carefree. Eh. Maybe that’s just youth, though. 

The Pew Research article about phone use in social gatherings, well. Guilty as charged. I get that it’s not a considerate thing to do. We’ve all been there, though. I was a little surprised by the percentage of those who said people who use their cellphones at social gatherings hurt the conversation/atmosphere. Eighty-two percent seems very high because you’ve got to figure in a sample that large that…everybody is doing it. So why is everybody annoyed about it? One thing about this study I did puzzle over was people using phones to take photos. Where’s the harm in a group shot for Facebook or Instagram? Wink, wink, wink. Anyway, the bottom line for me is that having read this, I’m going to be more mindful about engaging with others and not my phone. Maybe.  

This is where I give a special nod to the photographer documenting the “death of real-life conversation.” I see it every. single. day. It’s pitiful. I wondered, though, looking at the images: did he get permission to take the photos? Were some staged? And if so, doesn’t that introduce bias?

The other Pew study, about teen behavior/dating in the age of social media, didn’t pull forward any surprises from me. Two observations: 1.) teens appear to have a healthy, leery approach about engaging with strangers online, and I say: SCORE FOR PARENTS EVERYWHERE, and 2.) teens use social media to gather information about potential partners/others, and I say: Like, hey teens? Adults do, too! One final note: I wonder how many of the teens surveyed for this study (only 100, interesting) were censoring themselves/being entirely honest about how they behave on social media?   

There were three articles that at first I felt had very little to do with our class, but upon reflecting on ALL the articles, I get it. How friendship fights depression, The likely cause of addiction has been discovered and Give it five minutes all had me reflecting about just how important and fragile humanity can be. (That statement feels overly melodramatic.) And it really does relate to how we should be setting down the devices and focusing on the relationships, the people around us and in front of us. 

Week 8: Economics of digital media

The common theme I noticed in this week’s readings was digital spending/digital revenue/digital ad information sharing, and it left me feeling generally pretty bummed.

The Pew Research article “Industry Breakdown: Newspaper Still Largest Revenue Segment,” included some interesting numbers. I had NO idea print so heavily and decisively outpaced television as the lead money maker. It goes along with what we discussed last week: that despite what I’ve heard for so many years, newspapers aren’t yet gasping for last breaths on their collective deathbed. I read the Newspaper Association of America total revenue numbers twice before they actually registered; $38.6 BILLION for 1,400 U.S. dailies, compared with 16.4 billion for 12 cable news channels and 800 news-producing local TV stations. Wow.

The eye-opening article of the week for me was the one that (formally) introduced me to “native” advertising: “Spending on native advertising is soaring as marketers and digital media publishers realize the benefits.”  I had no idea this was what it was called, although after looking it up, I realized I’ve been aware of it and seeing it for quite some time. And I hate it. It’s trickery and it’s misleading, especially as it appears on the news sites I like to visit. It’s true those companies add (by law, see next paragraph) a qualifier or button to distinguish something as an ad, but on news sites especially, the ads look like they’re legitimate content <at first glance>. I’ve also seen native ads on one of my favorite social media sites, Instagram. These bother me a little less, for some reason. I might, on occasion, even be interested enough to click on one there. I’m at a loss to explain why they bother me so much on one platform and not the other.

Of course I laughed a little at next article—the FTC policy (rather new!) about deceptive native ads. It’s comforting, I guess, that as the world and its media expand and adapt, the FTC is at its heels, mostly, making sure we don’t get taken advantage of.  Something did come to mind, though. How do we factor those pesky 30-second-or-more-long ads we occasionally can’t opt out of before a YouTube video, or ads at the beginning on an online news report? I feel like I should always have the choice to opt out. I figure they are the price I have to pay (ha) to watch the content. Those aren’t deceptive, per say, but they seem unfair, and I feel like I should have a choice.

In “Think you’re reading the news for free? New research shows you’re likely paying with your privacy,” the authors explained that browsing news-related sites exposes consumers to being tracked, often more frequently than on other places they visit online. Something the authors brought up really got to me: that ad blockers might be seen as a hindrance to someone’s business model. Meaning, I’m on a business’ site, so I ought to pay with my privacy for their content. Uh…NO? If you want to me to pay you with/for something, how about go ahead and charge me? Let’s be honest here! Back to the topic of tracking, I’m going to leave this right here:

“It should come as no surprise that this practice, as it becomes better understood, doesn’t sit well with the public.

Extensive survey research has shown that users are opposed to such invasions of their privacy. At the same time, they feel like there’s nothing they can do to protect themselves.”

The Advertising Age article about Facebook made me wonder: why does everybody want to know where I am, all the time? That was sort of the appeal of growing up, right? Knowing that one day I wouldn’t have to explain my whereabouts, without someone (hi, mom) always needing to track my moves. It’s MY privacy, and it’s my right to NOT share information. I don’t remember anyone ever asking me if it was okay. Instead the burden is on me to dig deep into Facebook’s privacy settings to figure out a way to opt out. In the end, I think it’s all about the money. Facebook was, at first, this outlet that was famous for being private about its data. Now it sells the details to those willing to shell out the cash. Troubling.

The final Pew Research article, “Digital News—Revenue Fact Sheet,” had me wondering: digital ads seem to be something advertisers are spending huge bucks on, but who’s watching? (Not me!) How do advertisers qualify them as a success? Is it simply a click, a certain amount of time spent on an ad? And am I alone in finding these ads more annoying with each passing day?

Week 7: Economic values

To be honest, much of the content this week didn't surprise me, and I often found myself nodding my head in agreement with some of the information. The collection definitely had a common focus on a.) the apathy of millennials and b.) the apathy (in my opinion) of print publishers.

In Payne's article (Ramen Noodles/online news...), her research highlighted, for me, that rather than focusing on phasing out--or preparing for the decline of "traditional" print media--producers of this content should focus on providing both, but catering to different audiences, possibly across a range of different content areas, and/or modifying content so they're providing a richer product altogether--for all mediums.  I do find it interesting, or maybe a little ironic, that the online news model isn't the money-making game-changer it was once anticipated to be.

Rosenwald's Washington Post article addresses the conundrum of scanning and skimming. The entire time I was reading, and even now on reflection, I'm thinking: so? Why do we care? I don't. Outside of being mindful of that pesky little problem the author mentioned more than twice. You know...comprehension. I get that it matters. We need to be retaining, understanding what we're reading. And maybe we're not. For me, I've somehow managed to still be able to skim and retain from both online info gathering and leisure reading. I'm an avid (leisure) reader, and so I don't generally scan, no matter whether online or using my Kindle or reading articles for class. I can, though, though, see how the scan and skim method has evolved. I felt a little conflicted overall. I felt like I should be more alarmed the more I read about it, but again, I kept thinking was, big deal. We've trained ourselves to read tighter and more simply. We get to the point. Where's the bad in that?
(Side note/confessions of a tree killer: I print all the readings for this class and compile them in a notebook. I like to be able to take notes as I go, and I have a "block" when I try to imagine doing the readings online only.) 

All I have to say about Rosenwald's other WP article (digital natives prefer print) is: right on. Oh, and again: let's figure out how to better integrate online, traditional to get to a place where consumers can have/use both options.

My opening paragraph was meant to be provocative, okay? My interpretation of the research is that millennials are possibly more resourceful and multi-functional than the rest of us. Maybe millennials are apathetic and needy or whiny, but they're maybe not as disconnected or disengaged as we've been programmed to think. (I did make a note/question this tidbit I saw in multiple places, though: how are they getting news from Instagram and Pintrest?!?)

Dr. Lee and company's paper about intention to pay left me with this: unless or until every single news outlet around forces users to pay for content, I don't think the pay model will ever work. Why should it? I myself don't want to pay for news. So let's strengthen what consumers do pay for, while offering something else altogether interesting online (no repeating of content across outlets, please).

Finally, Kaiser's article (I liked this a lot). I had a light bulb moment while reading: I wonder, at the dawn of TV news, was there as much fretting over the status of how consumers got their news? Did the print industry think it was all over for them then, too? I'd be willing to be so. And look how that turned out, all symbiotic and such.

Week 5: Polarization and digital democracy

The common thread I noticed in this week's readings: we're getting our news from nontraditional (but new normal) sources, and it's polarizing us. It's a sad fact about the state of our world, but if this is where "news" is destined to end up, well...let's be more responsible about who's putting it on places like Facebook and Twitter (and whatever comes next).

The Pew Research report, "The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook," at first left me scratching my head. Really, I thought, it's this high of a percentage of the population who get their news from Twitter and Facebook?

Who am I kidding though? It makes sense, especially with regard to Twitter. I think of Twitter as a faster moving, more agile outlet anyway. Twitter is the unstable, embarrassing, opinionated uncle we all know and love: quick to speak out, controversial, not always right, and never one to admit he's wrong. But Twitter is also likely to be first on the scene and provide perspectives we may not have been thinking about. So I can't find it all wrong. And if Twitter is your outspoken uncle, Facebook is your grandpa--even more opinionated and more often than not, way too politically incorrect.

In "The Science of Protecting People's Feelings: Why We Pretend All Opinions Are Equal," Mooney explores ways in which we try and make each other feel better--and worse--about what we know--or don't. As I was reading, I was mentally comparing this to the "everybody-gets-a-trophy-for-participating" phenomenon I'm currently living via my kids. We live in a world where no one knows how to lose and we're all too worried about our own ego to be wrong. It's frustrating, and all I could think while reading was: UGH.  

The other Pew Research story in our readings, "Political Polarization in the American Public" is incredibly interesting--and simultaneously exhausting. I could read and try to puzzle out the statistics sited inside this article all. day. long., but all I kept thinking was...WHY? What happened over the last 20 years that we've moved so far away from the center and have become so extreme on either side of the conservative/liberal divide? And can it actually be attributed to the HOW...the way in which we're gathering information (i.e. the rise of social networking)? Is it easier to hate the people we observe being outspoken because we do see them much more easily and regularly than we ever have before?  We dislike each other more passionately on either side, and fewer of us <can stand to> have "mixed" feelings in the middle. It worries me, a lot.

The final article I'll mention, "If You Use Facebook to Get Your News, Please--For the Love of Democracy-- Read This First," had interesting views--from a year ago--about how Facebook "news" could affect elections, and what do you know: it has! To be honest, the information here didn't tell me much I wasn't already aware of. As has been the case with many of the things I've read for this class, what's more informative to me is to realize how many people aren't aware of the ways in which outlets like Facebook are driving what shows up in their news feeds via algorithms, etc. Simply put, humanity: we have GOT to start thinking more for ourselves, and stop believing what's immediately in front of us, or we're in big trouble. Ask questions! Think freely! DISCUSS!

Week 4: Journalism and (not really anymore) emerging media

I suppose I'm guilty of taking journalistic ethics for granted because I've long expected journalists to be...ethical. Don't get me wrong: I've seen the stories of those who lie or manipulate when it comes to reporting, but it's not so often that I think we're in trouble with our news.

What I enjoyed with this collection of articles was that it covered the gamut: from journalists' use of Twitter (how odd and interesting, those findings), to manipulated photos, to checking media ethics, to fake news,  to what so-called responsible journalism actually looks like (i.e. here's how we're doing it wrong, and here's how to do it right). My thoughts after reading them all: this is not your mother's reporting process. And also: maybe there's a little right in all the wrong presented herein.

Let me explain.

1.) In Lee's paper about reporters' use of Twitter, I was most surprised by the finding that journalists "remain unaware of audiences." What, I thought?!? How the heck?!? How's that a little right? Well, they're obviously interacting with each other, going after stories and sources. I can't imagine they're not engaging in other ways, so if they don't use Twitter, necessarily, to do that, who am I to judge? The point is, reporters are still engaging in "new media" (speed journalism for the win...sort of) and taking advantage of other ways in which to pursue the story.

2.) The photo editing, ah. So where's the right in that? Well, granted, there's not a lot. If you're adding/subtracting components for the sack of drama, I'm not going to offer you much sympathy at the loss of your job and reputation. But is lightening or darkening okay? Sharpening? What about the fair point that, really, editing has been happening for many, many years in some form or another. "It's accepted within the industry that you can follow some techniques from the darkroom. The problem is that the technology is there and it's so alluring to go in and take it one step further."  In the digital age, it's simply a heck of a lot easier to say gotcha. Where's the strict line between right and wrong?  I offer this timely story (and its hilarious aftermath) for consideration:
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/29/nikon-awards-prize-to-badly-shopped-photo-hilarity-ensues/.

3.) The Washington Post story about Horner/Bansky (I'd never heard of him before reading this) is my kind of article (as a huge fan of the movie Idiocracy, I connect with this guy.) "My stories always have a point," he says several times. Reflecting on a report he was marrying his dog..."It was just to make fun of the fact that super anti-gay people are like -- 'what's next? A toaster?" The right here (for me) is that without this kind of satire, well, I think we ARE taking ourselves at bit too seriously. Let's step away from this and become human beings again, please and thank you.  

Separately, I'm vexed by virtual reality news op-ed. --> "Our stories can't be virtually true. They must be fully real." There were some thoughtful observations here, about the use of B-roll footage and staged photographs that accompany news stories, though. I look forward to discussing this piece in class, because I'm not entirely sure what virtual reality news is all about, and reading the op-ed didn't provide a lot of insight.

Week 3: Moral philosophy and me...

I enjoyed this collection of readings more than I thought I would, mainly because they opened my eyes to the conundrum that is moral philosophy. That's not to say I never thought about the right/wrong question(s) before. Ultimately, what I learned is that there really may never be a right/wrong...when it comes to certain questions. And I'm okay with that.

The robot/car decision-maker articles were enlightening. I'll confess I never realized there was actual consideration being given to cars making a life or death choices. Isn't that science fiction? I'm fascinated--but not surprised--by the idea that what holds back the technology is public opinion, and I'm even more intrigued by experimental ethics--posing ethical dilemmas to a large number of people to see how they respond. The various scenarios in which a car might kill a single driver or a larger group had me wondering: if the car "knows" enough to drive into a wall to avoid killing the crowd, can't it also "know" to lesson the impact (if you might be killed)? As for robots, the question I asked myself was: why do we need ethical robots? Shouldn't humans be the ultimate, final stopgap for all decisions? I don't pretend to know the answer, but it's an important thing to ponder.

I especially enjoyed the mental exercise behind the BuzzFeed "quiz." Some of the situations were simple to answer, and I moved right along, no additional thought about the other option (i.e. the one I didn't choose), but a couple made me pause. In "A Sinking Sensation" I had to choose between a guaranteed survival on another boat vs. taking my chances at living on the other. Do I feel bad for the people on the sinking boat? OF COURSE! But not enough that I'm willing to possibly give up my life to save strangers. Sorry I'm not sorry. Same with saving my child vs. my niece or saving my husband over his lover. The common thread in these situations? They most directly affect my life. It's all about making the best wrong choice. If you think about it, it's something we all do regularly, maybe daily, in order to decide the best outcome for me. It's very personal.

The New York Times opinion piece about resolving moral disputes goes back to my favorite old "belief" argument. This line hit home: "It is safe to say that the more ethical a political dispute is, the more heated and intractable it is likely to become."  I connect with those words. I want to know what makes moral disagreements so intractable...is it the emotion of the issue, the belief itself? Again: there really may never be a right/wrong...when it comes to certain questions.

Finally, the article about men and women and their differences when it comes to moral dilemmas made me wonder: am I actually a man when it comes to moral dilemmas? I promise you this: I'd never sacrifice a child to the porn industry to support my family. If we needed to move to survive, I'd go, I'm of the mindset there has to be a better way. I won't call myself naive (just yet). I would work harder to find a solution that would work for my family. Period. Even if it meant somebody else had to die.

Is Moral Psychology Instinctual?

From "Raising a Moral Child" to "The Meaning of Culture" to "What's Morally Acceptable? It Depends on Where in the World You Live" to "Moral Minds," I came to the fairly certain conclusion about a larger theme in the readings: moral psychology as instinct. (Lesser so with "Doing Ethics in Media," so I've subtracted it from my reflections here.) 

So IS moral psychology instinctual? At first glance, the answer seems like a no-brainer. No. We're born as a blank slate. It's up to those around us (shout-out to mom and dad) to teach us the difference between right and wrong. As a parent of young children, I can tell you: it's a constant, heavy struggle teaching small humans to make the best, right (right? what is right?) choices in life. It starts small and it grows, daily. But wait. I've also observed them, when they were too young to have fully felt my influence, struggle with something they obviously realized was a bad choice--from taking another child's toy to throwing food and waiting for my response.  So there: score points for moral instinct!

For these reasons, I connected the most with "Raising a Moral Child." But still: can you "raise" morality? I wonder if it's possible to use two somewhat confusing methods, shame and guilt, to get a positive result, to correct behavior. Don't get me wrong: I understand and buy into what the author stated:

"If we want our children to care about others, we need to teach them to feel guilt rather than shame when they misbehave." 

But the article left me very much in touch with the negativity that's involved in "becoming moral."

I also personally connected with "The Meaning of Culture" because I've struggled with the many definitions and uses of the word "culture." It's a word I personally think has been dumbed down...a lot. As a professional who deals with words/word use every day, I'm aware of the power and complexity of language, and things that take on double (or more) meanings. For me, the word "culture" is a perfect example of how we have to be more careful, thoughtful and deliberate in our communication. What I think about culture is likely entirely different from what me neighbor thinks. I found myself fist-pumping and saying an internal "YES" to the author of this article more than once, but especially here:

"It's our sense of the word "culture" that has grown darker, sharper, more skeptical...our culture is fractured, and so our sense of the word "culture" is, too." 

I couldn't agree more.

The final article I'll comment on is "What's Morally Acceptable? It Depends on Where in the World You Live." I struggled to find the connection between this survey and the rest of the articles, except for the obvious theme of morality. That is until I started reading the comments attached to the poll. BINGO. They were more interesting and thought-provoking than the results themselves. The comments were are starting point to the meat of the issue here (in my opinion): the struggle with morality and its connection to religion...and belief. (You'll never win if you're fighting for belief. I feel incredibly convicted about this statement. But that's an argument to be made somewhere else, I think...)

I walk away from these readings feeling more enlightened and surprisingly more comfortable with myself and my feelings about morality--because it's not a topic that has one simple answer. It's a constantly evolving, growing thing that must be watered every day. I'm still not sure about the answer to my question: is moral psychology instinct, but after these readings, I lean more toward the answer being "yes." But still "no." I imagine it's quite a lot of "both."