Response to Mazer

This reading was tough for me to get through. It wasn't because it was a hard read, I was expecting it to be much harder based on what we were told in class but it was relatively easy. The story itself is what was hard to stay focused on. I applaud the men that are part of the Power Team for thinking of a creative way to get their message out there and being so dedicated but I think they aren't the smartest tools in the shed. First, I highly doubt that these tricks are 100% real in any way. Second, if they are in fact 100% real then they are careless and teaching the young demographic they are aiming for bad things. I don't think they should go around breaking obnoxious amounts of ice with their head and bending steel with their teeth and then telling people if they believe in God they can have that strength too. That is going to give kids the wrong message and some daredevil is going to go try to do it because he will think he's protected by God and then end up dead. It's careless for these men to be doing this even when you think about their own risks, anything could go wrong and any time and someone could end up seriously injured or even dead. I think if they want to spread the Gospel they need to do it in a slightly less dangerous way or at least change their message. Mazer herself did an excellent job at displaying what the men are on stage doing, the message they are out there spreading and how effective it seems to be.

Response to Sedaris

I'm not really sure how to respond to this story. When I first read it I felt bad for the narrator because everyone was kind of ganging up on him and teasing him for all these things he felt obligated to do and no one really tried to help him. Everyone just wanted him to stop and that's all that concerned them. I then started thinking that he just had OCD and no one was realizing it but I'm not really sure. I thought OCD because I know people with it have to do certain things and if it isn't done right they need to start all over like he would have to on the ride home. I felt bad when his dad slammed on the breaks in the car so he would smash his nose on the windshield but then he said he liked the pain so from that point on I didn't know how to take the story. I don't know how to react to it. It left me kind of confused and wanting to read more. I didn't really like the end because he got rid of all the of things that made him unique and that bothered me. I like the character better when he was doing weird things to keep himself sane rather than conforming to something like smoking to do it.

More about my topic.

The specific question that I want to answer is whether nature or nurture is more important when explaining deviant or criminal behavior. I want to look at all the different aspects that can explain the behavior and explain why I think one is more important than the other. My working thesis statement would be that biology holds the answer to criminal behavior. I currently know a bit of information about the issue. I'm in a theory class and have learned about a few things in my other Criminology classes. Many Criminologists focus on social theories to explain crime due to bad research done in the biological aspect early in Criminology's history. However, with advances in technology, experts have been able to look inside the body for explanations rather than using body features to determine criminality like they did in the early 19th Century. I know that things like low self-control, low attention span, aggressiveness and sensation seeking can lead to this behavior as well. I also know that disorders like Bi-Polar and ADHD which are heritable contribute to criminality as well as serotonin levels. Other disorders such as psychosis, psychopathy and schizophrenia can also increase criminality There have also been studies done to show that environment toxins and some things we eat can influence our genes in a way that can alter our normal behavior for a period of time. an example of this is what came to be known as the Twinkie Defense, when a guy murdered his wife I believe and then used the defense that he was depressed which caused him to eat unhealthy things that his body wasn't used to altering chemicals in his brain making him act uncharacteristically.  I still need to find out the exact genes that help contribute to criminality and how these genes affect people. I need to look at the level of influence that the environment has on your genes and how much that can change your risk of being deviant. I also need to learn what other biological things can contribute to crime and why some inheritable diseases do. Arguments that oppose mine are things like parents influence behavior more, peers have more of an impact on why we do things, socioeconomic status and social disorganization explain deviant behavior better and formal and informal controls can explain criminal behavior in a broad sense. I've already looked at the books Understanding Violence, Biology and Crime, The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime, Criminology A Brief Introduction, and Essentials of Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach. The articles that I've already looked at are All in the Family and Evidence of Genetic and Environmental effects on the Development of Low Self-Control, and H.J. Eysenck in Fagin's Kitchen: the Return to Biological Theory in 20th Century Criminology.  

Response to Klosterman

I agree completely with Klosterman. I think laugh tracks are stupid and annoying. I feel like they are used because the producers feel like we aren’t smart enough to get the jokes on our own, if there even are jokes to get. I think Klosterman is right when he says “canned laughter represents the worst qualities of insecure people.” It seems like laugh tracks are used to the writers will think that they wrote something funny even if people don’t think it is. The canned laughter makes them think at least someone is laughing at the script they spent so much time on even if it is prompted in-studio laughing. When he moves into laughless sitcoms he says that we take them more seriously which is totally true. We don’t have to be prompted to laugh at something or feel awkward if he don’t laugh with the laugh track. They give us the opportunity to think for ourselves instead of conforming to what others believe.  Not only does he talk about laugh tracks but he talks about how Americans laugh at everything even when it’s not funny just to fill in space which I see every day, or I do every day. When in an awkward situation I just laugh even if nothing that was said was funny, it’s reaction. We have been raised and taught to use laughter even when it’s not needed so now when people laugh you don’t know if it’s real or fabricated. 

Topic for the Research Paper

We are supposed to talk about topics that we are thinking about writing about for the research paper, but I've already decided to discuss Criminology Theories. Criminology Theories are the basis for the field since Criminology is literally the study of crime and the theories are how we explain crime. Each theory has its own strengths and weaknesses and not one is thought to be the reason crime occurs. The theories fall into broad categories such as; Classical or Neoclassical, Biological, Psychological/Psychiatric, Social Structure Approaches, Social Process Theories and Social Conflict Theories. Under the broad categories are more specific theories by various people in the various fields including; Lombroso "The Father of Criminology", the famous psychologist Freud and multiple theories put forth by Hirschi and Gottfredson. Various key figures in other fields come into play because Criminology is interdisciplinary. I'm not really sure what exploratory questions I have but I want to look at the causes of violent crimes rather than property crimes even though property crimes are more common because I feel like violent crimes effect people more severely. I want to try to explain why a theory is good, what the problems with some are and how they can be approved as well as which ones I agree with the most and why. i am then going to propose my own theory by combining a few of the ones together rather than keeping them to certain aspects like social problems or biological problems. 

Annotation-

Annotation:
This article outlines a study done to test when college age students were more likely to get into a car with an intoxicated driver. The results showed that a student was more likely to get into a car if there was no one with them or if someone with them refused to get into the car. However, if they were alone or if someone was with them and refused to get into the car they tended to refuse also. This is applicable to my research because Criminology is all about why people do things, criminal or deviant, and the factors in this experiment help explain why people get into a car with an intoxicated driver.


Bibliographic Information: 
Powell, Jack L., and Aaron D. Drucker. "The Role of Peer Conformity in the Decision to Ride with an Intoxicated Driver." ERIC – World’s Largest Digital Library of Education Literature. Web. 05 Feb. 2011. <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ567198>.

Response to Richtel

I think Kord Campbell is out of control with his technology addiction. I understand the urge to check your e-mail , Facebook and other things but when it starts controlling your life you have a problem. I know his job is technology but it doesn't mean he needs to be emerged in it at all times, everyone needs a break from their job. His love for and addiction to technology is even spreading through to his kids which leads to his son doing poorly in school. Technology is a wonderful thing but it needs to be limited in some way, you can't spend all of your time online, there are too many negative effects. There are some good things like it is mentioned in the article that some video games help kids focus and find things that don't belong faster. However, it takes away from real human interaction, the kind you can't get by typing to someone. Granted, there are things like Skype now that let you video chat to interact but it still isn't the same. We need activity away from electronics. I understand where he is coming from because I know how hard it is to put your phone down, but when there is a time you need to, like during family vacations it needs to be done before the family becomes distant and falls apart. I personally think multitasking is a crazy concept. I don't know anyone that can do more than one thing at once and completely pay attention to what it going on, I know I can't. I try constantly by texting when studying or doing homework but it's too hard to keep track of where I'm at in the reading or what I just read a million times to memorize. Everyone is pulled to electronics whether it's video games, your iPod, iPhone, iPad, laptop or any other type of smart phone and even TV however, there needs to be a line drawn and we need to be less dependent on all these things. Mr. Campbell is the perfect example of someone who is controlled by technology and he should be the example that we don't want to follow.

Welcome to My Life

Hey everyone, I'm Sara. I'm a sophomore and I'm majoring in Criminology with a pre-law track and have a political science minor. I'm from a tiny town in northeastern PA called New Milford, it's about 5 hours from here. I want to be a prosecutor in criminal court but I get freaked out really easily so it's going to be hard. I want to live in Chicago one day but I absolutely despise snow. I'm a die hard New England Patriots fan. Music is my life. I'm listening to it all the time, unless I'm in class. I even have my iPod on while at work and when I'm sleeping, it's an addiction. I love reading but don't have enough time to do it as much as I'd like to. I'm outgoing, love to laugh and am with friends constantly. That pretty much sums me up!