Droz: Hi, is Sam in there?
Womynist #1: "In there"? What the hell's that supposed to mean?
Womynist #2: Yeah, cock-man-oppressor!
Droz: Why, thank you. Could you just tell her that Mr. Pokey stopped by.

This logical fallacy is a good example of the "Hasty Generalization" fallacy. The basis of a hasty generalization fallacy is that a person jumps to a conclusion without all the relevant information and makes a judgment or counter-argument because of a bias. In this case, Droz has asked to speak to someone without stating his intentions, but before he is even asked what they are, the womynist attacks him, assuming that he has sexually aggressive intentions. Whatever his intentions were, the womynist was quick to judge Droz and therefore made a hasty generalization of the information provided.

Death of an innocent?

Christopher McCandless, AKA Alex Supertramp died alone in the woods in the summer of 1992 from presumably starving to death. The story that Jon Krakauer leaves the door open for the reader to decide whether to glorify Mr. McCandless or to condemn him for his actions. McCandless could be revered for being so strong willed and unlike other college students, or at least people who have just recently completed college, but the truth is that he never really did anything that many college students wouldn't do given the opportunity. Of course, no one wants to die doing what he did, but the reality is that he probably didn't plan on dying, in fact, I firmly believe that he didn't think it was possible for him to die until it was too late.

Many college students live the life that McCandless was trying to avoid by being so boldly anti-establishment, but the reality of college life is that while the fraternity/sorority student is the first image that pops into one's head when recalling college life, the next step of thought brings to mind images of people just like Chris. As the author points out, Chris's friend, Wayne Westerberg, admits that what might have hurt Chris is that “maybe what got him into trouble was that he did too much thinking.” This is too typical of many college students. Fortunately, most aren't actually as ambitious as Chris was and they don't actually live the life that they glorify, and for those that do, most are lucky enough to avoid death. It is unfortunate that Chris ended up dying by living the life that he found so noble, but the personality that drove him certainly encompassed an inherent risk. During the article, the author Krakauer compares himself at 23 to Chris. He acknowledges that he too didn't respect death properly. His desire for adventure outweighed his fear of death. This is very common among young people. Their inexperience leads them to forget that death is final, and for people of Chris's ilk, who are so convinced that they are invincible in some fashion, don't heed the advice of those more knowledgeable than themselves.

The first few paragraphs of the story involve Chris hitching a ride from James Gallien, who offers advice to Chris and tries to help Chris avoid a situation that might kill him. Chris stubbornly refuses the help. This alone takes Chris out of the realm of wise people. Most people, even those that fancy themselves experts, are wise enough to listen to others who give them advice. This isn't to say that everyone listens to everyone, but Chris behaved like most college students when he refused to admit to himself that he was inexperienced in the Alaskan wilderness. Not only that, but he refused to recognize someone who very clearly knew more about what he was getting into that Chris himself. This bullheadedness is something that binds Chris to other youths. Most people with life experience will tell you that recognizing good advice is part of maturity. Chris fails to break the mold of a college student when he listens to no one.

Chris was an adventurer in every sense. He took great risks and relished the reward of surviving those risks. One thing that Chris didn't grasp until it was too late was that risk one's life is a type of risk that cannot be taken lightly, because failure means that your ability to try again is gone. Most college students who fit the stereotype that Chris himself typified don't realize how fragile life is. They haven't lived long enough to realize how death is something more than an inconvenience. Chris probably failed to realize the impact that his death would have on others as Krakauer showed. This short-sightedness is something that keeps Chris from being more than just another college student. Krakauer tries to prove that Chris was more than just your common thrill-seeking college student who was looking for an epiphany, but the reality is that he is just that. Had he lived, there would be nothing extraordinary about his story that would be any different than the ones that many other people experience during their late college years. The largest proof of Chris's conformity to the mold is in his note which he posted to the bus door. The seriousness of the note hints that Chris never really understood the gravity of the situation that he was in until it was too late. This lack of understanding makes Chris nothing more to the world than just another college student who was unfortunate enough to get lost in the wild.

All references were taken from Death of an Innocent by Jon Krakauer

Response to "AIDS and Advertising"

AIDS and Advertising

This ad for Benetton clothing does little to prove anything about their product at first glance. It's hard to imagine that a company that is selling clothing could be so bold as to use a dying man as part of their advertising campaign for collared tee shirts. I think there is a much greater message present in the picture than simply a preview of Benetton clothing, especially since there is no implication that the clothing worn even comes from Benetton. I think the most important aspect of analyzing this ad is to look at the time period in which it was released. The early 1990s was a period where many people chose to go against the grain of society. After being different was glorified as 'hip' in the 1960s and 1970s, the popular desire was to be among the number that went against popular convention. During the Reagan/Bush years many felt that they were trapped by society to behave in a certain manner. The desire to be different became stronger than ever. In the early 1990s the road to meltdown was complete and breaking free from the mold of society was more popular than ever. The decade is defined by groups of people going against what they thought were the moral guidelines of the times. Musicians became more popular when they moved to being more edgy, politicians won elections if they could convince their constituents that they were young and different than the stuffy old bureaucrats currently in office, and fashion was defined by the rule of there being no rules. As people broke away from societal norms, it became popular to focus on problems that weren't being properly addressed. The problem of HIV and AIDS not being addressed in the USA or the world at large was a huge target for the hipsters of the day. It was hard to catch any respectable celebrity without the now famous red ribbon. The demonstration that they were privy to the AIDS epidemic that was sweeping the globe helped to communicate to other 'cool' people that they could rest assured that the wearer of the ribbon was in fact 'with it'. Since the ad apparently has nothing to do with clothing, it is almost automatic to assume that the goal of the ad isn't to prove that Benetton makes the best clothes, but rather to prove that they are also 'with it'. This is an intelligent move on their part because people didn't really care what they were wearing, as long as they felt good about it. The necessity of fitting in with what others wore was out the window when the hippies showed up. The best the to do for a business was to sell themselves rather than their product. It is clear to me that the hope of the advertisers is that people will see the ad and say to themselves in their head, "Oh my God, how horrible... well, Benetton is with it because they're not afraid to confront the harsh realities of the world." and then, once they had embraced the company the natural flow of thought would go from: "I hope I'm cool--> Benetton is cool-->I like Benetton-->I buy Benetton clothes-->I know I'm cool." It's the goal of every advertiser in the modern age. The goal isn't to prove that Nike shoes are the best, it's to prove that Nike shoes are the coolest, and if you wear them, you will be cool by association. So, by Benetton showing the world that they are brave enough to publicly display what they are passionate about, that others will see them being so passionate and enjoy the name, not necessarily the product. But in the end, people will buy their product to be cool through osmosis.

Welcome

Hey!
In the spirit of this being a new blog, I thought I would start it off right by setting the tone for things to come. I haven't given this too much thought so bear with me. I wanted to present a quote from a book that doesn't really do too great of a job of analyzing mankind, but this quote struck me as profound. The book is Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein. It was written in the late 1960s and really carries the tone of the era regarding free love and peace on earth, etc., which is all garbage really, but at one point he is discussing the motivations for the ministers of a new church that claim to do all things out of the goodness of their being. One of the characters in the book, who is the stereotypical wise old man, critiques the salesman-like behavior of one of the bishops and goes on to say:
"Of all the nonsense that twists the world, the concept of 'altruism' is the worst. People do what they want to, every time. If it pains them to make a choice- if the choice looks like a 'sacrifice'- you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness... the necessity of deciding between two things you want when you can't have both. The ordinary bloke suffers every time he chooses between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up to go to work or losing his job. But he always chooses what hurts least or pleasures most."
All of my experience in this world have taught me that this is absolutely true. No one ever does anything for the sole purpose of serving others. There is always a self-serving motive behind their actions. Whether it's as direct as getting the assisted to behave in a certain way that would benefit the doer, or something as discreet as the feeling of holding a moral high ground and gaining access to a wonderful afterlife, there is always a reason for someone's good deeds. When the speaker is discussing a parents care for their children, it is hard to realize what the self-serving motive could be, but the payoff is there. Parents hope that one day their children might care for them as they cared for their children, or at least see to their being cared for. Of course, there's never a guarantee, and that's probably not what a parent is thinking when caring for a child, but the benefit is there.
Governments don't get involved in foreign relations without some form of benefit. Our middle-eastern policy is dictated by the desire for positive trade relations that will result in us receiving oil at lower costs. I'm certain that we would ignore any problems their if there wasn't some jackpot in it for us.
The strange thing is that people deny that their behavior is guided by their own self-interests. US citizens often seem ashamed at the notion that we would go to war over lower oil prices. They seem ashamed of the fact that they help others because it makes them feel good, not because of the feeling the other person has at being helped. Why should people feel ashamed about doing things for themselves? Who decided that was a bad thing? People should serve their own interests. If everyone were to do what best served them, instead of trying to pretend that they want to help others just because, it is likely that things would improve overall. Of course, some people would lose out. If someone wins, then someone loses by default. Not everyone gets to win, but the world would be a stronger place. We wouldn't have people who rely on the kindness of others. Everyone would know that they have to fend for themselves. I'm not asking for isolation, but just the mass realization that coalitions are formed to serve each party's self-interest, not because of some higher calling.
This is a pretty bland blog, and I know it lacks order, but I wanted to lay down the idea that I hope to elaborate on later. As was written once, the story of Robin Hood has been changed in its meaning. Today, people view the hero as someone who distributes wealth among the poor by forcing the rich to hand over what they have earned. The true meaning of the story has been lost with time. Robin Hood was a man who felt injustice for those who had been over-taxed and felt that the only solution to the problem was to take back from the government was wasn't rightfully theirs and return it to those who had earned it. If you don't know whose idea this is, I won't tell you more now than that it's not mine, but I believe it. I'm sure it will become abundantly clear later who this came from.