Inadequacies in media representations of medicine #eng112

"Grey's Anatomy," now in its sixth season on ABC, is one of the most watched prime-time television series in the country and chronicles the lives of five surgical interns and their attending and resident physicians. "House," which airs on Fox and is also in its sixth season, follows the medical maverick Dr. Gregory House and his trainees, as they diagnose and treat only the most difficult cases.

Informed consent was the most frequently observed bioethical issue. Of 49 total incidents, 43 percent involved "exemplary" consent discussions, while the remaining instances were "inadequate." In general, exemplary depictions portrayed "compassionate, knowledgeable physicians participating in a balanced discussion with a patient about possible treatment options."

Conversely, inadequate depictions were "marked by hurried and one-sided discussions, refusal by physicians to answer questions" and "even an entire lack of informed consent for risky procedures," the authors state.

via sciencedaily.com

 

“Headaches are an effective theatrical device for portraying dramatic, unpredictable pain and disability,” said Dr Vargas. “Movies exert a powerful influence on the public’s perceptions and understanding of the medical profession and medical conditions.”

Dr Vargas began his presentation with a well-known clip from the movie Kindergarten Cop. In this film, the main character, played by now-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, is an undercover police officer assigned to teach a kindergarten class. While leading a class, he rubs his head, complaining of a headache. One student suggests it may be a tumor, and a number of other youngsters agree. “It’s not a tumor!” growls Gov Schwarzenegger’s character in response. While the clip set the tone for this light-hearted presentation, Dr Vargas pointed out that it also helps physicians understand why their patients may develop fears about their headaches.

via psychiatrictimes.com

These two readings are on the syllabus for Thursday, 9.16, but are no longer required. Instead, I'm posting snippets here.

Why a course blog and not a Facebook group? #eng112

Having fielded a couple individual emails posing this question already, I thought an actual blog entry might provide a better answer. This is a quick-and-dirty answer, though, so I encourage further discussion in the comments and in class tomorrow and/or Thursday.

1. I don't have a Facebook account. There are a host of reasons why (disillusionment, privacy, security, Zuckerberg).

2. Class Facebook groups have been tried (and failed) in the past. Again, a host of reasons why (bad implementation, creepy treehouse, student disengagement). 

3. In my view, college-level courses should involve some level of new challenges. If everyone's already on Facebook, where's the challenge and learning?

This need not be the last word on it, though. I welcome any/all comments here and, if need be, we can discuss it in even more detail face-to-face.

poignant passages, 9.14 #eng112

No columnist or reporter or novelist will have his minute shifts or constant small contradictions exposed as mercilessly as a blogger’s are. A columnist can ignore or duck a subject less noticeably than a blogger committing thoughts to pixels several times a day. A reporter can wait—must wait—until every source has confirmed. A novelist can spend months or years before committing words to the world. For bloggers, the deadline is always now. Blogging is therefore to writing what extreme sports are to athletics: more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive. It is, in many ways, writing out loud.
via theatlantic.com

 

Kill your word-processor

Word, Google Office and OpenOffice all come with a bewildering array of typesetting and automation settings that you can play with forever. Forget it. All that stuff is distraction, and the last thing you want is your tool second-guessing you, "correcting" your spelling, criticizing your sentence structure, and so on. The programmers who wrote your word processor type all day long, every day, and they have the power to buy or acquire any tool they can imagine for entering text into a computer. They don't write their software with Word. They use a text-editor, like vi, Emacs, TextPad, BBEdit, Gedit, or any of a host of editors. These are some of the most venerable, reliable, powerful tools in the history of software (since they're at the core of all other software) and they have almost no distracting features — but they do have powerful search-and-replace functions. Best of all, the humble .txt file can be read by practically every application on your computer, can be pasted directly into an email, and can't transmit a virus.

via locusmag.com

 

There's no doubt that social-media networks are fantastic communication machines. They allow people to feel connected to a virtual community, make new friends and keep old ones, learn things they didn't know. They encourage people to write more (that can't be bad) and write well and concisely (which is hard, trust us). They are a new form of entertainment (and marketing) that can occupy people for hours in any given day.

"Great blogging is great writing, and it turns out great Twittering is great writing — it's the haiku form of blogging," says Debbie Weil, a consultant on social media and author of The Corporate Blogging Book.

But the art of the status update is not much of an art form for millions of people on Facebook, where users can post details of what they're doing for all their friends to see, or on Twitter, where people post tweets about what they're doing that potentially every user can see.

via usatoday.com

 

I fail to see any clear distinction between someone's boring Twitter feed – considered only semi-literate and very much bad – and someone else's equally boring, paper-based diary – considered both pro-humanist and unquestionably good.
Kafka would have had a Twitter feed! And so would have Hemingway, and so would have Virgil, and so would have Sappho. It's a tool for writing. Heraclitus would have had a f***ing Twitter feed.
via bldgblog.blogspot.com

 

on students' course expectations #eng112

Before anything else happened in Week 1, I asked all students enrolled in ENG 112, sections 06 and 07, to share their expectations for the course. I asked that they do this because I think this is one of the goals of Week 1, i.e., to not so much lay down ground rules as to make known our needs and desires in terms of learning. Students come to college with their own expectations; professors have expectations, too, as do the colleges and universities themselves. So, there's a kind of balancing act to be executed in the classroom. By sharing these expectations early on, though, I like to think that we'll all be better off, more mindful of each other and what we want to do together in the time we have.

From 11206:
They expect assistance in understanding their own thoughts, in finding the right words. They expect me to be honest in my assessment of their performance. They expect to develop better awareness of potential audiences, to be confident enough to write without using a spellchecker. They want to produce interesting material that has applications to other/future college courses. They want to be challenged, to be inspired to write. They don't want to be bored. 

From 11207:
They want to learn different forms, kinds and techniques of writing, to develop better argumentation and research skills. They expect me to be fair in my assessment of their performance. They want to learn better time management, to improve their diction and reading comprehension. They want help in brainstorming topics for writing. They want assignments of reasonable length (3-5 pages). They expect an amount of fun and engagement. 

These are, of course, not all the expectations students had, only those I was able to scribble down furiously in my Moleskine. If I missed any important ones, I trust students to offer further expectations in the comments.

Expectations & Introductions

First-day fodder:

“The question, of course, is what is expertise in writing? Is it the ability to write without grammatical errors or to write with complex syntax? Is it the possession of a large repertory of structural models or of powerful composing strategies? Indeed, I suggest that one of the problems with teaching writing in general…is that we do not know what it is that comprises expertise in writing.

 …At its most basic, I define the development of expertise as the movement from behavior that is governed by general process strategies to behavior that is governed by specialized knowledge. The development of expertise in writing is the movement from global writing strategies to sophisticated knowledge of special rhetorical situations. Expertise, then, is the result of specialized knowledge that comes from experience in a specific writing situation. As this knowledge grows, the writer is able to write within that situation (and others that are similar) much more quickly and efficiently” -- Michael Carter, "What Is Advanced About Advanced Composition?: A Theory of Expertise in Writing."

 

Also: my RateMyProfessors.com ratings & Scribd profile 

Taking Stock of the Summer

The semester starts next week, which means summer is close to over. Given my ambitious plans for the past four months, I want to detail just what was(n't) accomplished. I had a daily schedule that I was pretty good about performing every week day, but not everything went according to plan. If nothing else, the following attests to that much. 

 

Books
I blazed through Gravity's Rainbow much quicker than I anticipated, which, given my initial summer reading schedule, was a welcome development. For the most part, I stayed true to the schedule. I kept putting off Ian Bogost's Persuasive Games, though, for which I have no answer. The schedule changed a couple times and then just fell apart in late July due to writing deadlines. However, this has been perhaps the single most productive summer of reading in terms of volume. My reading stats for the year illustrate, but what else I have to show for it remains to be seen. 

 

Videogames
I began and completed Assassin's Creed 2, Left 4 Dead 2 and Uncharted 2. The last one listed led to the purchase and reading of Marco Polo's Travels as well as a short entry on footnotes as spoilers. I began Bioshock, Chrono Trigger, Demon's Souls and Saints Row 2 and my avatars there stand awaiting orders at various levels of completion. I also haven't resumed playthroughs of Beautiful Katamari, Grand Theft Auto IV, Henry Hatsworth, Katamari Forever or Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box. There was some work toward level creation in LittleBigPlanet, too, though not much progress has been had since. 

 

Writings
Early on, I messed around with WPMU, creating initial entries and figuring out the potential for CMS. The overall simplicity of Posterous, though, just proved too tempting. 

I like to think there was some consistency in my "What You Might Have Missed" series of entries. I also like to think that many such revisits to links shared within the last 48-hour period were helpful to those who did miss them at first, but also to those who didn't as I gave them another opportunity to peruse. I kept meaning to do more with the entries, though, adding tags and some amount of commentary. Like the videogames, though, I just didn't have the time. It might appear, then, that my new approach to #wymhm entries is even more ambitious and time-consuming. At least once a week, I want to offer up a "What You Might Have Missed" synthesis of 4-5 previously shared links that have a common subject. There are more than enough pieces online every week (or at least every other week) that are relevant to my interests, research or otherwise. Like all the reading I completed this summer, though, whether or not I'm able to manage #wymhm synthesis entries during the semester remains to be seen. 

While the above entries made up the bulk of this space, I blogged on occasion, offering up a review of Tom Bissell's Extra Lives, a couple entries about visibility and composition, part of a scholarly piece that didn't make the cut and my most recently accepted proposal for publication in an edited collection. 

Instead of revising my dissertation and a previous publication, I worked on three different solo pieces and accepted an invitation from Bill Wolff to be an associate editor on a Web 2.0-oriented online reader. Many of the elements I wanted to bring into the revision of my Computer Culture Reader piece, which I intended to submit to Kairos, will instead be featured in the reader. 

 

Courses
A lack of enrollment/interest in ENG 391 Advanced Technical Writing led to its cancellation for the Fall 2010 semester, so my course development focus changed to two sections of ENG 112 Critical Writing & Reading. The blog for these courses should be up within the next few days. For all the various and sundry actions performed this summer, I'm glad to be returning to the classroom and to a new group of students. The focus and foundation they provide for me cannot be understated. 

 

Now, what'd I miss?

"seriously good at this" [full text draft]

At the invitation of a former student, I gave the keynote address at the 5th Annual Sigma Tau Delta Critical and Creative Writing Conference on the campus of the University of Michigan-Flint. It was an experimental talk in terms of approach and content. My approach was a sort of longform pecha kucha presentation in that I had 60 slides of images and minimal text timed at 30 seconds each. My content concerned the unpacking of a particular phrase and how it relates to intellectual work. This is an amended version of that talk. 
 
The title of my talk, "Seriously Good At This," is a phrase taken from Bioshock, an FPS videogame with Ayn Rand-inspired and dystopian elements. The phrase, though, is the title of a particular in-game achievement, unlocked only when the player completes the game on the hardest difficulty. This is a form of recognition, of course, and one not all that different from those who talk about their critical and creative efforts in academia. So, I adopt this phrase because it is appropriate for why we are all here, but I also take it as the title of my talk because it is a phrase I find appealing. To be honest, I'm enamored with it, and I'm curious about its meaning. With permission, I'd like to unpack the constituent parts of this phrase first before moving into some examples of what I think it means to be "seriously good at this." It is my hope that we will not only come to a more nuanced understanding of the phrase but also see how what we do qualifies as being "seriously good at this."
 
However, I do not mean to get too serious here. We are not so much engaging in linguistic analysis; consider what follows as more of a thoughtful rumination on meaning. 
 
So, I think "seriously" is revealing of a particular manner, if only for a moment, though it can also be sustained over a period of time. That solemn moment, fleeting or not, can be imbued with whatever narrative we desire to construct. "Seriously" can be for an instant, but it can also be sustained, each happening by different means.
 
And the particular manner revealed by "seriously" can be a sense of purpose, duty or honor in all we decide to address in our experiences. Evidence of a perspective cultivated over time is evidence of a thing, or multiple things, taken "seriously."
 
A sense of purpose, though, requires particulars of us all, such as the effort required to not smile for a portrait. Such a manner may not come from within, but from external forces exerting stifling influence upon us. This means a certain concern about the consequences of our actions. For some, performing "seriously" means lacking playfulness as much as it means commitment. In this regard, I think the question is not to be, but to do.
 
And I do not think it possible to take something "seriously" without actually doing it. In the act of performance, whether or not one is "taking it seriously" cannot be readily questioned. Devotion and determination are evident in a performance, something recognizable by others in how we present ourselves and how we allow ourselves to be seen. An element of choice exists here as well. By "seriously," we mean attention to manner, purpose and consequence.
 
Meanwhile, "good" often places emphasis on agreeable behavior, what is proper in context and what is right overall. There are ethical and moral qualities associated with "good," too, ones agreed upon and reinforced by those around us. In society, others are as complicit in behaving "good" as otherwise.
 
There is also an emphasis on performance, with "good" as part of a demonstration of proficiency. It need not just be about behavior, and this performative aspect is as evident with those recognizing the "good" in others as they speak about their work as it is in online and virtual environments like World of Warcraft. Various and sundry forms of aptitude all relate to some understanding of "good."
 
As with most all words, though, "good" can be complicated in practice. The famous picture of Richard Nixon making Elvis Presley "federal agent-at-large" in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs is the most requested photograph from the National Archives. Questions of "good" still surround both men as the word holds implications of who is estimable and deserving of our respect. There is the question of ethics, i.e., was Nixon a "good" man, a good president? There is the question of proficiency, i.e., was Elvis a "good" man, a "good" performer? Again, there is the moral quality to "good" as well as the more obvious kairotic elements. 
 
Just as "seriously" denotes a sustained manner, "good" does, too. Behavior and performance are both forms of expression, of movement through spaces. 
 
Again, the performative element, that "good" is something acted rather than acted upon, that behavior and performance are not mutually exclusive endeavors but often the same. And we are not "good" alone. I am unsure if we can be either, in part because of the philosophical "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's around, does it make a sound?" sense, but also because of the element of public and social recognition. Others support us in our "good"ness, recognizing it as much as our seriousness. 
 
To be "seriously good" is to be earnest and effective in expression.
 
Third, "at" is directive, often location-based and related to where we are in the moment. There’s also an intention to action; “at” leads us, points us somewhere, toward a means to an end. We see this in phrases like “at the plate” and even “at the rate of.” The very symbol for "at" (@) even indicates a center, a focus for our attention.
 
Aside: To my knowledge, the symbol for “at” has no other grand name, nothing so important as ampersand. However, it is known by a range of informal terms in languages other than English. Most of these relate to what @ looks like, including miukumauku (Finnish for “meow meow”), klammeraffe (German for “hanging monkey”) and sobachka (Russian for “little dog”). 
 
The symbol for "at" is also manifest in online communicative technologies. In email, @ is part of an intended location, like an email address. On Twitter, @ is synonymous with “mention” and “reply.” 
 
As part of a sentence or an online address, @ is a leader to what comes next, to where we want to go. @ implies motion in meaning; @ implies progression. @ is both present and future. @ is where we are and where we want to or will be.
 
Fourth, "this" takes us even further, pointing in a more direct way to what is present, what is before us, near and dear to us. "This" is a form of direction and a continuation of location, just like "at." In asynchronous online discussion, "this" functions as a means of support for the word of another. "This" is a one-word affirmation of someone else's expressed opinion (see Fark.com for examples).
 
Like the previous three words addressed, “this” can be and often is defined by a moment. There’s an appropriateness to “this,” and it happens by pose and by choice.
 
"This" is who we are, what we do.
 
"This" is a role, established by self and/or by others.
 
"This" is a performance, attention and recognition from others.
 
And the results of being "seriously good at this" are tangible, identifiable, recognizable and recorded. And to be "seriously good at this" means acknowledging change, being aware of what is lost and gained due to the influence of time.
 
To be "seriously good at this" means to be earnest and effective in expression of something, and I want to offer up a few examples as a way to clarify this point.
 
Noam Chomsky has been "seriously good at this" for many years, with "this" being linguistics, political commentary and public, intellectual acts. With books published, speeches given and online activities taken in the form of responding to questions on the social bookmarking website Reddit, Chomsky is consistent in performing a particular role well.
 
bell hooks, another public intellectual, engages in spheres similar to those of Chomsky, but with more of a pedagogical purpose. Books like Teaching to Transgress and The Will to Change are gracious in their offerings of new models and pathways to teaching and learning about each other and the world. hooks' body of work is a formative and sustained influence on my own pedagogy. Much of what I do in the classroom emulates her ideas.
 
Ian Bogost is a videogame critic, designer and researcher who sees videogames as an expressive medium possessing a procedural rhetoric. He offers up his ideas on his blog, in his books, on The Colbert Show (just once so far) and in the form of Cow Clicker, a social game available on Facebook. 
 
Jane McGonigal is also a videogame critic, designer and researcher who focuses on how the games we play can change how we experience the real world and make it better. Games like Evoke and SuperStruct are clear, in-depth exercises in such ideas. 
 
These public intellectuals have their own developed identities and performances of being "seriously good at this." I am still working on mine. So far, we can see this in my gaming identity, one tangible result being the 500 note streak on Helmet's "Unsung" in Guitar Hero. Other results are all connected via "betajames," my online moniker for Twitter, Posterous, Delicious and Scribd, each a communicative technology mentioned in my two-year review materials as evidence of scholarship and/or public intellectualism. 
 
The subtitle of my blog is "Against Multiphrenia." I intend it as working in opposition to Kenneth Gergen's idea of being drawn in multiple and conflicting directions because of technologies increasing social contact. The many technologies used on a daily basis construct our identities but also fracture and fragment them. Layers upon layers of our selves are built up and removed. In my own experience, Posterous replaced Blogger and Twitter replaced Facebook. The digital trail still remains. Everything's a work in progress, just like a videogame without a definable end (like World of Warcraft). We are always in development. Even if there is no noticeable change, stagnation itself is rare because of the ever-present potential of outside influence. 
 
Identity is a work in progress; scholarship is a work in progress; "seriously good at this" is a work in progress. And this work has to do with choice, of which we have more than ever. Our choice determines our identity, which determines our audience, which determines agency. It may all appear tedious, but it is worthwhile, perhaps even necessary.
 
We need to make informed choices about the identity/identities we construct when writing in the public sphere, when we blog, when we perform other online actions. As in post-apocalyptic narratives in books and videogames, who we align ourselves with and to what end have ramifications, changing the landscape and our perspective. 
 
Writing functions as a record and reflection of and on choice. Writing is a continual "seriously good at this," refinement and revision. Writing is a technology present in many forms. 
 
 
Aside: My vision for the perfect word processor involves a wall-mounted, Minority Report-style flat-screen television equipped with wifi, a microphone, smartphone hookup, document scanner and webcam.
 
 
So much of writing is collaborative performance, and the greater evidence of this is available online in many different forms. There is a communal aspect, too, with the common goal involving the becoming of "seriously good at this" together. Demands are upon us, then, just as possibilities are. Some say that online communicative technologies are about little more than marketing, but I disagree. It's about meaning, about marking progress. 
 
Technology enables us to mark progress and to keep those markings private or make them public. Again, there is a choice here in how to be "seriously good at this." There are multiple approaches and tracks with great potential. 
 
Different levels of interest and involvement are available to us. Different levels of devotion and determination are required of us. But we either do these things or we don't do these things. I no longer suggest to others that they "try it out." We do and get "seriously good at this" or we do for a while and then leave it alone.
 
But any doing can lead to some kind of achievement, to attention and recognition. This happens with everything we do and we see this every day. I look forward to bearing witness to just how "seriously good at this" we are and will be. Thank you.