COMM203: VALS Type test

     I took the VALS test and ended up with the personality type Striver/Believer. The test seems to think I have a great deal of faith, which is more than just a little bit inaccurate seeing how I have no religion and even less faith in humanity as a whole, but I suppose otherwise I could, in a way, see how it would think I am of the believing sort. And by that I mean I can be outrageously gullible at times. This was the very same person who had believed Santa Claus existed up until the fifth grade and argued in a most demented fashion that the notes he would write me were undisputed evidence of his jovial existence.

     I can say I am something of a striver if you look at it a certain way. I strived for perfection in high school and got a 3.699, much to the chagrin of my overachiever-type parents. I strive to appear to be a levelheaded individual with a clear future in mind (but we all know the truth of that). Lastly I strive to do better this semester than in my others, and so far, results are looking optimistic.

     For the test itself, I noticed a few questions were repeated or worded slightly differently, probably to catch any inconsistencies of the individual and add that to the overall end result that is calculated. A little sneaky, a little clever, but it does provide a thing or two to say about the person. In conclusion I do not have faith in this test as a solid piece of evidence to indicate a person's personality or tendencies.

Thoughts on Copyleft

What is your stance on copyright/copyleft (e.g., creative commons) in the “copy and paste” Internet world of today?

Use examples to support your point.

On one hand, copyleft is a method designed to put programs in the public domain for widespread access. If someone had created artwork or music, it can be viewed or heard by millions of people and be allowed for use whenever necessary when those who utilize it do not claim it as theirs and demand payment,

On the other, copyright laws are there for a reason. Without them in place, people can seize the free programs or information and 'remake' them to turn a profit from work that was not entirely theirs. That, in turn, can take away from the income from the original source. One example of this relevant in today's society can easily be seen in music - music artists take snippets of songs from others quite often. Nicki Minaj's song 'Anaconda' and Sir Mix-A-Lot's song 'Baby Got Back' have similar elements in beat and tune, just like 'Under Pressure' by David Bowie and 'Ice Ice Baby' by Vanilla Ice.

Personally I prefer ideas and creativity and works of art and music to be accessible to the public at any time, as the internet is a source of creativity and learning across the world. Of course there will be as great a threat of plagiarism as ever, perhaps even increased than before if we were to make everything just a click away, but technically there have always been ways around plagiarism even if it is illegal. That does not, by any means, say that plagiarism can be overlooked, but if there were not such strict regulations on resources then it would certainly make the spread of information and culture much more simplified.

Media Violence: Does it affect us?

     After watching 'The Mean World Syndrome', I am lead to believe that violence in the media does indeed impact the media in a negative way. Violence in the media spreads fear and anxiety, no matter from where it derives from. Copious amounts of violence comes from several sources of news, both local and global, from television dramas, from action and horror and gore movies, and even from newspapers in circulation.

     I don't believe consuming media violence can have a positive impact on people - instead I think we become numbed to violence and accustomed to it as a part of every day life. I don't see as many people becoming frightened by it as they are conditioned to seeing it on television and at least knowing how to act in many situations, as well as learning how not to act and taking it as real advice. Truly this subject can go either way, but I believe the results are more negative than not.

     I do agree with Gerbner's points for why there is so much violence on television - we don't have a desire to see violence on TV so much as it's easy and simple to produce and circulate. In fact, nonviolent programs are more popular than violent ones, but creating television shows with murder and action doesn't take too much talent, time, or creativity. It's more of an easy-way-out than it is giving the people what they want. The way Gerber put it, it's a "good commodity for global market".

Test

Test post