Cultural Analysis of "Fear must not hold back new era of artificial intelligence"

For this post, I will be analyzing the cultural aspects within this article from the Financial Times.

Luke. "Computer inside" 3/1/13 via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain Dedication 

Cultural Keywords:

1. AI (Artificial Intelligence)- Understanding the term AI is key in order to understanding the whole article, as it is all based around the concept of this new technology. AI does not necessarily mean humanoid robots, but instead, can consist of anything from a true "robot" or something as simple as a computer that can play chess.                                                                    
2. Intelligence- Intelligence also has a unique meaning in this circumstance. Intelligence could mean many different things depending on what the purpose of the AI itself is. A high intelligence also usually means that the AI is logically intelligence, meaning that a computer that plays chess can win most of the time, or that a computer can recognize trends and adapt to different circumstances.                                                                                                                            
3. Risks- The risks within this argument vary. Risks could mean the AI eventually controlling humans or the risks could be AI simply not keeping its ethics. 

Main Idea: 

The main idea of Ben Medlock's article would be that even though there are many risks and fears in developing Artificial Intelligence, the improvements of people's lives from practical AI is worth the risk.

Thesis (from quote): "There are debates to be had about the ultimate objectives of AI research and potential risks, but the fear that humans may one day be superseded by our own creations must not obscure the important discussions to be had now around the ethical and societal impact of imminent advances."

Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

Now that I have figured out what my interests are within my major, it is time to think about the articles that I will be analyzing. For this post, I will look at three different articles and look at their rhetorical components.

Duboc, Jean-Rémy. "brain and gears" 08/30/14 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

The first article that I found was on Artificial Intelligence and how it could potentially harm us.

Google’s Demis Hassabis – misuse of artificial intelligence 'could do harm'

Author/Speaker: 

Demis Hassabis works for the company Google, who is very well known for their innovations of technology and their most recent projects for AI. Therefore, we can assume that this man knows what AI has the potential to do, both good and bad.

The author himself, Kamal Ahmed, shows his Twitter handle on his page, and is also verified on Twitter. This shows that he is a well-known reporter and is credible. Not only this, but the fact that he is associated with BBC, one of the largest news sources in the world, shows that he must do his research and be credible as well. 

Audience:

In this interview, Demis Hassabis wants to reach out to those working on AI- warning them that they need to be careful with how they use it and to be sure not to miss any details. Since this is being red by the general public as well, this interview places the idea of harmful AI in the back of the audience's mind, so as when anything too intelligent or having the potential to ham shows up in the market, society can work against it. 

Context:

This is a very modern topic, and in turn, very modern contextual details. First, both the author and the speaker work in the UK, a powerful first-world country. Next, the article is given to us on a website, which in itself is modern. This article was also written this month (September 2015), so we can assume that the details referenced within the interview are as new as they can get. 

Next, an article from Telegraph describes both sides of this debate: whether AI could be good or harmful.

Future technology: a force for good or a source of fear?

Author/Speaker:

The author, Grant Feller, is a reporter who works for not just the Telegraph, but for Huffington Post,  Media Week and even Forbes. Based on his Twitter, he is based in London and runs his own group of journalists under the name GF Media. 

Audience:

This article is mainly for the general public, as he explains certain terms and writes in a fashion that is understandable to most people. I feel that this is for a general audience because he is not necessarily calling upon people to act but is instead simply informing the audience of what AI could become. 

Context: 

This article was published on September 25th, 2015, so his information must be very recent. The nature of the article is also of the future in itself, cyber-security, AI and robotics are recent topics that have been discussed. In his article, Feller references the "Festival of the Imagination", which is a big convention to host speakers that talk about scholarly topics to purposely raise questions and debate. 

Finally, an article on Medical Daily discussed the medical improvements that can come from using AI. 

Artificial Intelligence May Be Able To Predict Remission Or Resistance To Certain Drugs Used To Treat Breast Cancer

Author/Speaker:

 Steve Smith, from both his Twitter and his section on Medical Daily, we can see that he is from Pennsylvania, lives in New York City and works out of New Jersey. He has contributed to various websites other than Medical Daily. Since the majority of his publications are on medicine, we can assume that he has a well-rounded idea of what's what in the medical community. 

Audience: 

In his article, Smith references the reader as a typical individual, someone going in for surgery or someone going into a drug store. Also from the general information in the article, it is seen that this article is to be read by the general public, mostly for those who are either interested in cancer research or have dealt with cancer in their own lives.

Context: 

The date of publication is also fairly recent. Not only this, but his view of breast cancer and its potential cures have been formed by society's need for a cure. Any opportunity at a cure will automatically be seen as successful, which is shown within this article, however, he does mention that this technology still needs some time to improve.


Reflection:
By looking at my classmates' posts, more specifically Rose and Mark's, I learned what an argumentative article consists of. At first, I thought that unbiased texts were always the best option. However, for this assignment, the more opinionated the better. For my post, I feel that I analyzed them well, even though the articles themselves may be less argumentative than I would like. The analysis I completed definitely helped me to understand my articles and helped me to realize which one to use over the others. 

Developing a Research Question

Now, it is time to start preparing for Project 2. In this post, I will be considering questions that I have about debates within the Neuroscience community.

Marvin, Ben. "question-mark-dice" 3/12/04 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.

Questions that I have:

Genetically modified foods-

• How do genetically modified foods specifically affect the brain?

Vaccinations-

• What is the effect of having non-vaccinated children around others? 
• Will a law ever be imposed forcing parents to vaccinate their child:? 

Artificial Intelligence-

• How can smart AI improve society? 
• How far can, or should, scientists go to make AI human-like?

For these current controversies, I am mostly interested in artificial intelligence. As one interested in neuroscience, it is fascinating how far technology has come and how great the potential could be for AI. However, while AI can seem to improve society, will there ever come a time where AI must be treated like a human? Should we even take AI that far? That is a question that has been asked even during the very start of computers, and I would like to find some insight on the matter other than what is in the movies. 

As for genetically modified foods, I have always been interested in how organic food might be better-or not better- than non-organic. Now with genetically modified foods, we can produce produce at a faster rate. But at what cost? 

The vaccination debate has always baffled me. Coming from a medicine-oriented family, vaccinations were always a must. But now that people have come out saying that vaccinations are bad, I would like to see their side of the story. 

Reflection on Project 1

After finally completing my QRG, I now have time to reflect on what I have done. Here, I will answer a few questions based on my experience.

Piolle, Guillaume. "Loch Alsh- Reflection" 8/7/09 via Wikimedia Commons.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.

• What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Guide project and how did you deal with them?
• The most challenging thing was organizing my time effectively. It was difficult to find time to research and revise multiple times. Once I did find time, it was hard to stay focused because I felt that I had been away from my draft for so long that I had lost my train of thought. 

• What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?
• I feel like my overall topic finding was a success. With Neuroscience, it can be somewhat difficult to find a controversy, or at least that's what I found. However, when I looked it up this seemed to be one of the few truly Neuroscience debates happening, which just so happened to begin last year!

• What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?
• I found that using hyperlinks were very helpful. At first, I was citing my quotes in APA. With APA, the in-text citations really take away from the quote instead of flowing seamlessly through them. Once I found out that hyperlinks were the best way to go, my quotes fit perfectly into my paragraphs. 

• What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?
• I found that listing any sort of data was not effective. While it would have worked, there were no images of graphs or data that were free to use (copyright-wise). I feel that I listed enough evidence within the text itself, however. 

• How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
• It was similar in the way the general process was. First, we must think about a question, then do research and then find quotes. Finally, we write the paper including our opinion.

• How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
• It was actually very different. The steps leading up to the final project were much more intensive and it took a lot of work to finally get the QRG finished. With better time management, I feel that this process actually might be better to work through to lead to a better produce. Also, it was strange looking through social media sourced because I have never done that before in a writing project! 

• Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?
• Yes! I feel that the summaries we had to complete would be helpful for almost every course. For example, in Chemistry, we can use these types of short, quick summaries to explain how we found the answer to a problem. Also within most of the other sciences we will probably end up following the same intensive processes. 

Reflection:

After reading the reflections by Clay and Sam, I found that my classmates have similar feelings like I do toward this project. 

First, we all understand that this is not the last time we will be using technology, such as a blog or online source, to write a project. Second, we were all sort of in the dark as to what a Quick Reference Guide exactly was. I think we have all seen them around, but never knew the exact name or never noticed the conventions for it. 

Final QRG (Project 1)

Alright, here it is! After reading all the comments and advice, I hope that I have improved my QRG to the best it could be.
You can find my final draft here!

Sosrosaputro, Joshua. "Singapore Fireworks Celebration Fireworks 2008 - Team Korea ( Korean Fantasia)"
 08/23/08 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Clarity, Part 2

I will be revisiting the Clarity section of Rules for Writers within this post. I will be looking at four brand new topics and in turn will revise my topic with new topics in mind.

normalityrelief. "Clarity" 3/5/11 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

Active Verbs:

• The definition of an active verb really clarified what I needed to do better.
• An active verb is the strongest from of a verb
• There are some cases where passive can be used, but the active tone is the most common
• Be verbs are also weak
• In order to use an active verb correctly, we first have to decide upon the subject

Needed words:

• Even though it may seem right, leaving out specific words may not always be grammatically correct
• Adding the word "that" can always be used when there are doubts of the audience misreading the sentence

Mixed Constructions:

• Sentences are limited in the range of grammatical patterns they can be in
• In order to revise, the author must be aware of the purpose and subject of their sentence
• The author must think through the sentences logically and revise as such
• Phrases such as "is where" or "is when" should try to be avoided

Distracting Shifts:

• Keep the point of view consistent in both person and number
• Basically, in order to avoid distracting shifts the author must keep everything consistent and in turn, be aware of the tenses they are using

Now, I will apply what I have learned to my own draft.

Active Verbs: 

After reading comments on my draft, I noticed a few that had said I needed to be aware of active verb use within my QRG. Once I scanned my draft I found that I could incorporate some active verbs into my text. As of right now, it is difficult to see the passive tones, but as I continue to revise, I will improve upon what I have learned.

Needed Words:

I have always struggled with this. For some reason, I feel like an essay should be written as spoken speech, and then it never comes across correctly. For example, in my QRG was this sentence: 

"On the darker side, it ravages many people within our society, controlling every aspect of their life until they have nothing left."

I noticed that this sentence could be misread, even though I included the subject as addiction in the last sentence. So, to fix the sentence, I changed it to:

"On the darker side, addiction ravages many people within our society, and it controls every aspect of an addict's life until they have nothing left."

Mixed Constructions:

I feel that I did well for this aspect of my paper. I didn't notice any mixed constructions the first time around, but as I continue to revise, I will stay aware and be sure to straighten out anything that is unclear.

Distracting Shifts:

After reading this section, this sentence stuck out to me in my draft.

"The BDMA (Brain Disease Model of Addiction), which describes addiction as a disease with origins outside of the abuser’s control, has been the most widely accepted within the Neuroscience community. However, there are still a prominent number of scientists who disagree completely, and claim that considering addiction as a disease is harming those they try to heal."

The tenses change and it is therefore considered a distracting shift. In order to revise, I changed it to:

"The BDMA (Brain Disease Model of Addiction), which describes addiction as a disease with origins outside of the abuser’s control, has been the most widely accepted within the Neuroscience community. However, there are still a prominent number of scientists who have disagreed , and claimed that considering addiction as a disease is harming those they try to heal."

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

In this post, I broke down the longest paragraph of my QRG draft into it's various components. The paragraph I am referencing can be found here.

  

Mendoza, Rafael Anderson Gonzales. "MAGNIFYING GLASS" 10/27/07 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

 

What I noticed within my paragraph is that I don't switch up the style of my sentences very often. For example, I had to modify what I wrote to incorporate three sentence patterns, and it was also difficult to figure out the sentence structure for each sentence. From now on I will be sure to be aware of the sentences that I write and try to vary them more often.

Paragraph Analysis

For this post, I will describe the components that were well executed in my paragraphs for my QRG. I will be referencing my Copy for Paragraph Analysis document on Google Docs.

Bouma, Jake. "Magnified (8/365)" 3/10/09 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

After reading through my draft and Rules for Writers, I now know what I need to work on within my paragraphs. Overall, I feel that they were a little difficult to analyze because I feel that I could only focus on the content itself, but, I did notice that I did well at developing my main points. However, I need better transitions between my paragraphs, along with linking them together with said transitions. The organization was okay, but I will continue to revise until all of them are organized well.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

For the following post, I will be answering questions from Student's Guide. This will include some insight on the audience and context of my QRG. For the peer review, I revised Tom and Mark's drafts, which were very helpful in giving me practice in revision and giving me ideas for my own draft.

Emmwah. "Colorful Reflection" 11/12/12 via DeviantArt.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported

Audience:

• Who is going to be reading this document, and who am I trying to reach with my argument? 
• My audience would be my professor and my classmates within 109H. There is no true argument within a QRG, instead, I wish to simply inform my audience about this controversy.

• What are their values and expectations? Am I adequately meeting these expectations?
• The expectation is that I know everything about this controversy and understand it completely. I hope that I have met their expectations to a point, but this controversy is very complex and is somewhat difficult to explain. However, I will try my best to continue researching and revising my paper.

• How much information do I need to give my audience, and how much ground information or context should I provide?
• For my specific topic, I feel that I should define medical terminology and some scientific ideas, as they can be difficult to understand (even for me!). Describing why addiction is bad, though, is not needed as this is something that most people understand. 

• What kind of language is suitable for this audience? 
• Since this is an academic audience, I feel that the typical informality of a QRG should be left out. Not to say that this project should be completely formal, but it should remain professional. Also, the topic itself can be sensitive to some, so no jokes or aside comments should be made.

• What tone should I use with my audience? Do I use this tone consistently throughout my draft?
• I feel that the tone should be semi-formal, and I do feel like I have kept this tone consistent within my QRG.

Context:

• What are the formatting requirements of the assignment? Do I meet them?
• Most of the formatting requirements are to make the QRG easier on the reader's eye. So effective use of white space, short paragraphs and graphics should be used. I think I have done well in keeping the paragraphs short and plenty of white space within my draft, however, I have not added as many images as I need yet. 

• What are the content requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?
• This is what I feel I struggle with most. The content requirements are listed within the Project 1 Rubric, and consist of topics such as  a proper introduction, the key/major events and where the controversy is headed in the future. So far, I have used this draft to get the basic content out of the way, but I will continue revising to include all of the content requirements. 

• Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in class in addition to my own ideas and voice?
• I feel that I have shown how we learned to keep our paragraphs concise and summarize our context. However, I think that this draft still sounds like me as a writer and does include my own ideas about this controversy. 

• Have I addressed any grammatical issues that my teacher highlighted in class or in my previously-graded assignments?
• While have not yet revised it, I have taken note that the verbs in my signal phrases, since I am working in APA, should be in past tense and stay  consistent throughout the QRG. My classmates also included feedback on my grammar, such as my use of active verbs and odd wording, which I will fix as I revise.

Clarity, Part 1

For this post, I will be describing what I learned about four topics within Rules for Writers. The four topics I chose Repair misplaced and dangling modifiers, Variety, Emphasis, and finally Wordy sentences. 

Shorrock, Steven. "Listen, Understand, Act" 10/9/2011 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic .

Repair misplaced and dangling modifiers:

I honestly didn't know that there was a word for these types of words! I understood that words such as "even", "almost", and "only" were good to use, but I have always struggled with where to place them. It turns out that the limiting modifiers go in front of the words that they modify. Also, this section states that a sentence should flow from subject to verb to object, which I feel is a very good rule to follow. Finally, I learned that dangling modifiers are an issue, and overall, a once a modifier has been stated an actor should be named directly after.

Variety:

This section was very helpful by showing me ways to make my sentences have variety. It states that adverbial modifiers are easily movable, and they can even be moved ahead of the object instead of always appearing after. I have also always struggled with sentence structure variety. This section gives good examples of the four main types of sentences, which I can use as a reference later on. A good idea to give variety to your text is to invert them. While the normal subject-verb-object sentence model is what we are accustomed to writing, inverting them can make a paper flow even more.

Emphasis:

This section revealed to me the importance of emphasis within an essay. Accidentally emphasizing the wrong thing within a sentence can completely contradict your whole thesis! Subordination versus Coordination  is essential to understand, as they can both be used to make your paper stronger.

Wordy sentences:

This is my main issue when writing. This section gave many helpful examples and ideas for me to use when I revise my paper. For example, eliminating redundancies can shorten a sentence to only include the important parts. It is sometimes difficult to spot redundancies when you are the author, but it is very apparent to the reader. Something I would like to focus on that the section pointed out is when a word suggests something about the subject and their action (such as very hurriedly to scribbled: scribbling suggests that the subject was moving quickly!). Avoiding repetition of words is also very important. Finally, reducing clauses to phrases and phrases to single words can make a paper easier to read and understand.


Reflection:

I learned many things from Mark's QRG draft. Throughout his draft, there were many well-crafted transitions to his next subject. One of these both acting as a transition and an introduction.

• "As the story was picked up by more outlets, it gained another dimension: the scholarly community became much more heavily involved."

I have been struggling to figure out how to include the timeline of my controversy without it ruining the flow of my text. I feel that this single sentence did a wonderful job, but, it has also removed the need for wordy sentences. The transition is simple, short and does not leave any question of what he will discuss next.

Thomas' QRG was about a very interesting topic. I feel that within my draft, I was having trouble leaving the audience with a bigger idea, or analysis in general of my topic. Thomas, however, was able to discuss the point of his topic very well, as shown by the following quote.

• "The success of traditional taxi services and Uber truly depends on an individual customer’s personal preference of whether or not he or she likes the reliability that a standard taxi represents, or the new and innovative technology that Uber embodies."

This sentence shows how to place emphasis on the point being portrayed. It coordinates what the success of taxis and Uber depend on and subordinates that the taxi is reliable, but Uber showcases new technology.

Thoughts on Drafting

It is very important to think about the tips and tricks given to you, whether it be vocally or in a book. In this post, I will discuss how Student's Guide is helpful, or not helpful, for our current project.

Ribichini, Luca. "penso positivito (i think positive)" via Flickr 3/30/08. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Things that I found helpful for this genre:

• The idea of remaining flexible and open to evolved ideas
• Finding new sources and being able to implement them
• Finding new groups
• Anything new when it comes to your writing style 
• Writing Introductions
• For a QRG, an introduction is very different than many other styles of writing.
• Still, it is helpful because we want to grab the reader's attention and encourage them to keep reading
• Paragraph Development
• The importance of breaks and keeping each paragraph with a single main idea
• In this case, a very short and concise idea
• Organization of the text
• With a QRG, I feel that the text should flow well and be well organized or else the reader won't understand the controversy being portrayed. 
• Must be purposeful
• Revision
• Revision is apparent in all types of writing

Things I found that were not so helpful for this genre:

• Drafting a thesis statement
• In a QRG, there is no true claim that the author is trying to portray. Instead, they are simply describing an event in detail to inform their audience. 
• PIE Structure
• In this genre, there is not enough room to have a full PIE paragraph, as one of the conventions of a QRG is to keep short paragraphs.
• Perhaps each section should be a PIE in itself 
• Conclusions
• The conclusion is also very different when it comes to QRGs
• No claims to summarize
• Nothing to circle back to
• Should instead leave the reader with ways to find more information or include some final details

Reflection:

After reading through posts by Lauren and Charles, I feel that we as a class seem to agree on what is helpful and what is not. Lauren's post helped me to see how PIE Structure can be important, even within a QRG. Charles helped to emphasize how different (and similar) a QRG is to a normal essay, just so that I don't fall into any habits that don't work within a QRG. For example, taking a long amount of time to explain one point, or making the text too formal. 

Three things that I can work on:

1. PIE Structure: In my draft I tend to simply list ideas and facts but with no real structure, in each section I should introduce what it will be about and go from there instead. 
2. Revision: Before, I have never really put much thought into the revising process. This time, I would like to really set aside a good amount of time to revise.
3. Remaining flexible: With my controversy, there are many sources available, and I fear that when I find a new one that I won't be able to incorporate it into my QRG because it won't flow with the rest of the next. Now that I can keep this in mind, I should be able to stay open to new sources and ideas .

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

Peer reviewers,

First off I would like to thank for for helping me with my drafting process.

Kevan. "Work in Progress" 10/8/2011 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

As you read through my paper, I would like you to understand that this is a first draft, and that I may have missed some points within the rubric (or at least didn't make them clear enough). I will try my best to make them clear the next time around! Also, I understand that my paper may seem a little blank as it only has one image, which I do plan to fix later. I would like feedback on exactly what points I missed and what was unclear, and also any general feedback things (criticism on sentence flow, grammar etc.). Thanks!

You can view my draft here.

Practicing Quoting

This post will show how I practiced incorporating quotes into a paragraph. The referenced quotes' sources can be found in my annotated bibliography. I used pg.540 of Rules for Writers and Purdue OWL as a guide.

Featherston, Breanna. "Quotation Practice" 9/11/15 via Google Docs

QRGs: The Genre

For this post I will describe the details of what a Quick Reference Guide is. This includes the conventions (and what they mean), graphics choices and other various parts of a QRG.

Gregory, Ed. "Mans Hands Typing On Laptop With Smartphone, Book And Coffee" 9/9/14 via Pexels. Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license

What do the conventions this genre seem to be?
The conventions of a QRG seem very similar to a typical blog post. However, it does have its differences. The conventions of a Quick Reference Guide are:

• Title including main subject of the post
• Relevant image (cited) and statistical data
• Short, concise paragraphs
• Use of headings for each new detail explained (usually phrased as questions)
• Hyperlinking relevant articles referenced within the post

How are those conventions defined by the author's formatting and design choices?

These conventions are reflected within a post due to the author's preferences. Overall, all authors split up their article into sections that explain a question (as shown by a new heading that is in bold an in bigger font) and include at least one image. However, an author can choose to include only statistics,an image to invoke emotion in their audience, or even social media posts. Also, authors typically incorporate their hyperlinks into their paragraphs.

What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?

I feel that the purpose of the QRG is to compose an easily accessable, literal "quick reference" for any controversy or event that is happening in current news. Instead of having to look through all different types of articles, videos and interviews, a reader can just go to a Quick Reference Guide and can get all the information about all sides of the story within one article. 

Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs?

For all QRGs, the intended audience is the same for their relative subjects. Their audience consists of people that wish to learn the main points about a certain event or controversy. Typically, they aim their articles toward those who have simply heard about the subject discussed as they describe their subject starting from the beginning and tell both sides of the story. The only thing different about every QRG is their topic and the people interested in their respective topics.

How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why?

The authors use different types of images for different purposes. They use normal pictures to either appeal to the audience's emotion or to give the audience imagery of the subject so that they better understand it. They also use images of statistics to present data in a concise manner that is easy to understand.


Reflection:

After reading through the other posts, I mostly learned about how to organize my posts and how detailed to be within them.

For example, both Annelise and Jenny  both used bullet points to their advantage. Both were able to be very detailed about each convention without creating a wall of text. I feel that with paragraph format, being detailed can sometimes make the post difficult to read. Also, along with reading Thomas' post, all of my classmates were able to understand when to use bullet points and when not to use them. For my future posts, I will attempt to be more organized, which will allow me to be more detailed.

Cluster of My Controversy

In this post, I will describe the thoughts and organization behind the cluster for the controversy of the proper addiction model to use. You can view the cluster below, which was made with Coggle.

In this cluster, the two main branches represent the two sides of this controversy, those who support addiction as a disease (or the Brain Disease Model of Addiction) and those who don't. From those branches, it leads to three key points: the ideology and values of that group, the main speakers for that group and what the group overall says publicly. Attached to the main speakers, however, I have described how they speak or write, grouping them by social media, general interviews and scholarly texts that they have written or proposed.

Reflection:
Both of the posts that I viewed used Coggle as well, which I think is a very good way to create a cluster because it is organized and has many features. First, I looked at Rose's cluster. My first thought was about how complicated and intricate her cluster was. However, I realized that she had planned very well and had clearly done the research. So, I feel that the complexity was a good thing because it organized her thoughts very well. Next, I looked at Mark's post, which I feel was also organized very well. I was surprised that he could include two debates and organize them so well. Both posts gave me ideas for how to better organize my thoughts and inspired me to continue my research to truly understand my controversy.

Annotated Bibliography in APA Style

Finally, for this post, I will create an Annotated Bibliography in APA style. I will be using Rules for Writers (p. 539-95) as a guide for APA style.

Christopher. "Books" 8/27/08 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Dauphinais, D. [deanokat]. (2015, August 27). A3: I think once someone's addicted their             brain takes over and it's more like a disease. #CADAChat [Tweet]. Retrieved                       from https://twitter.com/deanokat/status/636997331632701440

This tweet is used by Dauphinias to state his opinion on the controversy. However, it is implied that he agrees that addiction is a choice that slowly manifests into a disease. The context of this tweet comes from his experiences with his son as an addict. Therefore, this tweet could be used to describe what someone who has experience addiction firsthand feels about this debate.

Davey, M. (2015, August 30). Marc Lewis: The neuroscientist who believes addiction is               not a disease. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/

         
In her article on The Guardian, Davey discusses the context behind Dr. Marc Lewis and his new book, and then goes on to interview him on his ideas of addiction. They discuss his theory that addiction is a choice, not a disease. From this theory, Lewis states that by realizing that addiction is a choice, doctors can better rehabilitate their patients. This article can be used to reference Lewis' ideas in a paper as a major force within this controversy. 

Hall, W., Carter, A., & Forlini, C. (2015).The brain disease model of addiction: is it                     supported by the   evidence and has it delivered on its promises? The Lancet                     Psychiatry, 2, 105-110. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00126-6

In this article in The Lancet Physiology, the authors question the research behind genetics in addiction and BDMA. They do so by describing the research and then analyzing how BDMA would, or would not, fit into their perceptions of the research. They conclude that while BDMA is definitely the most widely agreed upon model for addiction, it is still not providing the correct treatments for addicts. Yet, they don't agree that addiction is a choice either, but a mixture of the two. This article is a good reference to how both of the opinions could be balanced within the controversy to create an ideal rehabilitation program.

Harvard Extension School. (2010, June 9). Is Addiction a Choice? Faculty Insight with             Gene Heyman [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?                        t=17&v=jh0ZAUxuQSo

This interview is used by Harvard Extension School to showcase one of it's lecturers' theories on this debate. He believes that addiction is a choice, as also stated in his book. However, he also agrees that genetics have a part in influencing addiction. Mainly, he believes that there are external factors that influence addicts into continuing their addictions. Finally, he describes how drugs physically change how the brain works. This interview is a great source concerning those who believe that addiction is a choice as there is data and a credible source to support it.

Koob, G., Sanna, P., & Bloom, F. (1998). Neuroscience of Addiction. Neuron, 21, 467-               476. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80557-7

         
The authors use this article to describe and explain the science behind addiction and the effects it has on the brain. They use both animal case studies and data from human addicts to explain that using addictive substances becomes positive in the addict's mind, and become dependent during withdrawal. They state that there are many chemicals and impulses involved with addiction and once someone is addicted, it is very easy to relapse. This article could be used to present the scientific and physiological side of this argument for either side.

Miller, L. (2015, June 27). Addiction is not a disease: A neuroscientist argues that it’s time          to change our minds on the roots of substance abuse. Salon. Retrieved from                      http://www.salon.com/

 Miller, in her article on Salon, compares Marc Lewis' ideas to Alcoholics Anonymous' ideas of rehabilitation. She does so by describing how Lewis defends his theories, through showcasing his case studies and answers to interview questions, and then discussing how AA uses a 12-Step program that is mostly successful. This article could be used to reference both sides of this controversy, and possibly even how they can both intertwine together to create a balance.

Noë, A. (2011, September 9). Addiction Is Not A Disease Of The Brain. NPR. Retrieved              from http://www.npr.org/

In this article, Noë states her reasoning behind why she does not consider addiction a disease. She calls upon the reader to not think about what makes something addictive, but instead the effects of partaking in something addictive. She notes that there is plenty of research to suggest that all addictive activities have an effect on the levels of dopamine in the body. Since this is a normal chemical in the body, it is not a disease, just the brain gearing a person toward a fixed goal on that one activity. This text is good evidence since it gives actually scientific explanation as to why they believe their side to be right.

O'Connor, P. (2012, June 10). The Fallacy of the 'Hijacked Brain'. The New York Times.              Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

O'Connor starts by describing both sides of this controversy, then goes on to say that recent studies are more in favor of addiction being a disease. This is due to the effect of a brain that has been taken over by chemical responses, leaving them unable to choose whether or not they want to continue their addictive behaviors. However, she claims that this is a false analogy. She continues by stating that addiction is both a disease and a choice. Her article is a good source to use because she is not on either side and instead takes both opinions into her claims.

Satel, S., & Lilienfeld, S. (2007, July 25). Medical Misnomer. Slate. Retrieved                                from http://www.slate.com/

This article from Slate focuses more on the political side of addiction and disease. With a background in psychiatry, these authors scoff at the idea of the Recognizing Addiction As a Disease Act of 2007, which would simply change the names of addiction organizations to incorporate the idea of addiction being a brain disease. They state that there is an ability to choose to stop your addiction, so, thinking of addiction as a disease leads to ineffective treatment. This source is good to use because the authors have personal experience in dealing with addicts.

Volkow, N. (2015, June 12). Addiction Is a Disease of Free Will. Huffington Post.                         Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Nora, after hearing about her grandfather's own battle with addiction, claims that addiction as a brain disease is an abstract idea and does not explain why people become addicted. The way she explains it is that free will and self-control have been taken away when someone is an addict. Therefore, we should not shame addicts because there is more complicated pathology behind it. Her article acts as a good source because she has experienced the effects of addiction and also studies drug abuse as a career.

The example of an annotated bibliography I used was from Bethel University.

Reflection:

Reading through other classmates' annotated bibliographies revealed to me what I can change in the future.

First, reading through Addie's post, which was styled in APA as well, helped me to think about my summaries. She did a great job about keeping her summaries concise and yet getting the main points of the article across. Plus, it was very easy to read and flowed really well. Then, reading through Mark's post was interesting because in APSA style, they don't have a specific annotated bibliography model and instead take it from Chicago. He also did really well with his summaries and was able to introduce his articles without using a specific formula, which is something I find hard to do. 

Ideology in My Contoversy

Now that I have analyzed many of the sources available for this controversy, I can start to break down the details of the debate. Using the information I have found, I'll answer a few questions about the controversy surrounding addiction within this post.

RayNata. "Alcohol desgracia" 11/25/08 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license.

Who is involved in the controversy?

Both scientists and normal folks who come from two different schools of thought. One side follows the BDMA (Brain Disease Model of Addiction) who thinks that addiction is a disease and can form from anything other than the victims own choice, such as genetics or environmental sources. On the other side there are those who think that addiction is simply a choice and once the victim goes too deep into addiction, it gets harder to make the right choice. 

Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?

I would say that two of the biggest scholars that are speaking within this controversy are definitely Marc Lewis and Gene Heyman. All of their research and publications have been either about addiction or this controversy itself, and often are referenced either in articles or publications. 

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

Socially, I think that those who believe in BDMA have the greater advantage because we, as a society, do not like to put blame onto victims themselves and say that it "was their choice". So, they would be easier to use the emotional appeal to convince others of their opinion. However, when it comes to other aspects of power, any person is able to join either side, powerful or not, so they would have the same amount of power.

What resources are available to different positions?

Research and experience would be the resources available. Whether it be research on the brain and what happens with addiction or someone that has recently recovered from an addiction themselves, either one could be used as proof to either side.

What does each group value?

I would say that the group that believes that addiction is a choice values individual decisions and integrity. They want to put the addicted in control of their own actions, including their choice to become addicted and the choice to start recovering. Those who believe in BDMA value the addict's perception of themselves because they don't want the addict to blame themselves for their addiction, 

What counts as evidence for the different positions?

The evidence surrounding BDMA is not as evident as the evidence that addiction is a choice. Their evidence would be that since BDMA is the current school of thought when it comes to recovery, every addict that has been treated like their addiction was a disease shows that the brain disease model is correct. However, there has been recent research by many scientists that addiction, once the initial choice is made, the brain will start to change and adapt to keep accepting the addictive substance. However, this can only be done with constant choices to partake in the addictive activity, and therefore, addiction would simply be a choice.

Is there a power differential between the groups?

I don't think that these types of groups are concerned with power as much as in other controversies. Mainly, these groups are concerned with who has the most scientific evidence, as any physician or support group is able to change their style of rehabilitation at any time.

Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

Often, the scientists who believe that addiction is a choice will be asked to comment on the other side's idea that addiction comes from genetics and environment. They mostly tend to agree that genetics and environment play a small part in the addict making their choice. 

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

Out of all the interviews and articles, something that I think was not mentioned enough was that both sides simply want to help to fight addiction. No matter how they look at at, both sides want to find the best way to cure an addict, and neither side wants the addict to feel bad about their situation but only want to help them recover. 

Do the various groups listen to each other?

As this is a very scientific argument, it would be very strange if someone were to not acknowledge the other side of their argument. Often, those one one side will share their research with someone on the other side to explain why they should rethink their theories. 

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

To complete the triad of sources, this post will be used to analyze the controversy around the addiction model based on social media sources. The sources I will be using are found using the website Storify.

Donovan, Kathleen. "Social Media Heat Collage" 1/29/10 via flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic.

My first source will be a tweet by Dean Dauphinais in a conversation about whether or not addiction is a disease or a choice.

Credibility: When I google his name, Dean Dauphinias comes up in many different articles concerning his work to break the stigmas around addiction and his stories about his son's addiction. He also contributes to The Huffington Post and has his own blog called "My Life as 3D".

Location: I feel that Dauphinais is directly involved in this controversy as he had to suffer through his son's addiction and can give firsthand experiences.

Network: He is following many news sources and other activists for various types of issues, such as drug awareness, canine adoption and even others discussing their stories about addiction. He has many followers, however, most of them are others that mainly discuss addiction or other health-related issues. He has credible sources following him such as pharmacies and other addiction-awareness organizations.

Content: Yes, his idea that addiction becomes a disease is an opinion shared by many other people, even other scholars.Within the same conversation, other people are agreeing with his statement.

Contextual updates:  He comments very often on the topics of addiction and drug-abuse. Most of the time, he will tweet out a link that directs readers to a new post on his blog (which is about his experience with his son's addiction). He also contributes to discussions on Twitter about addiction and it's controversies, along with tweeting links to articles about addiction.

Age: His account was made in September of 2008 and actively updates with multiple tweets a day.

Reliability: I believe that from all of this information that Dauphinais' opinion is reliable and can be used as a reference.


Next, I found a YouTube video from Harvard Extension School, which was an interview with Gene Heyman.

Credibility: Harvard Extenstion School is a well-known prestigious school, so, when I search them, I can find everything, including their website, address and anything else associated with them. Also, I can research Gene Heyman and I can find his website, including all of his publications, reviews and information, and I can find his page on Boston College.

Location: Dr. Heyman is very much involved within this controversy as he as published a book discussing his opinion on the matter, which in itself has caused conflict.

Network: Dr. Heyman does not have any other social media accounts other than his own website. So, his network must typically be other scholars and colleagues. Harvard Extension School, on their social media accounts, only follow those associated with either education or Harvard itself.

Content: Many other people and scientists, including Marc Lewis , agree with Dr. Heyman's statement that addiction is a choice.

Contextual update: Harvard Extension School posts on YouTube and Twitter quite often, all of their posts being about the school news and articles that may help or interest their students.. Dr. Heyman's last interview was very recent on August 21st of this year, and all of his interviews are about his theories on addiction.

Age: Harvard Extension School joined YouTube in August of 2008.

Reliability: Knowing that Harvard Extension School is a prestigious university and that Gene Heyman is a popular scientists with many publications and research studies, we can assume that these sources are reliable.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

Scholars are often at the front of every controversy, and within Neuroscience it is no different. This post will evaluate two scholarly articles discussing whether or not addiction is a true disease or not. Both will be found within the search result of Google Scholar and Neuron.

epSoS.de. "Illegal Drug Addiction and Substance Abuse" 10/24/14 via Wikimedia Commons. Attribution 2.0 Generic.

The first source I found was Neuroscience of Addiction, which I found through Neuron.

What is it's purpose?

This article's purpose is to explain the science behind addiction within the brain. It uses animal models to explain how the brain functions differently when afflicted with addiction.

How and where is it published?

It was published at the Scripps Research institute in California. It was written as a sole article within Volume 21, Issue 3 of Neuron.

What kinds of sources does it cite?

This author references 85 different sources, including articles from well known organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association.

Who is the author?

There are three authors of this article. George Koob, who is renowned for his research on alcohol abuse, and is currently directing the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Pietro Sanna, who is an associate professor at Scripps, and Floyd Bloom, who has won many awards due to his research on the histochemical analysis of the brain. All three are employed under the Scripps Research Institute.

Who is its intended audience?

This article was clearly meant for other scholars to use as a guide when referencing the brain and addiction. They use various complicated terms and charts to organize their research which could only be understood by another neuroscientist.

How did I find it?

I found this article by going to the Neuron site and searching "addiction model" and going to the second page of results.


Next, I found the article titled "The brain disease model of addiction: is it supported by the evidence and has it delivered on its promises?"

What's it's purpose?

This article's purpose is to evaluate both the brain disease model of addiction within animals and neuroimaging studies of addicts and to asses the role of genetics in addiction.

How and where is it published?

This article was published in Volume 2, No. 1 of The Lancet Psychiatry. However, there is no location listed for where this journal is published.

What kinds of sources does it cite?

This article references 74 different sources from various scientists and doctors that are all experts in addiction studies. There is even a citation for the popular book Animal Farm.

Who is the author?

There are multiple authors of this article. Dr.Wayne Hall, who is well known for his studies on medical marijuana and is the Director of the Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research. Dr. Adrian Carter who is associated with Monash University and is researching further into addiction and compulsive behaviors. Finally,  Dr. Cynthia Forlini, who is currently conducting research at the University of Queensland.

Who is the intended audience?

The intended article of this audience is also other scholars. One reason would be that in their conclusion, they are trying to convince other doctors that addiction should not be treated as a disease because it is more complicated than they would think. Also, with the terminology they use, a reader would definitely need expertise in that field.

How did I find it?

After looking for other articles related to my controversy within the Neuroscience journals, my searches came up with nothing. So, I decided to go to Google Scholar. From there, I simply searched "addiction disease" and entered that the articles should be published at least in 2014. This article was the second option.

Evaluation of General Sources

There are many controversies and debates within the neuroscience community. However, one of the most recent would be based upon if addiction is considered a disease or not. More specifically, there has been debate surrounding Marc Lewis' new book The Biology of Desire: Why Addiction is not a Disease. In this post, I will analyze two sources concerning this dispute.
 

unsalted."addiction is addiction" 02/10/10 via DeviantArt. Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported

First is The Guardian's article on this issue.

URL: This article's domain name would be .com, which is a top level domain name for anyone to use, such as a business or even an individual. The way to tell if a .com website is credible or not is to research further into who owns the website. In this case, The Guardian is a well known news source both as a website and a newspaper.

Author: The author of this article, Melissa Davey, can easily be identified as she has put her twitter handle (@MelissaLDavey) within the article. Also, The Guardian has listed her work history, stating that she has worked as a reporter for the Sun Herald and the Sydney Morning Herald. She has also contributed articles to other news sources, such as Australian Doctor or Daily Life.

Last Updated: This article was last updated August 30th, 2015, so it is very recent news. All of the links are working, leading readers to The Guardian's review of Marc Lewis' past books, other articles and other related content is shown below the article itself.

Purpose: In the article, The Guardian both shows a quick history of Marc Lewis and his ideas and then goes on to allow him to show his side of the story with an interview. Since they have Lewis talking about and explaining his own idea, so this article is not promoting, but simply showcasing Lewis' theories.

Graphics:  At the top of the page, a hand with dirty fingernails is reaching to a pile of dirty syringes on the street. This picture is showing the dark side of addiction, the desperation of addicts who are willing to risk their health even further by using any resources they can get.

Position on Subject: The text is not biased as it simply shares the thoughts surrounding Lewis' claim but then goes on to get the ideas from Marc Lewis himself. The viewers themselves would benefit from believing this article, whether or not they trust in Lewis' idea. The whole of the interview is from a primary source, so individuals could use Lewis' words in their own arguments about addiction. There are other articles stating people's opinions on the subject and Lewis has his book that states his ideas that were in the interview.

Links: There are links that take readers to other websites that were mentioned within the article and to other articles within The Guardian itself. At the very end, the author simply cites their own interview with Marc Lewis.

Next, Salon wrote an article about the same subject.

URL: This article ends in a .com as well, simply stating that it is for commercial use. However, Salon is an award winning entertainment and news site.

Author: Laura Miller, the author, is very identifiable. She has put not only her Twitter on the article, but her Facebook and her email. She is also the co-founder of Salon.com itself, and she actively contributes to the New York Times Book Review. Her work has appeared in many popular news sources, including Time, The New Yorker and the Wall Street Journal.

Last Updated: This article was last updated on June 27th, 2015. All of the links within the article are active. Since this article was published within the same year and is still being discussed today, we can assume that this material is up-to-date.

Purpose: This article is used to inform it's readers about Lewis' theories on addiction and the brain. Yet, the article both promotes his ideas along with Alcoholics Anonymous' 12-Step program to recovery.

Graphics: A man, again with grimy fingernails, heating up a liquid drug preparing to be injected is shown at the top of the page. Like the last article, this one uses a picture that shows the negative effects addiction has on an individual. They also use it to show that addiction is a serious issue and society should not let it's own suffer through it anymore.

Position on Subject: The text does not seem to agree or disagree with Lewis. However, I feel that it does agree with AA's program more than what Lewis is suggesting, even thought they seem to promote his idea as well.

Links: The links within the article go to both Lewis' book on Amazon and another article about another scientist that shares the same opinion with Lewis. However, it does not cite any reputable sources and does not offer any more related content.

My Major

My major is Pre-Neuroscience and Cognitive Science, but I plan on applying for the full major in the future. I will use this post to go into detail on what being in this major means for it's students, for their futures, examples of who they can become and what this major means personally to me.

Veach, Zachary. "Brain Vocab Sketch" 3/2/2009 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic.

1.) What do students in your program learn how to do?

Students learn the in-and-outs of the brain and it's effect on various aspects of the body. For example, NSCS students learn everything from the general organization of the brain to the molecular and cellular mechanisms. However, that was only the Neuroscience side of this major. Students also learn about Cognitive Science, such as the history behind the brain and behavior through evolution, or the principles of how the brain's circuitry when dealing with attention, language, emotion and consciousness. Both sides come together to teach students about the commons diseases and disorders of the nervous system. 

2.) What do people who get degrees in this field usually go on to do for work? 

Most students go on to a career in the medical field, such as Neuroscientists, Psychiatrists, Nurses, and anything dealing with health. However, they can also go into a job in technology, such as robotics development, information processing or even developing artificial intelligence. 

3.) What drew you to this field?

Ever since I was little, I have always been fascinated with what goes on behind humans' thought in their subconscious. Why do we react to certain things the way we do? What gives us the ability to be as advanced as we are now, and what have we retained from our ancestors? Once I knew that I wanted to go to medical school, I knew that this major would be the perfect base for me and my interests.

4.) Who are the leaders/most exciting people involved in your field right now? Why?

Recently, Dr. Miguel Nicolelis has made a huge impact in the field by allowing a quadriplegic to participate in the 2014 World Cup kickoff. However, he has also made progress in robotics as he enabled a monkey to use a robotic arm simply by using her brain activity. He also co-founded the Safra International Institute for Neuroscience of Natal in Brazil. 

Also, Dr. Fred Gage was the scientist who discovered that the adult brain still produces new nerve cells. Now, he is continuing his research into learning how to replace the brain tissue damaged by brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's or stroke. He is currently conducting his research at the Laboratory of Genetics at the Salk Institute. 

Both are currently considered the top two most influential modern neuroscientists. 

5.) What are the leading academic/scholarly journals in your field? Where are they published? 

The current top journal would be Nature Reviews Neuroscience, which is published in the United Kingdom and focuses on all things about modern neuroscience. 

Neuron is also one of the top journals in this field, and focuses on a variety of things within the neuroscience community. It is published within the United States. 

Finally, Biology of Mood and Anxiety Disorders, published in the United Kingdom, is centered more around the advances in understanding mood and anxiety disorders. 

Since this major is relatively new at the University of Arizona, I hope that this post has shed some light on this field of study and what it means to both it's students and the world. 

Reflection:
I really enjoyed reading about my classmates' interests and majors. I loved reading Cynthia's post as she has the same major as I do. I was able to compare what drew us into this field I also enjoyed reading about what others in my major plan to do in the future. Even though we want to study separate things in the medical field, NSCS is able to help us both achieve our goals. On the other hand, I also enjoyed reading Rose's post as it taught me about a completely new study that I wasn't aware of. It was interesting to see her interests compared to mine, even though they look very different, with modern technology eventually they can intertwine to help each other.