I yesterday took the PT in which this passage is found. It's cool to see it again. I had already done some of the new RC modules before taking the passage, and I did pretty well on it (-2, -0 BR). Having known the basics of Critique & Debate was a great help, even if I had just started on them the day prior.
I'm finding that Kevin's summaries focus mostly on the function, purpose and perspective of each paragraph to make his summaries shorter.
A mistake that I think that I'm making-that may help you-is writing my summary while reading the passage. When I do that, I'm notetaking which makes it easy to list every new thing because it seems important and which ultimately bloats up my summary. I think that we should really only make the low res after completing the passage. Doing this might help force us to make shorter summaries.
one group of the divide (James Weiner group) sees proliferation (don't know what this word is without a dictionary so let's move on) something about video and television is the final result of Western values on Indigenous culture - so is this the imputation of Western life = colonization?
Weiner argues video is a devaluation - decrease value- of the different (of the Indigenous? do devalue them) why? resulting in replacing a genuine historical, linguistic, social, cultural difference and difference of images the difference of Indigenous life and Western and difference in portrayal to reality.
Weiner believes vid techniques push a Western ontology - isnt ideology but let's go w the word ontology whatever that is... something based on realism, immediacy, and self-expression.... so the videographers think they're doing something good like a documentary?
So Weiner concludes that these vids take away the Indigenous culture being filmed.
Maintains that anthropologists attribute a paramount truth value to these films (over Indigenous reality?) because they are made by Indigenous people (not really they are just ON Indigenous people) are theoretically naive (because they don't know as much as a visual anthropologist? says who? because they might use inexpensive camera equipment or be oppressed? ok not convincing.
33 comments
I can't be the only one who finds it hysterical he's named Weiner.
"weiners position" sent me not gonna lie
That gave me a great reason to keep giggling and continue reading this passage.
"If someone spoke like this in real life, I’d nod politely and think about how soon I could leave the room." LOLLLLLLLL
God this one is painful
Weiner was here to the rescue
lol Confused_potato1 your comments are the best
instantly went to the comments T-T got the humor of a 12 year old I fear
@alisampf no literally lmao. it snapped me out of serious mode
at least his first name isn't Harry.
Weiner, is a wiener.
Weiner concludes
As a philosophy minor, RC is starting to make so much more sense if I approach it the way I approach philosophical texts.
Any advice on this? I struggle with the subjects on RC..
James really sounds like he's worried about his job, yikes dude
I yesterday took the PT in which this passage is found. It's cool to see it again. I had already done some of the new RC modules before taking the passage, and I did pretty well on it (-2, -0 BR). Having known the basics of Critique & Debate was a great help, even if I had just started on them the day prior.
Really glad you guys updated the curriculum.
Edit: I actually got -0 on this passage. I confused this with the stained glass passage! My point still stands, and stronger than before.
hehe "Mr. Weiner" hehe
"If someone spoke like this in real life, I’d nod politely and think about how soon I could leave the room. Let’s try to simplify this:"
LOL
I yelled out BANG! in the library my LRS was the same as my glorious King Kevin's!
social sciences passage are my favourite because i read this stuff for fun 😎
The proliferation of video and television harmed Western values too.
Low-res summary from me:
a) Weiner: proliferation of video
b) Weiner: video harming indigenous culture
Tips on getting low res wording? I feel like I struggle to sum it in 2-3 words
I'm finding that Kevin's summaries focus mostly on the function, purpose and perspective of each paragraph to make his summaries shorter.
A mistake that I think that I'm making-that may help you-is writing my summary while reading the passage. When I do that, I'm notetaking which makes it easy to list every new thing because it seems important and which ultimately bloats up my summary. I think that we should really only make the low res after completing the passage. Doing this might help force us to make shorter summaries.
low res summary : Weiner - VIDEO BAD.
Pretty sure it's pronounced like "why-ner" not "weener"
heh James Weiner
Now the superficial difference would be A.I. sadly.
"if someone spoke to me like this in real life I'd nod politely and think about how soon I could leave the room" LMAOOO
Shifting from "understand every sentence" to "understand the structure"
Many students read like this:
Instead, mentally organize:
Paragraph 1 Topic: Purpose:
Paragraph 2 Purpose:
Paragraph 3 Purpose:
Author's attitude:
Jimmy Lee had to find a new profession
one group of the divide (James Weiner group) sees proliferation (don't know what this word is without a dictionary so let's move on) something about video and television is the final result of Western values on Indigenous culture - so is this the imputation of Western life = colonization?
Weiner argues video is a devaluation - decrease value- of the different (of the Indigenous? do devalue them) why? resulting in replacing a genuine historical, linguistic, social, cultural difference and difference of images the difference of Indigenous life and Western and difference in portrayal to reality.
Weiner believes vid techniques push a Western ontology - isnt ideology but let's go w the word ontology whatever that is... something based on realism, immediacy, and self-expression.... so the videographers think they're doing something good like a documentary?
So Weiner concludes that these vids take away the Indigenous culture being filmed.
Maintains that anthropologists attribute a paramount truth value to these films (over Indigenous reality?) because they are made by Indigenous people (not really they are just ON Indigenous people) are theoretically naive (because they don't know as much as a visual anthropologist? says who? because they might use inexpensive camera equipment or be oppressed? ok not convincing.