“Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate the Smart Kids”
Penrod suggests that scholar are disliked in part because of the “opinion that alarm for grades and test scores excludes the coexistence of normal social activities – and that this becomes a “self-fulfilling prophecy; ‘nerds’ are excluded from social activity because of their label, and that label in turn intensifies through the resulting lack of social contact.” Do you agree? Why or why not?
I conquer with Penrod when he suggests that most scholars are disliked in the society because of referring to themselves as smart kids. This is because scholars only view their smartness from a centralized point of view, acquiring knowledge from books. According to Penrod he dismisses this claim basing his argument on the fact that there are several other aspects to be viewed before and individual is termed to be better than the rest in the society. It is not only the education level that is used to categories individuals if they are better than the rest in the society but a combination of various factors.
I agree with Penrod’s notion since there are a number of other aspects that can be considered before individuals are actually termed to be better than the rest in the society. Some of these factors include: The persons ability to perform in other fields such as sport. An individual’s capability to perform better in a number of fields such as sport, fashion design, music, studies and achievements in social function can be the main reason to categories the person as being perfect and better than the rest. The justification of whether a person is better than the other cannot be concluded by use of a single aspect (Chapman 78). Several aspects about the person should be recorded in a list and then followed by a strategic analysis which will show if the individual performs better in each of the aspects. The analysis should be in a logical and systematic manner after which the results can be compared to other members of the society. The person can only be ranked as the best of all the rest at this point if his or her results are positive. For this reasons, it is wrong to refer to one as being perfect or smart because of the good grades obtained from examination tests.
Question 2
Do you agree with Penrod that the success of these celebrities is partly responsible for anti- intellectualism? Why or why not? What evidence could be offered as a counterargument?
It is true that most of the celebrities achieve a lot and become more successful and prominent people in life, without the essence of education. I agree with Penrod that the success of celebrities is partly responsible for anti intellectual since most of the popular celebrities especially those that practice different sport and music have very little education that they might have acquired from school. However, these celebrities are far much better in their lifestyle as compared to scholar who have gone to school and are still involving their entire life with reading more books. They have achieved a lot from the talent they have and even gone to extends of helping the less fortunate in the society by opening of children homes (Chapman 27).
According to most of the famous celebrities in both sports and music, reading of a lot of materials and philosophical books is straining, time wastage and unnecessary. This is majorly because they are able to live comfortable life and earn a living from their talents. All they need is to perfect the talent they have. This according to the celebrities does not require any straining reading from the books but hard work, persistence and focus. For example, for an individual to be able to play a certain type of sport, such as basketball, very little education is needed. The important factor to them is the scoring and the good coordination with the other team members, this is what makes them famous and earn a living and not spending their entire life straining to acquire more knowledge from the books which is not applicable in the real life.
Part 2
“Whodunit-The Media” Question 1
“The rule of the real,” Cutler writes, “says that however strong media influences may be, real life is stronger.” How does the “rule of the real” relate to youth violence? In what ways does this rule complicate the notion that media violence in some way causes youth violence?
The “rule of the real” is related to the youths basic on the facts that not all youths riots and violation are caused by the media. The youths of today’s world are faced with various problems because of diverse factors. The immediate reaction of the youths to this problem is mostly mistaken by the society to be the influence of the media. The youths have their own human rights which protect them from mistreatment and harassment from the other members of the society. Therefore, when the youths are mistreated and they violent, this does not mean that it is the media that is influencing them. It is because they know and understand what the law entails about them thus they try as much as possible to make their life more comfortable.
Although the youths like relating most of their daily life to the media, it does not mean that it influences them in any way. By the time an individual grows, matures and reaches the age of being termed as a youth, he or she is able to make sensible decisions on his or her own. Basic on this fact, then it will be wrong to state that the decision making of the youths is vitally depends on the media. Youths can still violet to the mistreatment they undergo without the influence of the media (Paul & Marzilli 47). For instance, youths found in remote areas where there is no direct assess to the media still violet and riot for their rights and force their parents or the society to implement their desire.
Question 2
What is Maggie Cutler’s main claim? Where does she state this claim? What reasons does she give to support her claim, and does she convince you? If not, do you at least a ccept her argument as plausible?
The main claim of Maggie Cutler’s is that there is an increase in the violation of the youths to the other members of the society. According to most members of the society, the key reason for the raise in the number of the youth’s violation is the media. This is contrary to the principle of Maggie Cutler’s, which vividly states that however strong the media influence can be on the life the youths, the daily activities that affects the youths are more stronger and it is the main reason unto why there is an increase of violence by the youths.
There are a number of reasons that Maggie Cutler gives to support this notion. The key reason that Maggie Cutler gives to support her nation, which states that media is not the main reason for the violence of the youths is that not all the youths worldwide have the option of accessing the media and yet they still violet. According to her, there are some areas in most of the nations where there is no media coverage and yet the youths of such places still violet. This is vivid evidence that shows that the media is not the key factor to the violation of the youths. Another reason that Maggie Cutler gives for her claim is that by the time one attains the age bracket of being termed as a youth, he or she is able to make sober decisions (Paul & Marzilli 78). For these two main reasons, I justify the notion of Maggie Cutler as being true since the reason she gives are true.
Work cited
Chapman, R. Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Voices, and Viewpoints
Volume 1 of Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices, Roger Chapman, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2009
Paul, R., & Marzilli, A. Regulating Violence in Entertainment, Michigan: InfoBase Publishing, 2010
