Metaphor Entry

“Intel ‘Lunch Room’ 2010 Super Bowl XLIV Commercial Ad.” 2010 Feb. 4. YouTube. 18 Sep. 2010.

Macek, Jakub. “Defining Cyberculture.” Média a realita. Trans. Monika Metyková and Jakub Macek. Masaryk University Press: 2004. Posted on Blackboard.

I chose a thirty-two second YouTube video for my metaphor entry called “Intel ‘Lunch Room’” where a man is discussing the new 2010 Intel Core Processor with two of his co-workers. He is adamant that the processor is “the most amazing technological achievement in the history of the company.” A robot named Jeffery is walking up to the lunch table and overhears the conversation. His entire head looks down towards the ground, and he drops his lunch tray visibly upset by the discussion. As he is leaving the room, the woman he was “walking” with calls for him to come back. Obviously, this video is a commercial advertisement that advocates the use of the latest and greatest Intel processors by implying the processor is better than an intelligent robot with feelings; however, it also comments on the relationship between technology and humans.

Because Jeffrey has a lunch tray, this tells us he is an employee of the company; furthermore, his reaction to the man’s statement informs us that Jeffrey is also a product of the company. The man may no longer views Jeffrey in the same way because the company has improved its’ processors and developed something more technologically advanced. This concept mirrors that of our society because as technology advances, the evolution of our mechanical devices continues to grow as well. For example, the iphone 4 surpassed the technological capabilities of the iphone 3GS because of the ability to multitask, but I think we all know the release of the iphone 5 and/or subsequent phones will outdo all previous models. In terms of technology, societal standards continue to rise, and it is inevitable that robots like Jeffrey or phones like the iphone 3GS will be left behind.

The metaphor in this advertisement implies that Jeffrey is not only capable of performing everyday human functions (i.e. working at a company such as Intel, carrying a lunch tray with the intention of eating, etc.) but also possessing human characteristics (i.e. leaving the lunchroom when his feelings are hurt). Of course, this means that viewers of the ad must first accept Jeffrey's intellect and capacity to experience emotion. One man attempts to quiet the co-worker discussing the processor before Jeffrey gets near the table. Evidently, he cares that Jeffrey will overhear their conversation and anticipates the statement will hurt Jeffrey’s feelings. When Jeffrey leaves the room, the man who had been talking about the processor appears saddened by his lack of consideration for Jeffrey’s feelings, and the woman shows compassion as well. Macek discusses how early cyberculture was a “story of the power of a new technology, which dramatically and fundamentally changes the world of humans” (2). The Intel advertisement does not provide us with some macabre war scene between humans and machines; instead, it shows an everyday occurrence at work (someone hurting the feelings of another).

After viewing this commercial for the third time, I began thinking about The Animatrix we watched in class because that had a lot to do with technology becoming sentient and the potentiality for life as we know it to change if machines were to acquire power over humans. Although Jeffrey was not physically analogous, the Intel advertisement got my attention because he was similar to a human being in every other way. Initially, it would seem that robots and humans have nothing in common; however, the Intel commercial suggests that machines with artificial intelligence could have feelings. This generates a whole host of ethical, moral, and social issues. If machines have artificial intelligence and feelings, would their rights be any different from the rights of humans? How would humans react to a robot with feelings? In the Intel ad, Jeffrey is not a servant to humans as illustrated in The Animatrix; rather, he is seemingly working (and eating lunch) beside humans as they attempt to achieve the goals of a company. There is no power struggle here; in fact, the scene hints at a future where humans and robots will be capable of a symbiotic relationship.

Blog 1

Yi, Youngjoo. “Adolescent Multilingual Writers Transitions Across In-and Out-of-School Writing Contexts.” Journal of Second Language Writing 19.1 (2010): 17-32. Science Direct. Web. 10 Sep. 2010.

     In Youngjoo Yi’s article “Adolescent Multilingual Writers Transitions Across In- and-Out-of-School Writing Contexts,” Yi conducts a study that “focuses on a Korean immigrant high school student, Jihee” and the relationship “between her voluntary, non-academic writing outside school and her academic writing” (17).  Yi expounds on “a growing body of research [that] has explored multiple literacies or multiliteracies and paid more attention to out-of-school settings to examine reading, writing, and language use as social practices” (18).  She offers two reasons for this rising interest.  First, she suggests that literacy researchers “have begun to see the value of understanding how students’ literate lives flourish outside the confines of formal schooling” (18).  Second, “some literacy scholars who are more sensitive to the issues of power with respect to ‘what counts as literacy and whose literacy counts’ have intentionally focused on non-academic, out-of-school literacy practices” (19).  Yi discusses a research study involving students “who saw academic writing activities as irrelevant and inauthentic literacy experiences;” however, both “voluntarily produced extensive writing outside school (e.g., poems, songs, rap lyrics, and plays)” (19).  Yi references another study where “L2 students who had difficulties with academic literacy . . . made a significant improvement in their English language and English writing skills through online literacy practices” (19).   

     While Yi acknowledges prior researchers’ contribution to the overall body of knowledge in the field, she argues that a majority of the researchers have overlooked students’ in-school writing practices and neglected to investigate the relationship between academic and non-academic writing practices.  Yi uses “a qualitative case approach so as to document possible links between Jihee’s in- and out-of-school writing practices” (20).   In order to triangulate data, Yi collected “participant observations . . . and field notes; interviews and transcripts . . . scribbles, notes, emails, and online chatting; samples of her academic writing. . .” (21).  Yi found that Jihee “blurred the distinction between the two types of writing rather than completely separate one from the other” (28).  In addition, Jihee’s “in-school writing practice shaped the topics or themes of her writing outside of school (e.g., diary writing, scribbling, and online chatting with her classmates)” (28).  Yi argues “that it is important to further examine the two-way street between in-school and out-of-school literacy practices, rather than separate one from the other or ignore     . . . out-of-school writing” (28).  

     I would recommend this article to my peers because as technology continues to grow, it goes without saying that the number of students writing in an online context is increasing.  This poses interesting pedagogical questions in terms of how students are using the knowledge they acquire outside the classroom to inform their in-class activities.  Because we are in a digital writing course, I wanted to read more about how Jihee used emails and online chatting (as well as what conclusions Yi drew from Jihee’s use of that particular context).  However, this article is extremely informative in terms of the transition from one context to another with respect to writing practices.