Rory's actions in this story remind me of The Hungry Earth, when he had to protect the Silurian prisoner from the other humans. It fits in with his career choice of Nursing, but Rory seems more the type of person to protect others from harm than one who charges in guns ablazing (besides, we already have Amy for that). For some reason I've always liked Rory, even with the repeated dying and all, and I'm glad that they seem to be giving him more opportunities to act like a companion of the Doctor, rather than a man following around his wife who happens to be a companion of the Doctor.
I totally agree with you...I happen to really like Rory as a companion and think he's got a lot of good qualities that could put him on the path toward heroe-dom: he's smart (we've seen him as a nurse and as someone the Doctor trusts to help him work on the TARDIS), clever, and courageous when he needs to be (which seems to center around keeping Amy safe).
I do think that Rory is going to need to step up as a hero at some point, but I don't feel he's the kind of character who would rely on physicality to solve the problem. I think he would use his wits and knowledge to handle a situation. He just needs his definitive moment to take charge.
I do think that Rory is going to need to step up as a hero at some point, but I don't feel he's the kind of character who would rely on physicality to solve the problem. I think he would use his wits and knowledge to handle a situation. He just needs his definitive moment to take charge.
Yeah, we giggled a little bit at Rory's "death" this episode and asked the PTB when he was going to stop being the damsel in distress. I think part of it comes from the fact that Amy and Rory are the first married couple to travel in the TARDIS.
It seems to me like Amy's greatest fear is losing Rory (again): she thinks she's lost him in Amy's Choice which makes her realize how much she really loves him, and then she loses him again in Cold Blood. I think it's safe to say that her worst nightmare is losing him, and House exploits that in this episode. It's also really interesting that both times she is lost in a nightmare it's Rory that pulls her out.
Amy and Rory seem to take turns being in danger and saving the other. When one is kidnapped/marked for death/lost in a nightmare, the other shows up to save the day. They have each other's backs, which is also why Amy may not look up to the Doctor as much as other companions have. She doesn't need the Doctor to save her, her husband is on the job, which leaves the Doctor for pure adventuring.
Having one or the other in peril every episode to show that, yes they're married and they're devoted to each other is getting a little old. I can't wait until they figure out how to right Rory and Amy as partners fighting together instead of one having to save the other all the time, preventing the danger the other is in by working together. They've both shown their potential to be heroes in their own rights, I think that's the next logical progression.
It seems to me like Amy's greatest fear is losing Rory (again): she thinks she's lost him in Amy's Choice which makes her realize how much she really loves him, and then she loses him again in Cold Blood. I think it's safe to say that her worst nightmare is losing him, and House exploits that in this episode. It's also really interesting that both times she is lost in a nightmare it's Rory that pulls her out.
Amy and Rory seem to take turns being in danger and saving the other. When one is kidnapped/marked for death/lost in a nightmare, the other shows up to save the day. They have each other's backs, which is also why Amy may not look up to the Doctor as much as other companions have. She doesn't need the Doctor to save her, her husband is on the job, which leaves the Doctor for pure adventuring.
Having one or the other in peril every episode to show that, yes they're married and they're devoted to each other is getting a little old. I can't wait until they figure out how to right Rory and Amy as partners fighting together instead of one having to save the other all the time, preventing the danger the other is in by working together. They've both shown their potential to be heroes in their own rights, I think that's the next logical progression.
@Dr Emilio Lizardo: "I don't understand why people with ADHD and other learning disabilities are allowed more time on tests. All playing fields should be level. Just because you want to do something does not mean you can and the reason you can't is irrelevant. I'm sorry you have a defined medical condition. You deserve to be treated fairly and if you can do something, by all means, do it. But if you can't do it, tough cheese."
There are some inherent flaws in your argument, as others here have already pointed out.
One, you assume that the "playing field" is level already. It isn't, and because people aren't all cookie cutter and respond to things the same way. Most people may be able to deal with the "norm" but some people have mental/physical/emotional conditions which impair their function in a variety of areas which means they don't have the same access to the "playing field" that others do.
Secondly, just because someone can't perform on one form of test within a standard time limit doesn't mean they can't do it. It just means they need another avenue of expressing what they know. Tests aren't meant to see how we deal under pressure and time constraints, they are meant to assess how much mastery of content area a student has. Unfortunately, tests are inherently flawed in their construction.
And I don't just mean ADHD, though many students who receive accommodations are for ADHD. There are people who process information more slowly than others and need more time to express their knowledge. Just like there are people with physical disabilities who need to dictate their answers b/c they can't write. To borrow an example from another poster, just because Stephen Hawking would need accommodations on a physics test wouldn't mean that he doesn't have knowledge on physics.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is not there to provide people with disabilities an advantage over others. It's to provide them with the same opportunities as others. They still need to show they can do it; we just don't assume they can't because they aren't as "capable" as the non disabled.
There are some inherent flaws in your argument, as others here have already pointed out.
One, you assume that the "playing field" is level already. It isn't, and because people aren't all cookie cutter and respond to things the same way. Most people may be able to deal with the "norm" but some people have mental/physical/emotional conditions which impair their function in a variety of areas which means they don't have the same access to the "playing field" that others do.
Secondly, just because someone can't perform on one form of test within a standard time limit doesn't mean they can't do it. It just means they need another avenue of expressing what they know. Tests aren't meant to see how we deal under pressure and time constraints, they are meant to assess how much mastery of content area a student has. Unfortunately, tests are inherently flawed in their construction.
And I don't just mean ADHD, though many students who receive accommodations are for ADHD. There are people who process information more slowly than others and need more time to express their knowledge. Just like there are people with physical disabilities who need to dictate their answers b/c they can't write. To borrow an example from another poster, just because Stephen Hawking would need accommodations on a physics test wouldn't mean that he doesn't have knowledge on physics.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is not there to provide people with disabilities an advantage over others. It's to provide them with the same opportunities as others. They still need to show they can do it; we just don't assume they can't because they aren't as "capable" as the non disabled.
@dallapozza: The article both indicates that we don't seem to have the right to the original trilogy as presented in the 1970s and 1980s but at the same time we don't have to continue on Uncle George's journey to "perfect" his vision of a galaxy far, far away.
I have a problem with this. We as the fans have been consigned to watching only updated versions of OT and can only return to the original format if we were lucky enough to save a copy on VHS or laserdisc, and kept the hardware around the watch it on. This, from the man who fought against the colorization of black and white classic films! I think it is frankly unfair to deny access to a classic film in its original format, artist or not. Continue to try to sell people on your "improvements" Uncle George, but give fans the choice of how they want to view the galaxy you created.
[today.msnbc.msn.com]
I have a problem with this. We as the fans have been consigned to watching only updated versions of OT and can only return to the original format if we were lucky enough to save a copy on VHS or laserdisc, and kept the hardware around the watch it on. This, from the man who fought against the colorization of black and white classic films! I think it is frankly unfair to deny access to a classic film in its original format, artist or not. Continue to try to sell people on your "improvements" Uncle George, but give fans the choice of how they want to view the galaxy you created.
[today.msnbc.msn.com]
@Malcontent79: And again, you seem to read the very beginning and skim over the meat and potatoes. The fact is, whatever it is you thought you were doing there, you appeared to be critiquing a study for exactly what it didn't do.
@Malcontent79: You picked a loony bin to do what? Criticize a research study that wasn't utilized here? If I didn't see what you did there, maybe you need to make yourself more clear.
@Malcontent79: Ok, I see what you did here.
1) We don't live in the early 1900s, there are no more "insane asylums." And,
B) They didn't apply the results of the Schizophrenic population to the general population. They actually indicated that the Schizophrenics reacted differently than the general population.
In conclusion, please make sure you read what you're planning on criticizing before you post.
1) We don't live in the early 1900s, there are no more "insane asylums." And,
B) They didn't apply the results of the Schizophrenic population to the general population. They actually indicated that the Schizophrenics reacted differently than the general population.
In conclusion, please make sure you read what you're planning on criticizing before you post.
@Captain_Tripps: Actually, prejudice against physically disabled people is as bad as any other prejudice, regardless of the reason. A prejudice is quite literally a judgment call made without having all the knowledge to make that judgment accurately.
I'm not saying that Janglesatwest is prejudiced per se. It sounds like he has associated negative experiences with the term "disabled." Unfortunately, that is limiting because there are some truly exceptional people who are disabled and that negative feeling will make it hard for him to establish connections with those people. And disabilities are incredibly diverse, with many of them being invisible to the naked eye.
I'm not saying that Janglesatwest is prejudiced per se. It sounds like he has associated negative experiences with the term "disabled." Unfortunately, that is limiting because there are some truly exceptional people who are disabled and that negative feeling will make it hard for him to establish connections with those people. And disabilities are incredibly diverse, with many of them being invisible to the naked eye.
@Janglesatwest: For one, studies need to be simplistic b/c too many variables confound the results. There are many things that contribute to someone's helping behavior and this is just testing one theory. Yes, I believe the general rule is that people are more likely to cheat passively than they are to cheat actively. However, there are a hundred other personal and situational variables that will effect someone's choice in a given setting.
Also, just b/c the label "disability" is mentioned, does not mean that someone is severely disabled and need medical attention. They specifically mentioned a learning disability, which just means that a person has difficulty learning in the cookie cutter manner that is taught in our public schools. Many people have disabilities that are invisible and don't necessitate medical intervention. Please educate yourself and don't limit your altruistic behavior to those without "disabilities." You'd be doing yourself a disservice
Also, just b/c the label "disability" is mentioned, does not mean that someone is severely disabled and need medical attention. They specifically mentioned a learning disability, which just means that a person has difficulty learning in the cookie cutter manner that is taught in our public schools. Many people have disabilities that are invisible and don't necessitate medical intervention. Please educate yourself and don't limit your altruistic behavior to those without "disabilities." You'd be doing yourself a disservice
@ryernl: This is all just conjecture, but if they're going with the Catholic version of God v. Devil, then heaven wouldn't be open. It would be more likely that Sam would have ended up in purgatory. That doesn't mean that YED couldn't have gotten to Sam while he was there...
At this point, I don't care exactly what the explanation is, I just hope they're able to tie it to the story they've been telling for the past six years, instead of just tacking on an explanation. The best episodes are the ones that completely change the way you've viewed their backstory ("In the Beginning, "The Devil You Know")
At this point, I don't care exactly what the explanation is, I just hope they're able to tie it to the story they've been telling for the past six years, instead of just tacking on an explanation. The best episodes are the ones that completely change the way you've viewed their backstory ("In the Beginning, "The Devil You Know")
@verziehenone: Don't forget when Sam died at the end of Season 2. YED even asks Dean "how certain are you that what you brought back, is 100% pure Sam?"
I think it would be chilling if it turns out that Sam lost his soul as early as the end of season 2, and that's why he's been going down this dark path for the past 3 seasons.
I think it would be chilling if it turns out that Sam lost his soul as early as the end of season 2, and that's why he's been going down this dark path for the past 3 seasons.
@Harrison_Bergeron: Never watched all of B5, so I wouldn't know about that...but the plan was always to end the major storyline with Season 5. And I commend them for sticking with their plan, even though they got the go ahead for a new season. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can continue the story and be true to what's come before.
@TheFirstBardo: I will have to absolutely agree with your statement here. As a psychologist who has learned to evaluate and dissect people's thoughts and feelings, break down their behaviors into their (dys)functionality, and as a primarily verbal learner, I tend to have a critical eye towards the words that people use to convey their meaning.
That being said, and not being an expert in the "hard" sciences, the faith that I am speaking of does not disregard science, or move outside of its circle. I guess I would say I am open to the possibility that the brain/mind is capable of more than what we currently know and that while most people can't read minds, some people have truly experienced parapsychological events in their lives. While most "haunted" houses aren't truly haunted, some phenomena just cannot be explained right now by what we know. I hold myself open to the possibility of life on other planets, and I do believe there is a higher power at work in the universe through physics.
And I think that while most educated people do reject supernatural, superstitious explanations, there are always outliers.
I guess my beliefs lie in the realm of being open to the possibility, while accepting that there's no definitive evidence either way. Plus, ghosts/telekinesis/firestarting would be really awesome if they were real.
That being said, and not being an expert in the "hard" sciences, the faith that I am speaking of does not disregard science, or move outside of its circle. I guess I would say I am open to the possibility that the brain/mind is capable of more than what we currently know and that while most people can't read minds, some people have truly experienced parapsychological events in their lives. While most "haunted" houses aren't truly haunted, some phenomena just cannot be explained right now by what we know. I hold myself open to the possibility of life on other planets, and I do believe there is a higher power at work in the universe through physics.
And I think that while most educated people do reject supernatural, superstitious explanations, there are always outliers.
I guess my beliefs lie in the realm of being open to the possibility, while accepting that there's no definitive evidence either way. Plus, ghosts/telekinesis/firestarting would be really awesome if they were real.
@TheFirstBardo: You're making an assumption though, that intelligence is linked to your belief in the paranormal/supernatural. You state that Matt Damon seems "to be too intelligent to cling to the supernatural like this." What you are saying is that most intelligent people would not believe in the supernatural. I don't find that to be a true statement whatsoever. I don't think there's any evidence to say that intelligent people must (not) believe in something. I think the key word here is believe; while there is no conclusive evidence of something, there is faith that it is there. More than just being intelligent goes into informing one's beliefs. I guess I would just be careful about making blanket statements like that.
@TheFirstBardo: Your surprise surprises me! You actually think that actors have to agree with something, or believe in something, in order to join a project? I think that's why they're called ACTORS. They are paid to pretend.
Second point: A supernatural story, while you may not believe in the supernatural, can be an entertaining escape from day to day life. While not necessarily true, it can make for a smartly written, entertaining STORY.
Third point: Just because you (obviously) do not believe in the supernatural, does not mean that your favorite actor/novelist/chef/dentist/candlestick maker must also not believe in the supernatural. Or that it's just plain stupid to do so. There's a whole study of psychology called parapsychology which deals with phenomena "alongside" psychology. Not just ghosts: telepathic ability, clairvoyance and near-death experience are all studied by parapsychologists. Just because it can't be explained, or it's difficult to find hard data does not mean that these things do not exist. And I don't think that people who do (or don't) allow for the possibility are stupid for doing so. Look up Sheep-Goat Scale. You, sir are a goat.
Second point: A supernatural story, while you may not believe in the supernatural, can be an entertaining escape from day to day life. While not necessarily true, it can make for a smartly written, entertaining STORY.
Third point: Just because you (obviously) do not believe in the supernatural, does not mean that your favorite actor/novelist/chef/dentist/candlestick maker must also not believe in the supernatural. Or that it's just plain stupid to do so. There's a whole study of psychology called parapsychology which deals with phenomena "alongside" psychology. Not just ghosts: telepathic ability, clairvoyance and near-death experience are all studied by parapsychologists. Just because it can't be explained, or it's difficult to find hard data does not mean that these things do not exist. And I don't think that people who do (or don't) allow for the possibility are stupid for doing so. Look up Sheep-Goat Scale. You, sir are a goat.
This is actually what I really dislike about my nerd peers. You absolutely disregard information because it attacks something you cherish, refute it because it doesn't fit into your world view, and don't look at the information with an open mind.
You do the same things with video games and movies..."research is bad, my life experience tells me so!" Well, just because you grew up fine does NOT mean that the research is wrong. The data does, however, have to be put in context.
Do boys view comic book heroes as role models? Yes. And not only if they state they "want to be" a certain person when they grow up. People learn in a hundred million ways, and one of them is by watching others. We see others using a technique and being successful or failing, and we use that information to plan our actions in similar situations. This extends to real life (school, home) as well as in the media.
"But I know the difference between what's real and what's fake!" Well, that's not really the point, now is it? Just because you know something is fake does not mean you are not being modeled an action and does not mean you are less likely to use it. Video game research has proven a small but significant effect of video game violence on aggressive behavior, regardless of whether the subjects realize what they're doing is not real.
I understand, it's hard to accept that things you love may have some harmful effects, but the truth is THEY DO. The key concept to understand is that the effect the media has on us is VERY VERY SMALL. And, like Annalee posted, myriad other factors influence us WAY MORE than comic books do. Seeing domestic violence, being abused, growing up with a parent who espouses misogynistic views, these would influence you more than your consumption of certain media would.
The point is, MODERATION. Everything is good in moderation. Parents should monitor and talk to their children about their media usage. Children should have good role models in home and in the community. And they should be exposed to media that is educational and provides good role models, AS WELL AS the stuff they really like (as long as it's age appropriate).
It just really disheartens me when people absolutely refute research because it doesn't jive with their own view, or it attacks something they enjoy. Be open minded, look at what the data is saying, and put it in its place. Understand that there are some negative effects to the things we watch and play, but that it in no way should condone censorship. I think the only way to truly fight censorship in the future is to understand what the research is saying, what it actually means, and how media consumption truly effects us as people.
You do the same things with video games and movies..."research is bad, my life experience tells me so!" Well, just because you grew up fine does NOT mean that the research is wrong. The data does, however, have to be put in context.
Do boys view comic book heroes as role models? Yes. And not only if they state they "want to be" a certain person when they grow up. People learn in a hundred million ways, and one of them is by watching others. We see others using a technique and being successful or failing, and we use that information to plan our actions in similar situations. This extends to real life (school, home) as well as in the media.
"But I know the difference between what's real and what's fake!" Well, that's not really the point, now is it? Just because you know something is fake does not mean you are not being modeled an action and does not mean you are less likely to use it. Video game research has proven a small but significant effect of video game violence on aggressive behavior, regardless of whether the subjects realize what they're doing is not real.
I understand, it's hard to accept that things you love may have some harmful effects, but the truth is THEY DO. The key concept to understand is that the effect the media has on us is VERY VERY SMALL. And, like Annalee posted, myriad other factors influence us WAY MORE than comic books do. Seeing domestic violence, being abused, growing up with a parent who espouses misogynistic views, these would influence you more than your consumption of certain media would.
The point is, MODERATION. Everything is good in moderation. Parents should monitor and talk to their children about their media usage. Children should have good role models in home and in the community. And they should be exposed to media that is educational and provides good role models, AS WELL AS the stuff they really like (as long as it's age appropriate).
It just really disheartens me when people absolutely refute research because it doesn't jive with their own view, or it attacks something they enjoy. Be open minded, look at what the data is saying, and put it in its place. Understand that there are some negative effects to the things we watch and play, but that it in no way should condone censorship. I think the only way to truly fight censorship in the future is to understand what the research is saying, what it actually means, and how media consumption truly effects us as people.
@Annalee Newitz: I agree with you that the debate is important...it's good to see people having intelligent arguments about the relationships presented in a book, and are thinking harder for it.
I think we need to be cognizant of the messages in media because as human being we take messages from the world around us, even when we know the difference between reality and fantasy. We take as much away from the fantasy we engage in as the reality we participate in.
My problem is that the target audience for a book such as this are very young teenage girls who are not developmentally capable to having those arguments. These are not consumers who are reading other books that challenge their perceptions of gender roles and relationships. They idolize the Edward-Bella relationship and internalize that message. Years later, when they finally reach that level of maturity, they may be able to make an informed decision regarding their relationships, but these books are instructing girls at a critical life point. As a school psychologist who works with children of all ages, I have to recommend that parents be aware of what their children are reading and providing opportunities to discuss the messages of these books and offer differing opinions to ensure that their children have a myriad of messages in order to have that debate. And not simply the Team Edward-Team Jacob vampire v. werewolf argument.
I think we need to be cognizant of the messages in media because as human being we take messages from the world around us, even when we know the difference between reality and fantasy. We take as much away from the fantasy we engage in as the reality we participate in.
My problem is that the target audience for a book such as this are very young teenage girls who are not developmentally capable to having those arguments. These are not consumers who are reading other books that challenge their perceptions of gender roles and relationships. They idolize the Edward-Bella relationship and internalize that message. Years later, when they finally reach that level of maturity, they may be able to make an informed decision regarding their relationships, but these books are instructing girls at a critical life point. As a school psychologist who works with children of all ages, I have to recommend that parents be aware of what their children are reading and providing opportunities to discuss the messages of these books and offer differing opinions to ensure that their children have a myriad of messages in order to have that debate. And not simply the Team Edward-Team Jacob vampire v. werewolf argument.
@George Lampard: I have to respectfully disagree...while I do agree that many people try to make excuses for their behavior such as blaming their actions on how their parents raised them, others truly due have reasons (several of them) for performing horrible acts. Not to say that it condones the acts themselves, but that understanding those reasons may help us to prevent someone else who has similarly experienced trauma from performing those same acts.
For instance, unlike what is stated in the article above, there is conclusive evidence that a media diet high in violence does increase aggression in people of all ages. The "numerous" studies Annalee speaks of actually number in the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) for television viewing; the research for the effects of video game violence on aggression is still underway, but many experts in the field agree that watching violent movies/tv and playing violent games causes increases in aggression. Not only is there a substantial relationship, but studies have confirmed a causal relationship between the two.
This makes sense if you look at psychological theories of learning. People do not just learn from extrinsic, explicit lecturing. People (and especially children) learn best by observing their environment and practicing behavior that is modeled to them. We model our parents' speech as infants and learn socially acceptable behavior through observing how others are reinforced/punished for their behaviors. So it only makes sense that observing violence in media would have some sort of effect on us. To completely deny this is simply foolish.
Does that mean that video games are implicit in the string of school shootings and extreme violence that has taken place over the years? Of course not...other, more important factors were in play, of which media consumption only played a very small role. Really, violent media diet effects our thoughts, feelings and physiological arousal in such small amounts as to not be visible to the human eye.
Should we deny that reading certain books, watching certain movies, and playing certain video games has any sort of emotional or cognitive effect on us. Dear God, I hope not. I have read books that have transformed the way I think, and those are the best kind. Stories originated as a way to teach morals (Grimm's Fairy Tales for one), explain the universe, etc. However, we should put it in perspective, and not crucify people based on their preferences in media consumption.
Alright, I've said my peace...I'm now ready for my crucifixion.
For instance, unlike what is stated in the article above, there is conclusive evidence that a media diet high in violence does increase aggression in people of all ages. The "numerous" studies Annalee speaks of actually number in the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) for television viewing; the research for the effects of video game violence on aggression is still underway, but many experts in the field agree that watching violent movies/tv and playing violent games causes increases in aggression. Not only is there a substantial relationship, but studies have confirmed a causal relationship between the two.
This makes sense if you look at psychological theories of learning. People do not just learn from extrinsic, explicit lecturing. People (and especially children) learn best by observing their environment and practicing behavior that is modeled to them. We model our parents' speech as infants and learn socially acceptable behavior through observing how others are reinforced/punished for their behaviors. So it only makes sense that observing violence in media would have some sort of effect on us. To completely deny this is simply foolish.
Does that mean that video games are implicit in the string of school shootings and extreme violence that has taken place over the years? Of course not...other, more important factors were in play, of which media consumption only played a very small role. Really, violent media diet effects our thoughts, feelings and physiological arousal in such small amounts as to not be visible to the human eye.
Should we deny that reading certain books, watching certain movies, and playing certain video games has any sort of emotional or cognitive effect on us. Dear God, I hope not. I have read books that have transformed the way I think, and those are the best kind. Stories originated as a way to teach morals (Grimm's Fairy Tales for one), explain the universe, etc. However, we should put it in perspective, and not crucify people based on their preferences in media consumption.
Alright, I've said my peace...I'm now ready for my crucifixion.
@mrhymes01: Indubitably.
