Assignment 8 - Gang Leader For A Day (whole book)

Gang Leader For A Day - Chapter 1

This book reminds me of one I read in my English class called Freakonomics. It may have been mentioned in Freakonomics, I can't remember, but the writing style is very similar. This first chapter really got my attention because I live in an area of college station that is similar. On my street, there are a bunch of college kids and families living around me, but the next street over there are mostly black people living there (not projects but appear to be low income households). A lot of the time when I go to the convenient store on the street corner, I run into several black people in the store and it is interesting to see how they interact with their friends and the cashier/store owner. They talk to the cashier/store owner, who is Indian (and real cool with me and my friends), like he is one of their friends and sometimes try to trick him into thinking they paid for something they didn't. They joke around with him, too, but sometimes they get loud with him and sometimes it's really hard to tell whether or not the situation will escalate and become violent. Either the guy in the book was really naive (which appears to be the case), brave, or dumb because he was trying to conduct a study in what seemed to be a drug infested and gang-run neighborhood. I feel like back then, gangs weren't as violent/crazy as the ones now, so he may have lucked out there.

Gang Leader For A Day - Chapter 2

Chapter 2 of this book is really awesome because the author is slowly becoming more familiar with the gang, learning the hierarchy of gang members, and observing the different things the gang does other than sell drugs. It's as if Sudhir is being "initiated" into the gang by J.T. The main reason why I like this chapter is the fact that Sudhir has been somewhat accepted into the gang and it is now becoming part of his regular life. The coolest part was when J.T. confronts C-note about moving cars so that there could be room for the monthly basketball game. It would have been crazy/awkward to be exposed to that for the first time. I know I feel awkward when two friends fight even if it's over the phone, probably because I don't like conflict, so I can just imagine how the author felt. Watching C-note getting beat up would have been hard, too. One thing that I've noticed, though, is that the author uses the word "nigger" in the book a lot. I think the gang was using the word "nigga" and from what I have experience the two words have different meanings. "Nigger" has a negative connotation to it while "nigga" is used amongst friends, sort of like bro, homie, dude.

Gang Leader For A Day - Chapter 3

This chapter was really interesting because it showed that gangs are not just gangs. They are communities that work together with citizens in their neighborhood, even if they have conflicting views. Sometimes the help the gangs give to the community is illegal, but they help out the best they are able to. There is a lot more that goes on inside of a gang, and this chapter sheds light on the thoughts of gang members/leaders and the inner workings that drive the gang.

Gang Leader For A Day - Chapter 4

Chapter 4 was kind of annoying because Sudhir was supposed to be the gang's leader for a day, but he didn't really do all that much. It still seemed as if J.T. was the gang's leader and Sudhir would just nod and say yea to everything J.T. said. I guess you can't just give Sudhir the power of gang leader and let him do everything on his own, but Sudhir barely did anything with the position he was put in. The biggest decision he made was deciding who to punish between Otis and Billy, but even then he didn't have the gang leader mentality and tried to cancel out their "penalties". 

Gang Leader For A Day - Chapter 5

Chapter 5 got away from the gang functions and focused more on Ms. Bailey and the tenants of Robert Taylor. It showed mostly how the higher-up people in the community work to get what the families in the community need (Ms. Bailey exchanges liquor/beer for clothing, food, etc.). The chapter gives insight on how the Robert Taylor community survives without money and how each person helps each other. You could say that Ms. Bailey is someone who is looking out for everyone or you could say she using her "help" to control everyone (when she gives things to only certain people). 

Gang Leader For A Day - Chapter 6

Although Sudhir is a educated graduate student, this chapter made me question his intelligence. When he told Ms. Bailey and J.T. about the secret financial earnings of the tenants, he had to have known that J.T. and Ms. Bailey would hit up the tenants. In a way, there are times where trying to help someone results in drastically hurting others without even knowing, but this seemed to be an obvious situation where he should have known to keep that information to himself. 

Gang Leader For A Day - Chapter 7

I kind of feel bad for Sudhir because no matter what he does, he seems to get on everyone's bad side. The tenants were against him for giving away their secret earnings, he's against J.T. if he doesn't do everything with him, and the cops are pissed at him because he is keeping track of all their actions by doing this ethnography. When hustlers were being described in the book, it appeared as if they were describing Sudhir. He's a hustler just like everyone in the gang and Robert Taylor. 

Gang Leader For A Day - Chapter 8

This chapter showed just how much Sudhir had learned from the gang.

"How could I learn so much, absorb so many lessons and gain so many experiences at the side of a man who was so far removed from my academic world.”

This quote pretty much summed up Sudhir's experiences with the gang, tenants, police officers, etc. He learned that calling an ambulance in the gang environment is a lot different than calling it in a "normal" environment. In Robert Taylor, that ambulance would never come, but in any other place it would show up quickly. He also learned that gangs have their own organized government and work things out differently than a regular society.

Gang Leader For A Day - Whole Book

Overall, the book was interesting. It's crazy to me how naive/stupid the author was, going up to gang members and trying to get to know them. Now it is well known that you do not mess with a gang at all if you aren't with them because something is bound to happen to you. Sudhir got lucky that he was able to come out of such an experience with no harm done to him. And although I thought Sudhir was extremely dumb for attempting to do this ethnography, it turned out to be an interesting and enlightening experiment. It shed light on the economics of gangs and how things work around them. A gang in the area not only affects the gang and its members, it affects the nearby stores, people living in the area, etc. Today's gangs are much more violent and deadly than those in the past, in my opinion, and it would be awesome, if there was someone brave enough, to study them. It would be really cool to see how gangs have evolved, if they have at all, and see if they still perform "community service" similar to what J.T. did.

Ethnography Idea(s)

Idea for me:

I have never played MMORPG games like World of Warcraft or Runescape before, so I think it would be interesting to see how people, who play the game frequently, behave and to interact with them through playing the game. I like to play video games, but I have never been into computer games and never been exposed to hardcore computer gamers, so this would be something new and interesting for me to do. South Park makes World of Warcraft seem fun.


Idea for someone else:

I'm really interested in sports and play/watch them pretty often and I feel like not many computer science students are exposed to stuff like this, so it might be interesting for them to either play pick-up games, join a fantasy league, or go watch games with others. I know when my friends and I are together the main thing we talk about is fantasy football and it gets crazy with stats and analysis to where it's almost nerd-like.

Assignment 7 - Nonobvious Observation

               I thought the making of the videos was an interesting project to do. Filming the different points-of-view of classmates was cool because you are able to see the world through  another's eyes. Everyone interacts with their environment differently and it's really interesting to see exactly what someone pays attention to or reacts to as they perform everyday tasks. Things as simple as walking to class, ordering food, or even just sitting on a bench on campus create many situations where you unconsciously interact with people and the environment around you. Although the interactions on the videos may not be completely genuine (because of the awareness of the camera), I believe they closely reflect a person's normal interactions. I know when I first started doing my task, the camera was making me think about my interactions, but after a while I felt like I started doing things as I normally would (mainly because I felt people weren't looking at me funny). I think the project would have captured interactions a lot more accurately if the camera was not as obvious. The people wearing the cameras wouldn't have felt like they stood out with a big, clunky camera on their head, thus making their interactions with the people/environment more normal. Nonetheless, the project was by far the most interesting computer science project I have had so far.

               There are several nonobvious things that can be looked at to determine more about a person. You can look at how fast they walk. If they walk slow this can mean that the person is a relaxed, laid-back kind of person. Maybe they are lazy or just like to enjoy their walk and surroundings. If the person walks fast, maybe they are the kind of person who is always busy/in a hurry, impatient, or someone who is often late to appointments. Another thing can be whether or not the person is looking at everything around them or if they look in the direction of their goal the whole time. Looking around can show that the person is new to the environment and focusing on the goal can show that the person is very familiar with the task. The reactions of the people they pass by and whether or not the person looks at the people he/she walks by or looks down can give a hint as to what the person's personality is like. For example, looking down as they walk by others can mean that they are shy or nervous around people they are unfamiliar with, while looking up and making eye contact or even smiling at someone can show that they are friendly, outgoing, and comfortable around people they do not know.

Assignment 5 - Ethnographies

“Ethnography consists of the observation and analysis of human groups considered as individual entities (the groups are often selected, for practical and theoretical reasons unrelated to the nature of the research involved, from those societies that differ most from our own). Ethnography thus aims at recording as accurately as possible the perspective modes of life of various groups.”

- Structural Anthropology (1963), by Claude Lévi-Strauss.

“[Ethnography has a] goal, of which an Ethnographer should never lose sight. This goal is, briefly, to grasp the native's point of view, his relation to life, to realise his vision of his world. We have to study man, and we must study what concerns him most intimately, that is, the hold life has on him. In each culture, the values are slightly different; people aspire after different aims, follow different impulses, yearn after a different form of happiness. In each culture, we find different institutions in which man pursues his life-interest, different customs by which he satisfies his aspirations, different codes of law and morality which reward his virtues or punish his defections. To study the institutions, customs, and codes or to study the behaviour and mentality without the subjective desire of feeling by what these people live, of realising the substance of their happiness—is, in my opinion, to miss the greatest reward which we can hope to obtain from the study of man.”

- Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) by Bronislaw Malinowski.

This definition given by Claude Levi-Strauss, to me, is the most straightforward of the 7 listed at http://www.americanethnography.com/ethnography.php, but also gives some details as to what an ethnography’s aim is.  However, the definition given by Bronislaw Malinowski, in my opinion, is the most meaningful and detailed. It seems to be defined from an emotional standpoint because the words used appear to try and provoke emotions from the reader and it has a much deeper meaning than the others. I think a combination of the two definitions would give the best description of an ethnography because of the deepness of Malinowski’s and the straightforwardness of Levi-Strauss’.

From the reading of:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa

Ethnographies appear to be almost like debates between ethnographers. An ethnography is supposed to be an unbiased study of a culture, but somehow results seem to get skewed. In the Wikipedia article, Coming of Age in Samoa, Derek Freeman and Margaret Mead butted heads on the data collected from a Samoan tribe (Freeman started the head butting and waited for Mead to die before he started talking crap!). I don’t think Freeman was wrong for trying to disprove Mead’s results. If he tried to disprove without talking so much crap and instead just conducted his own ethnography (which he later did) then he would’ve been cool with me. He went about it the wrong way by calling her out and just saying that she was plain wrong; he seemed to have his own intentions in mind. With that being said, I think it’s hard for any ethnography to be conducted without getting some results wrong. People react differently with different people. I react differently with my computer science classmates than I do with my roommate and close friends. So Margaret Mead’s results may have been the results of Samoan’s reacting to a woman and Derek Freeman’s results may have come from reactions of him being a man. There is no accurate way to determine whether or not a person will act the same way with different people, so results can sometimes be skewed. The best way, I think is to set up hidden cameras and watch without knowing, that way genuine interactions can be recorded and looked at (there is the issue of privacy though).

 In short, I think an ethnography conducted on the same culture with ethnographers of different race, gender, age, etc., would produce differing results. People react differently to different people so the results would differ depending on the ethnographer.

             Ethics plays a big role in ethnographies, too. There is an 8 page code of ethics that ethnographers are required to abide by when conducting research, teaching, applying a study, and disseminating results. Here are brief guidelines for them:

• Conducting Research-When conducting research Anthropologists need to be aware of the potential impacts of the research on the people and animals they study. If the seeking of new knowledge will negatively impact the people and animals they will be studying they may not undertake the study according to the code of ethics.

• Teaching-When teaching the discipline of anthropology, instructors are required to inform students of the ethical dilemmas of conducting ethnographies and field work.

• Application-When conducting an ethnography Anthropologists must be "open with funders, colleagues, persons studied or providing information, and relevant parties affected by the work about the purpose(s), potential impacts, and source(s) of support for the work." 

• Dissemination of Results-When disseminating results of an ethnography the code notes that "[a]nthropologists have an ethical obligation to consider the potential impact of both their research and the communication or dissemination of the results of their research on all directly or indirectly involved." Research results of ethnographies should not be withheld from participants in the research if that research is being observed by other people.

There are also many types of ethnographers:

• "The kindly ethnographer" – Most ethnographers present themselves as being more sympathetic than they actually are, which aids in the research process, but is also deceptive. The identity that we present to subjects is different from who we are in other circumstances.
• "The friendly ethnographer" – Ethnographers operate under the assumption that they should not dislike anyone. In actuality, when hated individuals are found within research, ethnographers often crop them out of the findings.
  
• "The honest ethnographer" – If research participants know the research goals, their responses will likely be skewed. Therefore, ethnographers often conceal what they know in order to increase the likelihood of acceptance.
• "The Precise Ethnographer" – Ethnographers often create the illusion that field notes are data and reflect what "really" happened. They engage in the opposite of plagiarism, giving credit to those undeserving by not using precise words but rather loose interpretations and paraphrasing. Researchers take near-fictions and turn them into claims of fact. The closest ethnographers can ever really get to reality is an approximate truth.
• "The Observant Ethnographer" – Readers of ethnography are often led to assume the report of a scene is complete – that little of importance was missed. In reality, an ethnographer will always miss some aspect because they are not omniscient. Everything is open to multiple interpretations and misunderstandings. The ability of the ethnographer to take notes and observe varies, and therefore, what is depicted in ethnography is not the whole picture.
• "The Unobtrusive Ethnographer" – As a "participant" in the scene, the researcher will always have an effect on the communication that occurs within the research site. The degree to which one is an "active member" affects the extent to which sympathetic understanding is possible.
• "The Candid Ethnographer" – Where the researcher situates themselves within the ethnography is ethically problematic. There is an illusion that everything reported has actually happened because the researcher has been directly exposed to it.
• "The Chaste Ethnographer" – When ethnographers participate within the field, they invariably develop relationships with research subjects/participants. These relationships are sometimes not accounted for within the reporting of the ethnography despite the fact that they seemingly would influence the research findings.
• "The Fair Ethnographer" – Fine claims that objectivity is an illusion and that everything in ethnography is known from a perspective. Therefore, it is unethical for a researcher to report fairness in their findings.
• "The Literary Ethnographer" – Representation is a balancing act of determining what to "show" through poetic/prosaic language and style versus what to "tell" via straightforward, ‘factual’ reporting. The idiosyncratic skill of the ethnographer influences the face-value of the research.

All of these different types of ethnographers somewhat support my idea that there can hardly every be truly unbiased results.

Emotional Design vs Design of Everyday Things

     The “Design of Everyday Things” focuses on how the design of an object affects the users perception of how the object should be used. The primary focus is not the look (pretty or ugly) of the design, but the mappings of functions, feedback given from the object, visibility of certain functions/information, and how the human mind makes models of an object by simply looking at it. It discusses design on more of a scientific level. For example, the book talks about how having buttons, shaped like something associated with their function, helps the user determine what the button does and how it is to be used. It also discusses how information can be gathered from the object and the environment, so that the user can paint a mental picture of the affordance of the object. Emotions are left out of the design and the object's functionality/usability is the main objective the book tries to convey.

     “Emotional Design” also talks about an objects design; however it discusses how the look of an object (attractive or unattractive) affects its ease of use, by manipulating human emotions. Based on the first chapter, the book focuses on how human emotion and aesthetics affect how someone uses an object. When someone is happy, they are more creative and are able to figure out alternate solutions to a problem. When someone is anxious, they tend to pay more attention to details and get tunnel vision. These emotions are taken into consideration and used to design objects that help users during times of stress and/or relaxation. For example, alarms and flashing lights can be used to symbolize danger and help workers focus on the problem at hand, while background music can be used to induce happiness and creativity on the job. However, overdoing the negative emotion triggers can cause even greater problems by stressing out the person and having them focus too hard on one thing, keeping them from finding a solution to the current problem.

      These books differ from one another because “Design of Everyday Things” talks about design from a physical standpoint (not looks though), while “Emotional Design” uses more of a emotional/aesthetical analysis. They are similar in the sense that they both analyze how the mind works and how objects can be designed to cater to the way the mind processes information. Other than that it is the physical appearance of the design versus the emotions a design generates.