I’ve spent most of my life at a politically and socially liberal school, but until my senior year the politics of the majority of my peers never really factored into my personal life.  It was then that I both enrolled in a political theory class with a socialist teacher and increased my presence on the internet.  Surrounded by liberal people in a left-leaning discussion-based class, I found my opinions shifting ever more to adjust to my friends’ perspectives, and I didn’t have any explanation other than ‘they just made a lot of sense’.  Sunstein, however, explains the concept beautifully.  It’s not that people lose their own free will in favor of the will of the majority, and it’s not as if a person will suddenly abandon long-held beliefs, rather the homogeneity of the group incites agreement in individuals.  The Internet and a lot of social media sites are tangible examples of this process in action.  One person might advocate for increased marriage equality, and, as the original message spreads and others take it up, so often they act as if anyone who disagrees is wrong and unworthy of inclusion in the conversation.   All other opinions fade into the background as a single opinion becomes dominant and “create[s] echo chambers” which encourage even more radical thinking along the same vein.

(just to be clear, I’m not condemning the example I used [I support marriage equality], but it illustrates my personal experience with the concept in Sunstein’s article)

                As I read the article by Henig, I couldn’t help but think about how, through all of that research, we have yet to discover the real purpose of play. Yes, many benefits and disadvantages to play were listed and explained, but play is still referred to as pointless. In one part the question was brought up of why play has survived so long through natural selection if there is no apparent use for it. Having said this, I thought it was fascinating to read about all of the effects of childhood play. I never would have guessed that play has such a crucial role in the growth and development of the brain. The experiment where some rats were allowed to play freely and others were deprived of play was surprising to me because I would not have expected the actual brain functions of the deprived rats to be less developed. Overall, this article was full of interesting findings, even though combined they lead to no real conclusion regarding the purpose of play.

I think that Sunstein presents a very interesting issue in the disappearance of serendipity in favor of filtered control over what we read and hear. I, personally, enjoy the ability to wander and discover new things and opinions. I think, in terms of issues like amazon stores tracking browsing history to offer a more personal shopping approach, the filtration of information isn’t necessarily as bad as, say, filtering the news to only hear stories that agree on certain problems. One is trying to help you stumble upon another book or DVD you may like, while the other is trying to potentially warp your opinion. Growing up the daughter of a conservative journalist and liberal graphic designer, I have understood the values of listening to and understanding both sides of an argument from a very young age. By cutting people off from the opinions of others, especially in hot button issues like politics, people on both sides are deprived of the essential understanding of opposing viewpoints. I would much rather talk to people whose views differ from my own, especially on issues I don’t understand, in order to form an opinion, than blindly pick a side based on my existing bias. This, more than any other reason, is why I think the sacrifice of serendipity for careful management is tragic. 

Reading through "Taking Play Seriously" by Robin Marantz Henig, I thought about how the people my age play. The cell phone generation. I came across a quote a while ago from Jeremy Glass' blog post called "We Can't Get Lost Anymore," where he claims, "We can't jump off bridges anymore because our iPhones will get ruined. We can't take skinny dips in the ocean, because there's no service on the beach and adventures aren't real unless they're on Instagram. Technology has doomed the spontaneity of adventure and we're helping destroy it every time we google, check-in, and hashtag."

       Play, like nearly every other person, was a giant part of my childhood.  Playing simple games like “house”, “tag”, and “hide and seek” did not just help to keep me active and alert but it taught me social skills and how to interact with my peers.  “House”, where my friends and I imitated a stereotypical family scenario in a house, added to my knowledge of how a “proper” husband and wife, son and daughter, or uncle and aunt should behave.  

       Now that loss of play is becoming more and more common, parents are rightfully worried with how their children will learn to be sociable especially when they are spending a large chunk of their time online. A friend of mine obsessed over World of Warcraft, a popular online game, during his sophomore year of high school.  When recalling his high school experience he used to always say that it was almost as if there was a gap in it because he couldn’t remember any of that year.  In my opinion, online games are not only a waste of time but they also are not memorable or rewarding in any way. 

Something has been niggling at me ever since I started taking the newspaper electronically.

At my mother's request that I keep up-to-date with the state of national and international affairs, I set up an account with the New York Times and began having an email sent to me every day with the headlines. When I open one of these emails, I can see the titles of the headline articles, as well as a short, one-sentence description of the article. The Times sends me Top News, Editors' Picks, World, U.S., Politics, Business, Technology, Sports, Arts, N.Y./Region, Obituaries, Dining & Wine, Today's Video, Editorials, and Op-Ed. I click on the articles in Top News, World, U.S., and Politics that look interesting or important; skim Business, Videos, Dining & Wine, and N.Y./Region; and skip Sports and Obituaries entirely. My favorites, though, are Editorials and Op-Ed, where NY Times writers are allowed to dispense entirely with any attempt to sound neutral, and state their opinions boldly.

Only having been a part of this class for a day i have already learned so much. Talking about my gender was never a problem for me because i am cisgender, but for my younger sister it is different. Not knowing about the gender spectrum, I labeled my sister; who has always loved Spiderman, always played the boy when we used to played dolls, and loves basketball shorts, as a tomboy, and when she got older and still dressed like a "boy" I thought: welp, shes gay, but im okay with that. Being so young, she herself may not know her sexuality, but for me I realized that just because she dresses and acts a certain way, reflects nothing about her sexuality. Maybe she's just a girl who likes to dress in "guy" clothes, maybe she will perfer the personal pronoun he, maybe she wants to wear makeup and baggy jeans and Jordans and a dress on occasion. I never looked at gender as something that could be fluid, but I am so glad I now know, not only for my own understanding, but to help my sister love herself for who she is, and know that I love her for whoever she wants to be.

While reading Henig, I kept being struck by the fact that they were only examining play in children. Of course, psychologically I suppose it makes sense, because of the relationship between brain growth and play. But play does not stop once you reach puberty. For many people I know (including myself), play is still a huge part of our lives. We get together to play (informal or formal) sports, board games (which are in fact often made specifically for mature people, not just children), video games... The list goes on. It just seemed astonishing to me that the article did not mention that play does not stop when the brain is developed.

Bloomberg's article on the other hand reminded me of the Statistics class I took last year, when we learned about the algorithms used to personalize things like Amazon suggestions and Facebook ads. I thought then, and still do, that it's a good idea, at least for ads. Companies are more likely to sell things if, for example, they advertise shoes instead of football gear to me. But doing the same thing for newspapers? I'm not quite sure I like that idea. One of my favorite things about newspapers is that you get a combination of all the news that's happening, not just one narrow field that you already happen to be interested in. I would never learn new things about the world if the newspaper only showed me articles on feminism or fashion, because I already keep up with those on websites made specifically for those topics. Newspapers should stay generalized, just to keep the world informed. It's what they're made for, after all.