“How Instincts Relate to the Collective Unconscious”

Content: The Collective Unconscious is a deeper mind that is inherited from genetics, and isn’t shaped by personal experience. Meaning there are deep seated idea, beliefs, or instincts that we have that don’t come from our own lives. The personal unconscious by contrast is the repressed or forgotten memories that come from one’s forgotten experiences.

How it was used: This source was included to argue that we as a society have an instinctual drive to connect ideas, and prove ourselves correct. This isn’t a learned behavior, in fact it may come from something outside of our own experience, like the collective unconscious.

“Violent Video Games and Aggression”

Content: Studies show that violent video games can lead to an increase in aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and patterns. Violence is a form of aggression, but not all aggressive behaviors can be considered violent. Due to lack of re-searchable subjects its impossible to conclude that violent video games lead to an increase in lethal violence, just because it leads to an increase in aggression.

How it was used: This knowledge was applied to show that despite the fact that many agree that video games don’t directly lead to lethal violence, there is still a hole in the studies done that suggest that it could lead to that. It’s meant to show that there is room for people to argue both sides of this issues with people around them. They would take to the internet searching for sources like this one in order to prove themselves right.

“Everybody lies: How Google search reveals our darkest secrets”

Content: People lie less the more impersonal the means of the collecting the information. Social desirability bias is the idea that we lie about traits, our performance, or our beliefs in order to be more desirable to those around us. However, when people google search they are much more honest with what they believe, because there is nobody to potentially judge them. Through studying searches the truth is revealed about what people believe about sex, hate and prejudice, femininity, and sexuality.

How it was used: This source was used to show that conducting an analysis using people’s web searches is valid. It can grant real insight into how people think and what they believe. Since people tend to lie less when they search online, it can give us ideas about what their intentions are when they search for “gun control” after a lethal shooting.

DIACRAN: A Framework for Diachronic Analysis

Content: Linguist use diachronic analysis in order to study the evolution of language. There must be keywords, a corpus, and a formula for gauging how interesting each of the keywords are. Data can then be extrapolated to look at high gradients, correlations, or frequencies how words to study if a set of words are still widely used or not.

How it was used: An argument had to be made that analyzing google trends was a study. This was the most similar study to analyzing google trends data. Therefore it needed to be argued that using google trends was a form of diachronic analysis. Each of the three pieces needed were translated in terms of google trends. This was then used to draw a conclusion on how frequent certain phrases are being used, and by extension, argued about by google users.

” Synchrony and Diachrony: a Dynamic Interface”

Content: Synchrony and Diachrony have a relationship to one another, and studying that can grant insight into better ways to study language. Synchronic variation may be a catalyst for diachronic change.

How it was Used: This source was used to learn more about diachrony as diachronic analysis is a form of it. It was also used to learn generally more about linguist and see if a clear connection can be formed between the study of language and the study of internet searches. It turns out that they are very similar and can be studied in a similar fashion.

“What Is Google Trends Data – and What Does It Mean?”

Content: Google Trends is a real time tool used to see people’s searches all over the world. Trends is anonymous and unbiased. It accurately displays the numbers out of 100, that show how interested the public is in a certain topic, phrase, or word. Putting multiple graphs over one another is a good way to put the numbers into perspective and give a general gist of how “important” the word is.

How it was Used: This source was used to explain how the numbers relate to interest in certain topics. Once the numbers are put into content it shows the magnitude of the people searching for certain phrases and topics. This shows just how prevalent certain ideas, like gun control, are in the minds of google searches, especially after violent shootings blamed on violent media.

“Can Video Games Cause Violence? “

Content: The subject lies in an area of grey. It is hard to determine whether or not there is a true connection because there are problems with the ways the studies are conducted. For one there is no clear way to measure “aggression” or a clear cut definition of what the word means in the studies. Some scientist are also prone to publication bias, meaning they agree with their work more often because it’s there’s. Furthermore, how much correlation is needed between video games and aggression for it to be considered bad? These are issues and questions that leave the study in an area of grey with no real conclusion.

How it was Used: This source was used to identify the issues with the studies. Numerous other sources state that no other conclusions can be gathered besides “video games to lead to an increase in aggression, but aggression doesn’t necessarily mean violence.” This source explains why that is the case. This shows why people are so uncertain about the studies that say video games don’t cause violence, and feel the need to fill in the information themselves.

“A brief history of blaming video games for mass murder”

Content: Of the multiple mass shootings that have happened over the years, only four have been accused of having a connection to consumption of violent media. This includes the shootings at Columbine, Heath High School, Sandy Hook, and Parkland. There is a continued push for video games to be blamed for violent behavior despite there being no evidence to support that.

How it was Used: This source was used to build a timeline and compare it to searches in google trends. Google trends can show the searches over a period of time, so it stands to reason that if we examine key words at the times of these mass shootings we can see if there is a correlation between people searching for information about gun control, and shooting, if that shooting is blamed on violent media.

“The Effect of Online Violent Video Games on Levels of Aggression”

Content: Video games are widely the most consumed form of entertainment. Violent video games in particular are the most consumed genre of video games. Many believe that there is a public health risk as video games may have an affect on levels of consumer aggression. There is a positive correlation between those who consume violent video games and their aggression levels. However, there is not enough evidence to suggest that violent video games lead to any else, including a decrease in social behavior.

How it was used: This source was used to help depict the gap in knowledge that the studies have. Not only one, but multiple studies admit to there not being enough evidence to draw more than one conclusion about video games and violence. In fact, it’s hard to draw any more because more research can’t really be done about video games relation to lethal violence. This explains why people have the need to fill in the gaps themselves with their own searches and opinions.

“Positive Effects of Negative Publicity”

Content: Negative publicity can be used in a positive manner when selling products. Using econometric analysis and experimental methods, it can be argued that negative publicity on certain products will actually increase the sales of the product.

How it was used: This source is important because it’s what shifted the entire argument to no longer be focused on this subject. Originally, the argument was going to focus on how people in positions of power say controversial things in order to garner attention. This source truly displayed how that line of thinking wasn’t going anywhere.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s