Revised Conclusion

     I did not change much in the new version of the conclusion. The majority of changes came from slight word variations that I felt sounded better the new way. There were also some conventions that I did not perform very well the first time around, so I tried my best to fix those.  I think this new conclusion is better because it still keeps the readers attention while concluding the essay; however, it is more powerful because it is less words and more precise.

NEW CONCLUSION:
          In the future, robots may have the ability to make movies accurate and begin the robot apocalypse that has been feared upon for years.  Robots could take over, destroy the things that humans love, and go about doing so with no emotional connection to what they are doing. The chances of that are slim.  As Valez mentions throughout his entire examination of the controversy surrounding robots in the future: robots are on the rise, but for the good of the human race, not for the destruction of it. Valez believes that robots will aid the working class by improving productivity and allowing the economy to boost because of it. He believes that intimate and personal lives with robots will also develop greatly in the near future. Many people are currently drawn to technology and some even feel as though they have an emotional connection to their devices. Even though it may seem assure at times, robots can truly help personal lives in the future. Robots will continue to look, feel, and act more like humans, and so it is no surprise that people feel as though they have emotions toward their technology.  This paper, and papers similar to this, will continue to be persuasive and will continue to be entertaining and informing because of the drastic changes that will continue to occur in the robotics world.  Robots are not going away, they are developing, growing, and improving every day.  Valez is not the first, nor will he be the last, to discuss the concern with robots' ability to help or their ability to hurt humans' work, personal, and intimate lives.

OLD CONCLUSION:
          In the future, robots may have the ability to make the movies come true and begin a robot apocalypse. Robots could take over the planet, destroy the things that humans love, and go about doing so with no emotional connection to what they are doing; however, the chances of this occurring are far beyond slim. As Valez mentions throughout his entire examination of the controversy surrounding robots in the future, robots are on the rise, but for the good of the human race, not for the destruction of it. Valez believes that, in the working class, robots will aid productivity and allow the economy to boom because of it.  Intimate and personal lives with robots will also develop greatly in the near future. Many people are already drawn to technology and some even feel as though they have a personal connection to their devices. Even though it may seem absurd at times, robots can truly help personal lives in the future. Because robots are beginning to look, feel, and act more like humans than ever before, it comes to no surprise that people will begin to feel as though they have an emotional connection with them. This paper, and papers similar to this, will continue to be persuasive and will continue to be entertaining and informing because of the drastic changes that have occurred and will continue to occur in the robotics world. Robots are not going away, they are developing, growing, and improving every day. Valez is not the first, and certainly will not be the last to state that robots are here to help humans’ work, personal, and intimate lives.

Revised Introduction

This new version is more successful than the old version for a few reasons. I took out some unneeded words that I did not feel helped the paragraph very much. The most important thing that I think helped make this draft better is the thesis statement. I decided to use my other thesis statement and rewrite it a little bit in order to change some wording and make it as strong as I could make it.

NEW INTRODUCTION:  
Technology is increasing rapidly, so much so that some people believe the human race cannot keep up with the acceleration of technology. One of the largest ways that technology is improving is in the field of robotics. Robots are used in all aspects of human life including work, intimacy, and personal lives. People who are informed about the issue of rapidly increasing technology look to understand how the technical aspect of robotics will alter human life in the future. People who are not so informed may not understand the technical aspect of robots such as the systemic components, etc., but they do have emotion and culture and they are sympathetic towards their futures. The controversy over how robots will effect human life is continuously growing. Items are being published and produced predicting the future of the coinciding world of humans and robots. One University of St. Thomas undergraduate has written about his feelings towards robots and their effect on the future. He believes that robots will help humans increase productivity in the workplace, expand options for humans intimately, and cause humans to continue to grow fonder for technology in our personal lives as well. Miguel Valez, in Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans, appeals to professional and amateurs in the robotics world by incorporating many aspects of rhetoric and emotion within his paper.  He uses expert sources to grant the attention of more knowledgable readers in order to persuade them with intelligence, but he also uses emotion and cultural values to connect to those who are new to the robotics world on a personal level. \ robotics realm.

OLD INTRODUCTION:

Technology is increasing rapidly.  It is increasing so dramatically that some people believe the human race cannot keep up with the acceleration of technology. There are many ways that technology is increasing and robotics is one of the most profound. Robots are being used in all aspects of human life, including work lives, intimate relationships, and also personal lives. People who are informed about the issue of rapidly increasing technology look to understand how the technical aspect of robotics will alter human life in the future. They try to understand the specific components of robots and how they will aid the future or potentially ruin it. There are also others who are not so informed. These people may not understand the mechanical and systemic components of specific robots, but they have emotion and culture and they are sympathetic towards what their futures may look like. The controversy and debate over whether robotics will help or harm human future is growing. More and more articles, papers, and other items are being published and produced predicting the future of the coinciding world of humans and robots. One University of St. Thomas undergraduate has written about his feelings towards robots and their effect on the future. He believes that robots will help humans increase productivity in the workplace, expand options for humans intimately, and cause humans to continue to grow fonder for technology in our personal lives as well. In Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans, Miguel Valez appeals to both a knowledgeable and unknowledgeable audience by using rhetorical strategies and situations along with implementing cultural values throughout the paper. Valez draws the attention of robotics fanatics and professionals by referencing expert sources from the robotics realm, but he also captures the lesser informed audience by appealing to emotion and incorporating cultural values within his paper.  

Reflection on Project 2

The two drafts that I commented on are from the following people:
     Jessica Gonzalez
     Brittany Newland

     The people reading this essay will by my classmates, my teacher, etc; however, from the Project 2 assignment prompt, we are told to write this essay in regards to people in our field of study that will be reading as well. Therefore, the people who will be reading this essay are past, present, and future engineers who would like to know about the robotics industry or those who already have an interest and knowledge in engineering, specifically with robotics.
     The biases my readers have are most likely very minimal. If anything, the biases will be different from one person to the next. Some will believe that robots are affecting humans positively and some will think that they are harming the human race. I feel as though I am respecting their opinions while achieving my own purpose.
     They (my audience) value the knowledge and background of robotics and the author of the article, Miguel Valez.  My audience will want to know what is specifically going on, and how Valez feels about that. I adequately meet their expectations by explaining the basics of the paper, involving robotics, all of the way to the very deep and emotional level that Valez has reached.
     Because my audience ranges from very knowledgable in the robotics fields, to very amateur, it is difficult to give the perfect amount of background information without insulting some level of people. I think I provide enough background to sufficiently explain what is happening to those who are less knowledgable, but not too much to bore readers who know a lot about robots.
     The language that is suitable for the general engineer is one of sophistication, but also casual.  Not every engineer is always hung up the technicalities of what is going on. Not every engineer is super in love with numerical values and equations, etc. Engineers are generally very technical, but the best way to reach them is to be casual when having a technical conversation. I feel as though I accomplish that very well throughout the paper.
     I think the tone that I should use with my audience is informative and emotional. I want my audience to understand the technical aspect of what is occurring, but I also want to get the emotional side of the topic out as well. I feel like I do a decent job of maintaining this tone throughout the paper, but there are some moments that I am sure I strayed away from that tone for a sentence or two.

Clarity, Part 1

1.)     Shifts

     I was already relatively knowledgable in maintaining person and number, along with maintaining the right verb tense. I found it interesting to learn that fictional events are supposed to be discussed in the present tense. It was cool to see the use of shifts from indirect to direct questions or quotations. I never really took the time to consider that there was a fundamentally accurate way to complete those shifts.

2.)     Emphasis

     I found it interesting to consider how coordinating conjunctions help to emphasize certain verbs or nouns within a sentence. I never really thought to us those for emphasis, rather than sentence fluency. I already knew to combine sentence in order to make them flow a little better; however, looking at the examples of the goods and the bad in the book made me realize how those sentence extenders can be the difference between a weak and a strong paragraph. Lastly, I was intrigued by how RFW talked about not subordinating major ideas. It makes a huge difference in the way a sentence sounds when you emphasize the key parts. 

3.)     Variety

    I have always been an advocate of trying to use variety for my sentence beginnings, but I usually just used your general transitions. It was neat to visualize the different translations that can be used to incorporate the information that is already in the sentence. Another thing that really caught my attention was the idea of inverting sentences.  The sentences sounded so much more elegant and flow-full when they were inverted. It made them seem much more intelligent. 

4.)     Needed Words

     I found some of the ideas in the completing compound structures to be weird. I feel as though some of the added words were unnecessary. The point would still have been made without them. That just goes to show that the English language is intricate and difficult, to say the least. I feel as though I already knew a good amount on using a, an, and the in specific locations of sentences in order to provide grammatical completeness. It was cool to see the differences in action, but I think that section is mostly based on just common sense.

 REFLECTION
      One thing that I noticed often when going through these papers was the referencing of papers (shifts). I liked to see people talking in the present tense about their rhetorical pieces. For example, Brittany wrote, "John Miller shows mixed..." This is a good example of how she correctly uses "shows" in the present tense when talking about another piece.
I noticed, when looking through Jess's paper, that were some areas of her writing where she used words that I felt were not necessary. On one occasion, she begins her paragraph by saying, "So few people knew anything..." This struck me for two reasons: I do not feel as though she needed the word "So." I think that is an unneeded word that takes away from the emphasis on the sentence. Also, I feel as though she was trying to add variety to the beginning of her paragraph. A transition could have been valuable here, but "So" is not that the transition that makes this paper the strongest that it could be.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

     As much as I want to think so, I never feel like I truly have a grasp on the organization of my writing. That is the number one thing that I am nervous about for this essay. I feel as though I have concrete evidence and such, but I am not sure if I am ordering my information correctly and adequately.  The other thing that I was a little shaky about was repetitiveness. I felt as though I may have been restating things over and over and over again. I am not sure if that is just me, or if it actually does sound that way. I am also not sure, if it does repeat itself, how I should fix that. Any insight on those things would be great.
    Please don't be super nice. I can take criticism. If something about my paper sucks, please tell me. Thanks mucho!

Human and Robot Relationships Continue to Grow

Project 2 Outline

The Introduction

     For the introduction of this project, I am going to try to focus my thoughts on why Valez is writing this paper and how he answers the question of why he is writing it. I want to try to dive right in to the purpose of his words and how he goes about appealing to his audiences in both a technical and emotional way. 

The Thesis (adapted or revised from one of your draft theses)

     I am going to try to incorporate more of a "why" in my thesis. After reading the section of how to draft theses and such, I think I need to say a little more about how Valez is appealing to his audience and why he is doing so. I don't think I went into enough detail about why he was writing this paper before reading that section.

The Body Paragraphs

     I am going to separate the essay into three body paragraphs (a typical 5 paragraph essay). I think this is the most productive way of getting all of my words organized and all of my claims made. I will try to tie together the rhetorical situations and strategies. Those two may even blend into one paragraph, but I want to keep the paragraphs similar in length to keep good conventions throughout the project. 

Your Analytical Claims

     I feel as though my thesis right now does not contain a very debatable claim. I want to focus my claims on the fact the Valez argues for the usage of robots in all aspects of life. I really want to get the point across that Valez feel as though robots can positively affect human life on the intimate, work, and personal levels. 

The Support for Each Claim

     I don't think it will be too difficult to get good support for each claim. Valez talks about all of his assumptions and claims in great detail and he has a lot of different types of evidence to show off all of his claims. The most difficult part about supporting each of the claims that I will make will be finding the reference that is the most valuable in the paper. 

The Conclusion

     I am going to need to put some focus onto the conclusion. After reading the WPL chapter, I imagine myself as one of the people that uses the conclusion to restate what I have talked about in the entire essay, when in reality, I need to talk about the validity of the paper in the future and how the paper could be effected by events to come. Like WPL says, I want to consider why this paper will continue to continue to be persuasive in the future and how it could have been persuasive in the past. 

Draft Thesis Statements

1.          In Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans, Miguel Valez appeals to both a knowledgable and unknowledgeable audience by using rhetorical strategies and situations along with implementing cultural values throughout the paper. Valez draws the attention of robotics fanatics and professionals by referencing expert sources from the robotics realm, but he also captures the lesser knowledgable audience by appealing to emotion and by incorporating cultural values within his paper.

2.          Miguel Valez, in Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans, appeals to professionals and rookies in the robotics world by incorporating many aspects of rhetoric and emotion within his paper. He uses expert sources to grasp the attention of the more knowledgable crowd in order persuade them with intelligence, but he also uses an emotional appeal and speaks of cultural values in order to connect on a personal level with those people who are new to the robotics realm.


I think that both of these thesis statements are very similar in their wording. It feels difficult to come up with a completely new and reorganized thesis when the information you are presenting is basically the exact same. I am not sure whether I want to be more specific or less specific when writing my thesis, but I think both of the above statements are ok with their specificity and they both explain a good amount of what needs to be explained before introducing the rest of the paper. It might be difficult for me to differentiate between what appeals to the pro readers and what appeals to the rookies. The majority of the time, the more emotional the certain area of the paper is, the more the lesser knowledgable crowd will be involved, but at the same time, the lesser crowd enjoys learning about what is going on. Thus, the technical explanations may entertain them as well.

REFLECTION
     Posts commented on:
          Brittany Newland
          Aaron Jatana
               Through the reflection process of the thesis, I learned that I was not the only one struggling to get the information that I wanted onto the screen. Both of the posts that I read had mentioned that they weren't sure if they should add stuff or take a different track to get their intended purpose out. It makes me feel a little better knowing that I am not the only one struggling to think of a perfect thesis. I think that these posts help me to realize even more how important it is to discuss HOW the authors are making their audience feel. I know this project is really trying to focus on the ways authors connect to their audiences and whether these ways are rhetorically concrete or not. I think I have a deeper understanding of the point of this project now.

Analyzing My Audience

What are their beliefs and assumptions?
     The readers beliefs and assumptions are that of the general American. Because this piece is written for the knowledgeable and also unknowledgeable, there are generalizations and also deeper descriptions throughout the piece. The general assumptions toward the topic of Robots and their relationships with human is that they are growing. People understand that technology is growing rapidly and with that comes the possibility of losing Jobs to robots and gaining relationships with robots.

What kind of language is appropriate for them?
     The type of language that is appropriate to the audience of this paper is both formal, but also informal. There are points throughout the piece that go into detail about specifics within robotics. Obviously, the average Joe will know nothing about what Valez is talking about, but he explains everything so that anyone who doesn't know the specifics will have a general understanding of what is going on.

What are their sociopolitical and economic background?
     The sociopolitical and economic background is primarily that of a knowledgable collegiate student and above.  For the most part, this piece can be directed towards the group of people that knows about technology and where it is headed. The economic background is hard to decipher because within the audience, the economic background differs from below average all of the way up to wealthy. There is a generality that can be made about the audience; however, and that is that the people who would show interest in this paper are those of the first world country. They understand technology enough to have used is before, meaning they can afford your basic smart phone, at least.

What position might they take on this issue?
     Many people may take the position of being against robot growth in the work force because the audience may be slightly nervous that robots could take many working positions. On the other hand, there is a great section of the audience who would be for the incorporation of robotics in human, daily life for the increase in productivity and happiness that robots could provide. Similar to the previous questions, it is difficult to put a generality on the audience of this piece because the audience's range is significant.

What will they want to know?
     They will want to know the basics of what is going on. They will want to know the generalities that are occurring within their world, and what those generalities mean.  For example, the audience wants to know what exactly robots are doing in the world today, and what they have the potential for tomorrow. Along with this, they want to know how that will effect them individually, and Valez does a fantastic job of appealing to all sides of his audience.

In general, how can they best be persuaded?
     Part of the audience can be persuaded by using emotion, and the other needs the factual information from credited sources. The less knowledgable audiences, such as low level students or other non-robotic-community people may want a more emotional background about how robots will effect them. The more intelligent aspect of the audience, being the professors and other professionals who know a grand amount about robots, will want more of a scientific approach in order to be persuades. This would mean that they would want to know specifics about robots and how they function in order to be able to fully understand the capabilities that robotics creates for the future.

Cluster of Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans

     First, I started with the basic idea of the cluster and moved on to the three key pieces of information: Strategies, Situation, and Cultural Values. From each of those key points, I took some of the most important ideas that Valez uses in his paper. I feel as though the points shown above are the most important that Valez incorporates in his paper because each of them gives his paper validity and entertainment.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans

     Valez proves, in multiple areas of his paper, that he has developed credibility. This is evident in his ability to reference sources, give personal expertise, appeal to cultural values and beliefs, and provide counterarguments and refutations. In Valez's paper, he includes sources that range from presentations at conferences to deep, involved papers from popular sources within the topic. He quotes a professor at his university, Kate Lockwood, discussing her thoughts on an activity that is used in class to portray robots and there emotions.  He also brings in ideas from Yusuf Jelili Amuda and Ismalia B Tijani on there thoughts about sexual relationships between robots and humans. Both of these figures have expertise, proven in their help in the publication of the International Journal of Sustainable Development. Along with citing over ten sources, Valez also gives his own expertise. "I present the topic of relationships between humans and robots, integrating my Computer Science major, Physics minor, and the liberal arts," Valez states in the opening lines of his paper (Valez 1). This is a direct way of Valez proving that he has expertise in the paper, making it known as to prove that he has credibility and is not just a random source discussing the topic. This also portrays a passion for the paper. It is an obvious consideration that when someone is passionate about a subject, they discuss, research, and develop more than if someone has little care about a topic.  Valez also appeals to cultural values and beliefs. He states, "Our family is an essential part of our lives since we share a special connection with them" (Valez 4). This shows that he is in touch with the norms of society and he understand s that emotion plays a role in the topic being discussed. He also references that "... there are many people who believe that sexual relations with robots would affect society in a negative way, especially marriages and the way that people perceive people of the opposite sex" (Valez 7). This is important because it proves that he cares about what people think and he wants to make it known that he understands how culture plays a role in the development of robots. This understanding drives readers to want to continue reading. It connects readers. It allows them to have a deeper connection to Valez and his paper. Another key component of his writing that creates credibility and attraction is Valez's ability to show both sides of the argument and counter argue against a claim he disagrees with. Valez declares I argue that while there are some jobs that robots are able to perform instead of humans, certainly affecting that economic sector, the vast majority of jobs are not able to be fully taken over by robots in the near future" (Valez 6,7). This indefinitely shows that Valez has an understanding for both sides of the story, but chooses to agree with one side and make a developing case for why one side is more accurate than the other.  All of these strategies that are being used in Valez's text improve the credibility and validity of his argument. They show that he is passion about the topic, that he has a knowledge for the topic, and that there are other people who agree with him. Lastly, his work is even more valid because he does not show any biases or assumptions that impact his credibility   He is very straightforward and does not dwell on his past experience or emotions. 
     A second way that Valez shows credibility and entertainment in his work is through his use of emotion. He uses repetition, word choice, and formality to portray emotion throughout his paper in order to appeal to his audience and keep them interested. He uses key words multiple times, such as "personal," and "sexual," and "relationship" (Valez). The use of these words keep the readers interested because it appeals to their emotional and spiritual connection to the paper. The readers are drawn to deeper thought with these words, allowing for a closer reading. Using a developed word choice and a mix of formal and casual writing, Valez shows that the topic is a serious, but fragile and should be considered as such. He uses words like "stimulate" and "perceive," which are both more impressive words than their lesser counterparts (Valez). By doing so, he enables readers to understand that the topic at hand is serious; however, he has a casual way of writing which allows him to express his opinion in a very humane manner. He does this to appeal to a readers personal experience with the paper. Similar to using more knowledgable sources and cultural values and beliefs, he connects with readers to show that he is just like them. He is not above them, looking down on them, but rather than just another human being that is discussing the situation with his counter parts. These emotional appeals improve his credibility because is shows that he cares about the topic and is willing to be extensive in his research, but also personal with the information. 
     Logic is a very important part of any academic paper or informational snippet. Valez's paper is primarily to appeal to outside information; however, he does use general logic to make his paper stronger.  In lieu of this, he also has a logical fallacy or two.  His two strong points on the logical side are that he has effective organization and uses opinions from expert sources.  He organizes his paper very well.  He separates his ideas by paragraph and uses follow up paragraphs in order to provide a deeper evaluation and understanding for his thoughts.  Opinions from expert sources are a primary source of Valez's credibility.  He uses sources from many different topics of research and many different levels of the information hierarchy to portray a valid evaluation of his thoughts on robotics.  Both his very effective organization and the opinions from experts provide for a validity from many sources that enhances his writing. It makes readers feel as though they are getting the information not just from one source, but that Valez's thoughts are being validated by many people who know a lot about what they are talking about. Along with his use of logic, he happens to have some fallacies that shy away from the validity of his text.  He states one fallacy that is minor, "There are also several concerns about loyalty to our spouses if married people engage in sexual relations with these robots, as well as how people who are involved in this practice would be perceived by the rest of society" (Valez 6).  Although this is a minor fallacy, he does generalize an entire population with an accusation.  This is not a common occurrence throughout his paper, though. Valez has many strong points throughout his text that provide for a grand credibility and expertise that is not easy to argue with. Overall, Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans is a very valid paper that has many good ideas that are backed by expert sources.  
    

Analyzing Message in Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans

Does it appear that the author is trying to:

• express an idea or opinion?
• respond to a particular occasion or text?
• explore a topic?
• inform the reader about a topic that is often misunderstood?
• analyze, synthesize, or interpret?
• persuade readers of something?
• reflect on a topic?
• advocate for change?
• move the readers to feel a certain way?

Out of all the bullet points on page 182, which seem most relevant to your text’s message and purpose? Why?

    In reference to Valez's paper, his goals are mostly to analyze, synthesize, and interpret, and also reflect on the topic of the present and the future and how robots play a role in both time frames.  The paper could be determined as one that explores the topic of robotics.  This is another bullet point that does seem relevant to Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans. He reflects significantly on the topic of robots. He dives into great detail about where they came from, where they are, and where they are going. If anything, this could be one of the main points of the paper.

Which bullet points do not seem relevant to your text’s message and purpose? Why not?

     He does seem to express his opinion on the idea, but he dives more in depth with it rather than just expressing his opinion. The fact that he gives background and foreground to what is occurring shows that he is not solely expressing his opinion. He is informing the reader about a topic; however, the topic is not necessarily misunderstood. He just is getting information out there about a topic that is relevant to what he is studying and what he is passionate about. He does not show much persuasion toward the topic either.  His stance is merely to show what he thinks. He is not trying to get readers to think one way or another. Rather, he is just informing readers what is occurring. He is certainly not advocating for a change. This goes right along with the persuasion method. He is not trying to advocate for anyone to think a certain way. He just wants people to understand the topic and to show his stance. Similar to this, he is not trying to appeal to anyones emotions or make readers feel a certain way.  Instead, he actually states how he feels and urges readers to understand where he is coming from, but to also think for themselves. 

Are there nuances and layers to the message the author/speaker is trying to get across? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

    There are not really any layers that the message is portraying. As stated earlier, the text is merely a way for Valez to show what he knows about the topic of robots and how he feels they will effect the present and future of human life. The only thing that would potentially show more depth than the presentation of an idea, is the emotion involved in the discussion of personal and intimate lives.  This is a touchy subject.  If there is any point where the text can be read on an implicit level, and analyzed to be more than what is just written, it is in the discussion about intimacy.  People feel very strongly for one thing or there other when it comes to intimacy. It is a subject that must be dealt with very carefully, and Valez does a great job of merely describing the situation and briefly stating how he feels about it. 

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

1.  What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?
     This text was written recently in our culture.  The social values and beliefs that are discussed in the paper are all written based upon the values and beliefs of our own culture.  These beliefs have endured through time because people continue to have moral and ethical connections to the issues at hand. Some people disagree with them; however, they continue because many people agree with them and many people continue to see robots as helpful within intimate, personal, and work situations.

2.  What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do we not share? Why not?
     Because the paper was written within our culture, we share all of the ideas within the paper. I personally agree with a little bit of his paper. I do agree that robots can help improve production in the workplace.  I think technology is very intuitive and allows humans to do things faster and more organized, which in the end, helps speed up the process of creation and improves features while lessening the cost. On the topic of personal relationships, I believe that many people already have personal relationships with technology. As much as I do it, it is unfortunate to see people so clung to their phone for things like social media. I can understand if there is someone important you are keeping in touch with, but if social media is more important that those people and things directly in front you, I feel as though you need to re-evaluate your priorities. I find myself attached to my phone often, but I try to realize it and put it away when I am in a social setting.  For intimacy, I believe that some people may benefit from the abilities of a robot; however, I am a firm believer in passion and emotion and I feel as though you can not truly have an intimate relationship unless both sides of the relationship have passion and emotion. With that being said, I think robots can take the place of a human for a short period of time, but intimacy with a robot cannot and will not last.

3.  If the text is written in a culture distant or different from our own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture?
    The text is written in our own culture, thus, the value and beliefs reflect that of our own culture.

4.  If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the social values, beliefs, etc.,  developed or changed over time?
     The text is concerning a modern issue, and thus is written in recent times. I personally believe that social values and beliefs will continue to grow around robotics. I have a feeling that robotics will continue to grow and will become more and more accepted in all aspects of human life.


REFLECTIONS
     Blogs that I read and commented on:  
          Selena Marie Carbajal
          Brittany Newland
      I feel like I realized a couple things while I was reading through Selena and Brittany's posts. I think I kind of realized something about myself. Everyone understands that people think differently than you. They always have and they always will. That's what makes humans so special. Everyone has different views, different passions, different hatreds, different opinions; however, that is not a bad thing. The fact that everyone feels so differently about everything is so special. It allows humans to have individuality and develop different emotions for everything. I find it so intriguing that Brittany is researching sign language and how it affects the world. I think it is so important that people learn more than what they were just brought up to know. English is important to me, but I find Italian and French such beautiful languages. It is just really cool to see what things people are passionate about and to know that they feel as strongly for something as you do something else. I love that.


         

Analyzing My Audience

1.  What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in the text?
     The values that this issue or these issues stem from is the production and invention of new and improved robotics.  If robots continue to improve as they have been in recent times, than these moral issues (intimate/personal/work) will continue to grow.  The laws of culture say that intimate and personal lives are influenced by human actions.  There social norms for personal/intimate experiences are between human and human.  These issues are important in todays world. For example, homosexual marriage is just recently becoming legal. In the future, people may feel emotions for technology (robots) like never before.  Valez talks about his very issue throughout his text.

2.  Does the text address these cultural values, beliefs, etc., directly (by directly mentioning and responding to them) or indirectly (by presenting a scenario or narrative that addresses them)?s     Valez addresses these cultural beliefs and values very directly.  He states the issue at hand and then discusses it, outright. He does include some examples of real life scenarios, etc. that have to do with the values/beliefs, but he immediately discusses the issues at hand.

3.  What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.? Is it critical of these aspects of the culture? Is it supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture in a certain way?
     In the case of the work place, Valez's paper discuss the issue in support of robots being integrated into the work place. He thinks that robots will help productivity, rather than just steal jobs. In the case of personal relationships with robots, Valez agrees that it has become very possible for people to have close relationships with robots. He believes that because or their human like features, they should be able to have maintain relationships and have emotion with humans.  In the aspect of intimacy with robots, Valez believes that robots will continue to grow in popularity because of the human like aspects that they can now contain. He believes that there are moral and ethical issues with robots in human intimacy, but he assures readers that it is an ever increasing market, and society will form around the acceptance of the idea of intimate robots.

Cultural Analysis of Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans

Preview:     The issues that this paper addresses are important in the present time because of the moral and ethical issues that it addresses.  Miguel Valez discusses robotics in a few different realms: the intimate, personal, and work realms. All three of these areas are increasingly important topics in the present day and will continue to grow as time goes on. There are different perspectives for each of the three topics of debate that this paper covers.  In the intimate realm, there are thoughts of how intimate robots are prostitution and the social norm is that prostitution is wrong, thus the reason that it is illegal.  In the personal area of robots, people believe that robots can aid and also harm personal lives.  Some people think that humans will lose touch with themselves if technology continues to grow. In the work realm, there is the entire argument on whether robots can help or hurt the economy by taking jobs or helping to aid humans in their own jobs.

Skim for cultural references:     The cultural references included in the text are the references to the intimate, personal, and work realms of using robots in each of these areas.

Skim for cultural values:     The biggest cultural values that Valez brings up are social norms. He does not go very in depth to how these three topics of debate are religious or national issues.

Reread and narrow our focus:     "Unemployment is a worldwide social problem that affects not only the unemployed individual, but also society as a whole." (2)
"While these examples are not very controversial, due to having good reasons for implementation such as safety and optimization, there are other instance"s which are quite controversial because the implementation of robots has led to complete replacement of human workers." (3)
"Although this gives more work to the lead surgeon, studies report that they prefer to have more control during surgeries since it improves their productivity and reduces the chance of human error produced by other members of the team." (3)
"However, in the long term, this allows people to abandon performing repetitive and simple tasks and concentrate more on other jobs that are not tedious and monotonous." (3)
"It is natural for us to respond with human-like behavior if we perceive it from another person, a pet, or even a robot." (4)
"Humans want attention and contact with other human beings. If there are robots that can simulate those features realistically enough, it is not surprising to me that some would replace human contact, even sexual relations, with robot contact, in order to satisfy that need." (6)

#5)     How do these keywords help support the argument that the author is making? Why might an audience be more likely to support his argument if it is connected to these values?
     These key words and phrases that Valez is using help to support his argument because it signifies the ethical and moral beliefs of many different groups of people. From religious groups, to financial groups, to ethics groups, etc, these few different topics grasp the attention of a plethora of different groups with different thoughts on all of the topics. An audience might be more likely to support his argument if it is connected to these values because people can then relate to what he is talking about more and they feel more connected to what he is saying. By using keywords such as intimacy, unemployment, and family, Valez grasps the attention of many different markets of people. He grasps peoples attention with these words so that people will continue to read his paper and develop a feeling with or against him.  All in all, these keywords grab peoples attention so they are more likely to be interested in the topic he presents. 

 

 

Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

Source 1 - Robots in the field.
     Author/Speaker:  Miguel Valez. This is the same person who I found an article on for my Project #1. This topic really interested me and I really liked how Valez took information and how he portrayed his thoughts. He is an undergrad student at University of St. Thomas.  He does not have a whole lot of credentials; however, he knows a lot about the subject and he seems very passionate about the robotics industry.
     Audience: In his paper, his audience seems to be people with academic merit in the robotics world.  You can tell because, even though he explains things in great detail and describes things a lot, he still shows a great deal of knowledge. It seems that the audience he is going for is people that know something about the controversy, but want to learn more.
     Context: There are a great deal of other papers on this very subject.  As I have mentioned before earlier in my blog, this controversy surrounds many different topics and thus has many different sources who have thoughts on what is going on. Different cultures have different examinations of robots and different feelings toward the helpfulness of them. This issue has a lot of social meaning because robots have the potential to greatly affect life in the future.

Source 2
     Author/Speaker: Boris S. Nikitin. Nikitin has a great knowledge in foreign affairs and also cares a lot about world peace and understanding weaponry. He has many articles about other countries and the aid they receive and how they deal with their problems.
     Audience: The audience for this particular article seems to be anyone who is interested in nuclear weaponry and how it is affecting the world.
     Context:  Nikitin writes about why humans continue to create nuclear weaponry.  He talks about the logistics to creating even better weaponry than we already have today and how it could effect the world in the future, specifically foreign affairs and relationships.

Source 3
     Author/Speaker: The author of this piece is the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). There does not seem to be a specific author anywhere.  The ACLU seems to have some thoughts on internet privacy and how it needs to be updated and upgraded. They have other posts similar to this introductory post that talk about the updating of privacy rights.
     Audience: The audience of this post is people who want there to be more privacy laws. The post is pretty clearly directed to informing and developing thoughts about how privacy must continue to be updated. It seems like a writing that is meant to inspire people to get on board with what ACLU believes in.
     Context:  This article is very short; however, it has a lot of meaning that is hidden.  The article is basically an introduction to how the ACLU feels that privacy rights need to be continuously  updated to reflect new technology.  The post is a very recruiting like post that aims to get people to think how the ACLU thinks.  Although some people may disagree with what ACLU stands for, they make a very good point in a very short amount of time discussing how privacy cannot be outdated otherwise things could go horribly wrong.

Developing a Research Question

     In the field of Systems and Industrial Engineering, there is a lot of information about how things are processed and manufactured, created and developed, thought up and implemented. The controversy involving robots that I discussed in great detail is very intriguing to me because it combines the thoughts of SIE people, manufacturers, economists, futurists, etc.  It is so diverse within its topic because it involves so many different topics within the topic of robots.  I love how in depth each individual piece is.  If I were to do another research topic, I would want something with similar girth that the robot question posed. I would want something that is as involved and vast as the robot controversy.  These are the potential research questions that I may be interested in:

     Should there be a control on robot usage within companies and manufacturers, in order to maintain human job growth and limit technology form advancing too far?

I have a lot of family friends and friends of my own that are in the field of engineering that works with defense contractors such as Raytheon.  Although Raytheon does employ a lot of workers, some people consider the work of the continuation of weapons technology to be unethical. This interests me because it has to do with people who I know and care about and I would find it interesting to research and develop a thought process on it.
     Is it a moral, economical, or environmental issue for engineers to continue to develop advanced technological weaponry?

Oil is a huge debate in all areas of study now-a-days.  Although it does not have to do directly with SIE, it still involves many things that SIE has to do with. Thus:
     How should Oil be drilled in the future? To what extent should humans look for alternative ways to find and maintain oil and its usage?

There are many technologies out that give people a lot less privacy.  It is much easier to get into peoples personal lives today than it has been in the past. Privacy is a huge issue in the technological world, including Engineering.
     How much should privacy laws continue to grow in order to maintain privacy for technological users?

I believe that as time goes on, there will be many more issues that come to interest me; however, for the time being, these are some issues that have something to do SIE and that I feel as though I could write a lot about.

Reflection on Project #1

What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Card project and how did you deal with them?

     I faced a few challenges in different categories throughout the Quick Reference Guide Project.  During the thinking and organizing process, I dealt with a lot of papers and articles that had to do with my topic, but I did not feel as though they were adequate for what I wanted to say. I dealt with this by continuing to research until I found articles and sources that I desired and were content with. During the drafting phase, I think I had some issues on trying to incorporate multiple sources in the QRG without the paper getting too foggy and hard to understand. I did a lot of thought planning outside of the paper in order to realize what quotes and what ideas I wanted to borrow from my sources. In the final drafting of the QRG, I had a hard time with layout of pictures and where to place visuals in order to get them to capture the audience like I wanted them to. Google Docs did not let me move the images around very well, so it took extra time for me to carefully place the citation under the picture and to keep the pictures in tact and in the right area that I desired.

What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?

     I felt as though, when I got on a role, I was able to really get done with a lot. I took more breaks than I normally take with homework. I think that gave me the opportunity to subconsciously think about what I wanted to say so that when I got back into homework mode, I was able to really bust out a lot of work in a little amount of time. I also found it "successful" that I enjoyed learning about the topic. I thought the research that I did was interesting and entertaining and that helped me to be able to get through the project without hesitation.

What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you 

find the most effective for your project? Why?

     As I mentioned earlier, I found breaks and outside thought that most effective. It was nice to be able to lazily think about what I wanted to do, but when it wast time to do work, it was easy to get a lot done because I really knew what I wanted to talk about. I didn't plan a lot though, as in written planning and thought bubbles, etc. I found it helpful, for this project, to do more revision than planning. It was easier for me to see what I needed to improve on.

What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?

     In contradiction to what I said in the previous answer, I felt semi-rushed for this project. I did not feel as though I had quite as much time as I would have liked to have to fully development my thought process. I wished the project would have been drawn out a little longer so that I could really think about how to perfect the ideas that I had in mind. I enjoyed learning about this topic and really wish I had more time.

How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

     The writing process was similar because it was writing. I was assigned what to do, and thus, I did it. There was a prompt of how to make your writing gradable and nice, and I followed it, as I normally would for a school writing experience.

How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

     The writing was different than other school writing experiences that I have had in the past because there was a lot more research involved. Normally, anything that I was supposed to quote was already given to the class, and all that needed to happen was for the students to find the quotes in the source. This project was different because it called for me to find the source of the quote, along with the quote for citation.  It seemed more like a real-world assignment.

Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?

     The research aspect of this project will be particularly useful in a lot of other coursework. I feel as though I developed more skill in finding reliable sources, both academic and emotional, that allowed me to further my thought process so that my details were more exemplified and strong. Many courses require a vast amount of research and thought development on the researched material. This was a good project to gain some knowledge and experience in those fields for further study. 

Robots Vs. Humans: Who does the future belong to?

https://drive.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/file/d/0B6rUiuVonxYCTEhWUXJzdWVXQTg/view?usp=sharing

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

  The paragraph I chose to identify basic grammar patters on had to do with which sources are reliable and which are not.

  This lesson has taught me that I should be a little more various with my sentence structure. I had to add in some sentences and some words to change up sentences in order to fulfill the requirements of the assignment, which tells me that my writing can be a little basic. That feeling stinks. I would like to try to have more variety; however, having variety is not an easy task. This is especially true when you are just flowing the words and you aren't really focused on that aspect of the writing.

I would also like to get a little better at understanding parts of a sentence and how certain parts of a sentence can aid other parts to make your writing seem more fluent and strong. I think I lack some simple grammatical skills that really affect the strength of my writing at times.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

     I reviewed the draft from the author: Adam Karsten.

     Through the review process thus far, I have learned a good amount in relation to QRG's.  I learned that in order for your point to come across fluently and seem reliable, you must have strong grammar and an even better organization.  I think my biggest issue is dealing with what order things should go in and what should be said/left out of my sections.
     The audience of my paper is primarily my teacher and my classmates, but I do not want my paper to sway their opinion of robots in the future in any direction. My goal is to have a very middle-sided paper so that I do not portray more emotion to one side or the other. I think that I have met my expectations with what I want to accomplish with this QRG. I have a good understanding about how I feel on the matter, and I feel that my paper gives a great deal of information regarding the controversy. I think that it is informative, and it is informational in an easy to find sense as well. I personally feel as though a very casual language can be used for my QRG. I think that it obviously needs to be informative, but I see no reason that it has to ridiculously professional.  For example, there are some times where I throw a little joke or something in with the information to keep the attitude friendly. I do not want this paper to intimidate anyone. I just want to inform readers of the issue at hand, and let them decide whose side they are on. I use a combination of past and present tone depending on if I am citing a quote or if I am giving information directly from my thoughts.
    Overall, the reviewing process has helped to see what to do and what not to do. It has shown me that unclear sentences can really hurt the overall reliability and enjoyability of the QRG. I hope that by looking over my own QRG, along with others', I will be able to perfect the language in my report so that it is as clear and concise as I need it to be.

Integrating a Quote

Yellow: Signal Phrase 

Green: Signal Phrase/Introduction of Author

Teal: Quote / Citation

Magenta: Explanation

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

    The link to the draft of my QRG is found below. In this draft, I assume that you will notice some very vague areas along with some areas of significant reference.  Reading aloud to myself, I like the flow that occurs with some of the wording being vague and ambiguous and other parts of the QRG being a little more specific with evidence and background. Please let me know if you think this flows as well as I think it does.  The other thing I am slightly concerned with is some of the little, cheesy sayings that I like to drop here and there. I believe that sometimes it can give a passage some spice and humor to involve readers more; however, I am not sure if others agree with that. I would like to know if that is too much for the QRG.
    Enjoy.

P.S. Please don't be nice when commenting. I like blunt statements that tell me if something sucks, or if something is really good. I will not be offended if you, straight up tell me, "Yo. Jake... This is kinda/sorta a bunch of bull." I will take that advice and make the most of it.
     THANK YOU!

https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1Zq6Y00gpkAVbnSJNj2tbcC5I3thecSMfoILDUQGyUNE/edit?usp=sharing

Summary of Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans

The summary process: Completed for Current and Future Relationships Between Robots and Humans

Step one:
Paragraph 1:  In paragraph one, Valez states the goal of his paper and he indicates his view on the subject for multiple different manners, including personal and economical relations.
Paragraph 2:  In paragraph two, Valez goes in depth with the history of robots, where they came from, and examples of how they have been integrated into human lives thus far.
Paragraph 3:  In paragraph three, Valez mentions specifics of his use with robotics and system interfaces.
Paragraph 4:  In paragraph four, Valez discusses specific for the robots that he has worked with. He gives readers an understanding of what robots are and what they do.
Paragraph 5:  In paragraph five, Valez dives into the issue of job security in conjunction with robots.  He talks about emotional connections and economical connections between robots and humans.
Paragraph 6:  In paragraph six, Valez talks about how robots are being integrated in daily life today, specifically in the medical field.
Paragraph 7:  In paragraph seven, Valez continues to discuss the basics of robots and their integration into daily life.
Paragraph 8:  In paragraph eight, Valez begins to discuss robots in human personal life and how robots were studied in use with children to see how children reacted. He connected this to the thought of family.
Paragraph 9:  In paragraph nine, Valez talks about robots' interactions with humans in a sexual manner.
Paragraph 10:  In paragraph ten, continues to talk about the sexual aspect of humans and how that relates to robots.
Paragraph 11:  In paragraph eleven, Valez discuses the moral and ethical concepts of sexual relationships with humans.
Paragraph 12:  In paragraph twelve,  Valez provides a summary of his article, restating his position on robots in the use of the work place, bedroom, and for other human needs and desires.

Step two:
     In Valez's paper, he discusses his position of the debate about whether or not robots can be successfully integrated into human life.  He argues that robots can aid humans in the workplace and the bedroom, but he believes that robot takeover of human jobs is not going to come anytime in the near future.

Step three:
     I think that the summary that I wrote (above) does an adequate job at summarizing the basics of what Valez talks about in his paper. I mention the key concepts that he tries to relate. Much of his paper is add-ons to what he has already said. In a summary, the use of more specific and detailed information would be too much for a summary.

QRG's, the Genre

     QRG's tend to have professional conventions.  In the case of sentence structure, the sentences are well written, they use good punctuation, and tend to be of different varieties as any piece of writing should be.  QRG's seem to have many headings. The headings make it very easy to understand and access all of the information in the article without too much hassle of looking around and finding everything.
     With all of the headings and the use of bold and italic writing, the conventions make the article seem very organized and easy to read.  If someone was looking for a particular piece of information inside one of the articles, it would not be too difficult to find.
     The purpose of the QRG's is to provide a significant amount of information in a very organized manner so that readers and researchers are able to find the information that they need in a very timely manner.  The QRG's have information regarding all sorts of topics, from scientific studies with factual statistics and more, to interviews with different figures in the world today about media and entertainment.
     The QRG's are intended for different specific audiences; however, they all appeal to people doing research and reading quickly through the information that they are looking for.  For example, a researcher looking into stem cells could use the stem cell QRG to find valuable information quickly, whereas a researching looking into Chris Christie and his life would easily be able to find information based from the QRG with him involved in an interview.
     QRG's are a good way to get a lot of information in a short amount of time without having to scrummage through useless information that does not pertain to what you are looking for.

EDIT

The three blogs that I commented on are shown below:
http://selenacarbajal19.blogspot.com
http://jessg44.blogspot.com
http://acjatana2.blogspot.com

I got a couple pieces of information that I didn't really mention earlier. I thought it was interesting to think that QRG's can be for people who aren't really familiar with the topic and want to learn more. I was originally thinking that they were more for people who already knew about the topic, but wanted a quick and easy way to get concrete information in a timely manner. I also found it interesting to reflect more on the QRG's and look to see how they are more about factual information rather than someone taking a stance on an argument.  There is not much of a chosen side for any of the QRG's. the are primarily for giving out information.

Cluster of Robots Vs Humans Controversy

     With the Robots Vs Humans controversy, I thought that it would be most viable to have the two main points be whether robots will help or hurt the economy/environment in the future.  From here, I took key points from each of the two sides of the argument.  I decided that some of the focus points for the "helping" category were increasing productivity, lessening human error, keeping humans away from dangerous jobs, and decreasing the necessity to pay human employees.  On the hurting side, people lose jobs, robots can be dangerous when working along side humans, and robots have no passion or emotion for the job that they are completing. 

Annotated Bibliography in APA

Annotated Bibliography in APA

Velez, Miguel (2015). Current and Future Relationships Between Humans and Robots. 1-9.  University of St. Thomas.

     This is a really well written paper by Valez. His purpose is to inform readers of both sides of an argument about whether or not robots have the ability to replace humans in the future.  He uses many validated sources for his research and discussed the moral issue in both directions of the debate. He discusses robot usage in many fields and continues to mention how they can and most likely will be used.  This would be a good paper for me to reflect on both sides of the argument.  His paper could provide validity for certain points that I could bring up about how robotics do have the ability to steal human jobs.

Roman, David (August 2013). How Technology is Destroying Jobs. MIT Technology Review Magazine, 1-7.

     Roman researches his topic really well and uses his knowledge and research to create an amusing and informational paper regarding how robots can mostly help, but also hurt the future manufacturing life.  His research was conducted using companies that are well known and valid in the robotics industry.  This paper has a lot of potential for me to appeal to my case on an emotional and moral level while remaining on topic and informational.

Brown, Alan (June 2015). Robots Grow In Numbers. 

     This article is primarily just a study of numbers of what is happening in the world of robotics.  There is a lot of solid, researched information that is available for me to use concrete numerical values to prove that robots are on the rise.

Mckenzie, Sheena (April 2015). Will this one-armed robot put you out of a job? CNN Money, Producing the Goods.

     This article is about a specific robot that has capabilities that could potentially replace human workers.  In opposition to Browns article, this article could be used to discuss how robots can potentially aid humans in the work force.  I could also use this article as a moral and sociological appeal for my argument against robots, or for the opposing argument that robots are good for the future.

Marsh, Rob (June 2015). Will Robots Take Your Job? Probably. Logomaker.

     This article is not very informational; however, it provides an opinion from the general publics eye through someone who is very educated in the world of business. This article will allow me to bring not only the engineering and robotics aspect of the argument, but it will allow me to touch on the business side of the argument as well. That will be important in order to cement my ideas and bring in the finishing touch that will validate everything that I've discussed and really bring everything together.

Associated Press (July 2015). Robot Kills Man at Volkswagen Plant in Germany. 

     Although this article does have some concrete evidence and statistics in it, it is primarily a piece that connects emotionally to readers.  It is meant to inform readers of an occurrence that happened, and in turn, ropes in the robotics aspect of the argument. This article will give me an emotional appeal that can be used strongly against robots being indicted into the work force.

Gregory, Nina (March 2013). Could This Robot Save Your Job? NPR. All Tech Considered.

    This article specifically talks about a robot named Baxter.  The article discusses whether robots like Baxter, who have the ability to develop and learn from mistakes, are going to take over human jobs or aid humans in performing menial actions.  The piece is primarily to entertain and inform readers about the thoughts of professionals on the subject and how they think robots could help or hurt.  This piece could be useful to me because it could help incorporate specific examples of robots that affect humans in the work force.

Ford, Martin (July 2012). Will Robots and Automation Make Human Workers Obsolete? Huffington Post. The Blog.

     This post is an article about the economical value or harm that robots could create for human life. There is a video attached to the article in which an economist, Richard Freeman, discusses the issue and gives viewers his professional input on the situation.  This could useful for me because again, it shows the economical viewpoint rather than just the technical aspect of robots in human, daily life.

Banks, James (April 2014). Man vs. Machine. The Weekly Standard. Book Review.

     This post reviews a book by James Barrat, titled "Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era. The article focuses on robots being incorporated into human life and how this directly effects the future of human life as we know it. There are specific examples, but similar to almost every review, this is merely an opinion with little concrete evidence to support the main point. I could use this post to talk about how others feel about the situation and I could also relate an entire book to my report.

Rendell, Michael (January 2014). Robots Vs. Humans - Where is the Future of Work Heading? PwC.Video.

     This video is an interview involving a futurist, Rohit Talwar, and a partner for PwC, Jon Andrews. The discuss the future of technology in general and whether or not humans will be run and operated by robots and machinery.  I could use this video with quotes from each of the members to discuss professional viewpoints on the subject and to get a professional opinion for people who have a background in what is occurring.

Ideology in My Controversy

Who is involved?

     There are plenty of sources involved in the issue of robots taking human jobs.  There are the manufactures using robots, the creators of the robots, and the humans whose jobs are being taken.  There are most likely more third party people who are involved in some way, but perhaps not directly. 

Who are some of the major speakers/writers?

     Most of the major speakers/writers are certain groups of people. For example, engineering students who are creating the robots for the future will have many important things to say on the issue.  The president of Volkswagen, a company who is directly involved with the conflict, will have something else to say about robots being used in various ways. And there are the workers in the field whose jobs may be in jeopardy because of this issue. There are not many specific authors/writers who stand out in the issue yet; however, there will surely be key figures who emerge throughout this debate.

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

     Each group that is a part of this controversy has large social power.  Workers, employers, and creators/manufacturers all have social power within the issue. As well as social power, they each have economic power as well.  The employers and creators of the robots obviously have a little more influence in the economic realm of the issue than the workers do because they will ultimately be the defining factor of the creation of more and more robots or not.  Eventually, this issue will become political, because there could possibly be a large drop in job availability because of robots, but that is the heart of the issue, so it will be a long time before the issue has political significance. 

What does each group value?

     Workers value their jobs.  Future workers will need to be able to be employed in order to live the life they desire.  Employers and creators of the robots, stereotypically, value monetary benefits.  They each want to make money and do so in whatever way they can.  There is most likely accepting to this stereotype.  For example, there are some engineers who value the morality of having workers in the field, so they will want to have restraints and things against the over-take of robotics in the work field.  

Is there a power differential?

     There is absolutely a power differential.  Creators of robots have the most power because they, well, they ultimately decide what is made and of what quality the things being made are. The employers and manufacturers who purchase and use the robots are next in the power pyramid because they decide what will be used and how many people the robots will replace.  The workers can only hope that their skills are valuable enough to be kept, rather than being replaced by a machine. 

Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

     There is not much common ground between the three main groups of people involved in this issue. The largest common ground would come from the moral values of the people involved and if they find robots logical for use in the field of work.     

Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

     There is not much common ground between the groups at all, acknowledged or unacknowledged.  Outright, there does not seem to be any common ground that is not already out in the open.  In the future, the creators of the robots may have some common ground with the workers if the robots start creating better robots, but that is what science fiction movies are for.

Do the various groups listen to each other?

     There is not much communication at this point about the issue.  There have been people who have already lost there jobs to machinery, but robotics is not quite at the stage yet where the issue is being presented in plain site. As of now, the issue is primarily monetary.  All of the sides of the issue are worried about money.  They are concerned with how much money they can get and how they can live comfortably doing what they can do.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

     I found to sources through Storify that relate to what I have been discussing about the robotics industry and how it relates to humans.  The first has a lot to do with the specific topic of my blog thus far, robots taking jobs.
     A man named Rob Marsh posted about robots being already here and starting to take jobs.
Credibility: He is a small business logo maker, an entrepreneur, and a business strategist.
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah.
Network: It doesn't seem that he has a large robotics community as a network.  He is an individual thinker.
Content:  His info is more based upon his own, individual thought, along with his skills and knowledge in the field of business.
Contextual Updates: He does not post often about this topic.  He just happened to create a page about what he thinks about the subject.
Age: August of 2008
Reliability: This source is not very reliable for the actual robots industry.
I liked this post because this guy brings a new angle to my story. He discussed this issue in a business related sense, rather than the typical engineering/robotics sense.

     The second source that I found is about an issue that occurred recently at a factory in Germany where a robot killed a human worker. I thought it would be interesting to check this out as well.
Credibility: Similar to the previous social media post, this retweeted article, from Carmen Santiago, @PhunkyFresh, does not have much reliability or credibility.  It seems that she just retweeted a post about the killing that occurred.
Location: It doesn't look like there is a location shown anywhere.
Network: She is not a very followed or popular tweeter. There is practically no one that has any relevance to the issue.
Content: She is just someone who thought that this issue was interesting, and so he tweeted about it.  None of his other posts relate to this issue.
Contextual Updates: Again, there isn't much else posted from her that has anything to do with the topic.
Age: December of 2011.
Reliability: Not reliable.
I used this source because I think it is interesting to get a general public view of the issue along side with the professionalism of the robotics and engineering professionals that have to do with the issue.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

     The first scholarly article that has to do with the topic of robots and job security is a paper that deals with exactly that.  Its purpose is to inform readers about different facts and key points of information about the use of robots in the manufacturing industry and also other industries involving computer technology, etc. It is published from the University of St. Thomas.  The writer, Miguel Valez cites many sources from engineering journals to blogs to manuscripts of conferences pertaining to the issue at hand.  The intended audience is to researches who are looking into the issue of robots in the modern, technological, working age.
The URL to this article is:   http://www.mijecu25.com/miguelvelez/publications/SummaPaper.pdf
     The second scholarly article that has to do with the topic of robots and job security is titled "How Technology is Destroying Jobs." This article is by an MIT Technology Reviewer by the name of David Rotman.  The location of publishing seems to be the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  This article cites mostly professionals in the profession of robotics and engineering, along with people who have a profession in areas involving job searching, etc.  The intended audience of this piece is anyone who wants to be informed about the issue of the future of robots and how robots can take over human jobs.  This article, although the title would seem to show otherwise, does not show a significant bias for the job market.  There are key points to both sides of the argument with evidence from both sides as to why robots can and also can not take over the human job market.  The URL for this cite is: http://www.shellpoint.info/InquiringMinds/uploads/Archive/uploads/20130802_How_Technology_is_Destroying_Jobs.pdf

Evaluation of General Sources

     An important debate/controversy in Systems and Industrial Engineering in the recent years stems from robotics.  Robotics has a lot to do with Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and plenty of other types of professions as well; however, robotics is largely incorporated into SIE.  One controversy occurring currently involves the job market.  There is a lot of advances occurring in the robotics industry and many think that more and more advances all lead to jobs being taken over by robots, that were once successfully completed by humans.  Two different articles, one from the American Society of Mechanical Engineerings, and the other from CNN's "Money" issue, have to do with robotics and the replacement of humans with working bots.
     ASME's article is primarily about the inclination of robotic creations and certain companies data that proves that robots are being used more frequently.  Information about this website is below:
URL: https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/manufacturing-processing/robots-grow-in-numbers
Author: Alan Brown, Associate Editor of the Mechanical Engineering Magazine
Last Updated: June 2015
Purpose: To inform. Not promoting a commercial product, idea, or philosophy.  It shows both sides of the issue.
Graphics: Yes. There is a picture that directly relates to the article, and a chart that has information that is backed up.
Position on Subject: Not biased, one-sided, incomplete, or erroneous. Viewers profit because they are more knowledgable on the subject.  Info can be verified.
Links: The links on the page take you to other articles from ASME that describe certain things being talked about in the robotics article.  Sources are cited, though.
     CNN's Money issue has more to do with a single robot that has come to life and could possibly be of use in the future.  It dives into the issue of this bot being able to replace workers later on the article.  Information about this site is below:
URL: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/07/technology/sawyer-robot-manufacturing-revolution/
Author: Sheena Mckenzie, CNN Tech Editor
Last Updated: April 7, 2015
Purpose: To inform.  Promoting that life of Sawyer (the robot being discussed), but not necessarily trying to sell the product.
Graphics: There are pictures that represent depictions of what is being discussed in the article, but no charts or informational graphics.
Position on Subject: There doesn't seem to be a direct position.  It seems that the article is primarily meant to inform and entertain readers about the robot named Sawyer.
Links: There are links in this article to other sources, including a ".edu" source from a well known university (MIT).