Part A
For part A of this assignment, I decided to ask my brother about why he likes to dress "cool". The following contains both the answer he gave me, and my interpretation & analysis of his answer.
Part B
For part B, I looked at aspects of my own social act, and named, labeled and dug to the core of my "personality". I specifically looked at three parts, and things that I do. They are; how I wear my clothing, how I consciously use situational dialect, and how I decide what to buy.
First, lets take a look into how I wear (or "rock") my clothing. I would say that a common style in New York City right now is to wear your pants slightly below your waist. This shows a sense of style, but also gives off the impression that you don't actually think about how you dress, you just "wake up that way". I think that I try to emulate this style a little bit, but I don't think I can pull it off. I would say that I am a pretty thin kid, and I don't really have the ability to keep my pants up if they aren't being held up tightly by a belt. I noticed that when I bought my belt a year ago, it fit perfectly, but after a year of wearing my pants low, the belt stretched out, and now I need a new belt. I want to be able to emulate this "don't give a fuck" style, but I don't think I'm physically cool enough just yet.
Next, I want to address how I talk. When I am at school, I have a lexicon of slang and terms specific to SOF which I know how to use in the right context and for the most part, the right tone. Outside of school, or when talking with teachers and adults, I talk like an educated individual and try to avoid my slang vocabulary completely. I think that I feel it is necessary to talk differently to different people, but I don't believe that it is. I think that talking in an educated way inside of school would be accepted, but I just want to put in a little extra effort to improve my social image. I think that I have my real way of talking, which is one large lexicon comprised of both proper english and some slang thrown in for "character". New York dialect I think gives me a sense of individuality and distinctly represents where I'm from. I connect with New York and am proud of the New York variation on the english language that I am so comfortable with using daily.
I think that my choice of what to buy is very much about a desire to emulate lesser known people. I feel like I don't want to dress exactly like my friends, but at the same time, I want to be similar, and fit in. I try to incorporate multiple styles, combining the street-wear of New York (SoHo brands and stores), with designer brands and well made clothing. I think that I do feel better about myself when I wear more expensive clothing, but I would never buy anything which didn't appeal to me. This brings up the question of where my sense of style comes from. I think it comes from a mix of my friends who have "New York Style", my brother (also NY style), my father (dresses in very timeless styles like aviator sunglasses, desert boots and Levi jeans), and movie stars/ musicians.
I don't really think my style is influenced by commercials, or advertisements that I see, but what I buy, in terms of non-clothing products, is totally influenced by them. I don't think what you own is reflected that much on who you are, because it doesn't go onto your body, and can be used, replaced, and upgraded on a whim. An ipod for example, is......just an ipod. You don't look at a person differently because they have an older ipod, you just think it's not as good as the new one. I don't really care all that much about what type of object I have for other people, but because I like having a higher quality item. Not having a macbook, does not make me sad I don't have the macbook pro, because I honestly don't care as long as it works well and meets my needs for a computer.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
HW 30- Theorizing "cool"
What are the sources of this sense of meaninglessness but also of the need for a sense of meaning?
In Viktor Frankl's theory of "The Existential Vacuum", he states; If meaning is what we desire, then meaninglessness is a hole, an emptiness, in our lives.. I think that this statement is highly reflective of the nature of the human being. We constantly subject ourselves to pushing ourselves and being better than we were the day before. This is because we are trying to find our sense of meaning. We than create a self sustaining system of rewarding ourselves for working hard. Being lazy makes us feel unimportant and worthless, but when we work hard, we fill that void, and we don't feel lazy. Since we need to have this hole to fill, being lazy ever once in a while allows us to put our lives back into perspective, thus creating the hole in the first place!
In class, I concluded that this search for coolness, is the result of our existence as intelligent beings. I believe that the "curse" if you will, of being human, is that we are developed enough to contemplate our own existence. While we can theorize and analyze our behaviors, we are just not able to answer the question; why are we here? I believe, that we than try to break this down into smaller parts, which lead us to think about our social roles. A more manageable question could be to ask ourselves where we fit into social groups, or if we even fit in at all. These questions are what we would call "cool".
Basically, it might be easy to think about my theory as a phone bill with two payment options. Lets say, "plan a" has an option to pay the bill as a flat rate, and another to pay in increments over a period of time. If we don't have much money, we will opt for the installment plan, and even if we do, it is still more cost effective to pay with the incremental option. In a similar way, we aren't capable of answering the questions of our existence, because they are simply complex. We have to break down the question into "installments" so we can deal with the smaller questions at hand which make up the overall question of our being.
I think that it is our search for meaning that drives our consumption of pop-culture, which becomes our attempts to become cool. In a nutshell, we look at the world through a defeatist lens, and give up as soon as we see something which can distract us from questions we think cannot be answered. Basically "things" become our purpose for living, and we lose ourselves even more, causing us to be counterproductive in our quest to find our meaning. The problem is, when we broke down the question of human purpose, we did not start at step one, we started to answer another question entirely. The meaning of life is much more basic and less romantic than we want to believe, and thus we have convinced ourselves that the meaning of life has to do with how we interact with each-other, and "making the world a better place".
Being so heavily concerned with coolness is a sign that we are under the impression that we have already answered this question, and have moved on to concerning ourselves with more trivial affairs. The proof, is that we know what the meaning of life is not, but we occupy our time not fulfilling that meaning anyway. If you asked anyone what their purpose was, I highly doubt they would say in all seriousness, "to listen to my ipod". We don't dress trendy, or listen to popular music because we think it is our calling in life. We do that because we subscribe to a motivational state of mind, based on pleasure. This was a theory created by Sigmund Freud, who believed that human motivation was based of of the pleasure part of our brains.
Becoming obsessed with pleasing ourselves is completely unrelated to finding our meaning, and is the root of meaninglessness. I propose, that being driven by pleasure is what drives meaninglessness, and being driven by your goals, gives us meaning. The importance of the question of our existence, is not that we need to answer it, but that we try to answer it. The massive goal which that gives us in life, drives our will to live at the most basic of levels. I don't know the meaning of life, and its hard to say if anyone ever will. What I can say, is that as long as we seek out and continue to slowly define what makes us important in the scheme of things, we will never be without meaning, and our lives will never be meaningless.
When a cause comes along and you know in your bones that it is just, yet refuse to defend it--at that moment you begin to die. And I have never seen so many corpses walking around talking about justice. - Mumia Abu-Jamal
Free Mumia!
In Viktor Frankl's theory of "The Existential Vacuum", he states; If meaning is what we desire, then meaninglessness is a hole, an emptiness, in our lives.. I think that this statement is highly reflective of the nature of the human being. We constantly subject ourselves to pushing ourselves and being better than we were the day before. This is because we are trying to find our sense of meaning. We than create a self sustaining system of rewarding ourselves for working hard. Being lazy makes us feel unimportant and worthless, but when we work hard, we fill that void, and we don't feel lazy. Since we need to have this hole to fill, being lazy ever once in a while allows us to put our lives back into perspective, thus creating the hole in the first place!
In class, I concluded that this search for coolness, is the result of our existence as intelligent beings. I believe that the "curse" if you will, of being human, is that we are developed enough to contemplate our own existence. While we can theorize and analyze our behaviors, we are just not able to answer the question; why are we here? I believe, that we than try to break this down into smaller parts, which lead us to think about our social roles. A more manageable question could be to ask ourselves where we fit into social groups, or if we even fit in at all. These questions are what we would call "cool".
Basically, it might be easy to think about my theory as a phone bill with two payment options. Lets say, "plan a" has an option to pay the bill as a flat rate, and another to pay in increments over a period of time. If we don't have much money, we will opt for the installment plan, and even if we do, it is still more cost effective to pay with the incremental option. In a similar way, we aren't capable of answering the questions of our existence, because they are simply complex. We have to break down the question into "installments" so we can deal with the smaller questions at hand which make up the overall question of our being.
I think that it is our search for meaning that drives our consumption of pop-culture, which becomes our attempts to become cool. In a nutshell, we look at the world through a defeatist lens, and give up as soon as we see something which can distract us from questions we think cannot be answered. Basically "things" become our purpose for living, and we lose ourselves even more, causing us to be counterproductive in our quest to find our meaning. The problem is, when we broke down the question of human purpose, we did not start at step one, we started to answer another question entirely. The meaning of life is much more basic and less romantic than we want to believe, and thus we have convinced ourselves that the meaning of life has to do with how we interact with each-other, and "making the world a better place".
Being so heavily concerned with coolness is a sign that we are under the impression that we have already answered this question, and have moved on to concerning ourselves with more trivial affairs. The proof, is that we know what the meaning of life is not, but we occupy our time not fulfilling that meaning anyway. If you asked anyone what their purpose was, I highly doubt they would say in all seriousness, "to listen to my ipod". We don't dress trendy, or listen to popular music because we think it is our calling in life. We do that because we subscribe to a motivational state of mind, based on pleasure. This was a theory created by Sigmund Freud, who believed that human motivation was based of of the pleasure part of our brains.
Becoming obsessed with pleasing ourselves is completely unrelated to finding our meaning, and is the root of meaninglessness. I propose, that being driven by pleasure is what drives meaninglessness, and being driven by your goals, gives us meaning. The importance of the question of our existence, is not that we need to answer it, but that we try to answer it. The massive goal which that gives us in life, drives our will to live at the most basic of levels. I don't know the meaning of life, and its hard to say if anyone ever will. What I can say, is that as long as we seek out and continue to slowly define what makes us important in the scheme of things, we will never be without meaning, and our lives will never be meaningless.
When a cause comes along and you know in your bones that it is just, yet refuse to defend it--at that moment you begin to die. And I have never seen so many corpses walking around talking about justice. - Mumia Abu-Jamal
Free Mumia!
Monday, December 14, 2009
HW 29- Merchants of Cool
Question: Should advertising to young people be banned? Up to what age? Or all ages?
It is my opinion, that advertising to young people is not a bad thing. It is a smart thing, where market study manifests itself at its purest form, but it is also a potentially destructive thing. Targeting young people for marketing, shapes and influences most of what we believe about social interaction, but it stems from internal desires and appeals to our most basic of needs. marketing to kids is another aspect of an inherently bad system; capitalism. In a capitalist society, advertising to kids, is no more evil than advertising to teenagers, and adults. In a world, where teenagers make up about 1/10th of the american population, the teen demographic is almost impossible to ignore.
Their are two schools of thought that I believe to be equally valid in the context of this question. The first, is that advertising to young people is harmful and takes a manipulative role in the development of future consumers. The idea that advertising is breeding a generation of mindless consumers holds weight, because this is pretty much the exact intent of the corporations when they shove money into advertising their product anywhere possible.
The second school of thought, is that advertising is banking off of the ignorance of the population, and if children are so highly impacted by advertisements, than the parents obviously are not shouldering enough responsibility in contradicting what the kids are fed by corporations.
It is my own opinion, that the real problem lies with uninvolved parents. I think that by using marketing tactics which target juvenile sexual expression, cultural icons and self-image, the companies act as role models. Ideally, a child's parents should be inspiring what the kid view's as cool, through non-material associations. Making cool equate with new shoes, or a nice car, is the result of being berated by commercials, advertisements, endorsements and product placement.
I think that the best example of product placement being more effective than parental guidance, is in the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry spent massive amounts of money endorsing movie stars, stylizing ad campaigns and commercializing the "cool" factor in cigarette smoking. Even placing print ad's at children's eye level on deli's and supermarkets counters ensured a young demographic with which to establish a strong brand identity.
Like we discussed with Matt Fried in class on tuesday, the real root of young peoples search for coolness is partly the direct result of a lack of feeling acceptance as a child. Being accepted by your family, is than substituted by being accepted socially, which than leaves children open for the marketing tactics of whatever brand name or product appeals the most to them. Being accepted for what you own, rather than who you are, is entirely what these companies and the whole capitalist system is banking off of. Apple may not be able to sell you love and affection, but they sure as hell can sell you a way to tune out the world, and store all your music, photos and videos.
I think that marketing is something that companies need to be held accountable to. The lack of ethics in advertising used to be the fact that their was no real significant regulation in the industry. When the laws making it illegal to advertise cigarettes on television and to kids were passed, the prospect of breeding a legion of pre-teen cigarette smokers became less likely. At that point, it was up to the parents to make sure what leeway the tobacco industry still had in targeting their children was eliminated by their own influence. When it comes down to it, the decision has to be made as a parent who you would rather have influencing your child; you, or Marlboro?
It is my opinion, that advertising to young people is not a bad thing. It is a smart thing, where market study manifests itself at its purest form, but it is also a potentially destructive thing. Targeting young people for marketing, shapes and influences most of what we believe about social interaction, but it stems from internal desires and appeals to our most basic of needs. marketing to kids is another aspect of an inherently bad system; capitalism. In a capitalist society, advertising to kids, is no more evil than advertising to teenagers, and adults. In a world, where teenagers make up about 1/10th of the american population, the teen demographic is almost impossible to ignore.
Their are two schools of thought that I believe to be equally valid in the context of this question. The first, is that advertising to young people is harmful and takes a manipulative role in the development of future consumers. The idea that advertising is breeding a generation of mindless consumers holds weight, because this is pretty much the exact intent of the corporations when they shove money into advertising their product anywhere possible.
The second school of thought, is that advertising is banking off of the ignorance of the population, and if children are so highly impacted by advertisements, than the parents obviously are not shouldering enough responsibility in contradicting what the kids are fed by corporations.
It is my own opinion, that the real problem lies with uninvolved parents. I think that by using marketing tactics which target juvenile sexual expression, cultural icons and self-image, the companies act as role models. Ideally, a child's parents should be inspiring what the kid view's as cool, through non-material associations. Making cool equate with new shoes, or a nice car, is the result of being berated by commercials, advertisements, endorsements and product placement.
I think that the best example of product placement being more effective than parental guidance, is in the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry spent massive amounts of money endorsing movie stars, stylizing ad campaigns and commercializing the "cool" factor in cigarette smoking. Even placing print ad's at children's eye level on deli's and supermarkets counters ensured a young demographic with which to establish a strong brand identity.
Like we discussed with Matt Fried in class on tuesday, the real root of young peoples search for coolness is partly the direct result of a lack of feeling acceptance as a child. Being accepted by your family, is than substituted by being accepted socially, which than leaves children open for the marketing tactics of whatever brand name or product appeals the most to them. Being accepted for what you own, rather than who you are, is entirely what these companies and the whole capitalist system is banking off of. Apple may not be able to sell you love and affection, but they sure as hell can sell you a way to tune out the world, and store all your music, photos and videos.
I think that marketing is something that companies need to be held accountable to. The lack of ethics in advertising used to be the fact that their was no real significant regulation in the industry. When the laws making it illegal to advertise cigarettes on television and to kids were passed, the prospect of breeding a legion of pre-teen cigarette smokers became less likely. At that point, it was up to the parents to make sure what leeway the tobacco industry still had in targeting their children was eliminated by their own influence. When it comes down to it, the decision has to be made as a parent who you would rather have influencing your child; you, or Marlboro?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
HW 28- Informal research
For this assignment, I researched "cool" on the Internet. I found a few sources that gave tips on how to be cool, and others that defined what is cool right now. I think that from what I found, I realized that cool is a temporary thing, and is basically synonymous with a fad.
Source #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_(aesthetic)
This source, I found to be highly irrelevant, and often times flat out wrong. In trying to define cool in a wikipedia entry, the entry missed the point of cool entirely. Since "cool" is highly objective and varies between people, this was really not an accurate account of what makes cool. The article was flooded with generalizations and meaningless charts. I believe that what this article really was showing, was general trends throughout the world. The idea of trends pertains to pop-culture, which is not the same as "cool".
For example, the trend in American colonial pop-culture, was burning witches. Burning witches however, is not exactly cool. I think that cool, can only be truly measured with time and social advances. Often something becomes cool, or popular because it is the best thing available. When something or someone is truly cool, it should transcend it's time, and if it passes that test, than it is truly cool (not a passing fad). That point, led me to my next source, also on wikipedia.
Source #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis
From what I picked up by reading the "cool" wikipedia page, I realized that if I wanted to look at something/ someone "cool", I needed to find something that has been around for a few contrasting generations. I realized, that Jazz, which started in the early 20th century, is still pretty cool today. From that, I used my own knowledge of Jazz, to pick out the coolest Jazz musician; Miles Davis. Miles Davis was and is the coolest Jazz musician ever to live. His extraordinary talent, lifestyle, and demeanor all made Miles cooler than anyone else.
I know Miles is cool, because Using the test of time, Miles still sells out stores, and still is regarded by many as one of the best musicians to ever live. Also, he had qualities typical of a cool person including a "don't give a fuck" attitude. A self destructive tendency (Miles was a notorious junkie until he sought help from his family back in the south, and kicked his drug abuse for good). Also, despite changing slightly in his attire over the years, Miles never changed who he was, and continued being cool till he died. Additionally, Miles recorded an album called "Birth of the Cool", which simply gave recognition to what everyone else said, and what Miles already knew.
Source #3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnuK0ka9Ho8
In this video, Russell Simmons addresses the question of what is cool, from a transcendentalist perspective. In the video, Simmons talks about how being cool is something that begins from within, and is than left up to outside interpretation. The concept of being calm and self-aware equating with "cool" makes far more sense to me, and is alot more interesting than everything else we have been discussing in class.
Being at peace with yourself, is interesting in this context, because it demonstrates how what you feel inside is often projected on the outside. Additionally, what you project on the outside is what determines your "coolness", as it is what everyone sees when they look and interact with you. The idea of "cool" vs. "tool" makes a lot more sense after watching this video. A "cool" person, is a person who is actually who they say they are, and does not change themselves based off of other peoples opinions, but off of their own inner opinions and consideration of outside information. A "tool" changes based on fads, and changes in accordance to the "cool" people. Differentiating between one and the other is simple, a person who stays true to themselves will have style and a personality which transcends their time, and sets the bar for calmness and confidence. The people who change moment to moment, are the "tools" who look to these confident "cool" people for ideas on how to change in order to be accepted.
Source #4: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/doyle-buehler/mytego-nation/youre-not-cool-i-am-what-cool-finding-cool-factor
I found that this website, like the wikipedia entry on cool, did not seem to provide any real answers of what cool actually is. For the most part, I was reading something which asked more questions and proposed more avenues of research into "cool" than reading it actually answered. The examples that it gave were rather dumb and didn't really spark any new ideas or revelations on this topic. Overall, this was not the best source because it worked with assumptions and hypothetically about cool rather than actual research or facts.
Source #5: "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" Season 4 "America's Next Top Paddy's Billboard Model Contest"
In this episode, their are two characters in particular who exemplify the contrast between a person who has characteristics typical of someone cool, and a character who demonstrates the opposite. Having already established that cool people have confidence and are honest about what they feel inside and show outside, I tried to find what character I felt showed these qualities. What I came up with, was that the character "Mac" was cool. Mac uses this modeling competition in order to bang a lot of really hot models, and doesn't try and pretend he is trying to do something different. Throughout the episode, he uses his position as a judge in the competition to trade sex for a better chance of the girls to win the competition. The girls who do have sex with Mac, end up winning the competition, while the girl who didn't have sex with him, ends up loosing. She is pissed, but Mac reminds her that she didn't have sex with him. So in a way, Mac's honesty and confidence around these hot women demonstrated Mac's "coolness" as a character.
Dennis on the other hand, is a character who was popular in high school, but has since peaked. He is really an average person, but in his attempts to try and prove this wrong, he tries to ignore reality. In this particular episode, Dennis seems to believe that he is capable of being a male model, and competing in this competition. When he competes, he pretty much makes a fool out of himself, but doesn't actually care. He is not a cool character because he clearly tries to hard, and is unaware, that contrary to what he may believe, he is actually not extraordinary. Thus, his inner personality, or perception, is not projected out to other people, who see him far differently than he sees himself.
Source #1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_(aesthetic)
This source, I found to be highly irrelevant, and often times flat out wrong. In trying to define cool in a wikipedia entry, the entry missed the point of cool entirely. Since "cool" is highly objective and varies between people, this was really not an accurate account of what makes cool. The article was flooded with generalizations and meaningless charts. I believe that what this article really was showing, was general trends throughout the world. The idea of trends pertains to pop-culture, which is not the same as "cool".
For example, the trend in American colonial pop-culture, was burning witches. Burning witches however, is not exactly cool. I think that cool, can only be truly measured with time and social advances. Often something becomes cool, or popular because it is the best thing available. When something or someone is truly cool, it should transcend it's time, and if it passes that test, than it is truly cool (not a passing fad). That point, led me to my next source, also on wikipedia.
Source #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Davis
From what I picked up by reading the "cool" wikipedia page, I realized that if I wanted to look at something/ someone "cool", I needed to find something that has been around for a few contrasting generations. I realized, that Jazz, which started in the early 20th century, is still pretty cool today. From that, I used my own knowledge of Jazz, to pick out the coolest Jazz musician; Miles Davis. Miles Davis was and is the coolest Jazz musician ever to live. His extraordinary talent, lifestyle, and demeanor all made Miles cooler than anyone else.
I know Miles is cool, because Using the test of time, Miles still sells out stores, and still is regarded by many as one of the best musicians to ever live. Also, he had qualities typical of a cool person including a "don't give a fuck" attitude. A self destructive tendency (Miles was a notorious junkie until he sought help from his family back in the south, and kicked his drug abuse for good). Also, despite changing slightly in his attire over the years, Miles never changed who he was, and continued being cool till he died. Additionally, Miles recorded an album called "Birth of the Cool", which simply gave recognition to what everyone else said, and what Miles already knew.
Source #3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnuK0ka9Ho8
In this video, Russell Simmons addresses the question of what is cool, from a transcendentalist perspective. In the video, Simmons talks about how being cool is something that begins from within, and is than left up to outside interpretation. The concept of being calm and self-aware equating with "cool" makes far more sense to me, and is alot more interesting than everything else we have been discussing in class.
Being at peace with yourself, is interesting in this context, because it demonstrates how what you feel inside is often projected on the outside. Additionally, what you project on the outside is what determines your "coolness", as it is what everyone sees when they look and interact with you. The idea of "cool" vs. "tool" makes a lot more sense after watching this video. A "cool" person, is a person who is actually who they say they are, and does not change themselves based off of other peoples opinions, but off of their own inner opinions and consideration of outside information. A "tool" changes based on fads, and changes in accordance to the "cool" people. Differentiating between one and the other is simple, a person who stays true to themselves will have style and a personality which transcends their time, and sets the bar for calmness and confidence. The people who change moment to moment, are the "tools" who look to these confident "cool" people for ideas on how to change in order to be accepted.
Source #4: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/doyle-buehler/mytego-nation/youre-not-cool-i-am-what-cool-finding-cool-factor
I found that this website, like the wikipedia entry on cool, did not seem to provide any real answers of what cool actually is. For the most part, I was reading something which asked more questions and proposed more avenues of research into "cool" than reading it actually answered. The examples that it gave were rather dumb and didn't really spark any new ideas or revelations on this topic. Overall, this was not the best source because it worked with assumptions and hypothetically about cool rather than actual research or facts.
Source #5: "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" Season 4 "America's Next Top Paddy's Billboard Model Contest"
In this episode, their are two characters in particular who exemplify the contrast between a person who has characteristics typical of someone cool, and a character who demonstrates the opposite. Having already established that cool people have confidence and are honest about what they feel inside and show outside, I tried to find what character I felt showed these qualities. What I came up with, was that the character "Mac" was cool. Mac uses this modeling competition in order to bang a lot of really hot models, and doesn't try and pretend he is trying to do something different. Throughout the episode, he uses his position as a judge in the competition to trade sex for a better chance of the girls to win the competition. The girls who do have sex with Mac, end up winning the competition, while the girl who didn't have sex with him, ends up loosing. She is pissed, but Mac reminds her that she didn't have sex with him. So in a way, Mac's honesty and confidence around these hot women demonstrated Mac's "coolness" as a character.
Dennis on the other hand, is a character who was popular in high school, but has since peaked. He is really an average person, but in his attempts to try and prove this wrong, he tries to ignore reality. In this particular episode, Dennis seems to believe that he is capable of being a male model, and competing in this competition. When he competes, he pretty much makes a fool out of himself, but doesn't actually care. He is not a cool character because he clearly tries to hard, and is unaware, that contrary to what he may believe, he is actually not extraordinary. Thus, his inner personality, or perception, is not projected out to other people, who see him far differently than he sees himself.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
HW 27- Informal Research- Interviews and Surveys
Family Member Interview: Marty Friedman
What do you like to do when you have spare time?
I like to read, listen to my music, watch television. I would think that this is a pretty common response, but I like reading about historical events and figures, while my T.V watching is usually limited to the news channels, politics and economics mainly.
Do you think that what you do in that time is "cool"?
I don't really consider it cool, but I think its a much better way to spend time than what you and your brother do (we tend to spend a lot of time on our computers, and playing Xbox), other than your schoolwork and reading of course.
Does being cool matter to you?
I would say it doesn't, but I like to stay in touch with what's going on. Even if I don't really like alot of the music and styles nowadays, I do know what they are. Being informed is what matters to me. Being cool....not so much.
Even if it doesn't, what do you think is cool?
I mean, I think that new technology is cool. I think it has a few particularly negative effects on people today, and adults are being effected as much, if not more than kids. For example the Iphone is a great thing, but it has isolated a lot of people who use that little screen to escape in there own world.
Who do you think embodies "cool" in your mind?
Frank Sinatra. That's it, he was just so good at what he did, and did it for so much longer than everybody else. He is known as widely today as he was in the 1940's, and he always appeared to be doing his thing so effortlessly.
What sort of things, or what person is completely not cool in your opinion? Why?
I think that what isn't cool, is difficult to answer. I would have to give that a little more thought, and be able to set aside my own prejudices given what I have seen in my life. Generally, I think ignorance is not cool. Being ignorant is a primary cause of massive problems in today's world. Things like America's involvement in the middle east is partly the result of ignorance. Not paying attention to history resulted in our government disregarding it and following in the exact footsteps of many empires and nations before us.
Friend Interview: Hunter Cavat- Gore
Do you think that you are cool?
"No, I think my girlfriend thinks I'm cool, but I don't. I think "cool" is overplayed, and I just don't take time out of my life to think about being "cool". Doing what I like to do is more important than my social image, at least to me. Being cool often means that people who don't really know you, or you don't care about, think you are "cool". For me I just focus on the people I care about, and that's it."
What do you think makes a person cool?
"I think that people who are "cool" are more worried about what they can do for the world, than what they can do to change how the world sees them. I mean, I think it's a lot more cool to be a doctor who actually helps people, than a person who gets wins a drinking competition, and fucks the baddest girl at the party, but contributes nothing to society."
Where do you find it important to be seen as cool?
"As a teenager, I think for most people, being seen as "cool" is really important. If it mattered to me, I would think being seen that way was very important. Being cool, is like the term used to describe people who are at the top of some sort of "social competition" trying to essentially win at life (ridiculous as that may sound). If being cool is something you actually care about, it may always be "important" to be cool. Realistically though being cool is never important. What is important is to get along with your peers. It may seem to be the same thing as cool, but if "cool" happens to be a side effect of getting along with others, than I guess being cool helps with that."
Are people cool in unique ways, or do "cool" people fit into categories of coolness?
"Nah, I think people all have different methods to be cool. I mean technically we are all different, so we start off trying to be cool from a different standpoint. Some people are naturally better at sports, and by becoming a good athlete, they become "cool". People's natural abilities is what makes a person good at something, and thus cool in a certain way. The fact is, people are impressed by other people who can do something better than they can. Things that anyone can do, like buy stuff, drink alot, smoke alot, etc, etc, are all trivial, and not talents. Being athletic, or creative, or funny, those things are talents and the categories that they fit into, depend on the certain ability they have."
Street Interviews
Street Interview #1: Young Asian Guy
I tried to walk with this guy, in the hopes of him answering some of my questions. I expected that I might get a response when I asked him about who he thought a "cool celebrity was?", but I did not. Not only didn't he answer me, but as I walked with him, he tried to turn around and walk facing away from me. This was surprising to me, but I guess some people really don't like talking to other people. I decided that this guy was not cool because he was trying to hard to not talk to me. If he was cool, ignoring me would have been effortless, but he kept looking back to see if I was still with him. Uncool!
Street Interview #2: Older Caucasian Man in a van.
Me and Charles asked an older man in car, what he thought was cool, and what specifically made someone cool. Unlike the Asian guy, this man responded;
"Stay away from drugs, and live a good life. Be yourself and not just another one of the crowd"
I think that this statement was pretty generic, and I didn't get much insight from what he said. However, his additional "anti-drug" statement seemed to show me that being "cool" in his mind is being sober, and aware of the world around you. I'm not sure if he was just repeating rhetoric, but it was interesting nonetheless.
Street Interview #3: Time Warner Cable Guy in TWC Van
I asked a cable guy waiting for the light, who he thought the coolest celebrity is. He said;
"I would say the coolest celebrity is Tiger Woods because of all those girlfriends he has!"
This was funny in the sense that I was unfamiliar with what had happened with the whole "Tiger Woods thing" and honestly didn't really know what he was talking about when he said that. I think it's pretty funny he said that, but I also think he was joking when he said it. The point of saying Tiger Woods I think, was to be witty by responding to the question with topical humor. This guy was pretty cool, although he didn't really answer the question in the way I would have liked. This is an example of how cool it is sometimes to do your own thing (the cable guy "did his own thing" by responding in his own way).
Street Interview #4: Officer Perez
Me, Charles and Lauren went up to a cop car to ask this cop what he thought made a "cool" person, he was actually really friendly and briefly responded to the question.
"Be yourself and be awesome"
Despite the lack of meaning or thought that went into this response, we all found Officer Perez to be a pretty "cool" cop, and a cool guy. He may not have been insightful in his response, but at least he was friendly. Being friendly seems to be pretty cool.
Street Interview #5: Ben (younger Caucasian man)
I saw a guy walking down the block who seemed kinda' artistic given the way he dressed. I assumed he would be a nice enough guy and give me an interesting response. I decided to catch up with him and ask him about who he thought the coolest celebrity was. As it turned out, I was right, the guy was pretty nice, and actually stopped to talk with me briefly.
"I think Johnny Depp is the coolest celebrity. He is a good actor, and really popular, but he stays away from the limelight and still remains a cool guy."
This was my first insightful interview that day. Ben made an interesting point by saying how people who are cool, don't try and get attention, they just get it. Johnny Depp manages to be a cool guy, because he isn't in tabloids and retains a sense of self. When most celebrities stay in the media's focus, the public starts to feel like they actually know these celebrities. By staying away from that, Depp maintains his humanity and downplays his coolness. Downplaying your coolness is very cool.
Finally, I thought that when conducting these interviews, it was always better to start off with the most "cool" question. Questions that make the interviewee think to much, or confuse them will make them less likely to continue talking with you. Asking them about a celebrity however is more interesting to most people, because more people like to talk about celebrities than themselves, or social trends.
Also, it seemed to work for me to start off by saying the survey was for my "sociology class" and not my social studies class. I think it made people think about what I had to say more seriously and with less skepticism about how old I was or looked. Being more eloquent also had a similar effect, and worked a lot better than taking a conversational tone. I think that could be attributed to the lack of patience people had in the morning for high school students rather than sociology students.
What do you like to do when you have spare time?
I like to read, listen to my music, watch television. I would think that this is a pretty common response, but I like reading about historical events and figures, while my T.V watching is usually limited to the news channels, politics and economics mainly.
Do you think that what you do in that time is "cool"?
I don't really consider it cool, but I think its a much better way to spend time than what you and your brother do (we tend to spend a lot of time on our computers, and playing Xbox), other than your schoolwork and reading of course.
Does being cool matter to you?
I would say it doesn't, but I like to stay in touch with what's going on. Even if I don't really like alot of the music and styles nowadays, I do know what they are. Being informed is what matters to me. Being cool....not so much.
Even if it doesn't, what do you think is cool?
I mean, I think that new technology is cool. I think it has a few particularly negative effects on people today, and adults are being effected as much, if not more than kids. For example the Iphone is a great thing, but it has isolated a lot of people who use that little screen to escape in there own world.
Who do you think embodies "cool" in your mind?
Frank Sinatra. That's it, he was just so good at what he did, and did it for so much longer than everybody else. He is known as widely today as he was in the 1940's, and he always appeared to be doing his thing so effortlessly.
What sort of things, or what person is completely not cool in your opinion? Why?
I think that what isn't cool, is difficult to answer. I would have to give that a little more thought, and be able to set aside my own prejudices given what I have seen in my life. Generally, I think ignorance is not cool. Being ignorant is a primary cause of massive problems in today's world. Things like America's involvement in the middle east is partly the result of ignorance. Not paying attention to history resulted in our government disregarding it and following in the exact footsteps of many empires and nations before us.
Friend Interview: Hunter Cavat- Gore
Do you think that you are cool?
"No, I think my girlfriend thinks I'm cool, but I don't. I think "cool" is overplayed, and I just don't take time out of my life to think about being "cool". Doing what I like to do is more important than my social image, at least to me. Being cool often means that people who don't really know you, or you don't care about, think you are "cool". For me I just focus on the people I care about, and that's it."
What do you think makes a person cool?
"I think that people who are "cool" are more worried about what they can do for the world, than what they can do to change how the world sees them. I mean, I think it's a lot more cool to be a doctor who actually helps people, than a person who gets wins a drinking competition, and fucks the baddest girl at the party, but contributes nothing to society."
Where do you find it important to be seen as cool?
"As a teenager, I think for most people, being seen as "cool" is really important. If it mattered to me, I would think being seen that way was very important. Being cool, is like the term used to describe people who are at the top of some sort of "social competition" trying to essentially win at life (ridiculous as that may sound). If being cool is something you actually care about, it may always be "important" to be cool. Realistically though being cool is never important. What is important is to get along with your peers. It may seem to be the same thing as cool, but if "cool" happens to be a side effect of getting along with others, than I guess being cool helps with that."
Are people cool in unique ways, or do "cool" people fit into categories of coolness?
"Nah, I think people all have different methods to be cool. I mean technically we are all different, so we start off trying to be cool from a different standpoint. Some people are naturally better at sports, and by becoming a good athlete, they become "cool". People's natural abilities is what makes a person good at something, and thus cool in a certain way. The fact is, people are impressed by other people who can do something better than they can. Things that anyone can do, like buy stuff, drink alot, smoke alot, etc, etc, are all trivial, and not talents. Being athletic, or creative, or funny, those things are talents and the categories that they fit into, depend on the certain ability they have."
Street Interviews
Street Interview #1: Young Asian Guy
I tried to walk with this guy, in the hopes of him answering some of my questions. I expected that I might get a response when I asked him about who he thought a "cool celebrity was?", but I did not. Not only didn't he answer me, but as I walked with him, he tried to turn around and walk facing away from me. This was surprising to me, but I guess some people really don't like talking to other people. I decided that this guy was not cool because he was trying to hard to not talk to me. If he was cool, ignoring me would have been effortless, but he kept looking back to see if I was still with him. Uncool!
Street Interview #2: Older Caucasian Man in a van.
Me and Charles asked an older man in car, what he thought was cool, and what specifically made someone cool. Unlike the Asian guy, this man responded;
"Stay away from drugs, and live a good life. Be yourself and not just another one of the crowd"
I think that this statement was pretty generic, and I didn't get much insight from what he said. However, his additional "anti-drug" statement seemed to show me that being "cool" in his mind is being sober, and aware of the world around you. I'm not sure if he was just repeating rhetoric, but it was interesting nonetheless.
Street Interview #3: Time Warner Cable Guy in TWC Van
I asked a cable guy waiting for the light, who he thought the coolest celebrity is. He said;
"I would say the coolest celebrity is Tiger Woods because of all those girlfriends he has!"
This was funny in the sense that I was unfamiliar with what had happened with the whole "Tiger Woods thing" and honestly didn't really know what he was talking about when he said that. I think it's pretty funny he said that, but I also think he was joking when he said it. The point of saying Tiger Woods I think, was to be witty by responding to the question with topical humor. This guy was pretty cool, although he didn't really answer the question in the way I would have liked. This is an example of how cool it is sometimes to do your own thing (the cable guy "did his own thing" by responding in his own way).
Street Interview #4: Officer Perez
Me, Charles and Lauren went up to a cop car to ask this cop what he thought made a "cool" person, he was actually really friendly and briefly responded to the question.
"Be yourself and be awesome"
Despite the lack of meaning or thought that went into this response, we all found Officer Perez to be a pretty "cool" cop, and a cool guy. He may not have been insightful in his response, but at least he was friendly. Being friendly seems to be pretty cool.
Street Interview #5: Ben (younger Caucasian man)
I saw a guy walking down the block who seemed kinda' artistic given the way he dressed. I assumed he would be a nice enough guy and give me an interesting response. I decided to catch up with him and ask him about who he thought the coolest celebrity was. As it turned out, I was right, the guy was pretty nice, and actually stopped to talk with me briefly.
"I think Johnny Depp is the coolest celebrity. He is a good actor, and really popular, but he stays away from the limelight and still remains a cool guy."
This was my first insightful interview that day. Ben made an interesting point by saying how people who are cool, don't try and get attention, they just get it. Johnny Depp manages to be a cool guy, because he isn't in tabloids and retains a sense of self. When most celebrities stay in the media's focus, the public starts to feel like they actually know these celebrities. By staying away from that, Depp maintains his humanity and downplays his coolness. Downplaying your coolness is very cool.
Finally, I thought that when conducting these interviews, it was always better to start off with the most "cool" question. Questions that make the interviewee think to much, or confuse them will make them less likely to continue talking with you. Asking them about a celebrity however is more interesting to most people, because more people like to talk about celebrities than themselves, or social trends.
Also, it seemed to work for me to start off by saying the survey was for my "sociology class" and not my social studies class. I think it made people think about what I had to say more seriously and with less skepticism about how old I was or looked. Being more eloquent also had a similar effect, and worked a lot better than taking a conversational tone. I think that could be attributed to the lack of patience people had in the morning for high school students rather than sociology students.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
HW 26- Photos and Questions
For this assignment, I asked a few of my friends, and some Greenwich Village Locals, what their thoughts on "cool" were. I hoped that the questions I asked would provoke thoughtful, insightful answers.
Questions:
1. Are you cool? Why do you or don't you think so?
2. Who do you think is the coolest person?
3. What makes someone cool?
4. What is not cool?
Interview #1: Claire Weinman, 16 years old, Student/ Upstairs Neighbor
1. Yes. I do think I'm cool. Pretty much because I consider myself to be independant. I mostly do what I want, and have my own unique personality.
2. I think that my Dad is the coolest person I know. He's mad chill, he's married to my good looking mother, and he's overall a boss [like Rick Ross]. He isn't running on anyone elses schedule other than his own.
3. Generally to be cool, your inner self needs to be reflected on the outside. You need to be authentic, and basically real. You can be cool in different ways, according to different people.
4. Doing something for reasons that are'nt your own. Restricting yourself becaseu your scared of how people will react to what you do. Being mean is not a cool trait, and I try not to associate with people who attack others and make them feel uncomfortable about themselves.
Interview #2: Billy Romp, 56 years old, Christmas Tree Salesman/ Mandolin Player/ Slate Roofing Contractor
1. Yea, I would say I'm pretty cool. It's Pretty self-evident, don't you think?
2. I think I would have to say my son Henry is the coolest person that I know. He plays a "kick-ass" bass guitar, is good with chicks, and knows where to get good weed.
3. The question of "what makes someone cool", is somewhat indescribable. You have to be capable of recognizing coolness. When I attended one of these philosophy "bullshit" sessions, we all came to the conclusion that being nonchalant is probably the basic concept of being cool. Its cool to not care in general, but it is cool to care for someone, or atleast pretend to. Also, it is cool to be direct with people; for example, one of the coolest people that I know is the biggest assholes. He'll say exactly what he means, and doesn't care what you think about it.
4. I think dishonesty is the least cool trait a person can have, that and you know... killing other people.
Note: Billy Romp is quoted discussing similar topics in a book called "Sidewalk" by Mitchell Duneier, and is the focus of a book about him and his family called "Christmas on Jane Street: a True Story".
(about Billy Romp & Family)
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/08/nyregion/trees-for-sale-warmth-free-each-year-family-turns-manhattanites-into-neighbors.html?pagewanted=all
Interview #3: Emiliano, 40, Deli Manager/ General Employee ("Spyro's Deli" on 12th street and 8th avenue)
In this interview, their was a little bit of a language barrier, so his co-worker had to try and translate between myself and Emiliano.
1. I don't think that I am cool. I don't have much time to go out, and I spend most of my week working hard, and being with my family. I have responsibilities to my wife and kids, so I have very little free time.
2. I don't know who I think is cool (I suggested several actors, but he didn't seem to think celebrities were that cool. Also he seemed confused as to what I was asking)
3. Cool people go out alot. They don't work all the time like me. They have a lot of free time, and not a lot of responsibilities.
4. Yo No Se. (He didn't quite understand this question either, but when I took a picture of him, he held up the wad of money in his hand and laughed. I guess a part of what thinks is "uncool", is being poor, or lacking money.)
Interview #4: Sgt. Ricardi Santos, ?? years old, Police officer/ Precinct Manager at the 6th Precinct (Greenwich Village)
1. Absolutely, I think I'm cool. I know that because if I wasn't cool, than I couldn't deal with stress. In my job, having perspective on what you do is cool. I learned to not take things personally, and do what I am supposed to. At the end of the day this job is a job like any other, and being cool and not letting what people say get to you is pretty cool I think.
2. Bill Gates, has got to be the coolest person in my mind. Not because he is rich, but because he is charitable, and puts his wealth to good use in the world. Some people have alot of money, but they only use it for themselves. Bloomberg is an example of that, he has all the money in the world, but uses it to become mayor and help himself.
3. Being cool, is keeping to yourself, and not bothering other people. A person who helps out and is a productive member of society, with something to contribute.
4. Things that aren't cool are being cruel, having a nasty attitude, selfishness, arrogance & lacking appreciation. People who are not respectful are not cool people either.
Questions:
1. Are you cool? Why do you or don't you think so?
2. Who do you think is the coolest person?
3. What makes someone cool?
4. What is not cool?
Interview #1: Claire Weinman, 16 years old, Student/ Upstairs Neighbor
1. Yes. I do think I'm cool. Pretty much because I consider myself to be independant. I mostly do what I want, and have my own unique personality.
2. I think that my Dad is the coolest person I know. He's mad chill, he's married to my good looking mother, and he's overall a boss [like Rick Ross]. He isn't running on anyone elses schedule other than his own.
3. Generally to be cool, your inner self needs to be reflected on the outside. You need to be authentic, and basically real. You can be cool in different ways, according to different people.
4. Doing something for reasons that are'nt your own. Restricting yourself becaseu your scared of how people will react to what you do. Being mean is not a cool trait, and I try not to associate with people who attack others and make them feel uncomfortable about themselves.
Interview #2: Billy Romp, 56 years old, Christmas Tree Salesman/ Mandolin Player/ Slate Roofing Contractor
1. Yea, I would say I'm pretty cool. It's Pretty self-evident, don't you think?
2. I think I would have to say my son Henry is the coolest person that I know. He plays a "kick-ass" bass guitar, is good with chicks, and knows where to get good weed.
3. The question of "what makes someone cool", is somewhat indescribable. You have to be capable of recognizing coolness. When I attended one of these philosophy "bullshit" sessions, we all came to the conclusion that being nonchalant is probably the basic concept of being cool. Its cool to not care in general, but it is cool to care for someone, or atleast pretend to. Also, it is cool to be direct with people; for example, one of the coolest people that I know is the biggest assholes. He'll say exactly what he means, and doesn't care what you think about it.
4. I think dishonesty is the least cool trait a person can have, that and you know... killing other people.
Note: Billy Romp is quoted discussing similar topics in a book called "Sidewalk" by Mitchell Duneier, and is the focus of a book about him and his family called "Christmas on Jane Street: a True Story".
(about Billy Romp & Family)
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/08/nyregion/trees-for-sale-warmth-free-each-year-family-turns-manhattanites-into-neighbors.html?pagewanted=all
Interview #3: Emiliano, 40, Deli Manager/ General Employee ("Spyro's Deli" on 12th street and 8th avenue)
In this interview, their was a little bit of a language barrier, so his co-worker had to try and translate between myself and Emiliano.
1. I don't think that I am cool. I don't have much time to go out, and I spend most of my week working hard, and being with my family. I have responsibilities to my wife and kids, so I have very little free time.
2. I don't know who I think is cool (I suggested several actors, but he didn't seem to think celebrities were that cool. Also he seemed confused as to what I was asking)
3. Cool people go out alot. They don't work all the time like me. They have a lot of free time, and not a lot of responsibilities.
4. Yo No Se. (He didn't quite understand this question either, but when I took a picture of him, he held up the wad of money in his hand and laughed. I guess a part of what thinks is "uncool", is being poor, or lacking money.)
Interview #4: Sgt. Ricardi Santos, ?? years old, Police officer/ Precinct Manager at the 6th Precinct (Greenwich Village)
1. Absolutely, I think I'm cool. I know that because if I wasn't cool, than I couldn't deal with stress. In my job, having perspective on what you do is cool. I learned to not take things personally, and do what I am supposed to. At the end of the day this job is a job like any other, and being cool and not letting what people say get to you is pretty cool I think.
2. Bill Gates, has got to be the coolest person in my mind. Not because he is rich, but because he is charitable, and puts his wealth to good use in the world. Some people have alot of money, but they only use it for themselves. Bloomberg is an example of that, he has all the money in the world, but uses it to become mayor and help himself.
3. Being cool, is keeping to yourself, and not bothering other people. A person who helps out and is a productive member of society, with something to contribute.
4. Things that aren't cool are being cruel, having a nasty attitude, selfishness, arrogance & lacking appreciation. People who are not respectful are not cool people either.
Monday, November 23, 2009
HW 25- Short Story Comments
HW #25, Part 1: Blog Comments
Charles,
I really liked your story. I thought it was funny as hell, and really was a pretty productive way to get back at Andy for using you as an example of an ignorant consumer. By using Andy as the consumer character in your story, you made me think more about how I would actually feel if I was headed for the Gucci store to cop some new kicks. Truthfully, I would have to say that I would be hyped, kinda like Andy was in your story (but not quite as enthusiastic).
------
Lauren,
I liked your story when we read it in class because of the concise plot, and simple insights that I absorbed just after one read through of it. You definitely captured a pivotal moment in your story with a unique point of view.
Reading this story on your blog made me analyze it more than I had in class. After the second reading, I noticed that you made your narrator a kind of "authority on cool". The character Regina could be interpreted as either clueless, or just unconcerned in her demeanor. It is because the narrator says "Hmm I think I might talk to her tomorrow." that I came away from the story with the opinion that this girl Regina must be pretty cool.
------
Henry,
Your story was quite vivid and your descriptions really kept my attention throughout. Certain phrasings were slightly awkward and confused me, but other than that, you got your point about "cool" across very well.
Like Marco said in the above comment, I also liked how you used the persons intellect as a device to demonstrate her strengths that made her "cool".
Particularly, your use of character interaction between you and the new girl, brought her down to earth so that the reader saw her from a first person point of view. Describing her smile at the end of your story was pivotal in that I almost felt like I was the person she was looking at. Anyway, really good job Henry. Keep it up.
------
Alicia,
Damn Alicia, this is actually a really good story. No gas. I thought you incorporated a whole range of writing techniques in your story which greatly differed from others which only used one or two techniques.
You started off your story with really descriptive wording and set me up for the rest of the story with an image of place and time already in my mind. Later in the story, I thought you switched gears a bit, and your story became kinda humorous, using realistic dialogue that poked fun at a very generic conversation at SOF after the weekend.
The cool character was Nate evidently. I assume it was him, because of his alternative interests and lack of connection to the common activities of teenagers on the weekend. He also came off as pretty socially accepted, giving Nate a third dimension of believability. Great job Alicia, I will definitely try and look at your work in the future, as this story made a really good first impression to me of your writing talent.
------
Chloe,
Nice story. I thought it was kinda funny because I am almost positive that pretty much every senior has had an encounter with Mr. Marks such as the one in your story by now.
I like how you pinpoint the "coolness" of the character by having Sofie defiantly ignore the dean and get into the elevator anyway. On a deeper level, Sofie seemed cool to me also because she "knew her place" in a sense. She was aware of her success as a student and therefore knew what leeway she had with the school administration.
What I took away from your story, was that a part of "cool" is being aware of who you are, and who people actually think you are. For example, had Sofie been kicked off the elevator by the dean, than Sofie would not have seemed as cool, because she didn't correctly assess the dean's attitude towards her. She did, and that's partly why Sofie [you?] was [are] pretty cool.
-----------------------
HW #25, Part 2: Recurring thoughts on "coolness"
In the stories that I read, and the stories that we looked at in class, I think that the character theme of "renegade" seemed prominent in our depiction of "cool". The idea behind "the renegade" is by my definition a person who goes against the common rhetoric and does what they want for their own reasons.
My story depicts a renegade in the sense that Matt is concerned about himself, getting the "BMW M3" and about what he needs to do to get it. He doesn't ask himself whether or not people will think it's a cool car, because Matt "knows" its a cool car. Being a renegade does not necessarily mean that you need to be a rebel, because a rebel is a person who sets out with the intention of doing the opposite of what everyone else seems to be doing.
In Alicia's story, the cool character also seemed to be a renegade because he was interested in reading and being intelligent rather than parties and getting shwasted. The character is not being a rebel, because no rebel would sit in class, and than go home and learn on their own. What Alicia's character shows, is that he does what he does because he wants to, but doesn't try and separate himself from everyone else. Basically, Nate is nonchalant, and not really concerned about the trivial weekends of his peers. At the same time, he doesn't act superior to them because he learns while they party
Part of being a renegade, is also being accepting and nonchalant. Being nonchalant seems to be one of the coolest personality traits that one can have. It puts forth the image that you are capable of something, but choose not to do it. For example, a "nerd" and a smart person differ on the simple principle of appearance. A "nerd" comes across as socially inept, while a smart person can compete mentally with the "nerd", and also maintain a social grace that the "nerd" simply cannot compete with.
Nonchalant attitude is nothing if it is not coupled with ability. Being false in appearance, or fake, is really "uncool". Having ability socially and mentally is something prevalent in most of the stories I read, but the character was not definitively "cool" until he or she was put to a test. Such a test is usually done by observing how an individual interacts with others and approaches a problem. This test I believe is supposed to demonstrate yet another quality of "cool"; confidence.
Lastly, I want to say that confidence is unconditionally "cool" because you really cannot fake confidence. Being confident can be misguided, but even if it is wrong, it still seems cool at the time. The people who are truly "cool" are those who show confidence in themselves and others around them. You make people feel cool if you have confidence in them, and you are cool, if others have confidence in you. This is not to say a person is right if they are confident, and wrong if they aren't, because that would be a horribly flawed and highly incorrect statement.
Charles,
I really liked your story. I thought it was funny as hell, and really was a pretty productive way to get back at Andy for using you as an example of an ignorant consumer. By using Andy as the consumer character in your story, you made me think more about how I would actually feel if I was headed for the Gucci store to cop some new kicks. Truthfully, I would have to say that I would be hyped, kinda like Andy was in your story (but not quite as enthusiastic).
------
Lauren,
I liked your story when we read it in class because of the concise plot, and simple insights that I absorbed just after one read through of it. You definitely captured a pivotal moment in your story with a unique point of view.
Reading this story on your blog made me analyze it more than I had in class. After the second reading, I noticed that you made your narrator a kind of "authority on cool". The character Regina could be interpreted as either clueless, or just unconcerned in her demeanor. It is because the narrator says "Hmm I think I might talk to her tomorrow." that I came away from the story with the opinion that this girl Regina must be pretty cool.
------
Henry,
Your story was quite vivid and your descriptions really kept my attention throughout. Certain phrasings were slightly awkward and confused me, but other than that, you got your point about "cool" across very well.
Like Marco said in the above comment, I also liked how you used the persons intellect as a device to demonstrate her strengths that made her "cool".
Particularly, your use of character interaction between you and the new girl, brought her down to earth so that the reader saw her from a first person point of view. Describing her smile at the end of your story was pivotal in that I almost felt like I was the person she was looking at. Anyway, really good job Henry. Keep it up.
------
Alicia,
Damn Alicia, this is actually a really good story. No gas. I thought you incorporated a whole range of writing techniques in your story which greatly differed from others which only used one or two techniques.
You started off your story with really descriptive wording and set me up for the rest of the story with an image of place and time already in my mind. Later in the story, I thought you switched gears a bit, and your story became kinda humorous, using realistic dialogue that poked fun at a very generic conversation at SOF after the weekend.
The cool character was Nate evidently. I assume it was him, because of his alternative interests and lack of connection to the common activities of teenagers on the weekend. He also came off as pretty socially accepted, giving Nate a third dimension of believability. Great job Alicia, I will definitely try and look at your work in the future, as this story made a really good first impression to me of your writing talent.
------
Chloe,
Nice story. I thought it was kinda funny because I am almost positive that pretty much every senior has had an encounter with Mr. Marks such as the one in your story by now.
I like how you pinpoint the "coolness" of the character by having Sofie defiantly ignore the dean and get into the elevator anyway. On a deeper level, Sofie seemed cool to me also because she "knew her place" in a sense. She was aware of her success as a student and therefore knew what leeway she had with the school administration.
What I took away from your story, was that a part of "cool" is being aware of who you are, and who people actually think you are. For example, had Sofie been kicked off the elevator by the dean, than Sofie would not have seemed as cool, because she didn't correctly assess the dean's attitude towards her. She did, and that's partly why Sofie [you?] was [are] pretty cool.
-----------------------
HW #25, Part 2: Recurring thoughts on "coolness"
In the stories that I read, and the stories that we looked at in class, I think that the character theme of "renegade" seemed prominent in our depiction of "cool". The idea behind "the renegade" is by my definition a person who goes against the common rhetoric and does what they want for their own reasons.
My story depicts a renegade in the sense that Matt is concerned about himself, getting the "BMW M3" and about what he needs to do to get it. He doesn't ask himself whether or not people will think it's a cool car, because Matt "knows" its a cool car. Being a renegade does not necessarily mean that you need to be a rebel, because a rebel is a person who sets out with the intention of doing the opposite of what everyone else seems to be doing.
In Alicia's story, the cool character also seemed to be a renegade because he was interested in reading and being intelligent rather than parties and getting shwasted. The character is not being a rebel, because no rebel would sit in class, and than go home and learn on their own. What Alicia's character shows, is that he does what he does because he wants to, but doesn't try and separate himself from everyone else. Basically, Nate is nonchalant, and not really concerned about the trivial weekends of his peers. At the same time, he doesn't act superior to them because he learns while they party
Part of being a renegade, is also being accepting and nonchalant. Being nonchalant seems to be one of the coolest personality traits that one can have. It puts forth the image that you are capable of something, but choose not to do it. For example, a "nerd" and a smart person differ on the simple principle of appearance. A "nerd" comes across as socially inept, while a smart person can compete mentally with the "nerd", and also maintain a social grace that the "nerd" simply cannot compete with.
Nonchalant attitude is nothing if it is not coupled with ability. Being false in appearance, or fake, is really "uncool". Having ability socially and mentally is something prevalent in most of the stories I read, but the character was not definitively "cool" until he or she was put to a test. Such a test is usually done by observing how an individual interacts with others and approaches a problem. This test I believe is supposed to demonstrate yet another quality of "cool"; confidence.
Lastly, I want to say that confidence is unconditionally "cool" because you really cannot fake confidence. Being confident can be misguided, but even if it is wrong, it still seems cool at the time. The people who are truly "cool" are those who show confidence in themselves and others around them. You make people feel cool if you have confidence in them, and you are cool, if others have confidence in you. This is not to say a person is right if they are confident, and wrong if they aren't, because that would be a horribly flawed and highly incorrect statement.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
HW 24- Short Story
Matt was only 17, but already he was excited to get a car. As he stood against the window of the BMW dealership, he watched as several customers were escorted around by salesmen, getting in and out of cars, filling out paperwork, and discussing pricing. It was only December, and Matt didn't have his full license yet, but he wanted a car almost more than he wanted to get into college. While he observed the people inside, the cold December air whipped across his face, reminding him to pull up his hood, and wipe off the little pile of snow that accumulated on top of his head.
Matt always loved cars, and knew almost every model, who made it, and what year it came out. Walking down the street had become a sort of game for him, naming every car that passed. Standing there, Matt turned away from the wind as a strong gust blew the snow across his nose, which wasn't covered by the hood on his old jacket.
"Fuckin' wind" Matt muttered to himself. He turned back around, and walked inside the dealership. Taking the first step inside warmed him up right away. He unzipped his jacket and his hoodie, pulled down his hood, and waved to one of the salesmen.
"Yo Matty, my man, hows it goin'?" asked the salesman.
"Not bad. Maintainin' haha. You know how it is". Matt responded.
"Hey Tony! You guys still have the black M3?" He asked.
"Of course Matt, we keep it waiting for you haha. Whens your old man coming by to get that for you?" Tony said jokingly
"Mannn, screw you Tony! You know he wouldn't even buy me a 20 year old Ford." Said Matt, in a perturbed way.
"Not with your grades, you bet your ass he wont. I'm just busting your balls Matty. He's a good guy your pops. C'mon, I'll take you to the car."
Matt followed Tony to the back of dealership, where "his M3" was displayed. Tony grabbed the keys from his desk, and let Matt into the car. Every time he came here, Matt always liked to imagine himself in the car, with his girlfriend sitting upfront, driving out on the highway on a warm summer day. His girl, his car, and nice weather, was all Matt wanted. But as of now, the weather sucked, and he wasn't getting that BMW any time soon.
Thinking about the car was what Matt did every moment he wasn't at the dealership, but once he was sitting behind the wheel, with his hand on the shift, his thoughts changed to paying for the thing. $40,000 wasn't cheap, but it didn't matter if it was $400,000, Matt wanted that black M3. Looking to the left, Matt heard the passenger door click, and Tony got inside.
"Matt" Tony said.
"You've been coming here for god knows how many years now, but you never ask me about anything other than the M3. Before this one came out, you came to look at the older model. Your a good kid, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you focus on these cars, but not on school." Tony said, looking intensely at Matt.
"I know you can do good kid. You got high expectations for yourself. I know that. If you didn't, you'd be staring into the window of the used Toyota dealership right next door. If you want something, you gotta work for it. People don't live life wanting beat up cars, they want new Benz's and BMW's like you do.
"Tony, I appreciate what your trying to do. I really do, but I get enough advice at home, and I get it, I really do. I just don't like school, but I work hard at home and at my job. I know what I need to do Tony. You don't know everything." Matt said calmly.
"I gotta go Tony, thanks again."
"Anytime Matty, just swing by." Tony said, as they both got out of the car.
Matt waved goodbye to Tony, zipped up his jacket, and his hoodie. Put on his hood, and walked out of the dealership. Stepping outside, Matt looked back at the dealership, glanced at the Toyota lot, and than looked right back at the BMW's. Matt laughed to himself momentarily as he walked through the waves of snow racing down from the sky, and the mountains of snow at his feet. Crossing the street, and with the wind once again whipping across his numb face, he thought to himself; "If I didn't want a BMW so badly, I would settle for a Toyota"
Matt always loved cars, and knew almost every model, who made it, and what year it came out. Walking down the street had become a sort of game for him, naming every car that passed. Standing there, Matt turned away from the wind as a strong gust blew the snow across his nose, which wasn't covered by the hood on his old jacket.
"Fuckin' wind" Matt muttered to himself. He turned back around, and walked inside the dealership. Taking the first step inside warmed him up right away. He unzipped his jacket and his hoodie, pulled down his hood, and waved to one of the salesmen.
"Yo Matty, my man, hows it goin'?" asked the salesman.
"Not bad. Maintainin' haha. You know how it is". Matt responded.
"Hey Tony! You guys still have the black M3?" He asked.
"Of course Matt, we keep it waiting for you haha. Whens your old man coming by to get that for you?" Tony said jokingly
"Mannn, screw you Tony! You know he wouldn't even buy me a 20 year old Ford." Said Matt, in a perturbed way.
"Not with your grades, you bet your ass he wont. I'm just busting your balls Matty. He's a good guy your pops. C'mon, I'll take you to the car."
Matt followed Tony to the back of dealership, where "his M3" was displayed. Tony grabbed the keys from his desk, and let Matt into the car. Every time he came here, Matt always liked to imagine himself in the car, with his girlfriend sitting upfront, driving out on the highway on a warm summer day. His girl, his car, and nice weather, was all Matt wanted. But as of now, the weather sucked, and he wasn't getting that BMW any time soon.
Thinking about the car was what Matt did every moment he wasn't at the dealership, but once he was sitting behind the wheel, with his hand on the shift, his thoughts changed to paying for the thing. $40,000 wasn't cheap, but it didn't matter if it was $400,000, Matt wanted that black M3. Looking to the left, Matt heard the passenger door click, and Tony got inside.
"Matt" Tony said.
"You've been coming here for god knows how many years now, but you never ask me about anything other than the M3. Before this one came out, you came to look at the older model. Your a good kid, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you focus on these cars, but not on school." Tony said, looking intensely at Matt.
"I know you can do good kid. You got high expectations for yourself. I know that. If you didn't, you'd be staring into the window of the used Toyota dealership right next door. If you want something, you gotta work for it. People don't live life wanting beat up cars, they want new Benz's and BMW's like you do.
"Tony, I appreciate what your trying to do. I really do, but I get enough advice at home, and I get it, I really do. I just don't like school, but I work hard at home and at my job. I know what I need to do Tony. You don't know everything." Matt said calmly.
"I gotta go Tony, thanks again."
"Anytime Matty, just swing by." Tony said, as they both got out of the car.
Matt waved goodbye to Tony, zipped up his jacket, and his hoodie. Put on his hood, and walked out of the dealership. Stepping outside, Matt looked back at the dealership, glanced at the Toyota lot, and than looked right back at the BMW's. Matt laughed to himself momentarily as he walked through the waves of snow racing down from the sky, and the mountains of snow at his feet. Crossing the street, and with the wind once again whipping across his numb face, he thought to himself; "If I didn't want a BMW so badly, I would settle for a Toyota"
Monday, November 16, 2009
HW 23- Initial Thoughts on "Cool"
So this unit has a very trivial feeling to it, that I really hope does not dwell on the surface, because I just don't see a point. I feel like the word "cool" is a term people use to describe someone else who has a certain trait which they feel is better than that trait in themselves. I know that when I see someone and think that they are cool, its because either I can relate to them, or they have something unique about them that I want to emulate in some way. Although that may not be the most socially aggrandizing thing to admit, it is the truth.
I think that behind closed doors, and in our own minds, we all know that having a Bugatti, a model wife and Ca$h, is not what makes a person cool. Having a particularly impressive trait such as intellect, strength, wit, determination, social prowess, and athletic ability, are what make people definitively "cool".
The way I see it, we have a definition of cool, which we keep inside ourselves, but that's not really "cool" in the social sense. What we keep inside ourselves, is what we aspire to as worthwhile people. What "cool" really is, is the term used in conversation, in our social lives, and that definition of cool is having cars, women and money. Cool is superficial bullshit, and carries a purely social meaning, beyond that, "cool" is meaningless.
I want to site an example in pop- culture to support the ideas in my post. The actor James Dean in the Movie "Giant", portrays a young man, who becomes extremely wealthy off of a small plot of land containing oil, which he is given by the family he worked for as a handyman. The reason that James Dean's character is so cool, is that he is determined to stay on the land he is given, and refuses to sell it back to the family. His determination pays off, and eventually he becomes far richer than his former employer. James Dean epitomized cool in this movie, he struck oil, and it didn't matter how he did it, or if it made him happy, but what does matter, is he got rich. And as we know, getting rich, is pretty damn cool.
In the movies, we take the things we see as "cool" because, like the term itself, movies are fake, and can't give us anything which we should or can realistically emulate. Instead, we need to look at the actual actors, who are truly cool, and have qualities we should strive for. Paul Newman for instance, was a standard of social graces and "coolness" in his movies, but in real life, he was charitable and kind, a person worthy of the "cool" label.
I think that behind closed doors, and in our own minds, we all know that having a Bugatti, a model wife and Ca$h, is not what makes a person cool. Having a particularly impressive trait such as intellect, strength, wit, determination, social prowess, and athletic ability, are what make people definitively "cool".
The way I see it, we have a definition of cool, which we keep inside ourselves, but that's not really "cool" in the social sense. What we keep inside ourselves, is what we aspire to as worthwhile people. What "cool" really is, is the term used in conversation, in our social lives, and that definition of cool is having cars, women and money. Cool is superficial bullshit, and carries a purely social meaning, beyond that, "cool" is meaningless.
I want to site an example in pop- culture to support the ideas in my post. The actor James Dean in the Movie "Giant", portrays a young man, who becomes extremely wealthy off of a small plot of land containing oil, which he is given by the family he worked for as a handyman. The reason that James Dean's character is so cool, is that he is determined to stay on the land he is given, and refuses to sell it back to the family. His determination pays off, and eventually he becomes far richer than his former employer. James Dean epitomized cool in this movie, he struck oil, and it didn't matter how he did it, or if it made him happy, but what does matter, is he got rich. And as we know, getting rich, is pretty damn cool.
In the movies, we take the things we see as "cool" because, like the term itself, movies are fake, and can't give us anything which we should or can realistically emulate. Instead, we need to look at the actual actors, who are truly cool, and have qualities we should strive for. Paul Newman for instance, was a standard of social graces and "coolness" in his movies, but in real life, he was charitable and kind, a person worthy of the "cool" label.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
HW 21- Art Project (Digital Unit Final Project)
In my opinion, my piece is a Mirror. I think that we as consumers of digital media often pick and choose what we pay attention to. The problem is that our choices are based off of what is entertaining to us, and not necisarily what is important. In my drawing, the teenage subject is paying attention to his iPhone, and completely ignoring the burning building, the story about the massacre at Ft. Hood, and the bullet headed straight towards his head.
While making this piece, I was thinking about how certain concepts such as capitalism, consumerism, and digitalization all come together. I realized that when we assume something like our iPhone or an iPod can teach us something (like the arguments in Everything Bad is Good For You), we don't account for the fact that we get so rapped up in the entertainment of the device, that we really don't learn anything. We do however, become addicted to them. We constantly want the next big thing, and thus play right into the hands of the capitalists. Continuously consuming makes us less aware of the important content, and more impressed by "shiny things", or explosions, or fun shit. We are targets of the hit men who are conglomerates. The song bullet in your head (Rage Against The Machine) is about the consumer "bullet" that companies plant in your brain, giving us our value as assets to corporations by buying and buying.
The process that I went through to create this, was constantly adding and creating to make a visual web of connecting ideas. In the bottom right corner of the drawing, I have a quote, from the Islamic caliph; Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib. Ali was a supposed descendant and companion of the prophet Muhammad. The quote I use is "Knowledge raises the low, but ignorance brings down the mighty". I thought that for this unit, this is an adequate summary of the ideas we have covered. I wanted to depict Ali's words in my project, and as a result, I ended up with this.
The drawing features a headline at the bottom of the T.V. about the Ft. Hood Shootings, because I felt that in order to justify my message, I needed to not be hypocritical, and thus I addressed an extremely important and current event. The reason that I use the Caliph Ali's quote as my foundation for this project, is that I believe we all are capable of being intellectual individuals, but it requires effort. Often, we fail to become intelligent because we lack determination, and use our digital devices, like iPhones, to distract us from the complex world around us. I do not believe that Ali is correct in using the word "low", because it is not that we learn, but how we learn, and from where we learn it, which is important. Ignorance, is a powerful thing, a thing that unquestionably has the power to cause people to make fatal errors, and repeat the errors of those who preceded them.
On a concluding note, I want to add, that I give a little acnowledgement to M.T. Anderson in my artistic piece. In depicting a headphone jack leading from the teenage subject to a man on the T.V. staring at the teen, and listening to headphones leading from the kid, I am portraying the stranglehold on our minds and bodies which corporations often have over those of us who choose to remain ignorant.
"Knowledge raises the low, but ignorance brings down the mighty" - Caliph Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib
Sunday, November 8, 2009
HW 22- Final Paper #1
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: VERSION 2.0
With all the problems in the world, all the war, genocide, economic collapse, homelessness, joblessness, and starvation, isn’t it wonderful we still have reality television? I mean with everything going on, it’s amazing the world hasn’t fallen apart, but we don’t need to worry about Survivor renewing its contract with NBC. Every time I pick up a newspaper, I have no conception of who or what could possibly be holding the fabric of humanity together. That’s when I turn on survivor. There I know what is holding that together, I know what is going on, and I understand the rules. It’s simple. In a complex world, I like a little simplicity. While I watch, to my surprise (and dismay), I actually begin thinking about what I read. I begin to notice some subtle connections between the contestants calculated relationships, and the way that President Obama recently dealt with the volatile topic of U.S. missile defense in Eastern Europe. I decided at that point, to switch over to FOX and watch Family Guy instead.
Some might label the above example as a facetious simplification of a complex issue, and frankly, that’s exactly what it is. That however, is not the point. The point I want to make is that I pulled this from a show as trivial as Survivor. Half a century ago, high- school students would be hard pressed to find a source of entertainment, which showed complex enough relationships as to break down the interaction between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the same time, what alternative was around the likes of Family Guy, which provided the necessary programming to let you escape serious issues for a little while.
Today we have a choice, but often choose that outlet for escape from the real world, because after all, we just want to chill. Those same connections from digital to reality can come from the Internet and even video games. In this paper, I will be exploring how, and why we squander that opportunity. Modern technology has opened up the prospect of putting people in greater control of their own mental development than ever before. We hinder that development by choosing to harness the technology as a means of physical disembodiment, and thus sacrifice what these devices can offer us developmentally outside of the digital world.
To begin, I want to explain the concept of disembodiment, both in general, and as it pertains to the digital world. The idea of being disembodied was originally a term associated with ghosts, death as a whole. As society evolved, the meaning of the word evolved. Today, with the emergence of screen’s and electronics, the term has become used to describe how a person can be mentally active but motionless. In this paper, I will be using disembodied to mean someone’s state of being where they are mentally active in the digital world, but neither mentally nor physically active in the physical world.
Furthermore, I want to define the term "modern", as the period from 1950, up until now (2009). Technological advances and breakthrough’s have happened with a much higher frequency than they had before 1950, but also integrated much quicker than throughout history. The time between the release of the first ipod (2001), and the ipod touch (2007), was a mere 6 years. In comparison, the Phonograph; the first device allowing recorded sound to be replayed was invented in 1878. Following that, almost 150 years later, the television came out, in 1934. The time it took for integration of sound and video was 150 years, but to integrate video and sound in a handheld device, took only 6 years,
Other things have increased dramatically since than. For one, the global temperature began to spike dramatically, as shown below in the “Hockey Stick Graph” (made famous in Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”), and thus the amount of greenhouse gasses have spiked in accordance with the graph. The importance of this comparison, is that we have experienced not only a technological revolution in the last half-century, but a second industrial revolution. The new revolution differs greatly from the one at the turn of the century, because it is about the development of digital technologies, to make more intuitive devices that are more user compatible. This compatibility makes the digital world seem less mechanized and more in sync with how our minds work.
The idea of this “digital revolution”, has pushed our digital world to the forefront of our lives, while we sacrifice the physical world in the process. The Morgan, Frick, Carnegie and industrial revolution made us able to do physical things faster, now we have begun adapting to our new platform for interaction; the virtual world. As we focus more on the virtual world, we focus less on our world. We make exceptions to environmental policy in order to produce more advanced (and often more harmful) devices, and that, in part is something attributable to the spike in the graph that can be seen right around the 1950’s. Interestingly enough, we don’t see any such spike around the 1900’s, which is alarming considering the clean image of electronic devices, as opposed to the steel factories that seemed so dirty and environmentally destructive.
I guess things aren’t always what they seem huh?
The book Everything Bad Is Good For You, by Steven Johnson is a research novel about the often overlooked and unexplored aspects of modern technology often said to have no intellectual value whatsoever. Johnson discusses how use of certain digital devices, such as video games, the Internet and television can be very effective in certain areas of neural-development. The thing, which he doesn’t really touch on, is that overuse, can lead to an apathetic state that renders the developmental potential of the device nonexistent. When one becomes apathetic, they still may be intellectually stimulated, but they lose the will to apply that development in the real world. The danger in overuse lies in the failure to see how you develop and become attached to the device itself. An example is television. People who watch a show like Man Vs. Wild, might be trying to learn survival skills and learn a thing or two about nature. Those people may be intrigued by the show, and want to explore say... Australia and tour the outback. Assuming that like most people, the person cannot afford a trip to Australia, they probably wont go, but they will however try and learn as much as they can about the outback if they are so inclined.
On the other end of the programming spectrum, you have shows like I Love New York. Now supposedly, if I follow the author’s logic, this show has a socially educational effect on the viewer. But look at why the person watches that show, and I almost guarantee that they will not start discussing the complex relationship between New York and the contestants, or the process which New York uses to eliminate contestants. We have command of our ability to learn and pick up very useful knowledge through everything from Man Vs. Wild, to I Love New York, but if we ignore it and just submit to watching countless hours of T.V, than we learn nothing and all that viewing has exactly no mental benefit. Subjecting ourselves to a disembodied state where we are virtually brain-dead in the digital world has no benefit in the physical world, as it stimulates no brain activity in the former either.
M.T. Anderson's novel "Feed" is an allegory about our modern society, highlighting the problems with today's American consumer culture, and our lack of concern for the world beyond ourselves. The Feed is a sort of iPhone built into your head, which allows users instant gratification, and the digital world is prevalent over the physical one. The idea of the evil corporation is hidden underneath the story, but nonetheless it is a very important layer of the story. The company that owns and operates the Feed has the sole purpose of advertising and creating consumers, while allowing users to access information, that is, if they want to. Any real information or conversation about real issues is intentionally absent from most of the book. This is a sort of acknowledgment to the lack of useful things being done with the Internet because of the choice we have to not use the Internet for intelligent things. Anderson tries to exemplify the lack of important interaction online and in the digital world. His doing so begs the question of whether disembodiment is worth the gamble of maybe stimulating intellectual growth. He poses the evil "Feed Corporation” as the antagonist trying to eliminate any intellectual pursuits in the digital world. The goal of companies like “Feed Corp.”, is obviously only to make money, as is the goal of corporations in our world. As a result, the Feed doesn't promote anything other than buying and buying and buying.
In the real world, we have a comparable problem. We have this great new technology that can be used to advance ourselves and improve our minds, but this new technology also happens to be a great marketing platform. What that does, is create a system that tries to steer us away from information, but towards products and direct the majority of the technology towards making people think they need stuff that they sometimes don't even want. The Internet can be used for just about anything and everything. The key to regulating your use, and maintaining control of your life online, is to maintain your focus; Keep in mind why you went online, do what you intended, and than log off. The problems arise when we are "bored" and instead of reading or drawing or spending time with our family, we go on You Tube and watch car crashes, or animals doing funny shit. I think that Internet use isn't about staying away from fresh direct.com, or YouTube.com or facebook.com. If you come online trying to shop for food, than by all means, go to fresh direct. If you want to talk to one of your friends, than don't hesitate to go onto facebook. What you shouldn't do is go onto the Internet and just explore. The real world is something worth exploring. On the Internet, the world is at our fingertips, but we don’t have a clue what we’re looking for. An interesting part of the Internet is how the physical and digital worlds clash, and the physical world actually manifests itself in the digital world, sometimes even playing out from one to the other. The idea of ordering food online, and having it come to your house a day later, and be physically there, is an example of digital disembodiment with tangible results.
To pose the question of; "what is digital disembodiment?" is key to assessing how thought provoking an activity reading this paper will be. I want to give you [the reader] a moment to consider the difference between the example I described above, and a person talking on iChat. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The immediate reaction probably is to notice the similarities. Say, person-to-person interaction (you order food, someone ships and delivers food, or communicating with friends) is what I would expect. The less obvious thing to notice is how iChat is not the same [generally] as actual conversation, while ordering food online and going to the supermarket has the same end result. Either way there is food in your fridge, but either way, people talking on iChat will interact drastically differently on either a digital platform or a physical one.
An example of the idea I proposed above is something that I used to do when I was younger. When I was hungry, I used to go into my kitchen and just basically open the fridge and the freezer, and look for what I might want. It didn't matter how many times a day I did that, I always looked around like something new might show up. My point is, that this is a lot like how we surf the web. We sit in front of our computers with the browser open, looking to find something new, even if we knew that what we had been looking for initially wasn't even their. We really don't care, our only concern when we are online is to find something, anything, and no matter how unimportant or dumb it may be isn’t a concern.
There is an important question, one that often goes ignored, which lies behind literally everything we do. That question is, “Why?” Why do we use the Internet, why do we love our electronics? Some people say it’s because of emptiness in our lives, and we try to fill it with these devices. Others say that we are just lazy. I want to propose that the answer lies behind the idea that we are filling some “void”. I do think we are filling a void, but the emptiness we feel is not a sign of a real world lack of something. It is a lack of technology and a want for newer devices that is creating the void. Just as the “Feed Corporation” used the Feed to profit, companies like Apple, constantly turn out new products with cutting edge design. That is what we fill the “void” with.
The proof of this theory is self-evident. For example, if you feel like you really want an orange, you can either eat an orange, drink orange juice, or have something with orange flavoring in it. Now, suppose you really want an iphone. You’re in your house and you want it, you want a handheld computer with a cool interface and tons of features. How are you going to fill that desire? Well consider your option between; getting an iphone, and not getting an iphone. You can’t fill that emptiness any other way, a Blackberry certainly won’t do, I mean, its okay I guess, but it’s not as cool as an iphone obviously.
At this point, most people would be disappointed that they don’t have the money to get one, being that they are quite expensive toys. So now you’re on your computer looking at iphone’s on www.apple.com, or thinking of a way you might be able to get it. Than it hits you! Why am I spending time trying to get this phone when I’m not going to get it? I can just get something else instead. You want an iphone, anything else is just inferior, but you need to fill that void, even if that means getting another phone. This is the vicious cycle, the synthetic void that will never be filled, and never can be.
The “synthetic void” is the “why” that I was talking about. It is the reason why we love our iPhone’s, our Xbox 360’s, and the Internet (for the ability to at least look at what we want). The genuine belief that we “need” the new ipod is not only what drives consumerism, but also what drives us to love technology. When you settle for something, you still want the better version, and even when you have the better device, you still want a newer device the second you see it. Basically, you can’t win, because the rate of technological development has become virtually exponential at this point.
The topic of digitization I have come to realize is a very easy one to over analyze. The fact is, some people just don't actually care all that much about this. I want to make a distinction here, between not caring and not realizing. Earlier in the digital unit, I tried doing an experiment, where I refrained from using all electronic devices for 24-hours. Long story short, it failed, but not completely. I did find myself using some modern devices, but actually I was more intrigued by how I made the extra effort to be more active that day. What I concluded was, that I didn't really use a ridiculous amount of digital devices to begin with, but at the same time, I couldn't really bring myself to eliminate them completely for even one day in my life. I realized that I was not able to cut out these devices from my daily routine, but it was the fact that I didn't care which is why I feel like it wasn't such a bad thing. If you put it into perspective, the Internet has become a necessity in our society. The thing is, we are "able" to not use the Internet, but the demands of our world call for the service that it provides. We "need" the ability to access data quickly in our educational lives, personal lives, and professional lives, because it is available, we are expected to use it. The fact is, research on the Internet is much more efficient than research through books or periodicals. I needed to use the Internet, because I “needed” to do my homework, I used my phone because I needed to get in touch with my parents. Could I have gone without those things? Probably. But why would I unnecessarily complicate my day?
When I did my "Informal Research Post", I researched "cloud networks". Cloud is the term used to describe the non-physical links between computers and information that collects in a database referred to as a “cloud”. What it is, is essentially a server, owned by a company "subletting" space to paying companies who want to avoid the costs of maintaining their own server network. [If you are unsure what this is, think IBM providing online storage space to AOL for e-mail servers]. When I did this research, I looked at the definition, the uses and what companies own notable cloud networks. This led me to look at the use of “clouds” in the medical field. I found that medical records are being moved to a cloud network owned by a company recently purchased by Dell, in order to eliminate the competition to get the contract to be the main operator of the new systems. Using the Internet, this took me only about an hour or two. If I wanted to, I could have used the library, looked through articles discussing the medical cloud networks, looked at books talking about Internet business, and most likely been able to find the same stuff. That being said, all that would have taken me many hours, and probably over the span of a few days at least.
If we use the Internet to discover, and focus on one topic to learn something through the technology, we can develop, and not fall prey to the apathy that is so very tempting. By focusing and not being sidetracked, we are absolutely capable of using the Internet as a super-efficient research tool. At the same time, the lack of physical effort required to research online as opposed to at a library is a key factor in assessing how driven we are to apply ourselves. Taking that in to consideration raises the question of, whether or not online research is just lazy, or if it has real merit. This is an important distinction, because the Internet cannot be a substitute for actual research. The Internet is merely an open marketplace that researchers can use to publish physical research, thus we will always need physical sources (primary sources).
At the beginning of this course, we actually set out with the intention to get evidence we couldn’t find on the Internet. I found my primary sources walking down Park Avenue, and 23rd street, and asked them what they thought (or didn’t). Most people didn't respond, but for the most part I recognized by their facial expressions, that they were aware of what I was saying and thinking about the question, even if they didn’t actually respond to me. The fact was, most of those people didn't realize basic stuff about the world they spend most of their daily lives in. The few people, who stopped and talked to me, gave pretty generic answers, but each talked about something insightful or unique at some point. These people really didn't seem to care, they were thinking about it, but none of them really said anything about how they wanted to change their behavior, or what they felt was wrong with the digital world. The phrase "most people" was tossed around in a very defensive way, used to take the focus away from them and re assess the problem on a national or global scale.
For a point of view from someone I knew, and someone I could accurately analyze, I interviewed my brother Max. Max I realized might not have been the best person to interview for 2 reasons. First, he is a pretty active kid, who has always been social in real life, so as a result is very social online. Second, he is not really analytical and didn't actually offer me much in the way of deep personal insight. Max is a kid, who I would say has far greater interest in the physical world than the digital one, and thus rarely spends time being spread between two realities. On an ironic note, he did ask me to stop interviewing him so he could go play Xbox. A sign perhaps, that he didn’t mind being disembodied (at least for a little while). That request to go play Xbox, above all else stuck in my head as an example of digital dry-humor. Max just didn't care, he knew he used facebook, ichat, and played Xbox, but he still played baseball, skateboarded, biked, and went to school, so really this idea of the "digital world" just didn't phase him.
Immediately after writing this paper, I reached the very obvious conclusion that new technology is highly addictive. I didn’t leave my conclusion their however. I felt strongly that if I was going to write about an alternative perspective, I should at least end with something more ambiguous. I believe it is because of the appeal to our personalities on a sensory level, that we hear (ipods), feel (touch screens, Nintendo Wii), see (everything), and can emotionally connect to this technology. Without control, it is dangerous, but with control and regulation, the developmental value is potentially limitless (as far as we know).
There is a degree to which technology can replace things entirely, and another to which technology improves things. The Internet is much too vast and has to many alternatives to physical "real world" processes to be safely heralded as a replacement. Is the Internet the new library? The new supermarket? The new forum for discussion? It might be, but do you want to have a food factory, that ships out food like mail? Do you want to replace the libraries with wikipedia? I don't, that may be easier, but it just takes the feeling out of living. You go to the supermarket and the library, that in of itself is an experience, we can't simulate that, no matter how advanced we get. People addicted to living conveniently are the reason for Wall-Mart, The Mall of America and the disappearance of small businesses. This is just another drug, another way to get our "convenience fix". Living in the real world is something I really like, I don't want the physical world to go the way of the video store after Netflix, because once that’s gone, what do we have left?
Sources
- “Everything Bad is Good For You” by Steven Johnson
- “Feed” by M.T. Anderson
- “jakespersonallife.blogspot.com” by Jakob Friedman
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy (Graph)
- “sofandy.blogspot.com” Course Blog, by Andy Snyder
- http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tier1/ajana.html (research on disembodiment)
- For sources on "cloud networks", see "Informal Research" (HW #10)
With all the problems in the world, all the war, genocide, economic collapse, homelessness, joblessness, and starvation, isn’t it wonderful we still have reality television? I mean with everything going on, it’s amazing the world hasn’t fallen apart, but we don’t need to worry about Survivor renewing its contract with NBC. Every time I pick up a newspaper, I have no conception of who or what could possibly be holding the fabric of humanity together. That’s when I turn on survivor. There I know what is holding that together, I know what is going on, and I understand the rules. It’s simple. In a complex world, I like a little simplicity. While I watch, to my surprise (and dismay), I actually begin thinking about what I read. I begin to notice some subtle connections between the contestants calculated relationships, and the way that President Obama recently dealt with the volatile topic of U.S. missile defense in Eastern Europe. I decided at that point, to switch over to FOX and watch Family Guy instead.
Some might label the above example as a facetious simplification of a complex issue, and frankly, that’s exactly what it is. That however, is not the point. The point I want to make is that I pulled this from a show as trivial as Survivor. Half a century ago, high- school students would be hard pressed to find a source of entertainment, which showed complex enough relationships as to break down the interaction between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the same time, what alternative was around the likes of Family Guy, which provided the necessary programming to let you escape serious issues for a little while.
Today we have a choice, but often choose that outlet for escape from the real world, because after all, we just want to chill. Those same connections from digital to reality can come from the Internet and even video games. In this paper, I will be exploring how, and why we squander that opportunity. Modern technology has opened up the prospect of putting people in greater control of their own mental development than ever before. We hinder that development by choosing to harness the technology as a means of physical disembodiment, and thus sacrifice what these devices can offer us developmentally outside of the digital world.
To begin, I want to explain the concept of disembodiment, both in general, and as it pertains to the digital world. The idea of being disembodied was originally a term associated with ghosts, death as a whole. As society evolved, the meaning of the word evolved. Today, with the emergence of screen’s and electronics, the term has become used to describe how a person can be mentally active but motionless. In this paper, I will be using disembodied to mean someone’s state of being where they are mentally active in the digital world, but neither mentally nor physically active in the physical world.
Furthermore, I want to define the term "modern", as the period from 1950, up until now (2009). Technological advances and breakthrough’s have happened with a much higher frequency than they had before 1950, but also integrated much quicker than throughout history. The time between the release of the first ipod (2001), and the ipod touch (2007), was a mere 6 years. In comparison, the Phonograph; the first device allowing recorded sound to be replayed was invented in 1878. Following that, almost 150 years later, the television came out, in 1934. The time it took for integration of sound and video was 150 years, but to integrate video and sound in a handheld device, took only 6 years,
Other things have increased dramatically since than. For one, the global temperature began to spike dramatically, as shown below in the “Hockey Stick Graph” (made famous in Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth”), and thus the amount of greenhouse gasses have spiked in accordance with the graph. The importance of this comparison, is that we have experienced not only a technological revolution in the last half-century, but a second industrial revolution. The new revolution differs greatly from the one at the turn of the century, because it is about the development of digital technologies, to make more intuitive devices that are more user compatible. This compatibility makes the digital world seem less mechanized and more in sync with how our minds work.
The idea of this “digital revolution”, has pushed our digital world to the forefront of our lives, while we sacrifice the physical world in the process. The Morgan, Frick, Carnegie and industrial revolution made us able to do physical things faster, now we have begun adapting to our new platform for interaction; the virtual world. As we focus more on the virtual world, we focus less on our world. We make exceptions to environmental policy in order to produce more advanced (and often more harmful) devices, and that, in part is something attributable to the spike in the graph that can be seen right around the 1950’s. Interestingly enough, we don’t see any such spike around the 1900’s, which is alarming considering the clean image of electronic devices, as opposed to the steel factories that seemed so dirty and environmentally destructive.
I guess things aren’t always what they seem huh?
The book Everything Bad Is Good For You, by Steven Johnson is a research novel about the often overlooked and unexplored aspects of modern technology often said to have no intellectual value whatsoever. Johnson discusses how use of certain digital devices, such as video games, the Internet and television can be very effective in certain areas of neural-development. The thing, which he doesn’t really touch on, is that overuse, can lead to an apathetic state that renders the developmental potential of the device nonexistent. When one becomes apathetic, they still may be intellectually stimulated, but they lose the will to apply that development in the real world. The danger in overuse lies in the failure to see how you develop and become attached to the device itself. An example is television. People who watch a show like Man Vs. Wild, might be trying to learn survival skills and learn a thing or two about nature. Those people may be intrigued by the show, and want to explore say... Australia and tour the outback. Assuming that like most people, the person cannot afford a trip to Australia, they probably wont go, but they will however try and learn as much as they can about the outback if they are so inclined.
On the other end of the programming spectrum, you have shows like I Love New York. Now supposedly, if I follow the author’s logic, this show has a socially educational effect on the viewer. But look at why the person watches that show, and I almost guarantee that they will not start discussing the complex relationship between New York and the contestants, or the process which New York uses to eliminate contestants. We have command of our ability to learn and pick up very useful knowledge through everything from Man Vs. Wild, to I Love New York, but if we ignore it and just submit to watching countless hours of T.V, than we learn nothing and all that viewing has exactly no mental benefit. Subjecting ourselves to a disembodied state where we are virtually brain-dead in the digital world has no benefit in the physical world, as it stimulates no brain activity in the former either.
M.T. Anderson's novel "Feed" is an allegory about our modern society, highlighting the problems with today's American consumer culture, and our lack of concern for the world beyond ourselves. The Feed is a sort of iPhone built into your head, which allows users instant gratification, and the digital world is prevalent over the physical one. The idea of the evil corporation is hidden underneath the story, but nonetheless it is a very important layer of the story. The company that owns and operates the Feed has the sole purpose of advertising and creating consumers, while allowing users to access information, that is, if they want to. Any real information or conversation about real issues is intentionally absent from most of the book. This is a sort of acknowledgment to the lack of useful things being done with the Internet because of the choice we have to not use the Internet for intelligent things. Anderson tries to exemplify the lack of important interaction online and in the digital world. His doing so begs the question of whether disembodiment is worth the gamble of maybe stimulating intellectual growth. He poses the evil "Feed Corporation” as the antagonist trying to eliminate any intellectual pursuits in the digital world. The goal of companies like “Feed Corp.”, is obviously only to make money, as is the goal of corporations in our world. As a result, the Feed doesn't promote anything other than buying and buying and buying.
In the real world, we have a comparable problem. We have this great new technology that can be used to advance ourselves and improve our minds, but this new technology also happens to be a great marketing platform. What that does, is create a system that tries to steer us away from information, but towards products and direct the majority of the technology towards making people think they need stuff that they sometimes don't even want. The Internet can be used for just about anything and everything. The key to regulating your use, and maintaining control of your life online, is to maintain your focus; Keep in mind why you went online, do what you intended, and than log off. The problems arise when we are "bored" and instead of reading or drawing or spending time with our family, we go on You Tube and watch car crashes, or animals doing funny shit. I think that Internet use isn't about staying away from fresh direct.com, or YouTube.com or facebook.com. If you come online trying to shop for food, than by all means, go to fresh direct. If you want to talk to one of your friends, than don't hesitate to go onto facebook. What you shouldn't do is go onto the Internet and just explore. The real world is something worth exploring. On the Internet, the world is at our fingertips, but we don’t have a clue what we’re looking for. An interesting part of the Internet is how the physical and digital worlds clash, and the physical world actually manifests itself in the digital world, sometimes even playing out from one to the other. The idea of ordering food online, and having it come to your house a day later, and be physically there, is an example of digital disembodiment with tangible results.
To pose the question of; "what is digital disembodiment?" is key to assessing how thought provoking an activity reading this paper will be. I want to give you [the reader] a moment to consider the difference between the example I described above, and a person talking on iChat. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The immediate reaction probably is to notice the similarities. Say, person-to-person interaction (you order food, someone ships and delivers food, or communicating with friends) is what I would expect. The less obvious thing to notice is how iChat is not the same [generally] as actual conversation, while ordering food online and going to the supermarket has the same end result. Either way there is food in your fridge, but either way, people talking on iChat will interact drastically differently on either a digital platform or a physical one.
An example of the idea I proposed above is something that I used to do when I was younger. When I was hungry, I used to go into my kitchen and just basically open the fridge and the freezer, and look for what I might want. It didn't matter how many times a day I did that, I always looked around like something new might show up. My point is, that this is a lot like how we surf the web. We sit in front of our computers with the browser open, looking to find something new, even if we knew that what we had been looking for initially wasn't even their. We really don't care, our only concern when we are online is to find something, anything, and no matter how unimportant or dumb it may be isn’t a concern.
There is an important question, one that often goes ignored, which lies behind literally everything we do. That question is, “Why?” Why do we use the Internet, why do we love our electronics? Some people say it’s because of emptiness in our lives, and we try to fill it with these devices. Others say that we are just lazy. I want to propose that the answer lies behind the idea that we are filling some “void”. I do think we are filling a void, but the emptiness we feel is not a sign of a real world lack of something. It is a lack of technology and a want for newer devices that is creating the void. Just as the “Feed Corporation” used the Feed to profit, companies like Apple, constantly turn out new products with cutting edge design. That is what we fill the “void” with.
The proof of this theory is self-evident. For example, if you feel like you really want an orange, you can either eat an orange, drink orange juice, or have something with orange flavoring in it. Now, suppose you really want an iphone. You’re in your house and you want it, you want a handheld computer with a cool interface and tons of features. How are you going to fill that desire? Well consider your option between; getting an iphone, and not getting an iphone. You can’t fill that emptiness any other way, a Blackberry certainly won’t do, I mean, its okay I guess, but it’s not as cool as an iphone obviously.
At this point, most people would be disappointed that they don’t have the money to get one, being that they are quite expensive toys. So now you’re on your computer looking at iphone’s on www.apple.com, or thinking of a way you might be able to get it. Than it hits you! Why am I spending time trying to get this phone when I’m not going to get it? I can just get something else instead. You want an iphone, anything else is just inferior, but you need to fill that void, even if that means getting another phone. This is the vicious cycle, the synthetic void that will never be filled, and never can be.
The “synthetic void” is the “why” that I was talking about. It is the reason why we love our iPhone’s, our Xbox 360’s, and the Internet (for the ability to at least look at what we want). The genuine belief that we “need” the new ipod is not only what drives consumerism, but also what drives us to love technology. When you settle for something, you still want the better version, and even when you have the better device, you still want a newer device the second you see it. Basically, you can’t win, because the rate of technological development has become virtually exponential at this point.
The topic of digitization I have come to realize is a very easy one to over analyze. The fact is, some people just don't actually care all that much about this. I want to make a distinction here, between not caring and not realizing. Earlier in the digital unit, I tried doing an experiment, where I refrained from using all electronic devices for 24-hours. Long story short, it failed, but not completely. I did find myself using some modern devices, but actually I was more intrigued by how I made the extra effort to be more active that day. What I concluded was, that I didn't really use a ridiculous amount of digital devices to begin with, but at the same time, I couldn't really bring myself to eliminate them completely for even one day in my life. I realized that I was not able to cut out these devices from my daily routine, but it was the fact that I didn't care which is why I feel like it wasn't such a bad thing. If you put it into perspective, the Internet has become a necessity in our society. The thing is, we are "able" to not use the Internet, but the demands of our world call for the service that it provides. We "need" the ability to access data quickly in our educational lives, personal lives, and professional lives, because it is available, we are expected to use it. The fact is, research on the Internet is much more efficient than research through books or periodicals. I needed to use the Internet, because I “needed” to do my homework, I used my phone because I needed to get in touch with my parents. Could I have gone without those things? Probably. But why would I unnecessarily complicate my day?
When I did my "Informal Research Post", I researched "cloud networks". Cloud is the term used to describe the non-physical links between computers and information that collects in a database referred to as a “cloud”. What it is, is essentially a server, owned by a company "subletting" space to paying companies who want to avoid the costs of maintaining their own server network. [If you are unsure what this is, think IBM providing online storage space to AOL for e-mail servers]. When I did this research, I looked at the definition, the uses and what companies own notable cloud networks. This led me to look at the use of “clouds” in the medical field. I found that medical records are being moved to a cloud network owned by a company recently purchased by Dell, in order to eliminate the competition to get the contract to be the main operator of the new systems. Using the Internet, this took me only about an hour or two. If I wanted to, I could have used the library, looked through articles discussing the medical cloud networks, looked at books talking about Internet business, and most likely been able to find the same stuff. That being said, all that would have taken me many hours, and probably over the span of a few days at least.
If we use the Internet to discover, and focus on one topic to learn something through the technology, we can develop, and not fall prey to the apathy that is so very tempting. By focusing and not being sidetracked, we are absolutely capable of using the Internet as a super-efficient research tool. At the same time, the lack of physical effort required to research online as opposed to at a library is a key factor in assessing how driven we are to apply ourselves. Taking that in to consideration raises the question of, whether or not online research is just lazy, or if it has real merit. This is an important distinction, because the Internet cannot be a substitute for actual research. The Internet is merely an open marketplace that researchers can use to publish physical research, thus we will always need physical sources (primary sources).
At the beginning of this course, we actually set out with the intention to get evidence we couldn’t find on the Internet. I found my primary sources walking down Park Avenue, and 23rd street, and asked them what they thought (or didn’t). Most people didn't respond, but for the most part I recognized by their facial expressions, that they were aware of what I was saying and thinking about the question, even if they didn’t actually respond to me. The fact was, most of those people didn't realize basic stuff about the world they spend most of their daily lives in. The few people, who stopped and talked to me, gave pretty generic answers, but each talked about something insightful or unique at some point. These people really didn't seem to care, they were thinking about it, but none of them really said anything about how they wanted to change their behavior, or what they felt was wrong with the digital world. The phrase "most people" was tossed around in a very defensive way, used to take the focus away from them and re assess the problem on a national or global scale.
For a point of view from someone I knew, and someone I could accurately analyze, I interviewed my brother Max. Max I realized might not have been the best person to interview for 2 reasons. First, he is a pretty active kid, who has always been social in real life, so as a result is very social online. Second, he is not really analytical and didn't actually offer me much in the way of deep personal insight. Max is a kid, who I would say has far greater interest in the physical world than the digital one, and thus rarely spends time being spread between two realities. On an ironic note, he did ask me to stop interviewing him so he could go play Xbox. A sign perhaps, that he didn’t mind being disembodied (at least for a little while). That request to go play Xbox, above all else stuck in my head as an example of digital dry-humor. Max just didn't care, he knew he used facebook, ichat, and played Xbox, but he still played baseball, skateboarded, biked, and went to school, so really this idea of the "digital world" just didn't phase him.
Immediately after writing this paper, I reached the very obvious conclusion that new technology is highly addictive. I didn’t leave my conclusion their however. I felt strongly that if I was going to write about an alternative perspective, I should at least end with something more ambiguous. I believe it is because of the appeal to our personalities on a sensory level, that we hear (ipods), feel (touch screens, Nintendo Wii), see (everything), and can emotionally connect to this technology. Without control, it is dangerous, but with control and regulation, the developmental value is potentially limitless (as far as we know).
There is a degree to which technology can replace things entirely, and another to which technology improves things. The Internet is much too vast and has to many alternatives to physical "real world" processes to be safely heralded as a replacement. Is the Internet the new library? The new supermarket? The new forum for discussion? It might be, but do you want to have a food factory, that ships out food like mail? Do you want to replace the libraries with wikipedia? I don't, that may be easier, but it just takes the feeling out of living. You go to the supermarket and the library, that in of itself is an experience, we can't simulate that, no matter how advanced we get. People addicted to living conveniently are the reason for Wall-Mart, The Mall of America and the disappearance of small businesses. This is just another drug, another way to get our "convenience fix". Living in the real world is something I really like, I don't want the physical world to go the way of the video store after Netflix, because once that’s gone, what do we have left?
Sources
- “Everything Bad is Good For You” by Steven Johnson
- “Feed” by M.T. Anderson
- “jakespersonallife.blogspot.com” by Jakob Friedman
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy (Graph)
- “sofandy.blogspot.com” Course Blog, by Andy Snyder
- http://www.sociology.org/content/2005/tier1/ajana.html (research on disembodiment)
- For sources on "cloud networks", see "Informal Research" (HW #10)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
HW-20 Big Paper #1 Final Draft
Here goes nothin', worked hard on it, hope it shows.
..............
..............
..............
With all the problems in the world, all the war, genocide, economic collapse, homelessness, joblessness, and starvation, isn’t it wonderful we still have reality television? I mean with everything going on, it’s amazing the world hasn’t fallen apart. Every time I pick up a newspaper, I have no conception of who or what could possibly be holding the fabric of humanity together. That’s when I turn on survivor. There I know what is holding that together, I know what is going on, and I understand the rules. It’s simple. In a complex world, I like a little simplicity. While I watch, to my surprise (and dismay), I actually begin thinking about what I read. I begin to notice some subtle connections between the contestants calculated relationships, and the way that President Obama recently dealt with the volatile topic of U.S. missile defense in Eastern Europe. I decided at that point, to switch over to FOX and watch Family Guy instead.
Some might label the above example as a facetious simplification of a complex issue, and frankly, that’s exactly what it is. That however, is not the point. The point I want to make is that I pulled this from a show as trivial as Survivor. Half a century ago, high- school students would be hard pressed to find a source of entertainment, which showed complex enough relationships as to break down the interaction between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the same time, what alternative was around the likes of Family Guy, which provided the necessary programming to let you escape serious issues for a little while.
Today we have a choice, but often choose that outlet for escape from the real world, because after all, we just want to chill. Those same connections from digital to reality can come from the Internet and even videogames. In this paper, I will be exploring how, and why we squander that opportunity. Modern technology has opened up the prospect of putting people in greater control of their own mental development than ever before. We hinder that development by choosing to harness the technology as a means of disembodiment, and thus sacrifice what these devices can offer us developmentally.
To begin, I want to explain the concept of disembodiment, both in general, and as it pertains to the digital world. The idea of being disembodied was originally a term associated with ghosts, death as a whole. As society evolved, the meaning of the word evolved. Today, with the emergence of screen’s and electronics, the term has become used to describe how a person can be mentally active but motionless. In this paper, I will be using disembodied to mean someone’s state of being where they are mentally active in the digital world, but neither mentally nor physically active in the physical world.
The book Everything Bad Is Good For You, by Steven Johnson is a research novel about the often overlooked and unexplored aspects of modern technology often said to have no intellectual value whatsoever. Johnson discusses how use of certain digital devices, such as video games, the Internet and television can be very effective in certain areas of neural-development. The thing, which he doesn’t really touch on, is that overuse, can lead to an apathetic state that renders the developmental potential of the device nonexistent. When one becomes apathetic, they still may be intellectually stimulated, but they lose the will to apply that development in the real world. The danger in overuse lies in the failure to see how you develop and become attached to the device itself. An example is television. People who watch a show like Man Vs. Wild, might be trying to learn survival skills and learn a thing or two about nature. Those people may be intrigued by the show, and want to explore say... Australia and tour the outback. Assuming that like most people, the person cannot afford a trip to Australia, they probably wont go, but they will however try and learn as much as they can about the outback if they are so inclined.
On the other end of the programming spectrum, you have shows like I Love New York. Now supposedly, if I follow the author’s logic, this show has a socially educational effect on the viewer. But look at why the person watches that show, and I almost guarantee that they will not start discussing the complex relationship between New York and the contestants, or the process which New York uses to eliminate contestants. We have command of our ability to learn and pick up very useful knowledge through everything from Man Vs. Wild, to I Love New York, but if we ignore it and just submit to watching countless hours of T.V, than we learn nothing and all that viewing has exactly no mental benefit. Subjecting ourselves to a disembodied state where we are virtually brain-dead in the digital world has no benefit in the physical world, as it stimulates no brain activity in the former either.
M.T. Anderson's novel "Feed" is an allegory about our modern society, highlighting the problems with today's American consumer culture, and our lack of concern for the world beyond ourselves. The Feed is a sort of iPhone built into your head, which allows users instant gratification, and the digital world is prevalent over the physical one. The idea of the evil corporation is hidden underneath the story, but nonetheless it is a very important layer of the story. The company that owns and operates the Feed has the sole purpose of advertising and creating consumers, while allowing users to access information, that is, if they want to. Any real information or conversation about real issues is intentionally absent from most of the book. This is a sort of acknowledgment to the lack of useful things being done with the Internet because of the choice we have to not use the Internet for intelligent things. Anderson tries to exemplify the lack of important interaction online and in the digital world. His doing so begs the question of whether disembodiment is worth the gamble of maybe stimulating intellectual growth. He poses the evil "Feed Corporation” as the antagonist trying to eliminate any intellectual pursuits in the digital world. The goal of companies like “Feed Corp.”, is obviously only to make money, as is the goal of corporations in our world. As a result, the Feed doesn't promote anything other than buying and buying and buying.
In the real world, we have a comparable problem. We have this great new technology that can be used to advance ourselves and improve our minds, but this new technology also happens to be a great marketing platform. What that does, is create a system that tries to steer us away from information, but towards products and direct the majority of the technology towards making people think they need stuff that they sometimes don't even want. The Internet can be used for just about anything and everything. The key to regulating your use, and maintaining control of your life online, is to maintain your focus; Keep in mind why you went online, do what you intended, and than log off. The problems arise when we are "bored" and instead of reading or drawing or spending time with our family, we go on You Tube and watch car crashes, or animals doing funny shit. I think that Internet use isn't about staying away from fresh direct.com, or YouTube.com or facebook.com. If you come online trying to shop for food, than by all means, go to fresh direct. If you want to talk to one of your friends, than don't hesitate to go onto facebook. What you shouldn't do is go onto the Internet and just explore. The real world is something worth exploring. On the Internet, the world is at our fingertips, but we don’t have a clue what we’re looking for. An interesting part of the Internet is how the physical and digital worlds clash, and the physical world actually manifests itself in the digital world, sometimes even playing out from one to the other. The idea of ordering food online, and having it come to your house a day later, and be physically there, is an example of digital disembodiment with tangible results.
To pose the question of what is digital disembodiment at this point is an important thing. I want to give you [the reader] a second to consider the difference between the example I described above, and a person talking on iChat. ------------------------ The immediate reaction probably is to notice the similarities. Say, person-to-person interaction (you order food, someone ships and delivers food, or communicating with friends) is what I would expect. The less obvious thing to notice is how iChat is not the same [generally] as actual conversation, while ordering food online and going to the supermarket has the same end result. Either way there is food in your fridge, but either way, people talking on iChat will interact drastically differently on either a digital platform or a physical one.
An example of the idea I proposed above is something that I used to do when I was younger. When I was hungry, I used to go into my kitchen and just basically open the fridge and the freezer, and look for what I might want. It didn't matter how many times a day I did that, I always looked around like something new might show up. My point is, that this is a lot like how we surf the web. We sit in front of our computers with the browser open, looking to find something new, even if we knew that what we had been looking for initially wasn't even their. We really don't care, our only concern when we are online is to find something, anything, and no matter how unimportant or dumb it may be isn’t a concern.
There is an important question, one that often goes ignored, which lies behind literally everything we do. That question is, “Why?” Why do we use the Internet, why do we love our electronics? Some people say it’s because of emptiness in our lives, and we try to fill it with these devices. Others say that we are just lazy. I want to propose that the answer lies behind the idea that we are filling some “void”. I do think we are filling a void, but the emptiness we feel is not a sign of a real world lack of something. It is a lack of technology and a want for newer devices that is creating the void. Just as the “Feed Corporation” used the Feed to profit, companies like Apple, constantly turn out new products with cutting edge design. That is what we fill the “void” with.
The proof of this theory is self-evident. For example, if you feel like you really want an orange, you can either eat an orange, drink orange juice, or have something with orange flavoring in it. Now, suppose you really want an iphone. You’re in your house and you want it, you want a handheld computer with a cool interface and tons of features. How are you going to fill that desire? Well consider your option between; getting an iphone, and not getting an iphone. You can’t fill that emptiness any other way, a Blackberry certainly won’t do, I mean, its okay I guess, but it’s not as cool as an iphone obviously.
At this point, most people would be disappointed that they don’t have the money to get one, being that they are quite expensive toys. So now you’re on your computer looking at iphone’s on www.apple.com, or thinking of a way you might be able to get it. Than it hits you! Why am I spending time trying to get this phone when I’m not going to get it? I can just get something else instead. You want an iphone, anything else is just inferior, but you need to fill that void, even if that means getting another phone. This is the vicious cycle, the synthetic void that will never be filled, and never can be. When you settle for something, you want the
The “synthetic void” is the “why” that I was talking about. It is the reason why we love our iPhone’s, our Xbox 360’s, and the Internet (for the ability to at least look at what we want). The genuine belief that we “need” the new ipod is not only what drives consumerism, but also what drives us to love technology. When you settle for something, you still want the better version, and even when you have the better device, you still want a newer device the second you see it. Basically, you can’t win, because the rate of technological development has become virtually exponential at this point.
The topic of digitization I have come to realize is a very easy one to over analyze. The fact is, some people just don't actually care all that much about this. I want to make a distinction here, between not caring and not realizing. Earlier in the digital unit, I tried doing an experiment, where I refrained from using all electronic devices for 24-hours. Long story short, it failed, but not completely. I did find myself using some modern devices, but actually I was more intrigued by how I made the extra effort to be more active that day. What I concluded was, that I didn't really use a ridiculous amount of digital devices to begin with, but at the same time, I couldn't really bring myself to eliminate them completely for even one day in my life. I realized that I was not able to cut out these devices from my daily routine, but it was the fact that I didn't care which is why I feel like it wasn't such a bad thing. If you put it into perspective, the Internet has become a necessity in our society. The thing is, we are "able" to not use the Internet, but the demands of our world call for the service that it provides. We "need" the ability to access data quickly in our educational lives, personal lives, and professional lives, because it is available, we are expected to use it. The fact is, research on the Internet is much more efficient than research through books or periodicals. I needed to use the Internet, because I “needed” to do my homework, I used my phone because I needed to get in touch with my parents. Could I have gone without those things? Probably. But why would I unnecessarily complicate my day?
When I did my "Informal Research Post", I researched "cloud networks". Cloud is the term used to describe the non-physical links between computers and information that collects in a database referred to as a “cloud”. What it is, is essentially a server, owned by a company "subletting" space to paying companies who want to avoid the costs of maintaining their own server network. [If you are unsure what this is, think IBM providing online storage space to AOL for e-mail servers]. When I did this research, I looked at the definition, the uses and what companies own notable cloud networks. This led me to look at the use of “clouds” in the medical field. I found that medical records are being moved to a cloud network owned by a company recently purchased by Dell, in order to eliminate the competition to get the contract to be the main operator of the new systems. Using the Internet, this took me only about an hour or two. If I wanted to, I could have used the library, looked through articles discussing the medical cloud networks, looked at books talking about Internet business, and most likely been able to find the same stuff. That being said, all that would have taken me many hours, and probably over the span of a few days at least.
If we use the Internet to discover, and focus on one topic to learn something through the technology, we can develop, and not fall prey to the apathy that is so very tempting. By focusing and not being sidetracked, we are absolutely capable of using the Internet as a super-efficient research tool. At the same time, the lack of physical effort required to research online as opposed to at a library is a key factor in assessing how driven we are to apply ourselves. Taking that in to consideration raises the question of, whether or not online research is just lazy, or if it has real merit. This is an important distinction, because the Internet cannot be a substitute for actual research. The Internet is merely an open marketplace that researchers can use to publish physical research, thus we will always need physical sources (primary sources).
At the beginning of this course, we actually set out with the intention to get evidence we couldn’t find on the Internet. I found my primary sources walking down Park Avenue, and 23rd street, and asked them what they thought (or didn’t). Most people didn't respond, but for the most part I recognized by their facial expressions, that they were aware of what I was saying and thinking about the question, even if they didn’t actually respond to me. The fact was, most of those people didn't realize basic stuff about the world they spend most of their daily lives in. The few people, who stopped and talked to me, gave pretty generic answers, but each talked about something insightful or unique at some point. These people really didn't seem to care, they were thinking about it, but none of them really said anything about how they wanted to change their behavior, or what they felt was wrong with the digital world. The phrase "most people" was tossed around in a very defensive way, used to take the focus away from them and re assess the problem on a national or global scale.
For a point of view from someone I knew, and someone I could accurately analyze, I interviewed my brother Max. Max I realized might not have been the best person to interview for 2 reasons. First, he is a pretty active kid, who has always been social in real life, so as a result is very social online. Second, he is not really analytical and didn't actually offer me much in the way of deep personal insight. Max is a kid, who I would say has far greater interest in the physical world than the digital one, and thus rarely spends time being spread between two realities. On an ironic note, he did ask me to stop interviewing him so he could go play Xbox. A sign perhaps, that he didn’t mind being disembodied (at least for a little while). That request to go play Xbox, above all else stuck in my head as an example of digital dry-humor. Max just didn't care, he knew he used facebook, ichat, and played Xbox, but he still played baseball, skateboarded, biked, and went to school, so really this idea of the "digital world" just didn't phase him.
Immediately after writing this paper, I reached the very obvious conclusion that new technology is highly addictive. I didn’t leave my conclusion their however. I felt strongly that if I was going to write about an alternative perspective, I should at least end with something more ambiguous. I believe it is because of the appeal to our personalities on a sensory level, that we hear (ipods), feel (touch screens, Nintendo Wii), see (everything), and can emotionally connect to this technology. Without control, it is dangerous, but with control and regulation, the developmental value is potentially limitless (as far as we know).
There is a degree to which technology can replace things entirely, and another to which technology improves things. The Internet is much too vast and has to many alternatives to physical "real world" processes to be safely heralded as a replacement. Is the Internet the new library? The new supermarket? The new forum for discussion? It might be, but do you want to have a food factory, that ships out food like mail? Do you want to replace the libraries with wikipedia? I don't, that may be easier, but it just takes the feeling out of living. You go to the supermarket and the library, that in of itself is an experience, we can't simulate that, no matter how advanced we get. People addicted to living conveniently are the reason for Wall-Mart, The Mall of America and the disappearance of small businesses. This is just another drug, another way to get our "convenience fix". Living in the real world is something I really like, I don't want the physical world to go the way of the video store after Netflix, because once that’s gone, what do we have left?
..............
..............
..............
With all the problems in the world, all the war, genocide, economic collapse, homelessness, joblessness, and starvation, isn’t it wonderful we still have reality television? I mean with everything going on, it’s amazing the world hasn’t fallen apart. Every time I pick up a newspaper, I have no conception of who or what could possibly be holding the fabric of humanity together. That’s when I turn on survivor. There I know what is holding that together, I know what is going on, and I understand the rules. It’s simple. In a complex world, I like a little simplicity. While I watch, to my surprise (and dismay), I actually begin thinking about what I read. I begin to notice some subtle connections between the contestants calculated relationships, and the way that President Obama recently dealt with the volatile topic of U.S. missile defense in Eastern Europe. I decided at that point, to switch over to FOX and watch Family Guy instead.
Some might label the above example as a facetious simplification of a complex issue, and frankly, that’s exactly what it is. That however, is not the point. The point I want to make is that I pulled this from a show as trivial as Survivor. Half a century ago, high- school students would be hard pressed to find a source of entertainment, which showed complex enough relationships as to break down the interaction between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the same time, what alternative was around the likes of Family Guy, which provided the necessary programming to let you escape serious issues for a little while.
Today we have a choice, but often choose that outlet for escape from the real world, because after all, we just want to chill. Those same connections from digital to reality can come from the Internet and even videogames. In this paper, I will be exploring how, and why we squander that opportunity. Modern technology has opened up the prospect of putting people in greater control of their own mental development than ever before. We hinder that development by choosing to harness the technology as a means of disembodiment, and thus sacrifice what these devices can offer us developmentally.
To begin, I want to explain the concept of disembodiment, both in general, and as it pertains to the digital world. The idea of being disembodied was originally a term associated with ghosts, death as a whole. As society evolved, the meaning of the word evolved. Today, with the emergence of screen’s and electronics, the term has become used to describe how a person can be mentally active but motionless. In this paper, I will be using disembodied to mean someone’s state of being where they are mentally active in the digital world, but neither mentally nor physically active in the physical world.
The book Everything Bad Is Good For You, by Steven Johnson is a research novel about the often overlooked and unexplored aspects of modern technology often said to have no intellectual value whatsoever. Johnson discusses how use of certain digital devices, such as video games, the Internet and television can be very effective in certain areas of neural-development. The thing, which he doesn’t really touch on, is that overuse, can lead to an apathetic state that renders the developmental potential of the device nonexistent. When one becomes apathetic, they still may be intellectually stimulated, but they lose the will to apply that development in the real world. The danger in overuse lies in the failure to see how you develop and become attached to the device itself. An example is television. People who watch a show like Man Vs. Wild, might be trying to learn survival skills and learn a thing or two about nature. Those people may be intrigued by the show, and want to explore say... Australia and tour the outback. Assuming that like most people, the person cannot afford a trip to Australia, they probably wont go, but they will however try and learn as much as they can about the outback if they are so inclined.
On the other end of the programming spectrum, you have shows like I Love New York. Now supposedly, if I follow the author’s logic, this show has a socially educational effect on the viewer. But look at why the person watches that show, and I almost guarantee that they will not start discussing the complex relationship between New York and the contestants, or the process which New York uses to eliminate contestants. We have command of our ability to learn and pick up very useful knowledge through everything from Man Vs. Wild, to I Love New York, but if we ignore it and just submit to watching countless hours of T.V, than we learn nothing and all that viewing has exactly no mental benefit. Subjecting ourselves to a disembodied state where we are virtually brain-dead in the digital world has no benefit in the physical world, as it stimulates no brain activity in the former either.
M.T. Anderson's novel "Feed" is an allegory about our modern society, highlighting the problems with today's American consumer culture, and our lack of concern for the world beyond ourselves. The Feed is a sort of iPhone built into your head, which allows users instant gratification, and the digital world is prevalent over the physical one. The idea of the evil corporation is hidden underneath the story, but nonetheless it is a very important layer of the story. The company that owns and operates the Feed has the sole purpose of advertising and creating consumers, while allowing users to access information, that is, if they want to. Any real information or conversation about real issues is intentionally absent from most of the book. This is a sort of acknowledgment to the lack of useful things being done with the Internet because of the choice we have to not use the Internet for intelligent things. Anderson tries to exemplify the lack of important interaction online and in the digital world. His doing so begs the question of whether disembodiment is worth the gamble of maybe stimulating intellectual growth. He poses the evil "Feed Corporation” as the antagonist trying to eliminate any intellectual pursuits in the digital world. The goal of companies like “Feed Corp.”, is obviously only to make money, as is the goal of corporations in our world. As a result, the Feed doesn't promote anything other than buying and buying and buying.
In the real world, we have a comparable problem. We have this great new technology that can be used to advance ourselves and improve our minds, but this new technology also happens to be a great marketing platform. What that does, is create a system that tries to steer us away from information, but towards products and direct the majority of the technology towards making people think they need stuff that they sometimes don't even want. The Internet can be used for just about anything and everything. The key to regulating your use, and maintaining control of your life online, is to maintain your focus; Keep in mind why you went online, do what you intended, and than log off. The problems arise when we are "bored" and instead of reading or drawing or spending time with our family, we go on You Tube and watch car crashes, or animals doing funny shit. I think that Internet use isn't about staying away from fresh direct.com, or YouTube.com or facebook.com. If you come online trying to shop for food, than by all means, go to fresh direct. If you want to talk to one of your friends, than don't hesitate to go onto facebook. What you shouldn't do is go onto the Internet and just explore. The real world is something worth exploring. On the Internet, the world is at our fingertips, but we don’t have a clue what we’re looking for. An interesting part of the Internet is how the physical and digital worlds clash, and the physical world actually manifests itself in the digital world, sometimes even playing out from one to the other. The idea of ordering food online, and having it come to your house a day later, and be physically there, is an example of digital disembodiment with tangible results.
To pose the question of what is digital disembodiment at this point is an important thing. I want to give you [the reader] a second to consider the difference between the example I described above, and a person talking on iChat. ------------------------ The immediate reaction probably is to notice the similarities. Say, person-to-person interaction (you order food, someone ships and delivers food, or communicating with friends) is what I would expect. The less obvious thing to notice is how iChat is not the same [generally] as actual conversation, while ordering food online and going to the supermarket has the same end result. Either way there is food in your fridge, but either way, people talking on iChat will interact drastically differently on either a digital platform or a physical one.
An example of the idea I proposed above is something that I used to do when I was younger. When I was hungry, I used to go into my kitchen and just basically open the fridge and the freezer, and look for what I might want. It didn't matter how many times a day I did that, I always looked around like something new might show up. My point is, that this is a lot like how we surf the web. We sit in front of our computers with the browser open, looking to find something new, even if we knew that what we had been looking for initially wasn't even their. We really don't care, our only concern when we are online is to find something, anything, and no matter how unimportant or dumb it may be isn’t a concern.
There is an important question, one that often goes ignored, which lies behind literally everything we do. That question is, “Why?” Why do we use the Internet, why do we love our electronics? Some people say it’s because of emptiness in our lives, and we try to fill it with these devices. Others say that we are just lazy. I want to propose that the answer lies behind the idea that we are filling some “void”. I do think we are filling a void, but the emptiness we feel is not a sign of a real world lack of something. It is a lack of technology and a want for newer devices that is creating the void. Just as the “Feed Corporation” used the Feed to profit, companies like Apple, constantly turn out new products with cutting edge design. That is what we fill the “void” with.
The proof of this theory is self-evident. For example, if you feel like you really want an orange, you can either eat an orange, drink orange juice, or have something with orange flavoring in it. Now, suppose you really want an iphone. You’re in your house and you want it, you want a handheld computer with a cool interface and tons of features. How are you going to fill that desire? Well consider your option between; getting an iphone, and not getting an iphone. You can’t fill that emptiness any other way, a Blackberry certainly won’t do, I mean, its okay I guess, but it’s not as cool as an iphone obviously.
At this point, most people would be disappointed that they don’t have the money to get one, being that they are quite expensive toys. So now you’re on your computer looking at iphone’s on www.apple.com, or thinking of a way you might be able to get it. Than it hits you! Why am I spending time trying to get this phone when I’m not going to get it? I can just get something else instead. You want an iphone, anything else is just inferior, but you need to fill that void, even if that means getting another phone. This is the vicious cycle, the synthetic void that will never be filled, and never can be. When you settle for something, you want the
The “synthetic void” is the “why” that I was talking about. It is the reason why we love our iPhone’s, our Xbox 360’s, and the Internet (for the ability to at least look at what we want). The genuine belief that we “need” the new ipod is not only what drives consumerism, but also what drives us to love technology. When you settle for something, you still want the better version, and even when you have the better device, you still want a newer device the second you see it. Basically, you can’t win, because the rate of technological development has become virtually exponential at this point.
The topic of digitization I have come to realize is a very easy one to over analyze. The fact is, some people just don't actually care all that much about this. I want to make a distinction here, between not caring and not realizing. Earlier in the digital unit, I tried doing an experiment, where I refrained from using all electronic devices for 24-hours. Long story short, it failed, but not completely. I did find myself using some modern devices, but actually I was more intrigued by how I made the extra effort to be more active that day. What I concluded was, that I didn't really use a ridiculous amount of digital devices to begin with, but at the same time, I couldn't really bring myself to eliminate them completely for even one day in my life. I realized that I was not able to cut out these devices from my daily routine, but it was the fact that I didn't care which is why I feel like it wasn't such a bad thing. If you put it into perspective, the Internet has become a necessity in our society. The thing is, we are "able" to not use the Internet, but the demands of our world call for the service that it provides. We "need" the ability to access data quickly in our educational lives, personal lives, and professional lives, because it is available, we are expected to use it. The fact is, research on the Internet is much more efficient than research through books or periodicals. I needed to use the Internet, because I “needed” to do my homework, I used my phone because I needed to get in touch with my parents. Could I have gone without those things? Probably. But why would I unnecessarily complicate my day?
When I did my "Informal Research Post", I researched "cloud networks". Cloud is the term used to describe the non-physical links between computers and information that collects in a database referred to as a “cloud”. What it is, is essentially a server, owned by a company "subletting" space to paying companies who want to avoid the costs of maintaining their own server network. [If you are unsure what this is, think IBM providing online storage space to AOL for e-mail servers]. When I did this research, I looked at the definition, the uses and what companies own notable cloud networks. This led me to look at the use of “clouds” in the medical field. I found that medical records are being moved to a cloud network owned by a company recently purchased by Dell, in order to eliminate the competition to get the contract to be the main operator of the new systems. Using the Internet, this took me only about an hour or two. If I wanted to, I could have used the library, looked through articles discussing the medical cloud networks, looked at books talking about Internet business, and most likely been able to find the same stuff. That being said, all that would have taken me many hours, and probably over the span of a few days at least.
If we use the Internet to discover, and focus on one topic to learn something through the technology, we can develop, and not fall prey to the apathy that is so very tempting. By focusing and not being sidetracked, we are absolutely capable of using the Internet as a super-efficient research tool. At the same time, the lack of physical effort required to research online as opposed to at a library is a key factor in assessing how driven we are to apply ourselves. Taking that in to consideration raises the question of, whether or not online research is just lazy, or if it has real merit. This is an important distinction, because the Internet cannot be a substitute for actual research. The Internet is merely an open marketplace that researchers can use to publish physical research, thus we will always need physical sources (primary sources).
At the beginning of this course, we actually set out with the intention to get evidence we couldn’t find on the Internet. I found my primary sources walking down Park Avenue, and 23rd street, and asked them what they thought (or didn’t). Most people didn't respond, but for the most part I recognized by their facial expressions, that they were aware of what I was saying and thinking about the question, even if they didn’t actually respond to me. The fact was, most of those people didn't realize basic stuff about the world they spend most of their daily lives in. The few people, who stopped and talked to me, gave pretty generic answers, but each talked about something insightful or unique at some point. These people really didn't seem to care, they were thinking about it, but none of them really said anything about how they wanted to change their behavior, or what they felt was wrong with the digital world. The phrase "most people" was tossed around in a very defensive way, used to take the focus away from them and re assess the problem on a national or global scale.
For a point of view from someone I knew, and someone I could accurately analyze, I interviewed my brother Max. Max I realized might not have been the best person to interview for 2 reasons. First, he is a pretty active kid, who has always been social in real life, so as a result is very social online. Second, he is not really analytical and didn't actually offer me much in the way of deep personal insight. Max is a kid, who I would say has far greater interest in the physical world than the digital one, and thus rarely spends time being spread between two realities. On an ironic note, he did ask me to stop interviewing him so he could go play Xbox. A sign perhaps, that he didn’t mind being disembodied (at least for a little while). That request to go play Xbox, above all else stuck in my head as an example of digital dry-humor. Max just didn't care, he knew he used facebook, ichat, and played Xbox, but he still played baseball, skateboarded, biked, and went to school, so really this idea of the "digital world" just didn't phase him.
Immediately after writing this paper, I reached the very obvious conclusion that new technology is highly addictive. I didn’t leave my conclusion their however. I felt strongly that if I was going to write about an alternative perspective, I should at least end with something more ambiguous. I believe it is because of the appeal to our personalities on a sensory level, that we hear (ipods), feel (touch screens, Nintendo Wii), see (everything), and can emotionally connect to this technology. Without control, it is dangerous, but with control and regulation, the developmental value is potentially limitless (as far as we know).
There is a degree to which technology can replace things entirely, and another to which technology improves things. The Internet is much too vast and has to many alternatives to physical "real world" processes to be safely heralded as a replacement. Is the Internet the new library? The new supermarket? The new forum for discussion? It might be, but do you want to have a food factory, that ships out food like mail? Do you want to replace the libraries with wikipedia? I don't, that may be easier, but it just takes the feeling out of living. You go to the supermarket and the library, that in of itself is an experience, we can't simulate that, no matter how advanced we get. People addicted to living conveniently are the reason for Wall-Mart, The Mall of America and the disappearance of small businesses. This is just another drug, another way to get our "convenience fix". Living in the real world is something I really like, I don't want the physical world to go the way of the video store after Netflix, because once that’s gone, what do we have left?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)