HW 8- Response to video project

Beatrice,

I really liked your post and particularly enjoyed how short your video was. I feel like you cut right through the excess parts of the assignment and actually gave the viewer more time to do their own thing.

To reiterate, your main point, it seems that you were trying to say that you found much more pleasure in being away from technology, and in the world. You emphasized this by making your video short which gave me more time to comment on your video and not be put into a trance by the computer screen.

I thought that you had a very similar point to Sam Rios, in that you both saw this time we spend on our computers as a waste.

I feel like you did a great job of getting your point across with your 8 second video, although I definitely would say that your point could have been strengthened if you had done a 2 minute video of yourself using technology. If you had, your point could have been supported using yourself as an example.

In terms of the assignment, I feel like you did it well, but not really how Andy wanted us to do it. However, your post was really provocative in that I definitely see a bit of a futility in Andy's assignment itself. You had one of, if not the only video I saw which actually addressed the main problem with technology.

---------------
Marco,

First off, I really enjoyed reading your post, and watching your video as well. I liked how you don't come off as defensive about what you do in your video, but rather analytic instead.

Because you talk about your video as evidence in your post, and than introduce a non- technological parallel, I really was intrigued by what you wrote. In turn, your main point made me re-watch your video keeping in mind your theory that daydreaming and sitting and watching television are pretty much the same thing.

I think that you touched briefly on a very large point which is that alot of what we do online and with technology, is just like an advancement of what people did before computers and cable.

Your example about T.V. and daydreaming was good, but in my opinion, a more accurate example would be T.V. to story telling wayyy back when America was still going through westward expansion. People listening to stories are just as captivated by what they are listening to as you were sitting in front of your television screen.

You made me really think about all the parallels between technology and the pre-digitalized world. I feel like some of the older ways of doing things are alot better than what we do today. Think about it, when's the last time you sat down for as long as an episode of South Park to listen to a story from one of your parents, or tried to write instead of typing away on ichat?

Your post made me think about those questions, and reconsider how I've been substituting technology in my own life. This pretty much goes to show, when you write well, you provoke thought in the mind of your reader, and you did just that, good job Marco.

Homework #6-Video Project

For this assignment, Andy had us make a video of ourselves being stimulated by technology. It was a pretty self-reflective assignment and in the end I realized that I really do look hypnotized by the computer screen. Also given the amount of times I changed the music I was listening to in only about two minutes made me think about how technology is completely destroying what is left of my attention span.

The most intense realization that I had since we started this unit though, came after I stopped recording and was editing my video. I was watching the video on imovie, and while editing it, I thought for a second that I left the camera on. It was so strange but remarkable to me, that I found myself in almost the same exact position, doing what appeared to be the same exact thing as I was editing, as I was doing in that very video. What this showed me was that their is a distinct difference between what we are actually doing in real life, and what we do on screen inside of the digital world.

On the outside, the finger movements, the reactions, the physical use of my computer is 100% the same every time. This is really weird considering that right now, while typing this for my homework, I am positive that I look exactly the same as when I was listening to itunes, taking a video of myself, talking on AIM, and on facebook. So if their isn't a tangible difference between what I'm doing on screen and what I appear to be doing, from the P.O.V of anyone observing me on the computer, than what am I actually doing?

My History Video 2009 from Jakob Friedman on Vimeo.

HW 7 - Interviews and Surveys

This is a collection of responses to questions which I have asked various different people. The aim of this post is to see how the response to a question which is thought out, and not likely to warrant a socially generic answer differs from a question asked for the sake of question asking. This type of question is dominant today on social networking sites, and AIM, where a commonly asked question is "what's good?"; not exactly an example of an intellectually stimulating inquiry about ones whereabouts, is it? Asking instead "Are you doing anything helpful around your house while your online" is a much stranger question for one to ask online, but a much more thought provoking one and much more relevant to the real world.

In that same way, I am asking a question about todays technology which goes beyond the "why is technology making us dumb?" framework, and warrants an answer beyond, "well, because technology is passive, and anything passive must be bad for you and a detriment to your intellect."

Question:What do you think is the main reason that digital communication has become a retreat from face to face conversation for the modern teenager?

To answer this question, I asked my brother, Max if he could give me his response to this. The following is what he said..

Jake: Why do you think it's easier to have technological interactions rather than face to face conversations?

Max: Some people don't have to basically. IF they want to change the subject whenever, they can. They can do it. And if they don't feel like talking to a person for a long amount of time, they can just quit the conversation whenever they want

Jake: So you think it's about convenience?

Max: Yea

Jake: Do you, Do you think it's all about convenience? Do you think that...?

Max: I think it's half about convenience, and half about, people are just afraid to face people face-to-face.

Jake: Do you think it's about development? Do you think that it's about people who just aren't learning to develop properly?

Max: No.

Jake: You don't think that?

Max: No...I wanna' go play Xbox
Max: Honestly, umm.. that's what I think. Are their any more questions or no?

Jake: Do you have anything else to say on it, because honestly I need more

Max: Just make some shit up..about me.

Jake: Yea, I'm just trying to know what you actually think, it just makes this easier.

Max: That's what I actually think, and than just add some shit on, aight?

--End--

Interview- Max Friedman from Jakob Friedman on Vimeo.

The day after I posted the response and video of my brother answering my question, I interviewed some people on the street asking them the same question. Andy took us out to 23rd street to find people to "solicit" quick surveys of our technology questions to random people to see how intellectual and thoughtful the answers to what we were asking would be. I asked alot of different people and got a whole variety of answers.

For the most part, I found that the best answers were the most honest, the ones where people responded based on their own lives and not with rhetoric about what they think, or what they feel is commonly believed in society. I got one answer from a person on line for Duncan Donuts, who turned out to be an I.T. consultant. He gave me a really honest response which actually made me re-think my own question a little bit. On the other hand, I got a response from one not-so-friendly guy who "answered" my question before I finished asking it. That was not such a useful response.

Overall, I got 5 responses, 2 of which were repetitive, so I decided to put up 4. These responses are as follows.

Why do you think that people prefer digitalized interaction as opposed to face-to-face interaction in todays modern American society

"I don't know if they actually do prefer it truthfully"

Said one man who claimed he was "late for work"

"I prefer physical, physical is definitely better, technology results in less meaningful communication, and things become lost in translation. Online provides more direct responses, but much less clarity and little emotion whatsoever"

An Indian man who was on his Blackberry, but was kind enough to take the time to give me his thoughts on my question, and shook my hand at the end. He demonstrated that physical communication which lacks so much in the world of online communication.

"Oh, I'm not a fan of it"

That is the response of a man who really didn't have much interest in answering my question, but couldn't help but blurt something out before he passed me completely.

"Well, I'm in I.T. so I am going to be biased, but I would have to say that their is a positive side to online communication. Sure it's less personal, but its also less small talk. Online you can get more done in a conversation faster if you ask the right questions and get right to the point. Its not better than physical interaction, and it definitely has its disadvantages"

This guy gave me a great answer, he went really in depth while he was on line in front of Dunkin Donuts and i pretty much just wrote down half sentences trying to write down as much of what he was saying as I could. I'm glad I did because he made me think about the positive side to this whole tech-communication thing. Hell, it might have some advantages after all.

____________________________________________

After I had asked people on the street, and my brother about this question, I asked my friend Hunter the same question to get his thoughts about what he felt was the general preference between digital and face-to-face communication in todays society. He was only able to give me a short answer because he was also in the middle of doing homework, but the following are his insights into my question.

"I think that today most people would prefer to communicate briefly over the internet or through text messages, but the way I see it, is that technology is more of a secondary form of communication, not a first choice"

I really was intrigued by this, so I asked if he could elaborate on this a little bit before he continued doing his homework.

"Well, I think that for some people, who really aren't capable of socially interacting, the development of Facebook, ichat, text messaging and all that is a great way for them to circumvent that real experience. In my life however, I try to limit how often I use any of that technology, because interaction just seems kind of stupid and pointless unless it is in real life."

This was, what I assume had been another thought he had, but wasn't really an elaboration of his original point. I repeated his first point and asked if he could talk more about technology as a "secondary form of communication".

"I mean, like I said, technology isn't really communication, I feel like it's a way to contact people to be able to actually communicate. I try to use my phone only when I want to meet up with someone, and really only use my phone to text my girlfriend. Other than that, I don't really use technology as a substitute for the real thing, it just doesn't make much sense to me."

This may come off like he was making unsubstantiated generalizations, but from personal experience and having known Hunter since 4th grade, I can say for sure that this is true, he uses technology for creative purposes, is barely on AIM, and on facebook maybe once a month. He doesn't text that much, and when he does, its usually always to his girlfriend. In my opinion, Hunter is living alot less in the digital world than the majority of America (myself included), and that just seems to be alot healthier and more time efficient. The time that Hunter doesn't spend on facebook, and AIM, gives him time to do like... important things pertinent to the actual world.

Homework #5- Response to Comments

After commenting on other peoples blogs and reading the comments that I had received on my own blog, I took the time to respond to the comments which Beatrice and Marco made. The following is what I wrote in response to the well formulated comments which they both wrote.


Marco,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my blog. I really thought that what you said was useful and it made me re-evaluate how I structured my post. I got the sense that you didn't just read through my post, but considered it and than shaped your response based on what I wrote, not the gist of what I wrote.

I realized that although I do articulate the problem of technology creating a modern society which is apathetic, you recognized that I do not offer any solution as to how I would solve this problem.

The idea that I came up with after reading your post, was that it should become more advertised that their is a great value in physical activity, and youth sports organizations need to be emphasized to prevent this trend from continuing over the next generations. This could be done in a similar way to the "Verb" ad campaign on the Nickelodeon cartoon network, which focused on daily activity and healthy active children.

I think that as valid as your comment was, my post was supposed to be about the problem and describing the effect of technology on society. It was not really intended to discuss the solution to something which may or may not be a problem (in my opinion it is).

What can be said though, is that you brought up a "missing part" of my post which I would probably write about if I were to expand my post into a larger essay or piece. I really was wondering the same thing as you when i had finished my post, but I decided not to go into the solutions at the time.

_____________________________


Beatrice,

First of all, gook looks on the comment. I thought that you put your time into it and I really was interested by how you applied your own experience about jogging less and less as you use technology more and more, to what i wrote about in my post.

The reflective aspect of your post was quite helpful in how I looked at what I had written, and than concluded about my post. Whether or not I felt that I had written standard rhetoric, or if I had a realistic point about our society was answered by your post.

The fact that you expressed regret not being as physically active due to technology, showed me that just because someone isn't highly active doesn't mean that they don't recognize it. I realized that the danger is that we don't recognize the lack of activity, not so much that we don't participate in the physical activity. If we recognize it, than we can correct it, but if we don't, than frankly, we're fucked.

Your comment on my post was alot better simply for the reason that it was very pertinent to what I actually wrote. Your point recognized my main arguments and compared them to a real world setting, making your comments really thought provoking.

I really liked how you recognized that I was slightly dramatic in my main piece, and because of that, your comment showed me that you understood why I added in that little P.S. at the end of my post.

Once again, thank you for carefully responding to my post, and I appreciate that you understood the points that I was trying to get across.

HW 4 - Triangular Comments 1

After we wrote our first wall posts, we looked at one another's and commented on our peers work in order for us to fully grasp the concepts which we ourselves wrote about, and get new ideas all together. We were put in "triangular comment groups" which were groups of three people whose responsibility it was to read our two group member's blogs and write helpful feedback to both of them. The people in my group were Beatrice H. and Marco G.

Beatrice,

I thought your post was pretty dope, you made it really informative and thought provoking, but conversational as well. You make good arguments for alternative points of view on technology, many of which I didn't really think about until i read this.

You raised really interesting points about the false personas that people hide behind given different technological platforms such as text messaging, AIM, and Facebook. Also, I like how you brought up that their is a risk to your vision which comes with the use of technology and staring constantly into a screen.

I think that your point about the difference between someone's online persona versus their actual persona is kind of similar in a way to one of Marco's points in his post. He discussed online games versus sports in reality, which also is part of a larger idea, that the virtual world is just that, a virtual world, not the reality that we live in.

I think that it would be interesting if you expanded on the part you wrote about your neighbor who didn't know how to use a computer and instead watched television. I think that if you wrote about the difference between not knowing how to use something, and choosing not to use it, you could make a very strong and effective point about the reason people do or don't use certain technology

I'm realizing right now as I'm writing this, that your point about the use of computers damaging your eyesight is really true. My eyes feel out of focus and I feel like getting off of the computer and looking at a magazine or a paper notebook instead of this blogging website. Since this computer and internet phenomenon is pretty new to the world, it is yet to be seen what the long term health effects of constant computer usage will be, but I have a feeling that it will have something to do with screwing up your eyes really badly by the time you turn 50.

In conclusion, you really did a great job on your post. It was fun to read and humorous, which made it that much easier to comment positively on it.

--
--
--
--

Marco,

I thought that your post was really well formed. I felt as if I were reading a magazine article due to how you kept focus on the one very key aspect of this new electronic world we live in.

The way you approached talking about the spirit (or lack their of) of online competition had a very authoritative feel to it, written in such a way that it clearly showed you knew very well how online gaming worked and the mentality of those who play it. However, I didn't quite understand what you meant by people assuming a persona. Having myself played online shooters and fighting games such as the Halo series, I felt like people are more about being as obnoxious as possible, and rarely make comments referring to their characters.

I think that an interesting alternate point to this cheating in video games is the real life cheating which goes on in sports. Arguably, the taunting and hacking we see on Xbox live is purely virtual and mostly without effect. The cheating in real world sports, come with physical damage from use of performance enhancers, and the taunting comes with cash fines and suspension.

An interesting part of your post that I think has a lot of potential to be expanded on is the idea of the mental effect of playing video- games. I think that you could go in a bunch of different directions with this point and if you need to add on to this post at a later date, this would definitely be one to go with.

What I would recommend is that you give examples of what you are discussing. Mostly you tend to state your point and than move on. I think that it would work to your advantage and support your points, if you gave the names of popular video games, and named incidents where cheating had real world effects, like cash prizes in tournaments or something of the sort.

Basically, this was a really good first post, and you definitely executed this assignment well. All you need to do is add a few examples and you will have an excellent post.

Brave New World?

When I think about the change of the dynamic in our society from a hands on and personal society 40 years ago, before most modern technological innovations came to be. To a society mostly run from behind computer monitors and handheld communications devices, it begs the question; Is this a sign of progress? Or, is this the first step towards the social deterioration of our modern world?

I think that the answer is not clear cut, and cannot be simply answered one way or the other. The truth to this technological revolution, is that it is a sign of intellectual progress in terms of what we as people can achieve and create, but socially, it is purely destructive. The iPhone for example, is a crowning achievement in the field of design and technological creation. It allows us to compile our music, photos, videos, appointments, and conversations into a single object, that also serves as a communication device. This is a wonderful thing considering that 30 years ago, you would need a stereo, a camera, a video camera, a datebook, a home phone , and a personal computer to match the uses that the iPhone offers all in one. When I describe the iPhone in this way, it appears to be a wonderfully executed culmination of 30 years of technological progress. However, their is also a detrimental aspect to this compression of technology. Because it is easier to get onto a blackberry and start BBM'ing instead of actually calling someone and talking to them, or video chat with someone on ichat instead of actually meeting face to face with someone, people are becoming more and more inclined to take the electronic option for interaction rather than the more difficult real world interaction so prevalent over the last two-thousand years before any of this came about.

The danger I see here, is that a society over indulged with communication at its fingertips may gradually become apathetic, and well... lazy. While it is true that despite all the gadgets we already have, haven't caused this to happen, you must consider the problem in perspective. Today, any given person might not know more than a few people who have succumbed to being unmotivated to do anything non-electronic. But think about how many their were 10 years ago, before the ipod, or 20 years ago, before the cell phone, or 60 years ago, before television. People have become increasingly sheltered by technology, and if this trend continues, and it will, than their is no reason not to expect that more technology will result in less human interaction.

The fact is, as long as we continue to marvel at technology for the comfort and luxury that it appears to provide, we will continue to lose sight of the importance of real world interaction. People who sit and e-mail endlessly on their Blackberry's seem to have no real perception of how people possibly survived before business was a 24-hour world. People who sit on facebook and deal with their "virtual social life" rather than going out and actually meeting people in the real social world have fallen victim to what is the technological deterioration of the modern world.

Note

To clarify, I am not trying to imply that eventually everyone will be at home on computers not interacting with one another. I am just trying to point out that if more is not done to point out this problem, than eventually a greater percentage of our society will ultimately be about virtual interaction and our world will become less and less tangible.

test

test