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.
Monday, November 23, 2009
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?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
HW-19 Big Paper #1 Comments
Marco,
I think what you have is still rough. Being that I have been reading the same books, and taking the same course as you, I know what you are trying to say. I would recommend that you cut down on your repetition and try to be more brief in making your points.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I had to read many of your sentences a bunch of times before I could really cut to the core of what you meant.
"The Feed corporation would send advertisements directly into people's brains so that they couldn't get away from them, those people bought the products that were advertised, the corporations then advertised other products based on what they bought. This way teens bought what was advertised to them and what was advertised to them was based on what they bought, naturally those teens will end up buying the same things."
I copied in the above sentence to show you specifically what I mean by repeating yourself. I see that you were trying to talk about the "Feed marketing cycle", where consumers buy products, than the distributors use the data of what was bought to advertise certain products, and than to complete the cycle, consumers would generally buy what was most advertised on the Feed.
Something along the lines of the alternative to your original sentence that I wrote above, would shorten your sentence, and also make your point understandable to someone from outside of our course.
I think you have a really good first product here Marco. Making revisions here and their, cutting down sentences and rephrasing key parts is all it will take you to go from this post now, to a final product by friday. Add on another paragraph or two, and you'll be done.
Stay ^
Jake F.
--------------
Henry,
For a rough draft, this is really concise. Your direct tone and clear points gave you a strong voice that broke through the paper, and to the reader. I feel like you have a few things to work on though.
I did like your paper, but I dont think your points were backed up by diverse sources. Actually for the most part, you didn't really use sources, but hypothetical situations and assumed statistics.
By the time you complete your final paper, I would recommend keeping the basic structure you have now, but instead of saying "I" or "You", put in actual evidence. The problem with using I and You, is that you take away credibility from your paper.
Don't get me wrong. Your rough draft was really interesting, and I liked it a lot. If the assignment was to write an opinion paper, than you would definitely be on target to having a final draft right here. Buttt, because its a research paper, I would consider taking out some of your opinion, and putting in more evidence (Feed, EBiGFY).
If you really want to maintain that opinionated tone your paper has, try using your own blog as evidence, and yourself as well. You did this a little bit with the "Xbox" example, but try adding in your "Self experiment" or the surveys, and see how that works.
Anyway good luck, and make sure you don't lose your voice between this draft and your final.
Stay ^
Jake F.
I think what you have is still rough. Being that I have been reading the same books, and taking the same course as you, I know what you are trying to say. I would recommend that you cut down on your repetition and try to be more brief in making your points.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I had to read many of your sentences a bunch of times before I could really cut to the core of what you meant.
"The Feed corporation would send advertisements directly into people's brains so that they couldn't get away from them, those people bought the products that were advertised, the corporations then advertised other products based on what they bought. This way teens bought what was advertised to them and what was advertised to them was based on what they bought, naturally those teens will end up buying the same things."
I copied in the above sentence to show you specifically what I mean by repeating yourself. I see that you were trying to talk about the "Feed marketing cycle", where consumers buy products, than the distributors use the data of what was bought to advertise certain products, and than to complete the cycle, consumers would generally buy what was most advertised on the Feed.
Something along the lines of the alternative to your original sentence that I wrote above, would shorten your sentence, and also make your point understandable to someone from outside of our course.
I think you have a really good first product here Marco. Making revisions here and their, cutting down sentences and rephrasing key parts is all it will take you to go from this post now, to a final product by friday. Add on another paragraph or two, and you'll be done.
Stay ^
Jake F.
--------------
Henry,
For a rough draft, this is really concise. Your direct tone and clear points gave you a strong voice that broke through the paper, and to the reader. I feel like you have a few things to work on though.
I did like your paper, but I dont think your points were backed up by diverse sources. Actually for the most part, you didn't really use sources, but hypothetical situations and assumed statistics.
By the time you complete your final paper, I would recommend keeping the basic structure you have now, but instead of saying "I" or "You", put in actual evidence. The problem with using I and You, is that you take away credibility from your paper.
Don't get me wrong. Your rough draft was really interesting, and I liked it a lot. If the assignment was to write an opinion paper, than you would definitely be on target to having a final draft right here. Buttt, because its a research paper, I would consider taking out some of your opinion, and putting in more evidence (Feed, EBiGFY).
If you really want to maintain that opinionated tone your paper has, try using your own blog as evidence, and yourself as well. You did this a little bit with the "Xbox" example, but try adding in your "Self experiment" or the surveys, and see how that works.
Anyway good luck, and make sure you don't lose your voice between this draft and your final.
Stay ^
Jake F.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
HW 18- Draft of Big Paper #1
For this post, I really only revised and added to what I had in my outline (HW 16). I was considering going back, writing a simplified post, and than posting the original HW 16 as this new post. I wasn't really sure what to do, as the outline I had was kind of a draft, and not really an outline. What I decided to do was to revise that outline, so now I guess I have an additional draft. I don't think it makes sense to go back now and write a skeletal outline of this paper, but if you (Andy) think I should, than I would be willing to do that.
P.S. In the interest of making it easy to locate my thesis, I put it in bold at the end of the third paragraph
In any case, this is my first (or second) draft of my "Big Paper #1"
----------------------
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 relation between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the same time, what alternative was around the likes of Family Guy, able to nullify any thoughts about serious issues you had.
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 passivity, and thus sacrifice what these devices can offer us developmentally.
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.
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. The "Feed Corporation" obviously only wants to make money, as do corporations in real life. 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 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.
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. I know as a result, that would unnecessarily complicate my day, so I just decided not to.
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. After that, I looked into 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).
Now I want to quickly talk about my interviews and surveys, which we did, at the beginning of the unit. When asking people on the street about digitization, most people didn't respond, but for the most part I recognized by their facial expressions, that they were hearing what I was saying and thinking about the question. 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.
After those interviews, 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. On an ironic note, he did ask me to stop interviewing him so he could go play Xbox. That above all stuck in my head as an example of digital 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.
After writing this paper, I have reached the very obvious conclusion that new technology is highly addictive. Concluding on a more ambiguous note, I want to add that 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).
As I mentioned previously in discussing the Internet as a research tool, there is a degree to which technology can replace things, and a degree 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 after that, what do we have left?
P.S. In the interest of making it easy to locate my thesis, I put it in bold at the end of the third paragraph
In any case, this is my first (or second) draft of my "Big Paper #1"
----------------------
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 relation between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. At the same time, what alternative was around the likes of Family Guy, able to nullify any thoughts about serious issues you had.
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 passivity, and thus sacrifice what these devices can offer us developmentally.
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.
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. The "Feed Corporation" obviously only wants to make money, as do corporations in real life. 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 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.
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. I know as a result, that would unnecessarily complicate my day, so I just decided not to.
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. After that, I looked into 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).
Now I want to quickly talk about my interviews and surveys, which we did, at the beginning of the unit. When asking people on the street about digitization, most people didn't respond, but for the most part I recognized by their facial expressions, that they were hearing what I was saying and thinking about the question. 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.
After those interviews, 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. On an ironic note, he did ask me to stop interviewing him so he could go play Xbox. That above all stuck in my head as an example of digital 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.
After writing this paper, I have reached the very obvious conclusion that new technology is highly addictive. Concluding on a more ambiguous note, I want to add that 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).
As I mentioned previously in discussing the Internet as a research tool, there is a degree to which technology can replace things, and a degree 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 after that, what do we have left?
Monday, November 2, 2009
HW 17- Response to Partner's Outlines
Marco,
I liked your outline. It was pretty similar to mine, but with respect to your thesis, I would highly recommend that you pick a position instead of taking a middle road. I see how with this topic it is especially tempting to talk about the bad and good, but in order for you to have a much stronger paper, you need to have an opinion. I'm not trying to say that your thesis is bad, because your premise and outline are both really good. I think that additionally you should use some examples from your own research and interviews. Taking points from other resources will definitely increase the validity and strength of your paper.
I am looking forward to reading your paper, and I want to see this outline developed. Knowing you, this should turn out really well. Good luck!
__________
Beatrice,
I really liked your outline. Unlike mine, it actually was an outline which clearly laid out the foundation for your paper. I know that you are really opinionated, so I am almost sure that your paper is not going to take the middle road in the hope of avoiding that opinion. I hope you bring something unique to your paper by taking outside sources into consideration. Most everyone is using the same books (Feed and EBIGFY) to support their arguments, but I think your paper will probably not be like the others. That I think would be best executed by taking other sources (like you did with the reference to "The Jungle" in a prior post) to really make the reader think. If you use examples which people aren't familiar with, it might make them dig a little deeper to figure out what you are talking about. Making people think more is in my opinion, what makes a better paper.
Stay ^
Jake F.
I liked your outline. It was pretty similar to mine, but with respect to your thesis, I would highly recommend that you pick a position instead of taking a middle road. I see how with this topic it is especially tempting to talk about the bad and good, but in order for you to have a much stronger paper, you need to have an opinion. I'm not trying to say that your thesis is bad, because your premise and outline are both really good. I think that additionally you should use some examples from your own research and interviews. Taking points from other resources will definitely increase the validity and strength of your paper.
I am looking forward to reading your paper, and I want to see this outline developed. Knowing you, this should turn out really well. Good luck!
__________
Beatrice,
I really liked your outline. Unlike mine, it actually was an outline which clearly laid out the foundation for your paper. I know that you are really opinionated, so I am almost sure that your paper is not going to take the middle road in the hope of avoiding that opinion. I hope you bring something unique to your paper by taking outside sources into consideration. Most everyone is using the same books (Feed and EBIGFY) to support their arguments, but I think your paper will probably not be like the others. That I think would be best executed by taking other sources (like you did with the reference to "The Jungle" in a prior post) to really make the reader think. If you use examples which people aren't familiar with, it might make them dig a little deeper to figure out what you are talking about. Making people think more is in my opinion, what makes a better paper.
Stay ^
Jake F.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
HW 16- Big Paper 1 Outline
Thesis:Digital technology gave us the means to control how connected or disconnected from the physical world we were. It put us more in command of our lives than we ever were before, but also created a far greater opportunity to lose that control as a result.
Example #1: EBiGFY. In the long excerpt, the author discussed 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 can make a person develop, but not have any drive or ambition 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. A person who watches a show like Man Vs. Wild to learn survival skills and learn a thing or two about nature, may want to eventually go to say... Australia and tour the outback. But 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 authors 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.
Example #2: Feed. 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. The "Feed Corporation" obviously only wants to make money, as do corporations in real life. As a result, the Feed doesn't promote anything other than buying and buying and buying.
In the real world, we have the same 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 YouTube 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 Internet is massive, so if you just keep looking around, you will never see a fraction of it, and besides most of it isn't worth seeing anyway.
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 alot 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, no matter how unimportant or dumb it may be.
Example #3: Self Experiment/ Informal Research/Interviews & Surveys. 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. Using my self experiment as an example, I concluded 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 that I wasn't able to. 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.
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 which collects in a database know as a cloud. What it is, is essentially a server which is owned by a company "subletting" space to paying companies who want to avoid the costs of maintaining their own server network. When I did this research, I looked at the definition, the uses and what companies own notable cloud networks. After that, I looked into 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.
I want to use that concept as evidence for what can be done if we use the Internet to discover, and focus on one topic to learn something through the technology. By focusing and not being sidetracked, the possibility of using the Internet as a super-efficient research tool is completely possible. 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. I think that it does, because lazy is being assigned to research something, and ending up on YouTube watching Kanye's VMA speech.
Lastly, I want to quickly talk about my interviews and surveys which we did at the beginning of the unit. When asking people on the street about digitization, most people didn't respond, but for the most part I recognized by their facial expressions, that they were hearing what I was saying and thinking about the question. 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 themselves and re asses the problem on a national or global scale. After those interviews, 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. On an ironic note, he did ask me to stop interviewing him so he could go play Xbox. That above all stuck in my head as an example of digital 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.
In conclusion, I want to say that all this new technology is highly addictive. It appeals to our personalities on a sensory level, that we hear (ipods), feel (touch screens, Nintendo Wii), see (everything), and can emotionally connect to. This new breed of technology is dangerous if we don't try and regulate it. Their is a degree to which technology can replace things, and a degree to which technology improves things. The Internet is much to 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, 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 after that, what do we have left?
Example #1: EBiGFY. In the long excerpt, the author discussed 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 can make a person develop, but not have any drive or ambition 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. A person who watches a show like Man Vs. Wild to learn survival skills and learn a thing or two about nature, may want to eventually go to say... Australia and tour the outback. But 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 authors 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.
Example #2: Feed. 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. The "Feed Corporation" obviously only wants to make money, as do corporations in real life. As a result, the Feed doesn't promote anything other than buying and buying and buying.
In the real world, we have the same 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 YouTube 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 Internet is massive, so if you just keep looking around, you will never see a fraction of it, and besides most of it isn't worth seeing anyway.
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 alot 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, no matter how unimportant or dumb it may be.
Example #3: Self Experiment/ Informal Research/Interviews & Surveys. 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. Using my self experiment as an example, I concluded 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 that I wasn't able to. 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.
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 which collects in a database know as a cloud. What it is, is essentially a server which is owned by a company "subletting" space to paying companies who want to avoid the costs of maintaining their own server network. When I did this research, I looked at the definition, the uses and what companies own notable cloud networks. After that, I looked into 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.
I want to use that concept as evidence for what can be done if we use the Internet to discover, and focus on one topic to learn something through the technology. By focusing and not being sidetracked, the possibility of using the Internet as a super-efficient research tool is completely possible. 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. I think that it does, because lazy is being assigned to research something, and ending up on YouTube watching Kanye's VMA speech.
Lastly, I want to quickly talk about my interviews and surveys which we did at the beginning of the unit. When asking people on the street about digitization, most people didn't respond, but for the most part I recognized by their facial expressions, that they were hearing what I was saying and thinking about the question. 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 themselves and re asses the problem on a national or global scale. After those interviews, 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. On an ironic note, he did ask me to stop interviewing him so he could go play Xbox. That above all stuck in my head as an example of digital 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.
In conclusion, I want to say that all this new technology is highly addictive. It appeals to our personalities on a sensory level, that we hear (ipods), feel (touch screens, Nintendo Wii), see (everything), and can emotionally connect to. This new breed of technology is dangerous if we don't try and regulate it. Their is a degree to which technology can replace things, and a degree to which technology improves things. The Internet is much to 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, 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 after that, what do we have left?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)