Amber,I will post a comment for Andrew whenever he posts.
I really enjoyed reading your post. I felt like you stated your opinions very clearly, and it really helped me get a sense of what you were trying to say.
Basically, you see the merits of both arguments, to an extent. Overall, you mainly think that it depends on the situation at hand and the materials involved. In general I feel the same way; I think that it is usually more helpful to consider each individual situation than to generalize whether something is all good or all bad.
The only thing that I found confusing about your post was that at times it was difficult to tell which author's opinion you were referring to or even if you were stating your own, but this may just be my reading of it.
One thing that interested me was in your first paragraph, when you were talking about how TV shows and such would be no fun if we had those "flashing arrows". The main reason for this, of course, is that it would completely destroy the subtlety of the scene, and thus ruin the suspenseful atmosphere. But another thing it made me think of was the author's argument that plots are growing more complex-- in fact, now a days we NEED plots to be full of intricate networks of tiny clues just to stay interested.
I enjoyed your post, and look forward to reading more from you!
Remy
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Treasure hunting
Amber:
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sleep Tight
I read the long excerpt of Everything Bad is Good For You.
Basically, the argument was that all of the technology that people are constantly accusing of 'rotting your brain' is actually helpful to us, cognitively. For example, videogames, while seemingly mindless, actually teach us to reach long-term goals and follow complex patterns. Television teaches us to keep track of complex plots and pick up on social cues. As for the internet, Steven Johnson seems to feel more or less the same way that I do (that it allows for much more efficient information exchange and social interaction), also pointing out that the sheer complexity of the technology itself requires us to expand our understanding.
On a whole, I agree with Johnson's main points. The argument that especially resonated with me was his perspective on videogames. From the outside, when all an observer sees is a player staring blankly at the screen, twitching their thumbs and only vaguely aware that someone is telling them that dinner is ready, it's easy to come to the conclusion that their activities are sapping their brain power. But actually, the reason that they are so out of touch with the moment that they are in is because they are focusing all of their attention on the task at hand. Whether that is because they have to be able to quickly spot the hundreds of virtual enemies they're fighting before they get shot or because they need to figure out logically how to get past a complex barrier, they are engaging their minds fully in a task that is probably more difficult than those that they would face in life.
Games like Zelda, which Johnson used as an example, also force people to think creatively--something encouraged in English class and condemned as almost unhealthy in most other places. My mother Nancy, who is professor of social work and more than proficient in almost every cultural study imaginable, is utterly befuddled when confronted with concepts like sword fighting or telekinesis. Videogame players, on the other hand, are not only able to accept these obscure concepts quickly, but are able to adapt to them and use them to their advantage with equal speed. While those specific examples may not be particularly helpful in life, being able to quickly asses and solve a problem involving elements outside one's comfort zone is undeniably a valuable skill.
The main point that I disagreed with was his argument on reality television. While it's true that in those programs we may be able to get a better grasp on social cues and even the nature of human emotion, it really all depends on the quality of the program. Shows like Survivor are designed to put people in situations that will always make them feel the same way, because seeing people feel that way is the reason that the audience is watching. It is possible that one could grow more perceptive to emotion by watching a reality show than a cheesy soap opera where exaggerated expressions are held for a solid minute for emphasis, it is much easier to pick up on them through normal interaction. At the very least, reality shows can teach us no more about social cues than a normal conversation would.
Johnson is definitely contradicting the message presented by Tobin in Feed, but the arguments are not really compatible. Tobin cites consumerism and the tendency to ignore calamity, but he provides no real evidence that the technology itself is to blame as opposed to general human nature and corporate greed. On the other hand, Johnson claims that technology can force us to think in ways that are helpful to us in the long run, and while his evidence that it is being used in these ways is solid his conclusions may be a bit overreaching. Overall I agree with the essentials of both arguments, but as for the specifics I'm more on Johnson's side.
Basically, the argument was that all of the technology that people are constantly accusing of 'rotting your brain' is actually helpful to us, cognitively. For example, videogames, while seemingly mindless, actually teach us to reach long-term goals and follow complex patterns. Television teaches us to keep track of complex plots and pick up on social cues. As for the internet, Steven Johnson seems to feel more or less the same way that I do (that it allows for much more efficient information exchange and social interaction), also pointing out that the sheer complexity of the technology itself requires us to expand our understanding.
On a whole, I agree with Johnson's main points. The argument that especially resonated with me was his perspective on videogames. From the outside, when all an observer sees is a player staring blankly at the screen, twitching their thumbs and only vaguely aware that someone is telling them that dinner is ready, it's easy to come to the conclusion that their activities are sapping their brain power. But actually, the reason that they are so out of touch with the moment that they are in is because they are focusing all of their attention on the task at hand. Whether that is because they have to be able to quickly spot the hundreds of virtual enemies they're fighting before they get shot or because they need to figure out logically how to get past a complex barrier, they are engaging their minds fully in a task that is probably more difficult than those that they would face in life.
Games like Zelda, which Johnson used as an example, also force people to think creatively--something encouraged in English class and condemned as almost unhealthy in most other places. My mother Nancy, who is professor of social work and more than proficient in almost every cultural study imaginable, is utterly befuddled when confronted with concepts like sword fighting or telekinesis. Videogame players, on the other hand, are not only able to accept these obscure concepts quickly, but are able to adapt to them and use them to their advantage with equal speed. While those specific examples may not be particularly helpful in life, being able to quickly asses and solve a problem involving elements outside one's comfort zone is undeniably a valuable skill.
The main point that I disagreed with was his argument on reality television. While it's true that in those programs we may be able to get a better grasp on social cues and even the nature of human emotion, it really all depends on the quality of the program. Shows like Survivor are designed to put people in situations that will always make them feel the same way, because seeing people feel that way is the reason that the audience is watching. It is possible that one could grow more perceptive to emotion by watching a reality show than a cheesy soap opera where exaggerated expressions are held for a solid minute for emphasis, it is much easier to pick up on them through normal interaction. At the very least, reality shows can teach us no more about social cues than a normal conversation would.
Johnson is definitely contradicting the message presented by Tobin in Feed, but the arguments are not really compatible. Tobin cites consumerism and the tendency to ignore calamity, but he provides no real evidence that the technology itself is to blame as opposed to general human nature and corporate greed. On the other hand, Johnson claims that technology can force us to think in ways that are helpful to us in the long run, and while his evidence that it is being used in these ways is solid his conclusions may be a bit overreaching. Overall I agree with the essentials of both arguments, but as for the specifics I'm more on Johnson's side.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Turn 'Em Into Flies 2 (a critique of Feed as a work of art)
Looking at Feed as a work of art, there are some aspects that I really like and some that I really don't.
One thing that I thought worked extremely well was the use of a typical teenage narrator. Tobin could have created a much more tragic atmosphere by using a narrator who could clearly see the world falling apart around them (one of the rioters, for example), but a narrator who had no idea what was going on definitely got the message across better. A narrator with too much perspective would have made it read more like a dire warning than a parallel. I also thought that the ending was particularly well done. I'm not a big fan of the actual way the book ended, but highlighting "everything must go" as the last line really drove home the sense of irony that Tobin was probably trying to convey.
That being said, I'm not particularly fond of that irony in itself. Through the medium of artwork it is almost impossible to suggest a literal solution and be taken seriously, but I still dislike it in general when people point out a problem and then stand back sadly and shake their heads at it. I also don't think that the plot necessarily did as much justice to the message as it could have. Since it was meant to be a parallel and not an exaggeration the people stayed more or less the same as they are today, but I don't think that really worked. The technology was so much more advanced, and yet it had no more effect on people than our technology has today. One of the things that people worry about with technology is the sense of disembodiment or disassociation from life that we've talked about in class--but the characters in the book were going out to parties, meeting in person, going on dates, and overall living social, in-person lives. I also thought that the addition of a personal tragedy actually took away from the deeper underlying tragedy of society--instead of mirroring it, the situation with Violet kind of overshadowed the real message.
As for Feed being a 'mirror or a hammer', I would have to say that Feed is a mirror (a metaphor that I'm about to take way too far, so I'll stop using it now). It reflects the negative aspects of the world, but offers no ideas for how to change them. With art, this reflection of the world in and of itself is a method for trying to shape it, but it has the serious flaw of only being available to those who already wanted to see it.
One thing that I thought worked extremely well was the use of a typical teenage narrator. Tobin could have created a much more tragic atmosphere by using a narrator who could clearly see the world falling apart around them (one of the rioters, for example), but a narrator who had no idea what was going on definitely got the message across better. A narrator with too much perspective would have made it read more like a dire warning than a parallel. I also thought that the ending was particularly well done. I'm not a big fan of the actual way the book ended, but highlighting "everything must go" as the last line really drove home the sense of irony that Tobin was probably trying to convey.
That being said, I'm not particularly fond of that irony in itself. Through the medium of artwork it is almost impossible to suggest a literal solution and be taken seriously, but I still dislike it in general when people point out a problem and then stand back sadly and shake their heads at it. I also don't think that the plot necessarily did as much justice to the message as it could have. Since it was meant to be a parallel and not an exaggeration the people stayed more or less the same as they are today, but I don't think that really worked. The technology was so much more advanced, and yet it had no more effect on people than our technology has today. One of the things that people worry about with technology is the sense of disembodiment or disassociation from life that we've talked about in class--but the characters in the book were going out to parties, meeting in person, going on dates, and overall living social, in-person lives. I also thought that the addition of a personal tragedy actually took away from the deeper underlying tragedy of society--instead of mirroring it, the situation with Violet kind of overshadowed the real message.
As for Feed being a 'mirror or a hammer', I would have to say that Feed is a mirror (a metaphor that I'm about to take way too far, so I'll stop using it now). It reflects the negative aspects of the world, but offers no ideas for how to change them. With art, this reflection of the world in and of itself is a method for trying to shape it, but it has the serious flaw of only being available to those who already wanted to see it.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Turn 'em into flies...
Turn 'em into
Turn 'em into
Turn 'em into flies
Turn 'em into
Turn 'em into flies
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxand I decline
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxand I decline
It's the end of the world as we know it...
That's a few lines from a song called It's the End of the World as We Know It (and I Feel Fine) by REM that I was reminded of when I read Feed.
As for Feed being a parallel to modern life, I think that in some cases it is accurate and in some it's not. The main point of Feed, our manipulation by the big companies, is only partly on base. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but to me, there's one major factor making the representation in Feed inaccurate: Advertisements aren't that effective. The most effective example of advertising that I've ever seen was having a restaurant play the food channel in the waiting area to make customers hungrier. In Feed, all of the advertising is like that; manipulative on the subconscious level. But now a days, even if everything is really that well thought out, most of it doesn't work that well. A picture of a bullet shooting through a bottle of wine and exploding out the bottom as a car is cool, undoubtedly, but it doesn't make me want to buy the car.
The main inaccurate parallel however, the one that really bothered me, was the complete lack of panic. This is odd, in my opinion, because irrational panic is one of the more commonly cited potential reasons for the collapse of society. In my last post I talked about the phenomenon of Hype; how when we talk about things a lot they seem like a bigger deal than they really are. This also ties into Hysteria. One example I used in my last post was the Swine Flu madness that's going on, and how it seems like so much bigger of an issue than it really is. We can compare that to the other health issues in Feed--like the lesions or the Nostalgia Feedback. It might be true that we tend to ignore catastrophe that's far away or happening to something else (like climate change, for example) but the second anything happens to us (in this case, our bodies falling apart) we freak the heck out.
I think that for something like this a more accurate parallel would be the Titanic going down. The Titanic was supposed to be the epitome of luxury, the "unsinkable ship" (like those companies being "too big to fail," ha ha). When it hit the iceberg everyone in storage knew right away that they were in trouble, but the people in first class just complained about the little bump. For a while, the staff convinced them that everything was fine, and got them into their life jackets without really making anyone that nervous. But once the water started coming in and everyone knew they were going down, no amount of cheery violin music could stop the panic. As far as I'm concerned, Feed may be right about us ignoring the warning signs for a while. But once something goes wrong enough close enough to home people will run around screaming like lunatics until it gets fixed (or at least gets far away again).
That's a few lines from a song called It's the End of the World as We Know It (and I Feel Fine) by REM that I was reminded of when I read Feed.
As for Feed being a parallel to modern life, I think that in some cases it is accurate and in some it's not. The main point of Feed, our manipulation by the big companies, is only partly on base. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but to me, there's one major factor making the representation in Feed inaccurate: Advertisements aren't that effective. The most effective example of advertising that I've ever seen was having a restaurant play the food channel in the waiting area to make customers hungrier. In Feed, all of the advertising is like that; manipulative on the subconscious level. But now a days, even if everything is really that well thought out, most of it doesn't work that well. A picture of a bullet shooting through a bottle of wine and exploding out the bottom as a car is cool, undoubtedly, but it doesn't make me want to buy the car.
The main inaccurate parallel however, the one that really bothered me, was the complete lack of panic. This is odd, in my opinion, because irrational panic is one of the more commonly cited potential reasons for the collapse of society. In my last post I talked about the phenomenon of Hype; how when we talk about things a lot they seem like a bigger deal than they really are. This also ties into Hysteria. One example I used in my last post was the Swine Flu madness that's going on, and how it seems like so much bigger of an issue than it really is. We can compare that to the other health issues in Feed--like the lesions or the Nostalgia Feedback. It might be true that we tend to ignore catastrophe that's far away or happening to something else (like climate change, for example) but the second anything happens to us (in this case, our bodies falling apart) we freak the heck out.
I think that for something like this a more accurate parallel would be the Titanic going down. The Titanic was supposed to be the epitome of luxury, the "unsinkable ship" (like those companies being "too big to fail," ha ha). When it hit the iceberg everyone in storage knew right away that they were in trouble, but the people in first class just complained about the little bump. For a while, the staff convinced them that everything was fine, and got them into their life jackets without really making anyone that nervous. But once the water started coming in and everyone knew they were going down, no amount of cheery violin music could stop the panic. As far as I'm concerned, Feed may be right about us ignoring the warning signs for a while. But once something goes wrong enough close enough to home people will run around screaming like lunatics until it gets fixed (or at least gets far away again).
Monday, October 5, 2009
Reaserch on the internet
Fun with Googlefight
That link leads to a fight between Facebook and Myspace, but you can type in any keywords and watch them "fight". The winner is the one with the most results on Google. I thought this was relevant (a little) since what I decided to research was what we like most on the internet. What are we drawn to? Why? (a note about that: "websites" was the second most popular ending for "top 10 most popular" in google's suggestion box, just behind "sports")
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US
http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/US
Alexa.com is a site provided by Amazon.com devoted solely to monitoring the popularity of other websites, and cited by many as one of the most accurate. I found it pretty surprising how few of the top US sites are entertainment related. Youtube is the only one really acknowledged as being purely for entertainment value, the others (facebook, myspace, blogger, twitter, and Flickr) fall more under the category of social networking that sheer look-at-something-funny-until-you-realize-you-haven't-blinked-in-four-hours entertainment. Otherwise, most are search engines. That probably explains the lack of diversity; people are using the search engines to get to less popular sites that aren't showing up.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Users-Spend-Three-Times-More-on-Social-Networks-than-a-Year-Ago-122705.shtml
This contains a pretty interesting article on the increase in growth among social networking sites. One thing in particular that caught my attention was the stark contrast between the sites' growth and the growth of their advertising income. While the sites themselves have only become about 11% more popular, their advertising sales have gone up by 119%. To me this ties into the phenomenon of Hype, the fact that the more something is talked about the bigger of a deal it seems to be. Like swine flu-- contagious, maybe, but the symptoms are actually slightly less than a seasonal flu. Yet, thanks to all the hype, it seems like a deadly epidemic that could claim anyone as its next victim. It's not at all uncommon for hype like this to make things seem like a bigger deal than they really are; who hasn't heard someone on a comedy show proclaim that their ridiculous group is "serious business"? All the press that the internet gets (especially being the internet itself, self-perpetuating and all) has swelled its reputation, but even knowing this it's still incredible to see how disproportionate our understanding really is.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb270/is_2_28/ai_n31488501/
A fairly straightforward list of the top 10 blog topics of 2008. I'm not quite sure what the percentages refer to, seeing as how the first three alone add up to 142%. I find it interesting that these topics seem to be a bit more in-depth than the topics one would typically see on other sets. Usually, since blogging involves a lot more writing than most other forms of online posting, a blogger has to be more devoted to their topic and have more material. Therefore, blogs are more likely to be based on complex social issues (like an editorial) or personal experiences (like a journal or a log).
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Users-Spend-Three-Times-More-on-Social-Networks-than-a-Year-Ago-122705.shtml
This contains a pretty interesting article on the increase in growth among social networking sites. One thing in particular that caught my attention was the stark contrast between the sites' growth and the growth of their advertising income. While the sites themselves have only become about 11% more popular, their advertising sales have gone up by 119%. To me this ties into the phenomenon of Hype, the fact that the more something is talked about the bigger of a deal it seems to be. Like swine flu-- contagious, maybe, but the symptoms are actually slightly less than a seasonal flu. Yet, thanks to all the hype, it seems like a deadly epidemic that could claim anyone as its next victim. It's not at all uncommon for hype like this to make things seem like a bigger deal than they really are; who hasn't heard someone on a comedy show proclaim that their ridiculous group is "serious business"? All the press that the internet gets (especially being the internet itself, self-perpetuating and all) has swelled its reputation, but even knowing this it's still incredible to see how disproportionate our understanding really is.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb270/is_2_28/ai_n31488501/
A fairly straightforward list of the top 10 blog topics of 2008. I'm not quite sure what the percentages refer to, seeing as how the first three alone add up to 142%. I find it interesting that these topics seem to be a bit more in-depth than the topics one would typically see on other sets. Usually, since blogging involves a lot more writing than most other forms of online posting, a blogger has to be more devoted to their topic and have more material. Therefore, blogs are more likely to be based on complex social issues (like an editorial) or personal experiences (like a journal or a log).
Friday, October 2, 2009
Comments about other people looking somewhat less stupid...
My comment for Amber:
My comment for Andrew:
Nice post, I found it really insightful. I feel like you really captured your feelings about watching your video, and most people probably empathize with you.
Basically, Watching the video was a really weird experience for you. You feel like it's not really you, since that person doesn't look like they were having the same experience that you were. However, this doesn't tarnish your feelings that technology can be really useful and even necessary for some things.
I think that most people probably felt the same way you did about the video seeming like another person. I know that whenever I see myself on camera or even in photos I feel like it's not really me, because it doesn't make sense to me that an image of a person I can see from the outside can be me on the inside. With DRDs, where our internal thoughts are carried over into an entirely separate world and skip over our bodies completely, the contrast is even more striking.
I thought your post was interesting overall. One more thing that you might do is talk about the effects of these issues on others (within those you know or in society) a bit more, but really your post wasn't any worse off without it.
One interesting thing that you brought up was how in the future kids will be using technology because it's always improving. I often think about the concept that really, no matter how much some people dislike it, the ones making the machines are going to keep making them. Technology is going to happen, even if some people oppose it.
I enjoyed your post, and I look forward to reading more from you!
Remy
My comment for Andrew:
Andrew,
Nice post. I think that your post goes with your video really well and helps me understand what's going on in it.
Basically, you weren't that absorbed in the whole project that much, or any one particular thing that you were doing. You also don't care how much time people spend using DRDs, but know that if they spent forever on it no one would get anything done.
Something interesting that I noticed in your video that I don't think most people did was that you were multitasking. We talk a lot about being totally absorbed in a topic, but your video shows that it can work the other way too: Digitalization lets you easily do homework, listen to music, talk to friends, and whatever else you were doing on the computer, all at once.
The only thing that I saw a little out of place here was that you were interacting with people and not just the DRDs, but on the other hand that's kind of a good thing because it introduces the whole concept of multitasking.
That whole concept of being able to multitask isn't really mentioned as much in association with DRDs as much as I think it should. To me it seems like kind of a hidden perk--on one hand it's destroying our sense of focus, but on the other it's allowing us to participate in more activities at once.
Thanks, I look forward to reading more from you!
Remy S.B.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)