hw 15 abcdef3

comment of alicia's blog
Hi alicia

One thing I liked about your post for homework 10 the kindle research was the fact that you made a prediction. Its something that was original and interesting to think about. I only wrote about cell phone use which is not what is once was. It’s impossible to find a phone these days that is just a phone not something else mixed in. another good thing about your posts was in your digital fast blog. It was a good idea for you to add how you were feeling around the first few weeks and then again a little later. You also talked about what you are planning to do which is a good idea.

I may be wrong but I think your main idea for the digital fast was that as much as we may not want to we could live without as much digital obsession. You showed that it is possible for us to break the hold these digital representational devices hold on us, a much more optimistic approach. In your blog post 12 on feed your main point of the similarities in our world and the feed world were very insightful. You brought up some specific examples and connections that I had not noticed, for example the comparison of feed’s personal profiles and “cookies.”

Your point in homework 11, your self-experiment, that we could break free seems unlike some of the things that I have heard mentioned. I get the feeling in and out of class that people feel we’ve reached the brink, we are at the precipice of a intellectual collapse, now I’m not staying this is true I think if the general population of people who believe this really thought about it they might become less adamant about their claim but it unfortunately seems to be the consensus. Also in your homework 13 you said “I got from the book that independent thought comes with grave consequences” I got a similar feeling as you. I can see where you are coming from. This is defiantly something M.T. Anderson was trying to get across to his readers.

I think one place you can expand is a part in homework 12, you mentioned violet’s comment on how the feeds are getting to know us better than ourselves, you said before what exactly it is about the feed that has gotten them to that point and similarities to out life however I think that you could have expanded on this by adding what you think on this. Are we really at that point already? And doesn’t it many ways help us?


Something In you make me think about is what will be in the future. Not what is going to happen to us as a people because we as a class have talked about this often, but what is the next thing or what will push us even more? Your fast experiment got me thinking what if I deleted my facebook? I don’t know if I could do it. Also when you mentioned the genius in itunes, and cookies on computers it got me to think deeper about what makes feed an allegory of today.

Thanks for the posts,
Evan

comment on Brittani's blog

Hi Brittani

For one I really liked what you said about Feed primarily that it is much scarier to think about as an outsider looking in. I also think that was one of the factors that made feed such an awakening book. Also your comment where you made the connection of even the older people using the feeds to older people on facebook was very insightful and I didn’t realize it until you pointed it out. You also brought up a good point in hw 14 when you said that we like computers, and phones, and video games etc. because its more enjoyable and you interact with others.

I think that your main point for homework 14 was that although video games have some good qualities like increased eye hand coordination, books indirectly make people more active and intelligent. Also I may be wrong but I think in homework 13 you were saying that we could live without the Internet, which is our equivalent to the feed.

Your idea in homework 14 about people being more interested in spending their time with technology and digital representation devices instead of reading a book or the newspaper is very similar to a lot of what has been mentioned in class. Unfortunately for our culture that the computer and the television are more appealing. In addition I can agree and relate to what you said in I think homework 12 that M.T. Anderson not only made this an allegory for modern teenage life but the rest of society as well.

I think one thing that might have made your post for homework 12 better is if you expanded on how you feel about some of the comparisons, like when you talked about having everything at your finger tips, does that upset you is it all bad, all good? it also might be a good idea to proofread just a little because a few times you forgot a word but it wasn’t that big deal

One thing that your post helped me realize was the smaller comparisons in feed and the real life. The post you created on feed got me thinking even more about is this was we truly look like? If someone in the 17^th century wrote a book about all of digital media in out life and the addiction to digital we have would they be as shocked as we are to feed?

Great posts see you in class

evan

hw # 14 long excerpt everthing bad is good for you

I decided to read the long excerpt from "Everything Bad is Good for You" by Steven Johnson for homework which is split into three parts, games, television, and the internet. The games section focused on two main ideas/ questions. The first in the beginning was essentially on why? Why do we spend so much time on games when if you really look at them we don't spend a lot of time having fun. If we spend most of the time trying to figure out problems and getting to the next stage what is the appeal? The Second part took a different perspective of the game phenomenon, it primarily talked of the educational positives video game have given us. We have learned without realizing it. they may not give us the ability to learn how to solve a calculus problem but they are giving us decision making skills. As he put it "...games force you to decide, to choose, to prioritize." we analyze our options and make choices.

The Second part, Television focused on our ability to comprehend multiple plots, problems, or narratives and its growth. Much of this chapter concentrated on the change television viewers have gone through because of the cognitive demand the shows require. Shows now have forced people to think and fill in what you don't know. In other words television engages a persons mind. The last section was on the internet. Its focal point was the outlet the internet created allowing regular people to involve themselves in other aspects of culture through personal publishing, giving people new ways of thinking and a new medium of social interaction.


I found this book to be extremely interesting. It brought up some good points defending items of pop culture often seen as bad for the mind (I.E. the T.V. being called "the idiot box".) In the games section he brought up a great argument that many over look, they are giving the ability to make decisions and learn. His example of Simcity was a good anecdote to his point. In this instance we are learning by experience. At first hearing this claim i thought that it made sense but honestly how much education can be put in a video game, but as I read on he explained that we are not primarily learning facts we are instead grasping the ability to see what is in front of us, and make a decision. On page 41 of his book Johnson said:

“Far more than books or movies or music, games force you to make decisions. Novels may activate our imagination, and music may conjure up powerful emotions, but games force you to decide to choose, to prioritize. All the intellectual benefits of gaming derive from this fundamental virtue, because learning how to think is ultimately about learning to make the right decisions: weighing evidence, analyzing situations, consulting your long term goals, and then deciding. No other pop cultural form directly engages the brains decision-making apparatus in the same way.” I think this is an amazing idea. It shows what games can do that no other aspect of pop culture can. However I do not think that this is something people should rely on solely, although i agree this is a positive aspect of games, video games also have their share of negatives.

The section on television also brought up interesting evidence on how TV has changed the population for the better. The complexity of television shows has changed dramatically over the past 30 years, in the past the was one plot line for the audience to follow with no background knowledge to need but now shows have multiple "threads" all in one episode letting the audience think, work, and fill in the details. Telvision now places more reliance on the viewers attention and thought. Johnson said on page 64 of his book: "Recall the cognitive benefits conventionally ascribed to reading: attention, patience, retention, the parsing of narrative threads. Over the past half century of TV's dominance over mass culture, programing on TV has steadily increased the demands it places on precisely these mental facilities." This is the exact opposite to what is often said about TV. I am somewhat shocked and intrigued by this claim. It is a side that is greatly over looked. As strange it is to think about it is still true. People can and are learning from watching television. I think TV has been over looked as a viable educational tool because it doesn't show the learning as directly as reading but it does give its audience similar attribute to reading, which Johnson pointed out in this quote and chapter.

The main point Johnson was trying to get across in his internet section was that it has given people a place to discuss, interact, and engage with the world in a new way. I have no doubt that this is true, between the bloggers and discussion boards all over the virtual world the internet is defiantly a new place for people to connect and engage our minds. I also agree with his point that the internet has reversed the trend of other digital means where people are more engaged as In his book it is put as "The networked computer makes you lean in, focus engage while television encourages you to zone out." (118.) As true as this may be not all of the internet is about publishing one's thoughts. It is a collection of things, some games, some videos, some news, some shopping, and some blogs. Some of the Internet may "challenge our minds" but not all of it.

This book is contradicting "Feed" by M.T. Anderson because Johnson is talking about the pro's technology has whereas Feed is about how its leading us to our demise, and cultural collapse. The book Everything Bad is Good for You" talks about how the use of video games, television, and the internet has made us smarter, especially in our ability to analyze. Oppositely Feed argues that technology is making us dumber and more dependent on digital media. Something in Feed never mentioned in Everything Bad is Good for You was the affect the technology has on our outside environment (I.E. they must live in bubbles, can't swim in the ocean etc.) Johnson's book never mentioned what all this digitalization is doing to our environment. Both books are similar in one sense but different in another.

hw 13 feed b

Feed uses various subtle sometimes unnoticed artistic decisions to get his ideas, and message across. one major aspect of feed is MT Anderson's ability to depict the way outside objects can control the inside life of a person. Another unique thing Anderson did in the book was periodically add different news pieces to give the reader an understanding of what is going on in the world.

This book attempts to shine a light on the problems the author sees with society, a job of art. however in some ways it is a little extreme and a stretch. his use of making it look as if everyone is dumber because of the feed as a little too wide a claim. At the same time one thing I especially enjoyed and found clever was the trademark symbols put after the words school cloud. I think it did a good job in giving the reader knowledge about this essentially new world. Putting the tm near by any word implies corporate presence but to put it on a cloud, an object of nature not man is unbelievable in this age and scary to think about.

I think another advantage to using the teen style language and slang through out the book like "Meg" or "Brag" or "Null" is it helps the youth readers of the book, especially those around the age of Titus and who have similar habits (I.E. obsessive texting, addicted to t.v. etc.) to see exactly how closely they resemble the characters of the book who are portrayed as Dumb, and dependent on the feed. Which is why I think it more important for a teen to read Feed rather that an adult who wasn't born and raised in a completely digital world. Even without the knowledge that this was written as an allegory for today's digital obsession the similarities are still evident.

hw 12 feed A

A lot can be learned from the book Feed. Not only does it make one think about a cultural collapse it also gives you insight into what our world and looks like looking in, somewhat of a third-person point of view. Unfortunately, I do see some alarming similarities between feed and my life. The book shows the youths dependence on the feed, and alterior modes of communication much like the youths of today do. However i do think that feed was a little to drastic and somewhat haste to say that the entire teen population is like this. In some parts of the book i saw what we as a culture might look like if we continue the path we now follow for instance when they went to the moon, a future vacation spot. And at other times I read quotes that remind me of my own life now. Like when Titus briefly talks about how he wanted to buy something but he didn't know what.

To me the general tragedy of Feed was dependence on technology, something i see everyday. If it is not themselves at least everyone knows someone who could not live without technology, The book just takes our situation and puts the circumstances in the future.

although the feed may seem like a positive, although it may seem as though Titus and link and Marty have it great with all that information at their fingertips in the long run it is very bad. It is making them dumber as the internet, in some instances, does to us. Just like Titus thought George Washington fought in the civil war we forget that LOL doesn't really mean laugh out loud.

HW 11 self experiment 1

I decided that for me a good digital experiment was to have a two hour long digital fast. From 8:00 pm to 10:00 pm digitalization was cut out of my life.

It was weird to say the least, I was restless, bored, fidgety and annoyed. At first i thought it would be a good idea if I took my dogs out for a walk, to kill some time. Even then when I was just going for a walk, I was extremely tempted to take my ipod and phone with me so that I wouldn't be so bored. But i didn't and as much as I thought it was bad at the time, I now feel in retrospect that it was for the better. As I walked down the street I actually heard the other people talking and I saw their faces. I looked at people that I had probably seen a hundred times but never really noticed. As I was walking back from the walk I ran into a neighbor of mine and instead of just waving as i usually do when i have my Ipod on i actually stopped and said hello, a nice change i think.

When i got back i got as far away from the television as i could. I didn't want to hear or see it. I thought that it might be a good idea to read my book for English class since i was behind and I didn't have anything else to do at the moment. So i read and afterward I noticed i didn't read because i should to i read because it needed to be distracted. So I read and kept reading untill I became restless again. it was 9:30, and instead of thinking that I had 30 minutes left of quiet serenity, i thought I had 30 minutes to kill. I spent the rest of the time playing with my dogs, and talking to my mother about school and stuff like that.

I didn't enjoy it but I think it was good for me to do, I think it even if only slightly lowered my dependence of technology. I think there is a lot to say about how i saw what i was doing. I expected to be bored and restless so that was no surprise. However I was little shocked, and maybe its because i hadn't given it much beforehand, how much digital there is. if there is anything this experiment has taught me its how frequent digital is in our life and how it is related to nearly everything.

hw 10 informal research

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/27/BUG2IHECTO1.DTL

this is a very interesting article from the San Fransico Chronicle in 2006. It is mostly filled with statistics and interesting and somewhat scary facts about cell phone use. My favorite line from the article that is not a statistic or a study is in the beginning of the second paragraph were the author says " nothing has matched the seismic cultural shift created by the cell phone." this is a pretty big statement it basically is saying that nothing has impacted our lives as much as the cellular phone. I agree that the cell phone is one of the biggest inventions of the world but it doesn't stand alone.
I found that the most interesting statistic from this article was that according to a 2004 MIT survey cell phones were the most hated invention that people can't live without. It got thirty percent of the vote, alarm clocks were second with twenty-five percent and television with twenty three. This survey enforces my thoughts that people don't so much want all the technology in their lives but instead feel that they don't really have a choice.

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Americans-and-their-cell-phones.aspx

this article also from 2006 is a list and overview of a full report, it gives the summaries of percents about cell phones. I think the most important part of the text was in the beginning, according to the article 74% of Americans with cell phones say they have used them in an emergency. This is a good counter argument to the idea of cell phones being all bad. It has its share of positive aspects. I think without cell phones and the blow up of digital technology many people would not receive help they needed, most importantly medical assistance.


http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Cell-Phone-Use-Increases-Risk-of-Brain-Tumors-New-Study-Finds-600550/

this article unlike the first two is about the raised risk cell phones have on developing Brain tumor's. It is very recent, from August 31, 2009. I found the most interesting part of the text was the third paragraph, it said that a Swedish study found that using a cell phone after ten years increased ones risk of brain cancer by 280 percent. This is unbelievable, it doesn't raise the risk it sky rockets the chances. I think this is kind of scary and it definitly makes me want to cut down on my cell phone use. My general stance on Phones is still that they are good and help people connect with one another but in proportion, too much can be a bad thing. The article helpes me see the negative aspects of cell phone use which helps to give me a better and more well rounded idea of its purposes.



http://www.fuor.net/dnn/mobile+phone+marketing+statistics.aspx

This web page shows various graphs and data pertaining to cell phone use and preferred technology. On the page they call them "most recent mobile phone marketing clips" they are all very interesting to see. The Clip i think will be most useful was done by the Nielson telecom practice group on the average number of calls per month versus the average texts sent per month, the data was grouped by age. It wasn't that surprising that the highest volume of texts were from 13-17 year old's with 1742. Although this wasn't surprising i still found it interesting and important to know. Another interesting clip from also from Nielson that I liked was one that showed the text message use by country. Surprising Russia was first with an estimated 88% of the population sending a text in the last 30 days, even more shocking was that America was tied with Canada in last place with a mere 53%.

What this information showed me was that texting and cellular use is truly world wide. The addiction is not just a domestic issue it everywhere.