I asked my friend Lieb why she dressed up, why she wore heels everyday, why she wore makeup etc. She responded with our predicted "'Cause I like it." I laughed (this was before I read the assignment about avoid putting them on the defensive). She gave me a weird look and I told her how her answer was so typical. I asked her, "That's the only reason you dress up? You don't think it has anything with trying to gain attention?" She paused, thought, started to say something, but instead asked me, "Well, what do you think?" I said I thought dressing up did have something to do with trying to catch other people's attention. After hearing me say that, she said "Well if you're going to have to wear something, you might as well wear something that looks good." I definitely put her on the defensive, so I'm not sure if her answers are completely honest.
Then I went back on aim that night to continue the interview. I asked her if she remembered the first time she started dressing up or caring about the way she presented herself to others. She said "I guess around 14 or 15." I asked her if she knew what it was that made her want to change. She said "I guess when I realized I shouldn't dress like a little girl anymore?" I asked her if she seen a change in her behavior as well and she said she didn't think so but maybe. Then I asked her, "Do you think dressing up makes you feel more confident?" She responded with "I don't think I'm dressing up though. I just wear things I like wearing, like in the morning, I don't go ohh what should I wear so I look pretty. It's just like I like some clothes so I wear them. I don't think it has to be special though. It sounds like a lie haha."
This reflects the popular claim that "I do it for me and nobody else." She wears the clothes she wears simply because she likes it and not because it looks good. But then I wonder what's the reason behind her outfit choices if it doesn't make her look good. What is it she likes if it's not its appearance? Plus it's contradicting her statement "Well if you're going to have to wear something, you might as well wear something that looks good."
For me, the way I dress affects my confidence level. I wouldn't say it's the biggest factor because personality is probably the biggest, but it definitely affects the way I feel about myself and the judgment I get from others. Like right now, I'm in sweats and a regular hoodie 'cause I felt lazy this morning. So now I'm feeling ordinary. When I'm in an outfit I really like, it makes me feel more confident and less dull throughout the day. It's what sets my initial mood for the day. I guess it does have something to do with the way people view me. Clothes are like art and when you have a great piece of art, you would want to show it off.
When I see certain "looks" I like, I don't think about who might like it, because I do choose clothes for myself and not for others. There's a difference between dressing a certain way just to impress people even when you feel uncomfortable in it and dressing in a way that would satisfy yourself and gain compliments.
This isn't to say that anyone who doesn't care about their appearance is a loser. Because like I said earlier, I feel like personality plays the biggest part in the way we view a person. I would say that when people can't impress others with their personality, they look to other self aggrandizing strategies like talent, titles, money, the way we dress etc. I can say I'm none of those. But I probably am. Maybe I'm trying to compensate my lack of interesting-ness with clothes and make-up. That feels true sometimes.
“You’re literally watching the social landscape on the screen, and if you’re obsessed with your position in that landscape, it’s very hard to look away.”
When we find ourselves so obsessed with our social rankings, it's hard not to feel compelled to raise that ranking. Monkey see, monkey do. We see something we admire and we are tempted to change ourselves to become that way. As we mentioned earlier, this is a shortcut. Trying to be "cool" can only get us so far and soon enough we'll see ourselves back at square one, empty and lost.
Friday, December 18, 2009
HW 30: Psychological and Philisophical Theorizing of Cool
Often we hear about people leaving each other and taking parts of each other with them. We hear about people trying to find that missing piece to fill out that hole in their heart. When we are feeling lonely, we are describing a state of lacking something. Are we really lacking anything? Or do we just convince ourselves that we'll feel better if we had this or that? When we feel like we are lacking something, we purposely go out and find something to fill the "void", whether it be a person to fill our hearts or hobbies to fill our schedule. Anything to make us feel like we have something to do and that what we're doing is meaningful. Otherwise we'll just feel like another ant on earth, neglected and insignificant.
Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher believed that the emptiness felt by our generation was a result of spiritual emptiness. People have become lazy thinkers where everything they try to figure out is more about scientific logic than self acknowledgment or "enlightenment" as the Buddhists call it. The feeling of emptiness is refer to as the "hunger of the soul" and in order to fill it up people turn to "food, excitement, substances, relationships, [or] consumer products." Nonetheless, these things can only provide temporary happiness.
In Buddhism, emptiness is viewed as a positive feeling. It is seen to be a spiritual awakening when we realize that all objects in the world are only "appearances of our subjective minds" and that they have no inherent existence in the world. The saying "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" perfectly describes this. The things we see and feel are all interpretations of our minds. They are all "empty." This relates to Plato's theory that our perception of an object relies on our senses and the physical object itself. But this doesn't give us its essence at all. Therefore, it has no inherent existence. Buddhism taught the "emptiness of emptiness." The essence or purpose I would say, of emptiness "is empty of inherent existence." So that would mean that all our efforts of trying to fill up this void is not necessary. We feel like the essence of emptiness is a hole that needs to be patched up because it's broken or missing things. But according the the Buddhist's teachings, essence can not be found anywhere (ie. mind, physical world, "heavenly realm"), so our hole isn't really a "hole." (I think I'm sort of adding a little nihilism into the Buddhist point of view, but I'm not sure.)
Nihilism has more to do with objects having no meaning and purpose. I'm not really understanding the differences these sites are pointing out because what's so different between not having an essence/inherent existence (Buddhism) and not having a purpose (nihilism).
From what I've read so far, the Western's approach to emptiness seems to involve a lot of patchwork which only provides temporary happiness. The vision of cool and happiness is seen to be a cut out shape of the "hole in our hearts." If we followed the Buddhist's ideas, then maybe we would find out that emptiness is empty of essence in itself and that this cut out shape we're aiming for is not what emptiness is looking for.
Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher believed that the emptiness felt by our generation was a result of spiritual emptiness. People have become lazy thinkers where everything they try to figure out is more about scientific logic than self acknowledgment or "enlightenment" as the Buddhists call it. The feeling of emptiness is refer to as the "hunger of the soul" and in order to fill it up people turn to "food, excitement, substances, relationships, [or] consumer products." Nonetheless, these things can only provide temporary happiness.
In Buddhism, emptiness is viewed as a positive feeling. It is seen to be a spiritual awakening when we realize that all objects in the world are only "appearances of our subjective minds" and that they have no inherent existence in the world. The saying "form is emptiness; emptiness is form" perfectly describes this. The things we see and feel are all interpretations of our minds. They are all "empty." This relates to Plato's theory that our perception of an object relies on our senses and the physical object itself. But this doesn't give us its essence at all. Therefore, it has no inherent existence. Buddhism taught the "emptiness of emptiness." The essence or purpose I would say, of emptiness "is empty of inherent existence." So that would mean that all our efforts of trying to fill up this void is not necessary. We feel like the essence of emptiness is a hole that needs to be patched up because it's broken or missing things. But according the the Buddhist's teachings, essence can not be found anywhere (ie. mind, physical world, "heavenly realm"), so our hole isn't really a "hole." (I think I'm sort of adding a little nihilism into the Buddhist point of view, but I'm not sure.)
Nihilism has more to do with objects having no meaning and purpose. I'm not really understanding the differences these sites are pointing out because what's so different between not having an essence/inherent existence (Buddhism) and not having a purpose (nihilism).
From what I've read so far, the Western's approach to emptiness seems to involve a lot of patchwork which only provides temporary happiness. The vision of cool and happiness is seen to be a cut out shape of the "hole in our hearts." If we followed the Buddhist's ideas, then maybe we would find out that emptiness is empty of essence in itself and that this cut out shape we're aiming for is not what emptiness is looking for.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
HW 29: Merchants of Cool
Of course the corporations manipulate us while pretending not to, so they can make more money off of us. Of course we actively seek commodified coolness while trying to claim "self-expression" and "being ourselves", so we can feel a sense of importance and gain attention and approval. So what?
By throwing us all these products and images of cool, these corporations are only reinforcing the idea that chasing coolness is cool and popular. Therefore, it's just adding more heat to the fire. We seek out individual looks and when we see our looks on T.V. or on a billboard in Times Square, we receive a boost of confidence. Why is this so bad? Because we're are being dragged around by the media and happily skipping down this path that they've carved for us without even acknowledging it. And even when we do, a lot of us don't care. And why should we? As long as we get the new purse or the new shoes, we're happy. In the "Merchants of Cool," they said that teens have become the largest group of consumers, profiting 150 billion from them. They're easy targets. Now teens are stuck in this mind frame that if you want to be somebody or if you want to be important, then you need to stand out. They do this either by following trends or creating trends of their own... which will probably later be stolen by the media. Instead of dressing to show off who they are regardless of what others think about them, they're starting to dress to impress.. everyone.
What specific manipulation techniques work best on the specific insecurities and emotional needs of young people, according to Merchants of Cool?
The corporations started realizing that corny ads don't work anymore, so like the Sprite commercial, they filmed it to mock the stereotypical Star-approved ads... with a Star. Teens soon caught up to that too. So Sprite started studying teen culture and incorporated its own brand name into their party life to show support to its music and scene. This worked because teens really believed that Sprite was really there for them. The documentary said something like "It looked like Sprite was only studying the culture and not how to advertise to the teens. Thus, Sprite became the culture." So pretending like they weren't out to manipulate the teens successfully manipulated them.
Even the Dove commercials attempt to reach out to "normal" people by putting elders, mothers, curvy women, and others into their ads. They're trying to make it seem that normal is the new cool and that they support this movement. Their focus on "real" women has made those insecure about their bodies the next target. Except their way of approaching it is different. Instead of saying, purchase this so you can change yourself and feel better about yourself, they're saying purchase this, don't change yourself and still feel better about yourself. This works and it still sends a great message.
They also started filling the media with archetypes such as the "mook" and the "midriff" to convince teens that characters such as these get the most attention. They were sending the message that guys that were obnoxious and annoying were fun and popular. Girls who showed off skin and dressed provocatively earned them confidence and attention. So for teens, that was the secret to solving their insecurities, although I think it only made them crave attention even more.
Should advertising to young people be banned? Up to what age? Or all ages?
Obviously, teens can't hide from the media and all its sumbliminal messages. But they should limit the types of commercials that are put out to the public. Teens shouldn't have to look at commercials and feel compelled to purchase a product because it's what's popular at the time. But of course, commercials are bias . There would never be a commercial that would just come out and say blahblahblah this has this feature and that feature and it is this price, without any cool images or people endorsing it. Ads that constantly pressures teens to be cool shouldn't be shown to them until 21, when most of them are mature enough to make the right decision. But then again, no matter what age we are, we are still prone to the pressures of being cool and important.
Should Rage Against the Machine or Mos Def have refused to play the corporate game to prevent their revolutionary music becoming a source of capitalist profit? What if that meant that they would gain far fewer listeners?
The whole concept of their band in the first place was to fight capitalism or "the machine." They've lost all sense of dignity once they bought into the game. If I were them, I would rather have a couple of listeners who really believed in my music rather than having my music promoted as anything other than what it was supposed to be in the first place.
By throwing us all these products and images of cool, these corporations are only reinforcing the idea that chasing coolness is cool and popular. Therefore, it's just adding more heat to the fire. We seek out individual looks and when we see our looks on T.V. or on a billboard in Times Square, we receive a boost of confidence. Why is this so bad? Because we're are being dragged around by the media and happily skipping down this path that they've carved for us without even acknowledging it. And even when we do, a lot of us don't care. And why should we? As long as we get the new purse or the new shoes, we're happy. In the "Merchants of Cool," they said that teens have become the largest group of consumers, profiting 150 billion from them. They're easy targets. Now teens are stuck in this mind frame that if you want to be somebody or if you want to be important, then you need to stand out. They do this either by following trends or creating trends of their own... which will probably later be stolen by the media. Instead of dressing to show off who they are regardless of what others think about them, they're starting to dress to impress.. everyone.
What specific manipulation techniques work best on the specific insecurities and emotional needs of young people, according to Merchants of Cool?
The corporations started realizing that corny ads don't work anymore, so like the Sprite commercial, they filmed it to mock the stereotypical Star-approved ads... with a Star. Teens soon caught up to that too. So Sprite started studying teen culture and incorporated its own brand name into their party life to show support to its music and scene. This worked because teens really believed that Sprite was really there for them. The documentary said something like "It looked like Sprite was only studying the culture and not how to advertise to the teens. Thus, Sprite became the culture." So pretending like they weren't out to manipulate the teens successfully manipulated them.
Even the Dove commercials attempt to reach out to "normal" people by putting elders, mothers, curvy women, and others into their ads. They're trying to make it seem that normal is the new cool and that they support this movement. Their focus on "real" women has made those insecure about their bodies the next target. Except their way of approaching it is different. Instead of saying, purchase this so you can change yourself and feel better about yourself, they're saying purchase this, don't change yourself and still feel better about yourself. This works and it still sends a great message.
They also started filling the media with archetypes such as the "mook" and the "midriff" to convince teens that characters such as these get the most attention. They were sending the message that guys that were obnoxious and annoying were fun and popular. Girls who showed off skin and dressed provocatively earned them confidence and attention. So for teens, that was the secret to solving their insecurities, although I think it only made them crave attention even more.Should advertising to young people be banned? Up to what age? Or all ages?
Obviously, teens can't hide from the media and all its sumbliminal messages. But they should limit the types of commercials that are put out to the public. Teens shouldn't have to look at commercials and feel compelled to purchase a product because it's what's popular at the time. But of course, commercials are bias . There would never be a commercial that would just come out and say blahblahblah this has this feature and that feature and it is this price, without any cool images or people endorsing it. Ads that constantly pressures teens to be cool shouldn't be shown to them until 21, when most of them are mature enough to make the right decision. But then again, no matter what age we are, we are still prone to the pressures of being cool and important.
Should Rage Against the Machine or Mos Def have refused to play the corporate game to prevent their revolutionary music becoming a source of capitalist profit? What if that meant that they would gain far fewer listeners?
The whole concept of their band in the first place was to fight capitalism or "the machine." They've lost all sense of dignity once they bought into the game. If I were them, I would rather have a couple of listeners who really believed in my music rather than having my music promoted as anything other than what it was supposed to be in the first place.
Monday, December 7, 2009
HW 28: Informal Research - Internet, Magazines, and TV Shows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_(aesthetic)
"...mainstream perception of cool is narrow and distorted, with cool often perceived merely as style or arrogance, rather than a way to achieve respect."
Wikipedia's article states that cool isn't subjected to a particular group and it differs from culture to culture. The idea also changes over time. It is mainly viewed through behavioral characteristics and state of being. Cool used to be heavily associate with rebellion and avoiding authority, much like it is now (as shown in our stories). It's also defined as someone who has achieved transcendental balance, and is calm during moments of chaos.
The article continues to talk about different cultures and their history of cool. One notable element was that during segregation blacks acted cool to attain a "sense of control, strength, confidence and stability and helps him deal with negative messages." Mona Lisa was also used as an example to "convey her grandeur, self-confidence and societal position." Her posture and expression exerts a sense of detachment and she succeeds in looking like she isn't trying hard look indifferent.
http://www.whatiscool.org/
Entering this site, I thought it would be filled with meaningful stuff to read about. But it turned out to be written by a jerk or at least someone who was pretending to be a jerk. I think it was written purposely to make fun of the stereotypical way people interpret coolness. It was basically a compilation of What is cool, What isn't, How can I be cool etc. His approach to teaching us how to be cool was different from the other sites. Instead of actually giving us advice he believed in, he did the opposite to show that "cool" is b.s. although he doesn't explicitly say so. He attempts to convince us that the goal is to just forget about the importance of being cool and be whatever we want to be.
He pokes fun at how smoking is closely associated with the idea of coolness by telling us to go ahead and smoke but be careful of the diseases that came with it. His How To article also pointed out the stereotypical ways of becoming cool. He also said that coolness requires a lot of work and time to perfect. Overall, I think his point was to show us how absurd the idea of wanting to be cool is.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/
(video attached)
The article talks about how corporations have started to excessively commercialize music, social, and fashion trends directly to teens all in the name of profit. Nothing belongs to us anymore because they take any new fad and "blares it back at [us] relentlessly and everywhere." And after they do so, the trend is killed and now we have to search for a new trend and it just becomes a cycle. "By discovering cool, you've moved cool onto the next thing."
"Kids feel frustrated and lonely today because they are encouraged to feel that way," Miller tells FRONTLINE. "You know, advertising has always sold anxiety and it certainly sells anxiety to the young. It's always telling them that they are not thin enough, they're not pretty enough, they don't have the right friends, or they have no friends...they're losers unless they're cool. But I don't think anybody, deep down, really feels cool enough, ever."
The media is trying to categorize us and creating a group of identical adolescents that listen to the same music and wear the same clothes (like the Feed) and we're letting them. I'm beginning to wonder if I've already fell victim or rather a clone to their scheme of things and it's looks like I did. The article points out that Cool is no longer determined by us. It's determined by the media and what they choose to feed us.
"...mainstream perception of cool is narrow and distorted, with cool often perceived merely as style or arrogance, rather than a way to achieve respect."
Wikipedia's article states that cool isn't subjected to a particular group and it differs from culture to culture. The idea also changes over time. It is mainly viewed through behavioral characteristics and state of being. Cool used to be heavily associate with rebellion and avoiding authority, much like it is now (as shown in our stories). It's also defined as someone who has achieved transcendental balance, and is calm during moments of chaos.
The article continues to talk about different cultures and their history of cool. One notable element was that during segregation blacks acted cool to attain a "sense of control, strength, confidence and stability and helps him deal with negative messages." Mona Lisa was also used as an example to "convey her grandeur, self-confidence and societal position." Her posture and expression exerts a sense of detachment and she succeeds in looking like she isn't trying hard look indifferent.
Homer: So, I realized that being with my family is more importantI also really liked this dialogue. Cool depends on bias judgment so much that it can really be anything you want it to be. In this case, all of them have different notions of being cool and different ways of acknowledging it (being told that you are or not being told). Therefore this whole idea of coolness is just resting on a pile of theories and different sources. It doesn't even deserve a definition.
than being cool.
Bart: Dad, what you just said was powerfully uncool.
Homer: You know what the song says: "It's hip to be square".
Lisa: That song is so lame.
Homer: So lame that it's... cool?
Bart+Lisa: No.
Marge: Am I cool, kids?
Bart+Lisa: No.
Marge: Good. I'm glad. And that's what makes me cool, not caring,
right?
Bart+Lisa: No.
Marge: Well, how the hell do you be cool? I feel like we've tried
everything here.
Homer: Wait, Marge. Maybe if you're truly cool, you don't need to
be told you're cool.
Bart: Well, sure you do.
Lisa: How else would you know?
http://www.whatiscool.org/
Entering this site, I thought it would be filled with meaningful stuff to read about. But it turned out to be written by a jerk or at least someone who was pretending to be a jerk. I think it was written purposely to make fun of the stereotypical way people interpret coolness. It was basically a compilation of What is cool, What isn't, How can I be cool etc. His approach to teaching us how to be cool was different from the other sites. Instead of actually giving us advice he believed in, he did the opposite to show that "cool" is b.s. although he doesn't explicitly say so. He attempts to convince us that the goal is to just forget about the importance of being cool and be whatever we want to be.
He pokes fun at how smoking is closely associated with the idea of coolness by telling us to go ahead and smoke but be careful of the diseases that came with it. His How To article also pointed out the stereotypical ways of becoming cool. He also said that coolness requires a lot of work and time to perfect. Overall, I think his point was to show us how absurd the idea of wanting to be cool is.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/
(video attached)
The article talks about how corporations have started to excessively commercialize music, social, and fashion trends directly to teens all in the name of profit. Nothing belongs to us anymore because they take any new fad and "blares it back at [us] relentlessly and everywhere." And after they do so, the trend is killed and now we have to search for a new trend and it just becomes a cycle. "By discovering cool, you've moved cool onto the next thing."
"Kids feel frustrated and lonely today because they are encouraged to feel that way," Miller tells FRONTLINE. "You know, advertising has always sold anxiety and it certainly sells anxiety to the young. It's always telling them that they are not thin enough, they're not pretty enough, they don't have the right friends, or they have no friends...they're losers unless they're cool. But I don't think anybody, deep down, really feels cool enough, ever."
The media is trying to categorize us and creating a group of identical adolescents that listen to the same music and wear the same clothes (like the Feed) and we're letting them. I'm beginning to wonder if I've already fell victim or rather a clone to their scheme of things and it's looks like I did. The article points out that Cool is no longer determined by us. It's determined by the media and what they choose to feed us.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
HW 27: Informal Research - Interviews and Surveys
Street Interviews
Guy with Baby Stroller - He thought kids were cool no matter how the media portrays them, which are usually bratty kids that you can't handle and ruin your life.
College Student Walking to Class - "Coolness is a manufactured desire." I guess that's true because we invented this idea (of coolness) ourselves and chose to look at its image for guidance when the fact is we don't really have to. Or did he mean we only looked to tangible objects to increase coolness... I don't know. He didn't want to explain it to us. He didn't think he was cool and he advised us to read a book called Noble Rider and the Sound of Words written by a poet named Wallace Stevens.
Guy dressed Head to Toe in Electric Blue with Shades on - He didn't think he was cool. He thought being cool was being yourself ..typical. He believed that the way you dressed played a part in how cool you looked although when asked, his shades weren't for looking cool. He said he didn't like people looking into his eyes. Then he proceeds to take off his glasses. He said he admired entrepreneurs such as Jay Z who are "makin' money."
Lady Jogger - She does a lot of volunteer work. She used to work in PR, but now she's using the skills she gained there for things she actually care about: causes such as human trafficking and hunger in Africa. One cool trait of coolness she thought was integrity. She thought that those who used their popularity for power and gratifying their own egos were bad and unfortunately that's how most women sees it. For men though, she thought that they measure their coolness through how much they use their power to contribute to the community. The two celebrities she admired most were Susan Sarandon and Gloria Steinem because of their dedication to giving back to the community.
It's clear that the guy in blue and the female jogger both admired celebs that resembled themselves in some way.
Family Member
Rowena (Cousin) - She thinks cool is usually someone who is popular where everyone wants to be either her friend or be her. It's someone others idolize. They're people who are famous and goes for their dreams. "Do you find yourself striving to be cool?" "Oh yess! cause I will be famous and ceooo of microsoft! and be cool like taylor swift! and jb (jonas brothers). and live in cali!" When I asked her if she knew of anyone in her life that was cool, she said no, not even her friends... "and people in my school are retardedd, going to parties every weekendd and having hangoverrs lol."
My friend interviews were basically HW 26.
Additional Friend
Sweetie (yeah that's her real name) - I asked her what's her perspective on "cool" and what attributes she would associate that with. She starts off with an ummm... "Ok, can I answer this personally as in I don't care if I offend anyone else? A "cool" person can't be nerdy. He has to be someone who is open to talk about everything. Oh one more thing, that person has to learn to not to judge. But yeah.....I think I'm cool, 'cause like my friends are all open to talk to me about everything, even the most sensitive things (eg. sex, drugs, family) and I know how to deal with a lot of these things so I teach them how to get through it and how not to get hurt. Oh and also guys feel comfortable talking to me about these things too. I'm proud. =)" Then I asked her about appearance and whether she thinks it plays a role in being cool or not. And she answered "Half and half. 'Cause someone can be cool inside but not showing. I think dressing is completely different from personality. I have lots of friends are like that. They dress mad nerdy but they think mad crazy. THIS APPLY TO LOTS OF GUYS TOO, so watch out."
Guy with Baby Stroller - He thought kids were cool no matter how the media portrays them, which are usually bratty kids that you can't handle and ruin your life.
College Student Walking to Class - "Coolness is a manufactured desire." I guess that's true because we invented this idea (of coolness) ourselves and chose to look at its image for guidance when the fact is we don't really have to. Or did he mean we only looked to tangible objects to increase coolness... I don't know. He didn't want to explain it to us. He didn't think he was cool and he advised us to read a book called Noble Rider and the Sound of Words written by a poet named Wallace Stevens.
Guy dressed Head to Toe in Electric Blue with Shades on - He didn't think he was cool. He thought being cool was being yourself ..typical. He believed that the way you dressed played a part in how cool you looked although when asked, his shades weren't for looking cool. He said he didn't like people looking into his eyes. Then he proceeds to take off his glasses. He said he admired entrepreneurs such as Jay Z who are "makin' money."
Lady Jogger - She does a lot of volunteer work. She used to work in PR, but now she's using the skills she gained there for things she actually care about: causes such as human trafficking and hunger in Africa. One cool trait of coolness she thought was integrity. She thought that those who used their popularity for power and gratifying their own egos were bad and unfortunately that's how most women sees it. For men though, she thought that they measure their coolness through how much they use their power to contribute to the community. The two celebrities she admired most were Susan Sarandon and Gloria Steinem because of their dedication to giving back to the community.
It's clear that the guy in blue and the female jogger both admired celebs that resembled themselves in some way.
Family Member
Rowena (Cousin) - She thinks cool is usually someone who is popular where everyone wants to be either her friend or be her. It's someone others idolize. They're people who are famous and goes for their dreams. "Do you find yourself striving to be cool?" "Oh yess! cause I will be famous and ceooo of microsoft! and be cool like taylor swift! and jb (jonas brothers). and live in cali!" When I asked her if she knew of anyone in her life that was cool, she said no, not even her friends... "and people in my school are retardedd, going to parties every weekendd and having hangoverrs lol."
My friend interviews were basically HW 26.
Additional Friend
Sweetie (yeah that's her real name) - I asked her what's her perspective on "cool" and what attributes she would associate that with. She starts off with an ummm... "Ok, can I answer this personally as in I don't care if I offend anyone else? A "cool" person can't be nerdy. He has to be someone who is open to talk about everything. Oh one more thing, that person has to learn to not to judge. But yeah.....I think I'm cool, 'cause like my friends are all open to talk to me about everything, even the most sensitive things (eg. sex, drugs, family) and I know how to deal with a lot of these things so I teach them how to get through it and how not to get hurt. Oh and also guys feel comfortable talking to me about these things too. I'm proud. =)" Then I asked her about appearance and whether she thinks it plays a role in being cool or not. And she answered "Half and half. 'Cause someone can be cool inside but not showing. I think dressing is completely different from personality. I have lots of friends are like that. They dress mad nerdy but they think mad crazy. THIS APPLY TO LOTS OF GUYS TOO, so watch out."
Monday, November 23, 2009
HW 26: Photos and Questions
Emily
When you think of someone cool, what are the first personality traits that come to mind?
- Chill, calm, optimistic, and laid back.
How do you know when someone is trying to be cool?
- It's a natural thangggg. You can feel the breeze they give off.
Do you associate your vision of coolness with looks and stuff?
- In a way yes. Sometimes appearance reflects the way you portray yourself. So if you're cool, your appearance would match with your personality. Being cool is not only about wearing designer clothing and expensive brands. If you have a snobby personality, people do not look at you as cool. Meanwhile, cool people can rock the decent brands effortlessly.
So it's like a mix btwn personality, the way you portray yourself and your appearance?
- Yessss. Being cool is being real !
But what if your real personality isn't likable?
- Well, I think the society and surroundings influence people to become who they are. so if their personality is not likable, they are probably influenced and I think cool people are not easily influenced.
Michelle
So when u think of a cool person, what are the first personality traits that come to mind?
- Ummm. Unique
In what ways specifically?
- Badass. LMFAO jkjk. Hmmm. Appealing, attractive, alluring. Any of those.
Okay, what about uncool? What's your personal definition of that?
- Outcasts who don't attract attention or whom people tend not to socialize with.
How do you know when someone is trying to act cool?
- When they try too hard. When they don't act like themselves normally and base it off of the "cool" thing.
Sam
What's your definition of cool? When u think of someone cool what are the first personality traits that come to mind?
- Can I say there is no real definition of cool. Because people have different standards of "cool." But if no... I guess popularity and someone easy to get along with.
And what's your definition of uncool?
- An asshole. Like how a person acts. If he's doing things u ain't like...then u tell him, that's not cool.
Do u ever see people trying to act cool ? How do u know if they are or not?
- Well, someone not being themselves is like trying to act cool, trying to fit in.
Do u think appearance plays a role in coolness?
- Well, if it's someone who's mad shallow and care more about someone having good looks than a good personality. I care more about someone who I can get along with rather then looks.
Sandy
So what types of personality traits come to mind when you hear the word cool?
- Confident, friendly. Indifferent? Unique, "different," nice.
Do you think appearance plays a role in coolness?
- Yes, well i think it plays a role but not as big of a role as one would think, because a cool person could be ugly but still be confident and play the part well. But people who are not as confident but are good looking I think are "cool" too. They are seen as cool.
Do u see people trying to act cool ? How do you know if they are or not?
- I guess you can tell if they are in your face about it. Like they are obviously trying to point things out about themselves that they think you will think is cool and they wait for a reaction or an approval.
When you think of someone cool, what are the first personality traits that come to mind?- Chill, calm, optimistic, and laid back.
How do you know when someone is trying to be cool?
- It's a natural thangggg. You can feel the breeze they give off.
Do you associate your vision of coolness with looks and stuff?
- In a way yes. Sometimes appearance reflects the way you portray yourself. So if you're cool, your appearance would match with your personality. Being cool is not only about wearing designer clothing and expensive brands. If you have a snobby personality, people do not look at you as cool. Meanwhile, cool people can rock the decent brands effortlessly.
So it's like a mix btwn personality, the way you portray yourself and your appearance?
- Yessss. Being cool is being real !
But what if your real personality isn't likable?
- Well, I think the society and surroundings influence people to become who they are. so if their personality is not likable, they are probably influenced and I think cool people are not easily influenced.
Michelle
So when u think of a cool person, what are the first personality traits that come to mind?- Ummm. Unique
In what ways specifically?
- Badass. LMFAO jkjk. Hmmm. Appealing, attractive, alluring. Any of those.
Okay, what about uncool? What's your personal definition of that?
- Outcasts who don't attract attention or whom people tend not to socialize with.
How do you know when someone is trying to act cool?
- When they try too hard. When they don't act like themselves normally and base it off of the "cool" thing.
Sam
What's your definition of cool? When u think of someone cool what are the first personality traits that come to mind?- Can I say there is no real definition of cool. Because people have different standards of "cool." But if no... I guess popularity and someone easy to get along with.
And what's your definition of uncool?
- An asshole. Like how a person acts. If he's doing things u ain't like...then u tell him, that's not cool.
Do u ever see people trying to act cool ? How do u know if they are or not?
- Well, someone not being themselves is like trying to act cool, trying to fit in.
Do u think appearance plays a role in coolness?
- Well, if it's someone who's mad shallow and care more about someone having good looks than a good personality. I care more about someone who I can get along with rather then looks.
Sandy
So what types of personality traits come to mind when you hear the word cool?- Confident, friendly. Indifferent? Unique, "different," nice.
Do you think appearance plays a role in coolness?
- Yes, well i think it plays a role but not as big of a role as one would think, because a cool person could be ugly but still be confident and play the part well. But people who are not as confident but are good looking I think are "cool" too. They are seen as cool.
Do u see people trying to act cool ? How do you know if they are or not?
- I guess you can tell if they are in your face about it. Like they are obviously trying to point things out about themselves that they think you will think is cool and they wait for a reaction or an approval.
HW 25: Story Comments and Analysis
Kate,
I liked how you used the image of a rich girl, one that is usually portrayed as mean and snotty, but instead twisted her character to someone who is considerate and sympathizes with others. I like how you had her break out of her mask and still ended up cool despite the change. As a result, her change has encouraged others to look past their own masks and reveal themselves as well.
Rachel,
I liked how you portrayed the girl as someone who is mysterious and isn't social. Usually, people associate social skills with popularity. But in this case, your character was popular even when she didn't express interest in getting to know anyone.
Maggie,
Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing as Kate. Your vision of a cool person seems to be a nonchalant character, one who chooses comfort over fashion. Her mysterious attitude intrigues others and the more she ignores them the more attention she gets from them because they're not used to being treated this way. Instead, she finds more interest in the guy who was keeping to himself. Being different is cool.
Jia Min,
I really enjoyed reading your story. It was very descriptive and inspiring. Your character is cool in the way that she is fearless and isn't afraid of standing up for others. She's a good role model and is willing to go out of her way to help others. She wise and talented. Her personality and stature naturally demands attention and admiration.
Henry,
I liked how you started off your story. Your character didn't dominate from the get-go as you said, but she manages to take over with her lack of drama. You can clearly see that she doesn't show respect to those she doesn't think deserve it, and respect (or a smile) to those who do. She is confident in her attitude and could care less about what others think of her.
The pattern is obvious. Even though each of them portrays it in a different way, Henry's, Jia Min's and Kate's are all about challenging taboo situations such as standing up to bullies or giving a teacher attitude. Because they're fearless in handling a situation the way they believe it should be handled, their actions usually differ from the typical ones of other high schoolers. As a result, many others view this type of uniqueness as cool. In Kate's and Jia Min's story, the characters are portrayed as heros. And heros are always cool.
Henry's example had a girl who smirked at comments about her and treated the teacher like he didn't have anything above her. Her careless behavior is also translated in Rachel's and Maggie's stories. Rachel had a girl who was quiet and mysterious. She wasn't shy though. She just didn't show any interest in getting to know anyone. Maggie's character was the same although her character seemed to be trying harder to ignore the people around her.
A lot of the stories seem to have the protagonist showing kindness to at least one person who deserved it. Henry's smiled at the narrator at the end of his story. Maggie's gave a note to the boy who was by himself at the end. Kate's helped out the bullied girl while she turned against the mean kids. Rachel's gave a smile when the narrator introduced herself. And Jia Min's, similar to Kate's, helped out a wounded boy as she chased away the bullies. These characters seem to know exactly who they should or should not give respect to. They're confident and have no trouble flipping off the ones who they feel don't deserve their respect.
I liked how you used the image of a rich girl, one that is usually portrayed as mean and snotty, but instead twisted her character to someone who is considerate and sympathizes with others. I like how you had her break out of her mask and still ended up cool despite the change. As a result, her change has encouraged others to look past their own masks and reveal themselves as well.
Rachel,
I liked how you portrayed the girl as someone who is mysterious and isn't social. Usually, people associate social skills with popularity. But in this case, your character was popular even when she didn't express interest in getting to know anyone.
Maggie,
Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing as Kate. Your vision of a cool person seems to be a nonchalant character, one who chooses comfort over fashion. Her mysterious attitude intrigues others and the more she ignores them the more attention she gets from them because they're not used to being treated this way. Instead, she finds more interest in the guy who was keeping to himself. Being different is cool.
Jia Min,
I really enjoyed reading your story. It was very descriptive and inspiring. Your character is cool in the way that she is fearless and isn't afraid of standing up for others. She's a good role model and is willing to go out of her way to help others. She wise and talented. Her personality and stature naturally demands attention and admiration.
Henry,
I liked how you started off your story. Your character didn't dominate from the get-go as you said, but she manages to take over with her lack of drama. You can clearly see that she doesn't show respect to those she doesn't think deserve it, and respect (or a smile) to those who do. She is confident in her attitude and could care less about what others think of her.
The pattern is obvious. Even though each of them portrays it in a different way, Henry's, Jia Min's and Kate's are all about challenging taboo situations such as standing up to bullies or giving a teacher attitude. Because they're fearless in handling a situation the way they believe it should be handled, their actions usually differ from the typical ones of other high schoolers. As a result, many others view this type of uniqueness as cool. In Kate's and Jia Min's story, the characters are portrayed as heros. And heros are always cool.
Henry's example had a girl who smirked at comments about her and treated the teacher like he didn't have anything above her. Her careless behavior is also translated in Rachel's and Maggie's stories. Rachel had a girl who was quiet and mysterious. She wasn't shy though. She just didn't show any interest in getting to know anyone. Maggie's character was the same although her character seemed to be trying harder to ignore the people around her.
A lot of the stories seem to have the protagonist showing kindness to at least one person who deserved it. Henry's smiled at the narrator at the end of his story. Maggie's gave a note to the boy who was by himself at the end. Kate's helped out the bullied girl while she turned against the mean kids. Rachel's gave a smile when the narrator introduced herself. And Jia Min's, similar to Kate's, helped out a wounded boy as she chased away the bullies. These characters seem to know exactly who they should or should not give respect to. They're confident and have no trouble flipping off the ones who they feel don't deserve their respect.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
HW 24 - Short Story 1
Oh, look another new profile pic. What is it this time? I thought to myself. Trying hard to refrain from clicking on it, I did it anyway. As I nervously waited for the picture to load, I knew what to expect. Quickly, I ran my mouse over the X button and closed the browser. No, I was not going to let myself look at another one of her flawless pictures again. I wasn't going to spend another hour beating myself up about my own non existent beauty or about the lack of attention I get on my own page.
Walking into class the next day, I quickly caught sight of her. It was pretty hard to miss. She was sitting on a table, her feet perched on a chair. A bunch of her friends were spread out around her, talking over each other, cracking jokes. I could pick out her laugh from among the chaos of the others. It had a charming ring to it. It was contagious. As I made my way over, she caught my eye. "Hey Amb!" she called. I couldn't help but crack a smile. "Hey Nat," I replied.
"Um," I said as I pointed to my seat. "Oh, sorry" she said as she quickly moves her feet off my chair. I sat down, feeling misplaced in the crowd of her friends. "What's up?" she asked me. "Uh not much" I answered to her hypnotizing smile.
As the teacher called the class to attention everyone quickly scrambled to their seats. Nat once again didn't do her homework. She probably had another wild night. I could see the awkward look on the teacher's face. I knew he was disappointed but he moved on to the next table without a word.
However during discussion, she shelled out enough enlightening comments to revitalize the smile on the teacher's face. I watched her doodle in her notebook, drawing things I didn't recognize, nonchalantly throwing her hand in the air whenever she had a thought to share. When she got picked, she paused for a second to finish her doodle and then started to speak. The class was silent and listened intently. Then she was done.
"Cool," said the teacher.
Walking into class the next day, I quickly caught sight of her. It was pretty hard to miss. She was sitting on a table, her feet perched on a chair. A bunch of her friends were spread out around her, talking over each other, cracking jokes. I could pick out her laugh from among the chaos of the others. It had a charming ring to it. It was contagious. As I made my way over, she caught my eye. "Hey Amb!" she called. I couldn't help but crack a smile. "Hey Nat," I replied.
"Um," I said as I pointed to my seat. "Oh, sorry" she said as she quickly moves her feet off my chair. I sat down, feeling misplaced in the crowd of her friends. "What's up?" she asked me. "Uh not much" I answered to her hypnotizing smile.
As the teacher called the class to attention everyone quickly scrambled to their seats. Nat once again didn't do her homework. She probably had another wild night. I could see the awkward look on the teacher's face. I knew he was disappointed but he moved on to the next table without a word.
However during discussion, she shelled out enough enlightening comments to revitalize the smile on the teacher's face. I watched her doodle in her notebook, drawing things I didn't recognize, nonchalantly throwing her hand in the air whenever she had a thought to share. When she got picked, she paused for a second to finish her doodle and then started to speak. The class was silent and listened intently. Then she was done.
"Cool," said the teacher.
Monday, November 16, 2009
HW 23: 1st Constructivist Exploration of Cool
Cool is a label given to you by other people and not a permanent trait. You can be thought of as extremely cool to one group of people and be a total outcast to the next. It all depends on what the judger prefers. If they prefer someone who smokes, has a ton of piercings, and dresses gothic, then that would be their ideal version of cool. Everyone has their own checklist and their own image that they admire.
The environment we've grown up in has fostered these idealistic images in our minds so whenever we look at someone we judge based on that one image. It doesn't even has to be a single image. It could just be a collection of aspects we would like in a person or we would want in ourselves. So depending on how much of that a person embodies, we would use that to determine their level of coolness. And sometimes you even might find a person with a trait you admire and might not have liked before, so you add that onto your checklist for future references. Some of us though aren't as glued to our checklist or as narrow in our preferences. We will just get to know a person before we judge them because even the same traits can be portrayed differently by different people. And no two people can be the same in personality. The combination of traits are way too much for someone to just look at a person and determine whether he's cool or not.
Many strive to be cool because that's where they find self value. They find confidence through others' approval or confirmation of their coolness. So as a result they try too hard and life becomes a popularity contest. Others though, are cool unintentionally. Being liked for yourself, I feel is the realest version of cool.
Nowadays being unique is the new cool. You can't conform too much, but just enough to have others like you. And then you have to be a little different (but in a good way) to establish your own individuality and have others recognize you. So it's a little of both. That's the way I see cool these days, not that I agree with it.
It's hard to determine too, whether a person is trying to be cool or if he's naturally the person he portrays. Some people are so good at hiding the fact that they're trying to be liked and come across as naturally cool. I guess it all comes down to whether you rather be cool to a ton of people for someone you're not or whether you rather be cool to a handful for being yourself. (unless you're just naturally likable to everyone).
Many strive to be cool because that's where they find self value. They find confidence through others' approval or confirmation of their coolness. So as a result they try too hard and life becomes a popularity contest. Others though, are cool unintentionally. Being liked for yourself, I feel is the realest version of cool.
Nowadays being unique is the new cool. You can't conform too much, but just enough to have others like you. And then you have to be a little different (but in a good way) to establish your own individuality and have others recognize you. So it's a little of both. That's the way I see cool these days, not that I agree with it.
It's hard to determine too, whether a person is trying to be cool or if he's naturally the person he portrays. Some people are so good at hiding the fact that they're trying to be liked and come across as naturally cool. I guess it all comes down to whether you rather be cool to a ton of people for someone you're not or whether you rather be cool to a handful for being yourself. (unless you're just naturally likable to everyone).
Friday, November 13, 2009
HW 21: Art Project
"Art is not a Mirror with which to reflect the World. It is a Hammer with which to shape it." My picture is definitely a mirror. It reflects the way a T.V. (or any other DRD) can distract the average person. It shows the situation we are in but I don't think it's strong enough to provoke change. I think it'll take a lot for a single picture to get into someone's head and alter the way they think and the decisions they make. I guess it'll be enough if someone looks at my picture and at least understand the message I'm trying to make, and use it as a prompt to think about it at newer levels so they can change their own habits. It's one thing to change a person's perspective and another to have them actually do something about it and I think a hammer needs to do both. Right now, my art is probably just a mirror to most.
My art does make me "fink and theel." Our computers and T.V.s are so accessible that we end up being glued to them just because we can. It makes me sad sometimes when I see myself spending all my time on my computer and I know I could be using this free time to do other stuff, more productive stuff. I know I'll probably read more and interact more with my family.
We can also use the time it takes away from us to acknowledge the events that are happening around us and to change the things we are dissatisfied with. We're ignoring all the problems (small and large) that are going on around us and seek relief and escape by emerging ourselves into these screens. With this constant option at hand, who wouldn't turn to it? I would. And that's the sad part. I acknowledge what I'm doing but I don't think I see it importantly enough yet to give up my habit.
I think the most interesting aspect of making my art is the coloring. I tried to draw it in the girl's perspective. So I shaded everything around her in black and gray except the T.V. because for her, at that moment nothing else matters but what's going on in the screen. Even if surrounded with tons of depressing things, she still manages to find color in her life through the T.V. Her main source of entertainment is in the screen. She doesn't even care about her toys. T.V. is breeding a generation of ignorance.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
HW 22: Final Draft
Reading People? Or Words?
Introduction:
The internet is praised for being the middle man that instantly connects us to each other, allowing us to communicate more frequently. Many confuse this as an advantage to gain a better understanding of one another. It actually does the opposite. By giving people the opportunity to sit behind a digital wall and twist their personalities, it is difficult for the ones at the other end of the screen to see the person for who they really are. Not only that, but the fact that we aren't really talking to that person, but rather just interpreting their words without any physical indications, leads to big gaps between the actual message that is being given and the message that is being received. Online social networking tools have made it harder for us to understand each other by eliminating the physical aspect of interaction and making it easier for others to develop a second personality.
Argument 1:
People say computers and phones were built for convenience, but this type of convenience includes a lot more than just letting us stayed connected with each other 24/7. It saves us the trouble of having to talk to someone face-to-face. Words seem easier to spill online than through our actual mouths and as a result a lot of us end up saying things we won't usually say. This alters our personalities and as a result the other person is given a false impression of us. For some, computer screens act as barriers that help us avoid the type of physical confrontations we fear. This shield allows us to create a virtual identity where we become the person we've always wanted to be. The comfort of being behind a phone or a computer screen knowing that the person on the other side of it can only interpret us through our written words makes it easier to express whatever message we want to put across. Therefore, it helps to deceive others of our true personas, making it more difficult for them to evaluate us for the person under the mask. " We put up these false identities- ones that make us appear more charming, and our lives more exciting. When we talk through the internet, for the most part, we go through meaningless conversations, and pretend like we're getting closer to person(s) and understanding them more" (Andy L.). It's this crave for wanting someone to like us, or hate us, or whatever we want them to think of us, and the fact that the internet is such an easy way to carry out this plan that we choose to take this short path rather than the longer path where we feel more vulnerable.
At one point during Mr. Tsui's history lesson where he asked "What would be the ultimate example of love?" he had us answer the question based on what we see in our friends. I instantly thought of one of my friends and said having good communication. Of course that isn't the ultimate example but it does play a big part in having a good relationship. It's ironic. I said it because my friend stressed that point so much yet she and her boyfriend based their whole relationship through the phone and instant messaging. Every confrontation and every issue was addressed online. Their first I Love You's were exchanged through AIM. Every time they're together though, they never have conversations as serious as the ones she had shown me on AIM. I believe they do have a meaningful relationship but a connection developed through electronic waves can never replace something made in "real life." Choosing the keyboard over "chats over coffee" (Gavin) shows a lack of maturity. If we are really that determined to get to know the other person better, then we wouldn't go for short cuts. It shows that we aren't as serious or as committed as one would like to think. Basing a connection through interpretations made on the net would only lead to false impressions, false expectations, and false happiness. This bond would be too easy to break because once we find out that the other person is only our dream guy/girl /friend online and that they never act the part outside of the screen, we'll come to realize that in order to really get to read or understand a person, we can't be using digital representational devices that inaccurately represent our words and our personalities.
In Wall-E we see obese people riding around in hoover chairs non-stop talking to one another through a screen. When one man falls off his chair and Wall-E introduces himself to him, he hesitates for a moment before introducing himself because he isn't used to talking face-to-face. This lack of physical confrontation has him at a loss for words and he has no idea what to do when faced with one. It is seen too that he is chatting with a man through a monitor when the man is literally sitting next to him. The fact that he prefers to interact digitally rather than physically shows a human's natural fear or nervousness of physical confrontation. Because of this, the humans in Wall-E fail to create close bonds until they were off their devices and we see that the same man and another woman met each other and fell in love. Digital devices do not contribute to a better understanding of one another as much as we would like to think it does. The two experiences are completely different and as Wall-E depicts, when we tear ourselves out of chairs we begin to move away from our meaningless, isolated lives and begin to live in real situations and form real connections with real personalities.
A New York Times article was explaining how the internet is frequently used for finding partners and how as a result, the relationships we create become much more meaningless because we've abandoned our traditional "social scripts" and "courtship rules" (Brooks). We don't take the time to go out of our way to meet each other and get to know about each other one on one. Our digital forms of communication has made it easier to snag a partner. We "use [our] cellphones to disaggregate, slice up, and repackage [our] emotional and physical needs, servicing each with a different partner, and hoping to come out ahead" (Brooks). Texting, facebook, and instant messaging has made it easy to split ourselves into different personalities and mingle with multiple persons at a time. It enables us to put on a facade and to fool people into thinking we fit their preferences. If we are really serious about finding a partner, we should not rely on digital means of communication because it's extremely difficult to know if the person is really who they portray through the screen. The high chances of misreading people through these devices can lead us into relationships that are way less than what they have us expecting.
The issue of internet sex predators is another example of a deceitful ploy in one's identity, and in this case the motive is to sexually take advantage of someone else's body. These predators purposely pretend to be someone they're not, someone the prey would find likable and relatable. This false connection would then be used to lure the victim in, all in hopes of cheating something sexual out of the relationship. These individuals are often willing to devote considerable amounts of time, money and energy in this process. They listen to and empathize with the problems of children. They will be aware of the latest music, hobbies, and interests of children” (Fried). The fact that people are actually falling for traps like these shows how the internet has become an advantage for sexual predators but meanwhile a threat for their targets. Because these people were only exposed to their predators online, they had nothing to read from but words. As a result they fall victims to these words and their misinterpretations for who the person really is.
Argument 2:
Even without an intended purpose to fool the person of our identities, communicating digitally through just written texts isn't as effective a representational device as let's say the earlier DRDs, such as the phone or T.V. where at least some sort of physical aspects are shown. There will always be gaps between what is sent and what is received especially if all we're sending and receiving are words. "Regardless of how truthful we are about portraying ourselves through the internet, the inaccuracies in reading are always greater in amount than those when talking to someone face-to-face" (Andy L.). Written words don't come with a tone of voice therefore, it is hard to convey a sense of urgency, sarcasm, silliness etc. This causes confusion for the person trying to interpret its meaning because now they're forced to imagine you saying it and how you intended it to be said and understood. Rachel said, "In order to be the real you, I think you need to be attached in a physical sense." By taking away the physical parts of communication, such as our voice, body language, and the pauses in the conversation, we're taking away all the factors that we usually account for when judging a person. If all we had were words, the chance of understanding one another would be dim.
A sentence can be said in many ways and one bad misinterpretation can break the whole conversation. I always try to be careful whenever I'm talking to someone online, to make sure they never misinterpret my comments as something mean when it isn't. Maybe that's why people type "Lol" or "Jk" so much, to lighten the mood and let the other person know not the take their words offensively. For example, "Whatever" can be misinterpreted as anger or rudeness so people tend to feel the need to add an "Lol" after it. Misinterpretations like these do happen on a larger scale where relationships are bothered and characters are misunderstood. The frequent confusion because of situations like these goes to show how physical aspects need to be present if we want to understand a person better.
In Feed, we see that the communication between Violet and Titus is more of a face-to-face affair, at least more so than the other characters in the book. Maybe that's why they were able to gain a deeper connection than the other relationships in the book, because there are less misinterpretations throughout their talks. They delve into deeper and more "real" conversations in person than on the Feed and were able to learn about each others' upbringings, families, political views, etcetera. Titus falls in love with Violet's personality despite her anti-conformist attitude. While their relationship grows stronger, we see that in the background the rest of their friends haven't changed at all. They're so stuck in their shallow lives and meaningless relationships because the Feed has brainwashed them into thinking that trends and looking good were all that mattered. While Feed consists of teenagers being pressured to fit in, the internet today is also filled with people with virtual personalities feeling the desire to impress (which leads us back to the first argument). This leads to mass interpretations and people no longer can see each other for who they really are.
Opposing Argument 1:
Many may argue that there are identities portrayed online that is the person's actual identity, that if they are being themselves online, they wouldn't be subjected to misinterpretation by somebody else. Way back at the start of the unit, I asked my friend if she ever felt like she was acting different over the internet and she immediately went into defense mode. She said something along the lines of "No, I act the same way everywhere. I hate fake people." Then after a while of conversing she started slowly adding tidbits of confessions where she begins to admit that on certain occasions she would fake excitement or sympathy. But she claimed that that wasn't enough to be called a fake.
As stated before, even if they aren't intending to lie to us about their personalities, the possibility of a misinterpretation is far too frequent that characters overall can be seen in the wrong light. Regardless of how much we intend to be seen and analyzed the same way we are in real life, the barrier of the screen will always pose some kind of limit. The problem here is that one person is trying to express his emotions while the other is expected to understand it through nothing but the trading of soundless words. So even if she hadn't intended to fool anyone of anything, she probably had been judged incorrectly one time or another.
Opposing Argument 2:
The popular belief is that social networking sites benefit us by allowing us to meet and converse with people we otherwise would never encounter in our lifetimes. This is seen to be an opportunity to enhance our social skills and learn more about the different personalities that exist out there. Steven Johnson in Everything Bad is Good For you argues that these "new social networking applications have done something that the visionaries never imagined: they are augmenting our people skills as well, widening our social networks, and creating new possibility for strangers to share new ideas and experiences" (Johnson 124). He's basically trying to justify our excessive computer use by describing how it benefits our social lives.
However, if we become too caught up in socializing online, we will be stuck in the habit of dealing with conversations the internet way. This means that we won't be able to stop in the middle of saying something, delete it, and start all over again and still sound like that was what we meant to say all along. Like Wall-E, we'll get so used to connecting digitally that our people skills will diminish and when we are faced with a physical confrontation we will be lost and awkward. Also, there is no use in having a large social network when everybody on our list was "artificially" encountered. There is no real relationship between us and each and every one of these people, no deep and personal connection. Like the saying goes, "It's quality, not quantity." It is meaningless to have all these contacts if we haven't gotten to know them in real life. Johnson's other point about meeting new strangers is a pretty skeptical one. How do we know that these strangers' "new ideas and experiences" aren't all made up in order to impress us, that these aren't fake personalities attempting to interest us? This all goes back to the importance of not relying on the web for forming deep bonds. If we really wanted to get to know people for who they really are, to understand them at a more personal level, we can not use the short cut because the shortcut will only lead to meaningless relations.
Connections and Significance:
It is human nature to desire relationships and dread loneliness. We have this natural desire for acceptance and for people to like us. We like it when others understand us and we are curious about understanding them. Good connections are largely based on how well we understand one another. We usually seek these types of understanding through communication. If we are genuinely interested in getting to know one another, we should not rely on social networking applications such as Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, and texting to get us closer to each other. They will only create a false sense of understanding because their representational abilities are dim. The inaccuracies in their simulations of reality makes it easy for us to jump to conclusions and create assumptions that are untrue. If this becomes a habit, the future will be bombarded with shallow relationships, awkward social skills, and the need to impress with fake personalities. It is important that we keep conversations face-to-face. So far, out of the list of simulations of reality, vocal and body language seems to be understood the best. If we take away the physical aspects in it, the message will lose its meaning.
Conclusion:
Social networking tools have complicated the already confusing process of understanding one another. These applications have narrowed down the factors that are essential to reading a person's character. They have eliminated the physical aspect of communication and have made it easier for others to develop a second personality so that we can no longer read faces and body languages. We can no longer hear the quiver or the confidence in a voice. Being able to read someone correctly (or to some extent) is crucial to finding out if that person is someone we would want to associate ourselves with. Without all these extra factors to help us along, it makes it that much harder to determine who the person is and whether or not we can click with them.
Citations
Anderson, M.T. Feed. Somerville, Massachusett: Candlewick, 2002. Print.
Brooks, David. "Cellphones, Texts and Lovers." New York Times (2009): 1. Web. 8 Nov 2009..
Fried, Robert B. "The Internet: A Breeding Ground for Online Pedophiles ." Computer Crime Research Center. 17 January 2005. Computer Crime Research Center, Web. 6 Nov 2009..
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good For You. New York, NY: Riverhead, 2005. 124. Print.
DVD, Wall-E
Q&A with Rachel and Andy L.
Mr. Tsui's lecture
Introduction:
The internet is praised for being the middle man that instantly connects us to each other, allowing us to communicate more frequently. Many confuse this as an advantage to gain a better understanding of one another. It actually does the opposite. By giving people the opportunity to sit behind a digital wall and twist their personalities, it is difficult for the ones at the other end of the screen to see the person for who they really are. Not only that, but the fact that we aren't really talking to that person, but rather just interpreting their words without any physical indications, leads to big gaps between the actual message that is being given and the message that is being received. Online social networking tools have made it harder for us to understand each other by eliminating the physical aspect of interaction and making it easier for others to develop a second personality.
Argument 1:
People say computers and phones were built for convenience, but this type of convenience includes a lot more than just letting us stayed connected with each other 24/7. It saves us the trouble of having to talk to someone face-to-face. Words seem easier to spill online than through our actual mouths and as a result a lot of us end up saying things we won't usually say. This alters our personalities and as a result the other person is given a false impression of us. For some, computer screens act as barriers that help us avoid the type of physical confrontations we fear. This shield allows us to create a virtual identity where we become the person we've always wanted to be. The comfort of being behind a phone or a computer screen knowing that the person on the other side of it can only interpret us through our written words makes it easier to express whatever message we want to put across. Therefore, it helps to deceive others of our true personas, making it more difficult for them to evaluate us for the person under the mask. " We put up these false identities- ones that make us appear more charming, and our lives more exciting. When we talk through the internet, for the most part, we go through meaningless conversations, and pretend like we're getting closer to person(s) and understanding them more" (Andy L.). It's this crave for wanting someone to like us, or hate us, or whatever we want them to think of us, and the fact that the internet is such an easy way to carry out this plan that we choose to take this short path rather than the longer path where we feel more vulnerable.
At one point during Mr. Tsui's history lesson where he asked "What would be the ultimate example of love?" he had us answer the question based on what we see in our friends. I instantly thought of one of my friends and said having good communication. Of course that isn't the ultimate example but it does play a big part in having a good relationship. It's ironic. I said it because my friend stressed that point so much yet she and her boyfriend based their whole relationship through the phone and instant messaging. Every confrontation and every issue was addressed online. Their first I Love You's were exchanged through AIM. Every time they're together though, they never have conversations as serious as the ones she had shown me on AIM. I believe they do have a meaningful relationship but a connection developed through electronic waves can never replace something made in "real life." Choosing the keyboard over "chats over coffee" (Gavin) shows a lack of maturity. If we are really that determined to get to know the other person better, then we wouldn't go for short cuts. It shows that we aren't as serious or as committed as one would like to think. Basing a connection through interpretations made on the net would only lead to false impressions, false expectations, and false happiness. This bond would be too easy to break because once we find out that the other person is only our dream guy/girl /friend online and that they never act the part outside of the screen, we'll come to realize that in order to really get to read or understand a person, we can't be using digital representational devices that inaccurately represent our words and our personalities.
In Wall-E we see obese people riding around in hoover chairs non-stop talking to one another through a screen. When one man falls off his chair and Wall-E introduces himself to him, he hesitates for a moment before introducing himself because he isn't used to talking face-to-face. This lack of physical confrontation has him at a loss for words and he has no idea what to do when faced with one. It is seen too that he is chatting with a man through a monitor when the man is literally sitting next to him. The fact that he prefers to interact digitally rather than physically shows a human's natural fear or nervousness of physical confrontation. Because of this, the humans in Wall-E fail to create close bonds until they were off their devices and we see that the same man and another woman met each other and fell in love. Digital devices do not contribute to a better understanding of one another as much as we would like to think it does. The two experiences are completely different and as Wall-E depicts, when we tear ourselves out of chairs we begin to move away from our meaningless, isolated lives and begin to live in real situations and form real connections with real personalities.
A New York Times article was explaining how the internet is frequently used for finding partners and how as a result, the relationships we create become much more meaningless because we've abandoned our traditional "social scripts" and "courtship rules" (Brooks). We don't take the time to go out of our way to meet each other and get to know about each other one on one. Our digital forms of communication has made it easier to snag a partner. We "use [our] cellphones to disaggregate, slice up, and repackage [our] emotional and physical needs, servicing each with a different partner, and hoping to come out ahead" (Brooks). Texting, facebook, and instant messaging has made it easy to split ourselves into different personalities and mingle with multiple persons at a time. It enables us to put on a facade and to fool people into thinking we fit their preferences. If we are really serious about finding a partner, we should not rely on digital means of communication because it's extremely difficult to know if the person is really who they portray through the screen. The high chances of misreading people through these devices can lead us into relationships that are way less than what they have us expecting.
The issue of internet sex predators is another example of a deceitful ploy in one's identity, and in this case the motive is to sexually take advantage of someone else's body. These predators purposely pretend to be someone they're not, someone the prey would find likable and relatable. This false connection would then be used to lure the victim in, all in hopes of cheating something sexual out of the relationship. These individuals are often willing to devote considerable amounts of time, money and energy in this process. They listen to and empathize with the problems of children. They will be aware of the latest music, hobbies, and interests of children” (Fried). The fact that people are actually falling for traps like these shows how the internet has become an advantage for sexual predators but meanwhile a threat for their targets. Because these people were only exposed to their predators online, they had nothing to read from but words. As a result they fall victims to these words and their misinterpretations for who the person really is.
Argument 2:
Even without an intended purpose to fool the person of our identities, communicating digitally through just written texts isn't as effective a representational device as let's say the earlier DRDs, such as the phone or T.V. where at least some sort of physical aspects are shown. There will always be gaps between what is sent and what is received especially if all we're sending and receiving are words. "Regardless of how truthful we are about portraying ourselves through the internet, the inaccuracies in reading are always greater in amount than those when talking to someone face-to-face" (Andy L.). Written words don't come with a tone of voice therefore, it is hard to convey a sense of urgency, sarcasm, silliness etc. This causes confusion for the person trying to interpret its meaning because now they're forced to imagine you saying it and how you intended it to be said and understood. Rachel said, "In order to be the real you, I think you need to be attached in a physical sense." By taking away the physical parts of communication, such as our voice, body language, and the pauses in the conversation, we're taking away all the factors that we usually account for when judging a person. If all we had were words, the chance of understanding one another would be dim.
A sentence can be said in many ways and one bad misinterpretation can break the whole conversation. I always try to be careful whenever I'm talking to someone online, to make sure they never misinterpret my comments as something mean when it isn't. Maybe that's why people type "Lol" or "Jk" so much, to lighten the mood and let the other person know not the take their words offensively. For example, "Whatever" can be misinterpreted as anger or rudeness so people tend to feel the need to add an "Lol" after it. Misinterpretations like these do happen on a larger scale where relationships are bothered and characters are misunderstood. The frequent confusion because of situations like these goes to show how physical aspects need to be present if we want to understand a person better.
In Feed, we see that the communication between Violet and Titus is more of a face-to-face affair, at least more so than the other characters in the book. Maybe that's why they were able to gain a deeper connection than the other relationships in the book, because there are less misinterpretations throughout their talks. They delve into deeper and more "real" conversations in person than on the Feed and were able to learn about each others' upbringings, families, political views, etcetera. Titus falls in love with Violet's personality despite her anti-conformist attitude. While their relationship grows stronger, we see that in the background the rest of their friends haven't changed at all. They're so stuck in their shallow lives and meaningless relationships because the Feed has brainwashed them into thinking that trends and looking good were all that mattered. While Feed consists of teenagers being pressured to fit in, the internet today is also filled with people with virtual personalities feeling the desire to impress (which leads us back to the first argument). This leads to mass interpretations and people no longer can see each other for who they really are.
Opposing Argument 1:
Many may argue that there are identities portrayed online that is the person's actual identity, that if they are being themselves online, they wouldn't be subjected to misinterpretation by somebody else. Way back at the start of the unit, I asked my friend if she ever felt like she was acting different over the internet and she immediately went into defense mode. She said something along the lines of "No, I act the same way everywhere. I hate fake people." Then after a while of conversing she started slowly adding tidbits of confessions where she begins to admit that on certain occasions she would fake excitement or sympathy. But she claimed that that wasn't enough to be called a fake.
As stated before, even if they aren't intending to lie to us about their personalities, the possibility of a misinterpretation is far too frequent that characters overall can be seen in the wrong light. Regardless of how much we intend to be seen and analyzed the same way we are in real life, the barrier of the screen will always pose some kind of limit. The problem here is that one person is trying to express his emotions while the other is expected to understand it through nothing but the trading of soundless words. So even if she hadn't intended to fool anyone of anything, she probably had been judged incorrectly one time or another.
Opposing Argument 2:
The popular belief is that social networking sites benefit us by allowing us to meet and converse with people we otherwise would never encounter in our lifetimes. This is seen to be an opportunity to enhance our social skills and learn more about the different personalities that exist out there. Steven Johnson in Everything Bad is Good For you argues that these "new social networking applications have done something that the visionaries never imagined: they are augmenting our people skills as well, widening our social networks, and creating new possibility for strangers to share new ideas and experiences" (Johnson 124). He's basically trying to justify our excessive computer use by describing how it benefits our social lives.
However, if we become too caught up in socializing online, we will be stuck in the habit of dealing with conversations the internet way. This means that we won't be able to stop in the middle of saying something, delete it, and start all over again and still sound like that was what we meant to say all along. Like Wall-E, we'll get so used to connecting digitally that our people skills will diminish and when we are faced with a physical confrontation we will be lost and awkward. Also, there is no use in having a large social network when everybody on our list was "artificially" encountered. There is no real relationship between us and each and every one of these people, no deep and personal connection. Like the saying goes, "It's quality, not quantity." It is meaningless to have all these contacts if we haven't gotten to know them in real life. Johnson's other point about meeting new strangers is a pretty skeptical one. How do we know that these strangers' "new ideas and experiences" aren't all made up in order to impress us, that these aren't fake personalities attempting to interest us? This all goes back to the importance of not relying on the web for forming deep bonds. If we really wanted to get to know people for who they really are, to understand them at a more personal level, we can not use the short cut because the shortcut will only lead to meaningless relations.
Connections and Significance:
It is human nature to desire relationships and dread loneliness. We have this natural desire for acceptance and for people to like us. We like it when others understand us and we are curious about understanding them. Good connections are largely based on how well we understand one another. We usually seek these types of understanding through communication. If we are genuinely interested in getting to know one another, we should not rely on social networking applications such as Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, and texting to get us closer to each other. They will only create a false sense of understanding because their representational abilities are dim. The inaccuracies in their simulations of reality makes it easy for us to jump to conclusions and create assumptions that are untrue. If this becomes a habit, the future will be bombarded with shallow relationships, awkward social skills, and the need to impress with fake personalities. It is important that we keep conversations face-to-face. So far, out of the list of simulations of reality, vocal and body language seems to be understood the best. If we take away the physical aspects in it, the message will lose its meaning.
Conclusion:
Social networking tools have complicated the already confusing process of understanding one another. These applications have narrowed down the factors that are essential to reading a person's character. They have eliminated the physical aspect of communication and have made it easier for others to develop a second personality so that we can no longer read faces and body languages. We can no longer hear the quiver or the confidence in a voice. Being able to read someone correctly (or to some extent) is crucial to finding out if that person is someone we would want to associate ourselves with. Without all these extra factors to help us along, it makes it that much harder to determine who the person is and whether or not we can click with them.
Citations
Anderson, M.T. Feed. Somerville, Massachusett: Candlewick, 2002. Print.
Brooks, David. "Cellphones, Texts and Lovers." New York Times (2009): 1. Web. 8 Nov 2009.
Fried, Robert B. "The Internet: A Breeding Ground for Online Pedophiles ." Computer Crime Research Center. 17 January 2005. Computer Crime Research Center, Web. 6 Nov 2009.
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good For You. New York, NY: Riverhead, 2005. 124. Print.
DVD, Wall-E
Q&A with Rachel and Andy L.
Mr. Tsui's lecture
Friday, November 6, 2009
HW 19: Big Paper 1 Suggestions
Vincent,
I liked how you created a parallel between the digital devices that we use and we ourselves; how both are made to be valueless. However, I got the impression that you're saying that we built these devices specifically to cause suffering which I don't think is the case. You should clarify more on how these cause suffering. What do you mean by controlling emotions? Maybe add some evidence to support your claim.
I like your quote "Humans created all this suffering for digital devices by tampering with them and manipulating them to their will, by destroying imagination of dreams in this world to feel like an individual and feel true emotions only define by themselves." I don't know if it's true that digital devices destroy our sense of individuality but it'd be if you can give more examples of that to change our thinking.
I'm thinking though that music have given us the freedom to express our own individuality. Maybe that could be one of your opposing arguments.
I'm really interested to see how this essay develops. You just need a little touching up and clarification. Can't wait to read it (:
My other partner didn't post up her rough draft, so I commented on Rachel's instead.
Rachel,
Nice thesis. I like how you chose to support digitalization instead of going against it like everyone else is or at least all the ones I've read so far.
"By being always connected, people never feel like they are left out of the loop." It's true that with pictures and gossip spreading like wildfire all over the net that others lives become part of ours. But do you think that because of this our society has become too fast paced and it's harder to keep our lives private? (opposing argument maybe?)
"Technology has its pros, but people are always forgetting about them." It's true. We are always outweighing the cons over the pros. We have to look at it in the long term. It all depends on us whether we use it "correctly" or not. I think you should add on some more opposing viewpoints though to make your arguments stronger because I know there are a lot of arguments that oppose the use of technology.
I like your use of quotes although I have to say my quote was a bit typical. Maybe analyze the wii more after our conversation. I think you should take your idea to the next level and propose other good aspects of it other than the ones Johnson pointed out. Expand more on your science idea, that science advancements are crucial to understanding our world better and isn't that what life is about? Understanding our world better?
Anyway I don't have much criticism. Your essay's looking really good so far. Looking forward to see the end result.
(Oh also revise your citations. You don't want anything like that bringing your grade down.)
I liked how you created a parallel between the digital devices that we use and we ourselves; how both are made to be valueless. However, I got the impression that you're saying that we built these devices specifically to cause suffering which I don't think is the case. You should clarify more on how these cause suffering. What do you mean by controlling emotions? Maybe add some evidence to support your claim.
I like your quote "Humans created all this suffering for digital devices by tampering with them and manipulating them to their will, by destroying imagination of dreams in this world to feel like an individual and feel true emotions only define by themselves." I don't know if it's true that digital devices destroy our sense of individuality but it'd be if you can give more examples of that to change our thinking.
I'm thinking though that music have given us the freedom to express our own individuality. Maybe that could be one of your opposing arguments.
I'm really interested to see how this essay develops. You just need a little touching up and clarification. Can't wait to read it (:
My other partner didn't post up her rough draft, so I commented on Rachel's instead.
Rachel,
Nice thesis. I like how you chose to support digitalization instead of going against it like everyone else is or at least all the ones I've read so far.
"By being always connected, people never feel like they are left out of the loop." It's true that with pictures and gossip spreading like wildfire all over the net that others lives become part of ours. But do you think that because of this our society has become too fast paced and it's harder to keep our lives private? (opposing argument maybe?)
"Technology has its pros, but people are always forgetting about them." It's true. We are always outweighing the cons over the pros. We have to look at it in the long term. It all depends on us whether we use it "correctly" or not. I think you should add on some more opposing viewpoints though to make your arguments stronger because I know there are a lot of arguments that oppose the use of technology.
I like your use of quotes although I have to say my quote was a bit typical. Maybe analyze the wii more after our conversation. I think you should take your idea to the next level and propose other good aspects of it other than the ones Johnson pointed out. Expand more on your science idea, that science advancements are crucial to understanding our world better and isn't that what life is about? Understanding our world better?
Anyway I don't have much criticism. Your essay's looking really good so far. Looking forward to see the end result.
(Oh also revise your citations. You don't want anything like that bringing your grade down.)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
HW 20: Big Paper
The internet is praised for being the middle man that instantly connects us to each other, allowing us to communicate more frequently. Many confuse this as an advantage to gain a better understanding of one another. It actually does the opposite. By giving people the opportunity to sit behind a digital wall and twist their personalities, it is difficult for the ones at the other end of the screen to see the person for who they really are. Not only that, but the fact that we aren't really talking to that person, but rather just interpreting their words without any physical indications, leads to big gaps between the actual message that is being given and the message that is being received. Online social networking tools have made it harder for us to understand each other by eliminating the physical aspect of interaction and making it easier for others to develop a second personality.
People say computers and phones were built for convenience, but this type of convenience includes a lot more than just letting us stayed connected with each other 24/7. It saves us the trouble of having to talk to someone face-to-face. Words seem easier to spill online than through our actual mouths and as a result a lot of us end up saying things we won't usually say. This alters our personalities and as a result the other person is given a false impression of us. For some, computer screens act as barriers that help us avoid the type of physical confrontations we fear. This shield allows us to create a virtual identity where we become the person we've always wanted to be. The comfort of being behind a phone or a computer screen knowing that the person on the other side of it can only interpret us through our written words makes it easier to express whatever message we want to put across. Therefore, it helps to deceive others of our true personas, making it more difficult for them to evaluate us for the person under the mask. " We put up these false identities- ones that make us appear more charming, and our lives more exciting. When we talk through the internet, for the most part, we go through meaningless conversations, and pretend like we're getting closer to person(s) and understanding them more" (Andy L.). It's this crave for wanting someone to like us, or hate us, or whatever we want them to think of us, and the fact that the internet is such an easy way to carry out this plan that we choose to take this short path rather than the longer path where we feel more vulnerable.
At one point during Mr. Tsui's history lesson where he asked "What would be the ultimate example of love?" he had us answer the question based on what we see in our friends. I instantly thought of one of my friends and said having good communication. Of course that isn't the ultimate example but it does play a big part in having a good relationship. It's ironic. I said it because my friend stressed that point so much yet she and her boyfriend based their whole relationship through the phone and instant messaging. Every confrontation and every issue was addressed online. Their first I Love You's were exchanged through AIM. Every time they're together though, they never have conversations as serious as the ones she had shown me on AIM. I believe they do have a meaningful relationship but a connection developed through electronic waves can never replace something made in "real life." Choosing the keyboard over "chats over coffee" (Gavin) shows a lack of maturity. If we are really that determined to get to know the other person better, then we wouldn't go for short cuts. It shows that we aren't as serious or as committed as one would like to think. Basing a connection through interpretations made on the net would only lead to false impressions, false expectations, and false happiness. This bond would be too easy to break because once we find out that the other person is only our dream guy/girl /friend online and that they never act the part outside of the screen, we'll come to realize that in order to really get to read or understand a person, we can't be using digital representational devices that inaccurately represent our words and our personalities.
In Wall-E we see obese people riding around in hoover chairs non-stop talking to one another through a screen. When one man falls off his chair and Wall-E introduces himself to him, he hesitates for a moment before introducing himself because he isn't used to talking face-to-face. This lack of physical confrontation has him at a loss for words and he has no idea what to do when faced with one. It is seen too that he is chatting with a man through a monitor when the man is literally sitting next to him. The fact that he prefers to interact digitally rather than physically shows a human's natural fear or nervousness of physical confrontation. Because of this, the humans in Wall-E fail to create close bonds until they were off their devices and we see that the same man and another woman met each other and fell in love. Digital devices do not contribute to a better understanding of one another as much as we would like to think it does. The two experiences are completely different and as Wall-E depicts, when we tear ourselves out of chairs we begin to move away from our meaningless, isolated lives and begin to live in real situations and form real connections with real personalities.
The issue of internet sex predators is another example of a decietful ploy in one's identity, and in this case the motive is to sexually take advantage of someone else's body. These predators purposely pretend to be someone they're not, someone the prey would find likable and relatable. This false connection would then be used to lure the victim in, all in hopes of cheating something sexual out of the relationship. These individuals are often willing to devote considerable amounts of time, money and energy in this process. They listen to and empathize with the problems of children. They will be aware of the latest music, hobbies, and interests of children” (Fried). The fact that people are actually falling for traps like these shows how the internet has become an advantage for sexual predators but meanwhile a threat for their targets. Because these people were only exposed to their predators online, they had nothing to read from but words. As a result they fall victims to these words and their misinterpretations for who the person really is.
Even without an intended purpose to fool the person of our identities, communicating digitally through just written texts isn't as effective a representational device as let's say the earlier DRDs, such as the phone or T.V. where at least some sort of physical aspects are shown. There will always be gaps between what is sent and what is received especially if all we're sending and receiving are words. "Regardless of how truthful we are about portraying ourselves through the internet, the inaccuracies in reading are always greater in amount than those when talking to someone face-to-face" (Andy L.). Written words don't come with a tone of voice therefore, it is hard to convey a sense of urgency, sarcasm, silliness etc. This causes confusion for the person trying to interpret its meaning because now they're forced to imagine you saying it and how you intended it to be said and understood. Rachel said, "In order to be the real you, I think you need to be attached in a physical sense." By taking away the physical parts of communication, such as our voice, body language, and the pauses in the conversation, we're taking away all the factors that we usually account for when judging a person. If all we had were words, the chance of understanding one another would be dim.
A sentence can be said in many ways and one bad misinterpretation can break the whole conversation. I always try to be careful whenever I'm talking to someone online, to make sure they never misinterpret my comments as something mean when it isn't. Maybe that's why people type "Lol" or "Jk" so much, to lighten the mood and let the other person know not the take their words offensively. For example, "Whatever" can be misinterpreted as anger or rudeness so people tend to feel the need to add an "Lol" after it. Misinterpretations like these do happen on a larger scale where relationships are bothered and characters are misunderstood. The frequent confusion because of situations like these goes to show how physical aspects need to be present if we want to understand a person better.
In Feed, we see that the communication between Violet and Titus is more of a face-to-face affair, at least more so than the other characters in the book. Maybe that's why they were able to gain a deeper connection than the other relationships in the book. A lot of the times, they would have their feeds off and they would be talking. Titus falls in love with Violet's personality despite her anti-conformist attitude. While their relationship grows stronger, we see that in the background the rest of their friends haven't changed at all. They're so stuck in their shallow lives and meaningless relationships because the Feed has brainwashed them into thinking that trends and looking good were all that mattered. While Feed consists of teenagers being pressured to fit in, the internet today is also filled with people with virtual personalities feeling the desire to impress. This leads to mass interpretations and people no longer can see each other for who they really are.
Many may argue that there are identities portrayed online that is the person's actual identity, that if they are being themselves online, they wouldn't be subjected to misinterpretation by somebody else. Way back at the start of the unit, I asked my friend if she ever felt like she was acting different over the internet and she immediately went into defense mode. She said something along the lines of "No, I act the same way everywhere. I hate fake people." Then after a while of conversing she started slowly adding tibits of confessions where she begins to admit that on certain occasions she would fake excitement or sympathy. But she claimed that that wasn't enough to be called a fake.
As stated before, even if they aren't intending to lie to us about their personalities, the possibility of a misinterpretation is far too frequent that characters overall can be seen in the wrong light. Regardless of how much we intend to be seen and analyzed the same way we are in real life, the barrier of the screen will always pose some kind of limit. The problem here is that one person is trying to express his emotions while the other is expected to understand it through nothing but the trading of soundless words. So even if she hadn't intended to fool anyone of anything, she probably had been judged incorrectly one time or another.
The popular belief is that social networking sites benefit us by allowing us to meet and converse with people we otherwise would never encounter in our lifetimes. This is seen to be an opportunity to enhance our social skills and learn more about the different personalities that exist out there. Steven Johnson in Everything Bad is Good For you argues that these "new social networking applications have done something that the visionaries never imagined: they are augmenting our people skills as well, widening our social networks, and creating new possibility for strangers to share new ideas and experiences" (Johnson 124). He's basically trying to justify our excessive computer use by describing how it benefits our social lives.
However, if we become too caught up in socializing online, we will be stuck in the habit of dealing with conversations the internet way. This means that we won't be able to stop in the middle of saying something, delete it, and start all over again and still sound like that was what we meant to say all along. Like Wall-E, we'll get so used to connecting digitally that our people skills will diminish and when we are faced with a physical confrontation we will be lost and awkward. Also, there is no use in having a large social network when everybody on our list was "artificially" encountered. There is no real relationship between us and each and every one of these people, no deep and personal connection. Like the saying goes, "It's quality, not quantity." It is meaningless to have all these contacts if we haven't gotten to know them in real life. Johnson's other point about meeting new strangers is a pretty skeptical one. How do we know that these strangers' "new ideas and experiences" aren't all made up in order to impress us, that these aren't fake personalities attempting to interest us? This all goes back to the importance of not relying on the web for forming deep bonds. If we really wanted to get to know people for who they really are, to understand them at a more personal level, we can not use the short cut because the shortcut will only lead to meaningless relations.
It is human nature to desire relationships and dread loneliness. We have this natural desire for acceptance and for people to like us. We like it when others understand us and we are curious about understanding them. Good connections are largely based on how well we understand one another. We usually seek these types of understanding through communication. If we are genuinely interested in getting to know one another, we should not rely on social networking applications such as Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, and texting to get us closer to each other. They will only create a false sense of understanding because their representational abilities are dim. The inaccuracies in their simulations of reality makes it easy for us to jump to conclusions and create assumptions that are untrue. If this becomes a habit, the future will be bombarded with shallow relationships, awkward social skills, and the need to impress with fake personalities. It is important that we keep conversations face-to-face. So far, out of the list of simulations of reality, vocal and body language seems to be understood the best. If we take away the physical aspects in it, the message will lose its meaning.
Social networking tools have complicated the already confusing process of understanding one another. These applications have narrowed down the factors that are essential to reading a person's character. They have eliminated the physical aspect of communication and have made it easier for others to develop a second personality so that we can no longer read faces and body languages. We can no longer hear the quiver or the confidence in a voice. Being able to read someone correctly (or to some extent) is crucial to finding out if that person is someone we would want to associate ourselves with. Without all these extra factors to help us along, it makes it that much harder to determine who the person is and whether or not we can click with them.
Citations
Anderson, M.T. Feed. Somerville, Massachusett: Candlewick, 2002. Print.
Fried, Robert B. "The Internet: A Breeding Ground for Online Pedophiles ." Computer Crime Research Center. 17 January 2005. Computer Crime Research Center, Web. 6 Nov 2009..
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good For You. New York, NY: Riverhead, 2005. 124. Print.
DVD, Wall-E
Q&A with Rachel and Andy L.
Mr. Tsui's lecture
People say computers and phones were built for convenience, but this type of convenience includes a lot more than just letting us stayed connected with each other 24/7. It saves us the trouble of having to talk to someone face-to-face. Words seem easier to spill online than through our actual mouths and as a result a lot of us end up saying things we won't usually say. This alters our personalities and as a result the other person is given a false impression of us. For some, computer screens act as barriers that help us avoid the type of physical confrontations we fear. This shield allows us to create a virtual identity where we become the person we've always wanted to be. The comfort of being behind a phone or a computer screen knowing that the person on the other side of it can only interpret us through our written words makes it easier to express whatever message we want to put across. Therefore, it helps to deceive others of our true personas, making it more difficult for them to evaluate us for the person under the mask. " We put up these false identities- ones that make us appear more charming, and our lives more exciting. When we talk through the internet, for the most part, we go through meaningless conversations, and pretend like we're getting closer to person(s) and understanding them more" (Andy L.). It's this crave for wanting someone to like us, or hate us, or whatever we want them to think of us, and the fact that the internet is such an easy way to carry out this plan that we choose to take this short path rather than the longer path where we feel more vulnerable.
At one point during Mr. Tsui's history lesson where he asked "What would be the ultimate example of love?" he had us answer the question based on what we see in our friends. I instantly thought of one of my friends and said having good communication. Of course that isn't the ultimate example but it does play a big part in having a good relationship. It's ironic. I said it because my friend stressed that point so much yet she and her boyfriend based their whole relationship through the phone and instant messaging. Every confrontation and every issue was addressed online. Their first I Love You's were exchanged through AIM. Every time they're together though, they never have conversations as serious as the ones she had shown me on AIM. I believe they do have a meaningful relationship but a connection developed through electronic waves can never replace something made in "real life." Choosing the keyboard over "chats over coffee" (Gavin) shows a lack of maturity. If we are really that determined to get to know the other person better, then we wouldn't go for short cuts. It shows that we aren't as serious or as committed as one would like to think. Basing a connection through interpretations made on the net would only lead to false impressions, false expectations, and false happiness. This bond would be too easy to break because once we find out that the other person is only our dream guy/girl /friend online and that they never act the part outside of the screen, we'll come to realize that in order to really get to read or understand a person, we can't be using digital representational devices that inaccurately represent our words and our personalities.
In Wall-E we see obese people riding around in hoover chairs non-stop talking to one another through a screen. When one man falls off his chair and Wall-E introduces himself to him, he hesitates for a moment before introducing himself because he isn't used to talking face-to-face. This lack of physical confrontation has him at a loss for words and he has no idea what to do when faced with one. It is seen too that he is chatting with a man through a monitor when the man is literally sitting next to him. The fact that he prefers to interact digitally rather than physically shows a human's natural fear or nervousness of physical confrontation. Because of this, the humans in Wall-E fail to create close bonds until they were off their devices and we see that the same man and another woman met each other and fell in love. Digital devices do not contribute to a better understanding of one another as much as we would like to think it does. The two experiences are completely different and as Wall-E depicts, when we tear ourselves out of chairs we begin to move away from our meaningless, isolated lives and begin to live in real situations and form real connections with real personalities.
The issue of internet sex predators is another example of a decietful ploy in one's identity, and in this case the motive is to sexually take advantage of someone else's body. These predators purposely pretend to be someone they're not, someone the prey would find likable and relatable. This false connection would then be used to lure the victim in, all in hopes of cheating something sexual out of the relationship. These individuals are often willing to devote considerable amounts of time, money and energy in this process. They listen to and empathize with the problems of children. They will be aware of the latest music, hobbies, and interests of children” (Fried). The fact that people are actually falling for traps like these shows how the internet has become an advantage for sexual predators but meanwhile a threat for their targets. Because these people were only exposed to their predators online, they had nothing to read from but words. As a result they fall victims to these words and their misinterpretations for who the person really is.
Even without an intended purpose to fool the person of our identities, communicating digitally through just written texts isn't as effective a representational device as let's say the earlier DRDs, such as the phone or T.V. where at least some sort of physical aspects are shown. There will always be gaps between what is sent and what is received especially if all we're sending and receiving are words. "Regardless of how truthful we are about portraying ourselves through the internet, the inaccuracies in reading are always greater in amount than those when talking to someone face-to-face" (Andy L.). Written words don't come with a tone of voice therefore, it is hard to convey a sense of urgency, sarcasm, silliness etc. This causes confusion for the person trying to interpret its meaning because now they're forced to imagine you saying it and how you intended it to be said and understood. Rachel said, "In order to be the real you, I think you need to be attached in a physical sense." By taking away the physical parts of communication, such as our voice, body language, and the pauses in the conversation, we're taking away all the factors that we usually account for when judging a person. If all we had were words, the chance of understanding one another would be dim.
A sentence can be said in many ways and one bad misinterpretation can break the whole conversation. I always try to be careful whenever I'm talking to someone online, to make sure they never misinterpret my comments as something mean when it isn't. Maybe that's why people type "Lol" or "Jk" so much, to lighten the mood and let the other person know not the take their words offensively. For example, "Whatever" can be misinterpreted as anger or rudeness so people tend to feel the need to add an "Lol" after it. Misinterpretations like these do happen on a larger scale where relationships are bothered and characters are misunderstood. The frequent confusion because of situations like these goes to show how physical aspects need to be present if we want to understand a person better.
In Feed, we see that the communication between Violet and Titus is more of a face-to-face affair, at least more so than the other characters in the book. Maybe that's why they were able to gain a deeper connection than the other relationships in the book. A lot of the times, they would have their feeds off and they would be talking. Titus falls in love with Violet's personality despite her anti-conformist attitude. While their relationship grows stronger, we see that in the background the rest of their friends haven't changed at all. They're so stuck in their shallow lives and meaningless relationships because the Feed has brainwashed them into thinking that trends and looking good were all that mattered. While Feed consists of teenagers being pressured to fit in, the internet today is also filled with people with virtual personalities feeling the desire to impress. This leads to mass interpretations and people no longer can see each other for who they really are.
Many may argue that there are identities portrayed online that is the person's actual identity, that if they are being themselves online, they wouldn't be subjected to misinterpretation by somebody else. Way back at the start of the unit, I asked my friend if she ever felt like she was acting different over the internet and she immediately went into defense mode. She said something along the lines of "No, I act the same way everywhere. I hate fake people." Then after a while of conversing she started slowly adding tibits of confessions where she begins to admit that on certain occasions she would fake excitement or sympathy. But she claimed that that wasn't enough to be called a fake.
As stated before, even if they aren't intending to lie to us about their personalities, the possibility of a misinterpretation is far too frequent that characters overall can be seen in the wrong light. Regardless of how much we intend to be seen and analyzed the same way we are in real life, the barrier of the screen will always pose some kind of limit. The problem here is that one person is trying to express his emotions while the other is expected to understand it through nothing but the trading of soundless words. So even if she hadn't intended to fool anyone of anything, she probably had been judged incorrectly one time or another.
The popular belief is that social networking sites benefit us by allowing us to meet and converse with people we otherwise would never encounter in our lifetimes. This is seen to be an opportunity to enhance our social skills and learn more about the different personalities that exist out there. Steven Johnson in Everything Bad is Good For you argues that these "new social networking applications have done something that the visionaries never imagined: they are augmenting our people skills as well, widening our social networks, and creating new possibility for strangers to share new ideas and experiences" (Johnson 124). He's basically trying to justify our excessive computer use by describing how it benefits our social lives.
However, if we become too caught up in socializing online, we will be stuck in the habit of dealing with conversations the internet way. This means that we won't be able to stop in the middle of saying something, delete it, and start all over again and still sound like that was what we meant to say all along. Like Wall-E, we'll get so used to connecting digitally that our people skills will diminish and when we are faced with a physical confrontation we will be lost and awkward. Also, there is no use in having a large social network when everybody on our list was "artificially" encountered. There is no real relationship between us and each and every one of these people, no deep and personal connection. Like the saying goes, "It's quality, not quantity." It is meaningless to have all these contacts if we haven't gotten to know them in real life. Johnson's other point about meeting new strangers is a pretty skeptical one. How do we know that these strangers' "new ideas and experiences" aren't all made up in order to impress us, that these aren't fake personalities attempting to interest us? This all goes back to the importance of not relying on the web for forming deep bonds. If we really wanted to get to know people for who they really are, to understand them at a more personal level, we can not use the short cut because the shortcut will only lead to meaningless relations.
It is human nature to desire relationships and dread loneliness. We have this natural desire for acceptance and for people to like us. We like it when others understand us and we are curious about understanding them. Good connections are largely based on how well we understand one another. We usually seek these types of understanding through communication. If we are genuinely interested in getting to know one another, we should not rely on social networking applications such as Facebook, Twitter, instant messaging, and texting to get us closer to each other. They will only create a false sense of understanding because their representational abilities are dim. The inaccuracies in their simulations of reality makes it easy for us to jump to conclusions and create assumptions that are untrue. If this becomes a habit, the future will be bombarded with shallow relationships, awkward social skills, and the need to impress with fake personalities. It is important that we keep conversations face-to-face. So far, out of the list of simulations of reality, vocal and body language seems to be understood the best. If we take away the physical aspects in it, the message will lose its meaning.
Social networking tools have complicated the already confusing process of understanding one another. These applications have narrowed down the factors that are essential to reading a person's character. They have eliminated the physical aspect of communication and have made it easier for others to develop a second personality so that we can no longer read faces and body languages. We can no longer hear the quiver or the confidence in a voice. Being able to read someone correctly (or to some extent) is crucial to finding out if that person is someone we would want to associate ourselves with. Without all these extra factors to help us along, it makes it that much harder to determine who the person is and whether or not we can click with them.
Citations
Anderson, M.T. Feed. Somerville, Massachusett: Candlewick, 2002. Print.
Fried, Robert B. "The Internet: A Breeding Ground for Online Pedophiles ." Computer Crime Research Center. 17 January 2005. Computer Crime Research Center, Web. 6 Nov 2009.
Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good For You. New York, NY: Riverhead, 2005. 124. Print.
DVD, Wall-E
Q&A with Rachel and Andy L.
Mr. Tsui's lecture
Monday, November 2, 2009
HW 18: Big Paper 1 Rough Draft
The internet is praised for being the middle man that instantly connects us to each other, allowing us to communicate more frequently. Many confuse this as an advantage to gain a better understanding of one another. It actually does the opposite. By giving people the opportunity to sit behind a digital wall and twist their personalities, it is difficult for the ones at the other end of the screen to see the person for who they really are. Not only that, but the fact that we aren't really talking to that person, but rather just interpreting their words without any physical indications, leads to big gaps between the actual message that is being given and the message that is being received. Online social networking tools such as instant messaging, twitter, facebook, texting (not really online) etc. have made it harder for us to read people by eliminating the physical aspect of interaction and making it easier for others to develop a second personality.
Good connections are largely based on how well we understand one another. We usually seek these types of understanding through communication. The most popular form of communication is language (body and verbal) probably because this is the most effective simulation of reality.
to be continued..
Good connections are largely based on how well we understand one another. We usually seek these types of understanding through communication. The most popular form of communication is language (body and verbal) probably because this is the most effective simulation of reality.
to be continued..
HW 17: Outline Suggestions
Vincent,
I like the general topic of your essay. It seems different from the rest. Your thesis is a little bit confusing though. "Digital Representation devices are not the cause of human suffering but the wielders and creators of these devices." The last part was confusing. Are you trying to say that DRDs aren't the cause of human suffering but instead the root of the problem remains in the humans who have create these devices?
I like how you date back to the earlier days of representations of reality.
Another main thing I see in your outline is your idea of how devices have come to control our emotions. How does this happen? You should give some examples while writing your essay to clarify that topic.
For your second argument, maybe your opposing argument can be about parents that actually try to encourage their children to think for themselves and make their own decisions. And you can use Violet's father as an example.
I don't really understand your third argument. I got the impression that Bad is Good for you is more of a positive outlook into the digital world rather than telling us that "different types of technology serves as limits that the humans has created for other humans." I don't know. Maybe I'm interpreting your argument wrong?
Anyway, I think your topic overall is really different and I like the overly critical feel to it. Hope you make something really good out of it. Looking forward to reading it and maybe it'll clarify the stuff I'm confused about now.
Jenise,
I like how you include both perspectives in your essay although you should add on to your thesis if you're going to talk about how digitalization is a good thing as well.
You have a lot of good examples and evidence. The article about Google sounds really interesting because I've always thought of Google as an educative tool instead of something that dumbs us down.
You seem to have a lot of stuff you want to talk about so make sure they connect and flow together nicely. I like both ideas you have for your third heading. Maybe do a little of both? Like talk about the aspects that benefit us and those that don't and then give an opinion on how we can limit our use to where we can benefit from it as much as possible (without relying fully on it).
I like the general topic of your essay. It seems different from the rest. Your thesis is a little bit confusing though. "Digital Representation devices are not the cause of human suffering but the wielders and creators of these devices." The last part was confusing. Are you trying to say that DRDs aren't the cause of human suffering but instead the root of the problem remains in the humans who have create these devices?
I like how you date back to the earlier days of representations of reality.
Another main thing I see in your outline is your idea of how devices have come to control our emotions. How does this happen? You should give some examples while writing your essay to clarify that topic.
For your second argument, maybe your opposing argument can be about parents that actually try to encourage their children to think for themselves and make their own decisions. And you can use Violet's father as an example.
I don't really understand your third argument. I got the impression that Bad is Good for you is more of a positive outlook into the digital world rather than telling us that "different types of technology serves as limits that the humans has created for other humans." I don't know. Maybe I'm interpreting your argument wrong?
Anyway, I think your topic overall is really different and I like the overly critical feel to it. Hope you make something really good out of it. Looking forward to reading it and maybe it'll clarify the stuff I'm confused about now.
Jenise,
I like how you include both perspectives in your essay although you should add on to your thesis if you're going to talk about how digitalization is a good thing as well.
You have a lot of good examples and evidence. The article about Google sounds really interesting because I've always thought of Google as an educative tool instead of something that dumbs us down.
You seem to have a lot of stuff you want to talk about so make sure they connect and flow together nicely. I like both ideas you have for your third heading. Maybe do a little of both? Like talk about the aspects that benefit us and those that don't and then give an opinion on how we can limit our use to where we can benefit from it as much as possible (without relying fully on it).
Sunday, November 1, 2009
HW 16: Big Paper 1 Outline
Thesis:
Online social networking tools such as instant messaging, twitter, facebook, texting (not really online) etc. have made it harder for us to read people by eliminating the physical aspect of interaction and making it easier for others to develop a second personality.
Argument 1:
For some, computer screens act as barriers that help us avoid the type of physical confrontations we fear. This shield allows us to create a virtual identity where we become the person we've always wanted to be. The comfort of being behind a phone or a computer screen knowing that the person on the other side of it can only interpret us through our written words makes it easier to express whatever message we want to put across. Therefore, it helps to deceive others of our true personas, making it more difficult for them to evaluate us for the person under the mask. " We put up these false identities- ones that make us appear more charming, and our lives more exciting. When we talk through the internet, for the most part, we go through meaningless conversations, and pretend like we're getting closer to person(s) and understanding them more" (Andy L.).
In Wall-E we see obese people riding around in hoover chairs non-stop talking to one another through a screen. When one man falls off his chair and Wall-E introduces himself to him, he hesitates for a moment before introducing himself because he isn't used to talking face-to-face.
Argument 2:
Even without an intended purpose to fool the person of your identity, communicating digitally through just written texts just isn't as effective a representational device as let's say the earlier DRDs, such as the phone or T.V. where at least some sort of physical aspects are shown. "Regardless of how truthful we are about portraying ourselves through the internet, the inaccuracies in reading are always greater in amount than those when talking to someone face-to-face" (Andy L.). Written words don't come with a tone of voice therefore, it is hard to convey a sense of urgency, sarcasm, sillyness etc. This causes confusion for the person trying to interpret its meaning. For example, I always try to be careful whenever I'm talking to someone online to make sure they never interpret my comments as mean if I didn't actually mean it. Maybe that's why people type "Lol" or "Jk" so much, to lighten the mood and let the other person know not the take it offensively. For example, "Whatever" can be misinterpretted as anger or rudeness if an "Lol" isn't added after it.
Rachel said, " In order to be the real you, I think you need to be attached in a physical sense." By taking away the physical parts of communication, such as our voice, body language, and the pauses in the conversation, we're taking away all the factors that we usually account for when judging a person. If all we had were words, the chance of understanding one another would be dim.
In Feed, we see that the communication between Violet and Titus is more of a face-to-face affair, at least more so than the other characters in the book. Maybe that's why they were able to gain a deeper connection than the other relationships in the book.
Online social networking tools such as instant messaging, twitter, facebook, texting (not really online) etc. have made it harder for us to read people by eliminating the physical aspect of interaction and making it easier for others to develop a second personality.
Argument 1:
For some, computer screens act as barriers that help us avoid the type of physical confrontations we fear. This shield allows us to create a virtual identity where we become the person we've always wanted to be. The comfort of being behind a phone or a computer screen knowing that the person on the other side of it can only interpret us through our written words makes it easier to express whatever message we want to put across. Therefore, it helps to deceive others of our true personas, making it more difficult for them to evaluate us for the person under the mask. " We put up these false identities- ones that make us appear more charming, and our lives more exciting. When we talk through the internet, for the most part, we go through meaningless conversations, and pretend like we're getting closer to person(s) and understanding them more" (Andy L.).
In Wall-E we see obese people riding around in hoover chairs non-stop talking to one another through a screen. When one man falls off his chair and Wall-E introduces himself to him, he hesitates for a moment before introducing himself because he isn't used to talking face-to-face.
Argument 2:
Even without an intended purpose to fool the person of your identity, communicating digitally through just written texts just isn't as effective a representational device as let's say the earlier DRDs, such as the phone or T.V. where at least some sort of physical aspects are shown. "Regardless of how truthful we are about portraying ourselves through the internet, the inaccuracies in reading are always greater in amount than those when talking to someone face-to-face" (Andy L.). Written words don't come with a tone of voice therefore, it is hard to convey a sense of urgency, sarcasm, sillyness etc. This causes confusion for the person trying to interpret its meaning. For example, I always try to be careful whenever I'm talking to someone online to make sure they never interpret my comments as mean if I didn't actually mean it. Maybe that's why people type "Lol" or "Jk" so much, to lighten the mood and let the other person know not the take it offensively. For example, "Whatever" can be misinterpretted as anger or rudeness if an "Lol" isn't added after it.
Rachel said, " In order to be the real you, I think you need to be attached in a physical sense." By taking away the physical parts of communication, such as our voice, body language, and the pauses in the conversation, we're taking away all the factors that we usually account for when judging a person. If all we had were words, the chance of understanding one another would be dim.
In Feed, we see that the communication between Violet and Titus is more of a face-to-face affair, at least more so than the other characters in the book. Maybe that's why they were able to gain a deeper connection than the other relationships in the book.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
HW 15: ABCDEF 3 - Treasure Hunting
Vincent,
I particularly enjoy reading your blog because your ideas are so unconventional. Your detached attitude towards the status of the world even as you acknowledge it as a tragedy is interesting.
Some of the points I thought was worth recognizing in your posts included the way you thought Feed was more like an exaggerated version of our society rather than an exact reflection. Although I also believe that some of his ideas are a bit exaggerated, I think his ultimate purpose was to illustrate the effects and get readers to understand that the consequences are as every bit important in the book as it is in real life. I also got the idea from one of your posts that you blamed the parents of Feed's society more than you did the children. It's obvious that by conforming to the digitalization of their era the teenagers are massively contributing to its expansion. "The feed isn't have is making us dumber it is the adults who make the stuff and control our lives from birth to death. We as humans never had a choice to choose." Why don't you feel that we don't have a choice?
I also liked how you referred to video games as curves more than straight paths which are represented in T.V. shows. I agree that video games allow you to create more of a narrative rather than following a mapped out path that is shown through books and T.V. shows. I also found it interesting how you connected the rules of the games to the way we are controlled by rules in real life. Are you implying that these games are teaching us to be obedient members of society? It makes me think about the conversation we had about being offered only a limited amount of options and being able to only choose from those choices. In this case of the video game, the rules act as our limits and even though we think the key is to use these rules to its full advantage to gain success, we also need to keep in mind that we're still making decisions within these boundaries, just the way the creators of the game want you to. That's their way of convincing you that you have narrative freedom in the game when in fact you don't because you're stuck with a bunch of rules you need to abide to.
In some cases, you seem to acknowledge and understand an opposing perspective but still manage to keep your own. In others you seem to completely rule out certain arguments and deem yours correct. It might be helpful next time if you take a look at an idea in a different perspective and try to understand where its coming from and why its being said before you argue against it.
The voice and mood you project through your posts is different from many other blogs and it's nice to hear about digitalization in a way that clashes its conventional theories. Looking forward to reading more of your work. (:
Jenise,
I like how personal your posts are and how you are able to connect a lot of the ideas you take from class and from the book to your own life. For example, you gave an example of how you took the old fashioned route of looking up schools in the book store rather than on the internet.
I liked the topic you chose for your informal research, where you compared analog recordings to digital recordings of music. "Digital Recording methods have lowered peoples expectations of themselves in the studio." Basically anyone can become a singer now that technology is advanced enough to distort your voice and certain sounds in order to make it sound good. It takes away from the authenticity of music. But most producers and artists choose that over analog because it is more efficient and apparently makes the song sound "better."
I realized how your DRD experiment is exactly the opposite of Feed. In your experiment you try to live without DRDs for a day, where you realized that you don't actually need to use this stuff and you figured out how to spend your time more "wisely." In Feed however, like you said, teens "lose the essence of being a Human" because they've turned into society's puppets. Do you think present day teens will ever realize like you did that DRDs aren't necessary and that by having it attached to their hips all the time that they're turning themselves into brainless objects?
It might be helpful to probe your ideas a little more. Dig a little deeper and try to find out more aspects in the book that you think reflects the way our generation is today.
Your experiment makes me want to try it out for myself. I've thought about doing it and I've probably done it before but I've never really looked closely at the way I was feeling without it. I have a couple of predicted outcomes but I want to actually see if they're true or if I would feel the same way you did after your experiment.
Interesting posts and topics you picked for your informal research and experiment. Hope to read more. (:
I particularly enjoy reading your blog because your ideas are so unconventional. Your detached attitude towards the status of the world even as you acknowledge it as a tragedy is interesting.
Some of the points I thought was worth recognizing in your posts included the way you thought Feed was more like an exaggerated version of our society rather than an exact reflection. Although I also believe that some of his ideas are a bit exaggerated, I think his ultimate purpose was to illustrate the effects and get readers to understand that the consequences are as every bit important in the book as it is in real life. I also got the idea from one of your posts that you blamed the parents of Feed's society more than you did the children. It's obvious that by conforming to the digitalization of their era the teenagers are massively contributing to its expansion. "The feed isn't have is making us dumber it is the adults who make the stuff and control our lives from birth to death. We as humans never had a choice to choose." Why don't you feel that we don't have a choice?
I also liked how you referred to video games as curves more than straight paths which are represented in T.V. shows. I agree that video games allow you to create more of a narrative rather than following a mapped out path that is shown through books and T.V. shows. I also found it interesting how you connected the rules of the games to the way we are controlled by rules in real life. Are you implying that these games are teaching us to be obedient members of society? It makes me think about the conversation we had about being offered only a limited amount of options and being able to only choose from those choices. In this case of the video game, the rules act as our limits and even though we think the key is to use these rules to its full advantage to gain success, we also need to keep in mind that we're still making decisions within these boundaries, just the way the creators of the game want you to. That's their way of convincing you that you have narrative freedom in the game when in fact you don't because you're stuck with a bunch of rules you need to abide to.
In some cases, you seem to acknowledge and understand an opposing perspective but still manage to keep your own. In others you seem to completely rule out certain arguments and deem yours correct. It might be helpful next time if you take a look at an idea in a different perspective and try to understand where its coming from and why its being said before you argue against it.
The voice and mood you project through your posts is different from many other blogs and it's nice to hear about digitalization in a way that clashes its conventional theories. Looking forward to reading more of your work. (:
Jenise,
I like how personal your posts are and how you are able to connect a lot of the ideas you take from class and from the book to your own life. For example, you gave an example of how you took the old fashioned route of looking up schools in the book store rather than on the internet.
I liked the topic you chose for your informal research, where you compared analog recordings to digital recordings of music. "Digital Recording methods have lowered peoples expectations of themselves in the studio." Basically anyone can become a singer now that technology is advanced enough to distort your voice and certain sounds in order to make it sound good. It takes away from the authenticity of music. But most producers and artists choose that over analog because it is more efficient and apparently makes the song sound "better."
I realized how your DRD experiment is exactly the opposite of Feed. In your experiment you try to live without DRDs for a day, where you realized that you don't actually need to use this stuff and you figured out how to spend your time more "wisely." In Feed however, like you said, teens "lose the essence of being a Human" because they've turned into society's puppets. Do you think present day teens will ever realize like you did that DRDs aren't necessary and that by having it attached to their hips all the time that they're turning themselves into brainless objects?
It might be helpful to probe your ideas a little more. Dig a little deeper and try to find out more aspects in the book that you think reflects the way our generation is today.
Your experiment makes me want to try it out for myself. I've thought about doing it and I've probably done it before but I've never really looked closely at the way I was feeling without it. I have a couple of predicted outcomes but I want to actually see if they're true or if I would feel the same way you did after your experiment.
Interesting posts and topics you picked for your informal research and experiment. Hope to read more. (:
Monday, October 26, 2009
HW 14: Second Text
Steven Johnson sets out to flip the traditional perspective of the digital phenomenon through his book "Everything Bad is Good For You." The public generally frowns upon such digital simulations given the impression that they are a waste of time and do nothing good for the brain or body except for improving hand-eye coordination. Johnson however, pulls out the various aspect of digitalization that we never really think about nor do critics ever write about. For instance, most video games are infamous for their violence and corruption of the mind. That's probably the most familiar argument. The excerpt goes about a different way of looking at DRDs. Johnson says that we must first abandon all previous views on our DRDs in order to see it in a new light. He explains how its addiction comes from rewards in the game as well as the player's determination to learn the rules well enough so he can use it to his greatest advantage in the game. These games are also stimulating the mind and getting it to work in a way most other mediums wouldn't be able to do. It's because these games have you focusing on an ultimate goal and a bunch of little goals at the same time (which in turn will help you reach your final goal). It has you mapping out a plan and making decisions ("It's not what you're thinking but the way you're thinking") whereas other medias such as books and T.V. shows contain narratives that are out of your control.
T.V. shows though, stimulates the mind in another kind of way. Johnson gives examples of shows such as 24 to demonstrate how shows have developed to activate our mind's process. These shows that "make you intelligent" gives you bits and pieces of the story, requiring you to put the whole thing together. Because the whole story isn't spelled out for viewers, it becomes a less passive activity where the viewer is encouraged to take in confusing information and work out the plot for themselves. Like Johnson said "Extra information takes the fun out of watching (76). People like to think. They find piecing together information and threading entertaining.
I thought most of his arguments made sense but some of his arguments still aren't strong enough to outweigh the cons of that specific DRD. Just because he found something good about the internet, like learning how to problem solve computer errors through logic, doesn't rule out the sad fact that the internet has become the default playground of our society.
I found it interesting how Johnson keeps reminding us that the critics and haters of our digital phenomenon are too narrow minded and stuck to the cons of digitalization. They don't explore other perspectives surrounding the subject. Johnson seems to contradict himself by mostly describing to us the benefits of our DRDs, while leaving out most of the cons. So I don't know if Johnson is simply just describing the goods of digitalization or if he's purposely being bias just like the critics.
Although I agreed with most of his arguments, that video games help us develop good decision making skills and some T.V. shows teach us how to thread information, I still can't help to wonder how much it actually helps us. How substantial is the difference in thinking between a person not interacting with DRDs and a person who does? Can it really help us to the extent where it makes it okay to excessively use them the way we do?
The arguments posed in this excerpt contradicts Feed in the way that it gives reasons to support the growth of digitalization whereas Feed predicts a collapse caused by the societal and political corruption of DRDs. Even the titles contradict each other. "Everything Bad is Good For You" throws out the idea that although our DRDs are typically criticized, there are also reasons that will challenge these viewpoints and depict digitalization as a positive progression. "Feed" insinuates that our society is being fed information that we voluntarily swallow without questioning the long term effects it will have on us. So basically one encourages us to develop a better outlook on this new advance in technology while the other warns us of its tragic consequences.
Feed describes the affects of DRDs as hypnotizing. It brainwashes you and doesn't encourage individual thinking at all. Johnson on the other hand, argues that it may seem like you are hypnotized from the outside, but inside, your brain is actually being provoked by your DRD to think in a way that will benefit you in the real world (such as problem solving, information threading, probing and telescoping etc.) Both arguments sound legit to me so I'm having a hard time picking a side or even the right middle.
T.V. shows though, stimulates the mind in another kind of way. Johnson gives examples of shows such as 24 to demonstrate how shows have developed to activate our mind's process. These shows that "make you intelligent" gives you bits and pieces of the story, requiring you to put the whole thing together. Because the whole story isn't spelled out for viewers, it becomes a less passive activity where the viewer is encouraged to take in confusing information and work out the plot for themselves. Like Johnson said "Extra information takes the fun out of watching (76). People like to think. They find piecing together information and threading entertaining.
I thought most of his arguments made sense but some of his arguments still aren't strong enough to outweigh the cons of that specific DRD. Just because he found something good about the internet, like learning how to problem solve computer errors through logic, doesn't rule out the sad fact that the internet has become the default playground of our society.
I found it interesting how Johnson keeps reminding us that the critics and haters of our digital phenomenon are too narrow minded and stuck to the cons of digitalization. They don't explore other perspectives surrounding the subject. Johnson seems to contradict himself by mostly describing to us the benefits of our DRDs, while leaving out most of the cons. So I don't know if Johnson is simply just describing the goods of digitalization or if he's purposely being bias just like the critics.
Although I agreed with most of his arguments, that video games help us develop good decision making skills and some T.V. shows teach us how to thread information, I still can't help to wonder how much it actually helps us. How substantial is the difference in thinking between a person not interacting with DRDs and a person who does? Can it really help us to the extent where it makes it okay to excessively use them the way we do?
The arguments posed in this excerpt contradicts Feed in the way that it gives reasons to support the growth of digitalization whereas Feed predicts a collapse caused by the societal and political corruption of DRDs. Even the titles contradict each other. "Everything Bad is Good For You" throws out the idea that although our DRDs are typically criticized, there are also reasons that will challenge these viewpoints and depict digitalization as a positive progression. "Feed" insinuates that our society is being fed information that we voluntarily swallow without questioning the long term effects it will have on us. So basically one encourages us to develop a better outlook on this new advance in technology while the other warns us of its tragic consequences.
Feed describes the affects of DRDs as hypnotizing. It brainwashes you and doesn't encourage individual thinking at all. Johnson on the other hand, argues that it may seem like you are hypnotized from the outside, but inside, your brain is actually being provoked by your DRD to think in a way that will benefit you in the real world (such as problem solving, information threading, probing and telescoping etc.) Both arguments sound legit to me so I'm having a hard time picking a side or even the right middle.
Monday, October 19, 2009
HW 13: Feed B
Feed may be centered around the lives of a teenage group but I think the book has a larger intended audience. Its point is to deliver a story that will evoke the minds of all people, old and young, to be more aware of the chaos happening around them. Its to tear them out of their little bubbles and to help them gain a wider perspective of the world.
I think it was very clever of the author to create a futuristic society that parallels our own world, where readers are given a sense of freedom to judge the characters and the situations objectively (but in fact, they are judging themselves and the own world they live in). He portrays our world in a different environment to make it easier for us to criticize the different aspects in "their" society such as digital obsession, consumerism, propaganda, pollution etc. What may seem as an exaggeration in the book to us may be seen in the same way by older generations regarding our own generation.
I think Art is both a mirror and a hammer. It reflects a situation using a different angle of perspective to get a point across. Good art is something that will jolt its audience out of their current mind frames and force them to think and perceive the world in a different direction. It will have enough influence to make its audience want to change. In Feed's case, the book is a piece of art that wakes us up from our digital slumber parties and gets us into thinking what this world has become, how it happened, and where it's going to lead us. Its reflection of us is one that is disgusting. This new found awareness towards the downfall of the world (or at least the nation) today should be enough to make us want to change and reshape our society. So in this case, Feed is both a mirror and a hammer.
Tobin is seen to bring out all these problems but doesn't offer any solution. I don't think that a solution or a resolving scene in the book is necessary because Tobin's goal was to create awareness. He's encouraging us to do something about it but he isn't here to tell us what to do. We have to figure out for ourselves how we want the world to be and how we want to shape it.
I think it was very clever of the author to create a futuristic society that parallels our own world, where readers are given a sense of freedom to judge the characters and the situations objectively (but in fact, they are judging themselves and the own world they live in). He portrays our world in a different environment to make it easier for us to criticize the different aspects in "their" society such as digital obsession, consumerism, propaganda, pollution etc. What may seem as an exaggeration in the book to us may be seen in the same way by older generations regarding our own generation.
I think Art is both a mirror and a hammer. It reflects a situation using a different angle of perspective to get a point across. Good art is something that will jolt its audience out of their current mind frames and force them to think and perceive the world in a different direction. It will have enough influence to make its audience want to change. In Feed's case, the book is a piece of art that wakes us up from our digital slumber parties and gets us into thinking what this world has become, how it happened, and where it's going to lead us. Its reflection of us is one that is disgusting. This new found awareness towards the downfall of the world (or at least the nation) today should be enough to make us want to change and reshape our society. So in this case, Feed is both a mirror and a hammer.
Tobin is seen to bring out all these problems but doesn't offer any solution. I don't think that a solution or a resolving scene in the book is necessary because Tobin's goal was to create awareness. He's encouraging us to do something about it but he isn't here to tell us what to do. We have to figure out for ourselves how we want the world to be and how we want to shape it.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
HW 12: Feed A
Feed is a story specifically drawn to parallel the way society runs today. Many situations and objects in the book are deliberately put in to represent certain aspects of present day America. The Feed for example, is a chip installed into the minds of Americans. Connected to almost every function of the body, the Feed is seen as a necessity for the typical human. With entertainment and information at the tip of your fingers or right in your head in this case, no one would want it any other way. Similar to the present day internet, ask anyone and I bet you most people would choose the option of technology over no technology.
The Feed is viewed as a destructive element and as a contributor to the downfall of America's society. Anderson describes America as a place dominated by corporate powers where even the clouds and schools were owned by large profit seeking corporations. It's the "nation of dreams" and "what we wish for, is ours." In other words, America is a selfish, instant-gratification seeking, spoiled society. Throughout the book, it is seen that the Feed is an object that brainwashes its owners by constantly whispering ideas into their heads, pressuring them to submit to trends and developing superficial values. The teenagers in the book, like us are constantly chasing trends and trying to have fun, oblivious to the bigger issues around them.
Like Feed, it's no doubt that our society has developed a culture of materialism. Everyone has to look good. We are so convinced that the things we buy will make us cooler or help us gain acceptance with certain groups of people. Like the artificial lesions in the book, people today are so obsessed with their looks that they're driven towards plastic surgery.
As well as paralleling America's consumerist culture, Feed also depicts the declining of America's civilization. It is seen that excessive damage to nature has driven the country to live in the sky, while air pollution begins to tear away at their skin. And even as countries formed alliances and threatened war against America, indifference was the main attitude people had toward the situation. Similar to America today, many aren't aware of currents events or choose to ignore them. America claims to be ruled by the people but as Feed expresses, what you're told may not always be the truth. Corrupted acts are constant patterns that come up in those with power whether it be the government or top notched corporations. M.T. Anderson is trying to tell us is to be more aware of our surroundings. Don't settle for the government to do all the work for you, be a part of the power and take matters into your own hands.
Many Americans have demonstrated little involvement in politics. We convince ourselves that the government has everything under control. People expect Obama to create some sort of miracle, to revive us from the recession, to clear the war, to bring us back from our debt, to create this brilliant plan that will make all our problems go away. But truth is, he's only one person and you can't just sit back and relax and expect him to solve all your problems (I think this was from Andy?) A society needs to be run by the people. Only the people can create the kind of change they want.
The Feed is viewed as a destructive element and as a contributor to the downfall of America's society. Anderson describes America as a place dominated by corporate powers where even the clouds and schools were owned by large profit seeking corporations. It's the "nation of dreams" and "what we wish for, is ours." In other words, America is a selfish, instant-gratification seeking, spoiled society. Throughout the book, it is seen that the Feed is an object that brainwashes its owners by constantly whispering ideas into their heads, pressuring them to submit to trends and developing superficial values. The teenagers in the book, like us are constantly chasing trends and trying to have fun, oblivious to the bigger issues around them.
Like Feed, it's no doubt that our society has developed a culture of materialism. Everyone has to look good. We are so convinced that the things we buy will make us cooler or help us gain acceptance with certain groups of people. Like the artificial lesions in the book, people today are so obsessed with their looks that they're driven towards plastic surgery.
As well as paralleling America's consumerist culture, Feed also depicts the declining of America's civilization. It is seen that excessive damage to nature has driven the country to live in the sky, while air pollution begins to tear away at their skin. And even as countries formed alliances and threatened war against America, indifference was the main attitude people had toward the situation. Similar to America today, many aren't aware of currents events or choose to ignore them. America claims to be ruled by the people but as Feed expresses, what you're told may not always be the truth. Corrupted acts are constant patterns that come up in those with power whether it be the government or top notched corporations. M.T. Anderson is trying to tell us is to be more aware of our surroundings. Don't settle for the government to do all the work for you, be a part of the power and take matters into your own hands.
Many Americans have demonstrated little involvement in politics. We convince ourselves that the government has everything under control. People expect Obama to create some sort of miracle, to revive us from the recession, to clear the war, to bring us back from our debt, to create this brilliant plan that will make all our problems go away. But truth is, he's only one person and you can't just sit back and relax and expect him to solve all your problems (I think this was from Andy?) A society needs to be run by the people. Only the people can create the kind of change they want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
