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. (:
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
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.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Experiment
I usually do my homework and watch T.V. separately. I hardly ever mix the two. I'm interested to see how productive I would be if I decided to multitask and watch T.V. while I did my homework. I sat down at 8 to watch one of my favorite shows and I had my homework laid out on my lap. Throughout the whole first segment, I wrote like one sentence down for my math homework. Then commercial came on and I went back to my homework but by then I had to refocus and remember what the problem was about. And once I did I didn't get much done by the time the show came back on. Then I tried doing my homework during that time but I constantly found myself missing certain lines in the scenes and I threw off my homework to focus on the T.V. This cycle continued until at last I decided to do my homework after the show was over.
I get frustrated easily when I miss certain parts of the show because then I would get confused later on about what's going on. And I hate trying to figure out what's happening. I need to be completely zoned into the show in order to enjoy it. This is the same with music. I can do a lot with music on, but homework is definitely not one of those things. I can only really focus with one thing at a time. Like right now, I just turned my music off to type this blog. When I'm thinking, I need silence and no distractions or any form of entertainment that might cut into my train of thought.
I get frustrated easily when I miss certain parts of the show because then I would get confused later on about what's going on. And I hate trying to figure out what's happening. I need to be completely zoned into the show in order to enjoy it. This is the same with music. I can do a lot with music on, but homework is definitely not one of those things. I can only really focus with one thing at a time. Like right now, I just turned my music off to type this blog. When I'm thinking, I need silence and no distractions or any form of entertainment that might cut into my train of thought.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Internet Sex Crimes
My friends and I were talking and the topic of internet pedophilia came up. You hear about it all the time and there's even a T.V. show (forgot the name) devoted to catching these old creeps. Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to Google this and see what comes up and a lot of these articles actually turned up pretty informative.
http://www.crime-research.org/articles/904/ (Article)
There are different ways in which an offender can exploit a vulnerable child in cyberspace. Many offenders resort to seduction to lure their victims in. "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” [3]. In a sense, these individuals are attempting to build up a virtual relationship/friendship where in reality they can eventually gain the child’s trust.
When characterizing high tech pedophiles that have been arrested, Special Agent and Chief Spokesman Pete Gulotta of the FBI’s "Innocent Images" Unit, says “they.re almost all white males between the ages of 25 and 45. "We’ve had military officers with high clearances, pediatricians, lawyers, school principals, and tech executives" [5].
Many kids (boys and girls) are logging onto the web these days and so are sexual offenders. These predators lurk the web hoping to gain an "innocent" connection with a child when in fact they're trying to get something sexual out of that relationship. They would try to gain a child's trust and use that as a way to convince them into whatever they want.
It's scary to read about how much time and work they devote into doing what they do. They are committed. But all I'm thinking about is how could anyone be so dumb to fall for such people? Either they're really dumb or the pedophiles are really convincing in their words. What types of conniving strategies are they using? How do they get a child out of their seats, away from the keyboard, and into their houses or wherever it is they go? Those are some serious skills. It also doesn't surprise me that men with legit careers are a part of this issue. So many people live half-lives these days and these are probably busy guys that don't have time to form real life relationships, but apparently have time to online flirt with underage children.
http://jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(04)00171-5/abstract (Survey)
A national survey of a stratified random sample of 2574 law enforcement agencies conducted between October 2001 and July 2002. Telephone interviews were conducted with local, state, and federal law enforcement investigators concerning 129 sexual offenses against juvenile victims that originated with online encounters.
Victims in these crimes were primarily 13- through 15-year-old teenage girls (75%) who met adult offenders (76% older than 25) in Internet chat rooms. Most offenders did not deceive victims about the fact that they were adults who were interested in sexual relationships. Most victims met and had sex with the adults on more than one occasion. Half of the victims were described as being in love with or feeling close bonds with the offenders. Almost all cases with male victims involved male offenders. Offenders used violence in 5% of the episodes.
I was surprised after reading that most of these offenders didn't try to hide their ulterior motives. And I was even more surprised that even after knowing this that these kids claim to be in love with or have formed a close bond with the offenders. Obviously all they're looking for is sex and nothing more. These kids are too naive and that's why they're the main targets concerning this issue. With the rise of the new technological era, parents need to be more aware of the dangers the internet has on their children. I read this other article about a mom not even knowing that child pedophilia existed online until it happened to her son. Parents need to sit down and have conversations with their kids about not talking to strangers online or try to keep a distance if so.
Apparently these kids see it more as a mutual connection than a sexual offense. But I wonder how many of them will actually look back on this years later and realize that all it really was was a deceitful ploy to exploit their bodies. None of these men have any actual interest in developing a genuine relationship with them nor do they really care about getting to know them.
http://www.chainofchange.com/community-tv-networks-1/ (Video)
A group of girls decide to create a fake MySpace account pretending to be the typical 16 year old teen. Her profile describes her as a cheerleader, tennis player, and a skater who loves to shop and all that cliche stuff.
This is a video demonstrating a typical case of online chatting between an older guy looking for more than a "friendship" with an underage teen girl. Even though he doesn't explicitly say so, it's pretty obvious. No regular person you meet over the internet would tell you he wants to hear your voice or want to "get to know you better in person." Mind as well just glue a big sign on your forehead that says CHILD PREDATOR.
Most of the teens interviewed in the video seems to be aware of such cases though. That at least reassures me that there are plenty of girls (and boys) out there that are mature enough to recognize such a situation and know how to handle it carefully. Younger children need to be educated about this as well but I'm pretty sure most people have a basic understanding that strangers are not to be easily trusted.
http://www.crime-research.org/articles/904/ (Article)
There are different ways in which an offender can exploit a vulnerable child in cyberspace. Many offenders resort to seduction to lure their victims in. "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” [3]. In a sense, these individuals are attempting to build up a virtual relationship/friendship where in reality they can eventually gain the child’s trust.
When characterizing high tech pedophiles that have been arrested, Special Agent and Chief Spokesman Pete Gulotta of the FBI’s "Innocent Images" Unit, says “they.re almost all white males between the ages of 25 and 45. "We’ve had military officers with high clearances, pediatricians, lawyers, school principals, and tech executives" [5].
Many kids (boys and girls) are logging onto the web these days and so are sexual offenders. These predators lurk the web hoping to gain an "innocent" connection with a child when in fact they're trying to get something sexual out of that relationship. They would try to gain a child's trust and use that as a way to convince them into whatever they want.
It's scary to read about how much time and work they devote into doing what they do. They are committed. But all I'm thinking about is how could anyone be so dumb to fall for such people? Either they're really dumb or the pedophiles are really convincing in their words. What types of conniving strategies are they using? How do they get a child out of their seats, away from the keyboard, and into their houses or wherever it is they go? Those are some serious skills. It also doesn't surprise me that men with legit careers are a part of this issue. So many people live half-lives these days and these are probably busy guys that don't have time to form real life relationships, but apparently have time to online flirt with underage children.
http://jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(04)00171-5/abstract (Survey)
A national survey of a stratified random sample of 2574 law enforcement agencies conducted between October 2001 and July 2002. Telephone interviews were conducted with local, state, and federal law enforcement investigators concerning 129 sexual offenses against juvenile victims that originated with online encounters.
Victims in these crimes were primarily 13- through 15-year-old teenage girls (75%) who met adult offenders (76% older than 25) in Internet chat rooms. Most offenders did not deceive victims about the fact that they were adults who were interested in sexual relationships. Most victims met and had sex with the adults on more than one occasion. Half of the victims were described as being in love with or feeling close bonds with the offenders. Almost all cases with male victims involved male offenders. Offenders used violence in 5% of the episodes.
I was surprised after reading that most of these offenders didn't try to hide their ulterior motives. And I was even more surprised that even after knowing this that these kids claim to be in love with or have formed a close bond with the offenders. Obviously all they're looking for is sex and nothing more. These kids are too naive and that's why they're the main targets concerning this issue. With the rise of the new technological era, parents need to be more aware of the dangers the internet has on their children. I read this other article about a mom not even knowing that child pedophilia existed online until it happened to her son. Parents need to sit down and have conversations with their kids about not talking to strangers online or try to keep a distance if so.
Apparently these kids see it more as a mutual connection than a sexual offense. But I wonder how many of them will actually look back on this years later and realize that all it really was was a deceitful ploy to exploit their bodies. None of these men have any actual interest in developing a genuine relationship with them nor do they really care about getting to know them.
http://www.chainofchange.com/community-tv-networks-1/ (Video)
A group of girls decide to create a fake MySpace account pretending to be the typical 16 year old teen. Her profile describes her as a cheerleader, tennis player, and a skater who loves to shop and all that cliche stuff.
This is a video demonstrating a typical case of online chatting between an older guy looking for more than a "friendship" with an underage teen girl. Even though he doesn't explicitly say so, it's pretty obvious. No regular person you meet over the internet would tell you he wants to hear your voice or want to "get to know you better in person." Mind as well just glue a big sign on your forehead that says CHILD PREDATOR.
Most of the teens interviewed in the video seems to be aware of such cases though. That at least reassures me that there are plenty of girls (and boys) out there that are mature enough to recognize such a situation and know how to handle it carefully. Younger children need to be educated about this as well but I'm pretty sure most people have a basic understanding that strangers are not to be easily trusted.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
HW 9: Video Project GHIJK
Jenise,
Thanks for pointing out how easy it is to forget things when we're so focused on only one thing and in this case, it's technology. It makes me feel like I'm not the only one with this problem.
And the question you asked: "How can we really draw the line? how do we know the signs?" in regard of how much time we spend on the internet is a question I'm sure we've all tried figuring out before. It's a hard line to identify. I guess it all depends on the person. It made me try finding my own line. I feel like everyone should have an idea of how much time they be spending with this stuff, not how much they want to, but how much they should. This would encourage them to limit themselves and have a control over their technology-time sprees.
Your thoughts consist more of analyzing the video whereas mine was more of just describing the moments in the video in factual form. Both of us though focused on the same topics such as time management, and the effects of emerging too deep into our DRDs.
Vincent,
Thanks for finding it to be an insightful post because I thought it was crap. lol. I liked your quote: "we can learn a lot from watching ourselves stray away from this world," because I know I did. I mean I knew I would be disconnected from reality but I never thought I would look that zoned out. It was really awakening.
I agree with you. I thought it would've been better if I showed the screen because watching me sit there for 4 minutes straight looking as if I'm not doing anything gets a bit confusing and boring.
I liked how you mentioned the fact that DRDs makes us lose sense of our time. I always find myself doing something unproductive on the internet like looking at pictures and I look up at the clock and an hour just passed. It's ridiculous. These devices keep us so occupied that we really forget about all the other things that we have to do.
I don't think our thoughts differ much. I think we pretty much have the same ideas about the amount of distraction DRDs causes and how these distractions are so addicting.
Thanks for pointing out how easy it is to forget things when we're so focused on only one thing and in this case, it's technology. It makes me feel like I'm not the only one with this problem.
And the question you asked: "How can we really draw the line? how do we know the signs?" in regard of how much time we spend on the internet is a question I'm sure we've all tried figuring out before. It's a hard line to identify. I guess it all depends on the person. It made me try finding my own line. I feel like everyone should have an idea of how much time they be spending with this stuff, not how much they want to, but how much they should. This would encourage them to limit themselves and have a control over their technology-time sprees.
Your thoughts consist more of analyzing the video whereas mine was more of just describing the moments in the video in factual form. Both of us though focused on the same topics such as time management, and the effects of emerging too deep into our DRDs.
Vincent,
Thanks for finding it to be an insightful post because I thought it was crap. lol. I liked your quote: "we can learn a lot from watching ourselves stray away from this world," because I know I did. I mean I knew I would be disconnected from reality but I never thought I would look that zoned out. It was really awakening.
I agree with you. I thought it would've been better if I showed the screen because watching me sit there for 4 minutes straight looking as if I'm not doing anything gets a bit confusing and boring.
I liked how you mentioned the fact that DRDs makes us lose sense of our time. I always find myself doing something unproductive on the internet like looking at pictures and I look up at the clock and an hour just passed. It's ridiculous. These devices keep us so occupied that we really forget about all the other things that we have to do.
I don't think our thoughts differ much. I think we pretty much have the same ideas about the amount of distraction DRDs causes and how these distractions are so addicting.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
HW 8: Comments on Triangle Partners' Videos Project
Vincent,
Okay first off, your video already shows how tech-savvy you are. The whole box thing was creative 'cause it shows both your face and what you're focusing on. I noticed how you were Googling a lot and how you were reading articles about Barrack Obama and alternating that with Manga. It shows how you could be doing stuff you're into like Manga, and still be educating yourself at the same time. I guess that's why we love the internet so much, because it allows us to multi task and get more done at one time. Also I noticed how fast you were skipping site to site. Is it because you have a short attention span and that you need something really interesting to keep your attention or am I just overthinking it?
I liked your comment on how "when i watch my own video i don't feel any different since i am still doing the same reactions and its like when i stare at noting. These thoughts dot change even though i think they changed. I can compare myself to what i am doing, s a start to know my human grasp on the digital world. But nothing else." I never realized that and now that you say it, it's true. I mean, I bet I'm doing it now as I'm typing this. I bet I look the same as I do in my video. My thoughts might be different, but I look the same and I'm acting the same way I do every time I interact with my computer. It's crazy how much time this repititiveness takes up. Is it a waste of time? I think we still get something out of it even if we look like we're doing the same thing over and over again. I think we are mentally developing. You can't see it, but our minds are working and learning as we stare blankly into our computer screens.
I think you should really think about your answer to "Would you want your little sister (or future son) to spend a lot of time doing this stuff?" I don't really believe the indifference that you showed in your answer. You say "i don't really care in my opinion since, it's their choice and their life, if they want to get sucked in it's fine, not my decision or my opinion to make." If it was your child, I'm sure you would be more caring than that. As a parent or an older sib, I feel like it would be partially your responsibility to guide them in the right direction.
Your last answer made me think though. I agree that a lot of the video games and/or digital entertainment are all just variations of one another. The little differences that new games have to offer intrigues people only because they're fresh. After a while like you said, people do get bored and look for newer things to keep them entertained. It's like a constant cycle of needing and satisfying between consumers and sellers. It's a lie like you mentioned and I feel like we need to break the mold and find something more meaningful to entertain us.
I liked your post a lot. Your unconventional answers made me think. Can't wait to read more of your stuff. Peace.
Jenise,
You look like you have a real passion for music. Besides the clip of you playing your video game, the rest of the video was composed of you playing your piano, rapping, and listening to music. I thought you made a good point when you compared the keyboard to an actual grand piano. A keyboard can never match the melody of a grand piano's. Like you said, "You really lose the essence of playing." This seems to go for many other things. I feel like technology can never replace the "essence" we gain from things that aren't digitalized. IMs can never replace real convos. Emails take away the essence of finding a long-waited written letter in the mail. Video games immerse you in digital reality incomparable to the feelings you get from your own real life experiences. And keyboards can never hit the nerves and give you goosebumps like grand pianos can.
I found it intriguing when you said "I realized digital representations devices alternate my moods" and how you talked about how one loss at a video game could upset you. I can understand because even if the characters in a video game really aren't you, the fact that you're in control of them makes it you. So whatever failures they encounter would reflect on your abilities as a challenger.
From what you wrote along with your video, music seems to be your outlet. When you get frustrated as you said from the video game, you turn to your music. It seems like a lot of people these days are like that. They would turn to music either to change their mood or to match it. Sometimes if I'm feeling down, I would play my favorite songs and everything would seem to go away. Would you call that escaping reality? Or is it a justifiable way of comforting yourself, to make your troubles go away even when in reality they're still there?
Your video was cool. I feel like with your music, you aren't immersed in a bad way because your music keeps you in touch with your state of mind and with your feelings.
Okay first off, your video already shows how tech-savvy you are. The whole box thing was creative 'cause it shows both your face and what you're focusing on. I noticed how you were Googling a lot and how you were reading articles about Barrack Obama and alternating that with Manga. It shows how you could be doing stuff you're into like Manga, and still be educating yourself at the same time. I guess that's why we love the internet so much, because it allows us to multi task and get more done at one time. Also I noticed how fast you were skipping site to site. Is it because you have a short attention span and that you need something really interesting to keep your attention or am I just overthinking it?
I liked your comment on how "when i watch my own video i don't feel any different since i am still doing the same reactions and its like when i stare at noting. These thoughts dot change even though i think they changed. I can compare myself to what i am doing, s a start to know my human grasp on the digital world. But nothing else." I never realized that and now that you say it, it's true. I mean, I bet I'm doing it now as I'm typing this. I bet I look the same as I do in my video. My thoughts might be different, but I look the same and I'm acting the same way I do every time I interact with my computer. It's crazy how much time this repititiveness takes up. Is it a waste of time? I think we still get something out of it even if we look like we're doing the same thing over and over again. I think we are mentally developing. You can't see it, but our minds are working and learning as we stare blankly into our computer screens.
I think you should really think about your answer to "Would you want your little sister (or future son) to spend a lot of time doing this stuff?" I don't really believe the indifference that you showed in your answer. You say "i don't really care in my opinion since, it's their choice and their life, if they want to get sucked in it's fine, not my decision or my opinion to make." If it was your child, I'm sure you would be more caring than that. As a parent or an older sib, I feel like it would be partially your responsibility to guide them in the right direction.
Your last answer made me think though. I agree that a lot of the video games and/or digital entertainment are all just variations of one another. The little differences that new games have to offer intrigues people only because they're fresh. After a while like you said, people do get bored and look for newer things to keep them entertained. It's like a constant cycle of needing and satisfying between consumers and sellers. It's a lie like you mentioned and I feel like we need to break the mold and find something more meaningful to entertain us.
I liked your post a lot. Your unconventional answers made me think. Can't wait to read more of your stuff. Peace.
Jenise,
You look like you have a real passion for music. Besides the clip of you playing your video game, the rest of the video was composed of you playing your piano, rapping, and listening to music. I thought you made a good point when you compared the keyboard to an actual grand piano. A keyboard can never match the melody of a grand piano's. Like you said, "You really lose the essence of playing." This seems to go for many other things. I feel like technology can never replace the "essence" we gain from things that aren't digitalized. IMs can never replace real convos. Emails take away the essence of finding a long-waited written letter in the mail. Video games immerse you in digital reality incomparable to the feelings you get from your own real life experiences. And keyboards can never hit the nerves and give you goosebumps like grand pianos can.
I found it intriguing when you said "I realized digital representations devices alternate my moods" and how you talked about how one loss at a video game could upset you. I can understand because even if the characters in a video game really aren't you, the fact that you're in control of them makes it you. So whatever failures they encounter would reflect on your abilities as a challenger.
From what you wrote along with your video, music seems to be your outlet. When you get frustrated as you said from the video game, you turn to your music. It seems like a lot of people these days are like that. They would turn to music either to change their mood or to match it. Sometimes if I'm feeling down, I would play my favorite songs and everything would seem to go away. Would you call that escaping reality? Or is it a justifiable way of comforting yourself, to make your troubles go away even when in reality they're still there?
Your video was cool. I feel like with your music, you aren't immersed in a bad way because your music keeps you in touch with your state of mind and with your feelings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
