As Sherry Turkle points out in this (past) week's reading, computers undoubtedly affect the way we think. Although most of us who've grown up around computers may not give it much thought, this is an inescapable truth that ought to be understood if we hope to fully understand ourselves. According to Turkle, "Technology does not determine change, but it encourages us to take certain directions. If we make those directions clear, we can more easily exert human choice." Indeed, any feature of our environment with which we regularly interact "encourages" us to develop our minds in a certain way, so recognizing precisely how our environment affects us can help us manage the development of the human mind less arbitrarily.
That being said, I think several of Turkle's observations could be made regarding other phenomena as easily as they're made regarding the influence of computers. For example, the "culture of presentation" she mentions in her discussion of PowerPoint has been around for millennia; it's an integral part of warfare and courtship (which can be viewed similarly in virtually all animal cultures), and it's one of the main reasons for the existence of the study of rhetoric. Likewise, "epistemic opacity" is characteristic of most technological innovations, not just computers; when someone uses a camera, a telephone, a car, or even a plow, he or she can make it work without understanding how it works.
Of course, some of the points made within this article are more insightful than others. For one, computers' impact on notions of privacy can hardly be overstated. The ease with which computers allow individuals to compartmentalize and experiment with their identities is also unique (remember John Suler?). I think the most important observation, however, is the recognition of the effects of word processing. Many people seem rarely to reflect upon the true meanings of the language and structures they employ in speech and writing, and the potential speed of production that word processing allows only compounds this problem. As Turkle points out, "The idea of thinking ahead has become exotic," and as far as I can tell, that's not a trait we should want in the human mind.
"How Computers Change the Way We Think" by Sherry Turkle
Monday, April 16, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Talkin' 'Bout My Generation
This week's reading, the BusinessWeek story "The MySpace Generation", was an interesting look at an outsider's view of the ever-changing youth culture online, especially considering the piece was written over a year ago, when MySpace was just beginning to gain widespread attention among those outside of the demographic that regularly visited the site. As the article points out, the power that users of MySpace and other online social networking sites exercise in determining companies' advertising strategies can hardly be overestimated; even corporations as large as Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble are "clamoring to be a part of the new social landscape."
However, the portion of the article that struck me most forcefully was the description of a seemingly typical day in the life of Amanda Adams. Like most persons her age, she regularly visits and contributes to several blogging and social networking sites, holds Instant Messenger conversations, watches television, listens to music, and interacts with friends in the same room with her—all simultaneously. Although this is simply dubbed "multitasking" and seen as commonplace by some, I find it disconcerting to say the least. Granted, I often find myself in similar scenarios, but the fact that this is a nearly perpetual state of being for many others my age and younger is, in my opinion, the source of many of the problems facing our society today.
First, this sort of constant sensory overload is almost certainly the cause of the relatively recent spike in cases of ADD and ADHD. As individuals become accustomed to seemingly endless streams of stimuli, they begin to seek out this sort of stimulation in other situations, making it difficult for them to focus entirely on any one thing. Similarly, the relatively small amount of attention paid to each of the activities in which a person is engaged while multitasking in this way becomes the norm. When the individual encounters a subject that requires his or her full attention, he or she will then have difficulty fully devoting his or her senses to that subject. This kind of less-than-full attention may be acceptable in some instances, but in others it is undoubtedly inadequate.
As for "Web 2.0...The Machine Is Us/ing Us", I think it's a near-perfect illustration of how the Internet and its concomitant technologies have changed and are still changing our lives. Of course, I also feel this video is noteworthy as well. Although its production quality is nowhere near that of Professor Wesch's video, it raises a few interesting points regarding the opening moments of the latter.
"The MySpace Generation" @ BusinessWeek
"Web 2.0...The Machine Is Us/ing Us" @ YouTube
"Web 2.0...We Respond to We/sch" @ YouTube
MySpace
However, the portion of the article that struck me most forcefully was the description of a seemingly typical day in the life of Amanda Adams. Like most persons her age, she regularly visits and contributes to several blogging and social networking sites, holds Instant Messenger conversations, watches television, listens to music, and interacts with friends in the same room with her—all simultaneously. Although this is simply dubbed "multitasking" and seen as commonplace by some, I find it disconcerting to say the least. Granted, I often find myself in similar scenarios, but the fact that this is a nearly perpetual state of being for many others my age and younger is, in my opinion, the source of many of the problems facing our society today.
First, this sort of constant sensory overload is almost certainly the cause of the relatively recent spike in cases of ADD and ADHD. As individuals become accustomed to seemingly endless streams of stimuli, they begin to seek out this sort of stimulation in other situations, making it difficult for them to focus entirely on any one thing. Similarly, the relatively small amount of attention paid to each of the activities in which a person is engaged while multitasking in this way becomes the norm. When the individual encounters a subject that requires his or her full attention, he or she will then have difficulty fully devoting his or her senses to that subject. This kind of less-than-full attention may be acceptable in some instances, but in others it is undoubtedly inadequate.
As for "Web 2.0...The Machine Is Us/ing Us", I think it's a near-perfect illustration of how the Internet and its concomitant technologies have changed and are still changing our lives. Of course, I also feel this video is noteworthy as well. Although its production quality is nowhere near that of Professor Wesch's video, it raises a few interesting points regarding the opening moments of the latter.
"The MySpace Generation" @ BusinessWeek
"Web 2.0...The Machine Is Us/ing Us" @ YouTube
"Web 2.0...We Respond to We/sch" @ YouTube
MySpace
Friday, February 9, 2007
Sheila, the Discursive and Loquacious Salamander, Speaks Her Mind
So, I don't think I can begin to say how pleased I was to encounter John Suler's "Identity Management in Cyberspace" this week—except that I just began to say how pleased I was to encounter it. With all the discussion about how we ought to fill out our Blogger profiles and how we should post pictures of ourselves on our forthcoming website, I was beginning to think I'd be solely burdened with articulating the merits of withholding personal information and veiling our identities. However, after reading Suler's examination of online identity, I no longer fear this prospect as it seems I'm not the only one who sees the many values of online "identity management," though my perspective (as naïve as it may be) differs considerably from Suler's.
See, it seems to me that virtually every aspect of human culture is too highly politicized. In face-to-face interactions, it's nearly always the most charismatic or personable individual who garners the most attention and clout. The advent of the printing press could've changed this feature of human interaction (content can be dissociated from its source in printed media), but you still had to be "in" with the people who ran the presses, whether you got "in" via money or by way of personability. Then the moving picture and the radio became the preferred media for opinion and information dispersal, but they, too, forced the "speaker" to convey at least one aspect of his or her identity that could influence the acceptability of his or her message. The Internet, however, promised a change in all this.
Thanks to the Internet, any individual with access to a computer and a basic understanding of markup languages can post whatever they want for whomever to see. If Francis, a meek and unsuccessful financial adviser, wants to publish a romantic swashbuckling tale, he can do so online without convincing others of his story-crafting abilities and without fearing ridicule or retribution. Likewise, if a stay-at-home, suburban mom wants to establish her own crunktastic hip-hop label, she can start it online under a false identity without worrying about being dismissed as unqualified to evaluate crunk music.
The point is that people who might be perceived as somehow unentitled to do or say a given thing can overcome this handicap in the world of the Internet by assuming new identities or retaining anonymity. Sure, it might make it more difficult to wade through the murky waters of questionable material in search of desirable content, but at least this relatively newfound freedom can expand the chorus of voices contributing to the development of human knowledge and culture. Of course, as Suler points out, there are the psychological benefits of individuals' online explorations of their psyches, but if we expand our frame of reference from the individual to humanity as a whole, it seems the collective can only "manage the multiplicities of [its] selfhood" and maintain good "mental health" by acknowledging every aspect of its "personality" (e.g., by allowing the amateur or untrained political philosopher to theorize about a new form of government instead of suppressing his or her opinion). In short, it's not only fun and/or healthy to manipulate and obscure our identities online; it's necessary for the fullest development of society, and in some cases, it may be our civic duty.
Identity Management in Cyberspace by John Suler
Do Boys (and Girls) Just Wanna Have Fun? by John Suler
See, it seems to me that virtually every aspect of human culture is too highly politicized. In face-to-face interactions, it's nearly always the most charismatic or personable individual who garners the most attention and clout. The advent of the printing press could've changed this feature of human interaction (content can be dissociated from its source in printed media), but you still had to be "in" with the people who ran the presses, whether you got "in" via money or by way of personability. Then the moving picture and the radio became the preferred media for opinion and information dispersal, but they, too, forced the "speaker" to convey at least one aspect of his or her identity that could influence the acceptability of his or her message. The Internet, however, promised a change in all this.
Thanks to the Internet, any individual with access to a computer and a basic understanding of markup languages can post whatever they want for whomever to see. If Francis, a meek and unsuccessful financial adviser, wants to publish a romantic swashbuckling tale, he can do so online without convincing others of his story-crafting abilities and without fearing ridicule or retribution. Likewise, if a stay-at-home, suburban mom wants to establish her own crunktastic hip-hop label, she can start it online under a false identity without worrying about being dismissed as unqualified to evaluate crunk music.
The point is that people who might be perceived as somehow unentitled to do or say a given thing can overcome this handicap in the world of the Internet by assuming new identities or retaining anonymity. Sure, it might make it more difficult to wade through the murky waters of questionable material in search of desirable content, but at least this relatively newfound freedom can expand the chorus of voices contributing to the development of human knowledge and culture. Of course, as Suler points out, there are the psychological benefits of individuals' online explorations of their psyches, but if we expand our frame of reference from the individual to humanity as a whole, it seems the collective can only "manage the multiplicities of [its] selfhood" and maintain good "mental health" by acknowledging every aspect of its "personality" (e.g., by allowing the amateur or untrained political philosopher to theorize about a new form of government instead of suppressing his or her opinion). In short, it's not only fun and/or healthy to manipulate and obscure our identities online; it's necessary for the fullest development of society, and in some cases, it may be our civic duty.
Identity Management in Cyberspace by John Suler
Do Boys (and Girls) Just Wanna Have Fun? by John Suler
Friday, January 19, 2007
The Domesday Book
My first reaction to this site and the book to which it's devoted was not unlike outright boredom. Surely, I thought, this can only be of interest to the particular group of historians who study the time and place whence this tome originated. The material seemed dry and I wondered why it could not have been printed in a book as easily as it had been published on a webpage.
Then it occured to me (I admit, I am slow from time to time) that this was, in fact, excellent fodder for the likes of this class. As I made my way through page after page, link after link bringing me more and more information, I realized that this wealth of data would not have been possible in the context of traditionally printed and bound text. Even if the printer(s) had been able to organize the original volumes' contents and any relevent information in such a way that the reader might be able to effectively find information without perusing it in its entirety, the book would have been weighty to say the least, and the costs of publishing would probably not be overcome given the likely lack of demand for such a thing. By making it available online instead, the publisher(s) of the site avoided the unnecessary costs of printing while providing access to a much larger audience. Granted, the site does not live up to its full potential (only the records for Bedfordshire and Berkshire are available online at this time and there are no satisfying images of the original text itself), but since extensive auxiliary information is as easy to retrieve as tapping a few keys and clicking a button or two, there's not much left to be desired. In fact, for simplicity's sake, if you want to know more about the history or implications of the Domesday Book, including how it relates to the Bayeaux tapestry, I suggest you just click on one or more of the links below.
The Domesday Book Online
The Domesday Book @ The National Archives
The Domesday Book @ The History Learning Site
Then it occured to me (I admit, I am slow from time to time) that this was, in fact, excellent fodder for the likes of this class. As I made my way through page after page, link after link bringing me more and more information, I realized that this wealth of data would not have been possible in the context of traditionally printed and bound text. Even if the printer(s) had been able to organize the original volumes' contents and any relevent information in such a way that the reader might be able to effectively find information without perusing it in its entirety, the book would have been weighty to say the least, and the costs of publishing would probably not be overcome given the likely lack of demand for such a thing. By making it available online instead, the publisher(s) of the site avoided the unnecessary costs of printing while providing access to a much larger audience. Granted, the site does not live up to its full potential (only the records for Bedfordshire and Berkshire are available online at this time and there are no satisfying images of the original text itself), but since extensive auxiliary information is as easy to retrieve as tapping a few keys and clicking a button or two, there's not much left to be desired. In fact, for simplicity's sake, if you want to know more about the history or implications of the Domesday Book, including how it relates to the Bayeaux tapestry, I suggest you just click on one or more of the links below.
The Domesday Book Online
The Domesday Book @ The National Archives
The Domesday Book @ The History Learning Site
Friday, January 12, 2007
On "HyperTapestry"
As I read Kim MacQueen's "HyperTapestry," I found myself simultaneously in agreement and disagreement with some of the main points of the article. Almost immediately, I was impressed by the similarities between the Bayeaux tapestry and hypertext documents. "Hand-stitched by 12th century monks," MacQueen states, "the tapestry is a painstakingly crafted physical document that details how Duke William of Normandy conquered England in 1066.” This description instantly evoked thoughts of individuals today creating webpages or other hypertext documents using HTML and other programming languages. The likenesses between these ideas was underlined for me by the fact that in each instance the created document provides numerous interconnected pieces of information to be read in a fashion and order determined by the reader.
Of course, almost as quickly, I was struck by the dissimilarities between these two drastically different types of creations. For one, it is abundantly obvious that a 230-feet-long tapestry is more tangible than a given hypertext document. It should also be noted that the monks responsible for the creation of the Bayeaux tapestry probably spent a considerably longer period of time creating their document than the creator of an average hypertext document would spend creating his or hers. Bearing this in mind, it seems hypertext, given all of its benefits and virtues, still falls short of accurately recreating the tendencies of the medieval mind and its culture. That's not to say that hypertext works no more like the medieval mind than traditional text; rather I mean to say that hypertext, being less tangible and arguably easier to create than the more concrete works of the Middle Ages, does less to enhance memory and perpetuate knowledge than creations like the Bayeaux tapestry did in their times. In fact, one could even argue that hypertext does a grave disservice to the functioning of the human memory considering the ease with which information can be virtually stored and retrieved. In other words, since we know it's relatively easy to record and recall our thoughts and experiences in a virtual world using hypertext, we devote less of our faculties to managing them within our brains in the real world. Whereas non-literate medieval minds relied heavily on "experience, memory, and their own eyes and ears" to make sense of their lives and the world around them, individuals today forgo these burdens and rely instead on technology's ability to retain information. In this sense, I find it hard to believe that we can ever recreate the worldviews of those who've come so long before us without renouncing the usefulness of modern technologies and reverting to the oral traditions of pre-print societies.
"HyperTapestry" by Kim MacQueen
Of course, almost as quickly, I was struck by the dissimilarities between these two drastically different types of creations. For one, it is abundantly obvious that a 230-feet-long tapestry is more tangible than a given hypertext document. It should also be noted that the monks responsible for the creation of the Bayeaux tapestry probably spent a considerably longer period of time creating their document than the creator of an average hypertext document would spend creating his or hers. Bearing this in mind, it seems hypertext, given all of its benefits and virtues, still falls short of accurately recreating the tendencies of the medieval mind and its culture. That's not to say that hypertext works no more like the medieval mind than traditional text; rather I mean to say that hypertext, being less tangible and arguably easier to create than the more concrete works of the Middle Ages, does less to enhance memory and perpetuate knowledge than creations like the Bayeaux tapestry did in their times. In fact, one could even argue that hypertext does a grave disservice to the functioning of the human memory considering the ease with which information can be virtually stored and retrieved. In other words, since we know it's relatively easy to record and recall our thoughts and experiences in a virtual world using hypertext, we devote less of our faculties to managing them within our brains in the real world. Whereas non-literate medieval minds relied heavily on "experience, memory, and their own eyes and ears" to make sense of their lives and the world around them, individuals today forgo these burdens and rely instead on technology's ability to retain information. In this sense, I find it hard to believe that we can ever recreate the worldviews of those who've come so long before us without renouncing the usefulness of modern technologies and reverting to the oral traditions of pre-print societies.
"HyperTapestry" by Kim MacQueen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)