To Yazzz:
First I must say that I love how much you write in most of your blogs. it shows that your not just bullshitting and you actually are serious about what you are writing about. And thanks for doing and making up the homework so I could read and comment them<3
I really like how you are able to figure out your main idea about each blog and and give examples and insights and always state it back to your main idea. For example you mention what a mirror is and how a mirror can at times be a hammer as well. You give examples of the book Feed and from your own personal effects. You restated this back to your main idea about hammers and mirrors.
Your idea relate a lot to what many people think of this whole mirror and hammer idea. That a mirror reflects, showing your flaws and your true image being able to see your true flaws maybe forcing someone to want to change which would also be related as a hammer as well.
I think that we are able to figure out the main idea and get examples but there could be some way we can expand from this and create more insights. maybe like how else can something be as a mirror or and example. Which is better? Does it acutally ever work. Since a mirror can show someone there flaws or whats wrong with them but not always necessarily acts as a hammer and change. So how would you skip the whole mirror idea and just focus on how can something be just a hammer?
This makes me consider my own idea for how you can develop your post. I just thought a little bit about how can something be just a hammer. When thinking of this, a hammer can be used to break something. Is it actually correct to break something and force it to change? Hammers are also used to nail something in place. So is this idea of a hammer basically used to nail us into a better place? Forcefully causing a change.
Well thanks again for doing the homework, im really surprise you were able to catch up so quick! See you in class :)
To Conor:
Oh conor conor conor... :)
I appreciate your ability to notice main points in each of your blogs and your person connections you make in most of your blogs. And thanks for acutally doing some assignments for me to read over.
I think many of us agree that the video game excerpt was the most interesting, I do not know about the television though but it definitly is different for everyone. I like the example you bring up of yourself and the way you watch television and how it may be a good example of Johnson's key points in the television excerpt.
I think that your blog can definitly connect to everyone's experiences with television. Especially for me, I am able to definetly predict certain situations and notice certain contradictions or clever ideas that is put in certain movies or shows. Sometimes I also think about whether it was intentional and the intents of the director or script writer. I think that both Tobin and Johnson have key ideas that connect to many teenager's experiences with technology. Whether they are wrong or right for us is probably the main idea that we need to focus on.
Your a really smart person, and I am sure you have a lot of ideas that you can expand on more. FOr example the fact that you write that you are not so sure if you can apply the same ideas that Johnson has for television for video games. Maybe you can expand on this and explain how so? Or why? Instead of just stating the differences between the two books you can maybe develope this a little more and be more in depth with whose literature is more on your side. Who is more correct and why? Why both may be correct or wrong. Whatever comes to mind.
Your blog makes me think a lot more about the connection between Feed and Everything Bad is Good for you. I feel that maybe i can look into both books a little more and think about the key points and connect them Feed's allegory and Johnson's point, see if they are correct by connecting them with more experiences with other people and myself.
Well thanks again for writing your post!! See you in class! :D
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Homework # 14
So i attempted the large text. And to be honest as not a very good reader I think I did pretty well reading this long text. For me in the beginning the video game excerpt was interesting as I actually had an idea of what he was writing about and I clearly knew the games and the descriptions of certain parts of the games that he used examples of. I don't exactly know if that is something for me to be proud of. His main points included his theory of "probing" (which sounds weird), and "telescoping". His idea has to do with the way people are able to notice patterns and solve patterns which can on a different level connect to skills we need in real life. He uses the example of Zelda (the best game ever!!) and shows how there is a sequences of scenarios that the player has to decode and solve to get to the bigger scenario. When I played the most real recent game of Zelda, it is true but I do not really connect his point to using my logic in the game to help figure out patterns and problem solve in real life. Although his arguments are interesting and his rewards concept might feel true and his whole book makes us feel better and gives everyone (or me) relief that there is someone on the digital side saying that there are actually intellectual things we are getting out of video games, television and internet it still does not really phase the fact that there are still negatives of all these digital concepts. There are key points that I can agree with and disagree with.
So to rewind a little, when he first tells us to imagine if video games and such have been around for centuries and suddenly books were to pop up, everyone would look as books as bad. Kids can isolate themselves just as easily when reading books as they do with video games today. The first thought that came to my mind is my oh so wonderful brother. I thought back to the point of what my dad said about my brother's antisocial behavior. My brother was a warcrafts addict and for years we figured that Warcrafts or video games were the cause of his social isolation. After a while we started to realize and analyze that it may not be the video games, have we ever considered that it might just be him? No matter what my brother was addicted to, whether it was video games or reading (which he did a lot of if he did not have warcrafts) he would always find a way to isolate himself from everyone. And let me just mention that my brother is EXTREMELY smart. He was the "smarts" of the family, and I was seen as the rebellious "not as book smart" one which most people probably cannot imagine. But yes, my brother is a amazingly good reader, a great writer, a crazily quick problem solver, and yet he never helped me with any of my homework. There were things that my brother was able to analyze and notice that were way beyond anything I can comprehend. And yet he was an extreme slacker who just barely slipped by high school. So this just gets me thinking if video games is the cause for his amazing problem solving abilities since he takes so much time of his life "probing" and "telescoping" apparently. My brother would have been a great point for Johnsons book probably. Although it greatly effect his intelligence in a positive way it did however effect his values in a negative way. He was not very family oriented and was a huge slacker. Not to say names but this might probably connect to someone in class who is a huge Warcraft addict who is kind of a slacker as well. This is something that Johnson fails to bring up as most of his points are just showing the "good".
The excerpt about the television was agonizing for me to read, there was not much of a point that Johnson made that I kind of already knew. From what I skimmed it seemed that his few points was his comparison of television or what we see on a screen is much like a book. His idea talks about how we are able to identify certain emotions or identify certain character quickly and without really realizing when watching a movie or a show. Also how we do not actually notice certain things in movies and shows that would be most obvious with just a little more thought put into it. Just like a book, when reading sometimes we do not notice certain words or sections of the books has a message that is trying to be provoked. I kinda disagree with this as a television addict I do at most time critic and notice a lot of flaws or the bigger message being provoked in what I watch. I am a "picky watcher" as I might call it and just because I watch a lot of television and some programs as stupid or clever (and entertaining) as they seem I do not just flip through channels and just watch whatever comes up. I notice things to unrealistic or false points made to clever little messages. The fact that I am able to untangle television that I am able to a book is extremely sad, which is why I am trying to work on my reading skills. Maybe take what I can do when watching television and use it when reading a book. A book such like Feed. Although there were many things in Feed that I was not able to catch as well as Andy could obbvviouuuslyyy.
Compared to the book Feed this piece of literature definitely gives us digital leech suckers feel better about being so addicted to video games, television, and the Internet. Compared to Feed which attacks our need to be addicted to technology and shows the negative effects towards our health, environment, the way we interact, and the way we are able to figure out and understand predicaments. In a way Everything Bad is Good for you is like the total opposite of the main point of what Feed is trying to make. The main character of Feed, when reading about him from Johnson's lens he would most likely been seen as a really smart individual because of his ability to be able to adapt and his good understand of the technology that is dominantly surrounding his generation. Violet would be looked down upon for her inability to be able to adapt to the advanced Feed technology around is the cause to her downfall. But Violet on the other hand was able to think on a deeper level about how the Feed works, how it is programmed to send you advertisements based on your interests. She was able to notice these patterns without her knowledge and addiction to the Feed. So there two different lenses you can read Feed in. You can read Feed through Johnson's lens about how technology is actually a good thing, it helps our ability to learn, adapt, etc. or you can read Feed through Tobins lens where technology is most likely going to be the cause of our downfall.
So to rewind a little, when he first tells us to imagine if video games and such have been around for centuries and suddenly books were to pop up, everyone would look as books as bad. Kids can isolate themselves just as easily when reading books as they do with video games today. The first thought that came to my mind is my oh so wonderful brother. I thought back to the point of what my dad said about my brother's antisocial behavior. My brother was a warcrafts addict and for years we figured that Warcrafts or video games were the cause of his social isolation. After a while we started to realize and analyze that it may not be the video games, have we ever considered that it might just be him? No matter what my brother was addicted to, whether it was video games or reading (which he did a lot of if he did not have warcrafts) he would always find a way to isolate himself from everyone. And let me just mention that my brother is EXTREMELY smart. He was the "smarts" of the family, and I was seen as the rebellious "not as book smart" one which most people probably cannot imagine. But yes, my brother is a amazingly good reader, a great writer, a crazily quick problem solver, and yet he never helped me with any of my homework. There were things that my brother was able to analyze and notice that were way beyond anything I can comprehend. And yet he was an extreme slacker who just barely slipped by high school. So this just gets me thinking if video games is the cause for his amazing problem solving abilities since he takes so much time of his life "probing" and "telescoping" apparently. My brother would have been a great point for Johnsons book probably. Although it greatly effect his intelligence in a positive way it did however effect his values in a negative way. He was not very family oriented and was a huge slacker. Not to say names but this might probably connect to someone in class who is a huge Warcraft addict who is kind of a slacker as well. This is something that Johnson fails to bring up as most of his points are just showing the "good".
The excerpt about the television was agonizing for me to read, there was not much of a point that Johnson made that I kind of already knew. From what I skimmed it seemed that his few points was his comparison of television or what we see on a screen is much like a book. His idea talks about how we are able to identify certain emotions or identify certain character quickly and without really realizing when watching a movie or a show. Also how we do not actually notice certain things in movies and shows that would be most obvious with just a little more thought put into it. Just like a book, when reading sometimes we do not notice certain words or sections of the books has a message that is trying to be provoked. I kinda disagree with this as a television addict I do at most time critic and notice a lot of flaws or the bigger message being provoked in what I watch. I am a "picky watcher" as I might call it and just because I watch a lot of television and some programs as stupid or clever (and entertaining) as they seem I do not just flip through channels and just watch whatever comes up. I notice things to unrealistic or false points made to clever little messages. The fact that I am able to untangle television that I am able to a book is extremely sad, which is why I am trying to work on my reading skills. Maybe take what I can do when watching television and use it when reading a book. A book such like Feed. Although there were many things in Feed that I was not able to catch as well as Andy could obbvviouuuslyyy.
Compared to the book Feed this piece of literature definitely gives us digital leech suckers feel better about being so addicted to video games, television, and the Internet. Compared to Feed which attacks our need to be addicted to technology and shows the negative effects towards our health, environment, the way we interact, and the way we are able to figure out and understand predicaments. In a way Everything Bad is Good for you is like the total opposite of the main point of what Feed is trying to make. The main character of Feed, when reading about him from Johnson's lens he would most likely been seen as a really smart individual because of his ability to be able to adapt and his good understand of the technology that is dominantly surrounding his generation. Violet would be looked down upon for her inability to be able to adapt to the advanced Feed technology around is the cause to her downfall. But Violet on the other hand was able to think on a deeper level about how the Feed works, how it is programmed to send you advertisements based on your interests. She was able to notice these patterns without her knowledge and addiction to the Feed. So there two different lenses you can read Feed in. You can read Feed through Johnson's lens about how technology is actually a good thing, it helps our ability to learn, adapt, etc. or you can read Feed through Tobins lens where technology is most likely going to be the cause of our downfall.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Feed B
"Art is not a Mirror with which to reflect the World. It is a Hammer with which to shape it."
I think that there are definitely two types of artists like mentioned in class. Those who make art to try to be purposely be seen by other to make some sort of impact or significant thought. And those who make art and who do not care whether their art is seen or not by a significant amount of people. Those who do not want their art to be seen by a significant amount of people and do not care who takes notice to their art do not necessarily not want to make an impact with their creation. Why do we make art? There are several reason to this question but personally I think people make art to express a certain experience of the author of the art piece. For example sometimes when I paint or sketch, I am an artist who does not necessarily care if my art because famous and is seen by a large audience but I do still make art to express certain experience, to convey a message, thought, emotion, etc. I think the whole Art being a mirror hammer idea can be interpreted in many ways. The way I see it is that a Hammer is something that crushes and can drastically break or change something. How can you exactly break something that is already seen as broken or corrupt.
MT Andersons book feed can be seen as a art piece and the message that seems to be provoked is how damaged our society and the people living in it is by showing our society and how digitalization represented by their feeds as an allegory of our present living with our technology and effects from our digital lifestyles. I think the way the book is written in a point of view of a teenager using "teenage" language appeals to a more younger audience. But its story and message is not just about teenagers and their corruption from technology but how the adults are as well. How the adults are fed into their lifestyle using the feed and allow and basically feeding their kids and allowing them to live being addicted to their Feeds. Sounds much like how most adults raise their children today. Going back to the interviews a lot of the parents mentioned that they do not care how much digital stimulation their kids get and let them go on facebook and play games and such. Not care and letting them swim deeper into their lifestyles of surrounding themselves with technology. I know my dad is not stopping me from watching television and being on the computer everyday. This is where I think a mirror can definitely at times be a hammer. It may not always be affective as a hammer, actually making an impact quick and drastically. For example when I watched myself on the videos (even though it was not exactly a mirror) I was able to see and reflect what I actually look like when interacting with technology. In seeing myself I was able to think about how technology has really effected me and I can either just say "whatever" and not really use a hammer to fix the problem because I am okay with it or I can make a change and shape myself into something different, to something that would be "better". Writing this actually makes me reflect back on everything and makes me realize how addicting I am to a lot of the technology I have and how much time I spent on it.
I do not really want to reveal what I am doing for the second Final Project but I have some ideas. I do not know if it would try to be a mirror reflect MY perspective of our digital lifestyles. From those who do see my art piece when I do it I would like my mirror to be a hammer but you never know. It all depends on the audience who sees it.
I think that there are definitely two types of artists like mentioned in class. Those who make art to try to be purposely be seen by other to make some sort of impact or significant thought. And those who make art and who do not care whether their art is seen or not by a significant amount of people. Those who do not want their art to be seen by a significant amount of people and do not care who takes notice to their art do not necessarily not want to make an impact with their creation. Why do we make art? There are several reason to this question but personally I think people make art to express a certain experience of the author of the art piece. For example sometimes when I paint or sketch, I am an artist who does not necessarily care if my art because famous and is seen by a large audience but I do still make art to express certain experience, to convey a message, thought, emotion, etc. I think the whole Art being a mirror hammer idea can be interpreted in many ways. The way I see it is that a Hammer is something that crushes and can drastically break or change something. How can you exactly break something that is already seen as broken or corrupt.
MT Andersons book feed can be seen as a art piece and the message that seems to be provoked is how damaged our society and the people living in it is by showing our society and how digitalization represented by their feeds as an allegory of our present living with our technology and effects from our digital lifestyles. I think the way the book is written in a point of view of a teenager using "teenage" language appeals to a more younger audience. But its story and message is not just about teenagers and their corruption from technology but how the adults are as well. How the adults are fed into their lifestyle using the feed and allow and basically feeding their kids and allowing them to live being addicted to their Feeds. Sounds much like how most adults raise their children today. Going back to the interviews a lot of the parents mentioned that they do not care how much digital stimulation their kids get and let them go on facebook and play games and such. Not care and letting them swim deeper into their lifestyles of surrounding themselves with technology. I know my dad is not stopping me from watching television and being on the computer everyday. This is where I think a mirror can definitely at times be a hammer. It may not always be affective as a hammer, actually making an impact quick and drastically. For example when I watched myself on the videos (even though it was not exactly a mirror) I was able to see and reflect what I actually look like when interacting with technology. In seeing myself I was able to think about how technology has really effected me and I can either just say "whatever" and not really use a hammer to fix the problem because I am okay with it or I can make a change and shape myself into something different, to something that would be "better". Writing this actually makes me reflect back on everything and makes me realize how addicting I am to a lot of the technology I have and how much time I spent on it.
I do not really want to reveal what I am doing for the second Final Project but I have some ideas. I do not know if it would try to be a mirror reflect MY perspective of our digital lifestyles. From those who do see my art piece when I do it I would like my mirror to be a hammer but you never know. It all depends on the audience who sees it.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Feed A
First I would like to say that Feed was a good enough book that it kept my attention and has been the first book I have read and finished in a really really long time. :) Although it was quite depressing I really liked the creativity and the allegory of our society. I think that Anderson's allagory was quite successful and accurate in my opinion. This was based on certain parts/ sections during the book. It says a lot about the teenager life style and its association with technology. I mean for one we may not have computer chips planted in our brains.....yet but we do surround ourselves with digital devices probably twenty four hours, seven days a week. We even bring most of these devices around with us in our pockets or purses such as our ipods and cellphones. I know I do for sure and many of these technology just push corporate advertisements into my mind like crazy. I just can't imagine how many commercials I have watched this week let a lone my whole life living. Even on the computer we are drowned with pop ups and advertisments.
In class we spoke about how sometimes on the internet, while checking our emails there are advertisements on the side of the page that may be advertising something that may relate to whatever it is you are typing, as if it is highlighting your words. I have always noticed this but I never really thought about how weird this is. Weird wouldn't really be the right word, more like creepy. This reminded me the part of the book where Violet and Titus go around shopping for things they did not really want, their Feeds would read and advertise for things they seemed interested in. Also when Violet's Feed would ask her things like "It seems like you have not made a purchase on any of the things you have wanted, would you like some assistance with your shopping?" Something along those lines. It makes me thing about how private our emails really are. We have all these accounts for emails, myspace, facebook where we can make our profiles confidential with passwords but how confidential can it actually be when there are advertisements saying "Chloe, get your degree online now!" or something like that. Its weird that I have noticed that I have been getting a lot of advertisments for college and online school and such ever since senior year kicked in and I have been doing college apps and such. As I said...creeeppy. I guess this would kind of be like the Feed in the book where they are send corporate advertisements for stuff that are "in style". The hot new trend. We get our information from the internet and from the television.
The teenage lifestyle/ perspective in the book is very much life teenager lifestyle and the way teenagers converse and interact in real life. For example they use words like "meg" and "unit", as like we use hip words like "son", "yo", "ma nigga", or whatever slag words we use to converse to each other. Sometimes teenagers make it seem as if you didn't speak like this you would be shunned from the teenage social scene. I remember a few years ago I met someone (not going to say names or say their race but...), and while we were having a conversation he said "yo you talk laikee a white person sonnn." This was a few years ago and took me by surprise because I could never imagine someone being so ignorant. My thoughts were 1. I look more Chinese so I apparently should have some sort of chinatown accent where I couldn't pronounce my "L's" or 2. I ma nigga I aint speak laike diss. This is where I try not to follow teenage speech norms. I do not speak like a white person nor do i speak like an "unsocial teenager", I just speak proper English. Or I at least try to. But either way I still have friends and I still am social. So speaking slang as everyone else does does not necessarily make you seem like a total weirdo as Violet's speech seems to her fellow friends but the way the teenagers interact in the book is significantly similar to the way teenagers converse in real life.
We also try to fit in certain images that are depicting or are "in -style". For example I wear what either makes me look good but also what can be seen as in style. Something that will fish out compliments or be noticeable to people as needy and sad as it sounds. At least I am aware of this. People may not always style themselves exactly as it is shown through media but most of the time it is. When a new celebrity is wearing some sort of new shirt or new hairstyle most people try to imitate. I do not always imitate what I see a celebrity is wearing, doing, or styling but I do wear and style myself in a way that is noticeable and would be popularized plus most of the stuff I buy from stores, where do you thing those ideas of those clothes came from the first place? Thats right, the media. So I guess it would be contradicting to say I do not follow style that I see from the media and that is marketed.
Sometimes people wear and make themselves look ridiculous even when they do not notice, like when I wear polkodot leggings or panty hoes as Andy calls it (Although I kind of know they look weird). Sometimes people even wear things like shirts with certain symbols and words on it when they do not even understand the meaning of it. Like in St. Marks they sell shirts with Anarchy signs on it or peace signs, and I think for people who actually wear those shirts, do they even know the true meaning of these symbols. Luckily Andy taught a little about about the meaning of Anarchy last year. This is where it relates to when the group of kids in the book wore riot clothing/gear. They wore this type of clothing because apparently the Feed said it was in style but they did not even know what riots were in the first place or even why they were actually wearing them. I don't think they even know what riot gear looked like so they just guessed. People can be really ignorant when it comes to fitting a image using articles of clothing. I remember when Andy called my leggings "panty hoes" and the whole class laughed and said "there acutally called leggings". This relates to how ignorant people can be, people do not even know what the article of clothes are called because in fact my polkadot "leggins" are really called "panty hoes". Leggins are made from thick jersey fabric. Jokes on everyone else huh?
Also the lesions in the book were something I took notice to as well. I never really found out or understood what the lesions were all about in the book but it seemed like self infliction or something. I think maybe it was due to the fact of how unhealthy the people in the society were? It was odd because something as weird as a lesion started to become popular and something to show off in the book. In the book the group of kids would talk about their lesions and show it off to each other as if it was some cool new tattoo or piercing. It was most defeintly not related to a pimple because teenagers definitely do not go around showing each other how big our pimples are. There was a part in book when Titus was meeting Violet he describe what she was wearing and how it seemed she intentionally wore her skirt so low to show off her lesion on her hip. I use to have my lip pierced and a surface piercing on my cheek, it was really admired by many of my fellow friends and such but I ended up taking the one on my cheek even if it was seemed as cool of because i realized how bad it was for my skin. My skin started to reject the piece of metal. And I took out my lip piercing because it got annoying. Sometimes I think back and wonder why I would ever intentionally scar myself and why I would even intentionally get something that would annoy me. Although a lot of us wear things no matter how uncomfortable they are to fit an image. Ever since then people seem to have been getting more and more piercings from lip piercings to tongue piercings to even guageing their ears (which is stretching your earlobes). Which I must say that tongue piercings really freak me out. Tattoos are all the rage as well, making our body canvases for art work. Some people have tattoos of something meaningful like of something they sketched or something they wrote as other just get simple things that are not as meaningful such as stars, hearts or doves. Some old lady once said to me "Our bodies are art, we do not have to cover our art with others art." Some random old lady on the street. It makes me wonder why people would go to such great heights as to do self infliction to fit into a certain image. This is one thing about the image of teenagers that the author of Feed definitely had significantly correct.
ANOTHER things noticed by many of us was the scene in the book where Violet is informed by Titus's father that all the trees at a park was cut down to built a air factory. This was really amusing but depressing since trees are a source of air to earth. Plus they are really pretty and nice. This relates to how society, especially New York for they do keep cutting down so many trees for unnecessary reasons. For example around my block which is a pretty big block they cut down all the trees that were around the perimeter. They were really nice trees and made my neighborhood feel a little nicer as well. Unfortunately it is a shame because they chopped the all and they did not even have a good reason im sure since all they did was cover over the dirt with black concrete. This really upset me cause now my block looks like shit. Although in the book they seem to not give a shit about trees or any natural resource at least there are those in real life who are trying to make a difference in bringing back those trees that were chopped. When I sit on the subway I see those adds about "300,000" trees were planted, be a good neighbor and plant a tree in your yard. Or something along those lines. At least our whole society is not a fully lost cause. Although cutting down trees to make air, it sounds like using natural resources to make "artificially natural resources" like using up energy to make more energy, that is just dumb.
The last thing was the School with the "Tm". How the schools were owned by corporate businesses or something. I remember when in the book Titus spoke about how great and wonderful school is now that some guy bought the schools out and that they are being taught more useful things like how to get good buys on there Feed. I mean our schools are not really run by corporate business but I most of the time our we are not really being taught anything that is greatly significant or eye opening that could relate to us outside of school. This is why when I first experienced Andy's class is was something completely different, refreshing to finally learn about something that matters. I mean I do not exactly use the quadratic formula when I'm living my daily routine. At least even if the school if Feed is completely brainwashing and are being taught stupid things at least it relates to their lifestyles and daily routine. This makes me want to bring up how my boyfriend keeps telling me how crappy and how waste of classes his college could be because he found out that there is a class called "How to Text". This was actually quite amusing to me as well since he told me that it is a legit class that you can get credits for. As if they just needed something to fill in a space during schedules. Although as sad as it is texting is something that has dominated most of society, so would you say it is bad to learn how to do it? Like in the book, is it necessarily bad if the whole society is corrupted and they seem to not really want to take notice. The whole society in Feed are so ignorant, brainwashed, and corrupted but at the same time they all seem pretty fulfilled and happy with it. So should they be forced to cal it a bad thing, should they be forced to try to break their lifestyle? It is life everyone in real life with their digital experiences. I get the kick out of watching television, people like being on facebook and projecting a certain image and talking on their phones, and texting, etc. So if it makes us happy, should be give it up? This is one reason why I think people will never want to give up their digital lifestyles no matter how bad they know it is for them. For example Juliette mentioned she was going to get a black berry, even though she knew it would probably one day give her cancer since it had the highest radiation. But she still was going to get one, despite the risks she could get in the future. She wanted it because it makes her happy, it helps complete her imagine whatever it was. so my finally few thoughts are what would be that if it makes us happy, why give it up? And what would it REALLY take to make us realize and want to give it up? I mean we already know the consequences and how fake certain things in society is, mainly digital technology and such. What else would it take?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Digital Experimentssssssssss
No Digital Stimulation
This was a little tough to do. I turned off my television and my computer for around 6 to 7 hours tops until I finally went to bed. Writing this blog is finally the time I got back on my computer and watching television again. I was at the MoMa all day till around 6 where I am starting my next experiment of forced digital stimulation. For the lack of digital stimulation experiment I found it quite irritating for I was so use to being able to watch television and go on the computer whenever I get the slightest bit bored. Even when I am just watching television and i get bored of that I can go on my computer for a different type of digital stimulation. The fact that I had nothing digital to stimulate me I felt so bored. I eat so much food as we all know (thus reminding me of the food unit) of how we eat food to help quench boredom. Besides stuffing up my boredom with snacks I sat and lay on my bed for about 30 minutes just thinking about stuff. Random things like life, school, relationships, funny things, memories.
I also sketched a little which is somewhat my hobby but I do not do it as much mainly because there are other things like the television to "excite" me and keep me company. So this was a positive of having no digital stimulation, I do certain things that I enjoy and do more useful things. I would have most likely done homework but there wasn't any which made it even more boring. I attempted to snoop around like a sad puppy for some social interaction. I followed my dad around the apartment a little while he was cooking food and talking to his girlfriend on the computer. I poked him and asked him random question and asked him to tell me stories about my childhood. I ended up annoying him so he kicked me out. :) It was fun while it lasted. I also took a long hot shower which felt really soothing. Usually i take quick showers so I don't miss much of the program that I am watching on television.
Although I was not that bored to the point where I went insane or did random chores like mop the floor and clean the dishes. I think this was mainly because I knew that eventually I would end up using these digital devices again. I just needed to suck it up for the rest of the night. I kept on looking at the time a lot as well. Time seemed to go slower when you do not know what to do and when digital devices are not there to distract you. I think that there were good and kind of bad things about not having digital stimulation. or maybe this is how it feels when trying to cure any addiction at all. It feel uncomfortable, like something is missing. Although in the end if we really stick to it we can get use to it and adapt to it like we adapted to using a lot of digital devices.
In the morning I had more trouble waking up which is quite strange since I went to bed pretty early. I kept on touching the snooze button and kept telling myself to give it 5 more minutes. I am not sure if this is caused by the experiment from the night before or if it was a Thursday and I knew that school was going to be a half day. Maybe the lack of digital stimulation caused myself to be more relaxed and made it more comfortable to sleep? After school I did not run home to get on the computer and watch television mainly because it was a Thursday and because I guess I was kind of getting content with the fact of not being digital stimulated at all. This is when I decided randomly to go to the MoMa just because I always wanted to go. And I must say it was really cool. :) So I thought this whole few hour experience was pretty interesting. Would I do it again? Probably not unless I had a really good reason. I know it sounds sad but its hard to resist when the television and computer is sitting right in front of me majority of the day as if its begging "chloe chloe! Help me! Press the power button! Do it.. dooooo itttttttt......" Although if something were to happen to my home where it blows up and i loose all my digital possessions, would I be able to adapt to living without them? It may take a while but probably yes.
Here are pictures from the MoMa. Thought I should share them because it was really awsome.
This one is my favorite, the guy who did this had a daughter that died and as you can see the pink and cute hearts, starts, and bears with the chains, gates, and barbed wire shows how he is chained and locked him emotions and cannot let go of the fact that he lost his daughter. :(
This one is basically saying that the only person who can help you is yourself. The red cross represents help and the mirror reflects you.
This one is about the loss of a pregnancy. Its like an egg being broken by a long prong like things.
And this is all the cool stuff I saw which is the benefit of being outside instead of being inside and being in front of the television.
This was a little tough to do. I turned off my television and my computer for around 6 to 7 hours tops until I finally went to bed. Writing this blog is finally the time I got back on my computer and watching television again. I was at the MoMa all day till around 6 where I am starting my next experiment of forced digital stimulation. For the lack of digital stimulation experiment I found it quite irritating for I was so use to being able to watch television and go on the computer whenever I get the slightest bit bored. Even when I am just watching television and i get bored of that I can go on my computer for a different type of digital stimulation. The fact that I had nothing digital to stimulate me I felt so bored. I eat so much food as we all know (thus reminding me of the food unit) of how we eat food to help quench boredom. Besides stuffing up my boredom with snacks I sat and lay on my bed for about 30 minutes just thinking about stuff. Random things like life, school, relationships, funny things, memories.
I also sketched a little which is somewhat my hobby but I do not do it as much mainly because there are other things like the television to "excite" me and keep me company. So this was a positive of having no digital stimulation, I do certain things that I enjoy and do more useful things. I would have most likely done homework but there wasn't any which made it even more boring. I attempted to snoop around like a sad puppy for some social interaction. I followed my dad around the apartment a little while he was cooking food and talking to his girlfriend on the computer. I poked him and asked him random question and asked him to tell me stories about my childhood. I ended up annoying him so he kicked me out. :) It was fun while it lasted. I also took a long hot shower which felt really soothing. Usually i take quick showers so I don't miss much of the program that I am watching on television.
Although I was not that bored to the point where I went insane or did random chores like mop the floor and clean the dishes. I think this was mainly because I knew that eventually I would end up using these digital devices again. I just needed to suck it up for the rest of the night. I kept on looking at the time a lot as well. Time seemed to go slower when you do not know what to do and when digital devices are not there to distract you. I think that there were good and kind of bad things about not having digital stimulation. or maybe this is how it feels when trying to cure any addiction at all. It feel uncomfortable, like something is missing. Although in the end if we really stick to it we can get use to it and adapt to it like we adapted to using a lot of digital devices.
In the morning I had more trouble waking up which is quite strange since I went to bed pretty early. I kept on touching the snooze button and kept telling myself to give it 5 more minutes. I am not sure if this is caused by the experiment from the night before or if it was a Thursday and I knew that school was going to be a half day. Maybe the lack of digital stimulation caused myself to be more relaxed and made it more comfortable to sleep? After school I did not run home to get on the computer and watch television mainly because it was a Thursday and because I guess I was kind of getting content with the fact of not being digital stimulated at all. This is when I decided randomly to go to the MoMa just because I always wanted to go. And I must say it was really cool. :) So I thought this whole few hour experience was pretty interesting. Would I do it again? Probably not unless I had a really good reason. I know it sounds sad but its hard to resist when the television and computer is sitting right in front of me majority of the day as if its begging "chloe chloe! Help me! Press the power button! Do it.. dooooo itttttttt......" Although if something were to happen to my home where it blows up and i loose all my digital possessions, would I be able to adapt to living without them? It may take a while but probably yes.
Here are pictures from the MoMa. Thought I should share them because it was really awsome.
This one is my favorite, the guy who did this had a daughter that died and as you can see the pink and cute hearts, starts, and bears with the chains, gates, and barbed wire shows how he is chained and locked him emotions and cannot let go of the fact that he lost his daughter. :(
This one is basically saying that the only person who can help you is yourself. The red cross represents help and the mirror reflects you.
This one is about the loss of a pregnancy. Its like an egg being broken by a long prong like things.
And this is all the cool stuff I saw which is the benefit of being outside instead of being inside and being in front of the television.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
10- Informal Internet Research
http://www.trashyourtv.com/node/391
The most interesting part of this research piece was the estimated calculations for how much time we spend actually just sitting in front of the television. Just sitting and watching. I really liked this article because it stated to forget about all the symptoms, effects, disabilities, etc. that a person may undergo when watching so much television. Instead to just think about the basic thing which is time. The time we waste when just sitting there and watching. And what we could be doing in that time wasted. The article states "ow many of society's problems could have been fixed with that absurd amount of time." The article does not get in depth with what society could solve but it makes me wonder. I kind of feel like without some television society would not really be able to be informed of the problems that society actually faces.
In the end it says to think about what it would be like if suddenly the whole world or you yourself stops watching television and needed to live on without it. This would be really hard to adapt to since for me I have already been so adapted to watching television. As Andy said, television to me is like a "digital pacifier". It calms me, I watch it sometimes before I go to bed, when I just want to spend time a lone on my coach. Although thinking about this Internet article thing I do think about how much television I watch and what I could be doing at that time. Sometimes I find myself glued the a good movie or series on television saying to myself "its okay, as soon as this show is over I will finish my homework" or "clean my room" or whatever stuff I need to be doing. Even when I say this it never actually is true as hours and hours of television go by and I end up doing my homework or picking out what I am wearing for the next day at the last minute right before I go to bed. So I do at times think that television does definitely take away time that I could be using to be more proficient but not only that it is like a digital distraction from doing more use full things.
http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/may04/npr_may04_excessiveTV.html
This internet research piece is basically about televisions effects on children. This is something that for some reason i always here but never in depth. This talks about how television probably causes ADHD in children when they watch television at a young age, it effects them at a later age. That television "may promote inattention" to children. I do not really know if this article is entirely true based on my past exposure to television. This is the wonderful story of when I discovered cartoons:
When I was younger and was growing up in Hong Kong my parents usually left us (my brother and I) at home with the nanny or the babysitter. As children we did not like watching the news or movie channels because they were boring and we didn't understand it. All we wanted to watch was cartoons, cartoons were the only thing that sparked any amusement. Although the only cartoon we were able to watch was this crappy little kids cartoon that ended at around 4pm or 5pm and told us in Chinese that it was time to go to bed. Every time it would be that time in the day and the shitty Chinese cartoons would cut off and the grown up news and movies would come on we would just sit around and play with our toys and whatever there was to do. We never were really disappointed when it ended anyways for the fact that it played the same thing everyday. So one day (i remember so clearly) when i was maybe 6 or 7 years old after the crappy Chinese cartoons had ended I was playing around with something I never touch....THE REMOTE. I was playing around with the channels and pushed the buttons and coincidentally pushed the channel 22 (sad that i even remember the channel). And that was the day I discovered CARTOON NETWORK. I swear I still remember the feeling I got when saw the vivid flashes of light and the American cartoons speaking on the big box in front of me. The first thing I did was put on a big smiled and screamed for my brother "JOSH!! I FOUND CARTOON NETWORK!" And ever since then all we ever did was watch cartoon network as if we were worshipping it. Thinking back on this I did not grow up with ADHD like the article said I probably would. Although in the article it states that children from 1-3 would be effected at the age of 7. And since I did not start worshipping the television like a true American since I was 7 I wonder, will it not effect me till a later age? I mean I am already 18 and I think I am pretty attentive with my surroundings and I am pretty good my school work. So for this reason I think in some cases this article can be complete bull. Unless there is something about me that I am not aware of. Although this could be the reason why I am so addicted to the television and how it is like a "digital pacifier" for me to relax and be in my own world but not sure about it actually causing ADHD or being less inattentive.
My blogs are looking too wordy and felt like making it feel better to the eyes by putting up a picture. I didn't have any ideas for picture so here is just a picture of my brother. I think we do not look anything alike. Hes is such a obsessive Warcraft nerd. I miss him! :) (thats Hong Kong in the background by the way)
http://www.tuvie.com/
This to me was by far the most interesting site. I guess mainly because it is refreshing to see how technology or how people are using technology to "better" the world or more specifically the environment. I am not really sure how accurate and for real the things on the sight is but at least it is different then all the "technology sucks and we are all rotting" talk. I wonder if in the future we are actually going to use our advanced technology to help the environment and our health rather then our personal needs. For example in this site (if you scroll down enough) it has a small little paragraph about how there is a new advanced air purifier system known as the "Oxygen of Green". It apparently ensures fresh air inside our houses if we get one. It also talks about a Eco-friendly bike. As if bikes weren't already Eco friendly enough compared to cars.
All this stuff sounds so great but it still sort of puzzles me. For example is the "Eco friendly bike". I mean should they be making more Eco- friendly cars? If you read the small paragraph about the bike it does not mention anything about how it helps the environment. You would think it spits out purified air like the "Oxygen of Green". But again it mainly talks about how it will make traveling and bike riding easier. Everything must be easier! That is for some reason the way of American living. Faster and easier to get your food, easier way to travel instead of walking and riding the traditional way, flushing your toilet easier, talking to your friends easier, etc. I feel like sometimes companies use this whole manipulative concept at times about how their product is not a "bad technology" and actually helps our environment or our health but in reality it is just another way for you to buy buy buy.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/392672/how_technology_and_science_has_made.html?cat=15
This article was really fun to read for me. This article relates to a lot of my ideas and feelings about technology. I too think that there is a device and not even just a device but some sort of supplement to make anything easier. Although technology as a more focused subject, I think it is definitely making us lazy. And whether this is a good or bad thing I have to state that I can be a big hypocrite at times and I think everyone can be! I say that technology makes us lazy and takes away our ability to gain further knowledge at times but do I really want to give away my fast searching internet? Probably not...
This reminds me of the fact that sometimes people can be in denial with how much time they spend being digital stimulated. They feel as if it is a bad thing to be on their computers, phones, etc. for hours. And whether this is probably true they do not have any idea of why so the most common thing is probably to deny it or admit it and pretend to think of it highly. I know I can be a huge hypocrite at times. At times I think technology is making us all fat blobs (like the article stated) but I do not think I would give it up for something hard, this is mainly because I am too afraid to adapt to living without technology. Living the non-easy way. And other times I just try to think highly of technology to hide the fact that it is bad. "Technology is the greatest things on earth, how else can I shop without having to actually walk on foot from store to store?". In the article it states we even do internet banking, shipping, etc. It almost gives us no reason to go outside and see sun light ever again.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/is-social-networking-killing-you/
The title of this is a little dramatic but the main point is that social networking sites is to vast for our tiny little brains to handle. Our brains are use to one environment to be able to socialize directly but social networking provides a whole different environment to socializing indirectly. I thought this article was somewhat interesting because it actually had effects on the brain itself and using that information how it effects outside our brains and the way we act. The lady in the article compared social networking to be a lot like video games(The lady is also shown talking in the video and she has a funny accent). Although this article is filled with fancy scientific reasoning I still feel like it's main point is like every other idea about social networking... that it takes away our time from doing something more significant like direct socializing. In the article it states "The time we spend socializing electronically separates us from our physical networks." This is basically all the main ideas I had or anyone else had about social networking.
Also it talks about how it may physical be hurting us due to the fact that we probably spent most of the knight on social networking sites. I myself must admit at times i find myself staying up late chatting with people or looking at people's facebook's or whatever. Thus causing me to loose sleep which effects my body physically and mentally. So in some ways maybe its dramatic title "Is social networking kill you?" kind of true.
http://accessories.ifrogz.com/109/technology-isolation-syndrome/
This was pretty cool because I learned that apparently the top 20 words that teenagers tend to use most, especially in texting or chatting online includes "yeah, no, but, and like." Kind wish it was something more intelligent but they are common words to be used in a lot of sentences. Although these seem like cute facts it kind of scares me in a way because it talks about a teenager's vocabulary today includes 12,600 words as an average adult present day had a vocabulary of 21,400 words. Thats a pretty big difference but could that small set of vocabulary stick? This article talks about how the lack of vocabulary skills and communication skills can be noticed in workplaces and even on telephone calls. I feel at times this can be true for me.
In my opinion I think I do not have enough vocabulary or communication skills. At times on the phone I have a hard time telephone calls (especially professional ones) properly or even speaking in front of "professional" people in a well mannered way. I mean sometimes I feel it can be caused by nerves (depending on the situation) but at times I think I just do not quite know what to say. The article states that "Kids need to get talking and develop their vocabulary". I think this over at maybe this is true. The fact that instead of speaking directly we depend mainly on texting and chatting online where our vocabulary ( i know this is very true for a lot of people, especially in school because I have spoken to many of you online before) includes "lol", "Lmao", "wtf", which are not even full words. They are basically abbreviations. This makes me want to actually at least write properly on texts if I am not willing to speak to people directly properly.
The most interesting part of this research piece was the estimated calculations for how much time we spend actually just sitting in front of the television. Just sitting and watching. I really liked this article because it stated to forget about all the symptoms, effects, disabilities, etc. that a person may undergo when watching so much television. Instead to just think about the basic thing which is time. The time we waste when just sitting there and watching. And what we could be doing in that time wasted. The article states "ow many of society's problems could have been fixed with that absurd amount of time." The article does not get in depth with what society could solve but it makes me wonder. I kind of feel like without some television society would not really be able to be informed of the problems that society actually faces.
In the end it says to think about what it would be like if suddenly the whole world or you yourself stops watching television and needed to live on without it. This would be really hard to adapt to since for me I have already been so adapted to watching television. As Andy said, television to me is like a "digital pacifier". It calms me, I watch it sometimes before I go to bed, when I just want to spend time a lone on my coach. Although thinking about this Internet article thing I do think about how much television I watch and what I could be doing at that time. Sometimes I find myself glued the a good movie or series on television saying to myself "its okay, as soon as this show is over I will finish my homework" or "clean my room" or whatever stuff I need to be doing. Even when I say this it never actually is true as hours and hours of television go by and I end up doing my homework or picking out what I am wearing for the next day at the last minute right before I go to bed. So I do at times think that television does definitely take away time that I could be using to be more proficient but not only that it is like a digital distraction from doing more use full things.
http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/may04/npr_may04_excessiveTV.html
This internet research piece is basically about televisions effects on children. This is something that for some reason i always here but never in depth. This talks about how television probably causes ADHD in children when they watch television at a young age, it effects them at a later age. That television "may promote inattention" to children. I do not really know if this article is entirely true based on my past exposure to television. This is the wonderful story of when I discovered cartoons:
When I was younger and was growing up in Hong Kong my parents usually left us (my brother and I) at home with the nanny or the babysitter. As children we did not like watching the news or movie channels because they were boring and we didn't understand it. All we wanted to watch was cartoons, cartoons were the only thing that sparked any amusement. Although the only cartoon we were able to watch was this crappy little kids cartoon that ended at around 4pm or 5pm and told us in Chinese that it was time to go to bed. Every time it would be that time in the day and the shitty Chinese cartoons would cut off and the grown up news and movies would come on we would just sit around and play with our toys and whatever there was to do. We never were really disappointed when it ended anyways for the fact that it played the same thing everyday. So one day (i remember so clearly) when i was maybe 6 or 7 years old after the crappy Chinese cartoons had ended I was playing around with something I never touch....THE REMOTE. I was playing around with the channels and pushed the buttons and coincidentally pushed the channel 22 (sad that i even remember the channel). And that was the day I discovered CARTOON NETWORK. I swear I still remember the feeling I got when saw the vivid flashes of light and the American cartoons speaking on the big box in front of me. The first thing I did was put on a big smiled and screamed for my brother "JOSH!! I FOUND CARTOON NETWORK!" And ever since then all we ever did was watch cartoon network as if we were worshipping it. Thinking back on this I did not grow up with ADHD like the article said I probably would. Although in the article it states that children from 1-3 would be effected at the age of 7. And since I did not start worshipping the television like a true American since I was 7 I wonder, will it not effect me till a later age? I mean I am already 18 and I think I am pretty attentive with my surroundings and I am pretty good my school work. So for this reason I think in some cases this article can be complete bull. Unless there is something about me that I am not aware of. Although this could be the reason why I am so addicted to the television and how it is like a "digital pacifier" for me to relax and be in my own world but not sure about it actually causing ADHD or being less inattentive.
My blogs are looking too wordy and felt like making it feel better to the eyes by putting up a picture. I didn't have any ideas for picture so here is just a picture of my brother. I think we do not look anything alike. Hes is such a obsessive Warcraft nerd. I miss him! :) (thats Hong Kong in the background by the way)
http://www.tuvie.com/
This to me was by far the most interesting site. I guess mainly because it is refreshing to see how technology or how people are using technology to "better" the world or more specifically the environment. I am not really sure how accurate and for real the things on the sight is but at least it is different then all the "technology sucks and we are all rotting" talk. I wonder if in the future we are actually going to use our advanced technology to help the environment and our health rather then our personal needs. For example in this site (if you scroll down enough) it has a small little paragraph about how there is a new advanced air purifier system known as the "Oxygen of Green". It apparently ensures fresh air inside our houses if we get one. It also talks about a Eco-friendly bike. As if bikes weren't already Eco friendly enough compared to cars.
All this stuff sounds so great but it still sort of puzzles me. For example is the "Eco friendly bike". I mean should they be making more Eco- friendly cars? If you read the small paragraph about the bike it does not mention anything about how it helps the environment. You would think it spits out purified air like the "Oxygen of Green". But again it mainly talks about how it will make traveling and bike riding easier. Everything must be easier! That is for some reason the way of American living. Faster and easier to get your food, easier way to travel instead of walking and riding the traditional way, flushing your toilet easier, talking to your friends easier, etc. I feel like sometimes companies use this whole manipulative concept at times about how their product is not a "bad technology" and actually helps our environment or our health but in reality it is just another way for you to buy buy buy.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/392672/how_technology_and_science_has_made.html?cat=15
This article was really fun to read for me. This article relates to a lot of my ideas and feelings about technology. I too think that there is a device and not even just a device but some sort of supplement to make anything easier. Although technology as a more focused subject, I think it is definitely making us lazy. And whether this is a good or bad thing I have to state that I can be a big hypocrite at times and I think everyone can be! I say that technology makes us lazy and takes away our ability to gain further knowledge at times but do I really want to give away my fast searching internet? Probably not...
This reminds me of the fact that sometimes people can be in denial with how much time they spend being digital stimulated. They feel as if it is a bad thing to be on their computers, phones, etc. for hours. And whether this is probably true they do not have any idea of why so the most common thing is probably to deny it or admit it and pretend to think of it highly. I know I can be a huge hypocrite at times. At times I think technology is making us all fat blobs (like the article stated) but I do not think I would give it up for something hard, this is mainly because I am too afraid to adapt to living without technology. Living the non-easy way. And other times I just try to think highly of technology to hide the fact that it is bad. "Technology is the greatest things on earth, how else can I shop without having to actually walk on foot from store to store?". In the article it states we even do internet banking, shipping, etc. It almost gives us no reason to go outside and see sun light ever again.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/is-social-networking-killing-you/
The title of this is a little dramatic but the main point is that social networking sites is to vast for our tiny little brains to handle. Our brains are use to one environment to be able to socialize directly but social networking provides a whole different environment to socializing indirectly. I thought this article was somewhat interesting because it actually had effects on the brain itself and using that information how it effects outside our brains and the way we act. The lady in the article compared social networking to be a lot like video games(The lady is also shown talking in the video and she has a funny accent). Although this article is filled with fancy scientific reasoning I still feel like it's main point is like every other idea about social networking... that it takes away our time from doing something more significant like direct socializing. In the article it states "The time we spend socializing electronically separates us from our physical networks." This is basically all the main ideas I had or anyone else had about social networking.
Also it talks about how it may physical be hurting us due to the fact that we probably spent most of the knight on social networking sites. I myself must admit at times i find myself staying up late chatting with people or looking at people's facebook's or whatever. Thus causing me to loose sleep which effects my body physically and mentally. So in some ways maybe its dramatic title "Is social networking kill you?" kind of true.
http://accessories.ifrogz.com/109/technology-isolation-syndrome/
This was pretty cool because I learned that apparently the top 20 words that teenagers tend to use most, especially in texting or chatting online includes "yeah, no, but, and like." Kind wish it was something more intelligent but they are common words to be used in a lot of sentences. Although these seem like cute facts it kind of scares me in a way because it talks about a teenager's vocabulary today includes 12,600 words as an average adult present day had a vocabulary of 21,400 words. Thats a pretty big difference but could that small set of vocabulary stick? This article talks about how the lack of vocabulary skills and communication skills can be noticed in workplaces and even on telephone calls. I feel at times this can be true for me.
In my opinion I think I do not have enough vocabulary or communication skills. At times on the phone I have a hard time telephone calls (especially professional ones) properly or even speaking in front of "professional" people in a well mannered way. I mean sometimes I feel it can be caused by nerves (depending on the situation) but at times I think I just do not quite know what to say. The article states that "Kids need to get talking and develop their vocabulary". I think this over at maybe this is true. The fact that instead of speaking directly we depend mainly on texting and chatting online where our vocabulary ( i know this is very true for a lot of people, especially in school because I have spoken to many of you online before) includes "lol", "Lmao", "wtf", which are not even full words. They are basically abbreviations. This makes me want to actually at least write properly on texts if I am not willing to speak to people directly properly.
HW9 Returnd Triangle Comments on Videos
Back At Yazmin's Comment
Hello Yazzy.
Thank you for your lovely manner on the way you comment on my posts :)
And thank you for all the points you noticed on my video and how long your comment is. I appreciate that you took the time to write all this for my post.
I really liked point in the comment about what would be so bad about actually have to be social with a stranger and have a conversation with someone I do not know. I mean I have had small encounters with speaking with strangers but they all turn out to be so awkward because I end up not knowing what to do or say. Your point really made me realize, what is so bad about this? I never really took the time to think and wonder what is the worst that could turn up to happen with just saying something friendly to a stranger. I guess our society as well as I is so adapted to your antisocial train rides that we forget all about our social skills or how to be friendly.
You stated that I noticed how I am not willing to change these typical daily routines with my digital devices. I guess it is not really the fact that I refuse to change, it is just that I have not been given a reason to. Maybe this unit will like every other of Andy's Unit has but for now I hear all this babbling about how "technology rots our brain", "we get addicted", yada, yada, yada. That is not really a good enough reason for me to change my digital expectations. Although your question/ point about what could be so bad about taking away my ipod force field from the socializing world really did make me think about changing my way of hiding from socializing with strangers. I mean I will not end up saying hi to every stranger on the train, that is how girls my age end up getting sexual molested or something. Maybe instead I will read a book or something because my ipod shielding does not seem to be as effective since in my video I just look so uncomfortable.
I feel like we both have some sort of the same lifestyle with our digital devices. We may have different reasons for the different devices that we have but I think in a bigger picture we are all still painting...just with different colors. Meaning that we all have our different reasons to be digital involved with our technological devices but in general we still use technology for our own personal reasons. We both have similar points about people's social skills and the fact is that no one really wants to omit to changes.
I wonder if you and I may be able to put down our digital protection without feeling vulnerable. But what is it that we are so afraid of? I feel as it maybe it is not direct socialization but maybe something else, it could just be because "everybody is doing it"? Maybe it a generation thing, like a style? Like new clothes, everybody has to have the newest technology and with the newest technology comes with the newest slang/ attitude.
I took it upon myself to get someone else to comment on my video so here is my comment on Samantha C's comment on my video:
Hey Sammie,
Thanks so much for doing me this favor and commenting on video. I really appreciate it since were both seniors, sticking it out for each other to do good this year :)
I think that your right about extending the section of the video of me on my sidekick. At that moment I was actually on aim talking to someone. I should have showed me texting as well, or using it to type up homework online or offline. I would have gotten more analysis probably if I done so to see my reactions and such to the different ways I used my phone.
I always thought that I was just so in zoned because I used my cell phone for like communicating to people digitally but i almost forgot completely that sometimes I use the internet on my phone to complete homework. I usually use it to do homework for Andy's classes on the blogs. I guess this is a way that my cell phone actually does benefit me. Although how could i forget how it benefits me and just think about how I become disembodied (new Andy vocab :)) while I'm using my phone.
I think that your view of my video of being "unique" and "funky" and although that could be the kind of person I am perceived as (which is not bad) but I didn't really try to perceive my video as unique and funky. I would have put some music and some cooler scenes if I tried but the main thing I tried to show was just my me on my digital devices, no hoax, no music, no cool digital effects.
Thanks for relating to me about the whole ipod deal on the train to avoid awkward occurrences. I think that is one thing we have in common. I guess one thing we can both think about is why? Why are we so afraid of awkward occurrences? I have a little of an idea and am trying to think about this topic a little more but what about you? What are some reason you may have for pretending to do something on the train to avoid nonsense?
Hello Yazzy.
Thank you for your lovely manner on the way you comment on my posts :)
And thank you for all the points you noticed on my video and how long your comment is. I appreciate that you took the time to write all this for my post.
I really liked point in the comment about what would be so bad about actually have to be social with a stranger and have a conversation with someone I do not know. I mean I have had small encounters with speaking with strangers but they all turn out to be so awkward because I end up not knowing what to do or say. Your point really made me realize, what is so bad about this? I never really took the time to think and wonder what is the worst that could turn up to happen with just saying something friendly to a stranger. I guess our society as well as I is so adapted to your antisocial train rides that we forget all about our social skills or how to be friendly.
You stated that I noticed how I am not willing to change these typical daily routines with my digital devices. I guess it is not really the fact that I refuse to change, it is just that I have not been given a reason to. Maybe this unit will like every other of Andy's Unit has but for now I hear all this babbling about how "technology rots our brain", "we get addicted", yada, yada, yada. That is not really a good enough reason for me to change my digital expectations. Although your question/ point about what could be so bad about taking away my ipod force field from the socializing world really did make me think about changing my way of hiding from socializing with strangers. I mean I will not end up saying hi to every stranger on the train, that is how girls my age end up getting sexual molested or something. Maybe instead I will read a book or something because my ipod shielding does not seem to be as effective since in my video I just look so uncomfortable.
I feel like we both have some sort of the same lifestyle with our digital devices. We may have different reasons for the different devices that we have but I think in a bigger picture we are all still painting...just with different colors. Meaning that we all have our different reasons to be digital involved with our technological devices but in general we still use technology for our own personal reasons. We both have similar points about people's social skills and the fact is that no one really wants to omit to changes.
I wonder if you and I may be able to put down our digital protection without feeling vulnerable. But what is it that we are so afraid of? I feel as it maybe it is not direct socialization but maybe something else, it could just be because "everybody is doing it"? Maybe it a generation thing, like a style? Like new clothes, everybody has to have the newest technology and with the newest technology comes with the newest slang/ attitude.
I took it upon myself to get someone else to comment on my video so here is my comment on Samantha C's comment on my video:
Hey Sammie,
Thanks so much for doing me this favor and commenting on video. I really appreciate it since were both seniors, sticking it out for each other to do good this year :)
I think that your right about extending the section of the video of me on my sidekick. At that moment I was actually on aim talking to someone. I should have showed me texting as well, or using it to type up homework online or offline. I would have gotten more analysis probably if I done so to see my reactions and such to the different ways I used my phone.
I always thought that I was just so in zoned because I used my cell phone for like communicating to people digitally but i almost forgot completely that sometimes I use the internet on my phone to complete homework. I usually use it to do homework for Andy's classes on the blogs. I guess this is a way that my cell phone actually does benefit me. Although how could i forget how it benefits me and just think about how I become disembodied (new Andy vocab :)) while I'm using my phone.
I think that your view of my video of being "unique" and "funky" and although that could be the kind of person I am perceived as (which is not bad) but I didn't really try to perceive my video as unique and funky. I would have put some music and some cooler scenes if I tried but the main thing I tried to show was just my me on my digital devices, no hoax, no music, no cool digital effects.
Thanks for relating to me about the whole ipod deal on the train to avoid awkward occurrences. I think that is one thing we have in common. I guess one thing we can both think about is why? Why are we so afraid of awkward occurrences? I have a little of an idea and am trying to think about this topic a little more but what about you? What are some reason you may have for pretending to do something on the train to avoid nonsense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
