I found Turkle's discussion of video game addiction particularly interesting in light of what I have found teaching freshman comp for 10 years.
One of the papers I had my developmental students write was on the causes of the decreasing motivation among college students. I had them begin by reading a 1996 article (maybe old, but NOT dated) from U.S. News and World Report titled "No Books Please, (sic.) We're Students." After establishing that a UCLA study and professors across the country indicated college freshmen were increasingly uninterested in doing any academic work whatsoever, we discussed why students are less motivated than they were in even the 1980s. Several factors came up semester after semester over the course of nine years: soft high school requirements that allowed students to "earn" good grades without doing anything at all, too many responsibilities (which, of course, ignored the fact that the most motivated students were the non-traditional students who had REAL responsibilites outside the classroom) and -- always -- video games.
Video/computer games are VERY addictive. No, they aren't physically addictive. Neither is marijuana. But people keep insisting that it is dangerous because it is psychologically addictive and demotivating.
Even according to what the students themselves say, video games are just as psychologically addictive. They repeatedly told me that they would sit down to play for an hour to unwind after school, and before they knew it, it was time for bed, and they hadn't done any homework.
Education's response, in some ways, is to attempt to turn learning into a video game.
At what point should students have to accept the fact that not everything they do in life is a video game and not everything is interesting or fun? Filling out tax forms isn't interesting or fun. Even in the best of jobs, there are parts that are far from interesting or fun. I've never done it, but I can't imagine that changing diapers is interesting or fun. We have raised a generation in a "Sesame Street Culture" that teaches that anything that isn't fun can just be ignored. Don't get me wrong; fun educational programming for elementary school and pre-school kids is great. But allowing students to continue to think all the way through high school and beyond that if something bores them, they don't have to do it is dangerous. (I once had a student say he didn't read the one-page article because "it was boring." I asked him if he was familiar with the term "irony." Naturally, he wasn't.)
I like computer games, when I have time for them. But the whole idea of time managment escapes younger students, and video games are really dangerous. If I had kids, I wouldn't allow them in my house.
I also found the whole "disembodied" cyborg discussion interesting. I'm doing my book review on Getting It On Online, and the author argues that computer communication is NOT disembodied. I don't entirely agree with him, but I haven't finished the book yet. I think it IS somewhat disembodied in that we can make up any body we choose. The whole online "romance" sex phenomena just seems like another form of Penthouse Forum to me. "I am a student at a large midwestern university" written by various paid writers of various ages and genders is no different from a/s/l? being answered as 22/f/New York by a middle-aged man in Omaha. Except in chatting online with people you know in the real world, you have no way of knowing to whom you are speaking online. I "chat" with one person (the only person who also has my cell phone number), and I do that only because I am prohibited from seeing him face to face, which is infinitely preferable. Of course, since he and I talk online in complete sentences, I am totally lost in attempting to chat with people who think "i am hot 4 u" is communicating in English.
As I've said before, I have no interest in being a cyborg. I find the whole idea insulting. I'm a human being, and even the lowliest human being is infinitely superior to the most powerful machine. A machine is a THING. The whole concept that people would even debate the acceptability of the "cyborg" label really saddens me because it seems we have devalued humanity to such a large degree. If this is what things are coming to, we would be better off without the technology.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Evolution to cyborg
The idea of becoming a cyborg and being liberated by confines of gender, age, corporal body is utopian - and presumes that we're all very uncomfortable in our own skin, which may be a trusim in the case of graduate students, but is not the case, I think, in the general population. All the hype about the wonderous possibilites online assume that we're unhappy with the range of options right here now, options that a little ingenuity or money can provide. And it presumes that whatever is out there in cyberspace will be better than terrestrial possibilites. But would a fully actualized person need more? The search for happiness, many wise people have said, isn't out there, but begins within.
William Burroughs had a hilarious piece about how evolution is happening right now, but just too slowly for us to appreciate. He suggests we accelerate the process. As we venture out into space, our skeletons will become useless, and if we hope to thrive there, a jellyfish-like body would be more appropriate. And since we have the power to splice genes, we should be getting to work on evolving into just such a creature, since it may take a few generations and our planet is declining at an alarming rate. Burroughs makes a joke of people who think that there is something better to be gained by technology.
As far as cyborgs are concerned, I think it could be argued that a number of very simple technologies - a keychain, for example - turns you into a cyborg in ways similar to advanced computers with an internet connection. A keychain allows you access to other worlds, allows you to interact with different people, and people with a lot of keys can control, to some extent, the lives of other people. It is a question of scale and scope but isn't the idea the same?
DMCG
William Burroughs had a hilarious piece about how evolution is happening right now, but just too slowly for us to appreciate. He suggests we accelerate the process. As we venture out into space, our skeletons will become useless, and if we hope to thrive there, a jellyfish-like body would be more appropriate. And since we have the power to splice genes, we should be getting to work on evolving into just such a creature, since it may take a few generations and our planet is declining at an alarming rate. Burroughs makes a joke of people who think that there is something better to be gained by technology.
As far as cyborgs are concerned, I think it could be argued that a number of very simple technologies - a keychain, for example - turns you into a cyborg in ways similar to advanced computers with an internet connection. A keychain allows you access to other worlds, allows you to interact with different people, and people with a lot of keys can control, to some extent, the lives of other people. It is a question of scale and scope but isn't the idea the same?
DMCG
Blogumentary
Check out this Blogumentary.
Chuck Olsen, blogger and "freelance mediamaker," has made his documentary about blogs available on Google Video. It offers excellent food for thought on blogs as a genre for writing and political speech.
Chuck Olsen, blogger and "freelance mediamaker," has made his documentary about blogs available on Google Video. It offers excellent food for thought on blogs as a genre for writing and political speech.
BBC Brain Sex Test
Last night's class reminded me of this test I had taken online a year ago. An online extension of the Secrets of the Sexes series produced by the BBC, the brain sex test ostensibly can tell you whether you think more like a typical female or a typical male.
The quiz is broken down into five or six parts and asks you to complete tasks that test your abilities in spatial reasoning, empathizing, systemizing, whether you prefer faces that are more masculine or feminine, and probably more that I am forgetting.
It only takes about 20-30 minutes and you don't have to take it all at once. Your data is compared to the rest of those who have taken the test and you are scored in each area as well as given an overall composite score that places you on a horizontal scale with completely female on one end and completely male at the other. I was placed halfway between gender neutral and male (not a huge surprise), but I am probably going to take the test again this weekend to see if I get different results after a year. I wonder if my placement might support the typical online gender behaviors we read about. As I mentioned in class, I have a tendency to flame people in the right environment . . . might my male-leaning brain let me off the hook? :)
Uh-oh, an emoticon! See--I'm breaking down the stereotypes already (and I'm German, by the way . . . )
I'd be interested to hear about anyone's experience with this--especially if you know anything about biology/psychology and could tell me anything about the theories/work these tests might be based on. I will check back in after I get a chance to take the test again.
The quiz is broken down into five or six parts and asks you to complete tasks that test your abilities in spatial reasoning, empathizing, systemizing, whether you prefer faces that are more masculine or feminine, and probably more that I am forgetting.
It only takes about 20-30 minutes and you don't have to take it all at once. Your data is compared to the rest of those who have taken the test and you are scored in each area as well as given an overall composite score that places you on a horizontal scale with completely female on one end and completely male at the other. I was placed halfway between gender neutral and male (not a huge surprise), but I am probably going to take the test again this weekend to see if I get different results after a year. I wonder if my placement might support the typical online gender behaviors we read about. As I mentioned in class, I have a tendency to flame people in the right environment . . . might my male-leaning brain let me off the hook? :)
Uh-oh, an emoticon! See--I'm breaking down the stereotypes already (and I'm German, by the way . . . )
I'd be interested to hear about anyone's experience with this--especially if you know anything about biology/psychology and could tell me anything about the theories/work these tests might be based on. I will check back in after I get a chance to take the test again.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Transcendence/Escapism and Video Games
The "Video Games and Computer Holding Power" by Turkle caused me to reflect on my own interactions with video games over the past years. Although I'm currently not a frequent video game player, I did have my share transcendent moments playing video games in the early 80s playing on our Atari and Intellivision (does anyone else even remember that gaming system?). I could only identify with the man who preferred the "perfect contests" type games, such as Space Invaders and Asteroids or even modern-day Text Twist (I love these games). I prefer a fixed result, rather simplistic motivations and functions to accomplish, no virtual worlds, no fantasy required. Those fantasy, role-playing games seems time-consuming for me. I'd rather interact with real people in real environments. I'm struggling to determine if I play for entertainment only or for escapism. Is it possible to engage in entertainment without it being for the purpose of escapism? Or are there are degrees of escapism that do not presuppose a terrible personal life, emotional turmoil, or need to control an environment outside of the real world in which I feel helpless or marginalized?
Hence, I found the examples that Turkle provided as problematic in relation to the connection between the transcendent powers of the video game and the gamer. All of the people had some physical, emotional, or social isolatory issue, such as Jarish who was too small for his age; Marty, a" nervous wound-up man"; Jimmy has a birth defect; etc. Is Turkle implying that the only people who become immersed in these video games are those with physical, emotional, or social problems? I find that a narrow approach and not truly representative of gamers. Perhaps, in 1984, this seemed the main characteristics of the gamer, although I doubt it. Her sample should have included those who just enjoyed playing the game without desiring to gain control or escape some devastating or frustrating life situation. They just played for the pure joy of the challenge in shooter-games and for the joys of planning strategies and virtual worlds because of its creative, imaginative possibilities.
Hence, I found the examples that Turkle provided as problematic in relation to the connection between the transcendent powers of the video game and the gamer. All of the people had some physical, emotional, or social isolatory issue, such as Jarish who was too small for his age; Marty, a" nervous wound-up man"; Jimmy has a birth defect; etc. Is Turkle implying that the only people who become immersed in these video games are those with physical, emotional, or social problems? I find that a narrow approach and not truly representative of gamers. Perhaps, in 1984, this seemed the main characteristics of the gamer, although I doubt it. Her sample should have included those who just enjoyed playing the game without desiring to gain control or escape some devastating or frustrating life situation. They just played for the pure joy of the challenge in shooter-games and for the joys of planning strategies and virtual worlds because of its creative, imaginative possibilities.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
The Addiction Factor
First off, I want to apologize for the latest of this blog.
What I want to address is something I think is very relavant to Turkle's worries about the addictive qualities of video games. What becomes interesting as the years have gone on since she wrote that article in 1984 is the fact that computers themselves have continued to enter into our lives, as seen with this class and our blog. I believe that, for the most part, even those on the "other side of the gap" with their children have made the transition. I would argue that even video games have made this transition.
My parents are a good example of how adaptation is very possible. We were not the first among my friends' families to have a computer and connection to the internet. However, once we received it in our household, it has never left. My parents still have questions as they progress with new technology, and there is an element of dependency for my brother and I to explain as they encounter new technologies. However, they are always willing to at least explore new areas of technology. At my encouragement, a few years ago my parents purchased a laptop and needed help setting up the new wireless set-up in their house. Once set up, they have never been happier with the new-found freedom of setting up the laptop wherever they like around the house. The interesting thing is that my dad has even found video games interesting. Back in the early 90s, when my brother and I were clamoring for the Sega Genesis, we convinced him to purchase the system due to its, and I quote, "really awesome, super real sports games." Specifically, Madden football and NHL hockey. Once we actually got it, we figured he'd take a look at it and then not worry about it after that. I honestly think he played the Genesis and, in some games, was actually better than us.
However, my parents would never have gone to the extremes that it seems some parents, and the players themselves go to each and every time a new system(s) are released, most recently the PS3 and the Nintendo Wii. Check out this link to see what I mean: http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/17/news/companies/playstation_craziness/index.htm
These kinds of incidents have been happening since the PS2 was released. It seems it will continue to happen everytime a new system is released. Honestly, it seems as though the companies responsible for the shortages create this effect on purpose. They want the shortage to cause increased demand. Think about this for a second: a brand new PS3 (the better of two editions available) retails for $699. This is for the system and one controller (plus the required cords to play). An additional controller is $60, while any games are $60 each. So, assuming you buy one additional controller and just one game, you've now spent approximately $820. As if that were not ridiculous enough in and of itself, people are attacking each other just to have the chance to purchase one of these stupid things?
Something about all this reeks, and it's not the technology itself...I think it's something a little more human...oh yeah, greed.
What I want to address is something I think is very relavant to Turkle's worries about the addictive qualities of video games. What becomes interesting as the years have gone on since she wrote that article in 1984 is the fact that computers themselves have continued to enter into our lives, as seen with this class and our blog. I believe that, for the most part, even those on the "other side of the gap" with their children have made the transition. I would argue that even video games have made this transition.
My parents are a good example of how adaptation is very possible. We were not the first among my friends' families to have a computer and connection to the internet. However, once we received it in our household, it has never left. My parents still have questions as they progress with new technology, and there is an element of dependency for my brother and I to explain as they encounter new technologies. However, they are always willing to at least explore new areas of technology. At my encouragement, a few years ago my parents purchased a laptop and needed help setting up the new wireless set-up in their house. Once set up, they have never been happier with the new-found freedom of setting up the laptop wherever they like around the house. The interesting thing is that my dad has even found video games interesting. Back in the early 90s, when my brother and I were clamoring for the Sega Genesis, we convinced him to purchase the system due to its, and I quote, "really awesome, super real sports games." Specifically, Madden football and NHL hockey. Once we actually got it, we figured he'd take a look at it and then not worry about it after that. I honestly think he played the Genesis and, in some games, was actually better than us.
However, my parents would never have gone to the extremes that it seems some parents, and the players themselves go to each and every time a new system(s) are released, most recently the PS3 and the Nintendo Wii. Check out this link to see what I mean: http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/17/news/companies/playstation_craziness/index.htm
These kinds of incidents have been happening since the PS2 was released. It seems it will continue to happen everytime a new system is released. Honestly, it seems as though the companies responsible for the shortages create this effect on purpose. They want the shortage to cause increased demand. Think about this for a second: a brand new PS3 (the better of two editions available) retails for $699. This is for the system and one controller (plus the required cords to play). An additional controller is $60, while any games are $60 each. So, assuming you buy one additional controller and just one game, you've now spent approximately $820. As if that were not ridiculous enough in and of itself, people are attacking each other just to have the chance to purchase one of these stupid things?
Something about all this reeks, and it's not the technology itself...I think it's something a little more human...oh yeah, greed.
For discussion tomorrow
Places of interest on the Internet relevant to our readings.
Discover your “cyborg” name. Here’s a fun, less-than-academic site to begin our discussion. What is your “cyborg” name?
Pop culture site discussing cyborgs.
An academic site with good links that discuss women and the Internet.
FeMiNa was created in September of 1995 and debuted online to provide women with a comprehensive, searchable directory of links to female friendly sites and information on the World Wide Web.
Books about women and information technology
Article about Jennicam signing off
Cyborg Blog
Is the Nike + iPod a surveillance device?
Discover your “cyborg” name. Here’s a fun, less-than-academic site to begin our discussion. What is your “cyborg” name?
Pop culture site discussing cyborgs.
An academic site with good links that discuss women and the Internet.
FeMiNa was created in September of 1995 and debuted online to provide women with a comprehensive, searchable directory of links to female friendly sites and information on the World Wide Web.
Books about women and information technology
Article about Jennicam signing off
Cyborg Blog
Is the Nike + iPod a surveillance device?
Gender Bending in Gaming
One missing issue from our readings--and I'm not sure if it's because it just wasn't an issue in when they were written --is the idea of gender bending in gaming. A lot of players (especially in online games and RPGs) purposely portray characters of the opposite sex: guys do it so that other characters go easier on them and girls do it for the opposite reason. It reminds me of the bit in one of this week's articles that explained why guys would choose to use a female alias in a chat room: they do it to attract sexual attention, and girls do it for the opposite reason. In any case, portraying the opposite sex in gaming is more than taking an alias, it's like that kid Jarish said, "you ARE Pac-Man" (my emphasis). The participant isn't just pretending to converse as someone else, he or she is actively engaged in BEING someone else while they play. It's not quite the same thing today as it was when a player controlled Ms. Pac-Man; in todays games the player can control every aspect of the character's appearance, from hair style and facial features to the kind of undergarments they wear beneath their armor. (My husband creates hauntingly beautiful female characters for the game Guild Wars--I'll have to ask him about it!) I'd like to see a good (and recent) study done about gender and gaming.
Monday, February 5, 2007
On Site Design, Chapter 3 WSG
Now that I've wasted time trying to put links into messages, here is what I found interesting in this chapter (in addition to the excellent web design advice!) Two lines contradict our glorious messengers of last week: "Ironically, associative organizational schemes are often the most impractical structure for Web sites because they are so hard for the user to understand and predict" (43). Also, "Even the best search engines are relatively stupid and have only the most primitive means of assessing the priority, relevance, and interrralations of the information resources you offer in you Web site" (69). In light of that YouTube clip, can we then teach the Machine (or even others) how to make the same connections that we make? I say NO! Will we be able to in the near future?
Assembling thoughts
I was hoping to "google'" more recent articles on cyborgs or gaming than the 2001 ones we read, but the most interesting were, respectively, one about an ear implant for near deaf people (http://www.techfreep.com/bionic-ear-gives-cyborg-like-hearing.htm) and several articles in Computer Gaming World critiqueing specific games such as http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdcgw/is_200602/ai_n1601393 which gives the nuts and bolts of Battlefield 2: Special Forces. The ear implant would completely transform life for my near-deaf-since-18 96-year-old mother-in-law and she wouldn't complain of being turned into a cyborg. On the other hand, the game article starts out ". . . If spiteful folk are Battlefield 2’s major malfunction, expansion pack Special Forces encourages ’em to cause more mayhem. Flashbang friendlies—blind and stupid is funny. When one tries to take your helo, hit him with a handheld hangover; the bird will either flop over or sputter about and smack something tall." Maybe you can practice here for Iraq - just block everything out and become part of the action.
Moreover, is it just me, or has anything changed since 2001? I just don't hear much about gender issues in the blogosphere - at least in the popular press. However, I must admit I'm not a "frequenter" of blogs, Moos, chats, or other e-discussions.
Closer to my world - I'll gladly become somewhat cyborg-like and make better web sites by expanding on my previous knowledge of web design rules of sans-serif fonts, light background cloors for dark font colors, and good "transportation" links around the site and to other places. Now, there are at least 6 modes of web uses to take into account. I'm not that concerned about my individualism on this one.
Moreover, is it just me, or has anything changed since 2001? I just don't hear much about gender issues in the blogosphere - at least in the popular press. However, I must admit I'm not a "frequenter" of blogs, Moos, chats, or other e-discussions.
Closer to my world - I'll gladly become somewhat cyborg-like and make better web sites by expanding on my previous knowledge of web design rules of sans-serif fonts, light background cloors for dark font colors, and good "transportation" links around the site and to other places. Now, there are at least 6 modes of web uses to take into account. I'm not that concerned about my individualism on this one.
Videogames and Subcreation
Turkle makes some interesting observations about the state of gaming in 1984, but as I read her excerpt I found myself wondering if her conclusions are still applicable 22 years later.
I like Turkle's discussion of how video games compare to television and sports, and I think she has accurately described how video games were in '84--without finite storylines or character development, many games didn't have an end and "winning" generally was a matter of being able to enter your initials into the high scores list.
As computer, arcade, and home systems have employed more complicated technology, the games have become more realistic and story-driven. We buy games on DVD not for just the realistic audio and graphics, but also because Tolkeinesque worlds require that much space--they don't just use the same screens over and over. Anyone who has played the later Metal Gear games might describe it in the way Turkle envisioned people playing out alternate endings to their favorite movies.
Of course, the typical first-person shooters and beat-'em-up games still exist where any story/dialogue that exists is fairly basic--players probably get the same feeling as those who played Pac-Man in the 80s. That is, players are more concerned with figuring out the rules of the game than identifying with the character or story.
But this distinction between player and programmer is one which is blurring in many games that are out there. I concede that there are still rules that dictate what a player can or can't do in a video game world, but I don't see how that is necessarily different than the "rules" which govern how one should play Superman or Lois Lane. Games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Fable will "change" depending on how one acts. It seems that most games now allow players to create their own characters--even more mainstream titles like Tiger Woods or the Madden Football series do this. Now we can take these characters online and through text or voice chat further personify these alternate identities that allow us to interact with others in ways we never could in person. My own experience tells me that some people try to replicate themselves exactly, while others create characters who look and behave nothing like they do in the real world. And I'm sure some do both--switching between different personalities effortlessly.
I like Turkle's discussion of how video games compare to television and sports, and I think she has accurately described how video games were in '84--without finite storylines or character development, many games didn't have an end and "winning" generally was a matter of being able to enter your initials into the high scores list.
As computer, arcade, and home systems have employed more complicated technology, the games have become more realistic and story-driven. We buy games on DVD not for just the realistic audio and graphics, but also because Tolkeinesque worlds require that much space--they don't just use the same screens over and over. Anyone who has played the later Metal Gear games might describe it in the way Turkle envisioned people playing out alternate endings to their favorite movies.
Of course, the typical first-person shooters and beat-'em-up games still exist where any story/dialogue that exists is fairly basic--players probably get the same feeling as those who played Pac-Man in the 80s. That is, players are more concerned with figuring out the rules of the game than identifying with the character or story.
But this distinction between player and programmer is one which is blurring in many games that are out there. I concede that there are still rules that dictate what a player can or can't do in a video game world, but I don't see how that is necessarily different than the "rules" which govern how one should play Superman or Lois Lane. Games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Fable will "change" depending on how one acts. It seems that most games now allow players to create their own characters--even more mainstream titles like Tiger Woods or the Madden Football series do this. Now we can take these characters online and through text or voice chat further personify these alternate identities that allow us to interact with others in ways we never could in person. My own experience tells me that some people try to replicate themselves exactly, while others create characters who look and behave nothing like they do in the real world. And I'm sure some do both--switching between different personalities effortlessly.
Cavemen and media
I realize cavepeople is probably the more appropriate term, but at the risk of being PIc, I didn't think it had as nice a ring. Anyway, I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about how there is still a part of the human brain that does not realize what you are watching on television or at the movies isn't real. Evolution can be slow that way. It certainly lends credence to the argument for quality media. When reading the Turkle excerpt, I found myself longing for the days when violence on TV involved the A-Team creating some machine that could launch lettuce at the "bad guys," and violence in video games was limited to eating ghosts or shooting big squares with smaller squares. Today, kids are rewarded for stealing, killing, raping, and any other deplorable act of which, sadly, man will always be capable (I'm always willing to turn the PIc back on myself). If the connection we make with video games and other violence-laden media is just as deep-seeded and, perhaps, unconcsious, as Turkle and others have suggested, I fear things will get worse before they get better.
I spent the better part of my morning looking for the previously mentioned article online, but to no avail. If anyone else if familiar with the article or the study associated with it, please feel free to respond and add a link if you find one. Thanks.
Jake
I spent the better part of my morning looking for the previously mentioned article online, but to no avail. If anyone else if familiar with the article or the study associated with it, please feel free to respond and add a link if you find one. Thanks.
Jake
Digital Text and Web Writing Video
Excellent YouTube video on digital text, hypertext, etc. - not only notable for its clarity in its arguement but for its creativity as a form of electronic writing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Responses
First, it does my heart good to see that people enrolled in a course about technology are maintaining such a healthy skepticism. Like all of you, I love my tech toys. As a former monophobic who has been forced to live alone for the past six years, I think I would have lost what little mind I have left if I hadn't been able to "talk" to people via technology.
Like you other posters, though, I am also overwhelmed, and I thank the powers that I didn't reach this point in life twenty years ago when "getting somewhere" mattered to me. I've reached a point where I just want to find a way to earn a very modest living for what is remaining of my life, and I don't care much what that way is. If I were in my twenties or thirties and saw before me a future in which I wanted to accomplish something and/or reach particular goals, I would feel so overwhelmed and so overworked that I would end up in a straight jacket. I can't keep up with my reading, much less technology. I have at least four toys -- a computer, an IPod, a Palm Pilot, and a very rarely used cell phone -- that I know I am using only a tenth of the potential of. I don't care. But if I were younger and I thought that I might be held responsible for knowing how to use all this technology and keep up with new developments, that in and of itself would scare the bejeebees out of me. I look at my students and can almost understand why they are so apathetic. How can anyone keep up, and if you can't keep up, why bother? Why play a game that you can't hope to break even in? I feel for them, and I'm glad I'm 50.
One of you wrote about the font discussion. I took a course in visual rhetoric at ISU. Here's a hint about fonts. Studies have shown that serif fonts are more readable for blocks of average-sized text because the serifs help connect the letters within words and make for clear distinctions in word breaks. Studies tracking eye movements and comprehension have indicated that serif font text is more quickly read and easily comprehended. Conversely, sans serif fonts work better for headings because the serifs aren't needed for short text in larger sizes, and the serifs actually clutter the text and slow reading and decrease comprehension. Studies have also indicated that comprehension and memory are enhanced by using common fonts such as Times New Roman and Arial/Helvetica because the fonts do not detract attention from the material. Flashy fonts are pretty, and people who work with text creation find them less boring to work with, but if you are interested in communicating a message, it is best to use Arial/Helvetica for headings and Times New Roman for body text. (Similar fonts are equally valuable, of course. Only the well-trained eye even notices the difference between Arial and Helvetica or Times New Roman and similar serif fonts.)
I found the post on cyborgs interesting. I, too, found the article thick and difficult to fully comprehend until the end, and I was appalled by the ending. No, I am NOT part of a machine. I do not have the advantages of a machine in that I am not as fast, as tireless, or as capable of storing and recalling vast amounts of information. I also do not have the disadvantages. Unlike machines, I am capable of creativity, and I have feelings. I am a human being, with all the associated faults and glories, and I will NOT be treated as anything more or less.
But I look around me and I see people who are so plugged into machinery all the time that they may as well be part of it. IPods and cell phones to ears, they walk around oblivious of the world and living, breathing human beings around them. They think it's great. I wonder if they'll think it's so great when they can't have a conversation with their family because their boss calls them every fifteen minutes with more work for them to do over the weekend on what is supposedly their time off. I wonder if they'll even realize that the world and their lives don't have to be that way. I wonder if they'll even know what they're missing. They won't be able to stop and smell the roses, but I wonder if they'll even realize there are roses to be smelled.
Ah, me. I love teaching, and I was once told by an employer that I was wrong to leave marketing to pursue an advanced degree in English because I have such a flair for marketing. But what am I actually thinking of doing with what remains of my life? Well, 30 years ago, I was a phlebotomist. I'm thinking of returning to that. I'm also looking at training in respiratory therapy. I want a job where I can punch a clock and go home. I am not a cyborg, you see; I am not a machine. There is more to life than working, and I want a job that will prohibit my spending all my time working, and you can't take patients home with you from a hospital. I lost a relationship, a family, and all of my friends because I spent all my time grading essays and researching material to teach my students, and then I was hounded out of my job because I had the unmitigated gall to fight for the idea that college students should have to meet academic standards and stepped on the wrong political toes in doing so. My career ate my life and threw me aside like an apple core. I'm not unique. We've all heard horror stories of men and women who devote their lives to corporate careers and get fired when they are in their upper 50s and are left with alienated children, spouses who are virtual strangers to them, no hobbies or interests, a great amount of debt, and no income. The technological ability to reach employees 24/7 and to expect them to work at home constantly simply exacerbates that potential. No, I am not a cyborg. I don't want to be one. I feel for a generation that is becoming something very close to cyborgs and the disillusionment they'll face when they discover that the career they've sacrificed their lives for is taken from them because employers can save a buck shipping their jobs overseas or hiring a younger person for less money to do the do work.
But then, I'm old and bitter. Still, I maintain what I said before: Technology improves; man, sadly, does not.
Like you other posters, though, I am also overwhelmed, and I thank the powers that I didn't reach this point in life twenty years ago when "getting somewhere" mattered to me. I've reached a point where I just want to find a way to earn a very modest living for what is remaining of my life, and I don't care much what that way is. If I were in my twenties or thirties and saw before me a future in which I wanted to accomplish something and/or reach particular goals, I would feel so overwhelmed and so overworked that I would end up in a straight jacket. I can't keep up with my reading, much less technology. I have at least four toys -- a computer, an IPod, a Palm Pilot, and a very rarely used cell phone -- that I know I am using only a tenth of the potential of. I don't care. But if I were younger and I thought that I might be held responsible for knowing how to use all this technology and keep up with new developments, that in and of itself would scare the bejeebees out of me. I look at my students and can almost understand why they are so apathetic. How can anyone keep up, and if you can't keep up, why bother? Why play a game that you can't hope to break even in? I feel for them, and I'm glad I'm 50.
One of you wrote about the font discussion. I took a course in visual rhetoric at ISU. Here's a hint about fonts. Studies have shown that serif fonts are more readable for blocks of average-sized text because the serifs help connect the letters within words and make for clear distinctions in word breaks. Studies tracking eye movements and comprehension have indicated that serif font text is more quickly read and easily comprehended. Conversely, sans serif fonts work better for headings because the serifs aren't needed for short text in larger sizes, and the serifs actually clutter the text and slow reading and decrease comprehension. Studies have also indicated that comprehension and memory are enhanced by using common fonts such as Times New Roman and Arial/Helvetica because the fonts do not detract attention from the material. Flashy fonts are pretty, and people who work with text creation find them less boring to work with, but if you are interested in communicating a message, it is best to use Arial/Helvetica for headings and Times New Roman for body text. (Similar fonts are equally valuable, of course. Only the well-trained eye even notices the difference between Arial and Helvetica or Times New Roman and similar serif fonts.)
I found the post on cyborgs interesting. I, too, found the article thick and difficult to fully comprehend until the end, and I was appalled by the ending. No, I am NOT part of a machine. I do not have the advantages of a machine in that I am not as fast, as tireless, or as capable of storing and recalling vast amounts of information. I also do not have the disadvantages. Unlike machines, I am capable of creativity, and I have feelings. I am a human being, with all the associated faults and glories, and I will NOT be treated as anything more or less.
But I look around me and I see people who are so plugged into machinery all the time that they may as well be part of it. IPods and cell phones to ears, they walk around oblivious of the world and living, breathing human beings around them. They think it's great. I wonder if they'll think it's so great when they can't have a conversation with their family because their boss calls them every fifteen minutes with more work for them to do over the weekend on what is supposedly their time off. I wonder if they'll even realize that the world and their lives don't have to be that way. I wonder if they'll even know what they're missing. They won't be able to stop and smell the roses, but I wonder if they'll even realize there are roses to be smelled.
Ah, me. I love teaching, and I was once told by an employer that I was wrong to leave marketing to pursue an advanced degree in English because I have such a flair for marketing. But what am I actually thinking of doing with what remains of my life? Well, 30 years ago, I was a phlebotomist. I'm thinking of returning to that. I'm also looking at training in respiratory therapy. I want a job where I can punch a clock and go home. I am not a cyborg, you see; I am not a machine. There is more to life than working, and I want a job that will prohibit my spending all my time working, and you can't take patients home with you from a hospital. I lost a relationship, a family, and all of my friends because I spent all my time grading essays and researching material to teach my students, and then I was hounded out of my job because I had the unmitigated gall to fight for the idea that college students should have to meet academic standards and stepped on the wrong political toes in doing so. My career ate my life and threw me aside like an apple core. I'm not unique. We've all heard horror stories of men and women who devote their lives to corporate careers and get fired when they are in their upper 50s and are left with alienated children, spouses who are virtual strangers to them, no hobbies or interests, a great amount of debt, and no income. The technological ability to reach employees 24/7 and to expect them to work at home constantly simply exacerbates that potential. No, I am not a cyborg. I don't want to be one. I feel for a generation that is becoming something very close to cyborgs and the disillusionment they'll face when they discover that the career they've sacrificed their lives for is taken from them because employers can save a buck shipping their jobs overseas or hiring a younger person for less money to do the do work.
But then, I'm old and bitter. Still, I maintain what I said before: Technology improves; man, sadly, does not.
Textual instability on the Web
I just had an interesting experience that certainly proves what Warnick states about the instability of text on the Web and also supports the concept that it is a much less useful educational tool than some claim.
I am taking Dr. Newman's seminar on the literature of exile, and we are reading Ulysses. The first night of class, which was Jan. 22, Dr. Newman directed us to a site named The James Joyce Portal, which featured numerous links to various sites discussing topics related to the novel.
That site apparently no longer exists, or at least attempts to reach it for the past two days have been fruitless. I attempted to reach it through my bookmark and through links provided through search engines, and the site is simply not there or inaccessible.
Just how useful is an educational tool if the material can be here one day and gone the next? Actually, that statement is not worded properly. The tool itself offers great potential, but any tool is only as good as the hands it is in. If we use the Web as an educational tool by referring students to links that we ourselves do not control, we are trusting complete strangers with no responsibility to maintain the site to help us educate our students. Personally, I find the Web very useful for posting my own material and distributing it to students via services such as WebBoard and Blackboard, and I rely on databases supplied by my institution's library to offer them research tools. I also, of course, use email to stay in touch with my students. But I never use other Web sites in my courses because they are too unreliable. I've always suspected that something like this incident with the Joyce site could occur. As a graduate student, I find it frustrating. If I were a typical freshman comp student, I would find it a good excuse to not do assigned work.
The Web offers some useful services. Email is wonderful. Online banking is very convenient. Library database links are very valuable, providing that you are a student at a university. The ability to read at least shortened versions of various newspapers is informative. But on the whole, it is largely yet another form of entertainment, another electronic distraction that interferes with students devoting time to more reliable, edited print material. It is largely as much a wasteland as TV, which also once offered great educational potential.
I also found the discussion the other night of the possibility of adding sticky notes to Web pages distressing. How much more useless can we make Web sites? Sure, stickies could be used to direct students and other users to useful sites, but they could also be used to attach distracting, worthless advertisements to those sites, advertisements that may in no way be connected to content and may actually be contrary to anything the page author would endorse. Corporate America would LOVE this ability to advertise for no cost at all. Just look at the amount of junk mail and junk email you receive every day if you think that corporations would hesitate for a minute to just visit every random site they can and put on stickies proclaiming the virtues of their products. People would soon learn to avoid stickies in the same way that they don't open junk mail. (I go to my physical mailbox only once every couple of weeks because all I do is transfer garbage from one recepticle to another, and I do that only so the post office has room to put more garbage in my mailbox so I can throw it away unopened.) Again, what could be a useful tool for information and education would become a tool for garbage transfer, and the useful information supplied by stickies would be missed by most readers because they would learn to not even look at them to avoid being assaulted by "Drink Coke" messages.
If there's one thing we should have learned from the second half of the twentieth century it is this: Never underestimate the ability of human beings to take technology that offers great potential and turn it into crap. That doesn't mean that technological advances should be avoided, but we shouldn't get too enthusiastic about the potential it offers. The seven cardinal virtues have been, are, and always will be more than offset by the seven deadly sins. Technology improves; man, sadly, does not.
I am taking Dr. Newman's seminar on the literature of exile, and we are reading Ulysses. The first night of class, which was Jan. 22, Dr. Newman directed us to a site named The James Joyce Portal, which featured numerous links to various sites discussing topics related to the novel.
That site apparently no longer exists, or at least attempts to reach it for the past two days have been fruitless. I attempted to reach it through my bookmark and through links provided through search engines, and the site is simply not there or inaccessible.
Just how useful is an educational tool if the material can be here one day and gone the next? Actually, that statement is not worded properly. The tool itself offers great potential, but any tool is only as good as the hands it is in. If we use the Web as an educational tool by referring students to links that we ourselves do not control, we are trusting complete strangers with no responsibility to maintain the site to help us educate our students. Personally, I find the Web very useful for posting my own material and distributing it to students via services such as WebBoard and Blackboard, and I rely on databases supplied by my institution's library to offer them research tools. I also, of course, use email to stay in touch with my students. But I never use other Web sites in my courses because they are too unreliable. I've always suspected that something like this incident with the Joyce site could occur. As a graduate student, I find it frustrating. If I were a typical freshman comp student, I would find it a good excuse to not do assigned work.
The Web offers some useful services. Email is wonderful. Online banking is very convenient. Library database links are very valuable, providing that you are a student at a university. The ability to read at least shortened versions of various newspapers is informative. But on the whole, it is largely yet another form of entertainment, another electronic distraction that interferes with students devoting time to more reliable, edited print material. It is largely as much a wasteland as TV, which also once offered great educational potential.
I also found the discussion the other night of the possibility of adding sticky notes to Web pages distressing. How much more useless can we make Web sites? Sure, stickies could be used to direct students and other users to useful sites, but they could also be used to attach distracting, worthless advertisements to those sites, advertisements that may in no way be connected to content and may actually be contrary to anything the page author would endorse. Corporate America would LOVE this ability to advertise for no cost at all. Just look at the amount of junk mail and junk email you receive every day if you think that corporations would hesitate for a minute to just visit every random site they can and put on stickies proclaiming the virtues of their products. People would soon learn to avoid stickies in the same way that they don't open junk mail. (I go to my physical mailbox only once every couple of weeks because all I do is transfer garbage from one recepticle to another, and I do that only so the post office has room to put more garbage in my mailbox so I can throw it away unopened.) Again, what could be a useful tool for information and education would become a tool for garbage transfer, and the useful information supplied by stickies would be missed by most readers because they would learn to not even look at them to avoid being assaulted by "Drink Coke" messages.
If there's one thing we should have learned from the second half of the twentieth century it is this: Never underestimate the ability of human beings to take technology that offers great potential and turn it into crap. That doesn't mean that technological advances should be avoided, but we shouldn't get too enthusiastic about the potential it offers. The seven cardinal virtues have been, are, and always will be more than offset by the seven deadly sins. Technology improves; man, sadly, does not.
So what's a cyborg again?
I've trudged my way through Haraway's manifesto and feel totally inadequate and befuddled. What? The overarching scope and depth of her analysis has fried a circuit in my brain and left me overwhelmed. Does that mean I'm a cyborg, since I've used computer language in talking about my brain? I've yet to re-read or fully digest her thick article, so I apologize in advance for the "blab" in this post...I am pretty much thinking aloud here. Anway, the part of her manifesto that I was able to wrap my mind around was the last few pages when she discusses cyborgs and science fiction. I can see how characters in these books represent a new type of human/ human identity that are subject to different rules. I understand that these characters see reality/reproduction/spirit/politics/ and the world in a new, distinct way. I've read The Female Man and it's a perplexing book. I haven't seen Blade Runner, but I think I might rent it. I tried to include a pic. of the character Haraway mentioned. So getting back to it, I'm not yet sure of what to make of Haraway's manifesto, but I do find the bodily connection between humans and machines to be extremely interesting. Is my computer not only an extension of myself, but rather a part of my body? Is my ipod another aspect of my body? In terms of machinery in general, when I ride my bike or drive my car, can I consider that machinery as part of my body? Thinking of the body not as an organic whole, but rather as this fluid thing is a concept worth exploring. What do my fellow cyborgs think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)