MyFace

Brumbaugh's work on the effects of source and nonsource cues in both subculture and mainstream culture is very much about the kind of psychological aspects that I am interested in. The activation of either mainstream of subcultural ideas are part of a number of schemas that are learned through social interactions with others. In other words, Brumbaugh's article combines both of my disciplines (psychology and communications) into her study. In the experiment, white Americans represented the mainstream and black Americans were chosen as the subculture because they represented the essence of an American subculture. Brumbaugh also conducted pretests in order to make sure that the activation of cultural beliefs would be because of advertising stimuli. These pretests were conducted via focus groups. Participants were then assigned to one of four groups that were cross-coded with culture of participant, nonsource cues, and culture sources. Brumbaugh found that both white and black Americans reacted to advertising stimuli consistent with dominant culture models the same way. However, white sources that were paired with black nonsource cues were not as favorable. Brumbaugh's main argument in this piece suggests that dominant and subcultural groups react the same to dominant culture source and nonsource ads because they contain a shared cultural knowledge of society.

While reading chapter six, I came across a quote by Howard Rheingold about the power of texting.

"The electoral power of texting could be an early indicator of future social upheaval: whenever people gain the power to organize collective action on new scales, in new places, at new tempos, with groups they had not been able to organize before, societies and civilizations change."

This quote was placed in the context of using text messaging to bring attention to issues by contacting party members, activists, and large sections of the population. Crystal brings up a few other instances in which text messaging is used in a way that we may not really think of. For instance, when he talks about advice, or crisis centers, fielding texts from people who are dealing with a difficult emotional situation. He also mentions how people use it to be notified about local situations, such as a flood, a kidnapping, a burglary, and other potentially dangerous situations or emergencies. While most of these examples are of positive uses of texting, Crystal also brings to light that texting can also be used in "the planning of fraud, terrorism, and other illegal activities." What really struck me in these chapters was the extent to which texting is used and how much it may, or may not, affect our lives whether or not we know it. I was just curious as to what extent our class uses texting and how much they think it affects their lives. Also, how much power does texting actually have in our society? Do you think it could ever have the kind of potential that is suggested by Rheingold's quote? And how good, or bad, could that be? How much of our culture has already changed as a result of texting? Do you think it has? And where might we be headed? In what new ways can we use texting within our society? Lastly, what types of issues may this cause in terms of privacy? Will our texts be monitored? Are they already (I don't know)?

It seems that we have talked a great deal about how texting is either driving our society into the next generation of technology or right into the ground. In any case, I would say that text messages are making their way into how we connect with the outside world.

For me, one of the most important parts of Ch. 6 of Crystal was the idea of the "validity period" of a text message (115). In essence, this was the time that the information sent in a text would be relevant to the receiver. After this period, the information is dated and no longer be valid. Crystal uses the example of sending friends texts about a television program. Whether they will receive it in time or not is another story. In fact, Crystal points out it might actually be annoying if they get it a few hours later if their phones were off. Although Crystal does argue that you can set a validity period to your text message to one hour, this standard can not be electronically enforced. Rather, it must be socially accepted as a rule of thumb for texters all over the globe. This is the problem ladies and gents. Are others able to be held accountable for not responding because of this standard? Could they be admonished because they do not have the latest model of a cell phone that has built in validity levels?

In my opinion, this idea of urgency is absurd, even if it is about the most minute pieces of information. I do not wish to criticize Crystal's argument that texting alerts about missing children and natural disaster are not useful. However, I am questioning where we draw the line, or filter information. It is more than filtering at this point. At what point can we turn off the power and just live? I am not sure yet but I hope it is just a passing fad.

Text messaging is a nation wide phennomenon with over 85 percent of people in the United States paying for its service according to wikepedia. With so many diverse types of personalities in this country, it is conceivable that every type of person has texted at one time or another. It seems to me that it would be difficult to narrow down any type of research that was conducted in chapter five and six.

As I was reading chapter one of Mark Bauerlein's "Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future", I couldn't help but recall a film I saw that would likely express his worst nightmare. The film is "Idiocracy" directed by Mike Judge. It's a parody on the stupidity of younger generations, allowing us to laugh at the fact that it is so far from our current reality. However, it also presents the idea that we are the future, we will live it, and we are responsible for creating it. So, for our own benefit, we must remember to "water our crops". In other words, we should occupy our minds with information pertaining to more than just our own egos and simple entertainment, if not for future generations, at least for ourselves. Otherwise, we may get to a point in time when we cannot save ourselves from our own destruction because we've lost the important knowledge and history that has allowed us to get this far. While I agree with Bauerlein's argument that we should challenge ourselves to become more knowledgeable and capable citizens, I disagree with the charge that the digital age has stupefied us. Yes we spend way too much time on youtube and facebook and every other social networking or media website, but I wouldn't say we know less. I would just say we know more about our own immediate world and it's ever-changing dynamics, as opposed to the finer points of politics and literature. There are a few questions I would like to raise though. One is, what is the actual role of technology and the digital age in all of this? What is the role of society and its mouthpiece, the media? What is the role and responsibility of the educational system and its teachers? What roles and responsibilities are those of parents? And what roles and responsibilities do children have for themselves? I would argue that the problem stems from a very fast evolution of technology and access to all different kinds of information. This creates a sense of overload, in terms of the volume of information and options, for the current youth that never existed before. However, we are expected to sift through it all with the same speed, intentions, and expectations of prior generations, with no real guidance. I mean, how can there be much guidance - it is still in the process of evolving and we are evolving with it. To be honest, I think Bauerlein puts too much blame on our generation for being the way we are. I think we've done what every generation before us has done - we've just gone with what we know, what we have seen and what we have been taught; and also what we have discovered and created. However, he is right that something needs to be done about our lack of global and historical intelligence; and since it's our future, it is our responsibility to change its direction. Although, a little understanding and clarification of (reasonable) expectations from wiser generations would be greatly appreciated.

Here is a link to a clip from "Idiocracy". It's called "House of Representin'". I think it does an interesting job of showing the potential repercussions of a society that forgot to remember anything more than what entertains and pleases them. (It may or may not be class appropriate. Just thought I should warn you.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ULZwzF9s5A

With the introduction section reaching its completion, a few problems have occurred. This topic may be a little more difficult to research than I initially anticipated. However, at this point in time, I think that I can still manage the situation.

It seems as though Mark Bauerlein is going to spend an entire book pointing out different individual's ignorance and highlighting some instances where our generation may seem a little dumb. I am going to take my normal stance against the author and point out that even though there are some people in this world that will amaze us with there lack of knowledge, they do not represent our generation as a whole.

In Mark Bauerlein's opening chapter, he begins with a small anecdote about Jay Leno and the Tonight Show's "JayWalking" portion. While Leno and the audience laugh at the average person on the street who does not know anything about the President or government, America still continues to be America.

In siding with Bauerlein, I believe that American values are being thrown to the side for the sake of entertainment and inactivity. In essence, Bauerlein's arguement about the title of his book is important. He claims that the idea of the "dumbest generation" is a paradox, in that, we as Americans have plenty of resources when it comes to technology, education, and commerce that we do not even try to fully engage with because of our passive nature. Bauerlein points out in today's age, the value of education, especially in the math, science, and technology sectors, is in high demand. Not only are we competing within our nation, but also internationally with studies around the world who would gladly come to America and have the job that we were to, for lack of a better word, lazy to go after.

My point here is that Bauerlein's opening chapter is a call to arms. Americans need to start engage in their civic duties if our country is to maintain excellence. Finally, where does our apathy stop as the future generation of America? Do we need a harsher wake up call in these tough economic times to open our eyes to our pattern of behavior? I am hoping not.