MyFace

An away message is the easiest way to hide myself from most of the people in my little world. I put one up when I do not feel like dealing with anyone, which ironically enough is most of the day. I do not want people to believe that I am antisocial, I just spend most of my day with people and I need a little bit of alone time now and then, but then again doesn't everybody. On page 76, Baron conducted a study that shows us that most people put up elaborate, socially active away messages that misrepresent our actions, however I don't agree with these findings.

When I was reading Baron, I was just wondering why we feel the need to post so much about ourselves? Why do we need to communicate that information online as opposed to doing it in person? And why do we need to be so socially connected all of the time? Lastly, what did we all do before the internet, cell phones, and CMC/EMC? I mean, it seems like so much of our time now is spent attending to EMC and being in contact. Is it taking away from doing other things?

As for the Tong article, I'm curious to see how you felt about a comment on page 543 that stated, "The optimal number of friends [Facebook friends] is related to the rater's number of friends." It also noted that "judgments of social attractiveness are due to similarity of the rater to the target. In other words, do you agree that you judge people as being more socially attractive if they are more like you in terms of your number of facebook friends?

In Baron's closing chapter, she makes a number of references back to some of the issues concerning multi-tasking and controlling the volume, but I am very interested in how we begin to define ourselves through communication. For example, Baron talks about some of the consequences for always being connected and states that while we can be totally engrossed in technology, we can be completely alone at the same time (215).

An example from my own life that I am reminded of goes back to my days in the food service industry, more specifically Panera Bread. As a worker, I became very familiar with the "regulars" who would come in and get coffee and pastries in the morning. In addition, there were also people who would come in for hours and use their computers or cell phones for hours on end. Perhaps it was the free wi-fi connection that Panera had; however, with many people on at the same time it would take hours to load a single page. My point here is that their work could have easily been done somewhere else, but I do think that they chose to come to Panera to be in a social atmosphere.

I find it very ironic that we want to be included in societal space, but will do almost anything to get out of interacting with someone in that space. In class, we briefly discussed this notion, but I think that Baron places it in a great context when she talks about "stronger" vs. "weaker" ties. Stronger ties are ones that are forged with close friends and weaker ones pertain to acquaintances. The argument here is that with less and less face-to-face communication, we will build weaker ties rather than stronger ones (222).

This is also apparent in our ideologies of the American family. Our "helicopter" parents feel the need to be involved in just about everything that we are doing today. This raises the question: Are the generations before us attempting to live vicariously through us and our technology to gain access modern culture? In some ways I believe they are; however, there is also a symbiotic relationship going on here. On the one hand, parents feel the need to stay connected with their children, but the children also contact their parents very frequently. Research has shown that college undergrads were communicating with their parents more than ten times a week (224).

Is the overload of technology a passing whim as Baron suggests? Or is it here to stay because it has become apart of our societal structure? Only time will tell.

With technology advancing almost everyday, we have been provided with a multitude of ways to stay connected to our friends and family. The unlimited connection we possess may be viewed as a bit excessive by some people who believe Americans as a whole may be too connected to the outside world. In my opinion, we need to focus on the positives that have come from this technology and realize how convienent our lives have become because of it.

With technology advancing almost everyday, we have been provided with a multitude of ways to stay connected to our friends and family. The unlimited connection we possess may be viewed as a bit excessive by some people who believe Americans as a whole may be too connected to the outside world. In my opinion, we need to focus on the positives that have come from this technology and realize how convienent our lives have become because of it.

While reading Baron's book and discussing topics related to electronically mediated communication, specifically the internet, I've been wondering what exactly makes this all so real to us. I mean, we are constantly connected, although to whom? I'm always curious about why people enjoy being in a network of thousands or millions of people and how that affects them. How do you know who you're really talking to? Maybe it's exactly who you think it is, but maybe not. And very likely, even if it is someone you know, they may portray themselves very differently on the internet or other means. I guess what I'm asking is, how real should this be to all of us, with real consequences? It's already happening. Do you think we should want to do anything about it?

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

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 Ch. 4 of The Dumbest Generation, Bauerlien uses both facts and opinions to strengthen his central argument of the chapter, which is the idea that youth cultures do not use the technology available to them in order to gain valuable knowledge. Instead, today's they utilize online technology for purely social endeavors.

While Bauerlein does a wonderful job in providing substantial facts and figures from educational research bodies, I think there is a distinction that needs to be made concerning the different ways he appeals to the reader in this chapter. For one, the majority of studies that he cites are very relevant to his argument, especially the study conducted by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance that was mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act (123). However, I do believe these statistics are in place to strengthen his political rationale for arguing that government money spent on technologies is not necessarily paying off the way the government intended. In addition, I would have been more engaged in this section if Bauerlein concentrated on the reverberating effects of No Child Left Behind and how that supports his focus.

Bauerlein shifts his argumentative style after he covers the economic risks of new technology in the classroom to a more socio-cultural appeal as a way to warn readers about the misuse of an array of technologies. In this section, I found Bauerlein's language to be particularly interesting because it seems to be elevated (using such words as sanguine on p. 131) in order to supplement his argument against the way 'tweeners and teens' are spending their leisure time. Perhaps Bauerlein is using elevated language in order to coax the ready-minded reader to consult Webster's Online Dictionary and search for the meanings of such words, which would be extremely entertaining in itself. In that case, his objective plan for how technology should be used would be fulfilled.

Nevertheless, I do think Bauerlein drove his cultural call to arms home when he talks about the notion of peer pressure and consciousness to stay connected. In class, we have talked about issues of connectivity and competency with Naomi Baron. Bauerlein's claim about the youth generation is no different. Bauerlein does not believe that we should totally abandon the leisure activities that has shaped our culture since the post-war period, but he does believe that new forms of communication between the individual and the outside world should be mediated in a way that the technologies may be used in the most efficient manner when they need to be. At this point, the latter idea is easier said than done.

I think I will leave the class with the following questions: Where do we draw the line between the incorporation of technology into the classroom and the use of already established modes of learning? What kind of cultural and academic gain could we obtain by successfully drawing new forms of technology into education? Finally, how can we make sure that the uses of new technologies that students obtain in the classroom will carry over to their social lives as a way to provide more insightful language and quests for knowledge?

P.s. Here is the music video that I spoke of a few weeks ago that I wanted to put on the blog. I think it embodies many of the issues that we have talked about this semester. Have Fun!

Our class has had several discussions about the ability to multi task and how the ability has gotten better as we use the Internet more often. It seems to be Bauerlein's opinion that if we use the computer for things like online gaming and facebook, then we must not have the ability to obtain and use information found on the Internet. It is hard to believe that Bauerlein can have such a strong opinion about an entire generation without many facts to back it up, just more opinions.