Second Text (Long Excerpt)

In "Everything Bad Is Good For You", Steven Johnson argues that digital media and popular culture hone different mental skills than the ones exercised by reading books, although both hold equal importance. Johnson claims that even though video gaming should not be an enjoyable experience due to all of the work required, reward circuits in the brain cause us to inherently seek out satisfaction, and video games hold the promise of getting it right above our noses.

Of course, Johnson is smart enough to know that just because something happens to fit our reward circuits does not mean it's good for us. He acknowledges this, and even likens video gaming to crack cocaine, in that both provide the same addictive satisfaction. However, he still believes that we gain notable benefits from video gaming. He points out that video gaming allows kids to absorb and understand information about the world that they might tune out had it been conveyed to them in the format of a teacher in a classroom. He uses his nephew, who learned about what lowering industrial tax rates would do to a city from playing Sims.

Also, in his particularly effective beginning, Johnson paints a picture of a world were reading and books came into existence after video games. The passage refers to libraries as scary places where "dozens of young children, normally so vivacious and socially interactive, sitting alone in cubicles, reading silently, oblivious to their peers".

And while I did enjoy reading his book, I just can't agree with it. For one, I find a couple contradictions in his arguments. While he says that reading provides a social disconnect, and causes isolation from peers, he seems to find "finding yourself hunched over a computer screen, help guide splayed open on the desk, flipping back and forth between the virtual world and the level maps...you find yourself reading the help maps over dinner" to be perfectly acceptable. Ummm...hello disembodiment! This guy is not even enjoying or experiencing his food because he is mentally removed from his body in the task of solving a problem that does not even exist in the physical world, but is rather a mashing of codes and graphic images that have been deliberately created by another person to make money off of him, and boost this sense of individualism and success-can-be-yours mentality that capitalism so heavily relies on.

I think it happens like this: when a video game is successfully completed, it causes the player to feel as if they have accomplished something, that they have succeeded, that this is something they did. However, in the cases Johnson describes, the gamers seem to consult their manuals (in written text format none the less) to make it from one stage to another, the entire time. Unfortunately, life does not come with a handy manual, and so the skill that the kids are actually using is reading the text information they are given and applying it to an altered (although realistic) reality. I'd even say that by kids needing these guides so badly (as Johnson describes) they will be more open to allowing corporations to oh-so-gently help them and nudge them in the "right" direction in their physical life as well, by telling them what products they will need to succeed, and selling them ideas of individualism to keep them feeling good (read: oblivious) about the whole thing. And thus the capitalist machine blooms.

Feed B

"Art is not a Mirror with which to reflect the World. It is a Hammer with which to shape it."

Actually, I think Art that is a Mirror happens to be the strongest hammer. A mirror is a reflection of something as it stands now. Unfortunately, most people do not take the time to sit and look at current situations, or perhaps do not see them clearly. This is why art that is a mirror is often more shocking than anything else because it throws a negative or concerning aspect of our lifestyle or society into our face. Recognizing it as our own is then the part that motivates serious self or societal evaluation and scrutiny.

For me, Feed was a definite success in this way. The book's power lies in it being so blunt, unapologetic, and true to who we are allowing ourselves to become as a society ruled by digitalization and corporations. Because of this the book also makes you question what you should do to stop all this. And Tobin does provide an answer, through his revealer character Violet. Violet says she wants to create a consumer profile so skewed, that no one can sell to it. So she literally goes around looking at random, outrageous stuff and pretending that she likes them, confusing her feed in the process. This made me wonder, what would be the equivalent action for us?

My thoughts go to trying to appear as little as possible on consumer profiles, studies and data tables which make us easier to target. This would mean not allowing companies or corporations access to our information in any way, even over sites like Facebook. Also, pulling out from the digital world as much as we can, at a reasonable pace determined by us. Also, I think not allowing our kids to be exposed to the TV when they are so young, just like Violet was not exposed to the feed until she was 7, and therefore had developed her own personality.

That's all ways I can think of for now, but I'll defiantly keep thinking, and also looking out for ideas that other people may have.

Feed A

"Everything we've grown up with-the stories on the feed, the games all of that-it's all streamlining our personalities so we're easier to sell to. I mean, they do these demographic studies that divide everyone up into a few personality types, and then you get ads based on what you're supposedly like."

Now this got my attention. It is a dead on description of our current state. And the bluntness of Anderson's words makes it horrifying. It is a well known fact that corporations do all these studies and have massive piles of data on different demographics. It literally transforms human personalities into data tables. The human personality; graphed. If we the public had access to all of these data collections, we would probably be able to find our personality perfectly described. In fact, there have been times were my digital web feed has directly targeted my personality, and much to my shame, was on target. When looking up songs on iTunes, a little bar pops up with recommendations "just for you" based on what you have listened to/ purchased. I found myself liking every song they offered me (although not enough to purchase their ridiculously overpriced $1.29 per-song tracks). Also, when shopping online, most stores have a "you may also like" bar under each item you look at. Of course, I liked almost everything in that section. After reading Feed, this is something that deeply disturbed me because I realize that I fit in perfectly and seamlessly with data collections of some specific "personality type". My sense of individuality evaporated right before my eyes.

Another passage that really got at me was:

"They keep making everything more basic so it will appeal to everyone. And gradually, everyone gets used to everything being basic, so we get less and less varied as people, more simple. So the corps make everything more simple. And it goes on and on."

This is a dangerous thing because we are losing the depths and layers of personality, emotion, desire and other qualities that define us as human. Instead, we are becoming like machines, our interests pre-programed to be simple, consistent, and most importantly, predictable. It's as though the corporations have created some kind of super function to plug in our personality dynamics, and get an output of every product that we would crave. This allows corporations to market things in simple, easy ways that would make a certain product appeal to everyone universally. We are being trained to become the ultimate consumers, and I'd say we're pretty much there already. Think about it: as a nation we spend billions of dollars a year on God knows what things that are completely unnecessary and not conducive to our survival nor add any meaning to our lives, and we are not consciously aware that we are being grouped and studied so that over time we may become even better consumers. Of course, even if we do become aware, and attempt to make a change, the next shiny new and improved product will effectively draw our attention away.

Take Titus for example. Violet makes Titus feel intellectually inferior. She is the revealer figure in his life, and at times that makes him feel uneasy. In the midst of it, his parents announce to him that they will be buying him an upcar because of all that he's been through with the hacker. This is his reaction:

"I was hugging them, and I was like holy shit, by tomorrow I would be driving to pick up Violet in my own goddamn upcar, and suddenly, suddenly, I didn't feel so stupid anymore."

Finding out he was getting a new shiny thing was enough to boost his confidence, as if the upcar was an extension of his very being. By making an object so personal, corporations are successfully making us believe that without their products we would not be complete. In terms of digital gadgets, I think the big success is allowing people to experience something that is not. Without digital gadgets, we would have to face ourselves, were as with them we can create a reality that is tailored to satisfy us. And of course, should we not know what we want at any given moment, we will be assisted, and told what we want with the ever so helpful "recommendations".

Welcome to Life™.

Self Experiment (Hw #11)

Over the summer, I found myself growing increasingly annoyed with AIM, and the whole IM'ing thing. I figured, the people who I'm close with have my number, and I talk to them often through text, so why am I on AIM? It only leads to conversations that start with "Hey" climax to "What's up?" and then trail off awkwardly since I don't see many of those people regularly, or don't know enough about each other to hold up a conversation. I decided I would stop using AIM, and I did.

So for my experiment, I wondered what it would be like to sign on again and stay on for 3 days. Would I see that I missed it, and was just going through a phase in the summer? Or would I still not want to be signed on?

On Day 1 of AIM, I enjoyed it, and found myself having a lot of conversations. I thought to myself, I might just start signing on again.

On Day 2 of AIM, I again felt like it was pointless to be on it, like I did in the summer.

On Day 3 of AIM, I just wanted to sign off because I was not liking it again.

On all 3 days, I scrolled down my buddy list a couple times a day, and all of a sudden I was in the know on people's lives based on their away messages. I saw who is in a relationship with who, what date they started going out, the problems they were having, or if it was still "amazing". I don't personally care for that information, so getting the gossip or whatever on people's personal lives is not enough to draw me back into AIM. And since conversation wise I dislike it, I ended the experiment by signing off, and not signing back on since. I think my feelings in the summer were not just a phase, but just indicative of the way I've changed maybe since last year, when I used to not mind the pointless conversations, and admittedly enjoyed reading juicy away messages.

Internet Research (HW #10)

Parenting digital kids:

I tried to find something about the kids from Japan we talked about in class who had their parents bring them food and never left their room, but my google search wasn't successful. I found this article instead, that talks about how parents have to adjust to raising kids that are so digitalized. The parents complain that their kids text during dinner, watch TV on their computers in class (college age group that is), and are overall very absorbed in the digital world. The parents note how at family get-togethers, the kids have a hard time being in the moment, because they want to answer their texts and be on their phone.

That's kind of excessive because being with your family is supposed to be fun, or if it's bad, at least it's supposed to draw you into the present moment. These kids seem to have created their own world that allows them to withdraw from their surroundings, and I can imagine why their parents don't like that. And I can only imagine by the time that I have kids, how many more gadgets there will be to draw them in. I just hope younger teens, or kids like my sister, learn to enjoy physical life and find it sufficient and satisfying so they will not leap at the chance to escape and delve so deeply into the digital realm.

I don't know, I feel like a lot of this digital "progress" our society has been making will come and bite us in the ass one day. We're devaluing nature and the natural world so much, it's crazy.

Sexting article:

This article describes how an 18 year old Florida boy sent a naked picture of his girlfriend to her family and friends after they got into an argument. The police were notified, and he was arrested and charged with child pornography (his girlfriend was 16). He was convicted, and was sentenced to 5 years probation along with being required to register as a sex offender, according with state laws.

I know this sexting thing is becoming a big deal, and more and more teens are being caught doing it. What I don't get is how all of these teens are being prosecuted because of it. I mean, this couple was together for 2 and a half years, the chances that they had physical sex are overwhelming. In school, we are even taught about the tactics of safe physical sex, implying that we are going to be having it. In some cases condoms are even provided. Yet when this teen sent out pictures of his girlfriend naked (which she took, at her own free will) he can get punished for it. Morally, I think what he did was really messed up, but I don't think he should have to be registered as a sex offender for it (which only was the case because of her age). I don't really get why the government restricts what you can and cannot do with your own body. Of course, if this girl was 10, it would be a whole different story, or if the picture was taken without her knowledge somehow. But this was 2 teenagers willingly having a long lasting sexual relationship with each other. It should not be a legal case.

Responding to Video Comments (HW #9)

Carol,

Thank you for taking the time to watch my video.

Your comment was helpful, because it made me consider how I could have done my video differently to provide even more insight. I feel like I was very conscious of the fact it was an assignment, and even though my expressions came naturally, my environment was not the one I'm usually in while texting. I'm usually moving around, talking to my mom and sister, doing HW. Maybe by showing that I would have gotten even more from the assignment, because I would see myself taking the actions I take every day.

I think we both share the feeling of being pulled into texting conversations as they progress, and I think we can both agree that at times we resent this. We are reluctant yet allow ourselves to become involved nonetheless. I also liked how you made me think about how my digital experiences are different when I start out with different moods. When I start out in a bad mood, texting makes me feel even worse because I become annoyed with having to answer messages that I don't really feel like answering. Don't get me wrong; I like talking to people but when I'm in a shitty mood I like to be on my own, and to have time to myself. When I start out in a good mood, texting makes me feel even better, because I find conversations are more entertaining and even funny, probably because I'm in a state of mind to appreciate them more since I'm not clouded with a bad mood. My conversations on text rarely get "deep" though. I find that on the very off chance they do, I wish the conversation was taking place in person.

I feel like both of us focused on texting, with you interested in how it affects us while we use it, and me focusing on why I feel the need to text in the first place. I feel like both parts need to be looked at if we want to gain any insight worth having (one that has the possibility to change our habits).

We both seem interested in breaking some of our digital habits, but as life comes at us, it seems comforting to rely on our safety blanket routines, and texting, tv watching and all that good stuff plays a large part in giving ourself a (false) feeling of having something we can control and manipulate, or simply loose ourselves in. So how do we withdraw? What approach should we take? I think a large part of it may be honest self reflection, and prioritizing. While our computers may be essential to complete HW and check e-mail, watching a 6 hour marathon of "E: The True Hollywood Stories" is probably not as necessary.

___________________________________________________________________

Ali Jo,

Thank you for taking the time to watch my video.

I feel like you were able to pick up my emotions from my expressions very accurately, and I'm kind of shocked that it comes across that obviously. It makes me wonder what else my facial expressions might give away in my daily life.

I actually did feel annoyed in the video, because I had a long day and just wanted to be done with my responsibilities so I could lay down and listen to my ipod (escaping from one digital device to the other -_-). By pointing out that this comes across visually in the video, you made me wonder why I didn't just say I was busy and throw the phone in some corner of my room for the rest of the night. But as I mentioned in my write up, I continued to text even after the video ended, and probably continued looking annoyed (with breaks of mild amusement) the whole time.

I feel like both of us had varying degrees of this annoyance expression, however you focused more on analyzing different digital media, and pointing out some of the things that are deliberately created to be subtle to the average person (the sexually violet video games and such) while I feel like my write up talked about me personally, and for the most part stated things that are obvious. I guess that's ok too for now, but noticing the subtle things and their huge implications is something I'm striving for.

Commenting On Triad Videos

Ali Jo,

Wow. This whole post is just amazingness, from the video to your insightful writing.

Your video captured me, because of your expressions and the mood portrayed (which was greatly enhanced by your song choice). While you played the video game, I could tell that you were involved with what was happening, but yet something about the look in your eyes was disconnected and even sad. It seemed that when you were watching the "dogs in hats" video, you appeared dissatisfied by the images playing on your screen, and the experience didn't seem to fulfill you as much as you might have hoped it would. When you rested your head against the pillow and fiddled with your bangs, you kind of half closed your eyes, which reminded me of someone counting the seconds until the dismissal bell rings to bolt out of school and into freedom. By the end of the video, I got the feeling that you were still searching for something, something that your video gaming and youtubing failed to provide.

Reading your write up, I feel like you did a great job analyzing "sexually violent" video games. I had never thought about first person shooter games as penis-centric before. I agree with you when you say that you wouldn't want your kids spending time doing any of this, but I also understand your dispare of feeling like a hypocrite. It always seems that when we as individuals are engaging in an activity we wouldn't recommend for others, it seems slightly justified or less dangerous because we all would like to believe we "have it under control", whereas other people clearly don't or won't. I feel that way a lot, but it's really such an ego trip. Actually, one of the "successes" of digital gadgets and media is that they always make it clear that you have the control, that you have the power to choose....they build up your ego nice and big. In reality though, we are the ones who are submissive.

Your video made me reconsider why it is that when I'm bored, or want to escape the present moment I turn to digital devices. These seem to provide little satisfaction, and simply put a band aid over my feelings, but don't really seem to resolve them. It's like willingly trapping yourself; ridiculously dumb. But I know in my heart of hearts I won't be stopping anytime soon.

Great work! :)

_________________________________________________________________

Russell,

Great post. I found your video and your write up to be very interesting, and it challenged the common perspective.

While watching your video, the first thing that becomes noticeable is your breathing. It shows how engrossed you are in the game. Even though you appear to just be sitting in a chair, the action on the screen had a physical impact on you.

Your write up was particularly interesting. I liked that you raised the question of what reality is, and why a stimulation is not considered real. I think in order to come to a solid answer, we have to prove that the physical lives we are leading are real, and that there is a significant difference between that and a stimulation. Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove that our physical lives are a reality. For all we know, this life may be a "vanilla sky" type of of thing. We just can't be sure.

However, we can still compare physical life and a stimulation, because like we learned in science, we can make an observation that way. I think the significant difference between the physical football game and the stimulated one is what form you took in each of them. In the physical game you took on your own form, you played using your own body, with the skill level that your body possess. In the stimulation, the form you took on is not the one you see in the mirror, if someone tackled you it didn't cause physical pain, and your skill level could potentially be different. I would argue that comparatively, digital simulations are fake, or "faker" than physical existence.

Good job on the video & post.