Setting aside the religious studies aspect of the class and also the main focus of community, one of the most influential parts of class has been learning about the history of the personal computer. I am not tech-savvy, I'm a disgrace to my generation, haha. Needless to say, I learned A LOT about the evolution of computers and the marketing war that was occurring between Microsoft and Apple. And I can see evidence of this everywhere now - watching commercials for the Surface Tablet, which is just like an iPad, then seeing the Microsoft logo flash at the very end. Or seeing an ad for Bing, thinking "oh, that already exists, it's called Google" then seeing yet another Microsoft logo displayed on the screen.
In addition, reading Steve Jobs' biography really instilled an appreciation for the motivation and creativity behind all these gadgets. I used to have a strong aversion to iPhones and Macs, solely based on the cost. But now I can see the artistic side along with the efficiency and practicality. And it does make sense, things that are well made do cost more. (Although I will always argue that my $350 PC is doing a dec job compared to a $1,000 Mac).
It was a bit of stretch to relate the communities of Apple and Microsoft to religious communities, but it is evident that the end goals share similarities. I think that studying online communities on social media forums really tied in well. First learning the background of personal computers and the creation of such platforms was a helpful segway into how communities and lifestyle enclaves form themselves from said creations. It's made me reevaluate the different social medias that I personally use. It's always given me more respect for such platforms - I used to be biased in thinking that such things were too egocentric and/or narcissistic. But it's amazing how fluid and unifying such sites are. There are hundreds of millions of people on facebook worldwide. That's nuts.
So overall, this class offered insight into a world that I was not too familiar with. I can't tell you how many Apple, Jobs, Zuckerberg, etc. conversations I've gotten into in Andrew's Commons/ the cafe. This is a field that I previously would never have been able to talk about, due to lack of knowledge. Literally 10 minutes ago I corrected a friend on a mistake he made about Steve Wozniak. Ha.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Bionic eyes
This is cooler than Google glasses! These glasses help with people who are nearly blind, but not completely blind. I wonder if they could redo the design, like hook up the gear to more common designed glasses. Not like it really matters...
I wonder, since companies like Google and Apple wanted to revolutionize things and make the best products for consumers, why they didn't go into tracks like this? I bet they could have come with some really crazy helpful stuff for people with disabilities. I'm not well versed on their endeavors, so maybe they have tried and I'm unaware. It also a different field from pure tech, but maybe they can pair up with scientists. That'd be cool.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Anonymity and Community
Lanier's section on trolling and anonymity raised some questions in my mind, especially when thinking back to Bellah. If internet users can easily create an anonymous, or pseudonym profile then what does this do to do ideas of connections and relationships online? For example, people are drawn to a particular blog and a group forms online, of people with shared lifestyles. But the blogger has a pseudonym, and does not share detail about their appearance. Can the people following the blog still say that they know the blogger? I think quite a few would argue that they consider the blogger a friend, not a stranger.
In American culture, name is a big deal. It's offensive to forget someone's name and we have to time out when it is polite to ask someone's name. Face-to-face interaction is also important in our culture (this idea is shifting recently) and if we have not met someone, we say that we don't know them. Or we say that we know of them.
So what does anonymity/pseudonyms do to online relationships? If such impactful groups are formed online and communication between anonymous members is occurring, there is obviously a bond being formed. At the same time, Lanier points out that this lack of identity drives people to more extreme cruelty, in online forums. Dr. Rosen stated this in hist lecture as well, that most cyberbullies are never bullies in real life.
(That is so weird to say...like online life is not real life? We should come up with a better phrase).
These online groups that Lanier speaks of seem like communities but lack the shared history. And to jump back to the 'name' idea, what about online dating sites? Most users set up a username that is not their own name. But they spill everything else about themselves (truthfulness is debatable). This could be reflective of timing, when learning someones name. These users don't give out their most valuable info right away (name), they wait until someone messages them, as if approaching them personal. Then they give their name.
This was kind of a mashup of ideas...the importance of a name, the extent of online relationships, the idea of acting differently in real life vs online life...
In American culture, name is a big deal. It's offensive to forget someone's name and we have to time out when it is polite to ask someone's name. Face-to-face interaction is also important in our culture (this idea is shifting recently) and if we have not met someone, we say that we don't know them. Or we say that we know of them.
So what does anonymity/pseudonyms do to online relationships? If such impactful groups are formed online and communication between anonymous members is occurring, there is obviously a bond being formed. At the same time, Lanier points out that this lack of identity drives people to more extreme cruelty, in online forums. Dr. Rosen stated this in hist lecture as well, that most cyberbullies are never bullies in real life.
(That is so weird to say...like online life is not real life? We should come up with a better phrase).
These online groups that Lanier speaks of seem like communities but lack the shared history. And to jump back to the 'name' idea, what about online dating sites? Most users set up a username that is not their own name. But they spill everything else about themselves (truthfulness is debatable). This could be reflective of timing, when learning someones name. These users don't give out their most valuable info right away (name), they wait until someone messages them, as if approaching them personal. Then they give their name.
This was kind of a mashup of ideas...the importance of a name, the extent of online relationships, the idea of acting differently in real life vs online life...
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
iDisorder...disordering
For being a lecture on a somewhat feared, revered and hot topic, I think Dr. Rosen did a decent job of presenting without too much opinion or bias. His studies seemed valid and well conducted, although the one on poor health correlated with amount of technological use seemed more based on assumption than concrete cause and effects. He did make the point that his studies were statistically significant, as opposed to cause/effect.
I have a few questions to pose though: In the study where the researchers measured the levels of anxiety of students separated from their phones, and those who had their phones but were not allowed to use them, did the researchers factor in anxiety being caused by the study itself? When participants know they are part of a study and are being measured, it can cause extra stress.
Also, if they had been allowed to read a novel during the hour, how would the results have been different? Is it more fair to have given them a book than just have them sit there in silence? Part of our society includes the social expectation that, when you are around people, you are supposed to make small talk, conversation. Could this factor into the study? Been another causing factor of anxiety?
When Dr. Rosen spoke of personality disorders and the affect of media/technology on them, I wondered if cases of narcissism can be created through social media. I'm unfamiliar with personality disorders, I assume it's something your born with? But what if something like Facebook causes these disorders. Please correct me if my assumptions are wrong!
And finally, when talking about E-breaks, Dr. Rosen suggested that we write an email or text then step away for half a minute, a few minutes, whatever, then go back to it. I can see this being a very useful technique if someone is writing an angry or emotional text/email. But then I wondered if this would cause us to become even more overanalytical? If we leave it, it will most likely still be on our mind and Dr. Rosen encouraged us to think and think about how the receiver will interpret the message. But to what extent do we need to do this? I can see us all spending more and more time, energy and anxiety, coming up with all the different ways a message could be interpreted. Yikes.
I have a few questions to pose though: In the study where the researchers measured the levels of anxiety of students separated from their phones, and those who had their phones but were not allowed to use them, did the researchers factor in anxiety being caused by the study itself? When participants know they are part of a study and are being measured, it can cause extra stress.
Also, if they had been allowed to read a novel during the hour, how would the results have been different? Is it more fair to have given them a book than just have them sit there in silence? Part of our society includes the social expectation that, when you are around people, you are supposed to make small talk, conversation. Could this factor into the study? Been another causing factor of anxiety?
When Dr. Rosen spoke of personality disorders and the affect of media/technology on them, I wondered if cases of narcissism can be created through social media. I'm unfamiliar with personality disorders, I assume it's something your born with? But what if something like Facebook causes these disorders. Please correct me if my assumptions are wrong!
And finally, when talking about E-breaks, Dr. Rosen suggested that we write an email or text then step away for half a minute, a few minutes, whatever, then go back to it. I can see this being a very useful technique if someone is writing an angry or emotional text/email. But then I wondered if this would cause us to become even more overanalytical? If we leave it, it will most likely still be on our mind and Dr. Rosen encouraged us to think and think about how the receiver will interpret the message. But to what extent do we need to do this? I can see us all spending more and more time, energy and anxiety, coming up with all the different ways a message could be interpreted. Yikes.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Mark who?
When something extraordinary is invented, created, becomes popular, we are inherently intrigued by its maker. They've got to be a genius, someone amazing, to have done something that the common man can't. Or perhaps they'll end up being someone similar to us, have the same interests, someone we can connect with on a celebrity-commoner level.
Or maybe we're just plain nosy. Or looking to see if we can marry said person and absorb their wealth and fame.
I realize that I have taken a very cynical outlook on this but it's a thought that has been troubling me. Why do we read/write autobiographies? Make biofilms? Dedicate front pages? This is easier to answer. I would say that we are genuinely interested in the person who has made the genuinely interesting thing that we use.
But why we do presume to formulate our own opinions about these people? I mean, c'mon, I can say that I hate Taylor Swift but I don't know her, have never met her, don't know anyone who knows her...so I take it back. I don't hate her. How can I hate someone I don't know?
I'll play devil's advocate: we read things about Steve Jobs that made us hate him. He's a jerk to people, he screwed his friends over, neglected his daughter in her youth. BUT WE CAN'T REALLY SAY WE HATE HIM. Or that he's a jerk. First, we're taking a bunch of different people's word for it, who we DON'T KNOW and second, WE HAVE NEVER MET OR INTERACTED WITH STEVE JOBS.
Same goes for Mark Zuckerberg.
It makes sense, that with the limited information that we do have (presented to us by someone else who we inherently trust), we use to form opinions. But why do we go so far as to try to analyze the person? To really figure out if it was abandonment issues or nerd status? Here's the research question: Why do want, and why do we get, so involved in other people's lives?
Obviously this question can extend to celebrities as well. Look at 'People' magazine. And these iconic geniuses of inventions are too, celebrities. But when we go so in depth in studying them...isn't the just the same as studying Kim Kardashian?
I would like to state that I may regret this post in a few hours, a few days....not a few weeks because I'll have graduated by then. And I sincerely hope I have not offended anyone, especially not Prof. Smith!
I'll readily admit that I ate up Jobs' biography, I thought it was incredibly interesting and I really like 'The Social Network' and am intrigued by Mark Zuckerberg. So I'm asking this question to myself, as well.
Or maybe we're just plain nosy. Or looking to see if we can marry said person and absorb their wealth and fame.
I realize that I have taken a very cynical outlook on this but it's a thought that has been troubling me. Why do we read/write autobiographies? Make biofilms? Dedicate front pages? This is easier to answer. I would say that we are genuinely interested in the person who has made the genuinely interesting thing that we use.
But why we do presume to formulate our own opinions about these people? I mean, c'mon, I can say that I hate Taylor Swift but I don't know her, have never met her, don't know anyone who knows her...so I take it back. I don't hate her. How can I hate someone I don't know?
I'll play devil's advocate: we read things about Steve Jobs that made us hate him. He's a jerk to people, he screwed his friends over, neglected his daughter in her youth. BUT WE CAN'T REALLY SAY WE HATE HIM. Or that he's a jerk. First, we're taking a bunch of different people's word for it, who we DON'T KNOW and second, WE HAVE NEVER MET OR INTERACTED WITH STEVE JOBS.
Same goes for Mark Zuckerberg.
It makes sense, that with the limited information that we do have (presented to us by someone else who we inherently trust), we use to form opinions. But why do we go so far as to try to analyze the person? To really figure out if it was abandonment issues or nerd status? Here's the research question: Why do want, and why do we get, so involved in other people's lives?
Obviously this question can extend to celebrities as well. Look at 'People' magazine. And these iconic geniuses of inventions are too, celebrities. But when we go so in depth in studying them...isn't the just the same as studying Kim Kardashian?
I would like to state that I may regret this post in a few hours, a few days....not a few weeks because I'll have graduated by then. And I sincerely hope I have not offended anyone, especially not Prof. Smith!
I'll readily admit that I ate up Jobs' biography, I thought it was incredibly interesting and I really like 'The Social Network' and am intrigued by Mark Zuckerberg. So I'm asking this question to myself, as well.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Shannon and Religion
As a cultural anthropology major, Gleick's article didn't really do it for me. Kinda went over my head, I'll admit. But Turing and Shannon are incredible people, their stories and work were fascinating to learn.
I like the idea of information processing, how it can be seen as a function, and how we can then put this concept onto religions - religions are information processors. Shannon talks of uncertainty, in a way that is similar to the religious 'basing on faith'. This leap of faith has always interested and perplexed me. I was not raised religious but I do live in the Bible Belt of America, South Carolina. All my friends were church goers, mainly Southern Baptists and they relied heavily on faith. They accepted that things in life are uncertain and instead of looking for answers and solutions, they just believed. To this day I can't personally accept that. Like Shannon mused, information is uncertain, there are things we won't know but I cannot put that faith through uncertainty into the hands of a god or higher power.
And in some ways, scientists and religious leaders do search for answers, through math/science or through religious works and musings. In both fields there are those who accept and those who search. Religion can provide information and meaning to its followers as science can provide the same to its members. Religious texts and leaders, past and present, try to provide answers and give out information for the people to process. Some religions require that its followers process information all in a similar way while other religions are more lenient, more individually-based and leave information up to interpretation.
I may be a little biased in my view because the only religion I was raised around when I was a teenager was Unitarian Universalism. I enjoyed that it drew from all religions, was loosely based and formed for and by each individual. At the same time, I would call it a 'cherry-picking' religion. You take from here and there til you get what you want. There's an example of people who are searchers, as opposed to accepters.
"Are all numbers computable?" Are all religions computable? Complete? Consistent? Decidable?
I like the idea of information processing, how it can be seen as a function, and how we can then put this concept onto religions - religions are information processors. Shannon talks of uncertainty, in a way that is similar to the religious 'basing on faith'. This leap of faith has always interested and perplexed me. I was not raised religious but I do live in the Bible Belt of America, South Carolina. All my friends were church goers, mainly Southern Baptists and they relied heavily on faith. They accepted that things in life are uncertain and instead of looking for answers and solutions, they just believed. To this day I can't personally accept that. Like Shannon mused, information is uncertain, there are things we won't know but I cannot put that faith through uncertainty into the hands of a god or higher power.
And in some ways, scientists and religious leaders do search for answers, through math/science or through religious works and musings. In both fields there are those who accept and those who search. Religion can provide information and meaning to its followers as science can provide the same to its members. Religious texts and leaders, past and present, try to provide answers and give out information for the people to process. Some religions require that its followers process information all in a similar way while other religions are more lenient, more individually-based and leave information up to interpretation.
I may be a little biased in my view because the only religion I was raised around when I was a teenager was Unitarian Universalism. I enjoyed that it drew from all religions, was loosely based and formed for and by each individual. At the same time, I would call it a 'cherry-picking' religion. You take from here and there til you get what you want. There's an example of people who are searchers, as opposed to accepters.
"Are all numbers computable?" Are all religions computable? Complete? Consistent? Decidable?
Friday, February 1, 2013
Ads on Google? What Would Jobs Say?
This thought really stuck with me during class today, when we were discussing advertisements on Google. The ads that pop up on my Google page are ridiculous, red and blue bouncy balls, people arrested in WI, things made in India, etc.
In my opinion, the ads are annoying and gaudy. After learning about Steve Jobs' obsession and eye for aesthetics, I think that he would be appalled with the ads. They definitely detract from the user's experience.
I'd rather have ads than have to pay to use Google, though.
And to the Pandora users out there...how are ads on your page? Mine are THE STUPIDEST THINGS EVER. I think my computer thinks I'm a young adult male. Thank you ex-boyfriend? For using my computer.
I can understand that Google would like to make a profit and support itself without charging its users. I also thinks it's pretty darn amazing that they can track you the way they do, and find related ads. But at the same time, I don't think I've ever really encountered an ad that sparked my interest.
And to the Pandora users out there...how are ads on your page? Mine are THE STUPIDEST THINGS EVER. I think my computer thinks I'm a young adult male. Thank you ex-boyfriend? For using my computer.
I can understand that Google would like to make a profit and support itself without charging its users. I also thinks it's pretty darn amazing that they can track you the way they do, and find related ads. But at the same time, I don't think I've ever really encountered an ad that sparked my interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)