Reflective Post

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

Google's Dress Standard

When talking in class about Google's ninth statement on what they 'know to be true', it raised some thoughts on how much society plays a part in group mantras. We discussed the example of Church on Wednesday and how there is a commonly recognized but unwritten dress code. Church goers usually dress in their "sunday best". We went into discussion about how more modern churches are doing away with the formal attire and are promoting and accepting a comfortable look. My thoughts in class went to other religions, in other countries. It is obviously a cultural thing, dressing up for church in the U.S. and I think that this reflects the societal ideals that we hold. Being dressed up for church represents two things: that we believe that we should like nice when going to worship, not for our sake but out of respect for whichever god, and also that, since church is a very social setting, a community, not just a place of worship, we want to look nice in the eyes of our fellow members. I tried to think of other religions that promote being dressed up when going to worship. Buddhism and Hinduism don't mind what you wear, Islam only requires females to cover their hair, I'm not sure about Judaism...? The point though, is that this is not just a religious thing; it's a sociocultural thing. Americans want to keep up appearances, with the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, bags we use, etc. It's a cultural shift that churches in the U.S. are changing their dress standards. It's more of a cultural reflection, that Google encourages comfy clothes and not suits in its offices. This shift may be representative of the idea that we need to be less materialistic and caring about others opinions of us. Google is stating the point that looks don't mind - brainpower does. The only place this might not fly is in Europe...haha.

iPad

There are so many apps, especially on iPads, that is marketed towards children. The market population seems to be geared towards younger and younger people. There are app books, comics, games, discovery apps, the list goes on and on. Commercials more often show children using iPads while their parents watch on approvingly. Sooo, is this a good thing? A bad thing? Maybe just a neutral thing? For years people have complained about how TV is bad for kids. So I'm sure that there are many adults out there saying that iPads are just as bad. I personally wouldn't put an expensive iPad in the hands of a youngin'.

It would be interesting to interview the makers/creators of apps for kids. See what their marketing strategy is and what they choose to use in iPad programs. What they choose to focus on, how they figure out what is important and/or a better seller. Do they peruse mom magazines? Classrooms?

Community

In class the other day, we discussed how tech gadgets, such as laptops, iPads, etc. can either create or destroy a sense of community. The focus was on iPads and how individuals can customize them while simultaneously becoming part of a community. i.e. sharing photos, uploading religious texts, partaking in chat rooms and commenting on sites. By assuming that technology can either help or hinder the sense of community, we first need to think about what community is. It's easy enough to pinpoint the neighborhood we come from, the schools we've attended, sports teams or music ensembles we belong to but TV, internet, SMS, and cellphones are based on a broader sense of community. A pertinent article is "Imagined Communities" by Benedict Anderson. In his article, he discuses the idea of nationalism and nation. He argues that media has propagated this idea of a massive community, regardless of physical distance or contact. Community in a national sense is something in our imagination - we haven't met every single fellow American and we never will. The same goes for online communities. Gamers create friendships with one another through the game but rarely ever meet in person. Alumni pages on facebook are united through a sense of having lived and studied in the same academic community but they don't all know each other. This sense of community is imagined through shared interests and experiences. We readily buy into the "imagined community" because it is something that serves us, gives us a sense of comradery. * Side note * I noticed that, when going on to Netflix's webpage, that all the depictions are of people on Apple products. A lady watching Netflix on her Mac, a boy watching it on an iPhone, and a girl and her dad watching it on their iPad. Does anyone know why this is?

I was working on an essay in the library the other day and was using google for a variety of things. I used dictionary.com to look up some words and synonyms, I used google to look up Chicago style citation, and to look up some literary references, and I also used pandora to listen to music while I worked. Then I thought, geez, what did people do before the internet and especially google? Well, I guess they used real dictionaries, listened to a radio and probably had a better memory for citations and books.

It's so easy now a days to look up anything and everything on google. It's taken for granted that it's such an efficient search engine. I had no idea that search bars used to be very minimal and biased in what results they would chose to show. I use google for everything and does it a great job in supplying a ridiculous amount of information. My parents still look up things in books and the dictionary. I just go to google. It's amazing to have such a resource at hand. As students, we obviously still use actual texts and articles. But where do we usually find them? On the interwebs! I studied in India for a few months and an internet connection was hard if impossible to find. No coffee shops had wifi, hardly any homes had internet. Also, India has more restrictions on their internet than American. Sooo we're pretty lucky! Although a lack of internet forced me to use a university library often and find resources through professors instead of the internet. Perhaps there is something to be said about the extent that we use and rely on the internet. But for the most part, I feel very grateful for google/internet!

A Zen Job

Jennifer Egan asked Steve if he was defying Buddhist philosophy "by making computers and other products that people coveted?" (Steve Jobs, 262). He talked of a state of enlightenment, where it is "important to avoid attachment to material objects. Our consumer desires are unhealthy...and to attain enlightenment you need to develop a life of nonattachment and nonmaterialism" (262).

So, how is Jobs mind at peace with Buddhist ideals while simultaneously creating a corporation of consumer goods? I really can't begin to assume answers to this. We haven't read enough about Steve's ideas on enlightenment or study deeply enough into Zen Buddhism. I'm sure he has/had the answers and could have argued well for himself.

To draw some basic parallels, one can see how Jobs at least strived for a disattachment to material goods. He lived in an average (if not slightly above average) home, with no security, no bodyguards. He wore the same thing every day. He had no clutter of furniture or objects in the home. And he could be very unattached to people. Although I doubt that this is what Buddhismn meant by leading a life of nonattachment.
His products exude simplicity but they are still products that make a profit. And Jobs strictly controls the functions of his products. He is very attached to his products and inventions. To anyone, his spiritual choices and career choices seem like a mighty conundrum.

Before I get myself all confused and in a tizzy, I want to focus on part of Suzuki's lecture. Not this Suzuki;

but this Suzuki; . (I couldn't resist, sorry).

Shunryu Suzuki, a teacher of Zen Buddhism who immigrated to San Francisco, talks about noise versus sound, during one of his recorded lessons. I couldn't help but picturing Jobs in the Apple office, listening to various employees and staff members while listening to Suzuki describe 'noise'. "Noise is something more objective, something which will...bother you" and "sound is something real, that comes out of your practice".
Jobs must have thought that most people around him emitted 'noise', annoying, useless babel. He sought out those individuals that could emit 'sound', something more practiced, more worthwhile.


When Shunryu speaks of the bluejay becoming part of you, something that is in your mind, we can think of people with ideas that Jobs likes, that he is seeking, that perhaps are already in his mind. Those people are not disturbing him but are 'reading' to him. You can only be read to if you are receptive the sound that is being emitted, to what people are saying. Those select people are sound amidst noise, in Jobs' world.

This idea of sound vs noise also plays into Jobs' obsession with simplicity and perfection. Why waste time, breath and thought on something that is not very worthwhile? He would say we should strive for something more meaningful, which is seen in Buddhism.
It is difficult to try to understand Steve's ties to Buddhism but I hope that the example I stated (created?) can open up the floor to more discussions about the meaning of Buddhism when translated to a materialistic, capitalistic world.

Common Observation

The story I am about to share has already by experienced and observed by many already. We can either share this experience together or you can just skip this post.

The other day, my roommate and I had a friend over and we were hanging out, chatting, sitting in our living room area. A lull occurred in the conversation and my roommate and I both looked up to see that each of us was engrossed in our smartphones. Claire was looking through pictures, I was online on pinterest and Will was...actually I don't know what Will was doing. But it was on his phone.

Claire was the first to make a comment, something along the lines of, "ha wow instead of talking to each other we're all on our phones". And we all just kind of...laughed. Laughed it off is better to say.
So I can take two things from this: one, it is no longer surprising. To see a bunch of young adults hanging out but interacting with their phones instead of each other and two, that it now a common, given circumstance.
Is this such a bad thing? What would we do during those lulls without our phones? We would still sit quietly. But maybe that develops better conversational skills in people. Forces them into that situation where they have to think of something to talk about or ask. Or perhaps it allows us to be more comfortable with one another. To accept those lulls and be comfortable in comrade-able silence. (Is that a word?).
It's hard to remember back to a time where we didn't have our phone. And I think most authors are correct in saying that our phones have become extensions of ourselves. Marshall McLuhan states this in his article, The Medium is the Message. A good reference for this class if you have any spare reading time on your hands.

This is not a new point, not a new argument, not something unheard of. I would be interested to hear what other people have to say, to see how many people consider this a big deal or not a big deal. A sign of declining social interaction or would be fiddling around with something during this lulls anyhow? Technological or not.

Mr. Jobs

Steve Jobs' commencement speech at Stanford was pretty good, I'll give him that. At first when he said he wanted to share three stories about himself...well that's just it, it's about himself. Seems a little egotistical. But I admire the fact that he shared those stories in a way that was accessible to his audience. And what better way to connect with people than through narrative?

I agree with Jamie's point in class today, that Mr. Jobs did not seem to be advocating the idea of dropping out of college but merely stating that he himself did not need it. There are people out there who benefit from college and there are those that benefit from going straight into the working sphere. And I think he definitely realizes this. It was interesting to hear shouts and applause when he said he dropped out of Reed...obviously those students were graduates and had no way of dropping out since it was commencement. Perhaps they too can appreciate the fact that school is not for everyone.

What hit home the most was Jobs' point about connecting the dots. It's something you can't do ahead of time, it happens when looking back. And in order to get the lines that you want you need to find and do what you love, what interests you. Obviously this is a luxury - not everyone can afford to take the time to find their passion or even pursue it, if it proves to be not lucrative. But as a liberal arts student graduating at the end of this term, I take his words to heart. He says don't settle, find your satisfaction. This has been my personal motto for years. Satisfaction has to be one of the hardest feelings to achieve, but it's the highest (so of course it's going to be hard). It's so easy to settle for that job you managed to find in a recovering economy and in the class of one of the highest percentage of graduates. It's tough but I think Steve's point is that, once you do find it, you can live. You will live. That's all it takes. (Roughly speaking).
So I enjoy that Steve dropped out and attended classes that interested him. No restrictions from general ed requirements. Because in an ideal situation, that's all that matters. Your education. And in line with tech logos, it's personal. It's exactly that, your education. Not what your school plans out for you, or what your parents want you to take, what your friend's are taking, what will land you the best internship, etc. Learn because you love to learn. That's why Steve Jobs became such a genius. He wasn't shy of learning and seeking out opportunities to learn.

When thinking about a technological advancement that has helped me on a daily basis, I initially wanted to jump to text messaging. But after some thought, I've decided that texting can be as hindering and annoying as it can be useful. So my mind wandered to other options. Email. And specifically emailing on a smartphone. That is an advancement that is helpful to a wide range of users, students, professors, business men and women, families, bosses, far away friends, etc.

Email has been around for a awhile, since the late '60's (correct me if I'm wrong) but emailing from a phone is still a relatively new concept. Obviously people below the age of 12 might not need to send or check emails on a high tech phone but, for the rest of us, this is something we do multiple times a day. I'm going to take a moment to work on my sales skills but bear with me: Think about it. Don't you have that moment almost once a day where you think, "Oh *#!#, I forgot to tell so-and-so to do this!" or "Crap. My assignment is late." Then you whip out your phone, pull up browser, shoot a quick email and BAM. It's taken care of. And it is in no way annoying, like text messages. Emails are much calmer. We don't expect immediate responses. We don't read too much into email lingo. And who uses emoticons? Maybe if you're emailing your mom. Do you want to be alerted if you receive new emails? That's fine, your phone can do that for you. If you would rather not be bothered and check it on your own time, that's fine too.
Beautiful. A wonderful union between phone and email. Working harmoniously together.
Let's divorce texting.

On a personal note, I was unable to use my computer for the first few days back at school. I had to take it to  someone savvier than I to download new anti-virus software and get stuff up and running. I also came down with an outrageously high fever and the flu. I was lying in bed with no computer (my roommate forgot her power cord back in Chi-town), sickly, wondering how I was going to let my professors know, then *epiphany!* I used my new iPhone to email them. And it really saved my butt that day.
So thank you, person who made it possible to log on to our email via our phones. I guess I should really be thanking the person who made internet on a phone possible. That's all you really need. Anyway, I appreciate it.