Lame!!!

I just noticed that TWO of my blog posts that I had 'scheduled' to be posted never posted!!! I guess this just serves as a reminder to double check!!

:(

Disclosing the Ethnographic Self

The article is broken down into mainly 2 key points. These points are 'disclosing in face-to-face conversation' and 'virtual exposure and disclosure'. Both points are pretty self explanatory. Self disclosure in face-to-face conversation basically depends entirely on the person. For example, the first time I met my new neighbor she told me she was recently divorced, she might move back to Switzerland, she had a lesbian affair and was going on a lesbian retreat in Yosemite all in about 3 sentences. Entirely opposite of that, I know some people you almost have to beat over the head to get any information out of them. There are also occasions and situations where it is/isn't appropriate to disclose personal information. You wouldn't tell a new employer about your hang over the night before just like you wouldn't sit in silence if a close friend asked you how you were doing. It's all just a matter of balancing.
Virtual exposure and disclosure is similar, just via a virtual medium. A social networking site like Facebook calls for a lot of self disclosure with status prompts like "What's on your mind?" and information blocks prompting users to "Write something about yourself". While people often put information up without a second thought, disclosing information could send you in the wrong direction. Thankfully Facebook has an option to group friends together and allow specific friends to read or not read your postings, see or not see your pictures. For me this is pretty much a lifesaver. I have quite a bit of family on my Facebook so I make sure only certain things are available for them to see. I also have an option to allow or not allow them to read my status updates since I often write about Erik and I living together. Being a good, Catholic, church go-er doesn't really mix well with 'living in sin' so there are a good chunk of things I block them from. Haha.

Personal Dynamic Media

I really enjoyed this article because it was interesting to see the beginnings of something that we all use in one way or another every day. I didn't know about the Dynabook so I liked reading about it. I thought it was kind of funny how they had all of this speculation in their writing saying things like "Imagine if..." and "What if..." and "Wouldn't it be ______ if..." The Dynabook  would be the size of a notebook and could be used by everyone, it could have the power to virtually handle all of it's owner's information related needs. Kay and Goldberg write, "Imagine having your own self contained knowledge manipulator in a portable package the size and shap of an ordinary notebook" (394). Imagine not having that! Haha, most of us carry something similar to that with us everyday, with cell phones becoming more and more useful we all have our own Dynabooks right in our pocket or handbag. I didn't know the idea for something like this existed so long ago. The picture of the mock up of a future Dynabook had be laughing because it just looks like a big Blackberry or a clunky iPad. There was a lot of discussion of children using the Dynabook and it being effected their attention span levels, "Their attention spans are measured in hours rather than minutes!" (394). I thought this was ironic because now we're trying to get kids to spend less time on computers and focus their attention on other things. I can't really remember a time before having a computer. I remember my family always having one and playing on it pretty young. Here's a picture of me and my sister. This picture was taken before my brother was born so I was max 2 and a half. My sister was around 4 and looks even more deranged than I do so I covered up her crazy little face. Haha. This big clunker (a Macintosh, if I remember from what my dad's told my boyfriend...) was from 1991 or earlier. Haha

I enjoyed reading about early paint and word processing programs because I loved to use paint programs to scribble on the screen and word processors to type nonsense. Anyways, it's pretty interesting to see how ideas from so long ago (the Dynabook) are super similar to technology we use today.

Explaining Why Young Adults Use Myspace and Facebook Through Uses and Gratifications Method

I thought this article was interesting because it not only discussed why young adults use Facebook and MySpace, but it broke it down into why young adults used the internet. As the article discussed, our generation depends heavily on the internet for information and entertainment.

The article talked about how it's used "...to experience selective, efficient, and immediate connection with other for their (mediated) interpersonal communication satisfaction ans as an on going way to seek the approval and support of other people". I learned that social networking sites (SNS) such as these ones attracted millions of users allowing them to 'play an active role in the socialization process and in constructing their own identity'. What was interesting was that these users are seen as a new generation of individuals whose identities are almost entirely defined by their connection and the content they put online. SNS are popular because they're user friendly in turn making it easy to communicate with friends, family and others. I also learned that for the most part profiles and accounts are created not to meet new people but to keep in contact with old friends, those are are already part of thie existing social networks.

It was interesting to learn about MySpace and Facebook's beginnings. While MySpace began in 2003 and spread by word of mouth, Facebook started in 2004 and was only accessible to Harvard students, then college students, then high school and then finally opened access to everyone after 2005. I can't remember exactly what year I got my MySpace in but I do remember hearing about it through a close friend who begged me to get it. I remember the way she described it to me made me feel slightly weary: You just look at people's profiles, ask them to be your friend in a message and if they like you they send you a request to be your friend. I remember those EXACT words and probably won't ever forget them. Hahaha. I also remember MySpace being a place where my friends and I would add cute boys for innocent flirting before we realized our actual friends had accounts as well.

The two forms of gratification discussed were also new to me: process (creating content on one's profile) and content (acquiring information). It was funny to me to see that the majority of people surveyed said they used SNS to acquire information about new people they meet. I totally relate to this because if I meet someone I'm interested in as a friend (or before I met my boyfriend, as an 'interest' haha) I totally look them up to learn a little more about them. Funny thing is, it's kind of how my boyfriend and I got together. When I met him, I was dating a total sleaze bag and wasn't really interested. But a few months later I half heartidly sent Erik (my boyfriend) a message when he popped up in my 'People You May Know' and mentioned we had met. Message after message, phone conversation after phone conversation he asked me out and now we're living happily ever after. So yay! Facebook love story....Hahaha...pretty gross...

The last thing I learned was that the term "scene" emerged from MySpace. While I know what the 'typical' scene kid looks like, side bangs straightened and plastered to their face, unisex eyeliner, 'angle' photos, I was completely unaware that the trend emerged from MySpace. It's interesting to see how an entire subculture came from this form of mass media. Then again there are so many other subcultures that also seemed to have emerged, online gamers, 'furries', 1337 (leet) speak...fifty year old creeper man clubs...haha. Interestingly...these all  have a semi negative connotation to them...hmmm, food for thought I guess.

Have an awesome weekend!

“From Computer Power and Human Reason” by Joseph Weizenbaum

I thought the article, “From Computer Power and Human Reason” by Joseph Weizenbaum was really interesting. For one thing, I was immediately intrigued by ELIZA and the idea that you could have a 2 way conversation with a computer. Reading Sharkbyte's blog, I had to laugh that she brought up AIMBot (or whatever it was called) because I do remember doing the same things she talked about. How funny it was to be 12, having a sleepover with friends and talking to a robot on a Friday night. While Sharkbyte remembers saying 'bad' words to it (wouldn't AIMBot sign out if you did?? Haha), I remember taking silly to a whole other level and asking him to be our boyfriend, if he loved us or if he would marry one of us. Anyways, what I think is funny is that you're basically talking in circles since whether it be AIMBot or ELIZA or any other is just using what you said previously to fill in the blanks. I think, Weizenbaum touches a little on this when he talks about one's understanding of the computer, “If his reliance on such machines is to be based on something other than unmitigated despair or blind faith, he much explain to himself what these machines do and even how they do what they do. This requires him to build some conception of their internal 'realities'. Yet most men don;t understand computer to even the slightest degree” (372).

While he argues quite a few points the two I found most interesting where the difference between man and machine as thinkers and that science has become the sole form of understanding.

He argues that, “...however intelligent machines may be made to be, there are some acts of though that ought to be attempted only by humans” (373). It interesting how he questions where computers would be in a social order because I didn't even think of categorizing them together with people.

Another point he argues is that, “...science has become the sole legitimate form of understanding in the common wisdom. When I say that science has been gradually converted into a solo-acting poison, I mean that the attribution of certainty to scientific knowledge by the common wisdom, an attribution now made so nearly universal that it has become a common sense dogma, has virtually delegitimatized all other ways of understand” (375). He discusses how people hunger only for what is represented to them to be scientifically validated knowledge.

Facebook To Change How You Process Friend Requests

I thought this was such a fun article! This totally relates to my life right now, at this very moment, this second! The article talks about how Facebook is planning to change the way you handle friend requests. As you know when we recieve a friend request we have two options: confirm or ignore. I always struggled when I didn't want to do either. For example, the other day SharkByte sent me a friend request for a facebook profile she made. Without question I would of confirmed it....but it was a profile for her dog. Hahaha. To me pets with more technology in their lives than a large majority of people kind of make me cringe. Haha. Because I've known her for 90% of my life and she's my older sister's best friend I don't have the heart to deny her puppy's request...but because I'm so against the idea of it I don't want to accept! So what do I do in this conundrum? I guess use the new option. The new option is "Not Now" and sends the request to a hidden requests file for later. From there you can either confirm or deny but in the meanwhile it stays hidden. Sounds like my kind of change!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20100917/tc_mashable/facebook_to_change_how_you_process_friend_requests

“The Technology and The Society” -Raymond William

Williams begins by describing how common belief is that a new world, new society, new phase in history, etc, is  ‘brought on’ by a new technology. He discusses how we are so used to hearing something along those lines that we often fail to realize a new technologies meaning. He analyses television as a particular cultural technology under 3 main ideas. His three ‘headings’ are: (a) versions of cause and effect in technology and society, (b) the social history of television as a technology, and (c) the social history of the uses of television technology.
    In his heading, “versions of cause and effect in technology and society” he discusses  how each view “can be seen to depend on the isolation of technology” (293). He argues that, ‘The technology would be seen, that is to say, as being looked for and developed with certain purposes and practices already in mind. At the same time the interpretation would differ from symptomic technology in that these purposes and practices would be seen as direct: as known social needs, purposes and practices to which the technology is not marginal but central.
    In, “the social history of television as a technology” he discusses the history of television and it’s development. He talks about how, “In no way is this a history of communications systems creating a new society or new social conditions” (295). A long “history of capital accumulation and working technical improvements created new needs but also new possibilities  and the communications systems, down to television, were their intrinsic outcome” (295).
    In, “the social history of the uses of television technology “ he discusses the technological development that has led to a wider series of communication.