Since the Internet was created it has gained extraordinary momentum. So much momentum that now, most people do not go a day with out logging on to the World Wide Web. Communication has been one of the things that has been most affected by the Internet. It now makes communicating with others easier than ever before. Is the convenience of the Internet making online relations more favorable than face-to-face relations?
What if we were able to work, play, and get to know others without ever having to leave our house? Increasingly, that is how our society is becoming. My question affects everyone in our society. If, as a society, we are moving more towards all communication via the Internet than we may never have to see anyone again, we will be able to live in our houses and never leave. Now this is extreme, but it could happen with the increasing technology. Now a days it is pretty rare to find someone who does not do anything via the Internet. The Internet is truly versatile for all that are willing to use it. I find that my question fits the many different domains we have talked about in class. With the exception of services, transactions, entertainment, personal relationships, news, and education are all flourishing because of our use of the web.
My question is interesting because since the beginning of time, people have mostly communicated through face to face contact. As the world grew so did the need for new ways to communicate. Things such as letters and telephones became very popular. Still, I find these very personal ways of talking to one another. Now I think that the web has taken some personal touches out of communication. When we communicate through computers we are seeing text fonts instead of handwriting and pictures instead of faces. If we start to move away from face-to-face relations than how will we know who is really behind the screen?
I read this article and felt that it was a lot of explaining how this “dynabook” would look and how it would run. I did not find a nugget per say but I do have feelings toward the writing as a whole.
I have noticed that everything we have read has been has been written between the 1940s-1980s. The catch to this is that a lot of what they talk about it exactly the technology we have and use today. But that means that there is a 30-70 gap in ideas and actual well manufactured products. In the article there was a picture of the mock-up of the future dynamo (Figure 26.2). To me, that looked like the current Surface by Microsoft. Right now there are ideas of robots that can realize their sense of self and make judgment calls based on ethical values and morality. When you think of the future of robots and its implications, it is the same way that Kay and Goldberg thought of their dynabook. The implications are astounding. Just think if we had robots that could act like and interact with humans. It would be world changing. The same way that computers have changed the world in how we are able to communicate and produce new technology.
I also want to touch base on how I have connected this with thought vectors. At first I was unsure of what a “vector” was. Something that just keeps going (in math it would be the equivalent to a ray), right? But how can a thought just keep going? Thats what got me confused. But now I think of a vector as an evolution. The thought of thoughts evolving (changing or morphing into something bigger/better) makes more sense to me. Computers were a thought back in the 40s and on. Ever since that first thought it has been an evolution to where we are today. So the things that current generations are thinking about are going to keep getting thought about until we can call them reality.
I think I have made some progress in this class. Although at first I was not sure how I would like this class since it seemed to have no structure and no “plan of attack”. Once I realized that the reason why Prof. Hale was being so vague and mysterious, it helped me understand that what he wants is for people to be curious, for people to ask questions, and for people to dig deep enough to find answers. Once my anger for the concept of no points diminished, I could start to actually be interested in this class. Although I do not feel like I am as intellectually gifted as some in this class I sure am trying to get up to par. I do find our discussions interesting and do try my best to come up with significant answers. I have never participated so much in an English-type class before.
As for my writing…I went back to my very first post and noticed that I did not at all use the concept of SEEI. I was really just bouncing around the subject. I was not making connections to other things and I was not pulling anything out of the article, I was merely restating what the author had said. Now, I am actually making points that could be applied to something. I am making connections and taking more out of the readings. With that being said, I am no where near perfect in the world of reading and critical thinking. But I am improving, slowly but surely. English and literature have never been my strong point (I like math and numbers) but I am trying and I am proud of my effort.
“The reader or viewer always gets feelings along with information, even when the creators of the information think that its “content” is much more restricted.”
I really enjoyed this quote because it gave me a new perspective as a writer. No matter how unbiased I try to be (or any writer for that matter) I am still leaving an emotional impression on them. I think the best example that was used in the article was assembly instructions. You would think that these are too the point and would not leave ant emotions with the reader/assembler. But when I thought about it deeper, it does. Depending on how vague or how in depth the instructions are, the reader may end up leaving feeling like they will never finish assembling this item or like they could’ve put the item together without instructions.
This really made me think about my own writing, especially with the beginnings of our final project. As straight forward as I think my writing is, a reader may take away certain feelings that I did not account for. This could either be a good or bad thing whether or not their emotions are agreeing with me or disagreeing. This makes me more cautious when writing so that the reader will not take away the wrong idea. It makes me realize that even though our final project will be an “academic” paper that it still will leave the reader with emotions rather then just the information I will be providing. I think that this will also make me more cautious with the information I present and what that may infer. A lot of the time I try to be not be bias when writing formally (as opposed to blogs which are completely my opinion) but now I will try to look at my sources and rationale through different lenses to see the impression that it leaves with other perspectives other than my own.
To be an effective guest speaker, I think that the speaker has to be able to leave an idea, thought, or belief within everyone in the audience’s mind. This is a tough thing to achieve since the speaker has no background on us, the audience. We all come from different households and all hold different beliefs on small and big topics. The guest speaker has to speak in a way that could hit home with all of us, not just the people who are interested in the Engelbart’s work.
As I was reading some things on the Engelbart website I kept noticing “Collective IQ”. Well back when Engelbart first thought of this idea, Internet was not as widely used as it is today. I want to know if Christina thinks that Internet is helping or hurting our collective IQ. I would say that it is helping but at the same time a lot of people use the Internet for their personal use as opposed to helping solve a problem greater then they are.
I know her speech will also be thought provoking and that I will have more to ask her after she talks.
The very first thing I thought of was blogging and the purpose of it. Well blogs wouldn’t exist if the author did not want to post something. So then I came to the question of why do people blog. I thought about it in a different way and came up with why do people feel the desire/need to publicize their lives. I feel that when people post on the internet, they are opening up some aspect of their life to the public. Where as some bloggers are more “anonymous” than others, the Internet is still a public place. What I mean by anonymous is that some people only post things like recipes and for the most part un-bias posts while on the other hand people post videos and have blogs that share their opinions. So my question comes down to Why do people feel the desire to publicize their lives?
I tried to dissect my question into the different domains.
1. Psychological POV (point of view): In class we talked about importance and how some people view the Internet as an opportunity to feel important/needed and to have their voices heard. Now this can be from a very open person, such as someone in a video where everyone can see who they are, or from a more refined setting, something more along the lines of a blog with just a name not a face. This then turns into an identity issue. Some people create aliases in order to be perceived in a certain way. This then becomes manipulative.
2. Entertainment POV: I watch a lot of YouTube videos and a lot of comedians have turned their YouTube channel into their full-time job where they earn money through Ads and appearance since their popularity is so high. I feel like these people know that being open with the public can make a lot of people laugh and forget about their worries.
3. Informative POV: Some people post their opinions on products/services as reviews for other people to take into consideration before buying. They really want to help consumers who do not want to waste money on unfit products.
4. Educational POV: These people are just posting information for other people to learn. These people are generally not social media public figures.
It amazes me that the the digital world of the Internet can be so addictive. Its not tangible but it can leave a lasting mark on a person. I also amazes me the amount of people that post things all the time that might not get read. I have visited a lot of blogs and have only read a very tiny portion of what is on there.
Due to my personal views I do not like the thought of putting technology into humans. I believe strongly in evolution and that we are here for a reason. I believe in producing technology that can help us with everyday tasks (like computers and prosthetics). I do not believe in creating technology to put into humans to make us smarter. Animals have evolved into humans and now we are the superior beings on Earth. We do not need to disturb that. If we disturb evolution by augmenting humans than humans wont evolve naturally. Then evolution turns into innovation. It turns mother nature into a computer. I personally do not like that idea because due to a lot of the world in poverty only the people that can afford this new tech will be able to access it. Then the world becomes even more unequal. It would make the separation of social classes even more prominent than it is today. I think that the risks outweigh the reward in this situation.