The Interface is the Message

TED Talks

Aaron Koblin: Artfully visualizing our humanity

Summary:
Aaron Koblin's talk on TED Talks was about how technology can make us more human. He talked about how people can be connected together through technology, and they can actually express themselves through interface technology. He showed several projects that he was working on, using primarily sites such as the Mechanical Turk. In each of these projects, he had people do a simple task- such as drawing a picture, and every picture drawn would be put together to make a piece of art. In some cases the people knew the context of why they were doing a particular task, in others no context was given at all.

"19th Century culture was defined by the novel, 20th century culture by cinema, the culture of the 21st century will be defined by the interface."

This was a tweet that was shared by Aaron Koblin at the beginning of his talk. It was interesting because it really summarized everything he was going to talk about. It was also very interesting because the quote itself was a tweet- it was a product of interface itself.

"The interface is the message."

This was the phrase that Koblin ended on. It was very interesting because it was a play on the "medium is the message", this time he was saying that the specific type of interface had a message of its own.

The Mechanical Turk.

This was a site that Koblin talked about quite a bit. He used it to get people to do a specific task- without giving them any context for that task. It was a site created by Google, and it was named after the story of the amazing chess machine that wasn't actually a machine- just a legless man playing chess.

Questions:

Interface

I didn't exactly know what he meant by interface- I had a vague idea, but was still a little confused.

Sheep.

How did the sheep portray anything about humanity being increased by technology, was it the individuality?

Koblin, Aaron. Artfully Visualizing Our Humanity. Making Sense of Too Much Data. TED. 4/7/13. Web. http://www.ted.com/playlists/56/making_sense_of_too_much_data.html.

Technopoly by Neil Postman

Technopoly

Summary:
Technopoly is about assessing technology for both its good and bad consequences. In this particular chapter, "The Judgment of Thamus", Postman stresses that one cannot only look at just the bad side or just the good side of technology. He also stresses that technology may have unforeseen consequences. He talks about how technology changes the balance of society and shifts the way people communicate.

Interesting Quotes:
 "I have brought Freud into the conversation only to show that a wise man- even one of such woeful countenance- must begin his critique of technology by acknowledging its successes."(Postman7)

This is interesting because this sentence characterizes the way Postman advocates looking at technology- that one must look at both the bad and the good. It is also very interesting that he brings in Freud as an example of someone who has critiqued technology well because he first talks about the positive effects of technology, then goes on to talk about its negative effects.

"No manuals have been written to explain what is happening, and the schools are oblivious to it. The old words still look the same, are still used in the same kinds of sentences. But they do not have the same meanings; in some cases, they have opposite meanings."(Postman8)

This is a very interesting quote because Postman assumes that no one is talking about the way technology has changed speech, and no one notices the difference when it has, in fact, been noticed. Last year we read an article on how words have changed to either mean "good" or "bad". It wasn't exactly addressed as to whether or not technology had a hand in this, but it was addressed. Also, Postman doesn't actually give any specific examples of which words have changed and how they have changed. Sure, later on, he gives a list of words who's meanings have been supposedly changed- but he only says that they have changed. He never takes any of those words and says that its meaning has changed from this one specific thing to this other specific thing. This is where Postman's argument is weakened. He assumes that the reader will just blindly agree with his argument that those words have changed in meaning. The article we read last year in Modern Western Thought gave specific examples of words that changed in meaning and how they changed in meaning. For example, the author of the article we read last year said that the word "gentleman" went from a land-owning noble ( a member of the gentry)  to any man who was chivalrous.

"He means to say that those who cultivate competence in the use of a new technology become an elite group that are granted undeserved authority and prestige by those who have no such competence."(Postman9)

This is an interesting quote because it puts into view a different way of looking at the digital natives and the digital immigrants. This is a far more negative way of looking at the whole concept of digital immigrants and digital natives- that the digital natives have an unearned advantage over the digital immigrants.

Confusing Quotes:
"But we may learn from Thamus the following: once a technology is admitted, it plays out its hand, it does what it is designed to do. Our task is to understand what that design is- that is to say, when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open."(Postman7)

I thought Postman was trying to argue that technology does things that weren't in its original design or intention, not that they do whatever their design intends. Also, are we to only watch and point out all of technology's effects? What is his call to action? What do we do in response to all of these affects?

"For one thing, in cultures that have a democratic ethos, relatively weak traditions, and a high receptivity to new technologies, everyone is inclined to be enthusiastic about technological change, believing that its benefits will eventually spread evenly among the entire population. Especially in the United States, where lust for what is new has no bounds, do we find this childlike conviction most widely held."(Postman11)

What other countries is he talking about besides the United States? He only seems to point out the United States, and it sounds like he has a bias against that particular country. Especially because it doesn't seem like he has actually done any research on what everyone in the United States is thinking. We just read two articles by people in the United States about how a lot of people in the United States are concerned about the negative effects technology may be having on the population. Where has he done his research?

Postman, Neil."Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology". 1993. New York, USA. Vintage Books.

The Touchscreen Generation

The Touchscreen Generation
 "The Touchscreen Generation" is an article about the affects of technology- specifically touchscreen technology- on young children. It mainly looks to answer the question "Is technology good or bad for young children to use?" The author primarily talks about the whole debate surrounding technology and young children. He addresses the paranoia parents experience over letting their young children use technology. He ultimately comes to the conclusion that technology can be beneficial, but should be limited if it begins to cause problems in a child's behavior and development.

Quotes:
"By their pinched reactions, these parents illuminated for me the neurosis of our age: as technology becomes ubiquitous in our lives, American parents are becoming more, not less, wary of what it might be doing to their children. Technological competence and sophistication have not, for parents, translated into comfort and ease. They have merely created yet another sphere that parents feel they have to navigate in exactly the right way. On the one hand, parents want their children to swim expertly in the digital stream that they will have to navigate all their lives; on the other hand, they fear that too much digital media, too early, will sink them. Parents end up treating tablets like precision surgical instruments, gadgets that might perform miracles for their child’s IQ and help him win some nifty robotics competition—but only if they are used just so. Otherwise, their child could end up one of those sad, pale creatures who can’t make eye contact and has an avatar for a girlfriend."(Rosin1).

This quote is interesting because it sheds light on a reason for limitation of technology that I hadn't considered. It points out that parents limit technology to children because they are made nervous by its increased accessibility.

"Previously, young children had to be shown by their parents how to use a mouse or a remote, and the connection between what they were doing with their hand and what was happening on the screen took some time to grasp. But with the iPad, the connection is obvious, even to toddlers. Touch technology follows the same logic as shaking a rattle or knocking down a pile of blocks: the child swipes, and something immediately happens. A “rattle on steroids,” is what Buckleitner calls it. “All of a sudden a finger could move a bus or smush an insect or turn into a big wet gloopy paintbrush.” To a toddler, this is less magic than intuition. At a very young age, children become capable of what the psychologist Jerome Bruner called “enactive representation”; they classify objects in the world not by using words or symbols but by making gestures—say, holding an imaginary cup to their lips to signify that they want a drink. Their hands are a natural extension of their thoughts."(Rosin2).

This quote was interesting because it points out why iPads and iPad games are so appealing to young children. The touchscreen technology makes the games much more intuitive to young children than other games may be.

"Technically I was the owner of the iPad, but in some ontological way it felt much more his than mine."(Rosin2).

Its very interesting how the author feels alienated from her own possession due to the ease at which her child uses the author's iPad. This is interesting in light of the whole concept of "digital immigrants". She is the digital immigrant, her toddler is the digital native.

Questions on Quotes
"A longitudinal study of children older than 2 and a half showed that the ones who watched Blue’s Clues made measurably larger gains in flexible thinking and problem solving over two years of watching the show."(Rosin3)

How does this connect to the banking concept? Is it not an effective means of teaching because it is not interactive?

" People fret about television and ADHD, although that concern is largely based on a single study that has been roundly criticized and doesn’t jibe with anything we know about the disorder."(Rosin4)

Why do people think that ADHD is connected to TV use? I thought it was largely genetic. My dad grew up only being allowed to watch one TV show, one time a week- The Adventures of Batman and Robin, and yet he has ADHD. Most of his sisters also have ADHD. My brother and I also have ADHD. We inherited from our father, not from the television screen.

Rosin, Hanna. "The Touchscreen Generation" The Atlantic. 20 March, 2013. Web. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/the-touch-screen-generation/309250/4/

Is Stupid Making Us Google?

"Is Stupid Making Us Google?"

What is the argument of the reading?
The argument of "Is Stupid Making Us Google?" is that people use the Internet and Google because the way people think and have been educated has changed. The author of the article argues that the way we think has changed in such a way that discourages deeper reading and thinking. He argues that the reason why people use the information for quick fact finding and skimming as opposed to close reading is because that is the way we think now. He argues that politics have caused educators to teach that history and the old way of doing things were both steeped in racism, sexism, homophobia, etc- as opposed to the correct open thinking of today. He argues that education has been dumbed down, and therefore, our thinking has been dumbed down.

How does this connect to other things we have read or discussed?
 "Is Stupid Making Us Google?" is a response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?". "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" argued that the structure of the Internet has changed the way that we think and consequently has made it harder for us to do deep reading and thinking. "Is Stupid Making Us Google?" argues the opposite- that the way that we think has changed the way the we use and shape the Internet- not the other way around. The author of "Is Stupid Making Us Google" blames politics and poor education for the lack of deep reading found in people today- which is similar to the article on the banking concept that we read at the beginning of the year. It also relates to our discussions surrounding the banking concept. The author of the article that we read at the beginning of the year wrote that the banking concept serves as a way for the higher classes to keep the lower classes from thinking independently- in short, for political reasons. In our discussions we watched a video in which a man explained that the banking concept education that children were getting was scientifically proven to decrease their creative thinking skills over the years. This is similar to  the argument the author of "Is Stupid Making Us Google?" makes. He argues that education is the cause of people's lack of critical thinking- not the Internet.

Question:
If education was the reason why people stopped thinking and reading deeply, then why is it only affecting older people (who graduated years ago) now? Why is it that they have only stopped reading deeply now? Wouldn't it have kept them from reading deeply in the first place?

Is Google Making us Stupid?

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

What is the argument of the reading?
 The argument of "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is that the internet has shaped our intelligence in a way that prevents us from deep reading. He argues that the way the internet is structrured- with hyperlinks, pop-ups, ads, and summaries- changes the way people read. He argues that the internet's design encourages people to jump from article to article, and skim for information, as opposed to thinking deeply about what they are reading.

How does the reading connect to other things we have read or discussed?
 This reading connects to most of the articles we read at the beginning of the year, particularily with the article we read on the banking concept vs. the problem posing method. In "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" the author argues that deep thinking has been hindered by an internet that encourages skimming through and looking purely for the facts, as opposed to thinking deeply into the text. This is similar to the banking concept, which merely presents facts without the implication that one should think any further into the information presented. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" also relates to the Lewis article that we read at the beginning of the year about reading with and against the grain. This article encourages reading and re-reading, interacting with the text, and challenging the ideas within the text that you disagree with. This is, as "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" argues, exactly what the internet has stopped us from doing. The author argue that the internet amkes people less inclined to re-read articles, or look into them for deeper meaning.

Question:
Is the internet the only thing responsible for the stoppage of deep reading in people?

Open Access Websites

Ch. 19 #2

Site #1:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2007/02/14_open_access.shtml

The entire site isn't all about open access and free information, but it does have an article that argues for the use of open access in the realm of research and science. The website itself is the official website for Berkeley University, and the article is written about a couple of the proffesors at the school and their arguements for the use of open access. A good thing about this article is that it presents not only the pro-open access arguments, but also the anti-open access arguments. It then presents reasons for why the anti-open access arguments are invalid. This site makes two strong points about the fiscal need for open access. They argue that in order for other researchers and scientists to see the results of another person's research, they have to pay for an expensive scientific journal- which makes it more difficult to obtain information that they might use to help their own research, which hinders their ability to make discoveries and come up with new innovations. Their second fiscal point is that university libraries and scientists in third world countries can't afford to buy scientific journals and are, therefore, not up-to-date on information and advancements in science. It also presents the counter-arguments to open access. The main counter-arguement is that open access doesn't provide enough revenue, and isn't fiscally sound. In order to combat that arguement, the article states that open access journals will make their information free for use 6 months after the particular journal is published.

Site #2:

http://www.arl.org/sparc/openaccess/why-oa.shtml

This site makes many strong arguments for the use of open- access. This site is an open-access publishing site that actually employes the use of open-access. It first tells the reader why open-acces should be used, saying that it benefits investors, reasearchers, and the general public who can enjoy the benefits of a broader access to research. The site also explains what open- access actually is. It also highlights the specific benefits that researchers, educational institutions, businesses, the public, and research funders would each recieve via the use of open-access. Namely, that more useful research will be done, that jobs will be created, and that money will not be misused or wasted.

To Be Free, or Not To Be Free?

Ch. 18 # 1

The claims made by authors of sites and articles advocating free information (or "open access") often argue that the free access of information will produce massive benefits for society at large. Most of them present the benefits it will have for education and research- particularily in the context of scientific findings and articles. They also appeal to pathos, arguing that open access benefits scientists in third world countries, where they can't afford to buy expensive journals, and are therefore, out of the loop on new advancements in the scientific field. They also appeal to pathos by arguing that, because of open access, the public will be able to see the results of the research their tax-dollars paid for. The sites also appeal to ethos, having been created by proffesors from acredited institutions. The articles also create ethos by being featured on the official websites for several accredited institutions. I found their arguments very persuasive. Their arguements were all very logical, and they showed the problems people had when articles weren't published via open-access. They also stated many of the counter-arguements against open access, and then provided logical reasons for why the counter-arguements were invalid. Because of the logic of their reasoning, I have come to the conclusion that open-access, at least for scientific research, should be used.