The €dvin Hàvkins Singers-Oh Happy Day

Penultimate Post Per Se

So, time does, in fact, fly. Yep, you've heard it here again. To be honest, I wasn't sure how I would like this part of the "assignment", but it has been fun AND educational for an old fart like me. I enjoyed this week's reading. I find Mr Castells, to be an interesting dude, and much of what he has to say is thought provoking. I think I will log on to BN.com and buy one of his books, so I can read more of what he has to say. I am really looking forward to more study in the halls of TC. This first class has got my "juices" going again (after a thirty year hiatus). There is so much that is so new in the world of education and I am looking forward to being part of the educational reformation that has begun. It's a higher calling for sure. Oh happy day.

Dodo bird

New Technologies (ICTs) > New Skills Needed (knowledge + information = innovation) > New Schools in the Networked World (a relevant education)

Twenty-five years behind a bond desk here in New York has taught me at least this one important lesson: "The only constant on Wall Street is that things are always changing". It appears that never-ending type of change has finally arrived in the rest of the world as well. In all of human history, the relatively recent advances in technology, particularly communication technology, have brought a change to the course of human events that, in my view, lacks an historical equivalent. How come so few people see it? Robert J. Hawkins has some advice for those that poo poo the notion that schools need to change in order to prepare students and teachers to meet the demands of a "Networked World". He points out that "While much has been changed with the advances of science and technology, education and the way that students learn and teacher's teach has remained largely unchanged".(Hawkins, R., Ten lessons for ICTs and Education in a Developing World) Someone better wake up. The future is hurtling towards us at mach speed, and teachers should be the first sound the alarm to implement reforms in the way they educate their students AND themselves so both will be equipped to thrive in the information age. Educators need to be visionaries who can create innovative, dynamic, flexible and , above all, relevant educational practices to teach the skills necessary to those who will implement this new technology "as a tool to increase their productivity and creativity".(Hawkins) Hawkins' warning is an important one. Those who have the means to effectuate change, and choose not to, will have no excuse, and will go the way of the Dodo bird. Is anyone out there paying attention?

Online Dating: Finding Love at First Click

Chat

...and the Question is? The beginning of the end game

A lit review or a mini-study? That is the question. Easy as pie (I guess)so... a "Lit Review" it is! My interests and the questions that have consistently emerged from my continuing study of the social and communicative aspects of computer mediated communication have been as follows: What is the definition of intimacy in cyberspace? Are these cyberspacial interpersonal relationships truly "intimate" in nature or are they a hoax? Can the basic human need for intimacy be fulfilled exclusively online? My resources at this juncture are as follows: Lee Bee Hian, Sim Li Chuan, Tan Mon Kiat Trevor, Benjamin H. Detenber (2004)
Getting to Know You: Exploring the Development of Relational Intimacy in Computer-mediated Communication Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 9 (3), 00–00.; Yifeng Hu, Jacqueline Fowler Wood, Vivian Smith, Nalova Westbrook (2004)
Friendships through IM: Examining the Relationship between Instant Messaging and Intimacy Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10 (1), 00–00. ; Sarah A. Birnie, Peter Horvath (2002) Psychological Predictors of Internet Social Communication Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7 (4), 0–0.; Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(3), 3-43. That's my short list so far and I am exploring some other sources in the next few days. Let's see if this dog will hunt.

WAR - WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS

Action, action, ...we want INTERaction!

Why can't we be friends? I guess it's because so many people don't know what the word means. I think I can say I was on the right track, or better yet, my kids put me on the right track. The idea that social networking sites (SNS) are mostly tools for existing social networks made up of individuals in preexisting proximate social relations was something I was able to discover through my own “research”. It appears that the global aspect of SNSs isn't as far-reaching as some would like it to be. I’ll grant you that 3 teenagers is hardly a large enough study group, and drawing conclusions from a FtF interview about how they use Facebook isn't exact science. Yet, I find it interesting that Boyd concluded that "Large Social networks will always be mediated by and constructed through smaller communities and individual relationships." Underneath all these social networks lies the basic human desire to "belong". Being a "user" of one of these networks may make you feel part of whatever group you choose to interact with, but it doesn't make you these people's friend. You see, I would much rather have three very close friends than I would 3000 "Friendsters". Boyd sends the point home with this statement: "Individual Sociability will never operate on a global scale." I think my kids would be better off spending their time with the few close friends they interact with both online and offline, rather than waste time trying to "acquire" more so-called "friends" on Facebook. It comes down to a "quality of life" choice once again. So...why can't we be friends? Well, we can, but not by "meeting" on an SNS. Let's grab a cup of coffee instead. [Boyd, Danah (in press) "None of this is real" Structures of Participation ed. Joe Karaganis]

Bubbles De Vere

It's not the interNET it's the NETwork

Okay, so this social network thing is very interesting. If you thought social "climbing" was an art form before, I am sure you won't believe what lengths people will go to self-promote in cyberspace. My kids have listed their profiles on Facebook and they say not a day goes by where they don't at least "check in" on their home page. They are constantly updating their pictures content and I guess they are self-promoting to their circle of friends. Yet Facebook hasn't become a substitute for their FtF socialization, they simply regard it as another way of "communicating" with their friends, much like texting, video messaging, and phone calls, AND FtF interaction. These methods are all tools to them, and were it not popular to their group of friends, they wouldn't use them. My son Tommy says that what he likes best about facebook is the asynchronous communication with his friends. They like to keep in touch on their own schedule and don't care if the communication occurs in real time. As I see it, Facebook doesn't make my kids better "connectors" because they are not really looking to grow their circle of friends. They are only interested in "better" connecting with the people they already see and interact with "offline". Perhaps a word we have used earlier in this class fits best those that utilize social networking to self promote: "USERS". A "Social Network User" is as bad as it gets. Call me old-fashioned, but people who need to get somewhere on the backs of their friends, and their friends friends, are losers. They remind me of ex-Olympic gymnast Bubbles Devere. Who is always using somebody to get what she wants for herself. "Call me Bubbles darling, everybody does."

C'est Chic - Critique

Caplan, S. (2005). A Social Skill Account of Problematic Internet Use. Journal of Communication 55, 4, 721-736. Scott Caplan’s study (2005) cogently argues that socially deficient individuals who prefer socializing via Computer Mediated Communication (CMCs) are adversely affecting their real-life (RL) lives. He draws on research done by him and others in the areas of social skill, self-presentation, cognitive behavior theory and problematic internet use to support his own study which measures social skill, preference of online internet use and the negative outcomes resultant of that use (Caplan, 2005, p. 721). Caplan (2005) suggests that socially deficient individuals who are exposed to CMCs soon develop a distinct preference for online social interactions (POSI) over existing face-to-face (FtF) relationships (p. 726). This leads directly to a compulsive use behavior, which deteriorates into problematic internet use (PIU), resulting in deleterious consequences to users in their “real life” (RL) lives (Caplan, 2005, p. 722). Turkle (1996) suggests “We are moving toward a culture of simulation in which people are increasingly comfortable with substituting representations of reality for the real” (p. 300). Prior to my studies in this course I held the belief that computers don’t always make our human lives better. For me, meaningful emotion filled interpersonal relationships, especially those of an intimate nature, can not possibly be realized by sitting in front of a computer screen. Sadly, it is not from a lack of trying. Baym (1998) describes the reality of the pursuit: “Social relationships thrive on-line and have since the beginning of interactive computing” (p.35) Accordingly, I will freely admit that human interaction in CMCs and Multiple User domains MUD’s is real communication, and that users have always gravitated to it, but I still struggle to understand the emotional and social makeup of users who describe their online social encounters as “better than” (i.e. more personally engaging and satisfying) than RL FtF relationships. Additionally, I had doubts about how someone who spends excessive amounts of time engaged in a “virtual place” could continue to function normally in their RL location to the extent necessary to support their “computer” habit. After all, someone has to pay the electric bill. According to Turkle (1996): “As more people spend time in these virtual spaces, some go so far as to challenge the idea of giving any priority to RL at all” (p.292). Bugeja (2007) also supports this finding: “The environment so captivates users that many forget their first live so as to spend time and money in their second ones” (p.3). Locating Caplan’s article which exposes a “Dark Side” to CMCs was, to some degree, a place where, in the context of this class, I could point my finger and say: “See, I told you so”. I found Caplan’s (2005) own discovery that there have been very few studies done by communication researchers on the relationship between online social interaction and PIU just as surprising as he did (p. 722). I would suggest to the class that it raises the question as to whether or not researchers themselves are more predisposed to study the more frequently written upon, and the more easily supported, positive uses of CMCs in social interaction. Bugeja admits “When it comes to technology, we in academe usually only see the positives” (p. 1). Perhaps, the road less traveled of pursuing what appears to be compulsive and/or addictive user behavior is an area for further study that has yet to find favor among the experts. I found Caplan’s article convincing and his research on the subject more than sufficient. He successfully garnered several empirical proofs to support his hypotheses, and did an effective job of layering in the research of others to support his own. I do believe that Caplan could have enhanced his article by drawing on other studies to further illuminate the negative outcomes portion of PIU. Caplan’s (2005) model predicted that POSI leads to PIU which results in negative outcomes, but then he stops short of fully describing what those negative outcomes (NO) were (p. 726). I believe a short description of the No’s would have bolstered his already convincing argument by quantifying just how negative a NO really was. Perhaps the scope of his study didn’t afford him the space to pursue a more in depth study, or maybe this shortcoming was due to the lack of other studies by communication researchers to draw upon to support his model. My original conviction that computers don’t enhance meaningful interpersonal relationships stands. It appears that I now have a little bite to back up my bark.


References

Baym, N. (2006). Interpersonal Life Online. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of New Media, Updated Student Edition, 335-54. London: Sage. Bugeja, M. (2007, September 14). Second thoughts about second life. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1-4. Retrieved September 11, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i03/03c00101.htm. Caplan, S. (2005). A Social Skill Account of Problematic Internet Use. Journal of Communication 55, 4, 721-736. Turkle, S (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, 287-302. New York: Simon & Schuster.

The Beatles - Help!

SEVEN (7) "A Winner"

Okay, so this is where the rubber meets the road. Time to get a clue on the final project. All my mind can think of right now is a Beatles song. Yep, you guessed it, HELP! The fact that I haven't had a "well defined" research question from the start is coming back to HAUNT me. (How timely, with Halloween approaching). My theoretical construct seems to fall in along these lines: CMC does not enhance social interaction, particularly interaction of an intimate nature. On the contrary, cyberspacial socialization can become addictive place to "users", seeking it as a panacea for their social shortcomings. In short, the "answer" to their needs can quickly morph into a "problem" that further complicates their lives. So, how to ask the questions then. What is the foundational query? Well let's get back to the stated focus of the class: The social aspects of electronic learning environments. So perhaps the question is this: Why are people so willing, or why do they feel so compelled to abdicate their real life (ABORL) for one that is spent online? Does CMC improve the quality of a person's social life? I say NO! Let's see if I can prove my point using at least one new article to point me in that direction. The game is afoot!

POST 6 (SIX)

I think perhaps one of the reasons why I have been, and continue to be, so skeptical about the purported advantages of new computer technologies and their subsequent social and educational uses, i.e. computer mediated communications, and virtual worlds is that computers did not play a central role in my formal education. I learned my ABC's the "old fashioned way" being taught by human teachers using books, pen, and paper. I think the old way worked, but I am not certain it was "better". My first question in this space asked this: Have computers "taken over" for man? No, I don't think they have, but I will concede that they have enhanced man's understanding of himself and the world he lives in. Computers have made education an easier process for the student increasing his/her access to higher learning. It has also created a more dynamic experience for the learner which in turn can't help but to promote a greater appetite to learn "more". Certainly there will be even newer and better technologies to come, but they will continue to be just "tools" and will not ever supplant the educational tools of old. A more pressing question still for me is this: Does human interaction in cyberspace improve the lives of those humans who choose to participate in that place? Does it enhance their communication and interpersonal relations? Communication has changed. It hasn't gotten better (or worse for that matter) it's just different. It is "evolving" or perhaps "on the move", rather than being in a specific static "place". Can technology assimilate or emulate human characteristics and thereby enhance interpersonal relationships, particularly those of an intimate nature? No, humans don't NEED machines to make their relationships with other humans better, certainly not more intimate. Ultimately inanimate machines are at the beck and call of their creators who will use and abuse them to serve mans needs and perhaps mollify many of mans "wants" too.

POST FROM CAMBRIDGE (or Post V)

So here I am, a world away from New York City. Thanks to my computer though, No matter where I am "physically", I can be where I want to be "virtually". Well almost anywhere, that is. One place I don't think I'll ever get to via cyberspace is into a greater or more fullfilling intimacy with my spouse, or anyone else for that matter. I still take exception with the idea as put forth by A. Thomas in "Digital Literacies" that people are "...seeking out the computer as an intimate machine." "MUDding" has given rise to "DUMming" (read that MUD spelled backwards is DUM, as in "dumb"). Gamers have wedged themselves into a woefully unsatifying and incomplete fantasy world. To claim that virtual intimate relationships are every bit as satisfying as the RL ones is plain silly. Imagine a person who is experiencing physical hunger choosing to watch a video of a delicious dinner buffet, replete with a thousand tasty delicacies, and saying his/her appetite has been satiated simply through their viewing. Eating is simply not eating unless a person tastes, chews,and ingests the food. Cyber-Intimacy is a hoax. It falls way short of the real thing, where the human senses of smell. taste and touch are part of the experience. I have been arguing in my past posts that intimacy via computer screen is the biggest fantasy of all. As of today, I will "endeavor to persevere" with that argument.

Nobody does it better, motion graphics

Carly Simon - Nobody Does It Better

September 25th / a.k.a. Post IV

Carly Simon was right. Nobody does it better. I mean, no human body does, that is. However, there is a technological body that can do it better, or maybe, to put it more correctly, help us do it better. Today's "it" (for the purposes of this post) is human communication. Consider the irony: inanimate wires, microchips and plastic assisting flesh and blood humans in being more human. Is face to face communication soon to be a thing of the past? Joseph B. Walther in his article "Computer Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Interaction" points to such a possibility. Does CMC really provide us humans a better platform for human interaction? Mr Walther cites numerous research that supports a phenomonology that CMC is superior to face to face (FtF) communication concluding: " ...a new perspective is offered here--a fully integrated view of CMC taking into account the sender, receiver, channel and feedback as each contributes to hyperpersonal interaction in CMC, interaction that is more desireable than we can often manage FtF (P.28)". I, for one, find it disturbing that interpersonal communication is being left to computers. Can we really call this human interaction? I have a problem with my fellow man's "abdication of real life" (ABORL). [Side note: I just love it when these researchers create their own acronyms, so I made one too]. Is the real world so bad, and are people so socially backward that they can't, or choose not to, exist in this life, but can happily exist virtually in Linden Labs "Second Life"? I just don't get it. Am I hopeless humanist? Does CMC really enhance intercourse? Maybe, just maybe it does, but I ask you this: Can two people fall in love online? I say no, humans can only fall in love in person. Can a person live a real human life in a computer's virtual world? I say no, s/he only live it here in the real world. Communication is indeed a human desire, but ask yourself how much fun would a wedding to, and a honeymoon with, a real person be if it took place in cyberspace?

Arcade Original Pong

Arcade Original Pong

Okay before you get the idea that I am a negative, "glass is half-empty" type of guy, allow me to tell you that I am genuinely very excited about all this new technology. Heck, I think "Cyberspace" is great. In their statement Cyberspace and the American Dream, E. Dyson et al., (despite the fact that they represent an organization whose raison d'etre is " to create a positive vision of the future....") have cogently argued the positive effects on society of a "Third Wave economy" and "the knowledge age" it has spawned. I mean who can't get behind the ideals of "freedom", "opportunity", "individuality", and a benevolent society free from tension and conflict that is rich with "symbiotic relationships". How awesome is the idea of unlimited information (you can read that knowledge if you'd like) at your finger tips, not to mention really cool video games! Yet, I am still hard pressed to believe that the advent and advance of computer technology was brought about by something other than good old fashion greed. My employment in the financial industry for the last 25 years has rendered me (understandibly) preconditioned. I am not ashamed to say I am a proponent of the famous "money makes the world go around" theory. What evidence do have to support this hair brained notion? The original Atari Pong game (1972) was simply brilliant, and it launched a multi-billion dollar industry with just a five hundred dollar investment. What was the real impetus for all the subsequent technological innovation and development? I'll tell you... It was the desire to make a buck. Sure, it's an extremely narrow example of how the "Third Wave economy" has had a positive influence, but I am sure you will agree that freedom, opportunity and individuality abound in the world of computer games. Yep, there is no question that today's world is a better one. (Do you detect a note of sarcasm?).

In the Year 2525

imagine this

In the Year 2525

imagine this

Okay, this is my "catch up" post. So ...did you here the one about the baby tomato that kept falling behind? His mother stepped on him and said: "Now Ketchup!" Questions, questions, questions. I think for starters I'd like to ask this: Can the created become the creator? More specifically, has technology become an independent force that renders the society that produced it technologically fatalistic (think: "Hard Determinism")? Please indulge me whilst we go back to some basics: God created man. Man created machine. Machine changes the course of human history? Nope sorry, I don't buy it. I embrace the tenets of “free will’ and reason. An inanimate object is the product and agent of the human culture that created it. Technology must follow a necessary path within the structure of that which we label “society”. It must be imagined, discovered, developed, constructed, tested, marketed, distributed, purchased and utilized. (I am sure I missed a few). At every stage of technological development a “human touch”, is necessary to advance it. Why has society become so willing to abdicate its place as first mover? The idea that man has “succumbed” to the panacea feebly advanced as “progress” (read that as technological determinism) is truly beyond me. I can’t accept anything that runs contrary to THE NATURAL DESIGN. “What the hell is he talking about?” I hear you saying (I think). FLASBACK: I am 9 years old. I have seen “2001 A space Oddity” and I am intrigued. I flip on the radio and I hear: “ In the year 2525”. Okay, let me just come out and say it. These fabulous inventions…do we really need them? Do we want them? Do they improve the quality of our lives? I can say with great certainty that young men and women living their lives during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were asking the very same questions. So…Let me ask you: Do you really believe your life is better with today’s technologies, or could you be just as happy living without cellphones and computers in the Hippie Dippy days of 1969? As for me, I have fond memories.

A Space Odyssey 2001 / H.A.L.

A Space Odyssey 2001 / H.A.L.

First Post - MSTU 4020

Okay, I am in. So ...um ...er ...like ...where to begin? What to say? How to make this space more than just the same old blah, blah, blah. The last time I was in a classroom the "internet" was just a glimmer in Vice-President Al Gore's eye (hah). Now, thirty years later (yes, time does, in fact, fly) it appears as though technology is poised to take over the world. "That's total nonsense", I hear you say, "it's not possible for computers to control the course of human events". Yet, I distinctly remember seeing Stanley Kubrick's science fiction classic "2001 A Space Oddity" when it debuted in 1968. I was thinking: WOW! If humans can land a man on the moon then why can't they also invent a computer like H.A.L. that could take over the world? Considering how far technology has come and how fast it continues to advance (happily short of Mr Kubrick's best guess) certainly anything is possible, right? Has science fiction actually become science fact? The caveman (think Geico commercial), was powerless to change the world he lived in. Not suprising, really, considering he had ZERO technology. Now 21st century man seems to have created a world in which his his own technology has seemingly become the "straw that stirs the drink". Are we really subject to newly created forces beyond our control? Let's find out.