Net Smart - Ch 6
"Apply crap detection when you encounter political assertions" this paragraph about politics and the public sphere was pretty helpful to me actually. My main social media site is supposed to be a photography blogging platform, however, many of the users have turned it into a political discussion board. Furthermore, many of the users I follow have opposing political views than the ones of my family (isn't that always the case between generations?). The biggest problem I have when going through my social dashboard is "Who do I believe?" I have a bare-minimum understanding (and interest) in politics, while the blogs I follow are highly involved (I'd go as far as to say obsessed). So I am constantly torn between "well, I was raised believing X, so I feel that is my gut belief, but the majority say Y, so am I wrong?" For me, the paragraph served as a reminder that I cannot take everything at face value, especially when the scale of opinion is tipped so severely in one direction. I have found that, regardless of the topic, the extremist opinion is never right.
"conflicts over intellectual property" this is actually very funny to me. When I think back to how limited the Internet used to be, I wonder how much intellectual property was really out there in the early stages of the 'net that people were already arguing over about it? That issue seems more relevant than ever, especially with the past threats of "Internet censorship." Which, to me, that whole endeavor just seemed like a big waste of time. Like there are so many other topics that need attention. The Internet is like the final frontier for the government. (If that makes sense.)
"Napster" I remember having Napster on my (desktop!) computer. And then Lime Wire and Frost Wire. And when he mentions Apple making it easy to buy music, I am reminded of when songs were 0.99 instead of 1.29. But I guess we have ourselves to blame for that. If we didn't pirate the music (or convert Youtube videos to audio files) music might still cost 99. Or maybe not. The most surreal thing knowing that I lived through this. I saw this change in the industry happen. I was PART of this change. I remember when I found of Lime Wire was illegal- I was only 10 or 12 when i used it - I was terrified that I was going to get caught and go to jail. As if I could conceptualize that a 12 year old couldn't go to jail. And now this period of time is written in a textbook. And in my mind I'm saying, "hey, he's writing about me!"
"criminalized an emerging culture" wow. That is a really powerful assortment of words. Is there where "sampling" in music came from? (Probably not. I'm sure that existed long before the Internet.)
"endanger growth of scientific knowledge...already shaky economics of education" the way he is describing the spread of information here sounds apocalyptic. Like when in 1999, people thought the computers were going to crash because they weren't programmed to reach 2000. I guess at the time, because the threat of "not knowing" where something came from was so new, it sort of was apocalyptic. At the very least, it was an epidemic. And yet today it is so commonplace it is assumed a source is no good until proven otherwise.
I don't have much insight into the paragraph about "free culture" "commonists" and re-balancing the copyright/ profit scale, but I really like all of that.
I didn't know the right to the property has extended to beyond the life of the person. Although I shouldn't be surprised. I learned recently that the rights to "happy birthday" (the song) were finally released- only 70 years after the woman who composed the song had died. 70 years. That's insane.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
blog 3
Net Smart Ch 4 -- pages 149 to 156. I'm singling these pages out because I found them to be particularly interesting. I know the point of these pages were to exemplify how digital settings are conducive to our desire to socialize; however, I felt these pages were a philosophical and psychological minefield, and I really had a hard time getting through this section because I was having so many ideas at once. So here are my very pretentious interpretations of Rheingold's writing.
"humans are super cooperators" -- yet it seems like we're in more social disarray than ever (or at least we have a long history of not cooperating with each other).
"Human higher brain functions ...evolved in order to process social information" perhaps this explains our psychological need for companionship.
"language evolved to allow individuals to learn about the behavioral characteristics of other[s]" this is an interesting theory, although I'm wondering what the exact learning advantage is here, if words can be used to manipulate reality. Wouldn't observation be the more logical and reliable way of assessing our peers, given that people often lie?
"there is a cognitive limit...stable relationships" this is both extremely interesting to me and also strikes me as common sense. Does this cognitive limit vary between individuals, thus explaining what causes people to be intro- or extroverted? Or is this a standard one-size-fits-all limitation for the general population?
"Dunbar's number" 147 relationships? this raises a lot of questions for me. How close are these relationships? Does it mean only intimate kinds, like those between family, friends and partners? Or is it supposed to mean a total of people we know before we start forgetting. I am thinking it means the latter. And is this number influenced by cyber relations, being we are in such a digital-centric era? Will the number increase to include our cuber relationships, or do physical relationships suffer in order to accommodate the cyber ones?
"social instincts" more evidence to support that we have a physiological need?
I'm sure we've all seen this before, but I never realized how high up from the bottom companionship was; also, it is the first abstract concept. (In this version, "safety" is not referring to just a physical safe place, but also some abstract concepts; however, that is how I was taught to understand it. So let's pretend that I'm not a little bit misinformed here.)
"punishing those who break the institution's rules..." / "altruistic punishment may be the glue that hold societies together" this is provoking some kind of thought that I can't quite articulate...for starters, breaking an institutional rule may not be bad, because if the rule is not altruistic, then the person breaking the rule is not behaving un-altruistically (I know that isn't a real word). Also, I do not think that this is particularly true. Humans are believed to be born with an internal sense of morality, that we have the inborn ability to be good and judge goodness from badness. But I think humans do not often follow it. That would seem to explain how there are always "bad people" in the world, and how the world always needs "fixing" by the "good people." I think the notion of the "super cooperators" is true in theory, but not really true in practice. Furthermore, I think there has been a very long history of people who have abused their power in inhumane ways all in the name of "altruistic punishment."
I actually love the idea that "cave paintings" lead to "hyperlinks." It's such a ridiculous thing on the surface, but they really are (very) distant cousins.
"tragedy of the commons" this is an interesting concern, and valid I think. However, I cannot stop thinking: over regulation. Also, if this is a hypothetical situation, then Hardin is assuming humans are naturally selfish to the point of stupidity and self-destruction. (It is possibly true, but not a very nice thing to assume anyway. I kind of feel personally attacked?)
Also, his 8 principals are too susceptible to human unpredictability.
"scientific research...we have...the desire...to cooperate..." more about psychological needs/tendencies related to Maslow's Hierarchy.
_________________
"humans are super cooperators" -- yet it seems like we're in more social disarray than ever (or at least we have a long history of not cooperating with each other).
"Human higher brain functions ...evolved in order to process social information" perhaps this explains our psychological need for companionship.
"language evolved to allow individuals to learn about the behavioral characteristics of other[s]" this is an interesting theory, although I'm wondering what the exact learning advantage is here, if words can be used to manipulate reality. Wouldn't observation be the more logical and reliable way of assessing our peers, given that people often lie?
"there is a cognitive limit...stable relationships" this is both extremely interesting to me and also strikes me as common sense. Does this cognitive limit vary between individuals, thus explaining what causes people to be intro- or extroverted? Or is this a standard one-size-fits-all limitation for the general population?
"Dunbar's number" 147 relationships? this raises a lot of questions for me. How close are these relationships? Does it mean only intimate kinds, like those between family, friends and partners? Or is it supposed to mean a total of people we know before we start forgetting. I am thinking it means the latter. And is this number influenced by cyber relations, being we are in such a digital-centric era? Will the number increase to include our cuber relationships, or do physical relationships suffer in order to accommodate the cyber ones?
"social instincts" more evidence to support that we have a physiological need?
I'm sure we've all seen this before, but I never realized how high up from the bottom companionship was; also, it is the first abstract concept. (In this version, "safety" is not referring to just a physical safe place, but also some abstract concepts; however, that is how I was taught to understand it. So let's pretend that I'm not a little bit misinformed here.)
"punishing those who break the institution's rules..." / "altruistic punishment may be the glue that hold societies together" this is provoking some kind of thought that I can't quite articulate...for starters, breaking an institutional rule may not be bad, because if the rule is not altruistic, then the person breaking the rule is not behaving un-altruistically (I know that isn't a real word). Also, I do not think that this is particularly true. Humans are believed to be born with an internal sense of morality, that we have the inborn ability to be good and judge goodness from badness. But I think humans do not often follow it. That would seem to explain how there are always "bad people" in the world, and how the world always needs "fixing" by the "good people." I think the notion of the "super cooperators" is true in theory, but not really true in practice. Furthermore, I think there has been a very long history of people who have abused their power in inhumane ways all in the name of "altruistic punishment."
I actually love the idea that "cave paintings" lead to "hyperlinks." It's such a ridiculous thing on the surface, but they really are (very) distant cousins.
"tragedy of the commons" this is an interesting concern, and valid I think. However, I cannot stop thinking: over regulation. Also, if this is a hypothetical situation, then Hardin is assuming humans are naturally selfish to the point of stupidity and self-destruction. (It is possibly true, but not a very nice thing to assume anyway. I kind of feel personally attacked?)
Also, his 8 principals are too susceptible to human unpredictability.
"scientific research...we have...the desire...to cooperate..." more about psychological needs/tendencies related to Maslow's Hierarchy.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
blog 2
"In the Context of Web Context"
I agree that the link can be very valuable. Most importantly, I think it allows people to interpret the information for themselves, rather than taking "someone else's word for it".
I did not realize ".info" was an indicator of a potentially questionable source. I also assumed that feedback options were signs that the author was writing unprofessionally / causally. (So the exact opposite of what a feedback option really means.)
I don't actually feel like I've picked up any tips on validating a source. The title of this article was disappointingly misleading.
I agree that the link can be very valuable. Most importantly, I think it allows people to interpret the information for themselves, rather than taking "someone else's word for it".
I did not realize ".info" was an indicator of a potentially questionable source. I also assumed that feedback options were signs that the author was writing unprofessionally / causally. (So the exact opposite of what a feedback option really means.)
I don't actually feel like I've picked up any tips on validating a source. The title of this article was disappointingly misleading.
_________________
"How's Your Bullshit Detector?"
This next article looks like one of those "fake" sources mentioned in the previous article.
It also has a moderately aggressive tone. (Random 9/11 conspiracy theory??)
However, I do agree that we are generally exposed to more mundane, seemingly "important" information ("drama") than is really necessary. What is it about this place in time that everything is a dramatic happening? Id it me, or does it seem like people are constantly overreacting or over dramatizing things? It feels like everything is a fight, and everyone is ready to fight.
The self-awareness is funny, as I really wasn't sure what "transcendent significance" was supposed to mean.
Eichmannism seems to be especially relevant, in this age of questionable digital sourcing. I guess I worry about being a "mini-Eichmann," especially when I compare my political beliefs with those of the younger generation. However, I don;t really want to comment on this section anymore. Although I realize it was meant to illustrate how destructive this way of thinking can be, I thought the concentration camp analogy was a distasteful.
Although "verbal excretement" is, at times, an accurate way to describe some social media participants, I feel it is a very belittling and degrading statement to make.I realize that not every single thought is a share-worthy, intellectual goldmine. But Sometimes it is nice to share just because. Not everything has to have a deep, stimulating meaning. I think Postman's insinuation is a bit pompous.
The only good point Postman has made so far (aside from realizing how pompous he sounds-- it's almost like he heard me say that) is that a person's ability to detect crap is embedded in that person's values. This, unfortunately, is very true. And depending on what somebody values, they can be blind to facts that contridict their beliefs. I don't think this is inherantly tied to superstition, and I think categorizing values as such says a bit about Postman's views of religion. Since superstition is generally born from religion or spirituality, it would seem that "superstitious crap" would also mean that (devout) religious beliefs would also be crap. So would that mean that people who are very religious, according to Postman's logic, are ignorant and unintelligent?
"Fake communication" is a good way to describe over communication. But I feel Postman did not really discuss "fake communication" as much as condemn the habit (or inability) to recognize it. I did not really care for this piece. I felt it had potential, but instead, was mainly elitist bullshit.
Although "verbal excretement" is, at times, an accurate way to describe some social media participants, I feel it is a very belittling and degrading statement to make.I realize that not every single thought is a share-worthy, intellectual goldmine. But Sometimes it is nice to share just because. Not everything has to have a deep, stimulating meaning. I think Postman's insinuation is a bit pompous.
The only good point Postman has made so far (aside from realizing how pompous he sounds-- it's almost like he heard me say that) is that a person's ability to detect crap is embedded in that person's values. This, unfortunately, is very true. And depending on what somebody values, they can be blind to facts that contridict their beliefs. I don't think this is inherantly tied to superstition, and I think categorizing values as such says a bit about Postman's views of religion. Since superstition is generally born from religion or spirituality, it would seem that "superstitious crap" would also mean that (devout) religious beliefs would also be crap. So would that mean that people who are very religious, according to Postman's logic, are ignorant and unintelligent?
"Fake communication" is a good way to describe over communication. But I feel Postman did not really discuss "fake communication" as much as condemn the habit (or inability) to recognize it. I did not really care for this piece. I felt it had potential, but instead, was mainly elitist bullshit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)