HW 30: Psychological and philosophical theorizing of cool

We've established that the need to be cool comes from a need to feel value. As Andy put it, there's a hole in our hearts, but what shape is that hole and what fits in it? That hole is a "meaning" shaped hole. We want to have meaning in our lives so we try to look cool so other people will notice and appreciate us. To look cool we buy clothes and cool things, but in the end we're trying to fill a meaning shaped hole with clothes. "True cool" at its core has to do with purpose, confidence and attitude stem from that initial purpose.

Meaning comes from having goals and the completion of those goals. To have meaning is to achieve something, to make a difference in society. As teenagers we have little meaning since the majority of us don't accomplish much, we're at a weird point in our lives where we're expected to have done something with our lives when it's impossible to do much at our age. We're meant to find our purpose at this age, and as other people around us start to feel significant the rest of us realize we still may not have a purpose. This is why teens are so easy to sell to, we'll do anything to feel accepted at this age, we're at our most socially dependent age where we need to feel accepted and to do that the majority of us buy cool things instead of figuring out what they want to do in life.

People use products and "poses" to fill this hole because these products and poses might come with a fake purpose. For instance, if someone buys interesting artsy clothes and act interesting and insightful, they'll look interesting and artsy and they'll look like their purpose in life is to create art. This doesn't necessarily fill the hole because maybe that person isn't all that creative or can't draw/sculpt/paint etc. This person is mimicking a purpose and not actually fulfilling it. The main difference between faking a purpose and fulfilling it is the sincerity towards their purpose and their passion for it. Any one can fake a purpose but people who really want to do that in life put time and effort into it, someone who is that committed to what they love is a truly cool person.

The reason why people can't find their purpose in life is because we don't truly know who we are, we all put out these identities and pretend to be people. I'd argue that we have very little that predefines us, when you're born you have your body, family and heritage, aside from that you can be whoever you want. These initial traits limit what you can be, your body can limit what kind of person you can be. The male lion has a huge mane so it can't stalk prey, instead it uses its strength and power in the open to defend its cubs. The lion must assume the identity of the protector because that's what the lion is built for, but the lion can be a stoic protector of its cubs, a kind protective fatherly figure etc. it can assume multiple roles despite it's physical limitations. People are the same way, the way we look limits the way we can act, people can get plastic surgery, but someone who changes how they look is an identity itself, (as shown by hollywood actors who get excessive surgery done) and someone who got plastic surgery can't really assume a hippie or rebel identity because that conflicts with their ideals.

HW 29: Response to "Merchants of Cool"

It's nearly impossible to escape advertising, with all the places ads are put corporations hold the majority of people's time. With this large amount of space they occupy in people's minds they can sell to anyone. The majority of these ads are directed at teenagers, who spend 150 billion dollars a year. This presents an incredible opportunity to corporations, an incredibly rich and gullible demographic to make money on, obviously they'll advertise more to teens. To do this they focus on what's "cool", the documentary showed many ways that these corporations gained their information and they all involved taking a trend going on among teens and turning that into something they can sell. What this does is refine the natural "cool" that people invent out of creativity self expression and turn it into somethings that's accessible and profitable. Naturally they can't do this with everything, if it was really cool to tear off a company logo off of a shirt then the company couldn't do it without losing their name. This way of marketing limits the way this kind of expression is shown and turns any interesting "anti-marketing" trends into something that isn't cool.

On the other hand any "anti-marketing" trend that does get recognized and sold loses it's meaning. For instance, thrift store clothing may be cool since its cheap and says "I'm not a corporate puppet". The corporations would pick up on this trend and make thrift store shirts with company logos on them, people will spend money on these for their message, but in buying that kind of shirt they'll be defeating the purpose of it. This system of "selling cool" has confused teens. I myself am confused about what's cool anymore, most teens don't really care who says what's cool as they feel good about themselves, but the other group of teens mainly agrees that what corporations try to market as cool is un-cool. But the problem is that we don't know what comes from corporations and what we make ourselves, in a way everything influences each other so nobody can invent cool without building off of something else.

In the end this situation makes the line between genuine and fake blurred which makes cool and un-cool harder to identify and in this social chaos the corporations make money either way because people will do whatever they can to feel cool and they'll buy clothes and other products to feel cool. The problem with this situation is that people try to buy cool instead of make it, cool is traditionally something creative and new, but people who are insecure just buy cool things to be cool. To be genuinely cool these people could make friends or develop skills and interests that make them interesting people, but to be interesting and different there needs to be sense of security, that whatever happens someone will love and value you. The problem is that the people who buy into corporate cool don't have that sense of security can can't make their own cool.

Corporations end up making buying cool easier than making it. Naturally people will go for the easy solution but the more people buy into corporate cool, the more money they make and the less people will be different and interesting. There isn't much of a solution to this because this problem stems from a subconscious (or conscious) need to feel valued (Matt's Lecture) which will never go away unless someone feels valued, which only happens when they're cool, hence the desire to buy cool products. The only way to avoid this is for people to know that they're valued, and even if they really aren't for some reason then they should strive to be valued in an interesting way that will make people genuinely admire them.

HW 28: Other Media Research

http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Cool

This is a link to "Wiki-How's" "How to be Cool" page. This page makes sense in a more sincere way and doesn't propagate the stereotypes of "cool" that we see everyday. This page mainly states that to be cool you have to be talkative and casual and try to stand out in your crowd, they give a loose enough definition that they aren't advertising to a certain clothing manufacturer but it's not clear enough to specify how different one should be, as Remy said "If someone dressed up as a frog with goggles, they'd be different but not cool".

http://www.askmen.com/money/how_to_250/252_how_to.html

This link offers a definition of cool in a more specific way. This guide maintains that to be cool (for a man) you must have a girlfriend and must act non-chalant, they even go so far as to say that you should call your friends less than they call you to seem independent and maintain their attention. In summation this article argues that to be cool one must have a sense of mystery and apathy but still have a girlfriend and show confidence, this is the typical "criminal" archetype, this person should have a sense of danger to them.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=cool

The definition of cool that we have as popular or interesting may come from the term "cool headed" which comes from temperature, naturally cool being the opposite of hot which resembles anger, by association cool temperature resembles a state of calmness which is where the term "cool headed" comes from. People with "cool heads" or a state of calmness that exudes confidence and power are considered "cool" therefore being "cool" by definition means maintaining confidence and a sense of calm.

HW: 27 Interviews

Anthony Interview (edited from aim text)

Q) What would you classify yourself as in terms of social roles?

A) I don't know dude I've always thought of that myself my grades are high enough that I'm top ten percentile of my grade and a 1930 on the SATs but I drink a little I play tons of sports and work out everyday, I don't really have a class

Q) Do you consider yourself "cool"?

A) Nah that's too concieted even for me I've been called cool but its of no interest to me I'm indifferent to the idea

Q) How do you define cool?

A) Everyone likes you everyone wants to be like you, diverse in interests adventurous

Q) Do you think people are born cool?

A) No

Q) Can anyone be cool?

A) I guess though usually potential is higher if you're also attractive being that we live in america

Henry's Interview ("")

Q) What is your social role?

A) The jester, whether I succeed or not is varied, but I try to lighten the mood

Q) Do you consider yourself cool?

A) It depends on what you call cool. I mean, I think I am a pretty well rounded person and "in the know" enough that I can be at least a little cool to a lot of people. But like, to the smoking, drinking, doing drugs crowd, I am a square, because I shove that to the side and think of it as lame, so therefore I'm lame to them too

Q) To paraphrase what you said to me i said "you're cool in your own way, but not the mainstream way?"

A) Yea, you could safely say that for the most part. Depending on your circles though in mainstream media, I could still be pretty cool I think. Not as naturally though

Q) What's your definition of cool?

A) Being true to yourself. It's the same for what I consider a meaningful life. I think that you have to know your true self and simply be that to be cool.

Q) Do you think anyone can be cool?

A) Yes,they just have to be themselves

Q) How does one one "be themself"?

A) They have to analyze themselves in a way, find out what their core elements are

like, for Superman, his are broken down as truth, justice, and the American way

that makes him cool, because he knows who he is

Q) Will this make you cool in everyone's eyes?

A) No, that's pretty hard to do. The only way to be cool for everybody is to earn their respect and have them admire you. That is the closest you can be to being cool to everybody. Like even Obama, at the peak of his popularity last year, wasn't cool in everybody's eyes, but he was cool in a lot, which is the most one can hope for

Stranger Interview

I saw a bearded man walking down the street in a grey trench coat, he exuded sense of calmness but he wasn't mainstream cool so I thought he'd be an interesting interview, and he was the one person out of a full crowd who wasn't on a phone or i-pod

Q) Are you cool?

A) I can be cool at times

Q) Can anyone be cool?

A) no, some people just aren't cool

Q) What social group are you in now?

A) I was a skateboarder growing up so I guess that's where I am now

Q) What social group would you want to be in?

A) I'm happy where I am now

HW 24: Short Story

A kid walks into class wearing some kind of bright hoodie with aviators on top of his winter hat and his light blue skinny jeans hanging off his ass showing off his boxers while he makes a spectacle of himself while he greets all of his friends and cracks jokes about "the game" he saw last night... what a douche-bag I say in my head. Most people like this kid, but then again most people are walking stereotypes who's only concern is showcasing the newest dance move while wearing the newest clothes while humming the newest rap or hip-hop or R n' B song. I on the other hand am wearing whatever I could scrap together out of my closet, no logos, no ass hanging out of my pants, dignity in tact, even if I don't attract as much attention.

As I sit in class, having already done most of the problems on the board, I take a look at the people around me. Most of them are slaves to the newest thing, be it a new song, a new dance move, a joke they heard on TV or celebrity gossip. "These are cool people?" I think to myself. Where are the weird interesting people that every high school is supposed to have? I think every school has some sort of unofficial quota to fill of nerds, geeks, jocks etc., people naturally fit into this quota of people, however you don't see it in the refreshing way it was shown before. Now "cool" can be bought and the "cool" you buy outshines the "cool" you made in your room in the middle of the night. "Cool" people are just the regular people who have the money and time to get the most expensive and most "cool" stuff. Even the "cool" "un-cool" people have bought their version of "un-cool" at a store. Pretty soon the whole world is gonna be a great big pile of--"

"Yo, can I borrow a pencil?" the person sitting next to me asks as he interrupts my thought, I look up to see it's the same douche-bag who walked in dressed like a "'non-tool'-tool"

"Yeah, sure" I say as I give him one of my spare pencils so I can go about daydreaming again.

The kid next to me begins to doodle in his notebook which is filled with half taken notes and smudgy drawings he made weeks before. He uses my pencil to draw a monkey in a top hat with a cane dancing. Initially I'm angry that he couldn't have used one of his pencils to waste time in class but after seeing the doodle I smile a little to myself, the kid walks out of class, forgetting to give me back my pencil and pulling down his skinny jeans on his way out to adjust his low-pants look. I continue my day slightly less disappointed in the world... but only slightly.

HW: 25 story comments

Jakob's Story

Jakob, I liked how your story was very subtle and you didn't spend time talking about the persons clothes and what they have, as most people might be tempted to do. You focused on the actual person and their personality and goals which is a deeper version of cool than how someone looks. You chose to write a story about a very real person who doesn't try to be cool and just knows what he wants in life and tries to get it. This story was written well and gets across a real version of cool, good work.

Rachel's Story

This was an odd version of cool, a cross between the pretty girl and mysterious cowboy type which is a bit odd but makes sense the way you describe it. I would have liked to see you make the character seem cool on her own instead of having everyone else say she's cool and the reader by association thinking she's cool, remember "show don't tell". Besides that, your story was well written and showed an odd way of being cool that we haven't seen much of.

Henry's Story

This story was interesting because it shows the main character as someone who's actually smart, most people see cool as looking good or having a certain personality but most people don't think of intelligence as cool. That being said, I felt as though the beginning of your story was a big list showing just what she wore. This information is useful to characterize her but it's not so important that it should take up the majority of a paragraph. All in all this story was well written and showcases a cool that we don't normally see or recognize which deserves some credit.

Charles's Story

This story was very funny and makes its statement, however I think you spent most of your story explaining the prices of things while you could have spent time expressing Andy's excitement or showing his "swagger" after he buys the shoes and why that makes him cool.

I've noticed in most of the stories I've read that the cool person is usually mysterious, heroic, looks good etc. They fit an archetype for good in most of these stories, they're either the hero, the criminal with a heart of gold, the mystic with knowledge etc. these cool people fulfill roles that we can't fit, we're attracted to these people because we subconsciously want them in our lives. Most of the stories I've read haven't said that cool people had the capacity for evil. No one showed a cool person making fun of someone else or being a bully, this may be because people don't want to admit that bullying is cool or because they personally don't like bullying. However Evil can be seen as cool, Darth Vader from "Start Wars" is seen as cool, he's a badass who has power and attitude and competence. Even though Evil can be cool I haven't seen it expressed in people's stories, which reveals more about what people want other people think about what they think is cool.

HW 23: Initial Thoughts on Cool

"Cool" is a term people use to describe someone who they like or admire. Someone can be admired for several different reasons, people are mainly admired because they have something the other person doesn't have. However if this were true then everyone would be cool because everyone has some sort of desirable trait. Technically everyone is considered cool by someone, even the most "un-cool" person is loved by their family (hopefully). In our culture we have an average consensus for what cool should be, even though most people try not to be obviously cool, or try not to show that they're trying to be cool. This definition of cool differs from race to race, area to area etc. there is no universal "cool" but we can see how people might think they're cool.

One interesting thing about the word "cool" is how closely it's definition is related to admiration. I would say that "cool" is a word to describe admiration on a scale, even though most people won't say they admire the person they think is cool, because that statement is too sentimental which is un-cool (for men at least). However when you replace the word "cool" with admire you end up with some odd behavior. For instance, people can be viewed as cool based on the things they have, in this particular example it'll be a car. The sentence "I think he's cool because he has a nice car" can be changed to "I admire him because he has a nice car". When you look at the word "cool" that way it pertains to desirable traits and possessions, instead of the word admire which has a more meaningful definition and relates to personal traits rather than possessions.

The word "cool" is largely undefined, we all use it but we haven't really tried to define it. Naturally if we all use a word with no real common definition we're going to make our own meanings. Because people are throwing around virtually thousands of definitions of the same word we're all somewhat confused when we look at cool on our own so we base the word on things that are universally cool like celebrities or TV and Movie characters etc. "Cool" has become (or possibly originated as) a commercial tool to sell things, since cool involved material items as well as traits. Another piece of proof that "cool" is commercial is that the stereotypical "popular" or "cool" kids are rich and are viewed as cool because of their clothes and money.

HW 21: Art Project

(The Speech balloons, or boxes in this case, came out blurry so I've re-written them below)

Panel 1: nothing

Panel 2: "Select Tool"

Panel 3: "Copy"

Panel 4: "Print"

Panel 5: nothing

Panel 6: "Realistic Accuracy Achieved 75%"

I decided to make a one page comic about a robot that wanted to represent reality, in this case a nice sunset in a meadow. It does this by using commands and tools that computer users will be familiar with, it copy's the scenery and prints it to see that it can't accurately copy the scene in front of him. This is true of digital media as well as all media, reality can't be fully captured in any medium, in this case the picture didn't look fully like the real image but in today's technology we can't simulate full reality. While we have sight and sound copied we can't copy smells at the same time or copy what the person might physically feel at that time.

The robot feels somewhat frustrated that it can't copy reality completely, this shows our obsession with copying reality, we've become so obsessed that we believe we can copy anything. People have become so arrogant in their ability to copy reality that you can only assume someone might get frustrated when they can't copy it correctly, much like an artist who gets frustrated that they can't draw something the way they see it or imagine it. This piece of art is like a mirror, but it doesn't reflect the viewer directly, it reflects the media that the viewer creates or takes part in. This piece of art doesn't inspire change because I don't feel like it's necessary, people will naturally copy the images they see but it's important to see that the object we copy is still there and can be enjoyed for what it is.

One interesting obstacle that came about when I was making this comic was making the robot likable. I didn't want to make some sort of evil robot who would "rape" reality by copying it and trying to commercialize it or something. The robot's intention was to save the image of the beautiful sunset not to make it obsolete by copying it, the makers of the Wii didn't want to make outside physical activity obsolete, and the makers of Facebook didn't want to make social interaction obsolete either, they wanted to copy a portion of reality for a constructive purpose. In the Wii's case to influence gamers to exercise more and in the case of Facebook to have people be able to share photos easier and talk to friends who might be far away. The way I did this was I made the robot happy and borrowed elements from the face of EVE from "Wall-E" who looks approachable and friendly (when her face is green and she isn't blowing things up). This project was fun to do and it's refreshing to be able to express ideas outside of blog posts for a change.

HW 22: Final Draft Big Paper

Introduction

The debate over weather digital media is good or bad is a futile argument and a waste of time. Digital media is just another medium and the true "evil" people see in digital media is the subject it represents, not the media itself. Digital media is an easily accessible form of non-digital media or a mixture of non-digital mediums. It's just another way of showing things and doesn't necessarily add to the "evil" of the subject. For example, the hands down most controversial video game "Grand Theft Auto" isn't thought to be overly violent and too inappropriate because it's a video game, it's because the game has you selling drugs, killing people, stealing cars etc. The game itself is only the carrier of the subject, you can't blame someone for giving you a cold because they were just carrying it, they didn't add to the disease.

Background

Throughout this essay I will use words like "Good" and "Evil" to describe how people view digital media. The main criteria people use when defining these opinions about technology is how this technology affects the viewer or player. "Good" media is viewed to make the audience smarter, more knowledgeable and retain good morals and values. "Evil" technology is viewed as "a waste of time", or "it'll turn you brain into mush", or its too violent or immature or of bad taste. Most people will agree that people find Digital Media entertaining weather or not it's "Good" or "Evil", the argument I make is based on this definition of "Good" or "Evil" media.

"Feed" Arguments

In the book "Feed" by M.T. Anderson, people of the future use devices that are surgically implanted into the brain and can allow people to communicate and buy things almost instantly. The book clearly blames technology for the cultural decline in the future, however when you look at the way this social decline happens, the Feed Corporation is the one to blame. The Feed corporation would send advertisements directly into people's brains so that they couldn't get away from them, those people then bought the products that were advertised. The corporations advertised other products based on what they bought. The teens in "Feed" were buying things based the corporations which shaped them. This made them buy anything that the corporations sold and they all became obsessed with fads and had no idea what was going on in the world. This is the true "evil" in the book, consumerism truning into apathy and eventually into ignorance. Even though the Feed was able to distribute the message of the corporations, the ultimate evil in the situation was the Feed Corporation.

In "Feed" the main populace, the 73% percent of people who had Feeds, had no idea what was going on in the world because they were distracted by trivial fads. These fads were written to be ridiculous, dressing like old people was "in" when the characters were young, owning fake birds was "in" at some point and even having lesions was "in". The character Quendy even had plastic surgery to cut open her skin in several areas to look cool even though it's obviously unhealthy and dangerous. Even today we're distracted by celebrity gossip, people talk about Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift's VMA award speech instead of discussing the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, or the genocide in Darfur, or even the discussion on health care policies that will directly affect Americans. This distraction doesn't originate from Digital Media, in ancient Rome the colosseums were used to entertain the masses to distract them from the inner turmoil within Rome (Andy's "Bread and Circuses" lecture). Therefore the apathy and ignorance exhibited in "Feed" and in our own culture isn't derived from Digital Media, it's derived from our desire to be entertained.

"Feed" also bombards the reader with advertisements from the company's that exist in the book. These advertisements are inescapable and are beamed directly into people's heads. One explanation for the cultural decay in "Feed" is the obsession with consumption, the teens in "Feed" constantly say things like "lets buy something" they don't even know what to buy, yet the need to buy something is there. Everything is also incredibly accessible and there's a direct relationship between accessibility and the need to buy, the less work you have to do to buy something the more you'll feel like buying it (paraphrased from a discussion with Jakob Friedman). This idea of accessibility and excessive advertising isn't specific to Digital Media. On the streets there are tons of poster ads, some buses have TV screens showing ads on them, there are bill boards everywhere, McDonalds goes so far as to even have a sign about the McCafe in the McDonalds (chances are if you're INSIDE the store you know about it). Convenient stores have shelves for candy at the counter, because it's right there people are tempted to buy it, like the store, its convenient. Excessive ads and easy accessibility are techniques used by companies to get more sales, this can be done through Digital Media, but its certainly not exclusive to it.

"Everything Bad is Good for You" Arguments

Steven Johnson's book "Everything Bad is Good for You" brings up the idea that people can learn from digital media. He argued that video games were able to teach reasoning and logic skills, complex TV shows taught us to use our memory to get inside jokes or to get plot twists that referenced other episodes. I believe that humans can learn from anything if they enjoy it. People can learn from books, drawings, comic books, physical interaction etc. The only difference between digital media and non-digital media is the fact that more people prefer digital to non-digital. Digital media only takes what non-digital media does and makes it more entertaining via the use of images and sounds. The same way you can use logical reasoning to think about how you would tackle a reality show situation, you can also use to figure out how to solve a problem occurring in a book you're reading or any story you've been told. This means that the subject is causing the development not Digital Media itself, the "good" in Digital Media comes from it's subject as well as the "bad" in "bad" Digital Media, the subject is what matters.

Steven Johnson's theory seemed logical and correct, however he didn't specify how much of that development happened due to the medium its expressed in and how much development came from the subject matter. He stated that following complex plots in TV shows made people think about what was going on, but if the story was causing the development then the same thought process could be applied to any other story telling medium, several of which are non-digital. He stated that video games made people obsessed with them and they tried incredibly hard to solve problems within the game, while he said in the book that there was no counter part to this I disagree. Riddles, physical puzzles, crosswords and sudoku puzzles can be very addicting, they teach people the same logical skills you may get out of a video game but in a non-digital way. All of the types of mental development he listed was based on the subject of the Digital Media, non of these "developments" were proven to be exclusive to the media they were expressed in.

Personal Thoughts on Digital Media

Digital media is just an extension of non-digital media which is an extension of the real world. Any problem that digital media has caused can be caused by non-digital media, even if it's not as drastic. Some problems "caused" by digital media may even stem from underlying phycological problems. Many people argue that the internet makes people "fake", they pretend to be someone else, but naturally there's a difference between who we think we are, what we're viewed as and who we really are. Technology didn't create that problem, it's always been there because it's a part of human phycology. People complain that TV shows and movies give us a skewed view of reality, for one, this problem could be caused by books, but also our view of reality will be skewed anyways because we're all biased in some way because of how we're raised or taught.

Conclusion

Digital media is a representation, humans can only represent or recreate things. The constant prefix "re" means that people just make something again, which means there's an original. Because there's an original, everything we make or do has been made or done before. Digital media doesn't bring up any new problems because at its base its a representation of sights and sounds that we've seen before, it's impossible that digital media could make new problems in our society when it represents things that have already existed. Likewise any positive thing has been seen before in nature and is simply captured in the medium. Media is just a form of capturing something, when you put a bird in a cage it doesn't change the way the bird looks or sings, it's just put there so people can enjoy it, the bird can be ugly or pretty but the cage has nothing to do with it. People need to realize that they can't blame a medium for expressing a bad subject, people get caught up in blaming things without realizing the source which just showcases their ignorance. The world is full of bad and good but media just captures it, and Digital Media captures it with lights and sounds.

HW 20: Big Paper Draft Revised

The debate over weather digital media is good or bad is a futile argument and a waste of time. Digital media is just another medium and the true "evil" that comes from digital media is the subjects they represent, not the media itself. Digital media is an easily accessible form of non-digital media or a mixture of non-digital mediums. Digital media is just another way of showing things and doesn't necessarily add to the "evil" of the subject. For example, the hands down most controversial video game "Grand Theft Auto" isn't thought to be overly violent and too inappropriate because it's a video game, it's because the game has you selling drugs, killing people, stealing cars etc. The game itself is only the carrier of the subject, you can't blame someone for giving you a cold because they were just carrying it, they didn't add to the disease.

In the book "Feed" by M.T. Anderson, people of the future use devices that are surgically implanted into the brain and can allow people to communicate and buy things almost instantly. The book clearly blames technology for the cultural decline in the future, however when you look at the way this social decline happens, the Feed Corporation is the one to blame. The Feed corporation would send advertisements directly into people's brains so that they couldn't get away from them, those people then bought the products that were advertised. The corporations advertised other products based on what they bought. The teens in "Feed" were buying things based the corporations which shaped them. This made them buy anything that the corporations old and they all became obsessed with fads and had no idea what was going on in the world. Even though the Feed was able to distribute the message of the corporations, the ultimate evil in the situation was the Feed Corporation.

In "Feed" the main populace, the 73% percent of people who had Feeds, had no idea what was going on in the world even though an invention like the fee would let people know what's going on instantaneously. Most people argue that this is because digital media distracts people from what's really going on through TV shows video games and the Internet. However, entertainment is natural, the thing that distracts us from the world is entertainment, baby lions play with each other not knowing they'll have to defend their territory and struggle to survive. Distraction is a vital tool that people in power use, the Roman colosseums were used to distract Roman citizens from the internal power struggle within Rome. This is known as "Bread and Circuses" using entertainment to distract from the real problem (Andy's Lecture 9/22), this can be done with digital technology and with a gigantic stadium (which we also have anyways).

Steven Johnson's book "Everything Bad is Good for You" brings up the idea that people can learn from digital media. He argued that video games were able to teach reasoning and logic skills, complex TV shows taught us to use our memory to get inside jokes or to get plot twists that referenced other episodes. I believe that humans can learn from anything if they enjoy it. People can learn from books, drawings, comic books, physical interaction etc. The only difference between digital media and non-digital media is the fact that more people prefer digital to non-digital. Digital media only takes what non-digital media does and makes it more entertaining via the use of images and sounds. The same way you can use logical reasoning to think about how you would tackle a reality show situation, you can also use to figure out how to solve a problem occurring in a book you're reading or any story you've been told.

Steven Johnson's theory seemed logical and correct, however he didn't specify how much of that development happened due to the medium its expressed in and how much development came from the subject matter. He stated that following complex plots in TV shows made people think about what was going on, but if the story was causing the development then the same thought process could be applied to any other story telling medium, several of which are non-digital. He stated that video games made people obsessed with them and they tried incredibly hard to solve problems within the game, while he said in the book that there was no counter part to this I disagree. Riddles, physical puzzles, crosswords and sudoku puzzles can be very addicting, they teach people the same logical skills you may get out of a video game but in a non-digital way.

Digital media is just an extension of non-digital media which is an extension of the real world. Any problem that digital media has caused can be caused by non-digital media, even if it's not as drastic. Some problems "caused" by digital media may even stem from underlying phycological problems. Many people argue that the internet makes people "fake", they pretend to be someone else, but naturally there's a difference between who we think we are, what we're viewed as and who we really are, technology didn't create that problem it's always been there because it's a part of human phycology. People complain that TV shows and movies give us a skewed view of reality, for one this problem could be caused by books, but also our view of reality will be skewed anyways because we're all biased in some way or another.

Digital media is a representation, humans can only represent or recreate things. The constant prefix "re" means that people just make something again, which means there's an original. Because there's an original, everything we make or do has been made or done before. Digital media doesn't bring up any new problems, at its base its a representation of sights and sounds that we've seen before, it's impossible that digital media makes new problems in our society when it represents things that have already existed, if digital media will create any problems it will create ones similar to what came before it. For example, people criticize MMORPG's (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games) for putting gamers into a false sense of reality and immersing them in a fake world. Books have done that for years, and before that people had their imaginations to take them to new worlds. In short, digital media can't be good or bad because its just an extension of reality, reality is only good or bad depending on the specific subject, therefore the subject can be "bad" or "good" and it's pointless to argue for or against digital media.

HW: 19 Draft Comments

Jakob

Jakob, I enjoyed reading this paper and found it to be very thought provoking, your thesis is very relevant to how people act but it's also not an obvious statement someone would make. The idea of people distracting themselves is closely related to Andy's "Bread and Circus" lecture, except instead of the government distracting us we choose to distract ourselves. I think it'd be interesting to compare how we as humans distracted ourselves before the creation of digital media and how we distract ourselves now, this way you can be able to say in your paper that digitalization is the cause of this passiveness and not just entertainment (which has existed for thousands of years and is experienced by animals as well who have no idea how to use a computer). Great paper so far, I'm anxious to see what the final product will be like

Beatrice

Like Andy said, you're taking on a lot of different problems, your paper will be more organized if you look at one problem and create a thesis based on that, or find one specific factor of digital technology that causes a multitude of problems. Great intro though, very engaging and dramatic if you make the rest of your paper as strong as this intro it'll be that much better. As for the stress just relax and gather your thoughts, good luck with your paper.

HW 18: Big Paper Draft

The debate over weather digital media is good or bad is a futile argument and a waste of time. Digital media is just another medium and the true "evil" that comes from digital media is the subjects they represent, not the media itself. Digital media is an easily accessible form of non-digital media or a mixture of non-digital mediums. Digital media is just another way of showing things and doesn't necessarily add to the "evil" of the subject. For example, the hands down most controversial video game "Grand Theft Auto" isn't thought to be overly violent and too inappropriate because it's a video game, it's because the game has you selling drugs, killing people, stealing cars etc. The game itself is only the carrier of the subject, you can't blame someone for giving you a cold because they were just carrying it, they didn't add to the disease.

In the book "Feed" by M.T. Anderson, people of the future use devices that are surgically implanted into the brain and can allow people to communicate and buy things almost instantly. The book clearly blames technology for the cultural decline in the future, however when you look at the way this social decline happens, the Feed Corporation is the one to blame. The Feed corporation would send advertisements directly into people's brains so that they couldn't get away from them, those people bought the products that were advertised, the corporations then advertised other products based on what they bought. This way teens bought what was advertised to them and what was advertised to them was based on what they bought, naturally those teens will end up buying the same things. This made the teens in "Feed" obsessed with fads and had no idea what was going on in the world. Even though the Feed was able to distribute the message of the corporations, the ultimate evil in the situation was the Feed, some might argue that other "evil" messages could be spread through word of mouth, newspapers etc.

Steven Johnson's book "Everything Bad is Good for You" brings up the idea that people can learn from digital media. He argued that video games were able to teach reasoning and logic skills, complex TV shows taught us to use our memory to get inside jokes or to get plot twists that referenced other episodes. I believe that humans can learn from anything if they enjoy it. People can learn from books, drawings, comic books, physical interaction etc. The only difference between digital media and non-digital media is the fact that more people prefer digital to non-digital. Digital media only takes what non-digital media does and makes it more entertaining. The same way you can learn how to use logical reasoning to think about how you would tackle a reality show situation, you can also figure out how to solve a problem occurring in a book you're reading.

Steven Johnson's theory seemed logical and correct, however he didn't specify how much of that development happened due to the medium its expressed in and how much development came from the subject matter. He stated that following complex plots in TV shows made people think about what was going on, but if the story was causing the development then the same thought process could be applied to any other story telling medium, several of which are non-digital. He stated that video games made people obsessed with them and they tried incredibly hard to solve problems within the game, while he said in the book that there was no counter part to this I disagree. Riddles, physical puzzles, crosswords and sudoku puzzles can be very addicting, they teach people the same logical skills you may get out of a video game but in a non-digital way.

Digital media is just an extension of non-digital media which is an extension of the real world. Any problem that digital media has caused can be caused by non-digital media, even if it's not as drastic. Some problems "caused" by digital media may even stem from underlying phycological problems. Many people argue that the internet makes people "fake", they pretend to be someone else, but naturally there's a difference between who we think we are, what we're viewed as and who we really are, technology didn't create that problem it's always been there because it's a part of human phycology. People complain that TV shows and movies give us a skewed view of reality, for one this problem could be caused by books, but also our view of reality will be skewed anyways because we're all biased in some way or another.

Digital media is a representation, humans can only represent or recreate things. The constant prefix "re" means that people just make something again, which means there's an original. Because there's an original, everything we make or do has been made or done before. Digital media doesn't bring up any new problems, at its base its a representation of sights and sounds that we've seen before, it's impossible that digital media makes new problems in our society when it represents things that have already existed, if digital media will create any problems it will create ones similar to what came before it. For example, people criticize MMORPG's (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games) for putting gamers into a false sense of reality and immersing them in a fake world. Books have done that for years, and before that people had their imaginations to take them to new worlds. In short, digital media can't be good or bad because its just an extension of reality, reality is only good or bad depending on the specific subject, therefore the subject can be "bad" or "good" and it's pointless to argue for or against digital media.

HW: 17 Blog Comments

Jacob's Blog

I can tell you've gotten a good start on your paper already and its coming along nicely. I liked your idea about how people should try to learn from everything but they choose only to learn from digital media or anything that's entertaining. I'd like you to connect that to your thesis some how, maybe controlling how we learn can give us control over our lives, but limiting what we learn can make us loose control, opting to learn from GTA will make impressionable kids lose control because their ethics will be skewed. Great start though, I can tell you have a lot of ideas to get out and I'm looking forward to reading them.

Beatrice's Blog

Good start, I feel like you have a lot of good examples to back up your point but your thesis needs to be elaborated. You should explain how technology is detrimental to our society, there is a huge list of reasons for that that we've discussed in class, and Feed will end up being an excellent resource for this paper. Once you have a detailed thesis you should base your evidence on the thesis itself, you paper might be vague if you have god examples but nothing specific for them to prove right or wrong. I look forward to reading your finished essay

HW 16: Big Paper Outline

Thesis: The debate over weather digital devices are good or bad is futile. Digitalization like any other medium contains both good and bad subjects within it's genre. Any negative or positive effects based on the subject can be experienced in any genre, digital media just changes the way its shown.

Intro: (explain thesis in depth etc.)

Body #1: "Feed", the corporations are the true enemies, instead of using the Feed as a positive tool for learning, spreading awareness of issues etc. they use it to advertise and sell which in turn makes people obsessed with fads, the technology just disperses the advertisements of the Feed Corporation faster

Body #2: "Everything Bad is Good for You", Steven Johnson lists the various ways that digital media can help people's mind develop, I would argue that it's the nature of the human mind to learn from whatever is presented to it, the mind just develops in different ways, therefore digital media doesn't have a positive or negative effect, just a different one

Body #3: (compare other mediums to digital), the subject is what matters, people can get immersed in books and live in those "virtual" worlds as well, they don't have to be digital.

Conclusion: (wrap up ideas etc.)

HW:15 Blog Posts

Jacob's Blog

Very concise and well written explanation of the text. I could tell that you read this text to get the message but you also took it with a grain of salt. The most interesting idea you have here is this idea that any of these things can develop us further, but only when its distilled or concentrated or when you filter out the "crap" in it.

I like this idea a lot, but I'm not clear on what this "crap" is. What aspects of video games or TV or the internet inhibit our mental development and what aspects of it increase our mental development? What does this "crap" do to people? does it erase the mental development that was gained, or take a step back from it? are there any examples of video games or TV shows that don't have any peripheral garbage that inhibits our mental development?

Even if we could avoid the extra "fluff" would people still enjoy video games and TV etc.? Is there any way to have the mental development without the extra garbage? Does this extra "fluff" exist in books, maybe even people?

This idea you brought up was very interesting and could expand in many different ways and could become a post on its own, although I would have liked to see you expand on this interesting idea, great post though, and keep up the good work

Beatrice's Blog

I like your idea about how "Feed" is a nail and we're the hammer. People tend to be lazy and think that books will change the world for them but you at least have the idea that we have to take initiative if we want to make real change in our world.

I'm curious as to what you want to change in the world and how you would go about doing it, try to expand on your idea more, but all in all good post

"Everything Bad is Good for you" response

The large excerpt of this book covered topics like TV, Video Games and the Internet, saying that they all grew more complex over time and show that people are becoming smarter for engaging in these mediums. Steven Johnson said that video games increased strategic thinking in gamers, teaching them to think in task/reward lines, "If I do this, this will happen, then this will happen" etc. Video Games were also said to be a good way of teaching things, his son who wouldn't have learned about the relationships between taxes and the wealth of a certain neighborhood in classroom, but instead learned it playing "The Sims". TV shows were shown to have more complex plots and make the viewer think about things that weren't shown to get jokes or understand the plot of an episode. Complex TV shows teach their viewers to look past the obvious things and understand the subtext of the plot.

I agree with most of what he says in this text, it all seems to make sense and I understand how each of these mediums can have these different positive effects on us. It's also very refreshing to hear positive perspectives on topics like TV, the Internet and Video Games. I agree with this idea, however he didn't expand on the idea behind the relationship between the complexity of the medium and how the audience develops. People will get smarter in different ways using different mediums, but the medium isn't what makes people smarter, the quality of said medium has more to do with the positive effects than the actual way its distributed. I believe that any medium can convey a complex story, provoke thoughts and engage the audience, likewise it's also possible that the medium has a poorly written story, no new ideas or concepts and is boring and poorly made. The point I'm trying to get across is that anything can be made poorly or made well, the medium its contained in effects the way its shown, with video games the story or idea will be interacted with, with reading it will be absorbed and imagined by the reader etc. People learn from complex things, the way its shown to the audience does matter, but not as much as the complexity of the subject.

Steven Johnson makes points that praise technology which contrasts "Feed" however they don't contrast the specific points that "Feed" makes. "Feed" essentially says that technology sorts people into groups and sell things to those people and destroys their individuality, that same technology makes out culture obsessed with ridiculous fads even if they're stupid or expensive. Steven Johnson didn't make points countering those, he praised technology for its ability to make people smarter as its subjects become more complex. "Feed" states that technology and corporations distract people from what's real and important, Steven argues that people get smarter from technology because the complexity of the subjects represented by those technologies make people smarter. They both argue opposing view points but for completely different reasons.

Feed Art Response

M.T. Anderson made many decisions when he wrote "Feed". Each decision he made was used to get a certain point or idea across. The most obvious of these ideas is the use of Titus' and Violet's contrasting backgrounds, this is used to contrast our modern culture with their futuristic culture. Also it wouldn't make any sense story wise to have Titus go around learning about his world since he's already seen it, he had to show another character around to show the reader his world. The reader is meant to see the world as Violet sees it.

Even though the reader is supposed to view things the way Violet does, Titus is still the main character and the book is written from his perspective. Obviously so we can see how the Feed works for a normal teen but also to see how a normal teen thinks in this world. Titus will say things like "We went to moon to have some fun, but it turned out to totally suck" which put things into perspective. Violet is too relatable since she reflects our time, but Titus is spoiled by his Feed and to get the full effect that the Feed has on the normal person, the reader has to see a normal person with the Feed and how they think.

Throughout the book Violet teaches Titus how to think outside the box and evaluate his culture. Violet is the voice of reason who reminds Titus that his culture is flawed. Titus also teaches Violet about the convenience of the modern (futuristic for us) world. This is to illustrate that technology has two sides to it. The culturally detrimental side which spoils our culture and makes us obsessed with consuming and following fads, and the productive entertaining side of it. The majority was the bad kind in the book but Violet seemed entertained by the new technology.

Violet's death symbolized how people who don't catch up with technology are ultimately left behind, everyone depends on technology, specifically new technology. Whatever phone, TV, gaming system etc. has to be new, Violet's Feed was an older model that was implanted late in her life, her failure to catch up to the technology of the times killed her. The overall message of the book was that excessive use of technology will destroy (or already has destroyed) our culture, and our dependence on technology makes it impossible to go back unless we question the effect it has on our culture and if that's something we really want.

Feed Response

"Feed" being a science fiction novel has many exaggerations, and in some cases exact parallels, to modern society mainly in the case of teen life and technology. The Feed itself is used to represent the convenience of modern technology. The Feed is an allegory for phones, internet, video games, television, instant messaging, and online auction sites like Ebay. The Feed allows people to communicate telepathically (through "m-chatting"), buy anything online, watch movies, research anything and even share memories.

The obvious parallel to this is the internet and tv, the most "Feed-like" electronic out there today is the iphone, with its thousands of Apps it can do virtually anything, on top of that it has internet, phone, music and a camera. In my own personal life I don't have an iphone, or sidekick so I can't IM people constantly like they do in "Feed" (IMing being a downgraded version of M-chatting) nor can I play games whenever I want etc. The phone I do have I use mostly to text and call, which I don't do as often as most people and not nearly as often as the characters in "Feed" do. However I do mimic the technology by IMing when I'm at home, watching movies on my laptop, playing video games and using the internet a lot.

Like anything there are positives and negatives, with the Feed the user sacrifices their individuality for convenience. This is mainly because the Feed effects the users thoughts with constant advertisements, corporations sell things based on what people are like, they reflect what they buy and so and so on. Because he Feed users lose their individuality they follow ridiculous fads. The obsession with something thats stupid yet entertaining, in Feed the fads that people follow, in real life pop culture, comes from an over stimulation of media. When teens can talk about the same stupid thing at the same time they're more likely to. While the majority of teens specifically exhibit this behavior there are a minority of teens who question this, mainly our class since we do this in school. Weather or not this is because society hasn't collapsed yet or technology isn't as socially detrimental as it seems has yet to be seen.

Digitalization Experiment

For my experiment I chose to have no digital stimulation at all, in my case this would include, internet, TV and video games. Instead of watching TV, going on the computer and playing video games, I read comic books, snacked a lot and cleaned out and organized my desk and back pack.

Most people would see this behavior as a way of "filling" the time i used to occupy with digital entertainment, which is technically true. But I didn't feel all that bored during my experiment, I just knew I had extra time and should clean out my desk. This behavior isn't specific to the exclusion of digital entertainment though, if I excluded a non-digital activity from my day and had time where I wasn't doing anything I'd do something that was productive but not necessarily mandatory.

I learned that, at least for me personally, the digital world isn't that addictive. If you have a non-digital activity to pursue instead. However people get too attached to TV and face book and their video games that they forget what to do when its gone. If there's anything I've learned from this experiment it's that you should never be too dependent on anything, computers can crash and internet can go out, but non-digital activities are much more reliable. While digital entertainment is fun, people shouldn't depend on it, entertainment should be a mix of physical and digital stimulation (for the majority of us that enjoy digital entertainment)