Although I ultimately love and appreciate that we have the technology available that makes texting possible, sometimes I really hate it. I'm sure that even before texting was invented, people got distracted while having conversations and didn't listen to the person they were talking to, but with texting now it seems like it's an every-day occurrence.
I've realized now how big of a pet peeve it is to me when people start texting when you're talking to them. Even replying to just one takes them out of their conversation with you and detracts from the connection. Not only is it rude to the other person, but it's a total overestimate of how well you can multitask. When you pull out your phone when someone is having a conversation with you, it sends the message that you aren't really paying attention to them. It's one of the most dismissive feelings in the world when you're on the other end of that.
My friends will do this sometimes, and I know they mean well and aren't trying to be dismissive, but it makes me so frustrated and want to just stop talking to see if they'd even notice. Actually, I like to play a game to see how receptive they are to what I'm saying once they start texting, so I'll just start saying the most random, weird stuff to see if it even phases them. I know for a fact that people like to feel listened to, so I've made a promise to myself that I won't check texts or anything else on my phone when I'm having a conversation with someone else face-to-face. Surely if I think I deserve that basic level of attention, then so does everyone else.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Saturday, March 29, 2014
The Power of the Polaroid
Okay, just one more post about pictures, I swear. After going through our class's recent blog posts, I saw one in particular that caught my eye. Nicole's post about creating photo albums made me think about what a difference a tangible photo can make as opposed to just posting it on social media. It brought me back to my middle school days, actually. My granddad used to have a Polaroid camera that we would always use on our family trips to the mountains, beach, etc. Something about the whole experience was so much better than just taking a digital picture and printing it out. Maybe it was because it took more time, or maybe because the photo looked so distinctive, but whatever it was, using that outdated piece of technology was an experience in itself.
The more I think about it, I actually remember those moments that we captured with the Polaroid more clearly than I do the ones we took with a digital camera. They were such simple moments too, but I love being able to remember them. Most of the pictures we took are lost somewhere now, probably in the depths of my mom's attic space, but even the memory of the photo itself is still enough for me to remember the actual experience. The one that lingers with me the most is a picture of my sister, my cousin, and I, sitting on what has got to be the oldest, most dilapidated couch in our mountain house just making faces. I was 13 years old, and that is one of my clearest memories to this day. The moment was so simple, but the way we captured it made it special. I'd take a Polaroid camera over a digital one any day.
The more I think about it, I actually remember those moments that we captured with the Polaroid more clearly than I do the ones we took with a digital camera. They were such simple moments too, but I love being able to remember them. Most of the pictures we took are lost somewhere now, probably in the depths of my mom's attic space, but even the memory of the photo itself is still enough for me to remember the actual experience. The one that lingers with me the most is a picture of my sister, my cousin, and I, sitting on what has got to be the oldest, most dilapidated couch in our mountain house just making faces. I was 13 years old, and that is one of my clearest memories to this day. The moment was so simple, but the way we captured it made it special. I'd take a Polaroid camera over a digital one any day.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
I Don't Need Dental Work
While I'm thinking about our class discussions, I also wanted to argue, from my own personal experience, against the belief that pictures take away from memories or experiences. I have a story to tell all of you, and it is a story of an experience that was lost with the disappearance of pictures from my phone. Get your tissues and prepare yourself for tears. Just kidding, but I did cry a little myself if I'm being completely honest.
Remember my post about losing all of my information on my phone? Well, the good news is that I did get some of it back, but sadly--and most importantly--not my pictures. Now, that may not be such a big deal to some of you, but to me it meant the loss of one of the best potential albums I have ever made. I'm just going to assume that the majority of the people in our class have seen Bridesmaids, because, let's face it, JOMC 240 is run by girls. So, this means you all have seen the scene where Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph are eating and Kristen Wiig puts chocolate in her teeth and says "I dont. Need. Dental work." If not, here it is and you're welcome in advance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL812ag82xI.
Naturally, I loved this and decided to make it my own. Now, here is where I need to give some of you some back story. I'm in Alpha Chi Omega, and basically every Friday at lunch there are brownies for dessert. So, every Friday since the movie came out, I've made my friends stick brownie in their teeth and I took a picture of the beautiful moment. When I lost all of these pictures, I had racked up about 50 gems of friends who "don't need dental work"--which, coincidentally, was going to be the name of my album when I FINALLY uploaded it to Facebook during my senior year. Now I'll have to start all over from scratch...but I can't get back those moments. The loss of all of those pictures was devastating, which proves my point that pictures CAN and do make moments and create experiences that can sometimes transcend mere face-to-face interactions. Even if it's taking pictures of food stuck in people's teeth.
Remember my post about losing all of my information on my phone? Well, the good news is that I did get some of it back, but sadly--and most importantly--not my pictures. Now, that may not be such a big deal to some of you, but to me it meant the loss of one of the best potential albums I have ever made. I'm just going to assume that the majority of the people in our class have seen Bridesmaids, because, let's face it, JOMC 240 is run by girls. So, this means you all have seen the scene where Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph are eating and Kristen Wiig puts chocolate in her teeth and says "I dont. Need. Dental work." If not, here it is and you're welcome in advance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL812ag82xI.
Naturally, I loved this and decided to make it my own. Now, here is where I need to give some of you some back story. I'm in Alpha Chi Omega, and basically every Friday at lunch there are brownies for dessert. So, every Friday since the movie came out, I've made my friends stick brownie in their teeth and I took a picture of the beautiful moment. When I lost all of these pictures, I had racked up about 50 gems of friends who "don't need dental work"--which, coincidentally, was going to be the name of my album when I FINALLY uploaded it to Facebook during my senior year. Now I'll have to start all over from scratch...but I can't get back those moments. The loss of all of those pictures was devastating, which proves my point that pictures CAN and do make moments and create experiences that can sometimes transcend mere face-to-face interactions. Even if it's taking pictures of food stuck in people's teeth.
Facebook as a False Reality
After our discussion on Monday about FOMO (or fear of missing out for those who are not familiar), whether or not social media makes us happy, sad, or both, and the conclusions we can draw from that, I had a theory I wanted to share.
Although Professor Robinson sort of beat me to my topic of discussion for this post (rats!), I still want to add on to his comment. He mentioned how we typically only post the happy stuff that's going on in our lives. So-and-so just got engaged, this girl had a great weekend and here's the proof with 50 pictures, and someone else just got accepted into the college they wanted! That's all fine and dandy, but--like we discussed in class--this sets up a precedent for social media presence as a whole to be pretty one-sided and not so genuine.
I also think it contributes massively to the phenomenon we know so well as FOMO. Our society is so focused on making people think we are happier than we probably are, that we create this false reality on social media. I'm sure most of you have probably been in the situation where there's that one person you are Facebook friends with that is constantly updating depressing statuses that bother you for some reason. You wouldn't react the same way if it were something positive, and I think that's because that is all we want to see. When we see people having this great time through pictures or updates, it leads us to believe that they are truly experiencing this great happiness, when really, that's most likely not the case. And that creates FOMO.
Laurel Nakadate's art project is a perfect example of an attempt to unmask this false reality we live through social media. In order to "deliberately take part in sadness" the way that we all deliberately take part in happiness, she took 365 selfies--every day for a year--of herself crying. She, too, noticed this "happy" trend on social media, and she wasn't buying it. I think it's extremely interesting to see how social media can bring to light this sort of cultural practice.
Although Professor Robinson sort of beat me to my topic of discussion for this post (rats!), I still want to add on to his comment. He mentioned how we typically only post the happy stuff that's going on in our lives. So-and-so just got engaged, this girl had a great weekend and here's the proof with 50 pictures, and someone else just got accepted into the college they wanted! That's all fine and dandy, but--like we discussed in class--this sets up a precedent for social media presence as a whole to be pretty one-sided and not so genuine.
I also think it contributes massively to the phenomenon we know so well as FOMO. Our society is so focused on making people think we are happier than we probably are, that we create this false reality on social media. I'm sure most of you have probably been in the situation where there's that one person you are Facebook friends with that is constantly updating depressing statuses that bother you for some reason. You wouldn't react the same way if it were something positive, and I think that's because that is all we want to see. When we see people having this great time through pictures or updates, it leads us to believe that they are truly experiencing this great happiness, when really, that's most likely not the case. And that creates FOMO.
Laurel Nakadate's art project is a perfect example of an attempt to unmask this false reality we live through social media. In order to "deliberately take part in sadness" the way that we all deliberately take part in happiness, she took 365 selfies--every day for a year--of herself crying. She, too, noticed this "happy" trend on social media, and she wasn't buying it. I think it's extremely interesting to see how social media can bring to light this sort of cultural practice.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Not Great, Alert Carolina
I completely agree with John's point that social media did a better than Alert Carolina did this afternoon to alert us of the dangerous, armed man on campus. I got almost all of my information from Twitter and word of mouth, and my friend was complaining about how she felt the same way, too! In fact, I hadn't gotten much information until two of my friends who the suspect had actually approached came back to their house and told me about it. It's concerning to me that our university's security update system is so lagging, but at the same time, it feels almost empowering that fellow students did such a great job of alerting the public in a timely manner. They took the reigns and gave us the information we needed through social media, which is an extremely efficient way to get breaking news out; everyone's going to be keeping up and everyone sees new notifications popping up on their news feed. Thank goodness for Twitter.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Modern Day Narcissus
With all this talk about selfies, I'd just like to put in my own two cents on the matter. For one, I'd like to agree with Jamie when she says that selfies have been around for a while now, so everyone should just calm down about them already. I don't think they detract from a moment; in fact, I would argue that they can create moments, and I have Jason Feifer to back me up on that one as he refutes Sherry Turkle's claim that technology is negatively affecting the way we communicate.
However--and here is my actual two cents--I do think that selfies create the capacity for a very self-obsessed and vain culture. Not just the selfie itself, but the ease of accessibility we now have to them. Nowadays, most people have cameras on their phones. It's like carrying a mirror around in your pocket all day but only a little more subtle (everyone knows when you're walking around campus and Snapchatting). Now that we have such easy access to this technology, it's like an itch we have to scratch. I'll be honest, I've given in to the temptation to open up Snapchat on my phone just to check how I look many a time. Granted, most of those times I'm attempting to top the most recent ugliest face I can make, but the point still stands.
I hope this Snapchat/selfie phenomenon doesn't end up with my generation and the kids growing up with this technology constantly getting lost in their own eyes as they stare at themselves through a Snapchat camera all day like a modern-day Narcissus. Ultimately, I do think Sherry Turkle got it wrong that selfies don't create moments, but are moments created from vanity much better?
However--and here is my actual two cents--I do think that selfies create the capacity for a very self-obsessed and vain culture. Not just the selfie itself, but the ease of accessibility we now have to them. Nowadays, most people have cameras on their phones. It's like carrying a mirror around in your pocket all day but only a little more subtle (everyone knows when you're walking around campus and Snapchatting). Now that we have such easy access to this technology, it's like an itch we have to scratch. I'll be honest, I've given in to the temptation to open up Snapchat on my phone just to check how I look many a time. Granted, most of those times I'm attempting to top the most recent ugliest face I can make, but the point still stands.
I hope this Snapchat/selfie phenomenon doesn't end up with my generation and the kids growing up with this technology constantly getting lost in their own eyes as they stare at themselves through a Snapchat camera all day like a modern-day Narcissus. Ultimately, I do think Sherry Turkle got it wrong that selfies don't create moments, but are moments created from vanity much better?
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Why the Glass Ceiling?
In light of our recent discussion about how gender roles and expectations are played out in our society, I'd like to bring up a question that we didn't really address. I completely agree that the media plays a large role in how we perceive gender, what's offensive and what's not and why, but I think it could be very skewed.
Now, this is not to say that women and men are seen or treated completely equally at all; I know there statistics that show that women hold much fewer higher-level, governmental, etc. roles than men. But what if it's because they don't want to be in those positions? I can't speak for every woman, but I think it's fair to assume that some women actually do just want to have a standard, 9-5 job or even just be a stay-at-home mom. And that's completely fine! Isn't it possible that the media could be portraying the statistics of the number of women in power in a way that might be over exaggerating the seriousness of the situation? That's all I could think about when we watched this Miss Representation trailer.
It's like giving a survey and only giving the recipient one decent answer to choose; the media gives us only one conclusion to reach--that women are being undervalued in society. And maybe we are. But I think it's important to think about it from the perspective that just because there aren't as many females in Congress doesn't necessarily mean that a man took a woman's place. Maybe not as many women were interested in having that position. Or maybe females are used to such a male-driven society that many of them don't feel compelled to try and attain those higher-level careers. Either way, I think it's important to consider the possible reasons behind the statistics we are given.
Now, this is not to say that women and men are seen or treated completely equally at all; I know there statistics that show that women hold much fewer higher-level, governmental, etc. roles than men. But what if it's because they don't want to be in those positions? I can't speak for every woman, but I think it's fair to assume that some women actually do just want to have a standard, 9-5 job or even just be a stay-at-home mom. And that's completely fine! Isn't it possible that the media could be portraying the statistics of the number of women in power in a way that might be over exaggerating the seriousness of the situation? That's all I could think about when we watched this Miss Representation trailer.
It's like giving a survey and only giving the recipient one decent answer to choose; the media gives us only one conclusion to reach--that women are being undervalued in society. And maybe we are. But I think it's important to think about it from the perspective that just because there aren't as many females in Congress doesn't necessarily mean that a man took a woman's place. Maybe not as many women were interested in having that position. Or maybe females are used to such a male-driven society that many of them don't feel compelled to try and attain those higher-level careers. Either way, I think it's important to consider the possible reasons behind the statistics we are given.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Starting Over
So if any of you want to test how dependent on your technology you are, try losing all your information on your phone. If you think to yourself, "Oh sure, I could go without Snapchat and Twitter every day," you'd be WRONG. Trust me on this one.
Long story short, I had to get a new phone over break because I couldn't get WiFi, so we backed up all my information to iTunes (or so we thought) and then couldn't get it back to my phone. So now I have a new phone with none of my information on it. I didn't realize how dependent I am on all of my apps until now.
And I think that's true for everyone. Joni Mitchell got it right; you don't know what you got till it's gone. Even your solitaire app! Seriously, it's killing me that all of my progress and stats are just gone now and I have to start from scratch again. I have to start all over with everything! I learned my lesson. I need to stop relying so much on my phone. Or I could just be smarter about backing up my information...Either way, now that all of that information is gone, I realize how much I used it and counted on it to be there. It's a sad realization, that's for sure.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Whole New Meaning of Speed Reading
Guys. This is so cool. A company named Spritz has developed a speed reading technology that allows you to just blow through texts. Basically the idea is that sentences are flashed at you, one word at a time in the same place at speeds up to 1,000 words per minute--if you can manage that speed, that is. The way this new technology was introduced to me was by my friend approaching me and saying, "You know, there's a way to read a 223 page book in 77 minutes." Seems impossible? Well, IT'S NOT!! If that's not interesting, I don't know what is.
Of course, there are concerns that go along with the territory of technology that could radically change the way we read. Part of why the company came up with the idea was to eliminate the wasted time we spend moving our eyes around and flipping pages when reading, but why is this such a bad thing? Isn't that part of the whole experience? I, for one, think that this idea could be very popular because there's something really fun about seeing the words flash at you and following the sentence that way. But, at the same time, I enjoy the leisure of reading an actual text; being able to flip the pages at your own pace, poring over the text trying to catch something you missed the first time around. It's not a competition of who can finish it first, it's about what you get out of it!
I would also be very interested to see if this kind of reading would still work for more complex, dense texts. It's one thing to blow through and completely comprehend Harry Potter in a matter of hours than Marx's take on commodity fetishism. I guess we'll see.
Of course, there are concerns that go along with the territory of technology that could radically change the way we read. Part of why the company came up with the idea was to eliminate the wasted time we spend moving our eyes around and flipping pages when reading, but why is this such a bad thing? Isn't that part of the whole experience? I, for one, think that this idea could be very popular because there's something really fun about seeing the words flash at you and following the sentence that way. But, at the same time, I enjoy the leisure of reading an actual text; being able to flip the pages at your own pace, poring over the text trying to catch something you missed the first time around. It's not a competition of who can finish it first, it's about what you get out of it!
I would also be very interested to see if this kind of reading would still work for more complex, dense texts. It's one thing to blow through and completely comprehend Harry Potter in a matter of hours than Marx's take on commodity fetishism. I guess we'll see.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Simpler Days
Sometimes, change is good. Other times...not so much. I for one would like Facebook to stop switching it up all the time. I don't like a bunch of new features and a confusing new interface being updated every six months or so; I kind of miss the old Facebook. Specifically the one that didn't have read receipts.
Read receipts on Facebook can be very helpful. You can see who has read a message you sent and when they read it, so now you know they have the information and that's great! But what if they don't respond? Well, for over-analytical people like me, this opens up a treasure trove of possibilities. Number one on the list, of course: they hate you. They don't think you're worth a response. And then you spend the rest of the day wondering what could be so wrong with you that you don't warrant a reply and that stupid read receipt is just burned into your brain.
I think now would probably be a good time to insert the movie "He's Just Not That Into You" into the post, because read receipts have opened up a whole new way to reject someone without having to say anything--literally. Actually, my friend had a fight with her boyfriend the other day and intentionally turned on the read receipts on her phone so that he knew she was reading his texts and purposefully not responding just to torture him. Ah, the beauty of technology.
On the other hand, I feel like read receipts have forced us to be much more accountable for our responses. Before their invention, you could see a message and reply at your own pace (or not at all) without feeling the pressure of making sure it didn't look like you were blowing that person off. Maybe you just didn't see the message, right? Who would know!? Because it does leave a bitter taste in your mouth when you see that the other person just didn't feel the need to respond. As Andy from the Office would say:
Read receipts on iPhones are a little different, though, because to me our phones are a more intimate mode of communication than Facebook. It's a different kind of relationship. Think about it; you don't have thousands of contacts on your phone, but you may have that many friends on Facebook. Most of the time, I'd say that the people you are contacting on your phone you know better than the people you have on Facebook. Therefore, you should be held more accountable for responding to them.
So, although read receipts can be helpful to know that someone got a message and although they eliminate the need to send an "okay" text to confirm, for more personal conversations they only add more anxiety and self-doubt. I'd just like to go back to the simpler days.
Read receipts on Facebook can be very helpful. You can see who has read a message you sent and when they read it, so now you know they have the information and that's great! But what if they don't respond? Well, for over-analytical people like me, this opens up a treasure trove of possibilities. Number one on the list, of course: they hate you. They don't think you're worth a response. And then you spend the rest of the day wondering what could be so wrong with you that you don't warrant a reply and that stupid read receipt is just burned into your brain.
I think now would probably be a good time to insert the movie "He's Just Not That Into You" into the post, because read receipts have opened up a whole new way to reject someone without having to say anything--literally. Actually, my friend had a fight with her boyfriend the other day and intentionally turned on the read receipts on her phone so that he knew she was reading his texts and purposefully not responding just to torture him. Ah, the beauty of technology.
On the other hand, I feel like read receipts have forced us to be much more accountable for our responses. Before their invention, you could see a message and reply at your own pace (or not at all) without feeling the pressure of making sure it didn't look like you were blowing that person off. Maybe you just didn't see the message, right? Who would know!? Because it does leave a bitter taste in your mouth when you see that the other person just didn't feel the need to respond. As Andy from the Office would say:
Read receipts on iPhones are a little different, though, because to me our phones are a more intimate mode of communication than Facebook. It's a different kind of relationship. Think about it; you don't have thousands of contacts on your phone, but you may have that many friends on Facebook. Most of the time, I'd say that the people you are contacting on your phone you know better than the people you have on Facebook. Therefore, you should be held more accountable for responding to them.
So, although read receipts can be helpful to know that someone got a message and although they eliminate the need to send an "okay" text to confirm, for more personal conversations they only add more anxiety and self-doubt. I'd just like to go back to the simpler days.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
I Don't Want a Zombie Baby
Not that I'm planning on having a baby anytime soon, but an article by Jeana Lee Tahnk about her kids growing up on technology caught my attention. It's an issue that's extremely relevant today, and something most of us will be having to deal with at some point in the future.
Learning how to be a parent is already hard enough. There are so many questions and decisions to be made, so many different pieces of advice to consider, and way too many options. It all seems pretty overwhelming. It's a scary thought that this little person's health and well-being depends on you, so naturally (I would hope), you would want to do everything that is best for them. Well, now, we have another big decision to make: how much access to technology we will give them. It's already become normal for very young kids to have their own cell phones and laptops; I didn't even get a phone until eighth grade and it was only because we had all five of the kids in my family going to different schools at that point, so my stepmom needed to know where and when to pick us all up from wherever the heck we were. I still don't know how she did it. The point is, how do we know if bringing our children up on technology will significantly effect their development?
I'm not saying technology will poison their minds, but it is worth considering how much they will appreciate the more natural and basic things in life. To a certain extent, change is inevitable; our generation had much different childhoods than our parents and grandparents because we were exposed to new technological advancements. And I fully expect that to be the case for our children as well. I just hope that by the time our generation is having our own children, technology has not infiltrated our society so much that our kids become glued to a screen before they can even walk.You see teenagers walking around today and every one of them is on their phone, looking like a pack of zombies. I don't want that to be my kid, though. I don't want a zombie baby. Is that too much to ask?
Learning how to be a parent is already hard enough. There are so many questions and decisions to be made, so many different pieces of advice to consider, and way too many options. It all seems pretty overwhelming. It's a scary thought that this little person's health and well-being depends on you, so naturally (I would hope), you would want to do everything that is best for them. Well, now, we have another big decision to make: how much access to technology we will give them. It's already become normal for very young kids to have their own cell phones and laptops; I didn't even get a phone until eighth grade and it was only because we had all five of the kids in my family going to different schools at that point, so my stepmom needed to know where and when to pick us all up from wherever the heck we were. I still don't know how she did it. The point is, how do we know if bringing our children up on technology will significantly effect their development?
I'm not saying technology will poison their minds, but it is worth considering how much they will appreciate the more natural and basic things in life. To a certain extent, change is inevitable; our generation had much different childhoods than our parents and grandparents because we were exposed to new technological advancements. And I fully expect that to be the case for our children as well. I just hope that by the time our generation is having our own children, technology has not infiltrated our society so much that our kids become glued to a screen before they can even walk.You see teenagers walking around today and every one of them is on their phone, looking like a pack of zombies. I don't want that to be my kid, though. I don't want a zombie baby. Is that too much to ask?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)