Julia Kilts
12/10/14
DTC 375
Reflective piece
This class was a very unique experience. Most classes I’ve taken have been the type where you sit and listen to a lecture every day, then regurgitate all of that information on an exam. Not to mention, there is a lot of busy work sprinkled in to the schedule. This class structure pushed me to learn in a new way.
When looking over the objectives of this class in the syllabus, I would have to say that as a student, I already had some pre-existing strengths that I had the chance to put to use and develop further. The first of these skills is ‘evaluating the roles our multiple literacies play in our own lives’. This is a skill I’ve always put to use in my classes throughout my academic career. This is because I’ve found that when I try to relate class content to my own life, it deepens my own understanding of the material, thus serving as a great learning tool. An example of this can be found in my self-analysis of the work I contributed to my expert panel presentation. Near the end of the analysis, I discuss how the security risks associated with ubiquitous computing are something that everyone should be aware of. Getting the opportunity to research and discuss something that’s applicable to the lives of my classmates and myself deepened my level of interest. This skill was also frequently put to use in my blog posts. An example of a post in which I put this skill to use can actually be found in this portfolio and is titled ‘Blog post #8: Grown Up Digital part 2’. I discussed how family structure has been affected by technology. I discuss my upbringing in this sense, as well as what methods I would employ in terms of monitoring my childrens’ computer use if I ever had children.
Another skill I was able to put to use and in this case develop further is ‘writing critical analyses of the kind that, with some variation, are the staple of academic writing.’ A great example of this was my book review. I was able to objectively take a look at the content of the book, providing a thorough summary as well as connecting it to the author’s opinions. It can be seen by the score on my first attempt that I had a solid grasp on this type of writing for the most part. After reviewing the feedback, I realized that my mistake was being perhaps too objective and not developing my own opinion on the subject enough. In the last paragraph of the book review revision included in this portfolio, I am sure to discuss whether or not I agree with the author’s arguments. In addition to this, I elaborated more on the topic of people being ‘always on’ since I didn’t develop this idea enough in my first attempt.
The last skill I felt I already possessed and was able to develop further was my competence as an independent reader and learner. Interestingly enough, I felt that the assignments that helped me the most with this were actually group projects. This is because of the fact that it was our responsibility to obtain the required book and read it on our own, as well as choosing, researching and compiling information for our own portion of it. My groups only convened to get the project going and one more time to put it all together and discuss how we were going to present the information to the rest of the class. Another factor that contributed to this individual learning was that each group was assigned a book or topic that was independent from content discussed by the class as a whole, so it was our responsibility to get it done on our own time.
An objective of this class listed in the syllabus that I feel has been achieved through this class more than any other I’ve taken is “developing our collective understanding of the works we have read and to relate those works to our own intellectual, social, cultural and political contexts. This actually isn’t due to a particular assignment I’ve completed like the other skills I discussed earlier, but is actually due to the in-class structure itself. In other classes I’ve taken, when a reading is assigned, there is typically a powerpoint presentation about it during the first portion of the class, or the instructor asks questions in a quiz-like format and will pick students to answer them out loud. This class took the time to have a real, intellectual, in-depth discusison about the readings. I feel that this is a useful tool regardless of one’s learning style. There are some people who learn better when they can voice their opinions and engage with others. There are also people like myself who are more conservative about when and if they choose to be vocal, but are more observational learners. I for one absorbed a great amount from listening to others’ heated discussions.
A similar objective listed in the syllabus is “helping each other gain intellectual tools that are important for success, in college and beyond.” I feel that this goes hand in hand with the open discussion of our readings I mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, I also feel that both the interactive and independent aspects of our two major assignments I mentioned previously each play their own role in achieving this. When I say the interactive aspect, I am referring to the question and answer portions of our book reviews and expert panels. I think it’s important to get honest feedback, and also learn how to talk to people instead of talking at them. When I mention the independent portion, I am referring to the aspects of these projects that are done on our own time. When we graduate and have real careers, it’s not going to be our boss’s responsibility to remind us of deadlines or motivate us to get our work done in a timely manner.
To conclude, this class solidified my skills in relating class content to my own life and in effectively writing critical analyses. It also solidified my competency as an independent reader and learner. Our in-depth discussions of our readings contributed greatly to my learning, and the emphasis on personal responsibility was great practice for life after college.
Julia Kilts
12/09/14
DTC 375
Book Review: Alone Together (Revision)
The book Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other by Sherry Turkle brings up a very interesting discussion in regards to the effect technology/the internet has had on people. The main question it seems to address can be very simply stated: Is this a good effect, or a bad one? However, this is a multi-faceted subject that is anything but simple. The majority of testemonials and interviews included in the book seem to demonstrate people of all ages having questionable relationships with technology, whether it be in the form of interacting with a robot, being glued to the screens of whatever devices they happen to use, or using impersonal forms of messaging to keep in touch with one another. The latter part of the book title itself (We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other) seems to sum up the author’s view and set the tone for the book before one even starts reading it.
This book is split into two parts that essentially discuss two different themes. The first part is called The Robotic Moment: In Solitude, New Intimacies. It is about sociable robots. Rather than thinking of them as inventions that are meant to make our lives more convenient by performing tasks, it seems that we are turning to them for company. Turkle examines our relationships with these robots, including our perceptions of whether they’re ‘alive’ or not, what makes us become so attached to them, and whether they could potentially replace human interaction.
The first interactive computer program that Turkle talks about is ELIZA. It came about in the mid-1970’s. The user typed in a thought and the program would respond in a way that offered support or asked for clarification in some way. The program of course had no understanding of what the user was saying, but it would arrange a string of words in a way to make it seem as if it did. The users of this program logically knew that, but would find themselves wanting to talk to, or even vent to the program. Turkle saw the program as a kind of Rorschach test. People “spoke as if someone were listening, but knew they were their own audience.” Flash-forward about 40 years in the future, and you have Roxxxy, the world’s “first sex robot.” Most people may see a sex robot as something with negative connotations right off the bat, but Turkle is sure to include alternate viewpoints: Some people argue that there are positives to this kind of invention, an example of this being, “There are men for who attaining a real woman is impossible.....This isn’t simply a matter of preference.....In the real world, sometimes second best is all they can get.” However, Turkle brings up the possibility of harm in this situation, saying that companionship that has no risk associated with it can make it so that interaction with actual people can be daunting or overwhelming. Interaction with real people can make us susceptible to rejection, so this is why people may turn to something they perceive as safer.
The attachments people form with sociable robots can’t be blamed on the robots themselves, but more on the feelings and instincts they evoke in users. When children spend time playing with toys such as Furbies and Tamagotchis, the needs and wants of these devices become very important to them. Their nurturing instincts are brought out when they ‘feed’, ‘clean’ and socialize in various ways with these toys. This also doesn’t just go for children. Sociable robots like the sex robot Roxxxy I described in the previous paragraph play off of people’s desire for intimacy. Other than just the sexual acts that can be peformed, it can sense if it’s hand is being held for example, and say “I love holding hands with you.” Turkle says “When we are asked to care for an object, when an object thrives under our care, we experience that object as intelligent, but, more importantly, we feel ourselves to be in a relationship with it.” It’s not even so much that we are being manipulated into these kinds of relationships with these devices, but the desire is there already and we are the ones who are fooling ourselves. Although Turkle unabashedly points out the flaws with these types of relationships, one can see that she is sure not to entirely blame them on the technology itself, but rather put it into the context of how humans react to them, and why.
The second part of the book is called Networks: In Intimacy, New Solitudes. Turkle says this is because technology has made us “increasingly connected to each other, but oddly more alone”. At this point, she turns from sociable robots to the online world. What is interesting about this is the thought that we often begin to treat sociable robots like people. However through our use of technology, specifically when it comes to interacting with actual people, we somewhat begin to treat people like objects.
This isn’t to say that online life is inherently a bad thing. It can make it easier to keep in touch with people who are far away and it provides great educational resources as well as new forms of recreation. Interactive games and other online communities even allow people to explore sides of themselves that they aren’t able to in real life. Turkle provides numerous examples of the positive effects of technology, even providing testemonials. However, she does make a good point in saying that “The triumphalist narrative of the Web is the reassuring story that people want to hear and that technologists want to tell. But the heroic story is not the whole story.” She reminds us that things often aren’t black and white. This of course goes for the online world. It can’t be labeled as all good or all bad. There are two sides to the story. She continues on to point out that there is a level of superficiality that comes with new means of communication. Emoticons have replaced feelings and well-thought out responses, letters have replaced words and a vast quantity of ‘friends’ on social networking sites have replaced deep real-life relationships. Regardless of age, sending out text messages and emails has replaced phone conversations. Voice conversations require full attention and that’s not something many people feel they can give these days due to increasingly hectic schedules. People want to still feel connected on some level, but don’t want to put in the same amount of effort that they once did. Essentially, people are much easier to contact, but the depth of connections is diminishing over time.
Another aspect that contributes to this shift is the control it gives people. People who are typically shy get more time to carefully plan out and revise responses. Also, when people don’t particularly like how a conversation is going, they can more easily change the subject or end the conversation either with or without an actual response, and with minimal awkwardness. In reference to the aforementioned increase of chaos in people’s schedules, control is also a factor here because people can multitask with more ease than ever with these new communication technologies, and long pauses between responses have become a norm.
Interestingly enough, these new technologies are also playing a role in our connections with people that we see face to face. In this day and age, it’s safe to say that a vast majority of people are ‘always on’. This means that due to the high level of connectivity we have with our devices, we may even end up ignoring a person in the very same room as us or missing out on opportunities to interact with new people. An example of this that Turkle mentions is that a place like an airport, cafe or park “is no longer a communal space but a space of social collection: people come together but do not speak to each other. Each is tethered to a mobile device and to the people and places to which that device serves as a portal.” Constantly being on your devices can take away from the level of concentration you devote to real-life events, often interrupting or otherwise distracting from them. One testemonial recalls the first time someone experienced one of their friends taking a cell phone call when they were walking together. He remembers being very irritated, saying “He put me on ‘pause.’ Am I supposed to remember where we were and pick up the conversation after he is done with his call?” In regards to trying to complete tasks, Turkle says that “when psychologists study multitasking, they do not find a story of new efficiencies. Rather, multitaskers don’t perform as well on any of the tasks they are attempting.” This is something I can actually attest to myself. I know that the only way I can complete my homework in an efficient and timely manner is if I put my cell phone away and make sure all my browser tabs are related to the assignment I’m working on.
After reading through this book, I can’t help but think that Sherry Turkle isn’t the only person who feels this way. It seems as though there is a high level of guilt associated with our use of technology. So why do we do nothing to fix it? Perhaps that will be the next installment, if there is another. It is clear that Turkle has more critique than praise in respect to how our society interacts with technology. While I do agree with a lot of what she has to say, that is not to say that I think the negative aspects of our interaction with technology overshadows the benefits it provides. While she makes some very valid points about the issues in our relationships with technology, she is sure to point out that it shouldn’t be blamed on the technology itself. I couldn’t agree more. Technology will continue to advance and it is up to us to be responsible for regulating our own use of it. Although Turkle makes her stance on the matter very known, Alone Together is anything but biased. It takes both sides of each issue into consideration, with a plethora of real-life testemonials which help make the book more relatable to the reader.
Julia Kilts
12/08/14
DTC 375
Expert Group Analysis
The subject my expert group presented on was ubiquitous computing. Just the name of it is a little daunting. I had no idea what I would be researching when I was just told the name of my topic. The full definition states: “Ubiquitous computing is a concept in software engineering and computer science where computing is made to appear everywhere and anywhere. In contrast to desktop computing, ubiquitous computing can occur using any device, in any location, and in any format.” Computers are so readily available throughout our environment, that they have basically become invisible to us. Of course upon hearing this definition, I fully agree with that. However, it’s not something that I never noticed or took the time to think about (I suppose my lack of noticing is a prime example of ubiquitous computing at work), so I was very interested in learning more about this subject. Technology becoming engrained in our lives has obvious benefits, such as access to sophisticated design tools and the ease and convenience of wearable technology (the sub-categories my group members discussed). However, I thought touching on the potential harms of this technological expansion would give more depth to our presentation. For my contribution to the Powerpoint presentation, I chose to research the security and privacy issues associated with ubiquitous computing. I broke it down into three sub-categories which were: portability, location privacy and passwords. I feel that I learned a lot in doing this research because these security issues arise due to aspects of technology that virtually anyone can relate to these days.
Portability is something that is typically thought of as a good thing. No one would argue that clunky desktops are better when we can carry laptops with us everywhere we go, access the internet from our phones and store information on tiny flashdrives. However, people forget that these devices are just as susceptible to viruses as their predecessors. Also, it’s much easier to physically lose something like a flashdrive.
Location-based services undoubtedly make our lives easier. Sometimes I legitimately wonder how much harder my life would be if someone as directionally challenged as myself didn’t have GPS. However, the ease with which a person can be tracked via the MAC address of their laptops when using any wi-fi network, or through their use of ATMS and credit cards isn’t something people often think of.
It’s a bit ironic that passwords are one of the factors I included in my presentation, because their sole purpose is to protect us. However, there are hackers out there who can often figure these out if they want to badly enough. However, the biggest invasions of privacy that can happen through this method will occur if a person reuses one of their passwords. These days, everything requires a password, and I can say that I reuse one of my passwords (or some variation of it) in multiple places.
I know that this paper isn’t supposed to just be a summary of what we contributed, but I did just want to reiterate some of the information I learned with more of a personal viewpoint incorporated and how I relate to this knowledge in my own life. I feel that a common theme in this class is that although technology is always changing, we are in control of how we react to and use it. I feel a large part of this is awareness. The research I did on this subject not only opened my eyes to the risks I face when using these technologies, but it gave me the unique opportunity to do the same for my classmates.
Julia Kilts
12/10/14
DTC 375
Blog post selections
Blog post #2: Orality and Literacy Pt. 2
For the second half of the book Orality and Literacy, I am going to focus on why some people were critical of writing when it started to make an appearance in society.
A major criticism of writing which was surprisingly held by Plato, was that it destroys memory. He claimed that if people began to use writing, they would begin to rely on it and become forgetful. A modern-day parallel that can be drawn to this is people’s criticism of children using calculators rather than learning how to do basic math mentally. Another criticism of writing is that it is unable to defend itself like one can defend their opinions when engaging in back and forth speech. Because of this, writing has been viewed as “passive” or “unnatural” or “artificial”, which are also common critiques that some modern-day people have of computers.
I definitely have an easier time understanding the first criticism I mentioned. When cultures were centered around orality, I imagine that people’s capacity of memory was much larger, because they simply had no other choice but to remember it if they wished to possess/utilize that knowledge. I think the comparison to children using calculators is a good analogy. I specifically remember being in third grade and my teacher really emphasizing the importance of memorizing our multiplication tables. I feel that being able to do simple equations mentally rather than having to pull out a calculator every time is much more efficient and just makes more sense. However, I only agree with this argument to a certain extent. I think that there is only a certain amount of information we can hold in our heads, and that there is obviously too much information in the world to be able to know all of it. Even if we were to pick one subject and devote our lives to it, there is a small likelihood that we would be able to call upon any given piece of that information at any given time just from our memories. Of course I’m not saying that if one is truly passionate about a certain subject, they shouldn’t try to become as versed in it as possible, but I do believe that writing/documentation of knowledge was supplemental to our previously oral culture and helps to fill the void between all that we know, and the rest of the available information. The ironic part of this argument coming from Plato is that he put these objections of his into writing. A really valid point that the book brings up is that “Writing print and computer are all ways of technologizing the word. Once the word is technologized, there is no effective way to criticize what technology has done with it without the aid of the highest technology available.”
As for the second criticism, where writing is viewed as artificial in the negative sense of the word (Corinthians 3:6 went as far as to associate it with death), the book points out what a paradox that statement actually is. I never would have thought to phrase it this way, but it makes perfect sense to me: “The paradox lies in the fact that the deadness of the text, it’s removal from the living human lifeworld, its rigid visual fixity, assures its endurance and its potential for being resurrected into limitless living contexts by a potentially infinite number of living readers.” Because of it’s ‘deadness’, writing has a much farther reach than any single person, both in terms of actual distance and in terms of time. If one piece of knowledge were to be passed down generation after generation orally, but then at one point someone decided to stop passing it on, it would be lost. However, someone could include that piece of information in a book for example, and 100 years later on the other side of the world, someone could pick that book up, see that information, and it would remain alive.
My previous paragraph dealt with writing’s supposed artificiality from the viewpoint that it is beneficial in terms of how efficiently it preserves and spreads important information. This paragraph objects to that criticism in respect to how writing affects us on a more personal/spiritual level. Artificial does not necessarily have to be a bad thing; All technology is artificial. Although one may not initially think of it this way, writing is indeed a technology. There is no denying that in many cases, technology has benefitted humankind. An analogy the book uses to prove this point is playing a musical instrument. Instruments are essentially tools. Learning to operate these tools means following a specific set of instructions. The result of this (music) is a form of self-expression that is inarguably human and could not be achieved without the use of said tool. The ability to operate this tool in such a way requires extensive practice. “Such shaping of a tool to oneself, learning a technological skill, is hardly dehumanizing.” I believe that a parallel can be drawn from this to writing.
Blog post #6: Baron Ch. 7-12
The chapter in the latter half of this book that I found the most interesting was the one about blogs, appropriately titles Everyone's an Author. The first thing I thought was interesting was that the author pointed out that reading has always been valued over writing. There are cultural reasons for this. Reading has come to be viewed as something that's "edifying and mind-expanding", while "governments, religious groups, businesses, and schools regard writing as something that must be channeled, censored, even licensed, so that reading materials are appropriately shaped..."
However with the digital explosion, specifically that of the web log, or blog, anyone can be an author. This touches on a subject that was briefly discussed during the book panels on Tuesday. When we were asked about the difference between something professional and something being amateur, then further asking what we think may be blurring the lines between the two nowadays. The first thing that popped into my head was access. With all of the advancements in technology, more people are able to voice their opinions than ever before. These days, people can bypass all of the formalities authors once had to perform in order to get published. These range from diary-like posts about the author's personal/daily life, to specialty blogs, to blogs where people rant about x,y & z. This is where people can run into trouble. There are many cases in which people are let go from their jobs or suspended/expelled from school because of things they have said in their blog. This even can even apply to one's personal blog. Especially if it can be "viewed as insulting, disruptive, bad for morale, or - worst of all, in the boss's eyes - useful to economic competitors." Because of this, a lot of large corporations have established rules/etiquette for their employees that have blogs.
A part I found extremely interesting an example where a local politician felt he was being defamed by an anonymous blogger, but Delaware Chief Justice Myron Steele did not find it to be so simply because of the nature of blogs. He basically said that it's "because blogs are interactive forums for the expression of opinion, not fact." Also, he mentioned that mistakes on blogs are immediately correctable, so if this politician really wanted to set the record straight, it was very do-able.
That leads me into another point that I found to be very interesting that somewhat conflicts with Steele's view of blogs. The book states that: "86 percent of blog readers consider blogs useful sources of information. In contrast, conventional news sources actually flunked the information test: 82 percent of those surveyed found TV news worthless or only somewhat useful for news or opinion, and slightly more than half said the same about newspapers and magazines." I can't help but wonder what is responsible for this difference in views. Perhaps it's generational? Maybe people who have more or less grown up with computers feel that there is more variety on the web, as opposed to conventional news sources which they may view as biased.
Blog post #8: Grown Up Digital part 2
For part 2 of Grown Up Digital, I would like to focus on the aspect of the family structure and how it has been affected by technology as well as other factors.
As a college student who will be graduating at the end of this year, there was never any question in my mind that I would be moving back with my parents for the foreseeable future. This was something I always thought of as completely normal. Apparently, this is a major departure from how baby boomers (our parents) felt about their living situations after college. Back in those days, the family structure was more hierarchal, and this led to children looking for freedom in various ways. This included going outdoors, going off to college, and moving into their own place immediately after graduation. Since baby boomers were seeking freedom outside, they were familiar with the dangers that could be found out there such as violent crime or sexual assault, which led to a widespread fear and a limiting of outdoor activity when it came time to raise their own children. However, growing up in a time where technology was available to us from an early age, Net geners were able to find this freedom on the internet. This almost eliminated the need to rebel and made it so that Net geners typically had a closer relationship with their parents. This isn't to say that there are zero cases where Net geners rebel, and this also doesn't take into consideration the fact that children were doing things or could potentially be exposed to negative things online (bullies, porn, sexual predators) that their parents didn't know about (ignorance is bliss).
What I have noticed with this reading is that each generation of new parents is influenced by their parents before them, and their parents before them etc. I know this seems blatantly obvious, but I think as technology continues to evolve, people really need to think about what did and didn't work in terms of the freedom their parents gave them. Trying to install online blocking devices can actually drive your children to try to find loopholes, or view content you don't want them to see on a different computer. However, I don't think that children should be allowed to roam free on the internet with zero acknowledgement from their parents about the perils out there. I think that as technology continues to evolve and access continues to increase, communication between parents and children is something that needs to keep up with it. I like that the author talks about the social contracts he keeps with his children regarding these matters. Children are eventually going to become aware of these things, so it's best to be proactive about it and take all the shame out of the matter, making it a learning experience instead. My parents did try to control the amount of time I spend on the internet and what sites I could go to until a certain age, which I was annoyed of at the time, but when I got a little older, more privileges came along with it. I would say I have a healthy relationship with the internet. Also, I can say with zero hesitation that I have an amazing relationship with my parents, so the general approach they took with me in regards to the internet is something that I can see myself working off of if I ever have children of my own, perhaps with some tweaks depending on the state of the internet at that time, and the personalities of my children.
