Class wrap-up

      I think the best skill I have attained from my participation in this class is a inquisitive nature about my interactions online. When I first became acquainted with the internet I was not at all prepared for how my personality would be affected by the inhuman quality of online conversation. I allowed myself to be more rude and cantankerous than I would ever be in-person, and I was even somewhat judgmental before I started taking rhetoric courses. This class has especially educated me in the proper and educational means to converse online, and I feel less regret about the things I post now.

     The inclination to utilize technology for my education has also been heightened by my new appreciation for the growth in knowledge that the internet has sparked. A sense of community, however, still is riddled with complications. I feel that people are less capable of developing interpersonal relationships or getting to know each other from online conversation. I think humans need more from dialogue than the internet can provide, but things like Skype that give facial expression is a good step in the right direction.

     Sometimes I wish I could escape the internet, and I have in many ways by moving into a large community house (co-op). I enjoy the ability to seek conversation from other people, next door, rather than looking for it online. There is something so enjoyable about interacting with people that do not necessarily agree with my opinion, and being able to hash it out in-person, among others.

Leaving OkCupid

      It is refreshing to be done with my Cybersubculture project because I didn't like being so integrated into a community I didn't believe in. I also felt as if I was deceiving people and felt like a voyeur taking advantage of their community. In summary, I really enjoyed the capacity for online dating to introduce me to people I would never otherwise encounter, but disliked the comprehensive nature of creating a profile. I felt as if the profile was too much, and the website demands too much interaction which does not actually contribute to a good understanding of who that person is. 

     Now, however, I do not feel it is intentional that people misrepresent their identity. In fact, I think most members are genuinely motivated by the desire to find a mate, and misrepresenting oneself does not foster a good relationship. I think most people know that too. I do worry about predatory members that manipulate the website and people desperate for affection to seek unwholesome things like cheap sex or a free ride. Based on the nature of the website, and the commitment necessary to be a thriving member, I do not think these people make-up a very large portion of the population. 

     Despite all the research I did about people I really don't think I got a very good idea of who they are from their profile, and I would have to take it into real life to have a better understanding of the members.

Improving matches, a questionnaire

  I spent a good deal of class time today answering questions regarding my personality. Some questions seem utterly odd, and invite misrepresentation "Are you happy with your life" would, in my opinion, rarely arouse a genuine and candid answer. Some questions force a division between two values that may be harmonious: "Is passion or dedication more important to a relationship?" would not illicit a dimension of someone's personality that I could relate to because both components are essential, and need the other to balance it out. "What do you care about more now, politically: Economic or social issues?" is yet another example of forcing dualism in personalities and contributes to the distrust people have for the matching software.

   A lot of questions do provide a basis for relative compatibility, "Do you think contraception is morally wrong" can help daters eliminate potential matches based on fundamental beliefs. I feel uncomfortable knowing that people are being so selective, and may be seeking out someone similar to them in too many ways. There is just something I find compelling about meeting people in public, because there aren't any preconceived notions framing the interaction. I have rarely dated someone I agreed with everything on, and like some challenge to the interaction I have with people.

The potential of OkCupid

    The typical user of OkCupid is a web savvy, under 30, single person. Most messages I receive are from people seeking higher education. When searching through potential matches, it is possible to limit the search by factors such as: race, age, distance, relationship desired, body type, and gender. A friend of mine argued in his thesis that race selection for potential partners should be considered racist. I wonder to what extent using certain factors to limit the search field is inhibiting our knowledge and tolerance, and which factors should be considered offensive?

      People on the site seem really offended by being pigeon-holed and assigned percentages. I have found that I too do not trust OkCupid to assess my compatibility with a potential mate. It's almost as if people get to know each other better by meeting online, but also have the ability to craft an identity that does not represent who they are in real life. Some people never transition from searching online to actually mixing their online and real identities to interact in real life.

Existing outside of eXistenZ

Released in 1999, the same year as The Matrix, eXistenZ is a movie which depicts a game as an experience so realistic that it blurs the line between real life and cyber-life. Allegra Gellar is the game’s designer, playing with twelve volunteers to demo the new module, a fleshy, amphibious controller that taps into the spinal cord in order to project the virtual reality experience. Not long into playing Allegra is shot by a bizarre, organic gun and is whisked away by Ted Pickul, a marketing intern. On the run from “realists,” people believing her game is evil, Allegra Gellar escapes into her game in an attempt to repair damage done when she was unexpectedly disconnected. However, the bioport that Pickul receives from a gas station attendant is yet another attempt to foil Allegra. At a safe place Ted is fitted with a new bioport and begins playing with Allegra. In the game Ted and Allegra utilize different modules provided in the first scene, at a game store. With these new modules they are transported to the assembly line for gaming systems. A man from the assembly line directs Pickul to a Chinese restaurant where Ted consumes a grotesque assortment of amphibians that form the gun used on Allegra; Ted compulsively kills the Chinese waiter. Ted and Allegra then discover a diseased pod that Allegra attempts to repair by jacking-into. However, the pod is too far gone, and it latches into Allegra, and Ted must cut her free. A man from the assembly line, who directed Ted to the restaurant, burns the pod as Allegra looks on in horror. The safe place Allegra had chosen turns out to be a subversive plot by Cortical Systematics to copy her game and infect her game pod. Ted then reveals he is also a spy sent to kill Allegra, but she kills him first. It is then revealed that they have been playing tranCendenz, and the man from the assembly line is the creator. Allegra and Ted kill the game designer and his assistant.
A main theme of this film is the tension between people desiring innovations in technology and those terrified that it may run amok. In some ways the issues are already upon us, because there are some people so involved in alternate realities that they neglect their real lives. A good friend of mine had to sell his high powered computer to force himself to quit World of Warcraft. He felt powerless to resist the game because it had become such a significant part of his life. Allegra is similarly attached to her game, so emotionally invested that she would sacrifice her life to remedy an illness in her gaming module. For now, movies with virtual reality seem absurd because technology has not yet caught up with the imagination of David Cronenberg. The addiction some people have to gaming consoles, technology in general, mirrors those of drug dependency, but the problem is not pervasive enough to have a program teaching our youth to resist technology and form true identities first. In eXistenZ, Pikul is mocked for being unfamiliar with Allegra’s game. In our society it is similarly unacceptable to resist technology. I am grateful that I grew up alongside the inception of the Internet, and my family did not purchase a computer until 2000. I learned the necessary developmental skill of entertaining myself and played sports with kids in my neighborhood instead of logging on and instant messaging my afternoons away. At this point it is still a choice to become consumed with the Internet and alternate realities, although it does not feel that way with Facebook (I must have logged on 15-20 times while writing this paper). However, with advancements in technology it will only become harder to resist the allure of a world where you are in control and could be a hero.

"The Google of online dating" (Boston Globe)

Participating in an online dating forum has been a fascinating experience because profiles are specifically tailored to enhance a person's image, even more overtly than something like Facebook. The difference is motive--people are inclined to represent themselves in an idealistic way to attract a partner. I have become fascinated by the thought that people are skewing their identity subconsciously, much in the way that people cannot objectively see their reflection in a mirror.

I personally had difficulty describing myself, because I had never been taught to write so candidly about myself. There isn't a portion of the profile to represent any pitfalls or problems you may have... until it comes to the personality questions. The most disturbing question I have answered so far, was: If, by causing a car accident, your partner suffered horrible injuries, and they resented you for them, would you continue a relationship with them? Answering questions helps OkCupid's program to assess your compatibility with other members. I wonder how accurate the questions are, and if I would truly be attracted to people that OkCupid suggests. Physical attraction is, of course, not accounted for in the percentage they assign between you and another member as either: Match, Friend, or Enemy. I firmly believe this information is vital, despite the website's assertion that attraction isn't nearly as important (surely, it's not the only thing, but I believe this information should come first.

Another issue is misrepresentation though the use of outdated pictures. I have often encountered a profile that has drastically more glamorized pictures than those which appear on their corresponding Facebook. My sister, an avid user of dating websites (she actually married a man she met on OkCupid), attests to many dates with men that had gained weight or aged significantly since the pictures they chose for a profile. This deceit is a common fear people have about dating websites, and is one difference between meeting people online and meeting them in person. People still lie and deceive about personality when meeting in person, so the difference is that when online you can employ an edited/outdated photo or even a picture of someone else to delay a potential mate seeing your genuine appearance.

The World Wide Safety Blanket

People seem terrified of making other's uncomfortable, which prevents them from accessing ideas outside of their own and discussing issues with people that may challenge their perspective. It is inappropriate to discussion religion, politics, or personal issues because people don't want to tolerate the tension. This fear also translates into avoiding people of other races, religions, and sexual orientations.

I live in the reality Boyd describes both online--on Facebook and in a co-op that touts diversity-- but has few members that are not white or Atheist. I have a lot of pseudo-hippie friends that complain of injustice, but do not experience it or do anything tangible about it. I take some comfort in the fact that my friends make posts about political issues, and most of them are sensitive and conscientious.

What intrigued me about Boyd's and Stepaneck's articles is the expression of pervasive racial issues that are subconsciously expressed by aligning with certain social networks. This issue reminds me of my friend's thesis on racially-based sexual preference as an indication of underlying racism. I wonder how can we solve racism we don't acknowledge or understand.

Imperfect humans, perfect machines

Efficiency is the aim of business, obviously, but this goal undermines the importance of a human. In an age where people are already replaced with atms, voicemail, and self check-out we are marginalizing humanity. People with mental handicaps were once capable of contributing to society, but nearly all jobs have become too technically advanced for a company to bother educating their employee. Though personal service is still preferred because it is often more efficient, one day this will not be the case. Programming out glitches will make more and more people useless, running contradictory to increasing populations. One must wonder what everyone will do in the future, and how we are becoming inferior to our own creation.

S/R 2

In Neuromancer, by William Gibson, Henry Case struggles with a crippling modification in cyberspace. After stealing from an employer, Case is debilitated and unable to access cyberspace which forces him to resort to petty hustling and the seedy town of Chiba for a cure. Desperate in Japan, Case encounters a hired-gun named Molly who hooks him up with Armitage; Case is easily swayed to work as a hacker for Armitage when he promises to “correct [his] neural damage” (29). Case must complete assigned missions to sustain access to 'jacking-in' or mycotoxin sacs will dissolve and cause the same neural damage he had before. Case and Molly are sent to and successfully acquire the ROM module, or recording, of a cowboy nicknamed 'Dixie Flatline' who is then reincarnated to work with the team. Molly and Case learn the core identity of Armitage, Corto, a former member of the intentionally failed mission referred to as 'Screaming fist.' After teaming up with a new member from Armitage named Riviera, Molly and Case discover that Armitage is “getting his goodies off an AI named Wintermute” (74). Wintermute is the product of Tessier-Ashpool that is incomplete without connecting to another AI named Neuromancer, but WM is designed not to know the code necessary for this merging. Wintermute kills Armitage and once inside Villa Straylight Riviera, who had traveled with her, captures Molly alongside 3Jane. 3Jane tells Molly about her father, she “watched him kill [her] mother” (220) because her creation threatened the Turing Code. Neuromancer tempts Case in an induced state to “Stay. If your woman is a ghost, she doesn't know it. Neither will you” (235). Case breaks free from the illusion and works with Molly, who strangles Lady 3Jane to coerce her to tell them the password. The AI's are successfully united, and Case is relieved of the poison sacs as promised.

The striking components of this novel are the notions of dualism that Gibson blurs to synthesize a future where technology is on the verge of running amok. Nature is often referred to negatively as meat, but some technological advancements like sim-stim are attempts to emulate meat. Synthesizing experiences with technology is disturbing to Case, but I wonder how it differs from his former addiction to drugs—which is a more natural version that renders the same effect. Perception is also brought into question as Case searched for the identity of his employer and when Neuromancer tempts him with Linda Lee. This cyberpunk piece is a criticism of the unchecked progress of technology. Most characters have the integrity to prefer genuine experiences, the exception of the traitor Riviera, as is shown when Pauley would rather die than exist as a duplicate. Marrying themes of betrayal with the downside of progress makes the story eerily identifiable. The victor is technology, however, which seems to conflict with the aims of the characters. Case's motive to persist in cyberspace overwhelms the Turing police, who attempt to derail his mission because it threatens the balance of AI and humanity. It is an interesting choice to allow the merging to occur, because it seems to be detrimental to society. Although the characters are romanticized as heroes, they are really nothing more than puppets for a robot. Gibson is getting at progress which is already occurring and seems inevitable. Humans have already begun to merge with technology, and technology continues to emulate the qualities of humanity.The fallibility of humans makes them easy prey for the work of Artificial Intelligence.

Neuromancer clashes with reality

On page 132 Gibson makes a reference to the expense of meat and the process of creating it. This procedure, arduous as it is, parallels new attempts to genetically modify meat. In fact, synthetic meat has already been created, and was likened to the flavor of soggy pork. The reference in Neuromancer articulates the problems with food production and the ability for technology to supplement this need. Genetically modified fruits and vegetables have become a part of our lives to the extent that it is hard to distinguish between GM and regular produce.

Another concept is something the entertainment industry is striving for, and would flourish in the invention of, on page 136 there is a reference to "dreaming real," a perfected and fully interactive hologram. Technology can simulate smell, sensation, and imagery, but has not fully incorporated these components into one system. The potential to create something so real is disturbing yet compelling. I could only wonder how violated our personal boundaries will become when we can synthesize intimacy.

Did Bert leave Earnie for bin Laden?

Traversing the internet often results in "collisions [which] continually remind us that community, in addition to being the result of something we do, is also something that happens to us. Finding ourselves in-community with various others, we eventually separate off into communities that coalesce around common identities and interests." People are naturally drawn to ideas that affirm beliefs they already have, and reject those that disprove beliefs they have judged as true. This cognitive dissonance causes people to radically respond to both ends of the spectrum--they join communities to further their cause while attacking the competition. 

James J. Brown brings up a controversy involving a picture that depicts Bert, from Sesame Street, in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. In this example the photo's creator, Dino Ignacio, created the image as a joke to substantiate his long running bit that Bert is evil. This story parallels Frankenstein, where the creator feels shame for creating a monster that wreaks havoc on society. After the image had become popular, and upon shutting down the Bert is Evil website, Ignacio expressed concern that his parodies had “gotten too close to reality,” and by this he meant that his website had been taken up by mainstream media. The transmission of this image was so pervasive that it was found on protest posters in Afghanistan. The message had clearly been misconstrued.

One perspective is that "[w]eb technologies welcome “transcultural confusion” and that such technologies also “[create] the conditions of intercultural exchange that render politically noxious any culture which cannot decode the messages of others.”" This statement is a rather harsh criticism of people in the Middle East using and reproducing an image without consideration of its effect. Images are especially riddled with context that does not translate, and even savvy cultures get it wrong.
Equally unfounded is "condemning all American popular culture and blaming it for Islamic fundamentalism." The criticism of Western Culture in the Middle East did not begin with our media, and it has only become a component of the conflict recently. These two views represent the intolerance that complicates the cultural conflict.

In the end of his article Brown's tone turns positive toward online resources which "offe[r] a space where communities can gather toward particular goals (this, most definitely, is happening), the Web offers a place where community happens to us even without any sort of intentional gesture of “let’s get together.”" He idealizes the product of a community unified by common beliefs.

Summary response 1

 

     In Convergence Culture the author Henry Jenkins seeks to define and explain a growing phenomenon that spurs “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want” (2). Jenkins describes the polarizing issues that emerge as a result of booming technology, one of which is the need to control and mediate content that can get overwhelming or offensive. Jenkins begs the question of what makes a utopia: free content or a positive presentation of information. He emphasizes that consumers are flooded with media, and that increases the need for industries to reach their audience in creative and compelling ways. One technique corporations employ is “empowering readers not only to submit their own stories but to work collectively to determine the relative value of each submission” (240). Incorporating a rating system gives the people benefiting from the content a glimpse into the tastes and preferences of their audience. Working with peers facilitates collective learning which may, in turn, create a collective intelligence that surpasses the abilities of any contributor working independently. This pool of knowledge spans from the microcosm of television shows like Survivor to political campaigns and elections. Jenkins points out the evaluative component of collective learning that enables people to comment and criticize based on the credentials of the author and the information presented. Convergence culture has elements of economic, social, cultural and technological value which necessitates that individuals and corporations understand and harness new media.

      The argument Jenkins presents that I struggle most to choose a position on is that “the strength and weakness of a collective intelligence is that it is disorderly, undisciplined, and unruly" (Jenkins 53). Tension emerges because I believe in freedom of speech, but hesitate to defend that position to absurdity; at the same time I abide by the standard of presenting information in a civil way. What would make this issue easier is if people that use offensive language to convey their position understood that a delicate stance is more palatable and persuasive, and used that knowledge to their advantage. I am also disappointed in what many consumers find valuable, and wonder how mainstream (television, radio, CNN) content will be affected by the industry's awareness of the population's preferences and tastes. I believe that, to an extent, this information has already been applied to enhance and edit the content we receive. It would be idealistic to think that a wealth of websites could provide a clear image of what's happening, but I do sincerely believe in the benefit of high numbers. I am, therefore, highly skeptical of the evaluation of political candidates, because of the personal attachment many viewers feel to a party. Their affiliation skews their perspective and causes the facts to be diluted amongst opinion. An example Jenkins cites was Howard Dean's campaign, which I followed quite diligently. I felt rather disheartened to see his career ravaged by absurd commentary. Misinformation about Obama's religions and racial background became common, accepted 'knowledge.' Herein lies the problem with free content, people choose to follow poor examples of collective intelligence. An unselective or naive audience falls prey to manipulation, but becoming informed is more accessible than ever before. As a member of the generation aging alongside the boom of internet I feel grateful for the opportunity to enrich myself with beliefs and knowledge that would be limited without the assistance of free content, despite the consequences.

Freedom is internet access

Despite the availability of knowledge, unparalleled by any other point in human history, we still know so little about our candidate's political stance before they are elected. This point is well expressed with the fact that "popular culture matters politically-- because it doesn't seem to be about politics at all" (Jenkins 250). Young voters who are well educated choose to watch parody news and begin to believe that source is adequate and substantial. The reference to the Howard Dean campaign is utterly relevant, because his reputation was destroyed by an exaggerated and overplayed positive emotional reaction. I could have gotten behind this slander if he seemed enraged, but I am disgusted that his excitement was conveyed as anything other than reasonable and genuine.

I am, however, delighted that there is a media outside of television and radio. The internet makes information accessible and cheap, which in my opinion outweighs the disadvantage of corrupted news. Monopolistic news reporting just seems wrong, because "TV was a medium that rendered us dumb, disengaged, and disconnected, the Internet makes us smarter, more involved, and better informed" (Jenkins 221). As a rhetoric major I have been diligent in accessing the original source of my citations, and have had better luck finding it when using internet based media. Our television news and newspapers are primarily composed of prechewed and distorted Associated Press articles. No matter what your preference for news source, you are reading the same thing, only skewed to manipulate your opinion. I like the freedom of the internet, and the potential for a "knowledge culture" (Jenkins 249).

Cybersubculture project

I plan to investigate and compare OkCupid (with a focus on the sub-dating website, CrazyBlindDate) with dating on the more open section on Craigslist.  I will be strictly examining the dating components of Craigslist and avoiding the 'hook-up' section.

I don't own a television. I live among a hundred people, and there are probably only 3 televisions in common areas. In one way I am decidedly off the grid. I miss out on certain types of advertisements, especially movie ads. I really don't like to be leashed to a show, and series that necessitate sequential watching don't appeal to me (i.e Lost).

My distaste for attaching myself to media contributes to the reason I dislike transmedia storytelling. I am not dedicated enough to one plot to invest my time. It seems trite and ignorant for me to discuss television shows in a social atmosphere, similar to discussing facebook. I simply don't buy that "viewers get even more out of the experience if they compare notes and share resources than if they try to go it alone" (97). I engage in conversation with the people I saw a movie with, immediately after the showing, but I don't understand the drive to research a movie.

I once got sucked into the hype of Cloverfield, and waited hours in line to be the first to see it. I was supremely disappointed. I don't think that the multimedia experience is meant to provide a greater scope for the movie, and feel that it is intended to serve the purpose of marketing. It is tragic to me as a viewer that "cult has become the normal way of enjoying movies" (100), because I would prefer to enjoy a self-contained masterpiece. I think Casablanca did it better than the Matrix, and as an avid movie consumer I detest sequels. I do not play video games, so yet another aspect of the Matrix movie experience is lost on me as a viewer.  Simply, I believe that writers draw out a storyline too far, and in doing so lose some of the quality.

Collective learning and sharing

One of the initial advantages seen from the creation of the internet was the capacity to share information and expand our learning from the input of our peers. What fascinates me about this intent is the strange deviation it has taken, and the priorities people have made for learning everything there is to know about celebrities and television shows. The internet has a vast array of interactive gossip magazines. 

Advertising is taking a new approach to creating hype, and talk among consumers is becoming the new frontier for ad placement. The negative side of this new medium is a scrutinizing review audience that can destroy the reputation of a poor product.  I imagine that children from the future will not be buying the x-ray specs featured in their favorite comics, and they will probably even be accessing them online.

One issue I take with the reliance on the knowledge we get from sharing is subtle and unexpected. Certain groups dedicate a lot of effort to modifying the wording of Wikipedia articles and book reviews to distort the information presented. Dr. Roberts-Miller proved Neo-Nazis did a lot of re-writing to manipulate information on both aforementioned websites by showing offensive, bigoted texts that had only good reviews on Amazon.com.  In Convergence Culture by Henry Jenkins he illustrates the innumerable amount of lies on the internet by referring to the show Survivor, he says that a website could "tell you who the winner is right now and you wouldn't know whether to believe me or not" (46).

The most overwhelming advantage I see in the information age is the creation of a scrutinizing audience. Generations are only becoming more aware, and less likely to fall victim to something like a radio performance of "War of the Worlds." On the first day of class my professors emphasize that they do not accept Wikipedia as an accurate source of information, but I wonder what misinformation is leaking into our understanding of a topic when we use it as a first, comprehensive source.  

My first blog

This post is my first experience with blogging, and it is for a class.  I find it somewhat ironic that I will be blogging about the cultural and rhetorical significance of blogs.