After reading the material please:
1. Write a single 1-2 paragraph summary of the main argument(s) of the text(s) you've read.
2. Write a paragraph or three about your mix of reactions to the arguments and evidence in the book. What perspectives do you think are useful - what might be faulty?
3. Add a paragraph or two that addresses the ways the argument of this author contradicts Feed. In what ways didn't he? In what ways were the two authors talking about two very different aspects of digitization?
->
Everything Bad is Good for You: By Steven Johnson
->
Steven Johnson explains about how in this world if people do what they enjoy they develop their brains further and gain knowledge and experience. This is shown through the new generation of fresh minds. These minds take two different paths, one is to enjoy the past value of knowledge (books) or through the future (like games [digital stuff etc...]). People who enjoy reading gain more knowledge than people who don't lean toward reading as much. He explains how books give us knowledge since it shows a plot or a path which is always followed. The reader will be guided by the narrator or author through a disembodiment and into the dimension of the hypnotic words. This is the same for digital items like video games, people are taken through a "fix" scenario designed by the creator and they cannot get out of the limits like a book. Even though video games and books are the same video games take the user on a path that isn't straight but curved to smaller paths, this which leads to some control. People would prefer the control over a straight path. Even though video games and books might be the same and different people don't view video games as a lesson to others, it teaches the user a certain way of life (crime, fantasy etc...). These value can be used later in the future, and both ways teach through hypnotizing the user for a none set amount of time.
Video Games have a special advantage, since it allows the player to move around more freely, the player must adapt to the rules of the level/obstacle and think through stuff logically. Even though these are just simulations that suck the user in and it is enough to satisfy them into believing that it is possible. As time goes on the different types of technology advance and it allows the types of development to expand and grow to simulate more than one way to think(more than one type of puzzle in one game); this helps people multitask and develop further as humans. Other digital items that can help us evolve or develop further is T.V This helps us with our memories and disembodies us and test our memory to memorize plots, characters and symbols. The user must watch the story move through like a book and capture the messages the "author" wants to portray. This way also bring the viewer more into background of the thing they are showing. The viewer is actually gaining knowledge while they are zones out. Like video games there are different type of shows or genres that will teach the viewer or user and develop them.
->
I think that he is partially right that digitization help develop our brain but now it is nothing but a tool to be used to control the minds of the users. Even though it develops the sense of logic like Steven said, this logic is also contained by the rules set by the creators. Since the users have to follow the set restrictions and cannot "run through every wall there is in a path" it is trying to find out who can follow instructions better. The better you are at a game the better you are at following the rules set by society and the better puppet you will become in the future. Television is not all that Steven says to be, sure it allows the user or viewer to enhance their memory and thinking capability but this is also a place where the knowledge the viewers are absorbing is the "virus" that will infect the mind and corrupt it from the inside. This "virus" will destroy the parts of the mind which is not needed by others and make the viewers think of what is good in life through the T.V. This would take away each persons freedom to think logically but also grant them some logic at the same time. All this new technology might seem bad to some and good to others, but where should the rest stand?
->
Both authors talk about how digitization affect eh minds, if its good or bad; either way our minds will not develop any further than it has already. As Feed talks how all this digital stuff hypnotize us and turn us into monsters, as Bad is Good talks about how digital stuff hypnotize you and helps us develop as humans. Both show how digital stuff hypnotize us and simulates our need to develop further. Either turning into a monster or thinking more logically. Bother sides try and show how we are hooked to this digital age and we need it to continue to function as a whole. The simulation this digital stuff gives is enough to satisfy us. Even though they both contradict each others since one is like a story and a essay, two different things but trying to tell us something non the less.
->
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Vincent,
ReplyDeleteI particularly enjoy reading your blogs because your ideas are so unconventional. Your detached attitude towards the status of the world even as you acknowledge it as a tragedy is interesting.
Some of the points I thought was worth recognizing in your posts included the way you thought Feed was more like an exaggerated version of our society rather than an exact reflection. Although I also believe that some of his ideas are a bit exaggerated, I think his ultimate purpose was to illustrate the effects and get readers to understand that the consequences are as every bit important in the book as it is in real life. I also got the idea from one of your posts that you blamed the parents of Feed's society more than you did the children. It's obvious that by conforming to the digitalization of their era they are massively contributing to its expansion. "The feed isn't have is making us dumber it is the adults who make the stuff and control our lives from birth to death. We as humans never had a choice to choose." Why don't you feel that we don't have a choice?
I also liked how you referred to video games as curves more than straight paths which are represented in T.V. shows. I agree that video games allow you to create more of a narrative rather than following a mapped out path that is shown through books and T.V. shows. I also found it interesting how you connected the rules of the games to the way we are controlled by rules in real life. Are you implying that these games are teaching us to be obedient members of society? It makes me think about the conversation we had about being offered only a limited amount of options and being able to only choose from those choices. In this case, the rules act as our limits and even though we think the key is to use these rules to its full advantage to gain success, we also need to keep in mind that we're still making decisions within these boundaries, just the way the creators of the game want you to. That's their way of convincing you that you have narrative freedom in the game when in fact you don't because you're stuck with a bunch of rules you need to abide to.
In some cases, you seem to acknowledge and understand an opposing perspective but still manage to keep your own. In others you seem to completely rule out certain arguments and deem yours correct. It might be helpful next time if you take a look at an idea in a different perspective and try to understand where its coming from and why its being said before you argue against it.
The voice and mood you project through your posts is different from many other blogs and it's nice to hear about digitalization in a way that clashes its conventional theories. Looking forward to reading more of your work. (: