Archives for the Month of October 2005 on Britt Wiseman
Make up Your Mind
Chapters 5 and 6 were perhaps the most interesting chapters that I have read in any book thus far in the course. It is no surprise due to my major and love for politics, but the concepts were very interesting.
While I was reading the chapters, I was watching the Cleveland mayoral debate between Frank Jackson and Jane Campbell. I do not vote in Cleveland, but I like to watch debates to see the way candidates answer certain questions and interact with one another. As I took a break between chapters I checked my email and found that I had an email from www.tedstrickland.com. He is my friend and Congressman who is running for Ohio governor. The email announced the creation of a blog on his site, so I immediately went to it and made a comment. After that, I went back to reading my book and then realized that I had just done what Manuel Castell discussed in his book. I had utilized technology to actively participate and engage in politics (via watching a televised debate and commenting on a blog). Castells talks about the way that technology opens the door to increased political activity and engagement and within an hour I had already done so in two different forms. My actions were proof of the increased availability of political information in today’s society.
This brings me to another point. This year and last year, I voted in the general election via absentee ballot. There were many names on the ballot that I didn’t recognize or know much about. The internet allowed me to search the candidate’s name to see their platform which I could base my vote upon. Without the internet, I would probably have asked my parents if they knew about the candidates, but I was able to find the information for myself.
There was a point made in the book that, “rather than strengthening democracy by fostering the knowledge and participation of the citizens, use of the internet tends to deepen the crisis of political legitimacy by providing a broader launching platform for the politics of scandal.” I do not agree with this statement and would like to hear some further support for this claim by the author. I do not understand how on one hand he can say that, “the internet offers extraordinary potential for the expression of citizen’s rights, and for the communication of human values” and “by broadening the sources of communication, it does contribute to democratization” and say completely the opposite on the other (quotes can be found on page 158 and 164.)
It is just very difficult for me to understand where he is coming from with these two very different statements which I feel contradict one another. Does anyone make sense of this? I wish he could explain, but maybe someone else can. Comments are appreciated.
That 70's Show
I saw an episode of That 70's Show last night and it cracked me up. The plot with Kitty and Red was that Red spent a lot of money on this new thing called a VCR. He was so excited to show Kitty and she was very sxeptical about the entire idea. She didn't understand why in the world someone would tape something that they could just watch on television. Their plans had been to watch Roots at 6:00, but Red insisted that they tape it and watch it later. Kitty was so upset because all she wanted to do was watch Roots when it was being aired.
It was hilarious and it made me think about how we are very skeptical of new technology at first and as we see the benfits or cons of it, we make a decision of whether or not to use it in our daily lives. In the show, the new technology hindered Kitty's night and therefore she became very agitated and upset.
This was a random post, but it was hilarious so I thought that I would pass it on.
Is the government so bad?
Today in class we discussed the role that government plays in the formation and creation of technology through providing funding for experiments and research. As the conversation progressed we seemed to be looking at Congress with a negative spin. This may be because people do not liked to be taxed and some people feel government does too much. However, the consensus in the class today seemed to be that it was the role of Congress to fund such research.
My question then is... Can the government do anything right in the public's eyes? I am a pro-government person and take such stances on issues in today's society. In my eyes the people who are in government are, for the most part, good people. I know that we can always make exceptions on both sides of the aisle. These people dedicate their lives to serving the people of this country and all they get is ridicule.
Politicians are statesmen who work to serve their constituents in all that they do. I know this may be a rosy picture and does not always work, but it can. We can all agree that we need to get this country's spending under control if we hope to not leave my generation and our children's generations whith mountains of debt. This requires that the government make choices that we may not make us very pleased. Are we ready to cut programs and spending for the sake of technology research that may not reap benefits until after we are long gone? For the most part I would sya that people are not.
So, when we discussed the government today with skepticism I wondered as to what you think the priorities of the government are or should be with respect to technology. Hopefully I can get a wide array of answers as to see how the class feels that we can move forward in technology research in the government.
Please Comment!
Solving or Creating?
Today's class was really a great class. I don't know if it was the coffee and food that made the class seem to open up and discuss, but I really enjoyed the class today. We seemed to all have a lot to say about the conclusion of Digital Ground. Having said that, I would like to focus on a comment made at the end of class today. Professor Yoo said that thus far technology has been created to "solve problems." While I would generally agree with this statement, it got me thinking as to whether technology solves problems or creates them.
If we embrace the idea that "what you don't know won't hurt you" mentality, then not knowing about the possibilities that technology has the possibility to bring doesn't create any problems. For example, was mailing letters with an envelope and stamp really a problem? Or did it become a problem when a new way to send information was created? Did the evolution of e-mail cause society to have a problem with the slow fashioned, unreliable mail system? Was there a problem with people using candlelight to light their homes or did the discovery of electricity lead to the idea that candlelight was ineffective and unsafe? People can not complain about a problem if they do not know of an alternative. Therefore, no problem may exist until the creation of a new technology that enables us to see the benfits it can have on our daily lives. Seeing the benefits may be what causes us to then isolate our "problems" that weren't problems until we were given an alternative. This may go along with the century old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Another possibility to the problem situation is that maybe people saw that some aspect of society could be improved and therefore people began to look and search for potential problems with things that society had for so long accepted. This seeking out of inefficiencies is not truly a problem that technology fixed, but rather a created issue that was targeted only for the purpose of technology.
Perhaps we will never know the true answer to this question and maybe there is no answer. We do not have the capability to go into the minds of those who create or enhance to see what their motive or objective. For now, I will look at technology as serving as an answer to societal problems, while still remaining uncertain as to whether the technology solves problems or creates them.
If I confused anyone I am sorry and I confused myself a bit while writing this because this is a topic in which we have the answer but are trying to figure out when the problem occurs!!!
Opening my eyes!
From the beginning of my life I was told that there is a certain way to do things (ie. open a box, make a peanut butter sandwich, give the dog a bath). My parents taught me that you do things in a certain order. I'm sure that this order is not one that they composed themselves, but rather one that was taught to them. Now, my parents have always taught me to think differently than people and to have my own opinion on issues. I don't want to paint the picture that this is a "control issue" over what is right and what is wrong, but rather what comes first and what comes next. Does it really matter?
Mccullough makes a very interesting point in chapter 7 when he alks about methodology. He says that, "Methodology hinders design." At first I read it and then I began thinking about it in a broad context. We are told that there are certain steps to take in life such as go to school, go to college, get a job. Who decides if this is the correct track for all people? Who holds this ultimate authority? If we, as a society, do not support those whose break this chain of events, then are we hindering one's individual "design?" Could this person encounter something that would change the societal preferences that we have so long been told and thus acted upon?
Of course there are some methods that have proven to be most effective (ie the scientific method). This will aide students and researchers in finding correct or the best results. However, is it possible for someone to create their own way of researching? If McCullough is correct then the scientific 'methodology' is inhibiting the design that people may have for the future.
McCullough is trying to demonstrate that the technological world must foster those who take their own paths or create their own ways of doing things if we are to ever make true progress. True progress means producing technology that is fit for its users, able to be used effectively while providing the best possible experience. Today we seem to look upon those who make their own trails as odd or weird. We need to look at these people as the pioneers of the future who are ready and willing to take the future of society on their backs as they dive into untread waters. These people are the true creators and inventors.
So, while methodology does serve its purpose in society, we must remember that it does hinder design and that shifting away from a formal method can benefit society as a whole. Thanks Mr. McCullough for opening our eyes!