Power and to the Point

I completely agree with Parker’s views on PowerPoint. And much as I have this love-hate thing for Microsoft, I have to say that PowerPoint is like the Internet to me – can’t live with it, can’t live without it. PowerPoint helps the listener comprehend me better and also helps me organize my thoughts and keep to a ‘schedule.’ People have argued that it makes the presenter restrict himself to some kind of order, that it checks spontaneity. Really. Who likes a rambling, annoying presentation? I know I don’t!

Parker also mentions an important issue with PowerPoint: the ‘alienation’ of the audience. In contrast to these arguments, I believe that alienation and handling spontaneity is up to the presenter. Instead of using the screen notes as the main element of the lecture, the presenter can choose to rely on it only as a secondary aid. He has the choice to involve the audience proactively and create a personal feel. Previously in class, most of us chose to do our assignment as a PowerPoint presentation (PPT) instead. Why? Because it is easier than writing 400 words about yourself!

Earlier, I was going to make this post all about PPTs and why I love them. But then, I realized that I was just stating the obvious. Like in PPTs, everyone can read and don’t like being read their slides. That being said, I won’t say why we all like PPTs and just make my other point: Why are PPTs so popular? Is this why the McCombs School of Business has a core course on PPTs?!? I know. It really exists.

And as usual, I digress. Lack of a PPT? Maybe!

Obviously PPT are such a big hit. As are other mind-mapping and/or software that seemingly edit our thoughts and thinking patterns. MindJet’s MindManager is another software that performs similarly. Personally, this is the greatest thing after Google (much as I hate to admit). But as a grad student and journalist, I find it hard to remember things. So I have a mental map. But this map has been in my head. With MindManager, I am able to put this on paper/MS Word document/e-mail and pretty much any kind of communication software. Not only does it help me organize my thoughts, it is also saves me a lot of time, effort and not to mention – paper!



That said, I don’t see what the big problem is, because I like it. Sure, what works for me may not work for others, but that doesn’t mean I won’t use it or ‘inflict’ it on others!

Obama Speech on Education

Product Price Dilemma

I have a problem: I have dry hair. Every time I would go to a hair stylist for a new cut, I would plead with the hair dresser to give me a solution to my problem. "Tell me of a new elixir that replaces my brittle ends with nourished tresses! Please I'll do anything!"

By now, I know hair biology and the reasons for dry hair. I've tried the solutions that web pages offer: hot oil treatments, weekly protein treatments, leave-in-conditioners, good products vs. bad products, alcohol is a no-no etc. But none of these solutions seem to give me my silky desire.

And each time, the hair dresser, delighted by my plight for answers, tells me I must use salon-based products. "Stay away from nasty drugstore products!" they warn. Well, I've done that and spent a good bit of money. And it hasn't worked.

The sneaky little scissor-weilding stylists are trying to pull a fast one on me, but the fraudulent suggestion that price makes the biggest difference does not work on me! I've done my personal research! From my experience, there is no difference between the salon and the generic products. Maybe we can account my skepticism for the ineffectiveness of more expensive salon products, but I think not. I wanted the more expensive products to work but instead they have the same effects as the cheaper ones.

I think the suggestion that price dictates quality abounds everywhere and in some cases it might be true, but for the most part it is a false formula. Each time I went into the hair salon, I knew the ploys of the stylists-- trying to get you to purchase expensive products that they receive a commission for selling. I also knew the price dictates quality facade and the placebo effect philosophy that tricks many into believing that their problems will be fixed (in this hair context case-I'm not discrediting it in other situations). But because I have background knowledge of these tactics, I can make an informed decision about what hair products I choose to buy.

What I'm saying is: We could save a lot of money, if we didn't take to heart the price dictates quality sham.

Thinking about Lent?

If you're thinking about giving something up for Lent - why not technology? Well, why not Facebook at least?

Check out this article: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/entertainment/Facebook-Love-it-or-Leave-it.html

Cellphone pricing comparison

We talked about how pricing affects cellphone-related behavior greatly. Here is a NYT article on traditional vs. pre-paid plans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/technology/21prepaid.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=cell%20phone%20pre-paid&st=cse

The iPod

I think that I may just be the last person on the planet who has not invested in an iPod. I never saw the difference or the big deal with the iPod until recently. Two Christmases ago I asked my mother to buy me an mp3 player. I reiterated over and over that I did not want an iPod, just a little cheap mp3 player, nothing big, but something that could hold most of my music. She came home with a SIREN mp3 player, something in which I had never heard of. For me it was great, it didn't matter, I just wanted a player. It took me somewhere close to 5 days to transfer my music. I had downloaded so many songs onto my computer, and over the years I had purchased tons of Cd's. Some of them were repurchases of those that had been lost due to my lack of organization over the years. I had finally found a small compatible and portable place to place Donny Hathaway, Lauryn Hill, Nina Simone, Janet Jackson, and Elton John. They were all able to travel with me, there was finally enough room to carry them.

It was less than a year later when I was walking across campus listening to Christete Michelle's Love is You and my SIREN completely shut down. Me not being the most technologically savvy individual I panicked. After trying to turn the little music holder on several times, I gave up. I chocked it up to cheapness and cursed the machine for days. Strangely the death of my SIREN also caused the death of my workout. I completely stopped going to the gym all because of a machine. After a few days I got over it and started using my cell phone for music. Although it only plays a few songs it was better than nothing. Finally after a while I told my boyfriend who suggested I re-synch the device. Surprisingly he was right.

It was back. I was back. I had my music, a little piece of my life gathered through song. My memories were mine again, and I could hear them anytime I wanted too. This happiness lasted for only a while longer. My player gave me about 4 more months of glee until it called a quits again. Today it just sits in my purse, and I occasionally try to play it, but I always know the results will be the same, a quick shut down, a slow nothing.

Now I am in search of a new music player. I had my feelings really hurt by SIREN and now I am a little pessimistic towards anything that's not an iPod. I know that there are some other good players out there but I'm scarred to try them out. I guess only time will tell. But I am always open to suggestions.

What is real life?!

I can't say I really understood what "The Media Equation" by Nass and Reeves was talking about. Humans confuse the media for reality? Isn't that why the media is there? To simulate reality, give us something to connect with through an inanimate object - like the TV or computer?

The chapter says their findings hold true for every group tested, from business people to sophomores in college. They say "all people automatically and unconsciously respond socially and naturally to media."

I liked the radical points at the end of the article, promoting people to look introspectively at their lives to see how they personally want to accept media. It makes you think of how we are so drawn in to charismatic speakers on TV and how despite what they say, we favor them.

I'm Not Gonna Let Technology Keep Me Down

I have never been enslaved by technology. My family did not get the Internet till 2000. I never really had AIM. I did not get a cell phone till I was sixteen, text messaging till I was seventeen and an iPod till I was eighteen.

I spent my days at school where would come home and I would not see the inside of my house till it was time to eat. My brother and I would play basketball, street hockey and baseball with the neighborhood kids. We rode our bikes through mud and peoples yards, scraped our knees, built tree houses by taking wood from nearby construction sites. It was not till I needed technology did I use it.

Of course I thought I could write this post just by reading the titles, but I had to read them just so I could think the opposite.

I do find it scary what Brandi said about children dyeing young due to video games, but the reality never strikes me because I don't get it because that was not me. I believe that technology is what we make it and we can choose how it will make us. Inventions and advancement in technology only does not necessarilt make us dumber or more lazy becuase it only allows us to allocate our time to other tasks and away from simple problems that we have solved. The wheel, fire, written word, computers and cell phones only give us opportunities to create more and hopefully that is how we treat it.

Technology has a mind of its own and we have to respect it. I have seen iRobot (no thanks).

Digital Overload Is Frying Our Brains

And here's a blog post on Wired.com about something we've been discussing in class: technology (and, with it, the overload of information) and how it affects our attention. Very interesting!

In Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age, Jackson explores the effects of "our high-speed, overloaded, split-focus and even cybercentric society" on attention. It's not a pretty picture: a never-ending stream of phone calls, e-mails, instant messages, text messages and tweets is part of an institutionalized culture of interruption, and makes it hard to concentrate and think creatively.

Am I rational consumer?

While I was reading about placebo effect in our reading Power of Price: Why a 50-Cent Aspirin Can Do What a Penny Aspirin Can’t by Dan Ariely, I wondered several times whether I'm reading the right article. It was not about the new technologies that we’ve been reading and thinking about recently. So, I went back to the syllabus. It said, “Are we rational consumers of technology?”

Am I rational consumer of technology? At that moment, I hesitated to answer. I couldn’t say yes or no. I usually buy or use new technologies by the need. I think everybody does too. Just the question will be whether we rationally buy technologies. I think so, but hmm.. I’m not sure.

I bought a new laptop this year. What affected my decision were weight, price, screen size and the company’s credibility. I really like my laptop, but I’m not sure about the quality after 6 months or one year. If this computer is broken, what should I do? I trust this compan, but the fact that it was cheap makes me a little bit antsy about it.

As the reading goes, it says "...belief and expectations affect how we perceive and interpret sights, tastes, and other sensory phenomena..." I really agreed with this statement. We perceive and interpret things differently by our believes and expectations. I think that’s why people have religions. This article provided the example of “royal touch,” which is belief the pope’s touch will cure your illness. I think those kind of belief goes on even today. When people are sick, they try to do whatever they can as if a drowning man will grab at a straw. People become irrational in that moment as far as somebody's health is concerned.

I find myself fasinating whenever I read about placebo effect, but I was a little bit upset. I understand the doctors and researchers didn’t want to fool the patients around and need to do the experiements, and they would have done it with the patients who are not seriously ill. However, if I was in a patient’s shoe, I would have been mad at the doctors when I realized it was a fake surgery. Because my illness is still there, and I was not cured at the right moment, my illness could have been even worse. Just imagine that the placebo patients thought her illness is gone, but now the doctor says he lied to her and she has to undergo real surgery. I wouldn’t want to be worried about it again. I think this shows my opinion on the last question the author threw at the end of the article, “Should we always test every procedure and carry out placebo experiments?”

When the author discussed about the discounted medicine vs. medicine with original price, I could not agree with the test result. I think people buy cheaper ones as far as it has the same quality. I think regardless of what products I’m buying if it is the same products, the quality will be the same as the ones with the original price. I guess I’ll be wondering why this medicine is cheap, but because I am a poor college student, I prefer to buy products during on sale, or buy cheaper ones.

the iPod relationship

I think it's true that many songs allow you to flashback to a time where you vividly remember your clothes, best friend at the time, and whatever you were doing . I can't help but think of that country song lyric by Kenny Chesney, "...everytime I hear that song, I go back..."

An article was published where a research study was done, and they found out that "strong emotions [were] associated with the songs played at the time." The funny thing is, is that most of the times the songs that are "bringing people back" are the same because they were popular at a certain time. Songs like "Ice Ice Baby" or "Gansta's Paradise."

It's funny how this is attributed to iPods, but it has actually been going on for years, just with mixed tapes or cd's...but it is true that you carry your ipod with you and it's organized by albums, as oppesed to your whole cd case in addition to your portable cd player.

I think that because the iPod is more convenient and therefore more likely to be an extension of our body, we are creating the opportunity for more songs to have this affect on us in our future. Or as the story said, more "windows to our souls."

Universal Charger

Here's a story about a "universal charger" for cell phones. However, absent from this technology is the all-mighty iPhone. Oh, and it wouldn't be available until 2012 anyway.

Too Much Technology?

Coincidentally, as I was finishing up reading the article "A human-centered technology," by Donald A Norman, my roommate informed me that "for the first time in history young kids will die sooner, because of the rise in obesity which is suspect from not playing outside as much and sitting in front of the TV."

I feel as though this has a lot to do with Norman's comments on the positive and negative aspects of technology. He argues that there are a lot more pros in technology unlike what Jerry Mander says In the Absence of the Sacred. I do agree that with everything in life there are good and bad point of views. However, when I hear that for the first time kids will be dieing at a younger age, technology scares me!

I remember when I lived in a neighborhood in Houston, Texas, there was this crape myrtle tree outside on the corner. I would always pretend I had a fort and a secret hideaway. I absolutely loved this tree...I had made a world of my own. Now, when I drive through the neighborhoods in Austin I hardly ever see kids playing outside with their friends, because they are constrained to the walls of their houses, sitting in front of the television, playing video games.

Technology is a catch-22. No matter what there will be ups and downs. But how far can we take it? When is too much technology a hindrance on our lives? My answer: when a person's life is cut too short because of it.

$$$ = Better

Just to note, I read all of the readings for this week today. I did not really care for the article about how we find it hard to distinguish between real life and mediated life. I can tell the difference between the two. So, I chose to discuss "The Power of Price."

I have to say, I am guilty of being coerced to buy things because I think they are better just because they have a higher price tag. When I was growing up I was used to getting things that were not the hot brand name or most popular line of clothing that all my friends were getting. I never used to see the importance of paying a lot more for something when I could get the generic or discount brand for cheaper. Now that I am an adult and can judge for myself what to buy, I do find myself paying more for things that I did not use to. For example, I used to think Fiji water was ridiculous. Water is water is water, right? But then, I had Fiji water, and my brain told me that it was really, really good. There was something that just made it better. Probably because it cost more.
Another example, I have always had the iPod, since it came out. My sister, however, got an off-brand MP3 player and I immediately thought it really wouldn't matter and it would work fine. But I felt like I found myself just looking for something to go wrong or not work, simply because it wasn't the expensive, well-known Apple brand.

I hate to say that I fall victim to the power of price much too often. I can show a lot of self-control. For instance, about half of my closet is from Target. :) Also, unlike the article, much of what I do buy at the drugstore for colds or headaches are the store brand. When it comes to my health, I get what is cheaper, because I know (kind of like when it comes to toothpaste or shampoo) that in reality, they all contain the exact same things and will do the same things.

The power of price is strong, and I think we all fall victim to it a lot. However, I think it depends a lot on the category of product and the individual.

The danger of the media equation

Although it seems a bit surreal to me that media and real life are the same, as Nass and Reeves argue in "The Media Equation," I was able to identify with some things that they mention.

"[T]he more a media technology is consistent with social and physical rules, the more enjoyable the technology will be to use" (p. 8)

When I read this sentence, it reminded me of how newspapers and TV networks are much more interactive today, therefore consistent with social rules.

When the spectator reads or watches something of his/her interest, he or she will feel compelled to respond to that. Because both newspapers and TV channels have their own online version, which interacts with their print or broadcast version, people are able to interact with the content, with news anchors or writers, and with each other -- therefore making the whole experience a more enjoyable one. Does this make any sense? :)

"When our brains automatically respond socially and naturally because of the characteristics of media or the situations in which they are used, there is often little to remind us that the experience is unreal. ... This is effective, for example, at a scary movie." (pp. 12, 13)

For this reason, I haven't watched scary movies since I realized that it doesn't make me any good to watch them. I feel nervous and scared before, during and especially after I watch it. I can't sleep at night, thinking that the bad guy will come after me, too (haha). So I simply don't watch this type of movies anymore because they seem/feel a bit too real and I don't like that feeling.

I know this sounds stupid, but it is exactly what the text authors argue -- "Absent a significant warning that we've been fooled, our old brains hold sway and we accept media as real people and places." I'm unconsciously fooled by the media, I guess. But come on, girls in the class, who has never cried during a sad movie? Has anybody seen Marley and Me? Yeah, I could barely open my swollen eyes the next day. :)

I guess all of this relates to a post that Eun Sook recently wrote on the "Reset Syndrome."

People who suffer PC reset syndrome tend to think a criminal act easily, because they have an illusion between cyber space and reality. In addition they think that is okay they can press reset button in reality.

Although our brains are very easily tricked by what's real and what's not, I believe people should try to differentiate both. The PC Reset Syndrome, for instance, is a disease and may harm the people involved.

The author of "A Human-Centered Technology" is worried about that.

"I am concerned that the new tools have moved us in unexpected ways to accept experience as a substitute for thought." (p. 15)

As a solution, he says that we need the "effort of reflection." He argues that, instead of having a "brilliant lecturer" speak to school children, and of showing these kids "prepackaged films and videos " to engage them, the school needs to make them think.

The problem is that the author doesn't give concrete actions that schools should to take in order to make young students reflect.

So what we, as heavy technology users, can do in order not to accept the technological experience as a substitute for thought? Any suggestion?

Tech home remedies

India has always been famous for its infinite medical home remedies. Here are some tech remedies for misbehaving gadgets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/technology/personaltech/19basics.html?no_interstitial

Fear Mongering

The Media Equation article was interesting, although at first I thought they were being fear-mongering conspiracy theorists (for the first half of the article). I assumed they were going to conclude that because humans are "unconscious" of our reaction to mediated life as real life, we will eventually not be able to distinguish mediated reality from real reality (whatever real reality is). But it turns out, they weren't bashing anthropomorphism. In fact, that's not what they were even talking about.

The human tendency shown in various studies to equate mediated life with real life is indeed not surprising. I think we do have social relationships with computers: they respond and send messages, just like humans do. How else would we act toward them except through our learned social norms? Of course people know that computers and television don't depict real life. But those videos and pictures make our brain respond the same way as if they were real.

I have to say I disagree with the author's supposition that this is due to evolutionary factors. If our parents had been born using the kind of technology our generation has, they'd be in the same place as we are, and I think that the human brain will never evolve in order to be able to completely distinguish mediated images and reality from real reality (so long as we interact with other people). We will always have strong social norm patterns that dictate our behavior with our use of media.

The thought that social science and the media equation can help technology developers is something I've never thought about. The examples weren't very specific, but I think this assertion has merit. I also thought the examples of how the media equation can be used were sort of vague. Maybe it's just an interesting observation rather than something that's really going to do that much good. It seems technology developers are already aware of the fact that people may act like they do not distinguish media from reality while they are using it, even though they know they aren't the same thing.

As for the other article, I was completely on the same page as the author. Although I may be more paranoid about the negative effects technology may come to have on society (especially through things like privacy issues), I think that the evolution of technology is natural and that the invention of the computer is comparable to the invention of the spear. It's a very rational, practical, non-alarmist view, which I appreciate. Technology does more good than evil, in my opinion. We do need to monitor it, though.

There is of course a definite overlap between the two articles in the confusion on machine-centeredness and its unfriendliness to human use. If human's apply social norms to their media experience, we do have a lot to learn from this so-called flawed human behavior and intellect. And I certainly don't want humans to be completely "undistractable" either.

"Low-Tech Fixes for High-Tech Problems" in NYT

A follow-up reading for "when technology fails," in NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/technology/personaltech/19basics.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc&_r=1

The Era of Sentient Things

So writing this post was a tough one: What to write about? Smart stuff or the ubiquitous iPod (something I still don't own)? I decided to go with the smart stuff. ‘Smart’ phones, ‘smart’ shoes, ‘smart’ swimwear, ‘smart’ t-shirts. Yes, I get the message. It is Rheingold’s ‘Era Of Sentient Things’ and the computer is not the only ‘smart’ thing in the market.

What got me thinking, apart from this weeks reading, was the ability of these so-called ‘smart’ chips that track your every move. But who’s watching? The Patriot Act has caused a lot of furor. Once such technology enters everyday life, what’s next? Will we start shopping for chip-less things like we do organic food? Will there be a separation of the two?

Will these chips talk to each other like Rheingold prophecied? Technology has grown exponentially from 2002; are the prophecies coming true or is it just the hippie-era-Uncle-Sam-is-watching paranoia that’s gripping me now? What worries me is that it’s not just Uncle Sam anymore; it’s other people like me who own ‘chipped’ things. Who owns access to your devices, either to push information at you or extract information from you? Remember how bluetooth technology on cellphones scared us in the beginning?

I also read Sherry Turkle’s book, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, last semester, which got me thinking on Artificial Intelligence (AI). I’m still skeptical of interacting with cyborgs because I’m not convinced that digital or computerized communication can fulfill all my needs of human interaction and human communication. While I don’t want to say that people should stop creating and experimenting with new technologies, I also don’t want a society where everything is done through computers, phone or wearable computers. I still hold on to bits of offline and non-digital communication and I think it is important to have and continue to use.

Have you ever heard of Reset Syndrome?

I was talking to my friend about the story I told you in the second week that when I made a mistake, I wanted to hit Go back to Previous page. Do you remember?

I told her about this, and my friend told me there is a Reset Syndrome. In a real case, a teenager or in his early twenties was playing a computer game, Lenage, one of the famous game in Korea among young people. In the virtual reality, to win, one has to kill all others. A teenager lost the game and in anger he tracked down the winner who was playing in the same game PC room. In korea there are a lot of PC room, which provide fast speed of internet so many young generations go and play computer games. The teenager found the winner and killed him. After that, as if he press reset button when computer has problem, he thinks it didn't happen.

I tried to find Reset Syndromes in English, and only I could found was a news article from Cauon, Joongang University newspaper on Dec. 23, 2006.
Click here to read more, Computer, the greatest creature creates syndromes

It says:

It "PC Reset Syndromes" is pathology phenomenon that raises a serious social problem. It spread among teenagers. It originates thought that people can start something not to suit them again anytime like pressing reset button when computer does not work. People who suffer PC reset syndrome tend to think a criminal act easily, because they have an illusion between cyber space and reality. In addition they think that is okay they can press reset button in reality.

I tried to find the other syndrome she told me, but I couldn't. According to her, which is a "reliable source," becuase we always use computer and sees everything on the "rectangular" screen, there are some people who cannot see, cannot concentrate on without rectangular-shape frame. So, they create rectangular with their thumbs and index fingers (like you see the world through when you photograph).

I assume becuase in South Korea computer game is very popular among young generation so this kind of digital syndrom occurs. I couldn't find this syndrome in google.

It is very scary to even think about the reset syndrome.

The Cellphone, Navigating Our Lives (NYT story)

Here's a NYT story published on Feb.16 that is EXACTLY about what we discussed last class:

"The cellphone is the world’s most ubiquitous computer. The four billion cellphones in use around the globe carry personal information, provide access to the Web and are being used more and more to navigate the real world. And as cellphones change how we live, computer scientists say, they are also changing how we think about information..." Read more here.

In Computers We Trust?

In “Why it’s good that computers don’t work like the brain” by Donald Norman, the author assumes that computers and robots will never come to mimic and surpass people. I agree and disagree. Although I don’t think the complete mimicry of human behavior is possible any time soon, I believe the number of skills computers can replace human skills are increasing every day. Considering how fast technology is developing, I wouldn’t be surprised if computers can read human’s handwritings or be able to drive a car by itself in near future. I think it’s possible that computers will eventually come to reach certain stage to mimic human skills. Not human emotions but skills.

I don’t think the real problem we have to be concerned about is whether computers will catch up with humans. The real question is “how far are humans going to allow computers to replace our skills?” For the purpose of discussion, let’s say that we have developed a car that can drive by itself. Can we fall asleep in the car seats peacefully while the computer does all the driving? I don’t think so. No matter how precise the computer can drive, we wouldn’t risk our life to a computer. We might count on a drunken friend to give us a ride, but not machine. This is because, I believe, humans are hesitant to give their trust to machines and like to have certain control over machines. They would like to believe that they are above emotionless dumb machines, and this basic idea will probably never change.

Therefore, I think one of the reasons this specific technology has not been developed yet lies in trust issue between humans and computers. The inventors or manufacturers must know that even if they develop this technology, it’s not likely to get many demands, thus discouraging invent of this drive-by-itself car. If we were to develop it, it would be developed at the level that computers are only assisting human’s driving, not total control over it.

So as far as the technology is concerned, the need for more convenience conflicts with need for security. I would love to see how this conflict develops over the next 10 years.

Human v. Machine Article

I don't know if anyone else felt this way, but this article was a bit heavy. What I think it was saying was that we are not using technology the right way. Technology should conform to the people, not people to technology, and we should change the way systems work in order to promote user-friendliness. Computers master certain tasks and humans master others, and we should combine these "skills" to form a "true symbiosis of people and machines." Therefore, making the whole relationship between humans and machines more effective, and in turn, advancing society in infinitesimal ways. SO, my question is: instead of blaming myself for not mastering Adobe Photoshop in the five or so years I've been using it, should I really blame the program for not being as human-centric as it should be?

I think I got this all wrong, but hey I tried.

Talking on the Phone

I found the title of this article very interesting. I also found the introduction to the study interesting. It's very funny because I have been there when it comes to a guy that I like, especially when I was in high school. Waiting for a guy to call me, wondering if he really, really likes me. I would sit by the phone just wondering if he was going to dial my number. It's amazing to see how this behavior is not just something I've done in the past, but a norm for many women.

After reading this, I found an interesting little article. I am not sure how credible it is but I found it funny.

http://www.esato.com/news/article.php/id=1734

The Telephone

Honestly I hate talking on the telephone. I don't know why but I dread having conversations on the phone and this can be with anybody. I am usually as un-willing to call up a department store to see what time it is as I am to call a buddy to see if he wants to go grab lunch however there are certain people that talking on the phone comes natural with.

I always get awkward pauses or silences and I hate when I have talked for a good twenty seconds and the response is "I didn't hear a word of that can you repeat it." There is something unnatural about it. You never sound the same on the phone as you do in person and on the phone I can't read body language to get a read of the conversation or on how things are going. Its a lot easier to lie on the telephone.

It is funny in relationships because I have always noticed that women enjoy the phone more than guys do and for women, the phone is a form of control. "Call me when you get there," seems to always come up and in good relationships girls call just to call with no real purpose. Maybe thats my biggest beef with the phone. I want conversations to be fast and with a purpose. Just give me the basic facts and we can talk when we see each other. That is the best part about text messaging. That and you can plan out and think about your conversations before you blurt out something stupid.

I agree with the point that when phone conversations are comfortable and great the relationship is great. The relationship I am in now, we have easy phone conversations and there is no real pressure. You know it though when you get the "Okay so...," moments on the phone and usually it pans out in the relationship. I guess for now we are going to remain slaves to the cell phones, Blackberry's, Iphones, whatever. Next time you have a free moment, look around campus and see how many people walk to class with the phone in their hand.

Another thing -- when will the world run out of phone numbers. Math is not my strongest subject so possible never, but it seems we are heading that way...

Recent News Story

This is interesting, How Microsoft is responding to how Mac is raising the bar.

Financial Times Story

Is my boyfriend cheating on me?

I really enjoyed this reading making the Connection: Single Women's Use of the Telephone in Dating Relationships With Men. I guess becuase I'm a single woman, the article title drew my attention right away.

It was really fun to read about how technology changed our way of datings as well.

As I kept reading, I realized even people in a different culture a decade ago shows the similarity on how they use when they date with someon--waiting him to call me and getting angry if he doesn’t. I used to hear often my friends sighing because of that too.

There are cultural differences between Korea and the U.S. on regarding to phone use. It’s like a rule among us, girls. I don’t remember them all, but I can give a couple of them.

Here is a females' rule:

1. Do not answer the phone at least twice so that you can pretend you were not waiting for his call. Men never give food to HIS fish. What it means is that when men think his girlfriend loves him more, they don't try hard to develop their relationship better. (Not everyman in Korea is like that though.) So, it is one way to control him at the beginning of their relationship. However, if he doen't call at the third time, women get angry and regret.

2. Do not answer the phone on the night when you go to a nightclub with your female friends. Sometiomes you have a girls’ night with only your female friends. You have to hang out with your friends also and you go to a club and meet new faces. But as you get to the club, the phone rings in your bag. He keeps calling you. Noisy music around, people shouting. If you answer the phone, he will definately know where you are. So, do not answer the phone! Just tell him that you went to bed early the next day.

It’s not something about the phone, but I quite often hear from friends that she always logs in his social networking sites with his password and checks her boyfriends’ emails. Sometimes they use GPA system on cellphone, so that they can track down where he is and make sure if he is not cheating on me.

I think distrust is one thing that comes to the surface in the interpersonal relationship thanks to technologies. I don't know if there were more distrust between lovers in the period without technologies or not. But I think we can notice if he or she cheats on the other in the relationship easily.

As technology evolves, social interactions change

Recognizing and analyzing people's agency in the usage and effects of technology is an important step in understanding our social world. (Humphreys: Cellphones in public, p. 829)

At first, the text "Making Connections: Single Women's Use of the Telephone in Dating Relationships With Men" seemed irrelevant to me. I often asked myself while reading it: "Really? You wrote an entire research article to tell me things that I already know about?" But after thinking about it for a moment, and especially after I read "Cellphones in public: social interactions in a wireless era," I figured how technology, no matter what it is (i.e. cell phone, computer), affects people's interactions and, as a consequence, our social world.

Back in 1993, when Amy Sarch's article "Making Connections" was published, telephone use showed an interesting pattern in women's dating relationships -- that only men were expected to pursue them. The social norm ruled that women could or should not show their interest. That obviously affected how they communicated via phone. Women weren't supposed to call. Women were expected to anxiously and passively sit and wait for the men's attitude. WHat a horrible feeling!

I experienced that during my teenage years, although I must confess that I didn't always sit and wait. :) Perhaps I belong to a generation that started to see things differently, to not accept the norms, and to act more proactively. There's a good chance that the advances in technology contributed to that.

Nowadays, with the newer generations of cell phone and social networking sites, men and women in dating relationships don't need to rely on telephone only to communicate. In fact, most people don't. I have noticed that people who are still seeing each other and/or have just started to go out together will most frequently text message or facebook each other instead of calling. Does it matter who sends the message first? I'm not really sure. Perhaps men are still expected to be more active than women, but that's no longer that big of a problem as far as I can see it. Of course I am speaking from the Western culture perspective and this may not be true in other cultures.

Sarch discusses the social meaning of answering machines on p. 140 -- she says that women would not leave a message when they first reached the answering machine of their dates. After carefully thinking about what their message would be, they would call again and only then leave the "right" message. Nowadays, in an era when couples can can text message and facebook each other, leaving the wrong message is no longer a problem. People can think about what they are going to say and leave the message right away.

So it's interesting to see how technology can bring different types of interactions to our society. And, to me, this is the most important aspect of both readings.

Below is a funny video I found on Vimeo, which shows how people are now often choosing texting over talking... a consequence of technology?

When to Call Him...

http://ezinearticles.com/?Phone-Call-Rules-For-Women---When-to-Call-Him&id=1120261

I laughed after seeing this article about women and the rules of calling men. I think it is so ridiculous how women have to be the ones to keep up with all of the rules. How are we supposed to do that without making a mistake? Why are there so many rules?

Is He Going To Call?

"Is he going to call?" It seems to be the question on most single girls mind's my age who have just given out their phone number to a cute guy they met the day before. For me, this was the case just a few weeks ago...

I had just gone out with some friends and stopped at a party for a little while. A guy came up to me and we began talking. We had a decent conversation for the setting we were in. I didn't think it was a big deal, just a casual talk with someone new. But before I knew it he was asking me for my phone number, and I just stood there watching him punch into his iPhone. Then, he called my phone so I could add him to my contact list. I convinced myself later on there must have been some sort of "connection" or else he wouldn't have asked me for my number.

The next day I sat and contemplated...repeating over and over again the scene from the night before in my head. Questions were constantly coming to my mind. "Is he going to call?" "Why would he take the time to ask for my number if he isn't going to call?" "Should I call him?" "Is it okay for me to add him to Facebook, or is that too weird?"

As the weekend passed it hit me that he wasn't going to call. He didn't even care. It wasn't so much of him not calling that pissed me off. It was the fact that he had asked for my number. To all of the guys in the class, "Why even ask for a girls number if you already know you aren't going to call her?" In my mind it is just a waste of both people's time.

After reading "Making the connection: Single women's use of the telephone in dating relationships with men," I realized that the telephone is a piece of technology that can be used as an excuse. I agree that the power lies in the hands of the most disinterested party. In our societal world, the telephone can get you in and out of situations you do and don't want to be in.

We Are Being Watched...

Ad Industry Bans Targeting People with Cancer

I've been pretty irked in the past when ads confronting me on my Facebook or Myspace page are related to something on my profile or things I've searched for in the past-- ads for Buffy DVDs or even personal things like medicine and loans. Even more bothersome is when ads show up that seem to be targeting me as someone I'm not: things like 'Meet Christian Singles!,' 'Big and Beautiful Singles' or ads insinuating a love for binge drinking. It's kind of funny, but it also can be offensive. It makes me wonder what I'm searching for that makes me seem like an overweight alcoholic Christian.

In my opinion, ad targeting is invasive, a little scary and sometimes ineffective. This article explains some of the rules that guide the ad industry in regards to who they can target.

Wait, was that the phone?

The first article makes me think of a movie I saw recently, "He's just not that into you," where there's a scene with her sitting by the phone very anxiously, only to find out her phone has been unplugged.

I think it's true that "the less interested partner... is more often able to set the terms of the relationship...because the involved person is eager to maintain the relationship and will defer more easily to the partner's wishes." In most of the situations, the phone was a bigger deal in the beginning than in the end for various reasons. However, I think that our phones have become such an extension of us, that we usually talk while doing other things and it's probably not the best idea to base anything on the chemistry perceived from telephone conversations. Frankly, they might be a little preoccupied, and I would hesitate calling this selfish because I think it's a habit to multitask while using the phone. I think it's key that "not all of the women trusted the accuracy of their interpretations." When combining all of a woman's insecurities with the possibility of the man being busy, having not cell phone service, having left his phone behind, or maybe being a little insecure about calling, a lot of unnecessary heartache or drama is caused.

Sure confidence can be found when on the phone because the other person can't see you fidgeting, but I think it shows confidence when a girl can take the initiative and call a guy just like she would call up a friend without even thinking about it, and therefore talk more easily and maybe take some of the pressure off. However, I think when the girl calls it should be casual, and not in a pursuing kind of way. After reading some other articles, I think the guys want to do the pursuing, but sometimes the female can take matters into her own hands to make sure the idea has entered him mind and he knows she's available.

Phones have totally been twisted from a convenient conversation tool, to a tool used to create a whole new real of dating and is maybe analyzed [probably mostly by females] a little too far.

The Phone and The Relationship

After reading "Making the Connection," I recalled a few instances where the phone played a very large part in a relationship (one with a male and one with my female roommate), and the result wasn't necessarily successful.

I recently had a very in-depth conversation with my female roommate over text message. I know you're thinking, 'How can you have an in-depth conversation over text?' Well, let me show you. My roommate decided to have an argument over the phone regarding a miscalculation of $1 on our cable bill. I know she chose to speak to me over this medium because it was easier than forcing us to have a confrontation face to face. And even more impersonal than actually speaking on the phone, she chose to text. I think this sort of thing happens all the time now with our generation. Before, you might have a fight over the phone because you didn't want to fight in person with someone. But now that we have an even more distanced way to speak to someone, we use it when we want to feel in control. It reminds me of having junior high fights over Instant Message. You could never really tell how the other person meant a particular comment, and you felt like since you weren't having to scream at them in person, doing it over the computer would make it easier. Needless to say, after our 30 minute conversation over text, nothing was really resolved, and we never talked about it in person after that. What good did that do? Except that we both felt some sort of power over the other one by distancing ourselves from the fight.

Another instance with which the phone can be a cause for insanity in a relationship: Recently, I have been spending more time with this guy. We occassionaly text back and forth, and if we are trying to make plans, we usually talk on the phone. But with men, it becomes a game. This is where the article rang true for me. The waiting. Is he not texting/calling me because he is not thinking about me? Is he too busy? So you text him. Or you call him. And he doesn't respond right away. Then you think, Did he get it even? And then we he responds later, a weight is lifted off your shoulder. Because you might have been thinking, "Well, I don't want to send another one because that would make me seem desperate or needy." I don't necessarily think that if it is awkward on the phone, then something is wrong. Some men are just really bad on the phone. However, I agree with the article that sometimes you call him (or text) just to see what he is up to because you want to know. And you fear that when you haven't talked in a few days, should you initiate the first text? And then you do, and you have a short text conversation, and then you are unfulfilled again.

I think this text revolution is the new telephone revolution for relationships--of all kinds. It makes things easier, but at the same time, lots of the time, unfulfilling.

Texting... the new telephone?

If it's easy to say hurtful things over the phone, then it's a million times easier to say hurtful things via text message.

I would like to make the prediction (based on the idea in the 'Cell phones in Public' article that says we "map our understanding of common social rules and dilemmas onto new technologies) that the phone is becoming a more and more acceptable way to break up with people because it is now considered much more interpersonal and human than text or e-mail. Telephone eliminates the face-to-face but holds you accountable by voice, whereas text and e-mail are devoid of both. My brother just broke up with his girlfriend via telephone. I asked him if she was mad about him not speaking with her face-to-face and he said, no, that she thanked him for at least calling. (I can't say that I would feel the same way...)

I think an updated version of the article on women and telephone use in dating relationships would involve text messaging. A lot of what the article discovers applies not only to my own use of telephones in my relationships, but to text messaging - a type of technology even more lethal/volatile than the phone call.

When I started reading the article, I was skeptical of the telephone as an indication of power. But then, I realized that I've been with my boyfriend for several years and that it was a more or less mutual development. Sometimes we have long conversations, but most of non-face-to-face communications occurs during less than one minute phone calls or text messages. I admit that there have been a few times when I've waited for him to call or had the notion that if he didn't call, he didn't care. (But always ends up calling, and if it's later than expected, he always has a good excuse, haha)

Last night we were discussing how hard it would be to maintain a relationship if neither of us had a car, but I think it'd be even harder to maintain a relationship without a phone - a cell phone, specifically. Technology such as the phone has definitely made maintaining relationships easier, but I think it has contributed to the development of poor communication skills and other complicating factors.

But still, he better call. (Or text...)

P.S. I also want to point out that I don't think it's only women who use telephone calls and texts as validation for emotions. Even though women have the cultural expectation for males to be the one to call and "make the move," I know plenty of guys who have felt hurt when their significant other didn't get in touch...

Why don't I like Apple?

This NYT article explains why I don't like Apple (or Microsoft) as a company.

Could You Go to Jail for Jailbreaking Your iPhone?

Where is the a-cellular organism?

When I bought my phone a couple of months ago, I looked for something that would have the most features for the budget I had. This is not to say that I use all of them, but most features were about connecting with other people who are either beside you (bluetooth, infrared, anyone?) or away. Does this say anything about socializing trends via cell phones?

Apparently, it does! For some reason, the mobile phone seemingly encourages people to have the most remarkable conversations in public spaces! It provides us with a way to forget the boredom of a bus ride or a wait in a doctor's waiting room and instead interact with our best friend who is miles away.

This calls to mind advice from Miss Manners on cellphone etiquette. She said that cellphone use, when it does not disrupt the goings-on in one's immediate vicinity, may still be an etiquette breach - against the distant party being spoken to, who may be annoyed by a call whose entire message is "I'm standing in a line." Thus the caller is relieving his or her own boredom by inflicting it on someone else. And its not just the receiver of the call. What Miss Manners seems to have left out, is that the people around the caller and the receiver are also 'forced' or in many cases, very willingly, have to listen to the conversation. While on the bus the other day, I was privy to the most uncomfortable conversations - a married couple fighting. How do I know? Because the lady was saying, and very loudly, that he needs to stand up to his mother one of these days or she would leave him! I was going through class readings and found it very hard to concentrate.

With such technology, it is becoming increasingly hard to differentiate between public and private spaces. Like Richard Ling said in his book New Tech, New Ties, the mobile phone strengthens social bonds among family and friends. If this is the case, I wonder what happened to the lady and her husband?

Cell Phones Continue to Progress

Rumors are speculating a couple new iPhone products.  One is an upgraded 3G iPhone and the other is a cheaper iPhone

Peace: No More Love-Hate PLEASE!

Here we go with another story about the Love-Hate relationship with technology. Norman concludes in the end that new technologies have made us more comfortable. I believe that in turn, we should give them our affection, be a little more positive and relish in their benefits.

They've made life more manageable and tolerable. We no longer have to use our precious energy to turn a can opener-- we have electric can openers. We no longer have to brave the heat of the summer-- we have the beautiful commodity that is A.C. We no longer have to watch fuzzy beetles on PBS-- we have the nature channel in High Definition. On a big enough TV, those beetles look like they could fly off the screen and into my cereal.

I do not regularly hate technology. It has done great things for me. However, my philosophy regarding the tech-world is unique-- maybe. I own a Macbook, an Ipod, Bose Speakers, an Apple mini DVI to Video cable, a Sony camera, a Samsung 19 inch tube TV, a DVD player and a crappy AT&T Nokia $60 phone. Oh, and an HP printer that blackens my heart everytime I use it (an example of my frustration.) Excluding the AC unit in my apartment and kitchen appliances, that is all the technology I own.

I live on a need-based technology diet, and maybe this accounts for my lack of frustration with it. All of my appliances work together because I make sure I buy things that are compatible with Macs or whatever appliance I want them to work with. I'm not trying to keep up with those trying to show off their newest piece of equipment, I'm simply trying to make my life easier, and if technology will help me manage my time more efficiently etc. I will make an investment.

I will NOT let the expanse of available gadgets, the potential inventions that might improve my life, overwhelm me; Life itself overwhelms me enough.

Technology to solve technology failures

After reading “When Technology Fails” by John Horrigan, I had to admit. I can’t fix technological problem without help from another technology. For example, when my computer has any kind of problem, the first thing I do is to go on internet to search for solutions. For me, most of the computer problems could be fixed by conducting extensive search online. If it still can’t be fixed by the power of Google, then I call tech support with my cell phone. All of these problem-solving skills include technology device or tools. Yes, it’s sad, but I have to admit I am powerless without technology.

The article mentions that the technology failure is often due to people’s improper handling of device or equipments. I agree. Technological devices today are so complicated that it is even difficult for technology savvy people to keep the device for a long time without breaking it. There could be many other reasons, but I blame this to MANUALS. I believe most people do not read user’s manual that comes with devices. (Well, we read it, but most people read only a small portion of it) As we discussed few days ago, our attention span in the 21st century is extremely short, and we usually don’t spend much time reading manuals for every new equipment we buy. The main reason I believe is the unfriendly and boring nature of these manuals. It’s too thick and too wordy. I would rather read a Shakespeare than manual for my portable media player. People like me feel fine by knowing just the basics. This, however, does not help us manage devices properly.

Maybe in future, every manuals and tech support will be digitized. We will have a CD or DVD that comes with the product explaining everything as a video. This is costly, but if this gets standardized, then users will be more tolerable to learn how to manage the device more efficiently, possibly resulting decrease in technological breakdown.

Procrastination vs. Muti tasking

I find that my attention span is increasingly becoming an issue. When I am on the phone with friends I often begin babbling like a lunatic or just loose track of what I am saying. This is especially an issue whenever I am trying to do more than one thing at a time. Sometimes my boyfriend even teases me for not being the best multi tasker. I admit that at times it takes me a little more time to complete something versus someone who can do a million things at once. However this article makes me think about that. I wonder how much the average person who always multi tasks gets done, how many assignments and pieces of information get completed. Furthermore, it would be interesting to know how many people can complete a piece of work and actually be proud of it, or remember what they did. I am not a multi tasker in essence, but I am definitely a procrastinator. I will wait until the last minuet to do anything. No matter how hard I try to change it, it is who I am. However in waiting until the last minuet to do something like a project or paper, I find that I am much more enthralled vs. if I tried to do it early on. Sometimes I think on my feet a little better, with a little extra pressure. Sometimes it’s when I am on that deadline that something great is born. I find that I focus much better. Maybe it sounds like I am trying to defend being a procrastinator, but in my opinion I am just someone who enjoys a little more focus and fewer distractions.

Virtual Exercise

The article on High Tech Gadgets was obviously written before the Nintendo Wii. The first time I played a Wii, I wondered why it hadn't been invented already. It is so basic, yet so much fun. The first time I played a game of tennis, it lasted for two hours and I didn't even notice. I was sore the next day! I would definitely jump on board with a virtual reality body suit, too. Or games to play that get me to run without thinking about it.

This article brings up an interesting question that seems particulalry relevant with business marketing and advertising. Why is it exactly that new technologies don't catch on? Norman proposes some interesting and seemingly accurate theories as to why, but I would like to argue that we are beginning to move away from gadget-mania.

Norman is right: we are drowning in gadgets. But that seems to be changing now with the consolidation of new technologies into single devices such as cell phones, which now allow users to browse the Internet, send e-mails, listen to music, play games and, yes, talk on the phone.

I agree that we are a materalistic society, but it seems this problem was more severe back in the early 90s. I think that with increasing environmental awareness, as well as people beginning to hate having 10 different devices with single functions rather than one device that performs them all, that we are moving in the opposite direction of having SEPARATE gadgets for everything. Maybe we are now in the age of consolidation of gadgets? It's not that we don't like them, but we're getting tired of having garage sales. As for buying batteries and backing up files... Who cares? It's not that big of a deal!

As for the other article, it isn't certainly scary to think that we don't know how to fix the devices that rule our lives so completely, but I think it's a waste of time to talk about people's frustrations with technology. Sure, let's address the problem in terms of a solution but technology and gadgets aren't going away anytime soon.

Amazon's Push For Electronic Books

...thinner, offers text-to-speech ability and has a crisper display and longer battery life than the original.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/technology/personaltech/10kindle.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Are we going to buy it now? (No...)

Attention Please:

The first thing I thought of when I read the business article was Google. Our beloved Google Inc. is the perfect example of a business that recognized the attention problem and used it to its advantage. We've talked in class before about the Google search engine's minimalist design. No flashing ads or pop-up windows. Just the Google logo, a text box, some buttons - but mostly blank space. It's refreshing to go to a Web page that isn't cluttered with a mass of ads, all competing for your attention.

As I progressed further in the reading, it occurred to me that I have developed an attention deficit problem. Ever since I got my iPhone, I've been feeling more and more overwhelmed at times. On a few particularly e-mail/voicemail-filled days, I've had to turn my phone off, shut down my laptop and take a few deep breaths. Multitasking makes me crazy, no matter how skilled I am at doing it.

My attention span has been notably shot. I have to re-read paragraphs because I lose my train of thought or start thinking about something else while reading. I've been embarrassed to admit it, but the readings for this class have shed some light on what seems to be a common problem.

As for finding "Better ways to manage attention," I agree with Davenport, T.H. & Beck that solutions must be found, but disagree with the fact that new technology couldn't potentially help ease the problem. Seeing as how the Internet isn't going to go away anytime soon, perhaps there will be a solution in Web 2.0 technologies, many of which allow users to customize and filter out what information they receive. The business article says that "the payoff for allocating my attention in a specific direction can be great - I can learn something, change something for the better, fix what's broken, or gratify another human being." As long as that list can include being able to sit down and read a book, the Web 2.0 concept seems like a plausible solution in being able to manage the bombardment of information.

I think also that this attention problem is closely linked to American culture. We are pressured to work hard, make our own lives and keep up with what's going on around us. After studying abroad in Europe for a semester, it seems to me that Europeans are far less concerned with remaining constantly in the information loop than Americans are. And it would be far more acceptable in Europe to turn off your Blackberry and miss a few business calls to spend time with your family. In fact, it might be taboo to leave it on.

This idea is represented perfectly in the Maggie Jackson quotation in the CJR article, which says that "multitasking is part of a wider value system that venerates speed, frenetic activity, hyper-mobility, etcetera, as the paths to success. That’s why we’re willing to drive like drunks or work in frenzied ways, although it literally might kill us.” And if Davenport, T.H., & Beck are correct, the attention battle is leading us away from success, rather than helping us attain it.

What Makes the Economy Go Round...or Crash

A New Perspective to Business brought about a very interesting point and theme of attention being the most vital part of the economy and I tend to agree.  With the overload of information available to us, it is almost impossible for an individual to decide what is worthy and pay attention to what needs to be consumed.  

As  a leader of a business, one must pay attention to detail and focus on the markets and their employees.  In my foundations management class we are talking about how effective managers personalize themselves with their employees and get to know each employees strengths and weaknesses and utilize those to the greater purpose of the business.    

I was blown away that a Sunday edition of The New York Times contains more information than all written material to a person in the fifteenth century.  We are spoiled and therefore we take advantage of the overload of information and do not take notice.  

I know at  my job at the Recreational Sports Center on campus, I like it when my boss takes notice of me and takes notice of what I have done.  It is vital to survival in the business world and hopefully we slow down enough to pay attention and fix what we see is wrong and praise what is right.  

Helpless Internet paradox

Overload! was a bit of an overload. But, in reading that particular article it dawned on me how the Internet really is leaking into every aspect of our lives. Not only did I refer to Blackboard to check our homework, but then I read the article (online), took notes on the article (on Word) and logged into my blogger account to complete this homework assignment (online). The entire sphere of my homework was related somehow to my computer. And now my eyes hurt!

Reading the article gave me a sense of helplessness. Nordenson seems to say that we are less likely to learn the news information presented to us because we are always multi-tasking, and it is nearly impossible to staple something to memory without giving it attention. I feel helpless because we can't turn back the floods of information being created daily; we can only try and sift through it with our dwindling attention spans but probably end up clicking Ctrl + T and opening a new tab to check our e-mail.

Another point that I felt rang true was when Nordenson alluded to Michael X. Delli Carpini, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania,

“'In the 1960s, if you wanted to watch television you were going to
watch news. And today you can avoid news. So choice can be a mixed
blessing.'”

I lived in Costa Rica for four months last year and was witness to the drastic difference in knowledge that the Costa Rican ("ticos") students my age had regarding politics and worldy affairs. I can only now think to relate this to their lack of HBO, Showtime, and other non-news related television channels. The tico students I met and hung out with would every night before dinner gather in the living room, and flip it to the same news station for the 5 o'clock newscast. As a trickle effect to their up-to-date news knowledge, their conversations reflected this.

The ticos had to actively pursue news by watching the newscast, in an entertaining way - with friends around the TV. But for American kids, presented with way too many options, we choose to avoid spending one hour devoted to a compiled newscast and instead devote that hour to finding our own news online, "that interests us", and end up retaining next to nothing.

This refers back to the paradox Nordenson spoke about at the beginning of Overload! Young consumers want more in-depth news, but we fail at getting it ourselves. We become fatigued when dealing with the dozens of Google results after searching "Blind Pig fire" and instead learn about the details from people's Facebook statuses.