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?