New Yorker articles

I found the Michael Cera article, My Man Jeremy, really interesting. Firstly, I liked the article was mostly comprised of messages sent between Michael and Jeremy. That's a cool way of retelling the events of a relationship forming, and later crumbling. Personally, I don't think I would've tried to be friends with someone who texted me by mistake. I would have just said "sorry, wrong number" and left it at that. I also find it interesting that Cera also tries to analyze how Jeremy responds or how Jeremy is feeling about talking to him. Its also interesting to note that it appears that Cera is trying very hard to make Jeremy understand that they are friends but also grows impatient quickly. Cera wants to form a social relationship with Jeremy and is putting forth a great deal of effort yet Jeremy seems unwilling to do the same. I think this might be because Cera assumes that Jeremy is as connected as himself leading to some irritation on Cera's part when Jeremy doesn't respond.

Lauren Collins's article, The Love App, is about an app developed in South Korea called "Between". "Between" is an app that allows couples to document events, share photos, and privately message each other. This app is designed to keep couples in constant connection with one another. "Between" utilizes the constant connectivity that South Korean young adults have as a means of maintaining a relationship. The creators of this app want the couples who use it to feel that when they use the app, it's their own private space to talk and share things without running the risk of sending something to someone else unintentionally. Messages sent in error are often just brushed off as an accident. But in Michael Cera's case, it was the start of a journey to try and make a new friend. A line from The Love App that I found interesting was that if "Facebook is a high school reunion and Twitter is a cocktail party, Between is staying home witha  boxed set and ordering pizza" (Collins). This is interesting because it paints "Between" as a more intimate application than Facebook or Twitter, which makes sense considering how public Facebook and Twitter are.

"Boundness"

I like to text. I also don't mind talking on the phone. However, I find that it is easier to text someone than call them. When I text someone it's usually to ask a question or set up plans. I have been known to text as a means of covertly communicating. But a phone call is more drawn out. It requires more patience, which I sometimes lack. But a simple text can get the job done much faster. For example, I'll text my mom a question and I''l get a phone call from her. She'll answer my question, sure, but then she'll continue to go on and on about random things that she did that day. I mean, she could have just answered my text. It would've been easier for both of us. Don't get me wrong, I like talking to my mother on the phone, but if I ask a question that usually means I'm working on something related to that and probably don't have enough time to have a full conversation. And I do call people just for conversation. I like conversing with people on the phone.

Phone calls, for me, are for when you want to socialize and are willing to commit time to socializing. A girl named Audrey, the girl mentioned in Sherry Turkle's piece on "boundness", claims that when we text, we aren't bound to the conversation. We can just not respond and walk away. This is true. A concversation through text does not requirethe same level of commitment that a phone call requires. A phone call requires our undivided attention. When on the phone, the speaker expects us to be actively listening and wants us to respond accordingly, similar to a face-to-face conversation. Texting doesn't require us to answer right away, even though we hope that the person does. That's a strange irony, isn't it? That a conversation that requires no commitment is the one that we want instant gratification from and that the conversation that requires commitment, provides instant gratification.

Paper in progress

Technology, today, is at a stage of advancement the likes of which humans have never seen. We have screens that can be activated by the touch of a finger and we can send text messages into the ether and to our friends in a matter of seconds. But, is this technology moving faster than we are? Though technology is making our lives easier, I would say that we may be worse off for it.  

People have smart phones, but I don't think it makes them smarter. We have social media and the ability to have any piece of information on a screen in an instant. So I find it ironic that people have lost the ability to speak properly or type properly. Now, let me be clear, I have a smart phone too. So, I don't want you thinking that I'm raining judgment down on anyone from some twisted sense of a moral high ground. No. I have a smartphone. It has both a Facebook and a Twitter app. I do the whole social media thing, so I am a victim of this too. I just think it's a sad irony that a society that spends a huge amount of its time typing or reading things will use abbreviated terms outside of the realm of the text message. I have heard people say "Lol", either pronouncing it a word or spelling it. But they don't this ironically, they mean to "laugh out loud" but instead find it easier to just say "lol". Hell, I say it. But, I am using it as a joke.

          But what affect does this have on people? So what that people use texting language in their own speech? Who cares? Well, I do. Texting originally was plagued with a character limit and therefore required abbreviation to make room for other characters. But now technology has moved further and we can now send full paragraphs of text to someone from a device that fits in our pockets. So it boggles my mind why we still write "u" when we mean to write "you" or that most people either don't know the difference between "your" and you're" ( some will avoid getting wrong by getting both wrong and writing "yur", which is then context sensitive.). Character limitations may not solely be the one to blame. No. The fast paced lifestyle that we face today has some part to play. I'll admit that I find it faster to type "u" instead of "you". But because we are typing a message with the aim of getting out there as fast as possible not only do we limit our spelling ability, but we hinder our vocabularies as well. It is far easier to type "this blog sucks" than to type "I am not amused by the opinions put forth by this blog". I know no one really talks like the latter and is modern technology to blame? Maybe. I'm just saying that maybe we should be more sophisticated in our text messaging because it's not enough to just say what you want quickly but it is just as important to use the right words, regardless of how long it takes to type.

We are so focused on getting our messages out into the ether. We don’t say what we mean. If we were to have a face-to-face conversation, I would need to be able to communicate what I mean. This would involve me having to select just the right words for what I truly want to say. However, we just want to say something as quickly as we can. As Sherry Turkle writes, “face-to-face conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience” and “as we ramp up the volume and velocity of online connections, we start to expect faster answers. To get these, we ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down our communications, even on the most important matters”. This leads to a lack of reflection on our thoughts and feelings before we respond. We want to ensure, and be assured, that someone is there and that we aren't alone.

In a real life conversation, I also need to be aware of how my words affect you. I need to have empathy. In other words, I need to mean what I say. When we talk to each other using technology, there is a new barrier that emerges. This barrier prevents me from seeing the true impact of my words and all empathy is gone. When words pop up in a text message, they don’t have tone. With this lack of tone, it makes interpreting a text that much more difficult.  How can one, realistically, interpret sarcasm when it’s texted to them?  Tone is an important part of face-to-face conversation. It helps reveal the speaker’s emotions. Turlke states that, in conversation, “we can attend to tone and nuance” and “we are called upon to see things from another’s point of view”. Seeing things from the other person’s perspective is lost when we use only technology to communicate. We have no real idea of how the sender is feeling as we look at the words on a screen. We just take the words at face value and we try not to dig too deep into what we read. 

Drafty Draft

Technology, today, is at a stage of advancement the likes of which humans have never seen. We have screens that can be activated by the touch of a finger and we can send text messages into the ether and to our friends in a matter of seconds. But, is this technology moving faster than we are? Can we expect to find stability in our own lifestyles as technology continues to shake it up? Though technology is making our lives easier, I would say that there is a chance that we may be worse off for it.  

People have smart phones, but I don't think it makes them smarter. With the advent of social media and the ability to have any piece of information on a screen in an instant, I find it ironic that people have lost the ability to speak properly or type properly. Now, let me be clear, I have a smart phone too. So, I don't want you thinking that I'm raining judgment down on anyone from so twisted sense of a moral high ground. No. I have a smartphone. It has both a Facebook and a Twitter app. I do the whole social media thing, so I am a victim of this too. I just think it's a sad irony that a society that spends a huge amount of its time typing or reading things, will use abbreviated terms outside of the realm of the text message. I have heard people say "Lol", either pronouncing it a word or spelling it. But they don't this ironically, they mean to "laugh out loud" but instead find it easier to just say "lol". Hell, I say it. But, I am using it as a joke.

          But what affect does this have on people? So what that people use texting language in their own speech? Who cares? Well, I do. Texting originally was plagued with a character limit and therefore required abbreviation to make room for other characters. But now technology has moved further and we can now send full paragraphs of text to someone from a device that fits in our pockets. So it boggles my mind why we still write "u" when we mean to write "you" or that most people either don't know the difference between "your" and you're" ( some will avoid getting wrong by getting both wrong and writing "yur", which is then context sensitive.). Character limitations may not solely be the one to blame. No. The fast paced lifestyle that we face today has some part to play. I'll admit that I find it faster to type "u" instead of "you". But because we are typing a message with the aim of getting out there as fast as possible not only do we limit our spelling ability, but we hinder our vocabularies as well. It is far easier to type "this blog sucks" than to type "I am not amused by the opinions put forth by this blog". I know no one really talks like the latter and is modern technology to blame? Maybe. I'm just saying that maybe we should be more sophisticated in our text messaging because it's not enough to just say what you want quickly but it is just as important to use the right words, regardless of how long it takes to type.

            Sherry Turkle proposes that young people growing up in today's modern society are "tethered" to their phones and have a desire to be constantly connected with each other. She interviewed many young people, mostly high schoolers, and found that many of them feel a desire to be contacted or "interrupted" because they know that it is someone reaching out to them in some regard. She claims that "these young people live in a state of waiting for connection. And they are willing to take risks, to put themselves on the line". She believes that this desire stems from our feelings of loneliness. She claims that with this technology, many young people feel also have a desire for instant gratification. In an interview with a sixteen year old student, the student claimed that she would text/ email/ post about a certain event the moment it happens and, moreover, expects an immediate response. This student wants to be validated in her feelings and that she expects a response from those she tells. Sherry states that the "validation of a feeling becomes part of establishing it, even part of it" and that "technology, on its own, does not cause this new way of relating to our emotions and other people. But it does make it easy".

     Though her findings are valid and her conclusions are logical, I only agree with most of Sherry's argument. I agree that young people today, if not anybody wired into modern technology, do seek more instant gratification and can be considered less patient. Do I think that the concern for validation can limit the effectiveness of how we express ourselves? Sure. However, I don't agree that the situation is as bad as it seems. Yes, people rely more on their phones than ever, but if we think about how much a phone can do for us in this day and age, we can see that a greater reliance on technology, especially social technologies, is to be expected. The fact that it can be considered easier to reach another person through the power of modern technology shouldn't be looked at as some strange phenomenon. I also think that the desire for instant gratification isn't new either. I believe that speaks more to the human condition. If we look at early humans, if they waited for anything either they would die of starvation or get killed but something that was hungry. The desire to make life easier in any way possible is just a natural ambition for human beings. We want to do things faster and cheaper and more efficiently. I don't think technology is all to blame. 

After Class

Well, after class, I realize that there are a few things that I'm thinking about adding. I want to include at least a paragraph about the positives of technology. I noticed that my drafty draft focuses more on the negatives and I think it needs more positivity. Also, I want to include some interviews from fellow students about their opinions. I think these will help improve the piece and I'm eager to get started. That's all I've got for now.