Questions for 11/02

1) In his talk "How cognitive surplus will change the world," Clay Shirky says cognitive surplus is made up of free time and a good media landscape. Do you think there are other factors that compose the idea of cognitive surplus? Also, Shirky says if we use cognitive surplus to create civic value, we can change a society. Do you agree with his idea? Why or why not?

2) Shirky poses a question at the end of his talk "How cellphones, Twitter, Facebook can make history": how should we use new media that are global, social, ubiquitous, and cheap? How do you respond to the question? In what way do we have to beware of media change?

1) Do you think that, in general, someone who read only the NYT's spin on the wikileaks coverage will bother to look at other news sources to get another view? Do you tend to look at one source for your news coverage, or do you look for several sources? If you look at several sources, do you think they tend to have the same slant?

2) The author appears to have a prior bias against the NYT's from the very beginning of the article, where he mentions "the NYT's sleazy, sideshow-smears against Julian Assange." Do you tend to pick up previous biases while reading online articles?

3) Greenwald is a well-known political pundit, and a very influential liberal voice in the media, with a long track record of exposing government and media deceptions. Do you take this into account when reading his articles? Do you look into who is writing the articles you read?

Questions on WikiLeak

1.) After looking at wikileaks.org for a better understanding, and reading the article by G. Greenwald, would you say you agree with his take on the situation, or would you tend to disagree? Why?

2.) Also, with the some four hundred thousand page document being release/ leaked, how would this help display the way technology has helped shape our society- or shown the way in which technology has advanced?

3.) Lastly, now knowing th info that was leaked, does it change the way you think about our government, military/ armed forces, in anyway, and if so why?

Questions for Thursday, October 28

1) In Chapter 9, pg. 159, Ling asserts that "The mobile telephone is the tool of the intimate sphere...perhaps at the expense of the non-intimates." If you are standing alone while waiting in a long line at the grocery store, are you more likely to interact with the strangers around you, or use your mobile phone to interact with non-present intimates? Why do you personally behave that way?
2) Ling reiterates the idea that the mobile phone reinforces already strong-tie relationships, perhaps to the detriment of weak-tie relationships. Do you think that the usage of Facebook is a way to make up for the fact that the mobile phone excludes non-intimates? How can network technologies be used to create a "correct" level of social cohesion? What do you feel is the "correct" level of social cohesion, where there is a balance between strong ties and weak ties?

Response to Questions: Phone Conversation as Filler and IM Lingo

Firstly, I find myself not only using phone conversations as a filler, but pretending to be texting on my phone as a filler all of the time. I don't even think that it is something that people think about anymore. For example one time I was in an elevator with a stranger and I noticed that we both started to look at our phone and go through it. Also if I'm ever walking by myself in the dark sometimes I would pick up my phone and call a friend. Actually, I even have pretended to be in a phone conversation to ease my discomfort of being alone and/or watched by somebody. Why do I do this? I guess to avoid looking or actually being alone in an awkward situation.
As far as instant messaging goes, I think that sometimes voice can be lost, or misinterpreted. Using the lingo such as lol, bff, or ttyl (etc.) has become more and more used in real life conversations as a matter of fact. I find it interesting how even adults have been starting to make the transformation--perhaps the entire language will be made up of simple abbreviations that we are required to know by heart, in the future.

Questions for 10/21

1) On page 105-106, Ling describes a woman who uses a cell phone conversations as a "filler" until her friend arrives. How often do you do this and why do you think this is?

2) How does instant messaging add voice to writing? How and why does language differ in IMs than in real life communication? Do you think that IM is the closest form to personal conversation without hearing someone else's voice?

-Brett and Matt

Solidarity on the Social Technologies

This is a response to Question for Monday 10/11

I don’t think the social technologies are direct results of Collins’ idea, but some parts of Facebook and Twitter may work to build solidarity. The functions of event invitations on Facebook and Retweets on Twitter can be used to expand information, movement, and ideas, and gather users. The users strengthen solidarity with others there by sharing a same interest. In the case of an event invitation on Facebook, a host sends invitations to other users and the guests can choose whether to attend the event. If they decide to attend, the information is known by other users who are friends of the guests, and this function may increase the numbers of the guests. The system of event invitations follows the process of how rituals are made, that is, “by shaping assembly, boundaries to the outside, the physical arrangement of the place, by choreographing actions and directing attention to common targets, the ritual focuses everyone’s attention on the same thing and makes each one aware that they are doing so” (Ling, 74-75). The social technologies may be applied to what Collins says in this way.

Yet still, it is hard to say that people use the technologies to create assemblies to make a change in social order. Facebook and Twitter are individual-based technologies and a purpose of the use depends completely on users. Also, the systems like event invitations usually work temporary so that the strong social solidarity is hardly given to the users. Thus, while I believe the social technologies have a possibility to produce emotional energy for gathering and cohesion, it is hard to say the desire for generating the energy creates the technologies.

Discussion Question: Technology and Perceptions

In the Interpersonal Ritual as the Locus of Social Interaction section of Chapter 4, Ritual Interaction of Everyday Life, it is explained that Goffman says that if a society is to be maintained, it must socialize its members to be "self regulating participants in social encounters" (Goffman 1967 pg44). It then talks about the family gatherings in Norway when there was only one television channel to watch and how it brought the family together with a safe and positive feeling. Now that there are several channels along with mobile devices. In fact certain devices and how/when/or where they are used may create particular perceptions of an individual. How would you, or most people, distinguish these different perceptions, and in what ways do you think that they have been changing over the years?

Discussion Questions: Solidairty Achieved?

Ling has been outlining concepts and ideas that have been flowing between Goffman, Durkheim and Collins, in an effort to see how they operate in our Mobile Tech World.
Goffman emphasizes the affect of the individual upon the situation in front of him. His co-presence needed to create the identity kits of their being. Objects/tech of use in the interactions of interactions becomes less important, and the individual becomes symbolically central to the generation of everyday rituals.
Durkhiem states that the ritual event creates positions for the individuals involved. With specific totems that are important to the ritual, participants are moved from their normal lives to a special place. Solidarity thus becomes achieved through social interactions and the creation of significant totemic symbols.
Co-presence in these ideals is thus of the most importance. A true everyday ritual creates more significant social gains (such as friendship) through totems, identity kits, ritual conversation, compared to telephone communication. The telephone in many cases becomes a backstage mediator of social exchange.
Collins combines some of these ideals and centers on the moment of focus for participants in a social ritual event. Feelings that participants create during a ritual interaction supersedes the event forwards, turning each participant into a member of that event, becoming part of a whole. Collins also looks at the need for the participants in the event to make effort to “walk the line”, keeping a common duty to make sure all rituals are carried out so everyone feels good. The failure to keep the intensity and order of the ritual can thus social move participants out of a group, moving them off a focused solidarity. Co-presence is thus definitively important.
By looking at the views these researchers took and their reasons for doing so, do you think that our mobile phones today with applications and various other technologies supersedes the comments made by these researchers? Do mobile phones now have ritual functions that create strong ritual situations? Our author cites the way mobile phones can help maintain an event through mitigated situations by texting a conversation or reminding a friend about an appointment, filling a chink in the rituals armor. And do you think that mobile phones create ritual failure?

I don't think Facebook makes the grade.

I am hesitant to say that the reason people flock to Facebook is based in Collins concept of ritual interaction chains.  Collins reveals that ritual interaction chains have several parts, including, “two or more people physically assembled; boundaries to outsides; a common focus of attention through which the participants become ‘mutually aware of each other’s focus of attention;’ sharing a common mood” (74). 

First, Collins believes that people must be co-present in order for this increased solidarity through mutual interaction to increase. Now, I know that the author is extending these theories to include mediated interaction; however, I feel that the mediated interaction of the mobile phone is closer to co-presence than Facebook. A phone conversation is more personal and is capable of better mimicking co-present interactions because a person can hear tone of voice, pauses in the conversation, cues to continue the conversation, etc. Even texting, I feel, has become a more personal form of communication as compared to Facebook because not only do you have to know the person in order to get their number, but text messages usually involve more personal content because it cannot be conveyed in the public domain of Facebook.

I will admit that Facebook may be an attempt to create a ritual interaction chain virtually, that the human need to interact has lead to the creation of sites such as this; however, I do not feel it is affective in completing this task. To continue with Collins requirements, Facebook does have boundaries to the outside in that if a person does not sign up for the site, then they are not a part of the group. At the same time, this site is free so anyone can join and a person is only as connected as they want to be through the selection and rejection of friend request.

 Furthermore, the idea that Facebook creates “a common focus of attention through which the participants become ‘mutually aware of each other’s focus of attention’ is true to an extent. But similar to its boundaries, Facebook is a self-selecting service in that we only have to concentrate on what we want pay attention to. I personally do not pay attention to half of the statuses on my news feed, and when I do, I don’t feel like I am becoming mutually aware of anything or “sharing a common mood” for that matter. Unless it’s a close friend (whom I have already established a relationship with through co-presence), I don’t particularly feel the strong, emotional connection that Durkheim, Goffman and Collins discuss.

Therefore, I think that Facebook may be an attempt to create a ritual interaction chain; however, it is not particularly successful.

Question for Monday 10/11

On Page 74, in the chapter on Ritual Interaction Chains, Ling is analyzing Randall Collins's ideas on social interaction.  "Collins argues that interaction rituals produce emotional energy, the gathering of which is a central motivating force for individuals.  Affect is the engine of social order.  Those interaction rituals that are the most effective in generating emotional energy are the ones that bolster institutional stability."  

Do you think this idea represents the exact reason that new social technologies become so popular?  Is this the driving force behind revolutionary ideas like Facebook and Twitter?

Cell phones social status and friendships!

I'm currently sitting on my couch watching a commercial for the Iphone 4 (note the multitasking while doing homework... lets see how this one goes), so why not start my response with that! I think that cellular devices indeed do have a way of socially classifying people. Firstly I will note that from where I am from, you do not just exchange cell numbers--you exchange PINS. Coming from a generally high-class (not to mention materialistic) area of the Jersey Shore, I can't tell you how many of my friends have questioned me why I don't own a blackberry... God forbid. However I must admit, my current phone came after I had lost and/or broken 2 shiny blackberry pearls. But I find it funny that some people look at my EnV 3, a very dependable phone, and call it "ghetto". Yet, if you don't have a phone that has the internet at its fingertips, how are you supposed to respond to Facebook posts, or download apps, or BBM? When I see people with nice phones I don't immediately judge that they are materialistic and wealthy. People are busy these days! Receiving and responding to e-mails the minute you get one is actually an acceptable and legitimate reason now to have a mobile device which requires you to pay $30 a month and more. So I don't think social status is always dependable on what type of phone you have. But if I see someone walking around with an Iphone or blackberry with the same sparkly pink case my best friend from home flaunts, yes I think people could get some ideas. Which brings me to my next response--friendships and texting.

             Speaking of my best friend from home, I can particularly think of several times we have gotten in "fights" because of miscommunication through text. That isn't to say that texting has surely created greater bonds and closer relationships among friends... especially girls I'd say. But they sure can mess things up sometimes! Example: usage of the Ha's. I've discussed with many people what the ha's mean in a text when responding to someone. If somebody says hahaha or more they are really laughing and think that its funny. If you say haha they kind of think it's funny, or just courtesy laughing. Lol probably is just a filler for not knowing what else to say. The most dreaded response is probably a ha. It is often perceived that if you get a ha in a text message, that means someone is mad at you or uninterested. See how it can get so complicated (this is but one silly example)! In a conversation we have facial expressions and tones. Text messaging is left to interpretation. And misinterpretation after misinterpretation is never a good thing.

Cell Phones and our Social Structure

I believe that cell phones increase our ability to be social. With cell phones, it is like everyone within speaking distance and no one can get very far apart. Although physical distance can be a factor in how close friends are, with cell phones no matter how far we are from each other they can still talk. Because of this, friendship retention rates are the highest they have ever been. Under previous circumstances, distance usually meant deterioration of the friendship because they would cease communication and eventually replace each other with others who are closer.
Also cell phone help friendships because when they are in a close proximity to each other, they can make plans with a lot less effort. Instead of making plans days before the actual event, friends can call text each other just minutes before they meet up to do whatever they wanted to do. The new speed and spontaneous activity that friends are able to do with cell phones increase social activity. Also instead of trying to free up everyone's schedules for a time when every friend in a group gets together is no longer needed. Now a mass text can be sent to everyone in a specific group in a matter of seconds. This progress is all due to the spread of cell phones.

Mobile communication = stronger friendships...I think.

Lots of questions! But I think the question of whether or not the mobile communication technologies strengthen a group of friends is the most interesting. Even so, I don't have a definitive answer, or at least a yes or no answer, to that question. I think there are several characteristic of mobile technology that can work to strengthen and weaken a circle of friends. 

First, I am assuming that this group of friends has already been established through face to face interaction over an extended period of time. If this is so, mobile communication allows these friends to share important events and frustrations with their group at a moment’s notice. Even something as simple as a girl wondering whether or not a dress looks good on her and sending a picture to get a friend’s input is strengthening their bond of friendship. As Ling talks about on page 31, a person's strong ties are important in the decisions that they make on a regular basis because their opinions are trusted. The ability to have instant contact with a friend will strengthen those ties, as it becomes an extension of that trust. 

However, constant communication can back fire and weaken a group’s ties to each other when they become sick of each other. It is much more likely that a person becomes annoyed with her friends when she is not left alone. The friend who just won’t stop texting (the over-texter) gets annoying after a while, especially when she don’t take the hint that her friend is done speaking with her. In this case, the annoyed friend may still hold on to her annoyance with the over-texter in their next face to face meeting, or send back a rude text to make the over-texter stop texting. Either way, it is possible that through mobile communication, friendships can become too close, to the point where tensions run high and a strain is put on the friendships. In this sense, the group is weakened due to their constant communication.

Furthermore, in both examples, the friends were brought closer together, either to strengthen the bonds or before their bonds were weakened. Therefore, I guess I find it hard to believe that anything other than a lack of communication would weaken the ties of a friendship. Simply communicating with others forms bonds no matter how the communication is performed.  So I guess I do have a definitive answer!!! :) 

New Tech, New Ties

On page 15 the author makes reference to mobile phones doing more than just carrying out the function of holding a telephone conversation. He says that "the mobile telephone has emblematic status in modern society." Just by knowing what kind of telephone someone has could give you a more specific view of their life and status. Do you agree that something as simple as a telephone is a way in which we can give status to individuals? Are people being categorized by the type of cell phone they carry?

New Tech, New Ties: Mobile communications and bonds

Just quick: We were talking about Rutgers and the suicide. Someone asked if the roommate knew that the kid was gay. My roommate was watching the news and they said that the roommate had been posting on twitter how the boy was making out with other guys in the room.

On page 3 Ling says that "mobile communication seems to strengthen communication within the circle of friends." Do you agree with this statement even though it is now easier to ignore someones text or phone call? Is communication truly strengthened when most of the communication taking place on a mobile phone is text and "text talk" is as short and fast as possible? When we cannot see facial expressions or hear voice inflections?

On page 11 Ling says "once a bond is forged, however, mediated interaction is often as effective as co-present..." But what if a bond is not already established? Thanks to networks like Facebook it is easier to meet someone online and never meet face-to-face to establish a bond. Will mediated interaction still be just as effective then?

New Tech, New Ties pp. 1-39

Hey guys :)

In the first chapter of New Tech, New Ties, Ling discusses his "plumber" experience. On page 5, he proposes that his interaction with the plumber is an example of "how mediated interaction can sometimes take precedence over the co-present". Do you agree with this statement? Do you feel that you are a victim of this phenomenon?

-Allie

Whats the Reality of "Virtual Reality"?

The concept of virtual reality is an interesting one. Virtual reality allows the recreation of one's life to make it the way they please. In a virtual reality, you are anything you want to be at all. What makes virtual reality popular is that there are never any stressful problems people have to deal with in the virtual world, everything goes their way. The same cannot be said about real life. In real life, it is not that easy to make friends and have a healthy social life, make a business succeed, or do anything you want anytime you want to do it. In a virtual life, people are always interactive and social, because of this people are often unable to socialize in real life. Without the knowledge of how to socialize, it is very difficult to find a partner and be successful if co-workers do not like you very much. I feel that many people have become hooked on virtual reality and are disillusioned by the fact that they feel they can substitute whats real for the virtual world. The truth is that no matter what world you feel you can express yourself in, the real one is the only one that matters. The real world runs the virtual world.

Questions for "Communication Power" by Manuel Castells

On page 69, Castells discusses Second Life as a form of mass-self-communication that creates a "social space of virtual reality that combine sociability and experimentation with role-playing games. He reveals that players inability to create a utopia in Second Life make it so players are leaving, expanding the virtual frontier. How is the ability to leave and create new spaces of living going to affect how we relate to others online and in real life? Is virtual reality a new frontier if we're continually recreating the life we already have in reality?

On page 135, Castells writes that "convergence is fundamentally cultural and takes place, primarily, in the minds of the communicative subjects who integrate various modes and channels of communication their practice and in their interaction with each other." Do you agree with this statement, why or why not?

-Elizabeth and Leigh