Hi Everyone (or anyone for that matter),
My first ever blog and I actually am somewhat excited. OK, social networking and its triumphs and perils.
First, the obvious stuff. After watching the Frontline episode and reading the article on Obama's successful campaign using social networking, it is obvious that anyone with a computer and Internet access will use some sort of social network from now until the foreseeable future. Therefore we as the public must embrace this since we cannot turn back the clock. So how exactly do we give it a hug? Well if you're a typical thirty-something or younger, this is probably a moot point because you are social networking almost constantly. My question for you folks, and any other person no matter your age demographics, is just what are you networking about and how much actual information, abstract thinking skills, and concern for your fellow humans are you retaining or developing?
The Frontline episode showed a slice of life in a wealthy, predominantly white and somewhat segregated suburban New Jersey neighborhood. The high school students felt that posting comments, photos, and creating alter egos was a natural part of their life on-line. What was also obvious was that they did not fully grasp the consequences of their actions. One girl created an on-line identity for herself as a model. While her website empowered her sense of self-confidence and esteem, it also invited a host of people into her life that could have proven to be potentially dangerous. This issue of self-creation versus personal responsibility is one that will continue to play out over time.
Every person wishes at times that they could recreate themselves. Episodes of personal humiliation, embarrassment, boredom, or experimentation with different identities have always been part of the human condition. These moments in our lives help us learn, even if they are initially painful, and teach us to accept and improve ourselves, and overcome adversity. Retreating into an escapist, on-line existence, which many of the Frontline students did, strikes me as a case of arrested development. In an on-line world one can play out personal fantasies that perhaps should be recognized and remain as such. The line between reality and imagination blurs and it becomes easier to justify acts of revenge, anger, and immaturity because limits are not set as to acceptable modes of behavior.
The flip side of this is that by allowing us to create new identities or live out certain fantasies, people can remake themselves in a potentially more positive light. Adolescents can receive peer support regarding issues that could be painful and dangerous in a live environment (i.e. sexual orientation, std's, abuse or neglect). All of this leads to the issue of choice. How do we decide how this network will be used? Can we decide? Is this really something that can or should be controlled? Probably no to all questions.
So back to those pesky thinking skills. Is this technology helping to develop people who can think deeply about issues? Does this plethora of information allow them to pose relevant questions about themselves, others, or meaningful issues? Or can these folks simply text each other at warp speed?
The Obama article was mildly interesting only in that it confirmed what many suspected: social networking makes it easier than ever to manipulate huge numbers of people. If anything it confirms what people such as Goebbels (anyone reading this who does not know this person must research him. Truly a despicable man who nonetheless invented modern propaganda and mass manipulation of public opinion) already understood: keep your message simple and never underestimate the power of a cult of personality. This in no way diminishes the historic import of Obama's victory, only that the manner in which his networking team performed could quite easily be used to exploit large numbers of people in a far less worthy endeavor.
If we defer our ability to truly contemplate and slow ourselves down there is a risk that we could become repositories of data that serves little or no purpose. PBS recently did an expose on South Korean adolescents - the most digital on the planet. Their ability to sit still for more than 5 minutes was nonexistent unless using a PC or some other electronic device. They could not socialize with one another unless they were holding an electronic device. When these devices were removed from them, they would physically shake as if they were drug addicts going through detox.
My first ever blog and I actually am somewhat excited. OK, social networking and its triumphs and perils.
First, the obvious stuff. After watching the Frontline episode and reading the article on Obama's successful campaign using social networking, it is obvious that anyone with a computer and Internet access will use some sort of social network from now until the foreseeable future. Therefore we as the public must embrace this since we cannot turn back the clock. So how exactly do we give it a hug? Well if you're a typical thirty-something or younger, this is probably a moot point because you are social networking almost constantly. My question for you folks, and any other person no matter your age demographics, is just what are you networking about and how much actual information, abstract thinking skills, and concern for your fellow humans are you retaining or developing?
The Frontline episode showed a slice of life in a wealthy, predominantly white and somewhat segregated suburban New Jersey neighborhood. The high school students felt that posting comments, photos, and creating alter egos was a natural part of their life on-line. What was also obvious was that they did not fully grasp the consequences of their actions. One girl created an on-line identity for herself as a model. While her website empowered her sense of self-confidence and esteem, it also invited a host of people into her life that could have proven to be potentially dangerous. This issue of self-creation versus personal responsibility is one that will continue to play out over time.
Every person wishes at times that they could recreate themselves. Episodes of personal humiliation, embarrassment, boredom, or experimentation with different identities have always been part of the human condition. These moments in our lives help us learn, even if they are initially painful, and teach us to accept and improve ourselves, and overcome adversity. Retreating into an escapist, on-line existence, which many of the Frontline students did, strikes me as a case of arrested development. In an on-line world one can play out personal fantasies that perhaps should be recognized and remain as such. The line between reality and imagination blurs and it becomes easier to justify acts of revenge, anger, and immaturity because limits are not set as to acceptable modes of behavior.
The flip side of this is that by allowing us to create new identities or live out certain fantasies, people can remake themselves in a potentially more positive light. Adolescents can receive peer support regarding issues that could be painful and dangerous in a live environment (i.e. sexual orientation, std's, abuse or neglect). All of this leads to the issue of choice. How do we decide how this network will be used? Can we decide? Is this really something that can or should be controlled? Probably no to all questions.
So back to those pesky thinking skills. Is this technology helping to develop people who can think deeply about issues? Does this plethora of information allow them to pose relevant questions about themselves, others, or meaningful issues? Or can these folks simply text each other at warp speed?
The Obama article was mildly interesting only in that it confirmed what many suspected: social networking makes it easier than ever to manipulate huge numbers of people. If anything it confirms what people such as Goebbels (anyone reading this who does not know this person must research him. Truly a despicable man who nonetheless invented modern propaganda and mass manipulation of public opinion) already understood: keep your message simple and never underestimate the power of a cult of personality. This in no way diminishes the historic import of Obama's victory, only that the manner in which his networking team performed could quite easily be used to exploit large numbers of people in a far less worthy endeavor.
If we defer our ability to truly contemplate and slow ourselves down there is a risk that we could become repositories of data that serves little or no purpose. PBS recently did an expose on South Korean adolescents - the most digital on the planet. Their ability to sit still for more than 5 minutes was nonexistent unless using a PC or some other electronic device. They could not socialize with one another unless they were holding an electronic device. When these devices were removed from them, they would physically shake as if they were drug addicts going through detox.
Should we all take a deep breath and just think - if only for a moment?
