Jane McGonigal – hopes for the future and hope for gamers everywhere that female gamers are hot. When I first read her name I really hoped she would be a professor, so she could be Professor McGonagall (from Harry Potter fame.) Yes, the Hogwarts transfiguration teacher did seem an interesting subject to talk about the future (in which we could all become wizards and witches and mix potions and defence against the dark arts in the future). Then I realized that Jane McGonigal – the gamer PhD from Berkley California was a transfiguration teacher herself.
Transforming online gaming collaboration into solving all the worlds issues seems exceptionally awesome, and the idea that the future can be solved online is somewhat scary. Yes, as a population the earth is plagued with difficulties. These include diseases such as Cancer and Aids, poverty, hunger and the topic of the moment, climate change. What I am hearing in McGonigals speeches quite frequently is the idea of collaboration. Collaborating and using the ideal you that exists in the virtual world, and applying this collaboration to real issues.
This optimism that people will try and solve games online I can see lots of merit in, and the realization of an epic win in the future does sound exciting, but McGonigal stresses the point of collaboration. As discussed in previous weeks the ideal of collaboration is great, but human nature has an ego, and I don’t think the person who solves climate change is going to want to share that victory. Watch the Social Network, look at how facebook turned out with their collaboration. Utopianism is not the future, rather real solutions for the real world.
TED: Jane McGonigal talk Feb 2010. Accessed 19 May 2011. Available online at: http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html
The Colbert Report Interview with Jane McGonigal, 3 Feb 2011. Accessed 19 May 2011 . Available online: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/373360/february-03-2011/jane-mcgonigal
Data sharing. No one really seems to be that happy about it aside from consumers. The music industry didn’t like sharing the finished product, ditto with the television and movie industry. So when science and data was raised I thought here we go again, but alas I was mistaken. Aware and thankful that science is always innovating and changing, I had never really given much thought as to how big this revolutionizing changes would have been seen at the time.
Bear with me, but I am going to talk for a sentence about the Big Bang Theory TV show. When I consider scientists, I now think of Leonard and Sheldon like relationships – with one thinking about physics in one way and being stubborn in seeing thinking any other way. Presenting papers they have written is an honour for Leonard but considered lowly for Sheldon as he will be describing his work to insignificant minds. Data sharing in research is something that Sheldon would not be interested in, but Leonard would be. Sharing has to find a transversal with ego in order for data sharing to work.
Yes, scientists often comment and take into consideration other peoples work and create experiments branching from that research – but when the Nobel Prize is handed out who does the prize go to? And do you think then that the original scientists whose work the entire research was based on would be happy about this data sharing? There is a huge catch-22 for scientists with data sharing, and I find it difficult to imagine how the industry would approach data sharing. Does the common good prevail? That it is all in the interest of science and health? Or is it scared that one man could own a human because he patented DNA. (Sample, Ian (2010))
What is the importance of shared knowledge, and is it dangerous in the wrong hands? Are we creating too many transversals? A shared network culture maximizes social investment in science, but also makes the field of science tiresome work choice with little thanks.
Think globally, Act locally. Together, we can change the world. Many hands make light work. We are all taught these sayings from a young age, and this idea of coming together is seen in micropolitics – Collaborative networking and brining together the community. I have another saying for you though – Too many cooks spoil the broth. My question, in relation to micro politics, how many is too many collaborators? And how many of users thoughts are actually being seen and thought about?
The coalition of the willing video is a promotion for micropolitics, identified as the human swarm, to incite citizens of the world to unite against global warming, adhering to the think globally, acts locally principle. Micropolitics is about people coming together in a think tank to achieve goals. A local example of this is the Marrickville Council attempt to Boycott Israeli products. While this particular act was dismissed, awareness to the issue increased and public discussion followed. The Coalition of the willing video uses the 1960s to exemplify individualization. “Liberation of desires” is what the narrator exemplifies the sixties as, and this allowance of individual thought into the commons encouraging people to act en masse. This fight against consumerism and the capitalist machine (which I personally don’t believe in) relies on individuals collaborating their ideas. But – there is always a leader, someone who has started the train of thought. My argument is that no matter how open these collaborations say they are, they are in fact incredibly closed in thought. Micropolitics only works with like-minded people. Individuals who disagree with someone will disregard their argument, and this is an example of “individualistic short sightedness” (as stated in the video).
While micropolitics is interesting, and has its merits, we must not forget human nature. The people contributing to these websites are not all being given the same respect as each other. If an ‘expert’ was to contribute other contributors are more likely to read the experts ideas then the 15 year old in China who inhales pollution every day – even if the 15 year olds got the better point. So yes, think globally and act locally through micropolitics, but don’t expect the world to change because of it.
Without models there is no data. huh. That’s what Edwards says.
So without rules for data collection, we cannot get the result we want? Or we just get too much data? Now I am not a sceptic, and I definitely do my bit to save the environment because I do believe that we have to protect the earth. However, I do wonder how there is so much conflicting data.
Edwards in the introduction to his book says “You build new tools, gain new perspectives, and discover what you still don’t know.” He looks at how the way data collection has changed, and how the data is collected through different models. Continued data collection is exciting, particularly with the global village that we now live in, and Edwards draws the example of historians – they continue to be employable because they are still able to find new documents, letters, photographs and information which provide new perspectives and details to events we already know some information about. The same is for climate change, as the climate is still an integral part of our lives, and the ability to collect data which can provide a wholesome and global image of what is happening in climate change.
So there are the basics, data is collected through models to provide information on climate change. Here comes my big issue, or should I say what I find most exciting yet scary.
The global village in which we get this information, and the commons that it goes into, particularly into a global commons, which is then available for interpretation by scientists all over the world. This archive fever on a global scale has led to multiple and conflicting perspectives and views on the environment. Because of the spread of the data commons relating to climate change, those archives of memory are at risk of manipulation, interpretation and analysis, just as a journalist can take one quote and take it completely out of context.
How does this relate to ARTS3091 – there is a great divide I believe between media and data. Sometimes the commons is not common enough for the audience it has. I am not saying that the data for either argument in climate change is wrong, what I am suggesting is that it is a fantastic example of the complex relationship between media and data.
In reference to:
Edwards, Paul N. (2010) ‘Introduction’ in A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: xiii-xvii
Where am I? We must be over the rainbow? Hang on, we’re actually in the loungeroom.
Augmented reality is a funny thing. It is almost an externalization of dreams and fantasy, the difference being we are voluntarily going into and augmented reality as oppose to dreams that can catch us by surprise.
Chris Grayson’s article on augmented reality (http://gigantico.squarespace.com/336554365346/2009/6/23/augmented-reality-overview.html) looks at some of the commercial uses of augmented reality, changing the experience of reality for the purchaser in the store. What I find fascinating and intriguing about AR is that it has the potential to change our actual reality.
In first year we talked about the “Doubling of Place” (see http://timtamtay.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/where-am-i/) and the prevalence of experience, particularly that created by news channels with media events. Delving deeper into the doubling of place, and converging with augmented reality, we have online societies such as Second Life (http://secondlife.com/), which calls itself a virtual community. What amazed and astounded me was the level of overlapping between peoples augmented reality in second life, and their actual life, including cheating on second life leading to divorce. From Grayson’s article, I could take from this that AR needs a “high degree of place-awareness” (Grayson, 2009).
So what else could this place-awareness do to our reality, both augmented and actual. The Nitendo Wii (let’s say for example the sports game) takes you into a stadium to play that sport, and for some (such as boxing) that actually leads to a semi-decent work out affecting our actual reality. So while we are actually in our living room, the Wii takes our minds, and essentially our body, into the boxing ring to battle it out.
With all this augmented reality, I start to wonder how far can it go? Is there a possibility for ‘brain washing’ (more likely addiction) to the alternate reality, making the actual reality cease to exist for that person? Grayson states that “”until we are in there”, AR hasn’t really taken off, my question is then how do we get in there? Surely our headspace and thoughts are enough to put us into an augmented reality? But I am sure that I am about to witness in the oncoming years how that statement is wrong, you never know.
After all – what is real?
Written in reference to:
Grayson, Chris (2009) ‘Augmented Reality Overview’, GigantiCo [http://gigantico.squarespace.com/336554365346/2009/6/23/augmented-reality-overview.html]
Mnemotechnics are the technics of memory, i.e the externalisation of memory. This weeks readings I found to be really interesting as not only was I able to relate them to my own media uses, but also the processes of learning and in a sense un-learning.
For a change I’m going to comment on the two readings that I found most interesting and intriguing. First of all, let me start that whenever I thought about the externalisation of memory I immediately thought of my external hard drive for my computer, which has all the back ups for my computer (including photos) and videos that will not fit onto my laptop, OR that I don’t want clogging up my laptop.With this in mind, I had to think of how often I use Hypomnesis and if it really needed to use it as often as I do.
Alva Noe talks about thinking and if it happens in the brain or not and the complexities of the mind. Thinking of the mind as a piece of flesh was unappealing to Decartes, however I tend to disagree. Yes the brain is simply flesh, but it must have some memory technique or function, as otherwise why do diseases which decay the brain affect memory, as does Alzheimer’s? And why does brain damage then affect personality and memory loss. These thoughts led me to see the importance of hypomnesis, as the brain can be easily damaged.
Alan Kay had possibly the most interesting video though, in which a simple tennis match highlighted the difference of the mind and the body. Isolating the mind and not thinking about what was happening allowed the body to simply act out the technique. Not thinking about hitting the ball, or externalising that thought into humming or saying words, allowed the technique to happen more freely, one may also say with more efficiency.
I linked this to personal experience in multiple choice exams. I study for them and know the content, but when I get in and read the question, and my pen automatically goes to circle the correct answer, usually it’s right. However, if I stop and think about it too much I confuse myself and make mistakes. As Kay outlines with the tennis example, not thinking about hitting the ball meant that it, “became effortless, what came naturally”, and I feel that too often now I externalise, be it on paper, through CC’ing people in e-mails to be sure that I have my bases covered and even putting weekly events into calendars which I know happen without the aid. I find now that I am writing in appointments and meetings just in case, and never actually looking at it. So the big question for me is, am I successfully externalising memory? Or have I not used this concept effectively in my everyday life?
Levinson’s article is interesting because it highlights the importance of McLuhan’s famous quote/idea “The Medium is the Message.” The timing of visual representations will not only be integral to their success, but also will affect or be affected by the media ecology.
Talking about hieroglyphs and other pictorial representations of language as oppose to orality, it becomes clear how media ecologies factor into society and into culture.
Had Amenhotep’s sun reformation been able to gain momentum and support, not only of the priests but of the peoples, then history could be very different. However, the media used was not a common part of the Ancient Media ecology, and hence never took off. What I think is most important here though is the food chain, if you will, of the media ecology. Had the wider population had the capacity to here Amenhotep’s idea then perhaps it would have taken off, but the importance of the priests in delivering information and their dismissal of the idea crushed it. The priests to Ancient Egypt’s media ecology were like water to the rainforest.
The audience in media ecology is vital, otherwise who is the message for. The idea of monopolies of knowledge and the implications of language are extremely intricate and complex. Even today literacy is an issue, not only in third world countries but also in many of the poorer areas of developed countries. Modern media ecologies such as blogging, television, newspapers and even digital radio are so convergent and diverse, that the message is available to all to ingest and to agree or disagree with. Even the computer I am writing this on can speak to me, reading out what I have written. The transportability and reach even of what I am writing now are examples of the modern media ecology, although have it noted that this was written by hand first to get ideas.
Had Amenhotep been able to share his information with his people, and the media ecology less hostile to his ideas and thoughts, they might have been adapted after his reign 1354BC, as opposed to being discussed as a failure in 2011.
References:
Levinson, Paul (1997) ‘The First Digital Medium’ in Soft Edge; a natural history and future of the information revolution London: Routledge:11-20
Saskia Sassen made an interesting point that we are at risk of forgetting what is wrong, that we delegate too much yet we don’t make the most of the technology that is available to us.
Starting with the last part first: I found this to be quite confusing. I think I know understands what it means, but if not this is my interpretation of it. We have become so adept to having technology and media in our lives that we have changed our techniques, or adapted our techniques. For me, this means that I am letting technology do a lot of things for me that I should probably do manually, such as spell check when using the computer. This delegation in other aspects of society has led to people becoming one of two things – even busier, cramming more into their lives, or lazy – which could loosely be a side effect of increasing technology, remembering these are my own opinions and not Sassen’s.
When Sassen states that we don’t make the most of the technology available to us, I once again become confused. This is could be because I am not aware of what technologies are all out there in the digital world. Other than that I feel that I am personally saturated in technology, and that the youth culture I live in is also saturated in technology, and that if it was used anymore I wouldn’t actually see anyone in their physical form, rather digital avatars or projections of who individuals are, or how someone is attached to their smart phone or tablet. However, technology such as Facebook, which really has become an extension of the internet, has benefitted a majority of its users, and is continually increasing peoples ability to stay in touch with individuals in person, through checking in at places or coming to events. While an on-line calendar is not a new technology, it certainly is a positive technique that has been adapted by society.
Education has an important role in society as it shapes what how audiences think, but also paves the way for the future and how those generations after ours will consume and construct information. Publishing technologies enable information to be consumed, and the means in which this information is published affects the way it is processed.
Current publishing technologies would not even be possible without the original publishing technology of the scroll, used in the Ancient World and still used in some religions and cultures today. This scrolls greatly affected society in a move from orality to the written, and allowed for information to be archived and portable, they also however created a monopoly of knowledge causing issues. A defining factor of the scroll is it’s continued use in society, particularly in religious and academic education and even application into today’s computer jargon.In the 21st Century technology is constantly evolving, with Web 2.0 controversially the most important step, allowing users to become producers of information (such as through this blog). An adaptation of Web 2.0 is the e-reader, especially the Amazon Kindle and the iPad (notice that both of these are branded products, another reflection of society and branded education). These technologies are predicted to change the way books are read and revolutionize education, particularly with textbooks and a well-rounded global education.
The scroll was born through papyrus created in the third millennium B.C.E in Ancient Egypt from the Papyrus plant[1]. Their purpose was to document documents of significance in Ancient Egypt, and also used in Ancient Greece and Rome, made using parchment (animal skins) though, as this was a much cheaper option and suited to the environment[2]. The implementation of the scroll caused great change in education as it allowed for narratives and the oral culture to be documented in writing, eliminating the need for stories to be relayed orally. In each of the Ancient worlds, scrolls were used for sacred texts or texts of great importance (a point to be examined later) or placed on public display. The length of scrolls in Ancient Greece resulted in the creation of the codex, and eventually the modern book.
The scroll had an impact on education of these Ancient Societies for many reasons, including literacy, knowledge as well as the sanctity and importance of texts. The act of scribing an event, document or religious belief made the information more significant and of great importance to the society in which it was being written. Social context, such as that of political leaders (pharaohs) and religious leaders influenced what was written, and hence what was taught to citizens. This power shapes what people learnt about, and also the method in which they were taught, as the scroll changed the oral-culture of forums into readings of the scrolls, highlighting the power scrolls had in dictating what was taught and eliminating personal opinion.
Those that wrote the scrolls, scribes, had to be well trained in literacy, meaning that it was a select few that had the knowledge and became part of the elite.
“Writing was a difficult and specialized art requiring long apprenticeship, and reading implied a long period of instruction. The god of writing was closely related to the leading deities and reflected the power of the scribe over religion. The scribe had the full qualifications of a special profession and was included in the upper classes of kings, priests, nobles and generals, in contrast with peasants, fishermen, artisans and labourers. Complexity favoured increasing control under a monopoly of priests and the confinement of knowledge to special classes”[3] Harold Innis
There are few sources that measure the impact on literacy scrolls had, and I personally believe hypotheses could suggest that it decreased literacy in that fewer people had access to read the scrolls or that it increased literacy in that more people wanted to be able to read the scrolls that they were being taught from.
This implementation of scrolls in education and society also meant that the contents of the scroll had to be dictated by somebody, as stated before this was usually a pharaoh or religious leader, creating a monopoly of knowledge. As Innis states, media was integral to an empire as it combined the knowledge required to create and empire, as well as the power to expand the empire[4].
“The written record, signed, sealed and swiftly transmitted was essential to military power and the extension of government.”[5].
Scrolls had their problems however, especially in the church where different scribes had recorded different accounts of events. The introduction of the printing press helped eliminate this problem. Scrolls were also confusing as places could not be marked, and single pages could not be viewed at a time.
The cultural significance of scrolls is still apparent in modern times, with Eastern countries, such as China, using scrolls as decorative wall hangings. Religiously scrolls are still used in Judaism (The Torah), and I believe they are used as symbol in teaching the sanctity and historic nature of Judaism and the traditions it holds.
An application of scrolls in education is Text Mapping,a teaching technique, using scrolls to develop reading and comprehension skills[6]. This can also be seen as a method of data visualization, as text is presented in a different form to the traditional 2-page view. Text mapping involves turning texts into scrolls, identifying the features of the text, marking them and the area which those features cover.[7] The project believes that this technique is beneficial as it aids a variety of learning styles and helps students find explicit links within a text.[8]. The overall aim is not for scrolls to be used constantly, but to aid in reading books, with the theory that when the scroll that is being marked on the blackboard there is a single classroom focus, with page numbers eliminated, and patterns easy for students to witness and develop analytical reading skills[9]. This style of teaching shows the impact that scrolls continue to have on education as an enabling technology.
The E-Reader is the current publishing technology, the Apple iPadin particular causing a stir in the media as it has just been released in Australia. What e-readers can do for education is only being predicted, but it is a hot topic in technology blogs, with the future of the traditional book in question.
E-Readers provide many advantages for publishers, with lowermanufacturing and distribution costs allowing for the industry to stay alive, especially newspaper and magazines. This also allows for books to be distributed globally (as Laws are changed to allow for this), with the potential for a global and broad education, with students of the world. E-Readers, and in particular the iPad, allow for interactive learning, as can be seen in this Penguin Books video.
The way books are manipulated in this example video would revolutionize learning, although there could be repercussions as the physical act of colouring (such as in the Spot example) and drawing of shapes could be seen as detrimental to a child’s overall education.
The technological nature of modern society may also require for e-books to come into existence, such as the case is South Africa. As this blog explains, the presence of e-books on mobile phones and e-reader devices allow for greater exposure to books and education, where books may have been forgotten. The nature of e-books also allow for books to be translated into multiple languages, once again without high distribution and production costs.
One predication of the E-Reader can be found at Fiction Matters, in their series “The History of Publishing: 2010 – 2020”. This blog creates a picture for e-readers and their use in education, raising issues of piracy and authorship. The ability for texts to be converted to the digital files and placed on e-readers would not only ruin the textbook industry, but also change the stigma of being a published academic and the exclusivity of tertiary education through and open commons. This commons could be extended through commenting and online annotations of texts, allowing for personality and opinion to be expressed and social interaction to occur through the reading of books, moving reading from an anti-social event to an online social forum.
The increased availability of books, particularly though books such as the Kindle Book store (run by Amazon.com), allows for wider education as there is more variety and ability to find the books that would interest readers.
There are issues of control however. As stated before it is interesting to note that the two dominant e-readers available are branded names which modern society trusts (or economic power would have you believe), which means that these companies have the duty of providing a rounded variety of books and ways to read them available. The instance of books being deleted from Kindles (such as George Orwell’s 1984) and the use of the kindle store and Apple Bookstore concerns consumers (including myself), while also challenging the commons of what should be available for all (such as the future of libraries). This inability to lend a book, tear out a page or even annotate books (at this present time, see the Fiction matters blog) has the capacity to change how books are consumed and the nature of reading and sharing of information.
The scroll and the e-reader have had and will continue to make a dramatic impact on the way societies are taught, whether it is from and oral culture to an online culture. The opening of the commons and monopolies of knowledge are common effects of these publishing technologies, whereas piracy and control are issues, which will affect education and technology well into the 21st century. The simple fact that scrolls are still being used today, whether you are scrolling through an online article or learning through a text-mapping system highlight its importance, and the importance of how text is displayed, while e-readers provide a challenge to those loyal to the book and academics, as texts become more readily available, and unlike the scroll, the information is able to be commented upon and challenged, as opposed to a simple elite vs the masses scenario.
[2] Bierbrier, Morris Leonard, ed. 1986. Papyrus: Structure and Usage. British Museum Occasional Papers 60, ser. ed. Anne Marriott. London: British Museum Press.
[3] Innis, Harold. (1950) Empire and Communications. Oxford: Oxford University Press p.29
[4] Innis, Harold. (1950) Empire and Communications. Oxford: Oxford University Press p.10-13
[5] Innis, Harold. (1950) Empire and Communications. Oxford: Oxford University Press p.10-13
Lily Allen’s recent rantings on illegal file sharing and her departure from music have certainly kept her in the spotlight in the past 3 weeks. The singer, who created a blog named “It’s Not Alright” targeted at the plight of the British Government and their campaign against internet piracy, has been somewhat of a talking point with many theories relating to the blogs creation and her four day retirement from the music industry, ranging from being a “government puppet” to a glorified publicity stunt. However, have her recent activities been more beneficial for her music career or for the campaign against music piracy?
One blog has broken down one of her blog posts and pointed out any inconsistencies or incorrect facts/figures, highlighting that Allen either had little idea about the topic she was writing on and the influence that record labels can have on an artist. These incorrect facts may suggest that Allen was more worried about getting her name on the blog and as part of the issue instead of caring about the actual issue. It is also interesting to note that Allen backed out of the debate on illegal file sharing before a summit was to be held on the topic, claiming “My job done. I won’t be attending the meeting because it’s going to be a press frenzy and I don’t want to detract from the issues.” Perhaps she had little to add to the issue? Or perhaps she was getting ready to announce hertour with Dizzee Rascal, which of course increased her profile as she was still in the news for retiring from music. Credit where credit is due, she has done a spectacular job of creating a media frenzy and raising publicity for both herself and the illegal file sharing issue. Not only does everyone who reads the newspaper (online or in print) see that she has a tour in 2010, but is also more aware of the British Governments plans to stop illegal file sharing, and has got other bands such as Radiohead in on the action, with other stars stating their support without getting “cold feet”. Well done Lily!
