There are 1 billion new entries of information on the internet everyday. You can Google anything. 'To Google' is now a bona fide verb. There were over a billion UNIQUE users on the internet in December 2008. (news.cnet.com). So my queston is this. Is the internet too broad? Does it offer too many options? Is it too easy to get what you want? Yes, yes, and yes.
When I write these posts, I will continually google (there it goes again) what I need. Most of the time I will find something useful. Usually I would have to look in (god forbid) books, and lots of them, to find what I needed, I may even need to adapt my line of questioning. But with the internet, there is almost (99.99%) always what I need, waiting in America, Hong Kong, Germany, Britain, Canada, etc., etc..
This is developing an impatient trait in my peers, and (as much as I hate it) me. Everything is instantly available. One can live, work, and play through the internet. But they miss so much, the human interactions that make life. The real world variables, not just menu choices on a screen. This is what worries me the most.
If everything is in one place, and is completely predictable, why bother with the trivial nature of people, who won't react the way you expected. Why bother going to several places at greater expense? While these are some extreme examples, it shows some trends which are possible, and we need to be aware of.
The internet is a wonderful tool, if used correctly.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Food for Thought - Or lack of, rather!
The effect of changing technologies on the teen psyche
A long time ago I had an article handed to me by one of my teachers, called 'Game Over' (Sydney Morning Herald, 14/06/08) and it talked about a loss ofidentity among today's teens, because of the inordinate amounts of time spent infront of screens, big or small; but has also linked computer games into thefray. The article is about Dr. Susan Greenfield's views on a loss of identity due to technology, or a 'nobody syndrome'.
And why wouldn't it? A profound change in the stimuli available to us, or a change in the way we live day to day life is bound to trigger changes in "The minds ofof the younger generation..." She goes on to say "...The brain, has plasticity: it is exquisitely malleable , and significant alteration in our environmentand behaviour has significant consequences." This can be extended to include things such as the lack recognition or proper expression of emotions.I once read in a book a long time ago that if a teen doesn't exercise certain areas of the brain then the brain actually 'cuts its losses' in order to becomemore efficient at what it is good at. So if a teen is interacting more with their mobile phone or the internet, and less with 'real people', it standsto reason that they would lose the ability (or some of the abilities) to deal with 'real people', and the focus of the brain would be to make more efficientthe estimated 6-9 hours spent looking at or using screens.
Dr. Greenfield also states that when one plays a video game, the focus shifts from the content (where it should be) to the process.
For instance, if I start Open Ground Melee 6, and I'm standing there with my titanium-zirconium alloy blade, killing the bystanders and opponents, they turn from people to objectives. She goes on to say that if a goal is reached (such as killing 100 opponents), and something comes of it, then a greater dopaminehit is realeased than if you killed one person. Dopeamine is the hormone of happyness (in leymanns terms). Excessive amounts of dopeamine in the brain hasthe effect of reducing ther acitivty of brain cells in the pre-frontal cortex - leading to a partial shutdown. This has been know to lead to an increased focus on the present (the here-and-now) and less focus on the past and future. This could have implications such as less recognition of the notion thatactions have consequences, and a complete lack of respect for those who came before. It could also have the implication that 'memories aren't important', again because the brain is 'cutting our losses'.
I think we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves, and spend more time with real people. So go! Talk to your families, you friends, the yobbo down the street(I'm sure he's lovely, no really!). Otherwise we're going to end up beings who can't relate to eachother, in the here and now. Some say technology may be the downfall of humanity, they may well be right.
References
Game Over. 2008.
The Sydeny Morning Herald, 14th of June
A long time ago I had an article handed to me by one of my teachers, called 'Game Over' (Sydney Morning Herald, 14/06/08) and it talked about a loss ofidentity among today's teens, because of the inordinate amounts of time spent infront of screens, big or small; but has also linked computer games into thefray. The article is about Dr. Susan Greenfield's views on a loss of identity due to technology, or a 'nobody syndrome'.
And why wouldn't it? A profound change in the stimuli available to us, or a change in the way we live day to day life is bound to trigger changes in "The minds ofof the younger generation..." She goes on to say "...The brain, has plasticity: it is exquisitely malleable , and significant alteration in our environmentand behaviour has significant consequences." This can be extended to include things such as the lack recognition or proper expression of emotions.I once read in a book a long time ago that if a teen doesn't exercise certain areas of the brain then the brain actually 'cuts its losses' in order to becomemore efficient at what it is good at. So if a teen is interacting more with their mobile phone or the internet, and less with 'real people', it standsto reason that they would lose the ability (or some of the abilities) to deal with 'real people', and the focus of the brain would be to make more efficientthe estimated 6-9 hours spent looking at or using screens.
Dr. Greenfield also states that when one plays a video game, the focus shifts from the content (where it should be) to the process.
For instance, if I start Open Ground Melee 6, and I'm standing there with my titanium-zirconium alloy blade, killing the bystanders and opponents, they turn from people to objectives. She goes on to say that if a goal is reached (such as killing 100 opponents), and something comes of it, then a greater dopaminehit is realeased than if you killed one person. Dopeamine is the hormone of happyness (in leymanns terms). Excessive amounts of dopeamine in the brain hasthe effect of reducing ther acitivty of brain cells in the pre-frontal cortex - leading to a partial shutdown. This has been know to lead to an increased focus on the present (the here-and-now) and less focus on the past and future. This could have implications such as less recognition of the notion thatactions have consequences, and a complete lack of respect for those who came before. It could also have the implication that 'memories aren't important', again because the brain is 'cutting our losses'.
I think we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves, and spend more time with real people. So go! Talk to your families, you friends, the yobbo down the street(I'm sure he's lovely, no really!). Otherwise we're going to end up beings who can't relate to eachother, in the here and now. Some say technology may be the downfall of humanity, they may well be right.
References
Game Over. 2008.
The Sydeny Morning Herald, 14th of June
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Salience of The Media
Prompted by the ABC Fora episode on Thursday night titled 'Why you don't need to worry about swine flu' (Available at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/player.html?&videoURL=http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/fora/ussc_health_full.mp4&videoTitle=MP4), I am taking a glance at the salience and agenda setting effect they have on the general public.
For instance, the 'swine flu epidemic' has been blown out of proportion by the media, causing histeria among the general popultion. The number of worldwide cases of swine flu (confirmed) numbers around 140 553 (22nd of July, 2009; RhizaLabs) and the death rate from this is around .8%, with these deaths usually linked to pre-existing conditions. The seasonal flu alone kills 36 000 per year people in the United States ALONE. It is almost impossible to determine the seasonal flu infection rates; because it isn't often recorded. The point being, the infection rate for swine flu is only .8%, or 1 per 125 people who have been infected. The total infection rate to date is 0.0022% of the world population.
Dealing purely with Australian statistics though (so we can compare apples with apples) swine flu has infected 14 836 people, with 38 deaths over approximately 3 months. The leading cause of death in Australia (2007) was Ischaemic heart disease (arterial blockages of the heart, and heart attacks), killing 22 729 people (2007), but this rarely (if ever) makes the news. The second largest killer was stroke, with 11 491 deaths as a result, but again it fails to receive a citation in the media.
It is also apparent in other issues, like the Beaconsfield Mine collapse (which took place over two weeks); the media's agenda moved away from this story, and subsequently it wasn't in the public interest anymore; it was old news. The reason swine flu has continued to be in the oublic interest for so long is that it is a rapidly developing story, and can directly effect anyone from the population. The Beaconsfield story fell out of favour because of the almost stagnant nature of the story, but when there were break throughs (such as the discovery and subsequent contact with and of Todd Russell and Brant Webb) public interest re-ignighted.
It has happened again and again with the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan, the War on Terror, Japanese whaling in the Southern Oceans, the Black Saturday fires, these are just Australian stories! International stories like the Burmese protests, the Bangladeshi cyclone, the Indonesian tsunami, hurricane Katrina... the list goes on.
Many with elements significant human sacrifice or massive loss of life. But the Australian media aren't interested in the rebuilding, the reconstruction efforts (not just physical, but emotional also). Would it benifit our culture if instead of 1/2 an hour on 'news' (10 minutes of news, 10 minutes of sport, 5 of advertisements, and 5 of weather) we had an hour of proper news (Such as The News Hour with Jim Lehrer) and more focus was on the neighbours' backyard, not just our own? If the media followed through the stories they present, if they WERE less salient, if it wasn't just 'doom an gloom' but the happy, NEWSWORTHY stories in the world. We would be a wiser, more intelligent, more interesting and more accepting culture!
But without the public pushing to for this the Australian media will continue to get softer. But that's another post!
References:
Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2007. 3303.0 - Causes of Death, Australia, 2007. (Leading Causes of Death) (Updated at: AEDST 11:30AM, 18/03/09)
Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/9982A795F3C13BE2CA25757C001EF4D9?opendocument
[Last Accessed: 23/07/09]
Rhiza Laborotories, 2009. FluTracker (Updated at: EDT 12:24AM 22/07/09)
Available at: http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/
[Last Accessed: 23/07/09]
For instance, the 'swine flu epidemic' has been blown out of proportion by the media, causing histeria among the general popultion. The number of worldwide cases of swine flu (confirmed) numbers around 140 553 (22nd of July, 2009; RhizaLabs) and the death rate from this is around .8%, with these deaths usually linked to pre-existing conditions. The seasonal flu alone kills 36 000 per year people in the United States ALONE. It is almost impossible to determine the seasonal flu infection rates; because it isn't often recorded. The point being, the infection rate for swine flu is only .8%, or 1 per 125 people who have been infected. The total infection rate to date is 0.0022% of the world population.
Dealing purely with Australian statistics though (so we can compare apples with apples) swine flu has infected 14 836 people, with 38 deaths over approximately 3 months. The leading cause of death in Australia (2007) was Ischaemic heart disease (arterial blockages of the heart, and heart attacks), killing 22 729 people (2007), but this rarely (if ever) makes the news. The second largest killer was stroke, with 11 491 deaths as a result, but again it fails to receive a citation in the media.
It is also apparent in other issues, like the Beaconsfield Mine collapse (which took place over two weeks); the media's agenda moved away from this story, and subsequently it wasn't in the public interest anymore; it was old news. The reason swine flu has continued to be in the oublic interest for so long is that it is a rapidly developing story, and can directly effect anyone from the population. The Beaconsfield story fell out of favour because of the almost stagnant nature of the story, but when there were break throughs (such as the discovery and subsequent contact with and of Todd Russell and Brant Webb) public interest re-ignighted.
It has happened again and again with the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan, the War on Terror, Japanese whaling in the Southern Oceans, the Black Saturday fires, these are just Australian stories! International stories like the Burmese protests, the Bangladeshi cyclone, the Indonesian tsunami, hurricane Katrina... the list goes on.
Many with elements significant human sacrifice or massive loss of life. But the Australian media aren't interested in the rebuilding, the reconstruction efforts (not just physical, but emotional also). Would it benifit our culture if instead of 1/2 an hour on 'news' (10 minutes of news, 10 minutes of sport, 5 of advertisements, and 5 of weather) we had an hour of proper news (Such as The News Hour with Jim Lehrer) and more focus was on the neighbours' backyard, not just our own? If the media followed through the stories they present, if they WERE less salient, if it wasn't just 'doom an gloom' but the happy, NEWSWORTHY stories in the world. We would be a wiser, more intelligent, more interesting and more accepting culture!
But without the public pushing to for this the Australian media will continue to get softer. But that's another post!
References:
Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2007. 3303.0 - Causes of Death, Australia, 2007. (Leading Causes of Death) (Updated at: AEDST 11:30AM, 18/03/09)
Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/9982A795F3C13BE2CA25757C001EF4D9?opendocument
[Last Accessed: 23/07/09]
Rhiza Laborotories, 2009. FluTracker (Updated at: EDT 12:24AM 22/07/09)
Available at: http://flutracker.rhizalabs.com/
[Last Accessed: 23/07/09]
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Media Log - Tuesday, 21st of July, 2009
I'll kick this blog off with a look at the viewing habits of the Australian population, prompted by the recent finale of Masterchef (Sunday 19th) which attracted ~3.75m viewers, the highest number of any show in 2009 to date (The Australian, 20th of July, 2009).
This is greater than the State of Origin 1st Match (3.44m, thinktv.com.au, Top 50 Programs of 2009). That said, the average viewer audience for MasterChef was 1.6m per episode (The Australian, 13th July, 2009). This was the third most watched regular show of 2009, third only to Packed to the Rafters (1.8m per episode, 2nd) and Underbelly 2: A tale of two cities (>2m per episode, 1st). First match of the State of Orgin rugby series was the 2nd most viewed program of 2009 (3.44m).
The top 50 most viewed programs of 2009 (thinktv.com.au, Top 50 Programs of 2009) can be broadly collated into the following catagories (Highest to lowest):
-Sport: 38%
-Animals/ Lifestyle/ People: 24%
-Reality TV (Staged, created shows): 14%
-News/ Current Affairs: 10%
-Drama (Ficticious scenarios): 8%
-Comedy: 4%
-Movies: 2%
What the above information indicates is that sport is the most popular catagory, probably due to the universal enjoyment it creates, the viewer knows what to expect, it has tends to be a communal act ('get the mates over'), and is relatively cheap to broadcast. Especially if it is supported by advertising, which the above figures prove it will be.
The Animals/ Lifestlye/ People catagory is to be well supported by the public probably due to the human interest aspects of the programming. Reality TV is in the same catagory, however there is also the strong storyline behind each episode, such as eliminations being determined by their previous performance, or even by the audience.
News and current affairs would be expected to be higher up in the rankings, the lesser audience may be due to the ubiquitous nature of the news, it is available on the radio, internet, the newspaper, and the television.
Comedy and movies are statistically insignificant, proabably because they tend to be casually watched, so they don't register on the top 50 list.
Conclusions drawn from this data would've been more accurate if the data were organised by the number of viewers, however I think the results would've been almost identical.
References:
Amanda Meade, 13th July 2009. 'Seven still ahead but Ten cooks up an audience winner' The Australian Bussiness [Internet]
Available at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25769567-7582,00.html?from=public_rss
[Last accessed: 21st of July]
'Top 50 Programs of 2009, Weeks 1-24' thinktv.com.au [Internet]
Available at: http://www.thinktv.com.au/Media/Stats_&_Graphs/Top_Programs/Top_50_Programs_Weeks1_24_2009.pdf
[Last accessed: 21st of July]
This is greater than the State of Origin 1st Match (3.44m, thinktv.com.au, Top 50 Programs of 2009). That said, the average viewer audience for MasterChef was 1.6m per episode (The Australian, 13th July, 2009). This was the third most watched regular show of 2009, third only to Packed to the Rafters (1.8m per episode, 2nd) and Underbelly 2: A tale of two cities (>2m per episode, 1st). First match of the State of Orgin rugby series was the 2nd most viewed program of 2009 (3.44m).
The top 50 most viewed programs of 2009 (thinktv.com.au, Top 50 Programs of 2009) can be broadly collated into the following catagories (Highest to lowest):
-Sport: 38%
-Animals/ Lifestyle/ People: 24%
-Reality TV (Staged, created shows): 14%
-News/ Current Affairs: 10%
-Drama (Ficticious scenarios): 8%
-Comedy: 4%
-Movies: 2%
What the above information indicates is that sport is the most popular catagory, probably due to the universal enjoyment it creates, the viewer knows what to expect, it has tends to be a communal act ('get the mates over'), and is relatively cheap to broadcast. Especially if it is supported by advertising, which the above figures prove it will be.
The Animals/ Lifestlye/ People catagory is to be well supported by the public probably due to the human interest aspects of the programming. Reality TV is in the same catagory, however there is also the strong storyline behind each episode, such as eliminations being determined by their previous performance, or even by the audience.
News and current affairs would be expected to be higher up in the rankings, the lesser audience may be due to the ubiquitous nature of the news, it is available on the radio, internet, the newspaper, and the television.
Comedy and movies are statistically insignificant, proabably because they tend to be casually watched, so they don't register on the top 50 list.
Conclusions drawn from this data would've been more accurate if the data were organised by the number of viewers, however I think the results would've been almost identical.
References:
Amanda Meade, 13th July 2009. 'Seven still ahead but Ten cooks up an audience winner' The Australian Bussiness [Internet]
Available at: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25769567-7582,00.html?from=public_rss
[Last accessed: 21st of July]
'Top 50 Programs of 2009, Weeks 1-24' thinktv.com.au [Internet]
Available at: http://www.thinktv.com.au/Media/Stats_&_Graphs/Top_Programs/Top_50_Programs_Weeks1_24_2009.pdf
[Last accessed: 21st of July]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)