Deuze and Media’s Role in Our Day to Day Lives

Hi, I know no one was assigned this week, but I’m just going to go for it because all my final projects are due in the next two weeks. I think that Deuze makes a good point in arguing that we currently study and perceive the media in the wrong way because media has a more holistic and integral role in our lives. Media shape us. Today, people are less likely to ask each other out in person because they have their phones, and they are also less likely to approach strangers at bars. Tinder has changed the dating-scope. What I don’t agree with is that the Media are the primary force of change in our lives. I think it’s slightly ignorant to claim that only the Media shape us and the people around us. They definitely play a role, but I’m not sure that they are the basis for life as we know it today as Deuze seems to claim. What do you guys think?

I also find the analogy of the media’s role in our lives today to the headphone clubs and parties really interesting. It’s good way to show how the media can isolate us but also bring is together in ways. Can you think of other examples that show this contrasting aspect of the media?

Finally, I feel like I’m constantly on my phone communicating with people that I wouldn’t otherwise communicate with due to distance, and that shapes my relationships. It also shapes how I spend my time. I watch way too many YouTube videos and I constantly procrastinate when I’m doing an assignment with Facebook or Instagram. I asked myself if generations before us procrastinated and how, and I honestly couldn’t figure out how. The fact that I can’t think of ways shows just how much of an impact the media has had on our generation. Still, I make an effort to put my phone down, spend time with friends and family face to face, and have a good time with out technology when I can. I think the media has a large effect on my life but it doesn’t control it. How do you think the media effects your live and to what extent?

Turkle and Multiple Identities

Hi guys, sorry I wasn’t in class Tuesday. Several Thesis late nighters and some flu-like symptoms landed me in bed Tuesday with a fever. Hope class went well. I actually really enjoyed this week’s reading because it tapped into an idea that I’ve always been curious about. Is it possible that we all have multiple personalities and the dominant one changes depending on the situation? I feel like I act differently around my American friends and my International friends because I connect to both groups in different ways. At my core, I’m still Caro, but there are certain tweaks I find myself making without really thinking about it. For example, my International friends are so sensitive to certain comments and aren’t always politically correct, but my American friends get really upset when anyone makes any sort of “not ok” comment. In the international setting, I don’t flinch at all when they are made, but in the American setting, I definitely notice them more. Do you guys ever feel like different aspects of your personality come out with different groups? Do you think you have one dominant one or do they change by the situation?

In addition, I also liked the idea of cyborgs as extensions of humans. I personally feel that we are a long way from engineering robot brains that can feel and react just like humans do because we still don’t have a full understanding of the brain and how all the neurons to create certain responses. Do you think that it’s enough that machines can make models of organs and preform surgery in which only the smallest of instruments can do the trick? Or do you agree with me that there’s still a long ways before cyborgs are a true extension of mankind?

Finally, I really liked the idea that the virtual worlds can serve as spaces for transformation in the real world. I also posted this question on the wiki, but do you think that social media can transform people just like virtual worlds do (for example YouTube stars on their first video and then now)?Video

I really think that YouTube can change people because they constantly get feedback and see themselves, so they are reinforced to make changes to better themselves over time. Do you agree with me or do you think that something else is at play?

Thoughts on Ong’s Orality and Literacy

Hi, sorry, if this up a little late. I’ve been reading Ong for the last two days, and I found it really dense to get through. He mentions things that I find very interesting, but I also feel that the book tries to cover way too much in a little amount of pages.

I found Ong’s look on orality refreshing because we usually hear about how people are always trying to achieve higher literacy, but we never hear about the orality aspect. Like Ong, I feel that Orality is very important to understand because, without it, there would be no literacy. I was really interested in reading about how pure Orality makes people hold more within their minds and have much larger capabilities within the realm of memory. I always feel that I understand something way better when I say it out loud, but this also had me thinking about when I read things in my head. I always say the words in my head as I read them. It’s the only way I can concentrate. It’s as if literacy is nothing without the power of orality? How do you guys read things? Do you say them out loud, in your head, not at all? I’ve always wondered about this.

Also, I’m curious about orality when it comes to talking to one’s self. I am a little embarrassed to admit this, but I constantly talk to myself. It’s something I’ve done since I was little, and my mom always called me out. Ong says that orality gets its meaning through communication and having someone there to hear, but I certainly don’t need anyone else around to talk to myself. Sometimes, I get over some personal obstacles better if I talk to myself. Anyone else feel like Ong is missing something by not including this? Also, do you guys ever talk to yourselves? Is it out loud or in your head?

Finally, I mentioned this a bit in the wiki, but I wonder how this new era in blogging and social media affects how Goody/Ong see backtracking in literature. In my wiki post I asked what happens when the literature is posted online, and therefore can never truly be deleted? I also wonder how screen shots figure into this. People constantly screen shot posts and share them with others. I think of celebs who post something controversial and take it down, but then, find screen shots of their posts on articles. Even if they did try to erase their message, they truly can’t. It’s out there forever.